Was this a parody? : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

I have encountered a few "creationists" and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were really mad, or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?

[

Arthur C. Clarke

, June 5, 1998, in the essay "Presidents, Experts, and Asteroids," pp 1532-3]

A Taste of Pharyngula

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« The perfect Cephalopodmas gift | Main | Another day, another ignorant pundit »

Was this a parody?

Category: Humor
Posted on: December 6, 2006 9:20 AM, by PZ Myers

Because, honestly, The Atheist Delusion sounds exactly like the usual argument from real theistic apologists.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/27418

Comments

Posted by: Dave Hone | December 6, 2006 9:27 AM

Nice find PZ. Reminds me of the 'Even Steven' video.

Posted by: MG | December 6, 2006 9:38 AM

Warning: Idiot narrator does not respond to criticisms of his "proof" and other ridiculous comments. This may cause an extreme case of wanting to throw your speakers out the window just in case he is outside.

Posted by: CCP | December 6, 2006 9:48 AM

MG: huh?
satire, son...satire

Posted by: E-gal | December 6, 2006 9:49 AM

The bible also says not to eat shrimp, and not to eat rabbits or coney's because they chew their cuds, talking snakes, talking jackasses, unicorns, treat women as property, slavery is OK, genocide is a viable means to end competition.... very progressive.
I think it would be proper, before any debate between an athiest and a religionist, that each should be able to choose one book from which the other could not cite for his arguments.

Posted by: Joshua | December 6, 2006 9:56 AM

Heh. Yeah, obvious satire.

--> THE BIBLE GOD
Come on. :)

Posted by: Joshua | December 6, 2006 9:57 AM

Oh, bloody dammit! Stupid thing thought I was doing an HTML comment. And it broke the formatting anyway. I should have previewed. ;)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 6, 2006 9:57 AM

That's good stuff right there.

Posted by: King Aardvark | December 6, 2006 10:02 AM

That was frickin hilarious.

Posted by: JamesR | December 6, 2006 10:17 AM

They really should have had a John Madden Impersonator to do the arrows from god to the bible back to god. Just to liven it up a bit. That little show was all I needed, its off to church for me. Snicker snicker.

#10

Posted by: Shalini | December 6, 2006 10:19 AM

Awesome! It sounds creepily like a particular fundie troll on my blog.

#11

Posted by: Berlzebub | December 6, 2006 10:23 AM

Why do they keep the same tired argumentum ad nauseum. "In the beginning, God created..." Oh really? If it was the beginning, how was Gawd already there? Bible = God = Bible? Show me the gospel with HIS handwriting. Things like this are why I became an agnostic in elementary school, and became and atheist later on in life. I keep seeing the tail wagging the dog.

-Berlzebub
"Why would an intelligent designer put a toxic waste chute through a recreational area?"

#12

Posted by: ckerst | December 6, 2006 10:26 AM

He was doing well but then goes and blows it by showing a picture of a chimp and George Bush thereby proving that evolution took place.

#13

Posted by: Berlzebub | December 6, 2006 10:27 AM

Oops... Now I feel like an idiot. I just noticed the text at the top. I was too busy watching the presentation. Now, it seems much more funny. Although, my cheeks are currently red with shame.

-Berlzebub

#14

Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 6, 2006 10:28 AM

I seem to recall seeing a flash video over at godhatesamputees.com arguing that Xians were delusional. It had the same kind of "slide show" graphics and I'm pretty sure it was the same narrator.

#15

Posted by: King Aardvark | December 6, 2006 10:28 AM

cherst: you mean devolution, right? ;-)

#16

Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 6, 2006 10:34 AM

"I seem to recall seeing a flash video over at godhatesamputees.com arguing that Xians were delusional. It had the same kind of "slide show" graphics and I'm pretty sure it was the same narrator."

Found it! (and it was "whywontgodhealamputees.com" -- my bad)

#17

Posted by: King Aardvark | December 6, 2006 10:35 AM

No, my mistake. Just watched the video again:
W -> chimp. That's correct.

#18

Posted by: Steve_C | December 6, 2006 10:43 AM

Yup satire.

In the form of a Colbert Repor "Word" of the day. Not as funny though.

#19

Posted by: OB | December 6, 2006 10:51 AM

His myspace tagline is "Catchy songs for sociopaths" and his genre's listed as alternative/comedy/indie.

I love a good dose of satire with my morning cup o' java!

#20

Posted by: kmiers | December 6, 2006 10:53 AM

"Is god unbelievable or what?" Yes. Nice satire. Not good enough to work for The Onion, though.

#21

Posted by: Brian | December 6, 2006 10:58 AM

"Found it! (and it was "whywontgodhealamputees.com" -- my bad)"

I've been to whywontgodhealamputees.com before and watched most of their videos. I don't think that it's the same narrator though.

#22

Posted by: Chris | December 6, 2006 11:24 AM

PZ and people

I posted a link to that on alt.atheism a few days ago (look under something like "Atheists Deluded..err, not!")

It's originally from The Contagious Festival at Huffington Post. You might want to give credit.

Chris

#23

Posted by: Bobryuu | December 6, 2006 11:27 AM

The Whywontgodhealamputees? video makes a mistake. LDS (or should I say LSD?) makes much grander fictive claims than Islam or Christianity. I've been trying to look at religions as humanities, sources of pretty bad literature that everyone in the literary world falling under those religions quotes from. A guy sitting in a cave for eleven years writing a book dictated to him by an angel before disappearing, while obviously mythological, seems much more sound than millions of Jews living in America. It make much more sense for a holy man to ascend into heaven than a set of golden tablets. The suspension of disbelief for the Mussies and the Xians takes a lot less rationalizing than the LDS.

#24

Posted by: bjn | December 6, 2006 11:29 AM

The "Why Christians are Delusional" video is pedantic, long and boring. No comparison with this piece.

MG, dude, you didn't really email the author with a critique?

#25

Posted by: junk science | December 6, 2006 11:45 AM

This is a stronger, more reasoned argument in favor of creation than I've ever seen an actual creationist make.

#26

Posted by: Marcia | December 6, 2006 12:05 PM

http://www.edwardcurrent.com/

if he fooled P.Z., he must be very, very, good.

#27

Posted by: Evil Bender | December 6, 2006 12:08 PM

I think Steven Colbert should have been given some credit here as well. The whole thing runs of the dichotomy between the words and the images, much like Colbert's "The Word" segment.

Besides that, yeah, it's pretty much identical to what, say, Dennis Prager would use to argue for religion.

#28

Posted by: Joshua | December 6, 2006 12:10 PM

A guy sitting in a cave for eleven years writing a book dictated to him by an angel before disappearing, while obviously mythological, seems much more sound than millions of Jews living in America.

What, you've never been to New York? ;)

(Being the traditional example. Brookline is probably better, but it's a less-accessible reference outside of those familiar with the Boston area, killing the joke. Ho-hum.)

#29

Posted by: Nate | December 6, 2006 12:13 PM

Hmm the The Bible proves God because God wrote The Bible, which means The Bible is true.

Lol the satire is great

and yet i can see someone seriously stating all of that...

#30

Posted by: Kseniya | December 6, 2006 12:29 PM

... and yet i can see someone seriously stating all of that...

And if you browse the archives of this blog (or any number of other science or religion blogs) you WILL see it, over and over and over: The Bible offered as proof of what is stated in The Bible.

#31

Posted by: Pat | December 6, 2006 12:34 PM

That was a joke...

#32

Posted by: J Daley | December 6, 2006 12:45 PM

PZ,

you should post a link to Shalini's post about snowflakes - that stuff is really fantastically cool, as is the link on the comments section of the post that's to the electron microscopy of snowflakes.

And then repeat what you said about order from disorder, only more long-windedly.

#33

Posted by: PZ Myers | December 6, 2006 12:46 PM

Sometimes I'm a little too dry for my own good. This was categorized as humor; I did recognize the satire.

#34

Posted by: jon | December 6, 2006 1:01 PM

e-gal: Rabbits aren't kosher because they have paws. I don't know if they chew a cud or not, but a kosher mammal is one that chews the cud and has a divided hoof. No idea why some birds are kosher and others not - I've forgotten what they told me in Sunday school.

#35

Posted by: Dan | December 6, 2006 1:10 PM

jon:

No idea why some birds are kosher and others not

Because God said so. Duh.

#36

Posted by: MG | December 6, 2006 2:33 PM

I guess I wouldn't see the harm if I had.

#37

Posted by: Shigella | December 6, 2006 3:11 PM

"The Atheist Delusion: A Pisspoor Presentation."

That alone should tell you it's a satire. Brilliantly done, I might add, with all the arrogance and righteous ignorance of a true creationist.

#38

Posted by: wintermute | December 6, 2006 3:57 PM

jon:

No, the Bible clearly says that coneys (rock badgers, but some versions of the bible claim "rabbits") aren't kosher because they don't have split hooves but do chew the cud, just as pigs aren't kosher because they do have split hooves but don't chew the cud. (Lev 11:5, Deut 14:7).

It's a category error, like "things that live in the ocean, but have legs", or "flying things that have four legs". Because they seem "wrong", they must be unclean.

#39

Posted by: Carlie | December 6, 2006 3:58 PM

Quite good, I thought, because the voiceover doesn't just try to parody Christian arguments, he uses Christian arguments word for word. I just showed my class Supersize Me, and I thought this guy sounds a lot like Morgan Spurlock doing his authoritative voiceover voice.

#40

Posted by: Zeno | December 6, 2006 4:06 PM

I wondered, too, although it began to seem like a parody when the narrator unblinkingly gave the circular argument (complete with illustration) for God and the Bible (the Bible is true because God says so -- in the Bible). The clincher, for me anyway, was the fig leaf. When the animation waited for a beat before plopping down a fig leaf over Adam's doodle, it was too much. A very clever parody.

Too funny.

I'll bet some unimaginative Christians will fall for it and proclaim it accurate and persuasive.

#41

Posted by: MTran | December 6, 2006 5:16 PM

I opened the link in a tab and kept reading on the Pharyngula front page. As a result, I heard the dead certainty of a literalist / creationist voice-over without the benefit of any visuals. I tell you, I was disgusted and laughing at the same time. Then I flipped to the video and just laughed, really hard. I love it when a satirist can play so true to the form of his victim. This was great.

#42

Posted by: Scott Hatfield | December 6, 2006 7:14 PM

Another nice touch was the incessantly cheerful tone of the narration. Funny stuff...SH

#43

Posted by: jon | December 6, 2006 7:43 PM

wintermute:
You know more about this than I do (what the hell is a rock badger?), but I'm doubtful that clean v. unclean is as reasonable a silliness as a category error. You are correct that the bible says coneys are unclean because they cheweth the cud but don't divideth the hoof (I looked it up). But any animal without a divided hoof is unkosher. Dogs don't chew and have paws; no category issues, but still unclean. It seems to me simply the arbitrary necessity of having both a cud and a divided hoof.

#44

Posted by: mmmm | December 6, 2006 8:25 PM

That reminded me of a group that used to do parodies of popular publications. For example, they did "Off The Wall Street Journal." The publishers said they considered parodying The National Enquirer, but determined that it would essentially be impossible.

Having initially fallen for this particular parody, I understand what they meant.

#45

Posted by: Acetone | December 7, 2006 2:48 AM

As a Christian biology teacher, I could not really enjoy this well-made satire due to a combination of anger and embarrassment that other Christians really do make comments to this effect. It is too bad that a vocal few (like ICR, AIG, etc.) make the Bible look stupid by insisting on faulty interpretations and make all Christians seem stupid by engaging in an uninformed, anti-science crusade. Because I teach at a Christian school, I am in a unique position to correct some of these errors (but it is difficult to reverse 10 years of indoctrination).

#46

Posted by: furcifer | December 7, 2006 7:09 AM

He's right. God is unbelievable that's why I don't believe in him

#47

Posted by: RS | December 7, 2006 11:41 AM

Of course "God" 'created' human beings 'in His own image'...

"God" apparently is no more imaginative than the human beings, our cultural ancestors, who created "God" first, 'in their own image' -- and then forgot about their act of creation.

#48

Posted by: Keith Douglas | December 8, 2006 3:33 PM

mmmm: I think a parody of the NI could be the Wall Street Journal!

#49

Posted by: anomalous4 | December 11, 2006 11:37 AM

(PZ, you're going to be getting more hits on this. Zeno just posted a link.)

Definitely a parody - but I think his use of Hawking as his representative scientist was in questionable taste, to say the least. Better to have used the famous photo of Einstein sticking his tongue out.

Funny, in any event, although it would be even funnier if I didn't know so many people who actually believe that crap.

#50

Posted by: Steven | December 11, 2006 5:19 PM

What makes it such a good parody is that it is so much like the dumbass, sorry I mean creationist arguement.