Pharyngula

Posted by: Sili | July 12, 2008 11:56 AM

Heh heh heh

The gift cracker that keeps on giving.

Posted by: Sam B | July 12, 2008 11:57 AM

It's also a brilliant way of trolling.

also, fyi.

(I don't why I felt the need to say that)

Posted by: Stephen Ockhamn | July 12, 2008 11:58 AM

Hah, 'big' surprise right?

Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 12, 2008 11:58 AM

KennyisNOTdead:

LOL! There are more people posting emails against Myers than there are active people on this blog.

Posted by: joeyess | July 12, 2008 12:00 PM

Sockpuppets!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy!!!! I wonder...... were they all Bill Donohue?

Posted by: The Pink Unicorn | July 12, 2008 12:02 PM

Ditto on #1

I've seen so many catholics use the term "vile" to describe PZ's views. Well, "vile" is a perfect adjective that describes the catholic doctrine.

Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 12:03 PM

But Jenn was a separate person? She was amusing.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that cracker doesn't make sense. It was more of a tasteless, dissolving wafer in my day.

"Can't you fit just one more wafer-thin mint?"

Posted by: Tim | July 12, 2008 12:06 PM

It's not sockpuppetry, it's miraculous multiplication!

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 12:09 PM

So apparently there are no True Christians. I am shocked, SHOCKED, to learn of liars for cheeses on teh intertoobz.

Now how about that super-dedicated/dessicated concern troll from Houston?

Posted by: Jim Et Al | July 12, 2008 12:11 PM

The use of multiples is an all too common and unfortunate technique on a number of minimally moderated debate sites. It's so good to see the perpetrators exposed for the fools they are. Congrats and hang in there on the Donohoe thing. Is there a contact authority where I can send a supportive email?
.
.
Jim Et Al

Posted by: Fitz Doubet | July 12, 2008 12:14 PM

Can we just make Crackergate go away. I mean, come on, really. I can't imagine the most devout priest in the world actually believing for a minute that a wafer turns into flesh...and still tastes and looks like bread. Hey PZ, can you get somebody to run a transubstantiated consecrated triscuit through some comatography?

Posted by: andy | July 12, 2008 12:16 PM

Damn you sockpuppetteer... bringing shame upon others who would use this handle.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 12, 2008 12:22 PM

was that Ron in Houston idiot one?

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

Comatology - study of the peculiar phenomenon wherein religious believers put the inquiring portion of their brain into a coma.

Posted by: Sili | July 12, 2008 12:26 PM

Fitz,

For the nth time: It's the substance that's transed - not the accidentals. Do read up on you Aquinas (it was Aquinas who did all this jumping through hoops, wasn't it?).

Sure it looks like a cracker, but it HAZ TEH SOAL UV JEEEEEEEBUS!

Posted by: Tulse | July 12, 2008 12:27 PM

Seek help and have a blessed day. Posted by: John Galt

I sure hope that's your actual name, because the irony of a religionist hectoring others about their beliefs and actions while using the pseudonym of an Ayn Rand hero would be just too rich.

Posted by: John Galt | July 12, 2008 12:29 PM

Jeff, God bless you my friend. Peace. John

Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM

No, "Legion" was my nickname for Larry Fafarman... hey! Are we sure this troll WASN'T Larry Fafarman?

Nah... no Monday morning lawyering.

(FWIW, professor Myers, you have this Catholic-raised atheist's support)

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 12:34 PM

To think he was so prolific typing with just one hand, because, obviously, he was masturbating with the other.

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 12:38 PM

#35:

You, sir, have won the internet.

Posted by: mewletter | July 12, 2008 12:38 PM

Cool. Another vile idiot gets a one-way ticket to the Dungeon. Somehow, I find these actions very entertaining. Keep up the good work, PZ!

Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Nanunanu

Nope only 1 id for me. Idiot. Real nice. You've shown what a sterling debater you are.

Raven

Mental illness really isn't a joke. I'll be the first to agree that some of the people that continually post are probably somewhat mentally ill, but show a little sensitivity.

I don't know how many of you are also atheists, but a number of you are really pretty sophomoric.

I tend to put a high standard on atheists because like PZ, they tend to be very educated and erudite people.

If you're serious about convincing anyone but yourselves about the necessity of atheism, then you need to lose the attitude and the sophomoric BS.

I'm sorry that so many of you feel ownership of PZ's blog and feel free to call people that disagree trolls, idiots, or the like.

I'd much rather have a discussion with my nice but deluded theistic friends than with most of the people I've encountered here.

This been an educational experience. There are a lot of very ugly atheists. If anyone thought I was being ugly, then accept my apologies.

Posted by: Matt | July 12, 2008 12:44 PM

Pwned.

Posted by: aleph1=c | July 12, 2008 12:47 PM

Oh, goody! The Houston guy is here. Wait... I'm going to make some popcorn. Please don't start without me.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 12:48 PM

Bah. One person with multiple sock puppets, lots of people with one identity each--who cares? They might as well be clones, for all the originality of thought they demonstrate.

As far as I'm concerned, they all deserve 'special screening' from the security personnel at the nearest airport.

Buncha fucking stupid assholes. John Galt included.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 12:55 PM

Ron, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, and a sense of humor is a wonderful thing to have. Get one.
You said everything you needed to say in your first two posts, everything after that was just your attempt to control everyone elses' behavior. Yes, we value your opinion, but not over our own individual opinion. Thanks for playing.

-Ugly Atheist

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 12, 2008 12:59 PM

At least John Galt isn't offering to pray for us.

(Keep the euphemism alive!)

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:01 PM

"I don't like to use the word wine, as it is Christ's blood in the Eucharist, but it still has all the characteristics of wine when in the blood stream."

Moderation, my child.Too much of that has been known to cause cirrhosis of the savior.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 1:02 PM

Sooo, where do we go from here, seeing as the much-anticipated, foaming-at-the-mouth, starkravingmad Catholic mob never showed up? Are we off to spray-paint the Wailing Wall ("It's just a f**king WALL, you stoopid Semites!!!") or take a sledgehammer to the Kaaba ("You're worshiping a METEORITE, you muthaf**king camel-humping *&%$#!!!")? Where-o-where do we go, seeing as we're fizzling out here? Personally, I'd like to see the Itsukushima Torii set on fire ("You built a GATE out in the middle of the water--you, you, you....*&%$# Asians!!!")

You see, the Taliban had the right idea when they dynamited the Buddhas of Bamyan a few years back: Who needs some religious wackos and their Sacred Cows in OUR backyard? Sure, they earned the opprobrium of the world, but afterall, that's what the Buddhists get for thinking some ROCKS were, like, sacred or something.

So: Go Taliban! Go Prof. Meyers!! More Götterdämmerung!!!

Posted by: Bob Munck | July 12, 2008 1:06 PM

A useful thing that Ace of Spades does -- one of the few intelligent things on that site -- is to hash the commentor's IP address into a 5-character alphanumeric string and add it to the label. That means that sock puppets using multiple names from a single IP are exposed.

They use a "one-way hash" which means that the result string for a given IP is unique but CANNOT be used to determine the IP; the hash cannot be done in reverse. UNIX has been using this trick to store passwords forever; the entered password is hashed and compared to the file.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 1:07 PM

I'd much rather have a discussion with my nice but deluded theistic friends than with most of the people I've encountered here.

This been an educational experience. There are a lot of very ugly atheists.]

Fine. Bye. Don't come back.

Jeff, God bless you my friend. Peace. John

Now this is a typical example of the kind of self-centered posturing that makes people hate Christians. It's pretty evident to all but the most brain-dead, self-involved, morally-masturbating theist that saying 'God Bless' only offends atheists. If John 'Kissing Ass for God' Galt was really interested in bestowing peace upon us, he'd shut the fuck up, or at the very least say something to the effect of "It's clear my presence here only upsets you; I'll leave now. Peace."

Of course, since it's obvious that he doesn't really give a shit about whether we feel at peace or not, but instead is only interested in notching his little scorecard so he can run off to his Cathobot friends or pray to God later tonight and brag about how he "brought the message of peace to atheists, but they just wouldn't listen," he'll just keep on repeating his insincere 'God Blesses' like a fucking parrot.

Posted by: Roko | July 12, 2008 1:08 PM

Ron: "Off to yardwork, cookout with family and friends (real people)..."

Oh, good to know that your family and friends are real people - unlike Jesus, god, angels, sockpuppets over here and whatnot.

Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 1:09 PM

E.V.

You're really a sad and pathetic individual.

Posted by: FO | July 12, 2008 1:09 PM

I'd much rather have a discussion with my nice but deluded theistic friends than with most of the people I've encountered here.

Curious. You put "nice" in front of "deluded" when talking about "discussion". I thought the "deluded" cancelled out any possibility of a meaningful "discussion". Let me get this straight -- to you, it's better to wallow in ignorance and stupidity than to be harsh?

Anyway, you had some typos in your last sentence. Let me correct them for you.

If everyone thought I was being a retard, then accept my apologies.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 12, 2008 1:11 PM

s/we'll/well

Pray for my slippery fingers! I don't know what happened. They were certainly functioning well enough when they were clasped in prayer with your sister last night.

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 1:13 PM

Saying "God bless" is just as preposterous as saying "Zeus bless." John Galt and other religious people should realize that they adopt the beliefs they do out of custom/credulity/some other contingency rather than out of an objective view of the world.

Posted by: Calladus | July 12, 2008 1:13 PM

Multiple pseudonyms from one person? Is this a bona fide miracle?

I mean c'MON y'all! This is like the bread and fishes miracle all over again!

Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 1:15 PM

If anyone thought I was being ugly, then accept my apologies.

I'll only accept your apology if you promise not to do it again.

Your continual whining that PZ said something that you, personally, didn't approve of went way past annoying. Your protestations that you didn't want to put words in anyone's mouth and, sometimes in the next sentence, demands that PZ clarify or withdraw his initial comment were quite arrogant. Finally, your insistence that you were the sole arbitrator of The One True Atheism were extremely aggravating.

Go, my child, and sin no more.

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 1:15 PM

Ron,

I'm trying to discuss different atheists' goals and techniques with you. Why won't you discuss this with me? I hope I didn't offend.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 1:17 PM

Sooo, where do we go from here, seeing as the much-anticipated, foaming-at-the-mouth, starkravingmad Catholic mob never showed up?

JB, what fucking lobe did you just have removed? They did show up, fuckface, on cue, as predicted.

I've got an idea for you and some dynamite; why don't you hold a stick in your teeth and see if Jesus comes back before the fuse burns all the way through?

Fucking willfully blind motherfuckers.

I gotta take a break from these asshats. Apparently an H. pylori infection isn't absolutely necessary for a peptic ulcer; constant exposure to abject stupidity works just as well.

Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 1:19 PM

Richard

I really want to get away from all the highly unpleasant people on this blog. However, I do want to respond to your question.

No, the blasphemy challenge is not in bad taste. It's probably not productive to getting acceptance of atheism. But to anyone that wants to blaspheme the holy spirit blaspheme away.

I'll be the first to admit that there are a whole lot of religious people need to be metaphorically slapped. PZ does an excellent job doing that to creationists.

However, just because someone is religious, in my opinion, doesn't mean they should be alapped.

Posted by: aleph1=c | July 12, 2008 1:21 PM

OK, is he gone now?

Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 1:23 PM

I'm feeling very optimistic about this whole cracker "crisis".

Anything that focuses attention on the absurdity of religious claims is bound to help move the zeitgeist forward a bit. Superstition thrives in the dark.

Expose religion and watch it shrivel.

Posted by: LisaJ | July 12, 2008 1:23 PM

hahaha, awesome. What a loser.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 12, 2008 1:24 PM

no ron, YOU are the idiots

and then ron was a zombie

people would take you more seriously if you didnt come into this whole thing claiming PZ was telling people to disrupt masses and other such nonsense

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 1:25 PM

HA! Rob Zombie reference. I get jokes.

Posted by: franny | July 12, 2008 1:27 PM

"Naz, k8, promo, baker, PZ is a fool, Burns, rumrunner, Dobbs, NYTs, KKKAthiest, Andy, CDV, BradJ, Brett, b7, PCD, NVFU,"

What is Donahue's IP address? That coincidence would be even more unimaginably megaLOL.

Posted by: raven | July 12, 2008 1:29 PM

ron the concern troll:

Raven

Mental illness really isn't a joke. I'll be the first to agree that some of the people that continually post are probably somewhat mentally ill, but show a little sensitivity.

Who is joking? You think someone who posts incoherent rubbish 24/7 with hundreds of IDs and threatens to kill people is sane?

And no they are not somewhat mentally ill, they are seriously locked up somewhere crazy.

On another website, long ago, there was a poster who was clearly having difficulties although he was much saner than the christofascist trolls who haunt these boards. He disappeared from the board and then disappeared for good. He was shot dead by the cops during a spectacularly inept daylight robbery of a jewelry store.

People don't self censor on anonymous threads and they don't try to hide their internal mental states. If they seem crazy, they are.

Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 1:31 PM

NanuNanu

Dude I wasn't calling you an idiot. You did it and I was saying that such an ad hominem attack was just juvenile.

Honestly it's a total failure to communicate. I certainly have to take responsibility for my 1/2 of that failure.

Maybe you're s really nice person in real life.

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 12, 2008 1:33 PM

One thing to remember when dealing with rabid fundies: They intentionally misspell the word ""Prey", to make it appear more innocuous.

So, the next time you get a message offering to "Pray for your soul", just mentally correct the spelling, and see if you don't get shudders up your spine...

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 1:35 PM

Hey, Brownnoser OM: I'm quoting your prof: "We have had a number of raving angry Catholics in various threads here...or have we?" Who peed in your mother, that you're too stupid to get the point of this thread? That link you provided is a bunch of "I'm-calling-your-college-president"s and "I-demand-an-apology"s. Where is the foam? The cacophony of voices calling for his literal, honest-to-goodness HEAD--not his job? IT. AIN'T. THERE. Prof himself had to *photoshop* a pic of Muslims (LOL) threatening death to someone: Why couldn't he get himself a REAL one of the Catholic mob?

Posted by: Julian | July 12, 2008 1:36 PM

hmm, I suppose this is what I get for not updating my pages often. The post I'm referring to was #44

Posted by: FO | July 12, 2008 1:39 PM

Yeah Ron, come back when you're ready to use your brain and answer all those questions you've been dodging. What a thin-skinned retard.

If you wanna go, then GO, and stop coming back.

Good riddance.

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | July 12, 2008 1:45 PM

Eric, I suppose that's pretty much the same argument the fundies use to 'splain creationism. It may LOOK LIKE completely natural evolution, BUT if you look with the eyes of faith, you will surely see the Hand of God(TM) at work.

Right?

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 12, 2008 1:47 PM

@Ron

I admit i was a bit out of line when insulting you but insults aren't ad hominems
I was insulting you because when you first showed up you falsely claimed that

"I'm all for taking stands against plutocratic religions. What PZ did was take it one step further. He (perhaps tongue in cheek) advocated going into their sacred places and causing chaos."

He did no such thing, tongue in or out of cheek.

Posted by: Eric | July 12, 2008 1:49 PM

Blaidd Drwg: Yes, that's what I keep thinking. So why do they make such a fuss about evolution? Can't they just say, look, the scientists have discovered the Hand of God, and be done with it?

Posted by: jpf | July 12, 2008 1:49 PM

According to here: www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm?GetLocation

68.231.166.138 is in Tucson, AZ

Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 12, 2008 1:55 PM

Eric

It is amazing is it not? Faith{belief despite the lack of evidence} is what is required to allow the claims of a priesthood{who's livelihood is dependent upon faith} that the ritual they perform actually changes the cracker into the body of christ{for whom there is no real evidence either} and that to question what appears to be a silly notion is to demonstrate a lack of faith itself.

One must simply hangs ones jaw slack and wonder how such reasonable, logical, coherent mental clarity such as this completely escapes we Crazy atheists.

Perhaps my birth was more difficult that I have been led to believe?

Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 12, 2008 1:57 PM

Good that that's been resolved.

Also noteworthy is the willingness of the loyal hounds to howl endlessly at the sock puppet, replying to each and every insult ten to one. How fascinating to read, about 2500 times, that the cracker is not real Jesus-flesh, that those who believe it are stupid and in need of psychiatric treatment, that assault and death threats are worse than giving offense, and that the Catholic church has a nasty history.

It's stunning how many Pharyngulites find these notions new and exciting. But to be fair, the folks who post 30 times a day may not be truly representative, but rather people with specific emotional and entertainment needs.

So with all that clutter and noise in the comments, it's maybe not so amazing that no more than 2% of all discussion touched on the specific cause of this firestorm that is surely sucking many hours out of the working life of a university president: PZ's request to his readers to obtain, at the very least by deceitful means if not by actual disruption of a voluntarily attended legal gathering, one of these thingamabobs, and the promise to subsequently "abuse" it on the web.

Again (and I have to repeat this because it's clearly so easy for Pharyngulites to suppress this distinction): it was this request-and-promise that caused the other guys to be outraged (and please don't tell me they're uppity -- yes, I really do get it); it was NOT the criticism and ridicule of their beliefs and their past and present misdeeds and hypocrisy, such criticism being long-standing and mainstream features of the public conversation.

So, the question remains: did PZ's request-and-promise cross a line? Did it come close?

(The request-and-promise could charitably be interpreted as more rhetorical than actual, something PZ hinted at in a later interview, but PZ well knows the range of folks in his audience.)

Where is your line, reader? Is an action that pushes the emotional hot-buttons of the people least likely to give your point of view serious consideration always a good thing? Does it matter whether your action has the redeeming feature of plausibly being persuasive to people "in the middle" or more tentatively on the other side?

One more thing. I love that PZ drew attention to the Webster Cook story and the CathLeag reaction. In hindsight, what if instead of his request-and-promise, he had asked readers to snow the admin of Cook's university and church (and media) with demands that the woman (people?) who laid hands on him be publicly identified and charged with assault?

Posted by: watercat | July 12, 2008 1:59 PM

#80
I'm confused (not being aware of all internet traditions,and all). If that many of the posts were all from the same guy, how many are left? Is there really a horde of fundo-catholics or not?

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 2:00 PM

Nanu, the Eucharist isn't given out willy-nilly to anyone who wants it: it is strictly for Catholics 'in good standing' with the group as a whole. Thems the rules. Anyone else getting in line to receive it is a poser, and a fraud. Prof here asked for some posing, and encouraged fraud in order to illicitly get his hands on someone else's sacred item, *regardless* of whether that sacred item is something given out literally millions of times everyday to millions of believers: It would have been no different than if he'd asked someone to make the hajj posing as a Muslim believer and bring him back the Ruknu l-Aswad for him to desecrate.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 12, 2008 2:01 PM

Never mind the grammatical and spelling errors. No sleep and broken spell check makes for such disasters.

Posted by: Hank Fox | July 12, 2008 2:02 PM

I haven't been reading here as closely as I should, but I'm hoping you hold a contest for the best and funniest ideas of what to do with the Holy Cracker.

Posted by: Apostle #7 | July 12, 2008 2:04 PM

I totally agree with Apostle # 3 above. This is an outrage!

Posted by: Paul Johnson | July 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Ron, its a comment chain, it's going to be sophomoric

Posted by: Apostle #11 | July 12, 2008 2:06 PM

"The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

So it is written. Psalm 14. The Bible.

Posted by: Capital Dan | July 12, 2008 2:07 PM

According to here: www.networldmap.com/TryIt.htm?GetLocation

68.231.166.138 is in Tucson, AZ

Posted by: jpf

It's that dry heat. It makes people bat-shit crazy and turns their brains to jerky.

Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 2:08 PM

Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 12, 2008 1:57 PM

Shorter Neil: Shut up you uppity _________ (oppressed group of choice) and stay the victim.

Short Moses: You can't win if you don't fight.

Posted by: Dr Benway | July 12, 2008 2:15 PM

PZ seems busy. So I'm taking care of the host desecration thing for him. Pic here: IMMA CHARGIN MAH WAFERS!!!1!

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 2:19 PM

Prof here asked for some posing, and encouraged fraud in order to illicitly get his hands on someone else's sacred item... It would have been no different than if he'd asked someone to make the hajj posing as a Muslim believer and bring him back the Ruknu l-Aswad for him to desecrate.

Wrong. Fraud as you used the term is a criminal act, very strictly defined in the legal system, and certainly does not - in any way - conform to PZ's actions and words. Either you used the word without knowing what it meant, or you know full well the legal definitions of fraud, and simply used it in a misleading fashion anyway. Either way, it makes you sound like a ranting hack who contributes nothing to the discussion.

As for the comparison of the communion wafer to the Rukun I-Aswad, or Black Stone (which is claimed to be a relic from the time of Adam and Eve), it is equally ridiculous. A sacred artifact or text kept in a religion's holy city is quite different from a small portion of unleavened bread given out to millions around the world each and every day.

As Blake was trying to point out to you, the regulars here are much too intelligent to fall for a load of bullshit like you just dumped in that last post.

Posted by: Terry | July 12, 2008 2:22 PM

Not only is it easy for trolls to repeatedly comment under various names on a blog..it is also..

super easy for supporters of the blogger's position to post in opposition to the position in the most ignorant voices possible.

Thereby making the opposition to the blogger seem all the more ignorant.

Even bloggers have been known to do this on their own blog.

I call bullshit on Meyers and his Klan, big time.

Posted by: jpf | July 12, 2008 2:24 PM

Sorry for playing Junior PI, but I think the reason PZ got that 68.231.166.138 is in Atlanta is because it's owned by Cox Communications which is HQed in Atlanta and he found this when he looked it up: "Cox Communications Inc. NETBLK-COX-ATLANTA-7 (NET-68-224-0-0-1)" Whoever is using that IP doesn't necessarily have to be where his ISP is based. (I'm in WA and my ISP is HQed in Louisiana, so looking up my IP will show a LA address, unless you use that site I gave above, which gives my correct state and city.)

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 2:26 PM

jb, lack of a belief in gods was not what communism was about.

Also, as has more or less been accepted, about 1 in 25 priests were pedophiles (!). It's not the crime, it's the coverup, which went (and still goes) all the way up to Ratzinger.

History: ur dewing it rong

Posted by: MB | July 12, 2008 2:28 PM

Below is the quote from PZ on "scoring" some crackers. Get me a frackin cracker because I can't, I paraphrase. Then he makes reference to the grim nuns and armed guards and smuggling.

Apparently the good Nazis, I mean Catholics, assume everyone else follows orders - literally - as they do. Please, any regular reader of this blog who didn't understand the irony in this smuggling paragraph, speak up so we can remove sharp objects from your environment.

To everyone complaining that PZ was encouraging anyone to be disruptive of any superstitious rituals, Catholic or not, you're either praying liars or really stoopid, too stoopid to understand irony, and I'll pray for you all.

Geez people, get a praying life - score, smuggle, armed guards, grim nuns, heinous cracker abuse - you may not think it's funny, but don't pretend he's a physical threat because you don't have a witty retort.

This isn't the first time the moral police have accused PZ of "crossing the line" and if it's the last, his readership will certainly shrink.

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

Posted by: Michael X | July 12, 2008 2:32 PM

jb,
Attacking PZ for his cracker comments comes out of Catholics belief that the cracker is Jesus in the flesh. It follows from the belief. Stalin and Mao's actions do not follow from atheism. This is the key point: do one mans actions follow for the whole? Is communism and/or mass murder part of atheism? No. Are nonsense cracker beliefs part of catholicism? Yes.

And thus by one, we may judge many. Unless of course there are a great many catholics who arbitrarily pick and choose what they will believe to be literal. Though their inconsistency in spite of their profession of belief in the truth of catholicism leaves them no better off intellectually than the cracker worshipers.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 2:37 PM

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 2:15 PM

#127: Ooooh, so a few fanatical atheists (like, say, Stalin, or Mao) don't speak for the whole? *chuckle*. You aren't nearly so forgiving when those 'few fanatics' are theists of some sort.

No, you just - predictably, though - missed the entire point of the post. I simply pointed out that your argument that Stalin destroyed that cathedral for reasons driven by his atheism was patently false. Your argument attempts to portray Stalin as a sort of evangelical atheist, when he was, in fact, a man driven by power-lust and paranoia.

Ummm, you *do* know that 19th and 20th C. Communism WAS atheist, right? And what THEY did reflects badly on atheists EVERYWHERE, if what some pedophile priests did reflects badly on Catholics everywhere, right?

In the sense that they allowed for no god in their belief system, that is correct. What you fail to understand, though, is that in looking through your self-centered looking glass on the world, you project your own structured beliefs onto atheists. Atheism is not an affirmation of what something or someone is (as Christianity or any other religious system is), but rather an affirmation of what they are not - believers in the divine. Communism was an atheist ideology in the same way any other group that denounces the existence of a god or gods, many of which are very distinct from Communism - and each other, for that matter - in many different ways. Your attempt to define an organization or ideology on the basis of a belief that group has excluded is silly. Entities are necessarily defined by those things which they are and fight for, not what they don't believe. For example, you'll have a hard time finding atheists running to Stalin's defense. In the case you mentioned, however, Catholics came out of the woodwork to defend these pedophiles and shield their crimes, not to mention the diplomatic and administrative gymnastics performed by the Church itself to do the same. That is precisely why your analogy does not work, and never will.

But by all means, keep on sounding just like Bill O'Reilly, spouting off your assertions that something is a matter of record and that it is widely known, all the while failing to have a full grasp of the basic facts in your own head.

Posted by: Keith B | July 12, 2008 2:38 PM

The Apostle postings are lame. If I wanted to hear that nonsense, I would turn my TV to channel 7.

Posted by: Fr. J | July 12, 2008 2:38 PM

This will be my last comment. It is a waste of time trying to debate with toddlers. The same things said over and over again. Modern education has really declined. PZ has contributed to that.

"By your actions you shall know them." That cuts both ways PZ. Think about it. Look at what you are doing and how your atheist allies are acting. See how atheists act in China and North Korea. Look at what they do to religious believers. They make even the radical Islamicists look good. Also you might post some of the atheist sock puppets. Or do you imagine that atheists never have sock puppets? Once again you complain about something peripheral and avoid dealing with the substance of the criticisms against you.

PZ, I suspect you are enjoying all of this. Much like any rebellious child who likes tormenting his parents. Some get tattoos or piercings. You have your own way to show what a "cool" rebel you are. In so doing you have violated your institutions code of conduct and the ethics expected of a professor. You have demeaned yourself and your profession. You have diminished all teachers. All for 15 minutes of infamy. What a legacy to leave behind. This is what you will be remembered for. How pathetic. How sad. Pax.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:42 PM

So when does the Koran desecration begin?

I'm serious.

This fellow should get..what...a consecrated Host, a Koran, a Torah scroll, something sacred to Hindus and Buddhists and desecrate them all at the same time.

Will he? Is he that courageous?

I somehow doubt it.

And I doubt he will publicly address why he wouldn't desecrate a Koran, either.

Mark you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Before you come to a blog and spout off about something it may be worth your time to do a bit of research.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:44 PM

Fr J ,

You've made exactly zero headway promoting this "good" religion of yours here. You are a failure of epic proportions.

Posted by: Mena | July 12, 2008 2:46 PM

It looks like there is a 77% chance that that IP address is from the Tucson area.
http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 2:48 PM

Rev: Try as you might, your mental calisthenics cannot separate Communism from atheism. Russian Communists were atheists, even if not all atheists were/are Communists.

Broken: "In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them - usually, to obtain property or services unjustly." -Wiki on "Fraud", quoting the trial of Ken Lay. Tell me again how the Prof's actions aren't legitimately encouraging a "fraud"..?

TrueBob: You're a liar. The study, "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons," prepared by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and released in 2004, examined 94,607 priests for the period 1960-2002, finding 4,392 priests accused of abusing. (Read that again: *Accused* of abusing, not *convicted*.) That comes to less than 5% of the whole.

Posted by: MB | July 12, 2008 2:51 PM

Thanks Feynmaniac for the link to the Washington Times article.

Many (most, all?) of these religious types are simply projecting their behavior onto the rest of us.

PZ has "followers" (not readers, as Peter Lusman notes) who will do as he orders because that's the way their lives work. If you're not following the pope, you must be following PZ or some mullah or Karl Rove - YOU MUST BE TAKING ORDERS FROM SOMEONE!!! because I am...

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 2:53 PM

#166:

The difference is that no one who reads PZ's blog is willing to die for him, but someone who follows Catholicism is often willing to die for the Pope.

Posted by: Greg | July 12, 2008 2:55 PM

Rev. Big Dumb Chimp:

So you're an anonymous commenter and blogger who spends all day on comment threads on the internet?

Good for you. You're a person I take seriously.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 12, 2008 2:58 PM

jb is right. The rate of pedophilia in priests is less than 5% not the ridiculous and absurd 4% that truebob has slanderously stated

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:01 PM

And I doubt he will publicly address why he wouldn't desecrate a Koran, either.

Dear nitwit;

It was Bill Donohue who tried to get the kid expelled, not a Muslim, Hindu or Confucianist.

Furthermore, Professor Myers has not, to my knowledge desecrated anything. He has exposed the hypocrisy of religious extremists. He has mocked extremists of many faiths, including Muslims. And he has more important things to do than to respond to childish dares to make his points quite successfully.

Posted by: Mark | July 12, 2008 3:02 PM

So he's flushed a Koran?

Really?

Missed that.

I don't believe he's getting death threats from Catholics. Not for one minute.

Why should I? If he's sophomoric enough to engage in this - why should I believe that any of this is authentic? Why should I believe that it's all not just fabricated by PZ and his followers to "prove" a point?

It's been done in other contexts, and on the Internet, it's very easy to do.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 3:07 PM

So he's flushed a Koran?

Really?

Missed that.

I don't believe he's getting death threats from Catholics. Not for one minute.

Why should I? If he's sophomoric enough to engage in this - why should I believe that any of this is authentic? Why should I believe that it's all not just fabricated by PZ and his followers to "prove" a point?

It's been done in other contexts, and on the Internet, it's very easy to do.

I believe mark likes to stare at his mothers ass. Why shouldn't I? People like him do it all the time. Any protesting from mark is just him hiding his guilt. I also think that mark likes to wear woman's clothing. There are pictures on the internet. Just go find them. Why won't mark denounce men wearing woman's clothing.

See how easy that is?

Now back up what you are saying.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 3:10 PM

Gophers, then why-o-why can't we get a state that is either Communist without being atheist or atheist without being Communist? Why do the two go hand-in-hand, thick as thieves?

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 3:11 PM

oops...missed a HTML mistake on that one...sorry. I only meant to bold "completely ignores the fact..."

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 3:11 PM

P.S.: Sorry to butt in on that one Rev, but I couldn't resist.

Butt in alllll you want brokensoldier. The weather is clearing and I'm about to head out for some photo projects shortly, so feel free to continue.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:12 PM

PZ has "followers" (not readers, as Peter Lusman notes)

LOL. I can't be the only one to notice the punmanship in that guy's screenname. He's religious repression personified.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:17 PM

We have a communist state ?

Where ?

Posted by: amphiox | July 12, 2008 3:19 PM

Dear jb,

Because Communism IS a religion. The "Great Leader" replaces god, and the party replaces the church. They borrow all the trappings of religion, from grandiose rituals, mass gatherings for worship, public shaming of the unfavored, lionization of the favored as "saints", inquisitions etc.

A communist state cannot allow any other religions to stick around and compete with it. Hence it suppresses all of them. Thus from the outside it appears to be "atheist."

It is "atheist" in the same way the Roman Catholic Church is atheistic towards Baldur.

Posted by: Archbishop his holines raven | July 12, 2008 3:21 PM

Fr. J the fake priest:

This will be my last comment. It is a waste of time trying to debate with toddlers. The same things said over and over again. Modern education has really declined. PZ has contributed to that.

What do you think about a noncatholic impersonating a priest? And then lying a lot while being dumb?

Oh, that's right, you are troll and trolls don't think.

Posted by: robertm | July 12, 2008 3:22 PM

John Galt,

Your idea of irony is disgusting. The real Galt would have let you perish with the rest of the world. Thanks for the email, expect massive amounts of very offensive spam.

PZ,

Thanks for the IP, here it is again for a refresher 68.231.166.138, His crimes will not go unpunished, and much much lolz will be had. The lasers are charged, and the target is locked.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:22 PM

To add to what Amphiox has said, there is a good argument that political systems such as Stalinism, fascism and national socialism have a good deal of similarity to religions. The concept is called political religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:27 PM

"What you're asking me to believe is that PZ Myers is telling the truth about the letters he is receiving and the comments being placed on this blog...without evidence?"

Well there is a whole blog entry full of the emails PZ has received. You could always go and read those, and all the comments that have been left in response to the various blog entries. Just an idea, but you did say you wanted evidence and I thought maybe if you went and looked at some it might help.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 3:27 PM

Don't wail at Jebus, Rev. Just name me a Communist state that wasn't officially atheist, or some state-system set up by atheists that wasn't Communist. That's all.

Posted by: the strangest brew | July 12, 2008 3:30 PM

"No, it isn't 'free'. It is strictly for Catholics in good standing with the whole. No one else."

ahh...one of them private membership clubs down the ubiquitous back alley is it?...wot time will to the gud time gals git their kit off then...?..or is the entertainment only from gud time choir boys?

Posted by: Mark | July 12, 2008 3:32 PM

I've read them.

My point is how do I know they're not all fabricated?

How do I know that they were written by whom they purport to be written by?

How do I know any of those people really exist?

How do I know that this isn't one big scam foisted on us by Myers and others for their own benefit?

Just presenting something to me and saying, "Look, someone wrote this" doesn't tell me anything about the truth of what's written there or the authentic authorship.

To present all of these emails and comments in this environment in which things like this can be so easily fabricated without firmer evidence that these writers are actually who Myers says they are is asking me to take Myers' word..

...on faith.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 3:33 PM

Wolfhound: Thank-you for proving that those in support of the professor are above making reductio ad absurdum arguments, you fab canine, you. Only those *against* him in this are capable of that, as we both know.

Posted by: cory | July 12, 2008 3:34 PM

A Cat'lic doctrinal question for ya, Faddah. If the Host transsubwatchamacallits when swallowed, what happens to it, oh, 8-12 hours later?

(Full disclosure: i'm a VERY fallen ex-Lutheran who was ejected several times from confirmation classes for asking questions that the pastor would rather i'd shut up about. That and the laughing box.)

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 3:35 PM

I was out communing with "real people" and family, so I missed Ron in Houston's hysterical swipe. I notice he never aknowledged if he was out of the closet, so to speak, or if he has the stones to upset his god-deluded friends by being forthright and authentic rather than shushing us to not rile all the god-believin' folk.
Ron, your posts are the definition of "Concern Troll". Your control/authority issues are annoying, it makes me wonder if you are abusive to your family.

I'm not anti-religion as long as the followers don't try to proselytize to me. I was religious. I ran around with Youth Evangelists and went to the Seminary, for chris'sake. Now, I'm anti superstition and anti ignorance.

If believing in an eternal reward gets you through life, go for it, just don't tell me I'm a bad person just because I no longer share your delusion. If you get in my face, don't get pissy when I get back in yours. Turn the other cheek ? What idiot came up with that?=)

Posted by: GraceM | July 12, 2008 3:38 PM

JohnGalt, since you and your fellow religious types never tire of telling us ad nauseam that god hates atheists, and we will all end up in hell, isn't it somewhat redundant to say "god bless you"? Not to mention completely hypocritical?

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 3:39 PM

"i'm a VERY fallen ex-Lutheran who was ejected several times from confirmation classes for asking questions that the pastor would rather i'd shut up about."

Awwww--you martyr, you!! lol.lol.lol...

Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 3:41 PM

Thank you, James F, for finally doing in post #153 what the rest of your co-religionists posting here have steadfastly refused to do. Also I do realize that Bill Donohue is a professional victim pushing not only a religious agenda but a conservative political one.

Most Catholics are upright, honorable people trying to live their lives as best they can according to the dictates of their consciences. What many Catholics, and other believers, either fail or refuse to recognize is that most atheists are living their lives in the same way. I don't kill, rape, steal, defraud, or commit any other offenses against my fellow man. Yet many theists accuse us of having no morality because we don't believe in a deity. After a while, it becomes very frustrating.

I don't know how many times I've tried to explain my beliefs, including moral beliefs, to a theist who refuses to accept that any such moralism is possible without a belief in God. What's especially annoying is when these theists throw Stalin or Pol Pot at me but refuse to acknowledge Paul Shanley and John Geoghan, not to mention Cardinal Law's coverup of them.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 3:44 PM

Is jb stilling trying to find out where Kerala is ?

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 3:46 PM

Why does Mark sound EXACTLY like the other sockpuppets in tone and style? Hmmmmmm.....

Posted by: dinkum | July 12, 2008 3:47 PM

I was thinking the same about jb...

Posted by: Fergy | July 12, 2008 3:49 PM

#131:

What's your stance on death threats and pedophilia? I can't be too impressed by all you Catholics whining about desecrating the magic cracker when I haven't seen one single one of you on these boards denouncing the other Catholics offering to kill Cook and PZ. Nor have I seen any of you admitting that raping altar boys and trying to cover up the rapes might not be good in God's eyes.

I spent a few minutes on the Catholic League site to see what they had published about the priest pedophilia issue. Not surprisingly, the content was almost entirely focussed on the shameful persecution of Catholics, the witch hunt by the media, the damage to the church. That's really all you need to know about Billy Donahue and his ilk, isn't it?

By the way, Donahue seems to be delighted to have finally garnered our attention. Too bad I can't say the same--I never heard of the guy until yesterday.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:50 PM

"What you're asking me to believe is

I didn't hear anyone ask you to believe anything.

How do I know that you're not actually PZ Myers acting like a troll to pose ridiculous questions, solely for his twisted amusement?

I don't. I don't put that much faith into what cannot be proven or disproven. But I do believe that Bill Donahue tried to get that student expelled. It made him look bad when that news account was published, he has clear motive to deny it if untrue, but instead of refutation, we've seen more of the same, directed at Professor Myers.

You can understand why I believe that's true. Do you believe it's true? Or do you intend to continue to distract attention from the rotten way that student was treated?

Posted by: Wolfhound | July 12, 2008 3:52 PM

Sorry, jb, while I AM, in fact, a fab canine, I have a hard time sniffing out which of the atheism=communism/ boo-hoo-hoo-poor-outraged-religious-nutbags is the most odious and then peeing on their legs. Probably why I'm a sighthound and not a scenthound.

Posted by: dinkum | July 12, 2008 3:54 PM

Maybe "in good standing" means "paid up," and you get your hand stamped, or something.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 3:59 PM

Don't wail at Jebus, Rev. Just name me a Communist state that wasn't officially atheist, or some state-system set up by atheists that wasn't Communist. That's all.

Again, you're being ignorant, quite deliberately. There has never been a Communist government, and there will never be a true Communist government, that has any sort of religion. The two are mutually exclusive. But that exclusivity in no way means that people identifying themselves as atheist are then somehow Communists.

And as for your statement about state systems set up in absence of religious preference, we in the grown-up world call those secular states, which the US is supposed to be. I doubt you will ever find a state system based on the sole premise that there is no God - that makes for a shitty platform if you ask me. While some ideologies that exclude the idea of God may run governments, you will never find a nation solely based on a singular negative belief. For one, atheism is not a political belief, which are necessary to form a political ideology such as Communism. And second, atheists are far from united in the remainder of their viewpoints and political beliefs, specifically because the lack of a belief is not effective as a grouping criteria.

And Stalin, like his other dictatorial counterparts in history, was a man devoted not to the eradication of religion, but merely power and greed. Religion was a roadblock to his ultimate - very material and selfish - goals, so he did what he could to remove it. That in no way defines his motivations as primarily atheistic. Just as religion was a roadblock to him, the lack of religion was a tool which he used to accomplish the removal.

But if you want to talk about an evil government using an ideology to push their own, mundane and morally bankrupt agenda, I don't think Communism is the example you need to be looking at. The different faiths all have examples that are much more interesting and quite a bit closer to home, from the ever-cited Crusades, to the current incarnation of our Chief Executive, who has done all of the following:

- stated that God chose him for the office
- stated that God approved of his decision to invade Iraq
- hired, financed, and fielded a mercenary army (Blackwater) led by right-wing Christians to operate in a middle eastern war zone with impunity from either country's laws or military regulations

You can fret over atheism all you want, but the major threats we are dealing with in today's world are hardly ones motivated by a lack of belief in a divine being.

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 12, 2008 4:00 PM

Gophers, then why-o-why can't we get a state that is either Communist without being atheist or atheist without being Communist? Why do the two go hand-in-hand, thick as thieves?

Well, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, and the Czech Republic would disagree about the "why can't we get a state that is atheist without being Communist" part. But that is just a small point compared to the larger point that you continue to miss, jb.

Posted by: MB | July 12, 2008 4:03 PM

Um, Feynmaniac #217, still, thanks for the link to the W Times article, but maybe someone needs to take the sharp objects away from you.

In the paragraph preceeding your quote, note that it says the religious types are projecting their behavior. The paragraph you quoted was simply a view of that projection...

I'm not praying for you - yet... and I guess I failed Irony 101!

Call me a failure again and I will pray for you.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 4:08 PM

...on faith.

Here it is AGAIN!! If it truly were a leap of faith to believe PZ, it would seem to me that you and your religious peers would be adequately equipped to deal with it.

Since, however, you're trying to discredit PZ's claims here with snide comments about blind faith, all you are accomplishing is equating the foundations of your religious belief with PZ's claims, and calling them ridiculous for it.

Again, we see this argument:

"Since (atheist's actions/ words here) is simply too much like religion, requiring blind faith and capitulation to higher authority, it is obviously ridiculous. Excuse me, I now have to go to church and eat a piece of flesh."

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 4:09 PM

MB:
OK, I'll play your silly little game: You're a FAILURE! What do I win?

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 4:11 PM

Or beating a hornet's nest and getting angry at the hornets for, well, being hornets and wanting to defend their own.

Since you brought it up, you could do us all a favor and go personally research that whole hornet situation, and then come back and tell us exactly how the two situations differ. Just as in this case, I assume once you dive in and actually learn something about the subject matter, you'll answer your own question.

Posted by: James F | July 12, 2008 4:17 PM

#216

JoJo,

You're very welcome. I know what you mean - I've observed people on internet forums bring up the canard that morality is impossible without theism (generally in the context of the other canard that evolution = atheism). I think one strong argument is to point them toward the U.S. Constitution and all federal, state, and local laws and regulations, which are secular in nature and to a large extent codify ethics. They need to think for a moment about who is the better neighbor: the law-abiding, ethical person who doesn't share their religious beliefs (or doesn't have any religious beliefs), or the person stridently pushing specific religious beliefs upon others.

Posted by: karen marie | July 12, 2008 4:19 PM

but just so we are all clear here:

there was no desecration of any cracker by mr. cook.

mr. cook went into the church for a service with his friend. he went up and received a communion wafer which he brought back to his seat to show his friend, to show him what it looked like. a "church leader" then grabbed his wrist, attempting to pry mr. cook's fingers open to take the wafer from mr. cook. mr. cook and his friend left the church after the assault, mr. cook filed a complaint.

the church officials then concocted a story to cover up the assault, going so far as to file a complaint against mr. cook, claiming he was a thief and a disrupter of church services. meanwhile, mr. cook took the wafer home.

the church officials began spreading the malicious tale that mr. cook had come in, stolen a wafer and was holding it hostage because of his disagreement with distribution of school fees. the church officials lied to cover up the criminal assault which had been committed inside the church by a "church leader."

the only desecration that happened here was that committed by the church officials and the perpetrator of the assault on mr. cook, a "church leader."

this is all verifiable by looking at the various news stories and putting the details together. unfortunately "the journalists" "reporting" on this have failed, across the board, to do so in a responsible way. there are many stories which do contain actual information but it is buried down toward the middle to end whereas the lede sentences push the maliciously spun story that he stole the wafer to hold it hostage.

he didn't steal it. why did he not either put it in his mouth after leaving the church or throw it away? i don't know. he held onto it. i can only imagine that once the insanity broke out he may have figured it was the only thing he had which would increase his chance of people listening to him. he gave it back.

again, no desecration of any cracker occurred, only a desecration of a church sanctuary by a church leader who then participated in an outrageous series of lies, aided and abetted by that megaphone bill donahue and his catholic league to assassinate mr. cook's character, credibility and reputation. the church officials did it to cover their asses for liability reasons, donahue did it as an attention-seeking event.

all of the above resulted in mr. cook receiving death threats. pz myers, reading that, was justifiably upset that so-called believers in god and the bible were threatening to kill an innocent person who had been pointed out as a desecrator by ... drum roll ... church officials covering up an assault on mr. cook by one of their church leaders.

now don't let me come back here and find you still all chattering about desecration.

let's have a little outrage at the fact that mr. cook was assaulted in the church and the church engaged in a coverup which included smearing mr. cook and inciting others to violence.

thanks.

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 4:21 PM

I stopped by just to ask what the difference was between doing what the prof is asking and, say, spray-painting graffiti on the Wailing Wall and *then* getting upset if the ADL calls for your job.

And the simple fact that you had to ask such a ludicrous question is evidence that you :

A) honestly don't know, which means you have absolutely no functioning moral compass or analytical skills, OR

B) you already know it is a specious comparison, in which case you are simply the latest in a line of intellectually dishonest trolling apologists.

I can't tell which one. And honsetly, I don't care, because either one supports the conclusion that you're failing in the credibility department.

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 4:23 PM

Allow me to clarify on my previous post:

Business and property laws, if my memory serves me right, is always based on transactions.

For example, if I load a bunch of groceries into a cart, they aren't mine until I have completed a business transaction. If someone hands me something and does not indicate that, for example, they are only letting me hold onto it for a second, then that counts as a transaction and it becomes my property.

If I decide to eat at a buffet and walk out with food, I have to pay for the food I'm carrying out because I served it to myself. However, if the workers hand me a plate full of food, then it becomes my property.

The wafer was given to the young man and it was expect of him to consume it then and there, but it was not legally REQUIRED. There were no contracts. He said a prayer, and handed the piece of bread dough to the young man, and it became the young man's property.

THEN, a bunch of people who did not like what he did with an item that was now his property got physical with him. THEN he received death threats.

THEN, PZ Myers commented on this and tried to appeal to our common sense using "satire and protest."

THEN, he started receiving hate mail and death threats because he thinks the whole situation is silly.

... and it has gone downhill from there.

We know you're offended, but you don't have a right not to be. If you don't want to be offended, DON'T READ HIS FUCKING BLOG!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2008 4:25 PM

Call me a failure again and I will pray for you.

I didn't call you a failure, I merely stated you fail reading comprehension because the person you cited was conveying the exact opposite of you said he was. I stand by my words. If you wish to pray for me good ahead.

Oh, and your welcome for the link.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 4:30 PM

The fucking priest gave him the fucking wafer. It is now HIS. End of fucking story.

But remember one thing : if you intend to do the same thing, don't get caught whilst in the church's premises, keep the fucking wafer in your mouth, go outside or otherwise, take it out, just do it so that you do not disrupt church services.

Otherwise, the church can press charges for disruption of church services which is codified in the penal system in most states.

Posted by: Duvenoy | July 12, 2008 4:31 PM

Stalin was an atheist -- so what? Hitler was a Catholic and a one-time alterboy (which might have been why he walked funny). The former did not stamp out religion in the Soviet Union in spite of determined efforts, and the latter encouraged it as long as it was Christian.

There's two examples of vicious, historical douchbags, one for each side of the argument. I'm sure there are many more, although the hitleroids greatly out number the stalinarians, and always will because religion is such a handy tool for dictators to wield. Gott mit uns, eh? But it really makes no difference at all, does it, because, as so accuratly mentioned in previous posts above, it's not about atheism/religion; it's about control -- power.

Thus, Donohue, among many other demogogues past & present, gets a phony knot in his knickers over such silly shit as a completely symbolic bit of psuedo-magic and attempts to exert power over those who sneer at the whole, frackin' thing, notably, but not limited to PZ, thereby strengthening his position amongst the believers.

Me, I feel sorry for the cracker. What did the innocent thing ever do to deserve all this?

doov

Posted by: Kate | July 12, 2008 4:34 PM

jb, I refute your hypothesis thusly:

I am an atheist. I am not a communist.

There you go. That is how the two can be separated... by not being a communist.

Now, can you please shut up about subjects with which you are unfamiliar or those which you seem incapable of understanding?

Posted by: karen marie | July 12, 2008 4:35 PM

this is the letter from mr. cook regarding his returning the magic cracker obtained from the same site as above (http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/webster-f-cook-video-of-a-thief-and-his-excuses/) and which, although not verified, appears to be legitimate:

Dear members of the Catholic Campus Ministry,

I am returning the Eucharist to you in response to the e-mails I have received from Catholics in the UCF community. I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation.

I want to thank the individuals who explained the emotional and spiritual pain my possession of the Eucharist caused them to experience. They have demonstrated that the use of reason is more effective than the use of force.

I was strongly assured by a woman that this action would help me obtain an apology and a meeting with the bishop. I hope her assurances were correct.

Sincerely,

Webster F. Cook

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 4:37 PM

#260:

http://fratres.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/webster-f-cook-video-of-a-thief-and-his-excuses/

I have a problem with calling him a thief since, legally, he didn't steal a goddamn thing!

Posted by: ajani57 | July 12, 2008 4:41 PM

I went to a catholic wedding last week that included a mass where I observed the cracker and wine ritual for my first time. The cracker part was fine (didn't realize its significance until PZ's story broke later) but what had me gagging was that they all drank the wine from the same cup. All those microorganisms being transferred. Sure, a girl was wiping the cup between turns, but she was using the same part of the rag each time, so she wasn't cleaning the cup, she was smearing the germs. I concluded right then and there that I would never want to be part of an organization that required the weekly drinking of backwash. Warm backwash. Gagging again. I'll go have a disk o'jesus to settle my stomach.

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 12, 2008 4:42 PM

OK, I am now convinced that the catholics are due an apology so here goes, and speaking only for myself:

I am sorry that your vision of a god is so weak that he cannot protect his cracker form.

I am sorry that you engage in idolatry in regards to said cracker.

I am sorry that you are offended by people pointing out that religious people often believe things that many of us find silly at best and dangerous at worst.

I am sorry that you have continued to hide evidence of crimes within your church, thus giving people easy targets during verbal and/or blog battles.

I am sorry that you allow Bill Donahue to speak for many of you.

I am sorry you do not have the courage to speak out against those who make you look bad, such as Donahue.

I am sorry you hate gay and lesbian people - yes, YOU DO, you church requires you to hate them, or at least their "sin".

I am sorry your church continues to block AIDS awareness programs in places like Africa.

I am sorry your church compels you to hate Africans by requiring you to believe that them not having condoms is somehow good for them.

I am sorry you do not know what your own prophet and bible say.

I am sorry you do not practice what Rabbi Ben Jesu asked you to practice - you do not love your neighbor as yourself, you will not eat with publicans and prostitutes - you condemn them. (No, there is no need to comment on the name folks, I do not really care, call him what you like.)

I am sorry you are offended when someone tells you to fuck off after you offer to pray for our souls. As many have noted on here, "pray for you" often effectively equates to fuck you. On, to get ahead of the curve a bit, fuck you if you offer to pray for me.

I am sure there are catholics that do not believe in the oppression of gays and lesbians or allowing Africans to die of AIDS. I am sure there are catholics who do not believe the cracker and wine are more than a symbol. I am sure there are catholics that are outraged by the protection of pedophile priests. I am sorry you do not have the courage to slip off your chains and take responsibility for your own life, your own morals, your own dealings with the world. This one makes me especially sad.

Pax Nabisco

Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 4:46 PM

Owlmirror @ 262

Bravo!

Posted by: Benji | July 12, 2008 4:50 PM

Fuck over 20 nicknames? This guy must have had much time to lose...^o)

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:53 PM

Ron, you have absolutely no moral standing to criticize others.

You spent all of yesterday blatantly lying about PZ, attributing things to him he never said.

You repeatedly demanded that PZ retract his statements and revise them in a manner which you approved. You then repeatedly lied and said you wouldn't think to tell a blogger what to say.

At least once you said you would never dare tell PZ what to say, and then proceeded to make multiple DEMANDS that he do so within the span of a few sentences.

You repeatedly criticized other commenters for the content and delivery of their comments, and then when yours were criticized, you told anyone who didn't like what you said that they could just ignore your comments.

You repeated this behavior ad nauseum, revealing yourself to be a dishonest hypocrite, your essential message being that everyone must agree with you and do as you say and no one must criticize you.

Worst of all you repeatedly threatened to leave and then broke this promise.

You have no standing to criticize. You have proven your words to be worthless. You put words into the mouths of others and then damn them for them.

Who the hell cares what a lying hypocrite thinks?
If we should care, then we need to worry about what Bill Donohue thinks.

Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 4:56 PM

I wonder if some of the more aggressive/name-calling "ugly atheists" were also put-ons for attention.

Seriously, I wanted to ask a few if they were teenagers.

We have Godwyn's Law for Nazi's - I think there should be a law about making pedophile priest arguments.

Ron seemed like a reasonable guy most of the time, and still a few attacked him mercilessly whilst characterizing people offended at what PZ suggested as being violent religious zealots.

An evil little part of me would really enjoy observing the more ridiculous "players" (like the people that assaulted the student, Bill himself, and everyone actually sending threats) watching creative uses of unsubstantiated unleavened wafers.

To the great majority of Catholics (whose only crime is being indoctrinated into the religion as children in the first place) - actually following through on the "cracker threat" would simply be cruel.

I know those who are not religious and have never been religious can't wrap their brain around it - but these people REALLY do think a consecrated "cracker" is incredibly precious.

MOST of the letters I read in the previous post by PZ were people desperately trying to make PZ understand what the "host" meant to them emotionally. It's just so incredibly sad.

I do realize how it can be amusing, but in the end it IS just being hurtful for kicks.

Also, I completely agree with Neil's (#118) assessment of all this.

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 4:57 PM

#273:

Do it! It will be the lulziest thing done in a long time.

Posted by: Max Verret | July 12, 2008 4:59 PM

Re: #245

What Mr. Cook did or did not do has nothing to do with Dr. Myers inviting people to steal a whole bunch of "crackers" and give them to him so he could desecrate them in public. It has nothing to do with "property rights" but with Dr. Myers invitation to others to commit thief. If Mr. Cook felt that his rights had been violated and that he had a cause of action he should have sought a remedy in law. What Mr. Cook did or did not do and Mr. Donohue intemperate remarks have nothing to do with the obligation of the University of Minnesota to hold Dr. Myers responsible for his actions. Dr. Myers does not have to accept responsibility for either Mr. Cook's or Mr. Donohue's behaviors.

Posted by: JeffreyD | July 12, 2008 5:02 PM

Oh hell, Max poked his head out again and I am leaving for a showing of Hellboy II (The Golden Cracker) as soon as my son gets here.

Well, Max, your concerns are noted. I will "pray for you".

Pax Nabisco

Posted by: leeleeone | July 12, 2008 5:02 PM

Has anyone seen this? http://www.koco.com/news/16860079/detail.html

Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway
Windsor Hills Baptist had planned to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle until one of the event's organizers was unable to attend.

The church's youth pastor, Bob Ross, said it's a way of trying to encourage young people to attend the event. The church expected hundreds of teenagers from as far away as Canada.

"We have 21 hours of preaching and teaching throughout the week," Ross said.

A video on the church Web site shows the shooting competition from last year's conference. A gun giveaway was part of the event last year. This year, organizers included it in their marketing.

"I don't want people thinking 'My goodness, we're putting a weapon in the hand of somebody that doesn't respect it who are then going to go out and kill,'" said Ross. "That's not at all what we're trying to do."

Ross said the conference isn't all about guns, but rather about teens finding faith.

"You make a lot of new friends down here," said Vikki Goncharenko, who attended the conference. "You get to meet new people. There's a bunch of things that are going on. It's just, you have a wonderful time."

Friday evening, Ross said the gun giveaway had been canceled. Pastor emeritus Jim Vineyard, who ran the event, injured his foot and wouldn't be able to attend. The gun giveaway was also removed from the church Web site.

Ross said the church would give the gun away next year instead. He said the church spent $800 buying the gun for the promotion.

------------------------------------

EEEEEK!

Posted by: karen marie | July 12, 2008 5:04 PM

i feel sorry for you, max verret.

you have a lot of growing up to do.

Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 5:05 PM

Pray for me, Owlmirror, that was good.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 5:06 PM

There's actually 3 parrallel cracker threads going on...

So how many comments up till now on this cracker affair ?

Let's count :

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
1007
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/now_ive_got_bill_donohues_atte.php
842
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_crackers.php
807
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fight_back_against_bill_donohu.php
1227
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/internet_getting_full_heres_a.php
596
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/can_this_possibly_get_more_ins.php
554
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_get_email_special_cracker_ed.php
1209
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php
271

TOTAL = 1007+842+807+1227+596+554+1209+271 = 6513

HOLY CRACKER ! MORE THAN 6500 COMMENTS, IS THIS A RECORD ?

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 5:08 PM

Ok. I'm getting of my ass to print t-shirts:
REASON IS THE ENEMY OF FAITH. - THINK ABOUT IT

Who wants one?
(my apologies if this slogan has already been used)

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 5:11 PM

"The *very* individuals involved in bringing the scandal to light and demanding accountability for the coverup were incensed Catholics, more than likely the very type that would demand the professor here be held accountable for *his* insulting of their faith."

And the VERY individual who wrote the guidelines for hiding and protecting child rapists was YOUR FUCKING POPE.

Not some isolated individuals, the infallible leader of your religion.

Protecting child rapists is the official policy of the Catholic church and apparently the policy of protecting child rapists comes from God himself.

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 5:12 PM

I forgot who said this, but:

Why is it that when we fuck up it's a "sin," but when a member of the clergy fucks up, it's called a "scandal?"

Posted by: Coragyps | July 12, 2008 5:16 PM

I sure hope someone has nentioned The Death Cookie by now...
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

At least to Mr Donohue, that is.

Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 5:17 PM

Glad this was posted for the simple minded so they could understand Communism:

Communism, from dictionary.com:

1 a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

I shall now point out that is EXACTLY how the original church in Jerusalem was organized. That's right, baby, the earliest Christian fathers were COMMUNISTS!!! It says so right in the bible. And when a husband and wife sold their property and withheld some of proceeds they otherwise were to give to the Apostles, and LIED ABOUT IT, they were STRUCK DEAD BY GOD. Don't believe me? Here it is:

Acts 4:32-5:11

4:32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold.

35 They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.

36 There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means "son of encouragement").

37 He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

5:1 But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property;

2 with his wife's knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 "Ananias," Peter asked, "why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?

4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us but to God!"

5 Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it.

6 The young men came and wrapped up his body, then carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.

8 Peter said to her, "Tell me whether you and your husband
sold the land for such and such a price." And she said, "Yes, that was the price."

9 Then Peter said to her, "How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out."

10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

11 And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things. [NRSV]

Really, where do you think Marx got Communism? I've often wondered if he copped it from the parts of the Bible you guys don't read. I can't prove it. But I really do wonder if that's where it came from. Get back to the biblical ideal instead of the pursuit of money and the obvious evils of late 19th century capitalism.

BTW, when Jesus was alive, they did the same thing with their funds. Judas, in fact, was in charge of the groups funds. Something for which is later used as, well, a way to disparage his character in Mark.

But that's not emphasised in the Bible. After all we're a "God Fearing People" opposed to the "Godless Commies."

Ironically, though, when it comes to wealth and the early principles of the Church, the Commies were nominally closer to the Apostles and Jesus than the US and it's love of Mammon. I mean, really, how many Billionaires did the Commies have? Exactly zero.

Yet there are a number of preachers whose estimated worth is approaching that number, if it hasn't exceeded it. (Robertson & Copeland are the two closest.) Never mind THE INCREDIBLRE RICHES of most large churches and just how LITTLE they act like Jesus or the Apostles when it comes to taking care of the poor and downtrodden...

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 5:23 PM

JB, lets concede, just for the sake of argument (and only for that sake because your actual claims are bullshit) that taking the "host" and not consuming it on the spot is theft.

Well then, you and other Catholics are outraged to the point of tying to get someone fired over a half-serious joke that someone should steal A CRACKER.

A fucking CRACKER. With everything else going on in the world, its important to threaten a man's jobs for making a joke about "stealing" a cracker. Get some sense of perspective for chrissakes.

Posted by: AdamK | July 12, 2008 5:28 PM

I meant "biblical" nutjobs. No, I meant "typical, destructive, fictional, biblical" nutjobs.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2008 5:32 PM

MB,
My next sentence was an attempt at constructing an example of how they think and might be projecting their behavior onto the READERS of this blog

I feel stupid. I did not understand that was pardoy, it is difficult to tell sometimes on internet. I have been reading too many posts of trolls lately and mistook yours for one. Perhaps it was too good. I sincerely apologize MB. Please pray for me.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 5:35 PM

I don't think the administration at the University of Minnesota has any choice but to impose sanctions on Dr. Myers. As a faculty member of a university for 16 years, I know it is a part of our employment agreement that we engage in no behavior, university related or otherwise, that would reflect negatively on the reputation of the University. The University of Minnesota is a public institution and as such is responsive to the people of Minnesota, many of whom are Catholic. Also, a significant part of the student body is Catholic. You simply cannot have a faculty member going around trashing their deeply held Eucharistic beliefs. The vitriol of the critique suggests underlying anger and hatred which could conceiveably place it within the purvue of a hate crime. Inviting people to steal a whole bunch of "crackers" is, at the very least, an attempted conspiracy to commit thief. In light of this, I don't see where the university administration has any choice but to protect itself by imposing sanctions. Anything less than that would be negligence on their part.

Well it's a good thing you have absolutely no say so in the matter because you are incredible confused.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 5:37 PM

I see that jb slinked off without addressing his utter confusion on the communism questions. Not surprising.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 5:38 PM

Broken Soldier & Feynmaniac:
Pig + singing lessons = wasted time + annoyed pig.
Cheers!

Posted by: AdamK | July 12, 2008 5:40 PM

"[T]he lack of a belief is not effective as a grouping criteria."

brokensoldier, as usual, makes a crucial point. (With the caveat that the singular of "criteria" should be "criterion.")

But the same mental defect that produces christian group-think, authoritarianism and illogic seem to make it impossible for them to understand that atheism is not a philosophy, religion, or organization, and that atheists are not a group.

You can generalize about atheists about as much as you can generalize about people-who-are-not-in-love-with-redheads, a category that may have, for all I know, included Josef Stalin.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 5:44 PM

MB:
If you were truly being facetious and not a troll, I apologize. Sincerely.
(must. stop. can't. resist.)
Trust me=)

Posted by: Alex | July 12, 2008 5:45 PM

In light of recent events, it seems only appropriate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGf-sS4js5Y

Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 5:47 PM

Craig:

The Nazi's aren't dead. I met an old German man in the mall the other day. He told me about how being part of the "German Youth" gave him pride and congratulated me on having a blue-eyed blond-haired son.

I didn't mean to imply that the Catholic church's handling of sexual abuse by priests is somehow "off limits" only that it is mentioned ALL THE TIME. If it is actually directly relevant to the discussion - mention it all you want.

I just think if you are going to attack the Catholic Church (and more power to you!) - there are SO many horrible things they have done and are doing, that going straight for the crusades (the Children's Crusade is the BEST) or pedophile priests seems unnecessary.

Also, general crimes against humanity perpetrated by Catholicism and religion in general, in this case, certainly dilutes the conversation. (Of course, I hang out on "antitheism" on lj an hour or so a day - so I understand the appeal.)

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 5:51 PM

Damn, Brownian, you win; you are the master of terse irony. Sincerely.

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 6:04 PM

"I just think if you are going to attack the Catholic Church (and more power to you!) - there are SO many horrible things they have done and are doing, that going straight for the crusades (the Children's Crusade is the BEST) or pedophile priests seems unnecessary."

Oh, and I should also mention that I am not intimately familiar with the Catholic church, so I also don't mention other crimes of the church in part because I'm not familiar with them.

So by all means, if there are more horrible things the church is currently doing, please fill me in.

Posted by: Duvenoy | July 12, 2008 6:06 PM

Well done, Owlmirror @ 262! CAN YOUR JEBUS CRACKER HAS PEANUT BUTTER for such a excellent effort!

doov

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 6:08 PM

Posted by: Mark | July 12, 2008 2:38 PM

Another lying fuckwit whose never been to the site before.

These right-wing liars for Christ certainly are dipshits.

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 6:12 PM

#327:

I feel sorry for your plumber.

Posted by: MB | July 12, 2008 6:17 PM

Thank you so much SC - someone DID understand, (but, broken soldier, Feynmaniac and E.V. were not among him)!!!

I'll stop praying for you all and keep my praying for the religious - as long as I don't have to trust E.V.

I cracked up when I read the praying euphemism whenever that was (was it only yesterday?) and wrongly assumed more of you did also - and that more of you had actually read those comments in the 6000+ posts on this topic.

I still really like the idea of saying, "No, I'll pray for YOU."

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 6:18 PM

So, I guess I'll pray for all of you!

Please do. It's rather pleasant when y'all do nothing.

Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 6:19 PM

To those who think PZ should be disciplined:

The balance between allowing freedom of expression on campuses while ensuring that students and faculty do not feel intimidated or threatened, is not an easy cut-and-dry issue.

Generally speaking, if an allegation of violating the code-of-conduct of a school based on speech comes up - some sort of governing body decides whether or not the "speech" is so horrible that it interferes with the right of students and faculty to feel safe. I think that's fair.

What goes too far is to demand respect for ALL viewpoints. I think the new culture of putting two extremists on TV - let them yell at each other for half an hour - and call it "news" is eroding any sense of REAL honest debate.

Honest debate makes you feel uncomfortable. REAL differences of opinion in the "marketplace of ideas" can be painful. Learning involves cognitive dissonance - not just memorizing a bunch of crap and then getting a piece of paper that says you bothered showing up and vomiting onto scan-trons.

Honest discussion allows for a person to mention that women's brains are physically smaller than men's brains. Honest discussion allows the teaching of evolution. Honest discussion includes mentioning that Martin Luther hated Jews. Honest discussion includes the fact that King James was gay.

I said it once and I'll say it again: I, personally, will not be muzzled by institutional forces because I teach.

There is NO evidence that PZ is constructing a hostile environment at UM-Morris.

If you don't like what he has to say, keep up the debate. Once you decide some authority of some sort should shut him up - YOU are the one who has crossed the line, not PZ.

There will be no precedent that college teachers highly critical of religion cannot speak out without FEAR from above.

I've had plenty of discussions after class with students who disagree with me strongly. It's part of college life. To me, those were the best learning experiences in my college career.

Having your ideas challenged is the whole frickin' point.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 6:22 PM

So, I guess I'll pray for all of you!

Please do. It's rather pleasant when y'all do nothing.

My thought too. The more time they spend on their knees praying, the less they can muddle around in our lives.

Posted by: Apostle #5 | July 12, 2008 6:23 PM

Ideology is a poor substitute for rational thought.

So it is written. Afarensis 7:12 The Bible.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
So it is written. Voltaire 12:25 The Bible.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
So it is written. Seneca 19:51 The Bible.

Posted by: Paul Johnson | July 12, 2008 6:24 PM

I really don't see what all the confusion is for. We know religious people tend to be crazy, so if they have a belief that says that the cracker is their god then you would think there would be significant outrage.

Also I'm sick of the infallibility folly argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Instances_of_papal_infallibility

Also, the number of pedophiliac priests fits in nicely with the expected numbers when comparing priests to the rest of american society (this of course takes into account the fact that some are not revealed yet).

Now i still dislike the catholic church overall but what specifically does it do to protect pedophiliacs? Of course i do not expect it to have a witch hunt, but it seems a rather hard thing to protect given the outrage even within the church itself.

Also a church that preaches that people are imperfect, when found to have imperfect members is not going to suddenly collapse. The main point of contention should be that a lot of people think that they should do more to fight against pedophilia because somehow, by fitting in perfectly with the rest of society the church failed. But why before the scandal would you ever in your life expect it to meet some sort of moral high ground? Pedophilia should have nearly nothing to do with why you hate the church. There are dozens of broader and more complete reasons.

Posted by: Orlando_Atheist | July 12, 2008 6:26 PM

Owlmirror @ 262 FTW!
You're my fucking hero dude.

Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 6:28 PM

262 is Molly for July.

Posted by: Carolus Hereticus | July 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Lemme see ...

Theists making death threats and generally behaving badly ... dozens.

Atheists making death threats ... umm, none?

Behaving badly? well now, we're already damned aren't we? Were we SUPPOSED to behave?

Posted by: pcrthis | July 12, 2008 6:30 PM

re#262 Owlmirror:
Long time lurker, but I lol'd so hard.

Posted by: Orlando_Atheist | July 12, 2008 6:31 PM

#335:
I mentioned that the priest gave him the cracker so it is not theft in this blog and no one has challenged me yet. It sounds like they just want to whine about us not respecting their idiocy but they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/community_ucf_area/2008/07/ucf-catholics-m.html#comment-121365866

Posted by: the strangest brewn | July 12, 2008 6:33 PM

#262

As eloquent as a Shakespearean wotsit...and quite true to life...!

A sad and cautionary tale...but such passion... such sadness... and such utter imbecilic waffle...truly the Catholic church at it's very best...cos it's dogma is the very worst....

Posted by: MB | July 12, 2008 6:34 PM

Welcome back MAJeff and Rev Chimp.

But sweet fucking jesus, - you don't know what that left hand is doing when we're praying for you, now do you? Doing nothing, indeed. And have you learned nothing about Catholic priests and their preying? It wasn't the priests on their knees...

Please see #285.

We all kissed and made up - you must have missed those posts... but broken solidier may still be pissed at me...
I was NOT an English major and I took his "you" to refer to the immediately preceeding "posted by MB" rather than the aforementioned winner, E.V. So I thought I won, when in fact, E.V. had won. Story of my life.

Posted by: dkew | July 12, 2008 6:34 PM

I appreciate the tenacity and computer skills that some of the banned, mentally ill commenters use continue their sock puppetry. I'm thinking of Kenney and Davison, lately. Seems like Seed needs filters for IP addresses, or some tech answer I'm clueless about. Meanwhile, they are spoiled brats throwing tantrums, knowing that they they will get the attention they crave from the grown-ups, positive or negative. Which also makes me appreciate that most of those banned stay away.
So, did all of the sock puppet comments of the past few days disappear? Maybe they could just be flagged as crap, because it would make the rest of those threads difficult to follow, given the numbering system and replies.

Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 6:36 PM

Re: #245

What Mr. Cook did or did not do has nothing to do with Dr. Myers inviting people to steal a whole bunch of "crackers" and give them to him so he could desecrate them in public. It has nothing to do with "property rights" but with Dr. Myers invitation to others to commit thief. If Mr. Cook felt that his rights had been violated and that he had a cause of action he should have sought a remedy in law. What Mr. Cook did or did not do and Mr. Donohue intemperate remarks have nothing to do with the obligation of the University of Minnesota to hold Dr. Myers responsible for his actions. Dr. Myers does not have to accept responsibility for either Mr. Cook's or Mr. Donohue's behaviors.

Posted by: Max Verret | July 12, 2008 4:59 PM

Off-duty, private time is off-duty private time. Game, set & match. Or, as I like to say: "Ought isn't is." Whether you think the University "ought" to punish him isn't relevant. The University doesn't have the power and could find themselves at the bottom of a deep, dark and very expensive hole if they try.

Posted by: NanuNanu | July 12, 2008 6:40 PM

Owlmirror deserves 20 OMs for that play

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 6:47 PM

His taking the the cracker was theft because it was meant only for true christians and no true christian would take a cracker under the false premises that he was a true christian when he wasn't a true chr

aw fuck, I give up.

Posted by: MB | July 12, 2008 6:50 PM

Speaking of disciplining PZ, does anyone know why school teachers can be fired for their social site postings?

Does this guy not have a union or a contract or something? It seems school boards would have a hard time firing a teacher here in Cali over something like this - unless it really is porn? I know they don't have tenure, but they still have unions and contracts, don't they?

http://www.local6.com/education/10838194/detail.html

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 12, 2008 6:51 PM

raven wrote:

He should really drop the idea of doing something to a real, consecrated cracker.

What about some non-consecrated crackers (how would anyone know?) with various Mr. Bill "Oh Nooo!" faces drawn on them (so you could switch them around during cuts)? And what if the cracker is blindfolded and water-boarded (is water-boarding torture?)

Posted by: Leeobee | July 12, 2008 6:53 PM

''trolling with sockpuppets''

That seminal prog-rock album by influential German band 'Transubstantiation' 1973.... heady days.

Posted by: Reinis | July 12, 2008 6:55 PM

Owlmirror (#262) for a Molly or something!

Posted by: Citizen Z | July 12, 2008 7:00 PM

I stopped by just to ask what the difference was between doing what the prof is asking and, say, spray-painting graffiti on the Wailing Wall and *then* getting upset if the ADL calls for your job. Or dynamiting Buddhas the way the Taliban has done and wondering why the international community calls it a crime. Or beating a hornet's nest and getting angry at the hornets for, well, being hornets and wanting to defend their own.

It's a frackin' cracker.

Posted by: Richard in Edmonton | July 12, 2008 7:05 PM

Hey Kobra.

I was stumbling around the internet and happened to land on your site. I enjoyed the funeral pyre for the crackers and the commentary as well.
Perhaps you could also add the following for the enlightenment of those who do believe. Why is it that christ,who is alive according to any christian I have met, is singularly incapable
{ in the same way that Mohammed, vis-a vis a certain Danish cartoon}
of defending himself in the matter concerning this imagined desecration on his body rather than the zealots who worship his long dead ass?

Please keep up the good work trashing such silliness and perhaps one day the ones who sit in the background of church pews wondering just what all the madness going on around them is about may also stumble upon your web page.

Posted by: Kobra | July 12, 2008 7:08 PM

#374:

I'm saving that for the hate mail. And there WILL be hate mail. :P

Posted by: raven | July 12, 2008 7:12 PM

What about some non-consecrated crackers (how would anyone know?) with various Mr. Bill "Oh Nooo!" faces drawn on them (so you could switch them around during cuts)? And what if the cracker is blindfolded and water-boarded (is water-boarding torture?)

Then it probably doesn't matter. Just about everyone has access to crackers from their kitchen. Anyone can do whatever they want to their own crackers.

I guess we will find out.

Admins. have one main rule. Don't rock the boat. PZ is rocking their boat. They may or may not be able to fire him because of tenure but they have infinite ways of making his life miserable.

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 7:18 PM

I don't know where you're going...

"We've secretly replaced these worshippers hosts with new deChristinated wafers. Will they notice the difference?"

"Pardon me... how was your Jesus?" etc.

Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 7:19 PM

Thanks, Karen Marie, for the fresh detail from Webster Cook.

And OwlMirror, yr LOLcat gide wz purfik.

Posted by: rich (richmanwisco) | July 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Thing I find amusing about this whole thing (amongst many things) is the very palpable perception by the nutters that PZ is somehow a terrorist ringleader bent on overthrowing our government. Or maybe that's just me.

Or maybe.....

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 7:29 PM

Try as you might, your mental calisthenics cannot separate Communism from atheism. Russian Communists were atheists, even if not all atheists were/are Communists.

And Vikings were air breathers. Of course, being a Viking is not separate from breathing air, but breathing air is separate from being a Viking.

Cretin.

Posted by: Neural T | July 12, 2008 7:39 PM

They're not even smart enough to use a proxy service to change their IP.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 7:41 PM

Owlmirror, that was a prayin' tour de farce! I still can't reread it without a dozen involuntary LOLs. Definitely Molly worthy.

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 7:45 PM

dubiquiabs, that comment is worthy of a bookmark.

Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 7:58 PM

SCIENCE BLOGS PHARYNGULA DATABASE: AAAAOOOOOGAAAAH! OVERLOAD!

Ha! So full of win, that post was. Owlmirror needs a Lolly (LOL-inated Molly) for that!

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 8:05 PM

I was voting Owlmirror for Molly before it was cool.

Posted by: Tosser | July 12, 2008 8:07 PM

Is anyone else familiar with the sock puppetry master, Terry Burton? He is a Ray Comfort follower.

Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2008 8:13 PM

#262 = Epic

Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 12, 2008 8:16 PM

Which just might have something to do with not having stated it clearly.

It's clear enough when you read the comments prior to - rather than just poking in towards the middle - and realize that it was quite obvious who was talking about winning something.

But please, more quibbling over ridiculous tangents...

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 8:25 PM

It's clear enough

It wasn't to MB. Or do you think he feigned misunderstanding?

But please, more quibbling over ridiculous tangents...

Congratulations on joining the ranks of the intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Boilermaker | July 12, 2008 8:27 PM

Joe Blubaugh from Purdue:

I am also a student at Purdue, though I am not a Pharyngulan.

Care to have a discussion about this book: http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 8:32 PM

Jb, thanks.
It's no surprise to me that some school teachers sexually abuse kids, having been the victim of it myself.

There is a part missing from that article though. You know, the part about the massive coverup and attempt to protect the abusers, headed by the most powerful school administrators in the world.

It's pretty easy to reduce the numbers of of alleged abusers when one of the most powerful organizations on the planet is dedicated to that task from the very highest levels.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 8:38 PM

So Dubi's stats are bullshit. Got it. Thanks, Craig.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 8:39 PM

TM:
Let's hope those people from Crete aren't as touchy as those guys from Lesbos...

Posted by: Norman Doering | July 12, 2008 8:43 PM

Boilermaker wrote:

Care to have a discussion about this book:
http://irrationalatheist.com/freedl.html

Not really, and not here.
But you can leave a comment here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-one-more-of-vox-days-lies-andor.html

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 8:46 PM

jb,
The position of the Catholic church is that the pope is infallible.

The position of the Pope is that allegations of child rape must be kept secret, and that alleged child rapists must be protected from prosecution.

Therefore if its the position of the Catholic church, and its God, that alleged child rapists must be protected from exposure and prosecution.

You are an adherent the the Catholic faith, so you are an adherent to your God's commandment that alleged child rapists must be protected.

You're a good Catholic, you're doing that job well with your "we don't fuck THAT many kids" apologetics.

Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 8:51 PM

jb,

Your mom told me she wants you to stop praying with yourself and come upstairs for supper.

Posted by: Pertel | July 12, 2008 8:55 PM

I just got an idea: what if someone where to get ordained online and bless a whole bunch of crackers. They could have a party or something where people could get together and desecrate their hearts out. Even better, PZ could get ordained and do it himself - or it could be a youtube meme..!

I wonder what it takes to be able to bless a cracker the "right" way?

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 8:58 PM

Way to judge an entire group of people and their beliefs based upon one idiot. How enlightened you are. Do you treat other groups this way, too? Do you always argue against those who have the weakest arguments and credibility while ignoring those who challenge you the most?

Why not argue against the theological teachings of the Pope? And when I say that I do NOT mean take his writings out of context and misrepresent them. I have little faith that you will do this, however. It would be too much of a challenge and would do little to inflate your own ego. I would take a bit of intellectual honesty, wouldn't it?

May God have mercy on your soul. (And no, I do not say this to imply that I'm perfect. We are all in need of his mercy.)

Posted by: TSC | July 12, 2008 9:00 PM

I just bought some whole wheat flour. teh good for the soul.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 9:00 PM

""The position of the Catholic church is that the pope is infallible. The position of the Pope is that allegations of child rape must be kept secret, and that alleged child rapists must be protected from prosecution. Therefore if its the position of the Cathol...blahblahblahadnaseum."

Whoa. Hold on. Shit! OMG. You are so right and logical and blessed with amazing gifts of perception because everything you said is TRUE. Absolutely, unequivocally, TRUE. What have I been thinking!

Except...wait. No...no...you aren't right about any of it. Damn. (Sigh. I sooo wanted you to be right.) Your A+B=C scenario was going alright until... BAM! Turns out the Pope's not infallible about anything except the dogma of the Faith. "Dogma" doesn't cover discipline of clerics.

Oh, well--try again. And thanks for playing.

Posted by: Richard Simons | July 12, 2008 9:03 PM

I haven't been reading here as closely as I should, but I'm hoping you hold a contest for the best and funniest ideas of what to do with the Holy Cracker.

Posted by: Paul Burnett | July 12, 2008 9:04 PM

"I wonder what it takes to be able to bless a cracker the "right" way?"

Go to the Universal Life Church (http://www.themonastery.org ) website which "welcomes all who ask to become an Ordained Minister."

Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 9:04 PM

"AP: Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools"

"An Associated Press investigation found more than 2,500 cases over five years in which educators were punished for actions from bizarre to sadistic.

"There are 3 million public school teachers nationwide, most devoted to their work. Yet the number of abusive educators -- nearly three for every school day -- speaks to a much larger problem in a system that is stacked against victims.

"Most of the abuse never gets reported. Those cases reported often end with no action. Cases investigated sometimes can't be proven, and many abusers have several victims."

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/20/1037899-ap-sexual-misconduct-plagues-us-schools

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 8:25 PM

Yeah. Here's the problem with that article. You don't know what the term "sexual misconduct" means and are falsely conflating it with molestation.

31% of all the "sexual misconduct" that article is referring to is either between adults (typically prostitution stings) with no children/students involved. Or it's stupid stuff, like urinating in public when you're drunk. Things that until idiots like voted in morons that made them "sex crimes" weren't and shouldn't be classfied that way today.

The vast majority of the rest is inappropriate verbal conduct towards students. Making an off-color comment about a girls boobs or a guy's package. Sometimes they're inappropriate e-mails, etc. Sexually graphic jokes is another category.

Some are actually LEGAL sexual relationships where both parties are over the age of consent. However, it is still considered "sexual misconduct" because of the teacher/student relationship (even though they're, like I said, over the age of consent).

When it comes to actual child-raping pedophilia, like your catholic priests, the number is much smaller than the general population. One, because the MEN ARE SCREENED and those with issue kept out. But, mostly because the majority of teachers are WOMEN and they rarely commit pedophilia.

The reason I know this is because Catholic Church apologists have been quote mining that article since it came out. So I did a bit of research and discover YOU'RE QUOTE MINING ASSHOLES LYING TO PROTECT YOUR FUCKING CORRUPT CHURCH.

Man, I wish we had a kill file for this board... Because JB is one of the worst quote mining, ignorant, pointless trolls I've run into during this entire tet-a-tet.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 9:10 PM

True Bob:

Which of these idiots did I mean? How about the idiot Myers was talking about in his entry? I'm sorry I didn't spell that out for you. I assumed that one with so great an intelligence as yours would be able to connect the logic, but I suppose I was wrong. I shall not over-estimate your intelligence again.

And your theological argument is impeccable. Since when is being dismissive a valid tactic in debates? Oh -- since the New-Atheists have assumed the helm of "Rationalism."

As I said earlier: You guys aren't intellectually honest enough to have a true debate about theology. As Christopher Hedges said, you guys are theologically illiterate and proud of it, too. Therefore, there's not much point in debating theology with you. You don't even know enough about it to make it worth the time.

Perhaps you will find the humility to crack open a book by St. Augustine some day. I hope so, but I doubt it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:17 PM

As Christopher Hedges said, you guys are theologically illiterate and proud of it, too.

Indeed, we lack what it takes to accurately determine the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:20 PM

"Man, I wish we had a kill file for this board..."

Thanks, Moses, for showing how rational, coolheaded and non-violent you are when compared to the Big Bad Theists!

jb has reached the heights of self parody.

Posted by: Maldoror | July 12, 2008 9:25 PM

Come to Japan! We only have a few Christians here, and as a result, it's a really peaceful country!

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 9:26 PM

Dutch, if you want an intellectual convo, let's go.

Please explain what a 'god' is? I want to be sure we have the same understanding.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:30 PM

Is that a scientific conclusion?

It's an empirical conclusion.

If so, I'd like to see your experimental research.

The entire body of empirical evidence is available to you.

Do probably don't belief in the existence of music

See, here you make yourself out to be a completely dishonest idiot, since of course you believe that I do have that belief.

either, since one cannot PROVE music exists. After all, sound waves are provable, but music is not.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Both sound waves and music can be defined in terms that make them objectively observable.

Therefore, music does not exist since you cannot prove it does.

You and I and everyone else agrees that music exists, moron, so your analogy is immediately dishonest. And I didn't claim that God doesn't exist merely because you cannot prove it does, that's your idiotic strawman.

Posted by: Demonic Gophers | July 12, 2008 9:31 PM

"[You] probably don't belief in the existence of music, either, since one cannot PROVE music exists."

Music is a construct defined by the listener and society. After agreeing upon a description of what it means for something to be music, we can indeed prove that music exists.

Unless, of course, we are using a non-standard description, and it does NOT exist, or is completely undetectable.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 9:36 PM

True Bob:

I was referring to the sock-puppet idiot Myers mentioned in this post. I know of no other "idiots" Myers mentioned. I agree with Myers when he says that if the Truth is on one's side, there's no need to hide behind under-handed tactics.

That's why I agree with the Sock-Puppet being an idiot. I take exception, however, to Myers coming to the logical leap into concluding that this is an indication that all Catholics are idiots and Catholicism itself is idiotic.

This, I believe, is intellectually dishonest. I cannot see it as anything but. Myers has set high standards which he himself has not met. I'm just holding him accountable to them.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 9:36 PM

Dutch:
"Who's being more rationalistic then?"
1.The word is RATIONAL, no ISTIC.
2.Your music analogy is pathetically laughable.
Understand there there is a properly vague line in determining music versus noise. Yet we can identify music through melody, harmony counterpoint, etc.
If you're trying to convince anyone that you are an authority on philosophy, physics, art or even religion, you've failed.

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 9:38 PM

Dutch, your brief description tells me that "god" is thought and emotion. Not yet a physical entity in my understanding.

I have my own copy of the catechism, but I will not read the entire thing, I thought you wanted to discuss. Now I'm left with a very specific discussion with the Vatican, not with you.

Here's something simpler:

Why do you think a god* was necessary to create the universe?

I do not, because all our observations (not me personally, of course) indicate no need for outside intervention. Every point at which the god argument is used, as Dawkins wrote, merely pushes the problem back a notch. If god was always there, why can't the universe always have been there? If a god was needed because the universe is so complicated, what created this complicated** god that created the universe?

*Whatever that is.
*Perhaps an order of magnitude more complicated than the universe.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 9:40 PM

"And I didn't claim that God doesn't exist merely because you cannot prove it does, that's your idiotic strawman."

Sorry -- I was getting you confused with "Truth Machine."

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:42 PM

I take exception, however, to Myers coming to the logical leap into concluding that this is an indication that all Catholics are idiots and Catholicism itself is idiotic.

He took no such leap, you lying moron. He wrote "it makes your side, in this case the fundamentalist Catholics, look like a troop of posturing frauds" -- and indeed the behavior of the sockpuppet creates that appearance. As for Catholicism itself being idiotic, there are plenty of other reasons for that conclusion, which have been discussed at length here.

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:44 PM

"like the fact that the majority of the cases involved ephebophilia (or the attraction of an adult to a post-pubescent minor) and not genuine pedophilia?"

Well gosh, that's like hardly even bad, then. The people they molest are mostly TEENS!
And the numbers of reported cases after the entire mechanism of the Church suppresses as many reports as it can according to official Pope policy, is hardly even more than normal people!

And besides, those kids WANTED it, looking so... so virginal and everything.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2008 9:44 PM

Dutch Hedrick whined #436,
As Christopher Hedges said, you guys are theologically illiterate and proud of it, too. Therefore, there's not much point in debating theology with you. You don't even know enough about it to make it worth the time.

Please refer to The Courtier Reply . We don't need to know a thing about the royal fashion to tell you that the Emperor is naked.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 9:45 PM

"If god was always there, why can't the universe always have been there? If a god was needed because the universe is so complicated, what created this complicated** god that created the universe?"

Because God is the Creator and the Universe is the creation. Included in the Universe is Time, which is also a creation. Nothing created God because God is the uncreated Light.

This is also something St. Augustine discusses quite thoroughly.

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:46 PM

Incidentally, the only name I EVER post under on this blog is Craig. My given name.

Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 12, 2008 9:47 PM

Truth Machine, on the atheism-communism relationship, said (#386)

And Vikings were air breathers.

Multiple category errors there. Atheism and communism are related by their connection with human beliefs about people and the good life. Viking-ness is a condition one is born into, and breathing air is a biological necessity.

See the dishonesty employed by the compulsion to pretend a complex question is trivial.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 9:50 PM

Truth Machine:

A liar, eh? How can you tell? You have special knowledge of what goes on in my heart? Is this another "empirical conclusion"? How does an "empirical conclusion" differ from a scientific conclusion? Does science not use empirical data to come to its conclusions?

In short: You're just guessing. And that's what you presume to call "science."

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:50 PM

Awesome, OctoberMermaid, you're blowing my mind... but don't bogart that joint. :)

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 9:51 PM

Because God is the Creator and the Universe is the creation. Included in the Universe is Time, which is also a creation. Nothing created God because God is the uncreated Light.

Your "argument", or maybe St. Augustine's, seems to boil down to this: The universe had to have been created because it was.

So you are stating categorically that 1) The universe was created, 2) The universe had to have been created, 3) Time had to have been created and 4) God is uncreated without providing a shred of proof or even logical reasoning to back up your assertions.

Nice try. Next?

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 9:53 PM

Dutch, "St" Augustine has missed out on a lot of technology, hasn't he? Died in the 5th century? I don't believe he's a very good source.

Your words mean nothing. Saying something is so doesn't make it so. I think you are actually going backwards.

Let's get even more basic:
What makes you think the universe needed creating?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:53 PM

In short: You're just guessing. And that's what you presume to call "science."

It's called inference, you ignorant cretin.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 9:55 PM

Neil Schipper @466 wrote:

Atheism and communism are related by their connection with human beliefs about people and the good life.

Incorrect. Atheism says nothing either about people or what constitutes "the good life". Atheism is merely disbelief in god(s); it is either 1) a lack of belief in god(s) or 2) A belief that god(s) do not exist.

Communism may include atheism as part of its overall philosophy, but it is quite possible to be an atheist without being a Communist or believing in Communist utopias or the like. Ayn Rand is a prime example of an atheist whose beliefs in what constituted "happiness" and "the good life" were diametrically opposed to what Communism envisions.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 9:56 PM

OctoberMermaid:

You guys are the ones who are making evidence your criteria for belief. Yet you can't even provide the evidence for your own beliefs. You have faith that there is no God. I have faith that there is. It's a simple as that.

It's a strawman to say that I'm insisting upon evidence for existence of abstract concepts. I'm not, but you guys are. So I'm just holding you to your own standards.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:56 PM

Multiple category errors there. Atheism and communism are related by their connection with human beliefs about people and the good life. Viking-ness is a condition one is born into, and breathing air is a biological necessity.

a) you have no idea what the phrase "category error" means. b) Your "argument" here is an idiotic non sequitur to my point about logical relationships between sets.

Posted by: spurge | July 12, 2008 9:57 PM

So Dutch.

What is your proof Thor does not exist?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2008 9:58 PM

Dutch Hedrick #437,
'You're asking a non-existent entity not to be cruel to a non-existent entity, but you talk of "a bit of intellectual honesty"?'

Is that a scientific conclusion? If so, I'd like to see your experimental research. Don't hide these things from us, Mr. Truth Machine. The Truth must be told to all!

I'm sorry but the burden of proof is on you. You are arguing that God and souls exists which means you need provide the evidence, not TM.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 9:59 PM

You guys are the ones who are making evidence your criteria for belief.

Yes.

Yet you can't even provide the evidence for your own beliefs.

You're an idiot and a liar. Not sticking the entirety of scientific discovery into one blog comment is not the same as not being able to provide evidence.

Posted by: jb | July 12, 2008 9:59 PM

Call it what you will, Craig, you just can't call it 'pedophilia'. Disgusting tho it might be, an adult having sex with a 15 year-old is a compleeetely different thing than an adult abusing a toddler. (I mean, I am *supposing* we agree on that--it isn't toooo hard to grasp, is it?)

"I am more concerned about the cover up and cash payoff aspects of it, in avoidance of actual criminal prosecutions. I would hope you would want these kinds of allegations pursued criminally, and appropriate justice meted out for those convicted, just like I would."

If that is all you want, we're on the same page. Personally, I wanted every priest guilty of abuse/sex with minor defrocked and thrown out, and their crony bishop-superiors laicized. I don't know a Catholic who wouldn't.

However, it just don't work that way. For reasons too long-winded to go into, the Church isn't a corporation, and the pope ain't a CEO. Different rules apply: Like the laws of charity and forgiveness [and yes, I am knowingly opening this post up to your guffaws on this, but t'is true]: charity even towards the priest-abuser, even tho the Church knows what that looks like, and that it'll cost tons of money.

Posted by: Damian | July 12, 2008 10:02 PM

Victor Stenger said at the future of naturalism conference that he wishes that Carl Sagan had never said that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, because, actually it is pretty good evidence of absence.

There is no reason for us to believe that there is a God, up to and including the point where evidence is discovered.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 10:04 PM

Adrienne:

Nice double-speak. Saying your "absence of belief" is not a belief is simply absurd. Belief does not have to be positive to be belief. Either you belief or you don't or you're not sure.

If you don't believe something, however, then you are asserting a belief that is negative. Nevertheless, it is still a belief.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 10:05 PM

jb @490 wrote:

Call it what you will, Craig, you just can't call it 'pedophilia'. Disgusting tho it might be, an adult having sex with a 15 year-old is a compleeetely different thing than an adult abusing a toddler.

You are correct, it is called ephebophilia. See this URL: http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/diffephebophile.html

But it is not the same thing as homosexuality, if that's what you're trying to imply.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 10:07 PM

Adrienne:

Math has progressed? Really! So -- you mean that possibly one plus one was three until presto! it became two? Because that's what I was talking about.

There are mathematical laws which always remain unchanged. The laws are there for us to discover. We just need to discover them. The laws themselves, however, do not change.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 10:09 PM

Hey everybody, Dutch believes not believing in leprechauns is a belief. I guess you have a belief in no belief in Flying Purple People Eaters? Wow, what a powerful mind you have.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 10:11 PM

Dutch Hedrick digs the hole deeper @494:

Saying your "absence of belief" is not a belief is simply absurd.

Again, you state something categorically without backing it up. In fact, your statement merely shows the fact that you don't understand the distinction between lack of belief in something and positively claiming that something doesn't exist.

Belief does not have to be positive to be belief. Either you belief[sic] or you don't or you're not sure.

That's the absurdity here, and it's all yours. My disbelief in the supernatural is not a positive belief, just as bald is not an actual hair color. Get it now?

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 10:12 PM

Dutch, a major difference is that, if presented with evidence, I, and many other atheists, would change our opinion. Unfortunately for your world view, the more we humans investigate, the more it is revealed that there is no need for any creator. It's true that I cannot know everything, but I see less complicated answers than goddidit, so I believe there is/are no god/s.

For believers, the response to evidence of natural processes is things like "God is unknowable" (which is true, but it deflates all religious authority) or "God is mysterious" or "God is the light" or "Open your heart to cheeses". These phrases mean nothing in terms of evidence. If there's no evidence, and it's all based on faith, it's all a guess. The more that humanity learns, the less guessing needs to be relied upon.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 10:14 PM

jb @501:

Interesting that you leaped to that conclusion on your own; I never mentioned it.

I've had enough dealings with your coreligionists to know that this is usually the direction that argument takes.

Now that you have, tho, lemme ask you this: Why were 81% of the victims male, when bona fide pedophiles are indifferent as to the sex of their victims?

Maybe because the Vatican has always allowed altar boys but altar *girls* weren't common until the 1990s or so (and not in all parishes)? Boys were simply more available to the molesting priests than girls were.

Posted by: Damian | July 12, 2008 10:15 PM

Yet you can't even provide the evidence for your own beliefs. You have faith that there is no God. I have faith that there is. It's a simple as that.

So you believe in everything until it's been shown that it doesn't exist? That's some crazy logic.

What you're really saying is that it's justifiable to believe in God because it hasn't been shown not to exist, and you've got that exactly the wrong way round. Just think about what that would mean if it were true.

We are justified in not believing, just as both you and I are justified in not believing in any of the other God's because there isn't a single scrap of evidence for them.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 10:18 PM

Neil Schipper @499:

It's a counterclaim to claims about explanations for the existence of the world, people and what people are supposed to do.

Explanations about or at least assumptions about the origin of the world, universe, etc., I can agree to. But honestly, atheists really do differ quite a bit regarding their thoughts pertaining to 1) people, 2) the meaning of life, 3) what people are supposed to do with their lives, etc. Some are humanists, some are Communists, some are Objectivists, and so on.

But your original attempt at conflating Communism (a subset) with all of those are atheist (the whole set) is faulty.

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 10:21 PM

jb,

I think abuse of power was a major factor in the ephebophilia aspects. Powerful authority figure, performs magic rituals all the time, controls their church life and church future...

Also, consensual is not the same as legal. Ask Roman Polanski* about that.

*How's that for a long lost reference?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 10:23 PM

There are mathematical laws which always remain unchanged. The laws are there for us to discover. We just need to discover them. The laws themselves, however, do not change.

And there have been "discoveries" in philosophy since St. Augustine. But your understanding of both mathematics and philosophy is very poor. There's a reason that we refer to physical laws but not mathematical laws or philosophical laws.

Posted by: Kate | July 12, 2008 10:23 PM

Dutch, I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean.

My position is that God does not exist. One can not prove something is non existent. The onus is on the person making the positive claim to provide evidence to back up his claim.

This is how reality works. It is an unavoidable consequence of making a positive claim should you wish to prove your claim is true.

So... Let's see some evidence.

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

If anyone cares about the Lenski affair anymore, Schlafly's back.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 10:25 PM

As far as I can tell, you did not resort to name calling.

What is with these cretins who equate insults with irrationality?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 10:27 PM

It's not a positive belief -- but it IS a belief. Get it now?

Not believing in something is a belief?

So my baldness is a hair color?

My not collecting stamps is a hobby?

Posted by: Craig Holman | July 12, 2008 10:29 PM

Dutch keeps harping on Augustine. I don't think that anyone who does not specialize in the history of unworthy ideas needs to spend a moment of their lives reading or thinking about Augustine. He wrote a lot of drivel that ignorant apologists proclaim to be brilliant and inspired. They are wrong. Augustine is, at best, a footnote in the history of attempts to rationalize delusion.

Theology, in general, is an utter waste of human time and energy. It consists of intricate webs of words that are about nothing - nothing real, nothing important, nothing worth reading, nothing worth thinking about.

There are things worth reading, studying, and thinking deeply about. They are not to be found in religion.

It is time for people to grow up and shed their childish superstitions.

Religious people have a great deal to answer for. Whatever their intentions, they all perpetuate a dark pattern of willful ignorance and superstition that seeks to destroy curiosity, freedom, the search for truth, independence, and human dignity.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 10:30 PM

Dutch:
you said:If you don't believe something, however, then you are asserting a belief that is negative. Nevertheless, it is still a belief."

I said: Dutch believes not believing in leprechauns is a belief. I guess you(Dutch) have a belief in no belief in Flying Purple People Eaters.

Show me the flaws in my argument from your statement above.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 10:30 PM

You cannot prove a negative

Technically not 100% correct but it doesn't change the point you are making.

I can prove that the shirt I am wearing is not red, because it in fact is blue.

Posted by: amphiox | July 12, 2008 10:31 PM

Dutch Hedrick: The negative claim does not require evidence. It is the valid default position in the absence of evidence. Only positive claims require evidence.

jb: Very well then, the Church has different rules. These rules are odious and unjust, and the organization that applies and maintains them exposes itself as a force for evil in the world in doing so.

Forgiveness and charity are fine ethical standards, and I credit early Christianity for increasing their prominence in western society (but not for their invention).

But modern expressions of this religion are another thing entirely. Charity, you say? What about charity for the victims and potential victims of these pederasts (as you have asked, I won't use the term pedophile)? The Church did not just refrain from punishing these abusers, it kept them in positions of authority and hid the truth so that other children and parents could not take steps to protect themselves. In short, the Church actively facilitated the abusers' ability to find new victims. How many abused children might have been spared this trauma if the Church had acted with A SINGLE SHRED OF COMMON CHARITY towards them?

Forgiveness, you say? Sending death threats to a college student and advocating for his expulsion for not eating a cracker, and then trying to get a man who comes to said student's defense fired does not sound like forgiveness to me.

I think some of the ethical teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are among the finest moral guidelines human beings have ever had access to, regardless of whether or not Jesus did nor did not historically exist. My problem is that so many of the people who profess to be christians DO NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THESE TEACHINGS IN ANY WAY AT ALL. And the more prominently they declare their faith, the more odious their actions seem to be.

These are the actions of vile hypocrites, and you, jb, make yourself a hypocrite when you try to defend them.

Posted by: Kate | July 12, 2008 10:34 PM

I just can't understand why a large number of Christians have such a hard time understanding a lack of belief. There are billions of things they don't believe in like magical shoe elves, or Santa, or Shiva, or Thor. They have already had intimate experience with a lack of belief, yet they can not extend that to being able to understand a lack of belief in god.

It seems very simple and logical to me, so why can't they get it?

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 10:38 PM

It seems very simple and logical to me, so why can't they get it?

Well there's the problem, right there.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 10:39 PM

Truth Machine:

"And I agree with Dutch that "God does not exist" is a belief -- but it is a particularly well-founded one, as the world is the way we should expect it to be if there is no God, and very much not as we should expect it to be if there were."

Thank you, TM. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. As far as the world not being as we expect it if there were a God, I can only say that the world is as it is because of Free Will.

"A Clockwork Orange" does a good job at presenting what it would be like if Free Will were taken away from us in order to force us to do good. Stephen Colbert had a good description of Free Will in his recent interview with Dr. Philip Zimbardo. (I know I'm not spelling his name right.)

Anyway, I'll let that be my last word for now. I've got to go. It's been fun debating, though!

Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 12, 2008 10:40 PM

Adrienne @510:

.. your original attempt at conflating Communism (a subset) with all of those are atheist (the whole set)..

Posted by: True Bob | July 12, 2008 10:41 PM

Oh don't leave on the Free Will issue! Now we have to open the Can of Omniscient Worms.

Ah well. Goodnight, Gracie.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 10:45 PM

E.V.:

Way to avoid the substance of what I was saying in regards to Descarte and his mechanical philosophy of the universe. Intellectually dodgy to the end.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 10:49 PM

I wanted to point out that the relationships between atheism and any other -isms that set out ways to live and which have animated human actions in history are interesting and complex, and that it's common for people here to trivialize it.

You're attacking a strawman. jb (like so many before him) attempted to attach the sins of Stalin to atheists. But the sins of Stalinists can't be attached to other atheists any more than the sins of Vikings can be attached to other air breathers. The difference between being a Viking or air breather and being a Stalinist or atheist isn't relevant; what is relevant is the set relationships -- Stalinism isn't representative of, or a necessity of, atheism, any more than being a Viking is representative of, or a necessity of, breathing air.

Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | July 12, 2008 10:50 PM

@ jb in #109. So those goddam religio tards ruined perfectly good swimmin hole to put up a fuckin useless cathedral? that is some douchebaggery of the most egregious sort.

Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2008 10:55 PM

re #262, I second the Lolly nomination by pcarini.

I don't care if it doesn't exist.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 10:57 PM

As far as the world not being as we expect it if there were a God, I can only say that the world is as it is because of Free Will.

It's not even the way we should expect it to be if there's a God and free will. But there's no contracausal free will -- the evidence against it is very strong, and growing -- neuroscience is a very active field, although that would be unknown to someone who thinks that "From Descarte (sic) on, it's all downhill from there" and doesn't value Descartes' positive contribution to our understanding of the world, and especially the part of the world that does the understanding.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 11:00 PM

TruthMachine @539:

Consider the propositions "there are magical shoe elves" and "there are no magical shoe elves". We aren't neutral about these propositions; we deny the former and assert the latter. i.e., we disbelieve the former and believe the latter.

Yes, but consider upping the ante to the point where the magical shoe elves were given powers to escape human detection and otherwise make themselves invisible to human senses and machine detection. In that case, we'd have to say that we cannot say for sure that magical shoe elves do not exist, but we simply cannot differentiate for sure between their invisible, indetectable existence and their non-existence.

In everyday speech, we'd probably say we don't believe in magical shoe elves. But if a Magical Shoe Elf Believer pressed us on it, we'd have to admit that it's beyond our capabilities to conclusively prove that Magical Shoe Elves do NOT exist or CANNOT exist.

And that's how I see Dutch et al.'s arguments for God. No, we can't prove that an omniscient, omnipotent, untestable, etc., God does not exist. But because there is no real way to differentiate between His/Her/Its existence and His/Her/Its non-existence, then we can say that we don't believe in Him/Her/It until such time as he have empirical evidence in favor of the positive claim.

Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 11:01 PM

Also, JB, forgiveness is understandable. I for example have long since forgiven those who abused me.

The church's policy has nothing to do with forgiveness, though.
If it did, it would have involved making sure the victims were helped.

It did not. Instead it involved moving priests away when there were hints of a problem so that they could simply molest others in new towns... it involved calling the victims liars. It involved blocking victims attempts to et justice.
It involved a policy of silence that expired NOT when "forgiveness" was achieved, but when statutes of limitations had expired.

The church's actions had nothing to do with sympathy for the victims or even much for the perpetrators. The church's actions were solely to protect itself from scrutiny, controversy, and above all to protect its hoarded riches.

Say anything you want to defend this predatory organization, all it does is prove your devotion to the immoral.

You show that not only are you deeply delusional, you're deeply immoral.
You say you disagree with these vile things... but did you do one thing about it?
Did you lead a group of church members in trying to reform the church? Did you write letters of protest? Did you complain loudly? Did you resign from the church in protest? Did your views of the church change at all?

No... what you DID do is come here to defend that church with all your heart.

You're not only an insane fuck, you're a twisted sick fuck.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 11:05 PM

Adrienne:

"In everyday speech, we'd probably say we don't believe in magical shoe elves. But if a Magical Shoe Elf Believer pressed us on it, we'd have to admit that it's beyond our capabilities to conclusively prove that Magical Shoe Elves do NOT exist or CANNOT exist.

And that's how I see Dutch et al.'s arguments for God. No, we can't prove that an omniscient, omnipotent, untestable, etc., God does not exist."

I would not say that Magical Shoe Elves exist anymore than St. Augustine would argue for polytheism -- and he wrote ten books in "City of God" arguing against it. If you're interested in knowing those arguments, I suggest reading it.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 11:07 PM

I'm not sure why Christians bring out the free will excuse for why the world isn't the way we'd expect it to be if God were real.

I also hear them say that the reason God doesn't offer us proof of his existence is because that, too, would take away free will. I'm not sure if that's what Dutch is implying, but that's problematic for several reasons.

For one thing, if God doesn't want to give out proof for fear of messing with free will, how come he wasn't shy about showing himself to everyone and their brother in the Bible? Dude was showing up constantly, miracle after miracle. Did he not care back then? But wait! God is unchanging! He's eternal and the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. After all, he created time, as Dutch told us, so he must be outside of time, as well.

But let's say that ok, God changed his mind about showing himself now. Well then how come so many Christians say they KNOW in their hearts that God is real? If they know, doesn't that destroy free will in and of itself? They say they have personal relationships with him. Wouldn't that also destroy free will? And wouldn't God apparently writing a book and saying "I WROTE THIS! I AM GOD AND THIS IS MY WORD" also destroy free will?

Well, golly, this whole concept seems kind of flaky, doesn't it?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:08 PM

P.S., Since so many of you are questioning my credentials I'll just mention that I took as my Philosophy requirement Normative Ethics at N.C. State under Tom Regan. I got an 'A'.

I too went to NC State and using an animal right activist to support your cred on a science blog may not be the best tactic.

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 11:12 PM

Dutch @556:

I'm glad you don't believe in magical shoe elves. Neither do I. So does that mean your lack of belief in magical shoe elves constitutes a positive belief in....something else?

Good to know St. Augustine didn't believe in magical shoe elves either. And no, I'm really not interested in reading his books. I've already read enough Catholic philosophy and "moral theology" to last me through the rest of my life.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 11:13 PM

Rev. BDC:

Ha! I never would have thought of that, but I forgot this was a science blog -- especially since we've been discussing nothing but theology and philosophy on this thread.

Is it because scientists take a dim view about animal rights activists who might argue against using animals in scientific experiments that you make your suggestion? I wouldn't think Regans credentials as a philosopher are a matter for dispute.

Incidentally, good to meet a fellow State grad.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 12, 2008 11:14 PM

Dutch said in # 536,
Anyway, I'll let that be my last word for now. I've got to go. It's been fun debating, though!

And then he came back 6 minutes later. Is "I'm going" some sort of Trollism for "I'm staying".

Posted by: aleph1=c | July 12, 2008 11:17 PM

Well jb, did you?

Posted by: SteveM | July 12, 2008 11:18 PM

Is it because scientists take a dim view about animal rights activists who might argue against using animals in scientific experiments that you make your suggestion?

No, its because animal rights activists have started getting much more violent recently.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 11:21 PM

Yes, but consider upping the ante to the point where the magical shoe elves were given powers to escape human detection and otherwise make themselves invisible to human senses and machine detection. In that case, we'd have to say that we cannot say for sure that magical shoe elves do not exist, but we simply cannot differentiate for sure between their invisible, indetectable existence and their non-existence.

What's this "for sure" crap doing on a science blog? There's nothing we can say "for sure", including that Lincoln was assassinated and George Bush sleeps in the White House. But I believe that no such powerful magical shoe elves exist, and as do you, and it would simply be dishonest to deny it.

In everyday speech, we'd probably say we don't believe in magical shoe elves. But if a Magical Shoe Elf Believer pressed us on it, we'd have to admit that it's beyond our capabilities to conclusively prove that Magical Shoe Elves do NOT exist or CANNOT exist.

So what? We believe all sorts of things that it is beyond our capabilities to conclusively prove one way or the other. But we have good grounds for our beliefs that magical shoe elves and Gods do not exist, grounds based largely in our intuitions as to what it means for something to exist and what sorts of things we should grant existence to.

And that's how I see Dutch et al.'s arguments for God. No, we can't prove that an omniscient, omnipotent, untestable, etc., God does not exist.

Actually, we can; it's quite straightforward to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent God is logically impossible, as omniscience implies an unalterable state of affairs. Such a God cannot choose to make false what he knows to be true. To make that coherent, one must change the meanings of "omniscient" or "omnipotent" to be something else, Humpty-Dumpty-like.

But because there is no real way to differentiate between His/Her/Its existence and His/Her/Its non-existence, then we can say that we don't believe in Him/Her/It until such time as he have empirical evidence in favor of the positive claim.

All rational beliefs are provisional. I believe there is no God, and I believe that there's no flaw in Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but the FLT could be false nonetheless.

Posted by: Bert Chadick | July 12, 2008 11:22 PM

Kudos owlmirror! Do you have an agent?

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 11:23 PM

"Way to avoid the substance of what I was saying in regards to Descarte and his mechanical philosophy of the universe. Intellectually dodgy to the end."

No, it's just I don't have the time for you to catch up to modern arguments in order to have meaningful discourse, especially from your brilliant summation of Descarte. One philosphy course doesn't really prove you can discuss philosophy intelligently, much less imagine yourself a philosopher, "A" or not. However, now I know who to go to when I need arcane info on Augustine...
City of God, anyone? Anyone?... yeah, me neither.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 11:27 PM

"You're confusing Free Will with Faith. Just because one has faith doesn't mean they don't have free will."

But I hear from many Christians (Baptists, admittedly. They're who I have to deal with the most) that if we knew and had no need for faith, we would instantly lose free will. Why?

And while you may have faith, most Christians I hear don't say "I believe without evidence" when they say they have faith. In fact, they typically just say "I know that I know that I know" and that they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real and they are saved. In fact, many of them have told me repeatedly that the only way to get into heaven is to know without doubt "in your heart" that God is real.

That doesn't sound like faith, which is just believing without evidence. That's just knowing something without evidence, which is.. ignorant and/or crazy.

I think the waters are deliberately muddy here because, well, it suits "people of faith."

Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 12, 2008 11:27 PM

truth machine @ 44:

what is relevant is the set relationships -- Stalinism isn't representative of, or a necessity of, atheism, any more than being a Viking is representative of, or a necessity of, breathing air

What's relevant is that about two hundred years ago, challenges to Abrahamism started to emerge in a big way, and occupied increasing numbers of thinking people, some quite brilliant. This "increase of rationality" led to non-supernatural claims about how people should live, claims often defended as scientific.

The question raised is about the degree to which human minds, vessels of all kinds of beliefs with varying degrees of truth value, as they get emptied of Abrahamism (or any other supernaturalism), become vulnerable to new beliefs that threaten my genes.

Posted by: Craig Holman | July 12, 2008 11:29 PM

What free will?

Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2008 11:31 PM

Way to go Dutch!

I think you're getting through.

It's impressive seeing someone who got an 'A'in Normative Ethics at N.C. State under Tom Regan operate.

PS thanks for responding to my earlier entreaty, Dutch.

Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 11:32 PM

"Remember, for them belief comes first and argumentation comes later. That order is the difference between apologetics and reason."

Worthy of putting on Billboards everywhere!

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 12, 2008 11:35 PM

OctoberMermaid:

I agree with much of what you said here. There is a difference between Faith and Blind Faith. I do not believe in Blind Faith.

Frankly, even the Pope does not believe in Blind Faith. He points to Doubting Thomas and how God (through Christ) allowed Himself to be questioned. (I think I'm getting that right, but I'm recalling from memory. I don't have his writings in front of me.)

I think it's unfortunate that so many Baptists have given religion a bad name. Although I'm Catholic, I do know of some good Baptists -- I think John Edwards is one of them. Anyway, they get picked on a lot because, unfortunately, there are so many of them here in the south and they seem to shout the loudest.

There's a good reason, however, the Church does not recognize their theology.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 11:35 PM

I do claim that Stalinism and atheism have some kind of non-trivial historical connection.

You continue to miss the point. As I said originally "Of course, being a Viking is not separate from breathing air, but breathing air is separate from being a Viking." The point of the analogy was that Stalinism has a historical connection to atheism, but not vice versa.

What's relevant is that about two hundred years ago, challenges to Abrahamism started to emerge in a big way, and occupied increasing numbers of thinking people, some quite brilliant. This "increase of rationality" led to non-supernatural claims about how people should live, claims often defended as scientific.

But this does not show the sort of causal relationship that jb was claiming between atheism and Stalinism, or Communism. As I said, you're arguing against a strawman. And as was pointed out by others, the original Christians were communists, and they lived a lot more than 200 years ago.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 11:37 PM

Yeah, Dutch, gotta echo what OctoberMermaid said @585: How do you know all this stuff about God's nature? How do you know God cannot deceive because it would be unGodlike? How is it you fully understand the Divine Nature such that you speak with this authority? Seems to me the only way that could be true is if you were God.

Posted by: SteveC | July 12, 2008 11:38 PM

I've read all these threads and I have to admit, the theists have convinced me. They have convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt. I wouldn't have thought they could have convinced me of anything at first, but, wow. They have.

They have convinced me -- that they are idiots.

I mean really the "arguments" the theists have presented do not just fail to be good. The fail to not be blatantly, in-your-face retarded.

Posted by: Damian | July 12, 2008 11:41 PM

Richard Carrier made what I consider to be an interesting argument about the distinction, or lack thereof, between atheists and agnostics:

Atheist or Agnostic?

Personally, I don't care all that much if nonbelievers prefer to call themselves agnostics rather than atheists. I think by now most everyone knows these are the same thing (after all, either way, you don't believe in God). And eventually the social stigma attached to the latter will float over and latch onto the former anyway, leaving no place left to hide. Well, okay, maybe the squeamish atheists will once again invent some new word to call themselves, so they can confuse a prejudiced society into not realizing they are (gasp!) really atheists. But that will just go the same way. In the end, the advantage will be lost, yet another word will have to be invented to hide behind, and 'round and 'round it goes. Good luck with that.

For me, this is all just a social game, semantic trickery, that is hard to have sympathy for, but I can't honestly criticize nonbelievers who want to avoid the social stigma falsely attached to a maligned word. Prejudice in this country, in some places and situations, is certainly real and harmful enough to justify a desire to dodge it. If black people could pretend to be white, I'm sure some of them would. This is frequently enough true for gays that they have a whole terminology of social disguise (like "in the closet" and "beard"). You can't condemn this until you've walked a mile in their shoes.

There is also a silly and heated debate (even so far as to cultivate outright rage) between atheists and agnostics as to who is really what. Of course, these terms don't even have a single meaning. Just as "atheist" can mean "denier" or "unbeliever" (generating the rather lame, confusing, and misleading terminological distinctions of "hard" and "soft" atheist or "positive" and "negative" atheist), so can agnostic mean "undecided" or "dunno!" The latter is more etymologically and historically correct, since agnosticism is supposed to be the formal position that one cannot know whether God exists or not (whether by definition or as a contingent fact of a particular agnostic's limited access to relevant evidence), but the former meaning is still very common in actual use, and both have crept into other contexts (so, for example, you can be an "agnostic" now, in either sense of the term, as to whether Robin Hood actually existed).

I say more about all this in Sense and Goodness without God (see pp. 253-56). Beyond what I say there, technically I would prefer "undecideds" to call themselves anapophasists (the actual Greek for "without a decision"), so agnostics can be identified as those who formally claim not to know (since a-gnostikos means "without knowledge"), but you can probably see how these overlap a great deal. The line between them is certainly blurry. And at any rate, I have no illusions about my prospects for changing linguistic convention. My prospects are better in the other direction, since I prefer "atheism" to be used in its equally literal sense: a-theismos, without theism, i.e. without a belief in god. For in actual practice, this is how it is almost always used. And, as far as I see it, any other usage rhetorically violates the Law of the Excluded Middle.

Some theists, however, who are often fond of playing word games, have tried to act the linguistic imperialist and insist (contrary to any etymological or historical or philosophical precedent) that "atheism" means only the positive denial of every god's existence. In my opinion that's just verbal thuggery, since it does not agree with English usage or actual fact and is basically a "special" definition invented solely for polemical purposes, not for any authentic aim, like knowledge or practical application.

But even some atheists (or, I should say, "nonbelievers") jump into this fray, usually with "agnostics" accusing "atheists" of playing verbal games when they deny this religiously contrived definition of "atheism," or with atheists accusing agnostics of accepting it. It gets even crazier when either side starts rambling on about babies being either "atheists" or "agnostics" because they've never even heard of God and certainly have no "belief" in one, and eventually fictional cultures get invented where no one has ever heard of or thought up any notion of any god. No one seems to notice (or care) that examples like these constitute a kind of category fallacy, since there is a mountain of difference between someone who has a belief-state (of either belief or disbelief in some proposition) and someone who has no corresponding belief-state at all. You might as well argue that stones and trees are atheists. Sure, in a sense that's true, but why should anyone care?

This merry-go-round isn't very common. The whole tussle is limited to a rather small segment of nut-headed youths and grumpy old men within the atheist community. But it's all so silly that I find the whole "who really is an atheist?" debate rather pointless. In actual fact, every unbeliever is both an atheist who denies God and an atheist who merely doesn't believe in God. So there is no sense in which anyone can just pick one and deny they are the other. Shocking thing to claim, you say? Well, it can be demonstrated quite easily.

Let's invent two gods, extreme cases each, but you should be able to see how all other gods fall on a continuum between them:

Bumpypoo is a supremely powerful God, creator of the universe, who uses his powers to make sure you never have any reason to believe he exists.

Can you deny the existence of Bumpypoo? Or do you merely lack belief in him? Assuming there is a difference, you can only assert the latter. Because you can never, even in principle, have any evidence against Bumpypoo's existence. By definition he will ensure that the evidence always misleads you, therefore evidence of his absence is not at all predictive of his non-existence. This is true even for a devout Christian: it is logically impossible for you to deny the existence of Bumpypoo. You can only disbelieve in his existence. This constitutes what I call a "Cartesian Demon" in Sense and Goodness without God, so to learn more about that you can check the index there. But my point here is, everyone is an agnostic with regard to Bumpypoo. They haven't any choice.

Okay. Now consider this:

Monkeybutt is a supremely powerful God, creator of the universe, who uses his powers to make sure you have tons of clear and undeniable evidence that he exists.

Can anyone say they don't outright deny the existence of Monkeybutt? It would be patently irrational to say you "merely" don't believe in Monkeybutt, because you would have the vast evidence of your own direct experience against the existence of Monkeybutt. The absence of evidence in this case is not only highly predictive of his non-existence, it virtually entails his non-existence. Hence you can be as certain of his non-existence as of anything you claim to know about anything.

Therefore, everyone is a soft/negative atheist vis-a-vis Bumpypoo and at the same time a hard/positive atheist vis-a-vis Monkeybutt. Therefore, there is never any real separation between an atheist and a formal agnostic. Any atheist who denies one god's existence will also be an atheist who merely doesn't believe in some other god's existence, and vice versa, since everyone, always, does both. Ergo, no agnostic can ever claim they are not an atheist and no atheist can ever claim they are not an agnostic. Bumpypoo and Monkeybutt dash any hopes atheists or agnostics might have had of avoiding each other's label.

Of course, even Christians are, in a limited sense, atheists of both types, with regard to Bumpypoo and Monkeybutt (and thus agnostics with regard to Bumpypoo). So the only thing that separates believers in God from the rest of us is a belief in at least one god. Ergo, the only thing that can ever logically matter in distinguishing theists from "atheists" is whether we believe any god exists. Hence all that matters in defining an atheist is that an atheist does not believe in any god. Whether there are some gods atheists also deny is wholly irrelevant--because there are some gods everyone denies, even believers! And as long as we don't believe in any God, we are not theists, and are therefore atheists. Unless you want to invent some new stupid word. But until you invent a mind-altering machine that can insert this new word into the brains of billions of people, your new word won't be of any popular use. Indeed, even if you could accomplish such a thing, I doubt your stupid new word would even be useful.

At most you can bicker about "which" gods certain atheists deny and which ones they merely disbelieve (again, assuming you can actually identify a difference). But how can that ever matter for whether you are an atheist or a theist? Even if Atheist A disagrees with Atheist B as to which gods can be denied and which merely disbelieved, it remains the case that the only thing distinguishing both Atheist A and Atheist B from all theists is that neither A nor B believes in any gods. Otherwise, both A and B deny some gods and both A and B merely disbelieve in some gods, and since we have no terminology in the English language to distinguish Atheist A from Atheist B (or from atheists C, D, E, etc., ad infinitum), there is no sense in trying to deny that A or B is "really" an atheist, or trying to claim A or B is "really" an agnostic, or really "not" an agnostic, or debating whether it's Atheist A or Atheist B who's the hard or soft atheist. They are always both. Because of Monkeybutt and Bumpypoo, they're all of the above.

Therefore, there is simply no such thing as a "soft atheist" who is not also a "hard atheist," or a "hard atheist" who is not also a "soft atheist." If you don't believe in any god, then you will always be both. The only difference will be which gods you put where. Hence all unbelievers are both atheists and agnostics, and neither can deny either name. They can never be separated. Though these categories aren't synonymous, you still can't sort unbelievers into "atheists" and "agnostics" any more than you can sort them into "persons" and "people." Thus it is simply stupid to debate which you are.

Sorry, but I have to call it like I see it.

Posted by: amphiox | July 12, 2008 11:43 PM

jb, you missed my point completely. Forgiveness and charity to the offender is a wonderful thing to strive for, and the teachings attributed to Jesus on this point is one of the things I admire most, but at the same time you have an absolute responsibility to protect potential victims from the possibility of the offender offending again. If I found out my father had abused a child, I would try to find it in my heart to forgive him, even if it was my child who was abused, but I would damn well do everything in my power to make sure he never gets unsupervised access to children ever again!

The Catholic Church could have moved the abusers out of the communities they harmed and assigned to positions where they would not have had contact with children, and supervise them to ensure that that they had no contact with children. I would have been satisfied with this plus compensation of the victims alone--no vindictive punishments, no public disavowals, not even a private reprimand. This would have been easy, EASY, for the Catholic Church to do. THEY DID NOT DO IT. THEY DID NOT EVEN TRY.

By this failure, they forfeited in my mind any privilege they might once have had to be considered an organization worthy of respect.

Posted by: splendidmonkey | July 12, 2008 11:44 PM

Maybe there are more people alive than have ever died?

(half of them are sock puppets)

Posted by: Craig Holman | July 12, 2008 11:46 PM

Again, Dutch blathers on about 'god' as if this is something real. It is not. Dutch should be ashamed of himself for wasting bits on such an unworthy topic.

I doubt that we'll ever be free of religion - too many people are infested with that particular complex of nasty memes - but I sure as hell don't have to listen to this idiot spew forth his mindless and immoral theological diarrhea without calling a spade a spade.

Life is too short to let this garbage go unanswered.

If Dutch's 'god' were to exist, it would be contemptible and unworthy of respect, let alone worship. It does not exist, however, so what would have been an interesting confrontation will never occur.

There is no point in arguing with these people - they have been infected with something that renders them immune to reason and uncaring about truth.

Simply put up quarantine signs warning the children to stay away.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 11:48 PM

OctoberMermaid @599: I had 12 years of Catholic religious education, six of them in an Opus Dei school. The Opus Dei education aimed for "faith based on reason", which is different from the "blind faith" that Dutch spoke of earlier, in that it's supposed to be faith based on reason or on what's reasonable. As in, it's reasonable to think that there is a God, that he wants to get to know His creatures, etc. But while certainly better than the "don't question anything" blind-faith approach, ultimately the "faith based on reason" approach devolves into believing on faith those things that are supposedly beyond human understanding: Transubstantiation, the Nature of the Triune Godhead, etc.

Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 11:54 PM

Dutch Hedrick, I do believe you're starting to grow on me.

@601 you wrote:

Discovering Truth and Love is discovering God. I believe in Truth and I believe in Love.

But I believe in those things too, yet I have no problem in believing in them as abstract concepts that do not need to be instantiated in a supernatural being.

I need no proof for those things.

Actually, you can make a case in favor of each one without resorting to the supernatural. But even so, aren't you basically admitting here that you have no real objective proof of your God, you just believe in Him as some sort of supernatural manifestation of these ideals?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 11:55 PM

Because my belief is in a God that is perfect Truth (rational) and perfect Love. It would not be truthful or loving to deceive. If it is not perfectly true or perfectly loving at once, then it cannot be God and should not be worshiped as God.
Discovering Truth and Love is discovering God. I believe in Truth and I believe in Love. I need no proof for those things. That means the only question that remains is whether Truth and Love act as a person. That's what the atheists -- and I do not use that term as a putdown as so many theists would -- must argue against.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 11:58 PM

It is NOT in the nature of the rock, however, to get up and start singing show tunes. The rock is what it is. Similarly, it is not in God's Nature to deceive. God cannot be un-Godlike, or otherwise he would not be God.

There is so much wrong with this, not the least of which is that, through a process that took billions of years, rock turned into something that gets up and sings show tunes, and now we can, in a much shorter time, form rock into something that you can put on your desk that can display non-existent figures dancing and singing show tunes.

The "nature" of rock is determined by observation and analysis of its components and how they interact, in light of what we know of physics and chemistry; it is a posteriori, not a priori. But there are no such grounds for these claims about "God". It is certainly within the realm of logical possibility that the universe was created by a deceptive entity. And if one rules that out by fiat, then there's all the more reason to think that this "God" does not exist, as its existence is well hidden and this book that people claim it wrote is full of falsehoods, as are the mouths of its proponents.

Posted by: themadlolscientist, FCD | July 12, 2008 11:59 PM

@ #142: What does it say about someone when they list google.com as their web page?

(Of course, maybe I shouldn't talk, since I don't even have one. But WTF, I had to ask anyway.)

Posted by: Dan J. | July 13, 2008 12:02 AM

To say that God "cannot choose to make false what he knows to be true" means that he lacks omnipotence ignores the concept of Divine Nature.—Dutch

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 12:07 AM

OctoberMermaid and Adrienne:

I've just got to say that I've really loved chatting about these things with you because the questions you guys ask me get me to think about things I wouldn't have thought of myself. It challenges me and helps me to learn and grow, so it's been richly rewarding. I hope it's been that way for you guys, too. It's made me stay much later than I originally intended.

Thanks, by the way, for putting up with my sloppy typing and spelling. I try my best. :)

Here's hoping we all find what we're searching for in Life! Bye! :)

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 12:09 AM

Adrienne:

Before I go, could you elaborate on the substance/accidents thing of which you speak? Thanks.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 12:12 AM

But if we are to begin walking, we should at least have faith that the path we're traveling upon is the right one.

Utter nonsense. One doesn't need any sort of "faith" to simply not waste time on one's knees, in church, stupidly capitalizing words like "love" and "him", or assaulting people who don't swallow crackers.

Posted by: Dan J. | July 13, 2008 12:16 AM

Before I go, could you elaborate on the substance/accidents thing of which you speak? Thanks.

And if you truly believe that those wafers are the actual body of a supposed prophet who died nearly 2000 years ago, and not simply a symbol, then you are not a rational being.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 13, 2008 12:18 AM

#616

Don't get me wrong, I really DO enjoy discussing this stuff. The trick is for me to put aside my typical habit of being snarky or sarcastic. I'm used to talking to a very particular kind of theist and so I tend to go straight into "that mode" which is obviously not fair to people who really do want a discussion, and I just end up being a total dick. So I do appologize for that, because I came off pretty lousy for a while there.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 12:20 AM

Not a problem, Adrienne. Good night! :)

Posted by: Craig Holman | July 13, 2008 12:24 AM

Are they finally gone?

Oh, what silly and tiresome creatures they are.

They exchange utter nonsense and then praise themselves and each other for the service they've done to their 'god'.

Where are the Daleks when you need them?

Posted by: Gûm-ishi Ashu Gurum | July 13, 2008 12:27 AM

delurking to add my praise to 262. epic and hilarious.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 12:28 AM

E.V.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but I just thought I'd point out that if St. Augustine is now invalid because of its age, then Descartes will be just as invalid with time.

Personally, I don't belief that Truth has an expiration date.

(And, truthmachine, I capitalize 'Truth' because I mean ultimate Truth, not just a particular portion of truth. So you see -- my capitalizations DO have meaning behind them. You just refuse to acknowledge what I'm communicating with such capitalizations. That however is your decision and has nothing to do with me.)

Posted by: Tom L | July 13, 2008 12:29 AM

It's not sock puppetry. Truly, it must be the miracle of the oafs and the phishers.

Alert the Vatican!

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 12:30 AM

To say that God "cannot choose to make false what he knows to be true" means that he lacks omnipotence ignores the concept of Divine Nature.

To say it is to state an analytical truth. "the concept of Divine Nature" is tantamount to admitting that God isn't omnipotent. Which is fine -- people who want to believe in "divine nature" should simply give up omniscience as a property of their god. Except that omniscience is part of the dogma, and so they aren't allowed to give it up. So they cling to obviously inconsistent views even though they could make them somewhat less obviously inconsistent, and then blather about all of that being rational.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 12:33 AM

Dan J.:

As someone who was brought up Catholic himself, he should have known better. His protesting school funds being used for the Church seems to undercut his argument that he had no intention other than to show his non-Catholic friend the Eucharist.

If one wanted to see what it looked like, there are other ways of doing so. When I was young, I remember a priest letting us taste a non-consecrated communion wafer because we were curious about what it tasted like.

The student obviously wanted a consecrated wafer because he knew what it means to Catholics. He just did a sloppy job at getting away with it.

Posted by: John Morales | July 13, 2008 12:34 AM

I wonder if I'm the first to congratulate Cuttlefish on another masterpiece?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 12:35 AM

(And, truthmachine, I capitalize 'Truth' because I mean ultimate Truth, not just a particular portion of truth.

A stupid, meaningless notion.

So you see -- my capitalizations DO have meaning behind them.

No, they have retardation behind them.

You just refuse to acknowledge what I'm communicating with such capitalizations. That however is your decision and has nothing to do with me.)

What I said was that one doesn't need "faith" in order not to waste one's time doing that. So yes, it is my decision and has nothing to do with you, moron.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 12:38 AM

The student obviously wanted a consecrated wafer because he knew what it means to Catholics. He just did a sloppy job at getting away with it.

You're obviously an ignorant jackass who is willfully ignoring the facts of the case, facts that have been discussed in these threads at length.

Posted by: Tom L | July 13, 2008 12:41 AM

"If one were to go into a Jewish synagogue an take the Torah from the Ark and try to leave with it, I'm sure someone would make a fuss out of that."

I understand what you are saying about depth of feeling, though your analogy fails to take into account that the Catholics are GIVING these things out freely. It's not at all like stealing the Torah from its Ark. It would be as if at the synagogue they were handing out Xerox copies of their Torah (made using a special kosher Xerox machine) and then sending death threats to the poor schmuck who dog-eared one of the pages so he could study it back at the dorm.

Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 13, 2008 12:43 AM

truth machine #590:

But this does not show the sort of causal relationship that jb was claiming between atheism and Stalinism, or Communism. As I said, you're arguing against a strawman.

These are not simple causal relationships of abstract entities. Only a charlatan would make such a claim. But these relationships matter to me. And you trivialize them. Over and over and over.

E.V. #580:

How would your genes be threatened from the loss of supernaturalism?

Posted by: sconnor | July 13, 2008 12:44 AM

Naz, k8, promo, baker, PZ is a fool, Burns, rumrunner, Dobbs, NYTs, KKKAthiest, Andy, CDV, BradJ, Brett, b7, PCD, NVFU, Your daddy, facebock, baker.

LLLLAAAAAAAHHHHHOOOOOOOOZERS!

--S.

Posted by: Patricia | July 13, 2008 12:48 AM

#126 - Hank Fox - gawddamit, you owe me three monitor wipes and an ice cold glass of sangria.
What to do with the holy cracker my ....!
At least two wine curdling blasphemys come instantly to mind. Dammit, cut that out. ;)

Posted by: E.V. | July 13, 2008 12:52 AM

Sorry, Neil, I caught your post after i posted. I'm reading it now.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 12:55 AM

Ichthyic:

I most certainly am NOT denying that he had a friend there. Just because he had a friend there, however, does not prove that his intentions were what he claimed them to be.

And TruthMachine -- your assuming that I was denying the student had a friend there is a grand assumption in itself.

Let's look at what PZ said:

"It makes you look so weak that you have to lie to put up a pretense of popular support, and it makes your side, in this case the fundamentalist Catholics, look like a troop of posturing frauds"

So 1) the Sock-puppet looks weak because he has to lie, so 2) the Sock-Puppet's behavior makes the "fundamentalist Catholics" (are there any other kind? If they're Catholic, they believe the Church's teachings) look like a "troop of .... frauds."

I disagree with PZ. I don't think the sock-puppet's actions reflect poorly upon anyone but himself. If PZ believes that the Sock-Puppet's actions reflect anyone's but his own, he should say something like, "Well, this was one idiot but he's not speaking for all Catholics everywhere."

Instead, PZ implies that one person's behavior makes the Catholics look like "frauds." That's his value judgment. But PZ's judgement doesn't make it objectively true.

Posted by: Patrick Orlob | July 13, 2008 1:02 AM

PZ, with all this talk of threats to life and limb, perhaps it's time you invest in one of these to watch over your house.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 1:08 AM

Tom L:

I don't agree with your analogy. Perhaps it is human nature to think that scarcity increases worth and lack of scarcity cheapens, that is not what Catholics believe concerning the Eucharist.

That is because even when broken, the Eucharist is still One Bread -- just as there is only One God. God does not become cheap because he gives himself freely -- just as love does not become cheap because one loves more.

Love is not a commodity to be bought and sold. One should not give God or love attributes that are similar to goods of trade. A different standard must be used.

Posted by: Nibien | July 13, 2008 1:11 AM

"Awwww--you martyr, you!! lol.lol.lol..."

I saw this post and just felt it was the pinnacle of JB's intellectual competence. Thirteen year old AOL users beware.

Posted by: Tom L | July 13, 2008 1:13 AM

"Roughly speaking, I think the massive loss of mechanisms and rituals that promote positive social interaction and mutual reliance can render societies vulnerable to grandiose ideologies and charismatic saviours whose solutions involve killing fields."

Like, say, the streets of Jerusalem in 1099? Or perhaps you mean the World Trade Center, Sept 11, 2001?

One of the ways to reduce the effect of grandiose ideologies is an ever greater willingness to point and laugh when someone or some idea is obviously batshit crazy.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 1:15 AM

TruthMachine:

You seem to be trying to make me argue in favor of justifying those who would "assault and make death threats." Nice try, but I can't bring myself to do so for some reason.

I understand that Jews and Catholics don't see the Eucharist in the same way. I actually have more Jewish friends than Christian -- living in a very secular environment as I do -- and we've had this discussion several times. It's difficult for them to understand because they don't believe Jesus was Christ. Therefore, I wouldn't expect them to believe that the Eucharist is the Word of God.

To Catholics, the Eucharist is the Word of God because it is Christ. That's why we have a tabernacle in place of the Ark, and that's where the Eucharist is taken at the end of Communion.

For some reason, my Jewish friends have been able to listen to me explain this to them without calling me names. I don't understand why you find it necessary to.

Posted by: Damian | July 13, 2008 1:18 AM

Dutch Hedrick:

I think that you have misunderstood. PZ is saying that the sockpuppet, using so many different pseudonyms, made it look as though there were many Catholics who were behaving poorly.

While I certainly wouldn't have thought that it was indicative of all Catholics, it certainly doesn't reflect well. That was PZ's point.

Posted by: Michael | July 13, 2008 1:20 AM

Care to examine the relationships between Christianity and the Holocaust?

There is no pattern between the two, it's just a political correct way of using certain labels to degrade another belief...The core base of Christianity is found only in the Bible, and there is no teaching that is similar to that of the holocaust for Christians to follow, unlike other religions such as Islam which states...

"And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter" --Quran Sura 2:191

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 1:22 AM

"You mean apparently omnipotence, humpty fucking dumpty, but you don't get to redefine words willy nilly. You believe in an omniipotent God, only it's not omnipotent, only you say it is. That's called lying."

I'm not "redefining" words. I'm using the words as they were originally intended to be used. It's Protestants protesting Catholicism and secular atheists who -- over hundreds of years -- have been doing the redefining. If you go back to the early theological writings you will see that omnipotences and omniscience as I used them are ideas that go back hundreds of years.

Just because you guys wanted to re-write Webster's doesn't mean that should be any reflection upon me. That's why Catholicism continues to use Latin. As G.K. Chesterton put it: "It's the difference between a so-called dead language [Latin] and a dying language [English]." Or a deteriorating language to be more accurate.

At least the Latin meanings never change.

Posted by: E.V. | July 13, 2008 1:23 AM

Neil, I'm not sure I can follow your premise. As a species, it is doubtful we will ever lose our irrationality and tast for formalized superstition, though we are witnessing a modern conglomerization of religion/celebrity/politicians as ideological totems as well as bastardized cafeteria-style dogma. If mass education results in the loss of supernaturalism, then the ability to introduce the great unwashed to higher levels of reason and logic is dependent on our ability to maintain our current levels of civilization. Any major catastrophes and loss of technology will send us scurrying back to the dark ages in more ways than one. And once again their will be a struggle to extricate ourselves from mystycism and dogma. I say "ourselves", there will always be a large contingency of people who follow religions (whether Abrahamic religions survive intact is speculative) despite the irrationality of it. As long as there is poverty, ignorance, university sanctioned theological study and people who isolate themselves ideologically - you guessed it.
We are near to an equalibrium where we, as a species, will soon (decades?) face major ecological/meteorological crises that will hinder any major leaps forward for a time. We've piled the sand just so high and it will collapse and then eventually it will rise slowly again.
Damn, now I sound like a apocalyptic doomsayer. I'm going to bed now.

Posted by: BGT | July 13, 2008 1:25 AM

happy whistling, cane pole over shoulder, walking to riverbank:

short time later...

sitting on river bank, adjusts float to about 18 inches, clamps lead weight near hook, takes consecrated host and attaches to hook....

swings line into river, and waits for float to bob.....

Posted by: BGT | July 13, 2008 1:27 AM

troll fishin....

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 1:30 AM

In either case, I'm a Catholic that is respectfully asking you to respect our belief and leave us alone. We believe that piece of bread becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. If you don't believe it, fine, but let us be.

Why should he?

I just ask that you please give me a little respect and let me have what is sacred to me.

Why should anyone respect foolishness?

Posted by: PAK | July 13, 2008 1:32 AM

Alright everyone,
I'm an honest-to-God (no pun intended) Catholic, and am not a sock puppet (you can verify my IP and check). I'm an avid scienceblogs reader, and have been a reader of Pharyngula for a few months now.

A few people have commented that there have been no Catholics that have come forward to denounce the actions of Donahue and others who have called for or issued death threats (either directly or indirectly) against PZ and Cook.

I'd like to do so now - it's abhorrent behavior. It might have been appropriate for them to ask Cook to leave the church and to not allow him back, but that's it. Physical violence and death threats were not warranted and are frankly ridiculous.

On Donahue, there is a relatively small minority of American Catholics who are members of his Catholic League (about 0.3%), and the organization has no official standing with the Church, although it has received endorsement from several prominent American Archbishops (surprisingly enough, some of the same bishops accused of covering up sex scandals). He isn't even well liked among Catholics, and his League's own newsletter publishes a "Hatemail" section which includes letters from Catholics who claim they decided to leave the Church after seeing Donohue speak.

This isn't the first time Donahue has issued threats, and it won't be the last. Bill Maher hasn't been attacked yet, and Donahue's been doing this sort of thing to him for years, so I think PZ's going to be safe.

Donahue's a windbag and a publicity whore, nothing more.

Posted by: BGT | July 13, 2008 1:36 AM

Damnit, I go troll fishing and keep getting the little ones.

PAK, thank you for your post, and this comes from an ex-Catholic.

Go in peace.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 1:37 AM

I agree that William Donohue is a "windbag" and he makes Catholics look bad. Hopefully, for every Donohue there is out there, there's a faithful Catholic such as Stephen Colbert out there as well who can present the best of us.

One can only hope.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 1:40 AM

I'm not "redefining" words. I'm using the words as they were originally intended to be used. It's Protestants protesting Catholicism and secular atheists who -- over hundreds of years -- have been doing the redefining. If you go back to the early theological writings you will see that omnipotences and omniscience as I used them are ideas that go back hundreds of years.

Just because you guys wanted to re-write Webster's doesn't mean that should be any reflection upon me.

You're a dishonest fool. "omnipotence" means unlimited power. The history of scholastic sophistry of carving exceptions out of omnipotence, back at least to Aquinas, in order to protect the claim that God has it is thoroughly dishonest -- the essential nature of religious thought.

Here's a clue for you: every one of your posts just further confirms the negative views of the religious among those who aren't.

Posted by: SC | July 13, 2008 1:46 AM

So you see -- my capitalizations DO have meaning behind them.

No, they have retardation behind them.

You're no slouch yourself, tm :).

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 1:49 AM

Clever how you changed one word when quoting scripture -- from "may" to "should."

Fuck but you're dumb. There isn't just one scripture, and googling that phrase brings up things like
http://bible.cc/2_thessalonians/2-11.htm

And it doesn't matter in that context whether it's "should" or "may", as it isn't normative; it means "will result in".

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 1:54 AM

BTW, google yields only one reference to "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they may believe a lie": http://mysticsaint.blogspot.com/2006/01/letter-of-malcolm-x-from-mecca.html

So it seems that it's you who are "cleverly" changing one word of scripture, asswipe.

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 1:56 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php#comment-980609

Come on! I wrote this several hours ago and you self-righteous Catholics are just ignoring it. Make this discussion a challenge!

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 1:59 AM

I don't acknowledge translations as being legit unless the Church approves -- and even then I'd say it's better to go back to the Latin or Greek.

You are beyond stupid and dishonest. The page I gave quoted the ISV the KJB, and a dozen other bibles.

Again, every one of your posts just further confirms the negative views of the religious among those who aren't. Your turnaround is irrelevant, if for no other reason than that this is not a theist's site.

Posted by: SC | July 13, 2008 2:00 AM

I don't want to debate you on any point, much less argue. I don't want to suggest that you shouldn't say whatever you want regarding the Catholic faith, or any faith. I just ask that you please give me a little respect and let me have what is sacred to me.

Sorry. Adults don't get to have sacredity blankets. Grow up and get over it (and stop supporting an institution that oppresses and kills people, while you're at it).

Posted by: Geoff | July 13, 2008 2:00 AM

Your lack of civility demonstrates the negative views theist have of atheists.

You mean as opposed to getting death threats for not eating a cracker?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 2:04 AM

Look it up. And I will go ahead and say in advanced: "I accept your apology."

You stupid fucking asshole, SteveC gave a quote using language which appears in numerous versions of the bible, but you accused him of changing a word -- but that change doesn't even change the meaning -- it's not about permission, but you're too stupid or dishonest to comprehend that. And you blathered about Greek and Latin, but didn't offer any to refute SteveC. You owe the universe an apology for being such a foul dishonest piece of shit.

Posted by: Dutch Hedrick | July 13, 2008 2:04 AM

Kobra:

I ran through many of those supposed "death threats" and I could barely find anything that could be considered to be legitimate treats.

I remember when I put a pro-life bumper sticker on my car, my friends were telling me, "You'd better expect to get your tires slashed." I didn't, however, assume that they were "threatening" me with destroying my property.

Of all those emails, only one or two could be seen as threatening in any way, but hardly anything to be concerned about. Only something like, "Better not go to Florida," or "I've got 4 guns. Liberals like you probably have none."

For me, even this is over the line. If I were PZ Myers, however, I wouldn't take them seriously.

Like I said before, if you guys want me to defend "death threats," I'm not going to do it. However, I think if Myers wants us to take him seriously when he's asserting that his life is being threatened, he's going to have to show me something more than what he did.

A bunch of people saying that they're praying for him hardly seems threatening to me.

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 2:07 AM

#706:
I disagree, but let's not split hairs. DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

I paraphrased business laws in my posts, and not ONE Catholic has challenged it yet. I demand that someone (not necessarily you, mind) justifies their claim that Mr. Cook is a "thief" by addressing my post.

Posted by: Casey | July 13, 2008 2:08 AM

Well, PZ, it's also possible that it's not sock puppetry at work here, but a person with a true psychological disturbance of multiple personality disorder.

Really, is it so difficult to believe that such a person would find a comfy home with the Catholic League folks?

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 2:09 AM

#708:

Correction: Business/property laws.

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 2:11 AM

#713:

I would recommend refreshing to check for corrections. It doesn't have to concern "legal tender" to be a "transaction." Technically, borrowing a cup of sugar is a "transaction." My point stands. Focus.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 13, 2008 2:13 AM

Cuttlefish, OM @#619.

*Jaw dropped.*

MADE OF WIN!

Posted by: SC | July 13, 2008 2:14 AM

"God is what he is. God cannot be not-God. This is because God is God."

Jesus loves me, this I know
for the Bible tells me so...

"death threats,"

I'll pray for you. I mean that.

Posted by: SteveC | July 13, 2008 2:14 AM

Dutch: I didn't change anything.

http://bible.cc/2_thessalonians/2-11.htm.may

You have picked one particular translation which fits your agenda.

Context?

Ok, what exactly is the context that makes it ok for God, who never lies, to lie?

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 2:16 AM

#719:

Ad hominem. Address the issues.

http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html

Posted by: PAK | July 13, 2008 2:19 AM

Kobra,
I read your previous post. Mr. Cook has committed no crime, so there isn't much to say. The church is within its rights to ask Mr. Cook to leave and not return. That's about it. He was given the Eucharist, and while it is expected of Catholics that it is immediately consumed, he's well within his rights not too. While it is asked that only Catholics receive Communion, there is no announcement to this effect, nor is it effectively communicated to visitors - only printed in the back of the hymnals. From reading details of his story, it seems like an honest mistake, and this whole thing has blown out of proportion because of some angry parishioners at the UCF church and idiots like Donahue.

If it wasn't innocent and there is someone legitimately trying to disrupt a service, that wouldn't even really bother me - it shouldn't be an issue as a church is private property, and they can disallow anyone they choose from attending (although, I believe I read somewhere that this particular church is on UCF property? If that's the case, I disagree with more than just some of the response to this, as there should never be a church on public property... but that's a different issue).

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 2:22 AM

#724:

Cool. A person capable of rational thought.

That satisfies my criteria, but I was kinda hoping one of the batshit-insane guys would try to argue this point. Oh well. Thanks for making my day.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2008 2:24 AM

I picked the one particular translation endorsed by the American Catholic Bishops

Which version contradicts you just as well as any other, asswipe. "God is sending them a deceiving power", you piece of garbage.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 13, 2008 2:27 AM

Dutch this is from the Vatican's own website,

"Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, "

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10W.HTM

Posted by: SC | July 13, 2008 2:29 AM

Oh! You're arguing that the Catholic Church is a business! I see. Funny. I always thought it was a religion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7558375/

Posted by: Kobra | July 13, 2008 2:31 AM

#731: You're splitting hairs and ignoring posts. Please take the time to address all of the posts that were addressed to you. Thanks.