…and this is a 
I get email
Category: Kooks • Politics • Religion
Posted on: August 8, 2007 12:14 PM, by PZ Myers
Here's an odd correlation for you: whenever I take a swipe at the foolishness of Scott Adams, I get a major uptick in the usual trickle of Christian email. I don't quite see Adams as a friend to Christianity, although he does seem to foster the kind of shallow thinking on which religiosity thrives. Anyway, for your delectation, I've put a couple of samples below.
First, here's something we can expect to see lots of in the next year. I'm no fan of Obama myself, but this kind of silly slander is contemptible.
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita,Kansas.
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii . When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who re now waging Jihad against the western world.
Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking Major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!
ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office - he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Quran (Their equevelancy to our Bible, but very different beliefs)
Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?.... ..NOT ME!!!
I think he's also confusing Obama with Keith Ellison in there, which is not a good sign of his concern for accuracy.
This next one…well, my name is not Mr Scott. You will not be surprised at this product of a muddled mind:
No God?
Mr. Scott:
In your writings about atheism, you appear to be a very smart man. I wonder where you got your brain from. It couldn't be from a Higher Being now, could it?
Throughout your article filled with 50 cent words that I'm sure you gathered from a college degree (kudos on your hard work); it is sad that you are not on God's side. You would make a magnificent warrior; but then I'm sure Satan is glad to have you on his side. I don't remember the exact quote but it has been said that don't worry about not believing in Satan...because he sure as hell believes in you. I say this because if you don't believe in God, how can you believe in Satan? After all, Satan was a fallen angel from heaven.
As Jesus said to His desciples (again, no exact quotes) after arising from the dead: "You saw me and believe (that He is risen)...Blessed are those who have NOT seen me and still believe".
I'm sure it saddens Jesus's heart, knowing that this world is full of 'doubting Thomas's'...and it saddens my heart that you (and many others) are unwilling to remove your blindfolds and realize that Jesus suffered 5480 blows to his body before being so cruelly put to death on the cross. To further His pain, his arms and legs were ripped from His sockets as well. His knees would have been broken along with the two theives who were crucified beside Him but by then He had mercifully died. (You will find this mentioned in "The Pieta Prayer Book" in the 'Fifteen St.Bridget Prayers'...whereupon Jesus spoke to St. Bridget).
What a magnificent country we live in Mr. Scott that we can not only believe as we so choose but put our thoughts on paper (or in this case, the Internet) as well...with no thought of being punished by our government.
How many times must Jesus die on the Cross before you believe in His (and the Holy Trinity's) existence? Oh ye of little faith. Open your eyes before it comes time to stand before the One you say does not exist and He asks you to put your hand into his wounds. I'm sure you'll believe then.
May God bless you and all other athiests of this world.
Mary McLuckie
Comments
And neither of these clowns can even spell "atheist" correctly.
Posted by: Zeno | August 8, 2007 12:18 PM
Zeno is athey, I am athier, and PZ is the athiest!
Posted by: Matt the heathen | August 8, 2007 12:26 PM
Ther you go again, being all athier-than-thou, Matt :).
Posted by: thalarctos | August 8, 2007 12:28 PM
PZ, I know that your going to be annoyed by this, but the first is obvious satire.
People who take great pains to conceal things don't quickly admit to things.
Also, the excessive use of caps is also indicative of satire. Or possibly, PYGMIES AND DWARVES!
Posted by: archgoon | August 8, 2007 12:30 PM
Religion is just magical thinking, or no thinking at all. Sometimes people can compartmentalize their lives and can be actually intelligent and rational in their thinking apart from religion.
It seems that many of them, however, cannot compartmentalize. These are the poor devils who view all of the world in terms of magical thinking, empty religious dogma, and pointless rituals. These are also often the ones that drone on and on about praying for you, quote nonsense from their religious texts, and like to put several fonts of various colors in their communications.
Apparently, god loves bright colors and capital letters in the absence of lucidity and rationality.
Posted by: waldteufel | August 8, 2007 12:31 PM
My apologies PZ. On more careful reading, I am quite wrong. It isn't satire, just really bad arguments... Um... I meant to argue that to begin with..
Posted by: archgoon | August 8, 2007 12:33 PM
To show the incredible ignorance of Ms. McLuckie, her description of the crucification is totally inaccurate. I suggest to Ms. McLuckie that she read the acccount by Jim Bishop which was published some 50 years ago. For starters, Joshua of Nazareth did not die on the cross as a result of crucification. He was stabbed in the side by one of the Roman centurions before being taken down at sunset because the Jewish sabbath begins at sunset on Friday (he was only up on the cross for a few hours; victims were known to last as long as three days before dying of suffocation).
Posted by: SLC | August 8, 2007 12:34 PM
Perhaps the first message is "obvious satire" to Archgoon, but "obvious" is in the eye of the beholder. This is the sort of stuff I get forwarded to me by family members who are deadly earnest in their desire to spread the word, sound the alarm, alert the troops (choose whichever urgent metaphor most appeals to you; they use them all).
Sometimes, in the dark recesses of my mind, I fear that most of today's ills are based on the credulous over-reaction of paranoid idiots to satires they didn't recognize. The first e-mail quoted by PZ is far from being the most extreme thing I've seen taken completely seriously by wackos who considered themselves "informed citizens".
Yikes.
Posted by: Zeno | August 8, 2007 12:36 PM
Obviously the first email is playing on fears of miscegenation.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | August 8, 2007 12:36 PM
"5480 blows to the body" Is that in the Bible?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | August 8, 2007 12:38 PM
Someone's arm was pretty tired, I'm thinking.
Posted by: Hypocee | August 8, 2007 12:49 PM
Actually, the first one is NOT satire -- it's from a guy who sends me this kind of nonsense on a regular basis, sometimes several times a week.
Trust me, you're only seeing a fraction of the daily crapwallow in my inbox.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 8, 2007 12:49 PM
Gosh I dunno what to say. After those two convincing arguments, i'm giving up atheism. It's just a shame they couldn't have made things this clear earlier......
Posted by: Firemancarl | August 8, 2007 12:50 PM
Zeno,
Yeah, sorry :). Part of my belief was fueled by my incorrect reading of the entire post leading me to believe that Adams had written the first post. Yay for total reading comprehension failure!
I need more coffee.
Posted by: archgoon | August 8, 2007 12:52 PM
And yet, 2,000 years later, we're all supposed to swallow our doubt and believe on faith? Why is it that when Jesus was confronted with doubters, even holdouts like Thomas who hung out with him and still apparently disbelieved, he'd provide them evidence, but his followers regard doing so as some grand sin against faith?
If Jesus is so upset about all us doubting Thomases, then he ought to get off his holy duff and start a worldwide "look at my wounds" tour. Otherwise, I suggest the faith-heads go back and actually read the passage that they're basing their comparison on.
Posted by: Tom Foss | August 8, 2007 12:55 PM
The Obama piece is NOT confusing Ellison; this is most likely a Rove-style dirty trick by the RNC, related to the Faux News-lead headlines last year shrieling that Obama went to a madrassa in indonesia.
Unfortunately, the knuckledraggers that comprise Faux News audience believe any sort of bullshit that gets put in front of them. I've received the same email.
Posted by: BruceJ | August 8, 2007 1:01 PM
Funny thing about Christians who always try to emphasize Jesus' suffering is that his death was uncannily usual. There are much worse ways to suffer, including but not limited to the Brazen bull, impalement, lingchi, and hanging, drawing and quartering.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 8, 2007 1:01 PM
I'll not have the good name of Wasabism slandered so! Wasabi is a delicious and necessary component of all manner of Japanese seafood! Wasabi is an excellent compliment to the pickled ginger! Wasabi is an excellent contrast to...
...oh. He said, "Wahabism". Man, that's nothing. I heard that this Obama guy smokes! He might even market cigarettes with ammonia additives to preschoolers. Whudafxup?
Posted by: Dustin | August 8, 2007 1:06 PM
"5480 blows to the body" Is that in the Bible? [#10]
It is, actually. God pencilled it in in the margins.
Posted by: Smirk | August 8, 2007 1:07 PM
Ironic that you would get mail like this after critiquing Scott Adams, considering that in Adams's next post on Pascal's Wager, he announces that he thinks Islam is most likely to be the One True Faith.
Posted by: Mark Nutter | August 8, 2007 1:07 PM
We need more power to the engines, Mr. Scott! Oh, sorry, wrong number... just in case, you might want to stay away from wearing red shirts, though.
Posted by: Mark (Monty) Montague | August 8, 2007 1:08 PM
"He asks you to put your hands in his wounds."
Freaky. And poor wound care, it might end up spreading Messiah Resistant Streptococcus Aurelis.
Posted by: lunartalks | August 8, 2007 1:09 PM
"I'm sure it saddens Jesus's heart, knowing that this world is full of 'doubting Thomas's'"
You made the Baby Jesus cry! Shame on you!
Posted by: Clio Bluestocking | August 8, 2007 1:12 PM
"5480 blows to the body" Is that in the Bible?
Nope, this was revealed to St. Birgitta of Sweden in 1346.
Posted by: Sarcastro | August 8, 2007 1:16 PM
From the second letter:
"In your writings about atheism, you appear to be a very smart man. I wonder where you got your brain from. It couldn't be from a Higher Being now, could it?"
At this point I couldn't help but think of Dana Carvey as The Church Lady saying, "Who could it be? Hmmmm? Could it be SATAN?" That was the voice I pictured for the rest of the letter and I actually laughed out loud. Try it.
Posted by: Rich | August 8, 2007 1:18 PM
BruceJ: I'm sure PZ was just referring to the bit about taking the oath on a qur'an being confusion of Obama with Ellison (which is true re: Ellison, he used Jefferson's copy), not the whole thing with the madrassas and all.
Posted by: Fox1 | August 8, 2007 1:18 PM
5480 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 5 * 137.
Christ was allegedly struck a number of body blows that encodes the reciprocal of the Fine Structure Constant, which is also the average molecular weight (in daltons) of the 20 standard human amino acids!
God is great! Woohooo!
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | August 8, 2007 1:22 PM
Scott Adams is not on God's side therefore he is on Satan's side therefore he must believe in Satan? Makes perfect sense.
Let me try:
Scott Adams is NOT Susan B. Anthony WHO WAS A SUPPORTER of UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE therefore Scott Adams SUPPORTS SLAVERY.
Man, that's some serious 'shroom trip thinking.
Posted by: Brownian | August 8, 2007 1:26 PM
Wasabi is a delicious and necessary component of all manner of Japanese seafood!
And bloody marys
Posted by: MAJeff | August 8, 2007 1:29 PM
JVP: 5480 is actually the Goedel encoding for
The Bible = False.
Who knew?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | August 8, 2007 1:29 PM
I always find it funny that in letters like the Obama one that there is an underlying theme of fixation.
Whether there is any truth to the claim that Obama was en-rolled in a wahabi school makes no difference to me. I'm much more interested in knowing if he holds extreme wahabi beliefs today. It's clear that he doesn't, but to the composer of this letter, the suggestion (true or not) that he was exposed to wahabi teachings automatically make him anathema.
I see a similarity with the IDiots who claim that exposing children to evolution will indelibly corrupt their belief in god. Or to those who claim that the death penalty is an approprate punishment. Or those who claim that computer games create violent behavior.
There is this strange idea that once a person is exposed to an idea, they cannot critically examine it and accept or reject it. Instead, exposure means automatic acceptance. And the only way to reach a perfect society is through preventing exposure to unacceptable ideas.
Ted Haggard's anti-homosexual rants are forgivable because he has recognized that he is corrupted (not my viewpoint, BTW), and thus while he is a miserable sinner who has to rely on god's mercy to get into heaven he is actively trying protect other children from being exposed to the idea of homosexuality and thus become corrupted themselves.
The underlying theme is that people do not change. People cannot choose to act with kindness or hatred. People are good or bad, and nothing can be done to change them.
Clearly I don't feel this way, and as far as I'm concerned the evidence is pretty clear that people can (although some don't) change their viewpoints and opinions all through their lives.
Posted by: Flex | August 8, 2007 1:32 PM
i think the basic xtian/woowoo reaction to anyone writing about religion is thus:
xtian: "hey! someone saying something about my invisible guy! I must respond with ironclad arguments"
(hours pass. keyboard clicks slowly mark the time. "Send" is hit, with no sudden regret, confirming initial suspicion of idiocy)
msg body to whoever wrote whatever: FAAAAAAAAAAARRRT.
(caps represent sincere conviction)
Posted by: garth | August 8, 2007 1:33 PM
flex: change is a sign of weakness!!1!
plus, reading wahabi all those times made me hungry for sushi
Posted by: garth | August 8, 2007 1:34 PM
Wait a minute. First Jesus appears in a tortilla, and now they're praying to pita?
Or is that Saint Pita now?
Posted by: Warren | August 8, 2007 1:37 PM
BruceJ @ #16 -
Rep. Ellison took his oath of office on the Koran. That's the part that PZ is referring to by stating the author has confused Obama with Ellison. As far as I know, Obama did not take his oath on the Koran. We would have heard about it, believe me. We would still be hearing about it.
Posted by: povertyrich | August 8, 2007 1:38 PM
"Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who re now waging Jihad against the western world."
In fact, this is completely false. Wahhabis are NOT the jihadists. The Saudi government is Wahhabi, and it is one of the major targets of the likes of Osama bin Laden, et al. Their political and ideological descent comes from the Muslim Brotherhood by way of Sayed Qutb, NOT from Wahhabism. The latter is a conservative ideology which has (in my opinion) a lot to be despised, but Wahhabis can barely reconcile themselves with the idea of a radio, let alone guns, bombs and encrypted cell-phones.
Posted by: saurabh | August 8, 2007 1:38 PM
The first email has been going around so much it has an entry at Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
Posted by: Taz | August 8, 2007 1:38 PM
Delurking to add that the Obama letter has been posted at www.snopes.com for about a year now. You can read their discussion of the email at The Enemy Within
Katrina
Posted by: Katrina | August 8, 2007 1:44 PM
Figures. My first ever comment here, and I'm beaten to it by five minutes.
Posted by: Katrina | August 8, 2007 1:45 PM
Garth, et.al.,
You gave me an idea. I think I'm going to refer to all religous schools as wasabi-schools.
After all, horseradish is close enough to horselaugh to make it an enjoyable in-joke to me.
Posted by: Flex | August 8, 2007 1:49 PM
I hate to tell you PZ, but Scott Adams is a much deeper thinker than you will ever be. You've fought creationists for so long that you've begun to adopt their tactics of false certainty and ruthlessly attacking any idea that offends you emotionally. The arguments you laid out regarding Pascals Wager had been dealt with by Mr Adams in his post. Surely you knew that, but you chose ignore this fact and instead argued, somewhat childishly against exerpts the did not capture the true nature of his post. In this matter, you're no better than Fox News.
Posted by: Brandon | August 8, 2007 1:49 PM
Odd. Years and years of going to my parents' conservative church while growing up (and I grew out it, thank Zeus), years and years of Easter services and evangelistic retreats and being told over and over how Jesus died horribly for my masturbatory hobbies--yet I've never heard of the exact number of blows inflicted on Jesus. You would have thought that his flogging would be important enough to expound upon.
Thank you, Mary McLuckie (is that a real name? Not a pseudonym coughed up while eating a bowl of Lucky Charms?), for edifying the rest of us.
Posted by: Inky | August 8, 2007 1:51 PM
Mary McLuckie?
She was Mary O'fuckwit before she married.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 8, 2007 1:54 PM
Why do these people make it their goal in life to endlessly quote that idiotic testament:
"As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...." "As Jesus said...." ""As Jesus said...."
Do they think we are illiterate idiots who can't figure out, without the aid of a fundie nut, what Jesus fucking said!?
Leave us the fuck alone, quit with the broken record routine, stop imposing your idiot beliefs on others.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 8, 2007 1:55 PM
Thanks a lot Tom. I'll have the image of the brazen bull stuck in my head for weeks now.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 8, 2007 1:58 PM
Hahahahaha!
Adams is a deep thinker! Ohhh. Dats a good one.
And Bush is a gifted Diplomat and Cheney a empathic
person who cares about the average man.
Yeah. Right.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 8, 2007 1:59 PM
Funny, as I read it, Adams did nothing except handwave away PZ's arguments with more logical fallacies. He did it in a cookie-cutter fundie fashion.
That's one thing that's got me once again suspecting that there's a ghost writer involved.
Oh, and Brandon, you obviously never read anything PZ had to say. There's no false certainty involved. Certainty is something that we pretty much reject. You also obviously didn't pay attention to the myriad of logical fallacies we've all pointed out.
We ruthlessly attack any idea that's logically fallacious. The fact that Adams is maliciously lying just makes it a little bit more personal.
So, why don't you bring up one of these phantom "true nature" bits?
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 8, 2007 2:00 PM
Not only do I not believe in god, I also don't believe in the line "i before e except after c"
It's obvious our language doesn't.
Posted by: wildcardjack | August 8, 2007 2:02 PM
i before e, except as in e^i 2pi
Posted by: Christian Burnham | August 8, 2007 2:04 PM
Don't know.. The problem with assuming that Wahabi are not Jihadists is that it presumes that just because they don't like technology, and want to see it erased, means they won't use the enemies tools against them. Things I have read from people in every place from Iraq to Syria imply that, within the bounds of the areas they do try to shove their ideology, they have no problem at all using a bomb or gun, with the express purpose of killing everyone that makes bombs and guns, that one day they won't have to touch such evil things. Its the same sort of idiot hypocrisy you get from Christians who ignore their supposed 10 major rules, in favor of lying or killing everyone that won't follow the right rules out of existence.
Are they in the same class as Osama's bunch? No. But they are no less dangerous, within the limits of the places they act. And they *have* been known to cross borders occasionally and muck around with other countries. And just to be clear, the government itself "isn't" Wahabi, but one of their princes founded it as a private army, with the belief he could control it effectively (one of their insane philosophies is that you follow your king, even if he is corrupt and evil, because not doing so is a sin, but nothing they order you to do is *your fault*, since you are just following orders, you don't actually believe in the corrupt or evil acts they ordered you to perform.
Basically, they are even more nuts than Osama's bunch, who at least are doing what they do, not because its been ordered, but because they think its right. Someone that will do anything at all, because following *your orders* is mandated by God that you follow them, no matter what that is... That's a whole new category of insane.
Then again, I suppose the 4-5 identical descriptions from people living in the ME of what their philosophy says could all be identically wrong.
Posted by: Kagehi | August 8, 2007 2:09 PM
By the way:
LiveJournal goes after teens writing smut in private journals, yet ignores Dominionist promotion of actual and very real child abuse.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | August 8, 2007 2:12 PM
what's the solution?
do you think if hard-nosed atheists everywhere committed a few hours of their time every week to seeking out online forums and trying to persuade people with simple logic, over time they would eventually get it?
it seems unlikely, since most people seem to have no capacity for following trains of logic or for critically evaluating evidence.
(thus, i think, the real long-term solution is better science education in primary and secondary school.)
but maybe it just hasn't been tried? i mean, i know after even a single frustratingly futile attempt that i lose the will to argue. maybe if we stuck to our guns, all of us, consistently, then eventually some people would start to listen?
or maybe we should start a fund that could hire a few masochistic souls to take on this online rebuttal task as a full-time job?
Posted by: le_sacre | August 8, 2007 2:19 PM
So, if my intention is to join one of these Muslim schools but I have not yet done so, does that make me a Wannabe Wahabi?
I had to ask...
Posted by: Bruce Almighty | August 8, 2007 2:22 PM
Kagehi,
well said. Check this story from dailykos today :
"Convert Or Die" Game Sent To Troops In Iraq w/Pentagon Blessing
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/8/91955/84979
scary
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 8, 2007 2:26 PM
The first e-mail misses the golden opportunity to point out the the United Church of Christ has been labeled "Gay Lovers" for their support for gay rights. Come on, if you are going to do a smear, make sure you throw in everything possible.
Posted by: Ragnor | August 8, 2007 2:37 PM
Why would we want an intelligent, charming President who is aware of countries outside of the US and is willing and able to talk persuasively to people who have different backgrounds and interests -- when we've done so well with an insular idiot who can't make it to the end of a simple sentence and views the rest of the world as either Christians or evil-doers?
Posted by: Sonja | August 8, 2007 2:46 PM
BTW, no, this story (see my post #54) is not made up ! As unbelievable as it may be...
PZ, if you read this, please help make this mind boggling story out.
Thanks
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 8, 2007 2:49 PM
This has always struck me as an argumental Catch-22. They try to convince you with a threat (good job), but it's a threat that will only scare you if you are already convinced. It's like the old joke "I'm not superstitious because it brings bad luck" taken seriously. You'd think they'd have seen that by now.
Posted by: Andrés | August 8, 2007 2:52 PM
Posted by: El Christador | August 8, 2007 2:53 PM
In #58 I wrote:
Sorry, that's while still on the cross, I should make clear.
Posted by: El Christador | August 8, 2007 2:59 PM
"50 cent words?" I've only noticed a rather normal vocabulary, nothing stands out as a great big COLLEGE word. But then, I'm educated too, so what do I know? LOL
"Jesus suffered 5480 blows to his body before being so cruelly put to death on the cross. To further His pain, his arms and legs were ripped from His sockets as well. His knees would have been broken..."
And fundies whine about tv being too violent. At least the rest of us aren't wallowing in imaginary violence to an imaginary being. Anyone else notice that every year, it gets a little worse. Last I heard, being crucified was really bad. Now its 5480 blows (but who's counting?), limbs ripped from sockets and broken knees. What will they dream up next?
"How many times must Jesus die on the Cross before you believe in His existence?"
Oh, will there be a matinée?
Posted by: K | August 8, 2007 3:02 PM
flex:
I think that on some level these people must realize that their beliefs cannot stand up to critical evaluation. Therefore, any exposure to, and subsequent critical examination of, contrasting ideas will lead to the rejection of their 'deeply held' beliefs. I think that's why they want total isolation from other ideas.
Posted by: John Marley | August 8, 2007 3:26 PM
This has always struck me as an argumental Catch-22. They try to convince you with a threat (good job), but it's a threat that will only scare those who are already convinced. It's like the old joke "I'm not superstitious because it brings bad luck" taken seriously. You'd think they'd have seen that by now.
Posted by: Andrés | August 8, 2007 3:30 PM
People die on the cross from suffocation.
The head fallen forward from exhaustion causes them to choke to death.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 8, 2007 3:33 PM
"How many times must Jesus die on the Cross before you believe in His (and the Holy Trinity's) existence?"
That depends, Ms. McLuckie, how many times is he going to die in total? I'll probably need all of them to fully believe.
That's just a guess though, so let's see what happens.
Posted by: Snarky Bitch | August 8, 2007 3:34 PM
Posted by: lytefoot | August 8, 2007 3:40 PM
Well, if he's truly God, as many times as he likes, I suppose. Unless, of course, God isn't truly omnipotent.
Posted by: Brownian | August 8, 2007 3:44 PM
why's everyone down on doubting thomas? i always had a soft spot for thomas in sunday school. he's the only guy in the bible who asked for evidence.
Posted by: khefera | August 8, 2007 3:45 PM
John Marley wrote, "I think that's why they want total isolation from other ideas."
And to protect their children.
Because we know that unprotected exposure to ideas is dangerous. So to ensure your children get into heaven, innoculate them with a religious prophylactic early in their life and limit their exposure to unwholesome ideas during their formative years. The resulting rubber-like encasement of their minds will prevent critical thought and enable a protective denialism of reality sufficient to counter the most vigorous attacks of atheistic materialism.
Heh, I watched "The Magic Christian" again last weekend and I just recalled one minor bit between Sir Guy (Peter Sellers) and Youngman Grand (Ringo Starr):
Youngman, "Dad, do you think words corrupt?"
Sir Guy, pensively, "I don't know, Let's try. Agnes?"
Dame Agnes, looks up from television, "Yes?"
Sir Guy, "Nipple."
Dame Agnes, "Shh."
Sir Guy, waits for a moment, "Well, there's no immediate physical change."
Cheers!
Posted by: Flex | August 8, 2007 3:46 PM
Saw an Islamist (a Sufi) explain the corrupt, hedonistic Saudi ruling family's use and financial support of Wahabism. Seems they were deeply shocked by Khomeini's revolution in Iran and the support it got in the Muslim "street". According to the expert (sorry, can't remember his name), the Saudi fear of losing their supposed primacy as defenders of the faith coupled with a vague Arab inferiority complex vis. Persian history and culture led to the open embrace of Wahabism by the house of Saud in an attempt to maintain its exalted position in the Muslim world. A definite two-edged sword; they may maintain support because of their $$$ but be exposed by Wahabi purists as the hypocrites they are.
Posted by: p.a. | August 8, 2007 3:47 PM
Posted by: stogoe | August 8, 2007 3:50 PM
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States
If the past six years are anything to go by, they've already made a really good start.
Posted by: Ray M | August 8, 2007 3:58 PM
How many times does Jesus have to die on the cross? Probably about as many as Christopher Lee rose from the grave in those Hammer films.
I'm surprised that after addressing you as Mr. Scott, she didn't tell you that Jesus needs you to power up the photon torpedoes.
Posted by: Cameron | August 8, 2007 4:05 PM
"Ready and willing to nuke Pakistan"? For sure?
A week ago, everybody was upset at Obama for saying he wouldn't use nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda "under any circumstances".
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | August 8, 2007 4:09 PM
p.a.: The House of Saud has been synonymous with Wahabiism since the 18th century. They rose in power because they tied themselves to a modern reformation (like Protestantism) of Islam, rather than being simply one more local chief trying to take over the world.
Of course, application of Wahabi principles is for the serfs and not the lords. Just like in Europe's reformation.
Posted by: frog | August 8, 2007 4:22 PM
Anyone read Radio-Free Albemuth by PK Dick? A quick buck could be made re-writing it with Muslims replacing Communists.
And since almost no one saw The Manchurian Candidate, how about The Iranian Candidate?
Posted by: frog | August 8, 2007 4:28 PM
The Gumby background is perfect for the Mary McLuckie nee O'Fuckwit email. It's the attention to detail, Prof. Myers, that really makes your blog stand out.
Posted by: anonymous dave | August 8, 2007 4:32 PM
PZ, would you please for the record explain precisely what Scott Adams does which is so wrong?
I like both PZ and Scott.
Scott strongly appears to be an atheist, no matter what silliness he posts in his blog.
I consider myself an agnostic, but we're all still pretty much on the same page (I tend towards grouping 'god' with 'santa' and 'the easter bunny')
We're all in agreement that there is no god- so now what is there to argue about?
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | August 8, 2007 4:33 PM
Barack Sr. couldn't have been a very good Muslim, if he married an atheist.
Posted by: Ray C. | August 8, 2007 4:36 PM
Sheesh Will, you make it sound like PZ issued a fatwa on him.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 8, 2007 4:40 PM
Flex (#31) - A fine comment.
Blake (#73) - Thanks for waving away some of the smoke.
That first email (about Obama) has been circulating for a while; I found it flopping around in my inbox at least six or eight months ago. (Hey, did all y'all know that Barak rhymes with Iraq, and this his middle name is HUSSEIN? I said HUSSEIN. Just in case you missed it: HUSSEIN.)
Sheesh.
Say, did all y'all know that George W. Bush's first name is George? As in the tyrannical King George? How can we elect a man named after our former oppressor?!
Posted by: Kseniya | August 8, 2007 4:53 PM
Adams is such a timid lackwit that he thinks disagreeing with him on the interwebs is the equivalent of declaring a fatwa, so sure. Look how he crows triumph if anyone bothers to point out his logical fallacies -- he's supposed to be ignored, so rebutting him makes him indignant.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 8, 2007 4:54 PM
Can we change the term to "asatanist" to help the duller tools in the shed to understand? Not that they have any interest in understanding so it's probably hopeless but it may be worth a try.
Besides, it isn't atheism that makes the baby jesus cry (NSFW), is it?
Posted by: Mena | August 8, 2007 5:02 PM
Will asks:
PZ, would you please for the record explain precisely what Scott Adams does which is so wrong?
And answers:
...silliness he posts in his blog.
There ya go...
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | August 8, 2007 5:12 PM
MR. PZ: Perhaps we are more alike than either of us realizes....Mr. Scott
(I get this stuff too, y'know)
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | August 8, 2007 5:17 PM