I speak of Dinesh D’Souza, who seems to have noticed that his creepy and dishonest tirade against atheists won him some attention, so now he has upped the ante, and gotten even creepier and more dishonest.
It’s Rush Limbaugh. What took him so long?
It’s all secularism’s fault, and what he wants is more god, more prayer, and more religion at the university. He doesn’t comment on the fact that the killer wanted to “die like Jesus Christ”.
(Who knew Jesus murdered 32 innocents on the way to the cross, and nailed himself up there?)
Could D’Souza be right? Does our lack of religious beliefs really impair our ability to offer help to people?
I suppose that if we actually cared, we could have
sent teams to Virginia to do useful things like
stroke sad people’s thetans and
point to chairs and trees for them (a technique that will also sober up drunks in minutes, which sounds very handy). Even if the VT students aren’t in shock or drunk, I’m sure they’ll appreciate the important study tips. Did you know that the most important thing you can do is look up words in a dictionary — the bigger the dictionary the better — and that students get stupider because they don’t know words like “chimney” and “a” and “the”?
Man, I wish I weren’t an atheist so that I could also make up stuff to help people.
Maybe I also need to wish for profound brain damage so that I wouldn’t think those “assists” were such a reeking pile of putrid inanity.
If I see Francis Collins’ pious, simpering facade one more time, I’m going to get really pissed off. Can someone please give that man a Templeton Prize and let him retire to the Cascades, where he can stare at waterfalls to his heart’s content? CNN has an article on “Why this scientist believes in God”, and it’s just more vapid crap distilled from his vapid book.
But OK, let’s take him at his word. He claims to be presenting reasons to believe … what are they? Do they meet any kind of scientific standard?
On The Infidel Guy, Abby of ERV goes up against a ranting crackpot, Leonard Horowitz, who thinks AIDS is the product of a secret conspiracy. She handles herself very well. It’s painful to listen to—Horowitz is a master of the bellowing Gumby style of discourse, and he believes in some very looney things. He’s also smart enough, though, that he knows some of his stuff is going to go over as immensely kooky to an informed audience, and he gets evasive at several points.
Some highlights occur when he’s called “Mr Horowitz”, and he goes on an indignant tirade about his credentials. Another is when he ducks and dodges on the issue of evolution, and tries to claim that the “brand new science of genetics and electrogenetics” (electrogenetics?) is going to require major changes of our understanding of evolution. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get into his really fun stuff:
Among the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of bioterrorism, vaccination risks, and public health, Dr. Horowitz’s expert diagnosis here dovetails perfectly with Bible prophecies. Pay special attention to his disclosures regarding the infamous “Mark of the Beast.” Dr. Horowitz reveals sacred Bible codes that give expanded meaning to the infamous “666” prophecy (Rev: 13:18) while implicating widely trusted vaccinations, medical biochips, politicians, and institutions that have advanced some of the most horrific population-controlling ploys ever conceived. Anthrax, smallpox, and vaccinations are all part of the same deadly swindle.
Kudos to Abby for being able to deal with such a fraud and kook, and being far smarter than Horowitz, but Reggie Finley needs to get better guests than a quack like that.
Bill Donohue is hopping mad again — he’s got another wild hare up his butt and is fuming over another insult to his very Catholic sensibilities:
Catholic League head Bill Donohue called it “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever”.
The latest affront is a life-size sculpture of a naked man on a cross, made out of 200 pounds of chocolate, on display in New York just in time for Easter.
Come on, Bill, get over it. Shouldn’t Abu Ghraib have been “one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever”? How about the injustice of our war in the Iraq? What about the ongoing denial of civil rights to homosexuals? There are a lot of horrors in the world that might prompt a good Christian man to unleash his righteous fury, but a giant chocolate Jesus really isn’t one of them.
Besides, the only real dilemma here is which piece you’re going to start nibbling on first.
Aww, somebody already ate the big bunny ears!
One sure way to get your Important Message to me is to use the good old US Mail (although my email is much snappier now, thanks to previous suggestions), and sometimes I do get the strangest stuff. This time, it was a formal looking letter from an organization called “Campaign for the Children.” How can you possibly turn away a letter from someone who is for the children? You can’t, of course. Then once I started reading … well, this doesn’t seem to be a campaign for children after all.
Ann Coulter is coming out with a new book: If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans. I read Coulter’s last book, Godless, and I can tell you that having Ann Coulter call anyone else stupid is like seeing cockroaches complaining about vermin, or a pig farmer turning up their nose at someone else’s stink. It’s just not right.
Speaking of that Godless tripe, my challenge to her fans still stands. I still get email now and then from supporters whining that I dare to criticize her, but not one has ever plainly pointed to one single paragraph in the evolution chapters that they will stand up for as factually correct.
What are we going to do with Michael Egnor? He seems to be coming up with a new bit of foolishness every day, and babbling on and on. Should we ignore him (there really isn’t any substance there), or should we criticize him every time (although he’s probably capable of generating idiocy at a phenomenal rate—he’s got a real talent for it)?
I’m not going to link to the awful “Evolution News & Views” site, and I’ll make this brief. His latest gripe is with the recent Newsweek cover story (that I had some problems with, too), but his argument is silly.
This is your assignment. You are to read the mind of someone named “Lucy.” Actually, you are to find out where Lucy’s mind came from. You can’t meet Lucy. She’s been dead for 3.2 million years. Your only data will be a fragment of Lucy’s fossilized skull and genetic analysis of some apes, men, and lice.
This isn’t a bad dream. This is an exciting new branch of evolutionary biology, and it’s on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And they’re serious.
The article doesn’t claim to be able to read dead minds. It cites a few studies in paleoneurology, where some interesting correlations between hormones and brain-associated proteins with behavior might provide some general insights. If Egnor is going to build straw men, he could at least try to make the stuffing a little less obvious.
He also goes on and on about how he can’t read brains by looking at blood flow in his work. We know. No one claims that we can. Of course, Michael Egnor does use these indirect measures to diagnose general properties of the brain — broad function, health, injury, etc. Unless he wants to argue that the physical state of the brain has nothing to do with the individuals possessing it, in which case he is out of a job, it’s awfully strange for him to claim that we can’t learn anything by examining brains and the molecules associated with him…and the only way he can do it is by inventing this false claim that biologists are saying they can “read the mind”.
He’s going to have to do better than this dishonest junk. I’m getting bored with him already.
Avoid Las Vegas between May 17th and 20th. There’s a conference going on there that will be like a black hole of stupid, with both Sylvia Browne and Deepak Chopra and a host of low-wattage luminaries of woo in attendance, and there may be a kind of intelligence implosion going on. Your brain may get sucked into the dark pit of delusional dimness if you’re too close.
