Creationists Silence Critics with DMCA

Gothmog of A writes "As Richard Dawkins' offcial site reports, an organization called Creation Science Evangelism Ministries has been submitting DMCA copyright requests to YouTube. This has resulted in the Rational Response Squad (RRS) being banned after they protested against videos being taken down and accounts being closed. The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) and promote the atheist viewpoint. According to the RRS, the copyright requests are without merit since the material in question is covered by fair use or has been declared to be in the public domain. Behind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is the infamous Kent Hovind (AKA Dr. Dino) who is currently serving jail time for tax evasion."

Comments

religion

[Lobster Quadrille]

I have no beef with any major religion, but when large groups of people continue to insist that something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution does not exist, they lose an awful lot of credibility.

If your entire system of beliefs relies on blindly sticking to what a book of scripture says, you have serious issues. It is not hard to fathom that there was human error somewhere in that book, be it in the writing, the translation (or the translation's translation), or your own interpretation. It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.

The issue in TFA is really either all about Ego or Money. I tend to think it's a little of both.

Re:religion

[catbutt]

...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution... Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone. Evolution just goes against many if not most people's intuition. While I might think the whole idea of a sky-god watching over our every move and listening to our telepathic messages is absurd to the extreme, other people think that the idea of things as complex as you and I arising from nothing but random events to be equally absurd. (true, natural selection is not random, but the actual changes themselves were indeed random)

Re:religion

[Anonymous Coward]

It should not be so hard to admit that you could be wrong, without your life falling apart.

Unfortunately, that's just not true for most people in the US today. After years and years of media and academic conditioning, it's very difficult for many to admit that they might be wrong. That's not just when it comes to religion, but also when it comes to politics, sporting matches, and even celebrities!

In American schools today, and for the past decade or so, children are rarely told that their answers are wrong, even in courses like mathematics. Their answers are merely "not as correct" as they could be. So when a child writes on a math test that 2 + 3 = 4, they still get "part marks". Of course, what they should get on that question is zero, if not an outright loss of marks. Thus kids never learn that it's possible to be wrong. This is even the case in some American universities!

Of course, when it comes to religion it's even worse. At least with math there is some well-defined correct answer. But that just isn't the case when it comes to deities and gods and the afterlife. So when you have people who are used to never being "wrong" (even if they're completely incorrect) having to face questions without answers, it's beyond their comprehension. And so we see the rise of fundamentalism, with these religiously-confused individuals going so far as to try to censor others with differing, let alone contradictory, beliefs.

Re:religion

[catbutt]

1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation). Well true, but then again, no one has ever proven that fingernails can grow significant amounts either. I mean, we can look at them under a microscope and see tiny amount of growth happening while we watch. But that is just micro-growth. Macro-growth -- as in growing an actual amount that requires them being clipped -- has never been observed. No one has actually observed a fingernail changing from not needing to be clipped, to needing to be clipped.

Re:religion

[pla]

if that is the case then your "definitively proven" fact could easily be wrong for there is endless potential for finding examples of evolutions which goes against the Darwinian formula.

True - But in the complete lack of such evidence, despite people on both sides of the issue doing their damnedest to find any, only a fool would doggedly insist on the counterfactual stance. Evolution may well have a few holes that we find someday; perhaps even a complete parallel mechanism of speciation has played out over the eons of Earth's history (or even off-planet, "in a galaxy far, far away"). But the core mechanisms of evolution do not count as mere conjecture, or even mere theory.

We have absolute proof-of-concept of every aspect of evolution, from creation of increasingly complex organic molecules on a young Earth, to tidal and glacial generation of lipid membranes, to endosymbiosis as a means of producing progressively more complex cells, to progressively more cohesive "colonies" of multicellular life such as bacterial plaques to sponges to jellyfish, all the way through to producing divergent species via artifical separation of populations.

The "missing links" so proudly flaunted by creationists amount to nothing more than pages lost from the family album in a fire. Just because you don't have photographic proof that your grandfather existed, you don't presume that Prometheus scooped up some dust and breathed life into it to bridge the gap between the pictures of your great grandfather and your father.



a theory is only good so long as the evidence is (following Popper) - and none of us know the future.

In the strictest sense, you have it absolutely correct - Thus we still call evolution a "theory".

In practice, as humans, we can only reserve judgement on the validity of a theory against so much evidence before we informally accept it. Not knowing the future, we could also hold out judgement that the Earth will continue to have gravity tomorrow. But we don't.

Re:religion

[Vicissidude]

GP: ...something as definatively proven (and relatively obvious) as evolution...

you: Unfortunately what is obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.

Interesting that you decide to pick on the phrase "obvious" and not "proven".

Further, there's a reason why he wrote relatively obvious. And yes, evolution is relatively obvious compared with the common alternatives including creationism. If you spend the time to look around nature, you can see the mechanics involved with evolution. That is certainly not true with creationism. The mechanics of evolution have been deduced by thousands of scientific studies and experiments from nature by scientists of many different fields, without looking up in some dubious guidebook labeled "The Scripture". You could look at a group of animals all day and not come to the conclusion that a single God, as described in the Bible, who himself had no creator, made all these creatures in a single day some 6000 years ago. That religious conclusion would not happen unless someone told you about it first.

So yes, evolution is relatively obvious.

Re:religion

[the eric conspiracy]

We can't directly and distinctly perceive magnetism, the rotation of the earth, the strong nuclear force either, continental drift or photons, yet there seems to be no problem with acceptance of these phenomena as real. Heck we even have people who claim the moon landings are a fraud because they don't believe the evidence and haven't gone there themselves.

The issue here is really very simple. Scientific investigation and study has resulted in the understanding of evolution as the mechanism for ever increasing complexity in life. Science at its very foundation requires naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena. Since science has not advanced to the point where a set of axioms can be constructed that allow the deductive proof of these explanations, we have the situation where inductive logic is used for the proof of these explanations. It is the fundamental structure of science today.

Now we have the problem that the Bible teaches something else; i.e. an external supernatural force a.k.a. God is responsible for the creation of complex forms of life. Some people reject the teachings of science in this regard and choose the Biblical account instead. I have no problem with people having these beliefs. It is, or at should be a free country.

The problem I have is that some people who adhere to the Biblical account believe that this account means the scientific account is wrong despite the fact that they are unable to provide the counter examples that would invalidate the inductive reasoning used by in the scientific account. Not only is this an issue, but there have been endless attempts to teach these non-scientific beliefs (non-scientific in the sense that they rely on supernatural rather than naturalistic explanations) as if they were science, or even attempt to redefine the basic framework of science to accommodate these supernatural explanations, or use the legal process to forbid teaching the scientific explanation.

Here it is at the end. You cannot appeal to a higher power and call the result science. Creationism and its bastard stepchild, intelligent design are bankrupt intellectual concepts and frauds when they are presented as science or alternatives to scientific evolution.

Re:religion

[rossifer]

What I find particularly interesting is that in Darwin's day, they weren't arguing about whether or not Evolution happened, they were arguing about what made it happen. Darwin and his religious debaters were only discussing whether or not it was "God's hand" or "Natural Selection" that had caused evolution.

Here we are almost 150 years later, and not only are we still discussing the theory of Natural Selection, but the argument has moved backwards to whether or not the observed fact of Evolution actually occurred!

Evolution is intuitive and obvious. The problem with Evolution is it means "humans aren't special" and that's a mental hurdle that Christians in this country just can't manage to get over. The hubris of modern Christians is that human beings are different from other animals, not just in amount of some attribute, but in category. Humans and animals must be in different categories from each other or else most of the Biblical statements on humans is flat out wrong.

I understand why the discussion is moving backwards, I just find it extraordinary.

Regards,
Ross

Re:religion

[Verte]

recalculate it for the N-1 case, of adding one "just one more base". Now for the N-2 case... Now for the N-141 case. See my point? What you're trying to say is that, given enough tries at adding just one more base, you will eventually arise at a molecule or set of molecules that have the complexity required to replicate. And yes, the probability of stumbling upon a sequence that works increases with the number of tries you get. Unfortunately, even given the age of the universe, and even with stupidly large numbers of building blocks to draw from, the probability of ever reaching something that works is just not that good.

If you have a set of chains which happens to contain some number of subsets of the minimally correct chain, adding one more base reduces the probability that any chain within is correct by a quotient of 4. In other words, adding one to the complexity multiplies the time or number of molecules required by a constant factor. Adding a more general number to the complexity means you've got exponential increase in time or base material required. Now I understand that is difficult to visualize, because really, adding one more base takes the same amount of time and bases as the last step did, doesn't it? But now, you have [FAR] fewer correct chains. Eventually you're going to run out and have to backtrack, or destroy chains. And for each position that you haven't got right, you're going to have to multiply the time required by 4.

A cryptographer, for example, can tell you that increasing the length of a strong cryptographic key by one bit means it takes twice as long to crack, on average. Similarly, finding a molecule which contains the minimal features required to replicate with errors by brute force [completely at random] takes some multiplier longer when only marginally more complexity is required.

Of course, this hinges on the critical order being 100+ bases- it could well be less, but I'm skeptical.

[By the way, my maths above should be scaled binomially, whoops! Still, the orders involved are what matters- even for moderate orders of complexity, the exponential quality trumps time and no. bases which are linear.]

Re:religion

[mvdwege]

Evolution may well have a few holes that we find someday;

This is an especially ironic statement given that it occurs in a discussion linked to Richard Dawkins' blog.

Remember, this is the man who attacks fellow evolutionary biologists as crypto-creationists when they cast doubt on the gradualistic theory of evolution.

This just goes to show that fundamentalist atheism is just as dogmatically religious as that which it purports to oppose.

Mart

Re:religion

[Seraphim_72]

And you have not met me...Hello.... a person who spent years raising strains of germs in a lab, fully aware of evolution, fully believing Darwin. Yet, I am a Christian. Again, I say Hello. I am that corundum, a scientist that believes. We are few, but we do exist.

Sera

Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to be

[Maxo-Texas]

Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.

The way they handled this (with banning the rational guys) is going to mean they can't have both.

I think they would have been better served to take the videos down, and then after processing that they were fair use, put them back up. That would have not pissed off either market particularly.

Response to DMCA take down

[Raul654]

Isn't the correct response to a false DMCA take-down notice to file a DMCA counterclaim? Was that done in this case?

Science evangelism?

[tulmad]

If you need an evangelist ministry to get people to believe your claims, it's not really science.

Re:Science evangelism?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean...like compulsory-attendance public schools with biology classes? Been there, done that, and it was fairly evangelistic. The instructor had no idea of the technicalities or evidences for evolution. She merely told us that, to pass, we had to believe and regurgitate what was in the textbook, which neither she, nor the textbook, could explain. Not saying that there aren't good evidences and explanations for evolution...but I know that my official "instruction" in it offered just about as much proof as a church on a Sunday morning.

Re:Oh Shit

[click2005]

Having said that... Isn't there a law against submitting DMCA notices illegally? Isn't there a counter-DMCA notice that can be sent?

Most people don't know about the counter-DMCA notices.

I'd bet that if you made a realistic looking letter from a made-up law company it would be very hard to trace and YouTube would still remove the video. Once a DMCA notice has been received, Youtube would be also liable for copyright infringement so they'd have to remove it just in case.

Re:Interesting position for U-Tube & Google to

[garcia]

Do they want to appeal to the religio-creationist market or to the more technical athiest, sceptic, agnostic market.

They aren't appealing to any group other than those that are willing to file a DMCA takedown request. The group, while also complaining in the way they are, should also file a counter-claim (as has been mentioned in this thread and others earlier in the week) and wait for it to be reinstated if GooTube decides it's appropriate.

Re:Oh Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's odd that they are even smart enough to do something so nasty when they are so stupid (or brainwashed as children and never learn critical thinking as happens to most poor "religious" folks) as to believe in this creationist crapola. However, given that they actually do supposedly believe this stuff, they aren't supposed to do evil and wrong things like lie and cheat or they will go to the hell that they imagine exists. Flame on I guess?

Re:Ugh...why?

[wasabii]

What do you mean, have an argument? You can't have an argument without facts and evidence to compare.

Last I checked you had none of either. Heresay does not count.

It has been explained before.

[khasim]

1) I am not aware of any known observations of macroevolution (new species created via mutation).

A. There is no "macroevolution".

B. New species are easy to show. Take a colony of animals, split it into two sub-groups and breed only within those sub-groups until the sub-groups cannot breed with each other.

What you refuse to accept is that a dog will NEVER conceive a cat because that would disprove evolution.

2) To date, no direct ancestral chains have been established. That is, where one species can be definitively proven to have descended from another.

There is no "proof" except in Math. Everything else depends upon evidence. And there is plenty of evidence showing evolution.

My facts may not be up to date (and yes I am a creationist), however just as I take the Bible on faith (as Hebrews 11:3 states); It would seem that an evolutionist must rely on faith that there is a mechanism (mutation or otherwise) capable of differentiating species.

No. Because you refuse to accept the repeatable experiments showing exactly that does NOT mean that those experiments do not exist.

It would also seem a step of faith that the missing transitional forms also exists.

Which "transitional forms" are those? All you're doing is repeating crap you've heard.

Also please do not the the wrong actions (tax evasion) effect your judgment. The Bible clearly teaches that men are flawed beings. If Dr. Hovind has engaged in tax evasion (I do not know all the facts here), he has violated both Scripture and the laws of the country. Please do not let this color your opinion of the evidence for the creationist position.

Someone who will violate the laws of his country and scripture is still to be respected because he wouldn't make false statements on other subjects?

Re:Ugh...why?

[kentrel]

Debate the topic? Do you realize Evolution vs Creationism is undebatable, since Creationists have no evidence?? It's a Fact vs Belief debate, where the people on the Belief side won't accept fact.

Its as pointless as a Round Earth vs Flat Earth argument. In fact, people shouldn't even be debating these Creationist scumbags, since it just gives the false impression that their opinion carries any relevance to the origin of Life.
Also, As a Creationist, are you really in a position to determine what is or is not "dumb"? Come on man, you realize you're on a science and technology forum. You sure you're not just trolling?

Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt intend

[unity100]

it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.

"creationism" seeks to set up a delusion that world have come to existence with some supernatural power's calling, and even 6000 years ago too. To the contrary of hard, solid evidence against.

Allowing that would in future would mean that same people will start to call for abolishment of certain sciences and procedures, because they would be continually providing evidence challenging the 6000 year old lie.

Creationism equals intelligent design?

[hansamurai]

The RRS videoes attack creationism (AKA intelligent design) I always thought creationism and intelligent design were two different beliefs, where creationism is you believe exactly what the Bible says in Genesis and intelligent design is the Christian's answer to evolution? Sort of a mix between creationism and evolution? I may be wrong but I don't think it's as simple as saying "aka" to infer some sort of equality.

Re:Creationism equals intelligent design?

[grimJester]

Intelligent design is an attempt to pass creationism off as science. It's not a separate belief.

Re:Creationism equals intelligent design?

[dc29A]

At least, the (non-theistic) intelligent design view presents some hard questions to answer This is the zillionth time I ask the question, and no intelligent design proponent can answer it. Wanna try?

Ok, here it is: Who created our designer? And it's designer? And it's designer's designer?

Do you get it? Non theistic intelligent design amounts to an infinite number of designers. The only way to break this infinite regression is to introduce a deity, thus your intelligent design hypothesis ceases to be non theistic and it becomes God. Only God can break the infinite regression of designers.

Non theistic intelligent design is impossible.

Religion!

[WhiteWolf666]

A challenge:

Show me a miracle! Not just a long shot chance, but an honest to god miracle (this means not someone who was resuscitated 5 minutes after death, or 1 hour after being frozen underwater. I'm talking about ashes->living. I'm talking about buried->talking)

I want evidence, or better yet, a "proof". A proof of miracles, or God, would be fine.

Barring proof, highly suggestive evidence, something that can be tested via the scientific method, would be good too.

You see, I can conduct all kinds of experiments that point at evolution, and I can dig up core samples with fossils that suggest it as well. I can do DNA analysis that point to it as well, and given enough time, I can develop an observational methadology to prove evolution going forward.

Do that for me with God. Or Miracles.

That's the difference between faith and science. Faith relies upon, "well, you can't prove it isn't true." Science relies upon, "All the evidence points in that direction, so lets test it."

It's stupid to base an argument on the impossibility of proving a negative result; yet thats what most creationists do. In this sense, as Richard Dawkins would say, religion is nothing more than a mental virus. A piece of intellectual stupidity that seems to resonate with people as an intellectual comfort blanket, no different than the ostrich sticking his head in the sand (or up his rear).

That's not to say there isn't value to spirituality. But creationism, and fundamentalist beliefs in the "reality" of the bible? Hogwash.

Re:Oh Shit

[fyngyrz]

It's odd that they are even smart enough to do something so nasty when they are so stupid (or brainwashed as children and never learn critical thinking as happens to most poor "religious" folks) as to believe in this creationist crapola.

It isn't as simple as all that. There are plenty of very intelligent religionists. You can find solid evidence of this if you do a little directed reading of some of the deeper works on religion; textual criticism is one area I've found to be well populated with intelligent and insightful people, for instance.

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence, and unfortunately, the two aren't strongly related.

One example I like to cite is a PhD in psychology who fell for one of the Nigerian "prince" scam letters; managed to get himself published in the newspapers, because he lost six figures to the scam and he was smart enough to collect a PhD. Not stupid; but quite gullible.

Just as artistic or musical abilities are not tied to intelligence (see Ted Neugent and/or Ozzy Osbourne for prime examples of strong musical talents without significant indicators of intelligence), there's no indication that the other major religious susceptibility factors — fear of the unknown, gullibility, deep need for a father-figure post-puberty — are tied to intelligence (one way or the other) either. This is bolstered by adherents to religion falling all over the intelligence curve.

Personally, I like to think of the mind as having a 3d version of a set of pie slices. Slices overlap a bit, but generally exist as discrete elements which may reinforce one another, or not. Athleticism, intelligence, artistic vision, spatial adeptness, empathy, intuition, leadership, various types of fear, various types of stubbornness, the ability to make sideways connections (look for people who pun a lot, and well), the affinity for mathematics, the affinity for geometrics, fairness, honor, the ability to hold a "big picture" (certain classes of gamers, chess players, jet pilots, Hawking, Einstein) and so on. As a personal model of mine, it does a better job of accounting for the myriad types of people I've encountered in the last fifty years than a more basic "that person must be stupid" approach.

Re:Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt inte

[julesh]

Im sure voltaire or whomever said it didnt intend it to mean that ideas, philosophies or thoughts that seek the abolishment of reason, freedom, democracy should be covered by it.

The quote in question is from a biographer of Voltaire, as a summary of Voltaire's attitude. As many of Voltaire's debating opponents did seek such goals, I would find it surprising that such a summary could be made of his attitude if he hadn't believed that free speech was that important. He lived in a different world to us, where all of these things had to be fought for. And only by sticking absolutely to those principles could he hope to show what they could achieve. Yes, I'm sure he would have defended the free speech of opponents of democracy. And of free speech.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Evolution is a scientific theory, whereas "intelligent design" is an attempt to justify people's rejection of science in favor of mythology.

No! susceptibility = parenting and is unavoidable!

[IdahoEv]

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has more to do with gullibility than it does intelligence,

Susceptibility to superstitious concepts has the MOST to do with upbringing and indoctrination. "Gullibility" is an unkind word, because all children are credulous. Credulity is a biological necessity, as it turns out.

Children are adapted (evolutionarily programmed, you might say) to believe their parents and elders. This is an important survival trait in a species that passes information socially. Because they implicitly believe their parents, children don't need trial and error to learn important survival information like "avoid that toxic plant!". Other species use instinct, and we do too, but we deal with too much information and flexibility for instinct to be sufficient - language and vertical information transfer between generations adds greatly to our ability to survive.

Think back on how many things you believe because a parent or teacher, or even an authoritative book, told you as a child. I'm constantly realizing things I "know" are not at all scientific, they're merely something I was told when I was still credulous and impressionable. Now that I am a critically thinking adult, I have to reevaluate those beliefs one by one as I discover them.

The side effect of childhood credulity is that people tend to believe what their parents do, or failing that, their elders and peers. Unnecessary/untrue/extra beliefs about the supernatural don't generally cause a fitness decrease: whereas not believing your parents about the poisonous plant will kill you, believing that Zeus is responsible for lightning bolts doesn't kill you. So we err on the side of being too credulous, and the more-or-less harmless beliefs accumulate over centuries. In fact, within societies that persecute or kill heretics and apostates (as many have), being credulous about the supernatural can be an important survival mechanism!

This is a pretty strong reinforcement mechanism. Some people break away, but in truth the universal best predictor of belief is parental belief. And often with those who do break away you'll find that their parents were lip-service religious more than deep believers.

When the rubber hits the road, religion ultimately has to retreat from explanations where science has achieved better/more supportable ones. It's painful, because our credulity for doctrine runs deep. But given time, it happens. It has long since happened for the weather (Zeus does not throw lightning bolts, electrostatic buildup in the clouds produces them) and for the structure of the universe (the Earth is not the center of things). For most of us, the age of the universe and the origin of species has left the religious purview as well, while a few holdouts entrench and struggle to cling to their sinking ship of explanation.

Mostly, religion has now retreated to "matters of the spirit", but this will also eventually fall as understanding of the human brain, body, psychology, and mind become more complete. The evidence is growing progressively compelling that the entirety of human consciousness and behavior can be explained as functions of our brain and body. No mysterious, undetectable "spirit" is necessary for us to be us.

Distinction w/o a difference.

[fyngyrz]

"Gullibility" is an unkind word, because all children are credulous. Credulity is a biological necessity, as it turns out.

Gullibility is indeed a negative concept; it describes the (unfortunate) carryover of credulity from childhood into adulthood, where it is no longer very closely associated with fitness, and in fact tends to lower fitness. I wasn't addressing the credulity of children, I was addressing the gullibility of adults. This is precisely why I said what I said, the way I said it.

As for the rest, I really don't disagree.

Re:Oh Shit

[fyngyrz]

Care to back that statement up with something a bit more substantive?

Sure. Try this on for size. Or his views on subjugating weaker animals to violent death for entertainment. Or this quote: "America is like Canada. If you can't speak English, get the f**k out!" Or his anti-gay stance. Or his recent wearing of a confederate flag on stage. Really, the man is a train wreck when it comes to exhibiting reason and positions derived by reason.

That's not to say that you aren't entitled to your own opinion of the man; mine is simply that he's not a very bright fellow. Loud, in firm possession of a platform to speak from, and with no shortage of sycophants, but none of that in and of itself is any indicator of above-average intelligence at work.

Superstition is belief without evidence.

[falconwolf]

That's also what faith is, belief without any evidence, or belief despite contrary evidence. However...

You don't choose your faith, it chooses you.

Falcon

Re:Superstition is belief without evidence.

[aichpvee]

Where did you get the idea that "faith" in supernatural things is anything other than superstition. You most certainly do have a choice as to whether you want to be superstitious. At least as much choice as you have in anything. Obviously the superstitions you are raised with have an advantage but that's nothing to stop you from being reasonable anyway.

I'm not sure how that statement you made is any way insightful though. But the moderators around here are largely morons so I guess it's to be expected.

Re:Superstition is belief without evidence.

[Belial6]

"Faith" is just the possesive form of the word superstition. It makes it sound more legitimate.

Re:Oh Shit

[fyngyrz]

Whatever it is you think intelligence is, any person who profoundly believes something for which there is no evidence, and in fact a ginormous mountain of evidence pointing in the opposite direction, doesn't have it

I presume you're still talking about religion. I am unaware of any evidence for or against the proposition that "god did it"; I am aware of numerous views of what "it" actually consists of (and this is the basis for the difference between a creationist and the religious person who waves hands vaguely at a hubble deep space photo, asserting there "has to be" a god because otherwise, it's just too grand (or whatever.))

Personally, I am a hard line atheist, meaning literally a person without any shred of belief in a god or gods; but this is not due to any "mountain of evidence" pointing that way (I'm not even certain you could assemble evidence for a non-concept.) It is due to no evidence pointing the other way, towards the positive assertion that there is a god or gods. I have observed that it is in very few cases indeed that assertions without evidence turn out to be even marginally correct. This leaves me with no confidence whatsoever in the idea of a god or gods.

Consequently, I would be fascinated to hear about your "ginormous mountain" of evidence against the idea of a god or gods, if that indeed is what you were referring to. Please do elaborate so that I can see how it is that an intelligent person cannot possibly fall into the mental model of religion in such a way as to accept it.

Re:Oh Shit

[jandrese]

Back when I was in grade school I was taught that the Civil War was about slavery (Yankee schools), later on in high school I learned that it was about States Rights. Once I got to college I realized that all of that states rights stuff was just a smoke screen for slavery.

Slavery as a coonfederate issue

[fyngyrz]

it [the confederate flag] has nothing to do with slavery

That is an extremely naive and disingenuous viewpoint. Certainly there were many issues; but slavery was prominent among them and to claim otherwise denies enormous parts of the historical record. For both the north and south, it was an economic and social hard-line issue. Several of my ancestors died fighting for, or otherwise assisting, the north. One while assisting illicit transport of slaves out of the south. Others fought for the south. I have diaries, photos, artifacts and newspaper accounts that attest to the highly volatile and key nature of the issue for the time, and that's just in my own genealogical work. If you actually dig into history in general, you'll find an enormous amount of corroborating material.

On top of all this, the issue of slavery remains a very sore point with many people, as does more recent prejudice that descends directly from the attitudes of the very worst slaveholders. Because of that, the wearing of a confederate flag is a downright dumb thing to do; the symbol today is a veritable magnet for the very worst in human nature, specifically involuntary slavery. It makes no more sense than to wear a sign that says "I hate niggers" and then try to explain that what you meant was you hate "ignorant people", or to wear a swastika, and try to explain you're just waving an old Christian symbol about. These things mean what society decides they mean; and both you and Mr. Nugent should know that without anyone having to explain it to you. So the rest of us assume you do know, and attribute the common meaning to your use of symbols.

Re:Oh Shit

[ScrewMaster]

Creationism itself is a subset of religion.

To some it's a religion, to others it is a tool for political gain. To some it is both.

Re:Richard Dawkins irrational? Hah!

[MrCopilot]

Richard Dawkins is about as rational as any of the hoplophobes at the VPC

Wow never heard that term. Quick search, The term sheeple has also come to be used to describe hoplophobes and other similar persons - people with an illogical fear of weapons, fire, cars, machinery etc, and certain other things such as men in camouflage or ethnic minorities. In this sense it is used particularly amongst gun and knife enthusiasts.

You must be kidding. From the Wikipedia

Clinton Richard Dawkins (born March 26, 1941) is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

Dawkins moved to England with his parents at the age of eight, and attended Oundle School. He then studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen. He gained a BA degree in zoology in 1962, followed by MA and DPhil degrees in 1966, and a DSc in 1989.

From 1967 to 1969, Dawkins was an assistant professor of zoology in the University of California, Berkeley. In 1970 he was appointed a lecturer, and in 1990 a reader in zoology in the University of Oxford. In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford, a position endowed by Charles Simonyi with an express intention that Dawkins be its first holder. He has been a fellow of New College, Oxford since 1970.

Berkley, Oxford, Yep they churn out and promote as many irrational people as Liberty U. Pfft. Anyone who professes to be an atheist has voided any claim at rationality, period

Umm, I profess it, and for purely rational reasons. Ever do any comparative religion studies. No, I thought not. That would be rational, for you to explore the alternatives and weigh out the evidence rather than blindly follow what you were told. It requires just as much, if not more, blind faith as any actual religion.

No, actually it requires critical thinking, reasoning, and consideration of the presented evidence. Have you done so? Do you have some new theological supernatural evidence for me to consider? I'll wait.

....
...

... Maybe some evidence backing up your claim that I require blind faith to come to my conclusions.

No, Well I have some for you. http://video.google.com/url?docid=-5036418388026112799&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=625&q=Atheism%3A%2BA%2BRough%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDisbelief&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuhsMKQF1ROE&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-5036418388026112799%26q%3DAtheism%253A%2BA%2BRough%2BHistory%2Bof%2BDisbelief%26total%3D33%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21-PwyzEntJXt5TFWxNQ_OtK85sCw

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1579120088897504565

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKTVPNW2kE

Obviously I could go on all day, just with video links. I could very easily bury you in a mountain of books and papers. And your counter "evidence" is always going to be just one fictional book. Evolution is almost enough evidence of the non-existence of a supernatural GOD. This is why it frightens so many creationist. Tough.

Most people are atheist with respect to all the other religions of the world. I just go one GOD more.

BTW, Have you actually read anythi

pledge of allegiance

[falconwolf]

The country's very oath invokes the Christian god. The pledge of allegiance

The phrase "under god" in the USA Pledge of Allegiance was only added to the pledge around 1959 while Ike was president.

The expectation in the courtroom is that I swear to god

You're not required to swear to "god" in a US court. If you aren't Christian or otherwise object to swearing on a bible they have to allow you some other sort of swearing in.

My own taxes are being directly funneled into "faith-based initiatives."

Yeap, King George has taxpayer dollars going to his faith based organizations. What's more, though I haven't verified it yet, is that only Judaic, Christian, and Muslim groups are given money. In 2004 Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, "confirmed that no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group. This kind of religious favoritism is exactly what the Constitution's establishment clause was put in place to prevent."

I'm all for your religious scientists pursuing ID

Just don't try to have it taught in schools as a science, it's not.

Falcon

Re:pledge of allegiance

[fyngyrz]

You're not required to swear to "god" in a US court. If you aren't Christian or otherwise object to swearing on a bible they have to allow you some other sort of swearing in.

I'm afraid you've missed the point on this one.

Scenario one: The Jury contains Christians. I walk in, they offer a bible. I decline. They fall back to non-biblical swearing. The Christians are thinking... what?

Scenario two: The Jury contains Christians. I walk in, there's a non-biblical swearing-in. That's all there is to it.

In the first scenario, I am forced to reveal my religious outlook to the jury, who could easily decide I'm a bad guy just on that basis (don't even try to deny it, I meet people like that all the time.) In the second, no one reveals their religious outlook, and so this potential difference in treatment is eliminated. I am in a considerably better position to have my case considered on its merits.

That's why a non-religious swearing-in is inherently better than a fallback from a religious swearing in.

Re:Richard Dawkins rational? Hah!

[truckaxle]

Richard Dawkin's is very rational if you have ever had the chance to read his books or listen to him speak (better book writer than a speaker).

You need to understand the Dawkin's just claims that without any evidence the God as described by the various existing religions is non-existent. Just like you are an atheist with respect to the Greek and Roman Gods he is an atheist to the God of the Bible.

Here is a Dawkin's quote that illustrates the point.

If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

"In God We Trust"

[falconwolf]

There's no reason for it to be on there, but there's also no reason to take it off, since that would incur extra expense as the plates they use to print money were re-done.

There is no extra cost in removing "In God We Trust" from US currency. Take a look at some US money, both coins and bills have the year it was printed or coined, so the plates and molds used are changed yearly anyway. Also every bill has a serial number printed on it, a different one for each bill.

Similarly, why care about the pledge of allegiance? It's one small line, and you can omit it if you wish.

Perhaps you didn't see or experience yourself but I experienced as well as saw other children having a ruler forcibly applied to my and their hands in a public school because we refused to say the pledge with "under god". Me, I refused to say it because at that tyme I considered myself Buddhist. And some Christians refuse to say it because to them it's calling the Lord's name in vain, which is one of the 10 commandments.

I also don't have a problem with faith-based initiatives, simply because the idea is that the money is for charitable works.

There's a problem if those getting the money require those they help to have the same faith the organization has or if it is used to try to convert people to that faith.

Falcon

Re:Oh Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me put it this way: why would one suppose that Occam's razor is the right tool for answering the question 'what's your favourite story?'

As one of those "devout" atheists (who revels in the irony that you consider religious terms like "devout" so insulting that you use them to try to offend atheists) I am happy to answer.

No one should suppose that Occam's razor is any kind of answer to "what's your favorite story?"

Mine is the story of Frith and El-ahrairah, by the way.

The problem is the fallacy of equivocation. You should not pretend that "what's your favorite story" is at a33 related to "what is true?"

Re:Oh Shit

[RockDoctor]

anthropocentric views in general (religion is that in specific), and a host of others from phrenology to past lives.

I wouldn't class phrenology with the other forms of defective thinking (or absence of thinking) that you list ; phrenology was based on an incorrect premise, but this premise and it's implications was subjected to more-or less standard scientific study and analysis. Phrenology was a part of a system of thought ("physiognomy") that related the structure of the face and the head to traits of character and behaviour ; some people extended it in the direction of Lamarkian evolution too. It failed to make useful or correct predictions, and so was steadily (if slowly) rejected. What really killed it off around the turn of the last century was, surprisingly, the development of fingerprinting. Before then, the main practical use of the careful study of head shapes and other physiognomic features had been in the identification of criminals. Think of trying to make the traditional Western's "Wanted" poster a bit more scientific and a lot more accurate. Once fingerprinting had it's value and efficacy demonstrated, there was no reason to continue with other physiognomic measurements, and the "science" of physiognomy just died.
The central thesis of physiognomy (and hence phrenology) isn't intrinsically silly, but in practice there's more signal than there is noise, so it's not a practically useful science. At the trivial level, you can say things about the character of people with gross developmental deformations of the skull and brain-case : if the brain is severely distorted or absent, then the victim is likely to have severe personality disorders up to being effectively non-sentient. Or even dead. But beyond that trivial level, there's very little practical signal in the noise of individual variations in head structure. Which is why it's a dead science.
  Unless, of course, you know differently. Having just checked the Wikipedia article (I already knew most of this from sources such as Steven Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man"; recommended reading!), I see that some twit in America's DHS (Ministry of Truth) has fallen for it. Well, what would you expect from the spiritual home of Creationism. Don't you have pre-employment examinations for your civil servants over there? Or are they just elected, and approach the lowest common denominator?

Re:Oh Shit

[runderwo]

Again, if you don't like a country that has a religious foundation you are free to go somewhere else.

I'm sure everyone would like it if their opponents just resigned from the game. Unfortunately for you, there are enough people that view theocracy as injustice to make it quite unlikely that all of us will resign.

And don't give me any crap about how this country has a secular foundation. Our Founding Fathers put it in writing with various phrases such as this one: we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The Founding Fathers were a mix of Deists and Atheists. None was a Christian in the sense of today's fundamentalism. Suggestion that the word "Creator" implies a particular religious dogma, especially one that did not exist at the time of the country's founding, is absurd!