Another dumb poll

It’s part of an article about an atheist billboard for the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason, which sounds great. Alas, the Inquirer marred it with a stupid internet poll that asks, “Do you believe in God?” Haven’t they learned yet that these things are easily skewed? Go show them that atheists can be organized, too.

Take a look at the comments while you’re there, too — I like the one that says, “If this guy ever gets diagnosed with terminal cancer I guarantee he takes that billboard down so fast your head will spin.” It’s an admission that religion is built on fear.

Atheists should have some manners, at least

OK, this is a little rude, a bit funny, and a lot sacrilegious. I’m all for sacrilege, though, so I can’t condemn it too much.

Authorities were alerted after a parishoner heard “rustling and groaning” coming from inside the confession box and pulled back the curtains to reveal a goth-rock couple engaged in oral sex, ANSA said.

The agency said the pair — a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher — defended their conduct saying: “We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place.”

Well, yes, but they are also human beings who live within a society which imposes some restrictions on your behavior — they shouldn’t be having sex in a time and place where the activities of others will be disturbed. You shouldn’t have sex in a confessional unless you can arrange it for a time when others will not be trying to use it, or when others will not be distracted by the growls and screams. And please, be courteous and clean up thoroughly after yourself. Leave the confessional as clean as you found it.

And look, if you aren’t discreet you’ll discombobulate some old celibate prude, and that’s not nice.

However, Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple’s behavior was “an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor.”

He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.

What, bleach? You don’t need a useless ceremony, just a competent custodian.

It’s all rather futile. I suspect many confessionals have been used in such a profane and earthy manner, along with church balconies, graveyards, pulpits, pews, and let’s not even speculate about the possibilities with rosary beads.

The local angle here in Seattle

One of the fun things about traveling to strange places like Seattle is getting to meet new and interesting people — or, at least, people who are made of meat rather than the more familiar bit patterns of the net. I’ve had a few occasions now to talk to Alan Boyle, who has just summarized my NWSA talk…and done a pretty good job of it, too.

One thing I want to expand on a little bit is something I brought up for the Seattle audience: I think the Discovery Institute is toast, and are going to be increasingly irrelevant. The Wedge document is dead and gone; their strategy of pretending to have a secular goal has failed; and everyone can see through their claim that “Intelligent Design” is something other than creationism. All along, the buzzword has been a front for old school creationism, of the type favored by more traditional, openly Biblical groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, and what’s driving the base is not the attenuated rationalizations of the DI, but the Jesus-lovin’ evangelical beliefs of its supporters.

I should have said more about a remaining concern. Creationism is not dead, but is still a dangerous force for ignorance. And of course, the Discovery Institute is going to be trying hard to reinvent itself. We’re looking at several new strategies already: there’s the clamoring for “academic freedom” bills, and also the magic words of “strengths and weaknesses”. Note that they still have the common thread of misleading with labels — their version of “academic freedom” isn’t about freedom at all, but about giving preferential treatment to ideological inanity, and when they talk about “strengths and weaknesses”, they intend to overlook the strengths of modern biology and focus on imaginary weaknesses invented by ignorant creationists.

So more accurately, what I should have said is that one line of rhetorical noise is failing fast, but that they’re rapidly generating new clouds of obfuscatory squid ink that they hope will stick and confuse another generation of innocent students. Liars and con men just have to keep moving to keep their misdeeds from catching up with them, and the DI is going to have to scramble to redefine their intellectual swindle.

Wow — is this stupid or what?

At the last couple of talks I’ve given out here on the west coast, I’ve begun by introducing the appalling ignorance and illogic of creationist arguments. I think I have a new favorite example.

To summarize: God ordered the soldiers of the Hebrews to march around Jericho 6 times on 6 days, which means they would have traversed 6 * 360°, or 2160 degrees. The moon has a diameter of 2,160 miles. Therefore, God exists.

Bonus points! If you argue that the Hebrews would not have used “miles” as units (although I would have first pointed out that degrees and any linear measurement aren’t directly comparable), that’s just proof that God knew about English units 3,000 years before they were invented. Therefore, God exists and knows everything.

Poe’s Law! I saw that video and thought for sure it had to be a spoof, until I saw it was from VenomFangX, one of the more infamous youtube creationists, and that it has a lot of comments praising his “logic”.

Judge Myers presiding

Man, I’m away on vacation and you rowdies get all raucus and rude in the comments. The powers-that-be at Seed have received a complaint about your heinous behavior, and have asked me (politely, and with assurances that I have full control over how to handle this situation) to address it. Here is the complaint:

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to complain about offensive sexual language directed towards me on one of your blogs. I have included the full quote below and a link to the offensive comment. I would appreciate your attention on this matter as I consider this deeply offensive.

Thank you
Brenda von Ahsen

Here is the offensive comment. It contains quotes from other comments by Brenda herself on that thread.

Re: #79

You all can’t be so willfully stupid that you take him literally can you? Oh, I see that you can be that stupid. This is why I repeatedly wonder if it is possible for there to be any discussion at all. It seems futile, especially given the juvenile behavior here.

Re: #224

You’re spoiled, arrogant asshats who cannot treat anyone who disagrees with you with even a modicum of respect.

Brenda, you ignorant slut.

You are a pompous liar, front to back. You have been soundly spanked.

Posted by: CortxVortx | June 3, 2008 10:04 PM

Oh, dear. What am I to do?

Hmmm. Brenda accuses everyone else of being “willfully stupid,” “juvenile,” and of being “spoiled, arrogant asshats,” yet she is the one who is offended because someone dared to recite a well-known humorous line from an old Saturday Night Live skit.

I have done an extensive review of all 58 of Mr CortxVortx’s comments to Pharyngula, and have found a general absence of misogynist malice, but he does seem to have a sense of humor.

Likewise, I have reviewed all 24 of Ms von Ahsen’s comments, and have found a consistent prickliness and the complete absence of a sense of humor.

My judgment: Mr CortxVortx is guilty of a deficiency of vowels in his pseudonym and of doing an almost unrecognizable Dan Ackroyd imitation. As punishment, he is henceforth required to shun all use of lines popularized by the inestimable Mr Ackroyd unless he is also wearing a hat and sunglasses in the style of Jake and/or Elwood Blues.

Ms von Ahsen is guilty of insufferable pretentious self-centeredness. No penalty will be imposed by this blog, as it is punishment enough.

The court is recessed. The next case on the docket may be some clown named Kenny.

The world’s most boring creationist

Wow. This guy is like Ben Stein on quaaludes — and just as wrong, wrong, wrong. The opening premise for his slo-mo diatribe is ridiculous:

True science only reports observable facts, rather than interpretations and assumptions.

Then he goes on with a tedious litany of examples: you are allowed to say that Archaeopteryx is a fossil of a winged animal, but you can’t say it’s transitional or intermediate characters, you can say Tiktaalik is a fossil of a skull and some limb bones, but you can’t say it represents an intermediate between fish and amphibians, yadda yadda yadda.

Unbelievable. First, where does this gomer come off trying to dictate what “True science” is? He’s contradicting practically every scientist in the world!

To claim that science is not about interpretations — that it doesn’t include theories as explanatory frameworks — is patently false. What does he want to do, reduce science to stamp collecting because that’s the most exciting thing his lethargic little mind can handle?

Of course science is all about interpretation — it’s how induction works. We collect data, we interpret it, we make hypotheses and predictions about what we expect to see next, and we test those ideas. No interpretation, nothing to test, science would stagnate.

This is one of the more stupid statements I’ve heard from a creationist yet, but I’m afraid he’s not at all competitive with the likes of Ray Comfort yet. On style, though, the mummified, expressionless head of Daniel Keeran is ahead on points.

My crimes are being documented

So all these people are coming to my talks, and they’re reporting on me! Scott Hatfield caught my talk at the Berkeley IEDG meeting, and even has video of my conclusion. Geoff Arnold has a discussion of my talk at the Pacific Science Center last night.

One odd (or not so odd) thing. Both of those talks have focused entirely on the process of communicating science; I’m making a case for rhetorical strategies to combat the rising tide of creationist foolishness. They have not been about atheism, and I try to phrase everything as universally applicable to even the most devout scientist — I’m telling scientists to express their passions, get out there and be advocates for good science, and to tell beautiful stories.

And what are most of the questions about? Godlessness. Some people seem confused and even angry about the fact that I do not promote compromise with religion, even when I’m trying to promote tactics that are orthogonal to religious belief, and that if I’m asked about religion, I’m completely honest about the fact that it is indefensible bullshit.

Oh, well. I’m speaking on Friday to the Seattle Skeptics, and everyone will be pleased to know, I’m sure, that that talk begins with an introduction in which I trash the bible before moving on to discuss an example of a beautiful science story. Obviously, I need to embrace my inner atheist.

My mother is also coming to that talk. I hope she doesn’t grab me by the ear afterwards and give me a spanking…that would be so embarrassing.


Uh-oh. I’ve been caught on camera wearing bling and flashing gang signs.