…and this is a 
Now we know how to make the IDists dance in their petticoats: blaspheme.
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 20, 2006 5:19 PM, by PZ Myers
The latest panty-twisting at Uncommon Descent is over the Blasphemy Challenge. The poor dears are so concerned about all the heretics damning themselves that DaveScot is moved to weep and pray over them, and William Dembski writes a letter to Richard Dawkins asking him why he doesn't expand the challenge to torment the Moslems (note that Dawkins is not responsible for the Blasphemy Challenge, has nothing at all to do with it, and hasn't promoted it, so it's rather peculiar of Dembski to act as if he is the Grand Overlord of All Atheists).
This wouldn't be worth following, except that I think Dawkins' reply is absolutely perfect.
I had not given the Blasphemy Challenge any thought until you called it to my attention. Now that you have done so, I do not seem to feel strongly one way or the other. As that admirable bumper sticker has it, Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime. So, am I going to send in my own film clip denying the Holy Ghost? No, that is not what Oxford professors do, they write books instead. Do I find it offensive that so many young people are sending in their film clips? No. I hadn't listened to any of them before you raised the matter. I have now done so, and I must say I find them more charming than offensive. They mostly seem rather nice young people, and they are doing their bit, in their own lively and entertaining way, to raise consciousness and set an example to their peers. I am especially pleased to note how young they are, for organized atheists have, until recently, been noticeably and discouragingly grey-headed. I think we may be witnessing the beginnings of a shift in the tectonic plates of our Zeitgeist. I am delighted to see so many young Americans taking part, in a way that suits their age group better than mine or yours.
It's a weird and rather stupid request Dembski has made. The reason they are denying one of the Christian gods is because that's what most of these people have been brought up to believe; Dembski himself would probably have no hesitation about denying Mohammed, so that wouldn't be much of a challenge. What these people are doing in these clips is rejecting the dogma with which they were indoctrinated, and I agree with Dawkins that this is a most excellent and wise thing for them to do. I would similarly think it excellent if young Moslems were all to cheerfully deny Allah, and young Jews to deny their god, and a whole wave of outspoken unbelief were to sweep across the world.
There's another great bonus that Dawkins didn't notice: the spectacle of the creationists weeping and having the vapors at the thought of people rejecting their superstition is simply too delicious.
Oh, my. The email revelations continue, with little Billy Dembski showing off a reasonable, polite letter from Dawkins, followed by grandiose, delusional gloating in a letter from Dembski. This is beginning to hurt; I normally wouldn't have any sympathy for the Baron Munchausen of Intelligent Design, but this battle is so one-sided it hardly seems fair.
So Billy was going to tattle on Dawkins to his neighbor, George W. Bush? Wow.
Comments
Allah doesn't exist. Okay. I did it. Sorry I don't have video. I'm a little camera shy.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 20, 2006 5:37 PM
Richard Dawkins' mastery of the Queen's English is nothing less than exquisite.
I deny the Holy Spirit!
Cheers to all, and a very Happy KvD Day!!
Posted by: waldteufel | December 20, 2006 5:38 PM
I love the reactions to the videos in comments from christians, the range of emotions is hysterical. They come under 3 basic themes.
1. You all think hell is one big party, and it's not. You'll regret it.
2. God is too loving to damn you for this silly stunt.
3. You have to believe in god in order to deny a belief in him, or some other disjointed nonsenes, about atheism being a cult.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 20, 2006 5:45 PM
Posted by: quork | December 20, 2006 5:49 PM
"It's a weird and rather stupid request Dembski has made."
Gee...now there's a surprise.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | December 20, 2006 5:50 PM
Ahem ... I make the following confession, that science is fun, or I should say that practicing the scientific method is fun and a rather wonderful way to while ones time away and it can, in most cases, keep one out of mischief, that is, if one practices the scientific method for the love of discovery and for the wonder of unveiling truths. But when one uses the scientific method for ulterior motives, such as discovering what a wonderful bang dynamite produces, then if said scientist removes the science ballcap and put on the entrepreneur ballcap and devises all sorts of money making schemes from the discovery of dynamite, and goes ahead without much forethought and sells said discovery that produces dynamite, and later becomes shocked at what many bangs has produced, then to rectify that error by handing out a prize and money for some peaceable chap who didn't make the same error, then I think the love of the amoral scientific method can and does easily go afoul, causing untold misery. It is the science that is amoral, it is the scientist that may or may not be moral, or more likely, the scientist that is happy just doing science while leaving the politicians to care for the messy matters of morality.
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | December 20, 2006 5:53 PM
Ohhhhhhh, that's rich. Look how Dembski starts off -
"Richard Dawkins continues to publish my past emails to him without permission and I continue to return the favor."
Who was it who published Dan Dennett's emails to a third party (Michael Ruse, who sent both sides of the exchange to Dembski without Dennett's permission) last spring? Why - none other than that very same Dembski.
Man, he's got gall.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | December 20, 2006 5:54 PM
Just to clarify, Dembski's letter about Islam is in response to Dawkins' response to Dembski's query about the Blasphemy Project.
Apparently Dembski believes he can outwit Dawkins. Well, Dembski believes a lot of things.
Uncommondescent.com is getting weirder and more entertaining by the day.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | December 20, 2006 5:57 PM
Re: Bro. Bartleby:
Clearly, we need to kill all the politicians, then.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 20, 2006 5:58 PM
A comment from that thread:
Erasmus, As is plain to anyone with eyes, those young people responding to the Blasphemy Challenge are deluded and parrot verbatim the atheistic tripe as a simple act of juvenile rebellion.
"Parrot verbatim" cost me another irony meter.
(The comment goes on to make the inevitable "inevitable nihilism" point.)
Posted by: Kseniya | December 20, 2006 5:58 PM
It just shows once again that many believers simply do not get it. They think we are playing a game. We aren't. Here's one for all of them:
I deny the Wholey Ghost
I deny the Unholy ghost
and just for Billy and Ann, I deny the flatulent ghost. I fart in its general direction.
We aren't pretending. We aren't mad at god. We don't believe there is any such thing. Personally I am looking forward to Hell. I have a seat reserved at a table with Einstein, Ayn Rand, Hume, Ghandi, Mark Twain and Jennifer Connelly (call me presumptuous, but I think she'll get there).
For any believers who are confused at this point, my last two comments are tongue-in-cheek. I don't really think I'm going to socialize with those people for all eternity. But that sure would be a lot more interesting than the choices at the other hypothetical location, at least according to your "standards".
Posted by: MarkP | December 20, 2006 6:03 PM
Look at this. The guy is shameless.
"Since Richard Dawkins thinks he has the right to reprint my letters to him by posting them over the Internet (go here), I'll assume the same privilege applies to me."
Well, Bill, maybe he thinks that because you published Dan Dennett's 'letters' to Michael Ruse without asking Dennett, last spring. You have got a fokking nerve whining about Dawkins publishing your emails to Dawkins now.
-------------
Back talking to Pharyngula now. I'd post a comment on UD, but I'm sure he wouldn't publish it. I asked him twice last spring why he hadn't asked Dennett for permission to post Dennett's emails on his site (I wrote a news article on the subject for The Philosophers' Mag, so this was research), but I got no reply. Perhaps there was an email failure somewhere along the way.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | December 20, 2006 6:04 PM
"Richard Dawkins continues to publish my past emails to him without permission and I continue to return the favor."
Ahem. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I haven't seen any mention of Dawkins email that precipitated this most recent Dembski spewage (probably because dembski didn't link back to it - I wonder why?).
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski,page2#comments
Posted by: jeffw | December 20, 2006 6:06 PM
Bro. Bartleby:
Be careful what you wish for because you might get it. A focus on "moral" science might just lead us to ignore irrational religious concerns about pre-marital sex and mandate comprehensive sexual education even in parochial schools.
But aside from that, slight quibble, since a Muslim is someone who believes in Islam, denying Allah would be apostasy. I would think a more analogous example would be young people living in Islamic states or in pre-dominantly Muslim nations (e.g. Indonesia) denying Allah
Posted by: noself | December 20, 2006 6:08 PM
Both the challenge and the UD idiocy are priceless. Not to mention astounding how they can say/type such things with the proverbial straight faces!
But I suppose I feel a bit of guilt for making fun of the foolish superstitions of others... okay not really.
Posted by: Daniel | December 20, 2006 6:16 PM
This was gold:
Taking that kind of veiled jab at Dembski's flatulent foley and lack of publications at the same time was a masterful burn.
Posted by: Dustin | December 20, 2006 6:16 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't all the Abrahamic religions share the same god. Denying god, not capitalized, would be a denial of all gods, at least the monotheistic ones.
Posted by: Magnus | December 20, 2006 6:17 PM
Some of the more interesting comments re DaveTard's weeping spell just got wiped.
Pity. I was hoping the li'l prick would dry his tears and respond.
Posted by: Lord Satan, Blasphemer | December 20, 2006 6:18 PM
Okay, from my Christian perspective, a few observations.
Observation 1: God has a sense of humor. Dembski's denial of that fact doesn't change it, though it does suggest Dembski isn't as close to God as he claims.
Observation 2: Dembski's blasphemy challenge is exactly the sort of God testing that Jesus warned against when the Tempter took Jesus to the top of the Temple. Consequently, for God it's no challenge at all. However, it does suggest that, since Dembski now assumes the anti-Jesus position in his gauntlet-throwing to Dawkins, we know at least on which parapet Dembski stands.
Observation 3: The scriptures at Mark talk about those who really deny the Holy Spirit -- you know, by acting as if the Holy Spirit doesn't exist, or by taking other actions that are so contrary to the Holy Spirit. Simply incanting a denial doesn't do it. Lying wholesale, misleading innocent children into the wicked paths of creationism (wow, there's a phrase loaded with irony!), cheating on peer review, and in general denying the stuff that creation shows us to be true -- THAT's blasphemy, a rejection of the Holy Spirit.
The video give-away is fun, P.Z., but if you continue to act ethically and otherwise do the things that God would prefer, a simple video can't get you out of the club.
I'll let you in on a secret that is known only to rationalists, be they agnostic, theist or atheist: It's not a club.
If Dembski is really concerned about souls, he needs to start paying attention to footnotes in Jonathan Wells' stuff, and in the schlock presented to state boards of education under the name of religionists.
The anti-evolution crowd is a ghastly, ghostly mockery of intellectual discussion these days. Sort of Monty Python, but without the wit, charm, grace, humor, intelligence, high production values, costumes, and talented performers Monty Python had.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 20, 2006 6:19 PM
Posted by: ben | December 20, 2006 6:19 PM
Except if you're jewish you deny the existence of g*d. hehe.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 20, 2006 6:20 PM
My favorite comment over there is from "Smidlee": "I'm sure Dawkins would love to listen to rock groups like AC/DC since their songs often mock Christianity/church."
Yes, and he probably also enjoys alcoholic beverages, profanity and casual clothing!
Posted by: Phil | December 20, 2006 6:23 PM
Ophelia, we all know by now that Dembski is entirely witless and dishonest -- all he's got is a ratlike fixation on his bit of dogma.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 20, 2006 6:24 PM
We had better be right about the atheist thing since it won't only be Einstein et al down in hell. Dembski, DaveScot, Ted Haggard, the reglars at freerepublic.com, etc. will be there too!
Posted by: Mena | December 20, 2006 6:24 PM
Noting JeffW's link above, it's worth noting that Baylor is generally considered out of the running for George W.'s library, now, too.
Ask Dembski who will win the BCS championship. Bet the other way.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 20, 2006 6:25 PM
Wow. I mean, wow. Every time I read UD I think to myself, "These people are insane."
How do people operating at that level of fantasyland self-deception and conspiracy theory paranoia even walk down the street to the grocery store to buy food, or wash themselves without drowning in the bathtub?
Incredible.
(But it is fun to read. Heh.)
Posted by: Brent Rasmussen | December 20, 2006 6:30 PM
Ed Darrell: "Ask Dembski who will win the BCS championship. Bet the other way."
Indeed. Check out his prediction of the Dover decision:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/371
"As I see it, there are three possible outcomes:
" 1. The Dover policy, in which students are informed that the ID textbook Of Pandas and People is in their library, is upheld.
" 2. The Dover policy is overturned but the scientific status of ID is left unchallenged.
" 3. The Dover policy is not only overturned but ID is ruled as nonscientific.
"For what it's worth, my subjective probabilities are that outcome 1. has about a 20% probability, outcome 2. has about an 70% probability, and outcome 3. has less than a 10% probability."
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | December 20, 2006 6:30 PM
Well, considering that young Muslims who publicly reject their religion have fair chance of being killed for their apostacy, I can't say I'm surprised that they are not present in large numbers. Fortunately, for the time being anyway, the Christian church does not murder heretics.
Posted by: writerdd | December 20, 2006 6:36 PM
"we all know by now that Dembski is entirely witless and dishonest"
Ya...well I guess I'm still taking it in; I don't read him as often as you guys do. I have to admit, I was taken aback at the farting thing. Strange fella.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | December 20, 2006 6:39 PM
Saw a beautiful "V" of geese flying overhead this afternoon. I'm pretty sure it's evidence of God's design, shorthand for "Virgin," reminding us about the virgin birth we're about to celebrate this Christmas.
The question is, if there is no God, and no God's design, then how do the goosies know to fly in a "V"? :>)
When atheists walk together, do they automatically form an "A"? And what does it symbolize? My guess is it has something to do with anterior apertures. :>)
Merry Christmas, you guys. Someday, I really hope that you grasp this fact: it's for real.
Posted by: Susan Darst Williams | December 20, 2006 6:44 PM
Uncommondescent.com is getting weirder and more entertaining by the day.
***************************************************
getting wierder - YES
more entertaining - NO
I used to go there for a nice laugh, but UD has become too pathetic to be funny. I stopped going there as I grew tired of feeling pity for Dembski
Posted by: richCares | December 20, 2006 6:47 PM
When atheists fly south, they always form a v, and then they fight like cats and geese over which poor shmo has to be the point, and whether the point atheist has dropped back too soon. When geese walk to church they form a K just to confuse people.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | December 20, 2006 6:49 PM
Saw a beautiful "V" of geese flying overhead this afternoon. I'm pretty sure it's evidence of God's design, shorthand for "Virgin,"
I thought it was a reference to the well-known and obscene English hand gesture.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 20, 2006 6:50 PM
The challenge is silly, and the response at UD even sillier. I remember the whole "unforgiveable sin" line--once you've heard it it's guaranteed to fire up Obsessive Compulsive fears about thinking the blasphemous thought you're suddenly compelled to think after being told not to think it (great technique, and has about the same success rate as the "No!" training about premarital sex).
Strange fella, indeed. Poor, bedeviled, superstitious man. Why are people like that?
Posted by: Kristine | December 20, 2006 6:53 PM
The question is, if there is no God, and no God's design, then how do the goosies know to fly in a "V"?
Is that a serious question?
Since you mention apertures, I have a question too:
If there is no God, and no God's design, then how does the Amazonian candiru know to swim into the anus, vagina or even penis of a bathing human being, erect a sharp spine to keep itself in place, and begin to feed on the blood and body tissue of its host?
Posted by: Kseniya | December 20, 2006 6:54 PM
Religion teaches them to be that way.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 20, 2006 6:55 PM
My fellow atheists should keep in mind that even for Westerners, insulting God the Father/Elohim/Allah and/or Jesus/Isa can incur a death fatwah.
BBC, 1999:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493436.stm
"An Islamic group based in the UK has issued a death fatwa against a playwright whose London stage production depicts Jesus Christ as a homosexual.
Terrence McNally was sentenced to death by the Shari'ah Court of the UK as his play, Corpus Christi, opened in London on Thursday night. ...
The religious edict was signed by Sheik Omar Bakri Muhammad, judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK. ...
He said: "The fatwa is to express the Islamic point of view that those who are insulting to Allah and the messengers of God, they must understand it is a crime.
"The Church of England has neglected the honour of the Virgin Mary and Jesus. It is blasphemy for them not to take action.""
McNally had another death fatwah issued on him in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus
Posted by: Colugo | December 20, 2006 6:55 PM
Thanks Kseniya. I'll thank you for tonights nightmare tomorrow.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 20, 2006 6:56 PM
Whoa...it was a Susan drive-by.
Many of you may not remember Susan, but she's a batty-as-they-come fanatical Christian who went on and on in this thread at the old site.
You may be surprised by this, but here comment here was probably entirely serious. She's that kind of dingbat.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 20, 2006 6:58 PM
Friggin excellent. Dawkins' analysis of the young atheists is spot on. He is such a delightful fellow.
Dumb-ass DUMBski needs to learn how to figure out who is in charge of what around here. He is too used to structures of singular authority. Clearly, grass-roots movements are a totally alien concept to him.
I can just imagine his initial reaction to this.... "Oh no! Materialists are damning themselves to hell! Quick, send an email to the Atheist Overlord, Dawkins, and hopefully he will send a decree across the land, forcing his minions to stop! Just like president Bush forced all unmarried people to stop fucking!"
Posted by: Aaron Kinney | December 20, 2006 6:58 PM
You may be surprised by this, but here comment here was probably entirely serious. She's that kind of dingbat.
Now you scared me.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 20, 2006 7:03 PM
Do geese fly in a π formation in Greece?
Posted by: j | December 20, 2006 7:03 PM
I think most sober observers would agree that there's no point in trying to try to distinguish Yahweh from God from Allah, but some of the more insistent religionists get all worked up over the idea that these are just different names for the "one true god" who heads up the monotheistic religions deriving from the seed of Abraham. For example, there are fundamentalist Christians who decry "Allah" as a pumped-up version of a tribal moon god (yet they don't usually apply the same treatment to Yahweh), thereby denying that "Allah" is just the Arabic word for "God".
It's a tedious business, isn't it?
Posted by: Zeno | December 20, 2006 7:04 PM
Wow. I thought she was being funny. Creeeepy.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 20, 2006 7:06 PM
"Someday, I really hope that you grasp this fact: it's for real."
What's for real, Susan? Your sky fairy?
Posted by: waldteufel | December 20, 2006 7:13 PM
Re: geese flying in a V:
a) flocking behaviour; b) aerodynamic slipstreaming. But you knew that already.
Actually, it's not a V. It's an angle bracket. Geese flying west make an open bracket, geese flying east make a close bracket, and swallows in the middle spell out the Poisson bracket, if you squint really hard.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | December 20, 2006 7:21 PM
I thought she was trying to be funny, anyway. My reaction, that her comments were satirical, and, in fact, too heavy-handed to be good satire, does not bode well for the effectiveness of her "witnessing."
Posted by: Fox1 | December 20, 2006 7:26 PM
Susan - Why does god make one leg of the goose V longer than the other?
Answer: He doesn't, there are just more geese on that side.
(Not sure what emoticon to use here.)
Posted by: Jake | December 20, 2006 7:31 PM
faithandshadow moron at Uncommon Idiot
I've run out of time. Yikes. But if I ever get back, I'll answer more of those. I have a response to every one of these versus. It takes some study
Man, these people are sickeningly stupid.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 20, 2006 7:33 PM
Professor Myers, when you say that creationists will "hav(e) the vapours," do you mean vapours like anisol or the various organic carcinogens that make up "new car smell"?
Posted by: Stanton | December 20, 2006 7:44 PM
Dembski posts those emails somehow thinking it will make Dawkins look bad? Just going on those two messages, one party does indeed come off badly, but it isn't Richard.
Posted by: Brian | December 20, 2006 7:57 PM
Richard Dawkins' mastery of the Queen's English is nothing less than exquisite.
And he managed to work in a book plug. I imagine delicacy prevented him from adding the clause "...write books instead, like The God Delusion."
"Richard Dawkins continues to publish my past emails to him without permission and I continue to return the favor."
Surely Dembski should welcome this, since it will allow historians to reconstruct the sociology of the 'inevitable collapse of evolutionary biology', just as with his scatological flash animation.
Posted by: Tristram Shandy | December 20, 2006 8:02 PM
Dembski posts email from Dawkins so he can pretend to be in the same league. I'm sure his fans eat it up, they wouldn't know the difference.
Posted by: Zombie | December 20, 2006 8:02 PM
Geese flying in V formation to symbolize virgin birth?!
Shouldn't that be a P formation for parthenogenesis?
Hmm, does anyone else think the evil Richard Dawkins may have had something to do with this?
LONDON (Reuters) - Flora, a pregnant Komodo dragon living in a British zoo, is expecting eight babies in what scientists said on Wednesday could be a Christmas virgin birth.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | December 20, 2006 8:11 PM
"William Dembski writes a letter to Richard Dawkins asking him why he doesn't expand the challenge to torment the Moslems"
Magnus said:
"Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't all the Abrahamic religions share the same god. Denying god, not capitalized, would be a denial of all gods, at least the monotheistic ones."
You are correct. And in fact in Islam there is only the holy ghost, no father or son, there is a whole Sura devoted to talking to christians about the lack of a trinity. So in response to Dembski (oh, how I resist the desire to replace an e with a u): we have expanded the challege, or rather, the religions have expanded it for us.
Posted by: AoT | December 20, 2006 8:26 PM
It is pretty amazing that geese know English.
Posted by: craig | December 20, 2006 8:27 PM
I don't know if any has said anything or not yet but the Richard Dawkins Foundation posted a bulletin on MySpace about the Blasphemy Challenge so maybe that is why they thought Dawkins was endorsing it
Posted by: James Allen | December 20, 2006 8:34 PM
"Richard Dawkins continues to publish my past emails to him without permission and I continue to return the favor."
Na, und? It's my understanding that when you send an email, the recipient can do with it what they will.
Posted by: Patrick | December 20, 2006 8:39 PM
Susan, it's not a "V." It's a copy editor's carat showing where to insert something. The geese want your participation. Next time you see a flying V, jump up and insert something so the geese won't be disappointed.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 20, 2006 8:43 PM
When atheists walk together, do they automatically form an "A"? And what does it symbolize? My guess is it has something to do with anterior aperture.
anterior?
mouth? nose? eyes? terminus of urethra?
Posted by: Francis | December 20, 2006 9:07 PM
No. Not ethically. Not any more than you'd have the right to publicize things said in private conversations without permission. The blogosphere came down hard on Christopher Hitchens for publicly posting Juan Cole's e-mail to him without permission; assuming that Billy isn't lying about not giving permission, then it was not good form for Richard to post it.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | December 20, 2006 9:15 PM
I first noticed signs that Bill is finally cracking up back in October, when he posted this statement:
"I am Richard Dawkins' worst nightmare."
Delusions of grandeur setting in. Poor guy. The strain of believing a bunch of crappola is getting to him. He's getting old. Wasting his life on a foolish infatuation. A good day is getting an email from Richard Dawkins. It makes him feel so special. Should we feel sorry for him?
Nah, pass the popcorn.
Posted by: George | December 20, 2006 9:22 PM
"I am Richard Dawkins' worst nightmare."
BWAAAAAAaaaaaa HAAAAA!!!!!
Yeah, and I'm Casey Luskin's worst nightmare. Boogah boogah!!!!
Sadly, Bill Dembski won't live long enough to experience his worst nightmare. None of the believers will.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 20, 2006 9:29 PM
Yeah, that's my understanding too. However, given the rather bland contents of the letter allegedly published, I'm not inclined to care much. Incidentally, where did Richard post it anyway?
Posted by: Andrew Wade | December 20, 2006 9:35 PM
If Dembski is really concerned about souls, he needs to start paying attention to footnotes in Jonathan Wells' stuff, and in the schlock presented to state boards of education under the name of religionists.
I tried to ask the dude what he thought of Wells' stuff. Note this question and this comment from me one the question of what Dembski believes about HIV and AIDS and Wells' statements regarding same.
Inexplicably, I've never been banned; I assume that I could still post there but no one really responds except to pepper me with off-topic questions (this after I was told I was off-topic). "You can't have meaning in your life without God! You're an irresponsible carefree young person but someday you're going to feel pain and need the Lord! Blah, blah!" (Glad to know I'm young. Thanks. I'm just a little younger that Dembski himself.) Yeah, I was never banned. I stalked away after this insulting thread.
This crap about HIV not causing AIDS has consequences. All I was looking for was a simple answer. Are the folks at UD upset over the recent death sentences of the Tripoli Six at all? Why do they prefer to focus on Dawkins all the time? Why do they care about other people's "blasphemy"? It's our souls, not theirs. Or do they think that they own our "souls," too?
The Tripoli Six were sentenced to death and this is what intelligent design advocates focus on--people mocking the holy ghost on videotape. Some priorities.
Posted by: Kristine | December 20, 2006 9:36 PM
I know why you haven't been banned. It's the shimmying. They're mesmerized.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 20, 2006 9:41 PM
Just skimmed the old Susan posts. Whoa! Glad we just caught a whiff this time. What is it about whackjobs and their digital diarrhea?
Posted by: dkew | December 20, 2006 9:43 PM
Never mind, it seems it was a different e-mail, and jeffw already posted the link. I'm not sure that really merits any confidentiality.
Posted by: Andrew Wade | December 20, 2006 9:49 PM
This is the post where Dawkins reprinted a Dembski e-mail (according to an earlier post by Dembski on UD). It was that mass e-mail about the farting Flash animation. I'm not an expert on Internet etiquette, but I don't think posting it is some grave breach of protocol.
Posted by: dorkafork | December 20, 2006 9:52 PM
Sorry for the redundancy. But that's the one Dembski linked in a post with the same title without the "II".
Posted by: dorkafork | December 20, 2006 9:56 PM
Ed, nice thought and I agree to a large degree but are you saying that you have to be perfect in actionand can work your way into heaven? This seems a dubious thought to me.
How can you even begin to know what God prefers? All you can do is believe what you believe he prefers in any event. I appreciate your sentiment but your thinking seems wayward.
Posted by: Uber | December 20, 2006 10:01 PM
Well, an unsolicited mass mailing is just spam, so if that's all that Billy is referring to then I agree no breach was made.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | December 20, 2006 10:16 PM
Dawkins can take heart.
Now that the internet exists and access is available across the land many atheists are able to communicate and speak freely to one another. Many of the younger free thinkers I've come across are stuck in red states or drowning in mega church territory and thought they were alone in their doubts. With the advent of blogs, YouTube, LiveVideo and such they understand that no only are they not alone but that many others both young and old share their ideas and doubts.
They no longer need to raise their children to 'go along and be quiet' just to keep them safe. We have a huge network, we offer one another advice and support and sometimes just knowing that you are not alone is all that is needed to find your voice.
Posted by: flame821 | December 20, 2006 10:23 PM
I'm glad I bumped into the JREF forums and Skeptico. Now I've got a lot of online friends who I can talk openly with. My sense of humor can run free. Naked and freeeee!
Posted by: Bronze Dog | December 20, 2006 10:53 PM
I'm not an expert on Internet etiquette, but I don't think posting it is some grave breach of protocol.
Posting the ravings of well-known lunatics like Bildo Dumbski is never unethical.
If you got an email from Ann Coulter where she mocked you and said some ridiculous baloney, surely you would publish it without hesitation.
Speaking of which, you think Bildo and Ann got a good thing going? I'm guessing Bildo cleaned her carpet at some point.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | December 20, 2006 10:56 PM
No, Uber, I'm not saying people have to be perfect.
This was the point upon which Darwin lashed out at fundies of his day. Dembski and crew are working on the assumption that if one does some magic set of incantations, one's afterlife fate is sealed -- and that good people who act ethically cannot gain salvation if they don't also do the magic incantations. As Darwin described that philosophy, it's "abominable." Bad religion.
If P. Z. continues to act in an ethical manner, most Christians would aver, he's not going to be shut out of a heaven because he didn't say some magic incantation.
In sum, ethical action is preferred to sanctimonious blather. Always. Jesus even had a parable about it, but I have come to understand that most creationists are not very familiar with those teachings.
Geeze, I'm sounding really cynical, no? It's a cynicism born of experience.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 20, 2006 11:09 PM
Ed,
I don't mean to be picky but who decides what is an ethical manner and what standard are we using? I mean is a man who tells a lie ethical? Who has stolen? Committed adultery? been gay? Took a pen from work? People are people, they all have their flaws. Who can say who is better or worse across the board. In my view most folks come out pretty even in the end.
Aren't you making the same set of assumptions by pretending the words aren't important? You have no better way of knowing what is or isn't then Dembski and frankly I find their theology more consistent than yours on this idea and they are insane virtually anywhere else in life.
And I think your 100% wrong here:
Most Christians? Most Christians think an ethical atheist will get the same reward as they will but refuse to vote for them in a Presidential race? I think your very wrong here Ed, hearts in the right place but I think seriously backwards. Most Christians most definetly think atheists are not going to heaven. Is this even arguable?
It seems to me your theology makes Jesus and his actions superflous to the entire process. Which if your a Christian universalist is ok.
I don't care one way or the other really I just find your responses here a little odd.
Posted by: Uber | December 20, 2006 11:28 PM
I have it! The geese have a promotion deal with the Wachowski brothers.
Posted by: Flying In A Vee | December 21, 2006 12:23 AM
Just giving you a little Christmas goose, PZ, to see if you've made any progress on this God thing. His design is everywhere, and I'm still praying that you'll have a "eureka!" moment soon and realize how comic the theory of evolution really is.
How great it would be if you would use your excellent communication skills to 'xplain how nature works to the rest of us without blaspheming the main Man, God. Remember, He's makin' a list, and checkin' it twice . . . gonna find out who's naughty or nice. . . . I want you on the "nice" list, PZ. :>)
On your "dingbat" comment: Kid #1 graduated with highest distinction, Phi Beta Kappa, with the prize for the best senior thesis in her major from the U of No'th Car'lina, and is now in law school. Must have a dollop of gray matter in there somewhere, wouldn't you think? Trying to paint Christian believers as ignorant Gomer Pyles just because we see God's design and you don't (yet!) smells a lot like last year's eggnog. :>)
At any rate, Merry Christmas, and all the best to you and your family.
Posted by: Susan Darst Williams | December 21, 2006 12:25 AM
Ed,
Surely if you don't believe the Holy Spirit exists, then you will naturally behave as if the Holy Spirit doesn't exist. Part of that behaviour is being willing to deny the existence of the Holy Spirit. And I understood that blasphemy, in both legal and theological terms, was very much about the spoken (or written) word.
Posted by: Peter Barber | December 21, 2006 12:31 AM
Uber: I find myself agreeing both with Ed and with you on this one. Doctrinally, I think Ed's got it right. Practically speaking, though, you're right: the majority of Christians in the US would disagree with Ed.
How about this potential point of agreement: Forget Christianity. Dembski's recent stunts have reached such a low that pretty much anyone who has an ethical bone in their body is going to have a low opinion of him....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | December 21, 2006 12:38 AM
ok, then just explain the ethically thing from above. I mean seriously is a kid who has premarital sex behaving ethically? masturbation? I just don't see anyway that a works based theology makes any sense. Apparently if an atheist gets into heaven it makes Jesus superflous to Christianity as well. So I don't see how you can say Ed is doctrinally correct whatever the hell that could possibly ever mean. Dawkins and Harris may be correct when they say moderate believers are part of the problem.
Any and all religious doctrines have their backers and naysayers and nary a shred of difference evidence wise between them. In my view the faith alone theolgy has way more going for it logically than a works based idea. John 3:16 there friends. :-)
Dembski is not behaving ethically in this debate but that doesn't mean I woulnd't trust him with my car keys. I can't believe I find myself defending that goof's character. I just can't believe it.
Posted by: Uber | December 21, 2006 1:00 AM
ok, then just explain the ethically thing from above. I mean seriously is a kid who has premarital sex behaving ethically? masturbation? I just don't see anyway that a works based theology makes any sense. Apparently if an atheist gets into heaven it makes Jesus superflous to Christianity as well. So I don't see how you can say Ed is doctrinally correct whatever the hell that could possibly ever mean. Dawkins and Harris may be correct when they say moderate believers are part of the problem.
Any and all religious doctrines have their backers and naysayers and nary a shred of difference evidence wise between them. In my view the faith alone theolgy has way more going for it logically than a works based idea. John 3:16 there friends. :-)
Dembski is not behaving ethically in this debate but that doesn't mean I woulnd't trust him with my car keys. I can't believe I find myself defending that goof's character. I just can't believe it.
Posted by: Uber | December 21, 2006 1:01 AM