…and this is a 
Awww, Mike S. Adams noticed me!
Category: Kooks
Posted on: October 30, 2006 8:44 AM, by PZ Myers
Mike Adams latest column is all about his UMM visit…although, actually, it's more of a whine about me.
Dr. P.Z. Myer did, in fact, make my talk Thursday night and something very strange happened: He, too, experienced a sudden and dramatic change in his level of courage during the course of the speech.
During the question and answer session, Professor Myer simply leaned against a door post with his arms crossed and said nothing. He just stared at me blankly and stood motionless in the same place where he was standing for the last twenty minutes of the speech. During the "Q & A", I looked directly at him and asked "Are there any other questions?"
He looked directly at me? How was I supposed to tell? He is correct that there was a big crowd there, and a spillover into the hallway. I arrived late, and there were 3 or 4 people in front of me before the entrance…as they trickled away at the end, I worked my way farther forward. I only got as far as the door by the halfway point in the Q&A.
I'd be flattered that he noticed my presence if he weren't such a pathetic gomer.
More important than what the video will show is what it will not show. Specifically, there will be no image of Dr. Myer mustering the courage to ask a question of Dr. Adams. Instead, he simply cowered away, and then ran back to his home computer in order to blog a fictitious account of a wonderful event — probably while sitting in his pajamas.
But it is a shame that Dr. Myer lacked the courage to ask me a single question. I certainly had a couple to ask of him. And I'll bet the audience would have liked to hear him explain how an evolutionist who deems the universe to be accidental can be so full of moral superiority. Or perhaps how the accidental moralist can be an atheist and yet so angry at God.
It takes courage for a man to admit that he is sometimes afraid. But that courage is not a gift of random mutation. It is a gift from a God who loves even the most hardened atheist.
"Cowered away"? Or stood (apparently, prominently) at the door listening?
It wasn't a lack of courage, I have to say. I have a personal policy at these sorts of talks of always giving the students first crack at speakers, no matter whether I approve of them or not. I've been at events where a professor and a speaker get into a little dialog at the end, and entertaining as it might be, it's not as instructive as getting the students involved. While the students were readily raising their hands, even if they were college Republicans, I wasn't going to interrupt. And the questions were still coming fast when the organizer peremptorily ended the session.
Since he had questions for me, I suppose he could have asked them directly, since he seems to have noticed me there; I think he'd reply rightly that he wouldn't do that as long as he was getting questions from his audience. In this column, he could have replied to my complaints about the unlikelihood of his stories—a guy who claims he converted to being a far right wing Republican because of his revulsion at the unprincipled abuses of their immense power by feminists has some explainin' to do—but whining that I didn't ask a question at his talk is mighty feeble stuff.
And speaking of courage—complaining on the web about a criticism while not giving a link and misspelling the critic's name, let alone neglecting to address any of the points, is at best discourteous, and more likely a reluctance to let his happy audience of cheerleaders actually see the substance of the complaints.
But here's a deal. Since Dr. Mike S. Adams is such an avid proponent of seeing alternative points of view expressed on college campuses, and since he has so much clout at the UNC as a beloved professor, he can always get one of the campus organizations there to invite me out to his university (I expect the same honorarium he got here, of course) to give a talk on evolution and creationism, and then he can ask me his questions. I'll even make sure to keep a seat in the front row open for him.
His readers apparently are smart enough to figure out my email address despite Adams' coy misdirection. I've got lots of messages calling me a "liberal pussy" this morning—why are they calling me that which Mike S. Adams fears the most?
Comments
I think it's sweet. He obviously needs the recognition from you, the acceptance. I almost want to give the man a cuddle and tell him everything will be alright...
Posted by: Acteon | October 30, 2006 8:51 AM
Gotta specify it's UNC-W so people don't think that UNC-CH would have him. And Wilmington is pretty, on the ocean, so the visit could be fun (and they have some great people in philosophy department as well as marine biology).
Posted by: coturnix | October 30, 2006 8:53 AM
As I grew up in the same squalid suburban hellhole as Dr. Adams (graduating from the same high school about 6-7 years later); let me say that the conservatism was always there, and any secular, mildly progressive inclination he showed was probably of the gas-huffing or wine-cooler variety rather than anything rigorous, as he was by all accounts a miserable student and lifelong mouthbreather.
Posted by: norbizness | October 30, 2006 8:53 AM
One other funny thing about him: try googling for "Mike S. Adams". Two of the entries on the first page are my articles sneering at him. That must be galling -- I'm not even trying hard, and my opinions of him are highly ranked.
World O' Crap and TBogg have a better history of ripping into Adams. Mikey ought to appreciate my attention more.
Hey, wait: the same environment generated a Mike S. Adams and a norbizness? This is scary. Do you also fear the vagina? Are there like breast-shaped mountains near their that erupt and kill people? Can you hear the women's teeth clack as they walk?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 9:04 AM
Mountains? In Houston?
And you'll forgive me if I'm not familiar with the other examples, but I think you'll agree that no community could survive a descent into self-destruction if everyone had the same sociopathies as Adams.
Posted by: norbizness | October 30, 2006 9:17 AM
Do you actually wear pajamas while blogging? Or is that a figment of Dr. Adams' imagination? I would think any real man would blog in his boxer shorts.
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | October 30, 2006 9:29 AM
The problem for Professor Myer is that - perhaps unbeknownst to him - the speech was videotaped. The videotape - taken by the school newspaper - . . .
*******
Is this true? How can we view this videotape?
Nance
Posted by: Nance Confer | October 30, 2006 9:32 AM
A real man blogs only in that what the good lord has provided at birth...
Posted by: Acteon | October 30, 2006 9:40 AM
I'm most impressed by how he quotes the question you wanted to ask him (were it not for "cowardice") and then neglects to answer it.
I'm also impressed by the idiots in the Townhall comments who, being so familiar with you (so they claim), all seem to find creative ways to misspell your name. Maybe familiarity really does breed contempt!
Posted by: andy | October 30, 2006 9:41 AM
My opinion of UNC is plummeting.
What a Biggus Dickus.
For me, his conversion story is the best revenge.
He gets to go through life believing a load of tripe, and not understanding that it is a load of tripe. On his death bed he will not realize that he wasted all that time on a dumb fantasy God. Sad, really.
Haha!
Students of Mike S.! Don't make the same mistake!
Posted by: George | October 30, 2006 9:43 AM
I did see people going in and out of the A/V room near me, so I assumed it was videotaped. That doesn't disturb me at all -- as I said, there were lots of questions, and the last few did start to politely (we're Minnesotans...always politely) raise questions that he did not answer very well.
I'm pretty sure they didn't catch me 'cowering' on the floor, weeping and pissing myself.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 9:45 AM
Yeah, but what about the pajamas?
Pretty pathetic of him; the best he can do to "discredit" you (and by extension reality) is try to dredge up the tired old stereotype of a loner-loser doing one-handed net surfing.
Posted by: Warren | October 30, 2006 9:51 AM
Ugh. I'm now rather ashamed to be part of the UNC system.
I would tend to look at Adams' focus on PZ in his blog posting as something of a 'Freudian slip' - the fact that he's so amazed/fascinated that PZ didn't speak up suggests to me that he was spending a lot of time before the talk worrying about it, preparing for it, even fearing it. PZ, any time one makes a fanatic that nervous, it's something to be proud of...
Posted by: gg | October 30, 2006 9:52 AM
I found this advice in Psychology Today for Mike S. I'm just going to assume this is his real problem.
Dear Dr. Frank,
I am 43 and have masturbated every day for the past 29 years. Over this time many attractive young women have offered me their services with no strings attached. But this triggers great fear in me. Why?
I have always had the desire to have great sex, but I've never been willing to risk it. Could there be something wrong in my thinking?
-- Nonesuch
Dear None,
Yes, you have too much imagination and too little spirit of adventure. There's nothing wrong in masturbating. We've all masturbated since puberty, no matter what else we've done with our sexuality, but you got stuck there.
You suffer from vagina-phobia -- the fear of letting go of your penis and giving it over to someone else. Unless we began our heterosexual careers in a burst of postpubertal bravado, every one of us was frightened the first time, though most of us can't remember exactly what we feared. Whatever it was, it didn't happen, and it won't happen to you, either. One thing that does often happen the first time is that your pecker feels your fear and shrinks up rather than rising to the occasion. Hang in there and in time you will both get comfortable. And don't be concerned about having great sex; that will come later.
Just settle for letting a friendly woman play with your favorite toy. Don't worry, she'll give it back. Expect to be anxious at first, but you'll relax with it in time.
One last suggestion: You might be more sexually available to others if you gave yourself a little rest. Remember the old adage: "Don't have sex in the morning; you never know who you'll meet later in the day.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19951101-000039.html
Posted by: George | October 30, 2006 9:55 AM
I bet he just wants a cookie for not pulling a Musgrave and trying to have you thrown out. Poor, brave Dr. Adam.
Posted by: junk science | October 30, 2006 9:58 AM
"Don't worry, she'll give it back."
??? *Laughter*
I just stand in awe of the telepathic powers of these believer yucks. "PZ Meyers couldn't muster the courage," etc. "God loves even the hardened atheists," because he and God are buds. And of course, the perennial "You're angry at God." What insight.
Since he's privy to this information (including what people do in their pajamas), Mike Adams should also know that the man that he saw and assumed was PZ was really an angel in human form, a poor, multitasking, working-joe angel (they're short-staffed in heaven, a little secret) who, after having had a long day making jesus faces appear in the woodwork instead of healing amputees (it's tough working for a micromanaging control freak), "experienced a sudden and dramatic change in his level of courage during the course of the speech" when he finally realized, "This job sucks, we need to form a union."
Posted by: Kristine | October 30, 2006 10:26 AM
I too must defend UNC-Wilmington (where Adams' is a professor) as I graduated from there with B.A.s in Anthropology and Philosophy & Religion. Coturnix is right, they have a fantastic P&R faculty (one professor presented atheism to me for the first time) and their marine bio program is one of the best on the east coast. Unfortunately I can't say such nice things about the Criminology department.
Posted by: Will | October 30, 2006 11:24 AM
This sounds way too much like the Janet Jackson nipple travesty- millions and millions of people who didn't watch the half time show were so offended by what they saw but only after seeing it on the news a billion times and then looking at the uncensored pictures on the internet. This guy probably saw this blog and then made stuff up. Some people are so disconnected with reality that this may be the way that he remembers it, after all reality and this guy don't seem to have even a passing acquaintance.
Posted by: Mena | October 30, 2006 11:30 AM
So... what if we took up a collection and hosted our own little debate? I mean, I could easily scrounge up a thousand or two, and I would *love* to see a *real* debate.
Whaddya think?
Posted by: Dave Newton | October 30, 2006 12:30 PM
Apparently, common courtesy is a sign of weakness to him.
Posted by: Steve Sutton | October 30, 2006 12:31 PM
I see that you've got so fed up with people getting your name wrong that you didn't even mention it this time...
Posted by: gengar | October 30, 2006 12:32 PM
You were scared because his God is stronger than your Evolution?
If he weren't so singleminded Adams might have succeeded to insult someone else than himself with this.
Posted by: Numad | October 30, 2006 12:49 PM
I second Dave Newton's idea. My only concern is whether a PZ Myers-Mike Adams debate might not resemble Godzilla versus Bambi a little too much...
Posted by: Dianne | October 30, 2006 12:53 PM
I have seen similar situations in my university and generally it is resolved by something like "We are lucky to have here with us Dr PZ Myers, a prominent proposer of evolution. Dr Myers, where are you hiding? Would you please come up and share with us the microphone?"
As Mr Adams writes, what was NOT said is more important than what was said (by him).
(BTW, his imaginative description of Dr Myers in pajamas reveals something. PZ is becoming a sex object!)
Posted by: jaimito | October 30, 2006 12:56 PM
Hello all. TH reader here who followed some links given by PZ when he posted on the blog for Adams column (BTW, it would be easier to follow the links if they were correct. Next time omit the comma after the last forward slash). Interesting love-fest you guys have going on here. I especially like the last post I read by Dave Newton about common courtesy. It appears to be sorely lacking on this thread, and it's more then apparent. I also enjoy the complaints about spelling Mr Myers name incorrectly. I'm no spelling whiz. I make mistakes all the time and am hardly ever able to catch them after re-reading what I've written before posting. I find it amusing because Mr. Myers himself uses "their" instead of the correct "there". Would that fall under the "people in glass houses" or "the pot calling the kettle"? One last thing, Mr. Myers. You can expect the same honorarium paid to Mr. Adams, but you won't get it. See, people are actually willing to pay Mr. Adams to hear what he has to say. Some time in the future when you have garnered a similar interest in what you have to say, then maybe you will. Cheers to all, and though I believe you don't want to hear it, though I don't know any of you, God does and he loves you and me in spite of ourselves!
Posted by: Kozinator | October 30, 2006 1:08 PM
Grammar and spelling troll. Disemvowel Kozinator instanter.
Posted by: George | October 30, 2006 1:12 PM
I loved Bambi vs Godzilla.
Posted by: MarkP | October 30, 2006 1:15 PM
I'm pretty sure they didn't catch me 'cowering' on the floor, weeping and pissing myself.
We'll fix it in post. -- M. Adams
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 30, 2006 1:21 PM
The real reason Adams wanted PZ to ask a question -- and was disappointed when he didn't -- was that he wanted to make rhetorical hay of the fact that this here scientist who is *pro-evolution* is an ATHEIST. Atheist, evolutionist; atheism, evolution. I was just asked a question by an ATHEIST, who favors EVOLUTION. Did you kids in the back hear that? Did you hear the question asked by the ATHEIST who is defending EVOLUTION? Did you get that okay? Is it on the videotape?
Posted by: Sastra | October 30, 2006 1:34 PM
"See, people are actually willing to pay Mr. Adams to hear what he has to say."
People are willing to pay to see and hear many things. Since when did this become a measure of merit?
There's one born every minute...
Posted by: ifriit | October 30, 2006 1:46 PM
"See, people are actually willing to pay Mr. Adams to hear what he has to say."
A fool and his/her money are easily parted.
Posted by: George | October 30, 2006 1:52 PM
Wait a minute Dr. Myers, you haven't explained your blatant fabrication about the "dark skinned man". Please expound.
Posted by: Manny | October 30, 2006 1:53 PM
There's a sucker born every minute ....
Posted by: wildlifer | October 30, 2006 1:53 PM
Actually people are willing to pay Adams to say things to people. That's different than people being willing to pay to listen. It's especially damning that someone paid him to talk to people and then bribed those people with extra credit to attend -- essentially Adams was paid to speak and the audience was paid to listen. I don't find that particularly flattering for Adams.
Posted by: BMurray | October 30, 2006 1:55 PM
Kozinator,
If God loves us so much then why are we all going to hell if we don't buy into his bullshit? God's 'love' is so conditional it would make any psychologist shudder at the dysfunctionality of it.
Being a member of God's family (and we can use this metaphor freely because God The Father is always used in the Bible) is like being a member of some unpredictable, capricious, drunken guy's family. He's totally megalomaniacal, and plays head games. He has a stick in one hand and a dubious looking carrot in the other. He is constantly bugging your bedroom to make sure you aren't breaking his house rules and he has fake birth certificates planted in a cheap lockbox (easily opened if you take the time) that makes you doubt your parentage, but if you look at these fake birth certficates he has in this cheap-ass lockbox (which you broke into because he kept saying, "Don't look in that!"...and grinning) and take them seriously then he locks you in the garage where his estranged nephew (who is consigned to doing God's dirty work in a dirty garage because of some falling out) tortures you all afternoon with a blowtorch. This is NOT LOVE!
This is God's family. It's LESS functional than the Manson family.
The best tool for converting Christians into atheists is the Bible.
As Dawkins said, "God is one of the most awful characters in all of fiction." (I may be paraphrasing a bit)
Posted by: Shawn S. | October 30, 2006 2:02 PM
Correct. The College Republicans and their conservative rag, the Counterweight, are getting money from outside sources that are willing to invest in building political institutions at the U. I don't see much of that on the liberal side.
People attended because 1) a minority of conservative students were pushing for him (this might have filled one row of the auditorium), 2) there was a controversy built up, so some came to see a fight, and 3) those liberal academics he cusses out tend to bend over backwards to encourage their students to see alternative points of view.
So, no, I don't expect an invitation from UNC-Wilmington. The right-wing does not make an effort to see different views expressed. Also, since any talk I'd give would be on the evolution wars, Adams knows deep down that he is abysmally ignorant on the subject, and he'd be hopelessly outgunned.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 2:06 PM
I just love the "angry at God" bit.
Yeah, we're MAD at god, so we're not gonna believe in him. That'll show him! God HATES the silent treatment.
Posted by: craig | October 30, 2006 2:08 PM
OH yes, please don't think that UNC-Chapel Hill (the real and orignial "UNC") would ever put up with that sort of BS.
We can't be held responsible for other schools in the UNC system. Especially UNC-W.
Posted by: Lindsay | October 30, 2006 2:13 PM
I just love the "angry at God" bit.
So do I. What I think is going on is that, being that no one can love someone they have to love (or they're going to hell), they're secretly angry at this someone, must repress it (or they're going to hell), and resent anyone who has the gall not to buy into all this emotional blackmail in the first place, thus projecting their own anger at God onto the atheist, who is, naturally, "going to hell."
BTW, Myers, not Meyers! Typo.
Posted by: Kristine | October 30, 2006 2:22 PM
Kristine and Shawn S. --
Wow. WHO's angry???
And -- I'm just curious to know how you'd react to hear your beloved P.Z. introduced in a similar (but reverse) fashion to how he introduced Dr. Adams. Any chance of a CIVIL reply?
Posted by: Trespasser | October 30, 2006 2:53 PM
Weird, I didn't detect any anger in Kristine and Shawn's replies, Trespasser. Amusement and satire, yes.
Bit touchy, are we?
Posted by: minimalist | October 30, 2006 3:04 PM
What's with all this crazy talk about me "introducing" Mike S. Adams? I was not affiliated in any way with his visit; I had no role to play in his talk; I was even considering skipping the whole thing as a waste of time. If I'd been asked to introduce him, I would have refused.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 3:08 PM
Kozinator and Trespasser: when come back, bring argument. It's funny how you guys just never get around to the point: never actually offer any substantive arguments anything. oooo PZ says mean things about Adams! oooooo! Well, PZ also prety deftly eviscerates any arguments Adams made (what few there were) and Adams entire claim that PZ was too scared to ask Adams a question doesn't even pass the laugh test. What do you have to say about that? Nothing.
Ad hominem is not, btw, when you say mean things about someone. Taking on all their arguments and THEN saying "boy, those were stupid arguments and the person that made them had to be pretty stupid to make them" is not ad hominem. Ironically, however, focusing EXCLUSIVELY on insults and slights while ignoring the arguments made, IS ad hominem. :)
Posted by: plunge | October 30, 2006 3:10 PM
I have a couple of questions for Dr. Myers, and I ask in honesty, not in sarcasm: Where did all of the matter in the universe come from? If there is not some higher power, whether it is the God I believe in or not, how does anything exist? Has it all been here forever, and if so, how can anyone comprehend eternity? And how do you explain the inaccuracy of Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment, which disproved spontaneous generation? I'm sure you've considered these things, and while I doubt I'll agree with your responses, I have never gotten a clear answer to these questions when I posed them to my atheist friends. Anyone who wishes to answer any of these questions is free to e-mail me at rednilla80@aol.com. I will be e-mailing these questions to Dr. Myers, but he stated that he sometimes does not respond, so I'd like to post them here in hopes that someone might be able to give me an intelligent answer to these questions if he is unable to reply. Peace.
Posted by: Nathan | October 30, 2006 3:15 PM
Well, then maybe you ought to try reading them again, minimalist:
"If God loves us so much then why are we all going to hell if we don't buy into his bullshit? God's 'love' is so conditional it would make any psychologist shudder at the dysfunctionality of it."
". . .consigned to doing God's dirty work in a dirty garage because of some falling out) tortures you all afternoon with a blowtorch. This is NOT LOVE! This is God's family. It's LESS functional than the Manson family."
Bit blind, aren't we? (You'd take it as a love fest if someone spoke of you in that fashion?) But me touchy? Nope, doesn't bother me any. They're the ones who have the big surprise coming.
Posted by: Trespasser | October 30, 2006 3:15 PM
Liberals "Just Know" they are right, so they do not have to resort to reason or logic to substantiate their quaint beliefs. A "far, far right-wing nut case" is anyone who disagrees with a liberal. And if you disagree with a liberal, expect the following sort of claptrap:
"Mike S. Adams, columnist for TownHall, Horowitzian shill, anti-feminist, creationist clown, homophobic bigot, warrior for free speech, professional racist, gun kook, academic-by-accident, beauty contest judge, and just generally contemptible far, far right-wing nutcase."
"I'm very disappointed in our students. We're far off the beaten track and we don't get that many speakers passing through our area, and they had to go exhibit the poor taste to invite this sorry sack of rethuglican excreta to our campus. Couldn't they have at least tried to find an intelligent conservative to bring out here? Why'd they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel for this guy? At least we're seeing our rather dismal right-wing campus rag's fading credibility implode with their sponsorship of such a low-wattage guest speaker."
Posted by: Mighty Blue Bustard | October 30, 2006 3:18 PM
PZ gets a couple students mixed up and suddenly it's all a complete fabrication. We got him on which student asked which question! Go for the throat! Go for the throat!
Man, I missed arguing with right wingers so much. Some of you are falling prey to the fallcy of irrelevant conclusion. Which student asked which question has absolutely no bearing on the validity of Dr. Adams statements. Nor does it have any bearing on Dr. Myers allowing the students to ask questions first.
The faux outrage about the students, the hollow declarations of victory, and feigned wonder at the miracle of Yahweh stealing PZ's voice are just about what everyone has come to expect from the 101st fighting keyboarders. Besides if that's your threshold for miracles you should declare me the messiah right now. I can pull a quarter out of your ear and make it disappear from my palm. Don't even get me started on card tricks, you guys would be falling all over yourselves to be martyrs in my name.
Posted by: commissarjs | October 30, 2006 3:23 PM
Hey P.Z. -- you were right and I was mistaken about the introduction. I went back to Dr. Adams' article and discovered I had misread it. It was your writings that I guess I was referring to. Nice stuff, Mr. Associate Professor. And quite telling.
Hey, plunge -- Gee I didn't know that in order to post on a website, you always had to bring an argument. From what I've seen here and on lots of other blogs, folks just seem to put down opinions and responses. Your specific argument again was what?
Posted by: Trespasser | October 30, 2006 3:32 PM
"Where did all of the matter in the universe come from?"
God blew it out his ass 6,000 years ago. Everyone knows that, for crying out loud.
(Hmmmm. On second thought, maybe it was the God that made God that made God that blew it out of his ass.)
Posted by: George | October 30, 2006 3:35 PM
Trespasser,
Sorry, still doesn't seem very angry to me. Bit contemptuous maybe, but it's not like the sort of hypocrites Shawn rails against haven't earned it.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised you're having trouble with the concept though. Young Republicans have such rudimentary nervous systems, it's easy to group negative stimuli into one very broad category of "ANGER."
In case you need help telling the difference, here's an example of anger:
"People like you deserve to be dragged down the street by your hair. . . . I hope you will have the good sense to keep you[r] liberal moth [sic] shut at a time like this. No one needs your shit."
That's from the good Missus Adams, who no doubt was obeying her (future) husband in all things, and speaking only when ordered to. "Having a will of your own" is so "liberal feminist", after all.
Posted by: minimalist | October 30, 2006 3:37 PM
I'm not PZ Myers, but I'm a sucker for a silly argument, so here goes:
Where did all of the matter in the universe come from?
I've no idea. Ask a cosmologist.
If there is not some higher power, whether it is the God I believe in or not, how does anything exist?
Why shouldn't it have just come from no where and nothing? If you answer the question "where did the universe" come from by saying "god made it" then how do you answer the question "where did god come from"?
Has it all been here forever, and if so, how can anyone comprehend eternity?
Nope. A known, finite amount of time has passed since the Big Bang. And if things keep going the way they have been, the universe will eventually all turn into dark energy (whatever that is), making the universe a time limited entity. What does whether or not a bunch of monkeys with a little cortical hypertrophy can understand eternity or not have to do with whether or not it can exist?
And how do you explain the inaccuracy of Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment, which disproved spontaneous generation?
Huh? I don't get the point of this question. Are you a believer in spontaneous generation or do you expect PZ to be one?
Posted by: Dianne | October 30, 2006 3:40 PM
"Where did all of the matter in the universe come from? If there is not some higher power, whether it is the God I believe in or not, how does anything exist? Has it all been here forever, and if so, how can anyone comprehend eternity?"
Where did god come from? Did some "higher power" create him? If not, then how does anything exist? Has god been here forever? If so, how can anyone comprehend eternity?
There's no sarcasm in my response, just a thought to (hopefully) illuminate the false assumptions in your questions. If you can believe that your fictional god has always existed, why is it so difficult to grasp that the universe might also have always existed?
Posted by: Jen | October 30, 2006 3:44 PM
...a bunch of monkeys with a little cortical hypertrophy...
Duh. That should be "apes" not "monkeys". Humans don't have prehensile tails. Apparently my cortical hypertrophy could be better.
Posted by: Dianne | October 30, 2006 3:54 PM
I do like it when we get straight to the question. If there is no God, where did everything come from?
You can go on and on about philosophy and theology but it all comes down to that question. The reply is of course that we don't know. And people have always used gods a method to explain these unanswered questions. The sun god, the god of thunder etc etc etc...
Just because we don't know the answer now or indeed even know how we can know the answer doesn't mean we never will. Someday a scientist somewhere will have equipment and methods we today can not even imagine.
The answer to a difficult question is never "god". Because that is not an answer it's a cop out...
Posted by: Acteon | October 30, 2006 3:54 PM
Don't beat yourself up. If 'monkey' is a valid taxon, then humans are monkeys, as are all apes.
Posted by: JY | October 30, 2006 4:02 PM
Minimalist -- Not sure where you got the stuff "from Missus Adams," but I refer you to Mighty Blue Bustard's posting which quotes the Reverend PZ.
I don't think you have any room.
Posted by: Trespasser | October 30, 2006 4:10 PM
I'm tempted to guess that Pasteur was brought in to counter the 'matter just happened' explanation. Pasteur was right that flies don't just appear in spoiled meat, rather, adult flies lay fly eggs in spoiled meat. But this doesn't have anything to do with the origin of all matter.
Posted by: stogoe | October 30, 2006 4:14 PM
"Where did all of the matter in the universe come from? If there is not some higher power, whether it is the God I believe in or not, how does anything exist?,
Unlucky for you that I just happened to tune into this blog. I AM God, and second-guessing smartasses like you are really starting to piss me off. It's my game and I don't have to explain a damn thing. I seem to have misplaced my powers at the moment, but when I get 'em back I'm gonna kick your ass. Just for the hell of it.
Posted by: Yahweh | October 30, 2006 4:27 PM
Here's where the quote is from Trespasser:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2004/12/01.html#a1310
Posted by: commissarjs | October 30, 2006 4:27 PM
Projection has always been the right-wing's most dangerous weapon of mass destruction/distraction. It worked so well in Jamestown, how could they let such a timeless warpiece go unused for 400 years?
They've reached varitable psychosis on this point by now. They hide their disdain for though even less now. Anyone here catch the opinion piece in some Virginia paper the other day about one of Bush's former speech writers? He literally expresses hate for liberals *in the title*, using the actual word. I don't like the doomsayer game, but something tells me things are going to get worse before they get better...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | October 30, 2006 4:37 PM
1. Weak force symmetry breaking.
2. Why should existence require a special explanation? Wouldn't non-existence (no time, no space, no nothing, never, whatever "never" means in the absence of time...) be just as remarkable a situation, requiring as much or more special pleading?
3. Absent a spacetime ticking away against which we can compare expanses of chronology, eternity seems like a pretty vacuous term.
4. If you prevent any living matter from getting at water, dead matter, or some other substance for a short time, over a very limited space it would indeed be remarkable if life spontaneously generated. What, if anything, does this have to do with the likelihood of abiogenesis occuring over several hundred millions of years over all of the wildly varying chemical, geological, temperature, etc. regimes over an entire planet? Or over any number of plausible "candidate" planets, of which we were lucky enough to draw the correct one? In an interstellar medium filled with floating bio-molecules just waiting their chance to rain down on candidate planets?
Now I've got a question for you? Are you entirely sure no "atheist" has ever "satisfactorily" answered these rather banal little questions?
Posted by: Steviepinhead | October 30, 2006 4:40 PM
The other sad thing about these complaints about my characterization of Adams is that they quote that...and strip off the links. Every phrase in the original had a link to a site backing up the accusation, and now they act as if I were just making it all up.
Shouldn't internet trolls know about "links" already? Does this new-fangled technology confuse them?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 4:49 PM
Alexander Stevens appeals to science to justify slavery. Hitler appeals to science to justify his weird numerological racism. We all say this is bad science, we all admit there can be people who practice bad science.
But in arguing against religion, it seems "trespasser" and others take the worst and least reasonable of the devout and use them to characterize all religious folks. All religion is bad because some religions, which you have had the misfortune to encounter, are bad. What happens to me when atheists do that is that I am left thinking that you have no clue what I am talking about, and wouldn't understand why, as a Catholic, I also argue against a lot of what you argue against.
"trespasser", did you know that a lay protestant thinker considered by many Christians of many denominations to be a fine expositor of Christian thought -- one of the finest of the last century -- says that no one is in hell who doesn't want to be there, that the door to hell is locked from the inside?
If you don't know that, then you haven't done much opposition research and you won't understand why your description of Christianity is so far from what some Christians think that useful discussion probably can't happen. Not that that's a problem to you.
I don't believe in the God you don't believe in. There's another God, however, that I haven't heard you talk about. I do believe in Him.
I note PZ has a quote about how some people think that their arguing from religion makes them wiser than others. No doubt. But I've seen enough smugly condescending atheists who show so little comprehension of the argument they seem to think they've refuted with dazzling logic, that I have to conclude that the same could be said of them. Just espousing atheism gives them a sense of such great intellectual superiority that they feel they don't have actually to USE their great minds.
Posted by: Mad Dawg | October 30, 2006 4:58 PM
Liberals "Just Know" they are right, so they do not have to resort to reason or logic to substantiate their quaint beliefs. A "far, far right-wing nut case" is anyone who disagrees with a liberal. And if you disagree with a liberal, expect the following sort of claptrap:
Oooh, he must be a genius, he calls people liberals. He obviously knows what he's talking about! We must bow down to his awesome knowledge.
By the way, Liberal:
lib‧er‧al [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl]
-adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
-noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
[Origin: 1325-75; ME
--Related forms
lib‧er‧al‧ly, adverb
lib‧er‧al‧ness, noun
--Synonyms 1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.
--Antonyms 1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
So Mighty Blue Bustard, are you reactionary, intolerant, or niggardly? Maybe a combination, since you are so against liberals and things that befit the free.
Posted by: Mena | October 30, 2006 5:07 PM
Now now, this influx of new idiots is too entertaining. Maybe we can make our points, but obfuscate them so these people will stick around longer...
Or not.
Posted by: Cat of Many Faces | October 30, 2006 5:07 PM
Acteon: Just because we don't know the answer now or indeed even know how we can know the answer doesn't mean we never will. Someday a scientist somewhere will have equipment and methods we today can not even imagine.
Good, but I think it's inportant to state further that even if we never know the answer, that doesn't mean that "God did it" is a valid answer.
Posted by: gravitybear | October 30, 2006 5:10 PM
All religion is bad because some religions, which you have had the misfortune to encounter, are bad. What happens to me when atheists do that is that I am left thinking that you have no clue what I am talking about, and wouldn't understand why, as a Catholic, I also argue against a lot of what you argue against.
an atheist does not use the evidence of the societal effects of religion to justify atheism. an atheist uses the lack of evidence in support of any deities to be all the justification needed.
decrying the societal effects of various religious sects has nothing to do with atheism, as you rightly point out that you yourself can decry various religious sects as well.
don't confuse one for the other.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 30, 2006 5:15 PM
Dr. Myers -
I think it would be great for two academics w/ differing points of view to speak to each other and the public from the same forum. Why don't you try to get it setup?
One of the concerns that many conservatives have is that liberal academics are unwilling to listen to opposing points of view & are certainly unwilling to give those points-of-view a fair hearing.
Are you the man who can prove them wrong? (by providing / producing / cooperating to produce / ... the forum where both sides can receive a fair hearing?
Posted by: Scott Kemp | October 30, 2006 5:20 PM
Are you nuts? That's about as complete a reversal of the situation as you can possibly get.
Mike S. Adams, about as contemptible and fringey a right-winger as you can get, comes to this liberal campus, and our faculty give extra credit to students for attending his talk. I tell students to either not attend, or listen politely and ask hard questions, but that they shouldn't protest. I attended his talk, despite knowing pretty well what kind of nonsense he'd spout.
And we're the ones who are unwilling to listen?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Hitler and Stevens were not practising science. They were twisting it to suit their ideologies. Hitler was Catholic and Stevens was a Presbyterian.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 30, 2006 5:25 PM
If the only way for something to exist is for something greater than it to have created it, where did God come from?
We don't think the universe existed forever, but it doesn't matter anyway--your inability to comprehend something is not a measure of its nonexistence.
Louis Pasteur's experiment showed that life is all about us, and that within the conditions and timecourse of his observations, it does not spontaneously emerge. He did not, of course, have a planet the size of the earth under the conditions that prevailed 4.5 billion years ago in his flask for a few million years.
Is this the very best the readers of Mike S. Adams' dreck can do? I'm not impressed.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 30, 2006 5:33 PM
Actually Mad Dawg most of us grew up in religious households. For whatever reason many us outgrew or altered our point of view over time. There was a whole thread about deconversion stories a while back.
I am an atheist not because I think it gives me any moral or intellectual superiority but because I don't believe in the existance of any deities or in the supernatural. If you see condescension it's because most of us are tired of beating the same dead horse, but continue to do so anyway.
There's no new arguments for the existence of any deities. We've all seen the same logical fallacies over and over again. Each time we see the same old canards they are presented with the glee of a cat bringing in a dead bird for its' masters. We've all seen every single argument that can be brought against us. We've beaten them before. They aren't new. They aren't innovative. So by the 50th time someone brings up St. Anselm's ontological arguments we're tired and cranky at fighting a battle we've fought 49 times before.
Posted by: commissarjs | October 30, 2006 5:38 PM
And how do you explain the inaccuracy of Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment, which disproved spontaneous generation?
This is a 150 years old, yet fresh and fertile argument. Aha, Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiment was inaccurate! Pasteur was wrong, maliciously so, and spontaneous generation does exist. Which proves that evolution is a fabrication.
I can imagine an anti-science biology class where the students observe how meat, left on the sun, breeds green flies, and how a sack of grain generates - spontaneously - maggots. We can also observe on a microscope how a drop of pure water soon fills up with small living creatures. We can also see the small humunculi swimming in some young volunteer's ejection. We shall then watch Woody Allen's instructive film showing the him as his collegues as sperm. Moreover, I can design an experiment showing that Einstein's trains and watches experiment does not work, two teams of student travelling on two trains speeding off at opposite directions keep the same time, and we can prove that comparing by cell phones. No relativity here. And that famous Schrodiger's cat in a box thought experiment! I can show with a real cat and a real box that he was wrong.
Gentlemen, I understand creationism is a very profitable business, and I am willing to prepare a practical guide of creationist experiments and teaching aids in physics and biology for only a fistful of gold dollars. I hope Prof. PZ Myers will allow me to promote here my useful services. Contact address below.
Posted by: jaimito | October 30, 2006 5:40 PM
I don't see how you can tell an adult not to worry, there's no such thing as ghosts without sounding condescending.
Posted by: bmurray | October 30, 2006 5:41 PM
Conservatives have that concern because right-wing radicals (who care nothing for conserving the status quo) have repeatedly told conservatives that liberal academics are close-minded. Right-Wing nuts have constructed strawman liberal academic, who is quite rare. Right-Wing propagandists have taken advantage of the fact that few people have the resources to investigate how most liberal academic institutions treat speakers. The true situation is much as PZ Myers describes it (with isolated exceptions), but Right-Wing propagandists have created a new reality for conservatives to live in. That is, conservatives to which you refer are the victims of a superbly executed con game.
(FWIW, democrats, liberals, and libertarians have often been equally deceived by the same con games - but they reacted differently, and that's another topic.)
Posted by: llewelly | October 30, 2006 5:49 PM