Awesome.
Note, however, that it reiterates that odd theme of one-eyed squid that we see all over the place.
(via Michael Barton)
Charles Darwin vs. a giant squid
Awesome.
Note, however, that it reiterates that odd theme of one-eyed squid that we see all over the place.
(via Michael Barton)
Awesome.
Note, however, that it reiterates that odd theme of one-eyed squid that we see all over the place.
(via Michael Barton)
(For previous posts on torture, see here.)
What has emerged is that research by psychologists on “learned helplessness” has formed the basis of the current torture techniques practiced by the US. The goal is to destroy the victim’s mind until that person feels total dependence on the interrogator. It turns out that this is fairly easy to do. They succeeded with Jose Padilla and with Abu Zubaydah. But destroying a mind is one thing. Getting useful information is another.
[Read more…]
I must have been sleeping, because I hadn’t noticed that this came out: Janet Browne, the author of a most excellent two-volume biography of Darwin, has a new book titled Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography. That one is going right to the top of my Amazon wishlist.
Michael Barton has a review.
I must have been sleeping, because I hadn’t noticed that this came out: Janet Browne, the author of a most excellent two-volume biography of Darwin, has a new book titled Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography. That one is going right to the top of my Amazon wishlist.
Michael Barton has a review.
My mailbox today contained something very amusing, if it weren’t so evil: someone sent me a copy of this 128 page, glossy rag titled “America, Return to God”, from Great Commission Center International. It’s a wretched but expensive looking thing, full of articles from such lying luminaries as David Barton, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, and Tim LaHaye, all advocating an American Theocracy. I learned that the passion of Dobson’s heart is to deny homosexuals the right to marry, Barton urges us all to vote Biblically, LaHaye thinks God will not bless us as long as pornography is legal.
Whoever sent it to me, thank you very much. It’s a reminder of the idiocy I will fight to my dying day. Oh, and may you stew in ineffectual ignorance until your dying day, and may you then pass on into oblivion blissfully, confident of an eternal award, unaware of the darkness before you. As you live with your eyes closed, you should end the same way.
Everyone else, follow the link above to the “ARTG Movement,” and order your own copy. It’s free! Bleed the bastards dry!
My mailbox today contained something very amusing, if it weren’t so evil: someone sent me a copy of this 128 page, glossy rag titled “America, Return to God”, from Great Commission Center International. It’s a wretched but expensive looking thing, full of articles from such lying luminaries as David Barton, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, and Tim LaHaye, all advocating an American Theocracy. I learned that the passion of Dobson’s heart is to deny homosexuals the right to marry, Barton urges us all to vote Biblically, LaHaye thinks God will not bless us as long as pornography is legal.
Whoever sent it to me, thank you very much. It’s a reminder of the idiocy I will fight to my dying day. Oh, and may you stew in ineffectual ignorance until your dying day, and may you then pass on into oblivion blissfully, confident of an eternal award, unaware of the darkness before you. As you live with your eyes closed, you should end the same way.
Everyone else, follow the link above to the “ARTG Movement,” and order your own copy. It’s free! Bleed the bastards dry!
Man, the comments on my guest editorial at the Raw Story are nuts. I don’t know if the word “secular” brought out a flock of trolls, or if that place is always infested with these uncomprehending goons. There are a couple of people who seem baffled by the fact that I wrote a positive piece on the virtues of secularism, yet my prior comment on Melinda Barton was a negative work that concentrated on criticizing her sloppy logic and sneaky redefinitions. It’s bad enough that they are surprised that one person can use two different tactics, but they’re also suggesting that the fact that I didn’t beat up Barton some more means I’m backing away from my earlier statements.
I didn’t say more about Barton because I already wrote that argument. I thought I was thorough and didn’t need to rehash it—the fact that I included a link to it should have clued in people that I wasn’t repudiating it. I don’t know why this should be so difficult to grasp. I suspect it’s that people sympathetic to Barton’s view share her bigotry, and think that atheists are all planning to line the Christians up against the wall as soon as we’ve finished subverting society, right before the looting and orgies start. Atheists must be tied to extremism, or poor Ms. Barton’s argument falls apart.
Or maybe it’s the fact that the essay was a thousand words long, and overwhelmed their capacity (people who are bewildered at the idea of simultaneously supporting X while criticizing opponents of X don’t have much capacity to spare!)…so here, let me help by digesting the essay down.
Shorter intolerant rant by PZ Myers:
I’m willing to get along with and even support the religious, as long as they don’t threaten to suborn secular institutions to privilege religious belief.
Better?
Man, the comments on my guest editorial at the Raw Story are nuts. I don’t know if the word “secular” brought out a flock of trolls, or if that place is always infested with these uncomprehending goons. There are a couple of people who seem baffled by the fact that I wrote a positive piece on the virtues of secularism, yet my prior comment on Melinda Barton was a negative work that concentrated on criticizing her sloppy logic and sneaky redefinitions. It’s bad enough that they are surprised that one person can use two different tactics, but they’re also suggesting that the fact that I didn’t beat up Barton some more means I’m backing away from my earlier statements.
I didn’t say more about Barton because I already wrote that argument. I thought I was thorough and didn’t need to rehash it—the fact that I included a link to it should have clued in people that I wasn’t repudiating it. I don’t know why this should be so difficult to grasp. I suspect it’s that people sympathetic to Barton’s view share her bigotry, and think that atheists are all planning to line the Christians up against the wall as soon as we’ve finished subverting society, right before the looting and orgies start. Atheists must be tied to extremism, or poor Ms. Barton’s argument falls apart.
Or maybe it’s the fact that the essay was a thousand words long, and overwhelmed their capacity (people who are bewildered at the idea of simultaneously supporting X while criticizing opponents of X don’t have much capacity to spare!)…so here, let me help by digesting the essay down.
Shorter intolerant rant by PZ Myers:
I’m willing to get along with and even support the religious, as long as they don’t threaten to suborn secular institutions to privilege religious belief.
Better?
Remember Melinda Barton and that awful piece on the Raw Story? It was taken down, and now it’s back up with a few changes, I think. The editors asked me to submit a rebuttal. It’s online at the Raw Story now, along with that lovely icon to the right (“Secular Horror”?). You can read it there, or if you are so annoyed at the Raw Story that you never ever want to visit their site again, I’ve put a copy below the fold.
I’ll just add that the first comment over there makes me regret being nice. No, I do not retract or regret anything I originally said about Barton’s hacky work, and that is not why I did not expand on my point-by-point rebuttal. I thought I’d been sufficiently thorough to begin with, and wanted to get a positive view of secularism out there.