That Anglican archbishop, Rowan Williams, is complaining about the atheists again.
I’m not avoiding the point that the coolness of atheism is very much in evidence. The problem is it’s become a bit of a vicious circle. Atheism is cool, so books about atheism are cool.
They get a high profile, and books that say Richard Dawkins is wrong don’t get the same kind of publicity because atheism is the new cool thing.
It’s difficult to break into that, but plenty of people are trying.
He’s making a very common error of perspective. I hate to break the news to all of you, but atheism is not cool. It’s not cool at all. It’s the domain of nerds and geeks and sciencey weirdos with beards and snarky women who are way smarter than the guys chasing them. We are not rock stars. We are not fabulously sexy (well, except for Brian Cox). We tend not to have loud movie star personalities (well, except for Neil deGrasse Tyson). Nothing personal, but if you put together a line-up of one of the Kardashians, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Daniel Radcliffe, and Richard Dawkins, and showed them to the average person on the American street, most of our citizens’ eyes would light up in recognition at the first four, and look quizzically at the guy on the end. And no, it wouldn’t help much to swap in Brian Cox for Richard Dawkins.
But that’s the point: cool is a relative thing. Coolness depends on what you contrast it with. And that’s really Rowan Williams’ problem.
It’s not the coolness of atheism. It’s the lameness of religion.
Look at me. I’m moderately popular, and I’m a schlubby college professor at a small college. I’ve got a beard and I wear nerdy ties. I’m nobody. But stand me next to a priest, or a creationist, and the contrast makes me look white-hot and super-cool, even though I’m not. It’s been my cunning trick for years.
So the problem for Williams isn’t that atheism is cool at all — it’s that our cool/lame quotient rockets to stratospheric heights whenever we’re in opposition to old geezy wankers who are chanting antique gobbledygook about magic rabbis and dead people. And those apologists trying break into our schtick? All they are doing is making us look cooler.
There’s only one solution. If the priests just fade away and stop looking like such gomers next to us, then atheism will look much, much less cool. We’ll have to compete with Michael Bay and video games and porn for attention, and then there won’t be anyone chattering about how cool we are any more.
OH NO! I just revealed the secret to making atheism irrelevent — for all the religious folk to disappear into the woodwork. Now we’re dooooomed!
Nigel: It’s because horrorshow is a breath of fresh air compared to David Marshall. Horrorshow seems less dishonest and actually tries to engage. If we hadn’t already been exposed to David Marshall, horrorshow’s internally inconsistent nonsense would not seem as welcome. Once compare him/her to DM’s pompous chest-thumping uttered in lieu of actual argument, and refusal to say anything at length aside from “PZ and the Horde are so stupid and mean, and here’s why!”, it’s pretty clear why s/he doesn’t raise our ire as much. Because at least horrorshow tries.
Maybe you’re right. I’ll cut him some slack. It’s just when I see such patently stupid shit as his chronicles of Professor Bigdome Labcoat and his handwaving use of Original Sin (“because Jesus didn’t have it, then whatever I say; because everybody else does have it, then whatever I say”) I start wondering where the nearest lion-filled coliseum is.
Oh, don’t cut horrorshow too much slack, Brownian. Although s/he is less dishonest than David Marshall, s/he has said far more profoundly stupid shit than him as well.
Also, to wax poetic: Just because this thread was filled with the pungent stench of manure so early on, does not mean we need to appreciate the more subtle aroma of rotting garbage later on.
Since it is Aquinas’s argument that horrorshow finds so compelling (or actually, simply accepts because the RCC accepts it), here it is:
There are numerous obvious gaffes in the above – particularly his statement that “… there is the duration of the suffering because they do not die at once like those slain by the sword” (regarding crucifixion). This is true, but JC (supposedly) died in one evening. Other victims of crucifixion survived on the cross for many, many days. And then there is the post hoc rationalization that because Jesus (supposedly) had a perfect sense of touch, he therefore suffered more pain. One doesn’t follow from the other, and the idea that Jesus had a perfect sense of touch originates here anyway (Aquinas has to argue for that too, and his argument is just a bare assertion).
Note this is not ‘Sacred Tradition’ (as defined, for example, in the catechism of the RCC) – this is just a theological argument made over a millennium after the supposed crucifixion.
Waffler:
Assertions made by someone intelligent enough to recognize the logical problems with his theology, but not intellectually honest enough to follow those logical problems to their logical conclusion.
Thanks for the extended Aquinas quote. It’s been years since I’d read him. I’d forgotten how egregious his rationalizations really are.
Well, we’ve already noted that what is sensible to horrorshow must be Sacred Tradition to Catholics, and what he believes is what Christians believe, and what he boils up in a haggis is the very substance of Plato’s Ideal Haggis.
Aquinas had (obviously) a limited understanding of human physiology when he wrote this:
Mechanoreceptors (responsible for sensations of touch) =/= Nociceptors (responsible for sensations of pain)
Moreover, there is nothing in the concept of ‘perfection’ (whatever that’s suppose to mean) that entails higher sensitivity to pain, or, if it does, how Christ’s sensitivity to pain wasn’t so acute that all and any touches were unbearable.
Let’s assume Christ’s hearing was similarly ‘perfect’, using horrorshow’s use of the word (which clearly does not mean what he thinks it means, if he thought about it at all, which seems doubtful.)
What was the range of Christ’s hearing? On average, most humans can hear sounds between 20 Hz and 20 kHz. Could he hear sounds of 10 Hz? Could he hear infrasonic elephant calls? What about sounds as high as 30 kHz? Is that reasonable? What is the cut off in either direction? What’s the ‘perfect’ range of pitch? Is it infinite? If not, why not? Or is it, like one facet of general attractiveness of human faces, a mathematical mean? One standard deviation greater than the mean? One SD less than the mean?
Similarly, was Jesus the perfect height? If so, how tall was he? 1 m? 1.75 m? 2 m? 5 m? 5,000 km? If not, then why wasn’t he perfect in that respect? Did Jesus like cilantro? Could he smell asparagus in urine? Could he taste 6-n-propylthiouracil?
So what the fuck does ‘perfect’ mean in any of these traits, besides a word you think absolves you of having to think at all? I know it’s tempting to fap all over Aquinas because that’s what people born to be servants need to do to sequester that cognitive dissonance, but at least give some tacit lip service to the idea that you’ve explored the fucking implications of handwaving idiocy like “Jesus felt pain more acutely because he was perfect.”
Brownian:
From 413 meters away! He tested it once.
He had perfect hair. All the stylists fought over him when he showed up at the salon.
He was a perfect kisser. At least, that’s what Judas reported.
His penis was of the perfect length. (Of course he was a man. He was perfect, was he not?)
His taste in wine was exquisite. None better. And when it came to cursing uncooperative vegetation? Why, he was the fucking best. And don’t get me started about his ability to overturn tables in anger!
Jesus was, in fact, the perfect storm.
But did he ever drink a piña colada at Trader Vic’s? Doot!
01. Jesus’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
02. Jesus counted to infinity – twice.
03. Jesus does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Jesus goes killing.
04. If you can see Jesus, he can see you. If you can’t see Jesus you may be only seconds away from death.
05. Jesus sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Jesus roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn’t stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
06. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Jesus.
07. Jesus built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Jesus met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK’s head exploded out of sheer amazement.
08. Jesus has already been to Mars; that’s why there are no signs of life there.
09. They once made a Jesus toilet paper, but it wouldn’t take shit from anybody.
10. A blind man once stepped on Jesus’ shoe. Jesus replied, “Don’t you know who I am? I’m Jesus!” The mere mention of his name cured this man blindness. Sadly the first, last, and only thing this man ever saw, was a fatal roundhouse delivered by Jesus.
There is no chin behind Jesus’ beard. There is only another fist.
In fine print on the last page of the Guinness Book of World Records it notes that all world records are held by Jesus, and those listed in the book are simply the closest anyone else has ever gotten.
Jesus is ten feet tall, weighs two-tons, breathes fire, and could eat a hammer and take a shotgun blast standing.
Jesus made Ellen Degeneres straight.
Jesus can touch MC Hammer.
Is that more Aquinas, Kel? Or have we hit C.S. Lewis territory? (“Liar, Lunatic, or Kickboxer Extraordinaire?”)
If Jesus ate a hammer, what would the sacred, perfect *ahem* look like?
Does he like being caught in the rain? Is Jesus into yoga? Does he have half a brain? Does he like making love at midnight in the dunes of the cape?
I’ve had a piña colada at Trader Vic’s. No Jesus, or werewolves, spotted.
It is a well established part of Sacred Tradition that if Caesar farted in Rome on a Monday, Jesus could smell it in Galilee by Thursday. Weather permitting.
Brownian:
But of course! A perfect piña colada.
Though he was never in London.
And my hair? Well. Very, very greasy. (Just to make this reference even more obscure.)
Waffler:
You had me at “farted.” You had beer out my noise at “weather permitting.”
I just thought that if it was okay to completely talk out of one’s arse about Jesus, then some Chuck NorrisJesus Facts would be a vital addition.
[Fuck, it’s sad when all the meaty bits are gone and we have to scrap for scraps.
Hey goddists: MOAR st00pid, plz]
John Morales
I think this thread is dead.
But if it helps:
I will pray that
doggGod will touch your heart and lead you Home.chigau, thanks.
It does help!
—
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons death may die
(Iä! Iä!
Cthulhu Fthagn!)
horrorshow, get it right: Jesus wept as he wanked.
(so it is written)
It’s not like one can make the Christian story of Jesus any more silly than it is. God impregnates a woman to give birth to himself only to die as a sacrifice for a talking snake that he created telling the truth to creatures he made ignorant of right and wrong. It’s very fucking silly shit, and it’s fucking hilarious that people get so serious about such silly shit.
It’s fucking nonsense, utter fucking trite nonsense, and we’re meant to take that on as a serious intellectual proposition? The only way one can take it seriously is as mythic storytelling, and there it is empowered by its symbolism and cultural significance. But it has to be something more, something special, and all we do is spend time arguing over whether Han shot first. At least with Star Wars fans, they understand what Star Wars is…
Sure you can. Mention that over 2 billion people believe it as literal truth.
Now, that’s absurd.
Well, there you go…
Though I would hope that a good majority of those only sort of believe something vaguely approximating a loose commitment to “Christianity”.
Still no evidence for your imaginary deity Horroshow, or that the babble isn’t a book of mythology//fiction. Which means all your theology is mental masturbation. And you got your hands dirty and failed to clean up after yourself.
Which assumes that those kind of people actually know what the “good options” are. That might true in some cases, but sociopaths lack empathy and may miss the mark on more subtle issues of “good”.
Again, fucking dodging. Fantastic. I’ve read Shakespeare, and have only read paraphrases of Homer and Dante’s Divine Comedy. Which makes me more knowledgeable regarding the names you’ve cited than you apparently are of psychology and empiricism.
Yes, you don’t claim that scientific verification for the premises of philosophical arguments is “useful”. Because you are a dimbulb who hasn’t really thought the matter through. You know the distinction between valid and sound arguments in philosophy? How else can you determine that the premises of an argument are true (and thus that the argument is sound) than with empirical evidence (often obtained via science)?
You are a profound moron. In the very next part, which you cite, I explain that part of the reason I made this assertion is an indication that you did the same fucking thing:
“And I’m saying the same thing about your fucking harebrained idea that injustice increases pain, and pointing out that you are being inconsistent. But you are too fucking thick, so it hasn’t sunk in yet.”
To which you respond: <blockquote cite=""But I’m not saying that it is an immutable law that injustice increases pain. I’m saying it it did in Jesus’ case and probably would in most cases involving those of us who are members of the neurotypical community.
Or, in other words: “I’m not saying it’s an immutable law, I’m just saying that most normal people would suffer more pain from injustice.” In what way is what I said an “immutable law” but what you said is not? You’re quibbling and shooting yourself in the foot because you did a piss-poor job of it. Your claim that most normal people would suffer more pain in cases of injustice can be empirically verified. Where is the fucking evidence?
Yeah. “Human” sounds like a good definition of liberal to me as well. If you’re going to resort to inane little insults in lieu of addressing content: How is supporting the world’s largest child-rape protection racket going? Feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that some of your money is being used to keep the holiest of child molesters out of prison?
Mark 15:44 onward. Someone else mentioned it: Jesus died over the course of six hours, and Pilate remarks at how soon he died. People can take days to die from crucifixion.
Really? Because in this same response, you said that this “probably would [occur] in most cases involving those of us who are members of the neurotypical community.” Which is a bit different from saying that “well, it could possibly happen, so…”.
Sigh, sigh, sigh, look at me sigh:
Original concession:
Yes, you conceded that what is considered “perfect” is arbitrary and the only reason you accept what is considered “perfect” in your regurgitated argument is because it is dogma.
Horrorshow is Piltdown Man. Purged.
Ugh. I lost my longer response to horrorshow. I’ll try a new approach. Oh, and let me start out by saying: I was wrong, Brownian. Horrorshow is as loathsome as his name suggests, more and more so with each response, and I fear the worst is still beneath the surface. I said that at least he is more honest than David Marshall: Well, the problem, he is showing himself to be far more stupid and anti-science than I would’ve assumed to begin with, and he insists on “responding” to things that he never adequately addresses. David Marshall at least had the decency of ignoring most of the things that he wouldn’t bother to actually answer.
For those keeping score, the verdict on horrorshow’s latest:
-Still without supporting evidence for his propositions, horrorshow asserts that he doesn’t need scientific evidence to verify that the premises of his Not-Argument are true, and he goes on to say that injustice “probably would [increase pain] in most cases involving those of us who are members of the neurotypical community.” He boldly reasserts the truth of his bald assertions, in the face of admitting that he is no support for them.
-His responses are as dense as ever, still showing he is ignorant of the points I’ve already made and still ignorant of the fact that his objections to my arguments parallel my objections to his.
-He dodges like fucking crazy, as mentioned above. He “responds” to something with just an inane joke four different times, and “responds” to another with a non-sequitur at least once.
-He doesn’t understand how one could test moral reasoning by testing their answers to hypothetical situations.
-He counters nigel by bringing up a confounding variable of sexual attraction to men/women in general when testing physiological responses to a spouse as an indicator of love. In this “gotcha” response, he fails to realize that we could examine the difference, using response to non-spouses as a control condition. We could also look at oxytocin levels for a similar insight into non-Eros love.
-What he considers “banal” in the field of psychology is telling. It shows that he doesn’t doesn’t give a damn about abused children, young women, and the elderly, and doesn’t care about the effects of internet usage, in the internet era.
-His comment about the “slippery slope” of no longer calling homosexuality a mental illness suggests he is a homophobe (he’s a conservative Catholic, so who would’ve guessed!?).
-He again basically says that “perfect” is a meaningless term. “Perfect” means whatever a silent and mysterious being says it means.
-He doesn’t understand why the distinction between mechanoreceptors and nocioceptors is relevant to debunking the idea that a perfect sense of touch entails super-sensitivity to pain. That fact is only a “quibble” and not a fact that completely undermines the argument.
So, he has doubled down on his ignorance regarding psychology, and managed to show hints of being a homophobic bigot to boot. Stop while you’re ahead, horrorshow. You’re digging deeper and deeper with each attempt.
Oh, and here I thought we were encountering a new stupid, conservative, homophobic, anti-science Aquinas worshiping patron of the World’s Largest Child-Rape Protection Racket. Turns out it was just an old, musty one taking a romp on a shiny new website. What a waste of time, attempting to talk with someone who was already proven to be as intelligent as a brick, and half as capable of being educated.
Again, horrorshow=piltdown man, a loathsome troll with a long history here, who frequently morphs his name to get past his absolute and irrevocable banning. He will NEVER be allowed to post here: he sneaks by sporadically, but as soon as I catch up with him, all of his comments are deleted.
There is no point to engaging him.
IOW, he appears human but speaks with the mouth of a primitive(religious) simian, until finally being shown as a fake, I imagine.
From the LiveScience link provided by anteprepro, “Other studies have shown similar conditional effects, Zak said. Oxytocin tends to make people more trusting of strangers, he said. But if you give someone oxytocin and then describe a stranger as having an unreliable personality, the trust effect disappears.”
Sounds like empathy; the ability to consider the emotions of others before taking actions(I could swear I just read this, but now cannot find it: empathy/altruism correlates to oxytocin levels)
One last though. Doesn’t the supposed fact that Jesus was on the cross for only 6 hours suggest that he was probably still alive and only appeared dead? 1.5 days later(3 in Biblical math) he emerged from his coma and stumbled around, which some womans observed. However he wandered off somewhere hidden, succumbed to his injuries, and a dinosaur found his carcass and ate it.
Tushcloots: Apparently, you’re right about oxytocin.
“In this study, we tested how a polymorphism (rs53576) of the oxytocin receptor relates to two key social processes related to oxytocin: empathy and stress reactivity. Compared with individuals homozygous for the G allele of rs53576 (GG), individuals with one or two copies of the A allele (AG/AA) exhibited lower behavioral and dispositional empathy, as measured by the “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test and an other-oriented empathy scale. Furthermore, AA/AG individuals displayed higher physiological and dispositional stress reactivity than GG individuals, as determined by heart rate response during a startle anticipation task and an affective reactivity scale. Our results provide evidence of how a naturally occurring genetic variation of the oxytocin receptor relates to both empathy and stress profiles.”
(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/18/0909579106.abstract)
Also: Jesus actually surviving crucifixion and awaking later is called the Swoon hypothesis. Personally, I think its plausible (definitely moreso than resurrection). Oh, but it’s not that popular among scholars. Wonder why? Well, Wikipedia sez:
Yeah, they refute the non-miraculous explanation by treating the Bible as a coherent, completely thorough and reliable account, and then saying that Jesus probably was dead when jabbed with the spear. And the religious use this as proof that Jesus must have risen from the dead. Because that is far more consistent with the medical knowledge than the idea that he just fell unconscious [eyeroll]. I really don’t know how the apologists who do this kind of spin-doctoring can live themselves.
Thank you for the good writeup. It actually was a amusement account it. Glance complicated to far brought agreeable from you! However, how can we communicate?
OK, how about toy topper story cakes, box cupcakes, cupcake cupcakes, stand liners, cupcake candy, mold wrappers?
What a terrific report, I really like the method that you create articles. We have just tweeted this for you to share it and enjoy even more coverage on your site!
I need to thank you such a lot of for the work you have made in writing this piece of writing. I am hoping the same perfect work from you down the road also.