Slashdot Mirror
College Credits For Trolling the Web?
Jafafa Hots writes "Some undergraduate and masters level courses at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary require trolling as part of their requirements.
In William Dembski's classes on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics, 20% of the final grades come from having made 10 posts defending Intelligent Design Creationism on 'hostile' websites.
There seems to be no requirement that the posts contain original writing; apparently cut-and-paste jobs are sufficient. Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements?"
Do you get extra credit if it's a first post?
And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
They just don't exclude trolling from the permitted ways of achieving the course requirements.
Wait, wait, wait... You're telling me that a Christian, theological seminary actually has a class that involves defending the tenets of the school's beliefs? This is an outrage!
In my independent study class, I search out intelligent design posts and make fun of them.
Sheesh, some people have to be told everything.
... I suppose it's a D- and a career at Burger King...
As long as the students fully disclose that they are doing this for a class requirement, this could be a good thing, for the students, for the school, and for anyone participating in the resulting discussion.
It can be a good thing for students, to expose them to real-world reactions - both civil and less than civil - to their posts. It can train them to make their posts in non-trollish manner. It may also expose them to ideas they would not have otherwise considered.
It can be good for the school and professor when the school gets feedback from others involved in the discussions and from websites.
It can be good for those participating and reading the discussions because THEY may be exposed to ideas they would not otherwise consider.
It's one thing to have an idea, study opposing ideas, then confirm your belief in your original idea. It's another to blindly accept an idea and refuse to think about or even expose yourself to other ideas. Such willful blindness is bad for individuals and, on a larger scale, bad for society.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...if they ever get the feeling that they are wasting their time?
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
I'm not trolling, I'm _evangilizing_ . Time to wreck my karma with a mess of '-1 Evangilist' mods.
The Giraffe has to be intelligently designed because how could you pump that much blood up to it's head when it's 13 feet high and when it bends down to drink....
I don't know it's trolling per se. What I envision is a Fark comments thread of religion or even a slashdot thread just like this one. If you are of a college level and hopefully if you are masters level you should be able to write eloquently enough to defend your point without resorting to WHARRGARBL to get your credit for the class. I would certainly hope that the professor grades on the validity and completeness of your defense of the position.
No accredited university should be requiring students to make public statements defending specific ideas under ANY situation, trolling or not. If this seminary is not receiving public funding, them I'm perfectly fine with them requiring any crazy shit they want to, but I don't think the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) should be accrediting them as an academic institution (this isn't the first time SACS's rather lax standards have been called into question--over a variety of issues). Students should retain their rights to their own opinions in any respectable academic setting, be they a liberal in a accredited seminary or a conservative at Berkley. If a professors wants to get up in class and rant about their beliefs, that's fine--but they WAY cross the line when they require (or even attempt to coerce) students to affirm those ideas themselves.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Do not mistake the unaccredited bible school "Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary" for a "College" please.
Only if you consider clown college and hamburger school to be real educational institutions
I mean, if you go to a nut job school, trying to learn how to be a real nut job, the fact that they have to turn you into a troll first should come as no surprise.
Superstitious idiots are going to be around as long as there are cockroaches. Those of us with brains will just have to learn how to live with it.
RAID doesn't even work all that well.
You do it for free, but the dear gp-post student pays for the privilege!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Intelligent design and (young earth) creationism are in general rather distinct, although the rather large differences are sometimes blurred both by proponents trying to gather support and by opponents who want to simply ridicule both groups instead of trying to reason with them. In order to argue effectively against either of them, you must first identify which of the viewpoints the other party is proposing. Otherwise you just end up talking past one another, which is OK for scoring points with the peanut gallery but does nothing to advance the debate.
(I guess someone will argue that there is no point reasoning with either group. However, in any public forum there will often be someone who is prepared to listen to a carefully constructed argument. On the other hand, this is the internet.)
So it turns out that religion routinely exercises evangelism. Who'd have thunk?!
So the teacher is basically trading slashdot karma for grades... Or does posting as Anonymous coward count?
Please mod me +1 Baptist Theological Seminary
The Easter Bunny should be discussed in school science lessons rather than dismissed, says the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
"If pupils have strongly-held family beliefs about the Easter Bunny, such ideas should be explored," said Prof William Dembski (D.D, Ph. D. [P.T. Barnum University mail-order]). "Easterbunnyism, Santaclausism or the contemporary militant Tooth Fairy jihadist movement are best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. This is more valuable than simply banging on about 'reality.' Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in Wall Street or in government."
Simon Underdown of Oxford Brookes University disagreed. "With so much to be crammed into science lessons, it is not a worthwhile use of time to include lessons on Easterbunnyism. We have monthly standardised testing to coach pupils on."
Professor Richard Dawkins is working on a childrenâ(TM)s text on useful ways to quickly construct street-corner gallows and burning stakes for rehabilitation of the religious.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Many if not most seminaries won't grant you don't actually believe what they are teaching. After all, most seminary graduate go off to become preachers and other religious teachers.
Undergraduate school is ideally designed to teach you to think.
Many/most/maybe all seminaries are designed to filter in those who think like the school wants them to and give them the education necessary to propagate their beliefs to others.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Learn from the best.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
That underlines the basic problem with fundamentalism in religion- it is anti-creativity and anti-intellectual and very proud of it. Of course copying and pasting the 'argument' is just fine because unlike most institutions of learning, theirs teaches students not to think for themselves.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
got mod points and waiting for 'em trolls! (btw, if one troll with mod points mod up a brother preacher troll, do that mod troll get into heaven?)
yeah, yeah, i get it. it's about trolling on the net so the internet icon is justified. but do how do you justify not putting politics icon on this one?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Disclaimer: I'm an ordained minister with a Masters of Divinity (Seminary) and a Ph.D. in New Testament (Public University).
You need to remember that seminarys are strange animals academically. The degree of academic freedom runs the gamete from little (fundamentalist schools) to a great deal (liberal seminaries). However, in almost all there is at least a set of shared convictions that are held by all, or almost all, students and faculty. Even at the most liberal, it's sort of assumed that you at least believe in God, or why are you there? Seminaries are professional schools for training pastors, not academic institutions.
SBTS is part of the "new" SBC, and so is basically fundamentalist in outlook, and virtually all students and faculty will be fundamentalist in outlook. If they weren't, they would have gone somewhere else. It's not unreasonable to assume that most students are going to hold to an ID or Creationist point of view.
Moreover, this course is almost certainly an elective, so no student is required to take it. Even then, speaking as someone who is basically Anabaptist theologically who went to a school where none of the professors were Anabaptist, all my professors were quite flexible. They had no problem with me writing from what one called my "peculiar viewpoint" so long as I did so respectfully and rigorously. I imagine a student that really had a problem for this requirement would be able to get out of it.
Last, Bill Dembski is a smart guy (I've met him), although I don't always agree with him. I rather doubt he would give full credit for "CREATI0N1SM R0X, SUX0RZ!"
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I was ready to give it the benefit of the doubt - after all, religion without ministry is just jerking off your soul - until I read this gem:
Jeepers, you might as well just write "I spent a full 24 hours giving myself paper cuts with the book while chanting the Lord's Prayer, so I felt I'd leveled up and skipped actually writing the 'reflection.'"
And they keep saying the word "critical review". I do not think that means what they think it means. I think they'd find any actual "critical" writing to be... Suppressive.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Look, ID isn't scientific but that doesn't mean that anyone who speaks in support of it is a troll. Taking ideas you've learned in class and defending them in a public forum is a good thing. A troll (IMHO) is someone who's in a discussion primarily for the conflict. These students obviously aren't -- they're there at best to learn, and at worst to get through a class (who hasn't been there?). I suspect that anyone who thinks this is a bad thing is more closed-minded than any ID/Creationism/Insert-Your-Hobby-Horse-Here partisan.
... as the NO U college.
I don't think that the following is such a good final exam question:
Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?
Because giving a suitable answer would be way way way too long for a final. But really, worded a little less provocatively, it's a great topic for a doctoral dissertation in philosophy.
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
If you take the act of posting on a message board, especially one as hostile to religion as Slashdot, and consider it less an act of trolling but one of encouraging discussion, then encouraging thoughtful posts creates an opportunity for the student to have his beliefs challenged and subsequently shaped. Only through adversity do people really learn who they are.
Besides, we're talking about Science here, not "Biblical Creationism" as such. The idea that the Earth was created in 6 literal days replete with "faith-challenging" dino fossils and other fairy tales is the story that Evolutionists spread as Intelligent Design dogma. It shows a very big gap in their knowledge of the ID field which is quite a bit less dogmatic about the 6 day theory and much more in tune with mainstream scientific method.
What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts. Why are clam fossils at the top of very young mountains? What is the evolutionary progression of DNA? Why are there still discrepancies in the geologic and biologic record where we would expect certain types of data but find none? ID brushes away the dogma of science and brings the scientific method back to it.
But that's not to say that it isn't also flawed. Many of the scientists involved with ID hold very religious views which may cause them to insert God into areas they do not yet understand. The "God in the Gaps" folks. Luckily, most ID scientists are able to put their personal biases away for the sake of good science.
The other problem with ID is also prevalent in fields such as homeopathy and supernatural research. The attempt to address the issues at hand with a completely open mind leads to bad conclusions. Sometimes the established scientific theory is just fine and doesn't need reevaluation. So when ID scientists start questioning things that don't need questioning, they come off looking like crackpots. However, their search for science is no less deeply held and their methods are no less scientific than mainstream scientists.
I really am not trolling or flaming.
Is there anybody out there of reasonable intelligence that actually thinks that there's a debate going on at all? From what my feeble mind has observed, I find that those who jump to their conclusions are rather small minded creatures who lack any sort of real imagination... constantly regurgitating the same unverifiable babble and staking their life on it too. The other end of the spectrum... where I dwell, I guess, is admitting to yourself that we just don't know everything, and REFUSE to assume ANYTHING, and simply observe.
It's rather funny that if one does observe, one tends to see evolution in action almost everywhere. This "debate" too is evolving. New intellectual weaponry invented decade after decade all designed to curb the other side.
Perhaps the real issue is that the people "debating" have no business being in a debate to begin with. Again, an observation, but those involved seem like nothing more than hyper emotional twits who simply can't figure out why 2(x+y) is 2x+2y. Just to be clear, the math is purely illustrative of the problem as I see it.
Of all places, you'd think Slashdot would be respecting free speech... even if it gets modded troll or flamebait. Oh wait...
I would think fake academic papers in "prestigious peer reviewed journals" that are just astroturfing PR pieces, and Department of Defense deliberate fake news stories "embedded" in newspapers and magazines, and also the same DoD cadre inserting various spin doctoring posts around the web* trying to influence public opinion this way or that are way more important. All of them suck, but some just suck a lot more than others.
*they are very fond of using "tin foil hat" to try and deflect attention from some rather important topics where they have been clearly lying and trying to cover up illegal actions or very unethical behavior. Shame on those "oath takers" who engage in such practices.
Happy shiny people come by my house to troll in person from time to time. I find that WAY more annoying than trolling on websites such as this where we all can have a good laugh at them. When they ring my doorbell (despite a no soliciting sign in the neighborhood), I now have to deal with my dogs and stopping what I'm doing. Trolling on one of these boards doesn't interrupt my morning breakfast or a good wank etc. So to me, if this replaces the door to door brainwashing service it's a good thing (TM).
Sheldon
This is not Apologetics, even when using original material. The tipping point is the "hostile websites" requirement. If a town doesn't want to listen, kick the dust off your sandals and move on.
...and that'll blow the uni off the net for a while, i think :)
They call it evangelizing, and they feel they are helping people. How do you teach these people to live and let live if they feel it is their job? It's like Jehova's witnesses knocking at your door, many people feel this is solicitation.
Synecdoche: a term denoting a specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more general class
RAID doesn't even work all that well.
Works for me ;) Every time a disk fails I replace it and all is good. Haven't needed to load my backup tapes yet.
Superstitious idiots are going to be around as long as there are cockroaches.
Um, no. Cockroaches will become extinct at some point (possibly evolving into a new more intelligent species) and superstitious idiots will still be around. Hopefully our new cockroach-based friends are more interesting to talk to.
I drink to make other people interesting!
The term "Intelligent Design Creationism" seems to me a little unhelpful.
Intelligent design and (young earth) creationism are in general rather distinct, although the rather large differences are sometimes blurred both by proponents trying to gather support and by opponents who want to simply ridicule both groups instead of trying to reason with them.
No. Creationists who disguise themselves as scientists call themselves "intelligent design proponents", IDers are just dishonest creationists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People#Pandas_and_.22cdesign_proponentsists.22
The term "creationists" was changed to "design proponents", but in one case the beginning and end of the original word "creationists" were accidentally retained, so that "creationists" became "cdesign proponentsists".
The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
You can't take the sky from me...
I may be the first (and only) poster to defend the professor in the article, but here goes.
It is a course at a Baptist Seminary in Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics. From Wikipedia:
These people are studying to be ministers in a religion. One of their roles is to defend their faith and its tenets. Given the position of the Internet in the world today, how could anyone say they are qualified to do that without having done work on the internet? And, since the focus is on defense of those tenets, the best place to practice that is on hostile websites. So I believe the assignment is appropriate to the course aims.
Note that I am not a Baptist (RC here), I think ID (except as a philosophical experiment) is creationism in disguise, and trolls irritate me too. But lets face it - who here hasn't trolled in order to tweak someone or start a flamewar? Hell, the folks on Slashdot practically invented some forms of trolling (Goatse, anyone?).
So, instead of excoriating the professor, we should invite his students onto here and "help" them with their studies.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Religion is a powerful tool to control people because it always worked as a mean to make people do what they don't want to do (work harder, get poor, offer money, don't hang the corrupt politician because $DIVINITY will do instead, etc.). Now, are we surprised that they're resorting to every deceptive trick to keep people flocking into churches, being poor, offering money, letting corrupt rulers in their seat etc?
The day religion will disappear will mark the biggest advancement in human intelligence since prehistory.
Speaking for myself, I don't find many atheists to be theologically "well-versed." I find a lot of atheists to be well-indoctrinated in some particular variant of Christianity (generally either fundamentalism or catholicism), which they've rejected. But to be theologically well-versed requires more than knowing one variant. It requires knowing the broad range of Christian theology, why the different approaches are different, and the history of the church. I can only think of one atheist I've ever met that I would have considered well-versed theologically, and his atheism had an awful lot to do with his parents.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
If you read the article, you'll see that they don't require "discussion" of any kind:
"provide at least 10 posts defending ID that youâ(TM)ve made on âoehostileâ websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade)."
The only thing this kind of sociopathic requirement causes is hit-and-run troll posts.
Also:
"What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts."
This is wrong. Scientists already reexamine facts constantly. ID does not add anything useful to the discussion, because it postulates a "theory" that can neither be proven nor disproven, and doesn't make any kinds of useful predictions. That's like saying "postulating sock gnomes requires you to reexamine the facts of where you left your socks yesterday." It doesn't.
And finally:
"The other problem with ID is also prevalent in fields such as homeopathy and supernatural research. The attempt to address the issues at hand with a completely open mind leads to bad conclusions."
That, again, is wrong. Scientists are required to have a completely open mind when it comes to everything, even homeopathy. This is precisely why we have useful studies in which scientists tested the claims made by homeopathy and other "alternative" medicine. It's also why we know which of these things work, and which don't.
The ones who don't have an open mind are the people who still believe homeopathy works. Their closed-mindedness makes them unable to accept the evidence.
Seriously. These intelligent design loonies just make us Christians look bad :(
There is no reason why god could not have created The Universe and also have creatures evolve.
[bowling analogy]What is easier for god? Option one: Throw the Bowling Ball and use his magical powers to change it's course and throw a strike.
Option two: To be good at bowling and throw a strike[/bowling analogy]
Any person who has been to seminary will tell you that the book of genesis is poetry and metaphor. It is NOT supposed to be taken literally. Instead these idiots are trying to mix Science (the study of things that can be proven) with Theology (the study of things which can fundamentally NOT be proven) It makes no sense!
What ID brings to the table is a new reexamination of facts.
What ID brings is a rebranding of creationism to make it APPEAR similar to science. It's creationism, with less honesty.
You can't take the sky from me...
This is nothing to do with theology. The examples quoted make it clear that this is a political issue. One of the most depressing things for people like me, who went to a small university in the English fens before deciding that engineering was more interesting and of more benefit to the human race, is that US fundamentalists completely confuse politics and religion. The madness is spreading to the Anglican Church in the UK, where Nigerian politics is now more important than good relations with the Episcopalians.
US fundamentalism takes the form of assigning religious worth to capitalism - if God loves you, you will be materially rich - and also aligns itself with backward notions about Creationism and ID which are more about trying to prove liberals "wrong" than spreading light. The simple fact is that it requires really determined blinkers to believe either that Bible literalism has very deep roots (certainly St. Augustine would have wondered what these people were on about) or that the enormous body of information about geology and biology built up in the last 200 years admits of a fundamentalist interpretation.
To be blunt, if these seminaries were doing their jobs they would be teaching pastoral care, teaching how the New Testament (rather than some cherry picked collection of political positions) can be made relevant today, and preparing their students to heal wounds in society and reduce polarisation between social groups. Instead, they appear to be giving course credits for less violent versions of the activities that give the Taliban a bad name.
You say that seminaries are schools for training pastors, and I agree they should be. But we should then not defend "seminaries" that are training schools for bigoted ideologues who will seek to stir up division in society and spread ignorance. If this man Dembski cannot see why he is wrong on this, he needs to be hit on the head with the Sermon on the Mount till he gets a clue.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
and you can't think for yourself, you just scream louder.
Morons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
where i realized that the college was not rewarding you for the difficult trickery of sending otherwise normal people into a frenzied foaming at the mouth by feigning just the right shade and color of idiocy
but that they are rewarding people for actually being idiots ;-(
the first scenario is a high art form that demonstrates a supple mind well versed on various ideologies and common propagandistic tricks, and perhaps could be taught
the second is just too depressing to even think about
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Disclaimer: Christian Electrical Engineering Student
I would like to point out that "RichardDawkins.net" is definitely presenting one side of this story, and anyone who takes a brief look at the site can tell which side that is. This is a philosophy course they're referencing and if you look at the tests you'll notice that the questions are just like any philosophy course. They ask you to explain/argue both sides of an issue (one of the test questions even says argue against ID).
Speaking as a student, this is actually a brilliant form of instruction. What better way to make you understand and can use the material you've been taught then to have you defend it against people who will purposely be attacking it vehemently. This course is titled Intelligent Design so I would expect students to learn enough about it to defend it on some level. Why take the course if you're not going to learn the reasoning behind the subject matter.
Also, to everyone who has said that students shouldn't be given an assignment that makes them present/defend a viewpoint outside of their own. Try taking an english class sometime with a christian viewpoint. The stuff they require you to read and write about definitely does NOT fall within my viewpoint most of the time.
Back in the day, you could get a knighthood for attempting to sack Jerusalem in the name of Christianity -- presumably including killing people. If we're down to online trolling, that's a good thing.
Alas, we're not just down to trolling (and that's been going on, in one form or another, since the Inquisition, probably earlier). Killing people over petty religious differences about what the fairy in the sky wants us to do, or how we're supposed to abase ourselves before him, or mistreat our wives and daughters, or whatever is very much alive and well. If you're a medical doctor specializing in women's medicine and willing to provide an abortion, your life as as good as foreit in large swathes of the United States. Of course, you'll have trouble finding such a physician in most of the US, because they've been terrorized out of their clinics, their homes, their communties, and often their careers.
Unruly mobs are already being stirred up to shout down and intimidate our elected officials for daring to consider something most of the industrialized world already has and relies on with great (albeit certainly not perfect) success: national healthcare.
At least one news anchor on Fox has publicly suggested killing the speaker of the house with poison (under the guise of humor, but in a way bound to incite the nutjobs that hang off Fox News' every word).
As for sacking a city on the basis of religion, have you taken a look at Bagdad lately, or forgotten how our then-president Bush claimed to be on a "crusade" and that he spoke with God prior to ordering the invasion.
I'm not so sure things have gotten any better. So far the US has been insulated from the consiquences of our leaders' actions (9/11 notwithstanding), but that is unlikely to continue in even the medium, and certainly not in the long run. And certainly, from the view of much of the rest of the world, it's highly debatable whether the US' actions are any better than those of any other maurading, plundering nation.
Try listing all the countries we've either invaded or bombed over the least twenty-five years or so. You'll find the list surprisingly long (and you'll notice this is all POST Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, so it hardly includes our most dramatic actions of the last half century). It's profoundly depressing to discover what an out of control bully we've become. But hey, we can keep telling ourselves we're "the best in the world!" and make sure not to listen to the rest of the planet that knows better. Of course, that means we won't be able to benefit from the experiences of others (like the many nations with working and thriving national healthcare systems), but that's a small price to pay for "being the best."
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Who do these guys think they are, The Fellowship of the Sun?
I'm an agnostician!
Intelligent design is not based on Biblical literalism at all. Instead it is a philosophical point based on a scientific argument. Now, most scientists have found the argument unconvincing. But to conflate it with creationism per sé shows that you know as little about theology as the use of the word "theologist" does (the word is "theologian".)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Are you taking a class from Insurance University?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Anonymous Coward must have several PhDs by now!!!
3 More posts and I should get an 'A'
Peter Corcoran
Seriously. The obvious mod whoring is blinding.
Actually, I just checked, and it turns out I was mistaken. I was under the impression that the ATS accredits non-Christian seminaries, but apparently they do not. My apologies, although I think the underlying point is still valid.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
It seems ironic to me that by posting this article on slashdot about so-called trolling, the story submission itself became flamebait. Of course, maybe intentionally so, the story is tagged as such.
Students of religious schools have been the majority of people involved in "make changes" to things from tv shows to government issues for years. Anyone that has picked up a customer complaint phone for a media company can verify this. They call several times; and, each time they give you a different name. I knew they were prompted to do it but I had no idea it was part of a curriculum.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Here's an exam question I'd like an answer to:
No, they just have a different world view, one in which terms like "accelerate," "away from," and "million" have different meanings than they do from the rest of us. :)
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
This doesn't sound very hostile to me. Try posting in favour of something originating in redmond on slashdot if you want to experience true hostility!
It makes me feel warm and cuddly on the inside.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Some people would claim all opinions are valid, as they are "just opinions."
"Your dress is pretty" is an opinion, and a valid one, never mind that everyone else thinks it should be burned.
Arguments may be valid given one set of axioms and invalid or non-sensible given another. If you accept as a given that our observations represent a true and correct view of the universe, you can make valid arguments for a lot of things, including physics. If on the other hand you don't accept that our eyes and instruments tell is the truth, you cannot make those arguments. Likewise, if you accept as a given that insert-holy-book-here is 100% accurate, you can make a lot of arguments that seem like nonsense to non-believers.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
these people were just trolling for years now. Good to finally see some confirmation of my hypothesis.
As I am a Christian who believes in Intelligent Design, please allow me this as an opportunity to defend my brothers. I hold that whether the SBTS requires trolling depends rather strongly on the definition of trolling. I found the following on Wikipedia.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Since Wikipedia's main focus is on people who disrupt Wikipedia, and not at all with ID per se I claim that Wikipedia's definition is neutral and sufficient. Now, as I parse it, meeting the definition of "troll" rests on four prongs. First, the troll must make a post. Second, the troll's post must be controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic. Third, the troll's post must be in an online community. And fourth, the troll's primary intent must be to provoke other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
I think the fist prong is passed pretty easily, at least if the summary is to be believed. For the second prong, I judge the posts to be controversial, non-inflammatory, relevant, and on-topic. Since "or" is the connective then the second prong is passed as well. The third prong is passed also, since "'hostile' websites" is approximately the same as "online community". I believe it fails, however, on the fourth prong. I believe the students' primary intent is either to get a satisfactory grade in the class or to learn. I believe the teacher's primary intent is to teach his students. Now, obviously, the result of the posts MAY be the provocation of emotional or disciplinary responses or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. However, Wikipedia's definition didn't state that such was the result. It stated only that such must be the troll's primary intent. Since a concept must meet all its prongs prongs to meet the definition, I claim that the only possible conclusion is that these are not trolls, and this is not the fist case of trolling the net being part of course requirements.
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Some guy chopped off some other guy's ear and some other other guy healed it (John 18, The Bible).
Does that count?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of the problem with our educational system - it has been dumbed down. I am forced to shake my head and ask, "Really?" We have reached a new low that we are willing to reward students with college credit for essentially non-academic work. Well, wait a minute, we are doing that already. Defending Intelligent Design on a hostile website is hardly academic work. Lots of people, myself included, sometimes use a blog to vent frustrations and are hardly a scholarly piece of work. How does replying to someone's blog count as truely scholarly work? Scholarly work is researched heavily and includes the author's own conclusions and ideas and is extensively peer reviewed. Responding to a persons blog is representative of sub-collegiate writing, so my professors would have scoffed.
I'm not the biggest fan of Richard Dawkins. I'm an Atheist and yes, Evolution is the only explanation for biodiversity on Earth but that doesn't mean I think people should be ridiculed for their beliefs.
His attacks on Intelligent design serve as a front for him to attack religion as a whole. He spreads the myth that religion and evolution can't be compatible (why exactly could it not be argued that god designed life with the capability to mutate?) to attack religion whilst using "I'm just debating the science" defence when called on it.
His hard line approach makes Atheists as a whole look like intolerant arses and I don't want to be associated with it. Even science, even though it is evidence based, does rely on a certain amount of faith (that earlier theories are correct, that scientists in fields you're not familiar with are correct). Yes science changes over time but so does religion. There are plenty of laws based on questionable religious principles but there are equally plenty of laws based on questionable science.
While it is my opinion that Mr. William Demdski's strong encouragement of trolling and other methods of polluting the means of public discourse are unethical and morally bankrupt, he is a fellow netizen and he deserves to know what is being said on the web about him and his practices.
So I spent a few moments on his web site looking for ways to contact him. Here is his email address, as given in his c.v.:
nospam@swbts.edu (substitute "wdembski" for "nospam"
For those more familiar with different ways of expressing an email address, this is the same as wdembski.at.swbts.edu
I thought I would send him a link to the TFA of the slashdot story. But then I realized that might not work well for him, when one considers the limitations of his current state of technical expertise as demonstrated by his violations of expected courtesies on web based forums. So, to make it easier for him, I copy/pasted the story into the email and sent that instead of just a link.
Since there is always a small risk that any one email might not reach its intended destination, I implore other slashdotters to also send a copy of TFA to Mr. William Dembski at wdembski.at.swbts.edu. I think it is very important that Mr. William Dembski (at wdembski.at.swbts.edu) be made fully aware of what is being said about him and his teaching methods. I cannot emphasize this enough. This is important!
Also it might be important for Mr. William Dembski (at wdembski.at.swbts.edu) to be aware of the continuing discussion about him on Slashdot, so maybe from time to time members of the slashdot community would copy/paste this discussion into an email addressed to him.
I've tried to spend some time examing the scientific evidence for the age of the universe and the evidence for evolution. I've come to the conclusion that the Universe most likely is Billions of years old, because there are just too many things that can't reasonably be explained simply by the idea that God created the Universe 6 or 10 thousand years ago (if he did, why bother making the universe have bizarre things that otherwise would indicate a very old universe).
However, looking at the amazing complexities of life, I still feel that given the long odds, the 'completely random permutation moderated by natural selection' isn't wholly sufficient to explain all life either. So, I fall into the camp of those who believe in God, believe that he had a plan when creating the Universe to cause life to arise on Earth (and possibly elsewhere; the Bible neither excludes the possibility, nor indicates it positively, and science has yet to find evidence of life elsewhere, but allows and renders it likely).
I believe he used a mechanism of evolution in 'creating' life on earth, but I think it's also possible that he fine-tuned the Universe to overcome the 'long odds' that would otherwise be against the random generation of life and rise of very complex organisms. That's not to say he was constantly intervening in evolution. If God is all knowing and all powerful, then it's perfectly plausible that he fine tuned everything from the start of the big bang such that from that point on, everything would happen that was necessary for life to arise somewhere in the Universe.
Am I an IDer? Am I a creationist? Am I an evolutionist? I'd say I'm not really a creationist, and most of the creationists would say I'm not, I suspect. Am I an IDer? My views, I think, would loosely fall into the ID camp because it is much less stringent about the 'how' and 'when' of the way that Intelligent Design was worked out (although, probably most IDers believe in a much more 'active' intervention in the design of life than I do). I do basically believe that evolution is correct, though I view it as less random than pure evolutionary theory suggests.
I think your statement that ID == Creationism (in disguise) is ignorant of the facts of the differing views of people.
However, all that said, I don't think ID should be taught in *science* class. It's not a matter of science, and I have no problem admitting that. I think it would be appropriate for it to be part of a philosophy and religion class, because that's more of what it is. I think it's appropriate for schools, both public and private, to have classes that educate students about the most commonly believed religions and philosophies (such classes, particularly in public schools, should be held from, as much as possible, a neutral perpective - anthropology rather than catechism - learning *what* people believe, rather than trying to convince students to believe one thing or another). People shouldn't graduate from high school without knowing anything at all about Judeaism, Chrisitianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Universalism, Atheistic Humanism, Existentialism, etc).
I'm currently reading the excruciatingly detailed "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" edited by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross,...
Dembski continually misrepresents what the general scientific consensus is on the details of evolutionary theory, emphasizes trivialities and irrelevant ideas in order to attempt to discredit parts of the current theory, and never deals with the idea that his philosophical arguments have come nowhere close to beating David Hume's rationale establishing the needlessness of a creator. It's no surprise that he takes advantage of a ready-made little army of propagandists to help him in his intellectually dishonest quest.
That's nowhere near 2000 words, so you'll have to copy and paste it 15 times or so in order to qualify for full credit,... but since I'm not teaching a class and you're not my students, you'll have to do it just for kicks.
Your state that science is never dogmatic; superlative usage most of the time indicates logical fallacy
For the grammar dorks: "never" is not a superlative; "best" (as opposed to "good" or "better") is a superlative.
One may want to call "never" a universal statement (i.e. forall x: not p(x), with emphasis on the "forall" bit, i.e. the universal quantifier), or an absolute statement (one that is never contradicted, as opposed to "science is rarely dogmatic").
And now to comment on the "Science is dogmatic" bit. Science---well, good science---is dogmatic about one thing, and that thing only: that one should trust the conclusions one is lead to by evidence and reasoning, in proportion to the strength of that evidence and reasoning.
"Science believed"* that the earth was flat as long as the best evidence suggested this; when better evidence came along, "science changed its mind".
(*) when I anthropomorphize science and ascribe beliefs to it, I mean that the belief is widely held (i.e. near-consensus) among scientists in relevant fields or with relevant expertise.
It was never scientific dogma that the earth was flat. Thermodynamics, evolution, the age and shape of the earth and the universe, none of these are scientific dogma. It's just that the weight of the evidence is 99.9% for, 0.1% against (numbers extracted anally).
I don't see how this is any different than they way many courses now try to include an online component to their classes by encouraging students post comments on internet forums. And it seems particularly appropriate that an apologetics class would encourage students to post comments where the views expressed would not be readily accepted (since that's what apologetics is all about). I don't think it's fair to say that posting dissenting viewpoints it trolling. This comment is a troll by that standard.
Hmm... "+1 rational"?
Halfwit, you've just given them a chance to post their crap and earn their 20%.
Nice one !
http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
People like you need to understand that there is no point refuting Evolution. Evolution is the glue that holds Biology together, and without it we wouldn't have: Paleontology, Micro-biology, Medicine, Genetics, among other fields.
[here's what camp I sit in: I have the XKCD t-shirt that says "Science: it works, bitches", and I wear it proudly]
I think your argument is bad. You're saying that without evolution, we wouldn't know the things we know about {x,y,z}, and those things are useful, so evolution better be true. I.e. an argument from desirable consequences (i.e. p implies q; I like q; therefore p).
Either that, or you're saying that Evolution implies {theory from fields x,y,z} which are true, so therefore evolution has to be true (i.e. p implies q; q; therefore p).
The third option is of course that I'm not understanding what you're saying.
In any case, I think one should try to argue according to the fortune cookies:
HOW TO PROVE IT, PART 5
proof by accumulated evidence:
While bad math, this kind of argument is good science: we search long and hard for something that disproves our theory, but eventually give up seeing how our search yields no result. Showing how repeated attempts at disproving evolution have all failed is the best way to argue that it's a good theory.
Certainly, fundamentalists will hijack any train going their way. But let's not chuck the baby with the bathwater?
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I have to admit after reading the story I was really dissapointed, considering my first thought was "College credits for trolling? Looks like I'll finally get that Ph. D!"
Passing thought I just had. Anyone think some of those student's might try to post in this thread?
1. Yeah, the course _could_ require them to make thoughtful posts and defend them with good logic. And equally monkeys could fly out of my butt. You know it won't happen.
What standards would you apply anyway? The whole of ID isn't even particularly logical, and doesn't do much more than postulate stuff without any evidence. The best it can do is try to pick false holes in "Darwinism", because it doesn't make any testable predictions of its own. Try asking an ID-er to define their "science" without making any references to "evolution" or "Darwin" or the bible (after all, they pretend that the designer doesn't necessarily have to be God) and see how far they'll get.
So exactly what standards would _you_ apply to something which boils down to postulating "Goddidit" and "Darwinism is wrong"? No, seriously.
2. That still doesn't excuse the fact that they're sent out to train on unwilling people out there. Those "hostile" sites are only "hostile" by virtue of the posters there being hostile to that crap. (E.g., because of having already been trolled half to death by fundies, and having had enough of it.) How's sending someone to troll them some more morally right or justified in any form or shape?
Do you understand that crucial aspect? Regardless of how it's done, it's trolling, and that's wrong by itself.
Basically: How would you (or the majority of Slashdotters here) feel if, say, marketing graduates were sent to try to convince people to buy a copy of Windows on Linux and Mac boards and mailing lists? Or viceversa. 'Cause I for one would see it as worsening the signal-to-noise ratio, regardless of how it's done.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
EXTRA CREDIT: For those who think they need mercy on missed or poorly answered quizzes, please get Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals and write a 750 to 1000 word reflection on lessons to be drawn from that book for Christian apologetics. You need to have spent at least 6 hours carefully reading the book and sign your name to that effect (i.e., your paper must include something like "I have spent at least six uninterrupted hours reading Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. -Jane Doe").
From an academic perspective this is even more off the wall than the trolling requirement. Apparently reading a book in less time simply doesn't cut it. You have to spend at least six hours reading the book? Seriously, WTF?
I actually don't have a problem with this. While I am an atheist and proponent of the theory of evolution, I think that many of these students have not heard well-reasoned arguments against their beliefs, and that forcing these students to argue for their beliefs can only help them. Even if they are cutting and pasting their arguments and counter-arguments, they have to spend a little time figuring out what the appropriate thing to paste would be. Since this is for school credit, they might actually have to return to add more comments as readers reply, something that ID apologists almost never do, preferring to hit-and run the forum with inanity. So, yeah, oddly enough I'm for it.
inAfter shitstorm
If you 'huffed' that RAID, you might see the light, my son. :D
There is at least one piece of "evidence" for ID belief in nearly every aspect of science. But at the same time there is a non-ID piece of "evidence" that goes against it. For instance, those of ID often believe that a "Spirit" is involved in people or things that (at the same time) gives freedom of choice, and from it the ability to reason, so on... The people who believe something other than ID, or even those in ID who do not believe in having a "Spirit" would argue that there is no free choice or "reason," per say, but that the random or non-random (as in caused by something "in the world") path of electricity through brain neurons causes people to do the things they do. The "Spirit" group might say that the "Spirit" causes the non-random actions, but since the non-"Spirit" group denies the existence of such, and as at this point "Spirits" cannot be proven or disproven, the argument should halt until further evidence is revealed. However, the argument continues even though no new evidence has been shown. Also, even when new evidence is shown disproving "Spirits," one of the "Spirit" group might argue that the "Spirit" is or is caused by a god or God (god meaning one of many, God meaning one). Since this is fundamental to the argument in the first place, the whole thing boils down to a "faith" based belief, for both parties. *I am not yet out of high school, and so have not been exposed to the doctrines of Christian, Evolutionist, ID, Muslim... or other college.
Interestingly enough, in Verner Vinge's sci-fi novel Rainbow's End, half of the high school curriculum is learning how to troll a very advanced virtual reality Internet for disparate pieces of information and assemble them into something meaningful. I guess art imitates life.
This whole story is ridiculous tripe. Consider the source: the article comes from Richard Dawkins' web site; hardy an unbiased source on this particular topic. So what we have here is a story from one side of the argument complaining about a course at a university whose topic is APOLOGETICS. When studying apologetics, you learn how to defend a particular position (see definition two at dictionary.com here). What better exercise for learning a skill like that than to go out there and defend a particular position publicly? Certainly ID gets attacked enough by Darwinists (many of them ad hominem or straw man attacks--examples of which can be found in posts above this one) that people shouldn't get too upset when ID proponents start defending their position.
Why assume the students are going out there and randomly "making posts" but not contributing to the discussion? Maybe the professor grades the posts specifically on the quality of the discussion, with the 10 or more posts in a single back-and-forth discussion being worth more than trolling 10 different web sites. Who knows? We don't, and certainly Dawkins doesn't. Either way, it seems that this is a very appropriate exercise when learning something like apologetics. Certainly making blanket judgments and name calling doesn't move this issue forward at all. Nobody's going to be persuaded by a flippant dismissal of their position without giving any reasoning.
Is this the first case of trolling the net being part of course requirements? No, I believe the Church of Scientology can claim prior art on that one...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
My main worry about this is that students are being required to publicly defend a view that they may take to be false. Now one cannot be surprised that at a seminary the students are required to accept and defend doctrines that are an essential part of that (I assume fundamentalist) Baptist seminary's religious tradition. But this goes beyond that, in a way that is particularly unfaithful to the Baptist ideal of conscience and individual judgment. The correctness of ID is not an essential part of the seminary's religious tradition. I assume this is a creationist and fundamentalist seminary. But the correctness of ID is not an essential part of creationism or fundamentalism.
Now ID of the Dembski variety presumably makes two claims, roughly as follows: (1) an intelligent agent is directly responsible, either through direct front-loading of complexity or through direct intervention, for the complexity observed in species; and (2) there is strong scientific evidence for the claim in (1). Something like claim (1) is presumably going to have to be accepted by any creationist (though maybe not in the full generality given). But claim (2) is something that can be rejected by those who creationists or fundamentalists or even both. Claim (2) is not a part of young earth creationism (the doctrine that God directly created the world within the last 10,000 years or so) that there is scientific evidence for young earth creationism--that is a further claim, going beyond young earth creationism. Similarly, claim (2) is not a part of old earth creationism, either.
Of course, many (most?) creationists accept (2), but that no more makes (2) a part of creationism than the fact that all microbiologists accept the existence of galaxies beyond our own makes the existence of galaxies beyond our own a part of microbiology.
According to the pastor and all leaders of my church, if it isn't in the bible, it isn't Christianity. You'd think this is fairly self-evident but apparently it isn't to those that invented and believe in ID.
Intelligent Design is just a political tool cooked up in 1987 for the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling involving separation of church and state. Its a political and legal mechanism, thats all. Belief in ID is also almost unique to the US, mostly the bible-belt south, and generally considered laughable by the rest of the world. Even the Bible doesn't agree with ID. Nor does the Pope, not that he is the arbiter of what God is or did, but he does at least have access to vast theological study resources.
It is highly inappropriate that these students should be forced to write in support of ID, something not in the bible therefore by definition not Christian. This is obviously the result of a political agenda by some radical seminary to promote their own agenda, rather than provide a balanced education to their students.
The students should be able to defend aspects of Christianity they choose themselves, that is based on the bible. Not be obliged to promote some dangerous recently-invented doctrine masquerading as christianity.
Bullshit.
The theory of evolution says no such thing. That's a strawman invented by the creationists themselves.
Yes, there is a "social darwinism" piece of bullshit, but it has about as much to do with the real darwinism, as JavaScript has to do with Java. I.e., except for piggy-backing on its name, not much whatsoever.
And, anyway, the real darwinism doesn't actually say "only the strong survive", and it certainly doesn't say "if you are too weak to survive we shouldn't help you."
Social species and social adaptations are in fact cases where a species survives precisely _because_ individual members who are too weak to survive on their own, are helped by other members. Ants or bees are cases where no individual member could survive and reproduce on their own at all. The workers are asexuate, and the queen pretty much can't forrage and feed on its own. The species survives precisely _because_ there is a high degree of cooperation between the individual members.
Heck, even wolves or lions (predators seem to be a favourite of proponents of "might makes right") actually have a group hunting and group survival strategy built in. Wolves couldn't reliably bag the kind of bigger game they normally feed upon, if they didn't act as a group. So, yes, a weaker member which might not survive on his own, nevertheless can survive in a group that cooperates.
Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism are also cases where evolution favours cooperation and specialization. E.g., the male lion is too big and heavy to be a good hunter on his own, while the females aren't as adapted to fight other predators. (That mane is battle armour, for example. A predator going for the male lion's neck will most often just get a mouthful of hair.) A pride survives by the _combination_ of the two specializations. And sometimes they even find more innovative ways to use that dimorphism: e.g., against bigger game, the male lion lies in ambush while the females chase the prey towards him, effectively allowing him to use his greater mass and strength without the handicap of his poorer sprint performance.
Nature and evolution are full of stuff like that. Resemblance to the "if you are too weak to survive we shouldn't help you" canard: zero.
Second, darwinism doesn't judge "fit" as "strong" or anything else. The only criterion that matters is: fit to make more offspring. Period.
For different species that can mean radically different things. For example for rabbits, the criterion isn't strength, it's just being fast and affraid enough to run away fast enough, and making lots of baby rabbits faster than the foxes can eat them.
But even that doesn't even scratch the surface of how many things can mean "the fittest." E.g., being bitter and bright coloured works just fine for ladybugs. (See, aposematism) There is no strength or speed or anything else involved. You just have to be bitter so the first bird that tries to eat you spits you back, and recognizably coloured so it learns not to try again in the future.
For some species, they don't even go the whole way with that. They don't actually have any defense of their own against a predator, but just mimick the colours of a species that does. The "being fitter" there just means the most resemblance to the real aposematic species you're immitating. That's it. That's the whole survival of the fittest in that aspect.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Hey, about those sock gnomes. Can you tell me more about them?
I think I'm afflicted, and I want a spell or amulet to make them go away. Like, maybe to my mother-in-law's place. Yeah... that would be nice.
...This is not about preaching, this is about setting up an Us vs. Them attitude in the students, to make it easier to accept the irrational. After all, the other side is evil, they wouldn't have been so mean to them if they weren't, they must be wrong...
Exactly!
And we see that illustrated beautifully in the grandparent's post - "If you take the act of posting on a message board, especially one as hostile to religion as Slashdot..."
Slashdot is not intolerant of religion, per se. However, it can be brutally intolerant of badly reasoned arguments, articles of faith presented as proof, and other forms of stupidity. Only the most disingenuous tool would suggest that such a metaphorical "bringing a knife to a gun fight" as cut-and-pasting some lame intelligent design screed into a forum populated by those well-equipped to refute it's every point, is anything other than some form of "Martyrdom Light". Having seen the same pathetic arguments put forth time and again, often verbatim (cut-and-paste counts, remember), the forum regulars can be expected to pounce hard and fast. That's pretty much the definition of trolling, and it has nothing to do with intelligent discourse.
Time for the sites to start using TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.
Look people... I don't put the same effort into a Slashdot post that I would put into an article for publication or even a letter. So I misspelled a word or two. Suck it up.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Reproducible proof that anyone else can perform is science.
There is no need for the person performing the experiment to be a "god."
If it can't be reproduced by anyone else following the rules of the experiment, then it isn't science.
That's where the ID wackos get it wrong. Just because you can't think of a good reason that something happens doesn't mean that "magic" or "god" did it.
Under these rules, the Christians have it tough, because they think there's only 1 god. Therefore any other god-like entity cannot perform the experiment and be successful by definition.
What happens when we finally locate another planet with life and that life has never created a god in the culture?
Being exposed to opinions you don't like is not the same as being persecuted.
I find this one of the most interesting questions when it comes to religion: The the leaders (or "profiteers") of a religion actually believe their own words?
It seems that in some cases, they clearly do. I'm pretty sure the Pope actually believes. But there are some cases where I truly doubt this is the case. Many of America's Televangelists very obviously use religion only for their own gain, for sex, money and power. If they believed their own words, they would have to assume that they would end up in hell.
Likewise, while Scientology's current leaders may (or may not) believe the Xenu story, I'm pretty sure Hubbard himself never believed a single word of it.
"I'm Jewish" - by Jason Levine (196982) on Monday August 10, @11:41AM (#29011363) Homepage
Would you care to explain this then:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/2385ab653d66252/6cc421202f854b7b
----
#1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim (Gentiles) is like killing a wild
animal."
#2. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be
violated."
#3. Yebamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted
if she is three years of age."
#4. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
#5. Yebamoth 98a: "All gentile children are animals."
----
As I have been curious about it, having seen it here and elsewhere. I have jewish friends, and 1 really good, close one mind you. When I saw this, it really upset me because it makes me think he thinks this way. This comes out of the Jewish Talmud and it really freaked me out. Is it only your leaders that practice this stuff or do all jews hold to the tenets listed above? This is the kind of stuff that makes you folks persecuted you know. It's not "hate speak" from those not of the jewish faith (which are what you folks call Goyim or Gentiles), but more from jews themselves.
Sure. First, you need to say some kind of magic prayer. To access the scroll containing these one-in-a-million magic words written by a 6000 years old chinese sacred man which will restore your life to incredible glory and get rid of sock gnomes, you need to go through our 10-step-program. Actually, just contact my accounting department for further information.
First let me start by saying that, as the science editor of http://www.counterknowledge.com/ and having written several articles for that site about "intelligent design" and evolution, I've seen the phenomenon of online debate on this topic close-up.
And when it comes right down to it, teh internetz people are all m0r0ns.... on BOTH sides.
When I posted articles debunking claims of ID, I got people cutting and pasting long lists of links from the same website telling me "READ ALL OF THESE PAGES AND YOU WILL KNOW YOUR THEORY HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPROVED!"
But, when I wrote an article criticizing some of the arguments used in support of evolutionary theory (e.g. "If god made everything, why aren't bodies designed better?"... which is a terrible argument), I had people on the other side calling me names and claiming that I MUST BE a religious zeolot troll in disguise.
So the bad behavior is everywhere. Let's not pretend that it isn't.
The real PROBLEM here isn't what ID is or isn't, or the validity of any theory. The problem is a course giving credit for spreading propaganda.
I mean, can you imagine an English professor saying, "20% of your grade will be based on demonstrating that you have posted to 10 websites and argued that Shakespearean Sonnets are superior to Spenserian Sonnets"?
Are you saying the folks at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary only eat cockroaches?
I like the idea some have suggested, that this is to stimulate discussion and get the student to test or challenge their ideology, but I think we're putting too much faith (ba-dum-TSS!) into this prof's motivations.
What really concerns me is how they use the word "hostile". This engenders the dirty old "US vs THEM" mentality, an exclusionary attitude that has been the driving force behind holy wars since the dawn of humanity. By labeling us sane scientific folks as "hostile", they are planting the seeds of cult mentality into these fertile minds, like subliminal programming. For all intents and purposes, I don't give a flying fuck what people choose to call their imaginary friend in the clouds. I just have a problem with them using those perceptual differences as an excuse to attack each other.
When calling one's ideas "hostile", it is very easy to slide down into calling the entire person "hostile", and that's how we wind up with death cults, suicide bombers, Fred Phelps... The world doesn't need this silly Creationism fad to become another gay-bashing troupe of inbreds and micro-fascists.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I think this article risks "jumping the shark" as it were, on how the word "Trolling" is used.
The claim here seems to me, to be,
To go to a 'hostile' website to post a discussion at odds with the prevalent theme or tone of that website is, necessarily and by definition 'trolling'.
So any Republican showing up at a DNC forum is, by this definition, a "troll". Likewise any Democrat posting on any form owned or operated by Fox news.
The only solution, to be a "non-troll", is to only preach to the choir and never seek out any thing approaching debate or conflict of opinion, in any way.
OR... is there a matter of perspective here. I've got a feeling that if this had to do with Democrats seeking out "hostile" boards to engage in political debate on, or in Secular atheists seeking out "hostile" boards to engage in debate regarding intelligent design versus evolution, Jafafa might have a completely different definition, one that was clearly situational, on what exactly "trolling" is.
Personally, I'm on neither side, but I don't see it as cut and dried that seeking out a hostile board to engage in debate and discussion meets the criteria for the definition of "trolling", and I think it is dangerous to move in that direction.
I mean, if you go to a nut job school, trying to learn how to be a real nut job, the fact that they have to turn you into a troll first should come as no surprise.
Superstitious idiots are going to be around as long as there are cockroaches. Those of us with brains will just have to learn how to live with it.
RAID doesn't even work all that well.
Well, cockroaches tends to be more socialized than those people. Scientific studies on their social behaviour tends to prove that.
These liberal whacko colleges and their always crying poverty board of directors with seemingly tons of money to burn and burn and burn...
No we're not. We're talking about pure fundementalist Christianity trying to pose as something that it's not in order to gain "legitimacy" and to allow it better able to be disruptive and invasive.
No, ID is an established fact, the Bible says it is so, and it was written by GOD. OTOH, this unsupported ad-homin (ad-godinim?) attack on GOD is just the sort of typical hysterical propaganda that is spewed in the name of heathen 'science'. Where are your facts? Hmmm? HMMMM? Furthermore, the author's credentials are highly suspect, as he is clearly destined to burn in hell for eternity for being a heathen. Would you really accept arguments from someone who's soul is dammed? QED
1/10th of my way to a degree...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Apparently Hustler thought so too:
"Who's Nailin' Palin?:[NSFW]
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
(n/t)
-- Joren
"Religion is a way of conveying real world knowledge, just like science."
Science is not "a way of conveying real world knowledge". Books or web sites or audio tapes are "a way of conveying real world knowledge". Science is a way of gaining real-world knowledge.
"Frequently, both in religion and in science, the humans behind it all get it wrong"
But that is the point: Science doesn't assume that it is right, and doesn't pretend that it is right. In science, you observe, construct a hypothesis, test the hypothesis (where you either disprove the hypothesis or not, but hardly ever prove it), discuss the results, and go back to step 1. Note that failure is part of this, but "truth" is not.
500+ years ago religion spoke to Astronomy, Chemistry, Meteorology, Geology, Medicine etc etc.
Not that it stops the religious from claiming every disaster as 'Gods wrath' and collecting extra donations from the credulous. Granting that they will usually spend a small percentage of those donations helping out.
Every time science explains something previously 'Gods' (e.g. Thunder and Lightning) it reduces religious scope and influence. Granting we still can't disprove Zeus is throwing the lightning around.
It takes more faith to believe now then when you had so many daily demonstrations of Gods active involvement in day to day life.
These days God looks more like a clockmaker then a shepherd.
As to respecting some religions brittle philosophies, where do you draw the line?
I'd say we draw it well this side of the 'inerrant bible literalists'. If they get evolution banned from biology what is next? Have you ever lived anywhere these folks dominate?
Do we give other fundimentalists (e.g. Hindu or Muslim) the same veto on Science class?
Why only science? Shouldn't they get to 'fix up' history and social studies?
And Math, Tensor notation is satanic according to my personal beliefs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You got to hand it to these, um, people.
they hold on to their beliefs no matter what. And aren't above spamming/trolling their message.
No wonder the Roman's enjoyed feeding them to the lions.
Probably wasn't as much against what they believed, but trying to keep the gene pool a little cleaner.
Be seeing you...
No, I am saying they are more sturdy than cockroaches, and a lot less intelligent. Many of them are also far more of a nuisance than said roaches.
Some of the Jewish food rules made sense in the context of the world they were written in.
Some are just nonsense and appear to me to be small bites of BS common in long cons.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The field of Christian Apologetics is the study of arguments and methods of argument that support Christian theology, and ways of responding to the arguments of critics and doubters. However, it does not require original thought - it can be as bad as simply learning the standard arguments, and memorizing the standard responses to common criticisms of Christian belief. These students are just like first-line technical support workers - following a script, with no variation. This is not a class in dialogue, trying to discuss an issue with someone with different beliefs, where each learns from each other. It is just an exercise in propaganda, using the most effective arguments to change people's beliefs, treating them as objects to be manipulated, in the most effective way.
The difference between this and science is that science does not need to hold special classes in "How to convince non-believers that science works, and respond to their criticisms of science, in a canned way, without listening to them." If a set of beliefs is so weird that you need special training in how to hold them, and how to respond to people who point out inconsistencies in them, that sounds to me like evidence against the consistency and explanatory power of that system of beliefs.
Share. Until it becomes uncomfortable. Or at least a little.
Is God a dick, a pussy or an asshole? Pick one.
I'm saying pussy...or she would smite me for formulating this question...
If she gets to be 'full of shit' enough to turn into an asshole then I am in deep shit.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Does this mean that I can get degrees from the faculty of /b/?
proud caffeine whore
if you go to a nut job school, trying to learn how to be a real nut job.
All you really need is a big gun, a Hummer and A republican membership-no need for school, you are an instant nut job.
There are no cockroaches where I grew up. It's too cold. The idiots mostly do fine though.
A whole lot of idiots in one place... starting with the OP. Stop trolling jackass and stick to something you're good at.
The class is engaging in astroturfing. Never confuse astroturf for trolling. One will skin your knee, the other will eat your pet goat.
-- $G
Did you reply to my post by accident?
I have no idea how anything you say contradicts what I said. In fact, i pretty much agree with what you said in this new post here, and wrote the same thing in my post to which you have replied. Yet you end with "your position is wrong".
I specifically said that truth is not part of science. I specifically said that failure is part of science. Yes, abandoning earlier theories is absolutely integral to science.
I don't understand what you're trying to say, or how anything you say contradicts anything I have said.
They do receive a decorative piece of toilet paper in a frame when they graduate.
I mean, the Bible says very clearly that the world was created in seven days. The Bible is the word of God, and thus cannot be be wrong. So, Intelligent Design is clearly the way forward.
I can has credit nao pliz? Kthx.
I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar...
-Lucy-
You say:
There are atheists who do not merely believe that no creator is the most likely possibility but firmly believe they KNOW the answer to the question for a fact.
That is correct, but your logic goes in the wrong direction. While some atheists do indubitably believe what you say, it is not the definition of the word "atheist." People who believe that gods don't exist are atheists, but atheists are not people who believe gods don't exist. Atheists are people who don't believe that gods exist.
Wikipedia puts it this way:
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Note that it doesn't say that atheism requires some kind of faith in the absence of gods, or that being an atheist requires you to "know" that gods don't exist.
The only definitions that make sense for classification of everyone is use atheist to refer to a firm conclusion that there is no creator, religious to refer to a firm conclusion that there is a creator, and agnostic to refer to anyone who has not reached a firm conclusion either way. These are terms of belief/faith not action.
See above. Atheism is the absence of belief in god, not belief in the absence of god.
I am confident that if you give this serious consideration you will realize that I am right.
Obviously, I believe the same about you, or I wouldn't spend the time arguing it with you :-)
We've seen waves of such posters at another forum I frequent. We were wondering what the hell was going on, and now we have an explanation.
This might not be a bad thing if the creatards stuck around and tried to defend their arguments, but they never do. They simply post a lot of ridiculous and easily-debunked nonsense, then either run away, or continue to make nonsensical posts without ever directly addressing a single argument presented by other people. Post-and-dash is not something you do when your position can stand up to the scrutiny of honest debate.