Daily Archives: May 22, 2017

The State of Free Speech among High School Students – Learn Liberty (blog)

Posted: May 22, 2017 at 3:25 am

As recently reported in the New York Times, a recent Knight Foundation survey of nearly 12,000 high school students has found that such students support for the First Amendments free speech protections is stronger today than it has been in the last 12 years.

As far as it goes, this is good news given the avalanche of unfriendly free speech policies and actions that have swept over higher education in recent yearse.g., trigger warnings; micro-aggression stipulations; speaker disruptions and dis-invitations; overly intrusive and chilling bias reporting systems; and the relegation of student expression to tiny free speech zones on campus. According to the Times, 91 percent of the high school students believe that individuals should be allowed to express unpopular opinions.

That said, the support is limited to the First Amendment as a general concept. As Jonathan Sotsky of the Knight Foundation told the Times, Their support is tempered depending on the kind of speech and where its deliveredthe devil is in the details. In particular, support for free speech falls precipitously to 45 percent when the speech is offensive to others and made in public, and falls even lower, to 43%, when the offensive speech is on social media.

We can derive at least four points or lessons from these findings. First, the difference between support for free speech in the abstract and in particular cases is nothing new under the civil liberty sun. Such sociologists and political scientists as Samuel Stouffer, Herbert McClosky, and John Sullivan have repeatedly found it since the beginning of serious survey research on civil liberties in the 1950s. Reflecting the preoccupations of the time, general support in the past dropped off when subjects were asked about the speech rights of such political outsiders as communists and hate groups. Today young people are concerned about personal identity and self-respect, so drop offs are most prominent in domains dealing with personal social media. Furthermore, it is not surprising that people are more willing to support a right in the abstract than when its application entails either controversy or potential harm to others or society.

That said, it is also true that the defense right of free speech matters only when there is pressure to censor it. Speech expressing popular viewpoints has no need of protection. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thoughtnot free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. (U.S. v. Schwimmer, 1929, dissenting opinion)

Second, we need to recognize the special concerns for free speech posed by social media. Many colleagues and students have told me that the most significant reason for expressive conformity on campus is the fear of being bullied on social mediaa claim backed up by commentators more generally. On the one hand, social media has expanded the forum for discussion and debate. On the other hand, its misuse by moral and political bullies has cast a pall over the incentive to dissent and speak with intellectual honesty. We are only beginning to fathom how to deal constructively with this paradox. Young people today also appear to be more conflict averse than their predecessors were, which compounds the dilemma.

Though the survey did not delve into more specific or nuanced aspects of this concern, we should acknowledge that it is important to distinguish genuine bullying and intimidation from simply strongly disagreeing with someone. And there are shades of bullying. When bullying becomes harassment or a threat, it crosses into potential criminality. If it is painful yet not a threat or harassment, it can be normatively wrong but not illegal. The best remedy here is to encourage and educate people how to be civil with their disagreements, making sure that such education does not constitute bullying in its own right.

Third is the need to recognize the distinction between bullying, which is personally direct and meant to shame rather than inform, and causing offense by expressing unorthodox or controversial thoughts and ideas. As Jonathan Rauch has powerfully elucidated in his neo-classic work, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought (1993), the humanistic principle that no one should be allowed to express an idea that might offend or hurt someone else because of its ideational content is anathema to free speech and an open society. Truths or honest opinions are often very offensive to people. For example, evolution was deeply upsetting to many fundamentalists. (And I doubt that monkeys felt very good about linked to human beings!) Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled in a famous 1971 case that the First Amendment protects offensive expression as a general matter. (Cohen v. California) As free speech philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn declared in Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1948), To be afraid of an idea, any idea, is to be unfit for self-government.

Finally, the survey suggests something that is a recurrent problem: the need for education in free speech and First Amendment principles. Protecting highly controversial and offensive expression is counter-intuitive in many ways, but it is a counter-intuition that is necessary in a free society. It is also counter-intuitive to many to extend trial rights to criminals or to require the state to get search warrants in criminal cases. But the counter-intuition goes away once one is educated regarding the reasons why, which include the consequences of doing otherwise. Such education is a proper part of civic educationthe long-term weakening of which is another topic deeply worthy of discussion. Teaching civility in a manner that encourages vibrant debate rather than discouraging is also a matter of civic education.

Only with proper education will we be able to draw the appropriate lineslegal, or simply normative, depending on the issuebetween protecting upsetting speech and unjustified bullying.

This piece was originally published at The Open Inquiry Project.

Read the original:
The State of Free Speech among High School Students - Learn Liberty (blog)

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on The State of Free Speech among High School Students – Learn Liberty (blog)

Professor didn’t understand free speech — Wayne Shockley – Madison.com

Posted: at 3:25 am

In last Sundays State Journal, Daniel Bromleys guest column "Free speech in the age of Trump" starts with an eloquent description of the value of the free exchange of ideas and opinions made possible by free speech.

Unfortunately, he then makes egregious errors. He would deny the protection of the practice of free speech from speech considered divisive. He refers to speakers who appear under the banner of free speech, when in fact what is on offer is a campaign rally.

Speech that is different and challenging is inherently divisive. Advocacy is naturally encouraging people to join their cause. And speeches at campaign rallies are protected speech under the Constitution.

What is even worse is that the distinction Bromley wants to make is to be made by self-appointed groups who answer to nothing but their own opinions. Their criteria for blocking some speech is simply that they dont like the content. It is disturbing that educated people cannot understand that for speech to be genuinely free, any rare restrictions must be completely neutral as to political or social content.

Continue reading here:
Professor didn't understand free speech -- Wayne Shockley - Madison.com

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Professor didn’t understand free speech — Wayne Shockley – Madison.com

Against Free Speech: Merkel, May (and Macron) – National Review

Posted: at 3:25 am

Theresa May and Angela Merkel have quite a bit in common. For example, both are suspiciousmore than suspiciousof the free market and both are daughters of clergymen(speculation, of course, but those two facts might not be entirely unconnected). Both are authoritarians.

Authoritarians dont like speech that is, well, too free, and that, of course, brings them up against the unruly reality of the Internet.

Foreign Affairs

In April 2017, the German cabinet passed new legislation on hate speech that the German Bundestag is scheduled to adopt in the summer. The law enables Germany to fine social media companies up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not reacting swiftly enough to reports of illegal content or hate speech.

The law has an aptly German name Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, or Network Enforcement Law. But its main target is U.S. tech giants, which provide the main social media networks in Germany. The clash between U.S. social media companies and the German government is about more than deleting hateful online comments. It is a fight about how much free speech a democracy can take.

Ponder that last sentence:

It is a fight about how much free speech a democracy can take.

And then re-read the First Amendment.

Foreign Affairs:

The new law applies to social media platforms with over two million users and imposes large fines if they do not delete posts contravening hate speech law within 24 hours of receiving a complaint. In response, a broad opposition coalition swiftly emerged. Although the law excludes journalistic platforms where someone is already accountable for content, such as online newspapers, the German Journalists Association joined civil rights activists, academics, and lawyers in signing a joint statement warning that the law jeopardizes the core principles of free expression. In addition, the Global Network Initiative (GNI) an international coalition of tech companies, civil society groups, investors, and academics asserted that the law poses a threat to open and democratic discourse. These groups worry that the law might lead to broad censorship of the Internet and create a precedent for more authoritarian regimes to further restrict free speech on the Web.

They are right to worry.

Foreign Affairs:

Created in 1949, the West German federal constitution, also known as the Basic Law or Grundgesetz, contained a central paradox. Many West German politiciansconservatives and social democrats alikebelieved in a militant democracy, one where free speech could be constrained to protect democratic norms. Essentially, democrats had to use undemocratic means to protect democracy. Article 18 of the constitution states that anyone abusing rights like freedom of speech to undermine a free democratic order might forfeit those basic rights.

In the specific circumstances of Germany just after the fall of the Third Reich, that might (just) be understandable, but now?

It also raises the question of who decides what speech is to be defined as suspect. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that.

Foreign Affairs quotes German Justice Minister Heiko Maas as saying that freedom of speech has boundaries.

And:

Maas aims to expand Germanys approach to all of Europe, probably by introducing similar legislation in Brussels. With Emmanuel Macron as Frances newly elected president, Maas might succeed. Macron said during his campaign that he wanted to stop fake news and regulate the Internet because today certain players are activists and have a very important role in the campaign.

Who defines what is fake news?

We are often toldthese days that Merkel and Macron (in contrast to wicked Donald Trump) are thedefenders of the liberal order, but theirs seems to be a liberal order where free speech is kept on a leash. That does notlook to me like a liberalism worthy of the name.

The reference to plans to neuter free speech elsewhere in Europe (ie the EU) suggests that post-Brexit Britain might escape. That would be optimistic. As Brits discovered under Blair, Brown and Cameron, reining in free speech is popular across the UKs political class (even more so in Scotland, incidentally), but Theresa May, that accomplished enabler of the predatory state, is likely to make it even worse.

The Independent (my emphasis added):

While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isnt published, the manifesto suggests.The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests.The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users even unintentionally to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm, the Conservatives write.

But perhaps most unusually [technology companies] would be forced to help controversial government schemes like its Prevent strategy, by promoting counter-extremist narratives

The Conservatives will also seek to regulate the kind of news that is posted online and how companies are paid for it. If elected, Theresa May will take steps to protect the reliability and objectivity of information that is essential to our democracy.

So Britains political class is going to protect the reliability and objectivity of information.

What could possibly go wrong?

Go here to read the rest:
Against Free Speech: Merkel, May (and Macron) - National Review

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Against Free Speech: Merkel, May (and Macron) – National Review

Lloyd Waters: Is there such a thing as ‘free speech’? – Herald-Mail Media

Posted: at 3:25 am

You know, when I think about free things, I always thought that must be a bargain of some kind. Good, free stuff is pretty rare these days.

Lately Ive been scratching my head thinking about this term free speech and all the many voices I seem to hear each day while others must be keeping their free speech card locked away for later use.

In the spring of each year as commencement exercises begin to dot our landscape with graduation ceremonies, there always seems to be a controversy involving some invited guest speaker.

This year was no different.

Ann Coulter, a conservative commentator who had been invited to speak at the University of California, Berkley was canceled over objections by students.

Free speech seemed to take a hit on this graduation stage.

Texas Southern University canceled a scheduled commencement address Saturday by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn after students at the college didnt particularly care for the senators politics and started a petition to complain about his invitation.

Free speech obviously didnt fare too well in this venue either.

Politics, liberalism and an ongoing dispute with conservatism and vice versa always seem to occupy our headlines this time of the year.

The battle between our youth and their dreams of the future, and the establishment and those who find it important to maintain the status quo, seems like an unsolvable conflict.

I remember reading Platos Republic so many years ago and focusing on a story shared by the philosopher about a ship sailing the high seas.

It seemed that the captain of the sailing ship was quite old and maybe set in his ways. But he was also a sea captain who had much experience in navigating the waters under the guidance of the stars above, and he had seen many things and possessed much knowledge.

As the young crew had many discussions about the captain, they began to criticize his performance and became dissatisfied with his leadership. Eventually, a mutiny might occur and the youth, in their passions and desires for change, would dispose of the captain.

A young crew member would replace him.

The only problem suggested in Platos story was that none of the young men possessed any navigation skills. The young crew had a desire to lead but had little basic experience to do so.

This same notion exists today in many places of the work environment, politics and government. Everyone wants to be a leader, but not everyone is prepared to become one.

Democracy sometimes suffers from the same dilemma. The oldest person and leader is often not the wisest, but might have some knowledge. The youth are not really any better prepared to navigate those waters of politics.

Plato was actually criticizing that concept of democracy.

His solution? Only true philosophers are the best leaders, because they possess the good attributes and qualities required of leadership.

That sounds good enough, I thought, after reading the book many years ago. But I dont know many virtuous philosophers either, I sadly concluded.

Freedom of speech is a very noble idea, too, but the expression of thought and conversation should never be restricted by political might or petition, if it is really free.

And shouldnt freedom of speech apply to everyone?

When students use their numbers to cancel a speakers performance or our president suggests that we no longer need political briefings, which really embraces or understands that concept of real free speech?

Even in Athens, where Democracy was born, the greatest travesty of Greek history, in my opinion, was the death of Socrates at the hands of leaders who objected to his free speech and thoughts.

As Socrates drank his potion of hemlock late that evening, and waited for death to arrive as he lay upon his pillow, maybe he thought too about that notion of free speech and how it seemingly did not apply to him.

Is there any such thing as free speech in this world?

I dont believe there is.

And maybe I wont be able to tell anyone.

Lloyd Pete Waters is a Sharpsburg resident who writes for The Herald-Mail.

Go here to read the rest:
Lloyd Waters: Is there such a thing as 'free speech'? - Herald-Mail Media

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Lloyd Waters: Is there such a thing as ‘free speech’? – Herald-Mail Media

Fareed Zakaria Offers Defense of Free Speech and the Liberal Arts … – Bucknell University

Posted: at 3:25 am

As the graduates of Bucknell University's Class of 2017 stepped across the stage on the Malesardi Quadrangle to receive their degrees on Sunday, May 21, each passed by a banner the class designed together four years earlier. Above and below an image of the Christy Mathewson-Memorial Gateway, the banner proclaimed a motto, inscribed in Latin and English: "The power to transform the future lies within our differences."

From the ceremony's opening invocation to the Commencement address delivered by journalist Fareed Zakaria to student speaker Max Ferrer's closing words to his peers, the banner's message echoed. Its words signified not only a defining aspect of the class' Bucknell experience, but a lesson to take into the world that is perhaps more critical today than ever before.

"The whole purpose of the liberal arts has been to hear people out, to listen to opposing views," Zakaria, the host of CNN's flagship foreign-affairs program, Fareed Zakaria GPS, said in his address. "I don't want you to turn your back to people. I want you to turn your face, your mind. Debate with them. Argue with them."

Zakaria, the author of the 2015 book In Defense of a Liberal Education, has long been a proponent of the liberal arts approach at the heart of a Bucknell education, arguing for its effectiveness not just in preparing graduates for their first jobs, but also in building adaptable skills that will serve them for a lifetime. He observed in his speech that others have recognized the wisdom in this outlook. Technology visionaries Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos have all been informed and guided by liberal arts in their insights and approaches to leadership, he said.

But Zakaria, who is also a columnist for The Washington Post and a New York Times-bestselling author, noted that the liberal arts have more recently come under fire from a different direction. Particularly on college campuses, protesters have increasingly sought to silence voices they don't agree with, mounting attacks on the freedom of speech so fundamental to the liberal arts that "strike me as fundamentally illiberal, if not un-American," Zakaria said.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, is not freedom for people we like, for warm, fuzzy ideas that we find comfortable. It is for ideas that you find offensive," Zakaria said. "There is no idea that is beyond the pale. Everything should be within the arena and should be worth contesting."

889 graduates Zakaria addressed his remarks to the nearly 900 undergraduate and graduate students receiving their degrees at Commencement, and the more than 6,000 faculty, staff, family members, friends and other well-wishers who gathered on Bucknell's Malesardi Quadrangle to see the graduates off. | See more photos from Commencement Weekend

The University presented degrees to 889 graduates (including 19 who completed their studies in January) at the Commencement ceremony. They comprised 868 students receiving bachelor's degrees and 21 receiving master's degrees. Among undergraduates, 699 received degrees in the arts & sciences (including 123 from the School of Management) and 169 received degrees in engineering. The graduates represent 37 states and 19 nations. | Learn more about the Class of 2017.

In addition to celebrating the achievements of the graduating class, Provost Barbara Altmann recognized five professors with awards for excellence in teaching: Professors Emily Dryden, mathematics; G.C. Waldrep, English; Peter Judge, psychology and animal behavior; Kris Trego, classics & ancient Mediterranean studies; and Martin Ligare, physics & astronomy. Professor Heidi Lorimor, linguistics, received the Bucknell University Writing Across the Curriculum Award of Excellence.

University President John Bravman also recognized Doris and Bob Malesardi '45 for their generosity to Bucknell. In 2016 the Malesardis pledged $20 million to Bucknell, the largest single commitment in the University's history, all of it dedicated to financial aid endowment. A matching gift program they started, the Malesardi Match, has additionally amplified that commitment by a further $20 million. In honor of their leadership and loyalty to Bucknell, the academic heart of the University was renamed the Malesardi Quadrangle last year.

We question In his address to his graduating peers, student speaker Max Ferrer remarked that the spirit of critical inquiry and constant curiosity Zakaria extolled in his speech was a hallmark of a Bucknell education.

"As Bucknellians, we question," Ferrer said. "Bucknell is an environment where we are taught to question what we are told."

From the question that challenged the students as they entered Bucknell, "What am I going to major in?" to its evolution confronting them now, "What am I going to do with my life?" constant inquiry defined the class' journey to this day, Ferrer said.As the members of the Class of 2017 prepared to depart the University, Ferrer implored them to "keep questioning."

"Question the standard practices of your industry, that is how we will innovate," he said. "Question our leaders, that is how we will progress. Question the structure of the world around you, that is how we will improve. But most importantly, question yourselves, because that is how we will grow."

In his own closing address to the graduates, President Bravman not only echoed the advice offered by Ferrer and Zakaria, but also returned to the motto the class devised for itself four years earlier: "More than ever, successful navigation of the world requires conscientious examination of our differences," Bravman said. "Remember to seek out, and strive to understand, an array of perspectives especially those that challenge your own."

Here is the original post:
Fareed Zakaria Offers Defense of Free Speech and the Liberal Arts ... - Bucknell University

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Fareed Zakaria Offers Defense of Free Speech and the Liberal Arts … – Bucknell University

Apatheism – Wikipedia

Posted: at 3:24 am

Apatheism ( a portmanteau of apathy and theism) is the philosophical view that one should be apathetic towards the existence or non-existence of god(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim or belief system.[1][2]

An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist may thus decide to live as if there are no gods. The existence of god(s) is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant.[3]

Scientist and philosopher Ian von Hegner has argued that apatheism is an alternative to positions such as theism, atheism, and agnosticism, with implications that have been overlooked in modern philosophical discussions.[4] Philosopher Trevor Hedberg has called apatheism uncharted territory in the philosophy of religion.[1]

One version considers the question of the existence or nonexistence of deities to be fundamentally irrelevant in every way that matters. This position should not be understood as a skeptical position in a manner similar to that of, for example, atheists or agnostics who question the existence of the gods or whether we can know about the gods.

The existence of gods is not put aside for moral or epistemic reasons for democratic or existential reasons, it is deemed unnecessary. This is a universalization of the fundamental democratic principle that there are no first- and second-class humans and that among other species or beings (including hypothetical gods or aliens elsewhere in the universe), human beings also are not second class. In this version the existence of the gods is thus not one of the so-called grand questions in life.[5]

The term apatheist is believed to have come into use in the early 2000s.[citation needed] Journalist Jonathan Rauch has claimed to be an apatheist.

An apatheist may not have any interest in the god debate just purely because of their lack of interest on the topic.

This apatheistic argument states that morals do not come from god and that if a god exists there would be no changes with regards to morality, therefore a god's existence or non-existence is irrelevant.

An apatheist would argue that if a deity or deities truly wanted people to believe in them, then said deity or deities could demonstrate their existence with miracles, and explain their plan(s) for humanity or the lack thereof. Being all-powerful, if they truly wanted humans to believe, they could send a divine sign not left up to interpretation. This is also a popular argument with antitheists; Matt Dillahunty makes it with great frequency.[citation needed]

Since they do not seem to care if humans believe or not, apatheists will not care until they show them a reason to, and perhaps not even if such an event occurred. Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to claim this position in interviews[6] (this is in essence the argument from nonbelief).

A view related to apatheism, apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest.[7][8] It can be summarized by the statement "I don't know and I don't care."

Here is the original post:
Apatheism - Wikipedia

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Apatheism – Wikipedia

Atheism: Proving The Negative: 500 Dead Gods

Posted: at 3:24 am

If you believe, there should be this nagging doubt in your head. In the course of human history, there have been countless other believers in gods different from and mutually exclusive to your god. They all were sure that their god was the only or best game in town. They felt the same conviction you do. They thought their religion had the privileged place in history just like you do. They didnt take any of the other gods that other people believe or believed in seriouslythose seemed like alien and distant possibilities, just like you feel about their gods. They failed to reflect on the historical, social, and cultural role that their god played in their culture that made it so analogous to all of the other gods and other cultures. They figured that the religious worldview that they happened to be born into also just happened to be the one and only one correct one in the entire history of the human race.

So a reasonable person would have to ask herself: if my god and his relationship to me in history looks just like their god and his relationship to them, and if their god isnt real, what exactly makes mine different? Is it reasonable to think that mine is different and that its only me and the tiny group of people who happen to believe just like I do that got it right?

J.L. Schellenberg, in Pluralism and Probability, Religious Studies, 33, 143-159. 1997, argues that the odds are always going to favor the conclusion that your view is wrong in this situation. There are just too many other gods out there that undermine the probability that youve got the right one.

H.L. Mencken has a great essay here about the long list of dead gods: Memorial Service

Aa, Aah, Abil Addu, Addu, Adeona, Adjassou-Linguetor, Adjinakou, Adya Houn't, Agassou, Ag, Agw, Ahijah, Ahti, Aizen My-, Ajisukitakahikone, Ak Ana, Aken , Aker , krs, Aku, Allatu, Altjira, Amano-Iwato, Ame-no-Koyane, Am-heh, Amihan, Amon-Re, Amun, Amurru, Anapel, Anath, Andjety, Anhur, Anit, Anu, Anubis, Apsu, Arianrod, Ash , Ashtoreth, Assur, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Ayida-Weddo, Ayizan, Azaka Medeh, Azaka-Tonnerre, Azumi-no-isora, Baal, Bacalou, Badessy, Bagadjimbiri, Bahloo, Baiame, Bakunawa, Bamapana, Banaitja, Ba-Pef, Baron Cimetire, Baron La Croix, Baron Samedi, Barraiya, Bata , Bathala, Bau, Beltis, Beltu, Belus, Bernardo Carpio, Bes, Biamie, Bil, Binbeal, Boli Shah, Bossou Ashadeh, Budai, Budai, Bugady Musun, Bugid Y Aiba, Bunjil, Cai Shen, Ceros, Chenti-cheti, Chi You, Chimata-No-Kami, Chun Kwan, Cihang Zhenren, City god, Clermeil, Congo (loa), Consus, Cronos, Cunina, Dagan, Dagda, Dagon, Daikokuten, Damballa, Dan Petro, Dan Wdo, Dauke, Dea Dia, Dhakhan, Diable Tonnere, Diana of Ephesus, Diejuste, Dimmer, Dinclinsin, Dragon King, Dragon King of the East Sea, Duamutef, Dumu-zi-abzu, Ea, Ebisu, Edulia, El, Elali, Elder Zhang Guo, Elum, Engurra, Enki, Enma, En-Mersi, Enurestu, Erlang Shen, Erzulie, Ezili Dantor, Fan Kuai, Fei Lian, Feng Bo, Four sons of Horus, Fu Lu Shou, Fu Xi, Fjin, Fukurokuju, Furrina, Futsunushi, Gasan lil, Gasan-abzu, Goibniu, Gong Gong, Govannon, Gran Matre, Grand Bois, Guan Yu, Guangchengzi, Gunfled, Gwydion, Hachiman, Hadad, Hakudo Maru, Han Xiang, Hapi, Hapy, Heka , Hemen, Hermanubis, Hermes , Heryshaf, Hoderi, Hongjun Laozu, Hoori, Horus, Houyi, Huang Feihu, Hung Shing, Iah, Ibong Adarna, Iku-Turso, Ilmatar, Ilmatar, Imhotep, Imset, Iron-Crutch Li, Isis, Istar, Isum, Iuno Lucina, Izanagi, Jade Emperor, Jar'Edo Wens, Ji Gong, Julana, Jumala, Jupiter, Juroujin, Kaawan, Kagu-tsuchi, Kalfu, Kalma, Kara Khan, Karora, Kerridwen, Khaltesh-Anki, Khepri, Khnum, Khonsu, Kidili, Kini'je, Kitchen God, Kneph, Kjin, Ksitigarbha, Kui Xing, Kuk, Kumakatok, Kuski-banda, Kuu, Ku'urkil, Lagas, Lan Caihe, Lei Gong, Leizhenzi, Lempo, Ler, Li Jing , L'inglesou, Llaw Gyffes, Lleu, Loco (loa), L Dongbin, Lugal-Amarada, Maahes, Ma-banba-anna, Mademoiselle Charlotte, Matresse Dlai, Matresse Hounon'gon, Maman Brigitte, Mamaragan, Mami, Mamlambo, Manawyddan, Mandulis, Mangar-kunjer-kunja, Marassa Jumeaux, Marduk, Maria Cacao, Maria Makiling, Maria Sinukuan, Marinette, Mars, Marzin, Matet boat, Mayari, Mbaba Mwana Waresa, Meditrina, Mehen, Melek, Memetona, Menthu, Merodach, Mider, Mielikki, Min , Molech, Mombu, Morrigu, Mounanchou, Mulu-hursang, Mu-ul-lil, Muzha , Na Tuk Kong, Nana Buluku, Naunet, Nebo, Nehebkau, Nergal, Nezha , Nga, Nin, Ninib, Ninigi-no-Mikoto, Nin-lil-la, Nin-man, Nio, Nirig, Ni-zu, Njirana, Nogomain, Nuada Argetlam, Numakulla, Num-Torum, Nusku, Nu'tenut, Nyyrikki, Odin, Ogma, Ogoun, Ogoun, Ogyrvan, Ohoyamatsumi, kuninushi, Omoikane (Shinto), Ops, Osiris, Pa-cha, Pangu, Papa Legba, Peko, Perkele, Persephone, Petbe, Pie (loa), Pluto, Potina, Ptah, Pugu, Pundjel, Pwyll, Qarradu, Qebehsenuef, Qin Shubao, Qingxu Daode Zhenjun, Ra, Raijin, Randeng Daoren, Rauni , Resheph, Rigantona, Robigus, Royal Uncle Cao, Ryjin, Saa, Sahi, Samas, Sarutahiko, Saturn, Sebek, Seker, Serapis, Sesmu, Shakpana, Shalem, Shangdi, Shango, Sharrab, Shen , Shennong, Shezmu, Shina-Tsu-Hiko, Simbi, Sin, Sirtumu, Sobek, Sobkou, Sjb, Sokk-mimi, Sopdu, Sousson-Pannan, Statilinus, Suijin, Suiren, Suqamunu, Susanoo, Tagd, Taiyi Zhenren, Tala, Tam Kung, Tammuz, Tapio, Tenenet, Tengu, Tenjin, Theban Triad, Thoth, Ti Jean Quinto, Ti Malice, Tian, Ti-Jean Petro, Tilmun, Todote, Toko'yoto, Tomam, Tu Di Gong, Tu Er Shen, Tuonetar, Tuoni, Ubargisi, Ubilulu, U-dimmer-an-kia, Ueras, Ugayafukiaezu, U-ki, Ukko, UKqili, Umai, U-Mersi, Umvelinqangi, Ungud, Unkulunkulu, Ura-gala, U-sab-sib, Usiququmadevu, U-Tin-dir-ki, U-urugal, Vaisravana, Vaticanus, Vediovis, Vellamo, Venus, Vesta, Wadj-wer, Wen Zhong , Weneg, Wenshu Guangfa Tianzun, Wepwawet, Werethekau, Wollunqua, Wong Tai Sin, Wuluwaid, Xargi, Xaya Iccita, Xevioso, Xuan Wu , Yama, Yau, Yemaja, Youchao, Yuanshi Tianzun, Yuchi Jingde, Yunzhongzi, Zagaga, Zaraqu, Zer-panitu, Zhang Guifang, Zheng Lun, Zhongli Quan, Zhu Rong , Zonget.

Visit link:
Atheism: Proving The Negative: 500 Dead Gods

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheism: Proving The Negative: 500 Dead Gods

Atheists Shouldn’t Get That Excited About That New Study About Atheism – Patheos (blog)

Posted: at 3:24 am

Vincent and Jules are in Mr. Wolfes classroom.

Im sure if there was a national poll of the Russian populace before Lenin and his crew of Bolsheviks took over that country asking if a free society was desirable, the results would be a resounding YES! The devil, of course, would be in how you asked the questions. If you phrased the queries like Would you like your standard of living to rise due to the liberalization of the economy that comes with a free society? then only the most ardent fans of authoritarianism would say no. However, if you were going to gauge the sentiment of the people by asking, Are you against the Czar and all of the earthly powers God gave him? then youd get another totally different answer.

The newest thing you have to read on the internet is the piece on FiveThirtyEight Way More Americans May Be Atheists Than We Thought. The researchers came up with some creative ways of asking people how they thought about God as against to simply asking Are you an atheist?

The authors of the study, published earlier this year, adopted a novel way to measure atheist identity. Instead of asking about belief in God directly, they provided a list of seemingly innocuous statements and then asked: How many of these statements are true of you? Respondents in a control group were given a list of nine statements, such as I own a dog and I am a vegetarian. The test group received all the same statements plus one that read, I do not believe in God. The totals from the test group were then compared to those from the control group, allowing researchers to estimate the number of people who identify as atheists without requiring any of the respondents to directly state that they dont believe in God.1 The study concludes that roughly one-quarter (26 percent) of Americans likely do not believe in God.2

Wow, thats cause for some celebration, right?

Mr. Wolfe in the movie Pulp Fiction is a skeptic and a fixer. The man talks thinks and acts fast. What would he have to say about the latest study?

Before taking a look at a clip, heres some background on the scene.

Here is Mr. Wolfe (HarveyKeitel) inspecting a freshly cleaned car. A little while ago it was nothing but human brains and blood. Now, the vehicle looks like its safe to drive the city streets.

Its a victory.

But, you gotta put it in perspective.

Sixteen seconds in Mr. Wolfe drops some wisdom that should make it into the 10 Skeptical Commandments:

Well, lets not start sucking each othersdicks just yet.

What does that have to do with czarist Russia, Lenin, and this new study?

Everything, thats all.

Most Americans want sane gun laws.

Do we have them?

No.

Right Wing lunatics dont represent the will of the majority of Americans.

Donald Trump and George W. Bush didnt win the popular vote.

I say you could have sixty percent of Americans being atheists and it will just not mean a lick of good. If were not organized and since pastbehavior is the best predictor of future behavior thats a safe bet then the theists will continue to kick our collective godless butts.

Many of you are thinking, Were all getting together to fight Donald Trump and stuff!

Yeaaaaahhhh, no.

Not all of us. Not all atheists.

AND

once the wolf at the door is gone, we will go back to being complacent. Thats what we do as a species. Our default setting is stupid and complacent. Atheists as a group are no different.

After dropping the truth-bomb ofWell, lets not start sucking each others dicks just yet, Mr. Wolfe continued executing a plan to get them all out of the shit, so to speak.

In our case, hed probably say the way to long-term survival is creating local institutions where humanists/atheists go about the business of assisting the less fortunate and in doing so win hearts and minds. Thats what our faith-based competitors do, and its been a winning strategy for them.

But atheists arent going to do that.

Its too hard. It takes too much money and time. Were happy for the government to do the heavy lifting regarding feeding the sick and educating the poor.

And thats why 25% of Americans may just be atheists, but that doesnt mean we should be throwing a party.

Stay in touch! Like Laughing in Disbelief on Facebook:

Excerpt from:
Atheists Shouldn't Get That Excited About That New Study About Atheism - Patheos (blog)

Posted in Atheism | Comments Off on Atheists Shouldn’t Get That Excited About That New Study About Atheism – Patheos (blog)

Hubble Telescope finds new moon in the Solar System – Pulse Headlines

Posted: at 3:22 am

NASA Hubble Space Telescope found a new moon in our solar system. It orbits around the third largest dwarf planet of the system, which is known as 2007 OR10 or Snow White.

Astronomers have used three different space observatories to validate that this dwarf planet has actually a moon. This discovery helps researchers to know how moons are formed.

The discovery of satellites around all of the known large dwarf planets except for Sedna means that at the time these bodies formed billions of years ago, collisions must have been more frequent, and thats a constraint on the formation models, said Csaba Kiss of the Konkoly Observatory in Budapest, Hungary. If there were frequent collisions, then it was quite easy to form these satellites, Kiss added.

The Hubble Space Telescope was launched into low earth orbit in 1990. Along the years it has discovered several celestial bodies in the solar system and outside of it too. This time, it showed the moon that orbits the 2007 OR10 planet, which is one of the dwarf planets of the solar system. This planet is located in the Kuiper Belt, a freezing area on the outskirts of our solar system that was created about 4.6 million years ago. The Kuiper Belt is beyond Neptune, near where Pluto and other frozen celestial bodies live.

Snow White, as it is also called, is the third largest dwarf planet. It is 1,530 kilometer-wide (950 mile). Its newly discovered moon is about 240-400 kilometers in diameter. Scientists were alerted by the observations made by the agencys Kepler Telescope.

According to NASA, there are 9 dwarf planets and Snow White is one of them. Dwarf planets are like really small planets; however, they cannot be considered like that because they dont have all the needed technical criteria to be classified as small planets.

According to previous images and research, 2007 OR10, didnt have a Moon before. Scientists believe this moon was created since the objects in that area slammed into each other more often because it is crowded by smaller bodies.

Scientists also think that the density of these bodies could be moderate. The speed of collision is also an important factor to consider since it has to be precise in order to create this new moon. Had it been too slow, it would only have created an impact crater. Had it been too fast, the collision would have produced a lot of space debris that would probably have escaped out ofthe Solar System. Their speed has a lot to do with the gravitational force made by larger celestial bodies.

According to John Stansberry, a member of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, This gravitational force of dense celestial bodies may have bumped them out of their respective orbits and also contributed to the increment of their velocities, which may later have resulted in crashes.

Source: The Cake

Read more from the original source:
Hubble Telescope finds new moon in the Solar System - Pulse Headlines

Posted in Hubble Telescope | Comments Off on Hubble Telescope finds new moon in the Solar System – Pulse Headlines

Alien life to be discovered NEXT YEAR? James Webb Telescope ‘will change world forever’ – Express.co.uk

Posted: at 3:22 am

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is scheduled to take off next year and astronomers believe the super-powerful spier is experts' best hope to date of finding life beyond Earth.

The JWST is the successor to the Hubble Telescope and is much more powerful.

The successor will be able to see further into space, as well as more accurately measure the content of water, carbon dioxide and other components in the atmosphere of an exoplanet a planet outside of our solar system as well as tell scientists more about the size and distance these planets are from their host stars.

As a result, the giant telescope which sports a huge mirror to garner light, is being heralded as the best chance of finding alien life.

GETTY

With a launch scheduled for next year, scientists feel that it is only a matter of time before alien life is discovered.

Matt Mountain, director and Webb telescope scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, said: What we didn't know five years ago is that perhaps 10 to 20 per cent of stars around us have Earth-size planets in the habitable zone.

GETTY

"It's within our grasp to pull off a discovery that will change the world forever.

It is going to take a continuing partnership between NASA, science, technology, the US and international space endeavours, as exemplified by the James Webb Space Telescope, to build the next bridge to humanity's future.

GETTY

AFP/Getty Images

1 of 15

Bubble Nebula, also known as NGC 7653, which is an emission nebula located 11 000 light-years away

Mr Mountain added: "Just imagine the moment, when we find potential signatures of life.

Imagine the moment when the world wakes up and the human race realises that its long loneliness in time and space may be over - the possibility we're no longer alone in the universe.

GETTY

However, the 6billion telescope is expected to last just five years, so its underling, Hubble, is already shortlisting planets for the newcomer to examine as scientists face a race against time, Kevin Stevenson at the University of Chicago told New Scientist.

He said: A training set is probably a good way of looking at it.

Read the original:
Alien life to be discovered NEXT YEAR? James Webb Telescope 'will change world forever' - Express.co.uk

Posted in Hubble Telescope | Comments Off on Alien life to be discovered NEXT YEAR? James Webb Telescope ‘will change world forever’ – Express.co.uk