Florida Fucktardery (Politics)

Yeah, so I am stuck in the Panhandle of Florida, or lower Alabama as many call it. If it wasn't for the incredibly beautiful beaches, and a great job, I'd really want to move out of here. The theitardery that goes on here is simply amazing!

So, come november, Amendment 2 is up on the ballot. Basically this is the "Marriage Amendment" bull that the far right use to bring out the masses. Now the local pastors are reving up their intollerant masses:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/marriage_11209___article.html/amendment_church.html?orderby=TimeStampDescending&showRecommendedOnly=0&oncommentsPage=1#slComments

Not only that, but these gems of literature were published in the opinion section:
Called By god: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/sarah_11248___article.html/john_real.html
Palin: god's pick: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/presidential_11249___article.html/palin_vice.html

Needless to say, I dispair more and more being a rational thinker. And what gets me down more are the comments some folks make on these stories. It's simply amazing to read the vile filth they write in the name of their god(s).

So, what do you do if you live in an area like this to keep from going into a deep dispair (or on a homicidal ramapge)?

More Florida Fucktardery - School Prayer

Okay, the story linked in the title is about the ACLU suing the Santa Rosa School District regarding a systematic government endorsement and fostering of the christian faith in the local school district. Of course, some theitard made the claim that the Ccnstitution guarantees freedom OF religion, Not Freedom FROM religion.

This claim is common (as seen in the comments section), but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion. And maybe that's their point?

Teaching Evolution in Public Schools

Due to the vast amount of fucktardery in Florida, I am going to be copy/pasting a lot of forum posts that onto my blog. This is one of them. I normally have a lot of these posts on the local newspaper's forum, but they have the worst software out there, so this will afford me a way to retrieve these posts.

There are a lot of Christians out there who object to the teaching of evolution in public schools. They want the subject removed from school science texts because they believe that the subject undermines True Christianity. Other believers argue that there is no conflict between religion and evolution, so it should be taught. Few if any secularists think that the presence or absence of conflict with religion is relevant — so long as it's science, it belongs in science classes.

Quite a few people fall for the "teach both sides" argument because it has the superficial sound of fairness about it. If there is disagreement, why not tell kids about both positions and let them make their own minds up. This might make sense if the disagreement in question were a matter of legitimate scientific debate, but there are no scientific grounds for disputing evolution — there are only scientific disagreements about some of the details.

It is also questionable how many kids would really be in a position to seriously weigh both sides and come to a sober, objective conclusion. It's far more likely that creationist parents would use the situation to further impress upon their children an anti-science and anti-rationalist perspective which fits with traditional superstition, but which is incompatible with modernity. Even worse, encouraging such ignorance and anti-intellectualism is touted as a "family value" in some circles.

More Florida Fucktardery

You may recall a blog I had a while ago on the Bay County Board of Education (or you may not). Well, it seems they are up to their old tricks again. Seems that this time the Bay County Board of Education banned a book! I know, I know, this is 2008, but apparently a Ms Pat Sabiston wants to enforce her morality because she has no actual brain with which to think! I am pleasantly SURPRISED to see that most of the comments in my local news rag are as dismayed by this as I am. I just want to point out that it is precisely this sort of fucktardery that turned me from being a nice quiet inoffensive atheist into a much more militant atheist.

That people think that they have some sort of lock on morality because they are bible thumping xtians sickens me. They are nothing more than thought police and assassins of any sort of free thought. Reminds me of a snarky expression: "The moral majority is neither!" All I can say is that I am glad my daughter is in the Okaloosa County School District, although I still have serious doubts about the entire American Education System (but that's a topic for another blog post).

In the meantime, ponder this if you think us godless atheists have no morals:

Myth:
Without God, atheists have no reason to behavior morally. What's the point of being moral is there is no God?

Response:
The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out there. It comes up in a variety of forms, but all of them are based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a reason reject atheism and convert to Christianity.

First, it must be noted that there is no logical connection between this argument's premises and conclusion — it's not a valid argument. Even if we accept that it's true that there is no point in being moral if there is no God, this wouldn't be an argument against atheism in the sense of showing that atheism isn't true, rational, or justified. It wouldn't provide any reason to think that theism generally or Christianity in particular is likely true. It is logically possible that there is no God and that we have no good reasons to behave morally. At most this is a pragmatic reason to adopt some theistic religion, but we'd be doing so on the basis of its supposed usefulness, not because we think it's really true, and this would be contrary to what theistic religions normally teach.

There is also a serious but rarely noted problem with this myth in that it assumes that it doesn't matter that more people are happy and fewer people suffer if God does not exist. Consider that carefully for a moment: this myth can only be espoused by someone who doesn't consider either their happiness or their suffering to be especially important unless their god tells them to care. If you are happy, they don't necessarily care. If you suffer, they don't necessarily care. All that matters is whether that happiness or that suffering occurs in the context of the existence of their God or not. If it does, then presumably that happiness and that suffering serve some purpose and so that's OK — otherwise, they're irrelevant.

If a person only refrains from killing because they believe they are so ordered, and the suffering that murder would cause is irrelevant, then what happens when that person starts to think that they have new orders to actually go out and kill? Because the suffering of the victims was never a dispositive issue, what would stop them? This strikes me as an indication that a person is sociopathic. It is, after all, a key characteristic of sociopaths that they are unable to empathize with the feelings of others and, hence, aren't especially concerned if others suffer. I not only reject the assumption that God is necessary to making morality relevant as being illogical, I also reject the implication that the happiness and suffering of others isn't very important as being immoral itself.

Now religious theists are certainly entitled to insist that, without orders, they have no good reason to refrain from rape and murder or to help people in need — if the actual suffering of others is completely irrelevant to them, then we should all hope that they continue to believe that they are receiving divine orders to be "good." However irrational or unfounded theism may be, it's preferable that people hold on to these beliefs than that they go around acting on their genuine and sociopathic attitudes. The rest of us, however, are under no obligation to accept the same premises as they — and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try. If the rest of us are able to behave morally without orders or threats from gods, then we should continue to do so and not be dragged down to others' level.

Morally speaking, it really shouldn't matter whether any gods exist or not — the happiness and suffering of others should play an important role in our decision making either way. The existence of this or that god could, in theory, also have an impact upon our decisions — it all really depends upon how this "god" is defined. When you get right down to it, though, the existence of a god can't make it right to cause people suffering or make it wrong to cause people to be more happy. If a person is not a sociopath and is genuinely moral, such that the happiness and suffering of others really matters to them, then neither the presence of absence of any gods will fundamentally change anything for them in terms of moral decisions.

So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all. Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change this, and while religious theists may find that their beliefs impact their moral decisions, they cannot claim that their beliefs are prerequisites for making any moral decisions at all.

MORE Mouthbreathers in Education

And YET AGAIN they are up to their mouthbreathing fucktardery. This time it's at the county level.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/12051

I sent the schoolboard a letter in hopes that they can grasp the meaning of a theory versus philosophy... Of course, I don't expect much out of fucktards...

Dear Bay County School Board,

I read with great dismay in the North West Florida Daily News about your first resolution for the year. While I appreciate that there are many philosophical viewpoints on the merits of evolution and reconciling that with religious beliefs, you have fallen trap to the basic misunderstanding of what a theory is, and how it applies to evolution. I have no objection to teaching ID in philosophy, literature, theology class, but it does not belong science class. Your resolution as stated is noting more than a thinly veiled attempt to do just that.

I offer this essay up for you to hopefully understand the differences between a Theory and a Hypothesis. I also he you are familiar with the "Black Swan" theory, and it's historical significance. I would hope that educated people, in charge of education, would practice the intellectual integrity to abide by science where science belongs, and philosophy, where philosophy belongs.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory (which is intentionally false since we know there are black swans):

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

* Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
* Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
* Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
* Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
* Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
* Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. So-called "theories" based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable and they do not follow the scientific method.

Thank you for your time, and please keep the original intent of science as a beacon that is meant to improve mankind's understanding of the universe instead of trying to introduce your own personal philosophies as branches of science.

Florida Fucktardery

Well folks, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that the state that brought you hanging chads and a whole host of other rampant stupidity is at it again! Today I go to my local paper's wesite and find this dismaying article there. Of course, that made me think of the logic diagram I have on my page (Feel free to click this link to see the full size image).

Basically some brainless legislator is at it again with the whole "Evolution is a theory, so you need to call it out in 40 foot flaming letters so I can still try to sneak in my superstitions and religions" nonsense. Sometimes I wonder if the US is doomed to have one of the poorest educational systems in the civilized world for all time (and another article here).

Something else that really bothers me are the shockingly ignorant and stupid posts from the religious wingnuts out there. Is it really possible that such stupid people are allowed to own computers and even breed?

Some thoughts for you:

- Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life. That is another theory called Abiogenesis. Currently our answer there is, "We don't know." Amazing isn't it? We can say that without having to invent some sort of jewish sky zombie to explain our wn ignorance.

- If states like Florida, kansas, etc. keep insisting on being a scientific backwater, please expect people to not bother investing any high tech industry in your state. Companies that rely on actual scientific education will know your state is incapable of producing the required mental capacity to understand the sort of stuff that moves us forward as a civilization.

- Don't you think there are better things for the legislature to worry about?

I know this topic has probably been beaten to death, so I'll just stop now before I get totally depressed at the state of humanity. For the sake of our children, please teach critical thinking instead of blind obedience. That's all I ask!