…and this is a 
Trolling faith-heads: your efforts here are futile
Category: Kooks
Posted on: September 18, 2007 9:06 PM, by PZ Myers
Oh, joy. We've got a new crop of persistent Religiots pissing and moaning in the comments. They're whining that I'm mean, that all the regular commenters are mean, that the fact that some good scientists are also Christian somehow validates Christian belief, that I can't criticize scientists who are working at more prestigious universities, and that my tactics are bad. I don't know why they're here; it's not as if we're going to be converted by their inanities, or that they're going to persuade us to accept any of their claims.
Let's break it down into simple sentences and ideas.
Yeah, we're mean. We're actually rather proud of it, so don't waste your breath. Do you also walk up to Keira Knightley and tell her she's beautiful, expecting that she'll start wearing a bag over her head?
We know that you can be a good scientist and religious, and I've never said otherwise. Some great scientists have amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, too. It doesn't mean ALS is a good thing.
Swarms of perfervid Christians and timid agnostics and atheists waving their arms and urgently warning us that atheist strategies aren't working isn't exactly scaring us. It's not as if we're stupid enough to believe you want us to have more effective strategies for deprogramming victims of the church.
You aren't going to deter us.
Here is the bottom line.
There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die. If they believe it, that is; otherwise they go to hell and suffer for eternity.
Now I'm supposed to…
…believe in this fairy tale myself;
…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better human beings;
…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better scientists;
…regard people who swallow this fairy tale with the same respect I do those who see through the nonsense;
…refrain from criticizing this fairy tale; and/or
…pretend this fairy tale isn't a load of ridiculous bullshit.
No, it's never going to happen. I will never accept or even respect your fairy tale.
Sorry.
One more try. Here's a simple statement that, if you grasp it, you will realize there is no point hanging around here anymore.
The Nicene Creed is not a profession of the basic orthodoxy of the Christian faith. It's a rationality test.
If you believe one line of it, you've failed.
Comments
The first part is false. At best, you can ignore your religious beliefs while doing professional work, then ignore the fact that you ignored them.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 18, 2007 9:18 PM
The comment about ALS literally made me LOL and spray the freezey pop I was eating all over my PC screen!
Posted by: Che | September 18, 2007 9:20 PM
I remember mindlessly chanting that creed as a youngster at the catholic church I got dragged to. Never really gave it much thought, seemed somewhat hypnotic but mostly boring.
Anyway, I reckon you're right about it being a rationality test, if you believe that, you'll buy shares in my invisible pink unicorn farm.....
Posted by: Brian English | September 18, 2007 9:21 PM
Gee, PZ, I really wish you'd stop beating around the bush and tell us what you really think.
Posted by: tristero | September 18, 2007 9:22 PM
But don't be hurt, dear fundy readers of PZ, we're also just Ignorant Bayesian Belief Networks just like you. But unlike you, we don't think you're damned to eternal torture.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 18, 2007 9:25 PM
If the divinity and resurrection of Christ is so obvious, so compelling and so momentous, why did it take some 300 frikkin' years for it to be recognized?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | September 18, 2007 9:26 PM
I don't think this is going to make any trolls go away, this thread should get pretty heated later. Although I do think it's pretty funny that they think they can convince us of anything, it's just a waste of time and energy.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | September 18, 2007 9:26 PM
I would just like to say that you're mean, and so are all the regular commenters. Also, Christianity is valid because some good scientists are Christian, and you can't criticize them because they work at more prestigious universities. Also, your tactics are bad.
SO THERE!
Posted by: jfatz | September 18, 2007 9:29 PM
the Nicene creed;
I've always wondered who the "quick" are in the phrase:
..judge the quick and the dead.
Is it "Jack", who was quick enough to jump over the candlestick?
BTW, wasn't "Quick and the Dead" also a dumbass pseudo-cowboy movie with Gene Hackman?
amazing what xianity makes me think of.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 9:30 PM
PZ, if you don't apologize and learn how to properly frame the issue, no one will listen to you. You certainly couldn't keep the largest readership in the SciBorg by being mean. Don't worry, keep working on being nice and you too could be as inconsequential as Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | September 18, 2007 9:30 PM
this thread should get pretty heated later
*yawn*
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 9:32 PM
Yea, as it is and should be written,
John 3:16 v2.0
For God so loved the world he got Joseph's wife Mary pregnant.
Posted by: El Cid | September 18, 2007 9:33 PM
I have to say, I don't think the argument that only nice atheists get ahead holds up under scrutiny. The annoying atheists seem to be the ones getting dates to the prom.
Posted by: s9 | September 18, 2007 9:34 PM
Joseph's fiancee. Damned unwed teenage mothers!
Posted by: MAJeff | September 18, 2007 9:36 PM
"There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die."
Yes, you would think if someone was going to DIE for your sins at least he would have the decency to stay dead more than thee days.
Posted by: sailor | September 18, 2007 9:39 PM
I know I've said the before in here, but PZ has struck a chord. The Nicean Creed was the fulcrum of my own personal tipping point. Errr... ok, that was dumb, but over a period of several months I found it harder and harder to get the words out, and one day I realized that if I uttered those words again it would be a lie, and a insult to those who believe them.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 18, 2007 9:41 PM
Do any of these people realize that we're mean IN PRINT and not in person? There is a huge difference in the type of interaction that one has when writting to a vast audience with no one person in particular targeted, and one-on-one interaction requiring two human beings speaking face to face.
One is entirely personal and the other is not. If you expereince dissonance at the attack of your cherished beliefs, don't blame us. Either hit back with your own arguments as to why these beliefs are true and either win or lose the debate, or simply remain silent. To do otherrwise contributes nothing to the conversation.
Posted by: Michael | September 18, 2007 9:41 PM
The religious trolls cannot help themselves. They are like moths drawn to the bright flames of atheism. They think their faith is strong enough to not only survive the fire but to somehow extinguish reason itself.
Posted by: Village Green | September 18, 2007 9:43 PM
I realized that if I uttered those words again it would be a lie, and a insult to those who believe them.
of course the next step is realizing the only way NOT to insult someone is to dutifully point out to them that they might not have realized that it's all nonsense. I always knew there was reason my parents read me "The Emperor's New Clothes" when I was little.
I've never considered it an insult to point out the truth to someone; tact is only involved in picking the right time to do so.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 9:47 PM
Yes, we ridicule the ridiculousness of faith. But is that more cruel than my mother telling me I will spend eternity in Hell because I don't believe in her mythology?
Those who believe that saying such a thing isn't cruel and hateful really are clueless. And yet we're supoosedly the mean ones.
I love (and like) my mother. Her beliefs repulse me. As do those of anyone who would claim likewise.
They got nothing other than internall incoherent and contradictory texts that claim authority for themselves. Nothing.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 18, 2007 9:48 PM
Ichthyic,
"Quick" means "living" in that context. Or were you just being flippant?
Posted by: qetzal | September 18, 2007 9:51 PM
"Quick" is simply a fancy (and archaic) way of saying "living".
It may be that you already knew this, but why should I give up a chance to show off?
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 18, 2007 9:51 PM
ZacharySmith #6:
Might it have been because it took that long for the ruling classes to recognise its utility?
Posted by: John Morales | September 18, 2007 9:52 PM
El Cid (the Tick's nemesis?) - Good revision, but not entirely accurate.
For God so loved the world he had an affair with Joseph's wife Mary and got her pregnant.
That's a bit better. "Cuckolded Joseph" might be more succinct, but I'm afraid too many fundamentalists won't know what that means.
Posted by: Carlie | September 18, 2007 9:53 PM
It looks like the Narn Bat Squad may be needed for this thread too later. They seem to feel sorry for the religious folk who come here because it's only one of ten or so blogs that exist and they don't have anywhere else to go but they will get over that.
Posted by: Mena | September 18, 2007 9:54 PM
Or were you just being flippant?
yes.
to put it succinctly.
belaboring the more subtle point I was trying to make isn't really worth bothering with.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 9:55 PM
They weren't married though, they were betrothed. She was only scheduled to become his property.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 18, 2007 9:57 PM
Ichthyic:
Perhaps you were being facetious, but "quick" in this context means "living." It's an archaic usage that is retained in modern English only (as far as I can think of) in the phrase "the quick and the dead" and when referring to the living part of your finger- and toenails ("the quick"), particularly in the phrase "cut to the quick."
I can't help thinking that its association with the cowboy genre must have been considered a brilliantly clever play on words the first time anyone ever used it, but now it's become so obscure nobody gets it.
Posted by: Gelf | September 18, 2007 9:58 PM
Nevermind. I was so late to the party.
Posted by: Gelf | September 18, 2007 9:59 PM
You mean you weren't quick enough?
::runs away fast::
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 18, 2007 10:01 PM
That's a bit better. "Cuckolded Joseph" might be more succinct, but I'm afraid too many fundamentalists won't know what that means.
Peter Griffin: Yeah. My wife here did KISS.
Moderator: Get out of here!
Peter: Hand to God.
Moderator: Peter, how does that make you feel?
Peter: I feel like I've done KISS, too, Donny. And it feels good.
maybe Joseph considered the positive aspects of having such a famous personage diddle his bride to be?
I mean, that's gotta be a serious marketing advantage.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:01 PM
Ooo, I forgot all about "the quickening" being the part where a fetus begins moving such that the mother can feel it. Or, you know, the part in The Highlander when somebody cuts somebody's head off with a sword. Take your pick.
Posted by: Gelf | September 18, 2007 10:02 PM
But how did they each measure up? I mean, after the creator of the universe, wouldn't you feel a little self-conscious? Maybe Mary wasn't a size queen.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 18, 2007 10:05 PM
HOW BOUT EVERYONE STOP TRYING TO CHANGE HIS OPINION ON THIS!!!!
Ya, we can be hella mean, but you know what? The more you try to tell us that our opinion is WRONG the more MEAN AND HEARTLESS we will get.
BACCK THE FUCK DOWN....
Posted by: Fox | September 18, 2007 10:06 PM
Ooo, I forgot all about "the quickening" being the part where a fetus begins moving such that the mother can feel it. Or, you know, the part in The Highlander when somebody cuts somebody's head off with a sword. Take your pick.
ahh, I see there was indeed no need to explain further.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:07 PM
Well, you'll recall that it was the Holy Spirit who did the dirty work, as it were. You know the third part of the Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Poorly-Understood Adjunct Functionary. I would expect that to be the kind of nebbishy aspect of the Almighty, so perhaps it wasn't anything to write a gospel about. I mean, how many dates does the Holy Spirit get out on? This isn't Zeus we're talking about here.
Posted by: Gelf | September 18, 2007 10:12 PM
I mean, after the creator of the universe, wouldn't you feel a little self-conscious?
compared to having bragging rights that God diddled MY fiancee?
nope.
I'd be just like Peter Griffin; I'd feel like I'd done God too.
...and of course, like i said, I also would be thinking more about the $ I could make off selling THAT story.
on the next Oprah:
"God diddled my fiancee, and we're still getting married!"
I'd have been the hit of of new millennium (1st AD) talk show circuits...
some things are just more important than what your S.O. thinks of the size of your toolset.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:14 PM
This isn't Zeus we're talking about here.
it isn't?
considering how much xianity "borrowed" from "pagan" religions, I'm not so sure about the accuracy of that statement.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:19 PM
Ah, so you're the size queen :)
Posted by: MAJeff | September 18, 2007 10:19 PM
We're mean? We're not running around with mini torture devices on our necks and cars, nor are we worshipping death and suffering...so, come again?
Posted by: patrick | September 18, 2007 10:23 PM
And John Morales gets it in one!
Seriously though, you're on the money with that John. Few Christians remember now that the Council of Nicaea was called and run, not by the bishops, but by the (brand new) Emperor Constantine, whom even Christians don't claim until his deathbed (and that's dubious.) So all this work on the great statement of faith was organized by a non-Christian. The result was a wedding of established Church hierarchy and imperial bureaucracy, much to the benefit of both in controlling what they wanted to control (a restive populace and other religions.)
And Christians wonder why we push so hard to maintain separation of religion and state...
Posted by: Stwriley | September 18, 2007 10:23 PM
I think the 500,000th comment contest is bringing them out...worked for me!
Posted by: MLE | September 18, 2007 10:24 PM
the instant one of those fundamentalist offers the same "respect" to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that they demand of others for their wacky ancient-herder fairy tale, I'll be there with a big hug for them. Til then, fuggoff, fundies.
Posted by: garth | September 18, 2007 10:24 PM
I think everyone who believes in god should talk in baby-talk when they talk about their fairy religion.
"Being a Cwistian is goo-goo-good pwepawation for work as a thientith, and thienth can hewp pwepware you for being a Cwistian. Goo-goo. Ma. Ma. Ga. Da. Da."
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 18, 2007 10:25 PM
There is more evidence for the existence of Cthulhu than there is for the existence of God... When are Christians going to give up and become Cthulhu cultists?
Posted by: K. Engels | September 18, 2007 10:26 PM
I'd prefer actual Dagon worship myself; even the Catholics saw the utility of that religion.
I mean, seriously, a religion based on loving the sea and the primal forces of fishdom?
and they had such great hats...
http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/Dagon.html
(sorry for the shameless plug, I've been getting some hints I haven't been advertising enough lately - oops, I've said too much)
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:33 PM
Yeah, yeah. Zeus would have come down and taken care of business himself. Probably in the shape of a wildebeest or something. Sure, they were all the Sumerian god El when you get right down to it, but Zeus was like the awesome dude you hung out with in college. Jehovah is the one you meet at a twenty year reunion and say, "you've changed, man."
In between, Jehovah he spent some time as a violent raging alcoholic. He was a total jerkass, and the only people who hung around with him were the ones who didn't have much choice. He mellowed out when he had a kid and became a quietly bitter, completely boring mid-level manager for The Universe. He is mentally half checked-out already, always planning his retirement, but lives vicariously through his son. That kid is going back down to Earth to kick so much ass one of these days, and the old man will sit around thinking, "yeah, I did that."
Posted by: Gelf | September 18, 2007 10:33 PM
But all you have to do is close your eyes and wish really, really hard and God will tell you he exists all by himself (see comment #4 by "JE")! That is, if you're willing to pull out your brain and drop kick it out the window.
God must have truly loved rocks to have made so many for his followers to crawl out from under.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | September 18, 2007 10:34 PM
Well heck, that didn't work at all. JUst see comment #4 here.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | September 18, 2007 10:36 PM
I think everyone who believes in god should talk in baby-talk when they talk about their fairy religion.
omgawd i love you!
:)
Gonna remember that next time i get corner by a fanatic again..
Posted by: Fox | September 18, 2007 10:36 PM
but Zeus was like the awesome dude you hung out with in college. Jehovah is the one you meet at a twenty year reunion and say, "you've changed, man."
LOL.
couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:38 PM
If the divinity and resurrection of Christ is so obvious, so compelling and so momentous, why did it take some 300 frikkin' years for it to be recognized?
More to the point: why did it disseminate slowly from a tiny region on Earth, instead of being trumpeted far and wide instantaneously by God? How many Tibetan goat-herders (not to mention Buddhist monks) "died and went to Hell" because they never had a snowball's chance of hearing the Good News?
You'd think Jesus would at least have waited for the invention of YouTube before climbing up on the cross, the inconsiderate bastard.
Posted by: Jay Andrew Allen | September 18, 2007 10:39 PM
Ichthyic,
I appreciate you taking the time to offer that little pearl to me. Thanks. I've sorta been working on that, without realizing it. It's a tricky thing. As you know. I'm kinda new at this...
Posted by: Kseniya | September 18, 2007 10:40 PM
I've said it at other blogs, and I'll repeat it here (if I haven't before):
If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | September 18, 2007 10:46 PM
#46.
It was good enough for Dagon
A conservative old pagon
Who still votes for Ronald Reagon
And it's good enough for me!
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | September 18, 2007 10:47 PM
just be aware that what I think of as 'not an insult' wouldn't be agreed with in most of society, who don't get that I'm actually respecting them by pointing out the fallacies in their worldviews.
...and that's based on personal experience.
like i said, timing is everything.
obviously, standing up during a church service with your still-believing friends and relatives to tell them they're wasting their time might not go over so well.
not so obvious is that doing the same thing at a casual party also might not go over so well.
damned if you do...
well, just damned if you do, basically.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:47 PM
NICE summary of Christianity. One of the best short ones I've seen. One I think that is a bit better is the classic one by Mageth, here:
http://www.extian.org/home.htm
On the downside, it's a bit longer. On the upside, I've yet to find a believer who can find something factually wrong with it (at least in its correspondence with the story as the Bible(s) tell it) and it's fairly thorough, not leaving excessively much out. And while remaining faithful to the Bible(s) the story is quite obviously ridiculously false, which is the whole point. So Mageth tops you, I think, though your summary is damned fine. I've been looking for a very succinct one I might memorize for verbal arguments -- confrontations might be a better word. Yours just might be short enough. I find I cam not able to recite Mageth's properly in the heat of verbal battle. (Damned holey ghost makes me forget or something. :-)
And equating believing this silly story to having ALS... LOL. A bit hyperbolic, of course, but I can get behind the idea of it.
Posted by: SteveC | September 18, 2007 10:48 PM
Mean? I don't have a problem with that. Ignorance and being narrow minded is more of an issue. It seems that most of the posts on "religion" are really about Christian theology. There is more to religion than theology which is one of the reasons you can find atheists active in many churches and synagogues.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | September 18, 2007 10:54 PM
Thank you PZ.
They should only get respect when respect is deserved.
Posted by: Alex | September 18, 2007 10:57 PM
Sure Xianity borrowed a bunch but I dunno Ichthyic, I think Zeus does come across as a tad more virile than this, eh?
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=holy%20spirit
"The third "person" of Christianity's Holy Trinity. May be related to the Jewish idea of shekinah-- sometimes thought of as Divine Wisdom. Some people believe the Holy Spirit is the desexed remnant of the feminine face of God."
Maybe the spirit fleshes out with a little holy Sildenafil citrate...
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | September 18, 2007 10:57 PM
I told this joke years ago at a Jesuit barbecue (it was just a cook-out; the Jesuits were not being barbecued themselves) and it killed:
God's Vacation
The archangel Gabriel tells God he's concerned:
"You've been working pretty hard, Lord, creating stuff and running the universe and all that. You deserve some time off."
"Well, Gabe, I did rest on the seventh day, you know."
"Sure, Lord, but that was a long time ago. Why don't you knock off for a couple of weeks, go somewhere quiet, and just relax?"
"Anyplace in particular you recommend, Gabe?"
"I'd suggest one of those outlying planets where not much ever happens. How about a vacation on Earth?"
"For Christ's sake, Gabe, don't you remember? I took my last vacation there! It's a pest-hole of gossipy small-minded provincials, even if I do say so myself. I started out having a great time. Met this cute little Jewish girl, had a bit of a fling, but it's two thousand years later and they're still talking about it!"
Posted by: Zeno | September 18, 2007 10:58 PM
It was good enough for Dagon
A conservative old pagon
Who still votes for Ronald Reagon
And it's good enough for me!
what's that from, Alan?
I'm curious, but do not endorse the content; I mean seriously, Ronnie thought trees caused pollution. what kind of nature loving god would support that?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 10:58 PM
I'm jealous. I never get hate mail or anyone trying to convert me. I need to practice my debating skills.
I pretty much just have 2 questions for most religious people.
1) Do you honestly believe that if you'd been born to parents of a religion other than the one you currently believe, in a society of this different religion you'd still believe the same one you do now?
2) What evidence would it take for you to change your mind?
Posted by: Brian W. | September 18, 2007 11:00 PM
@17 "Do any of these people realize that we're mean IN PRINT and not in person? There is a huge difference in the type of interaction that one has when writting to a vast audience with no one person in particular targeted, and one-on-one interaction requiring two human beings speaking face to face."
Speak for yourself, people are always telling me that I am a BIG meanie.
Posted by: jufulu, FDC | September 18, 2007 11:00 PM
Stwriley #41, the evidence supports your claim. Well, it seems it worked then and it looks like the current US president has found it useful too.
Unfortunately, I live in Australia, which in RealPolitik shelters under the US shadow.
That bothers me, and in some sense, PZ's struggle is mine too. He's just of far more significance.
Posted by: John Morales | September 18, 2007 11:03 PM
I don't wish to belittle the ingenuity of Roman execution techniques and I'm sure crucifixion is a very nasty way to die if you are mortal, but why all the fuss when .33% of a god was nailed up?
I mean, if you are going to suffer for ALL the sins of the world, can it really all be over in an afternoon? Is death such a biggie when you know you are, in fact, immortal?
Isn't there a case here for a do-over? Maybe metastasised colon cancer during a world morphine shortage. And this time the carpenter stays dead.
Posted by: quantok | September 18, 2007 11:04 PM
There is more to religion than theology
indeed; there's also the pointless rituals.
and songs! don't forget the songs!
one of these days I've got to write a Dagon hymn.
(at least better than the one Alan quoted).
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:05 PM
1) Do you honestly believe that if you'd been born to parents of a religion other than the one you currently believe, in a society of this different religion you'd still believe the same one you do now?
No because I live in a pert of the world where Satan has much less of an influence on religious beliefs.
2) What evidence would it take for you to change your mind?
If Satan came over here and tricked me into changing my mind, then I would do so. That, and if Jesus couldn't fly, then I would change my mind also.
Posted by: 386sx | September 18, 2007 11:08 PM
Yes, I understood that right off. It's respectable point of view, IMO, and consonant with I've seen of your philosophy and style. But I'm still pretty firmly in a live-and-let-live phase. People believe what they believe, and I have no great desire (and far less hope) of changing anyone's mind. The journey to disbelief is a personal one...
I also understand that it's likely to be a no-win, so I tend to stick to the easy stuff, like the absurdity of the Flood story, the horrendous laws of the O.T., and so forth. Safe topics that few, if any, people in my spheres have any attachment to. I'm lucky enough to have more than a few friends who are quite irreligious, some openly atheist, so it's not like I'm surrounded by fundies. My dad doesn't say the Nicean creed either, and in fact we've stopped going to church altogether (except to help with fundraisers). I think both my brothers are Deists without realizing it, or Christians in the way Jefferson was (or wasn't) one.
So it's not really a big issue in my day-to-day. The real struggle is internal, to be honest, but that's not so bad either.
Posted by: Kseniya | September 18, 2007 11:10 PM
ah, nvmd alan, I found it:
http://wiretap.area.com/ftp.items/Library/Fringe/Weird/pagan.sng
last verse:
Then we'll worship with the Fruitcakes
(better than those Buddhist flakes)
bowing for the weekly keepsake
and it will be good enough for me
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:11 PM
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | September 18, 2007 11:13 PM
SEE?!!!
You're all quite mean. Therefore whatever I believe is right.
Posted by: jfatz | September 18, 2007 11:14 PM
Nevertheless there are many who find the ceremony both useful and meaningful.
but you know better on that score.
LOL.
funny enough, I rather agree with you; graduation ceremonies are pointless for the participants... it's all for the parents.
now if you could only grasp the parallels.
You're so close.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:20 PM
#32 Cool! A "Highlander" reference.
Cheers,
Ray
Posted by: Ray | September 18, 2007 11:20 PM
Nevertheless there are many who find the ceremony both useful and meaningful.
but you know better on that score.
LOL.
funny enough, I rather agree with you; graduation ceremonies are pointless for the participants... it's all for the parents.
now if you could only grasp the parallels.
You're so close.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:22 PM
do you dislike all music or just the religious music with which you are familiar?
do you like all art or just the forms of expression with which you are familiar?
btw, I do hope you are building up at least to the level of threatening us with a narn bat.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:24 PM
I find it funny how they just don't get how silly it all is.
Religion is goofy.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 18, 2007 11:33 PM
MAJeff wrote (post #33):
But how did they each measure up? I mean, after the creator of the universe, wouldn't you feel a little self-conscious? Maybe Mary wasn't a size queen.
Well Yahweh can't be very well-endowed if he left Mary a virgin.
Posted by: Patrick Quigley | September 18, 2007 11:37 PM
Religion is Goofy.
http://www.animationartgallery.com/images/wdc/wdc109.jpg
can't argue with that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:46 PM
OK -- I read the thread waiting for the trolls to show up, only to be disappointed. Just a bunch self-satisfied commentary from people about how brilliant they are. Yeah, you sure put the fundies to rout. As to dealing with the faith, emotions, and attitudes of most spiritual people, the commentary missed the mark. What, Christian myth isn't true???? Oh my word, never heard that before. Would that our lives were only a matter of finding falsifiable propositions to which we might apply our super scientific brilliant and rigorous minds. Then it would be no problem to convince the 90% of the human race. Rather than congratulating yourselves about how extra cool and rational you guys are, what about figuring out why humans have such a deep and fundamental orientation toward faith and preferring clearly irrational propositions to your clear truths. Hmm, tackle the psychological conditions in which the majorty of us live. Nah, easier to compare a religious scientist to someone with a congenital disease.
Posted by: rob | September 18, 2007 11:48 PM
OK -- I read the thread waiting for the trolls to show up, only to be disappointed. Just a bunch self-satisfied commentary from people about how brilliant they are. Yeah, you sure put the fundies to rout. As to dealing with the faith, emotions, and attitudes of most spiritual people, the commentary missed the mark. What, Christian myth isn't true???? Oh my word, never heard that before. Would that our lives were only a matter of finding falsifiable propositions to which we might apply our super scientific brilliant and rigorous minds. Then it would be no problem to convince the 90% of the human race. Rather than congratulating yourselves about how extra cool and rational you guys are, what about figuring out why humans have such a deep and fundamental orientation toward faith and preferring clearly irrational propositions to your clear truths. Hmm, tackle the psychological conditions in which the majorty of us live. Nah, easier to compare a religious scientist to someone with a congenital disease.
Posted by: rob | September 18, 2007 11:50 PM
Jeff Alexander said:
The point at which religion becomes compatible with atheism is the point at which it ceases to be religion. Yes, community, charity, and a sense of awe are really nice and important things, but they neither require nor comprise religion.
Posted by: H. Humbert | September 18, 2007 11:57 PM
"easier to compare a religious scientist to someone with a congenital disease."
That's what you thought he was doing? Do you have any learning disabilities or anything i should be aware of? I'd hate to say something and then find out afterwards that you do. I'd feel awful. I'm just curious how someone's reading comprehension can possibly be that bad.
He's not comparing religious belief to someone with a congenital disease. He's comparing the ARGUMENT that because smart people have religious belief that religious belief is a good thing to the obsurd claim that ALS is a good thing because some smart people have it.
Posted by: Brian W. | September 18, 2007 11:57 PM
Then it would be no problem to convince the 90% of the human race. Rather than congratulating yourselves about how extra cool and rational you guys are, what about figuring out why humans have such a deep and fundamental orientation toward faith and preferring clearly irrational propositions to your clear truths.
umm, because that's been done innumerable times on other threads, and this one ended up just taking the tack of making fun of those who take religion so seriously?
just a thought.
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 18, 2007 11:57 PM
Re: #15 "... Yes, you would think if someone was going to DIE for your sins at least he would have the decency to stay dead more than thee days..."
Praise Jesus! He gave his weekend for you!
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | September 19, 2007 12:02 AM
Thanks for the last two lines PZ. I think I just found myself a new siggie for the christian forum I hang around at :)
Posted by: Goodchild | September 19, 2007 12:03 AM
it's not like the idea of a god spawn becoming concretized and dying in some tragic drama is so damn original ... it shows up all over human mythology. whether it is Baldur in Norse mythos, or Baal in Middle Eastern -- with his lover-halfsister Asherah -- or elsewhere, this is Not Such A Great New Idea.
deal with it, folks.
Posted by: Jan Theodore Galkowski | September 19, 2007 12:04 AM
it's not like the idea of a god spawn becoming concretized and dying in some tragic drama is so damn original ... it shows up all over human mythology. whether it is Baldur in Norse mythos, or Baal in Middle Eastern -- with his lover-halfsister Asherah -- or elsewhere, this is Not Such A Great New Idea.
deal with it, folks.
Posted by: Jan Theodore Galkowski | September 19, 2007 12:05 AM
Re: #15 "... Yes, you would think if someone was going to DIE for your sins at least he would have the decency to stay dead more than thee days..."
Praise Jesus! He gave his weekend for you!
-- CV
Posted by: CortxVortx | September 19, 2007 12:05 AM
".33% of a god"? This is a major departure from the usual trinitarian doctrines! Could such a teensy bit of god be a successful redeemer (what with 99.67% of him getting off scot free)?
Posted by: Zeno | September 19, 2007 12:08 AM