The Catholic church is always ripely ridiculous, and it’s a fine fillip on the rococo elaborations of their dogma when some silly news organization tries to turn them into a poll. Here you go, two, count ’em, two polls at once on the absurd entity called the Virgin Mary. You get to vote on “Do you believe the Virgin Mary has appeared as an apparition?”, which is silly as it stands, but then there’s also this ambiguous question, “Are you surprised the church officially recognized the Virgin Mary sightings from the 1600s?”. So we’ve got “do you believe in ghosts with hymens?” and “are you really surprised at how stupid religion can be?”.
I had to vote no on both. Vote according to your reason now!
(By the way, don’t expect dramatic shifts in the results on this one — they’ve got over 150,000 votes each right now.)
Oh ye of little faith.
That’s the point, isn’t it?
I’m not sure what’s meant by the first question.
I mean, obviously yes, plenty of people have seen things, some of which even did exist, which they thought were Our Lady. Those are “apparitions” in the literal sense of the term. But, equally obviously, I don’t believe any of those apparitions involved the actual presense of a supernatural being.
Are you serious… “Do you believe the Virgin Mary has appeared as an apparition?” – 71% yes. Almost 3 out of 4 people who visit that site… but I don’t understand… how stupid can you… it’s a freaking story from 2000 years ago… *sigh*. I give up.
Isn’t this where the whole ‘reach exceeding grasp’ concept comes into play?
I have a better question: what kind of moron uses “appeared as an apparition”? Haven’t these people learned anything about not using noun/verb forms of the same word together?
Etha: have you voted as a voter?
I would like to recommend that whenever it’s suggested that we add our opinion to a poll we don’t click on a live link to get there.
Instead we copy and paste the link into our web browser.
That way, when the poll site views their web stats they will have no idea where we all came from and be left scratching their heads in befuddlement.
Etha, your nitpicking is nothing more than mere pettifoggery.
The 2nd question is so ambiguous that it’s meaningless to ask it. Feckin’ edjits – but what should we expect?
The Virgin Mary appeared to me as an apparition after a Grateful Dead show in Pittsburgh in 1981. But before I could ask any good questions or receive any wisdom or anything, she disappeared. As a disapparition.
Trust me PZ, Mary is not a virgin!
71/29 and 36/64 (yes/no) now – I’ll be looking forward to returning later and see when they’ve been PZed off.
Plenty of people have ‘seen’ the virgin to good effect. I re’d a very nice book a while back by one of the fairly big names (the title escapes me, though) that spun a nice yarn over the issue. It was set in Spain and wove in the Don Quixote in a coupla chapters. The young woman ‘seeing’ her certainly got a head start on life out of it.
What the FUCK is an apparition?! I mean any dumb-shit has an idea of what the term is trying to describe, but I mean come ON! It’s not like they have one in a cage to give us some kind of exemplar! WTF?! I hate that the bat-shit crazy fucks are so good at using language to give their moronic notions a sense of credibility. Most of their “special” words, like spirit, holy, angel, demon, heaven, etc. can be replaced by “figment of imagination”.
And 3/4ths of people voting (as of 9:00 am PST) think that the “apparition” is a real things. Morons.
The running joke in our Campus Freethought Alliance is that there’s an image of the virgin mary in the wood paneling.
Well, sure I’d believe in ghosts with hymens, if I believed in ghosts. And I believed ghosts had hymens. They probably wouldn’t be women who’d given birth, though. If ghosts were women who’d… Well.
Come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure I believe in hymens. I never have figured out what happened to mine. Not that I’m complaining, of course; don’t miss it a bit and never thought the world needed more laundry to wash.
What a coincidence! The Virgin appeared to me just yesterday in the guise of a deformed Tootsie Roll. She was delicious!
With 170,000 votes cast, that one is going to be difficult to reverse.
“I never have figured out what happened to mine.”
I suppose that’s why they call it “losing” your virginity. Check under the couch cushions.
I didn’t notice this the first time around, but at least they had the sense to post this disclaimer:
“NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.”
#19-
Man, I must’ve blanked out in Ballet, I know that’s where I lost it, but man… I lost my virginity in seventh grade! What’s this world coming to.
Half of the “no” answers are probably just baptists or something. :(
But me no know.
The first question was a no brainer, the second one I debated until I said ‘No’ based on an assumption that if the RCC is lagging so much, the best way to pretend to be relevant is to make some obscure figure a saint….or declare mystical truthiness in something that can’t be easily verified and cross-referenced.
Whenever you sit on the toilet at my house, the glare hits the bathroom door facing you, which reveals a wood grain pattern that looks an awful lot like Jesus.
It’s unsettling having a solemn bearded fellow watch you poop. One of these days, I’m going to sell it on eBay.
I must confess to having enjoyed the odd Marian apparition in my properly misspent youth.
That’s like asking, do you believe that someone believes that he actually saw the Virgin Mary in some supernatural manner?
The only reasonable way to ask what I think they mean (or hope to be taken as meaning, depending on their angle) is, “Do you believe that God purposefully produced in 3D space the phenomena behind any of the reported apparitions of Mary?”
And that would garner a good deal fewer votes, I would wager, which perhaps is why they didn’t ask the specific question. As the question stands, it might be construed as asking if pious people are able in some fashion to see what the church tells them is a miraculous sight.
How dull does one have to be to be unaware of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”? Since she’s basically a Xianized form of an earlier non-Xian deity, she practically is the religion of Mexico.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
We definitely have our qork cut out for us on the first one.
The ‘No’ on the second one can also be interpreted as, Of course not, since they are valid! Maybe no-vote there is a better option, if the No votes on the first poll outweigh the TOTAL votes on the second, we make our point better.
#23
You’re going to sell your poop on eBay? I’m not sure that will be a big hit…..unless you can get some cool color-effects or striping in there, or something.
‘are you surprised the church [blabla]?’
no, not in the least.
By the way, someone has to say it: Web polls are worse than useless.
Poll crashing demonstrates this fact, but then, why even bother with that?
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Last night I was eating a plate of spaghetti and meatballs and then I realized the FSM appeared as apparition before me.
Just to pick a nit, the question seemed based solely on the recently recognized ‘sightings’ from one French girl.
But if you’re argument was that the pollster wasn’t accounting for other officially beatified cases, yeah, I agree.
Yesss, my massster.
Colin@#7: Are you commenting as a commenter or enquiring as an enquirer?
Pharyngula needs to have its own polls. That would be fun.
At this moment, it’s yes/no 70/30 for the first one, and 64/36 for the second one. Which prompts to me: as only Catholics (and Orthodoxes) should answer yes to the first question, is AOL news only read by Catholics? I thought America was a Protestant(-sect) country… (well, of course, with Latin American immigration, Catholics are a plurality now. But certainly not 70%).
Or maybe the Protestants who answered are just as much at odds with their own theology as most Catholics (remember, all of them should believe firmly in transsubstantiation, and this is the easy part compared to the Trinity).
Or maybe the poll is already being crashed from Vatican City.
#35
Clearly there is divine manipulation occurring at AOL.
Glen, the Virgin of Guadelupe is a “christianized” mother goddess, Tonantzin. Funny, each Catholic country has its own version of the Virgin- por ejemplo, the patroness of Puerto Rico is “Our Lady of the Divine Providence”. As el barrio, aka Spanish Harlem, which is centered on East 116th St, is changing demographically, from a largely Puerto Rican neighborhood to increasingly Mexican one, there are now “dueling Virgins” in the local church. One Puerto Rican woman I know was somewhat upset that a small Virgin of Guadelupe statue “materialized” in the back of the nave of her church.
Either way, you can get good tacos or good cuchifritos in the neighborhood, although the best “foodie” destination is Morrone & Sons Bakery, which is a throwback (along with Rao’s) to the days when the neighborhood was Italian (and “Our Lady of Perpetual Help” would have been venerated).
What would Lou Dobbs make of all this mariolatry?
Veracity by popularity contest. Sigh….
I thought that the Virgin Mary wasn’t really a virgin, but a mistranslation of a greek word meaning “young woman”. That kind of changes the scope of things, and if true seems a little funny that people will still hold onto the virgin birth.
I watch Jesus camp today I thought it would be funny (in a laugh at the Christiain’s sort of way)
But it wasn’t it was just very sad and upsetting
I am glad I live in the UK Sorry
P.S. Haggard was funny
Not sure what he’d sure but it’s great to see people splutter when you point out that they are violating the ten commandments by doing so. Or better yet that they are not Christian (seeing that they are not praying to the Christian god but just a person that went to heaven).
The ambiguous phrasing of these questions brought to mind the Pope’s works relevant to the recent flap at La Sapienza:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm
Both this from 1990
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1541
and the statement released following the La Sapienza controversy are masterworks of obfuscation and doubletalk. Is he merely quoting Bloch and Feyerabend? Is he agreeing with them? About what, exactly? Is it supposed to be an impartial analysis of modern views on science, or a scathing indictment of science? It seems clear to an intelligent reader what he’s getting at, but the writing offers a hundred different loopholes. It’s really quite amazing.
And then there’s this:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/science-bows-to-theology-as-the-pope-dismantles-vatican-observatory-768080.html
Speaking of poll crashing, I’ve got a new hobby: AFA letter campaign crashing. They’re trying to stop the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) from passing in the senate. ENDA would stop employers from discriminating against curent or potential employees on the basis of sexual orientation. So, of course, the AFA is against it. I used the AFA mechanism to let my senators know how I feel about anti-gay discrimination in the work place. More here.
Remember those sites prevent multiple voting by using cookies. So just delete those from aol, and setup your browser to reject all cookies; then you can vote as many times you want :-)
Excellent suggestion at #8.
I thought I saw the Virgin Mary but it turned out to be Terry Jones.
The reason why the pope dismantled the telescope is that, while looking at the stars, he saw Jesus and Jesus said : “sell all what you have, give it to poors and follow me”.
No, you’re thinking of something else, namely the notorious passage in Isaiah chapter 7, which Matthew makes out to be a prediction of the virgin birth of Jesus. It’s the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew. Of course if you take the trouble to read all of Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 it’s obvious that the passage has nothing to do with Jesus at all, but details like that never worry a fundamentalist.
Do not mock the virginity of Mary, you heathens, or beware the wrath of Ignatius de Loyola!
From Catholic World News:
You have been warned!
Dammit, the blockquote was supposed to end after “… virgin birth”.
I have done your bidding, master.
I answered no to both, of course, because it doesn’t surprise me in the least that the Catholic church believes a good ghost story. I mean, that’s at the root of it all, isn’t it?
Lore likes ghost stories too. Make sure you check out the picture of the crowd demons.
By the way, Expelled.
Excuse my ignorance of ancient languages but I thought that the Latin virgo just meant maiden and not virgin
My sister used to be a virgin Mary, but she decided she liked sex with her husband. (They have two kids now. I’m pretty certain there was no immaculate conception.)
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t the BVM kind of resemble a hymen anyway?
@#52 PixelFish —
Theological nitpick: immaculate conception refers to the bizarre Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived by her mother without the stain of original sin. You’re thinking of the virginal conception.
Try voting here every week
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=RADIO&CFID=1956209&CFTOKEN=373565f22881b6ed-B5F73126-9287-9FC8-8FFEAE1345F74D54
Yah… I think the no won’t win on question #1. But I still voted for it!
Etha Williams:
Right. They should have asked, “Do you believe the virgin Mary has apparitted?” Conciseness is next to godliness. Or something.
@#57 Epikt —
What about, “Do you believe in Marian apparitions?”
The way the question is currently worded is confusing anyway; as others have pointed out, it could be simply read as, “Do you believe that people have seen things they perceive as images of the V. Mary?” In which case the answer is probably yes.
What am I supposed to answer, as an atheist, to the question: “Should the church in America be active in racial reconciliation”?.
Etha: answer as if it was: “do you think that Mary really appears to people?”
I like the posts declaring us as “hate-filled PZ zombies” – that’s rich. I’m certainly not “hate-filled” and I am no zombie either – I have a mind of my own and I use it. Also, I obviously can’t speak for everybody here but I don’t remember seeing any hate-filled speeches on this blog – at least not from this side of the fence. I know who’s company I would rather be with.
Does that mean she couldn’t get off?
“I don’t remember seeing any hate-filled speeches on this blog” (quoting myself) – okay, after reading some of the posts here, I admit they do creep in occasionally. I won’t name names, but certain people are not helping our cause by ranting, are they?
Let’s keep it civil, please. Calling the other side names is merely stooping to their level, and I for one will never descend to that. It merely gives them the excuse to call us “hate-filled” etc. and we’re back where we started.
PZ, i appreciate your hostility to faith and genuinely respect your willingness to combat anti-rationality and anti-reason forces in the US, especially with regards to science.
nevertheless, i can’t help but think that this is a little ridiculous.
*of course* catholics believe things you find silly if you view religion and revealed truth as delusion (i do to a large degree). nevertheless, we need to recognize that religion won’t be disappearing anytime soon, and battles must be chosen. disparaging the catholic church for tenets of faith peculiar to it doesn’t seem like a battle worth choosing.
rather, consider that the church is the largest christian sect and it has virtually no quarrel with evolution or natural history as defined by science. none. hell, the church has an observatory run by jesuit priests! i guarantee you they’re not attempting to disprove comsoological observations for creationist purposes; rather, they’re engaging in legitimate science building on the existing knowledge base.
i remember being in 5th grade in catholic school in central PA circa 1990, and having my science teacher do an exercise where we all got long tapes of paper and made timelines of the history of the earth on them. the point of the exercise was to show us kids how old the earth is, how long life has existed, and how recent humans and human history are.
is that the indoctrination of a religious group worth opposing vis a vis the genuine creationism and anti-rationality of the evangelical movement?
i think not. we have to pick our battles, you know?
Dustin: it means that her parents didn’t fuck.
“Wow, Mom, this tastes great! But I thought we were trying to lead better, healthier lives.”
“We are, Jr. I’ve started to cook with new I Can’t Believe It’s Not the Stain of Original Sin. It’s got ½ the calories of the stain of original sin, ¼ the fat, but all the great taste you know and love. And it’s made with Divine Grace™!”
“I love you Mom!”
“Save it for confession, Jr.”
Soo… was that artificial insemination, or something more like this?
I’ll say… the good ship Pharyngula and its pirate crew have no chance of plundering two AOL dreadnaughts. Cap’n PZ be grog sodden.
Dustin: it means that her parents didn’t fuck.
No, Mary’s parents fucked to make her. However, they did it so as to not inflict original sin upon her, and she never sinned thereafter. It’s all right here. Read the ‘theological’ discussion of the difference between ‘sanctifying grace’ and ‘divine grace’ for a real treat.
I’m beginning to see the real value of religion: it keeps theologians occupied and off the streets.
I don’t know: I was not there.
@65 Daniel —
No, they still fucked, or, in the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Gotta love the language RC sex.
The doctrine, as laid out by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is simply:
There’s a joke about the immaculate conception that I like, but is unfortunately lost on most people due to the confusion over the immaculate conception vs the virginal conception:
Jesus is walking down the streets of Galilee when he notices a group of people surrounding a sinner, ready to stone him for some OT violation or another.
Appalled, he cries out to the crowd, “Stop! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Out of the corner of his eye, he sees a stone fly and hit the man. He turns around to see who it was and sighs.
“Mom, you can be a real bitch sometimes.”
“Are you surprised the church officially recognized the Virgin Mary sightings from the 1600s?”
No, I’m not at all surprised that the Church is engaging in their usual pointless wankery. The only thing I’m a little surprised about is that it showed up on my MSNBC news ticker a few days ago as if it were actual news.
Ah? Ok. Generative activity… interesting… I should know that, I was raised as catholic. Thanks for the explanations…
Did anyone else notice they mapped the genome of the platypus?
Dennis N @#74: you dawg, you. I was just going to paste in this “off topic” link, and ya beat me to it.
Yeah, way cool for science, another nail in the coffin for the anti-evo’s.
Hey, I just spotted the V.M. in my potato salad I’m making!
She’s delicious…. mmmmmmm…..
That is an extremely stupid thing to say. It is very worth denigrating the church over its official policy of obstructing the distribution of condoms to AIDS ridden countries and its beliefs on contraception. It was worth denigrating the church over its support of the fascists, it was worth denigrating the church and even facing execution for its asinine cosmology, it was worth denigrating the church for its refusal to allow autopsies and medical experiments — and all of those were, at one time or another, the official beliefs of the Catholic Church. If there is any organization on this planet which deserves to be ridiculed simply for what it believes, it’s the Catholic Church.
<count>One absurd poll, two absurd polls. Two! TWO ABSURD POLLS! AHAHAHAHA!</count>
Seriously, though… Yes/70%/118,944 vs. No/30%/51,712 for the first poll so far. Can people really be that stupid?
Did they find any original sin in the platypus genome? How about derivative sin?
The Catholic Encyclopedia is hilarious.
In their article on the IC, they have a section of “Proof from Scripture,” “Proof from Tradition,” and “Proof from Reason.” Because Church tradition has been anything but constant on the IC, they have this preface to the “Proof from Tradition” section:
…right…
What a coincidence! That’s where I found Jesus!
@#78 Andreas Johansson —
Nope, but there was a a definite limited amount of integral sin. It was very improper.
70/30
60/40
Right, Mary (who was conceived without sin) hadn’t “known” a man – no sex, no penetration, no… nookie.
In that light, even more amazing is the concept of The Virgin Birth – the idea that Mary remained a virgin even after the birth of Jesus. That’s quite a stretch (*cough*) considering that she’d just had an entire human male body traverse her vagina…
When we see that animal, I am pretty sure that it comes from a generative activity between a mamal and a bird. If it is not a sin… But PZ told us some days ago that animals often do non-catholic things…
Did they find any original sin in the platypus genome?
As Elvis Costello sang in I’m Not Angry: ‘There’s no such thing as an original sin.’
When a group of people actually believe something this stupid it’s not a battle but a laugh fest.
Fair enough but when the same body endorses such woo-woo and other equally odious policies they don’t get a free pass on their obvious stupidity.
This is a false dilemma. Both the RCC and the evangelicals are irrational. One is just more so on science than the other. In many ways the evangelical are MORE rational than the RCC. It just depends on which subject we’re talking about.
Wow. Talk about freaky… I just voted No to the Virgin Mary, and then I saw a picture of Madonna on the InterTubes!
I can’t wait for my next grilled cheese sandwich!
According to the Lewis & Short dictionary, virgo could be used to mean “a young woman, a girl”, but this was a transferred meaning; the primary meaning was “maiden, maid, virgin”. And don’t be fooled: these three words (virgin, maid and maiden) were more or less interchangeable at the time L&S was published (1879). For example, Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 edition, defines maiden as:
and virgin as:
In neither case did Webster’s find it necessary to draw a distinction between virgin on the one hand and maid or maiden on the other by, for example, treating them as separate numbered definitions.
In any event, it doesn’t really matter what virgo meant because the Bible was not written in Latin, it was written in Hebrew and Greek. The relevant question is what almah and parthenos meant.
Where I get on my high horse…
For all I care the Catholic church could believe that the Virgin Mary was a space-girl from Mars. Well, maybe the Mormons believe that.
I know that attacking the Catholic church isn’t a zero-sum game, but this sort of post is a bit like a satirist who makes fun of Bush for being stupid. *We* already know that all religions are ludicrous and that Bush has the intellectual curiosity of a brick.
I don’t think we should laugh at Catholics. No. Rage and horror are much more appropriate emotions when dealing with a group who consistently lobby across the world to deny women their reproductive rights.
Let’s learn to associate Catholics with deaths of people in third world countries from AIDS because they have been forbidden access to contraception.
Let’s recognize the fact that women in Catholic countries are dying daily from self-induced abortions as a direct result of Catholic lobbying to prevent women from obtaining legal abortions (a simple and safe medical procedure).
Let’s recall that their Church suffers from *institutionalized* child-abuse and also their shameful attempts to protect the abusers.
Finally, and this I don’t care about so much- Let’s recognize that the Catholic church does not believe in evolution. They may say they do, but in their scheme God still makes all the key decisions and also implants humans with souls. Their views on evolution are not all that different from those of intelligent design proponents.
“I don’t want to satirise George Bush and his puppeteers, I want to vaporise them.” Tom Lehrer.
———————————
Of course I recognize that PZ has done more than his fair share of substantial criticism of religion in tandem with his more playful satirical pieces. But I’m on my high horse right now, which requires me to feel more indignant than usual.
jimb and others,
i do not intend to give the church a pass on policies that have socially deleterious effects, nor do i believe that roman catholicism is explicitly more rational than evangelical christianity.
what i am suggesting however, is that there are wiser battles to be fought with the church than picking on them for maintaining the divinity of mary, immaculate conceptions, and so forth.
church proscriptions on condoms or whathaveyou might derive from theology, but these views can be combatted on rational grounds with someone of faith (if they’re reasonable about it, we all know there are those who are not) as to their intent and effect.
however, the divinity of mary is not a policy ground for catholics. it is a tenet of faith. mock, freely, if you will but this will not stop hundreds of millions from believing it, and will only turn many towards the truly irrational and unreasonable hucksters in religious communities. just my opinion.
Well, from the current ranking, I think we need at least 5000 votes to change the stats to 71% Yes.
On the flipside, we can downgrade the importance of the story right before the comments, but hey, don’t think I’m saying to do it……
…do it!
FWLIW: since I first looked at poll 1, the yes vote has increased by about 100, the no vote by over 2000, but the resulting percentage has remained at unchanged at 30/70.
For poll2 I would vote file_not_found if I could. (OK, so who’s sad enough to get that one …)
Kseniya:
I’d always assumed it was some kind of Star Trek transporter deal.
Epikt:
Well, maybe.
But if you’re going to go that way, it’s pretty obvious that the *bamf* explanation is more parsimonious.
I’m always amazed at peoples ability to combine resemblance with obsession and to claim they ‘saw’ what they have been obsessing over.
I once went out with a cute redhead and was deeply in lust with her. She shortly there after moved away. For weeks afterward I would catch myself assuming that women with similar hair or body type were her. I would catch a whiff of something that reminded me of her perfume and I would think about her for the next hour. I once followed a car for twenty miles because it resembled the one she drove and thought I saw her inside.
I realized that I was just seeing what I wanted to see. That certain aspects of her presence were echoing off pieces of the present reality and causing me to remember her.
On the other hand, if I was a bit of a twit, I could easily jump to the conclusion that I was seeing her. Through astral projection perhaps. As good a metaphysical explanation as any I guess.
I could go on to accept astral projection as real, that there is a special bond between myself and her (seeing as that she was putting out this special effort), and that I had special perceptive abilities that others evidently lack.
I could have felt really proud of myself, and may special abilities, could have spent lots of time seeking my other special abilities (once you find one you know there are more), and followed her cross country convinced that we were meant to be together. She got married a month after she left so I’m not sure how her husband would feel about her having a stalker.
It is fun to lay on your back in a grassy field and to contemplate the images we see in the random shapes of the clouds. It is fun to make up stories and meanings to these shapes. This is normal and healthy.
The problem is that some people see the random shapes,project their desires on them, see a message from a metaphysical realm and think themselves special for doing what every six year-old does knowing they are silly and just using their imagination.
Seeing the likeness of what we assume the Virgin Mary would look like in a random event is natural. Assuming that a mythological supernatural being exists and thinks your important enough to send a message to goes from giggling silly and childish to stupid.
I have duly crashed the polls. The amazing thing is how many people have voted exactly the other way!
It’s funny, you know: Hindus don’t see visions of the Virgin Mary; Muslims don’t see visions of the Virgin Mary; Sikhs don’t see visions of the Virgin Mary. Do you think it could be a cultural thing?
Voted no on both. No is on 64% for the recognition poll. Unfortunately no is at 31% on the apparition poll.
I’m beginning to see the real value of religion: it keeps theologians occupied and off the streets.
I’m sure you recall that some theology professors themselves came to the same conclusion, according to Hector:
http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/avalos.shtml
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/a_man_after_my_own_heart_at_io.php
Of course there are original sins…I poked a badger with a spoon. That was an original sin.
Cake, please.
(and wonder who will recognize the above)
Ciao
notsobad, you have persuaded me. I repent of the five seconds I spent clicking on the link and voting in the polls. If only I’d spent those five seconds fighting “other battles,” think of the lives that could have been saved!
Some church father or other actually wrote that the mentioned entire male body passed through Mary’s hymen “like light”.
The word games are truly astounding.
JeffreyD,
Had to go with the lego-animated version. Couldn’t find the other one, though.
Well, for me, “like blue-black smoke” works just as well, if not better.
So, the orthodox position of the Church is that God provided Jesus’ maternal grandparents with some kind of original-sin condom (virtual or otherwise) which filtered out the sin component of grandad’s jizz. The alternative is that granny had a sin-filtering IUD, but that’s obviously ridiculous.
original-sin condom
in addition to being yet another good band name, I can see a market for those.
the company name being “Original Sin”:
makers of ultra-pleasure condoms!
now with sens-lube and extra ribs!
100,000 dead in burma due to a cyclone, exacerbated by an awful military junta, and you guys are making jokes about original sin condoms.
Hey dopes, if you believe in God, anything is possible, even stuff that our puny little human cortexs and neurons cannot understand. If there is no God, then it is not possible. End of debate.
Now go figure out away to help the burmese here:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/burma_cyclone/77.php
or perhaps you will hold your nose because it is organized by a bunk of monks. Sheesh.
The word games are truly astounding.
Hymens aren’t perfectly transparent. Are we to infer part of him got stuck?
Really pat, I hope you CC’d your comment to the Vatican. After all, they’ve been fiddling with these issues while Rome burned for millennia now.
Good thinking, sport. Now, why don’t you use your belief in god to save all the Burmese, since ‘anything is possible’.
Better yet, fuck off, you little pissant.
Virginity is about sex, not birth, yes? however, there is the small matter of Jesus’s younger (half-) siblings.
The platypus genome looks neat…
100,000 dead in burma due to a cyclone, exacerbated by an awful military junta, and you guys are making jokes about original sin condoms
that’s the lamest bit of concern trolling I think I have ever seen.
My mother died 20 years ago. How come all youz guyz is makin’ wit da “ha ha”?
The FSM appeared to me this morning on the base of my espresso maker. I have sent a photo to PZ. It was a revelatory experience. Or maybe that was the caffeine.
/Some church father or other actually wrote that the mentioned entire male body passed through Mary’s hymen “like light”./
Okay, a glowing ephemeral dildo sized man went into a woman’s cooze. ( I believe Prince Charles and I have had that same fantasy.) So because Mary’s hymen was in tact, she was a virgin even though (symbolic? sublime?) penetration occurred? Any way you slice it, she got fucked unless parthenogenisis occurred, and then Jeebus would have been female, right? Their logic is as tortured as their crucified icon. Jeeesus H. Christ, these-poor deluded people need a clue.
I find it hysterical that Catholics seem downright superstitious and backward to Southern Baptists – who are completely oblivious to the irony…
Yo, Pious Pat,
I would love to know what you’ve done for those poor Burmese. Obviously, you don’t have time to waste reading and commenting on blogs with your volunteer work… Oh, you aren’t actually actively helping the cyclone victims beyond lip service? Then, why don’t you go phuck yourself, Mr. Martyr Troll.
@#107 Pat
Pat, don’t you realise that the cyclone and 22,000+ dead Burmese is all your fault!. You did not pray hard enough ! I bet you’re not even wearing a hair-shirt! Living in a house? Get a cave! And get back to Praying! Quit your job and PRAY!
Your GOD needs your constant personal affirmation of ‘his’ existence to get out of bed every morning and save souls! You have slacked off and this disaster is an obvious result of ‘his’ sleeping-in.
Stop taking time out to bug us with your credulous nagging and get back to your prayer, you’re killing the world, dude!
Pat @ #107
You’re trying to shame me into giving my credit card info to some disreputable charity? Thank you, no.
Re #103, well done SC! Cake or death?
Ciao
PZ,
I too was an unbeliever until I saw jeebus in a dog’s ass.
http://nynerd.com/can-you-see-jesus/
Who can argue with that?
Did you check out the slide show at the polling site? The virgin Mary apparition in the grilled cheese sandwich looks just like Marlena Dietrich.
The grilled cheese sandwich that went on eBay for 28 large. The thought that I may have inadvertently eaten a $28,000 sandwich at some point in the past has left me depressed beyond words. Now I am headed to the basement to knap out some stone crucifixes to sell to the gullible. That makes me feel slightly better. My brother-in-law asked me if I didn’t feel a little guilty doing that.
No, I replied.
I menetioned before, months ago, that I have seen the divine apparition of he Virgin Mary in the contents of my baby’s nappy after her initial aquaintance with solids. I offered then, and I repeat the offer, to post a photo. Strangely none of you took me up on it. Non-believing heathens.
Although Flounder at #118 possibly wins for the nastiest apparition photo. That dog’s butt should be canonised or declared a sacred grotto or something.
That dog’s butt should be canonised or declared a sacred grotto or something.
it practically HAS been. It’s been pretty famous since it was first posted a couple years back.
Even more humorous than the picture are the comments in the thread, though:
or how about this one:
all that, because someone posted a picture of a dog with an unusual looking butt.
…and they say atheists are the “angry” ones.
someday, I wonder if any of them will understand what the word “projection” means.
Ha! That’s it! Jesus took my…
Naah.
awww, no repitition of the usual PZombie apocalypse :( we’re losing! since when does that happen?
Mary is only a virgin if you don’t count anal.
I think Original Sin condoms are short a rib, actually.
I think Original Sin condoms are short a rib, actually.
lol
nice.
Yeah, the took out one rib and used it to make a diaphragm.
O.o
ooh, dual function birth control devices…
I like the idea.
condoms with removable ribs that can double as diaphragms!
hmm….
there in fact is NOT a company named “Original Sin” that makes prophylactics.
time to look for an investor!
Topical goodness from Fark.
http://www.wlbz2.com/news/watercooler/article.aspx?storyid=86461
Kseniya (#84):
You touch on a sensitive point. As other commenters have intimated, virginity is a delicate subject. Definitions of virginity never fail to arouse a prominent interest. An intact hymen is a rule of thumb, but other yardsticks may be applied. Some feel passionately that virginity is an innocence of romantic experience, while others erect an argument that only heterosexual intercourse will satisfy. Penetrating insights are not found as often as any of us desire.
Speaking of inappropriate things to post, I’ve started a little poll of my own. I’d like to know where the Pharyngula readers are from. So please, if you can spare a moment, go to my fairly new and pointless vanity blog and pick the geographic region you most closely associate with yourself.
This might have been already posted, but Michael Shermer does a good job in explaining ‘Why people believe strange things’, he also covers virgin mary appearances:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/22
Via Etha Williams (#80):
———> Scientific Method
0 Catholic Theologians
/|
|
/
JeffreyD,
Want some great religious Izzard, all animated up and read for laughs, check these out:
Noah’s Ark:
Jesus and the Dinosaurs:
Re #137, Ryan, I just discovered these video’s and they are wonderful. Thanks for the tip to help with my Izzard fetish.
Well, time to climb on my Vespa and head out this morning…Ciao!!!!!!!!!!
These polls are just proving what I’ve suspected about AOL all along: it’s where America’s Dumbest People go to congregate.
I’m not surprised that sane AOL users are outnumbered by the insane by a 3-1 margin. I suspect I keep it around just for the sheer entertainment value of what AOL considers “news.”
Sigh.
Hematite: LOL! Well done.
So you’re an atheist. Why be so derisive of those who don’t share your views?
Also, I ask your intellectually superior readers to examine the rolls of history’s greatest minds. There you will find believers and non-believers alike.
Finally, I recommend a short article by Dinesh D’Souza, who puts forth a compact response to Atheism.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1017/p09s06-coop.html
Why is it so many critics of religion swaddle themselves in smug condescension? I guess everybody’s gotta believe in something.
–Nietzsche is Dead
foutsc (#141) opined,
vs.
I enjoy it when smug religiots complain about smugness while making smug statements within the same comment.
It’s almost like they’re unaware that they’re projecting their problems or something.
Foutsc
‘Why is it so many critics of religion swaddle themselves in smug condescension?’
Chocolate drippings Mary – on the page where the poll is being conducted. I mean, this was from presumably devout Catholics. No irony intended by them at all.
And you think this should be taken seriously?
You mention D’Souza in the same paragraph with the phrase “history’s greatest minds”? Nice! :-)
Well, let’s see… maybe some atheists are having an allergic reaction to the contemptible bullshit spewn by people like D’Souza and the author of a book with a title like this:
The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness
Just a thought.
I can’t bring myself to care enough to vote either way, it isn’t like these votes will change anyones’ minds on the subject or the Catholic church’s position on them.
The poll appears closed this morning.
Well, quite. And approximately how many of those saw appararitions of the Virgin Mary, would you say?
Hey, Britomart, I have a friend who goes by the handle Belphebe. Perhaps you know her. :-)
@#141 foutsc —
Some men are born posthumously (F Nietzsche, The Antichrist).
We have made just little progress. The “wrong” answers have dropped to 68% and 64%. Down from 70%
@#141 foutsc
Isn’t it a little smug for you to presume us all to be condescending? But, yes, you are right, history is filled with believers and non-believers alike who have contributed immeasurably to our present society.
As for the the D’Souza article, I will make one suggestion to you: do not trust D’Souza arguments. They are usually incredibly weak. This is one of his better ones, but it merely uses the idea that we do not have perfect sensory knowledge to imply that the supernatural can exist. I don’t think that most atheists would deny that things beyond our ability to sense could exist. The problem is when you begin saying that you know, in much detail, what one of these undetectable supernatural entities are that skepticism needs to intervene.
Maybe she rendered unto Caesarean…
Shepherds were pretty handy back then.
Asylum Seeker: OK, I made a mistake in lumping everyone together. But I have noticed some pretty tight correlation between atheism and condescension. But I suppose the same argument could be made about believers being smug. I just wonder why so many atheists are almost angry about it, heaping scorn on all who do believe as ignorant or stupid. So a lot of people believe in something that history suggests could indeed be true. Even Einstein, an irreligious Jew, insisted there must be a God.
Actually, foutsc, you’ve been lied to about Einstein. He did not believe in a personal god, in anything remotely similar to what you call god. But then, I’m sure you’ve been lied to about a lot of things, and you just eat it up. Anything to prop up your “faith”, doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.
How can you not see your own scorn and condescension? Are you that wilfully blind? Does your religion demand ignoring reality to that extent?
Again, you project.
It’s far more condescending to say that Einstein’s complex versions of ‘God’ and ‘Religion’ map to your own.
Now you are the ones projecting. Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a god. His belief was in an impersonal clockmaker. Nonetheless, it is a belief in God. Who am I to critique Einstein? No one “lied to me.” You speak as if I’m a child. I never said Einstein’s belief and mine were the same. Again, you are the one projecting. Go back and read what I really said.
People believe things on faith all the time. How do you know the Battle of Hastings really happened? How do you know man landed on the moon? Were you there? What if it was all an elaborate hoax?
Some of you are getting kinda touchy… Like some believers get when their belief is questioned. Actually, your unbelief is a belief and your rejection of orthodoxy becomes its own form of orthodoxy. Funny, isn’t it?
Then why aren’t you a Hindu, foutsc? Or a Buddhist? Or do you not need to investigate other religions, because you already know you’re right? Even if that’s the case, why would you make a claim that works just as well for the major religions you do not follow as well as your own?
It’s the ignorant and two-faced nature of people like you that have us so angry.
Is that somehow supposed to not be smug? So far, you’re exemplifying everything you’re accusing us of. Exactly like every concern troll we get. How can we not think you’re like children when you can only parrot concepts you appear not to understand?
foutsc:
Are you really as stupid as this makes you look?
How do you know the universe didn’t pop into existence last Thursday, complete with false memories of the past?
What if the entire planet and everything on it is nothing more than a multi-billion-year experiment being carried out by pan-dimensional beings who look like mice? How do you know it’s not all an elaborate hoax?
Of course, there’s actual evidence, in the real world, for events that happened in the real world. There is no evidence whatsoever for your fantasies. To sane people, that’s an important difference. To you, apparently, it is not.
If you’re willing to retreat into solipsism to escape the need for evidence, then you can just throw out the very concept of reality. There’s no end to the insanity you can fling around. Of course, you’ll never have any evidence of it, but evidence is clearly not important to you.
Funny that you insist on living in a world of make-believe, but object to being treated like a child.
But if you want to hide in some delusional fantasy, no one’s stopping you. Just don’t try to drag sane people along with you.
More like people choose to use an extremely loose definition of ‘faith’ all the time. Thing is, the types of ‘faith’ that you think you’re equating don’t resemble each other.
Linguistics are funny, aren’t it?
Which is wrong in the way you are implying.
Einstein’s God was not an entity (like a ‘clockmaker’), personal or impersonal:
from: http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/torrance.htm
Hey Kseniya, I havnt seen Belphebe at all, where does she hang out?
I am working on the happily ever after bit with Artegal tho and I dont travel as much as I used to.
:)
Einstein came to the conclusion that there must be a god. His belief was in an impersonal clockmaker.
then that ain’t god, now, is it (nor is it even what he thought, btw).
talk about projection.
here’s the quote so often misused and projected upon by poor dolts such as yourself:
you should look up who Spinoza was sometime.
Who am I to critique Einstein?
more correctly, who are you to quotemine him so badly?
The “wrong” answers have dropped to 68% and 64%. Down from 70%
heh.
look at the final poll tallies:
I’d say they basically eliminated anything that came directly from this address space.
IIRC if you open the page in a new window (rt-click, open in new window), instead of directly clicking on the link to it, it will change the source to your local IP instead of where the link was.
anyone confirm that?
if so, then we should include that as a brief instruction when suggesting future polls to crash.
Wow. I wondered how long it would take for someone to call me a troll. I really thought it would be after the first comment. No one has said anything about Einstein that I disagree with. He believed in an immanent God that is revealed in the order of things. But keep banging that nail if it makes you happy.
I am not into criticizing anyone’s religious belief or non-belief. There is indeed historical evidence that suggests a God of Abraham.
I can’t prove God exists, therefor you cannot disprove his existence. That’s why conversations like this spiral into name-calling (ignorant, two-faced, childlike, stupid, delusional, solipsistic)
I believe; call me stupid. I will not call you stupid for not believing.
I’m not being smug when I point out that disbelief is its own belief, complete with Dogma Than Shall Not Be Questioned (in a thundering voice)
Britomart: LOL, I hear you. That happy-ever-after thing is a … bear.
I talk to Belphebe now and then. She finally left the forest. She’s busy as a bee, working at a psych hospital in the Boston, Massachusetts area, and going to grad school at night. She still keeps up with her archery, of course, and has been hanging around with a psychologist named Harold, who is apparently pretty handing with a fencing blade.
Here in cyperspace, she’s pretty quiet, but I do see her on some of the social blogs over on Yahoo 360 where we used to hang out. I know she reads this blog from time to time, but afaik has never commented.
(correction: “…who is apparently pretty handy with a fencing blade.)
And that evidence would be…?
Wow. I wondered how long it would take for someone to call me a troll. I really thought it would be after the first comment.
you wondered how long it would take someone to notice you ARE a troll, you mean.
He believed in an immanent God
you’re living in denial.
again, suggest you learn who Spinoza was, but in lieu of that, here is the correct interpretation of Einstein’s “religion”:
I am not into criticizing anyone’s religious belief or non-belief.
that would be good if it were true, since you don’t know shit about either, apparently.
stop lying and go away, troll.
I can’t prove God exists, therefor you cannot disprove his existence.
one does not logically equate with the other, but in this specific case, you are correct.
much like one can’t prove the existence of any fictional thing, like Santa Claus.
It would be quite irrational to attempt to disprove the existence of something that was obviously fictional to start with.
why even bother.
I believe; call me stupid.
for that, we label you irrational, not stupid.
I’ll call you stupid, but not for “believing”, but rather because you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and insist on projecting your own beliefs onto a quotemine of Einstein, which I’m sure will be followed by even more stupidity.
proceed and define yourself as stupid, but don’t pretend it’s because you “believe”.
Not revealed, either.
Go ahead and read that thesis if you don’t believe me.
But then again, you’re so smug that you know what Einstein’s God without having researched Einstein’s God is.
You’ve changed your statement on what that means constantly, because you never really knew, did you?
You’ve been railing against atheists.
Atheists don’t have to disprove the existence of deities, the only definitional requirement is that they do not believe or, that they have a lack of belief.
Because you don’t understand that means that you don’t really understand atheism enough to admonish it.
I’m not being smug when I point out that disbelief is its own belief, complete with Dogma Than Shall Not Be Questioned (in a thundering voice)
actually you are being smug.
and stupid.
frankly I wish I had a thundering voice, and a dogma to go with it, as obviously you would be cowed into following my every command.
muhahahahahah!
@146 [Britomart], “The poll appears closed this morning.”
But the numbers keep on increasing, and in our favor, huzzah.
Check:
http://webcenter.polls.aol.com/modular.jsp?resType=7&popup=yes&pollId=139889&channel=aol_us_news9&view=139744&template=1381
Looks like I stood up in the wrong church. My original question was, “Why be so derisive of those who don’t share your views?” You’ve answered it with righteous, flaming anger: Some people don’t like having their orthodoxy questioned.
foutsc, Liar For Jesus™:
That statement is a lie. That is exactly what you came here to do, your whole reason for being here is to insult atheists, and spread lies. Isn’t your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness.
foutsc, lying again:
Oh? What evidence? If you’ve actually found such evidence, you would be the first person in the history of the world to do so. So either you have evidence that no one else on the planet has ever been able to find, despite looking for thousands of years, or you are lying again. Given that you’ve already been caught lying, which seems more likely?
foutsc lying yet again:
Oh, I thought you said you had evidence? So I was right, you WERE lying when you said that!
foutsc showing no end to his lies:
The reason people call you ignorant is that you clearly do not know what you are talking about.
The reason people call you two-faced is because you espouse one position but act out another.
The reason people call you childlike is because, like a child, you refuse to take responsibility for your own statements, you whine and invoke the authority of an imaginary father-figure to hide from criticism.
The reason people call you stupid is because you say stupid things.
The reason people call you delusional is because your stated beliefs are incompatible with reality.
The reason people call you solipsistic is that you reject the notion of reality in favor of your own fantasies.
The reason people call you a liar is because you make clearly false statements.
foutsc:
Yes, you clearly are stupid. This is obvious based on your statements. It is not dependent on your beliefs.
foutsc, one final lie, until next time:
This statement is false, and your manner of delivering it is clearly no less smug and condescending than anything you’ve objected to in this thread. In fact, you have consistently exhibited exactly the characteristics you criticise in others, only worse. That makes you a hypocrite, and your denial of it makes you a liar. But then, we already knew that.
If you equate religiosity with ‘righteous, flaming anger’, you say more about your mindset than you do about any other groups.
Again, you hate yourself and your beliefs so much that you project your problems on others.
Looks like I stood up in the wrong church.
actually, it’s more like you stood up in the center of Central Park, and after screeching nonsense for several minutes, are wondering why people are staring at you.
You gave me the biggest laugh I’ve had all week. Thanks!
By the way, can I use this? I kind of like it: foutsc, Liar For Jesus™
So, I’ll restate my question: Why can’t you live and let live? Why do you have to run down those who don’t share your belief system? That’s all I was really asking. As all of you have pointed out, I am not qualified or trained to carry on such philosophical arguments. I just want to know where the anger and the ridicule comes from.
Muslims and Atheists seem to be the most intolerant of dissent.
I’d say you’re more intolerent of our dissent.
foutsc, master of projection:
Answer your own damn questions, asshole. You’re the one who came in here with the lies and bullshit, accusing everyone else of being smug when you’re the smuggest one here, belittling anyone who dared disagree with you. Take a good long look in the mirror. That’s where you’ll find the one who’s been doing all these things your delusions compel you to accuse us of.
No. Actually, I’m very tolerant. If people did not challenge the established order we would never progress as a society.
Did you notice I’m not criticizing what you said, but rather how you say it. I sincerely wanted to know where an atheist’s anger and derision come from.
I know where a religious person’s intolerance comes from: He believes he is the flaming sword of God, cutting down all non-believers, forcing them to convert or die. Being a believer, I totally disagree with that point of view. How repellent to have someone thundering at us from a lofty moral perch, forcing us down on our knees. We all have a right to our beliefs.
So, I’ll restate my question: Why can’t you live and let live?
why can’t you?
which side is trying to pass laws to change the very definition of science itself?
which side is proposing to change the constitution to make it represent “xianity” better?
which side has “Jesus Camps”?
which side has rejected science in favor of superstition?
which side has Floridians trying to pass laws to allow for the teaching of creationism as science?
now tell me:
why can’t you leave US the fuck alone, you projecting moron.
I sincerely wanted to know where an atheist’s anger and derision come from.
from YOU.
it’s reactionary, get it?
By the way, can I use this? I kind of like it: foutsc, Liar For Jesus™
well, the shoe obviously fits, so why not?
you don’t need anyone’s permission to be the ass that you are, or to label yourself appropriately.
phantomreader42. Please elaborate as to how I’ve belittled anyone. I think I’ve taken a pretty good beating here. I sure didn’t win any arguments! Where does the anger come from?
We all have a right to our beliefs
aside from the issue of “rights” (which are misapplied here), you can think any bizarre thing you wish, provided you don’t fuck with the ability of others to think for themselves.
and your side is the one that is fucking with the ability for others to think for themselves, even going so far as to try and mask that very activity by claiming YOU are the ones being “repressed”
Perhaps, in some cases, it comes as an inevitable reaction to the relentless, subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination and character assassination they have been subjected to at the hands of theists who insist that they are the persecuted ones.
That kind of treatment does get old.
Maybe you think it’s a chicken-egg thing, and “Why can’t we all just get along?” Well, ask yourself another question: why are atheists amongst the very least likely to be elected to public office in the United States, a nation whose Constitution explicitly promises that no religious test shall ever be required for any elected or appointed public office or trust? Americans are far more likely to vote for a Jew, African-American, or even a homosexual candidate than for an atheist. Why?
I disagree.
You took a trait that could be applied to some people (“dirisiveness”) and then applied that to an entire group of people.
And then you continued to make a host of other smug statements about said group.
I’m leaving open the possibility that you really had some specific people in mind that you thought were particularly “dirisive”, but you don’t get to make such blanket comments and then claim that you are tolerent.
But, who are you trying to convince? Us, Me, Someone else, or you?
Kseniya: Finally, someone who answers a question. All of your points are well taken. The religious test thing has to do with establishing laws. We have no such laws; people are just prejudiced against atheists I guess. I would vote for a competent atheist over an incompetent religious person any day. I think too many politicians use religion to pander anyway. The lesson here is people do not like to have their beliefs examined or questioned
I apologized for the broad brush back at #153
Thanks for pointing out my misspelling, by the way.
foutsc:
That’s part of human nature, I guess, but the resistance varies from person to person.
Another dynamic that plays out in here time and time again is what I think of as The Well-Defended Theist. A believer will come in, claim he “knows” the Bible is true, cites the Bible as evidence of this, and impervious to *any* rational argument to the contrary, and invariably claim victory in the “debate” and are never heard from again.
There’s another variation, The Vindictive Theist, who signs off with an assurance that he’ll laugh heartily up in Heaven as he watches all the atheists burn in eternal agony down in Hell.
Think about that for a moment.
One one point of view, it’s just silly and absurd, but from another, it’s perhaps the most mean-spirited thing one person could ever say to another, and I challenge you to come up with an equivalently horrific wish (or one even remotely close) that has been directed at a theist from an atheist, on Pharyngula or elsewhere.
Eternal agony is not something any being with even a shred of decency or compassion could wish upon another sentient being, regardless of their personal differences. And yet atheists are regularly on the receiving end of exactly that wish.
Shall they just smile and nod in response?
Please ignore the wretched grammar of the second paragraph… LOL… (note to self: proof-read!)
foutsc, you seem to think you are the first to confront us with your “arguments”. As Kseniya has explained, you are not: people whose comments look just like yours (at least up to comment 183) are so common that we’ve developed stereotyped reactions to them and have even started classifying them.
For what value of “could”? You see, before Aristarchos of Samos found out otherwise, everyone believed the Earth was flat, and for easily 2000 years afterwards the vast majority of the global population still agreed. Or, in more direct words, “eat shit — billions of flies cannot err”.
Now, you mentioned evidence. Please put it on the table. We would like to have a look.
Also, while you might like to ignore how Ichthyic said it, I recommend that you check out what he said in comment 181: it’s an explanation of where the anger comes from — apart from the repetition I have explained at the start of this comment.
Why would that be?
Also, you have subtly misunderstood Einstein, it seems. He was not a panentheist (God is in everything), but a pantheist (God is everything — God is the order of things, not in the order of things — not the clockmaker, but the clock itself).
while you might like to ignore how Ichthyic said it
don’t.
It’s exactly meant to be part of the explanation itself.
ksiniya: I agree with you! And thank you for not putting me in one of those categories. I really don’t wish ill on anyone.
David: As I’ve already said, I can’t prove God exists. If there were irrefutable proof we would not be having this conversation. There are writings and traditions handed on from ancient times that point to a deity. Perhaps is is all man’s feeble attempt to explain things. There are also “miracles” with witnesses. Mass delusion perhaps. But tell that to the people who “saw it with their own eyes.” I believe in God. You don’t. I can accept that, and I do not damn you into hell for your unbelief (as if I had that power anyway).
I sincerely believe in our constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. Please read my short article where I challenge all religious believers to put our constitutional principles above religion. The British atheist in the video is quite interesting and articulate. And no, this isn’t a ploy to drive traffic to my pathetic little blog…
http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-speech-religion-and-fed-up-british.html
Nobody asks for proof. You said you had evidence, and that’s what we’re asking of you.
If you count this as evidence… :-/
That’s not even necessary. You see, witnesses can be made up. By the thousands even.
I’ll check out your blog, but it’s almost half past 2 at night over here, so I won’t do it now…
OK, well I guess I’m not linguistically astute enough to know the subtleties of evidence and proof. All I know is that Billions of people throughout history have believed, and some have written about personal encounters. That is not proof, but where there’s smoke there may be fire.
Finally, I did not intend to offend people. I really wanted to know why (in my biased view) many atheists seem angry. I can understand how many of you have been rubbed raw by self-righteous bible thumpers. We need to learn to be tolerant of one another’s beliefs. There are too many issues facing us that have nothing to do with partisanship or religion: winning the wars we started, avoiding future wars, restoring fiscal discipline, energy independence are but a few. Name calling never helps. I have engaged in it myself, so I’m not pointing fingers.
Thanks for being patient, David
@#191 David Marjanovic —
Aristarchos of Samos was actually the originator of heliocentrism, not spherical earth theory — spherical earth theory predates Aristarchos by about a century (Aristotle was the first to give convincing recorded argument for it). Spherical earth theory actually didn’t fare too badly among the more educated people in the CE Western world — most scientists and sailors recognized that the earth was round, and the whole Columbus mutiny story is a complete historical myth popularized by Washington Irving’s The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.
Aristarchos’ theory of heliocentrism, on the other hand, was unfortunately ignored for the better part of two millenia :.
Hey foutsc, another thing the kind of asshole theist we hate does here is demand that we answer their questions but never answer ours.
Given that you’ve repeated the ol’ “a billion Christians can’t be wrong” canard, answer the questions I posed to you in comment #157:
You don’t get to come here and demand explanations without giving some of your own.
OK, Brownian! I am what I am because of what I believe. The same goes for Hindus, Buddhists and Gaia worshipers. Who am I to say they are wrong? I haven’t even said any of you are wrong. The world is full of mutually exclusive beliefs. We deal with them in everyday human interaction. We can’t both be right, but that doesn’t mean we can’t deal civilly with one another. The alternative is a babble of angry people at constant war with one another.
The God that I believe in exists outside of time and space and is the author of all. Therefore, he is not bound by the laws of nature. It is futile arguing over this because neither side can prove their point. You equate my belief in God with a belief in Santa Claus. Fine. But belief is not irrational. If I see skid marks and broken glass at an intersection, I infer there was an accident. The evidence is not proof, but it points to an obvious conclusion. Similar pointers to a higher being exist throughout history. You want proof? Sorry, there is none. But I still believe, and people much smarter than me have believed (I know, bandwagon approach). Few things in life are as certain as a math equation. The evidence of this is how much arguing we do. If everything could be boiled down to pure logic it would all be solved.
My larger point is that you don’t convince people by hurling insults or ridiculing them. Some people are just touchy I guess…
It is futile arguing over this because neither side can prove their point.
exactly what point is it that you think we are trying to prove?
So foutsc, have you studied to holy texts of Hinduism and Buddhism? I mean, where there’s smoke, there’s fire, right?
If not, I hope you’ll never use that line of argumentation again.
Otherwise you’d be a hypocrite.
Not usually, although ridicule has been known to change a few lives. Consider, if you will, why I gave up cultivating a Goth image after just a few days back in ’98… LoL
True, but… Uh… have we just come full circle?
To whom are you referring? To those who hurl insults, or to those who are (perhaps excessively) offended by them?
Poor soil and inadequate drainage? Look Kseniya, you’re a sharp cookie and all, but this isn’t a 4H forum here.
Well, hey, the sacrificial goats had to come from somewhere. They don’t grow on trees, you know. Not without some serious black magic, that is.
Well, hey, the sacrificial goats had to come from somewhere.
You don’t have Safeway where you live?
Safeway? YHWH!
Seriously, no – and the Kids ‘Я’ Us closed down under pressure from the ASPCA…
Seriously, no – and the Kids ‘Я’ Us closed down under pressure from the ASPCA…
really?
my local Kids ‘R’ Us was closed down by the local District Attorney’s office.
something about it being “illegal” to sell human babies for consumption or whatnot.
now I’m stuck ordering on the internet.
Viz the Hindu, Buddha, etc thing. Who am I to say who (if anyone) has the “right” God? I doubt it’s all as simple as one religion is right and everyone else is wrong, which reminds me of a Homer quote about why he didn’t want to go to church: “But Marge, what if we’re in the wrong religion, then every week we’re just making God madder and madder!” I will not criticize someone for their religious beliefs. Some here have gone full a full 101101000, many times over. But arguing the merits or demerits one belief system over another was never my intent. I tried to make a straight line from Q to A.
I asked a question around #141:
So you’re an atheist. Why be so derisive of those who don’t share your views?
David Kseniya answered me in the #189 neighborhood.
“I will not criticize someone for their religious beliefs.”
Really? Even if those beliefs are vile and hateful? Even if they lead someone to let their child die because a medical procedure is against their religion?
Having some ideas be off limits to criticism while at the some time people use them to justify all sorts of things is insane.
“Why be so derisive of those who don’t share your views?”
Who has been derisive just because someone just holds a different view?
If people are derisive it is because of the content of those views and the actions that those who hold them take. Not just because they are different.
You may also be confusing what people post on a blogs comment section and how they interact with the people in their daily lives.
Do you have some real world example of mean Atheists?
I have never met a mean or impolite atheist. My reference was to some of the posts.
If someone were practicing human sacrifice or some other illegal activity, I would have to criticize it. You got me there.
I’m not going through the “who’s derisive, who’s smug” thing again. See earlier posts. I did not mean to piss anybody off; I just asked a question. Kseniya and David answered it and I accepted their answer with thanks.
I am not pissed off.
Thanks for the reply.
foutsc @194:
You may consider this a nitpicky point, but all these writings and traditions point to is a belief, from ancient times, in the existence of a deity.
Looked at more broadly, there are, from a variety of cultures, writings and traditions indicating a belief in the existence of a variety of deities (none of whom can be produced in evidence) and all with, from an unbiased viewpoint, equal validity. I.e., why does your chosen body of written material and traditions have any more validity than, for instance, that for Apollo, or Odin?
It’s been said before: atheists just disbelieve in one more god than you do.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think you are here to be obnoxious or divisive. I don’t think anyone here disrespects your right to believe, or disbelieve, anything you like, regardless of how sense-free it may seem to others (provided you, in your belief, cause no harm to others) ; which is not the same thing as having respect for the belief itself, if it seems sense-free. And what I’m getting from your posts is that you are not disrespectful of our right to disbelieve in what you believe, but that you, in turn, don’t consider our non-belief to be valid, that you consider it to be sense-free. True? False? Other?
Yes. I am talking about sacrificing goats, here… ;-)
foutsc @199:
And I agree; but it’s a matter of tactics. Myself, I think that once you’ve called someone an ass-hat they stop listening, and thereafter you’re wasting your time even trying to present your point of view, or any corroborating evidence. Others, however, may see it more in the vein of, “It’s a spade, dammit! Why can’t you see it’s a spade?!? It requires epic-level stupidity not to see that it’s a spade!” Plus, of course, the frustration and irritation of, “The same damn thing time after time, and politeness just doesn’t seem to reach these people! Maybe I can shock him out of that smug complacency.” Which approaches are equally used on both sides of the argument. Result; wheels spinning madly, blood pressures up all around, no progress made, no opinions changed. *sigh*
foutsc:
I’m not going for a gotcha here, but Spurge has pointed out that some beliefs and related activities are not necessarily illegal, but can have very serious negative consequences such as death. It’s unreasonable to exclude something like “withholding lifesaving medical care from a dying child” from actions that are eligible for criticism, even if they’re not illegal.
I wouldn’t be so callous or cynical as to file that girl’s death under “human sacrifice” but, frankly, it’s not too far off: although the parents didn’t intend for her to die, in the end she was a kind of sacrifice to their beliefs. No good can come from ignoring, or refusing to state, that fact.
Cicely: You’ve summed things up nicely. I respect your right to disbelieve. Based upon proof and logic, your non-belief is rational. I appear irrational, but trying to prove God by logic is to commit a category error, as explained by Dinesh D’Souza as he uses Kant to argue against the categorical rejection of something that may be exist beyond the five human senses. I’m not a philosopher, so I’m already over my head.
Suffice it to say I think we are all too hung up on religious differences. There are real problems like wars, the burgeoning federal debt, achieving energy independence, ignorance of the constitution, that have nothing to do with religion. We need civil discourse to discuss them rationally. So we hold differing religious beliefs; big deal. We shouldn’t let it poison all social discourse.
Kseniya: Any system of morality or ethics brings it own set of consequences. Nat Hentoff, an atheist, is opposed to abortion. If such a person’s daughter got pregnant at 15, it would present a moral dilemma. Ethics mean nothing until they block your way. You’ve identified the knife edge where religion (or any moral belief system) conflicts with the law or with what many of us would consider common sense. Me, save the kid’s life! There are cases where law must trump religious practice. Look at any right we have (speech, assembly, to bear arms): there is some extreme point in the practice of any right where the law steps in and says we can go no further.
I am a big fan of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
I believe you can’t have one without the other. I wrote a post in my blog defending a British atheist who has criticized Islam as well as Christianity. There I point out to my Christian friends that if you applaud his excoriating Islam, you must also accept his criticizing your beliefs as well. Europe is in trouble because they are self-censoring out of fear. I don’t want to see that happen here. Our country was built and our society advanced upon free inquiry.
http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-speech-religion-and-fed-up-british.html
My God is big enough to fend for himself. He will not wilt because someone has drawn a cartoon of him or makes jokes about him. I may feel offended, but you have a right to offend me. This is my criticism of political correctness. …Boy, did I digress!
Indeed. Ones religious rights can never trump the another person’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Hey, that’s a catchy phrase – can I copyright that? Heh.)
I did read your blog entry last night, and I do approve of your point of view. A belief that can’t stand up to scrutiny may not be a belief worth holding.
Bingo. As a friend of mine said when asked why he wasn’t more active about “taking a stand for Jesus,” he basically said, “God doesn’t need my help – I need his.” He’s one of those Jesus guys who doesn’t particularly care for church. No Churchianity there, I guess. Whether I share his beliefs or not, I approve of his point of view with respect to his belief.
Not that my approval means anything at all. :-)
Thanks. I still like that other guy’s “foutsc, liar for Jesus TM” thing, though.
Rock on!
foutsc:
Do you realize what this says about you? It says that you know you’re being dishonest, and you see no problem with it. It says that you celebrate the fact that you’re a liar, and think your imaginary god is happy with you for lying in his name. These aren’t good things.
You claimed to have evidence of your god. This is a common claim. But it has never, ever been backed up by a single fact. You claimed to have evidence, but when asked to present it, you failed to do so, you didn’t even try. This shows that you have no evidence. Which means that when you said you did, you were lying. The conclusion is inescapable. You are a liar. This is not the only lie you have told here, but it is probably the most glaring.
If you want to label yourself as a Liar For Jesus™, no one is stopping you. Apparently you really are too stupid to know what it means.
You came in here whining about derisive, smug, condescending atheists, while every word of yours oozed with derision. You projected your own arrogance onto others, then attacked them for it. In your later comments, you’ve been frantically backpedaling, pretending you weren’t as much of an asshole as your earlier words, still available above, clearly show. Perhaps you really didn’t realize what a jerk you were being at first, and you’re trying to change. But I doubt it.
You cited Dinesh D’Souza, a man who has explicitly stated that he and his political allies have much in common with terrorists, and that’s a good thing to him. You cited as support for your claims a man who thinks that people daring to disagree with him politically is worse than mass murder, a man known to be insane. And in this madman’s article you linked to, the version of god he promotes is indistinguishable from a hallucination. Why should we take him seriously? Why should we take you seriously?
You demand we answer your questions, but refuse to answer ours. You demand people take your beliefs seriously, but refuse to consider other belief systems. That makes you a hypocrite. Do you really think that’s a good thing? Oh, who am I kidding, you’ve already shown you’re not interested in facing facts or telling the truth. You have earned the name Liar For Jesus™ Wear it proudly, and just ignore that whole thing about bearing false witness.
I thought the Liar For Jesus™ thing was funny. The little superscript TM was a nice touch. You calling me a liar doesn’t make me one, and I haven’t lied once in any post, so I don’t know why you keep saying it. As to the rest, I guess you didn’t read the thread well, so I will cut and paste:
The God that I believe in exists outside of time and space and is the author of all. Therefore, he is not bound by the laws of nature. It is futile arguing over this because neither side can prove their point. You equate my belief in God with a belief in Santa Claus. Fine. But belief is not irrational. If I see skid marks and broken glass at an intersection, I infer there was an accident. The evidence is not proof, but it points to an obvious conclusion. Similar pointers to a higher being exist throughout history. You want proof? Sorry, there is none. But I still believe, and people much smarter than me have believed (I know, bandwagon approach). Few things in life are as certain as a math equation. The evidence of this is how much arguing we do. If everything could be boiled down to pure logic it would all be solved.
Based upon proof and logic, your non-belief is rational. I appear irrational, but trying to prove God by logic is to commit a category error, as explained by Dinesh D’Souza as he uses Kant to argue against the categorical rejection of something that may be exist beyond the five human senses. I’m not a philosopher, so I’m already over my head.
I am aware of the positions that D’Souza has taken. By your logic, if I disagree with someone on one thing, I must disagree with them on everything. Doesn’t make sense. Adolph Hitler once observed that the sky was blue. Since he was an evil madman I disagree with, does that mean I can no longer believe the sky is blue? Anyway, if you don’t like Dinesh (who, by the way, I did not realize had been declared insane), go read Kant.
Wow. All it takes to shut someone up it to tell them to go read Kant.
Well, it’s beer o’clock. Don’t think we accomplished much, but it has been fun.
The troll has left the building
There may have been other factors. ;-)
We’d be entirely content with the pointers. Please put them on the table.
As for Kant, I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who’ll claim they can prove that nothing supernatural exists. A chapter in The God Delusion is IIRC called “Why there is almost certainly no god”. What you will find is the attitude that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — the principle of parsimony.
Although some have been known to claim that the concept itself is not coherent.
I would have said meaningless myself, but why quibble over details?
Please, need more polls.
Withdrawal symptoms kicking in.
Will you create a special category for poll-crashing ?
foutsc:
Goodbye and good riddance.