Pharyngula

Posted by: jorge666 | July 24, 2008 9:50 AM

Oh Crackers! I got the first post!

Posted by: Luke O'Dell | July 24, 2008 9:51 AM

The suspense...

Posted by: jorge666 | July 24, 2008 9:54 AM

Where are those cute ring girls, and where's that bottle of rum?

IOW

Lions 7 ....

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 9:56 AM

What kind of pompous idiot signs of a post with this ?

"Very respectfully,

J. A. Stuart
Commander, United States Navy"

What relevance does his being a commander in the US Navy have to discussion ? Does Annapolis teach advanced theology or philosophy ? Or does he just think that by putting that we will think him less of an idiot ?

Posted by: Ale | July 24, 2008 9:57 AM

Although creationists and other trolling wackaloons are long known around these parts, the unending chasm of idiocy that has been attracted by the crackergate is on a whole new level. I guess that a whole new level in irrational inanity has been uncovered. I wonder how will the zombies react when PZ delivers evidence of the heinous "desecration"?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 9:58 AM

Even on a secular level, we can all relate to the need for reminders of the things not readily available to us. To have what we hold sacred close to us whether it is the faint smell of your wife's perfume on you when you are away at work; or the picture of a deceased child; the 1st place medal for that 8th grade science project. These are personal things that have no meaning to anyone else. Yet most can respect that, but we cannot respect this because it is of "God"? - yet another tedious godbot

Bill Donahue and most of the Catholics commenting here have been very insistent that the cracker is not just a "reminder" - it is actually part of God's body (we are, perhaps fortunately, not told which part). If one believed the picture of their deceased child actually was that child, they would be unhesitatingly diagnosed as delusional.

Moreover, there is an important difference between reminders of people we have known and loved and those of manufactured "celebrities" such as "God": compare Crackergate with the outpourings of "grief" in the UK when Princess Diana died - I assure you I have quite as much disrespect for the nonsense of people fooling themselves that her death was like losing a member of their own family, as I am of the absurdities the cracker-worshippers have posted here.

Posted by: True Bob | July 24, 2008 9:58 AM

Me too, JoJo. I wanted to tell him it is poor practice for still serving military to include rank and service. It implies that the service endorses the viewpoint. Not just here, but letters to editors, etc.

I also wanted to ask him to post his letters to UCF and Catholic League, since it's all about behavior and respect.

Posted by: LisaJ | July 24, 2008 9:59 AM

Holy shit, I can't believe this cracker business is still taking up multiple threads. Isn't anyone else as sick as this cracker crap as I am? I mean, there comes a point when it's all been said. Crazy catholics: we've heard it all a million times, give it a frigging rest. Don't you have to go to church or confession or something by now?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 24, 2008 9:59 AM

Somebody did point out to the ostentatious public prayer posters that that's Pharisee behaviour, right?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2008 10:02 AM

"Very respectfully,

J. A. Stuart
Commander, United States Navy".

Ahh! Thanks for pointing that out... I shall hereforto address you with the respect you so obviouls deserve, since you went out of your way to point it out to us.

Thank you, Commander Whackaloon.

Posted by: Jeffrey A. stuart | July 24, 2008 10:03 AM

Darn. I was going to reply to J. A. Stuart,
Commander, United States Navy. I wanted to point out some problems with his logic and then throw rank at him.

JoJo, CAPT, USN (Ret)

CAPT,

You'll notice I addressed Dr. Myers with his title as well. This isn't about "throwing rank around" but simply showing respect as a fellow professional and discussing things like gentlemen; something that is increasingly being lost in the college world, OUR NAVY, and society as a whole. Perhaps this is but another windmill I am tilting at but so be it. That aside sir, I welcome your opinion.

Very respectfully,

J. A. Stuart
Commander, United States Navy

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 24, 2008 10:04 AM

In reference to Jeffrey A. Stuart (#1478), a serious question for anybody:

Why should someone be dissapointed that attempts to harass and intimidate are not honored (or, as Jeffrey words it, respected)?

Even the crazed Catholics who came here and ranted in hyperboly should be able to see the obvious irony: Has the 'desecration' (which, let me remind you all, we don't know in what form it was) honestly affected the way you live and practice?

The dramatic flailings here lead me to make one charge to the hyper-sensitive godbots amongst us: get some perspective.

So sayeth me.

Posted by: AJS | July 24, 2008 10:05 AM

Surely at anytime when martial law is not in operation, any civilian is deemed to outrank anyone in any branch of the military?

AJS (Civilian)

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 10:06 AM

Well it would be Professor Myers rather than simply doctor. So much for that respect eh ?

And also do not presume we are all Americans. If you mean the US Navy say so. Else some will think you are in the French Navy, some in the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy or Royal New Zealand Navy.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 10:07 AM

Kseniya quote on exorcisms and hell (post #1459): The delusion. It burns. Heh."

That's right Kseniya, every Catholic priest and nun is a liar. In fact, everyone you do not agree with is delusional or a liar. So during an exorcism when the possessed child speaks in languages they could not possibly have ever known previously, the witnesses are all liars? The levitations, the super human strength in a child, the furniture moving, the growling unnatural voices eminating from the child, these are all lies, too. So was Padre Pio a charlatan who bled from his hands and feet every day for 50 years. So also are those lying, tricky nuns who have statues of Mary and Jesus weeping tears of human blood. So, too, were the Fatima children who told the people gathered in three months time on October 13 Mary will perform a miracle for all to see and know this message is from God. So when the sun danced defying cosmic laws and then charged the earth scaring the 70,000 in attendance, that was a lie, too, right? Or was it mass hallucination? Of course you wouldn't be frightened because you are so smart.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 10:09 AM

Plainly it's not just a cracker.

More accurately, it is just a cracker, some people believe it isn't and also think everyone else should believe that simply because they do.

That's rather the point, although I fully expect it will go sailing by without a second glance....

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2008 10:11 AM

@ Rooke

As I mentioned last night; you've had time to mull over my analogies and yet no one as sufficiently countered them.

We're all familiar already with your propensity for delusion. That you actually believe this statment comes as no surprise to us. More aptly, we're just growing tired of you demanding answers, then closing your eyes and blocking your ears when the're given. You're a bore, Mr. Rooke. You're fading into the background noise at this point, along with Fr. J.

Posted by: Rob (Not the Catholic nutter) | July 24, 2008 10:12 AM

@Pete Rook:

PJ receives junk mail. PJ throws out junk mail. Please explain how that is an indefensible position.

Posted by: AJ Milne | July 24, 2008 10:13 AM

As I mentioned last night; you've had time to mull over my analogies and yet no one as sufficiently countered them...

Okay. Here's an analogy you may like. You're in a dungeon, wearing a miniskirt, and there's this blonde woman in a tight rubber suit. With a whip... And then there's these handcuffs... And an iron maiden... And... ummm... I dunno... Can we throw in a cattle prod? Is that kinky, or just sick?

Anyway, there's also this book...

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2008 10:15 AM

Commander Cracker.

It's already been done. We're just waiting to see the youtube video. I hope it's funny. But it may just be a non-event.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 24, 2008 10:16 AM

Gee, P.Z., you wanted attention and you got it. There's no pleasing some people. I do sympathize, though: I've gotten into more than one flamewar online and then wondered what I could have been thinking. (Partly thanks to your example, I've largely given up on worrying about civility. Gaze upon your works, o Mighty One, and be proud.)

Posted by: sil-chan | July 24, 2008 10:17 AM

I wonder if his secret third entry is going to be a copy of origin of species just to show that nothing is sacred...

Posted by: True Bob | July 24, 2008 10:18 AM

Turzovka

Masss hysteria and Pious Fraud are not miracles. If you could take a throwaway lighter back 200 years (heck, how about 100), it would be called a miracle. But we both know that the lighter has a valve to release a flammable gas, a wheel with a sparker on it that scrapes a piece of flint, and a little vessel of flammable fluid.

Posted by: qbsmd | July 24, 2008 10:19 AM

PZ, when there are multiple threads on the same topic like this, I think it would be a good idea for you to summarize the points that have been made ad nauseam, and ask people not to rehash the same thing over and over, rather than just saying "fresh thread", which seems to imply "new beginning, repeat everything". That would also give people just joining the discussion the ability to meaningfully contribute without reading 10000 posts.

Posted by: Moses | July 24, 2008 10:21 AM

Although creationists and other trolling wackaloons are long known around these parts, the unending chasm of idiocy that has been attracted by the crackergate is on a whole new level. I guess that a whole new level in irrational inanity has been uncovered. I wonder how will the zombies react when PZ delivers evidence of the heinous "desecration"?

Posted by: Ale | July 24, 2008 9:57 AM

I'm truly enjoying it. For so long Muslims have been routinely castigated as "unhinged" and "frothing" because of stupid crap like death threats because of cartoons, etc., while the Catholics and other Christians have been on their soapbox about how much better they are than them...

Add in the usual racism, claims to the lack of "civilization" (as if we didn't get it from them, hello?) on their part and the entire explicit/implicit religious/racial stereotyping and superiority claims...

And all it takes is ONE FRIGGIN' CRACKER and it's the 15th Century all over again. All we're lacking are actual pitchforks and torches even though we have the Internet equivalent. So, when the vast bulk of conservative and moderate Christian churches say "not us," we can say:

Bullshit, same as...

Posted by: Ponder | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM

We've gained notoriety,
And caused much anxiety
In the Audubon Society
With our games.
They call it impiety,
And lack of propriety,
And quite a variety
Of unpleasant names.
But you couldn't call PZ a slacker
To want to dispose of a cracker.

(Apologies to Tom Lehrer)

Not against any law to destroy a book or a biscuit. Is against the law to cause property or personal damage to anyone who does so. Read it and weep god-botherers. Watch your back though, Dr Myers, if nothing else this whole affair has shown that the deranged lunatic quotient is a lot higher than previously thought.

Posted by: Cynthia Heimsoth | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM

You know, Mr. Myers, you've just proven our point. If it's just a cracker, who gives a flying leap whether you eat it, bury it in the garden or give it to your dog. However, since you get all this press coverage, there must be SOMETHING to the claims that the Blessed Sacrament is something more than "just a cracker." Count yourself lucky -- if you'd profaned a picture of Mohammed, you wouldn't have lived long enough to try to collect names and addresses. We Catholics know that God forbids murder, and that He desires not the death of the sinner, but his repentance. I'm praying for you, Mr. Myers, whether you like it or not.

By the way, I was considering calling for all your Biology students to take one Petri dish each from the lab next week, cleaned, sanitized and de-agared per laboratory standards, and giving it to a Catholic of the community (if the student himself/herself was Catholic of course they could do it) to be ceremonially crushed outside the door of your office. But that would be silly and childish. After all, it's just a piece of glassware.

And if you want my address, Mr. Myers, just check www.smartpages.com.

Posted by: NC Paul | July 24, 2008 10:23 AM

So when the sun danced defying cosmic laws and then charged the earth scaring the 70,000 in attendance, that was a lie, too, right? Or was it mass hallucination?

Probably a bit of both. It's not like Fatima (and the other Marian pilgrimage sites) haven't made a lot of money out of the "apparitions". Forging religious relics has a long history in Europe and the Near East.

Mix in the kind of delusion that equates a piece of magic wafer with a human life and you could certainly have mass hysteria and hallucination.

Imagine you were one among 70,000 fanatical Catholics who didn't see the Sun dance (a phenomenon strangely unremarked upon by astronomers of the time). Would you speak up and say you hadn't seen anything strange our would you go along with the crowd?

One thing these threads are good for is to show that those who criticised Dawkins, Sam Harris and others for attacking a straw man of primitive irrational faith were completely wrong.

Religion inspires delusional lunacy and the stuff posted by the Catholics here is ample evidence to that effect.

Posted by: Jeffrey A. Stuart | July 24, 2008 10:26 AM

Why should someone be dissapointed that attempts to harass and intimidate are not honored (or, as Jeffrey words it, respected)?

Even the crazed Catholics who came here and ranted in hyperboly should be able to see the obvious irony: Has the 'desecration' (which, let me remind you all, we don't know in what form it was) honestly affected the way you live and practice?

The dramatic flailings here lead me to make one charge to the hyper-sensitive godbots amongst us: get some perspective.

So sayeth me.

Mr. Stello,

Reasonable questions and reasonable point. As a Catholic, I don't like what he has purportedly done but according to my beliefs I have effectively done the same thing through my own sins. That is what I would call Catholics to focus upon; our own sinful nature.

That being said, we can only control our own actions and I would have liked to see Dr. Myers (coming from a profession I respect) rise above such things and take the high road even when others don't. It seems to me that if we are going to use other's peoples poor behavior as an excuse for our own, then things will never improve.

V/r

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 10:26 AM

Professor Coleman,

Where I come from a Professor is a Professor. There are no "ranks", you either are or you ain't. And PZ is.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 24, 2008 10:27 AM

"So when the sun danced defying cosmic laws and then charged the earth scaring the 70,000 in attendance, that was a lie, too, right? Or was it mass hallucination? Of course you wouldn't be frightened because you are so smart."

uh... Huh. Or at least a load of bullshit. The Sun is a physical body. If the sun suddenly charged at us and danced around we would've burned to death. That and EVERYONE ON THE FUCKING PLANET WOULD'VE SEEN IT

A guy on a forum I checked puts it the best:

"I have a hard time believing in this, despite the fact that 70,000 people witnessed it. When you have that many people sitting around, anticipating something, looking for anything that might seem unusual, someone is bound to come up with something. And then what is everyone else going to say? Everyone wants to have seen it, because those who didn't weren't special enough to receive the "communication". Was there any chance that these people were going to go home without having seen anything?"

Sheesh, what is it with you idiots.

Posted by: Michelle

I have no idea what "miracle" you are referring to. But if the Sun started to move about, it would not be seen by just 70,000 people. It would potentially be seen by at least half of the world's population. Yet we seem to be lacking these reports from distant lands.

And you are calling most of us idiots? Please learn how to reason. It will make you less gullible.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 10:27 AM

You know, Mr. Myers, you've just proven our point. If it's just a cracker, who gives a flying leap whether you eat it, bury it in the garden or give it to your dog. However, since you get all this press coverage, there must be SOMETHING to the claims that the Blessed Sacrament is something more than "just a cracker."

Belief != fact.

Count yourself lucky -- if you'd profaned a picture of Mohammed, you wouldn't have lived long enough to try to collect names and addresses.

Koran envy.

We Catholics know that God forbids murder, and that He desires not the death of the sinner, but his repentance. I'm praying for you, Mr. Myers, whether you like it or not.

Praying at you.

By the way, I was considering calling for all your Biology students to take one Petri dish each from the lab next week, cleaned, sanitized and de-agared per laboratory standards, and giving it to a Catholic of the community (if the student himself/herself was Catholic of course they could do it) to be ceremonially crushed outside the door of your office. But that would be silly and childish. After all, it's just a piece of glassware.

Theft analogy.

Really. Can't we just number these bogus arguments and save us all a bunch of typing?

Posted by: Rob (Not the Catholic nutter) | July 24, 2008 10:29 AM

God, who created the entire universe,

So who created God, if everything needs a creator?

If God didn't need a creator, why does the universe?

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 10:31 AM

Fatima is thee miracle that skeptics cannot explain away.

Below is the text of a science professor who was present on October 13. His testimony is surely validated by many sources. His account is not one of a religious zealot, but one of an unbiased observer.

An Eyewitness Account by Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal

"It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time

"The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.

Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet...turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun's disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.

"During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.

"Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.

"All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena."

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 10:32 AM

The condensed J. A. Stuart:

...gentlemen...as a man...men...gentleman...fellow man...

Indeed, how disappointing.

Indeed.

Posted by: Moses | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM

You'll notice I addressed Dr. Myers with his title as well. This isn't about "throwing rank around" but simply showing respect as a fellow professional and discussing things like gentlemen; something that is increasingly being lost in the college world, OUR NAVY, and society as a whole. Perhaps this is but another windmill I am tilting at but so be it. That aside sir, I welcome your opinion.

Very respectfully,

J. A. Stuart
Commander, United States Navy

Posted by: Jeffrey A. stuart | July 24, 2008 10:03 AM

No. You were waving your dick, asshole. I don't sign with my old rank. I don't throw around my titles. I don't bring up that I'm effing related to the Queen of England and if, oh, maybe a few tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people higher up in the succession died and I made a byzantine and tortured claim I could be the next King of England. (Of course, if that happened, the death toll will be in the billions and I'd likely be one of them...)

In other words, big fucking deal. I have to be known for my arguments, not my remote-to-the-point-of-ludicrous shot at a title. Or that I made rank in the military which (having been in there, isn't hard, you guys are (on average) as dumb as a box of rocks compared to the profession in which I excel).

Dumb-ass.

Posted by: raven | July 24, 2008 10:35 AM

Peter Rooke the zombie:

As I mentioned last night; you've had time to mull over my analogies and yet no one as sufficiently countered them.

Oh gee, your analogies all have to do with rape and dead bodies. Sign of a seriously defective psycopath.

Although, there is another explanation. Rooke could be an undead, a zombie. What we call dead bodies he calls dinner. I pity anyone who lives within a few hundred miles of him.

Posted by: Moses | July 24, 2008 10:35 AM

As I mentioned last night; you've had time to mull over my analogies and yet no one as sufficiently countered them. There is a phrase about the impossibility of defending the indefensible. PZ Myers actions are indefensible. And his acolytes appear to be willing partners to his crimes.

Posted by: Pete Rooke | July 24, 2008 10:07 AM

Well, if your head wasn't shoved so far up your ass you might have noticed that they were. Only you're too dense to see that they were.

Posted by: Rob | July 24, 2008 10:36 AM

Matt Penfold

Don't address me as Professor. I hate it. My name is Rob.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Academic tradition, for what it's worth, is as I stated. You are not addressed as "Professor" until you are actually a fully vested Professor. Not an assistant or associate. Personally, it is irrelevant, as most students and staff address faculty as "Dr."

Posted by: JoJo | July 24, 2008 10:37 AM

From: CAPT J.J. Smuckitelli, USN (Ret)
To: CDR J.A. Stuart, USN

Subj: Proper Preparation of Correspondence

Ref: (a) SECNAVINST 5216.5D
(b) Amendment 1, United States Constitution

1. Reference (a) discourages the use of military titles when writing informally on non-military subjects.

2. It is my recommendation that you refrain from using your rank and military branch when discussing religion and religious matters on a public blog. Such use might be considered a violation of reference (b).

3. I apologize for not following the formatting requirements of reference (a). Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with HTML to properly format this letter.

/s/
J.J. Smuckitelli

Posted by: St | July 24, 2008 10:39 AM

I think the argument: "The miracle at fatima really happened! Here's a newspaper picture of a lot of people staring at the sky!" deserves some kind of award for unprecedented levels of fail.

Here's a few suggested miracles:

Quadruple amputee grows new limbs, gets up and walks.

Stephen Hawking gets up and walks.

The Pope gains the ability to fly.

A message appears written on the Moon in 100-mile-wide letters, accurately predicting the medal list of the 2012 Olympics.

Any of those happens, maybe we can talk. Shouldn't be any challenge for a deity, right?

Note: anyone responding that God wouldn't do anything that obvious as he respects our free will has to agree to never cite any miracle story ever again.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2008 10:39 AM

I love how the Catholics are so sure the Muslims would off PZ in a heartbeat. Talk about bigots.

Posted by: Salt | July 24, 2008 10:40 AM

It's plain to see the joke's on PZ.
IIRC, this all started out with PZ saying something like
"It's just a cracker, fer cryin' out loud".
Plainly it's not just a cracker.
Posted by: Forrest Prince | July 24, 2008 10:05 AM

Ain't it the truth.

Posted by: BobC | July 24, 2008 10:41 AM

Matt Penfold (#8) wrote:

What relevance does his being a commander in the US Navy have to discussion? Does Annapolis teach advanced theology or philosophy? Or does he just think that by putting that we will think him less of an idiot?

His job has no relevance at all, but he does provide more strong evidence our military is infested with religious wackos who would say 'I write to express my disappointment that you chose to carry through on your threat' as if abusing a cracker is a big deal.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM

The third object is Jimmy Hoffa.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM

"Unfortunately, you are wrong. Academic tradition, for what it's worth, is as I stated. You are not addressed as "Professor" until you are actually a fully vested Professor. Not an assistant or associate. Personally, it is irrelevant, as most students and staff address faculty as "Dr.""

Rob,

There are no such things as assistant or associate professors in the UK. As I pointed out, you are either a professor or you are not.

I clearly was wrong in assuming that PZ would be entitled to use the title Professor. However you are also wrong in assuming that we have associate and assistant professors in the UK.

Posted by: Dave | July 24, 2008 10:42 AM

Rob,

Academic tradition varies from place to place. In some areas, Oz for example, it is as you suggest, only a full professor is addressed as professor. In others, the east coast of the US, any full time professor, full, associate or assistant is addressed as professor.

Shrug. Different strokes for different folks and all that.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 24, 2008 10:44 AM

Michelle, I am sorry. I only read the first paragraph and the final line. In my defense, I will point out it is useful to indicate when something is not said by you by blockquoting.
I hope you accept my apology.

Posted by: Duvenoy | July 24, 2008 10:44 AM

"It's plain to see the joke's on PZ.

IIRC, this all started out with PZ saying something like

"It's just a cracker, fer cryin' out loud".

Plainly it's not just a cracker"

This is correct, it is not just a cracker. Rather it is a representation of centuries of deluding people and oppressing those who disagree even to the point of torture & execution. How Donohue must yearn for the good old days when would actually be relevant -- tough titty, Bill!

A ways back uo the page, there was a post describing various "miracles" including the one concerning a trio of chippies actually conversing with the late & long decomposed Mary. I must request: please produce reference acceptable to scientific inquery. If you cannot do this, and you can't, then you have no argument beyond an appeal to fantasia.

doov

Posted by: Dahan | July 24, 2008 10:45 AM

"I'm praying for you, Mr. Myers, whether you like it or not."

Can't speak for anyone else, but if someone was talking to themselves for me, I wouldn't like it or dislike it. I would just think it was really stupid.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 24, 2008 10:47 AM

Cynthia: the concept that humans create the idea of gods is simply an observation; we tell stories with "gods" that have very human attributes- jealousy, pride, anger, and an obsession with genitalia. Ipso facto each religion claims that all the others are made up, which is the one point they're all correct on :)

There's no such thing as a Darwinian Pyramid nor does evolutionary theory say we're at the peak of anything. Hint: phylogenetic tree. Be less ignorant in future.

Posted by: Neural T | July 24, 2008 10:48 AM

Plainly it's not just a cracker.

No, it is a cracker. The furor over these desecrations says more about religious zealots than it does about their desecrated objects.

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 10:49 AM

@Janine ID:

S'all ok hon, I understand that. :) But um, like I just said in my explanation...

"Sorry, I don't know how to make fancy quote blocks like the other folks here so I just use the good ol' quotes"

Posted by: Jeeves | July 24, 2008 10:51 AM

I've been following this website for the last couple months and have been fully aware of the circumstances of Crackergate. I have even read 7,846 of the 9,475 comments relating to the threads.
I do not believe in the existence of god(s). I do not follow the creeds of any organized religion in my daily life. Perhaps it is because I have read books of religious scholarship (as one would read the Odyssey) and I realize the regular commenters hate this sort of comment but I don't think you guys are going about this in a reasonable way at all. I realize there is a LOT of misinformation coming from the other side and no little amount of red herring and straw man arguments. However, as ridiculous as the religious arguments are, there are hundreds of atheist or agnostic comments that say in some order, "sick fuck child rape, Pope Nazi, go believe in your imaginary sky daddy, Idiot!"
I realize that this is not the ordinary or perhaps even proper venue to try to convince people of their erroneous ways but for goodness sakes, don't let them drag you down to their illogical, spewing level! Try to find your better, whip sharp selves (which I have seen plenty of in scientific posts) and forget this false rage induced bravado.

Posted by: Janine ID | July 24, 2008 10:51 AM

Michelle, it is easy. Just add (blockquote) and (/blockquote) to the beginning and end of what you wish to high light. Only, use use the 'greater then' and 'less then' signs instead of brackets.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 10:53 AM

I realize that this is not the ordinary or perhaps even proper venue to try to convince people of their erroneous ways but for goodness sakes, don't let them drag you down to their illogical, spewing level! Try to find your better, whip sharp selves (which I have seen plenty of in scientific posts) and forget this false rage induced bravado.

Appeal to civility.

Posted by: MyaR | July 24, 2008 10:54 AM

@Cynthia #90 -- Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer is not a bad place to start for some good current thought on why humans created "gods".

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 10:55 AM

I also want to point out that in the UK it is not a requirement to have a doctorate in order to become a professor, although it is very unusual for a professor not also have doctorate.

Mick Aston, Professor of Archaeology at Bristol University never got a Phd. Apparently a few days before he was due to submit it, his van and contents, including the manuscript, were stolen.

Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 24, 2008 10:56 AM

I suppose the best argument that you can make against the desecrations is that, even if the belief in transubstantiation is absurd, the unfortunate followers of this doctrine have been the victims of brainwashing since childhood, and they should be treated with the same sensitivity as anyone else with a brain disorder -- like military vets with PTSD.

In fact, there are psychologists who specialize in helping people who have left their religion, especially to overcome the reflexive anxiety and guilt that they have about apostasy, sex, etc. The extreme forms of religious indoctrination are nothing short of child abuse.

Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 10:57 AM

I am really looking forward to the cracker post. From wikipedia:

In cooking, a wafer is a crisp, sweet, very thin, flat, and dry cake, often used to decorate ice cream. Wafers can also be made into cookies with cream flavoring sandwiched between them. They frequently have a waffle surface pattern but may also be patterned with insignia of the food's manufacturer or may be patternless.

he holes in crackers are called "docking" holes. The holes are placed in the dough to stop air pockets from forming in the cracker while baking.

In U.S. English, the name "cracker" is most often applied to flat biscuits with a savory, salty flavor, in distinction from a "cookie," which may be similar to a "cracker" in appearance and texture, but has a sweet flavor. Crackers sometimes have cheese or spices as ingredients, or even chicken stock. Some crackers are salted, flour products.

Brands including Captain's Wafers, Club Crackers, Town House Crackers, Ritz Crackers, Cream crackers and Water biscuits are used spread with cheese, pâté, or mousse.

Saltine and oyster crackers are often used in or served with soup.

Mock apple pie is made from Ritz (or similar) crackers.I hope that you've done something immoral to the cracker/wafer.

Posted by: clinteas | July 24, 2008 10:58 AM

Hm,
at least they've come up with something genuinely new in this thread: miracles and exorcisms !!

Why that would convince me more than the made up 3000 year old goatherder stories is beyond me,but hey,nothing surprises me with christians anymore.

So let the games begin,lets talk about Fatima !!

Turzovka babbled @ 63:

//that for God, who created the entire universe, to have the sun defy cosmic laws at Fatima Portugal and it not be witnessed by the entire world, that is not much of a trick for Him//

Much into tricks,is he,your god?Bit of a trickster? Felt a lil kinky one day,had nothing else to do in the rest of the entire universe he created,and thought he'd play a lil trick on them Portuguese guys?
That what happened? Yup,make sense to me,nice one,your god sounds fun,where can I sign up??

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 11:01 AM

with a little bit of research I could probably formulate a sound theory of why it is so necessary that Homo sapiens modernis should reject the existence of God as a threat to his belief that he is the very peak of the Darwinian pyramid. - Cynthia Heimsoth (my emphasis)

An economical way of demonstrating your complete ignorance of evolutionary theory, and indeed, of Darwin's own insight into the non-teleological, non-progressive nature of evolution by natural selection. He gave himself the advice (which, admittedly, he did not always follow) "Never say higher or lower".

By the way, if you really think you could "probably formulate" such a sound theory with trivial effort, why don't you?

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 11:02 AM

The cracker is a MacGuffin.

It is very scary how apropos that description is.

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 11:04 AM

[INSERT INSANE CHRISTIAN BABBLES HERE]

Sweet! It works!!!! Thanks Janine!!

Posted by: BobC | July 24, 2008 11:04 AM

Duvenoy (#98) wrote:

A ways back up the page, there was a post describing various "miracles" including the one concerning a trio of chippies actually conversing with the late & long decomposed Mary. I must request: please produce reference acceptable to scientific inquery. If you cannot do this, and you can't, then you have no argument beyond an appeal to fantasia.

It's true! Mary still speaks to people. Look at this:

Message of June 25, 2008 "Dear children! Also today, with great joy in my heart, I call you to follow me and to listen to my messages. Be joyful carriers of peace and love in this peaceless world. I am with you and I bless you all with my Son Jesus, the King of Peace. Thank you for having responded to my call."

This scam has been going on in Medjugorje for 27 years. The dead Mary started talking to a group of children in 1981, and the Mary zombie continues to talk to them today. These children, who are now adults, of course get paid for being part of the scam. The messages from the dead Mary are of course made up. What's interesting is how incredibly gullible their customers are. I met a bunch of these wackos. They really believe a decomposed corpse can talk. There is nobody more insane than Catholics.

Posted by: Endor | July 24, 2008 11:06 AM

"I'm praying for you, Mr. Myers, whether you like it or not."

Okay, well, have fun talking to yourself!

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 11:07 AM

@BobC:

There is nobody more insane than Catholics.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 24, 2008 11:10 AM

Gee, P.Z., you wanted attention and you got it.

Expected reaction troll. Nothing to see here...

Posted by: tsg

Well, not to sound like a reaction troll or anything, but I'm also kind of surprised by the response to this. All PZ has to do is put the word "cracker" in a post, and it seems it will drag in a busload of bat-shit crazy Christians.

Really... It's just a cracker. And, it's freakin' hilarious that people are willing to make complete and total asses out of themselves in order to defend a cracker.

I mean, this cracker doesn't have the slightest bit of magic. It's not like bacon. If PZ were somehow violating bacon, I can see getting all bent out of shape. Bacon is good. Bacon is love. The world's ills can all be cured with bacon... (sorry. I get distracted easily).

Anyway, if you go back and look at the comment numbers on the various cracker posts, it's just funny. Even those comment threads that have nothing to do with any of this have been hijacked by the Cracker Liberation Army, and the numbers just spin into madness.

It's Crazy, but it has made for a damn fun summer.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 11:10 AM

Dahan from Message #81: You are wrong on your assumption about me disbelieving in Hindu miracle claims. And how do additional miracles bolster the atheist's argument of No God anyway? Hindu glass cows exuding milk. I believe it, and I believe it is supernatural. Another one drinking milk. I believe it to be supernatural. Other supernatural manifestations from the Islam or Buddhist faiths. I believe them that they are supernatural. I am not looking for crazy improbable "natural" answers to try to explain them away..
I am of strong belief most of these "hard-to-explain-away" well documented manifestations of any faith, or no faith, are either of God or are diabolic. I will not offer an opinion on most if they are diabolic or not, such as those in the Hindu faith. Actually, I will. I am guessing they are godly directing the believers towards some virtue.
I do not believe the Christian faith is the true faith because of the miracles I have put forth. I believe that is but one important ingredient. So much more is necessary to validate which faith is the true faith. The magnanimous degree of the manifestation carries weight. Even more so does the very detailed message and the fruits of the event. Beyond miracles, is what else does the faith claim and have to offer? The historical record. The charity of the faith. The incomparable saints. So and so on. Far more is required, agreed. I just cannot go into all that right now, but that is actually the greater reason why I accept Christianity as the fullest and most truthful of God's message. The miracles assist in validating it for me, not in demonstrating it's main importance or message.
Sidenote: If there ever were any so-called UFO appartions that really took place and were seen by humans --- those I believe to be demonic apparitions in order to deceive those more readily open to decption. You know that funny looking red guy with a pitchfork? Just a cartoon to you of course.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 11:14 AM

Ben, (message #129) I cannot help you. I do pity you. Go bravely into the long dark night (known as death) and be sure to shake your fist at God like Stalin did on his death bed. And all this time we thought we did not believe.

Posted by: Endor | July 24, 2008 11:14 AM

"If there ever were any so-called UFO appartions that really took place and were seen by humans --- those I believe to be demonic apparitions in order to deceive those more readily open to decption. You know that funny looking red guy with a pitchfork? Just a cartoon to you of course. "

Yeah, this is to sad and tragic to make fun of. Mental illness isn't funny. this guy needs therapy and some good medication.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2008 11:17 AM

#138

So much more is necessary to validate which faith is the true faith.

Not really... for most it's the fear of eternal damnation christians are indoctrinated with from almost the moment they can walk. That was it for me, anyhow... till I grew up, got educated and decided to stop believing stupid shit people told me "or I'll burn in hell".

On a related note, I never much liked "cause I said so" as a reason for doing something. Same reason... don't care for scare tactics.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 11:17 AM

To PZ Meyers & Friends:

Many things puzzle me about evolution. Personally, I choke on my soup over it. But allow me to bring up one quote from one of your very favorite high priests, Stephen Gould:
""Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."
.
Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.
Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.
Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X.
.
Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist. Here in the 21st century when science has made remarkable discoveries unimaginable, they still cannot identify proof of how we evolved that the experts can agree upon.
Essentially, Gould disproves Dawkins claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for Gradual evolution. Or does Gould have no credibility? Dawkins disproves Gould's claim for evolution because he says there is no evidence for punctuated equilibrium (i.e. monster steps). Or does Dawkins have no credibility?
The most knowledgeable man on evolution in the world Stephen Gould balks at the claims of gradual evolution yet public schools and universities everywhere insist it be taught as fact. And we who challenge evolution based on the same lack of evidence as Gould's are counted as fools. How rich.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 11:18 AM

Well, not to sound like a reaction troll or anything, but I'm also kind of surprised by the response to this. All PZ has to do is put the word "cracker" in a post, and it seems it will drag in a busload of bat-shit crazy Christians.

What I mean by "expected reaction troll" is the frequent comment that PZ deserves the response he's getting because he "should have expected it". It completely ignores the fact that an irrational and unreasonable reaction does not become right simply because it is predictable. It is frequently followed with Koran Envy ("would you dare desecrate the Koran?").

I'm attempting to compile a list of the most common bullshit arguments being made to save some effort in refuting them over and over again.

Posted by: craig | July 24, 2008 11:20 AM

"You know that funny looking red guy with a pitchfork? Just a cartoon to you of course. "

Hell no that's not just a simple cartoon, you insensitive clod. It signifies that heavenly treat - Underwood Deviled Ham.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM

Mat Penfold re #8

I, personally have no problem with the Commander signing his post as he did. It's not a question of relevance, it's more a matter of personal taste. Let us be open to anonymous posts as well as those more formally composed.

Now, as to the body of his post, he really misses the point of PZ's actions and thus comes to incorrect conclusions, but at least he's polite.

CHRISTOCRACKERS - Desecratingly Delicious

now in 3 great flavors

Wintergreen,
Spearmint,
and Doublemint - get the most from your host

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2008 11:22 AM

#146

OK... Turzovka has officially passed over from "ignorant and credulous" to completely insane. Commencing ignore mode, out of pity.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 24, 2008 11:23 AM

@Turzovka #146

Do you even know what you are talking about? Jesus, my IQ dropped 20 points just reading your post. My suggestion, read an entry level evolutionary biology textbook before you comment on evolution.

Posted by: Joeblow | July 24, 2008 11:25 AM

Your 15 minutes are almost up!

You'll be able to look back fondly on all the attention you have gotten!

This is likely the highest moment of your entire life...sad really.

I pity you.

Posted by: Erwin Blonk | July 24, 2008 11:29 AM

#157

Between someone being goofy and lot of people sending death (or lesser) threaths, I'm on the side of the goofball.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 24, 2008 11:30 AM

I would think a university professor could find better uses for his time than run this immature blog and performing immature stunts.

Your mama's immature.

No, I apologize, I shouldn't have involved your mother. But really, what PZ does is important and his own damn business.

Posted by: Neural T | July 24, 2008 11:32 AM

Turzovka #146

But allow me to bring up one quote from one of your very favorite high priests, Stephen Gould

Umm, no. Gould is highly criticized by evolutionary biologists. See:

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html

Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 11:33 AM

JoeBlow (158): Don't waste people's time with your pity. We're all waiting here too see some cracker desecration (I hope he pooped on it), not read pointless and cliched Warhol references.

Posted by: Saint Frodo | July 24, 2008 11:34 AM

Posted by: Fr. J | July 23, 2008 3:36 PM

Aw, poor Fr. Childfucker is maaaad.

Get bent...

Posted by: NC Paul | July 24, 2008 11:35 AM

#163: I'll take you up on that bet. Your default - post here saying that you were wrong and that your opinion of PZ was mistaken. Let's see how much principle you have, eh?

Posted by: Neural T | July 24, 2008 11:35 AM

Turzovka, you're so ignorant it's not enough funny. Read the link that I provided.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 11:35 AM

Turzovka@156,

I'm disappointed in you. I thought you had a certain originality, and now you come out with two of the silliest and most stale tricks of creationist liars.

1) There are no "high priests" of evolution. Unlike you godbots, scientists don't decide matters off act by argument from authority, but on the evidence.

2) The issue of "punctuated equilibrium" might be called a typical mid-level scientific dispute, where the fundamentals of a theory (in this case, the reality of common descent and the importance of natural selection) are not in doubt, but there is room for rational disagreement about important features of the theory (in this case, the smoothness or jerkiness of phenotypic change, and the relationship between such change and speciation). The issue has been explored both mathematically and empirically. It casts no doubt whatever on the modern theory of evolution as a whole, as Dawkins and Gould both agreed, and anyone actually familiar with the issues can readily see.

Posted by: Dark Matter | July 24, 2008 11:36 AM

@Turzovka re. sun miracle:

Stare at the sun long enough and you'll see it do a can-can dance. Really, do try not to be so gullible.

Wow, this is getting old...Catholic nutters taking over every thread possible to bitch about a cracker and fight a fight that they're never gonna win. Do they honestly expect any non-believer here to throw up his hands at one of their arguments and say, "Wow, nobody ever said that to us before! I'm totally convinced that you're right. Just let me go buy a rosary so I can start repenting?"

Couldn't PZ just give them a separate thread to spew their hatred and keep his other threads neat and discussion-y? If you don't argue with them, they'll go away.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 24, 2008 11:37 AM

Turzovka - we don't have high priests (and if you mock high priests what does that say about your religion). And just because evolution studies evolve at the edges does not mean we have to keep changing the school curriculum every 10 seconds.

Posted by: garry | July 24, 2008 11:38 AM

the analyst notices the references to ejaculation and masturbation (which do not indicate any real understanding of the terms), and the need for self-promotion whilst being unable to listen to himself. The absence of scatological uses (although that may come) indicates roughly an emotional age in the subject of perhaps 11 or 12.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 11:40 AM

"There are no "high priests" of evolution. Unlike you godbots, scientists don't decide matters off act by argument from authority, but on the evidence."

Not only is not argument from authority, there is much kudos to be gained in science by overturning long accepted theories. Far from being bent on maintaining orthodoxy young scientists want to knock holes in it, and replace old ideas with newer, better ideas.

Posted by: RJ Chavez | July 24, 2008 11:40 AM

I am Catholic but am not insulted by your immaturity. Rather, I feel compelled to point out the obvious--that only a life devoid of meaning and things to do could concoct and implement such a childish act. If you want to slag Catholics, be my guest. For animosity and degradation are nothing but crosses to us. I am embarrassed for you, however, that your existence has now been relegated to such negative and pre-pubescent pranks. It is clear that science and the wonder of it has left you along with the wonder of life and that you now must preen, prance, and imitate a circus performer to hold the attention of your colleagues. It speaks to your status as a man of science that you have reverted to anti-science in this shameless and camera mugging farce.

You've devolved and it's truly sad to see any person do this, let alone a 'man of science'.

Posted by: Pablo | July 24, 2008 11:43 AM

Hey atheists. How come everything, now that man is around to observe life, is so nice and tidy?

Says someone who's never been to my office...

Posted by: RB Miller | July 24, 2008 11:45 AM

Btw, Obama is down 6% Ohio

Obama is down 6% in Ohio

Obama is down 6% in Ohio

Obama is down 6% in Ohio

Obama is down 6% in Ohio

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 11:45 AM

"No, I have not contacted the other parties as I have come to this situation a bit late into the game. I am simply reacting to the "here and now" and have pointed out that I don't think Dr/Professor Myers' actions were befitting of his position and stature. That is an independent issue on what actions I may or may not take at this time with the other parties."

How telling.

You arrived late and did not have the manners to learn about what was going on. I thought you were the one saying there was a lack of respect these days ? You are part of the problem, in that you think you are entitled to an opinion without being in possession of the facts. That is simply dishonest.

If you want to have more respect, then earn it. Dishonesty is not a good start, and nor is hypocrisy.

Why do you think PZ should be held to a higher standard that you hold yourself ?

Posted by: CortxVortx | July 24, 2008 11:45 AM

Turzovka is attempting the oldest debate trick: Change the subject. Turz is just as ignorant of evolution as of astronomy.

Posted by: Neural T | July 24, 2008 11:46 AM

Turzovka, since you're still posting, I assume you didn't read that article that I provided, as you wouldn't be done yet.

This is what I don't get. We post answers and the creationists don't read them, but continue to spout their nonsense.

Many of us here have PhDs or (like myself) are pursuing PhDs in one or another biological discipline. I've taken graduate level courses in molecular and cell biology, biochemistry, genetics, recombinant DNA techniques, and biostatistics, just to name a few. Many others have read numerous books and have thought about and studied evolution for years.

Yet creationists think they can waltz in here with their Sunday sermonette understanding of evolution and impress us with their arguments. News flash: we've heard all the arguments before, and they are utterly lacking at best, and downright absurd at worst.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 11:46 AM

Hey atheists. How come everything, now that man is around to observe life, is so nice and tidy?

You are a puddle asserting that the hole you are in must have been designed for you because it fits you so well.

Posted by: Trexler | July 24, 2008 11:46 AM

This is a science blog. Statements made here are not to be taken on faith, irrespective of the person making such claims. To that end, when can we expect verifiable evidence of the desecration that PZ has claimed to have carried out?

Posted by: masklinn | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

@Turzovka (#165)

Sorry to impinge on your religion (EVOLUTION)

your two Gods (NATURAL SELECTION and GIVE IT MORE TIME)

Yeah, whatever

But don't ask me to read a text book to find the answers

You're right, culture and education are bad, bad things. And books should be burned. Apart from the ones talking about magic men.

there should be millions

The concept of transitional fossils is flawed in the first place, but even accepting the concept no there shouldn't be millions, and there are hundreds if not thousands of "transitional" fossils.

Gould doesn't buy gradual evolution, but we are forced to.

Gould was a creator and proponent of the Punctuated equilibrium subtheory of evolution, which is still debated and is extremely interesting in its own right. But he never doubted evolution as a whole, because he saw it plain as day.

Nobody forces you do "buy gradual evolution". In fact, nobody forces you to "buy evolution" either, I've yet to see the Evolution Police come a'knocking at 3am, and I fear I'll sooner see the next instance of "Holy Inquisition" much sooner than the EvoPolice. But people will (rightly) mock you for not understanding (nor wanting to) the facts and theories of evolution.

Oh, and here's a thing about Gould: before criticizing gradualism, he understood it. Maybe you could try to draw from his example.

Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Say, "Cap'n" JoJo?

If you intend to challenge CMDR Stuart may I suggest that you start by showing you are physically equipped to do so by posting your true and correct name, as CMDR Stuart has done?

That is, unless you were commissioned in the Clown Navy, which BTW would explain a lot.

Posted by: MartinDH | July 24, 2008 11:48 AM

Aron at #1412 (previous crackerjack thread) sez:

I personally would prefer to be shot in the head than watch the desecration of Jesus in the Host.

Imagine this scenario: You are on one side of a bulletproof sheet of glass and are constrained to watch whatever events occur on the other side. You have within easy access a trigger that will send a snub-nosed bullet into your head, guaranteeing instant death.

Someone appears on the other side of the glass and holds up a wafer which, he tells you, has been consecrated. He then holds a dagger and is about to shred the poor defenseless waferJesus in a wafer.

Do you:
1) Pull the trigger thus committing the mortal sin of suicide
OR:
2) Watch the "desecration" of the host

Or perhaps you were indulging in a little hyperbole (lie) for Jesus?

Martin

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 11:48 AM

Why did you have to do this? What did Catholics and Muslims ever do to you personally? Why can't you just leave us alone?"

Preventing gays from marrying, blowing people up, letting people die rather than telling them to use condoms, refusing to allow women to have abortions, allowing paedophile priests to escape justice and given them the ability to continue to abuse to list but a few of things.

Did you managed to forget about all those ?

Posted by: NC Paul | July 24, 2008 11:49 AM

It speaks to your status as a man of science that you have reverted to anti-science in this shameless and camera mugging farce.

I'd look up 'science' in the dictionary, were I you. Your understanding of the word seems...flawed.

Also, can we get agreement from the Catholics here - is desecrating the host a farcical pre-teen prank or a mortal sin worse than murder, rape and making books out of the skin of a relative? There seems to be a schism of opinion here.

Posted by: Hank Fox | July 24, 2008 11:49 AM

BTW, PZ ... You COULD make an interesting little book about all this.

Start with the initial offer, and then follow with the comments pro and con and the mainstream fallout. Include your own commentary in a running narrative.

Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 11:51 AM

Turdovka:

they lack that evolutionary desire to change into another species.

If "evolutionary desire" was an option, your parents probably wouldn't have chosen to give birth to such an idiot.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 11:52 AM

HEy masklinn (#200), if nobody is forcing us to buy gradual evolution as you say, and nobody is really pushing for punctuated equilibirium or for monster leap theories, then how can you be so sure we evolved? You apparently have no evidence for how it happened. And it sure as hell is not happening now in the higher animal kingdom. Everyone likes the skin they were born in.

Posted by: clinteas | July 24, 2008 11:53 AM

@ 183 :
(not that there is any point,but hey,its a quiet night at work !)

//Hey atheists. How come everything, now that man is around to observe life, is so nice and tidy?//

You know moron,the guys down there in Darfur,or Iraq, might disagree with you !

Posted by: E.V. | July 24, 2008 11:54 AM

Aren't Salt and Jack the same person?

Turzovka: You take stupidity to another level.

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 11:56 AM

It IS intolerance, stop saying it as if it's an insult. It's a compliment. It's intolerance for injustice, and the lack of common sense from you all, daring to try to destroy the life of a guy cuz he OH MY GOD took a cracker from your church.

You say you're nonviolent yet your force yourself upon us all.

You say you're loving yet you send death threats.

You say you've got morals and yet you shake a book that has a total lack of humanity.

What PZ did is pretty much the equivalent of the women that burned their bras back then (But on a smaller level). I don't know what the poor bra did to them but it was a message for freedom and a "you don't scare us anymore.".

It's funny. You christians took something terribly tiny and made a big deal out of it. The bright thing would've been to shrug it off.

Posted by: CortxVortx | July 24, 2008 11:57 AM

Turzovka keeps highlighting her ignorance of science. Gould didn't say that gradual evolution never happened; he and Eldredge showed that, in some cases, species changed rapidly for a time, then didn't change much. He even pointed out where Darwin had anticipated such.

(I'm assuming Turz is female because of the female ending of the name.)

But the real reason Turz is barking about science, is to divert attention from her idiotic claims about Fatima and Medjugorje.

Turz is a fool who deserves no further attention.

Posted by: Endor | July 24, 2008 11:58 AM

"that only a life devoid of meaning and things to do could concoct and implement such a childish act. "

Yeah, those people sending death threats are totally horrible, huh.

Oh, you were defending them and complaining about a cracker?

Well, you're an idiot.
+++++++++

"Why did you have to do this? What did Catholics and Muslims ever do to you personally? Why can't you just leave us alone?"

You mean, aside from the death threats, stalking and spamming?

But who cares about that when a cracker hasn't been eaten! oohhhh Noess!1111!!!1!1!

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 11:58 AM

Hey gdlchmst,I don't find you to be very bright either, but not on my account. If there are 30 million species that have evolved over 3.6 billion years, then something had to ALWAYS be happening. How many changes does it take to grow an eye or a liver? One birth? I doubt it. Probably more than a thousand changes in all of life's systems would be my guess. So something had to be happening at all times to the entire animal kingdom, AND YET, nothing really noticeable in those 3,000 years since man has been around. HOW CONVENIENT. You would think there would be a few reptiles still with wings and feathers trying to be birds. But no, too convenient once again.

Posted by: E.V. | July 24, 2008 11:59 AM

Ken Cope wins the Jonathan Swift Award!

Posted by: J Dub | July 24, 2008 12:00 PM

re: the Prof vs. Dr. labels --

At the universities I've worked at in the US, "Dr." was of course reserved for those who had earned PhDs. "Professor" could be used for ANY instructor, including those who had not quite finished their degrees yet. I taught a semester or two as an ABD visiting prof, and the students called me Professor. When I finally defended, they called me "Dr." I've seen this progression happen for other younger colleagues a few times now, and at different universities in different parts of the US.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 12:02 PM

All I've read here is about how crazy these catholics are and how new threads need to be created for taking too much space, but as I read, the far majority of post are from atheist. Obviously, the atheist are the the crazed ones here. I don't even think 10% of these post are written by religious people.

No True Scotsman

Posted by: Neural T | July 24, 2008 12:05 PM

Turzovka #226

How many changes does it take to grow an eye or a liver? One birth? I doubt it. Probably more than a thousand changes in all of life's systems would be my guess.

Indeed, that is pure guesswork. If you would bother to do some reading, you might be able to formulate a more accurate estimate. In order to make a single protein more functional in E. coli, it took some 30,000 generations (Cf. the work of Richard Lenski). So to acquire all of the hundreds if not thousands of mutations that it would take to produce a complex organ, we can expect many millions of generations.

AND YET, nothing really noticeable in those 3,000 years since man has been around. HOW CONVENIENT.

3000 years is only 120-150 human generations! What the hell would you expect to happen? Even by your complete guesswork of 1000 generations, that would not be long enough. Yet in reality it takes many, many more generations as I just pointed out.

Posted by: Brian W. | July 24, 2008 12:06 PM

"You would think there would be a few reptiles still with wings and feathers trying to be birds."

YOU might think that. No one with any understanding of the subject would.

Posted by: GunOfSod | July 24, 2008 12:06 PM

#28 "And also do not presume we are all Americans. If you mean the US Navy say so. Else some will think you are in the French Navy, some in the Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy or Royal New Zealand Navy."

I think the Royal New Zealand Navy went on holiday last week. He'll be back in his canoe shortly.

Posted by: Gimpy | July 24, 2008 12:06 PM

Oh boy, there is a facebook group now for this...

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=538840904#/group.php?gid=24672292620&ref=nf

Posted by: masklinn | July 24, 2008 12:10 PM

@turzovka #235

You have no case against the facts of Fatima. NONE.

Posted by: gdlchmst | July 24, 2008 12:10 PM

@Turzovka #226

You owe me a new computer. My laptop's CPU just fried because it couldn't handle you inanity. But for someone who fatuously refuses to read a textbook on evolution, you sure seem to have a mighty high opinion of your understanding of it. Let me guess, still fighting for that GED?

Posted by: RB Miller | July 24, 2008 12:11 PM

Do Myers and the Catholic Haters understand that Catholicism is one of the few religions that says it is possible for evolution to be true and that God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Now before you get carried away,,,,POSSIBLE....is the key word.

Obama down 6% in Ohio

Obama down 6% in Ohio

Obama down 6% in Ohio

Obama down 6% in Ohio

Posted by: Jon_in_Charlotte | July 24, 2008 12:14 PM

It appears that any comment will likely get lost amongst the tidal wave of opinions, but, I hope that there might be a few that read of my experience in the links provided below.

10 years ago I would have likely found the cracker jokes and the Catholic bashing humorous. As a cradle Catholic who had waded, then swam, and eventually surfed into a secular lifestyle the teachings of the Church seemed foolish and backwards thinking.

However, my perceptions changed. I didn't choose for them to be changed nor was I seeking for them to be changed.

My experiences occurred in 3 parts. Each are short in length and written with an objective mindsight.

http://personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/awakening-the-soul/

http://personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/you-are-purified/

http://personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/abba/

Posted by: TomMil | July 24, 2008 12:16 PM

There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for another...

Really? It seems to me that PZ is willing to do more than lay down his life. He is apparantly risking his eternal soul to prove to you all what a bunch of hocum these beliefs are. PZ is more decent than Jesus in that way isn't he? And btw is it really a big deal that Jesus died when he knew he could come back from the dead? I think you all know that the answer to that question is a problem for your entire belief system which is why you all tend to focus on the torture part of the story(See "The Passion of the Christ" for example).

Posted by: NotAFuckTard | July 24, 2008 12:16 PM

Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Shall I point out the irony of your statement?

Meh, I need to remember to never argue with the insane...

Posted by: C R Stamey | July 24, 2008 12:18 PM

Must..resist..temptation..to..join..Facebook..group.

OOPSIES.

Posted by: Post analysis | July 24, 2008 12:18 PM

Craig, you're on track to beat yesterday's record:
58 posts over 7 hours, averaging 1 post every 7 minutes 21 seconds
(MAJeff is not far behind at 1 post every 9 minutes 43 seconds, for 6.5 hours)

Posted by: Ale | July 24, 2008 12:20 PM

@Turzovka:

Man, you are an idiot of VenomFangX caliber. All those neurons killed, all that critical thought suppressed, all those canards compressed inside your cranium as some sort of ultra-dense spam of idiocy... you are up there, with the big ones, like Kenny or Gene Ray. You can be proud of your accomplishment: stand proudly, basking in the universal recognition of your unfathomable stupidity.

Enough of ad-hominem. Now, regarding your "arguments" - THAT's why we need a FAQ. All of them have been refuted many, many times in this blog. You are not as original as you seem to believe you are. And your current attempt to mount a Gish Gallop is pitiful. Just go and hide under your stone, and free this webserver from your inanity.

Posted by: Jeffrey A. Stuart | July 24, 2008 12:22 PM

Jeffrey, you are correct, this doesn't have to like Springer online. What you will see here is that people who are reasonable are usually treated in kind (some exceptions, but that's a population thing), whereas if someone acts like a troll, they get treated like a troll.

Those things include the repetitous "I pity", "I'll pray", "you'll find out when you die", Fatwa Envy, etc.

I for one am happy to have a reasoned discussion with you.

Likewise, sir.

Even if I do choose to pray for someone (which I do), I do agree the "I pity", "I'll pray", "you'll find out when you die" sort of lines to be condescending and would suggest to my fellow Christians to instead just show charity towards others no matter who they might be and simply pray for them without making a big production about it. In other words, just simply do it without saying anything.

I am certainly open to the real possibility that the event that started this was handled incorrectly. We are human and often make mistakes. Sometimes big mistakes. I like to assume that people aren't usually doing things to be offensive and that very well could have been the case with the student in question. Perhaps this all could have been avoided with some more charity from the start by those who approached him. At this point though we well never know.

But I do think that calmer heads should prevail and it's time for some "heroes" on both sides to find the high road.

V/r

Posted by: RB Miller | July 24, 2008 12:22 PM

My LAST POST

MYERS IS A COWARD HATER.

He will not desecrate the Koran because he knows they will come after him and Catholics will just spout off.

Global Warming is pseudo science unsupported and indeed refutable by science data...The CO2 levels have been exploding the last 7 years while temperatures are going down the last 7 years. FACT

Posted by: spurge | July 24, 2008 12:23 PM

"Or should we just mock me instead and say the nuns are playing a trick on everyone? "

What? Nuns would not commit pious fraud?

You really are delusional.

Consider yourself mocked.

Posted by: Jack Picknell | July 24, 2008 12:24 PM

If he fails to substaniate his claim then it is false.

Quite simple actually. PZ deifies the "scientific method" and demands proofs yet fails to abide by his own directives.
Hypocrite and Liar are the proper words to describe such a person... or you could all him a Democrat

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 12:25 PM

My LAST POST

Maybe there is a god.....

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 12:26 PM

Fatima was not a bloody miracle. It was most likely a solar event endowed with supernatural meaning by a credulous crowd of believers.

Exorcisms represent nothing but the horrendous abuse of mentally ill persons. The Virginia Tech shooter, for instance, was "exorcised" rather than treated for his obvious illness. That was tragically stupid and ineffective.

All the various claims about saints, crying statues, images in windows and such should impress NO ONE.

I challenge any believer to make an amputee grow back a leg. That shouldn't be hard. The New Testament frequently asserts the efficacy of Christian prayer. Well, do it. Convince us. Otherwise, I'm not impressed.

Posted by: Annie Nonny Mouse | July 24, 2008 12:27 PM

From the Proslogium by Anselm of Canterbury

Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are something than which nothing greater can be imagined.

Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not? But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying - something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears; and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and another to understand that a thing is.

For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the understanding.

And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined. But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 24, 2008 12:27 PM

Since we are firing around quotes, here is one for you to chew on Turzovka. Don't worry, I'll make sure the quote is supplied in context, with links for you to review it yourself.

In an October 22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[9]

In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:

"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#Pope_John_Paul_II

It appears you've been hanging out with the wrong crowd, and picked up a nasty social disease. Those protestants! You'd think having rejected the mumbo jumbo of cannibal crackers, they'd have at least as much sense as a Pope.

So do tell. Why are you in disagreement with a major church man, a previous pontiff no less, on this issue? Do you consider yourself greater than on of Gods Bishop?

Well? Who is wrong, you or the old Pope?

Posted by: NC Paul | July 24, 2008 12:28 PM

PZ hates cowards? Who knew?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 24, 2008 12:29 PM

Ignoring for the moment the appalling ignorance of the whole "want to" syntax, let's address T's factual claims.

How come no lizards want to fly any more?

How come no fish have the desire to take a walk on the beach any more?

Fucking dumbshit ignorant idiot.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 12:30 PM

I just happen to believe 70,000 witnesses. - turzovka

All gave independent signed statements, without any possibility they had discussed the matter between themselves, did they?

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 12:32 PM

If he fails to substaniate his claim then it is false.

Um, no. Not proving something true isn't the same as proving it false. The believers use the very same argument when countering atheists lack of belief in god. Irony abounds. There's words for that...

Hypocrite and Liar are the proper words to describe such a person...

Ah, there they are.

Posted by: llewelly | July 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Hey atheists. How come everything, now that man is around to observe life, is so nice and tidy?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 12:34 PM

Annie Nonny Mouse@272

Wow! None of us here have ever come across the ontological argument before! Expect mass conversions!

Posted by: True Bob | July 24, 2008 12:35 PM

Perhaps this all could have been avoided with some more charity from the start by those who approached him. At this point though we well never know.

I am in total agreement with you about this. I also think Bill Donohue was seeking his own aggrandizement when he press released about this, but then that's his job.

I am leaving this thread. I am terribly tired of arguing about what's sacred or not, and the vast number of is-there-or-not-a-god arguments have been beat beyond death. I will be interested in seeing what PZ did, but these 1000+ post threads are tedious, and I'll save my arguments for another topic.

PS Just for shi*s and grins: I used to work in NAVAIR, buying airplanes and gizmos for USN. I saw a great drawing there. In the distance is a CV, with crew flocking to the deck edge and leaping off, en masse. In the foreground are two USAF F-4s on final approach, in formation. Cheers

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 12:36 PM

#271--

No astronomer anywhere else in the world reported any usual solar activity. The sun definitely didn't fly towards earth. This is simply not a valid claim.

You're snatching at anything to confirm your pre-existing views while ignoring the countless miraculous claims of other religions.

Use your astonishing prayer power under controlled conditions to levitate a car or grow back a limb, then I'll be impressed. Otherwise, miracles are nothing but unsubstantiated untestable rumors.

Posted by: Greg Boettcher | July 24, 2008 12:37 PM

Turzovka said:

Gould is not attacking evolution, but he is making an argument for punctuated equilibrium. So to review the arguments of two of the most revered high priests of evolution.

Gould & Co: A exists because X is present. There is no evidence for Y.
Dawkins & Co: A exists because Y is present. There is no evidence for X. .
Conclusion: There is no evidence that experts agree on exist for A. Therefore A is not only yet unproven, it is very highly suspect since, some of the finest experts on the matter highly doubt the presence of the necessary evidence for it to exist.

If you're going to say that, you might as well say:

Group A says, "Warren Harding died due to natural causes."
Group B says, "Warren Harding died because he committed suicide."
Group C says, "Warren Harding died because he was murdered."
Conclusion: The explanations of groups A, B, and C contradict each other. Therefore, Warren harding is still alive.

Complete nonsense.

Posted by: Bloody Tyrant | July 24, 2008 12:39 PM

Please gays go have all the sex you want.

Darwinist Award winners lol.

Posted by: N.K. | July 24, 2008 12:41 PM

"Posted by: Jeffrey A. Stuart | July 24, 2008 9:45 AM"

Bigot?

Eating a hamburger is bigotry to some people, because to some people the cow is sacred.

Meanwhile, human beings are being put in harm's way. A young man was kicked out of college because he pocketed a cracker instead of eating it.

I think that things are different nowadays because people are tired of people who don't know what has actually happened in a given situation.

G'job.

Posted by: Alexandre | July 24, 2008 12:42 PM

The first media response:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/07/pz-myers-desecrates-the-euchar.html#preview

And what is best, you can go there and comment on it. So go there and add a comment...

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 24, 2008 12:42 PM

My LAST POST

MYERS IS A COWARD HATER.

He will not desecrate the Koran because he knows they will come after him and Catholics will just spout off.

Global Warming is pseudo science unsupported and indeed refutable by science data...The CO2 levels have been exploding the last 7 years while temperatures are going down the last 7 years. FACT

Posted by: RB Miller

Ummm... You go from fatwa envy to climate change denial in the same disjointed utterance.

That sort of thing really proves that you care little to nothing about any of this, and you are simply here hoping someone will pay attention to you by acting like a childish little troll.

You're kind of a loser, aren't you? I mean, really. It's sad that you are so lonely and desperate for attention that you don't care how stupid the things you squawk are so long as someone, anyone, pays attention to poor, little RB Miller.

Perhaps you should go color or play with your blocks or something, RB.

Posted by: Annie Nonny Mouse | July 24, 2008 12:43 PM

Nick Gotts @ #286

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. I shall indeed--maybe not now, maybe not even in years, but someday.

Posted by: Kcanadensis | July 24, 2008 12:43 PM

Since no-one else has responded to this:

"However, I don't take great pains to go to a Native American pow-wow and pounce on any fallen eagle feather to crush it into the dirt and chop it up into tiny pieces just to show those ignorant primitives that my belief is superior to theirs."

Cynthia-

If you have been following the comment sections of these blog posts at all, you would see that this argument is pointless. It isn't about a "superior belief", it's about a kid getting death threats and suspension from school for choosing not to participate in a religious act. It's about people threatening to kill other people over a stupid piece of bread. The point is to say it's not okay for people to behave that way. It's not like PZ just rushed in and destroyed a eucharist for fun/to piss people off for no good reason. In other words; they asked for it. Native Americans do not go around proselytizing and threatening to kill people for "blasphemy".

Posted by: Kathy | July 24, 2008 12:45 PM

You poor, pathetic little man.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 12:46 PM

I think that a lot of posters on this forum are being taken for suckers. Why are so many of you willing to believe PZ's claim of having desecrated a verifiably-consecrated Catholic communion host without any evidence to support the claim?

I conditionally accept his word for three reasons: a) the claim is not all that extraordinary, b) it's not terribly important to me whether I am correct about it, and c) it doesn't matter whether or not he really did it, the threat was enough to make the point. Additionally, I will freely admit I was incorrect if it turns out he didn't.

Are you accepting PZ's assertion on faith and faith alone?

Equivocation fallacy. Conditional acceptance of that which we can observe is not the same as unconditional acceptance of that which we cannot, regardless that you use the same word to describe them.

PZ, it's time to put up or shut up. Evidence please!

You still haven't answered my question: what will it prove if it turns out he didn't really do it?

Posted by: Kevin Bryant | July 24, 2008 12:46 PM

I'm betting he fed it to his fish!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 12:48 PM

Two wrongs do not make a right. Your theft is unjustified, Mr. Myers, and you do nothing but make your own 'side' look poor and attention-starved. Shame on you.

What theft has PZ committed ? What evidence do you have that PZ has in fact committed a theft ?

Posted by: Ken | July 24, 2008 12:49 PM

"For those who believe no explanation is necessary, for those who don't none will suffice." Unknown

Posted by: Michael X | July 24, 2008 12:50 PM

Content J, you're doing it wrong.

You still have no grasp of what is true.

Number of supporters does not equal truth.
Number of charities does not equal truth.
Number of 'nice' people does not equal truth.
Number of claims of legal action does not equal truth.

You claim to know god without proof. You claim a cracker is Jesus without proof. You claim any cracker pocketer will go to jail without relevant evidence. Not to mention it hasn't and won't happen.

This is winning to you J? As I told you before, in that case, best of luck to you.

Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 24, 2008 12:52 PM

Truebob advised: "Really, CDR, if you are still serving, it is inappropriate to put your rank and service on personal opinion pieces. It implies that you are representing the USN, which you are not."

Now that is funny!

Considering that without his connection to the UofM, PZ would be nothing more than another kook spouting hatred on the internet; and you members of PZ's flying monkey squadron know it.

That's why you take such exception to CDR Stuart's entirely appropriate use of his rank.

CDR Stuart has comported himself with the decorum one would naturally expect of a senior officer in the US Navy, where as "Cap'n" JoJo's enthusiastic demeaning of a supposed "fellow" officer's rank casts serious doubt as to the veracity of his claim to a commission of any sort.

Oddly enough, I'm sure that Dr. Meyers advertised connection with the UofM will be at the very heart of the effort that is surely underway to deny him the opportunity to continue to use his title in his bid to make the university the laughing stock of the country.

Posted by: Jeffrey A. Stuart | July 24, 2008 12:52 PM

PS Just for shi*s and grins: I used to work in NAVAIR, buying airplanes and gizmos for USN. I saw a great drawing there. In the distance is a CV, with crew flocking to the deck edge and leaping off, en masse. In the foreground are two USAF F-4s on final approach, in formation. Cheers

I'm sure the zoomies waved off when they realized there was no golf course. :)

Cheers to you as well.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 12:54 PM

#301--

"So sorry folks, we are winning on all fronts."

Please. You sound like Baghdad Bob. Secularism is in the ascendancy all over Europe. Even self-identifying Catholics are mostly nominally Catholic.

Oh yes, what about the truth front? I'll happily concede we atheists are in the minority worldwide, but what the hell does that have to do with which side is right?

"Atheism with its lack of hope or joy kills even the desire to survive."

That's idiotic. Atheism isn't a philosophy, it's a state of disbelief. There's nothing to prevent an atheist from leading a content life.

The best life is one in which we delude ourselves with ancient legends and breed like rabbits? Pathetic. No thanks.

I want to pose a challenge to you. If you were not raised in any faithful environment, and approached the world through objective lens (as though from space), how on earth would you arrive at the conclusion that everything we know about the universe is best explained by the Roman Catholic perspective?

You wouldn't. You'd classify it as another human mythical tradition.

Posted by: JoJo | July 24, 2008 12:54 PM

Laughin_Guy #202

Say, "Cap'n" JoJo?

If you intend to challenge CMDR Stuart may I suggest that you start by showing you are physically equipped to do so by posting your true and correct name, as CMDR Stuart has done?

That is, unless you were commissioned in the Clown Navy, which BTW would explain a lot.

I'm supposed to take a challenge to give my real name seriously when it's given by someone called Laughin_Guy?

Like most people posting on the internet, I use a pseudonym. I admit JoJo Smuckitelli is not my real name. JoJo Smuckitelli is a bit of Navy tradition, being a generic name like John Doe or Joe Sixpack. If necessary, I would give my real name out, preferably privately. But the request to do so should have a reasonable reason for me to reveal myself and it should be asked politely.

BTW, the proper abbreviation for a U.S. Navy commander is CDR. Be thankful that Stuart and I weren't enlisted. I doubt you'd be able to figure out what an HT1(SW/DV) or an STSCS(SS) are.

Posted by: PA | July 24, 2008 12:55 PM

@266

If he fails to substaniate (sic)his claim then it is false.

Posted by: mayhempix | July 24, 2008 12:58 PM

Obama down 6% in Ohio
Posted by: RB Miller | July 24, 2008 12:11 PM

Obama up 8% in Ohio Public Policy Polling 7/23

Depends on the poll troll. Average across all polls shows Ohio is a toss up.
http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2008/07/electoral-college-map-72308.html

Go troll somewhere else like Freep where you will find like-minded idiots.

Posted by: Dahan | July 24, 2008 1:00 PM

turzovka at 271,

Yes, you just happen too believe all these things. But when several of us asked why you don't believe all the other religion's crazy miracles and holy men, and special books and etc. you couldn't give an answer.

Thousands of Christians see something they believe is a miracle, you believe them. Thousands of Muslims see something they believe is a miracle, you don't.

Your reasoning skills are so stunted that it's alarming. Please be aware that you have been heavily brain-washed and that you need real professional help. I'm serious. Mental illness is a sickness that often can be treated.

Posted by: puzzled | July 24, 2008 1:02 PM

. . . and still no evidence that Webster Cook ever got any alleged "death threats". Check the Florida papers and the a.p. reports on this story. The worst was a nun quietly asking him to return the host as he left the church. his fellow students even think he's a dumbass for his actions (note his impeachment as a member of the student senate).

so, if the underlying premise is false (i.e., 'P.Z' throws tantrum defending everyone's right to steal hosts from churches and not get death threats) then . . . what was this all about besides p.z.'s need for attention? to be an atheist badass, kicking butt and taking names?

as an atheist, I feel this is insulting to us all. humorous that p.z. keeps saying, okay, "I am waaaayyy too busy for this" and "this is my last thread"....and then he keeps posting, opening new threads and upping the outrage factor to ensure he keeps getting his chorus of sychophants to laud him. like a chubby Howard Stern or something.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2008 1:03 PM

@ Jojo...

you ain't kiddin... I was an HT1 on the USS Butte... (damn near 18 years ago now...)

Nothing like cleanin' shitters on an old deisel ammunitions ship... good times, good times...

Posted by: Jeffrey A. Stuart | July 24, 2008 1:05 PM

In short, Mr. Stuart, and please excuse my bluntness, nobody is impressed by what you do for a living.

CAPT,

But that in a way is my point and why I initially posted. Dr. Myers, in my eyes, is a professional befitting of respect for his position and the hard work that he completed in attaining such. I simply believe his conduct done openly as a University Professor, in this case, in not befitting and would encourage him to reconsider the actions he has taken.

V/r

Posted by: (John) | July 24, 2008 1:06 PM

"What theft has PZ committed ? What evidence do you have that PZ has in fact committed a theft ?"
You should already know the answer to this. The Eucharist is a Catholic gift meant for Catholics. By going up to receive, the understanding is that you are practicing the Catholic faith. Taking the bread away in spite of its intended purpose (and especially for public desecration) is deceitful and is morally wrong.

Let me repeat myself when I say two wrongs do not make a right.

Posted by: Laughin_Guy | July 24, 2008 1:07 PM

"Cap'n" Jojo opined: "Be thankful that Stuart and I weren't enlisted."

Judging from you comments, I am not convinced in any way that you ever served in in any capacity, "Cap'n". Looking up buzzwords on the internet is something that even the most dimwitted PZian is certainly capable of.

Professional comportment (Military bearing) is something that any naval officer spends his entire career polishing. I doubt that someone who attained the rank of Captain could dispense with the last vestiges so thoroughly as you have, "Cap'n".

CDR Stuart has also demonstrated the sort of courage (that you so woefully lack, JoJo) one would expect of a naval officeer by the simple act of placing his name with his words.

Submitted, with all due respect, of course.

Posted by: TG | July 24, 2008 1:08 PM

[i]This is a science blog. Statements made here are not to be taken on faith, irrespective of the person making such claims. To that end, when can we expect verifiable evidence of the desecration that PZ has claimed to have carried out?[/i]

Of course there won't be any independently verifiable evidence presented that a conscrated host was involved if anything was done. How could there be? It's a stunt.

Bet a dollar to a donut that the surpise entry will be a copy of Darwin's [i]Origin[/i], though. Not a 1/e copy, or one stolen by PZ from the library, or even one stolen and sent to him by a faithful discipline. No, a copy owned by him. Just more of the stunt. This part being an attempt to save his skin by blunting the outrage. Just having equal opportunity, "You know nothing is sacred around here", demonstration of principle, folks. Nothing to look at here now. Move along.

Won't work.

Posted by: SDG | July 24, 2008 1:09 PM

Sastra @#31:

The Catholics in this case are being over-sensitive from a secular perspective, and illegitimately insisting that their sense of outrage requires that blasphemy and desecration be treated as serious crimes. Actively expressing disagreement in dramatic fashion to both the Catholics themselves and -- more significantly -- to a culture which has become all-too-ready to pander unnecessarily to religious sensibilities, is, I think, legitimate.

Should PZ have solicited consecrated hosts which could only have been taken by people deceptively breaking a private contract? Technically speaking, no. You're right. As I've mentioned before, if anyone had asked me beforehand I'd have said no, don't, for just this reason. The "disruption" level is, technically speaking, very small -- but it's there.

But now there's a larger issue than this relatively small initial violation: the insistence that, because it is so very distressing to the religious, the initial trespass should be considered a much larger crime. The worst kind of crime. The emotional storm is cause for backing away in respect for over-inflated, immoderate, unrestrained emotional veneration. If something is considered "sacred," we should not touch it.

But that's what's being protested in the first place.

Again, I'd like to express my appreciation for the moderation of your tone and approach in the midst of all the vituperation flying both ways.

"If something is considered 'sacred,' we should not touch it" is, I agree, too broad a rule. Not everything that could possibly be considered "sacred" to somebody can reasonably be fenced off from "profane" (i.e., non-sacred, "secular") use.

The example of Hindu veneration of cows is a fair example. Humanly speaking, no one has the right to ask or expect the whole non-Hindu world to completely change their lifestyle and adopt Hindu dietary practices in order to avoid offending Hindus. In a similar way, Catholics can't and generally don't expect non-Catholics to change their lifestyle in deference to Catholic sensibilities.

In our desacrilized society, it is hard to find parallels in common human experience for the notion of sacredness, or for deference to the sacred affinities of others. One of the few widely accepted points of reference remaining is the respect accorded to the mortal remains of our dead, and the deference shown to the family's affinity for the dead in making choices regarding how the body is to be treated (e.g., whether to bury or cremate; if burial, where and how the site is marked; whether to embalm; if cremation, whether to bury, scatter or preserve the ashes).

It is widely considered unethical and unacceptable to buy or sell a corpse, and ghoulish in the highest degree -- something like sacrilege -- to misappropriate one. Although the family from whom the body is stolen is not deprived of any material thing, to violate their special affinity by disposing of the body in a manner contrary to their intentions is considered inexcusably vile.

This, obviously, is a widely shared ethic, something we can all understand, or it wouldn't be a useful point of reference. I cite something we can all understand to offer a point of entry toward something many don't.

This, of course, is where people start screaming "It's only a cracker," "A cracker is not a person," etc. The thing is, any effort to work toward a reasonable understanding among all parties and a workable way forward (which I well realize many on both sides are not interested in) must deal with the fact that Catholic belief posits a God who has become a man and who miraculously makes himself present under the appearances of bread and wine. This doesn't mean you aren't free to find this belief incredible and ridiculous and raise the strongest objections you like. It does mean that it's not helpful to say "You're just being oversensitive."

It's true that there have been disproportionate and unacceptable actions (e.g., threats of violence) as well as what I would agree are misguided and disproportionate expressions of veneration or conclusions drawn from it. (For example, while it's true that my commitment to my family is secondary to my commitment to Jesus, since Jesus is not harmed when the Eucharist is desecrated I can't say I would rather see my family harmed than the Eucharist desecrated.) However, there is no way we can believe what we do about the Eucharist and not regard something like this as a hurtful, hateful offense, not only against those whose disproportionate actions may have helped incite PZ's wrath, but against all of us who hold the belief.

Posted by: Michael X | July 24, 2008 1:10 PM

Yes, TG and would you be kind enough to explain how to prove any random cracker is consecrated or not?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 24, 2008 1:10 PM

@ JoJo...

comments in #340 are completely not worth even reading. You are being bated by shit-for-brains (aka laughin_guy). It's the last resort of the intellectually impaired...

So, ya know, bury the moron if you wish... but he wouldn't be worth my time. My two cents.

Posted by: NotAFuckTard | July 24, 2008 1:11 PM

Posted by: Fr. J | July 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Yawn, what?

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 1:11 PM

You should already know the answer to this. The Eucharist is a Catholic gift meant for Catholics. By going up to receive, the understanding is that you are practicing the Catholic faith. Taking the bread away in spite of its intended purpose (and especially for public desecration) is deceitful and is morally wrong.

Your rules don't apply to anyone else no matter how much you want them to.

Let me repeat myself when I say two wrongs do not make a right.

You mean, like threatening someone's life over the "theft" of a cracker?

Posted by: Rrr | July 24, 2008 1:13 PM

And now, for something completely different!

http://cd7.planet.ee/files/lolcat.JPG
http://geekfriendly.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/schrodinger_s-lolcat.jpg
http://bp3.blogger.com/_48pIyTbrm4A/Ryf91fXlkvI/AAAAAAAAAuA/0nJnXfRnmKQ/s1600-h/ceilingcat.jpg
http://lolcats.com/images/u/08/23/lolcatsdotcomzd1ykij1g17vcrdx.jpg

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/deg/campfire/friday/LOLCatHank.jpg

And have some http://www.lolcatbible.com for good measure.

Posted by: Alejandro | July 24, 2008 1:14 PM

This is too rich. Religion has actually people discussing about freaking crackers. Hahahaha. The world is crazy. It's less crazy than during the Dark Ages, though.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 24, 2008 1:14 PM

You have every right to believe in what you want and I respect that, but please have some respect for our beliefs!

No, none of us are obliged to respect anything. You are of course free to believe, embrace and practice whatever retarded class of absurdity you like, and I am likewise free to point and laugh, breathless with mirth, tears of helpless hilarity running down my face ... Thats how it works.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 1:16 PM

However, there is no way we can believe what we do about the Eucharist - SDG

How very true! Sorry to quote-mine, but this one was just too good to miss!

Posted by: Hap | July 24, 2008 1:16 PM

I'm sure that Prof. Myers is considering suicide now - his personal integrity has been questioned by somone called "Laughing_Guy"...

I'm just curious as to why one would actually derive any self-worth from the "respect" and ravings of someone with no higher brain functions. I can understand why aggrieved people would write and hope for divine intervention (they can't do anything and need to vent their hatred and attempt to enforce respect for themselves and their beliefs in a way that allows them to pretend that they aren't actually trying to do so), but I can't understand why I would care what some random on the Internet thinks of me, and I can't see anyone with brain function above the brain stem thinking that I actually should care about their rantings. So, why do it? Don't you have a Darwin Award to be working at? (With the combination of hormones and lack of higher brain function exhibited here, it shouldn't take long.)

Posted by: TG | July 24, 2008 1:17 PM

Yes, TG and would you be kind enough to explain how to prove any random cracker is consecrated or not?

++++++++++++

Not to you.

Posted by: Jack Picknell | July 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Hey Nick Gotts ... It's just a frackin' blob of cells.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 24, 2008 1:20 PM

"Very respectfully,

J. A. Stuart
Commander, United States Navy"

Ix-nay on the awberries-stray!

Posted by: puzzled | July 24, 2008 1:21 PM

no one is asking pz to have religious beliefs....they are asking him to refrain from certain overt acts; engaging in outrageous behavior where the only goal is to outrage and incite is more Howard Stern than science. . .

again, this all allegedly started because as many of the chorus have stated, pz was making the case that a cracker was worth less than a human and he didn't like that webster cook got death threats for stealing a host; yet no one has proven that cook actually got death threats.....

only that pz did, after he made his own threats....interesting.

Posted by: Rich Stage | July 24, 2008 1:23 PM

Donahue and Catholic attackers
have clearly gone totally crackers!
The taste can't be beat
when god's what you eat.
Try the new Messiah Snackers™!*

The comedy's really first class,
but I almost gave this a pass.
Then I thought "would a priest
say the god that you eat
is still god when he comes out your ass?"

*For when Scooby Snacks™ aren't holy enough. Messiah Snacks™! Now with less flavor!

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 24, 2008 1:24 PM

Puzzled. Apt.

Posted by: Janus | July 24, 2008 1:24 PM

I think the best analogy is this:

You know those little flags that are sometimes handed out for free at parades on national holidays and the like, so people can joyfully wave them around? Some guy, let's call him 'Webster', takes his given flag, but since he doesn't have any nationalistic urges, he decides to NOT wave it around and just takes it back home with him. Unfortunately he's noticed by several nationalistic nuts who think it's their duty to _fight_ with Webster to get the little flag back; because you see, little American flags are very important to American nationalists. Webster eventually manages to escape; you'd think the story would end here, but no! The Nationalist League of America decides that such a crime cannot go unpunished, and asks nationalists throughout America to take action; and indeed they do: They send Webster insults and death threats, they even try to interfere with his life.

Eventually this comes to the attention of another man, a blogger (let's call him 'PZ'). PZ, partly because he's not a very fervent nationalist himself, and partly because he's, well, sane, is shocked and outraged that so much maliciousness could be harnessed over something so insignificant. After all, he says, it's just a little flag. So to show his support for Webster and his opposition to the nutty nationalists, PZ declares on his blog that if someone will send him a little American flag, he'll do something to 'disrespect' it, if such a thing is possible.

So what do the nationalists do? Much the same that they did to Webster: They flood his e-mail box with spam, they send him death threats, and they try to get him fired from his job. They say PZ is a bigot, that he hates nationalists, that he's impinging on their freedom to be nationalists, that by disrespecting a little American flag he's severely hurting their feelings, that he'll be tortured in North Korea for eternity for having disrespected a little American flag, etc etc etc.

------

Of course, I'm being a bit too generous to Catholics. While the nationalists have obviously been driven to insanity by their nationalism in this analogy, they aren't being completely irrational about this: At least the thing they feel so strongly about (the USA) actually exists.

For my analogy to be completely fair, the nationalists would have to believe that each and every one of these mass-produced flags has the magical power to turn into the metaphysical body of Benjamin Franklin when it is eaten by a nationalist.

Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 24, 2008 1:26 PM

At the very least, I'd say that even if the events Fatima WERE some sort of strange localized atmospheric phenomenon, it is quite strange that they took place exactly when the children had predicted a miracle, no?

However praiseworthy your intentions, Turzovka, you see, you are wasting your time. The atheists have a dogma that there are no miracles, you see, and thus the evidence cannot be admitted. They will bring up silly ideas such as mass hallucination before taking any of your evidence seriously, even though an unbiased look at the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano (studied by the World Health Organization, who admitted that science had no explanation), the miracles of Padre Pio, Fatima, incorrupt saints, healings at Lourdes, etc etc. would give them a lot to chew on. They will not check into any of this, though, because it is incompatible with their dogma.

They ask for evidence, but then reject it out of hand, or say that the miracle must be able to be repeated at will.

Posted by: CJO | July 24, 2008 1:26 PM

#339
please have some respect for our beliefs!

Get some respectable beliefs.

SDG @ #344:
In our desacrilized society, it is hard to find parallels in common human experience for the notion of sacredness, or for deference to the sacred affinities of others.

You can't quite bring yourself to say it, can you? It's a secular society with freedom of expression as a foundational principle, and, as such, it cannot have provisions with the force of law that require "deference to the sacred affinities of others." Yet that's what you want, and that's the entire reason PZ did what he did.

As the only even remotely reasonable commenter who's come here over this "from the other side," please explain to me how you yourself can make the point, and then fail to see it?

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 1:27 PM

I just wanted to point out (though it's probably been noticed already) that, I think, every single "concerned Catholic" that visits this site spells PZ's name wrong. Is that because it is the same person, or because Catholics have a habit of dropping random 'e's into peoples' names?

Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 1:28 PM

former secularist: good one.

Posted by: Michael X | July 24, 2008 1:28 PM

No need to snipe TG, I haven't insulted you yet.

It's simply that in order to claim that PZ can't prove he has a consecrated cracker, one must be able to prove that a cracker is consecrated. I would then assume that since you are the one questioning the "consecrated-ness" of the cracker formerly in PZ's possession, you would be able to prove if one was consecrated or not.

Simple.

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 1:28 PM

Rayven Alandria said:

Although I have never met an Atheist who would do harm to a religiously deluded person, there may be one. Plus, who knows what other debates you've gotten into. You might piss off a whacko of another religious feather. Those are abundant.

Second... Don't go the "You might get killed by the side that disagrees" alley. You sound smart, you should be above such paranoia. It doesn't work that way. There are killers everywhere, and killers are INSANE. Their religious allegiance does not matter. There are murdering christians, there are murdering muslims, there are murdering atheists, there are murdering jews, there are murdering raelians. Insanity, lack of morals... they have nothing to do with what your faith or lack of faith is. It's social.

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Consider me a former secularist now. This intolerance from this professor, is embarrassing to the human race.

So what does this mean exactly? That you've accepted Jesus into your heart, in a fit of pique? I'm pretty certain it's not supposed to be done that way ...

Posted by: puzzled | July 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Hi Janus, since you mentioned them, maybe you can point out a link to me: WHAT death threats did webster cook recieve? the Florida and A.P. sources on this don't mention death threats.....

people mindlessly repeating "webster cook got death threats" because their leader says so sounds a bit like. . . like religion. gulp.

Posted by: Cheezits | July 24, 2008 1:31 PM

The thing is, any effort to work toward a reasonable understanding among all parties and a workable way forward (which I well realize many on both sides are not interested in) must deal with the fact that Catholic belief posits a God who has become a man and who miraculously makes himself present under the appearances of bread and wine.

Well, I prefer to deal with that fact by pointing out what a friggin' stupid doctrine it is, not to mention idolatrous. A sane, grown person can not seriously believe that a communion wafer actually, really, truly, magically turns into human flesh or anything else as a result of being blessed. Did Jesus really need to spell it out, that what he said was merely a metaphor? He also said he was a vine; do you take that literally?

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 1:33 PM

Puzzled: Let's a assume for a second that you are right and there were no death threats (and, Catholics being Catholics, I doubt this very much). What about those who called for his immediate expulsion from the university? You don't think THAT is an overreaction to what he did? Because I do. Get expelled for pilfering a bit of bread? Give me a break.

Posted by: tsg | July 24, 2008 1:33 PM

I just wanted to point out (though it's probably been noticed already) that, I think, every single "concerned Catholic" that visits this site spells PZ's name wrong. Is that because it is the same person, or because Catholics have a habit of dropping random 'e's into peoples' names?

To be fair, I often misspell it as well (although I tend to correct it more often than not). It is a rare spelling of a common name.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 1:34 PM

The atheists have a dogma that there are no miracles

False - it's just that to establish a miracle would require much better evidence than has ever been presented. If palmira@259 is correct, the "miracle" of Fatima was a politically-motivated fraud, and is disbelieved even by Portuguese Catholic priests!

Posted by: puzzled | July 24, 2008 1:35 PM

bobc, calling me an "asshole" and a "lying stupid asshole".....what great argument! such witty comebacks! why is it so hard (and clearly, troubling) for you to understand that other atheists don't agree with pz's um, methodology?

so what is the source of "webster cook says" he got death threats? did you speak with him?

okay why don't you just call me a lying, stupid, madras-plaid asshole? just some helpful suggestions as you seem excessively angry at me for asking such a simple question.

:)

Posted by: Adrienne | July 24, 2008 1:37 PM

Seems a lot of true believin' Catholics are really hoping the Eucharists bled for PZ.

On one board for those Catholics who reject Vatican II (i.e., are really truly crazy, think Jews are evil, etc.), someone posted this on a thread about PZ's desecration:

I remember the story of the Jews from 14th century Brussels who kidnapped and proceeded to desecrate a consecrated host. The sacred wafer started to bleed in front of them and this caused them so much grief that they had the species returned to the Church. The return was done in triumph and a series of murals were painted on the walls of the Cathedral to celebrate this true victory Our Lord over the forces of darkness.

Posted by: Beep | July 24, 2008 1:38 PM

PZ is a such a pompous phony.

He acts as if his desecration is meaningless, and then draws out the drama for another day.

He probably sits home masturbating to the number of posts he's gotten off of his own initial masturbatory exercise.

For a grown man to act this way is embarrassing.

It doesn't matter if PZ loses his job, his livelihood, or his head, as he's already destroyed his credibility.

Yuck!

Posted by: Rob | July 24, 2008 1:38 PM

Chicago:

Quit with the cut and paste.

There are unexplained cures at a HIGHER rate in places (namely, everyplace else) other than Lourdes. Why is Lourdes special?

Where have we claimed that science has an explanation for all observed phenomena? All that means is this needs to be put under scientific scrutiny, nothing more, nothing less. You pull out the "I don't know so God did it" card, which is pointless. Until mechanisms have been proposed and all possible have

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 1:38 PM

chicago@394,
Are you seriously expecting us to accept the word of the diocese of this, that and the other that miracle cures have occurred, without fully authenticated medical reports before and after the alleged occurrence? You must think we were born yesterday.

Posted by: sex_target | July 24, 2008 1:39 PM

@ chicago

Explain to us the evidence you have that "godditit". Please show us the bridge you build to jump the massive fucking whole from "we don't know how this happened" to "god did it, and not only that, this SPECIFIC god did it and no other gods were involved- nor do they even exist."

Explanation, please. Oh, and if you don't reply I'll copy and paste this a bunch, which seems to be your substitute for having something good to say.

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 1:39 PM

Hi Steph, I'm an atheist and I'm offended by your comments. I am neither angry nor rude. You shouldn't generalize.

Posted by: puzzled | July 24, 2008 1:41 PM

Amy, thank you for the civil response. The reason I bring up the "alleged" death threats is that so many of the posters here--and pz myers, in his original posts on the subject--have used that as their rallying cry: that a cracker is not worth a human being's life and thus the outrage was directed at people making death threats against webster cook. I agree with that.

But now that more of the story is unfolding (the hearing on cook's impeachment as a student senator), there is absolutely no mention of a death threat.

I am just saying, if that was the original premise, that a cracker is not worth a death threat, if we remove the threat, then it seems to me we don't have the need for similar outrageous conduct on the part of an atheist who claims his only motive was sticking up for a student who received a death threat.

Posted by: Jim RL | July 24, 2008 1:41 PM

chicago,

You list a bunch of supposed miracles that are recognized by Catholic dioceses. Were any of them recognized by medical professionals? Someone should be able to track down that one in 1999. Also, haven't millions of people visited Lourdes looking for a miracle? You only have less than 20 examples. That is a very low success rate. What did all those other people do wrong?

Also, the miracles peaked 50 years ago. It was one a year in the 50's then only 1-2 every decade afterwards. Could that be because healthy modern skepticism would have easily found fraud in many of the earlier "miracles"?

Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 24, 2008 1:42 PM

Explanation please - Rob

Oh allow me. Run a million people, with a bias to the credulous and religious, and you'll get a crop of juicy anecdotes, some genuine spontaneous improvements (sheer numbers will do that) and some outright lies. I bet every one of your little stories, if there was any meaningful evidence to parse, would qualify as one of the above.

If you can reliably repeat the results under controlled conditions then you've got something, otherwise, it's just an anecdote, like Mohammed and the winged horse, or Joseph Smith and the golden plates.

Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 1:43 PM

He acts as if his desecration is meaningless, and then draws out the drama for another day.

From wikipedia:

Suspense or tension is the feeling of uncertainty and interest about the outcome of certain actions, most often referring to an audience's perceptions in a dramatic work. However, suspense is not exclusive to literature. Suspense can be considered as any situation where there a lead up to a big event or dramatic moment, with tension being a primary emotion felt as part of the situation.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 1:43 PM

Anyone who has studied Fatima at all knows those claims are bogus. - Dave Mueller

[citation needed]

Posted by: chicago | July 24, 2008 1:44 PM

Prove that God didn't do it Rob-
As far as Gods love for you, what do you need god to come down and give you a hug? that's why he gave you a mother. You don't find it at all interesting that all of these cases have been in one way or another related to faith? faith in God. 70% percent of Doctors believe in miracles, but because God hasn't reached down and given Rob a hug with his own two arms, therefore; God doesn't exist for Rob or the rest of you.

Posted by: Michael X | July 24, 2008 1:47 PM

TG, PZ claims to have received a cracker form those who sent them. He himself doesn't believe that such a miracle takes place. So he need not care about how to prove it true as he believes the whole act to be false. All that matters for him is that he received crackers which the senders claim to be consecrated.

As for you, I'm trying to state that I don't believe you actually have the ability to tell between random crackers which has been consecrated and which has not.

As for PZ, he's making the point that for those of us who are not Catholic, we will not show undue respect for or condone threats of violence made out of care for an unprovable belief.

Posted by: Dahan | July 24, 2008 1:48 PM

Dave Mueller at 378,

So same question for you then. Do you believe in all the miracles and such that other religions claim? You know, the ones from Islam, Shinto, Norse Mythology, Janeism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, etc? Hey, Check out the Hindu Milk Miracle of 1995. Thousands of people experienced it. It MUST be true! But wait, it can't be right, because it's not your religion.
You're just as skeptical as us atheists in regards to every other religion but yours gets a free pass? Well that's bullshit.
When you can show why your "miracles" are better and more authentic than anyone else's, come back and we can talk. Until then, you should probably just sit in the corner and not let on how gullible you are.

Posted by: Rob | July 24, 2008 1:48 PM

@Chicago:

You don't understand science and logic do you? You're making the claim, YOU make the proof. All you're doing is arguing from ignorance.

The blasphemy on these threads prove god doesn't exist, does it not? The god of the bible would strike everyone here dead.

Anyone? Anyone? Jehovah? Anyone?

Posted by: Asylum Seeker | July 24, 2008 1:49 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html
http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html

You can be less puzzled now...

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 1:50 PM

Hey Nick Gotts ... It's just a frackin' blob of cells.
- Jack Picknell

No you psychopathic scumbag, PZ's son is a person.

Posted by: TripMaster Monkey | July 24, 2008 1:50 PM

chicago sez:

Prove that God didn't do it Rob-

If I can jump in...

Chicago, it is not up to Rob to prove God didn't do it. You made the claim that God did do it, you are the one responsible for proving your claim. I can just as easily claim that Russell's Teapot worked those "miracles", and it would by just as absurd to expect you to prove it didn't.

Posted by: Rich Stage | July 24, 2008 1:51 PM

Prove that God didn't do it Rob-

--Chicago

Prove that Thor didn't do it, moron.

Anything your jeebus can do, Thor can do better. Thor can do anything better than you. Now with more lightning!

I can't believe you were stooooopid enough to pull out that argument here, Chicago. It's hard for me to understand how you can remember to breathe with all your stupid.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 1:51 PM

"Consider me a former secularist now. This intolerance from this professor, is embarrassing to the human race."

If you are so easily dissuaded from secularism then I have to question how committed you were.

Still, I hope you find the theocracy you clearly want. Just make sure it is nowhere near me.

Posted by: Jim RL | July 24, 2008 1:53 PM

chicago, can you prove that I didn't do it? Can you prove the FSM didn't do it? No you can't. You have a list of church recognized "miracles" that magically has trailed off over time. The miracle rate is also really low. Does that also mean if my loved ones die it's because they didn't deserve a miracle that costs god nothing?

Also, you do realize that atheists also get spontaneous cancer remission at the same rate as theists.

Posted by: Ben | July 24, 2008 1:53 PM

Praise be to God the Father Almighty and all Honour and Glory to His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 1:55 PM

Jack, don't make us start posting quotes from other books on how ridiculous religious ideas are. They'd have just as much authority as your book, which is, after all, just a book like any other book.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 1:55 PM

As for the claim 70% of doctors believing in miracles, I suspect that what the data really showed is that a large number of doctors accept that some patients die when they do not expect them to, some patients live longer that they expect them to, and some patients end up cured and they cannot explain how the cure happened.

Not miracles, just doctors realising that the human body is a complex thing, and sometimes things happen in it that they cannot yet explain.

Posted by: El Herring | July 24, 2008 1:56 PM

Spike Milligan brilliantly sent up the idea of ridiculous beliefs:

(Knock on door)

"Good afternoon madam. We're Jehovah's Burglars."

"Jehova's Burglars?"

"Yes madam, and we're being persecuted by the police over our beliefs."

"What beliefs?"

"We believe you have a lot of valuables in your house..."

Posted by: TG | July 24, 2008 1:56 PM

"I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them -- my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure -- but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address." - PZ

You have it all gargled, MX.

PZ specifically refers to "consecrated" communion wafers. The burden of proof that he has one and has done something to it is uopn him and him alone. If it boils down to the word of the guy who sent it to him in the mail - ROTFLMAO! That's some really great science for you.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 24, 2008 1:57 PM

puzzled @ 369:

You don't seem to get it. How is PZ's criticism of religion the same as conducting science? The fact is, it's not. He's criticizing religious beliefs that are not based in reality, and have no proof. Science is what he does in his day job, a completely separate thing. Criticizing religious belief is what he does outside of that. I can be a professional in one industry, and criticize something in another area. It happens all the time. Are you incapable of, or just unwilling to make, this distinction?

"again, this all allegedly started because as many of the chorus have stated, pz was making the case that a cracker was worth less than a human and he didn't like that webster cook got death threats for stealing a host; yet no one has proven that cook actually got death threats.....

only that pz did, after he made his own threats....interesting. "

No, you apparently do not know the back story, or have forgotten it: This started because Mr. Cook took a wafer out of church, and a furor over his having done so ensued. PZ then criticized (rightly) the furor for all its pathetic hand-wringing and yelling over a simple piece of bread and the ease with which religious anger is stoked at the slightest touch, and begins receiving "prayers" and physical threats on his person. All this is really a case study in how Christians act much the same way they perceive the acts of Muslims or adherents of other religions when something is perceived as being disrespected. Mulims in Afghanistan threw a fit when a former Mulism converted to Christianity. Christians here would likely take similar offense to a Christian going Muslim. How do I know this? Well, there are still plenty of Christians willing to go about beating Jews over the head with the Jesus thing, so it stands to reason any other deviance from Christianity would similarly be uh, frowned upon. Christians here will claim they don't act like Muslims over there, but really, this is a function of the rule of law, and if this society was theocratic as many Christians seem to think or wish it was, well frankly, they'd be doing everything fundamentalist Muslims in the ME do now. Only law helps prevent (though not entirely) religious sectarian violence from spreading uncontrollably.

But to the point, are you seriously going to argue Mr. Cook did NOT receive death threats, when PZ did? People have gotten death threats for far less than what Mr. Cook did. I can pretty much guarantee he's gotten at least a couple. That Mr. Cook doesn't have the kind of visiblity PZ does, does not change the liklihood of Mr. Cook having received them or not. Frankly, PZ's criticism likely brought over a bunch of the same powerless, angry, busy body idiots that were jumping all over Mr. Cook.

You continue to make PZ's point: That religion places undue deference on false icons and rituals, and makes otherwise normal people fairly well nuts if a certain object is criticised in any way. PZ did not make a "threat"; that you treat his disrespect of what truly is a cracker (it IS manufactured as such, and is such until it goes through the ceremony, according to the beliefs of the Catholic community) as a dire threat really speaks to how fragile the religious mind can be when it comes to someone who is frank in their deviance from religious traditions. If the body of Christ can be desecrated, how sacred is it really? How powerful ccould it possibly be, if a mere mortal has the power to single-0handedly reduce its value, tarnish it, etc.?

Answer that question.

If you answer it any other way than that it is in fact still divine, and truly unalterable by man once it has undergone the proper ritual, than nothing any single huan being does to the "consecrated body" would mean anything, because it is divine now, and beyond the power of mortals to ruin it. If you don't think this, then is follows that you really trhink your god, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, whoever, is not nearly as powerful as you claim he/she/it is. You cannot claim an unproveable being has universal power beyond imagination, and then argue that a man doing something to a cracker completely reduces the being's value, or in any way affects said being in a serious and negative way. You're trying to have it both ways.

The point is, you dseserve respect for thinking something different about the supposed afterlife, life in general, whatever. What you do not however get automatic respect for, and have no right to demand it for, are fairy tales that cannot be proven or studied, are untestable, do not appear to benefit mankind in any measureable way, etc. I do not have to respect that someone may think reality was created in 6 days by some being I haven't seen. You do however, have to respect things that can be proven to exist, or are real and can be observed, studied, etc.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 1:57 PM

70% percent of Doctors believe in miracles - chicago

[citation needed]

Posted by: Dahan | July 24, 2008 1:58 PM

Jack PIcknell into the dungeon for Godbotting.

Posted by: Michelle | July 24, 2008 1:58 PM

@Puzzled: Goddamnit, Puzzled. THE INTERNET! USE IT! What a twat.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

(forgive me father for I have sinned and posted something from FOX...)

Posted by: BobC | July 24, 2008 2:00 PM

puzzled claimed he's an atheist but he calls a cracker a host.

I noticed puzzled has chosen to not repeat his lie and he hasn't defended his atheist claim.

It's obvious Mr. Puzzled is a liar, and it's obvious he's a Catholic.

Posted by: Jim RL | July 24, 2008 2:00 PM

Aug, we don't ask everyone to respect our beliefs. You can say whatever you want about atheism, just accept my right to argue back. If you think atheism or secularism is utter bullshit you just better have an argument to back it up. We won't run and cry that you are mean to our cherished beliefs. We will just prove you wrong, and we may not be very nice while doing it because we've heard all the arguments before. There haven't been original arguments for theism in centuries.

Also, crackers are bread too.

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 2:01 PM

Is there an assumption among the religious that atheists were once religious? What about those of us who never had a religion, and who never believed in a god?

Posted by: Logicel | July 24, 2008 2:01 PM

A common ploy used by the flood of religites since crackergate hit the intertubes, is that PZ is acting immaturely and rebelliously. Mr. (I refused to refer to him as father as I already have one) J, especially and repeatedly offered this feeble explanation. Mr. J does realize that PZ is 50ish?

Rigid, blinkered, dogmatically authoritarian people adore hurling the juvenile label when their authority is justifiably challenged. Also, Mr. J, was fond of referring to PZ as being indecent. Indecent is one of those words that are descriptive per the parameters of the user. My parameters says that Mr. J is indecent, with his patronizing, flimsy appeal to blind/dogmatic authority and to what he consider comprises civility. Give me a honest, non-civil person any day over the likes of puffed up, stuffed with inanity and crazy beliefs people like Mr. J.

Mr. J types are exhibiting their clueless state when they think that it is mere rebellion with which they are dealing. They are dealing instead with very determined, well educated, insightful, courageous people who have decided that it is finally the time to challenge religious beliefs consistently and without abating. No more respect for religious beliefs--just respect for the right to have religious beliefs.

And I want to repeat what a high opinion I do have of PZ--he is a funny, smart, and brave fellow. As Dawkins says of him, an hero for our times.

Posted by: Steph | July 24, 2008 2:02 PM

The abusive, insulting, vulgar responses these atheists post is certain proof of the validity of these scriptures.

Here forward, if anyone I know is tempted to adopt atheism, I will direct them to the comments of this blog to demonstrate the organic outcome of such belief.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 2:02 PM

I can say the same about those who left their religions because they saw bad examples there.

I regret being a secularist, the hatred here is proof that the secularism is the wrong way.

As I said, good luck with your theocracy. I assume you will be happy taking orders from whichever religious leader gets put in charge, because of course you will not have a say in it. Authoritarian dictatorships, be they run by theists or atheists are not normally very pleasant.

Posted by: Aug. | July 24, 2008 2:04 PM

quoted from http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072309.html

"But the curious thing is that [Dr. Myers] cannot rest with mere verbal blasphemies. He has to get a host in his hands and destroy it with a savage glee that, curiously, places him not among scientists but among the most magical-thinking Bronze Age fanatics."

Oh, and isn't it interesting that when a Prof in Iowa State University was found to have a bible on her desk, she is fired immediately, whereas, Prof. Myers will not be subject to any disciplinary action from UMM even if he has expressed clear disrespect to other's belief both in words and in action?

Posted by: Blondin | July 24, 2008 2:05 PM

Here's an interesting parallel in today's news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080724/od_nm/model_flag_dc_1

A Peruvian model posed nude on a horse using a flag as a saddle. Like Webster Cook there was no disrespect intended (initially) but she is now facing a possible 4 year prison term for disrespecting a symbol.

Oh yes. That's the kind of reaction that really deserves our respect (NOT)!

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 2:06 PM

Dahan (message 429) You accused me of not responding to your question as well. But I did in message 138, I just did not feel like telling you that. But I will repost it here now so we do not have to hear you ask the same question again again.
--------------------------------------

Dahan from Message #81: You are wrong on your assumption about me disbelieving in Hindu miracle claims. And how do additional miracles bolster the atheist's argument of No God anyway? Hindu glass cows exuding milk. I believe it, and I believe it is supernatural. Another one drinking milk. I believe it to be supernatural. Other supernatural manifestations from the Islam or Buddhist faiths. I believe them that they are supernatural. I am not looking for crazy improbable "natural" answers to try to explain them away..
I am of strong belief most of these "hard-to-explain-away" well documented manifestations of any faith, or no faith, are either of God or are diabolic. I will not offer an opinion on most if they are diabolic or not, such as those in the Hindu faith. Actually, I will. I am guessing they are godly directing the believers towards some virtue.
I do not believe the Christian faith is the true faith because of the miracles I have put forth. I believe that is but one important ingredient. So much more is necessary to validate which faith is the true faith. The magnanimous degree of the manifestation carries weight. Even more so does the very detailed message and the fruits of the event. Beyond miracles, is what else does the faith claim and have to offer? The historical record. The charity of the faith. The incomparable saints. So and so on. Far more is required, agreed. I just cannot go into all that right now, but that is actually the greater reason why I accept Christianity as the fullest and most truthful of God's message. The miracles assist in validating it for me, not in demonstrating it's main importance or message.
Sidenote: If there ever were any so-called UFO appartions that really took place and were seen by humans --- those I believe to be demonic apparitions in order to deceive those more readily open to decption. You know that funny looking red guy with a pitchfork? Just a cartoon to you of course.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 24, 2008 11:10 AM

Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 24, 2008 2:08 PM

"I regret being a secularist, the hatred here is proof that the secularism is the wrong way."

Right. Because a theocracy or authoritarian state just sounds like a much more appealing option. Well feel free to move to one of those. Let me know in two weeks how it's going. I suggest moving to one where you'll be an oppressed minority, just to get the full effect.

You intentionally confuse criticism with hate, another symptom of religious thinking. Secularism is what allows you to live peacefully with your worldview amongst others that don't share it. It's pretty obvious you don't really know the definition of secularism, you just ate what someone told you about it.

Posted by: TG | July 24, 2008 2:09 PM

And, oh...MX. If what PZ claims to have was an unconsecrated host (just a "cracker"), instead of a consecrated one (the body of Christ), then no descration could have taken place according to the Catholic Church. He claimed he'd "descrate" a "conscrated communion wafer", though.

So, PZ has cornered himself with and has no way "out" as you point out. We shall wait with bated breath to see how he proves he has done was he claims in writing. Scientific publishing 101.

Posted by: Dave Mueller | July 24, 2008 2:10 PM

#462...as I said earlier, if it was strange atmospheric phenomena that took place at Fatima, it's still awfully strange that it occurred at the exact place and the exact time that a miracle was predicted by the children.

And, let's be clear, the phenomenon was strange enough that it hasn't been classed into any existing category of known atmospheric phenomena. Plus, there are details of the ground suddenly being completely dry which don't fit into that classification.

Posted by: El Herring | July 24, 2008 2:11 PM

Thank you Andrés Diplotti, I'm a big Pratchett fan. I wonder what he'd make of all this nonsense. I'm sure he's already aware of it, he's quite internet-savvy. I wouldn't put it past him to be anonymously posting here already.

I'd recommend Pratchett's book Small Gods too, for everyone here, whatever your beliefs.

Posted by: Dahan | July 24, 2008 2:12 PM

Chicago? Dave? Turzovka?

Hello?

Yep. A deafening silence. That's what we hear from all these christians when asked why we should believe in their miracles more than anyone else's. It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise rational people would believe batshit crazy claims from one group, but not another, just because mommy and daddy brought them up to believe in the one.

Time to grow up and think for yourself. Time to realize that you've been had. There's no shame in it. Many of us here were at one time too.

Posted by: TS | July 24, 2008 2:12 PM

>Secularism is what allows you to live peacefully with your worldview amongst others that don't share it.

What peace? What I see here is a professor who shows contempt for people who don't share his holy viewpoint? How he is he different from the relgionists you rail against?

If he were truly at peace, he wouldn't have to dehumanize others by pulling some moronic stunt - and ASKING FOR ATTENTION while doing it!

Posted by: SDG | July 24, 2008 2:13 PM

CJO @#379:

You can't quite bring yourself to say it, can you? It's a secular society with freedom of expression as a foundational principle, and, as such, it cannot have provisions with the force of law that require "deference to the sacred affinities of others." Yet that's what you want, and that's the entire reason PZ did what he did.

As the only even remotely reasonable commenter who's come here over this "from the other side," please explain to me how you yourself can make the point, and then fail to see it?

Thanks for what may have been the most generous compliment within your capacity to pay me. :-)

You seem to be a bit off both on my motives and the thrust of my case. I chose "desacrilized" rather than "secular" not because I "can't bring myself to say" secular, but because for my purposes "desacrilized" was more precise. "Secular" as you are using I take to have legal or constitutional significance (separation of church and state and all that); "desacrilized" as I was using it was a socio-cultural term, denoting a generalized atrophy of the sense of the sacred.

Where on earth did you get the notion I had any brief regarding "force of law"? Haven't said one word about it. What I said is that PZ's actions are "just plain incivil, and should be generally recognized by civil people as socially unacceptable." Is that any clearer?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 24, 2008 2:14 PM

I'm not supporting a theocracy. I'm merely voicing my disgust at how PEOPLE are being treated simply for having a different viewpoint.

Dehumanizing is what is being done when, simply for disagreeing, one is demonized and treated like dirt.

Thanks again, for giving more reasons. Your knee-jerk fear of authority outside of the self is not reasonable. Science is still one, no need to be afraid of it.

Well if you are not supporting a theocracy you are certainly demanding that the rights of most religious and non-religious people be curtailed.

A secular society is one which religion does not play a role in public life. In such a society if you wish to advance a policy you cannot get away with saying that it is your religious belief. A secular society also does not prevent people from practising their religion, although it may well stop them from imposing their religiously based moral views on others. You do not want that, so that does suggest you think religious freedom should be curtailed for some, and that the religious morals of one group be imposed on everyone.

That sure sounds like a theocracy to me. Have you never heard of the Enlightenment ? The idea that evidence and reason should be used to decide how we are governed ?

Posted by: turzovka | July 24, 2008 2:17 PM

Dahan (#489),

If you can read English respond with one of these. ;)

Because I have posted to your question twice now. The one you think is some smoking gun. Read it (#138) and (#479)digest it. Then give us your expert opinion why God is a joke or Catholics are or communion is or whatever else it is that makes you puff up like a peacock.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 24, 2008 2:17 PM

Plus, there are details of the ground suddenly being completely dry which don't fit into that classification.
- Dave Mueller

What proof is there that that claim is true?

Posted by: TripMaster Monkey | July 24, 2008 2:19 PM

TS sez:

That's nonsense. Look at the contempt he is showering on the people who dare to disagree with him. He dehumanizes anyone who disagrees with him.

No, TS, by abandoning reason in favor of superstition and ignorance, they're doing a fine job of dehumanizing themselves. PZ is just the guy with the flashlight.

Posted by: Sastra | July 24, 2008 2:20 PM

SDG #344 wrote:

In our desacrilized society, it is hard to find parallels in common human experience for the notion of sacredness, or for deference to the sacred affinities of others.

In a sense, the idea of the "sacred" is very common in the secular world. It's there in dogmas which must not be questioned, questions which must not be asked, ideas which must not be challenged, people who must not be crossed, and irrational claims which must be defended by appeals to rhetoric, fallacy, emotion, misdirection, and violence -- instead of by reason.

I use this analogy as an addition to your reasonable analogy of desecrating the dead, because 'hurt feelings' are not the only issue here. PZ seems to be trying to restore a rational perspective to what has just been revered too much by performing an act of irreverence. He is trying to point out the obvious: no one is truly harmed when the sacred is violated. The "hurtful, hateful offense" hurts no one, and the scorn in the act is directed not at the believers, but at the high value put on Belief itself. Beliefs should only be as good as what backs them up.

There's a lot of talk about respect for the sensitivities of others, but I sense a form of disrespect lurking under the heartfelt pleas. The idea seems to be that Catholics simply shouldn't be expected to handle insolence. They can't reason with secular logic, and think of the Eucharist as a cracker, and both Cook and PZ as minor annoyances. They just can't be held to the same standards we nonbelievers hold ourselves -- either because they're weak, simpleminded, and have been brainwashed, or because they're operating on the higher, loftier, more spiritual plane of Faith. Not only atheists, but society itself needs to recognize this, and cordon off certain areas and actions as just too hard for religious people to handle.

I don't know. Maybe I have more 'faith' in the religious than that. I don't think we're really all that different. And if my mother's remains were not treated with proper deference, I would struggle hard to keep in mind that there are bigger problems, and my automatic reactions are not necessarily reliable. It's not really my mother. It's just a frickin' corpse.

there is no way we can believe what we do about the Eucharist and not regard something like this as a hurtful, hateful offense

Ah, but I think you can believe some of what you do about the Eucharist, and regard 'something like this' as a minor annoyance at best. As a longterm goal, it might be a good idea. The Catholic Church has already improved a lot.

Bottom line, the emperor has no clothes, and I still think your sense of outrage needs to be tempered by the recognition that having a convinced faith that the emperor does indeed have clothes is not necessarily a crowning act of moral strength, and will not be recognized as such by others. In fact, it shouldn't be recognized as such by others. We all need reminders not to take the common ground too lightly, for it's what we all stand on, religious or not.

Perhaps it's a bit of a standoff. If PZ is not exactly behaving with the decorum usually expected of a university professor (which is arguable), then the overwrought handringing and pleas for mercy are not exactly the behavior expected of the heirs of Erasmus, either.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2008 2:22 PM

"If this list represents what happens to people when atheism is adopted"

It doesn't. It represents what happens when a multinational religious corporation starts witch hunts because someone misused a cracker and demanding undeserved deference. We get rude.

"then the church was right to outlaw it (if the church indeed ever did.)"

Yes, the church tortured and killed an awful lot of people because they were "angry and rude". Such a shining moral beacon.

-Brigadier General Arthur P. Jones (Mrs.)

Posted by: rebelest | July 24, 2008 2:22 PM

(For example, while it's true that my commitment to my family is secondary to my commitment to Jesus, since Jesus is not harmed when the Eucharist is desecrated I can't say I would rather see my family harmed than the Eucharist desecrated.)

SDG@#344

The fact that your commitment to your family is secondary to your commitment to Jesus is one of the many reasons that we atheists consider your religion to be poison/anathema. It also causes me to dismiss most of your pondering (just knowing that a person is a theist causes me to dismiss most of what they proffer as argumentation since they have already demonstrated to my satisfaction that they aren't capable of reasonable thought)...if you believe in a deity you will believe in anything...your credulity is a profound weakness and should be remedied.

So: I assert that the idea of "God" implies the abdication of human reason and justice and it (the god idea) is the most decisive negation of human liberty and necessarily ends in the enslavement of humankind both in theory and practice and that those who profess to worship "God" must harbor no childish illusions about the matter but humbly renounce their liberty and humanity.

Posted by: spurges | July 24, 2008 2:23 PM

TS blathered

"Look at the contempt he is showering on the people who dare to disagree with him."

He is showing contempt for people who care more about a cracker than people.

Get that through your thick skull.

Posted by: TS | July 24, 2008 2:25 PM

>I've only seen contempt against people with unsupportable positions.

You mean we should dehumanize anyone with unsupportable positions? How is this different from what the religionists do?

Dehumanization is always illogical, and irrational.

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 2:27 PM

TS: Bill Donahue said something to the effect that he couldn't think of anything more vile than desecrating a communion wafer. Do you agree with that? Out of curiosity...

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2008 2:28 PM

It's just a cracker. And how exactly were public funds used?
This was PZ's response to The Catholic League harrasing the student. The point is that he won't be bullied and that it is JUST a cracker, despite what Catholics believe.

Posted by: Amy | July 24, 2008 2:31 PM

"One day some animal said, JEE it would be nice to grow a liver, I never had one before. And that is how we got a liver. Not to mention a heart, brain, eye, ear, nervous system, lungs, et al. Just because "natural selection" had some inkling it might be neat to have."

Ugh. Just stop, alright? You're making yourself look like a fool. Tell me you don't believe what you wrote there... please.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2008 2:33 PM

Hehehe! Turz is a riot!!!

Demons are real! Evolution is a lie!!!

Wow you're a fucktard.

But keep going, please, pretty please with Holy Water on top.

Posted by: Cowboy Bob | July 24, 2008 2:35 PM

Tard hearding is fun...ya sure, you betchya!

Posted by: turzovka | July 24, 2008 2:38 PM

Steve_C and Amy: I am capable of getting a joke, too. For those who think ID is a joke, I find the fact there are those who reject God entirely or any involvement in the evolution process to be even more laughable. At some point a giraffe was nothing more than an amoeba sized animal right? At some point in the evolution game, a liver was formed and an eyball, brain, et al. because that early form of life had none of them. So how did it happen? Why "natural selection" of course which is some inanimate force or sensory world that decides it is more fit to go right than left. So somehow, some non-intelligent "force" or whatever your screwy definition tries to dance around, was the engine that brought about a liver where there once was none. OH, that is SOOOOO CREDIBLE! No ID, just our own little friend, natural selection.

Posted by: Dahan | July 24, 2008 2:42 PM

Turzovka,

Sorry for overlooking your post. Easy to do here right now, but I do try not to do it.

First, you ask "And how do additional miracles bolster the atheist's argument of No God anyway?"
Well, I never said they would. You're the one that claims to believe in them, not me. But I had only heard of you talking about the ones from christian mythology.

Second, you claim to believe all sorts of supernatural things and state that you're "not looking for crazy improbable "natural" answers to try to explain them away.. "

Hmmm, neither are we. Not crazy ones. Although nature can seem pretty crazy at times. This falls back to the same old saw about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof. Time and again, the proof part falls down in the miracle department.

You speak of faith a lot. As Samuel Clemens once said "Faith is believing in something you know just ain't true." Faith is what people ask you to have when they can't show you any proof of something. The claim of a god's existence is an extraordinary claim, hard to think of one bigger. So where's the proof?

Oh, and as long as you believe in the existence of a devil, you really are bullet-proof to logic. You've got two imaginary entities that can be pointed to for anything that goes good or bad. Amazing that people still believe in this sort of thing in the year 2008.

Posted by: freethinker | July 24, 2008 2:45 PM

Chicago #372:

We don't have to explain it; it is presented without evidence. A list of people "cured" by magic water is not convincing to anyone that knows how people exaggerate and (yes, it's true) lie to make a point or for their own profit. The people that run Lourdes (and make a lot of money off of it) are not impartial witnesses. Of course they claim that it can cure people so that gullibles (like you) will use their claims to strengthen their faith and make the pilgramage themselves. Anyone can make these sort of claims about anything - do you know how many people swear that they have seen the Loch Ness monster? Yet there is zero credible proof. The legend continues, though, because it is good for business.

Incidentally, Lourdes has had about 200 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes) visit it since the magic lady "appeared" and you can only offer 12 "miracles" in the last 50 YEARS? If we assume 50 million visitors in the last 50 years (a gross underestimate) that's a cure rate of only 0.000024% - I think the placebo effect can easily cover that. And why is your god so stingy with his cures? Are the vast majority of people (many of which, I'm sure, are "good" Catholics) not "worth" curing? And if you really want to convince me, show me ONE amputee that has had his limb grow back after praying fervently at Lourdes (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/). Can't do it, can you? It's always something that we can't see or test - convenient, isn't it?

Posted by: freethinker | July 24, 2008 2:50 PM

Chicago #372:

We don't have to explain it; it is presented without evidence. A list of people "cured" by magic water is not convincing to anyone that knows how people exaggerate and (yes, it's true) lie to make a point or for their own profit. The people that run Lourdes (and make a lot of money off of it) are not impartial witnesses. Of course they claim that it can cure people so that gullibles (like you) will use their claims to strengthen their faith and make the pilgramage themselves. Anyone can make these sort of claims about anything - do you know how many people swear that they have seen the Loch Ness monster? Yet there is zero credible proof. The legend continues, though, because it is good for business.

Incidentally, Lourdes has had about 200 million people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes) visit it since the magic lady "appeared" and you can only offer 12 "miracles" in the last 50 YEARS? If we assume 50 million visitors in the last 50 years (a gross underestimate) that's a cure rate of only 0.000024% - I think the placebo effect can easily cover that. And why is your god so stingy with his cures? Are the vast majority of people (many of which, I'm sure, are "good" Catholics) not "worth" curing? And if you really want to convince me, show me ONE amputee that has had his limb grow back after praying fervently at Lourdes (http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/). Can't do it, can you? It's always something that we can't see or test - convenient, isn't it?

Posted by: Jon_in_Charlotte | July 24, 2008 3:10 PM

*bump*

It appears that any comment will likely get lost amongst the tidal wave of opinions, but, I hope that there might be a few that read of my experience in the links provided below.

10 years ago I would have likely found the cracker jokes and the Catholic bashing humorous. As a cradle Catholic who had waded, then swam, and eventually surfed into a secular lifestyle the teachings of the Church seemed foolish and backwards thinking.

However, my perceptions changed. I didn't choose for them to be changed nor was I seeking for them to be changed.

My experiences occurred in 3 parts. Each are short in length and written with an objective mindsight.

http://personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/awakening-the-soul/

http://personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/you-are-purified/

http://personalrevelation.wordpress.com/about-the-pages/abba/

My reason for my submission and subsequent bumps is to offer a testimony that presents a case that God does indeed exist. Non-believers are always insistent on being provided with proof. I can understand why. Some might see my experiences as a blessing, however, having lived with them I can attest that they are also a curse. The burden of truth carries a great weight on one's conscience.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 24, 2008 3:13 PM

#530--

I've been making that point over and over again

I want the religious people to use their magic prayer power to regrow a missing leg in controlled conditions.

They won't, because they can't. They are bullshitters who will believe anything that helps comfort them.

Posted by: NotAFuckTard | July 24, 2008 3:16 PM

Posted by: Jon_in_Charlotte | July 24, 2008 3:10 PM

Sorry Jon, try again.

Posted by: cicely | July 24, 2008 3:29 PM

Mercy! Yet another cracker thread!

From somewhere up-thread:

I have yet to hear a convincing argument from any atheist of why it is so culturally universal (and therefore apparently necessary) that humans "created" gods

Humans want explanations...for natural phenomena, for intangibles, for why we act the way we do. Hence, just-so stories, gods, and scientific procedures. It's about wanting to understand why.

Also, humans have a tendancy to anthropomorphize. We tend to attribute human motives and characteristics to every frickin' thing; trees, the weather, our pets, vans that persistently and maliciously hork up their serpentine belts for no adequately explained reason, sewing machines that deliberately suck fabric down into the bobbin slot and chew it up....but I digress.

These two things, taken together, seem to me to be good and sufficient explanation for why humans make up gods. But wait, there's more!

Also also, humans want to feel secure. We want it to be All Right. We want our boo-boos kissed (or at least we want the promise that, at some point in the future, they will be kissed). We want to think that Everything Works Out For The Best. We want to think that we a Special. We particularly don't want to have to know that one day, we will each and every one of us be dead and gone, our consciounesses ended, and likewise for everyone and everything we know and love. In short...we don't want to know that the universe doesn't care about us, individually or as a species. Lots more where we come from.

Cold, but true.

As to whether it's necessary...I would say, not necessarily. :) Human behavior is a spectrum (more like a series of spectra, but that just doesn't sing the way 'spectrum' does), and I suspect that it's always been a spectrum....just not necessarily the same spectrum, over time. Thoughts and feelings and behaviors don't fossilize well (in a physical sense). Further developments will tell us.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 24, 2008 3:40 PM

Pete Rooke #29,
"As I mentioned last night; you've had time to mull over my analogies and yet no one as sufficiently countered them. There is a phrase about the impossibility of defending the indefensible. PZ Myers actions are indefensible. And his acolytes appear to be willing partners to his crimes."

I'm a bit slow and have to confess I did not understand your point. Please provide another analogy, in graphic detail, for all of us to ponder. Please?

[Please feel free to use any of the following words: anal pear, chlorophilia (sexual attraction to plants), incest, foot of a corpse, Iron Maiden, interracial cannibalism, and Aztec human sacrifice rituals]

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 24, 2008 3:52 PM

#31,

Should PZ have solicited consecrated hosts which could only have been taken by people deceptively breaking a private contract? Technically speaking, no.

But he didn't. As Dan pointed out at #522, there simply is no contract involved, public or private, written or verbal. We can't even say there's a reasonable expectation that participants would know exactly what the clergy expects from them--evidently, both some Catholics and some invited non-Catholics (like my wife) don't.

If they gave a sort of orientation or posted a brief description of the ritual on the church door or something, it'd be different.

Posted by: Longstreet63 | July 24, 2008 4:15 PM

@478
Yes, I read about The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano, wherein a cracker literally became a tiny heart back in the 8th century yet is still miraculously amenable to analysis.

And you know, I was that close to being convinced when I read this line:

"The Flesh and the Blood have the same blood-type: AB (Blood-type identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin)."

Annnnnd...you lost me. Since The Holy Shroud is a medieval forgery with no blood whatsoever on it.

Too bad the prior claims about the World Health Organization investigating it don't seem to be mentioned. maybe that was in some chain email you received.

A Shame. Also a shame that, whatever it is in the little glass case, there's no proof that it was ever a cracker. I do wonder what a little DNA testing would show, though.

Posted by: SteveG | July 24, 2008 4:32 PM

RJ Chavez writes:

I am Catholic but am not insulted by your immaturity. Rather, I feel compelled to point out the obvious--that only a life devoid of meaning and things to do could concoct and implement such a childish act.

Posted by: Adobedragon | July 24, 2008 4:50 PM

One day some animal said, JEE it would be nice to grow a liver, I never had one before. And that is how we got a liver. Not to mention a heart, brain, eye, ear, nervous system, lungs, et al. Just because "natural selection" had some inkling it might be neat to have.

Oh my, that's mind rapingly stupid. Not only does Turdska (whatever) feel the need to personify natural selection, but he/she/it can't even get the narrative straight. First, it's the animal that wants to change its anatomy; then natural selection.

To paraphrase Mr. Universe from Serenity, "P.Z., you always bring us the very best trolls."

Posted by: Paul W. | July 24, 2008 4:57 PM

Anton Mates:

Should PZ have solicited consecrated hosts which could only have been taken by people deceptively breaking a private contract? Technically speaking, no.

But he didn't. As Dan pointed out at #522, there simply is no contract involved, public or private, written or verbal. We can't even say there's a reasonable expectation that participants would know exactly what the clergy expects from them--evidently, both some Catholics and some invited non-Catholics (like my wife) don't.

I think Sastra's right, and that wafernapping is technically (ridiculously) petty theft of a 2 cent cracker.

There doesn't have to be a contract; it's covered under the basic definition of theft, not by contract law.

Bear with me here...

Basically, any time you trick somebody out of their property, that's theft. (In Minnesota, it's covered under the "swindle" clause of Minnesota Statute 609.52) There doesn't have to be a custom rule defined by a contract ( implicit or explicit).

In cases where the terms under which you're given something are unclear, there's a gray area as to what constitutes tricking somebody into giving your property. Unfortunately, admitting that you knew they wouldn't give it to you without your pretending to follow their rules is pretty much an admission of guilt.

So legally, as I understand it, this sort of theft happens all the time, but it would be very weird to prosecute somebody for theft of a 2-cent cracker. (Or conspiracy to steal a few 2-cent crackers.)

For more on this, see OMH's comments (he's a former prosecutor) and my comments attempting to clarify his opinion in the "Fresh thread. Don't fill this one up!" thread:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_thread_dont_fill_this_on.php

Interesingly, by far the biggest thieves of wafers appear to be Catholics themselves. I'd guess they steal wafers and commit sacrilege with them millions of times a week and of course it goes unprosecuted.

Many Catholics don't buy all the Catholic dogma, and do NOT confess all their sins to the priest before taking communion. That violates the terms of use for the wafer, and they know it. So any not-entirely-orthodox Catholic who takes communion in a state of sin commits the crime of theft and the sin of sacrilege. (Cracker Jesus really hates being ingested into somebody who's in a state of sin. The sin---it burns!)

I myself committed wafer theft and tortured Jesus crackers hundreds of times, when I was a Catholic. No way was I going to tell a priest all my sins, or refrain from communion and have to explain why to my parents. You can bet that millions of "good" but not dogmatic Catholics do the same.

So it appears that there's some possibility that PZ could be prosecuted by an overzealous prosecutor---but if he was, the Catholic church would be put in the awkward position of having to explain why they're so upset about this cracker theft and not the millions of cracker thefts they ignore.

Much hilarity would ensue, and I'll bet they don't want that.

Posted by: Zorpheous | July 24, 2008 5:07 PM

I would have fed the crack to my pet Octopus. Or maybe just slushed it down the toilet,... after all that what Catholics do it about 24 hours later. Do they use special toiletpaper bless by the Poop to ensure the body of Christ doesn't suffer from Kilingon?

Posted by: Paul W. | July 24, 2008 5:12 PM

SDG,

Where is the outrage among the dogmatic Eucharist-adoring Catholics about the millions of Hosts that are stolen and eaten sacrilegiously by less dogmatic Catholics?

I think the most underreported aspect of this dustup is that the reaction to PZ exposes the hypocrisy of Catholics about the Host.

Why is it not a pressing problem to root out the millions of heretical Catholics who commit a crime against the Church and a sin against God, all over the world, week in and week out?

This is all ridiculous. You guys should check out that beam in your own eye---it's a doozy.

Posted by: palmira | July 24, 2008 6:11 PM

I will go back to the Fátima business, I´m still trying to find some references in english to a (very) skeptical witnesses of the so called «miracle» of Fátima, the photographer sent there by the newspaper Século and his nephew (I have the live report of the grandfather of a friend of mine that lived nearby and saw absolutely nothing, not even freak meterological conditions...).

But the thing about the propalled miracles of Lourdes remembered me of something I wrote about two years ago, the despair of Jacques Perrier, Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes and the most senior cleric at the Catholic shrine, about the scarcity of "miracles" taking place there and the indignity of some of them. No spectacular cures only supposed cures of rheumatic disorders and the like. Between 1858 and 2006, only 57 "miracles" took place and 4 only between 1978 and 2006.

Even though that's no big news to the Catholic Church that has been «forced» to make new saints with things like the one behind the beatification of the last emperor of Austria, Karl I, an alleged alcoholic adulterer who sprayed poison gas on enemy soldiers in World War I. The Pontiff argued that Karl had fulfilled the saintly criteria by suffering for his beliefs and "performing a miracle", in this case curing a Brazilian woman of pesky varicose veins.

And some of them are really irksome like the portuguese that regained miraculously the use of her legs, with the "scientific" evidence provided by the Vatican and three portuguese doctors (father, mother and daughter, all of them devoted catholics). She died shortly after, completely cured, and the miraculous cure of Maria Emília Santos was enough for the beatification in 2000 of the two little sheperds that died shortly after the sun danced in Cova da Iria.

But it was very bothersome for the bishop that was loosing clients, as the Time wrote back then «with the church facing stiff competition from evangelists, apparently less picky when it comes to proclaiming miraculous cures, Perrier wants the guidelines to be changed so that news of an unexplained cure can be announced as soon as it happens. Cures could be categorised as "unexpected" or "exceptional" -- a sort of sub-miracle category».

Now using the Guardian report on the case «The bishop said he had been inspired by two healings in the past 15 years that in his view were miraculous but were not recognised».

But recent reports from the french police suggest that the inspiration may had been miraculous but in a different sense :)

At least that's what I thought when I read that the Roman Catholic shrine of Lourdes «a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/13/catholicism.france">is at the centre of a major and very mundane fraud investigation. Father Raymond Zambelli, the 65-year-old Treasurer and Rector of the pilgrimage site, is suspected of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Much of the money was raised for the sick and the dying who visit the shrine but ended up in the priest bank account, probably due to...a miracle?»

Posted by: Colin Principe | July 24, 2008 6:23 PM

What a class act PZ is.

I wonder if he goes to the houses of vegetarians bearing steaks or stands outside NOW and shouts "Nice tits baby!"

Posted by: SDG | July 24, 2008 7:28 PM

CJO: I agree that the main issue now appears to be semantic. FWIW, I wouldn't say that "In the case of racial slurs, we, as a society have come to the position that they must be accepted." They may be protected, legally, but they don't have to be accepted, either socially or, e.g., institutionally. You can't be prosecuted for using the n-word, but you can be socially ostracized and you can lose your job, depending on circumstances.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 24, 2008 7:39 PM

J. A. Stuart
Commander, United States Navy

Wow, I don't know how it is in the US services, but here in Canada, I'd have been disciplined for signing my rank on a non-military message board post. In fact, I'm pretty certain someone doing that would be disciplined now.

Of course, I was only a two-ringer back in the day. Maybe times have changed.

Posted by: CortxVortx | July 24, 2008 8:09 PM

Re: #256

Craig, you're on track to beat yesterday's record:
58 posts over 7 hours, averaging 1 post every 7 minutes 21 seconds
(MAJeff is not far behind at 1 post every 9 minutes 43 seconds, for 6.5 hours)

Best of all: No truth machine!

Posted by: TSS | July 24, 2008 9:17 PM

Jesus Christ on a cracker....it's a damn cracker!! No real live people were hurt, it's a cracker. Do you seriously think that your god is so weak he has the strength of a cracker and would allow himself to be taken advantage of?? Invent a stronger god and don't make him a cracker.

Posted by: articulett | July 24, 2008 9:21 PM

Damn... I wish I could edit for typos..

Ah well. My applause to Craig and PZ and the many funny, rational and eloquent posters. I hope to be more like you.

(At least as a skeptic, I can learn from my mistakes... I think the theists posting here have convinced themselves that they are immune from making them.)

I'm voting for PZ to desecrate sacred Mormon Underwear next.

Posted by: SDG | July 24, 2008 9:44 PM

Your position, it seems to me, requires that some subset of Catholics--Bill Donohue and his buddies, or the Vatican, or somebody--gets to decree what the legal terms of use will be for crackers handed out by all Catholics. I just don't find that legally or morally tenable.

FWIW, the "terms of use" are (a) set forth in canon law and (b) printed in missalettes that can be found in virtually every parish church in the United States. A statement of terms can also be found at the website of the US bishops here. Since the bishop has responsibility for every parish in the diocese and the priest exercises his ministry only under the local bishop, the rules apply in every parish.

That's not to deny that innocently ignorant people may violate the terms without incurring guilt, or that lax priests may abet such abuses. But the rules are what they are.

Incidentally, it is not correct that Catholics must confess all their sins before receiving communions. Confession of venial sins is voluntary; only confession of known mortal sin is obligatory. (If anyone needs clarification on the distinction between mortal sin and grave matter, I'd be happy to oblige. :-)

Posted by: JoJo | July 24, 2008 10:03 PM

Many of the Catholics posting here appear convinced that papal infallibility extends to them. Fr.J, Sandi, and SDG come immediately to mind.

Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | July 24, 2008 11:55 PM

SDG says, "That's not to deny that innocently ignorant people may violate the terms without incurring guilt, or that lax priests may abet such abuses. But the rules are what they are."

Well, evidently, the "what they are" rules seem pretty good at ignoring (if not cultivating) the violations and abuses.

Or, perhaps the effectiveness of the rules just ain't "what they are"? Or, perhaps (dare I raise the possibility?) that the interpretation or execution of the rules are subject to personal judgement? Say, largely on a case-by-case basis primarily governed by the overpowering tendency to cover one's ass?

As rules EVERYWHERE are typically observed?

BTW, your "small hope that [your] efforts haven't been...wholly lost on everyone here" is MAGNIFICENTLY unimpressive and forgettable. No, don't blush - I really believe it. It really IS that magnificent.

Posted by: Vickie | July 25, 2008 12:27 AM

Eternal Father, I offer you the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of your dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Holy God, Holy mighty one, Holy Immortal one. Have mercy on us and on the whole world.

Jesus I trust in You.

Posted by: j.e.madden | July 25, 2008 12:56 AM

It seems respect for anyone or anything is a hard thing to come by nowadays, from the religous, AND the anti-religous. So you don't believe, okay whatever, do you really have to pull a stunt like this? Seems like a petty cry for attention... easy to understand though, since shock value is quite the rage these days. Still, as a Catholic convert I would just like to say that I respect anyone with a different opinion, I would just ask the same respect for something that we hold sacred.

Posted by: Cracker Jack | July 25, 2008 3:13 AM

The Big Bang theory that the universe originated in an extremely dense and hot space and expanded was developed by a Belgian priest. It's interesting to note that those people, the first scientists, were all monks, they were all clerics!

People today aren't even aware of this fact!

Here are some examples of scientists who were Catholic clergy:

1. Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.
2. Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.
3. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.
4. Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.
5. Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.
6. Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.
7. Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.
8. Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

The conflict between evolutionary science and creationism in the United States comes from the Protestant tradition, not the Catholic one, he said.

American Catholicism is in a Protestant culture," he said. "We borrow a lot of our attitudes, along with a lot of our hymns, and not always the best of either.

Unfortunate, but true.

List of Catholic Scientists

Algue, a priest, invented the barocyclonometer, to detect approach of cyclones.

Ampere was founder of the science of electrodynamics, and investigator of the laws of electro-magnetism.

Becquerel, Antoine Cesar, was the founder of electro-chemistry.

Becquerel, Antoine Henri, was the discoverer of radio-activity.

Binet, mathematician and astronomer, set forth the principle, "Binet's Theorem."

Braille invented the Braille system for the blind.

Buffon wrote the first work on natural history.

Carrell, Nobel prize winner in medicine and physiology, is renowned for his work in surgical technique.

Caesalpinus, a Papal physician, was the first to construct a system of botany.

Cassiodorus, a priest, invented the watch.

Columbo discovered the pulmonary circulation of the blood.

Copernicus, a priest, expounded the Copernican system.

Coulomb established the fundamental laws of static electricity.

De Chauliac, a Papal physician, was the father of modern surgery and hospitals.

De Vico, a priest, discovered six comets. Descartes founded analytical geometry.

Dumas invented a method of ascertaining vapor densities.

Endlicher, botanist and historian, established a new system of classifying plants.

Eustachius, for whom the Eustachian tube was named, was one of the founders of modern anatomy.

Fabricius discovered the valvular system of the veins.

Fallopius, for whom the Fallopian tube was named, was an eminent physiologist.

Fizeau was the first to determine experimentally the velocity of light.

Foucault invented the first practical electric arc lamp; he refuted the corpuscular theory of light; he invented the gyroscope.

Fraunhofer was initiator of spectrum analysis; he established laws of diffraction.

Fresnel contributed more to the science of optics than any other man.

Galilei, a great astronomer, is the father of experimental science.

Galvani, one of the pioneers of electricity, was also an anatomist and physiologist.

Gioja, father of scientific navigation, invented the mariner's compass.

Gramme invented the Gramme dynamo.

Guttenberg invented printing.

Herzog discovered a cure for infantile paralysis.

Holland invented the first practical sub marine.

Kircher, a priest, made the first definite statement of the germ theory of disease.

Laennec invented the stethoscope.

Lancist, a Papal physician, was the father of clinical medicine.

Latreille was pioneer in entomology.

Lavoisier is called Father of Modern Chemistry.

Leverrier discovered the planet Neptune.

Lully is said to have been the first to employ chemical symbols.

Malpighi, a Papal physician, was a botanist, and the father of comparative physiology.

Marconi's place in radio is unsurpassed. Mariotte discovered Mariotte's law of gases.

Mendel, a monk, first established the laws of heredity, which gave the final blow to the theory of natural selection.

Morgagni, founder of modern pathology; made important studies in aneurisms.

Muller was the greatest biologist of the 19th century, founder of modern physiology.

Pashcal demonstrated practically that a column of air has weight.

Pasteur, called the "Father of Bacteriology," and inventor of bio-therapeutics, was the leading scientist of the 19th century.

Picard, a priest, was the first to measure accurately a degree of the meridian.

Regiomontanus, a Bishop and Papal astronomer; was the father of modern astronomy.

Scheiner, a priest, invented the pantograph, and made a telescope that permitted the first systematic investigation of sun spots.

Secchi invented the meteorograph. Steensen, a Bishop, was the father of geology.

Theodoric, a Bishop, discovered anesthesia in the 13th century.

Torricelli invented the barometer.

Vesalius was the founder of modern anatomical science.

Volta invented the first; complete galvanic battery; the "volt" is named after him.

Other scientists: Agricola, Albertus Magnus, Bacon, Bartholomeus, Bayma, Beccaria, Behalm, Bernard, Biondo, Biot, Bolzano, Borrus, Boscovitch, Bosio, Bourgeois, Branly, Caldani, Cambou, Camel, Cardan, Carnoy, Cassini, Cauchy, Cavaliere, Caxton, Champollion, Chevreul, Clavius, De Rossi, Divisch, Dulong, Dwight, Eckhel, Epee, Fabre, Fabri, Faye, Ferrari, Gassendi, Gay-Lussac, Gordon, Grimaldi, Hauy, Heis, Helmont, Hengler, Heude, Hilgard, Jussieu, Kelly, Lamarck, Laplace, Linacre, Malus, Mersenne, Monge, Muller, Murphy, Murray, Nelston, Nieuwland, Nobili, Nollet, Ortelius, Ozaman, Pelouze, Piazzi, Pitra, Plumier, Pouget, Provancher, Regnault, Riccioli, Sahagun, Santorini, Schwann, Schwarz, Secchi, Semmelweis, Spallanzani, Takamine, Tieffentaller, Toscanelli, Tulasne, Valentine, Vernier, Vieta, Da Vinci, Waldseemuller, Wincklemann, Windle, and a host of others, too many to mention.

Posted by: MarkW | July 25, 2008 4:44 AM

#580

Before the industrial revolution, the clergy was the major class of people with any time on their hands to actually do science.

Before the reformation, it was virtually impossible not to be a catholic.

Rather neatly demolishes your talking point there Cracker Jack.

Posted by: Turzovka | July 25, 2008 9:10 AM

I, for one, have argued with atheists, agnostics and pagans for years on trying to establish the credibility of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ. By and large I would say it has been futile. But Scripture does point out that most are "called" by the Holy Spirit so does that mean our efforts are not warranted? I think not because Jesus also made clear to go to all corners of the world announcing the good news. So that leaves God's final judgment on each and every soul a great mystery.

I will say this. I am convinced to utter certainty of the existence of heaven, hell and purgatory. I am totally certain the Christian faith is the one, true faith established by Jesus Christ the only Son of God and even if Muslims, Buddhists, pagans and atheists are to be saved, it is only through Jesus this can ever be.

So I see no point in trying to point out the absurdity of evolution without God or the irrefutable evidence of the supernatural in thousands of miracles, apparitions, and divine manifestations. After all, it is the skeptic who has zero use for faith, he demands empirical evidence for God. So you supply such evidence in these supernatural manifestations and they respond with the most absurd, improbable possibilities as to what else might explain the event or apparition, etc. So it becomes a dead end, unfortunately, because to explain Christianity in terms of historical documentation, in terms of Scriptural prophecies, in terms of the blood of the martyrs and early eye witnesses to the resurrection, in terms of the lives and revelations of the saints, in terms of the incalculable amounts of charity and kindness bestowed upon the poor, oppressed, sick, the bold witness to hostile nations, in terms of how Christianity brought civilization, government and order to barbaric world, in terms of the undeniable plight of the Jews who were used by God to manifest Himself to the world, to explain Christianity in any terms ---- it does not impress the skeptic. Why?

Because most do not want to know God. They do not want to be accountable for their sins or their lifestyle to God, if there is one. They do not want to be judged, they want to plead ignorance at the end of their days. Oh, there are many other reasons for rejecting God's message, but most are found to be wanting. I do find it interesting that God is so much closer to the poor, the sick, the oppressed and impoverished, and those who are without hope for this life. As the Virgin Mary said to Pachi, a visionary in Ecuador, "Most come to know God only on bended knees."

That is not so hard to believe. But it is tragic. If Christianity is correct, then eternal life is just that ---- forever. And there is eternal reward and eternal suffering. Don't rail against God and say how could he be so punishing to some? God's ways are not our ways, He has revealed enough to us to trust Him. He has promised us eternal life and happiness, and we are to call Him unfair with that gift of love? Those whose fate may be in hell are only there because they have chosen so. They willingly and knowingly have rejected God's love and mercy for reasons of pride, hate, anger, selfishness, or whatever. I do believe anyone who truly wants to know God and be forgiven, they will not end up in hell, but may very well spend centuries in purgatory being purified. It seems apparent almost everyone who ends up in heaven will be in purgatory for some period. That is God's mercy overcoming His justice. What a gift!

So when someone responds to this in terms of "you have no way of knowing anything, why should I care" I will not be surprised. But what have they to gain by remaining a critic without any certainty of their own what lies beyond the grave? What good is their cursing the darkness? What hope to they bring to the down trodden and the destitute? What merit is there in mocking Christ by putting a Darwinian fish on their bumper sticker? What merit is there in denying heaven and hell and just living out one's days in total uncertainty? As I have stated, there are countless miracles associated with the saints and others that demand a verdict. To ignore them is to make a choice as to what you care about in this life. To me it sounds very much like the great sin of pride --- the very sin that brought God's most beautiful angel, Lucifer, to his demise. One had better be certain that Jesus Christ is not true or the answer to the world before one curses Him.

Posted by: turzovka | July 25, 2008 9:44 AM

To Spurge:

Yes, and your responses to my "crap" are so filled with intellectual arguments or opposing documentation. NOT. More just the "your a jerk" kind of comments which must make you feel all puffed up and confident around your friends. "You really told him off buddy!"

Posted by: turzovka | July 25, 2008 10:16 AM

So the whole world is a liar, is that is SEF (#587)?

If you were not there to see it for yourself, then 70,000 who were there had to be liars. If you want to deal in facts then go read the anti-clerical, communist Lisbon newspaper account from October 15th. They were enemies of the church, they had every reason to want to discredit this event. Go check the weather reports for Lisbon and Fatima on October 13, 1917. You will note it was rainy for several days including that one. The newspaper article and all the witnesses report of the soggy clothes and soaked, muddy ground turning to bone dry after 12 minutes of this solar phenomenon. Lies? And do you science folks deal in probabilities? What is the probability that 3 young children could predict the exact day this solar phenonmenon would occur three months in advance? What is the probability this sun would burst onto the scene through a dark, rainy sky almost on command and do its thing? Finally, what is the probability that those who so-do-not want to believe in this God will reach for any straw to try to explain it away? Your answer sounds so desperate and agenda driven I cannot take it seriously.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 25, 2008 10:21 AM

@Colin Principe #558
What a class act PZ is.

Yes, he is. Certainly compared to scum like Bill Donohue and his legions of trolls.

I wonder if he goes to the houses of vegetarians bearing steaks or stands outside NOW and shouts "Nice tits baby!"

Well, those are interesting suggestions. Let's compare them to the situation and see if they are in any way relevant!

First off, are these hypothetical vegetarians bothering someone else? Do they have an arrogant hate-mongering media-whore spokesman who sets himself up as the voice of all TRUE vegetarians? Do they support an organization that has a long-standing policy of harboring and protecting child molesters? Have they issued death threats, veiled or otherwise? Have they sent legions of trolls to storm the blog of a rational man to demand that he respect irrational beliefs in the supernatural?

No? No to ALL of these things? Wow! So, in other words, that example has nothing to do with anything!

Let's look at the second example. Are the members of NOW bothering someone else (other than, merely by existing, bothering insecure conservatives who think uppity women need to be kept down)? Do they have an arrogant hate-mongering media-whore spokeswoman who sets herself up as the voice of all TRUE women? Do they support an organization that has a long-standing policy of harboring and protecting child molesters? Have they issued death threats, veiled or otherwise (no; refusing to wash your socks and cook your dinner does not count)? Have they sent legions of trolls to storm the blog of a rational man to demand that he respect irrational beliefs in the supernatural?

Gosh, the answer to all of those is also a resounding NO!
There's no comparison at all! Thanks for providing this handy illustration of exactly what morally empty shithead you are? And now, please feel free to fuck the fucking fuck off.

Posted by: turzovka | July 25, 2008 10:28 AM

Steve C (#589), I am not a troll. What is a troll anyway?
I am your conscience. I am gentle exhortations representing Christ as a servant of his. There is no easy way to prick your heart. Surely if I said "Jesus loves you, won't you share in his message?" that would not do anything for you. It seems to me, the more militant opponents of the faith like to tell us Christians to be kind as your Lord would have you --- is that so we can be more easily ignored? Or I would be remiss if I did not mention your all time favorite "Judge not, lest ye be judged." That one is misused more than any other Scripture I know of. What it does not mean is to keep quiet. It does not mean to let others mock and plunder. It means do not dare suggest what final fate awaits any man. But do not be afraid to call sin a sin. Not that I'm pefect, mind you. :)

Posted by: Donovan | July 25, 2008 10:46 AM

*giddy with laughter*

I know this isn't the right thread, but PZ closed it before I could post. I'm referring to his "Great Desecration." One of the Catholics referred to "Myers and Co." HA! Someone gave us credit for supporting his sacrilege. Prof. Myers, I am glad to have been condemned by your side. Granted, I was thrown (quite literally, by the collar of my Sunday best) from the Catholic Church (St. Peters, NH) while in the second grade for blasphemy. I had accused the priest of "kissy, kissy" in his private confessional. I was indeed a monstrous child and I do owe my current education to the nuns of a Catholic school, but that tumble down cement stairs into the New England icy snow was the best thing that could have happened to me. Ravage the crackers!!!

Posted by: gathererofknowledge | July 25, 2008 10:53 AM

You know, I also wonder why God doesn't create any miracle that is so obvious that people would fall down in awe and worship Him. I.e. proving once and for all that He's the Almighty.
My ultimate answer is: I have no idea so why don't we all ask Him instead of others who also have no idea. My penultimate answer is that He doesn't want everyone to believe in Him. It's that simple. You may argue that if God is so loving He would want everyone to love Him so He can share His love with everyone. But you are not God. No human being is God. And that kind of thinking is that of a human being. All we know of God is what He deigned to tell us. And this is not done directly, but through other human beings. And you ask why this God doesn't do something so awesome that you simply cannot deny the fact that he is God. If he is that kind of God, do you think He would reveal Himself through other human beings?

Posted by: gathererofknowledge | July 25, 2008 11:04 AM

Should any religionists care if atheists are going to hell, especially when those atheists don't believe there is a hell in the first place? As to why they are going to hell or are they actually going to Hell, don't ask me. Cause I'm not God.
Why should we Catholics care if anyone desecrate the Eucharist? It's not as if tolerating it means we are bad Catholics (at least not in my opinion). After all Jesus has been hurt so much from the start of His ministry till this very moment, so what's some extra wounds? And desecrating the Eucharist doesn't make Jesus any less God or Man or Redeemer or what have you.

Posted by: turzovka | July 25, 2008 11:06 AM

Nick (#597), I am not convinced God will torture anyone forever. And torture is not the right word, but leave that aside for the moment. I am convinced that God is giving us the proper message for all souls on earth to learn, know, serve and obey. I am convinced of eternal life and happiness in heaven. What ultimately happens to those who reject God with contempt I do not dare say for certain. They may be blotted out of existence. They may be given another chance to live by trial eons from now. They may be blotted out of our consciences in heaven as well. So perhaps God is just telling us it will be eternal punishment, because it some ways it truly is, but in more sublime, godly ways of thinking it does not necessarily apply. Irrespective, it is what God wants us to understand for our own good and salvation.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2008 11:09 AM

I think we are who we are by choosing how rational we want to be. Choosing to believe in gods. for which there is no evidence, and has never been evidence for. is irrational.

The world appears to need no supernatural deity to be exactly as it is. So what's the point? Fear of death is probably the strongest instinct most have... an afterlife allays that fear, I think that's the main reason most people choose to be irrational. Believing that if you follow the right rules of your chosen superstition, you'll never die, or will be given paradise is irrational, I think even stupid and unhealthy.

Posted by: gathererofknowledge | July 25, 2008 11:22 AM

Nick (#599), that's one possibility. I think I'll politely disagree, though.

MAJeff, OM (#601) Catholicism (and probably all Christianity too) is all about Jesus being tortured and mortified a long time ago, so yes, again with the torture and mortification fetishism.

Posted by: gathererofknowledge | July 25, 2008 11:30 AM

Benjamin Franklin (#603), you're absolutely correct. It can't be proved that anyone has got hold of The Truth. But irrational old me has arbitrarily decided to believe that the Catholic church has a firmer grasp of The Truth than other religions and irrational old me has no intention of defending his arbitrary decision using facts that can't be proven anyway. And irrational old me will stick to his decision until the moment he dies when he'll find out how irrational and arbitrary he is. And that's his choice.

Posted by: Damian | July 25, 2008 11:44 AM

gathererofknowledge:

I think that there is much validity to what you have said. Sometimes atheists can go overboard, in my opinion, when claiming that our atheism is entirely a rational, evidence based decision. That is often an ad hoc interpretation, in my experience, although I do not doubt that many people have seriously looked at the evidence [or lack thereof] and concluded that there is no rational basis for believing.

Of the many stories that I have heard about personal journeys from theism to atheism, very few have mentioned that they were persuaded entirely by evidence. Many people talk about a kind of epiphany [in the non-religious sense of the word] where they pretty much wake up one day and it hits them. I am generalizing here, of course.

All that I would say to you is that there are ethical issues concerned with belief [The duty to believe according to the evidence -- it's very long, but it lays out the evidentialist position], and a theistic morality is certainly not as straight forward, or defensible, as some believers would like to think -- in fact, I would suggest that it is decidedly indefensible [Read this].

In many ways, that is why I believe that theists have a fairly unique duty to make sure that members of their own faith do not allow themselves to become too fanatical. You may say that is unfair, but if you admit that much of what you believe is not grounded in evidence, you must also accept that that very mode of thinking is more susceptible to producing fanatics.

And why wouldn't it be. With all due respect, and as we have seen with cracker-gate, the process that one must go through to convince themselves that a food item really does become the body of Jesus Christ -- a man who, even if he is a real historical figure [and there is some doubt about that], has been dead for over nearly 2000 years -- often manifests itself in a strange sort of devotion. That is not the case with factual claims, in my experience.

There are few, if any, people that are fanatical about the Theory of Evolution. All that I have to do is present the evidence and argue a case. There is no faith involved. When you believe outlandish claims, and become reliant on them for comfort, health, happiness, etc, you will be prepared to go to greater and greater lengths to rationalize those beliefs. I don't believe that this is healthy -- at least not in some people.

That is why it is often very difficult for an atheist to have a discussion with a certain percentage of believers. It is almost as if they don't take in a single word that you say to them, and instead continually repeat things that you have long shown to be faulty. Once again, I am generalizing, of course, and there are some theists that are extremely intelligent, rational, and interesting to talk to, but there are also many that worry me in their disconnectedness from reality.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2008 12:09 PM

Where do you get these ideas from? It's all just a man made construct. Circular and pointless.

Posted by: Damian | July 25, 2008 12:19 PM

gathererofknowledge said:

Eternal suffering and eternal torture are two different things. The first implies no doer (person causing suffering) while the second more than implies a doer (an actual torturer). Now you may ask why would a loving God want to torture His creation eternally in Hell. You're right. He doesn't want to. Nor does He actually torture them. He simply creates a painful place for those who don't want to be with Him and let them live there eternally.

You may also ask why an all-powerful God doesn't simply forgive the sins of everyone and unite all His creation in Paradise. It simple. He isn't that all-powerful. He puts limits on Himself. And one of His limits is issuing blanket amnesties. Another one is forcing people to accept Him or even believe in Him. A third is acting as if it's okay to force those living in Hell to accept Him, just as long as they don't suffer eternally.

With all due respect, gathererofknowledge, you seem like a nice person, but this is what I was talking about in the post above yours. This reasoning is shown to be both wrongheaded, and dare I say, immoral, with a simple example:

Let's say that you have the choice between sending a group of children [perhaps your own?] to a place that they really, really don't like going to -- even to the point where it caused them great suffering -- would you consider it moral to claim that you cannot not send them to this place because you have limited yourself in such a way?

Just think about what you are saying in ethical terms. Many theists retort that we can not possibly limit God by holding him to our own ethical standards, but that is simply a cop-out. For a start, if God is omnibenevolent, and we are expected to behave in a certain manner, according to what God considers to be good, then even if God's moral nature goes far beyond ours, His must necessarily include our idea of what is good.

As what you have described is not the case, there are only two options -- (1) God is evil, and/or (2) your interpretation is false.

This might also interest you: The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 25, 2008 12:31 PM

Now you may ask why would a loving God want to torture His creation eternally in Hell. You're right. He doesn't want to. Nor does He actually torture them. He simply creates a painful place for those who don't want to be with Him and let them live there eternally. - gathererofknowledge

This is ludicrous sophistry. He "creates a painful place", which he knows people are going to end up in, and then denies responsibility for their eternal suffering. Not only a torturer, but a moral coward.

You may also ask why an all-powerful God doesn't simply forgive the sins of everyone and unite all His creation in Paradise. It simple. He isn't that all-powerful. He puts limits on Himself. And one of His limits is issuing blanket amnesties.

Why? Since this "self-limitation" is going to result in an infinite amount of suffering, it would be an evil thing to do.

Posted by: turzovka | July 25, 2008 12:44 PM

Nick (#614),

As far as I am concerned there are only two "eternal" questions that address all of mankind's stuggles with God, death, and the unknown.

1) Why are we given life or why are we here? (This would include the other often asked question "Why does God allow suffering on earth?")

2) Why would a supposed all good God allow people to suffer in hell, apparently forever?

Both questions are beyond the scope of man as far as I am concerned, but the first one may be more easier to venture a guess. Would you prefer to have a beautiful woman arranged to be your wife or would you prefer she choose to be your wife? Which would give you greater satisfaction? Perhaps God created mankind to be subject to some trial and those who stay obedient or seek to love God are of greater joy to Him, than say the angels who are beyond sinning or falling away (Lucifer in eons past notwithstanding).

Question #2, I answer this way again. God has revealed more than enough, empirically and otherwise to me that there is no question in my mind of his existence and the truth of His Son Jesus Christ. In so many ways, I am grateful and feel very much assured of his mercy and his promises of eternal life and happiness. What a feeling of security and serenity. To be able to know there is life beyond the grave, you can be with your loved ones, and to know you will live forever and not be blotted out into non-existence. I am convinced of this, I see the evidence for it, and so I am grateful. Therefore: When God then says "my ways are not your ways, i.e. do not question that which is beyond your understanding or need to know" then I accept that. I cannot understand hell, I cannot understand how someone would be bound there forever, so I do not question it. It will always be a mystery for man, but God is so superior in his thoughts and ways, there may be something quite valid about it that will some day be made clear. No need to question the mystical or that which we are not privy to, just obey and be grateful. I know enough. It very well may be that no one is in hell forever, but God poses it that way for man to process his own path properly. Good enough for me.

Posted by: Paul W. | July 25, 2008 1:09 PM

That got me thinking: do we Catholics worship a piece of bread? Not really. We don't worship the Eucharist (your cracker) like we don't worship statues and crucifixes.

I think you're mistaken. Many Catholics do worship the Host. Look up "transubstantiation," "Real Presence", and "adoration of the Eucharist" in the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

Dogma says that the Host is literally transubstantiated into the Body of Christ. It's the body of the living god. It is god. And it's a good thing to "adore" it, which doesn't mean standing around saying "what a cute cracker!"

I think that by any reasonable standard, that's a form of worship---worshipping God in the form of a cracker---and it's also idolatry.

Catholics aren't supposed to admit that, and have some very special terms and fancy footwork to avoid it, but I do think that's what it is.

(And of course I'm not alone. That's one of the things the Protestant Reformation was about.)

Catholics like to say that adoration of the Eucharist isn't anything like pagan idol worship.

But then, Catholics have never been very interested in what pagan idol worship is actually about---do idol-worshipping pagans really worship mere wood and stone objects in a different, worse sense? Generally, they don't. They do the same kind of fancy footwork, and are more likely to believe in something weaker like consubstantiation than transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation and eucharist adoration are about as idol-worshipping as idol-worshipping actually gets. If it doesn't count as idol-worship (believing that a mundane physical object literally is a god, and adoring that object as a form of worshipping the God), nothing does.

Posted by: spurge | July 25, 2008 1:15 PM

More hand waving and special pleading than superstition I think.

Posted by: spurge | July 25, 2008 1:21 PM

"And my particular religion (Catholicism) believes it has the clearest refection of God's morals and ethics. "

and yet they protect pedophile priests, help spread AIDS, oppress Homosexuals and Women.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 25, 2008 1:43 PM

It seems to me that atheists and religionists live in two different worlds (realities). - GoK

It seems to me theists live in a fantasy, atheists (some of them, at any rate) in the real world!

Posted by: Lucifer | July 25, 2008 2:00 PM

than say the angels who are beyond sinning or falling away (Lucifer in eons past notwithstanding).

Make up your mind, willya?

Did I have a choice to rebel?

If I did, then I have as much free will as you. In fact, I have more free will — I knew for a fact that God existed when I rebelled. You humans don't.

If I didn't have a choice to rebel, then I don't have free will. So I'm just God's sock puppet.

So which is it? Free-willed angel, in which case humans are redundant, or sock-puppet?

And if the latter, how do you know that you're not actually all sock-puppets too?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 25, 2008 2:04 PM

Hey, Lucifer,
Has it been one of your chaps playing at being God for turzovka all the time?

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 2:08 PM

Paul W:

I think you're mistaken. Many Catholics do worship the Host.

The word "host" is from the Latin hostia, "sacrificial victim," i.e., Jesus. Yes, Catholics worship the Host, i.e., our passover sacrifice, God incarnate in Jesus Christ, whom we believe to be present under the appearances of bread.

However, even if you disbelieve in the Real Presence, it is a category mistake to say "Catholics worship a piece of bread." They do not. They direct their worship to God whom they believe to be present under the appearances of bread. On the hypothesis that He is not present, their worship would then be directed to an unreal, imagined object, but it is still not directed at bread. Bread is finite. We cannot worship what is finite.

Dr. Johnson (a Protestant) understood this quite well: "Sir, there is no idolatry in the Mass. [Catholics] believe [God] to be there, and they adore him."

That's one of the things the Protestant Reformation was about.

Not exactly. Both Lutherans and Anglicans believed that Jesus was really bodily present in the Eucharist, with some philosophical differences in explanation. It would be better to say "That was one of a complex of ideas that eventually came out of the Reformation."

If it doesn't count as idol-worship (believing that a mundane physical object literally is a god, and adoring that object as a form of worshipping the God), nothing does.

However, the same argument could equally be extended to argue that worshiping God incarnate in the flesh would also be "idolatry."

In Judeo-Catholic thought, "idolatry" might be defined as "worship directed to anything or anyone less/other than the eternal, infinite Creator God who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses."

What makes pagan worship "idolatry" is not ultimately that they do it before a bit of wood or stone, but that they offer worship to what is finite, whether you call it "a statue" or "Dagon" abstractly conceived.

Posted by: turzovka | July 25, 2008 2:14 PM

Lucifer (pitiful you should assume such a name)(#626),

In eons past long before man came on the scene, apparently you did have the free will to rebel. (I bet you're regretting that move?)

Anyway, God is God so He does as He so wills. He has revealed much knowledge and understanding through His inspired saints, those like Catherina of Sienna. She is beyond reproach. Her words are words of divine wisdom and the Church has benefited immeasurably from such revelations. If they instruct us that angels no longer can be tempted by sin, then so it is. Big deal.

God also said at some point in Scripture, I assume once the population of the earth was suffice, no longer can marriage or relations within the same family be allowed. And so it is. He also cut short the life span of man to no more than 120 years after populations grew. And so it is. Don't get hung up on those little incongruencies or paradoxes that you think are smoking guns. It is the enormous white elephants in the room (or should I say that cross?) which you seem to be ignoring for ulterior reasons. Just a guess on my part.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2008 2:17 PM

Bread is finite. We cannot worship what is finite.

So why the fuss over the cracker?

However, the same argument could equally be extended to argue that worshiping God incarnate in the flesh would also be "idolatry."

In Judeo-Catholic thought, "idolatry" might be defined as "worship directed to anything or anyone less/other than the eternal, infinite Creator God who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses."

The Jewish take on Christianity is certainly that it is idolatry. Of course, saying so got them burned alive, so they started to just not talk about it.

Really, once you read through the Nicene Creed, your whole "worship directed to anything or anyone less/other than the eternal, infinite Creator God who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses" is obviously out the window.

Posted by: SC | July 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Anyway, I submit that is proof of supernatural occurrences, divine intervention.

Dear Ms. Turzovka:

Thank you for your submission of 25 July, 2008. We received a large number of submissions this year, many of them of very high quality. We regret to inform you that yours has been rejected as woefully inadequate and indeed risible. Thank you for your time and effort, and we hope that you will consider us in your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

SC, The Reality-Based Community

Posted by: Lucifer | July 25, 2008 2:29 PM

Lucifer (pitiful you should assume such a name)

Why pitiful? The name means "Lightbringer". Do you think that light is pitiful for some reason?

In eons past long before man came on the scene, apparently you did have the free will to rebel.

So there you go. Free will.

(I bet you're regretting that move?)

Anyway, God is God so He does as He so wills. He has revealed much knowledge and understanding through His inspired saints, those like Catherina of Sienna. She is beyond reproach. Her words are words of divine wisdom and the Church has benefited immeasurably from such revelations. If they instruct us that angels no longer can be tempted by sin, then so it is.

Interesting. Catherina of Sienna tells God to not allow angels to be tempted by sin, so he just does it.

God sure sounds easy to boss around.

And of course, if God can remove the free will of angels on a whim, he can remove the free will of anyone on a whim. Including humans. Say, maybe the Calvinists are right after all.

Don't get hung up on those little incongruencies or paradoxes that you think are smoking guns.

You mean "contradictions".

It is the enormous white elephants in the room (or should I say that cross?) which you seem to be ignoring for ulterior reasons.

You mean, the fact that God, according to the stories in the bible, and exterior to the bible, is utterly capricious? I'm not ignoring that. Are you?

Posted by: SC | July 25, 2008 2:44 PM

Thank you Mr SC for your diligent work on determining the statue weeping in the convent of Akita Japan is not of supernatural origin. Question: Is this kind of like the Shroud of Turin --- i.e. you can tell the world it is not, but heaven forbid, that you could tell us what it is? Tons of questions remain unanswered on those objects, but apparently they are of no concern of yours?

That's Ms./Dr. SC.

Please refer to Nick Gotts @ #633. With all that is wondrous in the natural world, everything we have learned and continue to learn from science, it amazes me that people can take these paste-miracles seriously, much less base their broader beliefs on them.

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 3:15 PM

The Jewish take on Christianity is certainly that it is idolatry.

That was certainly not the "Jewish take" of Jews like Saul of Tarsus and thousands of first-century Jewish Christians.

Really, once you read through the Nicene Creed, your whole "worship directed to anything or anyone less/other than the eternal, infinite Creator God who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses" is obviously out the window.

This thesis cannot be exegetically maintained without smuggling non-exegetical philosophical or theological assumptions, such as "the eternal, infinite Creator God who revealed himself to Abraham and Moses did not go on to become incarnate in Jesus Christ and reveal the Triune mystery of His being."

Non-Christian Jews, of course, would affirm this, while Christians would affirm the contrary. Non-theists, rejecting the veridicality of the key terms, would appear to have to consider it a non-problem and leave it at that.

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 3:19 PM

After all, no one argues that butchering babies would be bad.

By "argues," do you mean no one maintains that, or no one contests it?

Whichever you mean, you're wrong, unless by "butcher" you mean something more precise than "kill." For example, Peter Singer maintains that killing babies under, e.g., 30 days old is not bad. And lots of people contest it.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 25, 2008 3:27 PM

CJO, SC - Yes, I realised what he meant to say - it just amused me that it could appear to mean the exact opposite.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 25, 2008 3:35 PM

That is not "clearly" true and is in fact likely false. It is entirely possible that visitors didn't flip open the missalette cover and read the guidelines, but the missalettes themselves are nearly ubiquitous.

It doesn't matter. The church itself is not following the guidelines, so they do not accurately reflect the church's terms of use.

If I stand around handing out candy canes for free, people who take one are not guilty of swindling me even if the candy canes actually have a price tag on the side. Clearly, the price tag does not reflect my conditions for distribution.

Posted by: Anton Mates | July 25, 2008 3:38 PM

Under law, I think that the wafers are church property, which means that they're the property of a religious corporation. I don't know if that's the individual parish, and I suspect it's the diocese; it's probably not the whole Catholic Church.

You're right; I didn't think of that.

So far as I can see from the Catholic Encyclopedia, in the US the bishop or archbishop generally operates as a one-man corporation...all church property in the diocese is technically his. (It varies somewhat by state, though.)

So, yeah, anyone taking communion in a diocese where the bishop would personally disapprove of that action is actually stealing-by-swindle or receiving stolen property...and, interestingly, in a number of states, receiving stolen property is a crime even without awareness or intent.

The solution, of course, would be to take communion in a diocese where the bishop doesn't give a damn--find a bishop like John Shelby Spong, say.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2008 3:39 PM

After all, no one argues that butchering babies would be bad. If I were actually butchering babies, no one would be making analogies to explain how bad it was -- they'd just tell me that that act is horrible and evil.

This is a case where they can't. The cracker is just too damned stupid.

I think Avalos is sort of pointing in that direction when he talks about "sacred ground" in Fighting Words. The land itself may or may not have economic value — but asserting that it is "sacred" changes it in the minds of the adherents such that its value now transcends the economic; it is changed to "infinite" by psychological fiat; it is now worth killing and dying for.

In this case, instead of "sacred ground", it is "sacred food", meant to be eaten ritually. A violation of the ritual is perceived psychologically as being an intrusion on the sacred.

Of course, what "sacred" means to adherents is something that still needs to be articulated properly. It is probably tied to magical thinking, and to the emotional and psychological perception of real taboos — hence the baby-killing analogies.

Christianity may be unique in articulating the concept of God as being at the same time powerful and transcendent, and at the same time, being weak and vulnerable, and in need of human defense.

Orthodox Judaism and Islam would deny that God is explicitly weak, yet in some ways, the fact that God is weak is implicit in that both of those religions recognize the concepts of blasphemy and heresy: God does not speak for himself, and can therefore be blasphemed and spoken of incorrectly; hence adherents must be willing to come to God's defense, and "protect" God from being blasphemed.

Of course, it is also blasphemous to speak of God being weak, so Islam and Judaism must experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with that. Christianity does as well, of course, but some of the Catholics have explicitly stated that the host cracker's defenselessness is comparable to Jesus' defenselessness at the Crucifixion — again, basically stating that God is indeed weak.

Although of course, when actually called on it, they too have that cognitive dissonance, and evade the issue.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 25, 2008 3:44 PM

PZ-

The analogies are also a common them in Donohue's press releases - i.e. swastikas, cross burnings, koran, ad infinitum.

He certainly plays those cards to the max.

And you're absolutely right. They use analogy to change the irrationality into comprehensibility. Kind of like changing a stale cracker into the living son of God, or is that just a bad analogy?
.

ChristOCrackers - Like no other cracker on Earth
...
..
.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 25, 2008 4:25 PM

I can see it now-

The headline in the next issue of the National Enquirer:

MINNESOTA BABY BUTCHER

ATHEIST PROF/BLOGGER PZ MYERS SAYS "I go to the local hospital, grab a random baby, and chop it up with a meat cleaver."

Oh no, PZ - jumping from the cracker pot right into the baby frying skillet.

New ChristOCracker Minis - for that baby Jesus taste
...
..
.

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 4:31 PM

Owlmirror:

A non-theist can still point out that it's even more contradictory than the usual contradictions in the original.

You are welcome to try... although I suspect you'll run into some philosophical difficulties around the concept of "contradiction."

Exegesis is just making shit up.

Oh, well then, that simplifies matters for you, doesn't it. You can just make up whatever shit you want about the Creed, and say that it's contradictory.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 25, 2008 4:46 PM

SDG-

You brought up a key point that is worth correcting.
The non-transubstantiationalists (dammit-there has to be a better word to convey that meaning) like PZ do NOT have vile contempt for their fellow man. At worst, most have vile contempt for what they feel is an absurd, outdated belief of their fellow man that has been shown to cause actual vile contempt and disregard for life of fellow man (death threats, etc).

In words that might bring it closer to home for you,
Hate the idea, not the ideaer - or whatever.

Posted by: CJO | July 25, 2008 5:01 PM

doing bizarre and pointless things to said cows that one would never otherwise do

People never throw stale crackers in the garbage?

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 5:09 PM

P.S. FWIW, Benjamin Franklin, as I've already made clear numerous times, I -- and the vast majority of transubstantiation-ers objecting to PZ's actions -- totally share your and PZ's abhorrence to the contemptible actions that outrage over PZ's actions has inspired in some (e.g., threats of violence).

Widespread outrage or anger for whatever reason, however justified or unjustified, will always elicit unacceptable behavior in some. This is in no way to make excuses for anyone. It is merely to note that the effects of outrage doesn't necessarily directly impact the question of the basis for outrage.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2008 5:19 PM

Oh, well then, that simplifies matters for you, doesn't it. You can just make up whatever shit you want about the Creed, and say that it's contradictory.

No, no, no. Theologians make shit up.

I'm just pointing out that it's so badly made up that it contradicts itself.

How did you reach those startling conclusions? Oh. Exegesis.

It's not my exegesis, though. I'm just citing the made-up shit of Roman-occupied Judea.

But I'm glad that you agree that it's just made-up shit.

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 5:28 PM

I'm just pointing out that it's so badly made up that it contradicts itself.

So far, you haven't actually pointed out anything at all... and I'm not yet convinced of your credentials to practice the law of non-contradiction.

I'm just citing the made-up shit of Roman-occupied Judea.

Which you know about how? Were you actually there? Or did you (or someone you read, or someone someone else read and told you about) have to read some stuff from the time and try to exegete what they thought at that time and place?

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 25, 2008 5:49 PM

I am not licensed to practice the law of non-contradiction,

Or is that a contradiction?

Or is that an agument?

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2008 6:09 PM

So far, you haven't actually pointed out anything at all... and I'm not yet convinced of your credentials to practice the law of non-contradiction.

What, you need credentials now?

Hey, let's start with the very beginning, with one of my favorites.

Genesis 2:17 : God says "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. for in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

Genesis 3:6 : And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat.

Genesis 5:5 : And all the time that Adam lived came to nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

930 years is 339450 days.

339450 ≠ 1

Gen 3:6 + Gen 5:5 contradict Gen 2:17

QED

But of course, you have some exegesis made-up shit that explains that, right?

Which you know about how? Were you actually there? Or did you (or someone you read, or someone someone else read and told you about) have to read some stuff from the time and try to exegete what they thought at that time and place?

Reading history is exegesis now?

Look, how about you read the article on historical Jewish beliefs about the messiah. Then you can tell me that it's all made-up shit. I'll even agree with you. Because all religion is made-up shit.

  http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=510&letter=M

Posted by: SDG | July 25, 2008 6:39 PM

Owl:

Real quick, cuz I'm walking out the door...

1. I thought you wanted to talk about the Creed.

2. So far, you haven't established a formal contradiction of X vs. non-X. No, I don't need theology to explain why. I'll be back for logic 101 later.

3. Reading history is very largely reading documents. Exegesis in its most basic sense is just interpretation. All meaningful reading implies interpretation.

4. When did I say the historical Jewish belief about the Messiah implied that he would be God? You said that "the Jewish Christians did not believe that Jesus was literally God, but was the Messiah." You seem to be assuming that the Jewish Christians accepted Jesus as the pre-expected Messiah with no further modification or expansion of their previous understanding as to who or what the Messiah would be, which is perfectly ridiculous.

Posted by: DingoDave | July 25, 2008 6:48 PM

Turzovka asked @ #183:

"How come no lizards want to fly any more?"
Look here;
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngexplorer/0703/images/articles_gallery_2_0703.jpg

"How come no fish have the desire to take a walk on the beach any more?"
Look here;
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/2921792-Mudskipper-Singapore.jpg
http://www.sms.si.edu/IRLspec/Clarias_batrachus.htm

"How come no apes want to be humans anymore?"
Look here;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479501/

Imbecile.

Posted by: gathererofknowledge | July 25, 2008 7:03 PM

Hi, just went to a crackerbaters mass, and (with due respect to PZ) I seem to be able to. Or maybe the news that I can't attend mass any more is a bit slow in reaching my archdiocese... :)
Anyway, when God told Adam and Eve that when they eat the fruit they will die, He was NOT talking about physical death. This is pretty obvious, since they live to reach 900+ years of age (at least Adam did). Now (this may sound like after-the-fact rationalizing)God is really talking about spiritual death here- their connection to Him as friend and worshiper will die if they eat the fruit.
Why did God make it like that? I have no idea, but I do have a lot of conjectures. Was it because He was being irresponsible, like a parent who put dynamite around the house, gave the trigger to his children and said "Don't push the button."? I also have no idea, but I don't think so.

Posted by: gathererofknowledge | July 25, 2008 7:28 PM

Owlmirror(#681), you do realize that original sin is the business about Adam and Eve disobeying God, don't you? And that is in the Bible, right? Christians use the term original sin instead of saying "that business about Adam and Eve disobeying God, etc. etc." for time-saving reasons. Just because we coin a term doesn't mean it's something never seen before in the Bible.

Posted by: DingoDave | July 25, 2008 7:35 PM

Posted by Fr. J #301:
The Catholic Church is growing in the US and elsewhere. Even Europe is seeing modest signs of growth. Secular Europe is in such terrible shape that people don't even breed anymore. Atheism with its lack of hope or joy kills even the desire to survive.

I think you meant to say, "that people don't even breed (like rabbits) anymore." There I fixed it for you.

-"Orwell put the vision of atheism best, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever."

You mean like the Catholic church did for over 1500 years?

"The joy and sweetness of thousands of young Catholic pilgrims who flooded into the city, in the words of Cardinal George Pell, simply "overwhelmed" the rancid negativity of sections of our sex-fixated media,"

And he has been roundly and rightly condemned for saying so, as has Bishop Anthony Fisher.

'Outrage over bishop's abuse remarks'
"THE Pope's expected apology to victims of sexual abuse by priests has been sabotaged by a senior Australian bishop, who criticised people for "dwelling crankily on old wounds".
The bishop organising World Youth Day, Anthony Fisher, made the remarks in response to questions about two Melbourne women who were repeatedly raped by priest Kevin O'Donnell when they were pupils at Sacred Heart Primary School in Oakleigh from 1988 to 1993...The girls' parents, Anthony and Christine Foster, are flying into Sydney from London to confront Cardinal George Pell before Sunday's papal Mass in Sydney. Speaking from transit in Tokyo, they said Bishop Fisher's comments were outrageous. "We are still grieving over our daughters, and many other victims are struggling every day," he said. "To think this issue is over when the abuse stops is ridiculous. There are people self-harming, committing suicide, drinking, using drugs, because of sexual assaults committed by Catholic priests."
http://www.theage.com.au/national/outrage-over-bishops-abuse-remarks-20080716-3gcr.html

You are a despicable, amoral excuse for a human being Priest J. I suggest that you go fondle a cracker, and then beg it for forgiveness.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2008 7:51 PM

Owlmirror(#681), you do realize that original sin is the business about Adam and Eve disobeying God, don't you?

Yes, I realize that that is Paul of Tarsus's essentialist exegesis about the text. Because Paul of Tarsus was just a human being making shit up about a text that had been written hundreds of years before he was born, which was based on legends floating around hundreds of years before that, which were all just made up to begin with. By human beings.

Posted by: Holbach | July 25, 2008 9:24 PM

Fr jackass @ 301 and turdzovka(now why did I spll it that way?) Isn't it blatantly plain to you religious cretins that there is no god to come down and kick our asses? Why does it take all of our reasoning and pernicious debasing to try to get you to realize that there is no imaginary god in the form of a cracker, a pile of shit, an image in a cloud, a mashed turnip or any other medium to cinvet this imaginary thing? Wasn't this recent demonstration more than enough to convince you that you unredemptively and hopelessly insane? You are pissed because your ghost god did not beat the crap out of us, explode our planet, or in any way show signs of any retribution to that deatardly deed. All the outcry was made and puked by your insane fellow humans who are flagellating their hides and demented brains trying to figure out why there was no apocalyptic retribution. You are being soundly laughed at and drag through the deserving muck. Hey, it's not your fault that there is no god; blame the morons that put that shit idea into your demented brains in the first place. And then blame yourselves for keeping that crap there to fester into a more pernicious form of insanity. Can't you see that you are losers, up against the universe and all the rational minds let loose to turn you into the shit that you are? There is no imaginary god to help you, you pathetic morons, grovelling in the muck of insanity until the day you die, with no imaginary hand to pull you out of that stultifying crap. Can we put all this in any way plainer and rational than we have been doing on these many comments? Hey, there's always suicide to decidedly find out if all we say is bullshit, or all the bullshit you have been living with all your pathetic lives is just that.
The choice is yours; convert, snicker, to a godless and sane life or end your life to verify nothing. Sorry, no more crackers.

Posted by: Holbach | July 25, 2008 10:25 PM

Dingo Dave @ 689 Good reply to turzovka, but I think your efforts to educate this religionist are wasted on suggesting titles for his awakening. He should be able to think for himself and to find out the answers to the questions he proffers. There are libraries galore, the Internet, bookstores, and other manner of education oneself in other than the stultifying position one is currently encased in. He is a deadhead religionist and no amount of convincing or suggestions is going to steer him away from his present state. I would not give him one second of my time or mind, the latter probably to lambaste his dementia. However, it was nice to see someone mentioning Richard Fortey and his excellent book which I have. I also have his "Earth: An Intimate History", which I'm surprised you did not mention. I have four books by Carl Zimmer which are very worthy to the cause. I mentioned Richard Forty and his books in a previous post and was surprised at the lack of response or interest?

Posted by: Holbach | July 25, 2008 10:48 PM

Dingo Dave @ 691 You would think that what you retold as concerning that incredulous demented catholic ritual, that anyone reading that drivel would not give vent and exclaim those rantings as only to come from a mind that has gone completely insane. And yet to the religious morons, that speaks of unadulterated wonder and awe! But never would they be considered fodder for insane asylums! Incredible!

Posted by: DingoDave | July 25, 2008 11:53 PM

Posted by turzovka @ #616:
-"Therefore: When God then says "my ways are not your ways, i.e. do not question that which is beyond your understanding or need to know" then I accept that...I cannot understand hell, I cannot understand how someone would be bound there forever, so I do not question it...No need to question the mystical or that which we are not privy to, just obey and be grateful. "

That statement just about sums up all of your arguments so far, both FOR the defence of your religious convictions, and AGAINST the findings of modern scientific research.

The first step towards liberating yourself from your primitive superstitions is to question what your shamans (sorry priests) have been telling you for all these years.
In fact, it's what Dr. Myers has been trying to tell you all along, if only you'd listen and learn.

It's no wonder that Christians like yourself, refer to yourselves as 'sheep'!

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 26, 2008 8:33 AM

I know I can be repetitive and boring so I will not say much more blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... [footnote #2: thanks to PZ Meyers for this forum to exchange ideas] turzovka

Who is this PZ Meyers of whom you speak?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 26, 2008 8:45 AM

OT, what is this "Meyers" thing? It's not frequency, at least if this (Most common US surnames) is right. Is it (probably mostly subconscious) anti-semitism? (I tend to identify "Meyers" but not "Myers" as a Jewish name, but I'm not sure this is statistically justified.) Any other hypotheses?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 26, 2008 8:52 AM

DingoDave@678,
No fair! You weren't supposed to refute her unanswerable challenges like that!

Posted by: clinteas | July 26, 2008 9:02 AM

Re 695:

I just can not for the life of me make up my mind about whether this is mental illness,self-delusion,the result of brainwashing of a simple mind,or what.....