Atheists & Skeptics are absolutely dead-wrong about...
YOVR ENEMY
PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING! That's what today's atheists &
skeptics are wrong about. I've summarized a few of the
obvious ways in which these God-haters are egregiously
in error. Here are ten of their most frequent blunders:
1) Atheism. Not only do skeptics disbelieve in God, or
the Gods & Goddesses, but they also refuse to admit
a belief or knowledge of anything deemed paranormal,
from parapsychology to UFOs, NDEs, OBEs you name it
they don't believe it. It's like they have no faith
in anything or anyone beyond the mundane & ordinary.
They rationalize about things they don't experience
firsthand. They substitute ad hominem for logic and
intuition, inept criticism for study and understand-
ing, and childish insults for want of human decency.
2) No life after death. Skeptics deny the existence of
the soul. They don't believe in karma, or that each
man or woman is held accountable somewhere down the
road for their deeds--be they good, or be they evil.
The skeptic has nothing to look forward to once the
bell tolls for them. They imagine that death is the
end of their consciousness, the end of them forever.
Boy won't they be surprised! They have much to fear.
3) No advanced civilizations before the Greeks and the
western world. No capacity for human thought before
their much-lauded "Copernican age of enlightenment".
Atlantis? Entire antediluvian cities and continents
buried under the ocean...some more than half a mile
deep below the waves? No such thing! Since to admit
the contrary would ruin their tarnished reputations
beyond recovery. Whole libraries would be abandoned.
Ivy league universities would be little more than a
laughingstock. Great societies would be embarrassed,
ashamed, and even desperate to the point of suicide
or murder. They couldn't take losing face like that,
for to lose self-respect is a fate worse than death.
That's why skeptics will never admit to their error
though mountains of evidence have proven them naive.
4) It's okay for atheists to rudely criticize faithful
believers in God...but God forbid that any believer
should find fault with an atheist! Self-explanatory.
They want us believers to do as they say but not as
they do. They don't like others to have experiences
and knowledge and insight which they can never have,
at least not until after they admit that God exists.
It's by faith that opportunity's doors are unlocked.
Skeptics don't believe and so they lack opportunity.
Frankly, I believe this is their biggest impediment.
If only they could believe without seeing then they
would see for real what they couldn't see otherwise.
That's the way it works. The proud can not perceive
what the humble see readily. Humble thyself skeptic.
5) Skeptics believe whatever the government tells them.
We've all heard how that magical bullet that killed
JFK zigged & zagged & zooped, & danced to the mambo.
We've heard their preposterous claim of having sent
men to the Moon not once but six times. We've heard
about all the "weather balloons" or "Venus" turning
sharp right angles--at speeds in excess of 4000 mph.
And what about TWA 800 and the US NAVY test missile
gone awry? It was no submarine-fired missile, but a
"faulty gas tank" that witnesses reported streak up
out of the water then intercept the doomed airliner
in an exploding ball of flame. And don't forget the
"cow shit bomb" that took out the better part of an
office building in Oklahoma City even though expert
testimony from General Parton et al disproved their
impossible ammonium nitrate subterfuge conclusively.
They found their fall guy, a patsy just like Oswald
(the real shooter was parked down in the stormsewer)
But do you think the skeptic will admit to this? No,
they are content to be flattered by fellow skeptics.
They're orthodox, and they don't like troublemakers,
specially the kind who make them look bad in public.
6) You'd better hold the "party line" or face ridicule.
If you want to "fit in", then you must abandon your
capacity for independent thought, and instead agree
with orthodox academia or else you'll be criticized
and labeled "kook" & other uncomplimentary epithets.
The skeptic relies on his or her fellow skeptics to
support their orthodox views. Oswald killed Kennedy.
McVeigh blew up the Murrah building with "cow pies".
Men walked on the Moon. There's no life after death.
There's no such thing as God, or Gods, or Goddesses.
Astrology is superstitious claptrap. Haunted houses?
Ghosts? No such thing! Believers in souls are fools.
Believers in UFOs, ETs or abductions are only lying.
Past life regression or psychic readings? Poppycock!
The "A" word? Highly-advanced antediluvian cultures?
It doesn't happen to me therefore it can't possibly
happen to someone else. All believers must be liars
and frauds. I know what everybody else knows period.
Unless I know about it then you can't know about it
either. It has to be about something I already know
in order to exist or to work at all. You can't know
or discover anything that I didn't hear about first.
Only I, the atheist, the skeptic, can be logical or
reasonable. All believers are incapable of thinking.
7) Skeptics must ridicule authors of original material
whenever it questions or invalidates orthodox views.
Forget logic or reason, the orthodoxy is infallible.
The next item number eight is a natural consequence
of item number seven. Those who contradict orthodox
academia are automatically ridiculed and persecuted
without so much as a peep concerning evidence which
obviously, evidently, contradicts ye ol' party line.
8) Anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy is a "kook".
Science-related newsgroups are no place for "kooks".
Only atheists will be accepted in scientific groups.
If you believe in anything paranormal, then you are
nuts, and have no business posting to my newsgroups.
Only an atheist can validate or invalidate anything.
9) When the skeptic abjectly fails to refute a message
which plainly undermines their party line orthodoxy,
then the messenger can be attacked as a last resort.
Just find one little thing wrong with the messenger
and keep repeating it over and over, in a desperate
attempt to distract readers from the actual message.
Nobody's perfect. Find any little flaw that you can
find and blow it out of proportion. Make up lies if
there aren't enough faults in the messenger himself.
Say he or she did this or said that. It need not be
in fact true but simply attributed to the messenger.
10) Atheists don't believe in God, because they rather
fancy themselves as their own God. They don't need
another God outside of themselves because atheists
know everything. There can't possibly be any "God"
because that would imply that God might know some-
thing I don't. That's merely impossible, as I know
everything there is to know...God is dead. The End.
Happy Holidays!
Daniel Joseph Min
*Min's "Sidereal Planets of the Week" Challenge:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8K5NN9CG3759...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1Z5CQM973759...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Min's "Sidereal Planetary Orbits" Challenge:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Q1FG5P2Z3759...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Min's Music of the Spheres:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y8HI27B73759...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Min's Compleat Tarot Pak:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9IBCQ0PN375...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Min's Official Home Page:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UWP3KH4W3756...@Gilgamesh-frog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBPfAWsZljD7YrHM/nEQKV8ACfZwxgSycFclx0gmYIlLX1XgtJzrMAoMWB
lFkokixWXM66D8w3CfHf1yi1
=Ab2B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Arcturus
--
Arcturus
"YOVR ENEMY" <rei...@in.heauen.aboue_&_hades.below> wrote in message
news:1FRX1JE0375...@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8K5NN9CG37592.0417592593@Gilgamesh-frog
.org
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1Z5CQM9737593.2016435185@Gilgamesh-frog
.org
>
> *Min's "Sidereal Planetary Orbits" Challenge:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Q1FG5P2Z37591.9319444444@Gilgamesh-frog
.org
>
> *Min's Music of the Spheres:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y8HI27B737594.1518171296@Gilgamesh-frog
.org
>
> *Min's Compleat Tarot Pak:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9IBCQ0PN37594.155462963@Gilgamesh-frog.
org
>
> *Min's Official Home Page:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=UWP3KH4W37560.6238425926@Gilgamesh-frog
Jim Walling
"Arcturus" <no_...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
news:3deed5c5$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> What a load of crap. I don't believe a word of it.
>
> --
> Arcturus
>
But thanks for re-posting it!
dh
lend this (guy?)?
Dan
--
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"Can you think that this country is to be finally subdued by a man who
never possessed real greatness, and with all his art could never
counterfeit it?."
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"YOVR ENEMY" <rei...@in.heauen.aboue_&_hades.below> wrote
Eric
2) Skepticism is not accepting a statement as fact just
because someone says so.
3) Skeptics will accept something once they have been
provided with tangible proof.
4) It's not up to the skeptic to provide proof of someone
else's claims.
Odysseus
>
> "Arcturus" <no_...@spamfree.com> wrote in message
> news:3deed5c5$1...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> > What a load of crap. I don't believe a word of it.
> >
> > --
> > Arcturus
> >
>
> But thanks for re-posting it!
>
We're all so grateful to you for posting it a third time, too!
--Odysseus
Jim Walling
> We're all so grateful to you for posting it a third time, too!
>
> --Odysseus
Realized it after hitting send, sorry.
Chuck
<rei...@in.heauen.aboue_&_hades.below> wrote:
I want some of whatever it is that this guy has been smoking.
-Chuck.
______________________________________________________________________
"Man, we were kicking so much ass until that Cuthulu prick showed up..."
WormSpeakers Web Pit (www.wormspeaker.com)
Ralph Hertle
To delete a message within a certain time:
<left-click> to place the focus on the message, <right-click>[Cancel][accept] .
I think you would have to go to each NG to delete the cross-posted messages.
BTW, the Usenet limit on cross-posted messages is three.
Ralph Hertle
Jonathan
<ralph....@verizon.net> writes
>Jim Walling:
>
>To delete a message within a certain time:
>
><left-click> to place the focus on the message, <right-click>[Cancel][accept] .
>
>I think you would have to go to each NG to delete the cross-posted messages.
>
>BTW, the Usenet limit on cross-posted messages is three.
You've never been right yet, and you're wrong now.
_Some_ ISPs will block excessively cross posted messages. My newsreader
warns me about cross posting to more than four groups. It's poor
netiquette, because no message is likely to be on topic for more than a
few groups - and may be off topic for all of them. But it isn't a Usenet
limit.
I suspect your advice about left-click and right-click only applies to a
certain program, too.
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
Jim Walling
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3DEF9E23...@verizon.net...
> Jim Walling:
>
> To delete a message within a certain time:
>
> <left-click> to place the focus on the message,
<right-click>[Cancel][accept] .
>
> I think you would have to go to each NG to delete the cross-posted
messages.
>
> BTW, the Usenet limit on cross-posted messages is three.
>
> Ralph Hertle
I'll try that next time!
Jim
Jim Walling
>
> I'll try that next time!
>
> Jim
>
>
Tried it this time right after sending it, but the right click doesn't give
me the option to abort it (I'm using Outlook), thanks anyway.
Jim
Larry
is more guilty of absurdity and poor judgement, the athiest who choses
to base his opinions on hard facts and proven theories, or the
religious believer who justifies a belief that is only there because
its what he's been taught to believe his whole life. Its amazing how
you can look at the moon landings as a perpetrated hoax because a few
details can't be explained, but you see no reason not to believe in
God whose only evidence of proof are words written by men thousands of
years ago and the illusions and imaginations of others since who claim
to have "seen the light" or "spoken to God". None of the countless
facts that prove dieties don't exist mean anything to you, this I call
blind faith. I prefer knowing confidently that my life is governed by
my actions and the actions of humans around me, and not a fabled
"ghost". I find peace in the fact of knowing that when I die, I cease
to exist, painlessly and without any worry rather than worry about
whether I've been a good boy or if I'm going the other way to hell. I
don't fear or conjecture what happens to my soul after since I don't
blindly believe they exist like you do. Anyone who believes in a
human soul does so blindly, there is no factual evidence to prove it.
Don't bother with testimonies and eye witnesses, this is not factual
proof. If I fear death at all its because I worry about those that
rely on my being here and that they'll have to carry on without me.
Heaven, Hell, and God belong right up there with the Tooth Fairy,
Peter Rabbit, Santa Claus, and the imaginary aliens that Heavens Gate
went to meet.
I have a few questions for you concerning the Bible,
Adam and Eve had 2 sons Cain and Abel, they had 2 wives....where'd
they come from if A&E (not the channel) only had 2 sons? If they came
from A&E, but the MEN who wrote the bible forgot to mention it,
wouldn't that be incest which is a sin? My answer-women were of no
importance at the time of the BIbles writings, it was a detail that
never would have entered their minds.
Why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible? If the Bible is the word
of God, why would he leave out such an epic span of Earth's history?
My answer- if the MEN who wrote the Bible had ever seen a fossil, it
would have been mentioned.
How can the Earth be only 6000 years old if we have a proven
geological history of 4-5 billion years? My answer- I have no answer,
I can't believe anyone could be that gullible.
If your arguements point to blind faith, then you might as well not
respond, I'm only interested in hard facts.
I can't answer for all Athiests, but for myself, I certainly don't
assume I know everything. The things I don't know about or don't have
an answer for, I will rest assured that to admit "I don't know" is
better than attaching an imaginary solution just because I can't
accept or face the fear of not having an answer to something.
Larry
Larry
Paul Schlyter
Larry <astr...@gis.net> wrote:
> There's a difference between independent thought and blind faith.
> Who is more guilty of absurdity and poor judgement, the athiest who
> choses to base his opinions on hard facts and proven theories, or the
> religious believer who justifies a belief that is only there because
> its what he's been taught to believe his whole life.
"hard facts and proven theories" you refer to has nothing to say
about whether there exists a god or not. Atheism is therefore by
itself a kind of religion, i.e. a belief not based on facts.
The most openminded here is definitely the agnostic, i.e. the one who
doesn't rule out the possibility but who concludes that we just don't
know. All we can do is to believe, one way or the other.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/
Strabo
Perhaps, perhaps not, for where does fact end and hypothesis begin?
There is a difference between belief in a transcendent power or being,
often referred to as a 'Creative Force' or 'Creator' or God', and the
religions that you rail against.
Religions are clearly the work of man though some are claimed to be
'divinely inspired'. The truth is unknowable and thus remain a matter
of faith and have no intrinsic value to the skeptical.
This having been said lends no credence to the constant battering of
religion by those who call themselves atheists.
Taking potshots at the emotional investments of others seems an easy
and useless game which pays in what way? Would you say that homosexuals
are absurd for believing that they are natural or that they are as good
as everyone else? Homosexuality is after all a belief in themselves as
ordinary people, an acceptance of how they are made, that is, as they
find themselves.
A 'creative force' exists apart from man and though it can be rationalized
as belonging to a quantifiable category of rational thought, its the
mysteries of this universe will always remain one step beyond
man's attempts to appropriate the godhead as a personal trophy.
A 'Creator' may be recognized without a religion as is the case of
Declaration of Independence but a religion must fly the banner of
a particular god or gods. And so religions do this. They have an agenda
and use (or misuse) their sacred trust to browbeat others of different
persuasions. All for the benefit of others of course.
Everyone has the capacity for belief (an acceptance which cannot be
supported by ordinary means) and all adults have formed some structure
to account for the time 'before' their birth and that time 'after'
their death. This in itself is an acknowledgment of the potential for
a non-physical universe and an adaptive or intelligent power.
In light of the obvious unknowables the broader issue is why atheism
even exists and why its practice is so popular today. I suspect atheism
is simply the application of scientific materialism to social engineering.
Why else would one bother to highlight again the shortcomings of
believers if not to insinuate a different view (or religion)?
That to me accounts for the sophomoric ploys like capitalizing the 'A'
in atheism and associating with ideas like 'free thinkers' or 'libertarian'.
In fact the bodies of philosophy, theosophy and quantum physics would be
out of the reach to one who is truly incapable of transcendent thought.
So much for non-believers and hello to skepticism which is what you
actually practice.
Offbreed
> Actually, both are equally guilty of poor judgement here. Those
> "hard facts and proven theories" you refer to has nothing to say
> about whether there exists a god or not. Atheism is therefore by
> itself a kind of religion, i.e. a belief not based on facts.
That would be "superstition" as "relegion" implies a group with a
shared belief *system*, IMO. Small quible.
I am an "atheist" because the information availible strongly suggests
that belief that there are gods arises from faulty mental facilities.
Something thought up by someone with a poor grip on reality and
lacking any objective proof? I'm inclined to believe the claim to be
false.
dh
one way or another... The atheist is just as guilty of blind faith
as the religious nut, though he MAY have gotten there from a
different path.
Dan
--
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"Can you think that this country is to be finally subdued by a man who
never possessed real greatness, and with all his art could never
counterfeit it?."
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"Larry" <astr...@gis.net> wrote
Painius
pamby. Personally, i think it's the Sikhs who've got it together.
http://www.sikh-history.com/faq.html
(did i spell that right?)
Starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours, (sit tibi terra levis)
Painius
http://www.painellsworth.net/
oxo
"dh" <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:uv319t6...@corp.supernews.com...
Paul Schlyter
human inventions is definitely true. However, the atheist claim goes
further than this: it says there cannot be any god at all --- including
gods no-one ever has thought about. And that's where atheism becomes
another belief, based on no evidence.
dh
the gun nut crowd.
Dan
--
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"Can you think that this country is to be finally subdued by a man who
never possessed real greatness, and with all his art could never
counterfeit it?."
+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
+ - + - + -
"Painius" <stars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:wUgI9.41618$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Condor Chef
> There's a difference between independent thought and blind faith.
Absolutely.
> Who
> is more guilty of absurdity and poor judgement, the athiest who choses
> to base his opinions on hard facts and proven theories, or the
> religious believer who justifies a belief that is only there because
> its what he's been taught to believe his whole life.
We'll see, as soon as we examine your "facts".
> Its amazing how
> you can look at the moon landings as a perpetrated hoax because a few
> details can't be explained, but you see no reason not to believe in
> God whose only evidence of proof are words written by men thousands of
> years ago and the illusions and imaginations of others since who claim
> to have "seen the light" or "spoken to God".
You're about to step into a pile, Larry. The "evidence of proof" you
disparge so freely is more than you'll *ever* have to the contrary.
Read on to find out why.
> None of the countless
> facts that prove dieties don't exist mean anything to you, this I call
> blind faith.
You have *no* facts proving dieties, or anything else for that matter,
*do not* exist. One cannot prove something doesn't exist, only that
something *does* exist.
> I prefer knowing confidently that my life is governed by
> my actions and the actions of humans around me, and not a fabled
> "ghost".
You claim to "know confidently" what you can only possibly guess, and
yet claim to know something else is a "fable". Makes you sound like a
religious fanatic.
> I find peace in the fact of knowing that when I die, I cease
> to exist, painlessly and without any worry rather than worry about
> whether I've been a good boy or if I'm going the other way to hell. I
> don't fear or conjecture what happens to my soul after since I don't
> blindly believe they exist like you do.
Well hurrah for you. Why do you despise those who think differently
from you? Unless maybe you're not so certain in your position, and
need reassurance that you're not making a mistake.
> Anyone who believes in a
> human soul does so blindly, there is no factual evidence to prove it.
That there is no factual evidence to prove it, does *not* disprove
it...
> Don't bother with testimonies and eye witnesses, this is not factual
> proof.
Have you ever touched a quasar? How do you know they exist?
Testimonies and eye witness evidence, and nothing else. So, quasars
do or do not exist?
> If I fear death at all its because I worry about those that
> rely on my being here and that they'll have to carry on without me.
How noble of you. How did the human race survive for the past 250,000
years without you?
> Heaven, Hell, and God belong right up there with the Tooth Fairy,
> Peter Rabbit, Santa Claus, and the imaginary aliens that Heavens Gate
> went to meet.
I have a challenge for you: There is a 6' 3", 195lb ferret living in
the woods behind my house. Prove it doesn't exist.
That's right, you cannot. Even with years of careful research, the
most that you could surmise is that it *probably* does not exist.
> I have a few questions for you concerning the Bible,
That have been hashed and rehashed to no end. A tired rag for those
who take glee in poking holes in an ancient document which was
*written by man*.
> I can't believe anyone could be that gullible.
I can, because you are.
> If your arguements point to blind faith, then you might as well not
> respond, I'm only interested in hard facts.
You've got all the facts you need at your fingertips. Here's a very
simple question for which I've yet to hear a plausible answer. Let's
see how you do:
Why is there *something*, instead of *nothing*.
Take your time, think it through.
> I can't answer for all Athiests, but for myself, I certainly don't
> assume I know everything.
The most accurate thing you've written so far...
> The things I don't know about or don't have
> an answer for, I will rest assured that to admit "I don't know" is
> better than attaching an imaginary solution just because I can't
> accept or face the fear of not having an answer to something.
A direct contradiction to everything you've written thus far. With
your narrow-mindedness and prosecutorial attitude towards those who do
not think like you, you could easily pass for a dark-ages Pope.
Lighten up, Francis.
CC
Geoff Prest
news:84119aae.0212...@posting.google.com...
> How can the Earth be only 6000 years old if we have a proven
> geological history of 4-5 billion years? My answer- I have no answer,
...
The impact of a comet might be the answer you're looking for. It would wipe
out most life on the planet in short-order at least, and I'm sure it would
destroy exisiting social structure forcing a complete rebuild from whatever
intellectual resources remained; leaving human history a seeming 6000 year
time-line.
ryu
> that belief that there are gods arises from faulty mental facilities.
first things first look up new zealand and ancient civilization cover ups,
please
would you accept that this diminished capacity might only represent a lack
of our current knowledge of the universe and that the people who start the
god myth were witness to higher beings like aliens or a missing terrestrial
civilization as yet undiscovered. try this one, all over the world gov'ts
are systematically and have for ages ancient sites that could help us to
understand our ancestors
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds5.htm
among all the other stuff this page has to offer
'snippits from' http://www.industryinet.com/~ruby/archaeologicalcover.html
Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a
geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to
an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s.
This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to
guard orthodox tenets.
McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using
four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead
archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist's
finding was 250,000 years or more.
The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait
"crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist's
tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file and asking for a new
series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates
match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.
Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she
refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she
lost a teaching job at an American university.
Censorship of "Forbidden" Thinking: Evidence for Mankind's Great Antiquity
The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also
demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics
on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines many
previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man's antiquity
far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.
The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the
book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a
documentary.
In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, which
featured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the scientific
community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from
irate scientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the whole program "a
hoax".
But the scientists went further than this-a lot further. In an extremely
unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to
rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the
most radical step of all: they presented their case to the federal
government and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step in
and bar NBC from airing the program again.
This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant
attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor
intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an
attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never
hear the end of it.
The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the
Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:
At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time
apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that
the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC
should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science
education can be established.
I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain Police" are. And I really
do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word-because for every case of
this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on
successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have
been labeled "error" and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular
files, never to see the light of day.