Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Religion
 ATHEISM IS DEAD!
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  03:09:20  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I didn't know that until just this morning. I'm not really sure that I know it now. I mean, I don't know what it feels like to be dead, having never been dead, but at the moment I don't think I feel that way. Am I missing something here?



This is a site apparently dedicated to not-very-imaginative rants against atheism. Reading through it, I seem to sense an actual apprehension on their part, and that too, defies understanding. After all, they have us out-numbered by, what, some 88%. How likely is that we'll enslave them all?

Anyhow, their panties are all of a tangle over Expelled:

"Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Biologic Institute Online
The Biologic Institute has now released its website. Groups of scientists continue to explore intelligent design, despite the dogma that bigoted atheists try to shove down our throats (e.g. "but it's just religion!!")

Posted by Will Hawthorne at 8:23 PM 12 comments
Labels: Biologic Institute, Intelligent Design
Dawkins the Irrational Hypocrite

Dawkins cried so much that he was "duped" into the interviews for the Expelled Documentary (he wasn't), but as it turns out, Dawkins has done more duping than anybody. Perhaps we should all post open letters to the victims of Dawkins's lying propaganda "documentaries" to express our sympathies for them after being manipulated and exploited by Dawkins.

Posted by Will Hawthorne at 1:17 PM 13 comments
Labels: New Atheism, Richard Dawkins
Does Yoko Ono have a good case?

The money hungry multi-millionaire Yoko Ono, former wife of John Lennon, known for stirring up fights between members of The Beatles, and well known for trying to censor others (as well as waging legal crusades about documentary footage, royalties for John Lennon's estate, and even cereal boxes) in the past, has a team of lawyers who are actually trying to sue the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for "copyright infringement". Expelled plays a tiny portion of "Imagine" by John Lennon. Wild-eyed atheist apologists around the blogosphere, of course, were eager to spread news of the lawsuit in typical "score another against ID!!" fashion.

But one wonders whether Ono's lawyers even viewed the documentary before initiating the charges, since such a minuscule section of the recording was used and explicitly commented on for social contrast. Using copyrighted material in this way is protected under the Fair Use doctrine and thus does not count as "copyright infringement". So the Copyright Act:"


There follows some excerpts from said Copyright Act. As I have not (yet) read the Copyright Act, I will not accuse them of quote mining (yet) but will keep the thought in mind.

I don't think that the Fair Use part of the Act covers commercial endeavors, which, it seems to me, Expelled certainly is, otherwise all it's showings would be free, but I might be wrong there.

I found it, heh, here, where else?




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  03:40:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh, this is gonna be fun to watch:

"Fair Use


One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Home | Contact Us | Legal Notices | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Library of Congress

U.S. Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000
(202) 707-3000 "


And from Title 17..... I'm not going to excerpt it is a small part of this cannonball and my attention span is way too short to take it all in.

I think that it is going to come down to the question of commercial use. I think that Expelled's ass is going to be in a sling, if it's not in one already.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 04/28/2008 03:43:01
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  06:39:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Something else I didn't know until just this morning: the other artists whose songs were used gave permission.
The complaint alleges that the film (which I have not seen) includes a portion of the song and displays subtitles with the lyrics of the song. Interestingly, the complaint alleges that while the film includes clips of songs by Bob Dylan, Norman Greenbaum, Depeche Mode, and others, the credits state that these songs were included with permission of the relevant copyright holders—whereas the credits list the relevant information for “Imagine” while omitting the reference to the copyright holders' permission, indicating that the producers knew they were using the song without permission.

Ono's complaint notes that it was only on April 15, when news reports mentioned the use of the song, that Ono became aware of the infringement, and that “Internet ‘bloggers' immediately began accusing Mrs. Lennon of ‘selling out' by licensing the Song to Defendants.”






"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  08:10:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
How can something which is not a belief system be a failed belief system?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

HalfMooner
Dingaling

Philippines
15831 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  12:14:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send HalfMooner a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

How can something which is not a belief system be a failed belief system?
For real.

Atheists can be "systematic" if they like, but I think the vast majority just don't believe in a Deity, and simply ignore the whole subject. Some system. Some belief.


Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive.
Edited by - HalfMooner on 04/28/2008 12:15:10
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  15:09:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I've already posted there.


>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 04/28/2008 :  17:07:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Good post, Ig. The responses to it were interesting as well.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  07:48:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I tried to back you up, Ig, by replying to Hawthorne's response thusly:
Will Hawthorne said: Further, the atheist you uncritically quoted from asserted that there was not "a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing..." That's nonsense. See here.

Nice bit of quote-mining, Will. The things that the "atheist" said were applied to only 2006 and 2007, specifically, but you left out those parts. And the DI's "list" includes no items from 2007 and only includes one item from 2006, a paper that doesn't provide positive evidence for Intelligent Design, but only argues that "chance and necessity" (a strawman version of evolutionary theory) are inadequate to explain "sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals."

You, Will, also wrote: Note, moreover, that the atheist "science blogger" clumsily demands that the "how" question is answered. This too is nonsense. The explanatory legitimacy of an entity in science does not depend on (a) the observability of the entity or (b) the availability of an exhaustive description of how the entity works.

But evolutionary theory is a description of the "how," chock full of observations. What would ID explain if not the "how," based upon observations of its subject matter?
And I also replied to another of his replies in the same thread like this:
Will Hawthorne wrote: The fundamental debate right now is this: atheistic materialism vs. just about anybody who can think for themselves.

Who is it that atheistic materialists get to do their thinking?

And how does a theistic non-materialist find the bathroom in the middle of the night? (This is a serious question.)
Since Hawthorne posted two more replies of his own last night (after mine), and mine haven't shown up yet, I have a feeling my comments were simply bit-bucketed.

But should one expect when their blog FAQ reads like this:
In accordance with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, atheism is defined as the denial of the existence of God (or gods). Logically, to deny a proposition, p, is to believe that ~p, it's to believe that it is not the case that p. In the view of atheists themselves, this is the traditional and authentic definition of atheism. If you wish to redefine atheism as the lack of belief in a god, then you are working with a non-standard, revisionary definition that would be rejected by atheists, since a mere lack of belief is not a denial. A lack of belief in God is closer to agnosticism or nontheism, not atheism. Atheism, in its most common forms, requires a leap of blind faith and implies a variety of propositions the truth of which cannot in principle be scientifically or rationally verified (e.g. entities can magically "pop into being from nothingness" (whatever exactly that means) without a cause, humans have wizard-like powers to invent rightness and wrongness rather than discovering objective moral truths, reality is exhausted by material objects, humans are soul-less collections of particles that lack free will and intentionality, etc.) Atheism thus stifles intellectual realism and free thought.
And it claims to not be a religious blog.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  08:02:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks. My reply was weak in the "peer-reviewed" section. I don't have the patience or knowledge to do that right. May I use your reply later on, if yours never shows up?




>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 04/29/2008 08:24:10
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  08:11:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sure. I'm wondering if I should have waited longer for them to show up. It's only been eleven hours or so.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  09:08:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's there.


>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26012 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  09:18:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
One of my two comments is up.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  11:40:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Damnit! I just realized that one of my replies didn't get in.

Well, I'll post it here so I don't have to re-write it again

Bringing up the Dover trial is a red herring. Regardless of whether ID won or lost the case, a legal decision says exactly nothing about the truth of ID or whether ID should be pursued by scientists as part of scientific inquiry.
Legal desicions decide what's good science and what isn't all the time. Think of paternity tests, forensic evidence, product liability lawsuits, etc. that judges have to decide on.

I just brought up the Dover trial in the first place to show that it isn't just "bigoted atheists" who shove evolution down people's throats.

You know, before the Scopes trial, it was actually illegal to teach anything but the biblical version. Where were all you "academic freedom/teach the controversy" types then? Or do you people only care about that when it's your views that are on the outs?


Anyway, during the trial they discussed the scientific merits of both ID and evolution. One side happened to fold on itself during the cross examination. Why is that?

The claim that many bigoted atheists shove anti-ID dogma down our throats (which is true)


Wrong.

here

here

Creation, Power and Violence



does not entail the claim that only bigoted atheists shove anti-ID dogma down our throats. Neither I nor anybody else on this blog has asserted the latter. Please read carefully.
No, you just happened to be complaining only about the "bigoted athiests". Why didn't you mention that believers like Ken Miller also advocate evolution teaching, unless you were trying to poison the well?


>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  13:30:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm gonna bite you back!
John Derbyshire: EXPELLED as “Creationist Porn”

William Dembski

Back last year I reported on this blog that (go here) that John Derbyshire, despite repeatedly weighing in against intelligent design online and in print, gave no evidence of understanding the topic (to say nothing of doing any first-hand reading in it). Below he weighs in against Ben Stein's EXPELLED, reviewing the movie despite refusing to see it. Derbyshire's education, it appears, consists mainly in learning to sneer while striking an erudite pose.
Ad hominem offering nothing in the way of rebuttal. Dembski becomes more pathetic with the passing of each brief sentence.

UcD is also crows about FL & LA passing the laughable "Academic Rights" bills. Break out the popcorn....




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2558 Posts

Posted - 04/29/2008 :  15:08:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If I could post there, I'd point out that Behe had that same problem at the Dover trial when he admitted that he didn't read the books and journals that shot down his claim that evolution couldn't solve problems like the blood-clotting cascade. He said that those readings weren't good enough, yet he admitted that he hadn't read most of them.

Yet in that case, the ID people defend his ignorance by calling it a "literature dump", a lawyer's trick. If Behe had done his homework, that "trick" wouldn't have worked.

Can anyone here post there?

In the meantime, I'm posting here from the Shock and Blog site and trying to get signed on to post here

>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Edited by - the_ignored on 04/29/2008 15:11:16
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.5 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000