Uh-oh. The president of Minnesota Atheists, August Berkshire, is descending into the den of idiocy that is our local evangelical radio station, KKMS. Listen if you can bear it. Personally, I don’t know that I can — it’s too repellent to listen to people who stress the importance of mindless faith, yet have only bad faith to offer.
If you missed it, here’s an MP3 of August’s segment.
Darn it PZ – I can never get the hang of getting anything but pop-ups from that site.
Yes, it’s pointless to engage mere repetitions of bad arguments in front of people who only care about which side gets the most damage (basically, both the Xians and the non-theists who tune in).
I can see only one reason to do it–to practice up for the chance to debate/discuss in venues which might actually matter.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
No, no, it’s just too much puke and brain deadening crap to listen any further. It’s one thing to read this demented shit, but to listen to it and not being able to reach in and mangle the crazy asshole is just too much! Tuning out, in more ways than one. You meant well, PZ, but I cannot continue. Aaaaarg!
This I think is a follow-up to an earlier debate:
I thought Berkshire was perfect in that debate.
I think the only thing that makes these shows worth it is when Pharyngulites call in and eat their arguments alive on the air. I find it amusing that they’ve scheduled an interview about an atheist they took to church first and then end on an interview with what I can only assume is a standard cut-paste “I used to be an Atheist” evangelists.
What could possibly make bad radio worse?
How about a little dose of Ray Comfort?
That’s right folks Ray Comfort is on the station as I type this. On a positive note, he always makes me laugh.
I listened for about 1 minute to a guy brag to a young girl about how stupid he was about the facts of evolution, and then lie about carbon dating, and then try to browbeat her into Christian submission with threats of hellfire, and had to leave.
Honestly, there is very little in this world to compare to the creepiness of born again evangilism.
What an utterly disgusting disease of the mind.
Good luck, soldier. You’ll need it.
Don’t forget to carry along a darwin fish. It wards them off.
Honestly, there is very little in this world to compare to the creepiness of born again evangilism.
And “evangelism” is even worse.
Slight thread jack: I was listening to NPR’s Tell Me More and heard Benjamin Carson (a famous surgeon who just recieved the Presidential Medal of Freedom) bring up the old 747 analogy. *facepalm*
August Berkshire, President of MN Atheists will discuss his experience of visiting Jeff’s church last Sunday.
*Groan.* I can’t sit still for church. (It’s a wonder I ever did.)
Something wrong with a drum circle? I wouldn’t mind visiting a Santeria church.
(I wouldn’t make a very good representative of a “nice, mainstream” atheist.)
Bulletin: The Discovery Institute has taken on PZ in a most tasteless way in this article: Cancer Research, Prayer, and St. Jude. I’ve just blogged about it, but maybe PZ will take them on a bit more directly. They deserve it.
Its not going too badly. Unfortunately, the religious people at the church pretended to be not to shockingly bad while August was there. Kinda took the wind out of it.
Turns out August and I have a similar background. Both from the Northeast. Both were Catholics. Both were alter boys. I wonder if we ever ran into each other at alter boy conventions.
I met August Berkshire at an Atheist Alliance convention in Sacramento back in 2001 (I think that’s the correct year). He was handing out these little tracts/flyers titled “100 Reasons to Doubt that God Loves You”. It was a list of one hundred human diseases.
He’s a brave man for taking on an evangelical radio station, but he’s also quite capable of coming out unscathed.
Kudos to August Berkshire.
Kristine,
Something wrong with a drum circle?
Uh, Yeah! Hello, it’s like, you know, of Satan!
Down in Sarasota they have a drum circle once a week on Siesta Key beach. One time a group of evangelicals tried to break it up by singing jesus songs and praying.
I guess God doesn’t get down with the bongo rappin’
(I think it’s the syncopation he hates, and maybe the lack of major chords).
They are not scathing him at all. He just very politely pointed out that a) were it not for one or two bits in the bible, there is no way that christianity would be anti gay …. Jesus is silent on the issue. and the next generation of christians is growing up not anti gay.
He’s being very polite but they are starting to get annoyed.
Wow,
Announcer: I’m not a religious person. Religion means working your way to God.
August: Fortunately, as an atheist, I don’t have to worry about that.
Quick insert of Pascal’s wager, changes topic so August can’t respond. Dick.
#12 – Whoa! Talk about ‘vile’. Those bastards went way to far with that little nasty shot.
Must lay down – vapors.
I just finished listening to the interview and thought all parties were very polite to each other and August was a delight to listen to. Those trying to pick at the KKMS announcers and add your own comments should really give it a rest. August is actually giving atheists a good spin with this interview as are the hosts. I am pleasantly surprised by this as my opinion of atheists is formed from reading this blog. As for #17 and the response on Pascal’s Wager and trying to change the topic- get over it, it was not! They were leaving the segment (up against a top of the hour break) and the interview with August. They threw that out as a topic to discuss at a later date with August. They WANTED him to come back again and discuss other topics- how novel of the hosts. All in all a very informative interview and appreciated August for what he said.
Personally, I listen to evangelical radio every day on my way home from work. As appalling as it may be, hey give me a great deal of information in regards to what to be actively fighting against in the activist world. :)
@ #12
Great find.
PZ, sharpen those knives. I would love to see that piece dissected. It’s a lot of fluff and as usual, not a lot of substance. But they have to be shown how incorrect their “thinking” is.
They want to credit religion for science? Wow.
“…and add your own comments should really give it a rest. “
Will never happen. We are tired of being run rough-shod over by liars and charlatans. Sure, sometimes there is a bit of an over-reaction. But that’s not our fault. Using tactics like the Gish Gallop is a common under-handed behavior and we are very sensitive to it.
#12 That article was written by Michael Egnor, he of the famous argument “evolution can’t be true because brain cancer doesn’t result in better brains in those patients”.
He has some sort of irrational need to deny every single piece of evidence of evolution, including stuff like the micro-evolution of antibiotic resistance that even young earthers accept.
Me whined,
Usually if you want to have a dicussion, you don’t throw out slogans like Pascal’s wager in rapid succession so that you can have the last word.
But then, Goofus and Gallant there are pretty poor interviewers. They barely listened to what August said before providing their responses (Alex mentioned the ‘Gish Gallop’–thx!).
Why are you keen to form an opinion at all?
To help you in your opinion gathering, I have horns and a pointed tail. :)
#12 – Patrick Henry – The piece you wrote on your blog was really good. Tried to leave you a comment there, but got baffled again. Nice job though.
Oh hell, I tuned back in and the banter is still insanely pukey. This cretin went from a rational atheist to an insane asshole! “There is a communicating god”, and other demented bullshit following! Can’t take any more of this puke before anger sets in and Chris Crawford starts his shitty analyzing again. Oh shit, it’s getting worse! Gotta go before I puke all over the keyboard.
Patricia,
#12 – Patrick Henry – The piece you wrote on your blog was really good.
I agree. Very lucid writing style.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Love the title of that book being puked and gushed over: “Not the religious Type”, subtitled, “How I Went From Shit For Brains To Just Brain Dead”. Dr Seuss, please review this crap and give us another make-over!
August was polite and well-spoken, like always. The hosts were civil and a bit batty, like always. Unfortunately, the hosts are two-faced unethical lying wankers, so I don’t trust their soft words one little bit.
Thanks for the heads-up #12. I just read it. Quick synapses of the whole thing:
– Written by Egnor
– Claims atheists are militant
– Blames evolutionary theory for eugenics and evo psychology
– Places all credit for major medical advances on faith, in fact placing most of them on a single prayer
– Places credit for basically anything worthwhile on “Judeo-Christian culture”
– Dares to claim real science never existed prior to Christianity
The interview posted above from YouTube was also very polite. He’s a good spokesman. Somewhere on YouTube I saw Joe Zimecke being almost physically attacked by a screaming goddist. Those are the type that live in my town. Pure ugly!
I am convinced that people believe in God/religion for emotional reasons and they seek rational ones after the fact. This was clear from the interview they had on at 5 p.m., of an atheist turned Christian. Therefore, if we really want to gain better traction with our message, we should be civil, and even friendly. There is no reason not to be. We are friendly people, aren’t we? And isn’t our message superior? We should, of course, hold firm when it comes to separation of church and state, which I did when the subject came up about same-sex marriage.
Of course we should be polite. However, we should also recognize when others are dishonest, and I don’t trust those two lying twerps at all. I’m afraid I was burned by their atrocious lack of probity in the radio debate we had a while ago, and all I hear of them is two more liars for Jesus.
The radio guy said that he thinks the entire Bible is “inspired” by God. Hilarious!
Moses made it easier for people to get divorced because back then the people had “hardened hearts”. Funny stuff!
He said Christianity isn’t a religion. Oh man!
Pascal’s wager too!
Man, that was some good comedy.
What’s with this annoying “Christianity isn’t a religion” bit that’s been going around lately? Man, talk about arrogance.
Ashley Paramore at # 20: I don’t listen to evangelical radio on the car radio every day, but sometimes, if the scanner runs into it, I may stop to listen. Partly for the reasons you give, but partly because this is the only place on the radio where they are discussing these issues of evolution vs. creationism and faith vs. non-faith. Yes, I am so sadly desperate to hear these topics discussed at all that in the absence of an intelligent, reasoned discussion, I will take what I can get. Okay, I hear the responses: “Have you tried ‘Books on CD’?”
It’s my understanding that redefining words to something other than their common meanings is a technique used by cults to isolate members from the outside world and build group identity.
Oh dear.
Two things that struck me, one on each side of the debate (such as it was):
1) I was surprised that Mr. Berkshire said he does not sing hymns because he does not believe them. Personally, I can appreciate something for its beauty even while recognizing it as fiction. That struck me as akin to refusing to read Lord of the Rings because one does not believe in Sauron. I suppose Mr. Berkshire’s reservations could have to do with singing hymns specifically in church, which could have the odor of a false profession of faith. It would have been interesting to go into that a little more.
2) Now, one for (against) the other side: If salvation is dependent on embracing Jesus, and the proverbial murderer might get into Heaven while Mother Theresa might not…why, then, the insistence on following all the rules laid forth in the Bible? You guys just said ultimately one’s earthly behavior is not the deciding factor. If ultimately God does not judge one on the strictness of one’s piety, but on the sincerity of one’s love of Jesus, then the heavenly basis for all those rules of conduct is essentially lost, and the pious man is therefore on the same basis as the atheist when it comes to how to be in the world and treat his fellow man: which, one would hope, boils down to fairness and common sense. They have just made their own best argument for excising and discarding all the pseudo-supernatural flummery and claptrap in their moral code. What they will be left with very likely will bear a startling resemblance to what the average atheist lives by.
@ #34, PZ:
“Of course we should be polite. However, we should also recognize when others are dishonest, and I don’t trust those two lying twerps at all. I’m afraid I was burned by their atrocious lack of probity in the radio debate we had a while ago, and all I hear of them is two more liars for Jesus.”
I still think it would be interesting to debate you, PZ, one on one…maybe in a written Q&A format, I don’t know. As long as you don’t delve too far into biology (not my field), I won’t delve too far into computer science (probably not your field).
Of course we should be polite. However, we should also recognize when others are dishonest, and I don’t trust those two lying twerps at all. I’m afraid I was burned by their atrocious lack of probity in the radio debate we had a while ago, and all I hear of them is two more liars for Jesus.
– Posted by: PZ Myers | June 25, 2008 7:50 PM
You are right, the premise of that debate was totally one-sided and unfair, demanding that you have to prove your case for evolution but the other guy didn’t have to make a positive case for his creationism and could get away with just critiquing you. I think you handled it well – I really admired how civil you were. As you recall, the hosts apologized for the mix-up. Could it be that they (the hosts), like most creationists, sincerely believe critiquing evolution PROVES creationism (as the only “possible” alternative – god of the gaps)? I’m willing to give the hosts the benefit of the doubt as to their ignorance as to what constitutes science. However, I show no such leniency towards your opponent, who did claim to know what science was all about (at least he was presented as someone with supposed expertise). So, you were absolutely right to call him on the carpet and demand that he present his case. I would not have blamed you if you had hung up in a huff when he refused to do so, yet by hanging in there you were hopefully able to educate a few people as to creationist one-sided tactics. You took the high road and made us all very proud.
386sx @ 36 Yeah, that really bugs me as so many other of their denial crap. Here’s another one that pisses me off. When that religious camp in Texas was raided and those poor kids were freed, especially the young girls forced to marry and have sex with older male slime, I spoke to several religious idiots, only to get the same response; but they are cults! This is the expression used by these morons when a religion is caught in these pernicious actions. They practically disown or detach themselves from any association with any religion that closely resembles their own as if it had nothing to do with their mutual beliefs, and give the standard skirting answer that it is just a cult. Their brand of religion is above such behavior, and anyway their god is different from ours! One never ceases to be amazed at the varying levels of religious dementia.
By the way, Jeff and Lee have agreed to be on “Atheists Talk” radio. This will give me a chance, in a polite way of course, to discuss in more depth some of the tough questions I don’t always get a chance to discuss on their show (problem of evil, unintelligent design, nasty Bible verses, why do we need to be “saved,” etc). The date (over a month away) will no doubt be posted here once it’s confirmed. It’s a live call-in show, so get your questions ready.
@ Tom L., #40:
“If salvation is dependent on embracing Jesus, and the proverbial murderer might get into Heaven while Mother Theresa might not…why, then, the insistence on following all the rules laid forth in the Bible? You guys just said ultimately one’s earthly behavior is not the deciding factor.”
That’s right…behavior isn’t the deciding factor…at least not for “salvation” in the most basic sense. For instance, the “thief on the cross” passage didn’t involve the thief climbing down off the cross, restocking the area foodshelf, and then climbing back up there. But there are also passages like I Corinthians 3:10-15, which seem to indicate that one’s works will be tested as if by fire, and potentially everything could burn up (whatever that means) but the person could still “escape”.
My chief gripe with Jeff and Lee, though, is the sleazy way they handled things. Switching topics for the debate the hour before was bad enough…but then giving Simmons a free pass and an hour to make his case without criticism was despicable. If they’d said they were going to give Simmons an uninterrupted hour and were also going to talk about evolution with me alone for an hour, I could have seen at least an attempt at fairness, but clearly they weren’t interested in that at all.
I won’t be calling in when they’re on. I don’t think they’re worth talking to.
August Berkshire @ 44 If that was my radio show, and fate help the religious morons who have the guts to appear, my lead question to them would be; “Explain to me why religion should not be classified as a mental illness?” And if this stops them in their seats as I think it would and should, then I will, with a smirk, tell them that there will be no debate until their god appears with them. Now how far will this program progress with that initial line of repartee? I will be polite to people who deserve that honor, smirk, but not to unstable people who willingly refuse to exercise their reasoning ability that evolution has graduated them with, but continue to believe in irrational ideas that reason and science has long ago dispelled. My politeness extends only so far; it stops short at persons who should and could reason things out, but refuse for a variety of reasons, all of which are irrational.My tenure as a radio host will be both blatant and possibly short-lived.
Scientists in these sort of venues need to attack not creationism, or pietism, but the legitimacy of debate as a means of settling scientific questions.
Debate only works when both sides bring their facts to the table in good faith, and then argue over what the facts mean. Creationists cannot be debated with, because they lie. The whole mechanism of debate simply doesn’t work when this is the case.
That’s what needs to be attacked. And not just debate, but any verbal-only 15-minute message, like a radio segment. Science is done on paper, over the course of months or years.
The other problem with debate is that churchgoers are not accustomed to listening critically. The only two things the know how to do are either to close their ears; or accept and believe. Debate is pointless – you’re in the position of being the “false teacher” straight away. They simply won’t listen.
PZ,
These radio Christians are downright pleasant to listen to in comparison with Metro Detroit’s resident kook, Bob Dutko. If you really want to get a dose of one of the nuttiest nut jobs on the public airwaves, take a listen him any weekday between 12 and 4 ET. After one hour of Dutko, you’ll long once again for the gentle misinformation of Jeff and Lee on KKMS.
Although I like August I think his church going and arguing with religious people is a waste of time and energy. He should stop using religious language and start talking more scientific in his arguments.
Carl @ 50 You expressed my opinions in a more “polite” manner than I would have. Visiting a church to observe and get a feel for what is going on is just a waste of time and disengenuous if one considers themselves atheists. We all know what churches are and represent, and definitely are aware of the insane results of imploring their imaginary god; nothing, absolutely nothing. August may have been, in his thinking, exhibiting politeness and a desire to show an understanding for the religious feelings of people who despise what he represents, but his placation is misguided and unnecessary. Please, August, direct your politeness and a willingness to understand in other directions that are conducive to what you supposedly represent. Like what Carl suggests, in the mannner of more scientific evidence to discount relligious superstition.
I have to say that I’m glad that there are atheists of every type; August has one approach, PZ has another, and I suspect we all have our own way of approaching the issues.
The most important thing is thet we aren’t silent. August’s methods will no doubt impress many who wouldn’t be swayed by PZ’s approach, and I’m sure the reverse is also true.
Thanks August, you did a fine job.
We are friendly people, aren’t we?
Who are?
“Friendly” in what way? (“Family-friendly”? Oh, crap.)
“We” are individuals – or at least, I am.
Although I like August I think his church going and arguing with religious people is a waste of time and energy.
My sentiments exactly. But to each his own – as long as “we” recognize our differences.
Despite trying to be as friendly as one can, in my experience going to church and/or meeting religious believers is different when you’re a woman.
As a Brit, it’s really spooky to listen to someone speaking about atheists as if they are some bizarre minority like Hari Krishnas. But when the US shits, the UK catches a cold (or something)…there’s been an upsurge of anti-science over here recently, from anti-vaccination to ID so, keep fighting The Primitives people!x
Holbach @ 51 – Observation is worthless, because we already know what we’re going to see? Did I stumble into Conservapedia by accident?
Leland @ 51 I reread my comment and it does not in any way mesh with yours. Please elucidate what you find contradictatory. I’ll gladly explain or redefine my comment.
Looking at the history of the scientific method from the earliest evidence of methodology in ancient Egypt until today reveals that the number of Christians contributing important improvements is not higher than one would expect from general demographics. The major steps were provided by Egyptian, Hellenistic and Muslim physicians, scientists and philosophers long before and even during the age of Christian dominance. If Christian faith, let alone prayer, had played an informative and qualitative role of improvement, we would expect a significant showing regardless of funding and external contribution. And precisely that is not there. Even assuming God exists and does inform scientific thinking, the only logical conclusion can be that he inspires people regardless of their faith or atheism. Incidentally, the same applies to ethics and morality, and therefore shows that prayers and doctrines of faith are at best a method of autosuggestive reassurance, and going from there through waste of time to hinderance of progress.
“Visiting a church to observe and get a feel for what is going on is just a waste of time and disengenuous if one considers themselves atheists. We all know what churches are and represent.”