Thursday, July 31, 2008
Debate: Intelligent Design/Evolution - Must Watch!
ID Proponents: William F. Buckley Jr., Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 2:19 AM 0 comments
Labels: Creationism, Evolution, Kenneth Miller
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Another Christian Genius suffering from Paredolia
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 6:25 PM 0 comments
Labels: Christian Stupidity
*Sigh* This is why I do what I do.
From Atheist News i saw on your blog that you like to talk about the religion of evolution and trick people by using big words and pretending that science actually proves evolution. I dont know any science or anything and even i know evolution isnt real. for one it isnt in the bible the bible said god made everything in 6 days, not millions of years. second, when we go to the zoo we cant talk to monkies, if we used to be monkies why cant we talk to them? three, how could a monkey become a person over billions of years when they dont live that long? AND why are there still monkies if they turned into people? five, even darwin said he was wrong. on his death bed he converted to christianity and said evolution was a hoax. If there is any science that makes it look like evolution is real then it has to be either a hoax by EVILutionists or put there by god to find out who believes in him. |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 1:10 PM 6 comments
Labels: Christian Stupidity, Evolution
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Is the Religious Right a spent force in American politics?
Taken from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Ask U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). According to The Washington Times, “Evangelical Christians in Iowa, dominant in the state’s Republican Party, have denied…Grassley his request for a place on the state’s delegation to this summer’s Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.” Times political writer Ralph Hallow reported yesterday that religious conservatives hold a majority of nine out of 17 members on the Iowa Republican Central Committee, and they chose Iowa Christian Alliance President Steve Scheffler as chairman of Iowa’s 40-member delegation. Former Iowa Republican National Committee member Steve Roberts told The Times the party structure is under the thumb of the Religious Right. “It’s pretty well controlled now by the Christian Alliance,” Roberts said. “If somebody came to me and wanted to be a delegate to the national party convention, I used to say, ‘Talk to the state party chairman or to Grassley.’ Now it’s very simple. You go to the Christian Alliance, and they determine who is a delegate, and you have to do exactly as they say.” You’d think Grassley, who has served in the Senate since 1980, would be a favorite of the Religious Right. Last year, he scored 100 percent on a scorecard put out by Family Research Council Action and Focus on the Family Action, two of the most militant Religious Right groups. Plus, Grassley is a conservative Baptist. So what’s the problem? Grassley has led an investigation into the possible misuse of tax-exempt donations by mega-bucks television ministries. He says non-profits are not supposed to divert money to the personal enrichment of non-profit executives and their families, and that rule applies just as much to TV preachers as it does to everyone else. But that investigation has not sat well with the mega-bucks religious broadcasters who run the Religious Right. Not being ones to turn the other cheek, Religious Right honchos in Iowa denied Grassley a voting slot at the GOP convention. Mighty Christian of them, huh? This little incident demonstrates what we’ve said all along: the Religious Right movement is theocratic, it is extreme and, ultimately, it is about political power. |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 6:52 PM 0 comments
Labels: Seperation of Church and State
He's at it again! Help me get his tax-exempt status revoked
|
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 2:07 PM 0 comments
Labels: Christian Hate, Christian Stupidity, Seperation of Church and State
Monday, July 28, 2008
Religulous - Exclusive Clip
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 11:03 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bill Maher, Religulous
What is the ``scientific method''?
What is the "scientific method''?The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made. The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded. A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied. When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws. There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable. In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?). A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges. There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument , cited by some creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required. |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:57 PM 0 comments
Labels: Science
CNN - Now Emulating Fox - Turn Off Your TVs
|
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:55 PM 1 comments
Labels: Politics
Jesse Ventura on Faux News
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:52 PM 0 comments
Labels: Fauxs News, Jesse Ventura
Tennessee Man shot churchgoers over liberal views...
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 8:14 PM 0 comments
Labels: Christian Hate, Christian Stupidity
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Bishop John Shelby Spong (ret) Says Hell Doesn't Exist
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 2:13 PM 0 comments
Labels: Philosophy
Ted Talks: Louise Leakey: Digging for humanity's origins
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 1:47 PM 0 comments
Labels: TED Talks
Richard Dawkins - "Why Debate Religion? Does It Even Matter?
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 1:43 PM 0 comments
Labels: Richard Dawkins
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Footage From Yesterday's HEARINGS!
Kucinich(s) Enter To Cheers At Presidential Powers Hearing |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 11:19 AM 0 comments
Labels: Politics
Faux News busted as propaganda tool
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 11:06 AM 0 comments
Labels: Fauxs News
Friday, July 25, 2008
The Amazing man that was Albert Schweitzer
|
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:54 PM 0 comments
Labels: Albert Schweitzer
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Holy Moses! PBS documentary suggests Exodus not real
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. - Abraham didn't exist? The Exodus didn't happen? |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 11:20 PM 1 comments
Monday, July 21, 2008
Losing of Progress by Christopher Hitchens
From Slate If you follow the continuing argument between the advocates of Darwin's natural selection theory and the partisans of creationism or "intelligent design," you will instantly see what I am driving at. The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones. How, they demand to know, can such a sophisticated organ have gone through clumsy evolutionary stages in order to reach its current magnificence and versatility? The problem was best phrased by Darwin himself, in his essay "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication":
|
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:18 PM 2 comments
Labels: Christopher Hitchens
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Einstein on god
|
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 8:32 PM 0 comments
Labels: Albert Einstein
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Bill Maher - New Rules America Isn't #1
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 3:25 PM 0 comments
Labels: Bill Maher
Olbermann Exposes the *REAL TERRORISTS*
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:45 AM 0 comments
Labels: Keith Olbermann
Don’t Let Ideology Dictate Health Care!
Your immediate action is needed to stop the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from implementing an ideologically motivated regulation that would undermine women's access to health care by allowing federally funded health service personnel to refuse to provide services based on their personal religious beliefs. The impact of this proposed regulation would be doubly harmful. Not only would it redefine "abortion procedure" to include normal forms of contraception, it would allow health care providers to withhold information and care options from their patients simply because these options conflict with the providers' religious beliefs. Religious doctrine is given priority over patients' needs. Not only does this regulation represent bad science, Pick up your telephone now - call Secretary Michael Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services at 202-690-7000 and Christina Pearson, HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at 202-690-7850, and urge them to stop this proposed rule. The regulation would require anyone who receives funding under federal health programs to certify in writing that they will NOT refuse to hire any medical personnel who object to providing services related to abortion or contraception. Medical personnel who refuse services are usually motivated by religious beliefs, so allowing their personal objections to interfere with the delivery of reproductive services represents a violation of the separation of church and state as well as of common sense about abortion and contraception. The proposed regulation means that hospitals, doctors, nurses, and pharmacists could refuse to provide reproductive services and still receive federal funds. State and local governments could not deny grants of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that object to abortion for religious or ideological reasons. The regulation includes a definition of abortion so broad that it includes much that is normally regarded as contraception. Abortion is defined as: "any of the various procedures that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." This is a transparent attempt to redefine emergency contraception as abortion. In addition, the regulation is so sweeping that it would allow an employee whose job is to clean surgical equipment to refuse to do so because of personal belief. A health center staff person who objected to contraception could refuse to schedule appointments for women (and men) seeking help. This would cause chaos in the delivery of reproductive services, because those in most need—17 million women who rely on publicly supported health care—could not be sure of receiving information or medical aid. Please telephone Secretary Michael Leavitt of HHS at 202-690-7000 and Christina Pearson, HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at 202-690-7850, and tell them that the proposed regulation must not be enacted. Ask them to schedule a period of public comment on the proposed rule. You can refer to the rule as the extension of the Church Amendments, the Public Health Service Act Paragraph 245, and the Weldon Amendments, which purport to protect personal conscience. Stop this regulation. It is an attack on responsible public health, science, and separation of church and state. Bookmark the Office of Public Policy Blog www. |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:41 AM 0 comments
Friday, July 18, 2008
Scientists Close to Reconstructing First Living Cell
|
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 11:47 PM 0 comments
Labels: Science
Al Gore's Ambitious Challenge
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 12:09 PM 0 comments
Labels: Al Gore, Global Warming
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Debate: Sam Harris vs. Chris Hedges
Sam Harris author of the End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 3:20 PM 0 comments
Labels: Debates, Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens: Christianity is not imposed?!
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 3:08 PM 0 comments
Labels: Christopher Hitchens, Pwned
God Doesn't Talk to Jesse Ventura
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 3:03 PM 0 comments
Labels: Seperation of Church and State
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos - Sam Harris
One cannot criticize religious dogmatism for long without encountering the following claim, advanced as though it were a self-evident fact of nature: there is no secular basis for morality. Raping and killing children can only really be wrong, the thinking goes, if there is a God who says it is. Otherwise, right and wrong would be mere matters of social construction, and any society would be at liberty to decide that raping and killing children is actually a wholesome form of family fun. In the absence of God, John Wayne Gacy could be a better person than Albert Schweitzer, if only more people agreed with him. It is simply amazing how widespread this fear of secular moral chaos is, given how many misconceptions about morality and human nature are required to set it whirling in a person’s brain. There is undoubtedly much to be said against the spurious linkage between faith and morality, but the following three points should suffice. As a source of objective morality, the Bible is one of the worst books we have. It might be the very worst, in fact—if we didn’t also happen to have the Qur’an. It is important to point out that we decide what is good in the Good Book. We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses; we read that a woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night should be stoned to death, and we (if we are civilized) decide that this is the most vile lunacy imaginable. Our own ethical intuitions are, therefore, primary. So the choice before us is simple: we can either have a twenty-first-century conversation about ethics—availing ourselves of all the arguments and scientific insights that have accumulated in the last two thousand years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to a first-century conversation as it is preserved in the Bible. 2. If religion were necessary for morality, there should be some evidence that atheists are less moral than believers. People of faith regularly allege that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the twentieth century. Are atheists really less moral than believers? While it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion—delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history, or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: the anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, Christian Europeans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies—countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction, societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God, each factor may enable the other, or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.
Sam Harris is the author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. |
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 8:00 AM 0 comments
Labels: Sam Harris
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 8:38 PM 0 comments
Labels: Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg
The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand
Posted by Rich Rodriguez at 10:21 AM 2 comments
Labels: Ayn Rand