Allow me one other observation about another film with a link to WWII. 
Here in the Netherlands we are constantly living under the threat that a 
person by the name of Wilders is going to release a film about the 
Islam. From what we know about the way he thinks and from what he 
himself announced, the message is more or less that the Islam is a 
fascistoid religion. Even though it 'should' have been released months 
ago, he is postponing the date everytime. Either because the film does 
not exist or because he knows that threatening to release it is more 
effective than actually releasing.
Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of 
expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected 
violent reaction in Islamic countries. Indeed some muslim 
fundamentalists abroad have already made sure that their followers are 
reminded of the Danish cartoons and reinstated the old habit of burning 
Danish and now also Dutch flags.
Moral of this story: religious people are better organized than 
atheists. So, what's new?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of 
> expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected 
> violent reaction in Islamic countries.

  Some people say that freedom of expression does not give the right to
insult people based on things like their religion.

  My answer to that is that if people are allowed to publish documentaries
about extreme christianity with impunity (as is certainly the case), they
should be allowed to publish documentaries about extreme forms of *any*
religion, regardless of what that religion is. No religion should be
considered above any other religion in this respect (and, more specifically,
islam must not be considered more protected against criticism than
christianity).

  If the argument against publishing criticism of islam is that you should
not do it if you value your life then there's something horribly wrong.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:

> Why the hell shouldn't people hate those that pull this kind of crap?
>
....um ...because hate blunts reason and diminishes the dignity and humanity of
those who proffer it?


> Snort.. Why do I bother.

OK, maybe there IS such a thing as telepathy.
(You seem to have read my mind.)

Evidence is not made more compelling by shouting it louder, repeating it more
often or intermixing it with vulgar diatribe. You have no more chance of
convincing a fundamentalist true-believer to reassess a conviction based on
reason and evidence than I have of explaining the finer points of M Theory to
my cat.  (... and I'm taking into account the fact that my cat died several
years ago.)

What you ARE doing is helping the "Christianity-is-under-attack" people make
THEIR case by acting out the role of the atheist stereotype they put forth.

People become locked into irrational belief systems precisely because their
decision making processes are dominated by fear, suspicion and hatred.
Liberating the victims of superstition from their psychological prisons is
accomplished by healing the damage caused by hate and fear mongering.
Escalating the sense of enmity and conflict is wholly counterproductive.


> ...Wallow in ignorance.
> I  don't give a #$@$@#. Just don't insist that everyone else join you in
> the damn mud.

This was undignified and inappropriate.  An apology to the community would not
be out of order.  If you feel that you have a positive contribution to make to
civil discourse on the ID issue, take the time to put your thoughts into essay
form (minus the colorful vernacular), post it to an appropriate location and
LINK to it in this and other forums not specifically dedicated to the topic.

You have a very basic decision to make. Will you choose to deal in reason or
invective?

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of 
>> expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected 
>> violent reaction in Islamic countries.
> 
>   Some people say that freedom of expression does not give the right to
> insult people based on things like their religion.
> 
>   My answer to that is that if people are allowed to publish documentaries
> about extreme christianity with impunity (as is certainly the case), they
> should be allowed to publish documentaries about extreme forms of *any*
> religion, regardless of what that religion is. No religion should be
> considered above any other religion in this respect (and, more specifically,
> islam must not be considered more protected against criticism than
> christianity).
> 
>   If the argument against publishing criticism of islam is that you should
> not do it if you value your life then there's something horribly wrong.
> 
Well, we do have the example of Theo van Gogh 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 ) , but 
the argument is more that it would put other people in danger, like 
people working in the diplomatic service, the doctors and nurses working 
abroad and especially our soldiers in Afghanistan. It is also a 
discussion not so much about criticism but about deliberately offending 
while knowing that what you say is at best only partially true. Which 
would, in an interesting twist, be allowed if he had been a columnist or 
a cartoonist, but may be a different matter for a politician.

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.47e71f29bd0847b42acdbf730@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> oh, come on!  You were calling all believers stupid and ignorant, no matt
er how
> open they are to the scientific method.  "Oh, you have all this evidence 
of how
> things work and still believes in a almight being behind all?!  Loser!"
> 
Do I think you are likely wrong and that all the evidence points that 
way? Yes. Does that mean I think everyone that believes this stuff is 
stupid? No. Some are misled, others never bother to examine their views 
closely enough, still others don't want to, and a fair number, you 
included, for some reason I just don't comprehend, place the odds of god 
existing way higher than I find valid or reasonable. That's not stupid. 
It annoying as hell, especially when someone with that view is trying to 
argue that my refusal to accept the view is persecution (and a lot of 
them do just that), but hardly stupid. I am sorry if I stated something 
in a way that implied to you otherwise, and my last comment in the prior 
post was definitely uncalled for.

Now, I will say that stupid is presuming that having an opinion 
automatically entitles one to respect, not just tolerance. Respect 
implies a whole layer of things, including the implication that one 
shouldn't challenge the view, which simple tolerance doesn't. When ID 
people use it, it often also means, "You have to respect everything I 
say, so shut up. However, you're fair game." And I know damn well you 
see this happen.

> Basically, unless someone drops to your side of the fence because of all
> scientific evidence says so, they are stupid and ignorant and don't know 
any
> better.  I don't agree with that.
> 
Fine. Then don't agree. But before you start crowing victory, lets be 
clear on something. I presume you would accept these premises:

1. Personal experience can't speak for anything but *your* experience, 
so can't be a valid criteria for "proving" the supernatural. Otherwise, 
we would have to accept *everyone's* experience as valid, including the 
people whose views contradict yours, and there is no valid criteria to 
judge which one is right.

2. Popularity isn't a valid option. Astrology is quite popular still, 
and its totally useless. So have a great many other things been. 
Further, one can't argue that religion is useful, since again, the 
people that *believe* in astrology are also 100% convinced that *it* is 
useful. Worse, simple, "Well, most people believe in God.", isn't worth 
much if 99% of the people grow up being told its real, and the most 
popular God right not isn't yours. Well, ok, you might make that 
argument, but then you are stuck trying to explain what yours is, and 
why it *really* differs from everyone else's, or how you *know* the 
popular view is wrong. This is kind of a nonstarter.

3. You can't argue that you have evidence, unless you can show it.

4. You can't argue that you know its true, even if the evidence says 
otherwise, since that is just a cop out to #1.

Presuming you accept the above, precisely what does that leave you with 
for grounds to figure out if something of the sort is real?

And, just to be clear, you *did* misread me. I stated, perhaps less 
clearly than I should have, than non-belief is a conclusion, not a 
belief. Conclusions can be changed, if evidence is presented that would 
imply it needs to be. As one atheist a while back stated it: he was 
agnostic about gods, but atheist about every god humanity ever invented.

Atheists who are honest in following the tenets of rational thought can 
only say that gods are, according to the evidence, incredibly unlikely 
(though the odds given vary a lot, which is why you still get people 
calling themselves agnostic, who otherwise are 100% in agreement). One 
must be agnostic about the existence of what one cannot detect, but not 
so agnostic as to waste time hunting for unicorns, on the basis that 
someone thinks unicorns exist, and thus some higher odds than 0.0000001% 
should be placed on it. But, one can reasonably argue, from evidence, 
that all gods, as described by human civilizations, are made up 
gibberish.

You want to believe in something out there, fine. Most of us think its a 
bit batty, if you don't have better than personal need for believing in 
it, and have yet to see an argument, on any other basis, that makes much 
sense when examined, but its not something that effects how you or I, 
for the most part, are likely to deal with everything else in our lives. 
But, this isn't about how science does things. Its about how people do 
thing, right up to the moment where you bring religion into it. The 
moment you cross that threshold, the level of required evidence goes 
from, "show me how big the fish really is", to, "Well, I believe you 
when you say it was six feet long", or some variation. Give me some 
reason that doesn't rely on logical fallacy to support it, and I would 
be happy to consider it, just don't expect me, or anyone else, 
**including** the believers that post on places like Pharyngula 
regularly, to cut you any slack if you try to make one, and its *not* 
logically consistent.

The believers at PZs place are honest and admit they don't have facts, 
evidence or sound reasons to believe. One can tolerate that. In fact, 
while I will continue to disagree with it vehemently, I can even respect 
the "person" making such a statement. For most of them, its not about 
respecting them at all though, its about respecting, and thus 
supporting, what they are not even honest enough to admit they can't 
prove (or try to, with stuff that is just not credible, even when its 
not based on wrong facts, wrong history, or failed logic).

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.47e72086bd0847b42acdbf730@news.povray.org>, 
nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> 
> Man, calm down and stop snorting.  I think the scientific way of argument
ing
> should be by providing some concise math formulae rather than writing lon
g,
> boring rants about ranting people...
> 
Math formula? Since when has math been the only means to do science? But 
yeah, this guy has gotten me ticked off. Claiming the places I visit are 
hate mongers when his favorite places are known for, at minimum, 
blocking even the most nice posts on theirs, then sitting back and 
literally *gloat* about how the evil evolutionists won't come debate 
them, is just.. uncalled for. And that is even if this guy wasn't using 
the website with two of the biggest ID apologist kook in the known 
universe being both its owner and the main contributor. And Davescot... 
Gods in pink feathers.. This guy spent weeks slandering, lying about, 
ranting, disrupting even posts about biology, in which neither ID not 
religion was mentioned, and doing just about everything offensive thing 
you can think of on PZs site before he became one of the only people (of 
which there are less than a half dozen and two of them him and his pet 
parrot, who also showed up to pat him on the back during the raids) 
**ever** blocked there. Then he went back to his haunts and posted about 
how it proved we where the intolerant and bigoted ones.

The guy couldn't have punched bigger buttons if I had been Neil 
Armstrongs brother and he was refering to some crank site about moon 
landing hoaxes, and claimed that Neil had really spent his time, when he 
was supposed to be on the moon, filming porno, and that the government 
hid all the tapes from the public. I don't personally know anyone, 
including Behe and Dembski who are bigger cranks than Davescot. Oh, and 
it wasn't perpetual motion he posted about recently. It was the vast 
conspiracy to cover up the truth about Cold Fusion. See, just like ID, 
those scientist that thought they had invented it are being "prevented" 
from telling the truth by the "vast" Big Science conspiracy... Once a 
crank, always a crank.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <47e6fbac$1@news.povray.org>, ben### [at] pacificwebguycom says...
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > Ok, don't believe me. Go to just about *any* website run by one of thes
e 
> > pro-ID groups.
> 
> You seem to have visited quite a few of them.  What do you honestly hope
 
> to gain from doing so?
> 
The last one I went to wasn't obviously a creationist site. The main 
poster said something along the lines of, "I want everyone's honest 
opinion on if random chance could produce diversity." Most of the people 
posting kind of seemed to not quite get it, or to side step the 
question, so I posted, don't have the exact wording, but roughly:

"Actually evolution doesn't imply entirely random. While the mutations 
are random, those are effected by the environment, the rest of the DNA, 
and many other factors. Besides, one of the things I find odd about the 
argument is the idea that something as complex as the universe, or even 
a single beach, should be unable to produce something approaching a 
similar level of complexity. One would expect a universe with no 
variations are all to produce few results, but one in which it is 
impossible to even adequately describe the exact shape of a beach must 
produce a level of complexity close to that of the beach, and the planet 
is thousands of times more complex than that."

That was it. Three days later dozens of other people had posted, both 
before and after me, many of them making arguments about irreducibility, 
simple random things not producing complex results, and various other 
standard false arguments. My posts, which could have addressed nearly 
all of them, never made it past moderation.

Fact is, its not always possible to figure out who is open to 
explanation, and who isn't. If you don't try, then they win. Sadly, for 
the people that only visit their sites, even if you try, you can't win. 
The only real hope is that enough people look around and see sites that 
*do* accept explanation and argument, and that some of them, which I 
admit PZs isn't, have more even handed approaches. But, even with PZs, 
there is one message that should come across. If you show up, your posts 
will still be here tomorrow, and nothing short of being a constant, 
persistent, obnoxious troll, who does nothing but paste quotes from 
sites **we** know about, will get you ignored, and you **really** have 
to be a problem, to the point where you prevent all other discussion of 
subjects that are not even in any way related to evolution or ID, to get 
banned. All of which proves how big a lie it is to the claim that 
scientists want to stifle all discussion or argument, or that they won't 
debate creationists. Sure, if you stack the deck in your favor, and pull 
some of the stuff UD has, then hell no they won't debate. A level 
playing field is one where both people have the chance to make their 
best case, not one where one sides best case mysteriously disappears 
when its inconvenient for the host, or where one persons best case is a 
half hour of nonstop rants, which would take 10 hours to untangle enough 
to answer.

Some people are figuring out just who is being honest here and who 
isn't, as well as where you can get honest discussions. Sure, you have 
to be a complete fool to show up on PZs site with most arguments. They 
have been ripped apart more times than we can count, and some of us 
start to get a bit punchy when the clowns show up again and start 
stepping on everyone's feet. Show up with an honest question, ignore the 
few that maybe get a bit jumpy, and you will be OK. If you don't like 
that, then go some place like here:

http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/sermonette-1-sacrifice/
http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/lunch-with-a-liberal-
christian/
http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/sermonette-2-doing-the-good-
that-is-at-hand/

Its not a biology site, nor is its owner's entire carrier isn't being 
attacked by stuff like ID, so its not likely to get you chewed to death 
by the local rotweiler. However, its almost certainly just as 
unsympathetic to bad logic and blind faith. There is no way I can 
imagine this guys site being called "hate mongering". And, all I can say 
about my own behavior is that I have a) seen too many of the same 
arguments, b) know uncommon descent quite well in how it "treats" 
science, have experienced Davescot's posts personally, and d) have been 
hanging around PZ too long. lol

BTW, Mathis finally managed, after everyone else spun it by claiming 
that PZ was kept out because he would have been disruptive, as, well two 
contradictory things:

"I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more."

http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2008/03/dear-denyse-seriously-what-
hell-is.html

And that, it was a private screening and he wasn't a guest (I think that 
one has been covered rather well as BS):

http://insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/24/expelled

The guy can't even keep his story straight, never mind avoid making 
claims their own promotional sites prove are nonsense.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <web.47e7b90abd0847b45a8888d90@news.povray.org>, 
nomail@nomail says...
> OK, maybe there IS such a thing as telepathy.
> (You seem to have read my mind.)
> 
> Evidence is not made more compelling by shouting it louder, repeating it 
more
> often or intermixing it with vulgar diatribe.
> 
Then why are these the only tactics the other side uses every place. 
Yeah, I know, PZ is not exactly nice. Nor was I this time. But he isn't 
the only one talking about the dishonesty, the straw men, the diatribe, 
the misrepresentation and the constant repetition of so called "facts" 
that DI pushes, no matter how many times they have been proven invalid. 
And this movies entire premise, that we should give equal time to faith 
based biology, because atheism leads to holocausts.. What the $#@$#@ is 
that other than vulgar diatribe?

But seriously. Read my other post on Mathis' recent spin. And neither of 
those sites can claim to be "biased" in favor of distorting his 
statements. He is not only *still* lying about what PZ needed to do to 
get into the movie, according to their own sites, he can't even make up 
his mind "why" he kept PZ from getting in to see it.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

In article <47e7ae40@news.povray.org>, war### [at] tagpovrayorg says...
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > Although his right to offend Muslims falls under the freedom of 
> > expression, many people think that it is unwise because of the expected
 
> > violent reaction in Islamic countries.
> 
>   Some people say that freedom of expression does not give the right to
> insult people based on things like their religion.
> 
Then there is the other side, which is, "Why is it that this only seems 
to count for the prevailing religion of the people complaining about it 
being insulted (even when described would be more accurate)?", and, "Why 
should religion get that privilege in the first place, since the 
followers of it obviously find no reason to get pissed if you argue 
about the flaws of religions they don't believe in, or which no one 
follows any more?" Oh, and then there is stuff like scientology, where 
the US method of handling religion means you can't touch it, even though 
you know its insane, dangerous, and doing harm to people.

But, the truth is, even in the US, the *entire* argument amounts to 
force. We believe X, we think X should have greater worth than any other 
opinion, and we **will** use every means we can, from legislation, to 
court cases, to teaching people's kids our version, to *make* you accept 
it, and we have the force to make that happen. The only difference is 
the tools used, not the rhetoric, the denial of basic facts, the failure 
to recognize the damage being done, or the rapid adherence to the 
position that everyone else is out to get them, because it defies some 
other alternative dogma.

Got one guy that recently proved that you can add specific enzymes to 
the tail of a chicken, as its still developing, and end up with a tail 
like that of the prior dinosaurs it came from. The only arguments 
"allowed" are going to be, a) its faked to make it look like evolution 
is true, or b) they actually triggered the "master" program that was 
designed to produce all of the "kinds" that exist today. That these 
people hold 180 degree contrary positions doesn't matter, nor does the 
fact that the later one, while nuts, doesn't effect science much (if 
anything it just leaves them with the need to prove the "master 
program" exists, rather than just asserting that it does), nor does it 
matter that the later would "prove" common descent, which is precisely 
what the former insists didn't happen. Its enough to give make your head 
explode...

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

BTW. Here is something for Mr. VanSickle, and any one else that thinks 
Expelled invokation of Hitler makes any sense:

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942:

'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von 
Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt 
uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und 
Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer 
Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch 
gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu 
dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

In English:

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the 
very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us, that changes and developments happen in the 
realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a 
development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he 
supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is'

This is about as close as you can get to the claims made by ID about 
kinds, whether or not Macro-evolution happens, or how/if complexity can 
develop from earlier states as you can get. Someone want to explain to 
me how this gets you a) atheism or b) evolution by natural selection... 
Its damn odd hearing the people claiming to be about free speech and the 
truth, using an argument to support teaching their hypothesis in science 
class, which mirrors so precisely what the very person they accuse 
"science" of acting like, used to claim superiority over those he 
considered beneath him.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message