…and this is a 
The creationist billboards of Minnesota make the news again
Category: Creationism
Posted on: December 26, 2006 10:01 AM, by PZ Myers
Greg Laden has the story. It's really not much of a story, but it's local, so we care—basically, a crazy Jesus lady is buying prime billboard space around the area to flaunt her opinion that evolution is bunk, and newspapers are writing about it. It's content-free noise, and we can only hope that all of our creationist opponents continue to be this shallow and stupid (and what do you know—they are!), but still, shallow and stupid seems to draw in the fan base. The article does mention some of her sponsors: if you're planning on having a home built in the Duluth area, scratch Legacy Custom Homes in Cloquet off your list of contractors.
The article also quotes John Goodge, a geology professor at UMD. I have nothing against the guy, and don't take this as a personal criticism, but he does echo the routine sentiment that most people, even most scientists, take, and I think it's part of our problem.
But while Goodge views creationism as faith and evolution as science, he's uncomfortable with portraying the issue as a battle.
"There is no conflict between science and religion, because one is a rational way of understanding the world. The other is a faith in something that binds people together," he said.
Look. Some wacky creationist has slapped together routine statements from creationist websites (especially Answers in Genesis) that declares a central scientific theory false, that accuses scientists of conspiracy to lie to students and citizens, that demands that you have to accept their religion and repudiate science or burn in hell forever, and we've got scientists shrugging their shoulders and saying there isn't a battle. One side is shooting at the other, and my side is in a state of denial. Of course there's a freaking conflict between science and religion. We're in the middle of a war right now where what is at stake is the minds of our children (and the creationists would agree with that statement), while too many of us pretend nothing is going on to be concerned about.
That statement that religion is "a faith in something that binds people together" is also a problem, even while it is entirely true. It does not mean it is a virtue, although everyone pretends it is—racism and homophobia and xenophobia and fear are also things that bind people together, effectively it seems, but that shouldn't imply that we should appreciate them. Wrong and wicked ideas seem to be awfully powerful for binding people together, and that's another reason to oppose them vigorously instead of pretending that they should be ignored.
Comments
One side is shooting at the other, and my side is in a state of denial. Of course there's a freaking conflict between science and religion.
Dude, the creationists hardly speak for all of religion. Yet, you, over and over and over and over again, refer to "religion" as one "side" of the battle of science versus religion, and then point to some complete antisocial creationist nutjob as what the religion side is doing.
There does not need to be a battle between science and religion. There is, because creationists are claiming that they represent religion (when for many of us they do not), and because folks like you are buying (and/or trying to help them sell) their claim.
Make no mistake, there is assuredly a cultural conflict going on here. However, except for you and for the creationists, this is not a conflict between "science" and "religion." This is a conflict between "science" and "antiscience." Many of the religious are in the antiscicence camp, and creationism comes from religion. But that is what the real conflict is. And, assuredly, there is something to be concerned about.
And, yes, I know that you personally have a conflict with all of religion. But that is not the broader conflict.
Saying "one side is shooting at the other" as a justification for jumping into a war against science and religon is no better than pointing to 9/11 as an attack by "the Arab world" and claiming that it's a battle against all Arabs. What it's doing is taking the deeply antisocial behavior of one group and misusing that antisocial agenda to falsely justify your own personal crusade against something larger that happens to include the antisocial group as a subset.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | December 26, 2006 10:33 AM
Rob
I sympathize with PZ on this one, although I'm agnostic rather than atheist. My problem is that too many who identify as religious don't tell the creationists and other fanatics that they are just plain wrong, AND that they represent only the "antisocial subset" that you refer to. Sure, it may be offensive to be so blunt, but so are they.
Offensive, that is.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 26, 2006 10:45 AM
It's simple Rob.
Because the "moderate" science endorsing religious people rarely stand up and call the creationists on their B.S. If you don't want people like the billboard lady to make you look bad, do something about it. Otherwise you do get lumped in with them as part of the problem. Atheists and scientists are not buying billboard space saying "don't believe in god, it's antiscience".
If we did whose side would you be on?
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 10:45 AM
Oy, another apologist speaks up.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is old and tired, you know. We have a majority of people in this country claiming that evolution is false because their religious beliefs tell them so, yet you want to claim religion can't be blamed for it. Sorry, but if this country were 90% atheist instead of 90% theist this issue would not exist.
I do not target religion because it includes an odious group. I target it because it is all nonsense. This game of "well, that subset is stupid, but really, my religion doesn't deserve to be rejected" is annoying -- it's pretending that your favorite myths ought to be accepted by default, and no, they don't deserve that much respect.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 26, 2006 10:49 AM
As an ingroup system, sure. But as soon as you get two rival synods -- let alone entirely opposed creeds -- the bindings fall apart.
Religion is not a binding force. It is a pernicious social evil.
Posted by: Warren | December 26, 2006 10:57 AM
Hear, hear, Rob! I am a committed atheist myself, but I have a friend who is both a student of macroevolution and an evangelical Christian. Knowing and respecting her has tempered my views on religion considerably, especially after a talk about ID which started to turn nasty toward anyone with religious leanings. To be perfectly honest, I do believe that the world would be a better place without religion, but I also recognise that that is my opinion, that that opinion may be deeply insulting to many fine and good people, and that this battle that we agree to be taking place will not be won for our side without atheists' being willing to embrace the more secular-minded people of faith as allies.
Posted by: Opisthokont | December 26, 2006 10:57 AM
Dude, the creationists hardly speak for all of religion
This is obviously true Rob but the question is by how much. I mean that while it is certainly true that there are lots of religious people who are not creationist, do you really believe that the creationists are such a small subset that they can be thought of as some sort of radical fringe?
Posted by: brent | December 26, 2006 11:02 AM
PZ, I sympathize with your plight. I can see how it must look frustrating to you, based on what you've written. But what if in "firing back" at the creationists, we generate more enmity than sympathy?
If you read the book _Fiasco_ by Ricks, you learn about counterinsurgency, a doctrine also broadly discussed in Tony Zinni and Tom Clancy's book _Battle Ready_. Without going into too much detail, let me simply say that, insofar as the doctrines of counterinsurgency are concerned, the least desirable option in dealing with a troublemaker is to capture or kill him. The best way to deal with him is to marginalize him and cause him to lose his base of support and recruitment. An expert in counterinsurgency recognizes that the goal is not the troublemaker; the target is the people. Thus, capturing or killing a troublemaker might lead to a short-term tactical victory, but it might very well lead to a strategic failure, giving rise to two troublemakers where before there had only been one.
Now, talking about creationists, obviously capturing/killing aren't a part of our strategy, but causing them to lose their base of support is. When a whack-job creationist tries to convince people that God and science don't mix, *your target is not the creationist.* Your target, according to the doctrines of counterinsurgency, is the people who might listen to her.
So who listens to whack-job creationists who insist that Christianity can't be Christianity without the tangy zip of alchemy, astrology, and irreducible complexity views of science? Once you answer that question, ask yourself how you're going to convince that crew of your perspective and how they can have a hand in the future you'd make for them rather than the one the whack-job creationists who say that God and science don't mix?
Always remember: your target is not the creationist; your target is the people who might listen to them. Keep this in mind and you'll understand why sometimes it's quite tactically sound to let people fire at you without returning fire yourself.
And read _Fiasco_. (Want to borrow my copy?)
BCH
Posted by: Burt Humburg | December 26, 2006 11:14 AM
If the creationists do not speak for all of the religious, then why do you let them? Your silence in this matter is another tacit approval. If people like PZ do not bring it to our attention then we have no say in this matter either. I refuse to go along with this type of nonsense and When it is presented in my local community I do let my voice be heard. Rob, by allowing them to lie about this proven factual science you too have to accept that they are lying in your name. And when you fail to speak up you become another of those that we lump into the stupid dishonest liars who have been ruining our country for far too long.
I have never seen any sign by any religious organization that attributed anything good to science. I have never seen any church sign say "Darwin and Jesus" both are right. I know many religious people work in hospitals and are exemplars of service to their local communities but not once have they ever tried to stop the liars such as the woman in this case with the billboards. So why wonder why we get so overt in our dismissal of all religious players?
Posted by: JamesR | December 26, 2006 11:21 AM
...
...
I'd argue with Rob on this one too.
Not as a personal attack, but simply as an example, I'll notice that Rob has shown up HERE to complain that this battle is wrongly joined.
But did he also go THERE? He may well have personally written a letter to the other side of the conflict, but he gives no notice of it here.
He has given explicit criticism of someone critical of this lady and her billboards. Contrariwise, and in light of that, it appears he has offered - by omission of criticism - tacit support for the billboard crusade.
It's likely that Rob doesn't mean to support the billboards. Possibly he's simply standing away from their distasteful presence.
However, in the statistical aggregate of society-wide notice of this issue, many moderate Christians will essentially "vote" to approve the billboards by saying nothing.
People will see criticism of the critics, and little or no criticism of the billboards, and will conclude unconsciously that there exists overall approval.
Even if the approval is grudging in any specific case, overall there will be a feeling toward the billboards of "Yes, that's okay. It's perfectly fine for someone to do that."
Rob, I notice - ALWAYS - that this is what my "side" of these conflicts faces: The nutball religious extremists get complete free rein to say virtually anything, yet even very mild critics of the nutballs get jumped on like they're doing something wrong.
I wish more moderate Christians (and Muslims, Jews, etc.) were at least equally outraged - and then actually spoke up about it - when the public image of their faith and culture got hijacked by these nutballs.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 26, 2006 11:24 AM
Yes, exactly. Now where does that base of support and recruitment for creationists lie? Notice that I am not suggesting any kind of action be taken against Julie Haberle for publicly lying about science--I am saying that we need to stop slapping bandages on the symptoms and go right to the root of the disease.
And yeah, a great way to marginalize creationists is to use their idiocy to highlight the weaknesses of religion, and draw people away from the churchly hothouse that fosters that kind of damned dumb thinking. Meanwhile, some people make excuses for the source of our nation's curse and beg us not to pick on poor, blameless religion, because that will antagonize people.
Tough.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 26, 2006 11:28 AM
We're in the middle of a war right now where what is at stake is the minds of our children (and the creationists would agree with that statement), while too many of us pretend nothing is going on to be concerned about.
You know, I have no problem with the science of biological evolution, but I do with the sideline issues. There really are many with the attitude (I doubt it came from Darwin, as some fundamentalist Christians have claimed), "since we descended from apes, we're free to behave like 'em."
Anything goes... (I suspect there's many televangelists who are immoral closet atheists, and have no fear of using God's name in vain for their financial gain, taking advantage of poor widows, vulnerable people, and in it for the money, the glory, the occasional flings w/ vulnerable women - nieve children -or homosexual liaison, behind the backs of their followers.) They don't practice what they preach. They're living for themself. Very atheistic of themselves!
Morality seems to be a central, driving issue.
(Religion has a pat answer for this. They pull out the Bible, and cherry pick the good verses. What has the other side got? Here's an example of what I'm talking about, he seems to have a grasp on what morality really is about, but, I've read other atheists saying its okay to get drunk, speed, harrass women in the workplace (talking nasty behind their back) basically, anything goes, there's no sin, and no judgment... live life up the fullest for yourself.
But, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJowXUnYXTI has a grasp, on what right and wrong is.
I do not want to live in a world absent of morality, because myself and the children, the small, meek, honest guy are the ones who end up paying for somebody else's "fun" and "good time", the powerful ruling over the weak... or at least wreaking havoc in their path, like the apes they are, with their "primal urges".
I think that's what most people want to get away from.
If I had the ultimatum set before me:
1. Live in a world filled with Evolution-believers, where anything goes, hey, we're apes, so immorality is fully explained and understandable, primal behavior obeyed, sin is acceptable, and primal desires of the strong are met... the powerful ruling over the weak,
or,
2. Live in a world filled with religious minds that demand men act like men, protectors of family, providers for their children, adultery frowned upon, rape is a crime, and humanist virtues prevail (as they have been doing so, in most western religion and even some eastern religion) as in "Do unto others as you want done to yourself", well, honestly, I'd choose for the second ultimatum, with no apologies.
"what is at stake is the minds of our children"
Oh, you are right. Every day, I live in fear as my children leave and return from school. I'm not worried about the cirriculum. We are now living where police must patrol the corridors, and suspect everyone who enters the school as a gun-slinger or terrorist. This, needless to say, came from the ruthless fundamentalist whacko terrorists, 911, as well as young people watching their atheistic rock music (blaspheming all the way, the painted up demonic-looking crud, that hasn't a humanist bone in its sleezy drug-riddled, miserable corpse), boys going wild, doing whatever their apelike-tendencies drove them to feel an urge... girls! girls! girls! it's a free for all out there, and life comes cheap. Get somebody pregnant, kill her. Watch "The Passion," get a guilt trip from Jesus, go to police and confess the crime.
It's a sick world the kids are growing up in.
In other words, the world would be a better place without religious fanatics or atheism. Get rid of it all, and let the kids alone to get an education in a safer, quieter, peaceful world.
Can that be done?
I have my own interests, and those are the interests of women and children. I pick and choose the ideologues from both camps that are going to work for me, my children and let's be honest, that's all anyone cares about.
My view is purely naturalistic too. Just try to mess with bear or tiger cubs, and see what the mother will do to you. Will you hold it against her, when she mauls and rips you to pieces, in an act to protect her children? I want my kids to grow up in a better and safer world, where Humanist values and moral virtues is chief. Everything else is pure crap.
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 11:33 AM
All I have to say to the "moderates" is... prove us wrong.
Despite your superstitions we'll take you on as allies. Will they really pick up Darwin's flag? I doubt it. They're loyalty is with religion. Meanwhile we'll not sit back and let creationists call science a lie.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 11:33 AM
You can find the Who Is Your Creator bulletin board here -- I see neither a Rob nor a Burt posting there (maybe they used pseudonyms?). In fact, while there are many people criticizing the site, there does seem to be a disproportionate absence of good Christians complaining about their religion being hijacked.
There are Christians defending creationism, and even defending the reality of angels and other such equally absurd stories, though. They seem more representative of American religion than the pious and largely hypothetical supporters of the mythical rational religion that gets bandied about in an abstract way whenever faith is criticized.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 26, 2006 11:35 AM
Wow. Got any other foolish prejudices you want to share with us? I mean, strawmen and false dichotomies are pretty much all the theists have, but rarely do I seem them brought up together in such a blatant fashion.
Don't forget to mention the atheist predilection for drinking the blood of Christian babies next time!
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 26, 2006 11:39 AM
"Don't forget to mention the atheist predilection for drinking the blood of Christian babies next time!"
You know, we ought to. Plenty of them spend time, by their own admission, drinking the blood of a Christian adult every Sunday and that's generally immune to criticism. If we treat their claims as equivalent to science, which is what they want whether it's Ken Miller or Duane Gish, then they clearly have no position to criticize us for doing such a thing.
Posted by: Samnell | December 26, 2006 11:47 AM
I woke up in a good mood this morning. After reading the article I sent an E-mail to Legacy Custom Homes who is in part supporting this loonie and her billboard message. Hopefully they will rethink their position. Here's what I sent.
----------------------------------------------------
From your web site:
"Deeply rooted in the area, our founders know that trust and reputation are critical. This fact is reflected in our company's determination to treat every customer, subcontractor and supplier with honesty and integrity."
Your honesty and integrity, trust and reputation have been relegated to the basement of deception due to your support of creationist ideology on billboards in your area.
Re: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/articles/index.cfm?id=31479&CFID=11850368&CFTOKEN=38155617&jsessionid=8830d4b25a6e79454c76
Before you turn your company into a joke you may want to review the TalkOrigins web site and in particular, Index to Creationist Claims. [text hyper link to Index]
Evolution is indeed a fact and better. Evolution is an explanation of the facts. Biological evolution doesn't say how life began on our planet. It supports speciation from a common ancestor as far back as the single cell organism. There are at least 1000 pages per year published through scientific journals describing how the predictability of evolution was used in research and discovery. Tested, peer-reviewed and published. Once published other scientists try to poke holes in the research by further testing. The scientific scrutiny that has been applied by fellow scientists far outweighs the scrutiny that religious organisations have or can apply. Scientists don't want to prove each other right. They try to prove each other wrong. This is how science is self correcting. Bio-Engineers would be the first to bitch if a flaw in the Theory of Evolution prohibited their work. To date this has not happened.
You are meddling in the economics of the U.S. and the health of the U.S. and world citizenry. Is this what your religion really wants to promote?
Or skip your next flu shot because it is a direct result of evolutionary understanding in designing drugs to combat flu strains.
Get a grip and learn about the repercussions of your actions!
Gene Goldring
----------------------------------------------
Maybe there is someone at the other end with an inquisitive mind.
Posted by: Gene Goldring | December 26, 2006 11:50 AM
Wow. Got any other foolish prejudices you want to share with us? I mean, strawmen and false dichotomies
I had to withdraw from an atheist blog, because it was predominantly male atheists, scrawling that kind of drivel, no sin: okay to get drunk he wrote, okay to gawk at and mutter among male friends about her body (this is sexual harrassment in the workplace), jokes about having as many women as heart desires (sounds like biblical booty all over again, and its atheists making the jokes) when I complained about it, I was hotly ridiculed for saying anything... of course I asked other women offline, what their opinion was, and they were disgusted.
They did not understand why I was sensitive to statements that endorse their brutish lifestyle. Women jokes. Drinking beer (I divorced my last husband because of alcohol, and his abuse of the children whilst in a drunken stupor, okay?)
What works for men, does not work for women and children. Of course if nature would be good enough to supply us with 250 lb stature, big biceps with a fist that packs a punch to smash teeth down the throat of a smart mouth, we might get our way too, for a change.
Lots of things sound good in the written word, and some things women and children are having to live in the hell.
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 11:52 AM
I had to withdraw from an atheist blog, because it was predominantly male atheists, scrawling that kind of drivel
Does this blog have a name or is this just another "unnamed Chinese paleontologist on an airplane who hates evolution" stories?
Posted by: Patrick | December 26, 2006 11:55 AM
I had to withdraw from an atheist blog, because it was predominantly male atheists, scrawling that kind of drivel, no sin: okay to get drunk he wrote, okay to gawk at and mutter among male friends about her body (this is sexual harrassment in the workplace), jokes about having as many women as heart desires (sounds like biblical booty all over again, and its atheists making the jokes) when I complained about it, I was hotly ridiculed for saying anything... of course I asked other women offline, what their opinion was, and they were disgusted.
I call bullshit. This is a public board that claims to be aligned with a atheistic viewpoint? Give us the address.
Posted by: brent | December 26, 2006 11:59 AM
Their. Damn it. I know the difference. (Annoyed with self)
Atheists are not devoid of morals or ethics. It has nothing to do with atheism.
You're confusing us with nihilists. You don't understand atheism at all.
Disbelief in god is all that it requires. Where you get the rest of that other crap I have no idea. Atheists have no desire to live in a world of lawlessness and brutality. Who does?
Sharon. You really don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 11:59 AM
Don't forget to mention the atheist predilection for drinking the blood of Christian babies next time!
Speaking of strawmen and false dichotomies, who said anything about drinking anyone's blood?
Did it occur to you, ever, that godless atheist "free for all" and "anything goes" as well as "religious fanaticism" might both be wrong concepts.
I think Thomas Paine is a good example. Not only did he criticise Christianity, but he was an equal opportunity critic when it came to atheism.
So go ahead and smear Thomas Paine if you like.
The world would be better off without radicals, all of them.
I think Agnostics have the best of the spiritual views, but that's my opinion as a borderline deist-agnostic.
I saw "theist" somewhere, up there, projected on me as well. That too, a strawman and falsehood?
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 12:00 PM
Did it occur to you, ever, that godless atheist "free for all" and "anything goes" as well as "religious fanaticism" might both be wrong concepts.
Again Sharon, who is it that you think holds this viewpoint? Who are you talking about? What does "free for all" and "anything goes" have to do with atheism? Where are you getting this garbage except from your mysterious unnamed atheist blog and your own fevered imagination?
Posted by: brent | December 26, 2006 12:06 PM
Don't forget to mention the atheist predilection for drinking the blood of Christian babies next time!
Speaking of strawmen and false dichotomies, who said anything about drinking anyone's blood?
Did it occur to you, ever, that godless atheist "free for all" and "anything goes" as well as "religious fanaticism" might both be wrong concepts.
I think Thomas Paine is a good example. Not only did he criticise Christianity, but he was an equal opportunity critic when it came to atheism.
So go ahead and smear Thomas Paine if you like.
The world would be better off without radicals, all of them.
I think Agnostics have the best of the spiritual views, but that's my opinion as a borderline deist-agnostic.
I saw "theist" somewhere, up there, projected on me as well. That too, a strawman and falsehood?
Disbelief in god is all that it requires. Where you get the rest of that other crap I have no idea. Atheists have no desire to live in a world of lawlessness and brutality. Who does? Sharon. You really don't know what you're talking about.
I have seen some atheist websites, and they're appalling. Pictures of dead rotting babies, and laughing at people's sensitivity. Then we have Larry Flynt, atheist, who regularly published "rape comics"... and his counterpart in lust (which the atheist blog I withdrew from, yes, used just that term, "lust", there's no sin in "lusting", and I was scorned and ridiculed for giving my opinion, as a freethinker and a woman, that I do not appreciate this kind of sexist harrassment, I've had to work around it, and it's miserable, what the courts call a "hostile work environment" but who cares? it's not the men who suffer) do I need to continue with a list?
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 12:07 PM
Somebody tell me what the hell sharon is talking about?
She's obviously never hung around here because I've never read an "anything goes" thread of a discussions about an atheist moral free for all. Those ideas only ever come from christians.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 12:09 PM
Hi,
I know I'm gonna get some flak for this, but I have to commend Rob's analogy of evangelical creationists to extremist Islam. There are extremists on both sides fighting a war:
The ID/YEC camp are extreme religionists (mostly Christian) who want to indoctrinate the world with their beliefs, much like militant Islam wants worldwide Sharia law. Obviously there are moderates who are also religious, just as there are moderate Muslims who don't want jihad. It is frustrating that you don't hear the moderates constantly railing against the extremists, but there are many reasons that they don't. Sometimes they are afraid to speak out (with good cause), but usually I think it is because they mostly don't care. It's not their battle to fight, because they don't believe that strongly one way or another. If you are outraged at this group of moderates, then you should be outraged at anyone who doesn't have an opinion on every single controversy in the world today. How about agnostics? Theistic evolutionists?
On the other side of the fence you have the U.S.-led "war on terror". Supporters on this side believe that we cannot live in a peaceful world until all "Islamofascists" are captured or killed. This is analogous to the militant atheistic view in that, while the cause might be slightly more just, it is still an extreme view with few, very vocal supporters. These people also want to convince moderates that we are at war, and that only one side can be right/victorious. This is also untrue. Obviously if you are a scientist it is in your best interest to protect the integrity of science, but it doesn't mean that you have to proselytize all scientists into fighting your battle against religion. In America, not all law enforcement officers and National Guard troops are actively seeking out Muslim extremists on our soil, there are too many domestic issues to deal with. If an American doesn't support the broader war on terror they are called 'unpatriotic', much like the atheistic/science-as-god group will call out a scientist who has faith as 'not defending science'.
Science and faith ARE two different things. You can have both, they are not mutually exclusive, and one will never prove the other wrong.
Sorry for the rant, but I kinda felt bad for Rob getting railed on like that. He does make some interesting points.
-Mike
Posted by: Michael | December 26, 2006 12:12 PM
Chauvenism and insensitivity have nothing to do with atheism. Just because you were on a board with a bunch of guys with little maturity has nothing to do with ahtiesm.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 12:12 PM
Please guys, did you read that?
Cool down and read. You are misunderstanding me.
Smear Thomas Paine if you like. He criticised Atheism too.
And the atheists smeared back:
"...wildfire was transferred to English soil. The writings of Paine won enthusiastic disciples. Some made a bonfire of their Bibles in honor of their new apostle, and some even got so far beyond the apostle himself that they deliberated whether they ought not to uncitizen him for superstitiously professing some belief in the existence of God."
-Henry Sheldon, History of the Christian Church
I do know what I'm talking about.
The world would be better off without radicals. A gentler, quieter, peaceful world, that's safe for all good citizens.
I am a deist-agnostic, and I couldn't even step foot into my mother's house, without getting screamed at, in hateful mockery and seething hostility, from my atheist brother, "why" I wasn't an atheist, like him. Then my mother, who is a fundamentalist Christian, telling me I'm going to hell.
I wish all of them would shut the &*$( up.
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 12:13 PM
Oh my, Larry Flynt, sexual harassment, "hostile work environment" -- sounds like those terrible immoral atheists are really bothering Sharon. Perhaps she'd like to go live under the Taliban -- I hear their morals towards women are so strong they murder anyone who teaches to women.
Posted by: ericnh | December 26, 2006 12:14 PM
I think Sharon's "atheist websites" are probably accessed through links from fundamentalist christian sites; they seem to be the sort of reverse-posterchild tactic to demonize the enemy.
She's obviously not actually tried to research the subject.
Posted by: Nancy G | December 26, 2006 12:15 PM
Mike out point is that sure science and religion can co-exist.
If the religious can control themselves and not lie about science, there's no problem.
If the moderates in religion can speak up for science when their radicals go astray that would be great.
But they don't.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 12:16 PM
Sharon, where is the address of this supposed blog? You came here and threw accusations at us, the readers of THIS blog, you state that aethists (or at least the male variety) are amoral and sexists (I have found the opposite to be true).
So, please, either provide proof for your accusations or shuffle off. If you continue to throw mud and unfounded accustions you are simply giving MORE reasons for us to distain god-botherers.
Posted by: flame821 | December 26, 2006 12:16 PM
Yeah, Sharon, go ahead and play that "the words of a former abused wife are always sacred" card. I'll see your drunken child abuser and raise you my stone-cold-sober wife-and-child abuser who used his religion to justify his abuse and control. That bastard actually went and joined a strict Christian cult that didn't believe in divorce, just so he could thumb his nose at the court and claim that it had no jurisdiction over his marriage (so naturally couldn't dissolve it).
While you sit over there arnd whine that religion is the source of morality and atheists are inherently immoral, I'll simply rub your nose in the millions of examples of people using religion to get their sordid little way.
Posted by: speedwell | December 26, 2006 12:18 PM
Sharon,
Please explain how atheism is a radical view.
All atheism means is "I do not believe in any gods".
Posted by: Tim | December 26, 2006 12:19 PM
Sharon - have you spent any time reading through this blog? How about reading through the comments? I'm a woman and have yet to see anything that even comes close to the behavior that you are describing. Your anger seems to be misplaced.
The "ape-like" behavior that you are describing is outrageous - however I've seen that behavior exhibited by all kinds of people - almost all are people who believe in God (since I know very few atheists).
How do you account for the behavior of the priests who abuse children? There are many examples of people who preach morality yet behave quite badly - so your claim that having religion guarantees moral behavior is naive.
Preaching about the supposed moral character of the people who participate in the conversation at this site tells us more about you than it does about anyone here.
Posted by: Mary | December 26, 2006 12:23 PM
She's obviously never hung around here because I've never read an "anything goes" thread of a discussions about an atheist moral free for all. Those ideas only ever come from christians.
SteveC, you really need to get off this blog for awhile and take a tour of what's going on around elsewhere on the web in some of the darker "godless liberal" hovels.
There is no god, no sin, no judgment, so naturally they deduce, Anything goes. There are in fact, sites like those. Christians are not the only ones who claim "Only Christians monopolize morality". Oh no, there's rotten coming from both atheist and christian side.
I have spent considerable time, surfing the net and I know precisely what I am talking about. Many of the "godless liberal" sites are not "family friendly" like this one.
In fact, when Ed sent me the link to PZ Meyers' blog, he wrote the description out as "godless liberal", and I erased that description, and published the link on the site/s because, by comparison, PZ Meyers' blog is mild compared to some of the crud I've seen on the web, published by atheists. Atheism holds no monopoly on morality, anymore than Christians do.
There are bad atheists, just like there are bad Christians.
Do you deny this fact?
BTW, biological evolution is not atheism and you cannot prove atheism in biology or chemistry or any science, anymore than intelligent design can be proven.
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 12:24 PM
Still no links???
Posted by: Tim | December 26, 2006 12:29 PM
I have seen some atheist websites, and they're appalling. Pictures of dead rotting babies, and laughing at people's sensitivity.
Once again sharon, you need to cite where you are getting this information. It is simply not credible. If you are not able to provide an actual link to a blog which specifically cites atheism as justification for such odious opinions then I will have to assume that you are simply a liar.
Moreover, the fact that someone thinks that atheism is justification for such things does not make it so. The truth is that the number of atheists who believe such things has to be pretty close to zero.
Then we have Larry Flynt, atheist, who regularly published "rape comics"
This is an absurdly lame ad hominem argument. Whatever one thinks of Larry Flynt, the notion that his work can be thought of as some outgrowth of atheist philosophy is stupid beyond belief. One does not have to be an atheist to be a pornographer, even a particularly execrable one. I am sure that you will find that pornographers come from all types of backgrounds, even agnostics.
and his counterpart in lust (which the atheist blog I withdrew from, yes, used just that term, "lust", there's no sin in "lusting"
I don't know about sin but if by lust, you mean sexual attraction to another person, then there is certainly nothing wrong with that. Sexual harassment is quite something separate and the fact that you confusedly conflate the two is pretty telling.
do I need to continue with a list?
You need to provide some evidence that what you are talking about has anything to do with atheism. There are plenty of terrible things out there in the world. The world is sometimes an unpleasant place. You have yet to do anything to demonstrate that any of this has anything at all to do with atheism.
Posted by: brent | December 26, 2006 12:31 PM
If Sharon isn't a troll, she's acting in a manner pretty hard to distinguish from that of a troll.
I suggest attention starving her until she produces the URL to this messageboard of drunken, nihilistic, chauvinist "atheists." She's danced around that for 2 or 3 posts now.
Posted by: Fox1 | December 26, 2006 12:33 PM
This is the problem today: this whole entitlement privilege. I don't understand why people think their own personal anecdotal experience is somehow transferable to the world at large. The supreme arrogance of such a stance is appalling. Before opening your mouth and inserting your foot in it, you are obligated to get informed about what you are talking about. Steven Dutch says it better than I could:
Posted by: False Prophet | December 26, 2006 12:34 PM
Ken Miller? Dr. Rowan Williams? Perhaps even Francis Collins?
Steve_C, are they (a) not moderate, or (b) not in religion?
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | December 26, 2006 12:34 PM
There are bad atheists, just like there are bad Christians.
Do you deny this fact?
Of course no one denies this fact. In fact, it is precisely the point that morality is something separate from belief in a deity. You are the one trying to suggest otherwise. You are the one arguing that atheism is responsible for so many of the mysterious horrors you have been finding on your tours around the web.
Posted by: brent | December 26, 2006 12:36 PM
You still haven't posted a link.
And I have no doubt you've ran into some bad behaviour.
However, you are the one lumping atheists into some bacchanalian moral free cult.
"BTW, biological evolution is not atheism and you cannot prove atheism in biology or chemistry or any science, anymore than intelligent design can be proven."
That statement doesn't even make sense.
I'll try to decipher it. No god cannot be disproved through biology.
Nothing disproves a god, or the faeries, or Thor.
ID is a supposed science... it MUST be proven in order to have any validity.
Evolution is a proven scientific fact.
Sharon do you believe in Zeus or Mithra?
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 12:39 PM
Sharon you obviously have done little to no research on this subject and are better off slinking away at this point. I as well as well as many readers here and as a matter of fact my Grandfather are atheists. You'd be hard pressed to find any of the ones I mentioned here acting with any "free for all" attitude or lifestyle. I hold a good job, make a good salary, pay my taxes, am happily married, never have or would cheat on my wife, I treat people with more kindness than I see people of belief treating others every day and I have a moral character that not only does not condone sexual harassment (using your example) it detests it. You may be a deist-agnostic as you say, but you also need to do some more research on what it means to be atheist. Being an atheist does not mean being a nihilist as Steve_C pointed out you are describing.
You are extremely confused and really need to bow out of this discussion if you are going to choose to remain willfully ignorant on the subject.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 26, 2006 12:40 PM
And oddly enough, no links are forthcoming for this mythical group of atheists. Steve_C has it right. Sharon has mistaken nihilists for atheists (or assholes who decided to drive out an annoying commenter by pushing buttons). I have yet to meet an atheist without a moral compass, not to say that such people don't exist. Atheists just don't need imaginary angels and demons to tempt and bribe us into right and wrong decisions.
Posted by: Robster | December 26, 2006 12:40 PM
Looks like I was right; it seems sharon is flying around with Chinese creationist paleontologists.
Posted by: Patrick | December 26, 2006 12:41 PM
Sharon --
Have you sought counseling? Really. Your home environment sounds horrible. Or is that all in the past? Maybe your own home is a peaceful place? We can hope.
And I too have stumbled across pornographic sites. Get a blocker on your computer. Some of the stuff online is not fit for . . . well, any living creature.
And workplace harassment is a crime. Document and report.
And if you can recall the names of any science blogs (not hateful porn-type places) where men are misbehaving as badly as you say, there might be some posters here who could pay the site a visit and set them straight on what an adult conversation is supposed to look like.
And, otoh, there are sites that just use language in a way that would make your hair curl! I gird my loins and visit the Rude Pundit's site every once in a while. Because I think he's funny and insightful. He is also the most vile sort of obscene! But you know what you're getting into visiting a site called "rude."
Good luck sorting all of this out.
Nance
Posted by: Nance Confer | December 26, 2006 12:43 PM
Well, it looks like almost nobody (thanks Steve_C) paid attention to my little rant due to an easier target (thanks Sharon) popping up.
Steve_C - thanks for the support of my statement that science & faith are not mutually exclusive. You could twist your statement around and say that moderates in science (like me) should speak up when atheists like Dawkins and PZ fire barbs at people's faith (and I guess I am). The biggest difference is, when Dawkins and PZ make their arguments, they are articulate and mature, and usually based on factual scientific evidence. This doesn't make their view that 'science proves religion does not exist' any less extreme, it just forces the more intellectual crowd to respect their arguments, but not necessarily their views.
As for Sharon, your argument that atheists don't have morals is ridiculous. Obviously you've been traumatized by a bad experience somewhere, or you're just putting too much weight on some radical, and possibly fictitious websites. Christians and religious folks don't have a monopoly on morality, and believing in the bible or scripture doesn't give someone a better sense of right vs. wrong. Sometimes it's just the opposite, look at how many people use scripture to support bigotry and racism.
Thanks again for letting me rant...
-Mike
Posted by: Michael | December 26, 2006 12:44 PM
Bob. Dr. Williams has no voice in the US. And they don't have nearly the same amount of confusion in England as we do here.
Francis Collins IS part of the problem. He conflates religion and science all the time.
Yes he supports evolution. But it's the most contrived confused rambling that rarely
comes off as a defense of science, but of religion.
Posted by: Steve_C | December 26, 2006 12:45 PM
This is another example of the whole morality issue, which seems to be the biggest one among theists. If there's no god to kick your ass into hell, why not go hog-wild? Those people do scare me a little, because I think they might be projecting and would be the type to go nuts if they decided there wasn't a god. Here's the rebuttal, Sharon: A godless world probably wouldn't disintigrate into chaos, because most people wouldn't let that happen. Most people understand that they have to treat others nicely in order to have a decent world to live in. Bizarre, nihlistic people get marginalized from society, and yes, atheists do support laws to punish those who break them.
If you want to say that all atheists are like the small subset you're describing, then I'll say that all theists are like Ted Haggard and Mark Foley. Fair?
Posted by: Carlie | December 26, 2006 12:46 PM
Captain Obvious' proud pronouncements that there are unpleasant atheists in the world aren't exactly earth-shattering, and her general behavior is suspect. I have to agree. Troll.
Posted by: rrt | December 26, 2006 12:49 PM
Sharon:
It sounds like your brother and your mother are just run-of-the-mill assholes, and their particular religion or non-religion is nothing more than the means to the end of being a schmuck, rather than an end in and of itself.
Did it ever occur to you that they'd probably behave exactly the same even if the particulars of their belief system were different?
Welcome to the real world, where not everyone behaves exactly the way you want them to. Most of us roll with it and move on with our lives. You, obviously, do not.
But don't pretend that your "people don't behave the way I want them to" complaint somehow invalidates atheism or evolution.
This sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Was anyone else able to parse it better than I was?
Posted by: Dan | December 26, 2006 12:55 PM
Of course there's a freaking conflict between science and religion. We're in the middle of a war right now where what is at stake is the minds of our children (and the creationists would agree with that statement), while too many of us pretend nothing is going on to be concerned about.
The central thesis, was laid out in black and white.
It really has nothing to do with science. It's a battle over moral issues. I'm simply addressing the issue PZ raised, with some of the realistic observations I've made. You're not going to convince christians, the world would be a better place with deadbeat dads running amuck, and children having orgy sex in the locker room... soforth for "no sin, anything goes". Maybe not on this blog, but it is often the opinion expressed on other popular atheist hovels. Anything goes! We're animals afterall.
Darwinism and evolution (because Atheism is implied), are perceived threats to the stability of family, something which Americans as a whole, tend to hold sacred. The government is finally cracking down on deadbeat dads, and children being provided for. Don't pay guys, and you'll spend time behind bars. Ah, the godless sixties, flower power, "free love". Babies have got to be fed, clothed, provided for.
I know precisely what I am talking about, having kept an open mind through the years to all viewpoints, including the most vile, godless views, which espouse getting laid, abort the baby, in one newsgroup recently a certain godless type was chuckling about rock stars, and how to get "all those girls," -- speaking as an American, a Deist-Agnostic, a Mother, I sure don't want his rotten (presumably atheistic) infidelity around my daughters.
I think the moral implications are central, to why, Christianity has created such an obstacle to having evolution taught in schools. It is a threat, to the very real issues which concern most Americans.
Let's face it, a deadbeat dad, who thinks its okay to lay up with this woman, that woman, the other, silicone implants are draining from my monitor when I visit some atheist websites.. make a baby with your careless, godless, "primal urges"... ABORT IT before it grows. godless liberals... what a hoot.
Anyway, its reasons like this, the Christians don't want evolution taught, and they will continue to be obtuse.
If a Deist-Agnostic mother feels this strongly, how much then, Christian mothers. The hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world. So much for "the minds of children being at stake".
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 12:56 PM
This sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Was anyone else able to parse it better than I was
You understand what you want to, genius.
Posted by: sharon | December 26, 2006 1:06 PM
>>1. Live in a world filled with Evolution-believers, where anything goes, hey, we're apes, so immorality is fully explained and understandable, primal behavior obeyed, sin is acceptable, and primal desires of the strong are met... the powerful ruling over the weak,
or,
2. Live in a world filled with religious minds that demand men act like men, protectors of family, providers for their children, adultery frowned upon, rape is a crime, and humanist virtues prevail (as they have been doing so, in most western religion and even some eastern religion) as in "Do unto others as you want done to yourself", well, honestly, I'd choose for the second ultimatum, with no apologies.
As a casual, not an expert observer of apes and there lives I would say that we could do a lot worse than live like they do and have.
Some might pick out of all the behavior of the apes that is "bad" in our eyes while at the same time looking at the behavior of those with a "religious mind" that is good while ignoring that which is negative.
Is it really a religion = morality natural world = immorality?
I understand that is the fear of some of the religious thinking people.
If we are going to have to make a choice between either one or the other then we should understand what the choice really is.
what is the behavior of the apes? (animals in the natural world)
What is the behavior of the humans with or without a religious mind (what is a religious mind)?
Can man be separated from the natural world at all?
Otherwise the discussion is meaningless.
Posted by: w ginder | December 26, 2006 1:06 PM
If she's gonna keep doing that *points at post above*, I'm gonna keep doing this:
Troooooooooooooll
Posted by: Fox1 | December 26, 2006 1:06 PM
Sharon, it sounds like you are describing a rugby team or something. Does The (fill in city or college name) Atheists exist? I have never experienced what you are talking about either. Then again, it could be that I'm not prone to making shit up to try to make a point. Sounds like you can go and work for Fox News with the sense of right and wrong that you have. Whatever sells, eh?
Posted by: Mena | December 26, 2006 1:11 PM
I call for disemvoweling. A troll by any other name.
Proof has been asked for by at least half a dozen readers and nothing but sputtering bile has been given in return.
As an aside. PZ, I've learned to use such mindless drivel as those billboards as an educational opportunity for my children. I ask them if they understand what those signs are trying to say and why. The looks they give me when I explain the ID/Creationist point of view is priceless.
Oh, and Sharon, my children are honor roll students, well behaved and morally grounded. No religion involved, we don't need the threat of an invisible sky-daddy to follow the rules of society.
Posted by: flame821 | December 26, 2006 1:11 PM
It sounds like your just looking at porn and assuming it's been made by atheists.
Posted by: mothworm | December 26, 2006 1:12 PM
Dan,
I think what Sharon meant here:
"BTW, biological evolution is not atheism and you cannot prove atheism in biology or chemistry or any science, anymore than intelligent design can be proven."
Is that science will never disprove the theory of G-d, and that religion will never disprove evolution.
Actually, I have to agree. I don't think you can make assumptions about science based on religion, and you can't make assumptions about religion (by that I mean faith in a higher power, NOT scripture) using science.
Sharon - what the heck is a deist-agnostic? Isn't that an oxymoron? Or is it that you think you might probably believe in God, but who cares anyways? My opinion is that you are not agnostic, based on your misperceptions of atheists.
-Mike
Posted by: Michael | December 26, 2006 1:12 PM
"you're", dammit.
Posted by: mothworm | December 26, 2006 1:13 PM
You're doing it again! Where are these "popular atheist hovels" that promote locker room orgies and animal behavior? There's nothing in atheism that says people should be deadbeats, quite unlike religion that urges people to be irrational as a tenet of faith.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 26, 2006 1:16 PM
I'm still not clear on the complete list of figures whom Creationists disavow; Darwin, of course. Hubble and Einstein and other cosmologists. But do they equally attack, for instance, Freud? Man is not the Crown of Creation, but a relative of apes (viz Darwin), and not the missing link between beast and angel, but in fact a beast with all of consciousness and civilization a thin veneer over Id-driven unconscious beastliness (viz Freud).
Which brings us to something that Creationists should then love, on Moral Values criteria:
Hotel log hints at desire that Freud didn't repress
By Ralph Blumenthal
Published: December 24, 2006