The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is angry.
It is time for the Christian bashing to stop and for Christians to no longer be treated like second-class citizens.
Second-class citizens who are virtually the only people who can get elected to political office, who whine piteously if anyone fails to kneel before their sacraments, who also claim that this is a Christian nation, who use their faith to justify war, corruption, oppression, greed, and who use their privileged position to deny non-Christians basic rights. Yeah, right. They’re a gang of hypocritical thugs with a persecution complex. It it time for Christian bashing to increase, I should think.
Now they’ve compiled a top ten list of Christian bashing in America for 2008, and oh, it is a pathetic thing. It is largely a list of people who mocked Christian excess: first on the list is the Proposition 8 Musical, starring Jack Black as Jesus. Bill Maher gets mentioned twice. I am in there for throwing a cracker in the trash. A sports announcer used obscenities. Come on, where are the lions? There aren’t any.
Most ridiculous of all, they have to invent slurs. Apparently, Barack Obama’s very existence is an example of Christian bashing.
According to research into President Elect Obama’s own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama’s position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a “devout Christian.”
That’s it. Because they’ve redefined Obama’s beliefs as non-Christian, the fact that he holds those beliefs constitutes a defamation of Christianity. Poor pitiful CADC.
I am freakin’ sick of these people ability to look at the true stats of the world, and rewrite the weights of these same stats.
Most people thinks atheists are scum and can say so openly, and without fear of retaliation, but someone points out the Christian religious bias to people not like they, or their indefensible actions? Then it, “Christian bashing!!!…How dare they!!!???”
I need to go back to sleep..
They managed to spell it M-e-y-e-r-apostrophe-s? I’m impressed.
I know picking on typos is far from anything I should be doing, but… damn
You got the name right once, what happened?
Rev., consistency from the deluded would be nice. But, in my experience, very unlikely to happen. My guess, one is cut/paste, and the other was their idea of PZ’s name is spelled.
FAIL
Shame you only made #7. Must try harder!
What’s the next devastating attack? “A man in New York walked past a religious billboard… and he looked the other way!” Silly crybabies.
You know, as much as I know enforcing a ban of religion doesn’t work, sometimes it’s really a tempting idea…
Rev BDC said: “You got the name right once, what happened?”
Perhaps they burned out their last functional brain cell getting the spelling right the first time.
Wow, that list is a real lol of minor complaints. If they saw Jesus up on that cross they’d be saying “that jew suffers nothing compared what we have to go through”
Second class citizens? Maybe we should put christian rights on a ballot somewhere and vote on whether or not their legal marriages should be dissolved.
While I can forgive them for their misguided attempts to do evil – out of misplaced and irrational fears and misguided attempts to gain power – to people like myself, I will not be giving the proverbial inch to them on any issue, in any way, ever.
People like this are so entirely in the wrong – by which I mean they are working against their own happiness as well as others – that, until they show they slimmest thread of humanity in either action or word, they can be opposed without internal debate: they are not only insane but uncreative in their insanity.
Without resorting to violence – a habit most of them are uncomfortable with unless masked in uniformed “patriotism” – they will lose. And they be all the better, especially in their own eyes, for having lost.
What always hits me with these types of temper tantrums is that is really shows what a lack of confidence and dare I say faith that they have in their God. If their God is as powerful as they claim he is you’d think that he could take care of himself or at least not care about these things.
Well, I, for one, am duly pissed!
(…I didn’t even make the list!)
@14: Succinct. :D
I deserve to be on the list. I mean, my website banner features me stabbing Jesus in the throat with a fucking katana!
Instance #4 is a magnificent piece of doublethink.
It’s blindingly obvious that religions have evolved from primitive mythologies, or crazy delusions, or cons.
Anyone who believes in stupid nonsense, such as Christianity, is therefore either stupid, crazy, or brainwashed.
“What always hits me with these types of temper tantrums is that is really shows what a lack of confidence and dare I say faith that they have in their God. If their God is as powerful as they claim he is you’d think that he could take care of himself or at least not care about these things.”
They’ve prayed so many times for Jebus to take care of their enemies with no action taken on their behalf.
Oh, I missed out, ignorant.
I have an idea: Let’s all inundate this group with requests to be included on the list to mock the intent behind the list.
Sent to [email protected]:
My signature, of course, contains the URL to Kobra’s Corner. :P
I SO want to get on that list.
ya know, I bet a list of 10 things done against other groups would only earn derision from these people. They whine about these so-called bouts of bashing but glory in their accomplishment of barring gay from the CIVIL right of marriage.
yeah – I have SOO much pity for them.
@22: You, me, and Cuttlefish, too. :P
[email protected] – Use this email address to request inclusion.
One minor, pettifogging point: you talk about Christians “who use their faith to justify war, corruption, oppression, greed…”
They don’t. They use their faith to DEFEND them, and to attempt a justification. But the defence and the attempt both fail.
You’re giving ’em too much credit…
“CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian”
I think they mean “hysteric” Christian standard.
Part of their script is that they need to feel persecuted. Must be hard holding all the power in this country and to not be well liked.
The one I love is where they’re complaining about pro-Proposition 8 signs being stolen and people being assaulted for their beliefs. Because of course we all know that good Christians would never treat atheists that way.
“It is time for the Roman bashing to stop and for Romans to no longer be treated like second-class citizens,” said Gaius Severus Censor. “Those gods-less Christians have gone too far. Take for example that execrable piece of hate-mongering: ‘Throw Them to The Lions! The Musical’.”
Next to the Jack Black reference, I think my favorite from the list is #4, where they think the bible has been banned in Colorado by some recent anti-discrimination legislation(see: http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?Open&file=200_01.pdf .) You see, by not allowing them to persecute others in their down=home folksy old fashioned ways, they are the ones being persecuted!
“Why Lord, why?!”
We need time machines. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could send delegations of these o-so-persecuted and bashed groups to say, ancient Rome (provided the historical accounts are true) or maybe to the nazi Deutsche Kirche Germany? Just to show them what real ‘Christian bashing’ looks like.
Dear Christians, a hint: when you try to enter your church on Sunday and find it barred by uniformed men who are busy nailing a Swastika over the door, then come back and complain. When your cousin doesn’t return from the supermarket because someone has decided he serves a better purpose entertaining the masses running from wild animals in Madison Square Garden, then you have a reason to complain.
It’s the top leadership of Christianity who goes out on television and calls nonbelievers mentally deficient and accuses anybody-but-themselves of being responsible for anything from Katrina to Columbine. And they are the ones being bashed – yeah right.
Wait, what? All four candidates on both tickets self-identify as Christians!
@31: Yeah, but she was a True Believer
o, the terrible cross they must bear.
I can’t believe they paid any attention to you.
How about this:
“BONUS INSTANCE: Senator Grassley’s Abuse of Power
US Senator Grassley, a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has demanded the financial records of a number of very prominent conservative, evangelical broadcast ministries. The demand was based on Grassley’s concern that these ministries are not spending their contributions properly. Grassley has admitted his concerns were in part driven by media accounts.”
How did that recently posted cartoon go? “*Bash**Bash**Bash* – Hey, show some respect!”
Can we actually get some lions? I think that would really move things along. If they are going to wave their persecution complex in my face, I could at least do my part to give them some perspective as to what constitutes persecution.
“They whine about these so-called bouts of bashing but glory in their accomplishment of barring gay from the CIVIL right of marriage.”
It is the lifestyle choice they have made and they expect everyone else to make their same Christianist lifestyle choice. Because the free will that that they claim their God gave them does not extend to everyone else.
I guess they have overridden what was supposed to be God’s gift of free will with their abominable and sinful lifestyle choice? I am certain that we can cure them of this. Whether it is those damned “God genes” or simply a lifestyle choice… We can cure them all.
I believe in God (I know Myers and many of you don’t, that is your right, and that this is generally a taboo topic around here) but I really don’t think they believe in God that much. First and foremost, they believe in controlling what others think.
“INSTANCE #6: Religulous the Movie
Bill Maher released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Religulous. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on the faith. Maher studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals.”
Spot the oxymoron.
@39: Which one?
“legitimate Christian answers” (double: legitimate Christian, Christian answers)
OR
Christian intellectuals?
Wow, let’s see, off the top of my head for atheist-bashing in 2008 I come up with Libby Dole’s efforts towards political disenfranchisement, Kieffe & Sons advertising that atheists should leave the country, and that crazed councilwoman in Illinois screaming at a testifying atheist that he shouldn’t be allowed near children. Oh, and of course the movie that compares atheists to Nazis.
If their list of “Christian-bashing” passes as persecution for them, I’d love to see what they think of the ‘atheist-bashing’ list. Hypocrites.
I’m declaring zero tolerance on the use of “oxymoron” as a synonym for “contradiction”. It’s only an oxymoron if you are combining apparently contradictory terms on purpose to express a novel idea (like “organized chaos”).
/curmudgeon
they’re the ones who treat everybody else like 2nd or 3rd class citizens. unbelievable
Their reasons for concludibg Obama’s not Christian:
1.Doesn’t hate people of other faiths
2.isn’t a biblical literalist
3.Is OK with gays
4.Is OK with abortion
5.Once praised the sound of the muslim call to prayer as being “pretty” (seriously)
6.Is “associated” with black liberation theology (or OMG he’s black!!!!1!)
7.Has no Christian “testimony” – or doesn’t feel compelled to talk constantly about his relationship with Christ
Their list actually makes me feel better about him. He’s a prettu cool guy. PZ, you ARE in good company.
Their reasons for concludibg Obama’s not Christian:
1.Doesn’t hate people of other faiths
2.isn’t a biblical literalist
3.Is OK with gays
4.Is OK with abortion
5.Once praised the sound of the muslim call to prayer as being “pretty” (seriously)
6.Is “associated” with black liberation theology (or OMG he’s black!!!!1!)
7.Has no Christian “testimony” – or doesn’t feel compelled to talk constantly about his relationship with Christ
Their list actually makes me feel better about him. He’s a prettu cool guy. PZ, you ARE in good company.
Next they’ll be complaining about their lack of religious freedom. Something like:
“Religious freedom? Don’t make me laugh! If I ever try to persecute infidels and heretics as my religion commands me to do, they’ll throw me in jail! You call that religious freedom? I’m being oppressed, I tell you!”
The christian taliban must feel their control slipping
“A Biology Professor from the University of Minnesota, Paul Zachary Myers, recently desecrated a consecrated communion wafer from a Catholic Mass. Meyer’s has also asked people to steal the Eucharist for him in order that he might desecrate it and display it on his blog.”
Ever thought of something like the blasphemy challenge where people desecrate crackers in a variety of amusing ways?
What a great little organization they have.
So basically what they’re representing is that there’s this arbitrarily chosen group of beliefs, which are so important that no one can ever comment them in any way, or present any views of their own if they happen to be in conflict with theirs, and if they do it’s an act of defamation? Sounds perfectly reasonable.
I’m sorry. I read these threads, over and over and read their complaints, their lies, their whining and claims of victimhood, and I always refrain from commenting because there’s only one thing I think of as a response – there’s only one response that fits, only one response they’re worthy of… but it just doesn’t add to the discussion.
Fuck ’em. That’s all I got. That’s all I have for them.
Fuck them.
The persecution complex is an essential part of their theology. Jebus says if they aren’t being persecuted, they aren’t doing it right. No wonder then that they have to find such petty “persecutions” in a country where they hold all the power and influence.
Didn’t that list make all of you feel happy? First I laughed, and then started smililng because I realized how miserable someone has to be, to complain about minor inconveniences/annoyances like that (to be clear, I’m not smiling because they are miserable, but because I am not).
How insecure are the people at cadc?
30.000 or more factions of the christian faith in the US,80% of people belonging to any one of them,no chance to get into public office without pandering to them,and they still hang on to their persecution complex,isnt it amazing….
Point out any fallacy in religious thinking=christian bashing.
Its an art form they have well and truly perfected.
Typical xian fantasy working overtime and scraping the barrel to illustrate their hysteria…
The Senator Grassley’s Abuse of Power gripe is a veritable gem of Christian hypocrisy…
Do they not want to know where the money goes?…no obviously not because deep down they know that it is spent on more then the expenses incurred preaching the jeebus con…
Cannot expect god fearing stalwarts of the mythology to only eat drink and travel the way the rest of us do…they need fine cuisine and expensive drink tabs at the out of state lap dance ‘n’ hooters international club and the latest gas guzzler to get there…this preaching is a sore trial to the body…a few home comforts and the odd hooker..is that to much to ask for oh lord? ….then some politically motivated bunny wants to check the books…how inconvenient..it might give Christianity a bad name…cos they won’t understand!
Does anyone know the meaning of the term “alter boys” in number 9? Could an alter boy be a boy who has been “altered” by a priest? That’s an interesting way of describing sexual abuse!
I posted to digg
http://digg.com/arts_culture/Top_Ten_Instances_of_Christian_Bashing
Jump in and bash in the new year!
I don’t believe in God, but I think your assessment of the situation is spot on.
I know plenty of people with varying degrees of what might be called “faith”. They differ from the people I know who are strongly “religious”.
The faithful have their god(s) and get on with their life. Unless you ask them about it directly, they don’t usually mention it, although you may see their faith in a religious observance on a special day or whatever.
The religious, however, are so insecure in their faith that they have to back it up with their persecution complexes, their constant droning about being “slapped in the face” by atheists, gays, pro-choicers, Obama, whatever… and they seek to undo that perceived persecution through legislation and public policy.
The faithful are, to me, perhaps slightly silly, but generally harmless. The religious are downright scary.
Seems as if the “Community Organizer” has a Messiah Complex also…..much like Palin & Bush………
“If you want to change the world, the change has to happen with you first and that is something that the greatest and most honorable of generations has taught us, but the final thing that I think the Moses generation teaches us is to remind ourselves that we do what we do because God is with us. You know, when Moses was first called to lead people out of the Promised Land, he said I don’t think I can do it, Lord. I don’t speak like Reverend Lowery. I don’t feel brave and courageous and the Lord said I will be with you. Throw down that rod. Pick it back up. I’ll show you what to do. The same thing happened with the Joshua generation.”
“Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go. We’ve come a long way in this journey, but we still have a long way to travel. We traveled because God was with us.”
“Thank God, He’s made us in His image and we reject the notion that we will for the rest of our lives be confined to a station of inferiority, that we can’t aspire to the highest of heights, that our talents can’t be expressed to their fullest.”
“They took them across the sea that folks thought could not be parted. They wandered through a desert but always knowing that God was with them and that, if they maintained that trust in God, that they would be all right.”
“As great as Moses was, despite all that he did, leading a people out of bondage, he didn’t cross over the river to see the Promised Land. God told him your job is done. You’ll see it. You’ll be at the mountain top and you can see what I’ve promised. What I’ve promised to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. You will see that I’ve fulfilled that promise but you won’t go there.”
“Keep in your heart the prayer of that journey, the prayer that God gave to Joshua. Be strong and have courage in the face of injustice.”
“God Bless You.”
– Barack Obama
Selma, Alabama
CADC ? Thats the “Central Atheist Defamation Commission” ?
So if a significant percentage of Christians are apparently of the opinion that they have become a second-class majority, who do they think are the first-class citizens?
Atheists? Gays? Reptilians?
Yeah… persecution… 2nd class citizens…
Of all whinging mimophants, xian cultists must be the whiniest.
@black wolf:
“Dear Christians, a hint: when you try to enter your church on Sunday and find it barred by uniformed men who are busy nailing a Swastika over the door, then come back
and complain. ”
Now THAT is rather unlikely. Given the fact that virtually all Nazis were christians.
My take on the gay marriage ban is this…
If people were going to try and strong arm churches into blessing these unions – I’d be dead set against it. The government has no right to tell a church it needs to marry two people. The fact that 2 people can go before a CIVIL servant and be granted CIVIL rights that cost thousands to have done independently – it is a CIVIL issue.
I would even support a measure that barred the government from performing any marriages and relegating the word “marriage” strictly to the churches. But then all unions would be civil unions in the eyes of the government. The name changes, tax status, health insurance coverage, all of it would be part of the civil union. The act of the clergy praying over it would be nothing but the blessing – no legal significance at all.
I don’t think the “religious” would go for this. Because it’s ultimately NOT about protecting marriage, it is about denying the civil rights of marriage to gays.
And THEY are the persecuted?
Can we actually get some lions? I think that would really move things along. If they are going to wave their persecution complex in my face, I could at least do my part to give them some perspective as to what constitutes persecution. – Schmeer
Sure – but do be careful you have at least as many Christians as lions, or some poor lion will be left without its Christian!
Aww, awe the poow wittle chwistians hurt because someone doesn’t agree with them?
I saw a picture in the newspaper today of one if the Israeli soldiers currently battling it out with the other religious zealots in the Gaza Strip, saying his prayers whilst standing on top of his fucking tank!
If that image doesn’t encapsulate the extent of the madness, I don’t know what does. But, like many of you rightly pointed out on this and many other occasions, they don’t want to learn, and they don’t want to see the evidence slapping them in the face.
Fuck ’em indeed.
@Anna #59:
It’s probably not the Reptilians. I think it would be something closer to: Whoever they think they can target and get away with it. It seems to be easier when they can just lump everyone they hate on any given day into the same category. I would imagine it’s a time saver, since they don’t have to mention any specific group and they can just keep reusing the same old droning crap over and over without the need for time-consuming and costly edits.
This nonsense is from the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission… so, who commissioned them to this task?
And their “7 Reasons Why Barack Obama is not a Christian” seems rather defaming to me. (It’s linked from the article PZ linked to) I guess it’s typical to whine about others doing the very thing they are caught doing.
Christians (the majority religion in the USA, with 95+% of the legislature being Christians) feel like “second-class citizens” and want even Bill Maher to muzzle-up???
Holy shiite! Next thing you know the Christians will be calling for a Holy death Fatwa against any who dare joke about Christianity (let alone voice serious criticism of it). Just like Islamics, they can’t take criticism and ridicule but boy, they can sure dish it out!
Time to go Levi Johnston on their daughters, and give fake names.
I believe in God (I know Myers and many of you don’t, that is your right, and that this is generally a taboo topic around here) – connecticut man1
Taboo topic??? You mean if some blithering godbot comes along and starts cutting-and-pasting from the Bible, or repeating creationist crap we’ve heard a thousand times before, we tell them they’re a blithering godbot? Then guilty as charged. However, if it were a “taboo topic”, then posts putting forward theistic views would be routinely blocked or removed, which they are not.
Obama doesn’t hate gay people and he want science, not dogma, to be taught in our science classes. Therefore he must not be a Christian.
Hey Christians! Look up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
I think that they should be incredibly happy to see Obama in the public sphere. This is a guy who was raised secular, and chose Christianity as an adult, which says a lot more for the faith than a lifelong believer who’s been indoctrinated since birth. But, he supports stem cell research, doesn’t hate gays, and he keeps his reasoning where the rest of us can see it, so these wingnuts want nothing to do with him. Their loss.
How much do you want to bet that this “Xtian Anti-Defamation Commission is really just one wanker with a Bill Donohue complex?
“It is time for the Christian bashing to stop and for Christians to no longer be treated like second-class citizens.”
Yeah!! You took away their right to execute homosexuals! You took away their right to criminalize sex between consenting adults! You took away their right to make Christianity the dominant religion in the classroom! You force evidence based science education upon their children! You deny that the Founding Fathers established a Christian nation! You claim facts triumph over fairy tales! What a bunch of religious bigots!
Release the Christians from their bonds of oppression now or I’ll shoot this puppy to prove the power and omnipotence of God’s love and vengeful nature!!!!
Brute @57
And lo, the Lord gave us aerobic exercise! Hallelujah!
I found that Proposition 8 Musical uninteresting without anything innovative or actually funny until Neil Patrick Harris did his bit about the money aspect, which was the only creative and really hilarious part. Jack Black did alright as Jesus though as was humorous, just his dialog was old hat.
Brute@57,
Wow! Barack Obama is a Christian! Hold the front page!!!1!one!!
Where, in this unsourced screed (no, saying he said it in/wrote it from Selma, Alabama isn’t giving a source), do you see evidence he has a Messiah complex? I’m guessing it’s in the paragraph beginning:
“Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go.”
Now the “I am with you” could be a reference to himself, but it could also be, could it not, quoting what God is supposed to have said? If there is a written source, that might tell us. If it was spoken, hearing it might tell us. So, where exactly did you get this? When we know, we’ll maybe be in a position to judge whether your claim is justified.
I say ayone who believes in nonsense like naturalism is stupid ,crazy and brainwashed.
I love that argument by assertion
I see the Brute troll is defecating in the living room again.
Once trolls pass a certain age it’s virtually impossible to housebreak them.
Hmm, is that defamation I smell? Because I’m pretty sure that “stealing” magic crackers wasn’t part of the plan.
I think PZ pretty much hit the nail on the head responding to this nonsense. I hadn’t heard of this group before, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Donohue isn’t the only professional crybaby out there.
“According to ‘research’ we ‘conducted’, we think Obama isn’t Christian enough, making him completely not a Christian at all. The mighty and powerful Oz has spoken.”
Hey, I can do research like that right now: According to my trained eye and advanced reading abilities, as well as my capabilities for conducting deep study and data mining ON THE FLY, I have determined the CADC to be a group of busy-body malcontents angry that they’re losing hearts and minds, and with nothing better to do than to make meaningless pronouncements in an attempt to garner any semblance of respect and power they can to push their doltish and insipid ideology.
I think I’m going to start my own defamation detection service for religious entities so I can make all kinds of money off of thoughtful “research”.
I’m just disappointed that they didn’t even give a bump to Hamlet 2 for its rousing musical number “Rock Me Sexy Jesus” (the high point of the film). They manufacture “evidence” but they leave out one of the catchiest tunes of the year? Blasphemous!
If these people had an ounce of humor perhaps they’d be a little more “Christlike” and less resemble the Pharisees Jesus used to mock. Oh… wait… that would require some intelligence!
My new favorite oxymoron: “Christian Intellectual”.
I also find it highly amusing that this dude charges “Only $75” to distribute any release to his “selected” outlets.
I still want to know how I can sell my soul to the devil and enrich myself by promulgating hatred and stoopidity. Think this guy will tutor me?
As if we would believe a godbot who can’t show evidence for his deity. At what point will you quite lying?
I must say I find their description for #6 very interesting. Apparently Bill Maher talked to all the wrong people, “…and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals.” That’s odd. So I have to be Bill Donohue before any secularist is allowed to ask a question? Oh wait that’s right: Catholics aren’t Christians. Forgot that little detail. Anyhow, so I have to be some little Napolean like Hagee, who proselytizes to many millions, before a secularist is allowed to ask a question? I can’t just go ask a weekly churchgoer? Are weekly churchgoers too stupid? Do they have a considerable lack of intellectual depth, as the description seems to indicate?
Are we sure this is the REAL Christian Anti-defamation Commission? Not the Anti-defamation Christian Commission or the Christian Commission of Anti-defamation, or the Anti-defamation Commission of Christians. One never knows.
Wow, it’s news to me that the Bible has been banned in Colorado. Not that I am a fan of banning books of any kind. Well, now, if they could just pry the Dobson gang and F**k-us on the Family out of Colorado Springs, this state just might be worth living in again.
In an attempt to poke a little inter-nicine strife, I posted a link to Jack Chick’s latest, an attack against the pope and Catholicism in general.
I wonder what they’ll do with this, because based on that list, they seem to be supporting both Catholics and non-Catholic Christians.
I hope they’ll self-explode when trying to decide whether this qualifies as “Christian bashing” or not :D
Mothra@#86: Splitters!
I’m just waiting for the Marquis de Coiffure to cite these people as the “swing voters” who could be reached if only the Don Imus Atheists (TM) would stop being so darn strident.
Mothra (#86), that’s a damn fine point.
After all, when one is resolved to Fuck ‘Em, one must ensure that the proper ‘Em is /are being Fucked, because proper, righteous Fuck ‘Ems are true investments, and must not be wasted on trivial ..
…ah, fuck it. Fuck ‘Em All.
So, where exactly did you get this?
Knockgoats # 77,
From The Messiah’s website……..you people are really priceless………..So it seems that Obama is a “Godbot”. You’ve elected a “believer”……..good job.
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/04/selma_voting_rights_march_comm.php
I noticed that the Senator from my state, Grassley, was the bonus instance on this list. That makes me happy. He’s been digging into the financial records of a lot of evangelicals who broadcast their crap on television.
Does anyone know the meaning of the term “alter boys” in number 9?
Perfect example of the danger of replacing proofreading with automated spellcheckers.
Spellcheckers are the work of Satan!
Billy Sands, it has already been done. Have a look here for a sample;
There are many more if you care to look. Initially, after complaints from catlickers like Donowhore youtube removed many. However, when others complained about the removal they relented.
et tu Brute?
Perfect example of the danger of replacing proofreading with automated spellcheckers.
Spellcheckers are the work of Satin!
Fixed that for ya.
Brute, the words you use don’t mean what you think they mean. Try again.
Well, I for one am certainly glad that the “Man of The People” Obama has decided to send his kids to a private school that only charges $29,000.00 per year as opposed to one of the tawdry public schools available that the rest of us are forced to send our children to.
No religious “indoctrination” for his kids…..no sir.
About the Religious Society of Friends:
The Religious Society of Friends was originated by George Fox (1624-1691) during a period of political upheaval and social change in England. The established churches, Catholic and Anglican, were at a low ebb at this time, caught up in conflicts and preoccupied with forms and power struggles rather than religious witness. Neither provided much help to the victims of upheaval in a violent century, and so there were thousands of “seekers” who were looking for something that they could believe in and that would give meaning to their lives.
Quakers first established schools in England to provide their children with a “guarded” education, one that protected the children from the influences of the larger society.
Quaker Values:
The Quaker belief that there is “that of God” in each of us shapes everything we do at Sidwell Friends School.
As for #5 on that list, I live in Fredericksburg, VA. That sort of behavior is, sadly, still acceptable ’round these parts as separation of church and state has no place in the big VA. Even though we went to Obama in the election, this state is still very very far from becoming as enlightened as some of our northern and western neighbors, even if we try. In God We Trust is still a very strong sentiment in my backwards little town, even though a small majority of us are fighting the good fight.
In a nutshell, I want to apologize to everything that is logical and reasonable for having this stain on my town’s legacy. That award saddens me on a different level than it does the Christian soliders…it’s indicative of living in a bible belt state that never plans on bending to conventional reason.
Is EricA the homophobic turd back as Brute? Their obsessions and styles are similar.
I found this one the oddest:
They don’t think it relevant that someone who wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency of an elderly man is “Rapture Ready” and believes she regularly gets supernatural signs and messages from God? Nonsense. Of course that’s relevant. How is this ‘persecution?’
These people wish to pretend that, as long as it’s labeled “religion,” it’s out of bounds of all criticism. Never mind that this is supposed to be a guiding philosophy and belief system that takes over your life: other people need to either praise it, or ignore it. Whether you’re ready to jump start Armaggedon or take away human rights, once you call it religion it’s like you’re on what we used to call ‘gool.’
Sorry. You don’t get to call gool.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
May the lord bless you and keep you, may he make his face shine on you and be gracious to you. May he lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
Wow, Christians have it great in the US! When your top-ten list of “defamation” includes piddling shit like second- and third-rate entertainers making videos and a guy throwing a cracker in the trash, and you still have to make stuff up wholesale just to round out your list to ten items, then your group is doing pretty damned fine in my book.
Alex, fuck you too.
I for one am certainly happy that Obama doesn’t feel it’s necessary to proclaim his faith publicly…..he seems content to follow the “low key” “private” approach. I know lot’s of Christians that send out full page advertisements through the mail proclaiming their religious faith…..
“The Obama camp has a new South Carolina mailer touting him as a “committed Christian” who has been “called to Christ.”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/obama_lit_in_south_carolina_pushes_back_on_false_muslim_smears.php
Forced? Hey, pony up the cash and you can send your kids to private school, too.
Jesus Christ, these fuckers need to shut their hypocritical fucking mouths. Can you imagine if John McCain had been there when Jesus was talking to the rich man?
“Now wait a second, sir. This Mr. Christ just wants to redistribute your wealth. That’s not a plan to move Rome forward. He should be creating wealth, not taxing you for working hard.”
That’s John “Christian Nation” McCain for you. Put that on the list.
Bastards.
The problem is that Christianity despises the humanness of those it professes to love. When you spend 99% of your time castigating the evil wickedness and absolute depravity of the flesh and mind it doesn’t help to end the rant with “have a nice day” or “piece be with you” or “but we love you.”
“Humanity” becomes slaughtering the multitude to save the souls (I was soooo tempted to write soles) of the chosen few – and the various tribes can’t agree on who the chosen few are so better to slaughter em all and let god sort it out. Anybody believe that Jesus would be a Christian today? Anybody believe that he wouldn’t make the CADC list for the things that he would say against the doctrines and hypocracy?
Poor Brute, his world is turned upsidedown with Obama and Fraken being elected. He is just showing us poor liberals how one should act if the conservatives win the next election. How sporting of him to show us how the Golden Rule works.
brute@#99: You’re bothering to hate on the Quakers? It’s a religion for people who find the Unitarians too strict and conservative.
PZ, they couldn’t even spell your name correctly. What does the extra “E” stand for? Evolution?
Leave it to a fundy to take something LITERALLY that was meant to be figurative.
I really don’t think Obama was trying to say he was one of the prophets from the Old Testament. I think he was quoting scripture to show a point about having faith in god to see someone through a struggle.
ME thinks Brute dislikes Obama and is attributing the messiah complex to him out of that disliking. If this isn’t the case, then every clergyman and everywhere who has ever quoted scripture akin to these quotes to illustrate a point ALSO has a messiah complex; meaning that MOST of the world’s clergy are insane and megalomaniacs. Actually, that seems to fit.
CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian
Christians have been bashing other christians for a whole long time.
Posted by: mothwentbad | January 6, 2009 11:21 AM
Jesus Christ, these fuckers need to shut their hypocritical fucking mouths.
if they shut their mouths they’d suffocate
No one in the states is *forced* to send their kids anywhere. Home schooling is always an option… So is working a little more to pay for private school. Not all of them are $29,000 US a year.
It’s great that they’re so Jesusy. It’s like that time when Jesus suddenly stood up straight, threw down his cross, and said, “It’s time for this crucifixion to stop, and for me to get the respect I demand!” And he made all the Roman soldiers vanish in puffs of screaming flames with a wave of his omnipotent hand, did the same to the onlookers that had failed to help him, with a muttered “Fuckers.”, and flew off to heaven.
Or maybe I read that part wrong.
you people are really priceless………..So it seems that Obama is a “Godbot”. You’ve elected a “believer”……..good job. – Brute
Hands up anyone who didn’t know Obama has consistently described himself as a Christian…
…as have Biden, McCain, and Palin. Not sure about all the minor candidates, but the effective choice was between two pairs of declared Christians. The one among the four whom the description “godbot” fits best, of course, is Palin: creobot, anti-gay, anti-abortion… So, Brute, your point was? Oh, yes. Obama’s “Messiah complex”.
Hands up anyone who has a source for anyone referring to Obama as “the Messiah” other than satirically…
As suspected, Brute has been dishonestly quote-mining. Here’s the only bit in the quotes he gave that might have suggested a “Messiah complex”, restored to its context. The bolded text is what Brute quoted (he put each of the two separate parts within quotation marks):
These clowns, the CADC, and the Catholic league are the reason that Xianity is on the downhill slide. When xian becomes synonymous with stupid, crazy, lying, and violent, who would want to be one?
Xians make up 78% of the population in the USA. Pretty hard to be a persecuted minority when you are actually a persecuting majority.
The CADC are just fundie wingnuts with a grandiose sounding name and too much time and not enough brains. Polls show the majority of the US population, mostly other xians are sick and tired of these morons.
@Denis Loubet #117: That sounds like the Michael Bay version of “Passion of the Christ”, due in theaters Summer 2010!
I must have missed the wafer thing. PZ, that was really tacky and adolescent. This is the only thing on the list that really counts as “Christian bashing”.
It is a little ironic, of course, that nearly all denominations of Protestants, including all of the fundamentalist ones, would agree that it’s just a cracker. But it is beyond rude to take to encourage people to send you ritual objects to “display” as crackers. Did you really do that??
Would you feel the same if, say, Rush Limbaugh burned a Koran, or if someone deliberately destroyed a Hopi Kachina out of animus toward native Americans? Bigotry is bigotry;
anti-Catholic bigotry has a long history in the US.
It’s just a cracker to me, too, but so’s the kachina just a doll. I would still treat it with respect if I were given one.
I’m sure that the CADC has also determined that anyone not in their death cult of morons with brains the size of walnuts who think hatred of other groups is a necessity are also just FAKE XIANS.
Probably that is the catholics, unitarians, JWs, Mormons, mainstream protestants, in short, the vast majority of xians.
In times past, they would be calling for a jihad to kill the heretics, blashemers, and apostates. Fortunately, xian sectarian violence is rare today. The secular authorities took away their armies and weapons so they have to lie on the internet rather than cover the streets with blood and bodies.
Out of politeness to my parents, I attend Sunday School at their evangelical church while visiting them. One Sunday the text was some bit about being persecuted for the faith which prompted the discussion, “How do Christians face persecution today?”
Their conclusion? (1) Television shows and movies do not have enough Christian characters; and (2) the pace of everyday life makes it difficult to find time to pray and read God’s Holy Word.
It occurred that (2) might be a smaller problem if they spent less time monitoring (1). It also occurrs to me that if Christians feel persecuted by (1) and (2) they’re not really going to put up much of a fight when we Illuminati decide to make our move.
Persecution? Wimps.
Yes they do. Well at least the people Bill interviewed were rather stupid. He should have inrterviewed someone like Bill Craig or N.T. Wright or Plantiga.
Rudy, your whole diatribe has been thoughly discussed. Type in Crackergate to the search engine and see that we had 30,000 posts on the subject. The conclusion. You are wrong, and you are asking for special privelges for the cracker.
Which means you don’t have the slightest idea what the context was. he Christian sites never mention that, of course.
But would you also try to wreck a college student’s budding career over one, and send countless death threats to someone over one? PZ was responding to people who literally believe that Eucharist crackers are more important then their fellow human beings. People like that don’t deserve any respect at all.
According to research into President Elect Obama’s own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama’s position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a “devout Christian.”
I hope this convinces Obama that sucking up to idiots accomplishes nothing.
But… But… You bashed a wafer, not a Christian.
He should have inrterviewed someone like Bill Craig or N.T. Wright or Planti[n]ga – Facilis
Then, instead of the plain stupid, he’d have got the fancy stupid.
“It it time for Christian bashing to increase, I should think.”
I smell a quote ripe for mining.
Rudy: context is everything. PZ didn’t just randomly desecrate a cracker. it was a response to the abuse received by a Catholic who brought a friend with him to church and who wanted to show a wafer to that friend. the guy has received death-threats and was attacked by his congregation!
besides, the desecration of the cracker included the desecration of “the God Delusion” as well as pages from the Koran, if I remember correctly.
Probably. My organization, the Galactic Catholic League for Truth and Justice is far more influential than Donahue’s Catholic League. We have more leaders, consisting of me and two cats. Our collective IQ is certainly far higher than Bill Donahue’s.
What? Have they actually read SB200? Article 1 reads:
I guess this is yet another instance of Lying for Jesus.
#133 Posted by: Ian | January 6, 2009 12:19 PM
They pick and choose what parts of the bible to bandy about
makes sense they pick and choose which parts of state statutes in the same fashion.
@Redhead
Are you backing off the “physical evidence” requirement?`
You asserted earlier that “all assertions must be supported by physical evidence” .I asked you to provide physical evidence for that assertion and you were not able. I won’t start providing evidence for my assertion until you start providing evidence for yours
Faicilis, you are at a scientific blog. I am a scientist. In science, the burden of proof is always on those making the claim. So the burden of proof is upon you to demostrate evidence for your imaginary god. Now either show the physical evidence for your god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians and professional debunkers, or acknowldege you have no proof and should shut up.
The negative can’t be proven, which is why nobody but the reigiots like yourself keep asking for that.
So, which tone does Facilis @ #135 project most:
“I know you are but what am I?”
or
“I asked first?”
“I got bupkis!”
Did anyone else find it funny that they lump together different strands of christianity? Whining over Bill Maher being disrespectful of the Pope; catholic. And then whining over sane people being disrespectful of Palin; evangelical protestant. At least Jack Chick can keep these strands separated.
Remember the good old days when they would denounce each other as being anti-christian and would, at times, wage war against each other. Perhaps those days were not so good.
Gack! No spell checker on the work browser. Last sentence in # 136 should read …the religiots….
When these good folks get into a pinch, they usually want a “smart Jew lawyer” to get them out of it.
From the Maher comment they write:
“You can’t be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy (radical Mormon polygamist) Texas cult. For one thing, alter(sic) boys can’t even get pregnant. But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands all over the world. Cults get raided; religions get parades… If you have a few hundred followers and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If you have a billion, they call you Pope.”
Last time ThirtyFiveUp checked, the Pope and the RC were Christians. Or is this more of what Chick was doing by ridiculing the Mass in his cartoon?
Facilus, the concept of god is not needed in science. The concept is not needed to explain anything. Whether god exists or not is immaterial. Therefore, scientists need not have to prove or disprove the concept of god. It does not enter into anything.
But for the likes of you, the concept of god is the center of everything. Therefore, it falls upon people like you to show that the concept of god is needed.
Is this unequal? Yes it is. But you are the one making the claims of the necessity of god.
Re:#99
I don’t blame Obama for wanting the best education possible for his kids. I blame Republicans for trying to kill public education with their voucher and charter school agenda (not to mention No Child Left Untested). They couldn’t get vouchers, which would have been able to be used at religious schools. But, they got charter schools (and an unfunded No Child etc). Not all charter schools are bad, but charter schools are private and they siphon money from traditional public schools. We can’t vote for their school board, but tax dollars support the students. I did get to vote against the religious wacko home schooler running for the Minneapolis public school board this past election, however. What’s more important than quality public education? (Well, maybe a big fatty.)
Facilis the Child Murderer
SympathizerDefenderWorshiper (see here),According to you, (1) A divine being created the universe and (2) He regularly intervened (intervenes?) in human affairs.
Why would an all powerful being need to interfere in his creation? Did he mess up and needs to fix things? Also, you’d think if (1) and (2) were true there would be an abundance of physical evidence. Surely a universe with an all powerful being that intervenes in events would look very different that one that doesn’t have such a being. Yet, you can’t produce a shred of evidence.
Why would an powerful being even care if some mere mortals believed in his existence or not? Furthermore, why would he give them such a hard time by playing this divine game of hide-and-go-seek?
That Jack Black Proposition 8 musical was fantastic!!! The Christians should feel honored that such talent would be expended on them.
I actually used that video to teach my kids about Jesus, as I explained here, at Rational Moms.
Rudy,
You moron, if you actually did your research you’d have known that PZ also desecrated a Koran.
INSTANCE #6: Religulous the Movie
Bill Maher released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Religulous. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on the faith. Maher studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals.
INSTANCE #6: Expelled the Movie
Ben Stein released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Expelled. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on evolution. Stein studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate from any leading intellectuals.
Fascinating…
You asserted earlier that “all assertions must be supported by physical evidence” .I asked you to provide physical evidence for that assertion and you were not able. I won’t start providing evidence for my assertion until you start providing evidence for yours
Don’t be dense. “Must” or “should” in an assertion obviously denote a value judgement. If you assert that X exists, you should be able to point to something, anything, uncontroversially resident in the empirical world that we can agree provides evidence for the existence of X.
If I assert that you should do Y, we’re in different epistemic territory, don’t you agree?
Prissy little word games don’t absolve you of any responsibility to support your preposterous claims, they just make it all the more evident that you can see that they are preposterous and not worth defending.
Now I’m no fan of Obama and feel he benefited mightily from a tsunami of misogyny, but this bit of hypocrisy cracked me up…
So they are attacking (sorry, “attacked by”) Obama because he self-identifies as Christian, and then are upset because Palin is being attacked for self-identifying as Christian. Does the concept of reading what they’re writing before they publish it ever occur to them?
This is my absolute favourite though…
Those damned radical homosexuals! All the poor Christians did was exercise their right to restrict and remove your rights! In a democracy, rights are determined by the majority so just get over it! And don’t start whining about “constitutional republics” supposedly protecting the rights of minorities. Nobody wants to hear that when they’d rather democratically vote to walk all over you.
And come on. It’s not like the preaching against homosexuality has ever led to the assault or murder of gays and lesbians unlike the physical assaults of poor innocent Christians who have been attacked for simply being against Prop 8.
Okay, all sarcasm aside, assaulting people is never a good thing, but when it comes to the final tally, these Christian “victims” have a loooooong way to go to catch up in numbers to the victims of anti-gay hate crimes.
OK, I get that the context of the “cracker” incident is broader than I thought; and no sane person (or sane Catholic, I hope) thinks the Eucharist wafer is more important than a real person. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and all that.
Being *actually* disrespectful to a host is supposed to help a person wrongly accused of being disrespectful… I just don’t see it. If that student *approved* of PZ’s stunt, I’d feel a little (not a lot) better. And insulting Muslims helped how, exactly?
It seems an obvious point, but you can’t desecrate The God Delusion. Nobody thinks it’s sacred. Adding it in just seems sophomoric.
Maybe this extreme situation called for this kind of guerilla theater on PZ’s part. And good for him for helping the student. But I wonder if the consciences of the congregation were changed at all by PZ’s antics?
It’s even more of a pity to hear these pampered pompous pissants puling about pretended persecutions when there are so many christians actually facing violent and unjustified attacks in (for example) China, the Orissa region of India, “liberated” Iraq, and various spots in Africa.
No doubt the CADC’s market research has concluded that spotlighting that sort of harassment is too furrin/swarthy/unsexy to produce the desired fund-raising response.
#150 Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | January 6, 2009 1:13 PM
And come on. It’s not like the preaching against homosexuality has ever led to the assault or murder of gays and lesbians unlike the physical assaults of poor innocent Christians who have been attacked for simply being against Prop 8.
The hate-mopngers were actually FOR prop-8.
Not that I live in CA, but seeing my right to marry there stripped away makes sort of a sticker about it.
Rudy, the main fallout of the exercise was that the Catholic League was shown to be a bunch of impotent, but noisy, blowhards. Once their impotence was shown, that made things easier for Webster Cook. So it did what PZ intended it to.
Posted by: Rudy | January 6, 2009 1:21 PM
It seems an obvious point, but you can’t desecrate The God Delusion. Nobody thinks it’s sacred. Adding it in just seems sophomoric.
Not so obvious to you. One of the most common charges atheists have heard in recent years is that atheism is a religious belief and that Richard Dawkins is the atheist pope.
Hey, Mr. Devout Christian… I DISAGREE WITH YOU! :O
Can you hear the Waaahmbulance yet?
@Rudy, 151
How about you take a step back and read what you’re saying?
There’s no problem with burning TDR, because nobody calls it sacred (btw, please tell the religious that, they like to accuse all atheists of worshipping Dawkins/Darwin/Satan). However, desecrating the Eucharist or the Quar’an is off limits because some people find them sacred.
Ever killed a bug? Why are your sacraments more important than the sanctity of ALL life held sacred by some religions? Do we all need to stop eating beef because Hindi believe cows are sacred?
It’s called special pleading. Your religion is not a special snowflake.
Facilis – Where is god?
He is in heaven, right?
Where is heaven?
Up in the sky?
The Spacelab has been up in heaven for how many years?
Have any reports about seeing god, or having god over for some Tang ever been sent down to us?
child speak/
I find it funny that Christians continue to label atheist as “angry”, as though it were without cause. Yet, this list of “Christian basing” includes what? A musical, somebody swearing, and a movie. This is discrimination?
How would they feel if a presidential candidate said “I don’t know that Christians should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic”. Replace Christian with atheists and that’s what George H.W. Bush said during his 1988 presidential campaign. Or how about if surveys continued to show that Christians were the least trusted minority in the country? Or if people were saying that you continuing to say that one can’t be moral and be a Christian?
How can you simultaneously say that the US is a “Christian nation” and claim to be discriminated against? There is a disproportionate number of Christians in both the House and the Senate. 43 of the last 43 presidents have been Christian. The new president is a
secret MuslimChristian. This hardly seems like the experience of a downtrodden people.Yeah 17 centuries ago you guys were fed to lions, but since then YOU have generally been the discriminator and not the discriminatee.
I can’t get enough desecration of the consecrated, be it a cracker, koran, or cross. You can throw flag in there, too.
Janine, New moniker? I missed the whole thing. Dang.
43 of the last 43 presidents have been Christian.
Jefferson is somewhat doubtful, but the point still stands.
Facilis @135,
I think Nerd of Redhead made a slight mistake when he said “all assertions must be supported by physical evidence”, since there are assertions (tautologies) that are logically true independent of reality. What I would’ve said instead is that all existential claims require empirical evidence. That is, if you say “X exists”, then it is up to you to provide evidence for that; the default position must be that X is assumed not to exist until there is evidence that it does. To waive this requirement is to admit, by default, the existence of all things that may be imagined to exist and require the “disproof” of them: leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, orcs, and goblins, etc.
The onus is on you, so if you have empirical evidence for god(s), let’s have it. Otherwise, your god “exists” only in the same sense as naiads and dryads: as an imagining, make-believe.
Rudy,
It kind of pales in comparison to the enslavement of a people and complete conquest of another though.
Which is why you shouldn’t be ignorant about a subject and comment on it.
If you read about the incident you’d see they were assaulting him over the wafer.
Do you keep the Sabbath holy like your holy text requires you to?
I don’t think PZ got any angry Muslims emailing him at all. However, he got thousands of emails from Catholics, including a few death threats. Is this holding a person to be more important than a wafer?
The Petey @63: I very much like your idea. Governments never should have gotten into the business of granting and withholding special privileges to consenting adults signifying official approval or disapproval of the mix of genitals involved.
It was time for a new one. The latest Debra Rufini thread had a series of posts which ended with me imagining PZ in Scarface yelling “Say hello to my bitter friend!” I found it funny so I made the change.
“The Spacelab has been up in heaven for how many years?
Have any reports about seeing god, or having god over for some Tang ever been sent down to us?
child speak/”
Hmmmm………………
Looks like Obama believes in the mythical “man in the sky” fairy tale also. He seems to hold the “God Dellusion”; Same as Palin………
“One Obama leaflet features photos of Obama praying with the words “COMMITTED CHRISTIAN” in large letters across the middle. It says Obama will be a president “guided by his Christian faith” and includes a quote from him saying, “I believe in the power of prayer.”
“A second leaflet, which like the first doesn’t mention the Muslim rumor, includes photos of Obama with his family and a caption that says they are active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It explains how as a young man Obama “felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/
“Obama is a Christian!!!!!111one!!!” – Brute
“The Pope is a Catholic!!!!!!1111one!!!!!” – Brute
“Bears shit in the woods!!!!!!!111111one!!!!!!!” – Brute
Emmet @163
I would add to that the requirement that pointing to ancient texts about such things as deities does not constitute evidence.
Even if that poisonous book the bible contained detailed information about DNA, orbital paths of planets, atoms and particles, germs, or electrical theory – which admittedly would be a strong case for superior knowledge way back then – it still does not constitute evidence for deities.
Emmet, I will acknowledge that you caught a slight mistake. If Facilis sees god as a personal belief, just between his ears, no evidence is required. But then, he shouldn’t try to impose his non-evidentual beliefs upon us like he has been doing. If he is trying to say a god exists that we must acknowledge, then the physical evidence is required.
@ Jeanette #165
Even if the government stopped calling it “marriage” I would be ok with it. The hate mongers than would be forced to show their true stripe in that it is NOT about protecting the sanctity of marriage but it is about NOT granting gays and lesbians the same respect for their relationships.
Th e3 catholic church is the only denomination I am aware of that “respects the sanctity of marriage” because they refuse to marry divorcees. If marriage were so sacred – why do christians get divorced. ANY christian who has been divorced and claims to be against gay marriage out of the respect for sanctity of the institution is a mother fucking hypocrite.
I REALLY want to see these same people get up and support a proposition to outlaw divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.
“I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives. We need to understand that Americans are a religious people. Substantially more Americans believe in angels than in evolution.” – Barack Obama
London Times
Whom is Brute addressing?
@SC,OM #173
The same person he talks to when he has sex
himself
Poor, poor, Brute. Obama was elected and he just doesn’t know what to do. All he can do is run around and talk trash, and sound like a complete idiot. Maybe he just needs to sleep for the next four years. Why don’t you start hibernating today?
Brute @ #172
One word would change the context of that quote.
“I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the dangerous power of faith in people’s lives. We need to understand that Americans are a religious people. Substantially more Americans believe in angels than in evolution.”
Facilis, if you’re willing to back off on the evidence requirement, you really need to answer my two-MONTH old comment on your blog answering your “counter-challenge” where I hypothesize Jesus’ twin brother as an explanation for the alleged “resurrection”. I dashed off the response in only a few minutes and had forgotten I’d made it.
There is, incidentally, some evidence that Jesus had a brother named James.
Or perhaps you’re too busy making snide empty comments here?
Nerd @170,
My intention wasn’t to nit-pick — I think what you said was clear enough given the context — but to make it clearer to Facilis exactly why the onus is on him to provide evidence for whatever he asserts to exist, whether it’s a leprechaun or a god. I nit-picked only to remove the room that Facilis was using to wiggle and squirm.
OT
I Found this at AU.org.
“Troubling Times: N.Y. Newspaper Promotes Creation Museum During Special Arts & Leisure Weekend”
I think the NYT needs a Pharyngula bomb.
Brute@ #172
Obama is a politician, and if he can’t finish out his term, dog forbid, Sarah Palin won’t do it for him. I feel better already.
“Substantially more Americans believe in angels than in evolution.” – Barack Obama
Poor Brute doesn’t seem to understand that this is a factual observation, not an acknowledgment of agreement.
I for one will be looking at Obama’s deeds and actions and so far he has appointed credible and highly qualified scientists in key positions. I would bet money on the fact that he wholeheartedly supports evidence based science teaching in school including evolution.
Not to be a total geek or anything, but I think you’re thinking of the International Space Station (ISS). Spacelab is (was, actually; IIRC, it’s now retired) used to expand the scientific working space aboard the Space Shuttle for individual missions; it was never left in orbit, but was launched and recovered with each mission.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thoughtful rejoinders to whiny Xtian persecution fetishes….
There is, incidentally, some evidence that Jesus had a brother named James.
Not really. (Idiosyncratic explanation for “the brother of the Lord” business available on request)
But if you’re looking for a body-double for a resurrection hoax, why not Judas Didymos (“Twin”) Thomas, the self-same disciple Thomas, to whom is attributed the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, and who was called the twin brother of Jesus by 2nd Century Egyptian Gnostics?
Will the damn whining never stop? You’d think people who made an art form of making millions into 2nd class citizens would by now know what constitutes a 2nd class citizen. Whining, while annoying, doesn’t get you what you want. It just gets you an altercation with a flyswatter.
Emmet, we’re on the same page. I’ve been on enough committees over the years to realize that getting an idea on the table for others to chew over is important.
I think somebody got spacelab, carried up/landed the in shuttle’s bay, confused with skylab, that was launched with one of the last saturns, and which has gone to the great fireball in the sky.
Brute – Obama being a christian doesn’t change one damn bit whether there is a god or not. I believe that’s called argument from authority. People try that with the pope too. Sorry, that’s still not proof.
The best part is the projection. They’re the fucking Christian Anti-Defamation League! They can’t even leave the name to a historically defamed groups, but have to pretend that they were the victims of 1500 years!
What disgusting nit-wits.
Real Christian persecution exists all over the world. I write about it every day over on The Voice of the Martyr’s Persecution Blog at http://www.persecutionblog.com
Take some time and read through, I think you’ll see Christians being persecuted is real.
Re: Proposition 8: Let’s not forget that proponents of Prop 8 are trying to nullify the same-sex marriages that happened over the past year, including that of my cousin. So yes, when Christians are having their actual marriages under attack, then maybe we can talk. Until then, they can go fuck themselves.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/state/n150241S64.DTL
The item about Obama in that list just tells me that the Christ-bashing indeed needs to increase. We might as well have the fun they’re accusing us of having. If we don’t, then we’ll still get these whinge-fests, which are really all about marginalizing anyone who disrupts the privileged position that religion has in the public square (and thus really all about marginalizing atheists), but we won’t even have the solid position of being out and unapologetic that we have now with Dawkins and others.
“So if a significant percentage of Christians are apparently of the opinion that they have become a second-class majority, who do they think are the first-class citizens?”
The monolithic entity known as The Enemy, of course. Anyone who argues for separation of church and state couldn’t possibly be a Christian. If you were to get them drunk, they might just come out and admit that it’s the Jews that they really can’t stand.
By the way, whatever happened to Dana Jacobsen? Seems like a cool gal to me. I suppose it’s more fuel for the fire of “ESPN is biased against Notre Dame”, but I see nothing wrong with that. Winningest college football program in the country, loved by millions of assholes partly for their tenuous Irish connection but mostly because they win a lot, has their own TV deal and special consideration by the BCS and an institution supported by the friggin’ Catholic Church? I agree, fuck Notre Dame. I’ve enjoyed their recent football flailings immensely. Fuck Touchdown Jesus. Fuck…well, maybe not Jesus, he strikes me as one of the less odious characters in the Bible. Fuck the Bible. There, that’s getting to the heart of the matter. Fuck the truncheon they use.
“Take some time and read through, I think you’ll see Christians being persecuted is real.”
How about in America, do you think that persecution is real?
Alex @ #179,
It’s especially strange given the new relationship between the NYT and Scienceblogs (in case anyone hasn’t checked out the right side of his or her screen lately) and the solid review of the four books (“Four Stakes in the Heart of ID” or something) that the AU post links to – and which I somehow managed to miss completely when it appeared. Shows a lack of coordination.
Patricia,
Re: # 186
I wasn’t arguing the existence of God…….
You’ve missed the point entirely; being:
Most comments posted on this particular page (as well as this site) ridicule and mock people of faith as “unenlightened rubes” based solely on their personal religious convictions………unintelligent people that cannot discern fantasy from reality.
I dare say that that the majority of the contributors voted and or supported Barry Hussein for President of the United States, which in effect, categorizes Mr. Obama (in their definition) as an “unenlightened, rube” that slavishly believes in “myths” and “fairy tales”.
I haven’t seen one critique of Mr. Obama’s, Mr. Biden’s or Ms. Clinton’s publicly avowed religious beliefs in the lot.
I’m certain that the same crowd bashed Governor Palin & President Bush for their personal religious beliefs quite publicly……there doesn’t seem to be any intellectual honesty, decorum, morality or integrity among you.
Such is the Liberal mindset/world view………tolerance on your terms?
How hypocritically pathetic……
There are humans being persecuted around the globe for all kinds of reasons. Is yours a special case? Do you stand up against persecution based on sexual identity and preference with equal zeal? Do you stand up for the rights of Palestinian civilians not to be slaughtered? Just wondering.
Sure it’s real, just like it’s real for every other religion. The difference is that the examples above were obviously not persecution and in the united states what Christians call persecution is laughable. Bill Maher calls the Catholic Church an organisation of paedophiles? Quick, bring back the inquisition. No-one should ever be able to say that the Catholic Church has protected paedophile priests no matter how true it is.
The whole top 10 list is just pathetic. Especially with the Christians trying to suppress homosexuals then complaining about a backlash afterwards.
Brute, most of us recognize that to get elected to public office in almost all of the US, especially for higher office, candidate must publically proclaim belief in an imaginary deity. It doesn’t mean we like it, but that is not going to change anytime in the near future. Some of us are mature enough to realize that carping repeatedly about it just makes us sound bitter, so we avoid doing so. Personally, I’m more worried about what a candidate does once in office.
Saying that you “threw a cracker in the trash” is disingenuous. You took something that was considered holy by someone else and threw it in the trash. Regardless of anything else, that is a disrespectful thing to do. That’s not being enlightened or intellectual, that’s being a dick. I wouldn’t come into your office, take something that was important to you, even if it was meaningless to me, and throw it in the trash. I wouldn’t steal a copy of the Koran, a statue of Buddha or even your FSM poster and throw it in the garbage. I know there are people out there that call themselves Christians that do not behave as they should, but please do not lump us all together. Alot of us just believe what we believe and are perfectly ok with you believing what you believe. We don’t feel threatened by the fact that you don’t believe in God. We don’t think that two guys getting married in California somehow diminishes our marriage in Alabama. We don’t think that Muslims are evil or that we are justified in… well pretty much anything the U.S. has done in the Middle East. We know that evolution is real and that dinosaur fossils weren’t “planted to test our faith”. We know that the universe is several billion years old. We just think that God started the whole thing rolling and he wants us to be nice to each other.
I heard a couple of good Christians* just this morning on an AM radio station chortling over the Palestinian animals in Gaza getting their just deserts. And they were not talking dogs and cats. Animals? Really? You do know that 80% of the “animals” being killed and maimed are civilians, including women and children, that are trapped by poverty and persecution don’t you? Children. Really.
*this is a part of the host’s shtick so I’m not guessing here.
Why don’t you do a search for “Obama” on this blog and read the posts and comments about him written over the past year? You’ll find that he’s been appreciated for supporting secularism and science, slammed for pandering to religious intolerance, and criticized for his beliefs (though generally seen as the lesser evil on this front). Don’t come back until you’re all done.
Oh, and: Barack Obama, as a Christian, stupidly believes in myths and fairy tales. There you go. Now STFU.
Is she saying the Martyr’s Persecution Blog has a voice? Which martyr are we talking about?
Kevin do you know the whole story?
Here we go again…
You do realise the reason it was done was because certain people felt that cracker was worth more than a man’s life, correct?
True enough, and it’s horrendous that Christians are killed for their beliefs and affiliations, even if they’ve been on the doling out end of death for a large percentage of the last two millennia. (It’s horrendous that anyone is killed for their beliefs, but what’s a salvationist religion without unbelievers to demonise?)
But what the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is complaining about isn’t persecution: it’s criticism and parody. (That’s the problem with the martyr complex that Christianity and other faiths engender: you become so busy looking for examples of persecution to validate your faith that you’ll see getting the wrong change from the cashier at 7-11 as ‘proof’ of your Christ-like nature.)
And lastly, thanks for the whine but if you people weren’t so fucking self-centred and really cared about all the lost sheep you’d be writing a blog about all real religious persecution, now wouldn’t you?
Re:
I haven’t seen one critique of Mr. Obama’s, Mr. Biden’s or Ms. Clinton’s publicly avowed religious beliefs in the lot.
Stick around, numbnuts!
Thank you Kevin.
Your concern is noted.
Perhaps I meant “just desserts.”
Kevin, coming to hosts blog and calling him out on something is disrespectful too. Gee, you just committed a grave crime against Pharyngula, so we must do to you as your fellow cat-o-licks did to PZ. Good old golden rule in action. {/snark}
Or maybe you need to tone it down a little. We don’t give a hoot about your uninformed opinion.
Nerd of Redhead,
Re; # 195
“most of us recognize that to get elected to public office in almost all of the US, especially for higher office, candidate must publically proclaim belief in an imaginary deity.”
Whoa! Wait a minute……are you saying, (writing), that Obama is lying when he publicly states his religious beliefs just to capture votes?
Are you writing that he would compromise his integrity to satisfy his political ambitions? Sort of egotistical and self serving, wouldn’t you say?
Are you certain that you don’t want to retract that statement?
Open your eyes then, fuckwit. Try googling ‘Obama’ and ‘religion’ in the search box at top left of this blog, you fucking troglodyte.
@Rev. BDC:
You must be new here.
Why are people so fucking hung up on his name? Really a lame tactic that displays a certain mindset.
Good going! Almost there!
Aw, so close!
I looked at the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission’s web page. It’s two guys. Two. and their delusion of grandeur.
I’m not sure how they’re being oppressed.
Apparently they define oppressed as “everyone does not bow down and bend the knee for us” ?
Once again the poor innocent troglodyte has his character besmirched by association. Talk about your persecution.
@Rev BDC
Sorry. Slashdot joke
Barack Obama, as a Christian, stupidly believes in myths and fairy tales. There you go. Now STFU. – SC, OM to Brute.
Seconded.
BTW, who the fuck is “Barry Hussein”?
Ahh. Ok.
Brute: Whoa! Wait a minute……are you saying, (writing), that Obama is lying when he publicly states his religious beliefs just to capture votes?
Are you writing that he would compromise his integrity to satisfy his political ambitions? Sort of egotistical and self serving, wouldn’t you say?
Are you certain that you don’t want to retract that statement?
I know this may be hard for you to understand, but not everyone is an intellectually dishonest propagandist continually attempting to convert everyone, come hell or high water.
I understand that for people in the evangelical milieu, it may seem that way — it’s about “winning souls”. But that is pure projection. In short, we’re not all scum-bags — it’s just you and your cohorts that are worthless excuses for minds.
No, just saying if Obama were an atheist he’d have a hell of a hard time getting elected.
That’s final proof that these people have no fucking sense of humour. Or honesty. Or persecution, for that matter.
Translation into plain English:
God died and left us Boss< ./i>
Brute, you have warped the argument. And truly, any atheist would have to hide behind a facade of belief to get elected president these days. That’s just the way it is. Hopefully this will change in the future.
I have no true idea of how much Obama believes or disbelieves. And quote mining him convinces me of nothing. I just know he shows signs of intelligence lacking in both his opponent and predecessor.
“I dare say that that the majority of the contributors voted and or supported Barry Hussein for President of the United States, ”
Aww, poor Brute. His Great White Hope was been defeated and now he has to be ruled over by a black president with a funny name. Please, everyone, forget the red herring religious argument and shed a tear for poor Brutus.
Brute, you lying racist moron, had an atheist comparable to Obama in terms of evident political skills and views had a chance of winning the Presidency, doubtless many of those here would have voted for him. There wasn’t one. So they voted for the best alternative. Got it now, fuckwit?
“Barry Hussein” is the guy we recently elected POTUS. The rightwingnuts like to call him Hussein because apparently he asked to inherit his name from his apparently non-religious father, who, in turn, asked to receive his middle name from his father, just like he totally demanded that said father convert to Islam. In fact, while we’re at it, what actually happened was that Senator Obama went back in time and traveled to Kenya and demanded that his paternal grandfather become a Muslim, just so the Senator from Illinois could inherit the middle name of Hussein and become a walking dog-whistle for Islamist crazies all over the world.
Anyway. I tend to agree with Seed’s endorsement of Obama. I don’t agree with everything the man’s ever said, particularly regarding theistic religion. For example, his rather wishy-washy statement on same-sex marriage–which, incidentally, the wingnuts thought was way too liberal!–struck me as, “Wrong answer, Senator!” If he says he’s a Christian, I will assume he is telling the truth. His general attitude towards science is what really matters. If he thinks like a skeptic and governs like a scientist, I don’t have a problem with him going to church on Sundays.
Nerd,
“And truly, any atheist would have to hide behind a facade of belief to get elected president these days. That’s just the way it is.”
You have such high standards…..I applaud you.
I seem to have created quite a stir among the Obama sycophants…..I’m so ashamed.
No, Brute, you haven’t “created a stir”. You’ve simply shown yourself to be a dishonest and rather silly person.
Brute, no you are just a troll out for a little fun. In politics, I never say “not that guy” without looking at the opponent. Because the opponent may be even worse.
As to Obama’s god beliefs, I have never met the man, so I have no idea what they are. But his politics are much better than his opponent and predecessor. You don’t get that, but then you are an ignorant troll.
But disrepesct is not persecution.
And equating disrespect with persecution is an order of magnitude more disingenous still…..
FAIL
That’s only because you haven’t been doing your research. From this site,
The Obama Failing
Why I will never vote for Barack Obama
There is also a blog post titled “Obama’s religions is the problem”. I’d keep going, but then I think my comment would be held in moderation for some many links. I think you get the point anyway.
Do some research before you make claims.
“I seem to have created quite a stir among the Obama sycophants…”
You place much too high an importance on anything you’ve posted. Non-factual statements and opinions get corrected around here. An Obama supporter who places intellectual weight in his “being The One” would garner about as much derision as the considerably dumber Bush-frothing and Bible-fawning conservatives that come on here and try to strut about in their yellow feathers or mock concern and vacuous emotionalism.
Regardless of what you’ve convinced yourself you need to believe – based largely on what other people have to you you must believe in – Obama is not an atheist. The argument that he is has been steamrolled with video, audio, and literary evidence a myriad of times. About as many times as the claim that he’s actually a closeted Muslim, and/or that he’s the demon seed engineered by Illuminati types over the course of the twentieth century into a communistic Manchurian candidate set for world domination (this last one a fanciful product of Freepertown, USA). My expectation is that you, Brute, will commit to memory the refutations of your fatuous claim, and seek to better your own mind. Here’s hoping you do, without actually betting you will.
Do some research before you make claims. Feynmaniac, to Brute
Come now, Feynmaniac, Brute’s a conservative! Paying attention to the facts would be against his principles.
Or refering to any source outside of the right wing pundits.
Reading that list gave me a flashback to my parochial high school. Once one of the pastor-teachers was talking about the persecution of Christians in contemporary culture (this was the 80s) and the example he gave was people staring at him and his family when they bowed their heads to pray over their meals at restaurants. How awful for them! To have their attention-begging behavior noticed, oh dear! I wonder what he thought should have happened–everyone else in the restaurant, overcome by the sight of their holiness, should have asked him to lead them in prayer, perhaps. This was the same guy who wouldn’t let his children celebrate Halloween because it was “papist”…or pagan…or both. Persecution of persons of any faith–or of no faith–is reprehensible, but for American Christians persecution=not getting their own way 100% of the time.
So, I checked out your blog. You have a posting [Eritrea – Approximately 100 Christians Arrested: by Mary-Sue Leigh (January 5, 2009)] regarding Christian persecution by the government in Eritria. The tone of the story is that to be a Christian in Eritria you face severe prosecution from an evil and presumably secular government. Yet a little Googling reveals a more complicated picture.
As is noted in this BBC report, “The crackdown on Eritrea’s minority churches followed a government announcement in May 2002 that only its four oldest faiths – Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran and Islam – would receive official sanction.”
And from a Christian ministry site, “Listed by Freedom House as one of the world’s most repressive regimes, the government of President Isayas Afewerki only recognizes four ‘official’ religions: Orthodox Christian, Muslim, Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran..”
It would appear that not all Christians are being singled out and that the recipients of true persecution are, …independent Pentecostal and charismatic churches…”
This paints a completely different picture than a government blindly persecuting Christians for their faith and suggests other more sectarian causes. Are Pentecostal and Charismatic evangelizers threatening the stability of the government or of the established churches? Not that it makes much difference to those being detained or tortured (assuming these reports to be true, and I have no reason to doubt it at this time).
The US State Department currently has no warnings or alerts specifically regarding Christians traveling to Eritrea.
Perhaps you should contact the Christian Orthodox Church, or the Lutherans, or the Catholic Church there to see what’s up. I just assume you might be averse to contacting an Islamic mosque – sorry if I underestimate.
Again, this appears to be a story of persecution but not of the Christian Faith or Islamic Faith. I just picked this story to check because I thought that there would be enough outside-sourced information to get a broader picture. Maybe you have more details to share?
In my humble opinion this is the kind of dishonest, or semi-honest, tactic that is meant to arouse the sense of general persecution of the faithful by the infidel and atheist in order to establish and feed a martyr complex – I assume this helps also with the donations.
What a crock. Does anyone else notice how Christians elevate the art of equivocation to heights most politicians wouldn’t dream? I mean… really? Mocking is the same as persecution?
I’m a big believer in using the correct words, and let’s be honest. A fifteen percent minority with one representative in Congress is flatly incapable of persecuting the ruling majority.
As a side note to my previous comment I’d like to point out that all Christians should wholeheartedly support separation of church and state lest you find yourself on the downside of being sanctioned.
End of PSA
Nerd of Redhead: Calling someone out on something is not disrespectul. Notice I didn’t say anything about Bill Maher’s skewering of the Catholic church over the way it handled the sex abuse scandal. You could argue that say he’s “just being a dick” is disrespectful language, and you would be right, so I apologize.
gwangung: I never said that disrespect equalled persecution. You will notice that I did not try to say that the idiots who wrote the “top 10 christian bashings” list were in any way right. They are morons and they don’t speak for anyone other than themselves.
To the people who wondered if I know the whole story behind him throwing the Eucharist in the trash: no I didn’t, so I googled it. The people who threatened the student in Florida were wrong for doing so. But that doesn’t justify what Professor Myers did. He was trying to stick up for someone else who was being disrespectful by being disrespectful himself? Trying to teach tolerance by being hateful? Sorry, I don’t get it.
Kevin, then PZ was calling out cat-o-licks. And that makes it OK. Whatever logic you use to avoid your actions, PZ can us the same logic. Either fess up or shut up.
Obviously not.
The point from the whole ordeal is that human life is far more sacred than any “symbol”, and sometimes it’s important to do something to remind people of that. Like a protester burning the flag. Yes it’s disrespectful, but doing so is a reminder that no symbol should be above the lives of people.
I consider it disrespectful when I must give a cracker more consideration than a person like the Redhead. So Kevin, you are dissing me. What will you do about it?
Kevin is being entirely disrespectful to others by saying that non-Catholics have to abide to Catholic tradition. How is it any different to a Muslim saying that women dressing in miniskirts is disrespectful to Allah? (I believe the phrase is “dress them like whores”)
Just how far does one have to go to be ‘respectful’ to a culture / tradition they don’t adhere to?
Kevin Camp: “I wouldn’t come into your office, take something that was important to you, even if it was meaningless to me, and throw it in the trash. I wouldn’t steal a copy of the Koran, a statue of Buddha or even your FSM poster and throw it in the garbage.”
Why must you be dishonest? He did not steal anything. Does Jesus demand that his followers make idiotic and dishonest analogies?
Kel,
Why? If there is no God,no creator, no afterlife, no higher purpose, then why is human life more important than a cracker? On the galactic scale, is a person really any more important than a dog, a cracker, or even an electron? If the every person on the planet was wiped out by an asteroid colliding with Earth tomorrow, the rest of the universe wouldn’t so much as shrug, so why is a single person more important than a cracker?
I suppose this claim requires proof in itself.
And the burden of proof is on you to prove I have the burden of proof.
Why must the evidence be physical?Please demonstrate that it must be.
Read this (its written by an atheist)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
His conclusion
Come on . hose Christians are some of the greatest minds that ever lived
Facilis, you are a liar and bullshitter until you provide evidence for your imaginary god. Your avoidance in doing so tells everything an intelligent person, and the people who are regulars here are highly intelligent, needs to know about your relationship to the truth. There is none. Now, you can recover some integrity by acknowledging you have no evidence for your deity.
Once again Facilis shows he’s not familiar with logic.
And Kevin Camp shows he doesn’t know the difference between tolerance and respect.
I tolerate things everyday for which I have no respect for. It’s easy to do.
Religion is utter bullshit, but I tolerate its existence. And they shoudl tolerate my opinion, they don’t have to respect it. I don’t expect them to.
Well, that is true worldwide. The xian anti-defamation kooks were referring to the USA. A country where 78% of the population is xian and where they persecute groups on a daily bais. Lately it has been the democrats, liberals, atheists, Moslems, gays, scientists, and MDs.
The main group persecuting xians in the USA is …..other xians. Xian sectarian warfare has a long, very bloody history and died out in N. Ireland a whole 8 years ago. Nowadays they don’t fill the streets with blood and bodies because the majority of the population is sick of religious violence and the government took away their armies and weapons.
Although the USA still has a current problem with homicidal religious terrorists, the xians and occasionally moslem fundies. Sectarian xian violence today in the USA is mostly at the level of lies, accusations, excommunications, insults, and general bigotry and discrimination.
@Pat
*fundie atheist impression*
Blasphemy!!! Richard Dawkins was in that movie
Facilis, fundamentalist Xians are some of the worst minds out there. Get of your high horse about religion and face reality. You are making a hash of whatever your point is for posting here.
#182 – Bill Dauphin – By golly, you’re right! Space Station. Now somebody is going to chime in and tell me NASA doesn’t use Tang anymore. *snort*
The basic part of my taunting the dork is still good. Humans have been in ‘heaven’ far too long now to have missed god, or any gods for that matter, if they were there.
“If there is no God,no creator, no afterlife, no higher purpose, then why is human life more important than a cracker?”
That’s an exact parallel to the old, and famously rubbish, “Who caused the universe” cosmological argument for God. The refutation is “Who caused God?”
Who made human life good? God? – then who made God good? If there WERE a Creator, how would that make any difference to how important human life is?
Either human life is important, Creator or not, in which case, atheists are fine. OR, human life is only important because the Creator says so, in which case “important” and “good” are defined by what the Creator says are good, but this leaves it unexplained why the Creator, or his judgement, should be taken as important or good.
If you want to believe in God, go ahead, I’m sure you have your reasons. but if you come to Pharyngula of all places, this is what happens…
On the galactic scale, is a person really any more important than a dog, a cracker, or even an electron?
Perhaps not. But why should we humans care about matters on a galactic scale?
How do you do an impression of something that doesn’t exist?
I do think there is a fair bit of evidence. However Redhead is being overly anal about limiting what kind of evidence I can produce. I was just having fun at his expense
Facilis are you actually proud of that website? It looks like I tried to make one. That is a dire insult, and meant to be.
Why are you wasting your time here when you could be fixing that full of bullshit mess?
Do you really need me to answer this question?
Why do we value our own lives? Why do we value the lives of others? Why is it we can kill other life to survive (Indeed we must kill to survive) but cannibalism is taboo? Meaning in life is not given by as magic sky daddy, meaning in life comes from within. We have evolved a sense of empathy, a sense of protection, we have moved to such a state that the survival instinct of ourself projects onto those around us. We are a social creature, our survival depends on us working in groups.
So why do we value the lives of others? Because it’s the way we are able to properly value our own lives. If you found out tomorrow that there was no God, would you kill yourself? If you answer no to this, then you should understand why we value life.
Why are you looking on a galactic scale? Your life begins on one planet, it lasts for around 80 cycles of that planet around a star and then you die. Ultimately in the scheme of things the sun will explode, the earth will be inside the sun and all living material on this planet will cease to be. But that’s not for another 5 billion years, by which you would be long dead and most probably the human race will be long extinct.
Working on a galactic scale is as absurd as working on the molecular scale to categorise humans. We are just atoms arranged in a certain manner, powered by the sun and other life. But we can do something that a cracker can not – we can create life through our direct intervention. We can also feel pain, we can see the suffering in others and feel suffering in ourself. We also have the ability to reason, to make wise choices; we are homo sapien.
Our brains are wired to be able to communicate, to form relationships and bonds with others: both human and non-human. Our brains are also wired to survive, to help the survival of our genetic code. One of the best survival strategies is groups working together: we see this all the time through nature, whether it’s the interplay of multicellular objects with each cell performing it’s own task, or collectives of cells working together like we see throughout the animal kingdom. Working together works.
ctygesen, you almost killed me with:
I’ve got a chest cold and I practically coughed up a lung laughing so hard.
Facilis, how dense are you?
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/background
Do try to catch up.
@Emmet
Why limit it to empirical evidence?
Please demonstrate that this is the default position.
It seems obvious to me that you are making a kind of category error. These things (unicorns ,flyng teapots..etc) are things formed by and cntingent on the universe. When the theist makes a claim of god he is claiming the universe is contingent on God.
Facilis, still trying to evade showing your evidence for your imaginary deity. Your evasions look very desperate. Time to go away as you have lost any credibility that you hoped to establish.
Kel, #259
Well put. I always find it difficult to answer that particular question, because to me it pertains to the sort of obvious understanding of the world that everyone has (or, at least, they should have – I suspect those asking it to be obtuse rather than ignorant); being asked it is much like ‘why do we like things that taste nice?’
Erm. Facilis quick question…
“When the theist makes a claim of god he is claiming the universe is contingent on God.”
Can you show that the universe exists without assuming there’s a god?
Why’d Steve_C link me to Expelled? I haven’t seen the movie.
Facilis, if you assume that the regulars are at least two steps ahead of you, that would be correct.
I guess I should make this point a bit clearer. It would be important to ask yourself “what do you value in your life?” Do you value your friends? Your family? Do you value human interaction at all? Do you value the ability to learn? To communicate with others? Do you value the activities you do? Do you enjoy watching / playing sports? Do you value the fine taste of a good meal? Or the value of an exquisite wine? Do you value music or movies? Are you an avid reader? Or is the only value you see in life God?
The point is that we attribute value as part of the human condition, so regardless of whether God is the only thing you value, it should be non-controversial that humans value things. It should also be non-controversial to say that humans value their own life, and those immediately around them. From that we’ve extended a system of rights that put human life and human dignity at the forefront of any moral or legal code.
That’s a dodge. The point NoR is making is that we don’t have evidence unicorns or flying teapots don’t exist, and – according to your logic – we have to believe in them until we do. Whether the universe is contingent on your God (or any god for that matter) is irrelevant to that question.
Stop evading.
Completely agree. It’s entirely obvious but difficult to put into words. It’s really asking the wrong question, because the why is easy to answer – we value life because humans are wired for their own survival. It’s the how that’s the real question there, how did humans get that wiring in the first place? And thanks to Darwin (and Wallace) we have a means of explanation.
Damn, we could be much nastier than that. I guess we aren’t trying hard enough.
On a more serious note, it would be interesting to assess the importance of a persecution complex in fostering a sense of community. Too many religions seem to believe that “us v. them” is much more cohesive than “us and them.”
Facilis #266
You made the statement that Richard Dawkins was in Expelled. Steve_C’s link wasn’t to the movie but rather to a website called Expelled Exposed.
If you can’t keep up, take notes.
Something I’ve occasionally wondered – why didn’t God instill in us an urge to believe in and worship him?
Facilis the Child Murderer
SympathizerDefenderWorshiper (see here ),Fine, what’s your evidence?
I hope it’s better than auras. Or not – that was funny.
This is the CADC’s effort to create an enemy where none really exists. Its kind of hard to rally the troops when there is nothing to rally around.
@facilis
One is valid epistemology, the other isn’t
Because it works, bitches.
And he’s wrong.
Fine, what’s your evidence?
I hope it’s better than auras. Or not – that was funny.
Yes, that was funny.
Feynmaniac,
This is probably pointless as you seem to have a bias toward religion in general, but here it goes……….
The evidence is everywhere; look around you. Your life is a miracle. A new born baby is a miracle. The existence of the solar system, the galaxy…..the Universe is a miracle. A seed germinating growing into a 100′ tall tree is a miracle.
Atheism relies on the premise that nothing can become something without some sort of intelligent intervention.
This computer was designed and built by an intelligent Being assembling numerous components in a systematic fashion to create a working, functioning device.
Do you actually believe that something far more complex as the processes involved to create and maintain the human body, a “system” that initiates and completes millions of functions every second simply came to being without some sort of plan, blueprint or thought process?
Where did Kevin Camp go? I thought he would at least tried to argue that I’m wrong.
I spotted a couple of typos in the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission’s (CADC) statement. Here’s a corrected version:
There – it’s more accurate now.
I forgot who said this, but given a Christian fundie’s perspective, even Jesus would be unacceptable: He’s from the Middle-East, he’s anti-organized religion, and he’s a Jew.
@Brute
What?
Of your many failings, you also apparently cannot tell your ass from your ontology.
Which atheist argues for intelligent design?
Argumentatshun. Ur doin it rong.
My life is a result of my parents doing it. And given that people have sex all the time, it’s not really miraculous.
Again, it happens all the time.
Nope, it’s just an expression of the laws of physics.
Nope, it’s evolution baby.
So does theism. Otherwise, where did God come from?
The fact is that there are naturalistic processes to explain so much of life. Solar system formation doesn’t need divine intervention, it just needed gravity. The creation of life doesn’t need divine intervention, it’s again a naturalistic process probably involving hydrothermal events. The change and diversity of life can fully be explained by evolution. No intelligence required.
And where did that designer come from? Turns out that designer was made by the designer’s parents having sex. Just like their parents, all the way back until life is just a primitive cell. The problem with saying that a design must need a designer is that the designer must need one too.
It’s called evolution.
Wrong! It does nothing of the sort. Atheism is purely the absence of belief in gods.
Epic fail.
Brute, massive fail. Show physical evidence for god (the designer) that will be confirmed by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin, or get off the designer bit. Put up real (not witnessed like you did) evidence. Welcome to science. Not for wimps or liars.
Someone hasn’t been reading his Stuart Kauffman before bed.
Tsk, tsk.
The CADC failed to detail that before PZ’s actions, the kid in the crackergate incident was threatened with violence and expulsion, and was almost lynched by the church congregation. For what? Trying to show the Holy Eucharist to a curious friend. Where was the CADC when this happened?
None of those is any more a miracle than any other natural phenomenon. Do you consider it a miracle that when you’re holding a pencil in your hand and you let it go it hits the ground*? Oh your god! It’s a miracle!
You know what’d be a real miracle? A religidiot coming up with a decent argument.
*Assuming you’re not in zero gravity, of course.
Kel: Well put. No, I didn’t need you to answer that, I was just curious what your response would be. Also, as to the analogy about flag-burning, there is a slight difference. If you go and buy a flag yourself, or otherwise ethically obtain it, and then burn it, then that is perfectly acceptable. However, if you steal the flag from the capital building, or take a flag that was given to you by someone who cherished it, with the understanding that you would take care of it, and then you burned it, that would not acceptable.
Why is it that those who say the universe needs a cause in order to exist, but the cause they posit for the universe doesn’t need a cause? If they are going to violate their own principle of argument, what’s to say that the universe needs need a cause? Why can’t the universe simply be?
Brute:
Got it.
“Miracle” is a synonym for “ordinary”.
Quotidian things are miracles.
So… What word do you use for putative impossible events that contradict our understanding of nature and of causation?
You do realise that no-one stole a communion wafer right? PZ didn’t steal it, the person who sent it to PZ didn’t steal it, it was freely given. No-one stole anything. A better analogy would be that a jingoist was given a flag by another jingoist, then later on that jingoist lost their unwavering belief in the flag but never got rid of it. Then the flag was sent to someone asking for a flag to burn.
It’s important to understand that no-one stole anything. Yes it was intolerant of Catholic beliefs, but so what? It’s like saying that a non-Muslim could have to wear a burka in the presence of Muslim men.
Did you read all the posts on those threads? There are about 30,000 – you must be a very fast reader.
The crackers were not stolen, taken from someone who cherished them, nor given to him by anyone who expected him to ‘take care of it’ – not in the sense you mean, anyway. IIRC, a former catholic who had kept a cracker obtained during his/her pre-rational days sent it to him knowing full well what he was intending to do with it.
Besides, ‘cherished’? Please remind us exactly what is supposed to happen to the cracker after the
magicreligious ceremony?The way I’ve come to understand it, a miracle is a personal perspective of an otherwise scientifically explainable process.
It’s opinion rather than fact.
Kel #289
It’s called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.
Kevin, still not getting it. The cracker was given to PZ by a catholic knowing that it would be desecrated. No fraud whatsoever on PZ’s part. And the person whose cracker PZ used had it in their possession for many years. Many catholics acknowledged doing many things to crackers including stealing them. Just get off the whole idea that anything was wrong. In bad taste, maybe, wrong in any legal/ethical sense, no.
Do you consider it a miracle that when you’re holding a pencil in your hand and you let it go it hits the ground*?
No; however, the process allows gravity to exist is a miracle.
Wowbagger/Kel,
Another question:
As an Atheist, (I assume you are an Atheist), how do you differenciate between right and wrong? What is the basis of your moral code?
Massive fail. According to present theories the exchange of gravitons. No god needed, ever. Science ignores god. Science and religion divorced a couple of centuries ago. Science will not go back.
Ever hear of doing unto others like you want them to do unto you? It’s a good start. And atheists use it unlike xians.
Ever heard of the Golden Rule, also called the ethic of reciprocity? The concept predates Christianity.
What a weird question.
Do you think the only way to differenciate right and wrong is to check against some list?
As an atheist, I use empathy, rationality and experience to differenciate between right and wrong. I’ll consider others’ opinions on ethics in addition to my own musings, and modify my views over time.
And I judge each case on its merits, rather than according to some dogma.
Brute wrote:
You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
If absolutely everything is a miracle then a miracle is, in and of itself, worthless. If every second rock on the Earth was made out of gold do you think humans would value gold as much as they do?
The exact same way you do, for the most part – as a result of learning and socialisation.
The difference is that I know that morals/ethics are the result of thousands of years of human social evolution (i.e. we learned not to be horrible to each other because it meant we had less chance of being killed out of retribution), while you think yours are commanded by your god.
I don’t know if it has a ‘basis’, as such. Pretty much comes down to the ‘golden rule’, as it is known.
Is my Moral Code valid?
Brute,
If you can indeed provide good evidence I would change my mind about the existence of God. Can you say the same?
Please go get a dictionary and look up what ‘evidence’ means.
So in order to explain something as complex as the human body you assume a creator even MORE complex? This doesn’t solve the problem, it only raises an even harder problem to solve.
Also, this is simply an argument from personal incredulity. Very complex processes contain arise without any plan or blue print (see Rule 110 ).
Oh, and did you see #230 where I provided you examples of people criticizing Obama’s religion?
Wowbagger, for all practical purposes, religous ritual = magic ritual. (cf. [D&D] Clerics:Magic-Users)
The main difference, as I see it, is that magic rituals are expected to actually have some effect. ;)
You haven’t explained your personal moral code, so we can’t say much.
Biblical moral code is partially good, partially bad. For example, if you are wearing a cotton/polyester shirt by strict biblical codes we must stone you to death. Bad. The bible condones slavery. Bad. It is too much only be nice only to our group and treat everybody else badly. Bad. The words of Jesus tried to make the nice more universal. Good. Paul was terrible to women. Bad. (Don’t think atheists haven’t read the bible, as reading the bible in total is often the first step toward atheism.)
Oh, and did you see #230 where I provided you examples of people criticizing Obama’s religion?
Feynmaniac,
Yes, I stand corrected…………
I really am interested in this Atheist belief system….seriously. Please remember I stumbled across this site accidentally and my views are opposite of everyone on this thread…..sort of like 1 among thousands…..getting it from all sides. I post one comment and then have to retort 6 or 7. Bear with me.
Brute:
Validity applies to arguments, not to ideologies.
The question you should ask is “Is my Moral Code ethical?”
If you’re a Christian, I’d say no.
As an atheist, I know the difference between right and wrong the same way as what you do: our genes are programmed to act a certain way, combined with the way our brain forms memories thoughts and processes. Morality is the product of repeated interaction on a social scale that over time has become part of our nature. Hell you can even train dogs in terms of right and wrong.
Do you know actually anything about science, or is your understanding of reality limited to “Goddidit”?
How did gravity come to exist? If you know, please tell the scientists at the Large Hadron Collider just what to look for because what causes gravity is still a mystery.
Quite simply, there is no “atheist belief system.” Atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s simply that one does not believe in a any god. That’s it, no major or minor tenets, no codes for behaviour, no explanation of the universe, it’s simply non-belief in the theistic sense.
Brute, come forward, I see you, like millions of other coming forward to declare their atheism. If you are here with friends, they’ll wait. If you are with your parents, they’ll wait. There is only one true path to atheism, it’s not by good works, your deeds mean nothing, it is simply. . .(wait for it). ..(wait for it) . . .non-belief in gods.
First thing you need to do is acknowledge the truth – that it isn’t a ‘belief system’. We simply lack belief in gods. That does not mean that atheism, in and of itself, replaces religion as a system of belief.
That’s a big problem. Do you murder people? Do you torture kittens? If you don’t then your views are not the opposite of everyone on this thread.
What you also you have to do is realise that most atheists, for practical purposes, live our lives in almost exactly the same way as the majority of Christians do – the only difference being that when we’re asked ‘do you believe in God?’ we answer ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’.
The very idea that atheism makes for an unhappy, immoral, hate-filled lifestyle is one of the worst lies perpetuated by the fearful religious out there, those are so offended that we can live our lives differently from theirs and still be content.
Don’t, as they say, believe the hype.
Brute,
There’s this poster I’ve seen in a few places that shows how all the major religions have some sort of version of the golden rule. The poster fails to realize that this doesn’t have anything real to do with religion, but with human beings. Humans have an innate moral code, similar to the instinctive rules that underlie all language. Sure there are variations from culture to culture, but there are some common features in all of them.
It would actually be surprising if humans didn’t have some sort of hard wiring for how to behave with one another. We are a social creature and in order to have a functioning society there’s got to be some basic rules. Morality doesn’t seem to be limited to humans. Apes show some an ability for altruism. To see a better explanation of this then I can provide see here .
Well, you’re honest enough to admit you were mistaken. Seriously, too often people can’t admit they were wrong and they just come across as insecure. Kudos.
Yes, a theist posting here is like a fish bleeding in shark infested waters.
Gosh! Wherever would we be without God?!?
Do you really think that as much as 25% of the USian population has time to wallow in existential despair?
That’s a big problem. Do you murder people? Do you torture kittens?
Who made up those rules? Suppose I happen to believe that murdering people is alright? Are you judging me? Suppose I don’t happen to comply with the golden rule….suppose I don’t give a damn what others do to me so in turn I can do unto others as I wish?
You seem to espouse that morals and ethical behavior is whatever you happen to think it is or should be.
The question you should ask is “Is my Moral Code ethical?”
If you’re a Christian, I’d say no.
Who determines what is ethical and unethical?
Brute, you do know that the only thing 100% universal among atheists is a lack of belief in god?
There is no single belief system common to every atheist. Each of us is unique in that regard.
Brute,
Morality is a social construct, it’s a guide for behaviour in reference to the social setting one is in. If you were born into an African tribe, chances are you would be under a very different moral code to what you are now. To ask “who makes up the rules” is the wrong question. It’s not a matter of who, but a matter of how. There is not a single objective moral to grab, but that doesn’t mean morality is subjective.
To elaborate on that point, say you didn’t find stealing immoral. If you steal an ice cream from me, is it still an immoral act? In our society, yes it is. Stealing is immoral within the context of our society. You don’t need a universal constant behind you in order to tell morality, you just a constraint on the system you are in.
So in terms of Christianity, many of the rules and guides that are in the bible that many Christians take as authoritative morality are archaic and draconian by our modern standard. What we consider right and wrong has changed as society has changed. Slavery is no longer permissible, women have equal rights, skin colour has become an irrelevance (ideally), and sexuality in general has become a lot more open. It’s even permissible to be of a different religion, or of no religion at all.
Humans. Same people who wrote your bible – but they, being unsophisticated regarding such things, just didn’t understand why we shouldn’t murder, so they decided to make up a god to have told us not to. Just like they said ‘don’t eat pigs’ – not because their god said not to, but because (IIRC) spoiled pork contains nasty bacteria. They didn’t understand bacteria either, but they knew they had to find a way to keep people from dying.
Yes. You would be wrong because you go against what is historically good for the future of our species; the sense of which we have retained.
It would depend on what you’re doing to them. If you’re sending them flowers thinking they wouldn’t like it then I don’t care. But if you want to rape, bash or murder them then you are (once again) acting in a way that is historically detrimental to the future of the species. I have a predisposition to want to stop you.
To an extent that is true. But what I feel is moral and ethical is the result of thousands of years of human social evolution and is as hardwired into me as not eating meat that smells funny. Thing is, it’s hardwired into you, too – you just don’t realise it, preferring to believe that you choose not to do it because your god told you not to.
So, I’ve answered some of your questions; here’s one for you: Would you, if your god appeared and told you that not only is it okay for you to rape and murder people, but that he wanted you to rape and murder people, would you do it?
There is no absolute source, which is what disconcerts some people. Mostly it comes about by thinking through a problem, and talking with other people to reach a consensus. Just like they did in the old days, pre bible. Do you want somebody to rob your house? No, so stealing is bad. Do you want somebody to beat you up simply because your have the wrong (fill in the blank)? No, so beating people up is wrong. Eventually this thinking gets codified into secular laws. I have noticed one difference with atheists. They are less concerned with so called victimless crimes, many of which come from biblical morality. So they tend to be more liberal on social issues. But we range from libertarian, conservative, middle of the road, socialism, and anarchism. The proverbial fur can fly when we discuss politics.
Brute, if the only thing stopping you from killing people and torturing kittens is that you think that you will go to Hell you are one scary human being. Get help NOW!!!
Brute, come forward, I see you, like millions of other coming forward to declare their atheism.
mothra,
Relax, I’m simply trying to gain some insight.
Do you know actually anything about science, or is your understanding of reality limited to “Goddidit”?
Kel,
Not a scientist, an Engineer; and I do know that anything that is built is designed…..it doesn’t simply “materialise” without thought and planning.
So far, according to your doctrine, “a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away” a speck smaller than an atom (which contain all of the matter in the universe) exploded. The dust collected and as this dust collected it formed the Sun and this planet. From this lifeless rock everything from a duck billed platypus to a rose to a human being randomly “evolved” accidentally……a rock became a tree? Sounds supernatural………
And you have the audacity to describe the beleifs of creation held by Christians (and numerous other religions) a fairy tale?
Nerd of Redhead: If it was given to him by a Catholic, then the Catholic was wrong. But Prof. Myers is not blameless either. Since when is receiving goods that you know were stolen (or at the very least, acquired under false pretenses) in any way ethical?
Ok, I checked out Cracker Gate in the archives.
I’m not very surprised to find out the back story, there wasn’t a lot more than posters in the thread told me, except for the death threats against PZ. And the fact that the student didn’t ask PZ for his “help” in this matter. (And why not: the student doesn’t believe it’s just a cracker, just like all those people PZ’s bashing).
Also, People of Pharyngula: I am not a Catholic. Or a Hopi.
Or a Muslim. Or, an atheist. None of PZ’s real desecrations,
PZ’s imaginary one, or my hypothetical one, were attacks on my beliefs. But PZ’s stunt was tasteless and disrespectful, and not likely to change any minds.
For the record, I do whatever I feel like doing on the Sabbath. It’s made for me too!
Brute, have you ever looked into how and when your bible was put together? It wasn’t divinely inspired, but put into writing after a long oral tradition and modified for sometimes for hundreds of years, and was finally put together by several committees long after the fact. We have good reasons not to put much trust into the bible.
Sigh.
Engineer and making the Watchmaker argument.
Why am I not surprised.
Brute, one’s morals are what one does and how one adjudges others’ behaviours, not what one professes to believe.
We all, believers and infidels alike, make our own determinations on what is ethical and act accordingly.
One difference is that us infidels take ownership of our personal decisions. We are knowing morally free agents.
True believers lack moral freedom, because they supposedly must always act in accordance with the precepts of their religion regardless of their own inner feelings, but they have the (false) comfort of thinking they avoid responsibility for their moral choices.
An infidel has the freedom to do what they genuinely think is the right thing, based on their own understanding, and will not accept an action (e.g. stoning a victim) as moral merely based on other’s opinions.
And, just as importantly, an infidel has the freedom to improve their morals over time, as they gather experience and knowledge.
Interesting discussion…..
May we pick this up in the morning?
So what designed the designer?
That’s not atheism, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Do not confuse scientific explanations with atheism as they are not the same. Theists can and do accept scientific propositions, just as some atheists do not.
As for your characterisation of the history of the universe: not one atheist is alleging that trees and life came from rocks. Are you away of what rocks are made of ass opposed to what life is made of? Anyway, isn’t it Christian dogma that God made man from dirt? Seems to me you are projecting.
If you want to understand what it’s like to be an atheist, simply take God out of the picture. If you want to actually learn how the universe works with or without God involved, look to scientific knowledge.
I do, because the creation story in genesis has as much evidence going for it as the Aboriginal Dreamtime myth. Actually studying the universe and finding clues to how it all came about is different from just saying it happened a certain way and defend it despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, who would believe in a fairy tale where people came formed from dust……
Genesis 2:7
Kevin, one theory is that the cracker is a gift (forget the fictitious strings), and once the position of the person is their property. If it was theft at all it would be considered petty theft and the statute of limitations had run out. Quit trying to find fault, there none, except between your ears. We reached out consensus during the 30,000+ posts of Crackergate, and we will not change our minds at this time. You are beating a dead horse.
How was it given under false pretences? Do you have any evidence that it was acquired under false pretences, or are you simply trying to maintain your indignity at what PZ did?
Just curious, do you refrain from eating cow because the Hindu’s consider it a sacred animal? If not, why not?
Brute wrote:
Ah, there’s the problem. You should read through Myers’ book list
Why do you think your engineering background gives license to comment on biology?
First of all, that’s not doctrine (but nice try there. Atheism is not a religion). Nothing exploded. It was more of an expansion. I’m not a physicist, so I will suggest that you actually read up on what it says and not what you want it to say for straw man purposes.
Are you stupid? No one thinks that a rock became a tree. I half think you’re just trolling. And evolution isn’t “random” it’s undirected.
Please. You’re one to talk.
Brute, go sleep if you need to. We run a 24/7 shop. In case you are interested, you have be posting with Europeans, Americans, and Australians, so we have all time zones covered.
Ahhh Brute. If you are going to argue that the science is absurd, it would really help if you actually understood what you are arguing against. I’d advise you to go and read about the theory of evolution, read about abiogenesis, read about star and planet formation, and read about the big bang, before trying to argue it’s all false. If only you knew how embarrassing you look trying to argue what you don’t know.
As for atheism, where does it say that atheism is indoctrinated science? It seems like you are doing a grave disservice to your fellow Christians who actually use the same scientific explanations as you are alleging are atheist, not to mention painting all atheists under a brush that simply does not apply. Science is a way of understanding the reality we live in, atheism is to do with belief in a god. They are not the same, and you are being disingenuous for equating them.
The sun never sets on Pharyngula!
Brute,
I’ll ignore the fact that you’ve chosen not to answer my question about morality – because by doing so you’re admitting that you’re wrong and we’re right, and you’re fully aware of that.
You feel that all belief systems are equally valid? You weren’t just born to Christian parents and brought up to believe in their relgiion? That’s very interesting.
Exactly how many of them did you study in detail before you made the decision that Christianity (and the one particular sect of Christianity from the 38,000 there are) was the correct one?
Compared to what someone else thinks it should be? Religious leaders speak out on what they consider to be moral and immoral all the time. What makes their position superior to mine? For that matter what makes one religious leader’s opinion on morality superior to another. Who do I believe when they disagree?
@ Kevin Camp
When is it ethical to engage in campaigns of public vilification, harassment and intimidation?
When is it ethical to deliberately inflame and incite intolerance against a person or a group, creating a situation in which violence becomes a recognizable threat?
On the flip side, when is it ethical to refuse to follow the instructions of a uniformed police officer? Say you were being told not to videotape what was about to happen?
When is it ethical to trespass on private property?
There is no equivalence between what PZ did and the behaviour of the believers who sparked this powder keg to begin with. Adjust your ethical compass.
@Rudy
Like Kevin, you disingenuously strip PZ’s actions from their context. Disrespect was the point of the exercise.
And PZ’s “stunt” did change at least one mind. I went from “somebody else’s problem”, to “you talkin’ to me?”
I really hope if Brute comes back that he informs himself on what the scientific principles he mocks really say. Nothing is worse than an ignorant theist making straw-man assertions about concepts they do not understand.
Rudy wrote:
‘Tasteless’? Well, taste is subjective; it mightn’t be to yours, but to say that means he shouldn’t do it because you don’t like it is another thing entirely.
‘Disrespectful’? Of course it was. That’s the whole point. Those particular Catholics thought the cracker is more important than the law, Webster Cook’s physical well-being, his future and, his (and PZ’s) life. People who think like that need to be disrespected, because their values are contemptible.
‘Not likely to change any minds’? Way wrong on that one. Read some deconversion stories sometime. One of the things that prompts believers to start doubting is if they realise that it’s possible to disbelieve and act on that disbelief. One of religion’s greatest lies is that, secretly, everyone really does believe but pretends not to; such an act of brazen sacrilege may well start people thinking about their beliefs.
Not to mention that many Christians – Catholics included – pointed out how disgusted they were with the Catholic League’s actions. A truly introspective Christian would have to wonder whether their religion really was the truth they’re constantly told it is when their co-religionists can act in such ways.
What it did, if nothing else, was make people think about religion. And that’s how many former religious come to atheism – because they started thinking instead of believing. It’s all about the fence-sitters.
It does not seem to me any less possible that God created the universe than the possibility that the universe just blew up into being by itself. There is more than one way to make a vehicle run. We chose gasoline, but there are other ways. Just because we can prove that a car can possibly run on gasoline does not make it intelligent to claim gasoline is the only way to run a car. Just because we can see how a universe may have came into being, does not mean it is the only way possible, or , does not mean it happened this way and not another. To say emphatically that the universe came into being without a Creator does not add up to me. And christian should get persecuted in america, then the real ones would be the only ones left claiming to be christians. They are persecuted heavily in certain areas of the world though.
I just do not understand how people emphatically state “There is no God.”, without closing their eyes. It seems to me if their eyes were open then they would maybe say “I do not believe there is a God.”. There is a difference. I do not believe the earth is billions of years old, but hey, i could be wrong. There seems to be lots of evidence supporting a really old earth, and it would not contradict the bible, i just have my suspicions. There are things other than blind make belief that draw people to trust in God. Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean people are stupid.
It does not seem to me any less possible that God created the universe than the possibility that the universe just blew up into being by itself. There is more than one way to make a vehicle run. We chose gasoline, but there are other ways. Just because we can prove that a car can possibly run on gasoline does not make it intelligent to claim gasoline is the only way to run a car. Just because we can see how a universe may have came into being, does not mean it is the only way possible, or , does not mean it happened this way and not another. To say emphatically that the universe came into being without a Creator does not add up to me. And christian should get persecuted in america, then the real ones would be the only ones left claiming to be christians. They are persecuted heavily in certain areas of the world though.
I just do not understand how people emphatically state “There is no God.”, without closing their eyes. It seems to me if their eyes were open then they would maybe say “I do not believe there is a God.”. There is a difference. I do not believe the earth is billions of years old, but hey, i could be wrong. There seems to be lots of evidence supporting a really old earth, and it would not contradict the bible, i just have my suspicions. There are things other than blind make belief that draw people to trust in God. Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean people are stupid.
It does not seem to me any less possible that God created the universe than the possibility that the universe just blew up into being by itself. There is more than one way to make a vehicle run. We chose gasoline, but there are other ways. Just because we can prove that a car can possibly run on gasoline does not make it intelligent to claim gasoline is the only way to run a car. Just because we can see how a universe may have came into being, does not mean it is the only way possible, or , does not mean it happened this way and not another. To say emphatically that the universe came into being without a Creator does not add up to me. And christian should get persecuted in america, then the real ones would be the only ones left claiming to be christians. They are persecuted heavily in certain areas of the world though.
I just do not understand how people emphatically state “There is no God.”, without closing their eyes. It seems to me if their eyes were open then they would maybe say “I do not believe there is a God.”. There is a difference. I do not believe the earth is billions of years old, but hey, i could be wrong. There seems to be lots of evidence supporting a really old earth, and it would not contradict the bible, i just have my suspicions. There are things other than blind make belief that draw people to trust in God. Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean people are stupid.
Danny,
You’re once, twice, three times barely coherent.
Please believe me when i say that i DID NOT MEAN TO POST IT THAT MANY TIMES and i am truly sorry.
Wow. The evidence of the earth being over 4 billion years old. There is no evidence for any gods. Theists really need to learn to be brief. Why do stupid arguments need to be so damn long?
And you are wrong. When several radiometric dating techniques all confirm that the solar system was created around 4.5 billion years ago, the evidence is pretty conclusive. Especially when it’s consistent with the age of the universe, worked out by observing galaxies 10s of billions of light years away. What do you have that invalidates those results?
There’s a difference between saying there’s no reason to suggest that a creator made the universe and a creator did not make the universe. The problem of putting a creator there is that it answers nothing. Instead of saying “where did the universe come from?” the question becomes “where did the creator come from?” Putting God in there is a non-answer, nothing more than wishful thinking.
The problem comes when people say there must be a creator / designer. Why must there be?
Danny M wrote:
That says more about you than it does about anyone making that statement. There is indeed a difference, but that’s neither here nor there. You don’t get to define atheism for atheists.
Why do so many believers exhibit this lack of imagination?
Nothing could about it. You are wrong.
So, why do you believe?
You’re not doing well so far.
Why does Danny M think he knows better than the thousands of geologists and nuclear physicists who have worked on aging the earth? I wonder how he reacts to the astronomers who have looked 13 billion years back in time by observing distant galaxies?
Danny M
Your coherence (or lack thereof) is more the issue than whatever caused the triplication.
Which might be okay except that, when you’re dealing with scientific explanations for something, you’re obliged to take the most parsimonious option. Inviting a god of any sort to the party makes everything far more complicated, by virtue of having to explain where said god came from. If there’s equal chance of either, we take the one without god.
Do you want to try writing that again? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
There are Christians persecuting people around the world, and in the USA. What’s your point?
Well, that comes down to the definition of God. I feel there is no ‘God’ as defined by the broader Judeo-Christian belief system; that isn’t to say I consider it impossible for any other gods to exist. But Yahweh? Heck, no. No chance whatsoever – unless it’s far different from how they’ve defined it in the bible and the supporting material.
Why not? The only reasons not to are religious. Would you trust the bible if it said the sky was really green, even though your eyes tell you it’s blue? To people who understand, doubting the age of the earth is like saying the sky is green.
But that is true of every religion – but all religions cannot be true. They can, however, all be false.
True. But the reasons people give for believing in what we don’t agree with often are. And they are treated as such.
Kel—The problem of putting a creator there is that it answers nothing. Instead of saying “where did the universe come from?” the question becomes “where did the creator come from?”—-
I think that line of reasoning would have stopped scientist way before they got to the big bang, but, it seems like i could restate your statement. “The problem of putting a big bang there is that it answers nothing….”. So maybe that reasoning should not stop you from considering a creator.
The reason i wrote about the earth age was not the reason you all thought. I could give a rats a*s if the earth is 6 thous. or 6 bill. years old. The misunderstanding was problably due to me not writing well. I do think the earth is older than most church people say, and I do think that it is younger than most other people suggest.———
You seem to think that science brings all answers and that you should not except or consider things outside of science. But without philosophy we would not have found the scientific method. I mean really, think about it. Science is not God, stop treating it like it were. It has it’s place. I would suggest that you stop using science as an excuse not to consider God.
Except that the big bang does answer something: It explains the many observations made by astronomers of the behavior of the stars and galaxies expanding away from each other; it explains the temperature of the universe; it explains many, many cosmological observations.
True, but it was a very skeptical philosophy; a philosophy that specifically rejected religious dogma insisted on evidence, repeated and observed and argued over, and sometimes, falsified by new observations.
No one is, nor is anyone suggesting that it ought to be.
It is exactly because science is not permitted to examine God that science rejects God. And I mean “permitted” in several senses, there: If God exists, he isn’t allowing himself to be examined; if he doesn’t exist, there is nothing to examine, and it is the broader philosophy of science which does not permit examining the nonexistent.
If God offered any evidence for his existence, science would certainly examine it.
The difference is that we know the big bang happened. Before the big bang we have no idea. We’re not sure if there can even be a before since it’s the beginning of time. Saying we don’t know and putting in Jesus is very different.
Why do you think that? What evidence do you have that the rocks and minerals we’ve dated on earth that are over 4 billion years old, and the moon and meteorite rocks we’ve dated to over 4.5 billion years are inaccurate?
There’s a difference between science not knowing all the answers and thinking that philosophy that is contrary to science is valid. There are certain questions that aren’t scientific in nature, that’s true. But questions to do with the universe are scientific propositions because we can test them empirically. Take away our ability to measure it, you take away our ability to know it.
Why do you reject Zeus? Why do you reject Thor? Why do you reject The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Why do you reject Ra? Why do you reject Ziltoid The Omniscient? Each of those concepts has just as must merit as the Judeo-Christian construct of god. Without evidence, how can you discern the true god from the fables made up by cultures to explain the unknown?
As for my personal rejection of God, it’s got nothing to do with science. If I were a believer, I’d still be a scientist and interested in discovering how the natural world works. I reject God for the same reason I reject The Giant Rainbow Serpent. They are fairy tales made up by cultures who didn’t know better. There’s no better reason to believe in the Christian mythology than the Hindu mythology.
Danny M wrote:
The problem is that you are wrong. What do you know that thousands of geologists, the people who spend their working lives studying that sort of thing, don’t?
Do you even know what science is? It’s not some body of conclusions to picked over and assembled into whatever picture you want.
It’s a method of knowing, of finding out about the world around us. The best method, as a matter of fact, for weeding out the false.
Sorry, who does this? Yes, a lot of people hold the scientific method in deep respect, but who actually worships it?
Nice equivocation there. Do you have a real suggestion? Is your god really that weak?
Bah. Composition fail:
Fixed.
CRAP! I last looked in at #258. That’s a lot of back reading.
I’m baking cherry & pumpkin pies today… damn trolls only love the smell of batshit.
Danny M,
And you would be wrong. It is consistent with the expansion of the universe seen and it predicts the background radiation seen.
I could give at rat’s ass (this blog is heavily moderated like the ones you are probably used to going to) how old YOU think the world is. The current estimates are based on actual physical evidence.
[Bold mine] I actually laughed out loud there
Please provide an example of anyone treating it as such.
_ _ _
Sigh. I now see others have beaten me to the punch. It’s like racing the other kids for candy after the piñata has split open.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking the choice is between Yahweh and nihilism. Just remember how many other concepts for the divine there have been throughout history. Everything from tribal animalism, to the pantheistic eastern religions, to spirit worship, to polytheism, to monotheism, to deism, to alien worship – all with many different forms of the divine to each one. Jesus is just one of thousands upon thousands of concepts of god that have come and gone in the history of the earth.
And if we are doing nothing more than speculating on the unknown, what about the infinite possibilities of what could lie beyond this reality. It could be an infinite number of types of possibilities that humans will never even conceptualise, and infinite combinations inside each of those infinite possibilities. The simple fact remains that we don’t know and in almost all likelihood we can’t know.
So what makes one belief more likely than another? If the choice is between an infinite number of combinations and the material, I’ll take the material as I know the material exists. The only thing that will make Jesus any more plausible than the karmic wheel is (and here comes that dreaded word) evidence. Otherwise you are just stabbing in the dark, and stabbing in a particular direction because you see other people stabbing in that direction and relying on one of them to know something.
No, it sounds like you’ve constructed an inaccurate cartoon of Evolutionary Biology that also includes cosmology and the Big Bang, which are not covered by Biology (evolutionary or otherwise).
So please explain how a belief in a literal reading of the King James’ Translation of the Bible has direct and indirect applications in Biology or other sciences.
Or, perhaps you can explain how belief in creation as explained in a literal interpretation of the Bible has direct applications in your line of work, in Engineering?
Owlmirror “It is exactly because science is not permitted to examine God that science rejects God.”— The issue isn’t that SCIENCE rejects or accepts God. When i ask why someone does not consider a creator, they say science is not permitted to examine God. But we did not use science to examine morals. We didn’t want people to steal from us and murder us so we said these things were wrong–according to an earlier post, very abreviated and in my own words. We used no scientific method to come to that conclusion, but yet we all still agree to it. People are ok with examining things without using the scientific method until you say the word creator. Why?
Owlmirror “Except that the big bang does answer something: It explains the many observations made by astronomers of the behavior of the stars and galaxies expanding away from each other; it explains the temperature of the universe; it explains many, many cosmological observations.”— And you see, this is ‘one’ of the reasons i like to talk with people i disagree with. thank you.
Bachalon—- I had to look that word up. 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says.
Do you think i am trying to deceive you?
Kel—Even though i do believe it’s Jesus. I am talking about a creator, period.
Which ever one it was that laughed at my spelling, i’m insecure enough without having some rude person make fun of me. I’m the type of person that gets bothered by that so if it’s all for fun then i just thought you should know. If not then i really don’t want to correspond with you. And if no one wants me on here all you have to do is say so. I just like to talk with people of differnt minds.
Actually, we do use science for this – the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Cultural Anthropology are social sciences which deal with how humans – including humans from different cultures, past and present, behave. A significant proportion of our understanding of morals and ethics (and their development) comes from studies in those areas.
Who says this? Anyone who tells you that is a liar. If there was any evidence for God (or any other deity for that matter) it would be considered. But everything that was once considered evidence for supernatural beings (e.g. the sun, the moon, stars, comets, rain, thunder, lightning, earthquakes, the diversity of life on this planet) has been found to have a completely natural explanation.
But the things that are being examined outside of science are abstract concepts. They can’t have physical impact on the world. If your God exists as he is defined by your religion (Christianity) then he affects the physical world by answering prayers and performing miracles. This would leave evidence we can find. But no-one’s found any.
Probably not intentionally. But doing what you’re doing gives us that impression that you are, since deception is standard behaviour for creationists and we’re unsure whether you’re genuine or not.
Danny M wrote:
Actually, we did just a crude iteration of it before we had a notion for such a thing. Do you think there might be a reason so many rules and taboos appear across so many different societies that had so many different religions?
Not intentionally so.
Danny M:
No-one made mention of your spelling that I can see.
Danny M wrote:
If you’re really interested in talking and not just witnessing and paying lip service, I’d be happy to give you my AIM name as I too enjoy engaging those with different worldviews from my own.
Wowbagger— (Post 349 “It is exactly because science is not permitted to examine God that science rejects God.”)—
“doing what i’m doing”.— I do not understand how having a conversation about a creator would lead someone to think i was trying to deceive them. My main point is (that the possibility of a creator is worth examining. And just because you can not use the scientific method on something does not make it a worthless examination.)
All the branches of science you brought up about morality, i do not think those have anything to do with why people don’t look for God. It always seems to come down to the scientific method as to why they do not consider a creator. But the method does not explain math either i dont think. (My opinion is that the method is solid. The method is correct but incomplete.)
And there are an infinite number of possibilities to how the universe came to be. To believe in a creator of any kind is still nothing more than wishful thinking.
I’m not denying that a creator is indeed, I’m saying that we don’t know and in all probability we can’t know. To believe in any one particular god is absurd as the rest of them. There’s simply no reason to believe in a creator, and especially no reason to believe in any creator in particular.
That is dishonest. Whether or not we *should* do something is completely different from a question of existence. This is the difference between an ‘is’ and an ‘ought’. So yes, morals are arrived at by consensus, without evidence or the scientific method. This is because they aren’t ‘true’ in any meaningful sense. They are simply what people have agreed upon to regulate society. Also in this category are things that are poorly defined, like
“My dad is the coolest!!”
or
“The church is great!!”
Anything that actually exists can be shown to be so by the scientific method, though only with some uncertainty. Add onto this that your god is unfalsifiable, and your position is indefensible. But questions of falsifiability aside, you haven’t given any evidence at all.
So stop conflating moral arguments with existential ones, and give the damn evidence…or admit you are wrong.
That was me, actually, but I may not have expressed myself well.
Consider: When I offered my test of God (the believer prays to God for some digits from a random number that I generated, with me offering the md5sum and sha1sum of that number) to Pilt, and to Daniel Smith before him, some months ago, they utterly refused. Smith simply said that God doesn’t work like that; Pilt went with his monarchical analogy, insisting that I had no right to demand anything at all of God (not even digits from a random number).
Neither of them permitted me to test what they claimed was God. Or they claimed that God would not permit himself to be tested.
See also my #349.
Matt– you want me to admit i am wrong, or admit that there is no creator. Nothing any body has written here would make me be able to say that there is no God. Yet i just ask you to consider. I don’t want you to admit nothing to me, it would be wortless except to my ego. Things written here may give me the ability to say there may not be a god, but not tha there is no god. You want me to prove something that you yourself would say can’t be proven even if it were so? That is what’s dishonest. And i would think it would be obvious to an atheist that it’s dishonest.
Me on the other hand, i just want you to consider a creator. To me, one can not consider a creator without considering no creator. And one can not consider the non existence of a creator without considering the existence of one.
Danny M,
A lot of people that come by here aren’t interested in discussion and deserve only to be mocked. Perhaps, I was too quick to judge and was unnecessarily harsh in #354. Apologies if I offended you.
I have considered a creator, given what we know about the universe, it’s really nothing more than wishful thinking at best and an absurd impossibility at worst. The question of a creator in the absence of any evidence becomes an irrelevance – it does not matter what you believe if there is no way of knowing whether it would be true. You might as well just make up your own deity, it’s as good a guess as any other that’s come before it…
Danny M wrote:
Why? What evidence can you present? Don’t talk about philosophy. Evidence. Something we can verify for ourselves.
Also, I was serious about talking. It’s late, and I’m up as I usually am; you seem to be, too.
Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009
Me on the other hand, i just want you to consider a creator.
Most of us have considered one and passed on it. Please ask us something new. Something that other like you have not demanded of us dozens of times.
owlmirror– disclaimer duely noted. Maybe both sides should allow more testing. If God doesn’t allow testing then He can take up for Himself and we just would never know i guess, which may be part of the problem you have with it.
I have tested God, but it is not proof of god. one could say that it could be other things. And if I told you i would be labled full of crap which still leaves us at the point which may be why you have a problem with it. It cant be tested. And when it can, there can usually be other explanations. Even if those other explanations are not likely, if they are there, then i would say that there is no proof. So when someone says “prove it to me”, i feel like i have been dealt a stacked deck. Even if i brought you something that i just knew was a “god thing”, it still would not be proof. Like, if i prayed for an earthquake, and it happened, that still does not prove a God. It could have been an alien that likes to screw with peoples heads. I mean why conclude it was God? So you say “proof”, and i say B.S. And you’re probably saying on the other end “B.S”.
Danny M:
1. I don’t think anyone has asked you to do so.
2. What makes you think we haven’t already? I, for one, have given the deity-concept more than a cursory examination. It failed the test of rationality.
3. I and other commenters here are more than willing to admit our opinions and beliefs; your problem will be the deluge of such you may encounter.
4. Of course*. Good to see you acknowledge this.
5. No, but the expectation around here is that, if you make claims, you should support them with evidence and argument.
—
* well, for certain varieties of god. The Christian one has contradictory attributes claimed for it, so that particular one can’t exist.
Danny M,
I’m an atheist, so you probably won’t trust me, but I’m going to give you some advice. Why? For the same reason I like to watch a football match between two equally good teams. It’s interesting when the score is close, and boring when one team is losing miserably.
And Danny, you are losing miserably.
Imagine if I said to you, “Michael Dukakis is the president, and my brother Dan is a dentist.” Would you believe that my brother is a dentist? Or that he’s named Dan? Or that I even have a brother? You would strongly doubt everything that comes out of my mouth, because I don’t even seem to have the lucidity to realize that Dukakis is not and never was the president. I might not even be aware of what year it is.
Danny, you just said to us, “Michael Dukakis is the president, and Jesus is God.”
Except you said it a little differently: “the big bang didn’t happen, and Jesus is God.”
And “the Earth is younger than 4.5 billion years, and Jesus is God.”
Any minute now I expect you to say “humans did not evolve from other apes, and Jesus is God.”
Danny, we know that the big bang happened, and that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, and that humans evolved from other apes, and that George Bush was elected instead of Michael Dukakis, because we have researched the evidence and we understand it. It is obvious that you do not.
If you want to have even the slightest chance of converting anyone here to Christianity, you have to quit telling us that Michael Dukakis is president. And you have to learn to explain, convincingly, how you determined who was elected president in 1988.
I suggest you start here: http://powells.com/biblio/1-9780061233500-1
Danny M wrote:
That’s the thing: a lack of conclusive disproof doesn’t make belief and non belief equally reasonable.
If someone came to you talking about Allah in the same way you’re talking about Jesus to us, would that convince you? If not, why do you think that would work on us?
Whenever religion has made a claim about the world, that’s almost always turned out to be false. Genesis? False. The Flood? False. It’s track record is pretty slim which is one of the reasons why you’ll find a lot of skepticism here.
feynmaniac— it’s cool, really it’s prob. just that im too sensitive.
ok ok enough with the considering crap. i’ll take a long break and come up with something new so we all don’t die of repetitive boredom. I have some good stuff i might be able to mustur up, but i’ll let you be the judge of that. Please don’t not want me here i love this crap.
Not proof by itself, no. But why don’t you give a demonstration, and I promise you, if you could consistently display this power, and only when you pray to *your* god, I will be paying a lot more attention. Positive evidence builds up over time to convince us, whereas a disproof is only required once. Now lets look at the history: Christianity has had 2000 years, give or take, and yet cannot produce one miracle except in anecdotal situations. Every other religion also has these same anecdotal miracles, and frankly, they aren’t convincing. It also doesn’t have any other evidence amounting to more than
‘some guy who has a similar name to our holy man was a rabbi, at one point.’
Since supposedly miracles do occur(according to the bible), and since I’m guessing you think you have your own evidence, lay it on the table. I promise I wont laugh.
atheist——Loosing? I thought we were all winning. No one enjoys argument anymore unless they think they are winning. I know what the score is.
I assure you, I have indeed considered a creator, and that is why I am now an atheist.
Let me see if I can convey this…
It comes down to definitions, perhaps: How is God defined?
Some definitions of God exclude God being a person. This includes the idea that God is love (an impersonal emotion), or God is the universe and everything in it, with no consciousness or personality (Pantheism), or God is some specific thing (the sun is God; the earth is God; etc)
I would have no problem acknowledging that the thing that is being called “God” exists (the universe is real; the sun is real; the earth is real; etc), but I find this to be an equivocation: First of all, if God is not a person, then worship is pointless; second of all, many (not all) religions do have God as a person. Finally, calling an acknowledged impersonal thing “God” is merely a matter of personal preference. Since my preference does not run that way, I am free to reject that particular definition.
If God is defined as being a person, we run into a problem similar to that first posed by Epicurus centuries before Jesus was allegedly born:
All examples of persons that we know of communicate directly, unless they suffer from some defect. Either they are not aware that someone is trying to communicate with them, or they don’t know how to respond (defects of knowledge), or they cannot communicate for physical reasons (defects of power), or they are bad-tempered or indifferent, and refuse to communicate solely because of mood or temperament (defects of benevolence.
God does not communicate directly. Thus, even if God exists, God has one or more of the defects listed above… and I think that I am justified in saying that a defective being, even if it were indeed real, is not what I would call God.
Danny, I know you said you were sensitive, so I’m trying to be as tactful as I can. Among other things (research, etc), please work on your spelling and grammar. It will aid you quite a bit when talking with people.
Competent self-expression is the gift that keeps on giving.
You should probably look at Greta Christina’s “How to be an Ally with Atheists,” the about.com atheism pages (they have a good overview), Lonewolf’s Den has a good page on how to engage atheists.
Bone up on your logic. Books like “The Art of Making Sense,” and others will help.
None of this is hard; it just takes time.
When i was a kid someone showed me differnet places in the bible (promises etc.) It was about money and faith. I feel like it has been used selfishly..but.. I did what it said, and asked God for 20 dollars, and thanked Him for it every day…to myself and no one knew. And about a week later i was coming out of court and stopped at the traffic signal. Someone from a car or two behind me got out of his car and come to my window and put a twenty dollar bill in my shirt pocket and so i had money for the offering plate. I told you it sounds like B.S but i swear to God it happened.
Then a little time passed and i got really screwed up on drugs. I really did try to stop but i COULDN’T. He saved me.
You see, to me i have proof. But it serves for no proof when it comes to telling other people.
But anyway there is stuff in the bible that Jesus said and i just acted on it and He did it.
Then the drugs thing… it was God.
good night everyone, i’ll be back in a day or so, but i gotta sleep for work.
I still have my vodka test running. It’s now been weeks since I set the challenge for God to turn my water into vodka… it’s been several weeks and nothing has happened.
That’s great, Danny, tell yourself that.
I’m trying to be nice here, and I’m telling you as kindly as possible: you are making no sense.
It’s possible that I could be converted to Christianity. It’s possible! I acknowledge this possibility. I don’t know what my future holds.
But I know this for sure: I could never be converted to Christianity by someone who doesn’t understand why it’s obvious that the big bang happened, or who doesn’t understand how we know for certain that the Earth is billions of years old, or who doesn’t understand the incontrovertible evidence that humans evolved from other apes.
When you say you doubt these things, you are telling me something, very clearly. You are saying “I cannot be bothered to do serious research, and I cannot be bothered to learn about the truths of the natural world around me.” It is reasonable for me to assume, then, that you don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “Jesus is God.”
Take my advice.
Or don’t, it’s your loss.
No, this doesn’t sound like BS at all. It sounds like coincidence and confirmation bias. I remember back when I believed, I prayed for all kinds of things. One of the most common was that I would do well on tests. Well, I prayed every time, and I got great scores. But, if I am praying all the time for doing well, I am going to *happen* to receive my prayer quite often.
Similarly, if I pray for money all the time, when someone finally does give me some (which happens to all of us, by the way;atheists too) it will superficially appear to have worked. But that’s just because it stands out in my mind, more so than all the days I prayed and didn’t receive money. So if you actually have confidence in your god, you should do what I did, and see if it really works.
Make a daily recording of what you pray for, and what you receive. After a few months, see if you get those things that you pray for more often. It’s easy, and if you are confident in your god, you should have no objections to it.
You’ll be an atheist in no time.
Be patient. The free energy change associated with that kind of miracle is a bit high. God has to couple it to the oxidation of souls in hell to make it a favorable reaction.
Danny M
So, another person gave you $20? That’s proof of the power of people – not the power of God. If you put an empty Snickers wrapper in your pocket, and prayed for it to become $20 and then you looked in your pocket and found it had become $20? Well, let’s just say that that would be something worth mentioning.
My uncle was diagnosed with lung cancer early 2008. Almost everybody on my mom’s side of the family, including the in-laws prayed really, REALLY hard that he would somehow recover. He passed away December 31, 2008, at approx. 10:00 am.
Your story of the 20-dollar bill is just coincidence, not an act of God. The addiction, probably, but I’d credit that more to your personal willpower, or perhaps a simple transference of the addiction to another medium, such as religion.
I guess it comes down to a definition of a creator. If we take creator as putting intent into the universe and ultimately leading to us, then no. That’s an absurd notion. But if you are talking about an impersonal creator, such as some arbitrary laws of physics, then that would have to be a consideration. To think this huge universe with it’s hundreds of billions of galaxies all containing hundreds of billions of stars was all made so one of the trillions of lifeforms that have existed on one planet orbiting one star could exist is just putting meaning into the universe that isn’t there.
The universe is huge, it’s not made for your pleasure.
Actually someone randomly gave me money once too. It was just a dollar. And I hadn’t been praying for it. Maybe they had just watched Pay It Forward for all I know. I didn’t ask.
This is not unheard of.
And if you look like you’re low on cash, like you haven’t eaten lately, or like you don’t have a place to stay, it’s rather more likely to happen.
I know because I’ve given money, unsolicited, to people who looked like they could use it more than me. Only once have I given out a $20 bill, when I was a little bit drunk and had just watched a movie about poverty. I doubt that guy was you, Danny. But it happens.
Come on . hose Christians are some of the greatest minds that ever lived – Facilis
I don’t know what “hose Christians” are, so I’ll assume you meant “those Christians”, i.e. those you had previously mentioned: Bill Craig, N.T. Wright and Plantinga.
You cannot be serious! Can you? I mean, really? Compared to, say, Thales, Euclid, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes, Augustine, al-Haytham, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Leonardo, Galileo, Kepler, Hobbes, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Kant, Euler, Gauss, Darwin, Einstein, Goedel, von Neumann, Turing… – and those are only a few of the tiny minority (consisting almost entirely of well-off males) who have had the chance to show their greatness – and I’ve restricted myself to philosophy, mathematics and science and (through ignorance) to western culture (yes, Islam is part of western culture).
All of Craig, Wright and Plantinga must have reasonable cognitive abilities – that does not mean their ideas are not stupid. Clever people can find elaborate defences for stupid ideas – that’s what I meant by “the fancy stupid”.
Danny,
How sad it must be to live in a world where it’s easier to believe there’s an invisible being in the sky doing Jedi Mind Tricks for your benefit than it is to believe a stranger would care.
KnockGoats – I don’t know if you’re still about, but Piltdown has responded to a question of yours (well, the ‘other’ you) on an old thread.
Reviewing this thread, we have an interesting contrast between three among the theist approaches to arguing with atheists regularly encountered on Pharyngula:
The slippery: Facilis, who claims there is evidence for God, but carefully avoids saying what it is.
The obnoxious liar: Brute. (Yes, I realise he’s toned it down, but until he admits and apologises for the early lies, I will continue to regard him with contempt.)
The “Well I think this and you think that”: danny m, who is neither slippery nor obnoxious, but does not seem to realise there is a difference between informed and uninformed opinions.
All these are common types; rarest of all is the informed, intelligent and straghtforward, although they do appear occasionally.
Wowbagger@392,
Thanks!
So Danny thinks prayer works.
When I was out of work in the early 90s and couldn’t find a decent job to save my life, I didn’t pray for a good job, I pounded pavement (and worked some crap jobs) until I got one. Or I would have waited out the economy. You see, that’s the difference between me and a godbot: I knew why jobs were scarce: The economy sucked, for a lot of reasons. It had nothing to do with some invisible space god. I also knew that sitting on my ass and praying for a job would have me living on the streets.
When I finally understood that I’m a sufferer of chronic depression, I didn’t pray for a cure. I went to the doctor, and got on anti-depressants. An imaginary friend on a cloud didn’t give me depression because he had some fucked up notion of “testing” me; depression runs through both sides of my family. I just happen to live in a time when science has figured out some ways to combat it.
When my brother complained about a health problem, I didn’t pray for it to go away. I urged him to go to the doctor, and it turned out he had cancer. He’s alive now, thanks to science, not some imaginary sky friend. If it weren’t for millions of hours of research by thousands of scientists, he might have been diagnosed with another kind of cancer, and treated in a way that would have been detrimental to his form of it. Prayer didn’t–and couldn’t–save him. It was science that saved him.
When I was divorced, I didn’t pray for a boyfriend or new husband. I hung out with friends, and got active in things I cared about. Eventually, I met someone I could tolerate having around more often than not. Okay, so it was love and all that, too, but there are lots of people I love that I can bear only in small doses (Hi, Mom).
Over and over again, wishful thinking, aka prayer, did jack shit to improve my life or get me anything I wanted, or help those I love. Getting off my ass and doing something was a lot more reliable.
That’s an interesting statement because it can easily be read in either of two completely opposing ways – even ignoring the fact that it’s an untrue description of atheism! See replies in #281 (ctygesen) and #282 (Kel) for people immediately taking it the two different ways.
1. “Atheism relies on the premise that nothing can become something [unless there’s] some sort of intelligent intervention.”
2. “Atheism relies on the premise that nothing can become something [with no need for] some sort of intelligent intervention.”
Just as Nick Lally’s spam was a gift and he has no right to require us to cherish it or publish it unrefuted, nor object to us laughing at the outstanding stupidity of it. Similarly, newspapers (including freely distributed ones) get used to wrap fish and chips or make papier mache penguins, instead of being read and treasured as their egotistical perpetrators would like.
The fact that i have no hair,or no belief in deities,does not at all imply that i require an intervention of any kind,for my non-existing hair,or belief,what are you talking about?
NB : I have plenty of hair left….
@ Danny M #363:
Untrue. Firstly, people (at least here!) generally have considered a creator. It’s just that the intelligent, well-educated and honest ones then rejected the idea as wrong after all that consideration; whereas the stupid, ignorant, dishonest are too shallow to consider things properly at all or they have vested interests in hanging on to religious lies.
One deconvert recently posting here, Dan Silverman, didn’t have science playing any part in his deconversion. The whole of reality is against religions being true. Science is merely the icing on the cake for finding out what really is true instead. There were atheists long before there was a decent quantity and quality of science. Eg The Bible mentions their existence – though only in order to dishonestly attack them of course.
You’ve already admitted your profound ignorance on many things. What you’re being dishonest about is in pretending your ignorance doesn’t matter when it does matter (and in other circumstances you would be fully aware of that, eg in consulting/hiring any sort of expert). If you took the trouble to educate yourself, you’d find out why your “proof” of god by coincidence and confirmation bias is no such thing. You’re apparently the sort of person who could convince themselves they had a viable gambling system too. It’s those and other very common human flaws which have led you to believe foolishly in stuff which isn’t true, eg your god.
A correction: not all intelligent and or rational people necessarily reject the idea of a creator. Some intelligent and or rational people with religious beliefs consider it unnecessary and or inappropriate to involve the aforementioned belief of said creator in unrelated matters. For instance, I believe in God (and that God used the laws of physics to create our current universe), and accept Jesus Christ as my savior, but, I think William Dembski, of Discovery Institute infamy, is an utterly malicious idiot for saying that all sciences are incomplete without involvement of Christ.
Good morning. Where were we………
Interesting case study…………
I find it rather curious that the majority of the participants in this thread passionately defend their belief system, (a belief in nothing?).
You see, I entered your “church” (gathering place) and attacked your philosophical doctrines and many objected as strongly as the CADC, (whatever that is) has to a perceived attack on their spiritual beliefs.
Is it possible that you, (collectively), have more in common with the religious fundamentalist than you thought? You felt threatened within the confines of your “church” and lashed out?
Brute,
Can your lies, scumbag. What you actually did was start posting comments about Obama being a Christian, which was somehow supposed to be something no-one here knew. You dishonesty quote-mined a speech of his, falsely claimed no-one here criticised his religiosity, and referred to him as “Barry Hussein”, which only racist turds do, and “The Messiah”, which no-one ever does other than satirically.
Atheism, if that’s what you’re referring to as “philosophical doctrines” and “spiritual beliefs”, is a lack of belief in gods. That’s all. Atheists don’t have a common “belief system” beyond that.
Is it possible that you, (collectively), have more in common with the religious fundamentalist than you thought? – Brute
No, it isn’t. Do you really think we haven’t heard that crap a thousand times, fuckwit? People “lashed out” at you because you’re a lying racist moron.
referred to him as “Barry Hussein”, which only racist turds doracists turds and the relentlessly sarcastic (like at Wonkette). I’m fairly sure is the former, though.
“scumbag”, “fuckwit”?
KnockGoats,
I’ll have to remember those two in the event I happen to debate with another 11 year old.
That’s not a correction. Those would be the dishonest ones I already mentioned – a condition which you carefully (and dishonestly!) excluded from your version. You then continue with further dishonesties in the rest of your post. It’s habitual with you.
Honesty is the most important factor. All religious people absolutely have to be dishonest about their religion/religiosity – the more religious, the more dishonest. That comes about because reality (and any other religion!) contradicts the religion. The most honest among the religious, such as the modern type of Unitarian who admits to merely wanting there to be a sky-daddy and doesn’t claim to really know anything about its properties (and who, consequently, fails to persecute rival religionists for having different rituals) or the modern type of Buddhist (rather than the original god-believing but ignoring type), being barely religious at all.
Intelligence is what allows an honest person to work out by themselves and very quickly that religion is bogus. Education (in terms of real life as well as in academia) is what pushes a person of lesser intelligence to eventually work out that religion is bogus (possibly only when specifically directed towards the key contradictions by other people). But honesty is always essential to the process. Eg the ones who’ve worked out religion’s bogosity but who decide to run the show for their own more immediate benefit (instead of imaginary future benefit), by still calling themselves religious, are also dishonest.
Oops – very sorry to Stanton for mixing Brute’s post at #401 with his @#400, while paging up and down in the browser window. My “You then continue with further dishonesties in the rest of your post.” no longer applies, since it was based on Brute’s post’s contents. However everything else still applies, including the habitualness among the religious of lying (including the necessary self-deceptions to avoid themselves noticing).
Brute,
“Scumbag” and “fuckwit” are purely descriptive terms in the case of a lying racist moron such as yourself.
Brute, you are confusing someone telling us to consider a creator (god), with us telling them they must not believe. You need to see the disctincion.
A lot of atheists, including myself, grew up in religious households. The irrationanlity of trying to reconcile the bible (a terrible book that bites its own tail time and time again) with the real world caused us to consider the option of no god. Then all the irrationality fell by the wayside.
I’m confused by the “random guy gave me $20, therefore God” argument. How is that supposed to work? I mean, doesn’t it violate the whole “Free Will” aspects of God’s inscrutability? If he/she/it is free to muck around with one person’s mind to get them to hand a stranger $20, why not go whole hog and simply twist everyone’s head to “believe in (a single unified) God”? Save them all from the fiery pit and all.
Really, the concept of free will is so inviolate that this can’t be done to save everyone from an eternity of torture, but to prove to one guy God is willing to make some other random person into a meat puppet long enough to have them fork over $20?
@Brute
Is it possible that your version of these events is inaccurate and self-serving?
Bitching about the insults instead of addressing the substance is intellectual white-flaggery.
I said PZ’s stunt was tasteless and disrespectful, people answer by saying that taste is subjective, and it was *supposed* to be disrespectful! And besides, what the folks in the congregation did, was way worse!
I’m glad that these Pharyngula folks agree with me about the Cracker affair.
Confusingly, they write as though they are arguing with me :)
PZ’s stunt was of no consequence. It was just a nailed cracker, and a couple of books put in the trash. But yes it was disrespectful to anyone who thinks crackers are important. Tough.
Rudy,
Don’t be stupider than you can help. You completely ignored the context, and made clear you considered being disrespectful was a bad thing.
KnockGoats,
Right. I think your Mom may be calling for you to come up from out of the basement now…..
Nerd of Redhead,
Who is forcing you to consider a creator? Take it or leave it if you want. I was merely attempting (apparently unsuccessfully) to compare the oversensitivity of the adherents of the two theologies.
I respect your opinion and your conclusion regarding a deity. I believe that the (in this case) Christians are simply requesting the same.
Remember, the Golden Rule?
I don’t ever ask God for money, much less 20 dollars. And i asked for a week not my whole life.
And anyone that knew anything about addiction would not say that my will power saved me.
I’m just telling you that i have prayed for things and gotten them. You can pray for your vodka to overfill or whatever if you want. I have no desire to ask for that when i already know He does practical things for me.
the adherents of the two theologies. – Brute
Atheists, by definition, do not have a theology, fuckwit.
I believe that the (in this case) Christians are simply requesting the same. – Brute
No, they are demanding that no-one criticise their stupid beliefs, fuckwit.
Way not to respond to any of the contents of the criticisms. Also, you leave out the fact that you were shown to be wrong about no one criticizing Obama’s religion.
Is it possible that your description of us it is merely projection?
Also, Blake’s Law
I also don’t think anyone felt “threatened” by any of your comments.
Sigh…. now you’re complaining about insults. Are you actually going to respond to the substance of any of the comments?
Brute, has anybody said you must become an atheist? No, and that is unlikely. But people like yourself indicate we will rot in hell if we don’t accept god/creator. Now, what part of that difference are you having trouble with, so we can explain it to you?
By the way, science is not a democratic process. Your opinion matters not to science. My opinion does matter to science to a very small degree since I am still a working scientist. If you want science to consider a creator, it must obey the rules of science. Oh yes, god cannot be the result or cause of any observation. So creationism/ID is not science, and never will be. Science cannot refute religion, and religion cannot refute science. Science is only refuted by more science. But religion looks silly if it magic book doesn’t follow what science says are the facts of the natural world.
Feynmaniac,
Also, you leave out the fact that you were shown to be wrong about no one criticizing Obama’s religion.
I already addressed this…….
As with Godwin’s Law, the person who compares the atheist to a religious fundamentalist is considered to have lost the argument.
What kind of nonsense is this? Internet use law made up by some kid in 1990? Please…..
Come on….you seem to be a rational adult. I expressed interest in your theological opinion. We are discussing the existance of God which deals with theology. Whether you like the word or not, you do possess a theological opinion.
(Stimulating discussion by the way).
Hehe. He ALMOST got to the Courtier’s Reply too. Nice.
Brute, either loose the attitude or go away. You are discussing nothing, just attempting to ridicule with your feeble mind.
I respect your opinion and your conclusion regarding a deity. – Brute
Sure you do. That’s why you came here spouting lies and insults.
Why is it that retards can’t quote properly?
Brute, I am an agnostic with very definite theological opinions–mainly to the effect that the existence or nonexistence of God is not a question we mortals are likely to be able to answer to any satisfactory level. So, like Kierkegaard, I’ve come to believe that belief in God is a choice. It can be the right choice–as it arguably was for Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer–or the wrong choice–as it was for Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolf or the Christian Identity types. I can respect the decision to believe. Indeed, I have many intelligent friends who do. At the same time, I can also understand the reservations some of my atheist friends that such a decision can serve as an end to inquiry.
I have not decided the question of belief in my own life, but I can say that I find the idea of a personal god–one who actively drives the bus–to be problematic. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a God that would “design in” sickle-cell anemia as a hedge against malaria or wasp larvae that devour a spider from the inside out. It would be easy to conclude that any God who chooses to design in such a manner would have to be a right bastard. On the other hand, I have no problem at all with Spinoza’s God. But then, as Stephen Roberts said, “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.”
No, it was made by Blake Stacey , and you comments add further evidence to his law.
My theological opinion is the same as my opinion on unicorn husbandry.
Also, can you please use quotation marks in your comments to make it easier to read?
HAHAHA FUNNY HAHA!!! The one about Obama is HILARIOUS!
If these punks take their argument further, they will find out that the founding fathers were NOT christian.
GOTHCA!!!
But people like yourself indicate we will rot in hell if we don’t accept god/creator.
Nerd of Redhead,
I thought that you don’t believe in hell, (or heaven) so why do you care what they think? Why so touchy?
I think that the New England Patriots are a wonderful football team…..maybe you don’t. What does it matter?
No one is forcing you to believe in anything…… Your Atheisim is evidence of that. You’re free to believe whatever you want to.
Ray Ladbury,
That is the most reasoned, level headed comment I’ve read here. Thank you.
Also, can you please use quotation marks in your comments to make it easier to read?
Feynmaniac,
Yes.
Brute, we have to put up with that shit from society as whole because we are a minority. But this this an atheist site, so godbots like yourself need to loose the attitude in order to be polite-and usually don’t. And the attitude I explained is implicit in your statments. If you want to discuss, quit trying to ridicule, and ask honest questions. We will either respond to your attitude with attitude of our own, or to your honest questions with honest answers. Make up your mind and live with the consequences.
Knocksgoat,
I ignored the context (initially) because the post I was responding to, didn’t provide it. Nobody’s fault but mine.
People kindly provided the context (and gave me a hook “Cracker Gate” to google with).
The context turned out not to change my opinion of PZ’s actions. This appears to upset you, or at least make you question my intelligence. You are free to hold your opinion of course.
Yes, I do think being disrepectful to this particular cracker is A Bad Thing. I also believe it is just a cracker. My attempt at humor in my last post seems to have missed it’s mark, despite the smiley. Oh well.
Imagine your reaction if PZ had taken the only known copy of a lost treatise on mechanics by Archimedes, and burned it. It is, after all, just a piece of paper (or parchment). Now imagine the yawns of Jack Chick about this.
This is the position we are in, most of us here on Pharyngula, with respect to the Catholic Eucharist host. It is no biggie to us, but for some reason that’s hard to fathom, those Catholics over there are getting all upset about people disrespecting it. There must be something wrong with them; it’s just a cracker.
If you have trouble empathizing with them, and the nuttiness of Donoghue and the Catholic League certainly makes that understandable, maybe go back to my kachina doll example. Or the Native Americans who wanted museums to stop displaying sacred items, for a real life situation.
Imagine your reaction if PZ had taken the only known copy of a lost treatise on mechanics by Archimedes, and burned it. It is, after all, just a piece of paper (or parchment).
In your investigation of the context, you obviously missed the sheer density of utterly failed analogies in the comments expressing concerns similar to yours. Pray tell, what does my reaction to the wanton destruction of a priceless, unique object have to do with the disposal of a smidgen of stale cracker of no distinction and negligible value?
Go back and read more crackergate, seriously. Everything you are feebly trying to say has been said, and been shown to be bullshit.
Yes, I do think being disrepectful to this particular cracker is A Bad Thing. I also believe it is just a cracker.
Please put two and two together, because you’re not making sense. There is no way to distinguish “this particular cracker” if it’s “just a cracker.” So, you’re either categorically opposed to the abuse of stale bread products, or you’re not truthfully reporting your beliefs.
Rudy, you have expressed your opinion. We hear you but don’t, and won’t, agree with you. Now, what are you options?
You can keep harping on it, and get attitude returned for your attitude,
Or, you can accept that we have heard your concerns, and it is time to move on.
Your choice.
And anyone that knew anything about addiction would not say that my will power saved me.
I’ve worked in the drug programs, and I know one thing for sure: AA and the other religious oriented programs have abysmal success rates. When they do have long term successes, it is merely by trading one addiction for another: Drugs for religion.
Willpower doesn’t overcome addiction alone, but without willpower, you can’t even start to overcome it. You certainly can’t get to the other side of the road without it.
Any addict who gives too much credit to the crutch that helped him walk again rather than walking on his own, is more likely to fall again. I wish I could say I came up with that line on my own, but it came from a drug counselor I worked with.
Imagine your reaction if PZ had taken the only known copy of a lost treatise on mechanics by Archimedes, and burned it. It is, after all, just a piece of paper (or parchment). – Rudy
No it isn’t; it contains important historical information. The cracker is just a cracker, which was intended to be destroyed. See the difference?
Nerd’s: Um, I didn’t think I was harping on it; Knocksgoat seemed to think I was being disingenuous, so I wanted to clarify.
And I didn’t call anyone a moron or stupid, so I think most of the “attitude” was coming my way.
CJo, what distinguishes this particular cracker is that a religious community used it in a ritual of theirs. Disrespecting it is, to most people of a politically liberal bent, disrespecting that community.
So, it’s being disrespectful the way writing cuss words on a Mormon temple would be (though not illegal that way; well, make it the sidewalk outside). That is, rude, boorish, and insulting. Inside that community of course, their conception of the disrespect runs deeper, and is not one I share.
You are not the only one to say that my arguments were raised and blown away in Cracker Gate comment threads. That is a puzzling thing to say: if the arguments were so compelling, why not just repeat them here?
Anyway, I’ll give this a rest.
So, it’s being disrespectful the way writing cuss words on a Mormon temple would be (though not illegal that way; well, make it the sidewalk outside). – Rudy
Hey, that’s a good idea! Given the Mormon lies and bigotry over Prop. 8, I think “cuss words” (what a quaint expression!) on the sidewalk outside every Mormon Temple in the world are called for.
Your almost exact arguments we had seen at least 200+ times before. We are just bored/fatigued with them.
I don’t think you were harping on it, but you were heading there. See the fatigue factor.
Knocksgoat,
Quaint indeed, I’ve got two kids, and I have developed a terrible habit of cleaning up my formerly colorful language :( Even the internet doesn’t seem to fix it.
I strongly agree with your emotion about Prop. 8.
—-“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”—-
This is a statement that a crap load of scientist signed recently. There are reasons I bring this up.
1. People seem to think that I just turn a blind eye to scientist. Ok.. I am not a scientist of any sort, so I have to-in a large way-listen to the scientist. These people who signed this (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660) have pretty cool credentials.
2. A whole bunch of scientist say examination of it should be encouraged. Now, tell me why I should not listen to them but rather listen to the other scientists. Seeing as how I am no scientist, I listen to the ones who are open to careful examination, which I thought was what the whole scientific method is about.
The home page is (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php)
Now, you may say the arguments over, but these scientists suggest that it is not over. Why should I listen to you over them? And that is not a rhetorical question.
And what’s up with all this cracker talk? Why does anyone care that someone did something to a cracker?
Hehe. Good question. Catholics seem to be very attached to magic crackers.
You didn’t just link to the discovery institute did you? Ooof.
Danny, you’ll learn I suspect. But painfully slowly.
The DI=ID=Creationism and as we’ve stated that’s not an scientific explanation.
The DI has done no research. They’re favorite ruse is Irreducible Complexity… and that hypothesis/goofiness has been smacked down so many times it’s laughable that anyone brings it up anymore.
Look up the Dover case or go to youtube and search Ken Miller. He gives a lecture on the Dover case and his testimony. It’ll be a perfect primer for you. Also, Ken Miller is a Catholic.
Danny M, we know all about the petition. Ever hear of the Steve petition? Only signed by scientists name Steve or a reasonable variant thereof, and it backs the theory of evolution in its entirety. Guess what, the Steve petition has more signatures than yours, including Nobel Prize winners. And guess what would happen if all other scientists signed the Steve petition. The numbers would be overwheming in favor of evolution. And the list your scientists reads like a who’s who of failures.
Hey man, don’t go there. You don’t want to know about the cracker.
Uhg. Failed to proofread… again.
Danny M, it takes a little work to figure this out, but most of the scientists who are against evolution are working way out of their specialty, and have a religious axe to grind, or in many cases are engineers, not scientists. (Not that there’s anything wrong with being an engineer; but I’ve known them to be a little more susceptible to crackpot ideas than the average scientist. Just sayin’).
The great, great majority of working scientists, esp. in the relevant areas, accept evolution as the fact that it is, the same way that astronomers all agree that the earth goes around the sun.
http://www.discovery.org
You must be new here.
Hm.
Something you have to understand is that all scientists argue their science from actual falsifiable evidence. They publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, with the materials and methods and what they concluded from their experiments.
“Peer review” means that a fellow scientist who is knowledgeable in the field being published in will review the paper, and if there are any problems with it, point out what the problems are.
This may sound like scientists can form a club to exclude someone who has a dissenting opinion, but you have to understand that you can’t just call anything science; science has standards of evidence.
At the Dover trial, Michael Behe, who is a biochemist, made certain claims about certain biological systems (blood clotting; bacterial flagellum). Some of these claims turned out to be false. The most charitable conclusion is that he was lazy; that as a scientist, he had not done the due diligence of informing himself of developments in the field he was making claims about. The most uncharitable conclusion is that he was lying.
He also claimed that it wasn’t necessary for science to demand falsifiable evidence. When pressed, he agreed that astrology would be a science if the requirement for falsifiable evidence was removed. This would be an absurd lowering of standards.
Everything that scientists say about evolution and the age of the earth is based on the falsifiable evidence from geology, nuclear chemistry, palaeontology, and biology.
Those who “dissent” do not actually have falsifiable evidence to support their dissent. They are either ignorant of the actual science, or deny that it matters, or deny that it exists.
That’s why you should listen to us: We are simply supporting the scientists who provide the real evidence.
Will this cracker thing ever finish?
IT’S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER 1000+ comments
Fresh Cracker 1500 + comments
The Great Desecration 2300 + comments
There are a few more threads with 1000+ comments dealing with this. Quite frankly I think anything that could be said has already been said multiple times.
+5 funny.
A thousand scientist saying something that is contradictory to what 500 scientist say does not make the thousand correct. Science is not a democracy.
As for the people having a religous axe to grind, that may or may not be. In a lot of cases I think it probably is. But I think it’s true for a lot of people on the other side of the argument also. Just because someone is not willing to believe in God does not mean that he is dead wrong. Sometimes it makes a huge difference and other times it does not.
Noble prizes, they have been known to give stuff like that to dictators. I think Al Gore got something like that, a noble peace thing or something, I don’t really understand what war he stopped but whatever.
All I am saying is– You say these scientists are quacks, other people say they are not. But I am subject to ridicule for questioning the Darwinian theory for evolution? Look, I don’t know who the better scientists are, but at least I see what they wrote. In my opinion, you have no scientific process without careful consideration. So when I hear people mock these scientist because they stated what they stated, it makes me question why.
Probably the first thing you did was to try and see what was wrong with the scientist. More than likely you never stopped and thought, hmm, I wonder if there is anything to it. And that tells me something.
erm Danny.
Watch this.
You may learn something. I’m crossing my fingers.
Gah! Atheism does not equate to science. We defend science because it works. Just because you are ignorant of science it doesn’t mean we are “passionately defending our belief system.” You’re wrong when it comes to science, it’s as simple as that.
No, being a troll gets an extreme response. You give a straw-man attack on something you don’t understand and get lashed for it by people who do understand it. Again, don’t equate science to atheism.
What the hell is a troll?
Danny, you are right about science not being a democracy. But, lets say it is. Now, lets get rid of the engineers from your petition (they are not scientists), along the dentists, doctors, and vets (same reason). Also, drop the requirement that only Steves sign the other petition. Now, would numbers like 100,000 for evolution versus 150-200 against seem like there is any real argument in science about the validity of evolution?
Now, if the scientists against evolution want to change our minds, here is what they have to do. They have to find physical evidence that is not supported by the theory of evolution, but is supported by another theory. Please note that there is no competing theory at this time in the scientific literature, making that job even harder. Then they have to publish this data, along with the competing theory in the primary scientific literature. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for just such a scientist who overthrows the Theory of Evolution.
Also, keep this in mind. SCOTUS has declared creationism is a relgious theory. A US distric court has included ID as a religious theory. So there is an extremely high burden of proof for any scientist proposing ID/creationism in any form.
Danny. You contradict yourself without even knowing you’ve done it.
A scientist standing up and saying “I believe in Unicorns.” doesn’t make it a scientific idea. It’s not even worth noting.
A scientist standing up and saying I’ve found a herd of Unicorns on a small island in the North Sea… could be.
Danny M
Ok. Tell us what specific evolutionary research is wrong, and then show the research that you think demonstrates that the scientific consensus on evolution is incorrect specific to that research. What would be nice is actual research done by scientists in the appropriate fields of study instead of non related sciences. Just claiming they don’t agree with it doesn’t do much without anything to back it up.
The ToE is supported by many fields of science with research done by tens of thousands of autonomous scientists in their fields of study. This includes paleontology, biology, genetics, anthropology, geology, etc..
All anyone is asking is to actually supply actual research that shows the currently accepted consensus to be wrong and they will be given a hearing in the “courts of science”. That is how science works.
Making vast claims about the holes in the ToE or the fact that science has been wrong before or that scientists aren’t fair or they are mean or that some kook has the evidence but doesn’t want to show it because of the discriminating nature of the scientists is not providing any support for their assertions.
@DannyM
And you’re telling us that you don’t understand science. Start with Behe. Read what scientists not-on-the-DI-list have said about his work.
Read the transcripts of the Dover trial where Behe admitted on the stand that he didn’t follow current scientific developments.
Read the peer reviewed studies in reputable journals that have demonstrated the soundness of Intelligent Design.
Oh wait…
What you are for insisting on promoting your ignorance as fact, against all discernible evidence.
Right, exactly. Science is based on the evidence.
Evolutionary biology has the evidence. Evolutionary biology wins.
Again, right. Evolutionary biology follows the scientific process; those who “question” (or more accurately, deny) evolution don’t. How hard is this to understand?
You wrote: “I see what the [“ID” proponents] wrote”.
Did they write anything based on evidence?
Oh, I’ve wondered if there was something to it. And then I see what the argument is, and it’s just an argument from ignorance; a flat-out denial based on assertion.
And those are the good arguments. Some of them are even dumber than that.
“The DI=ID=Creationism” So are you saying that if someone believes that there is an Intelligent Creator, that that person can not use the scientific process?
This is the main point of this post— The statement they made did not mention creation, they mentioned darwinian evolution. So it does not matter what proof they may or may not have on creation.
They say,
“Hey, let’s look at darwinian evolution again.”
And your response is,
“No! No I will not look at the darwinian theory again to examine it, because there is no proof for creation.”
That really does not make sense.
On that list
There’s more historians who deny the holocaust than biologists who reject evolution. There’s always going to be a few people who go against the standard, I even heard of an astrophysicist recently who wrote a book claiming the earth was the centre of the universe. The truth is that there’s an overwhelming consensus on evolution, it’s one of the strongest theories in science. The Discovery Institute (who wouldn’t defend Intelligent Design under oath) is trying to play a political game.
In the end it doesn’t matter how many scientists signed that list. Science is done in academia, and that’s one place where Intelligent Design is not. It’s re-branded creationism, and there’s still no evidence for it. No tests done. No real peer reviewed work. But there has been a hell of a lot of evangelism for the idea, and that’s not how science works.
This remember that there are millions of scientistis around the world and the majority have a belief in the supernatural in some from (from theist to pantheist.) the overwhelming majority of those have no problem with evolution, not to mention as do most of the major churches. Evolution works, and the DI is dishonest for playing their game in the public arena as opposed to fighting it out in academia.
Danny, what is Darwinian evolution? As a working scientist, I am unfamiliar with the term. In this country, it is only used by creobots and IDiots. You are showing your ignorance. Darwin first proposed evolution 150 years ago. Since then, 150 years of improvements have been made to his theory, and it now includes things like genes, genomes, DNA, and other things not included in Darwin’s original theory. The present day Theory of Evolution is usually call Modern Synthesis.
Cite the primary scientific literature where evidence against Modern Synthesis exists. Or, give up.
Danny. Just watch the video I posted the link to. Watch the whole thing. THEN comeback. It addresses everything you’ve brought up, essentially.
Scientists signing a letter isn’t science. It’s propaganda. You’re right science isn’t a democracy. Letters mean nothing. Research is everything. They have NONE. ID isn’t science.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
“One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument” – fits what Brute has done quite well.
Actually, some people here have written some thoughtfull replies, so my last post i guess doesn’t apply to all of you.
Danny M, this is an old story for most of us but not for you. Here is proof that creationism equals intelligent design. It is cdesign proponentsists.
No Danny M, sorry. Its the fact they aren’t bringing anything new to the table. It is the same rehashed and debunked canards over and over. Yes sometimes there is a new twist (IC for example) but its the same thing over and over again with no actual empiricism involved. There is lots of talk about the holes in the theory but they have nothing that fills those holes.
ID and creationism in many ways are just a constant attack on evolution with nothing to offer in return.
There is absolutely zero evidence that backs Creationism nor Intelligent Design, just lots of wishful thinking and hand waving.
If they want to be taken seriously
and I’m repeating myself here
THEY NEED TO OFFER UP RESEARCH THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED RESEARCH TO BE WRONG. And beyond that, disproving a date, or a small thing in DNA or other minutia does not take down the whole theory as it is supported by multiple fields with hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers.
Feynmaniac:
>Quite frankly I think anything that could be said has already been >said multiple times.
The multiverse in action!
Cool, a real live scientist in the room!
There was a time when only a few people believed in evolution. The amount of people in the evolution group doesn’t impress me.
That reminds me of the church people who told me not to cuss cause it’s wrong. I say, “Why is it wrong, where does the bible say that?” They say, “Every preacher will tell you it’s wrong. They can’t all be wrong.”
Yeah right, that’s what everyone thought when the catholics tried to rule the world in the dark ages. They told everyone what the bible said and didn’t permit people to see for themselves. Majority means crap to me.
I’ll look at that thing but not right now. I’m going to hang with my wife. You guys take it easy. She says no more blogging for now. See you later and just say no to trolling.
While a few scientists are evangelising ID, millions of scientists are continuing their work on evolutionary biology.
Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it’s tested every day in the field. I can’t think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they’re right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.
Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it’s survived that test of time. – Ken Miller on evolution
There was a time when only a few people believed in evolution. The amount of people in the evolution group doesn’t impress me.
Fine. Forget the numbers. What about the EVIDENCE?
All the time I’m saying that. When I wake up in the morning the first thing I do is throw open a window and shout “No! No I will not look at the darwinian theory again to examine it, because there is no proof for creation.”
And my neighbors always shout “You freaking stoner! This is downtown Oakland! Go find a fundie to shout at” “Shitloads of smart people already examined it again!” And wrote about it!” “And ‘shitloads’ is kinda science-y, shut up” “Less shouting, more research!” “You holding?”
Then we have our atheistic baby stomping trisexual orgy and brainstorming session on how to overthrow the world. I’ll admit we copped that last bit from Berkeley. Our overthrow will be better. We got Neurosis and Too $hort on the soundtrack.
oh for fucks sake.
Kel: It was acquired under false pretenses because when you receive communion, you receive it with the understanding that it is to be consumed immediately and not taken out of the church. Therefore, to receive communion and to not consume it immediately, but to instead take it out of the church would be acquiring it under false pretenses regardless of what you plan to do with it afterwards. Suppose someone came to me and said “Hey, here’s a FSM poster that PZ Myers gave me. When he gave it to me he said it was very important to him, but that I could have it if I would take good care of it. You can have it and I don’t care what you do with it.” Would it be right for me to tear it up and throw it in the trash in front of a bunch of people? I don’t think so. It wouldn’t be illegal and it wouldn’t be persecuting him, but it wouldn’t be the ethical thing to do either.
Also, in case I wasn’t clear:
I don’t think that Christians are “persecuted” in this country any more than I think white men are discriminated against.
I do consider what Prof. Myers did Christianity bashing.
I don’t think he should go to jail or receive threats for it.
I don’t think anyone is a terrible person if they don’t believe in God.
I do wish we could all just get along.
This list was originally posted by abb3w here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/entropy_and_evolution.php#comment-1222005
Danny, please read through these points. You don’t have to be a scientist, just figure out which if any you have a problem with. If there is some ID argument that you think is good, compare it to this list and figure out what part of the list it is saying is wrong:
It was acquired under false pretenses because when you receive communion, you receive it with the understanding that it is to be consumed immediately and not taken out of the church.
Dealt with. Repeatedly and devastatingly. Why are we still going over the same damn arguments, again?
What you are getting at with that “with the understanding” is some kind of implied contract. No such implication is made during the service. No attempt is made on the part of the church to convey this understanding, nor to confirm that it has been conveyed. The weirdo in the dress gives you a cracker. Full stop. End of episode.
Kevin. It was only a big deal to Catholics. If they didn’t hold a silly belief they wouldn’t get offended.
We ridicule ALL religions here. They’re all pointless. And if pointing at the absurdity of faith and silly beliefs is “bashing” we’re all guilty.
The Catholic church gives away crackers every sunday and there’s no test or body search after… so don’t pretend some great crime was committed.
Suppose someone came to me and said “Hey, here’s a FSM poster that PZ Myers gave me. When he gave it to me he said it was very important to him, but that I could have it if I would take good care of it. You can have it and I don’t care what you do with it.” Would it be right for me to tear it up and throw it in the trash in front of a bunch of people? I don’t think so. It wouldn’t be illegal and it wouldn’t be persecuting him, but it wouldn’t be the ethical thing to do either.
Sure. Let’s also suppose that PZ was running some kind of cephalopod worshipping scheme involving dispensing large numbers of these posters. And let’s further suppose that someone attended one of his rallies, and rolled his poster up to take home, but found out quickly that folding, not rolling, is the proper way to prepare the Noodly Image for transport. And let’s keep on going and suppose that this person was attacked at the rally for rolling the poster, and later faced threats from many of PZ’s Tentacled Minions, including the threat of sanction from a secular institution to which he or she belonged. Are you still so utterly certain that it would be unethical for you to damage –say, by rolling it up– one of these posters in a demonstration of solidarity with this person who had been so abused?
So you know it had to be acquired under false pretences. Could it be that the person who received the cracker saved it because they cherished it? Could it be that they weren’t aware of the consequences for not swallowing it? I’m saying that regardless of how it was aquired, PZ is not culpable for how it was obtained.
In any case it doesn’t matter, because PZ is not Catholic. There is no rule that says that people who are not members of a religion have to abide by the rules of the religion. The question is would you stop eating beef given how sacred it is to the Hindus?
CJO, #479
I’d add to your analogy: it was expected that the first person given the FSM poster by PZ was, his or herself, meant to tear it up in front of PZ after being given it – the crackers, after all, are given to a person to be destroyed – and instead chose not to destroy the poster but take it away and then give it to someone else.
A part of me is concerned that all this analogy talk is going to bring our dear friend Pete Rooke out of the woodwork…
If people would stop pushing their religion on others then this problem would go away. Stop holding things as sacred above humanity, and stop expecting others to regard what you hold as sacred.
Danny,
The difference between a mob majority and a scientific majority is that scientists have evidence.
By the way, did you still want to chat?
yes there was a time few people believed in germ theory as well and gravity and that the sun is the center of the solar system.
The thing that changed all that?
Science. Evolution has the evidence and the research and well…. the science. Again I ask (i feel you are ignoring my comments), show me the research presented by the ID crowd or a creationist that overturns currently accepted evolutionary specific research.
Tell me what thing we know now used to be something science said but was overturned by Religion.
I see Kevin is still concerned about the cracker. Here’s a task for you Kevin. There were 30,000+ posts during and after Crackergate about those freaking bits of ground grain. Read them all, as some of us did at the time, and then come back to us and show us how your argument hasn’t been gone over hundreds of times already. With the same result. Your concern is misplaced.
Geez, 30,000 posts?? God, no wonder people are tired of this.
Kevin, despite the exasperating habit of Phara… uh, people here, to say that they don’t have to answer you because You’re Wrong and Old Threads Prove It, have mercy on them and drop the cracker thing.
At least for a while. I have a feeling it will come up again.
Truer words were never spoken. Sigh.
Yeah Rudy. You missed some crazy Catholics.
For anyone new, not to be missed – Owlmirror’s LOLCATIFIED condensed crackergate drama:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php#comment-980385
Kel: I don’t push my religion on anyone. I would, however, like a little bit of mutual respect between those with differing beliefs. And yes, I know it was acquired under false pretenses. It doesn’t matter that the person who took it cherished it at the time. That was not part of the deal when they received it. Let’s say you invited a friend over. When he got there, you invited him to help himself to a few beers. So he grabs a six pack out of the cooler and immediately leaves, taking it with him to a party at someone elses house. What would your impression of him be?
As for the giving up eating beef. No I wouldn’t. But I wouldn’t take a cow from a Hindu temple, slaughter it and eat it. I wouldn’t demand beef in a primarily Hindu city or invite a friend over who was Hindu and serve a nice rare steak to them.
“Oi mate, I said a few!”
Way to miss the point. Cows in general are regarded as sacred animals by Hindus, no matter where you get it from it’s still equally a crime. The point is that it’s impossible for one person to adhere to religions of others.
Respect is fine, but what happened with the events that led up to the cracker was not respect. The cracker became more important than life itself, and we can’t have that in our society. Catholics have no right to demand that the cracker be treated with respect any more than Hindu’s have the right to demand that a cow be the same.
Basically, no matter how indignant you are, there’s no ground that one religion should be able to dictate behaviour of people not in that religion beyond what is not acceptable in the greater society. It’s time to let this go, Jesus got nailed and there isn’t a goddamn thing you can do about it. Whining about how wrong it was won’t change the fact that it was thrown in the trash alongside a copy of the Koran (which some very tolerant Catholics sent to PZ in order for him to desecrate) and a copy of The God Delusion.
I think this one is the worst…BONUS INSTANCE: Senator Grassley’s Abuse of Power
US Senator Grassley, a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has demanded the financial records of a number of very prominent conservative, evangelical broadcast ministries. The demand was based on Grassley’s concern that these ministries are not spending their contributions properly. Grassley has admitted his concerns were in part driven by media accounts.
Apparently they are in favor of the “prosperity ministers” who steal millions of dollars from their donors and buy enormous mansions, fleets of airplanes for themselves and put their entire extended families on the the payroll.
Shame on Grassley for getting between these good christians and their dollars.
Kevin Camp wrote:
Now, here you’re actually getting close to an analogy that works. Bravo.
So, we go with that analogy. What would you do about that person? Would you just not invite them to another party? Does that sound fair to you?
Hold on, ’cause this is going to blow you away: it does to us, too.
That’s all we ever wanted for Webster Cook – to not be invited back to the Catholic Church, ever again. Of course the Church has that right – it’s their building and ceremony and they can do what they want. He broke their rules. If they had wanted to ban him from attending, none of us would have given half a crap.
But they didn’t do that, did they? They assaulted him, attempted to ruin his college career, and gave his name to the idiot media to run with it like the dispensers of low-intellectual-calorie garbage that they are. The Catholic League, a more low-rent bunch of attention seekers the world has never seen, decided it’d be worth a few column inches for them, so they jumped on board as well.
Religion is given special privileges yet again. Media circus pitches its tent in town; Webster Cook demonised for a ridiculous, minor, victimless non-crime.
That’s why PZ did what he did. That’s why we supported him. Because they over-reacted, and attempted to punish Webster Cook well beyond that which would be a reasonable reaction to the offence.
Does it make any more sense to you now?
@ Kel #466
Either a troll or a very well-designed Poe
My original post on the subject effectively calls the CADC a bunch of theocratic terrorists, and yet that is not somehow more “defamatory” than a politician whose only crime is subscribing to a theology to the left of Torquemada?!
Now I am depressed.
As mentioned before (way, way before!), the most telling part about the whole incident was that the only proper thing for the church to do was the one thing it didn’t do – ban or excommunicate him. They did just about every improper thing they could think of and hope to get away with against him (and, disgustingly, too many supposedly independent authorities let them), but not the one thing which was perfectly within their right to do.
And that’s because the Catholic church is (a) evil and (b) desperate for members. They can’t bear to lose anyone whom they can pretend counts as a member. They repeatedly lie about owning people who never joined in their own right or who subsequently left. Its deceitfulness is probably only matched by that of the Mormons (who pretend they’ve “converted” people long after death).
Some of the details you guys were mentioning I didn’t see in the first article I read about the incident in Florida, so I looked some more. All I can say is : ROFLMAO.
Man, the hypocrisy is so thick you can taste it. You guys say the church overreacted and that I was trying to find fault where there was none. Then you say things like he was attacked and threatened by people who value a symbol over human life. Lol, the vicious attack was the priest trying to take it back from him after he broke the rules of the establishment he was in. And the threats weren’t threats to harm him, they were threats to steal it back if he didn’t return it.
Reminds me of the scene from the Princess Bride: “You are trying to kidnap what I’ve rightfully stolen.”
Kevin,
Go back and read it again (and again if you have to) because you missed the death threats and actual attempts to have him expelled from school.