Whether it’s young Earth creationism claiming Darwin caused the holocaust, or Hindu mysticism subverting the science of consciousness ala Deepak Chopra’s wacky woo woo, or hippie new-agers thinking their acid induced trips justify a gross misinterpretation of quantum physics & neuro & cosmic science - it’s all apparently lumping together into a pile on one “progressive” “liberal” website known as huffingtonpost.com - run by so-called “liberal” “progressive” noted public personality Arianna Huffington. References to follow.

Krista Tippett, who operates the program “Speaking of Faith” on American Public Media, also known as Minnesota Public Radio - a network that co-exists on many National Public Radio affiliates in the US, is now a “blogger” (or columnist) on huffpo. When her radio program first came on my local station, KUER, I felt like my station had been hijacked… Like my station was now an advocate for religion and forced respect for religion - whereas in the past that job had been left to the Bible beater stations run by Christian Evangelicals.

Before and after the recent election of Obama I had been using Arianna Huffington’s huffingtonpost.com. But the site has gone down hill, and is often shallow - wading in the trivialities of celebrities I care nothing about. However they recently added a religion section and in that section they claim that they are having a “contemporary discussion on religion & science,” as per the large banner graphics they put at the top of relevant articles.

Krista Tippett recently posted an article in their religion section, claiming that Einstein’s “awe” was “religious awe.” I posted a pointed comment in response. That comment was blocked. I then posted a toned down comment. My second comment was blocked. Then I received a condescending email from a moderator there stating that “bloggers” such as Tiippett could censor comments on their “blogs” as they saw fit. The so-called blogs on that site are really more like online newspaper columns.

I’ll provide more references below. But all this leaves me wondering and perhaps answering what happens when one side & then another tries to force science to give an answer they WANT it to give, rather than just accepting the answer that it DOES give.

———————————copy of letter send to the management of huffpo - with relevant references

To the management of Huffingtonpost and to Ms. Huffington:

Traditionally the words liberal and progressive coincided with an advocacy for reason and science - for the fruits of the Enlightenment.

But on your site there are at least three examples where you’re allowing a corrosive force on what has come to us via science being a better fact finder than religion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krista-tippett/reconciling-science-and-r_b_634395.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bernard-beckwith/extended-awareness-the-po_b_620230.html

The large banner in the religion section says you’re having a contemporary discussion. That’s not really the case. You may be having a shouting match between preferred bloggers who don’t directly respond to each other much, but you aren’t having a discussion really because your current comment censorship policy won’t allow for it.

When even the toned down version of my comment on Tippett & her article on Einstein & god wouldn’t pass muster, that shows that the “moderators” are going too far.

If a crucible, a crucible necessary for progress & democracy & real science, is present, then everything other than expletives or real physical threats should usually be allowed. Beyond that, if you’re going to allow in the first instance unchallenged balderdash which is unsupported by real science & reason, and then in the second instance silence via censoring even the two comments like mine - you aren’t having a “contemporary discussion” about religion nor science.

Here are some harsher criticisms of the current situation with your site:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/huffpo_creationist_nazis_mix_t.php

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/07/huffpo_antiscience

And some further criticisms of Tippett:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/krista-tippett-does-it-again.html

http://aredant.blogspot.com/2005/10/speaking-of-flakes-wizdumb-of-krista.html

Usually people who’ve had a soft experience with religion have no concept of what it’s like to be in a real religion - and these soft fluffy religious types will actively exclude from the table those of us with actual knowledge about the real situation.

If you value my opinion and the similar opinions of others then you’ll change your comment policy to allow for real honest authentic responses to these religious-nose-under-the-tent-of-science-and-reason people - on their own so-called blogs.

You call them blogs, but they really aren’t. They are columns. And the columns have a comment section. If the comment section is heavily censored, which it apparently is, and censored to not allow for real honest authentic responses to what is claimed and to the wider issues at hand, then all you have really is an echo chamber - and one which does a great disservice to what has traditionally been the purview of the “progressive left.”

If the progressive left now embraces “creation science,” and the idea that Einstein had “religious awe” rather than just plan old “awe,” and the idea that quantum physics somehow allows consciousness to control physical reality - another bogus claim…

We need to know what is real - and your site isn’t helping. You’re walking along a path which leads right into the hands of Bible belt idiots who teach their kids a type of shallow-facade-of-science that claims that the Earth is really 6000 years old, or the similar idiocy that when we go to sleep the moon ceases to exist (as per Deepak Chopra’s wacky claims).

There’s only so much “editing” a person can do to who they are. Maybe you’ve chosen your “preferred” people who can speak. But don’t pretend you have a comment section, and don’t pretend to be a progressive blogging & news site, (as is claimed on the radio program “Left Right & Center” that Arianna appears on), if you are going to in the first instance have speakers-of-trash about science & reason on, and then no allowance of those of us with different and more concrete evidence & views & history to speak.

—————————end of quote of my comments to the operators of huffingtonpost.com

And now here’s the first comment I made which was blocked, which was in response to
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krista-tippett/reconciling-science-and-r_b_634395.html

And before I quote it here’s a reference to the Deepak Chopra woo woo issue. The dude gets really angry and aggravated when he’s challenged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg
and a list of the 12 videos:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Nightline+Face-Off:+Does+God+Have+a+Future?+(&aq=f

——————-quote of original comment censored by huffpo Krista Tippett authorized “moderators” - and a toned down version was censored as well

Clearly Ms. Tippett has spent zero time in any real hard core religion, like Mormonism or Islam.

Einstein approached science itself with innate awe - NOT religious awe.

Ms. Tippett has her public radio program “Speaking of Faith.” It is infinitely annoying, and apparently seeks subvert tax money to pay for religious advocacy. Her work is full of fuzzy thinking, wrong conclusions, inappropriate correlations, and whitewashing.

Religion was our fist attempt to find answers to key questions. Because it was our first attempt it was wrong on most if not all points. The history of science & religion shows that science is a better method of separating fact from fiction.

On one of Ms. Tippett’s shows she said that some could say that God is Sex. That is the only thing we could agree on. Yes, the only God worth worshiping is sex. I can agree with that. But that’s not the God of Mormonism (an angry Santa Clause god who had sex with Mary the Mother of Jesus, who hates masturbation, but had his prophets sleep with 14 year olds), nor the God of Islam who came to Mohammad, nor the God of Catholicism who allows little boys to be raped by His anointed servants en masse, and so on.

Let’s work to define what we mean by “religion” and “god” before we continue. Who’s religion? Who’s god? Which god?

No, Einstein doesn’t validate YOUR god, if your god is not Spinoza’s god. Look it up.

—-end of quote of more pointed comment

I think the bottom line is that fuzzy lazy wacky politically correct anally retentive stuffy nosed thinking on the left, apparently leads to a welcoming atmosphere to ALL that is wacky and that subverts what science shows. Your pet theory that came from your acid trip, or from your Bible thumping class, or from your Hindu mountain top visit - none of it is automatically justified by science. Science is a method, and it will show what it will show. So far, it doesn’t justify mystical metaphysical supernatural claims. If it did it would. It doesn’t. So let’s find out what’s really real. And also CALL OUT corrosive idiots to seek to silence the authentic life experiences of those of us who’ve had real hard core experiences with religion.

IMO you chose to participate in the forums that have the setup and rules which you like. Those you don’t like, no sense in going there expecting them to change for your benefit.

There is no obligation that a forum meets any standard of fairness, though it’s nice if they do.

What is fair is that you get to decide which forums to participate in, well at least as long as you follow the rules.

birdman - 12 July 2010 10:19 AM

Whether it’s young Earth creationism claiming Darwin caused the holocaust, or Hindu mysticism subverting the science of consciousness ala Deepak Chopra’s wacky woo woo, or hippie new-agers thinking their acid induced trips justify a gross misinterpretation of quantum physics & neuro & cosmic science - it’s all apparently lumping together into a pile on one “progressive” “liberal” website known as huffingtonpost.com - run by so-called “liberal” “progressive” noted public personality Arianna Huffington. References to follow.

Krista Tippett, who operates the program “Speaking of Faith” on American Public Media, also known as Minnesota Public Radio - a network that co-exists on many National Public Radio affiliates in the US, is now a “blogger” (or columnist) on huffpo. When her radio program first came on my local station, KUER, I felt like my station had been hijacked… Like my station was now an advocate for religion and forced respect for religion - whereas in the past that job had been left to the Bible beater stations run by Christian Evangelicals.

Before and after the recent election of Obama I had been using Arianna Huffington’s huffingtonpost.com. But the site has gone down hill, and is often shallow - wading in the trivialities of celebrities I care nothing about. However they recently added a religion section and in that section they claim that they are having a “contemporary discussion on religion & science,” as per the large banner graphics they put at the top of relevant articles.

Krista Tippett recently posted an article in their religion section, claiming that Einstein’s “awe” was “religious awe.” I posted a pointed comment in response. That comment was blocked. I then posted a toned down comment. My second comment was blocked. Then I received a condescending email from a moderator there stating that “bloggers” such as Tiippett could censor comments on their “blogs” as they saw fit. The so-called blogs on that site are really more like online newspaper columns.

I’ll provide more references below. But all this leaves me wondering and perhaps answering what happens when one side & then another tries to force science to give an answer they WANT it to give, rather than just accepting the answer that it DOES give.

———————————copy of letter send to the management of huffpo - with relevant references

To the management of Huffingtonpost and to Ms. Huffington:

Traditionally the words liberal and progressive coincided with an advocacy for reason and science - for the fruits of the Enlightenment.

But on your site there are at least three examples where you’re allowing a corrosive force on what has come to us via science being a better fact finder than religion:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krista-tippett/reconciling-science-and-r_b_634395.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-bernard-beckwith/extended-awareness-the-po_b_620230.html

The large banner in the religion section says you’re having a contemporary discussion. That’s not really the case. You may be having a shouting match between preferred bloggers who don’t directly respond to each other much, but you aren’t having a discussion really because your current comment censorship policy won’t allow for it.

When even the toned down version of my comment on Tippett & her article on Einstein & god wouldn’t pass muster, that shows that the “moderators” are going too far.

If a crucible, a crucible necessary for progress & democracy & real science, is present, then everything other than expletives or real physical threats should usually be allowed. Beyond that, if you’re going to allow in the first instance unchallenged balderdash which is unsupported by real science & reason, and then in the second instance silence via censoring even the two comments like mine - you aren’t having a “contemporary discussion” about religion nor science.

Here are some harsher criticisms of the current situation with your site:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/huffpo_creationist_nazis_mix_t.php

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/07/huffpo_antiscience

And some further criticisms of Tippett:

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/03/krista-tippett-does-it-again.html

http://aredant.blogspot.com/2005/10/speaking-of-flakes-wizdumb-of-krista.html

Usually people who’ve had a soft experience with religion have no concept of what it’s like to be in a real religion - and these soft fluffy religious types will actively exclude from the table those of us with actual knowledge about the real situation.

If you value my opinion and the similar opinions of others then you’ll change your comment policy to allow for real honest authentic responses to these religious-nose-under-the-tent-of-science-and-reason people - on their own so-called blogs.

You call them blogs, but they really aren’t. They are columns. And the columns have a comment section. If the comment section is heavily censored, which it apparently is, and censored to not allow for real honest authentic responses to what is claimed and to the wider issues at hand, then all you have really is an echo chamber - and one which does a great disservice to what has traditionally been the purview of the “progressive left.”

If the progressive left now embraces “creation science,” and the idea that Einstein had “religious awe” rather than just plan old “awe,” and the idea that quantum physics somehow allows consciousness to control physical reality - another bogus claim…

We need to know what is real - and your site isn’t helping. You’re walking along a path which leads right into the hands of Bible belt idiots who teach their kids a type of shallow-facade-of-science that claims that the Earth is really 6000 years old, or the similar idiocy that when we go to sleep the moon ceases to exist (as per Deepak Chopra’s wacky claims).

There’s only so much “editing” a person can do to who they are. Maybe you’ve chosen your “preferred” people who can speak. But don’t pretend you have a comment section, and don’t pretend to be a progressive blogging & news site, (as is claimed on the radio program “Left Right & Center” that Arianna appears on), if you are going to in the first instance have speakers-of-trash about science & reason on, and then no allowance of those of us with different and more concrete evidence & views & history to speak.

—————————end of quote of my comments to the operators of huffingtonpost.com

And now here’s the first comment I made which was blocked, which was in response to
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krista-tippett/reconciling-science-and-r_b_634395.html

And before I quote it here’s a reference to the Deepak Chopra woo woo issue. The dude gets really angry and aggravated when he’s challenged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-8-Yxdphsg
and a list of the 12 videos:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Nightline+Face-Off:+Does+God+Have+a+Future?+(&aq=f

——————-quote of original comment censored by huffpo Krista Tippett authorized “moderators” - and a toned down version was censored as well

Clearly Ms. Tippett has spent zero time in any real hard core religion, like Mormonism or Islam.

Einstein approached science itself with innate awe - NOT religious awe.

Ms. Tippett has her public radio program “Speaking of Faith.” It is infinitely annoying, and apparently seeks subvert tax money to pay for religious advocacy. Her work is full of fuzzy thinking, wrong conclusions, inappropriate correlations, and whitewashing.

Religion was our fist attempt to find answers to key questions. Because it was our first attempt it was wrong on most if not all points. The history of science & religion shows that science is a better method of separating fact from fiction.

On one of Ms. Tippett’s shows she said that some could say that God is Sex. That is the only thing we could agree on. Yes, the only God worth worshiping is sex. I can agree with that. But that’s not the God of Mormonism (an angry Santa Clause god who had sex with Mary the Mother of Jesus, who hates masturbation, but had his prophets sleep with 14 year olds), nor the God of Islam who came to Mohammad, nor the God of Catholicism who allows little boys to be raped by His anointed servants en masse, and so on.

Let’s work to define what we mean by “religion” and “god” before we continue. Who’s religion? Who’s god? Which god?

No, Einstein doesn’t validate YOUR god, if your god is not Spinoza’s god. Look it up.

—-end of quote of more pointed comment

I think the bottom line is that fuzzy lazy wacky politically correct anally retentive stuffy nosed thinking on the left, apparently leads to a welcoming atmosphere to ALL that is wacky and that subverts what science shows. Your pet theory that came from your acid trip, or from your Bible thumping class, or from your Hindu mountain top visit - none of it is automatically justified by science. Science is a method, and it will show what it will show. So far, it doesn’t justify mystical metaphysical supernatural claims. If it did it would. It doesn’t. So let’s find out what’s really real. And also CALL OUT corrosive idiots to seek to silence the authentic life experiences of those of us who’ve had real hard core experiences with religion.

It seems that the religious has evolved in a manner in which it refuses….or simply does not have the ability….. to factor logic into its thinking.
Most of the biggies claim that it is futile to introduce their mindset to the possibility that their spiritual conclusions are delusional.
Some factor other than critical analysis is needed to shake them out of their consensus dream-world.
The results of which may, or may not, benefit society in general.
A child in not really harmed in the belief of Santa Claus.
I’m beginning to wonder if we shouldn’t let them flounder in self-deception.
Well….....at least until they want to kill us non-believers off.

toombaru - 12 July 2010 01:34 PM

Well….....at least until they want to kill us non-believers off.

Or vice versa…

At some point an organism has to compete for resources.

I mean, you know if “believers” and “non-believers” cannot find a way to co-exist.

Everything is fine as long as there is an abundance of resources. When things get scarce, that’s when all hell breaks loose.

I can understand your frustration, Birdman, however, check the post by McKenzievmd (#34) in the Point of Inquiry section, thread “Chris Mooney should give the world an apology”.  That clearly differentiates between a blog and a forum such as this.  As I see it, you can either start your own blog to respond to Tippet and Huffington, or at least withdraw from them and suggest your friends do so, too.  I would guess loss of readership would have some effect on them.

Occam

Gnostikosis - 12 July 2010 01:58 PM

toombaru - 12 July 2010 01:34 PM

Well….....at least until they want to kill us non-believers off.

Or vice versa…

At some point an organism has to compete for resources.

I mean, you know if “believers” and “non-believers” cannot find a way to co-exist.

Everything is fine as long as there is an abundance of resources. When things get scarce, that’s when all hell breaks loose.

Compare the history of the killings that have occurred under the banner of religion to those of non-believers.

Compare the history of the killings that have occurred under the banner of religion to those of non-believers.

People openly claiming to be nonbelievers haven’t been around nearly as long.  We have some catching up to do.

Dead Monky - 12 July 2010 02:13 PM

Compare the history of the killings that have occurred under the banner of religion to those of non-believers.

People openly claiming to be nonbelievers haven’t been around nearly as long.  We have some catching up to do.

They killed most of us off early in the evolution of the religion.

Dead Monky - 12 July 2010 02:13 PM

People openly claiming to be nonbelievers haven’t been around nearly as long.  We have some catching up to do.

See… Already competitive. 

Although, really aren’t the two groups competing for votes/political power. The minds of the youths of the world.

Generally doesn’t any organism do what is necessary to survive? The exception being that the individual occasionally will sacrifice itself for the benefit of the group it identifies with.

If/when resources get scarce, are you going to share with the group who thinks the stoning of women is ok?

Say they’ve gain control of all of the resources. Your family/friends need food and water. Since you are an atheist God has decreed you cannot be provided these things.

Or say your group has all the resources. Are you going to be willing to let your own kids go hungry so you can share those resources with a group who daily practices the stoning of women?

Are I suppose you could be among the progressive. Perhaps subverting science but encouraging everyone’s survival.
(just threw that in to try and get back the the topic of the thread.)

I guess I think along the line of it being hard to judge another without having been in their shoes for a while.

I can’t fault any group for wanting to survive. However I have to go forth in the direction I think is best.

Beside it’s not science which leads the masses. It’s the individual leaders that the masses trust. I suspect these progressives are trying to be inclusive so they can be the ones to lead the thinking of the mass majority.

toombaru - 12 July 2010 03:22 PM

Dead Monky - 12 July 2010 02:13 PM

Compare the history of the killings that have occurred under the banner of religion to those of non-believers.

People openly claiming to be nonbelievers haven’t been around nearly as long.  We have some catching up to do.

They killed most of us off early in the evolution of the religion.

Actually I think they created a lot of secular idealism. When they stole other groups beliefs and tried to force Christianity on people.

Jews were forced to convert or be killed and tortured. Many gave lip service but I think realize for themselves how shallow religious belief was and started to even question their own traditional beliefs.

It’s easy to say here we are, but we would not be here without everything that came before. The good and the bad IMO.

Responding to more than one reply at once:

Statements about blog or forum rules don’t quite address the wider issue at hand.

Also It’s unclear to me how comments about survival are highly relevant, except in as much as it’s the charismatic charlatans that tend to screw people over & take advantage.

For those interested in the wider issues at hand you can consult my post & related comments by PZ Myers.

And for those in this group concerned with an advocacy for secularism & the Enlightenment I’ll let my comments pass to them.

Also the Santa Claus I mentioned is a special case - a evil alien peering into the bedroom windows of adolescents in Mormonism (& Catholicism & Islam).

Jonathan
http://corvus.freeshell.org