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!