1. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189777 by skyhook on June 7, 2008 at 8:50 am

9. Comment #189660 by catskill

"I cant drive more than two blocks here in Tampa without passing by a church. I got a flyer yesterday for a new church that just opened up the street....."

So where is this new megachurch?

I mentioned before on another thread that Florida is the home of NASA (serious science), but has an exasperating number of chuches. Paradoxical maybe, annoying definitely! I see a total conflict here.

I live in the Temple Terrace area, how many churches?! There's a huge monstrosity on 56th St that takes up a couple of blocks. What is there for science in the area? MOSI in Tampa and G Wiz science museum in Sarasota. The odds are stacked against the indoctrinated ever getting out.

Furthermore, the number of cars with Jesus fish and similar sentiments it sickening. I've seen about 2 FSM and 2 Darwin logos in 10 months of living here. Depressing.

----------

A number of comments are about whether atheists need to get together at meetings. I have not attended a meeting but I would if the opportunity arises. Why? Because for one thing it is nice to be able to discuss your everyday experiences with like-minded folk. e.g. I love wine and would love to discuss that with people who are interested. Why not meet to talk about atheism, and opposition to the religious dominance and suppression of science?

You might also learn something as people always have different expierences, make new friends,etc. From this website and discussion boards I have understood the arguments used by religoids and how to counteract them in a more diplomatic manner then I ever did before. (I used to be somewhat of a straight-to-the-point kind of arguer, little diplomacy, very intolerant).

It's simply not the same as attending a religious meeting and going through the indoctrinating process week after week.
By definition you can't indoctrinate anyone into atheism! You arrive at or start with atheism by taking a rational point of view about your experiences in life, assessing the probability of what the religoids preach being true, etc.

2. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #187831 by skyhook on June 2, 2008 at 7:44 pm

8. Comment #187558 by k1mgy

"I would find it far easier to trust a Japanese on this matter. The concept of personal reputation actually has meaning for the Japanese people. I don't see this demonstrated quite as deeply in other cultures and it is nearly absent in the US."

I really don't like the tone of your comment.

NOVA
LIVEDOOR
Earthquake-proof buildings fraud

Just three major scandals of the last couple of years from Japan - and everyone involved had personal reputation at stake.

Are you trying to say that Western scientists are less trustworthy than their Asian colleagues?

Before a scientist publishes their work it comes under close peer-reviewed scrutiny. If false data is used it cannot be repeated and so pretty soon they get caught out. Remember the (oh-so honourable) Korean cloning scientist?

As a general point to this discussion I must ask this:
Why should anyone BELIEVE that these scientists claims are true? The experiments will quickly be attempted by others in the field and either validated or rejected. There is no believing about it. There is only one salient point - proof!!!

That's why this website is so important. Demand proof not faith.

3. Karma comedians

Comment #187049 by skyhook on June 1, 2008 at 8:14 am

34. by Ian

Totally agree. I watched it once and immediately thought it wasn't a Glenn Hoddle type statement but a rhetorical device. Watched it a second and I really fail to see why people are worked-up over the use of the word karma.

She makes it clear that she was made to think more carefully about HER attitude to China because of the Tibetan foundation's desire to help.

4. CEAI Action Alert for Science Teachers

Comment #154436 by skyhook on April 3, 2008 at 8:42 am

That's the problem with this state. Too many churches, handful of science museums - not enough thinking!

I hear far too many "God Bless You"s and other drivel here in Tampa. I'm pleased to see the odd Darwin fish and FSM logo on the backs of cars but they are massively outnumbered. And so far I'm the only one wearing the Scarlet letter T-shirt.

Considering this is the place where the space shuttles take off (yes it is a FACT) using some well worked out science (PHYSICS & CHEMISTRY - oh yes FACTS) you would think that science was a bit more prominent & celebrated in Florida.

Now I'm thinking about it, how does the lintelligent theory of gravity deal with launches into space?

5. Beware the Believers

Comment #152125 by skyhook on March 30, 2008 at 7:40 am

Related to the lyrics but off topic.

Comment #151716 Cartomancer:
1. Richard does not have a PhD - he has a DPhil and a DSc. DSc. would fit the metre just as well, so there really is no excuse. I spend half my life trying to explain the minute differences between the Oxford DPhil and a regular PhD to people. This really riles me.


Could someone please explain to me the differences between a DPhil and a PhD? And is there a difference between the DPhil from Oxford and a DPhil from other UK universities that offer the course e.g. Sussex?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but Carto's statement seems to be demoting the degree of doctor of philosophy from universities that are not Oxford.

Congrats to Oxford who won the Boat Race by the way.

6. Beware the Believers

Comment #151662 by skyhook on March 29, 2008 at 6:37 am

At first I thought it was insulting. But now I think it's a parody of the creationist view of science and scientists - some of the language used is that of a creationist, but they wouldn't express themselves in this way. Science is a "big scary machine" metaphorically to them, but here it's a Terry Gilliam type monstrosity.

7. Happy Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #150177 by skyhook on March 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Happy birthday Richard!

8. The Cancer From Within

Comment #86848 by skyhook on November 10, 2007 at 10:01 am

This orientation is in direct conflict with the Air Force Code of Ethics stated for 1997. Has the code changed? If so, who changed it, why and on what authourity? Given the secular nature of all things governmental (and therefore military?) how could a new code that allowed this type of orientation be introduced?

If the code is unchanged then surely a legal challenge is worthy?
Any public school trying this crap would get into trouble.

9. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52067 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 4:49 am

Only by YOUR definition do written and codified equate in this context.

"If I said "the American codified constitution" and then said, "the American written constitution" nobody would misunderstand the synonymous relationship between the two definitions"

The written constitution does not have to be codified!!!
The relationship is not synonymous!!!
By saying one or the other perhaps you are only highlighting a specific aspect on that constitution. But yes, the US constitution happens to be written and codified.

10. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52059 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 4:21 am

Before I forget to mention it, earlier you said this:

"Parliament has the ability to change almost any aspect of the constitution at will."
AND
"Therefore the Parliament of the United Kingdom can perform constitutional reform simply by passing Acts of Parliament and thus has the power to change or abolish almost any WRITTEN or UNWRITTEN element of the constitution"

Well, so what?

What do you think Amendments to the US Constitution are? They are the changes made by the government to the constitution. E.g. Japan - currently the politicians are debating as to whether to change Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.

So the voting and majority rules are different between the UK and USA. But you can still change the constitution. It doesn't make a jot of difference if it's in one document or in many.

11. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52058 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 4:11 am

Do you just read the last sentence of my posts, thereby failing to acknowledge anything else I have written about your unclear definition of a constitution?

How can unwritten and uncodified mean the same thing? They don't.

Let's try again:

UK CONSTITUTION IS COMMONLY MISLABELLED AS AN "UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION"

You did say that the UK constitution was unwritten didn't you? Therefore you are mislabelling it!

12. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #52052 by skyhook on June 26, 2007 at 3:40 am

Far be it for me to suggest you should write your articles to please me...

You seem to be skipping the point I make. You were very unclear, and people who say the type of thing you did often don't have clue what they are talking about. Why do you think I wanted to clarify the issue? So that readers of this thread wouldn't make the mistake that I hear so often.
Perhaps I should just assume that everybody follows your conventions when talking about a constitution?

Oh, but let's look at the wiki definition for ease:

"The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the uncodified body of law which constitutes the rules for how the country functions. It consists mostly of written sources, including statutes, judge made case law and international treaties. Because of the lack of a single codified constitutional document, the UK CONSTITUTION IS COMMONLY MISLABELLED AS AN "UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTION". For the most part it is written, but is not redacted or reduced into a single document."

And then you say:
"Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a written constitution. For example, the Republic of Ireland and the United States do."

Your first answer is in direct contradiction to the wiki one. And following your answers and rebuttals to my (perfectly accurate) description it remained unclear and confused as to what you meant. Why can't you accept that?

You kept on saying the UK constitution is unwritten when you should say uncodified. Even the wiki article makes that clear.
And I repeat, I mentioned codified first, you did not. Follow your threads and see how much sense they actually make.

13. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51972 by skyhook on June 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

CHBG21808,
Your very first post:

"Damn.. I wish the UK had a constitution... But then again if it did, it might now be in the same difficulty. It seems to be a double-edge sword."

Much later on:

"But again it does not fit the definition or context of my definition of a specific single codified document."

You only give your definition towards the end of our exchange and then YOU are defining constitution to mean the US type.

Your first comment said simply that the UK does not have a constitution.
You then go on to say you meant written constitution.
Finally you say that it not a single written document akin to the US constitution.

Not very clear at all, is it?
I mentioned "codified" first. You did not. See comment 28. Can you understand that I wanted you to be clear by what you meant?

When people make statements like your first post many of them actually think that the UK does not have any form of constitution. Less than two weeks ago I heard someone say: "Britain does not have a constitution" and they did not understand what they were actually saying. It should be clear from my posts that I am trying to get you to be clear on what you mean.

I do understand your specific definition. I understand the type of constitution you would prefer for the UK.

Surely a statement like the following is much clearer:

"I do not like the style of the UK constitution. I think it is lacking in so many areas, etc"

14. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51810 by skyhook on June 25, 2007 at 5:16 am

[Quote]Notice I used the words unwritten constitution and when I used the word constitution I did so in inverted commas... Meaning that there is not a codified document.[/quote]

Your first comment said simply that the UK does not have a constitution.
You then go on to say you meant written constitution.
Finally you say that it not a single written document akin to the US constitution.

Well, thanks for being clear.

In your final post you actually spell out what you mean. To have a constitution meansto you that it is identical to the US in format (but not in content). By that definition, very few countries have a constitution, whether you use " " or not.

The use of the word "written" seems utterly pointless, when you mean single document. Why not just say single document. Or use the word codified and explain what that means in brackets.

The UK does not have a constitution.
The UK does not have a written constitution.
The UK does not have a codified constitution.

Which of those is relevant to the real situation in the UK?
Yes, it's the final one.

Let's just be clear about this. Someone who says that the UK does not have a constitution is wrong because of the following:

What is the government of the UK?
A constitutional monarchy.

Look up on wikipedia (for simplicity) what that is:

[quote="wikipedia"]
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government established under a constitutional system which acknowledges an elected or hereditary monarch as head of state, as opposed to an absolute monarchy, where the monarch is not bound by a constitution and is the sole source of political power.
[/quote]

Therefore, the UK has a constitution and it is meaningless to suggest otherwise.

Since when did the definition of constitution become based on the US model?

15. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51798 by skyhook on June 25, 2007 at 2:46 am

In response to comment 23 by chbg21808.

QUOTE
Sorry .... you are incorrect. When I said the UK does not have a constitution, I mean a WRITTEN constitution.…
~
The UK at best has an unwritten constitution, that is hard to track down as in documents such as MAGNA CARTA, the BILL of RIGHTS, the ACT of SETTLEMENT and the PARLIAMENT ACTS.
END QUOTE

I think you are going to find that you are incorrect.
These are some of the written documents that form the UK constitution - the constitution is written! The difficult point to grasp is that it's not one document (uncodified), but it IS written. There are some conventions that are not written down, but by no means does that mean the UK does not have a written constitution. (Even) wikipedia can explain it to you.

QUOTE
"The British people have never entered into a written pact with their rulers defining the thresholds of power. Magna Carta was a squalid compromise between the King and his barons which set the seal on aristocratic privileges rather than citizens' rights."

Freedom, The Individual and the Law - by Geoffrey Robertson
END QUOTE

The Magna Carta is a written document - perhaps Geoffrey Robertson can't read. Visit the British Library or look at their websit. You will see the Magna Carta there:

http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/magna.html

Now, to refer back to the other Acts that you mentioned above (they are also written documents that make up the constitution). The Bill of Rights (1689) is part of the UK constitution and is a clear written document. It was subsequently a model for other documents including the US Bill of Rights (which were written amendments to the original US Constitution).

QUOTE
Strangely, having a specific document separating Church and State as the USA does; seems to diabolically lead to the very problem it is attempting to avoid... It seems to be an odd paradox. The very act of having a written document seems to be the catalyst for religious fundamentalism to take hold and try to tear up that document.

This fight to keep the constitution in tact is nothing new... Americans have always had to fight "tooth and claw" to keep it in tact against religious bullies, virtually from day one of it being drawn up.

Perhaps then, that is the explanation of the problem. Because UK government "constitutional decisions" are simply drawn from many different "CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS" ...There is no one definable target for religious fundamentalists to aim at. There is not really an open document. Rather, there is a jumble of "constitutional" laws. It is hard to fight against something, if you cannot even see it. Indeed, because you cannot see it in the first place, then the thought would not even come up. But the very fact that the US document is so open and specific on seperation of Church and State it is like a "red rag to a bull".
END QUOTE

Well, you say yourself that there are many constitutional documents. All of which go to making up a written constitution. I think that clears that up ;o)


The Monarch is the head of state for the UK and (s)he is also defender of the faith (thanks to Henry VIII). Religious attitudes are different in the UK. The fact that the UK does not have a codified constitutional document is irrelevant to fundamentalists. There seems to be less to be won by changing any constitutional law as religion is part of the state system anyway. No "flood-gates" need to be opened in Britain.

Having said that, under the wonderful direction of Tony Blair the UK now has government funded "faith schools" across the country. That is something British people need to worry about.

16. The Present Threat of the Religious Right to Our Modern Freedoms

Comment #51685 by skyhook on June 24, 2007 at 5:21 am

An excellent speech and Q&A session.
It is indeed worrying that the balance of judges is only 5-4 and we have to wait until the election to see if the situation will improve. Does anybody know what Clinton and Obama believe?

And just a brief correction to chbg21808:
The UK does have a constitution! It is made from a collection of documents that were written over many 100 years. The Magna Carta is one, the acts of union between England and Scotland and Ireland are a couple of other ones.

Just because the UK didn't have a constitution written at one time (like the USA and Japan) it does not mean we do not have one! I wish the untruth about the UK constitution would go away.