Yeah Kevin , me GOD as YOOOU !     Can't kill gawed (yet) but we can sure the fuck kill all idol worshiping religion .... 

   .... and go PZ Myers 

And your idol is Gizmo ???  ....  and you worship how ???

You funny guy Gizmo !

Yes what ain't god ? My question was serious, I just used your last name, yeah you knew that. 

Yes I laugh, because I AM dead serious. I don't get the theist god, or any worship of a serparate something, or creator ?????

Doesn't compute, my brain is incredibly small !!!!       

Cool Gizmo, at first read I agree, so why are you theist and I am an atheist ? Are you a pantheist, regarding consciousness, or life is a gift, OR  ?  I just don't get the separation thing.

    I don't kill spiders unless they are fucking with me, the scary ones .... dead scary spider   

'Things' don't exist. Thing is just a category for certain objects (inanimate objects, objects that you aren't able to otherwise describe, etc).

You're doing nothing but playing a language game (and one that only works while you're abusing English).

So you think that whatever I make up exists, then? Skepticism is just rubbish, in your mind?

...Arbitrary 'isn't the right word', and yet that's all we ever do. 'Oh, Thor doesn't exist? Well I guess God must be X instead, then. Oh, Yahweh doesn't exist? I guess God must be Y, then,'

God the arbitrary label.

'So be it'? That undermines the very concept of scientific exploration.

It's less crazy than fundamentalism, sure. But it's still fucking crazy.

See what being unskeptical does to your knowledge base?

The characters in 'Illiad' and 'Odyssey' were myths, and modern romancing that says otherwise is moronic. Hell, Homer himself wasn't even likely a real figure; most scholars now agree that the Homeric epics were constructs of several different men, based on stories and myths passed by word of mouth.

Well now you're in even worse shape, aren't you? We know that Genesis is an absolute fabrication, we know that Yahweh could not have done the things claimed in the Bible (they violate the laws of physics), we know that many locations within the Bible don't exist and never have, etc.

 

See? Your 'definition' sucks. Created the universe 'in some sense' is not a valid descriptor; it's vague hand-waving. How did he do it? What are the specifics?

You don't know how it was done? Join the club, and stop pretending.

Likewise, your 'love' claim is erroneous. What examples do you have that demonstrate his alleged love for what he allegedly created? Given that he requires his creations to eat one another to survive, it's certainly not any kind of 'love' we know of.

The 'powerful and knowledgeable' claims are simply naked assertions. Why would he have to be either in order to create the universe? What evidence do you have that he is either? A retarded, lazy or sinister God would at least make some degree of sense, but of course, you insist on what the dogma has taught.

How do you know he's still around? Where's the evidence he's still here? Even if he was the prime agent behind the shift of our universe from one state to the next, how can you assume he's still here?

...And to many others, it's a serious enough offense to nail a cracker to some paper that they feel they should senddeath threats to people and insist that persons be fired.

I want an explanation for this behavior, not wimpy apologetics and no true scotsman fallacies.

I think the only reason "strong" atheism is considered a weak philosophical position is because
"god" can be defined and re-defined to be what the hell ever you want it to be. How can one be sure that something so amorphous does not exist?

Practically, of course, that's utter bollocks. It doesn't make one whit of difference how you define "god", there's no point in caring if it exists.

The "big" gods - the ones with tremendous powers (including omnipotence) and perfect knowledge - simply have no evidence to support their existence. Claims that they hide deliberately place them in the "then why bother worrying about them" file.

The "medium" gods - the ones in deism and pantheism - are pointless things. Deist god? OK, fine, so what? Why care? Pantheist? I don't need to call the universe "god" to make it important.

The "small" gods - where they get fuzzy and seem more like people than gods, so much so that they're only rarely called gods - are so easily explainable by normal, natural phenomena that it's hard to tell why anyone ascribed reverence to them.

So why bother believing in any kind of god, then? Now-a-days it's mostly just believing in what ma and pa believed in. After that, it's folks not understanding the world they find themselves in and picking up the easy and comfortable answers.

I like useful answers better.

I'm not a "strong" atheist because... well, because I'm lazy. I don't' want to have to sift through the huge piles of god definitions to come up with an argument that backs my position. "No evidence means I don't see a need to care about it" works as well and it's a whole lot easier.

(Pardon my rambling. I ramble.)

Yeah Kay Cat and , it was a message about digesting the meaning of the message, not the teacher,  which was simple,  and non superstitious,  ....  "we are god, the christ is you" ....

    Another misunderstood message was the ancient Buddha's regarding Reincarnation (all is recycling) , Karma ( your attitude counts),  Nirvana (peace of mind) .....

                                       Seems all simple to me  

                       So who is fucking these simple messages up?  

Jill Swift, thanks, this is why I am atheist,  GOD as YOU .....   

...cause it is. In it you make a claim and so are compelled by intellectual honesty to support it. It is always safer philosophically to start with a proposition than with a claim, otherwise you get people like me whose first impulse on reading that was to rush in with asking for evidence - and I was going to do that, too, not just for the sake of argument but because I would be genuinely interested in seeing any evidence that you found convincing.  But alas, you tease.

 

Hmmm, I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I mean, I agree that in the main it's nigh impossible to find a believer who can relate a coherent sensical definition of the god they profess to believe in. But it's also true that the same person's god is a product of very complex and intuitive reasoning, so not being able to define it is not necessarily a failure of their sense of reason but a limit to the communicability of that reason. For example, "I feel it's true" is a common testimony of a believer, feeling gives reason before reason can apply to the feeling, and this is just a normal human propensity. 'I like this song' comes before recognition of why and how one relates to the lyrics.

This is not to say that there are not any number of compelling and rational proposed definitions for this idea of god, but that you will surely encounter millions upon millions of believers who like the song but cannot and do not analyse the music in such a way that they could say anything more about it than that; this doesn't mean there isn't a song.

Physical laws can be violated to a degree, that is to say, novel events are realistic even in the presence of physical laws that would appear to exclude them. This is because such exclusions at any time are only given by the limited extent of processes that we know and understand, so although a process that directly contradicts physical laws is pretty much outrageous, innovative routes around them that we are yet to notice most certainly are not outrageous.

And how should we treat fiction? In all seriousness, what is the right way to consider art?

I want to punch you in the face.  Right in your confusing-wording face-god face.

This is either a very extraordinary claim, or it's a really nasty weasle.

Nothing happens contrary to nature, only contrary to what we know of it. Physical laws can not be violated, to any degree, because they are not "rules" that matter and energy play by but rather descriptions of how matter and energy behave. So if we see matter/energy "violating" physical laws, what we're really seeing is the discovery of new aspects of those laws.

As it applies to the idea of "god": You just stuffed poor old god into the gaps again.

 

Bad form, dude. Bad form.

 

 

Aw.. come on Jill.  I was only joking.  I guess that would've come across better if I said it in person.  It truly is a sign of endearment though.  Nevertheless, I apologize for the offense and the apparent bad form.

Are important?

I said:


You said:




So.. def 2 of "thing," focusing on the word "precisely described" as opposed to "specifically."  The disjunctive "or" allows me to do that.

Secondly, the def 3 of "creature" would entail people.


I could put a picture of anything and then merely comment "look at this thing," and people would fill in their own definition based upon what is shown.  The use of the word in a certain context is what gives it definition--much like the word God.

Whether it is a categorical label or not, does not undercut the fact that it is used in other ways.


Um.. there is a difference between "cannot be defined" and "not defined."  One defines practical impossibility.. the other.. a mere failure to do so.

"I cannot cross the road" is different than "I have not crossed the road."


Okay....


Once again.. you're changing the argument you started off with.  "Can't" and "is not," are different phrases with different implications.

Quote you:

And now on we go..


Because I could still ask the question "how?"

?

If God is merely the person that fills in the "fuzzy areas".. there is no reason why the "presupposition" could not be suspended for the purpose of the study (assuming it need be in order to not "invalidate[] the entire process."


Fair enough.  But what you contesting is that:

i.e., that the "figure central to them" is not real.

The absence of proof is not proof of absence.


Does it matter? Pre-state universe aren't really things science is interested about.. or perhaps I'm mistaken.


Assuming they do.. nature of the beast I suppose.

Darn that evolution.  It's a good thing, but leads to such un-idealistic (in some senses) conclusions.


Why? We just established that we don't know what power such an action entails. See above.


"More knowledgeable in other ways" then?


Um.. there was no subtext like that at all.  I would never suggest that Catholics are not "normal" christians.

Pfft.


And this is a Strawman argument?

Tis true, I do not.

Whose orthodoxy? The Catholic? Or other denominations?

Um.. no, I never said that.  I merely responded for myself and other Christians that think like me.  No more or less.  Many denominations, however, do profess, I believe, a "non transubstantiation" perspective on the aforementioned act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation#Views_of_other_Churches_on_transubstantiation

 

It's neither. No really, it's not even weasling. The physical laws aren't the last word on what can happen, they only apply to specific ways that things can and can't happen. To borrow from a classic example in this God debate: SLOT says that energy takes a random course, a bundle of evolving energy states cannot gain structure essentially through this process, however when two evolving states interact in certain ways there are sufficient resources in the combined state for structure to evolve in spite of the law. This is just the earth interacting with the sun we're talking about. The processes underlying both entities follow the laws of thermodynamics faithfully but, even so, can overcome them by the simple act of combination.  So we understand the thermodynamic law, and with it we understand the sun's process of fusion and the earth's mirror processes of random chemical motion, AND we understand the process that arises when the two come into contact in the same bath. This presents us with a degree of violation of the basic law behind it in that the law can turn on itself given the right conditions, to this degree the physical law cannot cast its shadow over what is ultimately possible only on the means of possibility of which our knowledge is quite strictly limited.

 

 

No, actually, I have only put omnipotence in the gaps where it belongs, I haven't stuffed God in with it, as Kevin noted, I am attempting to deftly sidestep the definition of God yet again and in so doing I'm not sticking him anywhere.

If your interest is in playing word games in favor of arguing, I suppose you're right.

...Are you kidding me? Did you even read what you just pasted?

"2.    some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it."

See the emboldened part, which you apparently missed? According to the dictionary defintion, a 'thing' is something that can't be specifically designated or precisely described.

Note that the example supports this perfectly: there's something on the stick that the observer doesn't know how to describe, other than to say it's brass. The brass object is not, in reality, a 'thing'; that's merely the temporary, ignorant label. Further inspection might reveal it's true nature (a brass bell, perhaps, or a brass ornament).

Your second point is a straw man. Your ignoring the categorical description of 'thing' as presented in the dictionary, favoring one topic it presents for no reason.

And again, you're wrong. Context has little to nothing to do with it; attributes are what people use to form their descriptions of things ('This is red' 'This is mechanical' 'This has four legs' etc).

Let's look at some examples:

 

So, take a look at these things. Every single one is completely fictitious - yet they're so well defined, all you have to do is ask, for example, 'Who's Master Chief?' - nevermind any context - and most gamers will be able to easily pick him out by examining the attributes all of the things above.

Can you do the same for God? Can you draw me a picture of God, that anyone would readily accept as a somewhat accurate rendering of what God looks like?

...You mean evidence, I assume? And yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Example:

How does my bank know that I haven't deposited one million dollars into my bank account, if I go to them tomorrow and allege that I have? Simple: I'll have no evidence to support my claim. Moreover, the bank will have lots of consistent counter-evidence that I haven't made any such deposit. If you're drinking a beverage, how do you know when your glass no longer has any fluid in it? How can you tell that there aren't monsters lurking under your bed?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Of course absense of evidence is evidence of absense[/i]; that's not to say it's evidence that can't be cpuntermanded, simply that it's a solid piece of evidence (like any other), and you look for consistency with other evidence to validate or invalidate it.

Of course 'science' is interested. As long as even a single person is interested in exploring it through the scientific method, that's 'science being interested'. Science isn't some big family of people wearing labcoats out to get religion; it's a collective body of work made by anyone interested in contributing.

Wrong again.

First, if it was God making everything, your first sentence is gibberish. There is no 'nature of the beast' that God wouldn't have had control over.

Second, evolution is neither good nor bad. It's simply a fact. Whether or not selection pressure leading to speciation is 'unidealistic' is a matter of opinion; evolutionary science doesn't make the judgement either way. It simply defines the mechanisms.

Of course I did notice your argument, I was just a little tad disappointed to discover I'd read far too much into the thread title.

Yes but people cannot always define perfectly well or with explicit technical language their subjective impression of a song. It is subjective to find a sense of pleasure listening to a certain cadence, but that doesn't require them being able to express in detail why that particular meter resonates well with their sensibilities.

Also I don't think there is such a thing as simply subjective, it would be apparent from the general advance in the field of psychological analysis that subjective is complexly formed and that is what divides it the most from objective. Objective must be formed simply because it requires a careful record of its steps in order to be objective. A subjective experience is just such, in my opinion, because that record is discarded in the process.

 

Sorry? What do you mean by fallacious premise in our debate? What fallacious premise exactly?

As you may note in my reply to Jill, miracles per se, could be made apparent by the junction of two natural processes under certain conditions. The beginnings of the universe, I see you've put that in there, would not be required to adhere to natural processes since it would precede them in terms of causality, however as it is the cause of those processes those processes should logically follow from it.

That said, I should probably defer on the answer, at whatever risk it is to my credibility with you. I'm sorry, but not this time, either. I'm willing to continue discussing what I put forward in the debate at this time, but to go further than that would just muddy things, I think.

 

They don't have to in order to provide a definition for their likes. 'I like this song because I like the message', 'I like this song because I can really dance to it,' 'I like this song because I met my wife while listening to it,' etc, are all perfectly good definitions of why someone might like a song.

I do agree (...though this is debatable. See what I said, regarding fields of study into various art forms).

The non sequitor premise you drew by conflating an anology with factual information.

*Sigh*

...To be honest, it won't hurt your credibility with me. It's just another example for me to put on the stack of theists not being able / willing to empirically back their claims.

 

How's the weather in Australia, by the way?

se·man·tics     Audio Help   /sɪˈmæntɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-man-tiks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun (used with a singular verb)

1.    Linguistics.

a.    the study of meaning.

b.    the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

2.    Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.

3.    the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

4.    general semantics.

 

No.. I think it's just important.  If we're not using words correctly or consistently.. it makes "arguing" very difficult.

 

 

Which can be read two ways.. as I discussed in my post.  It can be read as saying "creature that is not or cannot be precisely described" or can be read as saying "creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated" or can be read as implying "creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated and precisely described."

I think you're reading it the last way.. but I'm suggesting it can be read the first way.

OR, the observer knows exactly what it is and merely DOES NOT precisely describe it.  It has nothing to do with ignorance, he merely says "look at this thing (that I know exactly what it is.. an assumes people that see it will know exactly what it is)."

 

Do you not understand what the word "or" means when given a list of requirements.  It meants "one or the other" or could mean "both."

 

There was no strawman there.

If not specific OR not precisely described => thing

If not a thing => specific AND precisely described.

Really?  I didn't know that...

Pfft.

I never said attributes are not what people use for their descriptions.  But it can be inferred from the use of the word that the person knows what it is (its attributes) and has merely not described its attributed any further.

Context.

"Look at this thing" (points at picture) [it has now been defined as what I am pointing at]

"Ah.. its optimus prime." [and this person now understands]

 

What the heck?  How did we jump to this?

We were speaking about "thing" being a word that is undefined unless attached to something... in arguing that, I was suggesting that your assertion that something that IS NOT defined CANNOT exist.

Now we're talking about pictures and whether people can agree on the pictures application to the word God?

Well then.. let me say... no probably not.. I cannot draw a picture of God that EVERYONE accepts.. although, possibly that some people accept.

But whether there is a categorical acceptance of the particular picture I draw isn't really the point of this argument... but rather whether someone can say that the "thing" does not exist because there is no categorical acceptance of a particular representation.

No.. I meant proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

In either of these cases, the person would have "proof" of the counter-fact.

Not the same here.

Your contention is that they did not exist.  Do you have some proof of this that I am not aware of in the same way a bank would have 'proof' that you have no funds?

In which case.. I restate what I did earlier.

Of course this is true.. but that's not what I said.. and this statement is so broadly applicable its not even worth saying.

The lack of evidence I have that I my brother went to the bathroom today is evidence that he did not.

It's not proof that he did not, IMO.. which is all that I was saying.

And the statement you made "that the figures central to them [are erroneous" suggests an absolute.. not merely a slight leaning towards the conclusion (which is all "absence-evidence" should support IMO).

Solid piece of evidence? I'm not so sure about that.. but okay.

Alright.. perhaps I'm mistaken then.

Whatever..

I said God made everything "in some way." He could of just had his hand in starting off the process (e.g., the big bang) and then taken a step back.

I would have to disagree... maybe from some perspective one can say that it is neither good nor bad.. but when evolution has led to a species that routinely kills one another for land, because of different beliefs, for fun, I would say that is bad.. from my perspective.

Which is why I said "in some senses."

Really? Maybe that's why I said "in some senses."

Good point.

 

Here are some things you didn't respond to.

you

me

 

you

me

 

you

me

Quote you earlier:

 

you

me

 

you

me

 

you

me

 

you

me

 

you

me

 

you

me

 

you

me

 

 

No, it can't.

The reason dictionaries give you different definitions is that each one it provides is specific. See: Grade 1 English.

It has everything to do with ignorance. The 'brass thing' remains a total unknown to you or I. You can speculate about the observer all you want; because the object was not described in detail, we don't know what it is (hence the label 'thing').

You're trying to twist a definition to your own ends.

Wrong again.

'Or' always means one or the other. 'And' would be what we use wen being all inclusive. Using 'or' when trying to be all inclusive leads to different connotations.

Example:

'Zebras are black and white,' (Suggesting both colors are present)

'Zebras are black or white,' (Suggesting Zebras can be one color or the other)

No, we weren't. Go look at the OP, and my title post.

What we're supposed to be dicussing is my statement with regards to your imaginary friend (that I'm absolutely certain he's not there).

Of course, you're a dishonest twat, so you decided to derail the discussion into a semantics argument about the word 'thing'.

 

I didn't repond to them because they're semantics word games you're using to derail the topic further, because (as I already pointed-out) you're a dishonest little twat.

EDIT (Because I simply can't let this last one go. I really, really tried...)

See? You're just a fucking moron.

There's your problem right there.

 

'Proof' is a mathematical term. It doesn't apply outside mathematics at all. Unless your dealing with numbers, asking for a 'proof' of anything is spouting gibberish.

 

You fail to understand that when I said "two ways," I was not suggesting that the dictionary's definition was not specific, but rather that it intentionally used the disjunctive "or" as to make the word apply to two very specific scenarios (or three, if you count "both" as one).

See: Grade 5 English.


You fail to understand that what we are arguing is whether "thing" is merely a "categorical label" or whether it is a word that has can be used to refer to something that is specific or defined.

e.g., this thing, (points to a picture of optimus prime), will destroy us all.

I have not "precisely described" what I am referring to when I point to optimus prime.. that does not mean that "thing" has not been defined as optimus prime within the context I used it.


You're ignoring the argument.


Whatever..



Example:
I cannot teach english or math.

So I guess that means that I can't teach english.. or I can't teach math.. since obviously "or" requires one at the exclusion of the other.


There were multiple issues in your op ("I Am Absolutely Certain that 'God' Does Not Exist).. but at the time of which I was referring to we were discussing a minor issue, e.g., how "thing" can be used, and whether it can be said as to not exist without further definition.


Once again.. one of the major issues.. but not the only issue.  I had no interest in defending my particular definition of God.. my main focus was your statement "There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined"--which, IMO, make no sense.


And you're a petulant ignoramus.

?  Did that aid the discussing in anyway  ?

As for your statement that followed the personal attack, I didn't derail anything.

One of the major issues, original issue:

"There no way it could possibly exist; it isn't even defined."

Response:

"Something that is not defined cannot be said to not exist.  See: Thing."

Your response:

"Thing is a categorical label, it does not exist."

My response:

"Thing may be a categorical label, but it can be used to refer to something specific, although not precisely described, therefore, how can you say that it doesn't exist without further context?"

Hypothetical conclusion:

"You're right, thing can refer to something specific that does exist, although that is not precisely described.  Therefore, I cannot have said that "thing" does not exist without further definition or reference as to what thing I was talking about.  In the same way, I cannot say "God" does not exist without referring to a particular definition of God."

Or, you could have just corrected your original statement:

"God CAN'T be defined."

Which would be a different argument entirely.. but not what you said.


And as I showed above.. you're obviously of too little mind to follow the simple progression of an argument.  (Once again.. just responding in kind, I have no animosity towards you.. nor do I presume to know of what caliber your intellect is.. nor about what sort of motives you have for your argumentation).

There was no derailing of the argument, I responded to multiple statements in the original post.. you responded to those with counters.. and I responded to those.
 

Check a dictionary next time...

proof     Audio Help   /pruf/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proof] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.    the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.    the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5.    Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6.    the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
7.    an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.
8.    Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion.

You're using definition 8 and 7.. I'm referring to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 

A)It is, in fact, a 'Eucharistic host', just as some crackers are Triscuits(tm), and some are Saltines(tm). It's a wafer (not a cracker, strictly, as it's not made quite the same way) manufactured to specific standards for a specific marketing purpose. The name applied to it for that purpose is still applicable.

B)Actually, I don't think the cracker is the core point at all. It's that the University has a conduct policy for its employees which indicates that conduct which is intended to offend specific people (note: not 'conduct which is intended to surprise and provoke reaction in unspecified observers') is prohibited. An employee has violated that policy in a manner some people feel to be exceedingly flagrant, and they are calling for his removal as a disciplinary action.

My place of business has a policy that says I can't insult the customers or the potential customers who come in, but have not yet made a purchase and may decide not to. If I do, I will be fired. Same concept: his place of employment says, "The terms of your employment state you cannot do X". He did X. People want him fired for doing X. That's not crazy. If he wants to shock and offend people, great. I wholeheartedly support his exercising his Right to Free Speech in that manner. That doesn't mean there are no consequences for doing so. It just means the government can't arrest him for it.

It's like a guy who voluntarily signs up for Army ROTC, accepts the Army's money to pay for the remainder of his college, and when he graduates, tells them 'I oppose the Iraq War on moral grounds. I feel it is illegal, and will not carry out my orders to report for duty in Iraq.' Wonderful! Oppose the order you feel is illegal! You're still going to prison.

You made the commitment, you honor the commitment, either by behaving in accordance with the policies you agreed to upon taking the job, or by accepting whatever disciplinary action results from violating those policies. Period. It's a simple question of growing the fuck up and accepting responsibility for your own actions.

Correct. But dismissal from his position is not the same as criminal arrest. If he's agreed to the terms of employment set forth by the university, then while he is free to exercise his Freedom of Speech, violation of those terms of employment is still legitimate grounds for disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal from his position.

Edit to add: He made a commitment. If he cannot hold to his end of it, then why should he receive full benefit from it? I don't care if someone who is a lying, cheating, dishonest asshole is on my side of a fight or not, he's still a lying, cheating, dishonest asshole, and deserves what's coming to him.

I'd say that depends entirely on how vague the policy he agreed to was. If he agreed to it, he should be bound by that agreement. I had to suspend my own fiction writing while I was working as a tech in the telecom industry because the employment terms claimed that anything I invented or created during the period of my employment would belong to the company. I don't think Periphonics (since purchased by Nortel) would have tried to claim ownership of non-work-related efforts, but when I realized the scope of the terms, I consulted with both counsel of my own, and the HR department, and both told me that while it was unlikely to come up, strictly speaking they could do so.

If you put your name on the paper, know what the hell it says. If you agreed to it, you're bound by it.

Disagree all you like, but that's not how the law stands now.

Moreover, Myers identifies himself prominently on his blog as a Professor at the University of Minnesota. This has the effect of using his position, and thus the credibility of the position, as part of establishing the credibility of the blog. That then lends the appearance that he is, even on his blog, a representative of the University, and the things said thereon have the tacit support of the University, which makes even his blog subject to the University's codes of employee conduct.

Don't get me wrong, I like PZ Myers. I think he's smart, funny, writes well. I'd love to see a hundred more of him across the net and in our colleges. But if you break the rules that you've agreed to, then you take the hit. Again, it's a simple matter of taking responsibility for your actions, and not insisting that the contract you choose to bind yourself to carries with it no obligations.