To the Blogs!!! …. To the Blogs!!!!

Go here, do the right thing.

Comments

  1. #1 John McKay
    July 11, 2008

    Just for fun, I’ll quibble with your headline: it’s not “the Christians” who are trying to shut down P-Zed; it’s one self-important bigot who claims, without authority, to speak for American Catholicism.

    Meanwhile, I’m already on the barricades bravely blogging and sending e-mail.

  2. #2 Tsugradstudent
    July 11, 2008

    I have already sent an email as well as snail-mail letter to the President of the University supporting Dr. Myers.

  3. #3 pough
    July 11, 2008

    Ah, but if we don’t support him and they succeed, we get the rights to make Expelled II: The Reckoning! Just think of all the awesome Contemporary Christian Music we can use in the film without permission from the owners!

  4. #4 Charlie
    July 11, 2008

    Gee, whenever I’ve asked Meyers to stop classifying *my* religion based on his grossly incorrect assumptions (that he feels no obligation to investigate, since his “atheism” is entirely faith-based and not open to logic or reason) he has replied (if at all) that *all* religion is bad and wrong. I think that in his own little world Unitarian Universalism, Jainism, Bhuddism, and Pantheism are all just weaker forms of Catholicism, and thus he can see no reason to withold his accusations of illogic, anti-science bigotry, etc…

    However, my religion promotes tolerance and freedom of expression, so I will write to the university president’s office and ask them to permit Meyers to continue publishing his inaccurate bigotry. Maybe I, too, can experience the unwarranted self righteousness he so obviously enjoys! I hear irony is delicious this time of year.

  5. #5 Stephanie Z
    July 11, 2008

    Charlie: “grossly incorrect assumptions”? Your religion has objective proof of its supernatural claims? Of its proclaimed benefits? Or do all of your co-religionists refrain from making such claims?

    As for self-righteousness, I don’t think you need much help.

  6. #6 Charlie
    July 11, 2008

    Stephanie Z: At what point has my religion made any “supernatural claims” as you put it? On what basis do you make that grossly incorrect assumption? I don’t see any “supernatural” anything in any of my posts.

    I don’t personally proclaim any “objective benefits” for my own faith, either. Some of my co-religionists do, I admit, and they can produce the usual studies that are supposed to show increased happiness resultant from meditation and/or prayer. I will happily proclaim a subjective benefit, in that my faith helps me cope with the problems I encounter in life, although apparently that makes me self-righteous. :)

    Since I’m unlikely to be able to track this blog and engage in the sort of reasoned dialogue I’d prefer to share with you, let me make this one observation, which I have also made on pharyngula: If you insist that religious people are not allowed to define what their own religion is, and instead simply define religion as categorically false, your logic is circular and unscientific – it’s an unreasoned, illogical, faith-based dogma.

    I sent a note to the UMN president supporting PZ, as promised.

  7. #7 wazza
    July 11, 2008

    Charlie, what is your religion based on? I mean, is there a founding document? Does it make any supernatural claims?

    Also, when you speak of religion, I assume there’s a god. Is this god supernatural?

  8. #8 Stephanie Z
    July 11, 2008

    Charlie, if you do come back, please note that those were question marks. There’s no way I can keep track of all the discussion on Pharyngula, and I haven’t seen what you’ve had to say there.