…and this is a 
Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance
Category: Creationism • Religion
Posted on: June 11, 2007 4:38 PM, by PZ Myers
We've got a new Gallup poll on evolution to agonize over. It's nothing but bad news—we are a nation of uneducated morons. Gary chose to weep over the political correlation: look how membership in the Republican party is tied to ignorance about science.
The clear majority of Republicans are screwed up. And you know, I'm not too happy with the Democrats, either. These results tell us that the population across the board is messed up, confused, lied to, and festering in ignorance—it's just that right now the Republican party is a magnet for the stupid.
What's the cause? Look a little more closely. Here's another chart that exhibits an even more marked difference.
Yeah, being a Republican may not be causal, but going to church every week since childhood probably induces brain damage. This is just a correlation, of course, so how about asking those people who reject evolution why?
| % | |
| I believe in Jesus Christ | 19 |
| I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth | 16 |
| Due to my religion and faith | 16 |
| Not enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise | 14 |
| I believe in what I read in the Bible | 12 |
| I'm a Christian | 9 |
| I don't believe humans come from beasts/monkeys | 3 |
| Other | 5 |
| No reason in particular | 2 |
| No opinion | 3 |
The overwhelming majority credit their religion; the two secular excuses ("not enough scientific evidence" and "we didn't come from no monkeys") are common enough phrases among the creationists that I expect a majority of those are ultimately due to religion, too. So tell me, everyone: why are scientists supposed to respect religion, this corrupter of minds, this promulgator of lies, this damnable institution dedicated to delusion, in our culture?
Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Watch it, you're going to be called an Angry Atheist. Wear that badge with honor.
Posted by: C.S.Strowbridge | June 11, 2007 4:50 PM
My girlfriend and I have actually been considering moving to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Any idea what the level of theistic stupidity is up there?
Posted by: Rich | June 11, 2007 4:52 PM
But, according to no less an authority than Stanley Fish [blogging Sunday in the NYTimes] it is such a refined ignorance that Dawkins, Hitchins and their ilk can not lay a glove on it.. I post my disagreement. Fish is behind a paywall.
Posted by: greensmile | June 11, 2007 4:53 PM
I've never before had to use the aphorism "the tard, it burns" quite so sincerely.
PZ, your country really does need you.
Good luck!
Posted by: M. H. | June 11, 2007 5:03 PM
40% of Democrats. How depressing is that?
The majority of Republicans are stupid fucking idiots. This proves it.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2007 5:05 PM
Rich, here's a table from the 2001 census showing religious identification and education level in Halifax: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=67772&APATH=3&METH=1&PTYPE=55496&THEME=56&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=0&GID=517775
If you want more census data on religion in Canada, check out this page: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/ListProducts.cfm?Temporal=2001&APATH=3&THEME=56&FREE=0
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 5:07 PM
Rich- It's here but it's pretty quiet.
That said, don't come here, you won't like it. The people are rude and there's a pervasive odor of dead fish.
Kidding. It's lovely in all sorts of ways.
Posted by: chris | June 11, 2007 5:08 PM
What's so hard to believe? Look at the last election...how many morons decided to re-elect an administration that lied to them and continues to lie to them.
Understanding TOE takes some doing, a little bit of ready and some effort. Isn't it just easier to believe that some supernatural power did it? No hard research, no trying to figure out fossil record, or understanding of DNA or and of that really brain jaring stuff....Oh my head hurts!
Why should this be any different?
Posted by: steverino | June 11, 2007 5:22 PM
I wouldn't mind fleeing to some other country, but it seems nobody is taking the disabled.
Posted by: craig | June 11, 2007 5:22 PM
I really object when people talk about "believing" in evolution. It puts it right on a par with Virgin births and resurrections. Evolution is not a matter of belief it is a matter of understanding the evidence. If someone asked me whether I believed in evolution I would say " No, you don't have to believe in evolution it can be demonstrated in a lab."
Anyone know what proportion of the population believe in Flying Saucers?
Posted by: sailor | June 11, 2007 5:22 PM
Its called the freedom of speech.
No, it's not. PZ was asking why we're supposed to 'respect religion', not advocating we suppress religious speech..
Even though you're a complete idiot, I will defend to the death your right to promote your idiocy. Is that too sophisticated a concept for you?
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 11, 2007 5:28 PM
We'd be charged with terrorism and hate crimes. Meanwhile it will still be ok for them to demonstrate outside of women's health clinics.
Posted by: chris rattis | June 11, 2007 5:29 PM
On the bright side, PZ, the average Republican presidential candidate is more likely to believe in evolution than the average Democratic voter.
:-)
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 11, 2007 5:29 PM
After working myself into a tizzy over the poll about Joe Camel, then the Holocaust Denial poll in the mid 90's, I feel a big ho-hum over this poll. So often these polls are conduct with misleading (unintentional in the case of Gallup) or poorly worded questions or the respondents just didn't understand what the implicatiton of the question was. I've worked as a questioner on several scientific surveys and I can say without hesistation that it isn't uncommon to get responses you know are the result of misunderstanding, but protocol forbids follow-ups.
It's possible that we have a shockingly large number of morons, but it's equally possible that the question elicited responses not in line with the real beliefs. But if everyone wants to panic, feel free.
Posted by: histrogeek | June 11, 2007 5:30 PM
Strangely enough, you get the exact same results if you substitute 'pro wrestling' for 'evolution'
Posted by: mikmik | June 11, 2007 5:30 PM
Sorry Peanut Gallery, but freedom of speech also entails the freedom to say "So-and-so is a lying git and a crass bulshitter. Neither Jehovah, Zeus, or Triglav exist. Here's why you should stop listening to So-and-so...."
Unfortunately, it has been the religious who have excelled at book-burning, the labelling, torture and execution of 'heretics' and so forth.
Nice inclusion of 'Gestapo.' I see you kept at least one history book out of the fireplace.
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 5:31 PM
Utterly staggering statistics, PZ. It's like a watching a reality show based on Leon Festinger's book "The Failed Prophesy" with Jesus as the UFOs. An entire nation with cognitive dissonance waiting for a prophet that will never show...what a pity.
I agree, we need a health-alert from the Surgeon General on religious brainwashing.
Posted by: Richard Schauer | June 11, 2007 5:36 PM
Peanut Gallery:
Whats your point? Saying 'damnable' isnt covered by freedom of speech?
Posted by: jba | June 11, 2007 5:41 PM
I wonder how many Americans believe that if things go very fast, they get longer.
Posted by: cm | June 11, 2007 5:41 PM
PZ said religion was damnable.
Damn all religion!
QED.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 11, 2007 5:44 PM
"I wonder how many Americans believe that if things go very fast, they get longer."
I suppose it depends on the context, cm: relativity or sexuality?
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 5:45 PM
So tell me, everyone: why are scientists supposed to respect religion, this corrupter of minds, this promulgator of lies, this damnable institution dedicated to delusion, in our culture?
Answer:
Many do respect it.
Posted by: Back to the Subject | June 11, 2007 5:46 PM
The real problem here is not so much the public ignorance of science -- this is certainly something that needs to be addressed -- but rather, the problem is the now-common arrogant assumption that one can make intelligent decisions without information.
Expertise has become devalued. In the past, lay people might not have agreed with a scientific viewpoint, but they generally weren't so arrogant that they would assume to know the subject better. Experts were, at one time, more respected as sources of reliable information than they are today. Now, expertise is dismissed as just another opinion.
The TV news media have a part to blame for this, by refusing to question while simultaneously selling uninformed opinion as newsworthy.
Some religions have a part to blame for this by not valuing education and free inquiry.
American culture has a large part to blame for this, for creating and promoting heroes and idols that are brainless. Who was the last wildly popular American fictional character who used his brain? Mister Spock? In 1968?
Not everyone needs or wants to know about evolution. But everyone needs to know where reliable information can be found. And in America today, there is precious little reliable information available about anything.
Posted by: Jim Royal | June 11, 2007 5:48 PM
Atheism is not purely negative. It is sanity. It is normality.
Being honest with oneself about one's miniscule importance in the universe is one of the best lessons a person can learn in life.
Manufactured belief in god is about the most negative thing I can imagine, especially when I consider the violence religion can breed and the ignorance religon fosters.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2007 5:49 PM
You're absolutely wrong, Piece of Advice. Where do you get the idea atheists have "only one issue"? A god-belief is hardly required to tackle life's everyday problems; those of us who aren't superstititious deal with the same issues everyone does. The difference is that we solve those problems with logic, and empathy, and an awareness of the here-and-now.
Pastors don't have a monopoly on offering "emotional help" for people's pain. Anyone who cares about his fellow humans can do the same. What's more, we non-believers are motivated by the golden rule, not some imaginary eternal reward.
Posted by: Dono | June 11, 2007 5:50 PM
That doesn't answer the question why.
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 5:51 PM
The only way it will ever change is if belief in idiotic fairy tales somehow impacts corporate income. Let the bottom line suffer and heads will roll.
Posted by: ckerst | June 11, 2007 5:56 PM
#25:
And look where it gets them. Propagating lies and ass-backwards science (fitting evidence to a conclusion, rather than fitting a conclusion to the evidence). We don't respect that, and we don't have to.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 11, 2007 5:57 PM
Peanut Gallery: You are a troll. You have so far tried to twist the topic into a free speech argument (which is idiotic, the first amendment pertains to goverment censoring of speech, not scientific condemnation of stupidity) and have twice said all atheists are negative people who do no good, which is an extremely broad generalization that can easily be proven to be false.
Please close your mouth, the stuff that is coming out is making this place smell.
Posted by: Robert | June 11, 2007 5:58 PM
I apoligize in advance for feeding the troll.
Peanut gallery, promoting stupidity is not doing good for the community. And remember, jesus made history disturbing the community, since you seem like a member of his cult.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | June 11, 2007 6:05 PM
Its called the freedom of speech. I am sure you would like the Atheist Gestapo but it is not likely in a democratic society like ours. Don't fault the religionist just because they are better educators than you.
How are "religionists" better educators? Most Americans haven't read much, if any, of the bible, they don't go to church very often, and if you asked them to quote a passage in the bible or explain its meaning, they couldn't do so. You have have better educators, you have an indoctrination system where young children are told year in and year out that following Christianity will save their soul, etc. etc. They face ostracism if they don't conform at best, eternal damnation (from their point of view) at worst.
I'm not anti-religious, but claiming that they're better educators is the reason why religion has the impact is has is just laughable.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 11, 2007 6:07 PM
Back to the topic, though. How about just passing out flyers by churches? Anyone know of a good pro science/evolution template?
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | June 11, 2007 6:09 PM
Tell that to Warren Buffet, non-theist philanthropist who is donating $30+million of his personal fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Or to Bill Gates, for that matter, who is arguably non-religious and does a great deal of charitable work - with no strings attached.
Posted by: Jefe | June 11, 2007 6:11 PM
"Atheists are have only one issue, and one issue only and its purely negative"
Negative can sometimes be positive as when you stop believing mental illness is caused by demons, you stop believing that covering yourself with leeches will cure all ills, you stop believing maturbation will cause blindness and you stop believing in an invisible entity in the sky that is watching your every move.
Since atheism is not believing in something dumb, there should not even be a word for it. The word should be entirely ont the other foot as it were.
For the same reason atheism does not define people, it is just one small attribute normally meaning they are somewhat educated and living in th real world. So atheists will come in all stripes.
Posted by: sailor | June 11, 2007 6:13 PM
Sorry Piece of Advice, but don't need to identify our good works to the great accountant in the sky.
Furthermore, are you claiming that pastors do their job solely to 'help hurting families'? If so, you completely fail to understand proselytisation or evangelism.
To Critical Thinker: 15% of the US population identified themselves as having "no relion" in 2001. (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/aris_index.htm) Subtract 15% from 100% and you get 85%, not 98%.
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 6:14 PM
Peanut Gallery says,
Pardon me while I guffaw at you.
1) /guffaw
2) That is a very long run-on sentence with what appears to be 3 topics.
3) I think you can safely rest assured that no mean old atheists are going to be restricting your freedom of speech.
4) What educational institutions are you talking about?
5) Why are you spying on me? You must be spying on me to know that I do absolutely nothing to help other people. Are you the one flying those black helicopters and putting tracking devices in my money!?
Posted by: commissarjs | June 11, 2007 6:15 PM
I think a large part of "disbelief" in evolution comes from bad mathematics education. Not that the education is bad (though it is, in many cases), but that people are just bad at math or aren't mathematically minded. To me, evolution is one of the more obvious scientific facts; you can tell just by thinking about it in basic probabilistic terms that it should be right--and indeed, how else but this did Darwin come up with it? Darwin didn't even understand genetics.
@Critical Thinker
Sorry, but the truth value of something doesn't depend on how nice you say it.
Posted by: Jon | June 11, 2007 6:17 PM
They can definitely teach better than us. Sadly, it seems they are capable of only teaching confusion, ignorance, and outright lies. If we only adapt our teaching methods to include burning in hell for not doing ones math or science homework, perhaps the kiddos would learn to fear the man in the glossy lab coat.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | June 11, 2007 6:18 PM
PZ wrote (emphasis added):
Uh, no, it's the USA which is "a nation of uneducated morons". Please don't insult most of humanity based on a survey of a one cesspit.
Posted by: blf | June 11, 2007 6:19 PM
...sorry....
That should be $30 Billion + donated by Warren Buffet to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation - a non-religious foundation who's goal is improved health and learning for the global community. They currently list an endowment of $33.4 Billion for philanthropic ventures in the global community.
Atheists do give back to the community in demonstrable large numbers of dollars and person-hours.
Posted by: Jefe | June 11, 2007 6:20 PM
@Jefe
"Tell that to Warren Buffet, non-theist philanthropist who is donating $30+million of his personal fortune"
30 million? Try 30 BILLION.
Posted by: Jon | June 11, 2007 6:20 PM
Tell that to Warren Buffet, non-theist philanthropist who is donating $30+million
Not million. Billion.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 11, 2007 6:21 PM
Can you name an Atheist institution solely dedicated to offering help to hurting families that has been established in the last 20 years?
Off the top of my head, the Gates Foundation. I was going to add Doctors Without Borders, but they are 35 years old.
Posted by: Jim Royal | June 11, 2007 6:23 PM
"Can you name an Atheist institution solely dedicated to offering help to hurting families that has been established in the last 20 years?
No?
Exactly my point."
There are plenty of secular, nonreligious organizations that do such things. AmeriCares, PATH, United Food Bank, Handi-Dogs, and Save the Family Foundation of Arizona are five that this atheist has contributed money or time to in the last year.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 11, 2007 6:24 PM
There is nothing positive in calling someone stupid for having a differing viewpoint.
ever hear the term: Marginalization?
yes, there IS positive value in using epithets correctly.
it just hasn't been done LONG enough yet, as religion specifically has mostly been considered "untouchable".
Dawkins is doing fantastic work breaking that down, and getting folks to question why religion is given "special" status.
so is PZ.
valuable efforts to widen the breadth of discussion, if not the only avenues that are being pursued, certainly.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 6:24 PM
Actually, that's because for centuries the church was not above torturing and murdering those it believed to have heretical beliefs.
With such a poor understanding of history, I would really wonder who taught you?
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 6:25 PM
I continue to be troubled by the wording: "do you believe in evolution"? I have been compiling a list of snarky answers to that question (which I have been asked, on occasion). In the context of this poll, the intention is clear enough, but it still is an unfortunate phrasing. Personally, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that observation, experiment, and inference are sufficient to understand the natural world. These have shown the evolution of life on Earth to be a fact; there is no belief involved there.
As for Rich's question, I am an American atheist living in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and so far I have no complaints. In fact, I am in turns appalled and horrified every time that I return to the States, at how pervasive is the influence of religion there. It is simply not an issue here. To put it into perspective, in one recent national election, the candidate most outspoken about his religious adherence lost by a landslide: people thought it suspicious that he had to make such a point out of going to church. Canadian politics is not without its problems, but religion is a comparatively small component of them.
Posted by: Opisthokont | June 11, 2007 6:26 PM
But in all seriousness, could our hidden angst be due in part from our reliance on tax dollars to fund grants which pay our jobs? I don't read too many articles, papers, or books by corporate scientists defending science or science education. This is something to take note of...
The liberal inside me has been ignited now. I think education is not a right of the parent but a right for the child, a right that is to be protected by the government. This right includes teaching them correct science, correct history, and overall how to be a better citizen in a pluralistic society.I wonder how many religious fanatics I just upset with the above statement?
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | June 11, 2007 6:26 PM
"There is nothing positive in calling someone stupid for having a differing viewpoint."
No, but is quite satisfying, especially when we are not talking about differing viewpoints, but irrational beliefs. And here is the thing. If you do it enough, having not done it all previously, people begin to take notice and think. Getting people to think instead of believe is the key.
Posted by: Sailor | June 11, 2007 6:30 PM
Well I don't know any atheists that have felt the need to separate themselves but will have likely volunteered with secular organizations such as:
-- The Sierra Club
-- Planned Parenthood
-- Local Counseling/Suicide Hotlines
-- Soup kitchens/Homeless shelters
-- Peace Corps
-- Big Sisters Big Brothers
Posted by: Nic | June 11, 2007 6:30 PM
Warren Buffet is an agnostic not an atheist. Quite different.
not nearly as different as an evangelical xian and an agnostic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 6:30 PM
The religionists (which you call stupid) are ironically better educators than you, not only now, but throughout history. You do well to learn from them.
You have got to be kidding!
Think before you spout your nonsense.
Maybe you meant that they are better propagandists (which is true).
I have to give them credit for that. Jesus, for example, is one of the best propaganda figures ever invented.
Jeeesus wuvs you!
Yum, yum, me stupid, me eat up the religionist propaganda. Me shut down brain. Me happy.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2007 6:31 PM
Atheist you want, cranky one... Again, I think being separate seems to promote some sort of agenda.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/chapters/
http://www.atheistvolunteers.org/
Posted by: Nic | June 11, 2007 6:32 PM
But your answer affirms that there are NO atheist institutions that offer help to hurting families.
actually, no it doesn't.
why not do a search on how many NGO's have established positions as atheists, THEN figure out how many of those are dedicated to humanitarian causes, eh?
now match that to the percentage of the population (in the US) that purports to actually be atheist (hint: less than 15%), and you might get a better answer to your question that is based on fact, instead of your idiotic rhetoric.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 6:33 PM
You say that pretty definitively, Patrick.
Are you sure Warren just doesn't claim agnosticism to avoid the stigma attached to atheism, kinda like how Bill Clinton admitted to smoking a joint but "didn't inhale"?
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 6:33 PM
Peanut Gallery: You seem to think that atheism is like a religion, an institution that atheists belong to. It's not--it's nothing more than an absence of belief in gods or disbelief in gods. Why should assistance for families or any other kind of charity be tied to the promotion of atheism (or vice versa)?
We don't see the world the way you do. We don't provide aid contingent upon the recipient listening to a sermon or evangelism.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | June 11, 2007 6:34 PM
Atheists sitting at home posting blogs that call 98% of the population stupid.
Quite revealing.
quite a strawman.
btw, we write books too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 6:35 PM
I've told you already that 98% is incorrect, and provided evidence for it.
If you've got evidence for your claim that 98% of the population is religious then pony up.
Otherwise, use the correct data, or don't say anything at all.
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 6:36 PM
Patrick, aka Critical Thinker won't respond to my comments.
He knows I know his game.
Quite cowardly.
Posted by: Brownian | June 11, 2007 6:37 PM
I think you mean "better at indoctrination".
Hear, hear! That's a nicely concise way of expressing an opinion I've been trying to clarify for a while now.
Posted by: Glenn Peters | June 11, 2007 6:38 PM
#56: "Warren Buffet is an agnostic not an atheist. Quite different."
Splitting hairs. Atheists and agnostics are both non-believers or "non-theists". Any philosophical differences between the two groups are miniscule compared to their shared differences with theists.
Posted by: LCR | June 11, 2007 6:42 PM
Atheists sitting at home posting blogs that call 98% of the population stupid.
Atheists working in educational institutions where they work very hard to help educate this nation's populace and help kids to overcome some of the gross ignorance they imbibe at home and in their communities.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2007 6:43 PM
So Peanut Gallery thinks the right to be educated is communist. That explains a lot as I'm quite sure he wouldn't want to tar himself as a pinko commie. Instead he blissfully enjoys the god given freedom to be an absolute dumb ass.
Posted by: JD | June 11, 2007 6:50 PM
"Warren Buffet is an agnostic not an atheist. Quite different."
Ooh, a devastating counterattack! Point is, Warren Buffet doesn't give because he wants to score points with some deity.
Neither do those secular organizations. They might not be nominally atheistic, but they don't exist to proselytize for religion nor is their express purpose to give because it says so in their holy book.
But I sense that all that doesn't matter to the trolls, who seem to care only about what team someone is on, and will slander based on that.
"The conversation easily degenerates into who can insult the other party more cleverly."
And at this point, you should just run home and cry to Mommy.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 11, 2007 6:51 PM
But your answer affirms that there are NO atheist institutions that offer help to hurting families.
The U.S. Governmment used to be non-religious, until the fundies got a hold of it. You didn't have to worry about being subjected to brainwashing in order to receive a hand out.
Too bad those days are gone.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2007 6:53 PM
Sounds like communism to me.
for some reason, I can picture most things you disagree with to sound like "communism" to you.
here's one for your scrapbook:
You're an idiot.
see how well that works, when there is supporting evidence?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 6:54 PM
What exactly are we ignorant of, PG?
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 11, 2007 6:55 PM
If history is any indicator, the atheists do not stand a chance.
you don't know your history very well.
prediction:
you will immediately come back and tell us that the evolution of communism in the USSR was all about atheism.
am I wrong?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 6:56 PM
Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse. - Them's fightin' words, PZ! :)
@42 - aren't semantic and/or circular word games maddening? It's all they have.
Posted by: Sara | June 11, 2007 7:04 PM
OK a little aside here, but a pet peeve of mine. WHY must people continue to do grafts, etc using the colors red and green, when it is well known that about 8% of men are red/green colorblind? Why not blue and yellow? orange and green, anything but the two most commonly problematic colors? Sorry, I personally can see the difference even though I am slightly colorblind, but I have to look closer than most. Most every other male in my family would be lost. Why this obsession with graph makers with these colors?
Posted by: Dahan | June 11, 2007 7:07 PM
Non religious is completely different than atheistic.
no, it's not.
define atheism for us, if you would. perhaps that is where your logic train wrecked?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 7:11 PM
You seem to be looking for a charitable institution that only admits atheists, or an institution that packages atheist evangelism along with its charitable work, but most atheists don't roll that way. They prefer to do good alongside anyone who wants to help.
Then they're not secular.
Uh, previously you wanted "an Atheist institution solely dedicated to offering help to hurting families that has been established in the last 20 years." Even trolls need to be consistent.
Posted by: Anton Mates | June 11, 2007 7:12 PM
I guess this is the time PZ deletes all my comments and keeps everyone's hate on.
yes, now that we've clearly shown you to be an idiot, feel free to now play the victim card before you inevitably run away with your tail betwixt your legs.
won't stop us from laughing at you, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 7:13 PM
Who's mad Peanut? Looks like objective interpretation of the evidence you've provided to me.
You keep raising this stupid atheist charities canard. Some have been presented, there are a few more that brand themselves explicitly atheist. There aren't many, so what? There isn't much of a multiplicity for each specific religious denomination either, but again so what? There are a large number of religious based charities, many atheists give to them just the same. There are an even larger number of non-religious charities, many atheists and theists alike give to them. Your assertion would seem to be atheists aren't charitable because there aren't any atheist charities which is not only false but plain stupid. By your own "logic", non-religious people would be the most charitable of all since there are so many non-religious charities.
Nice job there skippy...
Posted by: JD | June 11, 2007 7:18 PM
Oh,
P.S. Peanut Gallery, you aren't an idiot ( I don't think) but you are SERIOUSLY delusional, poorly informed and unintentionally harming not only America, but the world. Good thing is, you can do something about that. Bad news is, it's hard work. Good luck.
P.P.S. This from a former Atheist in a Foxhole...although I could never admit it when I was serving in the Corps.
Posted by: Dahan | June 11, 2007 7:20 PM
Atheist charities in the last 20 years? How about this one?
http://earthward.org/mission.shtml"
Posted by: Bill Bruce | June 11, 2007 7:21 PM
Good grief, that's just what this sad topic needs, trolls.
Posted by: Manly Tears | June 11, 2007 7:21 PM
SERIOUSLY delusional, poorly informed and unintentionally harming not only America, but the world.
Idiot sums that up for me.
takes up less space, too.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 7:22 PM
On a bright note. We are one of two dire threats to christians. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/southern_baptists;_ylt=ApobzTMuRrJol.6VQFbhpJ47Xs8F
Posted by: hris | June 11, 2007 7:22 PM
Playing basketball is a non-religious activity this does not mean that those who play basketball are condoning atheism.
do you know what non-sequitor means?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 11, 2007 7:23 PM
I believe Peanut Gallery and Critical Thinker have made it abundantly clear that they're not interested in an honest discussion and have no regard for intellectual honesty whatsoever. Given that, why on earth is anyone responding to their babbling?
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 11, 2007 7:24 PM
Peanut Gallery, quoting PZ, freaking out over the impending denial of his or her free speech, wrote:
(Emphasis from the Peanut Gallery's repost)
Peanut- this may come as a terrible shock to you, but in the real world nothing actually happens when you refer to something as "damnable". The thing being described will not actually be damned, see, it's just an expression of contempt.
Second, what the hell does that have to do with free speech?
Posted by: Leni | June 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Peanut Gallery: I live in Miami Florida so I'll point you to a local example of an atheist who does quite a bit to help those that are less fortunate than he.
http://www.iheu.org/node/2203
People like him make me feel a little better about living in Florida. As for you, go stand in the corner you little twit.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | June 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Your assertion would seem to be atheists aren't charitable because there aren't any atheist charities which is not only false but plain stupid.
Nope, my affirmation was that religionist do more good in a week that atheist do in a year. Quite a differenct caricature, is it not?
Besides it was merely a passing statement, you are the one that got hung up on it. Its almost like I pressed on an open sore.
Posted by: Peanut Gallery | June 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Raging mad? That's a hoot coming from the guy spoiling for a fight in comment #77 and saying that we "don't stand a chance". But by all means, leave the kitchen if you can't stand the heat.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 11, 2007 7:29 PM
Nope, my affirmation was that religionist do more good in a week that atheist do in a year. Quite a differenct caricature, is it not?
Not really, what did you base that assertion on oh logically challenged one?
Posted by: JD | June 11, 2007 7:30 PM
Here you go, peanut:
Great Southern Humanist Society
http://humanism.meetup.com/164/
Look what they were up to last November:
Hi everyone!
The November Meetup is in a very early and tentative phase as we are waiting for more information on volunteering for the GPD feed the needy program in conjunction with the HCSO.
Prior years have required volunteers to package and prepare food for those who are elderly or infirm and cannot get out to a hearty meal. We are also under the impression that delivery volunteers will also be needed.
Put that in your gallery and smoke it.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2007 7:30 PM