…and this is a 
You asked for it, I deliver. Here's a good chunk of the opposition email that I've received in the last two days; not quite all of it, though, since I got bored and a lot of it has just been going straight into the trash. I've tried to cut out most of the identifying names and so forth, but if I missed a few…tough.
Trust me, it's very tiresome to read.
I know you are smarter than most people and probably even God himself, if you even believe in God. But you could learn something in humility. And there is nothing wrong with a Catholic standing up for his faith. In fact, a Catholic who doesn't defend his faith is an ignorant Catholic. Mr. Donohue defends the Catholic faith and deserves praise from all Catholics. I bet your one of those tolerant professors who shows tolerance to everything but Christianity. But I am sure your are proud of bashing the Catholic faith.
I can definitely score a Eucharist for you. You may not care for the taste though, but then again I don't care for your moronic position regarding the desecration of the Eucharist. Would you be bold enough to take this type of childish stance if it were involving a sacred Muslim object/ I'd bet cash money that you wouldn't as folks like you hide in the insulated academic world, as you are too frightened and inept to work in the corporate world where one is paid and advances based on performance, not liberal childish rants. Where do you want me to send it?
The Catholic League is going after your job because you are a vile anti- Catholic bigot who really does deserve to pay a high price professonally for such a public act of contempt for the Catholic faith of tens of millions of your fellow countrymen. I intend to write to your University and support the call for disciplinary action against you (and encourage all my colleagues to do likewise) for misusing your University's resources to express hatred and for my faith. You are confusing free speech for hate speech and the U. of Minnesota would do very well to help you see the difference, since you have given every sign of lacking the emotional, social and intellectual resources to make such an elementary distinction.
IF Catholics had half the testosterone of muzzies, the answer would be simple. Holy hollowpoint. But alas, I expect they will whimper and grovel as usual.
I am sure you are a very intelligent man and that is why it surprises me that you would find the time to spew such vile anti-catholic bigotry about something held sacred in a religion of over a billion people. Surely you have more valuable things to do with your time than hate filled blogs about the Holy Eucharist. I wont waste a lot of my time or your time trying to change your mind through a debate. All I can say is please refrain from hate filled blogs. It makes what is supposed to be an intelligent person look very small minded. Keep hope as I'm sure you are being prayed for.
just read that you are looking to desecrate the Eucharist. It's great to know that America's institutions of "higher learning" have gifted folks like you teaching future generations. Sometimes I worry about whether or not our schools and universities are filled with a bunch of whack-jobs spewing nothingness into the minds of our young. I need not worry any more...with "professors" like you, Mr. Myers, I know we are in great shape.
God help us (us includes you).
PS - I find it rather funny that so many people are incredibly tolerant (nice buzzword) until they feel offended. Then all tolerance goes out the window.
So, would you really do something like that? Really? I can only suppose, then, that you also wouldn't mind defecating on a Buddha in a temple, or urinating on a Torah while it's still in its Ark, or maybe you'd go for stuffing a Koran down a toilet and flushing. Were you the kind of brother that would tear off the head of your sister's favorite doll? - or step on one of your mother's favorite plants? I saw your picture on the university's website and you look like a pretty even-tempered man. You don't look like a man that would do what you described above, let alone say it. What happened man? Seriously - what happened?
You should be nicer in what you say and do to people and to the things those people hold dear. If you don't have anything good to say - don't say anything at all.
Why are you such an insensitive man? Do you think you're funny? Your comments hurt a lot of people-but don't worry-we'll pray for you!
Hey Mr. Critical, I dare you to do something to desecrate Islam. -Oh thats right; they are not passive like Christians and a loud mouth Jerk like yourself would get jihaded. My guess is your principles stop when it gets scarry!
I'll be looking for you're new "Islam Posting" you pussy. I don't think you have the balls though!
Take a good look in the mirror-is there a soul in there? I sure hope you find it.
Unfortunately,
You couldn't help yourself! Pay the tax payers for your advertising!
Free loader!
You are another fine example of good education dollars gone to waste.....I hope your resume is up to date, because after your latest diatribe regarding the Eucharist, you are going to be out of a job. Good riddence.
is it so easy to acquire academic status at this seat of learning (UMM) that the acquisition to Professor be given to the one least fitting?
I refer you to Prof Paul Zachary Myers and his alleged remarks regarding the Eucharist, or Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, Son of the living God.
I do not know the professor but if I am to understand his mental state he considers the Eucharist merely a 'Frackin Cracker'?
If this be the case why would an alleged intelligent person (supposed) become so enraged over a 'Frackin Cracker'?
This Prof lectures in Science and Mathematics and if he said those things that would hardly be Scientific or Mathematical.
For instance he could have responded by saying what is the Mathematical odds of the Eucharist being what it is claimed to be?
Or he could have said those Christians are not very Scientific in their beliefs and he could have acted in a more mature fashion.
He chose to do neither of these but apparently flew off at a 'Tangent' and became quite un-scientific in what he would or would not do to a small 'host', and before photographers as well.
Is he that un-stable and lacking in attention that he would resort to childish behaviour without regard to his faculty or the example set to his students?
I say again the standard set for academic heads in this university needs to be addressed.
Perhaps Mr Myers has deep seated animosity toward Christians and somehow seeks redress for his earlier years as a Jewish person (assumed) growing up in the wrong neighbourhood?
If that is the case then Christians everywhere apologise and assure him we do not hate Jewish people but love them as elder brothers and sisters in Christ.
We would like him to reciprocate in kind and give up the hatred that drives him to say such things against the only person in the Universe that really loves him, and that is Christ.
He will understand the immensity of that love being in the science faculty. Regards
Paul, why are you persecuting Me?
We will be praying for you and for your conversion in reference to your "It's a Frackin' Cracker!" comments.
Perhaps Prof. Myers should try desecrating the Koran next time ... or perhaps you should censure him, and let him know that 21st century people don't go bashing other folks religious beliefs. What Prof. Myers problem is ... drinking too much, or just he just like bullying soft targets ... as his boss you need to address the BIG BLACK EYE he just gave your school ... nationwide! All Catholic kids would do well do avoid your campus until you resolve this issue.
I know that you are just acting out because you are spending your career at a fourth tier university (wasn't the community college hiring?) Would you go to a Mosque and eat a ham sandwich? No of course not, because you are a typical whiny college professor. Are you upset because your boyhood priest didn't show you any love?
As a Catholic professor in theology I am deeply sadden by your comments. If this were said about the Muslim Koran or the Jewish faith the media would be all over you and you would lose your job. But not if you attack the Catholic Church. Your University turns a blind eye. Shame on them.
What do you have against Catholics and our faith to make you say such harsh and evil things?
I am a believing Catholic and saw the statements about the Eucharist you posted at 10:40 a.m. today (July 10, 2008) on the Pharyngula website ("It's a Frackin' Cracker!"). I found your e-mail address on the University of Minnesota's web page, Dept. of Biology.
You trample one of the very dearest beliefs of Catholicism in brutally offensive terms, and you propose heinous sacrilege. I was very sorry to read that and earnestly hope and pray that you will not follow through on your desire to commit sacrilege with a consecrated Eucharist.
It is profoundly disturbing that you are in a position of authority over students most surely including Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians and other Christians who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
As I'm sure you are now aware one of your staff members, Paul Myers, has publicly made remarks that are extremely offensive to the sensibilities of all Orthodox and Roman Catholics: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/now_ive_got_bill_donohues_atte.php
I understand that Prof. Myers has the constitutional right to speak his mind on whatever issues he feels compelled, however as a staff member of your university it is my understanding that Prof. Myer is expected to adhere to code of conduct that fosters respect and civility towards people of all backgrounds and beliefs: http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Code_of_Conduct.html
Prof. Myers comments have clearly gone beyond any reasonable dialog and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say that they constitute hate speech.
I am not asking for any specific action on your part, as I trust that you will know best how to ensure that the values of tolerance and civility are being fostered at your University. However, I did want to ensure that you were aware that these comments were made and that they are being associated with University of Minnesota on a national level: http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
Dear President Bruin:
It appears that Professor Paul Z. Myers is either insane or, if there is a difference, a rabid hater of the Catholic Church as he has publicly (With ID as one of your teachers) stated that he will publicly desecrate the Holy Eucharist in the form of a consecrated communion host.
If he is generally against religion, I suggest that he show the courage of that position by publicly using a copy of the Koran to wipe his behind. If he plans to do so, please let me know so I can give prior notice to the Muslim communities in your State AND recommend to a mathematics instructor I know to apply to fill the sudden vacancy of Dr. Myers' position.
Unless Dr. Myers is severely disciplined I would recommend to the University of Wisconsin, Marquette University and all other schools that they do NOT accept credit transfers from your school as to serious doubts as to the quality of instruction there.
I do not wish to remove your cranium from your backbone.
I do not know what drives you to be an intolerant hypocrite of an Atheist.
But I would be happy to press charges of committing a "hate crime."
Do not stand in line for the Eucharist in my parish; I would be sure to prevent you from committing a heinous desecration
How did you ever get hired? You sure won't get tenure, and don't deserve it. I'm writing to the President for what its worth.
I urge you to stand up against the hate-filled "professor" Paul Zachary Myers, and the University President Robert Bruininks for allowing Mr. Myers to spew hateful Anti-Catholic tirades that can be accessed directly from the U of M's web site. I EMPLOR YOU TO STOP GIVING ANY MONEY TO THE UNIVERSITY UNTIL MR. MEYERS IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS BIGGOTRY!
Here is an excerpt of his July 8 post, "It's a Frackin' Cracker!" accessed from the U of M website:
"Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?" Myers continued by saying, "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."
If any professor denigrated and insulted homosexuals, Muslims, threatened to desecrate the Koran, or insulted Martin Luther King in this way you would have an all-out riot on your hands. However, as usual, it seems to be open season on Catholics with no consequences.
Paul Myers is a buffoon with zero intellectual qualities and has no business on your University's staff. If you don't believe me just check out the level of immaturity and stupidity he displays on his blog.
I read your blog about the consecrated host being a "frackin' cracker", and criticizing, objecting to a position the Catholic League took against a student at the university of Central Florida.
Needless to say, as a devout Roman Catholic, I join with thousands of others who were very offended by your remarks. I believe that the "frackin' cracker", as you so cleverly referred to the Sacred Host, is the Body of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ consecrated by a priest at Mass under the appearance of a wafer of unleavened bread. This is my faith and that of millions of other orthodox Catholics. You have offended us grievously. If you have such apparent regard for the sincere faith of others, I challenge you to publish a similar disparaging remark about the Koran or other sacred beliefs of Islam, or for that matter any other religion.
I demand that you publish an apology for your offensive remark.
I pity the students who pay good money to go to college and have to listen to your arrogant diatribes against whatever subject you loathe. How totally immature and pathetic.
Would you be so brave as to use such hate-filled rhetoric against the MUSLIM tenets? I doubt you'd want a jihad launched against you for your FREE SPEECH which many Catholics in the service died giving you.
Wow PZ that's quite a rant! Your temper is getting the best of you? As an asso professor, what a lesson you teach our children: hate, religious bigotry, intolerance, shouting instead of discussion, use of innuendo w/o facts, etc.! You must really hate Catholics.
"Scumbags" and "which hunters"? I thought liberal intellectuals were tolerant - even of those they disagree with.
Just because you're a devout and zealous atheist (I see your blog site http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/) doesn't mean you have to HATE and offend all Catholics. Can you not be "respectful, fair and civil".
Yesterday almost no one outside of the narrow confines of Minnesota academia had ever heard the name of Paul Zachary Myers. But today the name rings with infamy, and has become synonomous with hatred and intolerance. You might have gained renown for some tremendous scientific breakthrough, or for touching the minds and hearts of your students. Instead you have become notorious for your ignorance and your bigotry. Your story, Paul, is truly tragic.
If you are not Catholic than you have no reason to publicly opine about the doctrine of Eucharistic transubstantiation. You certainly have no right to parade your ignorance and sacrilege via a link to the university's web page. If you had so publicly mocked the culture of blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, or Jews than you would be (rightfully) without a job today. But since you picked on Catholics and their beliefs, you probably feel that you are professionally in the clear since it is very fashionable in the academic sphere to trash Christianity in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
As a Jew who has been baptized a Catholic I can say I am no stranger to either anti-Semitism or to anti-Catholicism. Both lead to the same conclusion, Paul: the perpetrators become lesser human beings.
Shame on you for abusing your academic pulpit in this way. I pray that the university authorities will handle your case with wisdom and with justice.
Paul, you have some bridges to build after this terrible misdeed. Make amends, and stop hating for hate's sake.
Myers: How about dropping your ignorant, immature, hate-filled, bigoted stunt? If you do desecrate the Body and Blood of Christ, you are playing with fire, and you will regret it eternally. I know how people like you laugh at and scorn people like me, but I'm afraid God will get the last laugh on this one. GOD IS NOT MOCKED. Because I'm Catholic, I have to pray for you, and I will, but in the end, you're the one with free will to accept or reject Jesus. Good luck--you'll need it.
I am writing to express my outrage at Professor Myers' expressed intention to desecrate a consecrated Host, an object held sacred by Roman Catholics. Yes, we all know by now that the professor holds all religion in utmost contempt -- he's made that clear enough to the general public. However, what he is asking for on his blog post goes beyond the pale. As American citizens who enjoy the right to the freedom of religious expression, Catholics should also have the right to be free from this sort of harassment against our faith, especially from a professor who is paid with tax dollars, tax money which we Catholics also contribute.
From his latest posting, he's obviously feeling like he's rather immune from any sort of consequences. If that turns out to be true, then I will be deeply disappointed. Obviously, there isn't much I can do. I won't threaten him because such threats would be empty and stupid (and those who have threatened him should be ashamed of themselves). I can't say I'll boycott paying my taxes as the State wouldn't appreciate it. However, I can call on those who are in authority to exercise that authority appropriately and to at least reprimand him for what should be easily recognized as truly outrageous behavior.
I seriously doubt that he would ask someone to get him a Koran from a mosque or a copy of the Torah from a synagogue in order to publicly desecrate them since, after all, they're only pieces of paper with ink on them. Asking for the Koran would probably bring him and the U of M physical harm. Asking for a Torah would bring a swift lawsuit from the ADL. Right now, all he's getting is a public scolding from the Catholic League and some nasty e-mails. Therefore, I hope the U of M sees this for what it is -- a serious offense against Catholics -- and takes appropriate action.
I honestly pity the hatred that you seem to embody. Anybody that did threaten you or was hateful was absolutely wrong....however one cannot but pity the sadness, anger and frustration that is clearly evident in the way you write. It truly would not take a psychologist to see how toxic to you your own poison actually is!!
I am not sure what form of education gave you the licence to speak the way you do or made you think that "you're it", however, truly you would do yourself an immense favor (probably more than anybody else), if you at least minimized the amount of trash you spew and the ignorance you portray in so doing.... Truly there is no limit to stupidity! As a Catholic I forgive you. May God bless you and enlighten your mind.
What a sad, pathetic man you are. You were raised a Christian - why all the hatred and name calling? What did we ever do to you to make you hate us so much? As a taxpayer who's helping pay your salary I'm entitled to have a say over vitriol posted on a public site that rips into me and my beliefs.
I want to tell you how disgusting your blasphemy is to me as a Catholic and as a UMM grad. I have asked to be removed from any further contact with UMM and will never give another dime towards any alumni support or scholarship support. It is quite interesting how you who are amongst the most liberal denigrate and blaspheme that which you know nothing about and criticize that which is sacred and holy.
I just read the July 8, 2008 rant by Prof. Myers, in which he pledges to desecrate the Catholic Eucharist (which Catholics consider to be holy). Frankly, I am astounded that your University would allow such vitriolic hatred and bigotry to be spewed from one of its Professors! I don't think I've ever before come across such prejudice and hatred in print! The fact that he teaches students (some of whom are Catholic) is most troubling. Is this the kind of person parents and taxpayers pay to influence the minds of their students? I wonder if Catholicism is belittled in his classroom as well--who knows? Clearly, he is an immature man and a first class bigot.
I certainly hope that you and the Board of Regents will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. In such cases, I've found that it's often enlightening to argue by analogy and to substitute another group for the one which is being denigrated. Thus, instead of against Catholics, let's assume that Prof. Myers spewed bigotry against Jews or Blacks. For example, let's imagine that Prof. Myers said, "The Torah is nothing more than a piece of paper. Can anyone out there steal me a torah? I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I will treat it with profound disrepect and heinous abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web! I intend to urinate on it, draw swastikas on it, and then rip it up."
I'm sure that if your professor said such things regarding a holy Jewish object, he would be instantly fired. Or, at the very least, he would be vilified in the press and picketed by students. Great numbers of enraged faculty members, moreover, would call for his resignation. And alumni would boycott their contributions to the school. No one would even think to mention freedom of speech or tenure in the face of such hatred and bigotry.
Why, then, should it be any different when Catholics are the object of his hatred and bigotry???????
We need to hit him where it hurts. Perhaps I should grab a copy of his Holy Book, which I assume to be Darwin's Origin of Species, and desecrate that! LOL!!
I recently found your comments on your blog, which is linked to official U of M sites, to be offensive to members of the Catholic faith. I am a 25-year old Catholic who is also a teacher and I would ask you to consider the position you have in the academic world. As a professor and a teacher of students, you are a unique position to change lives. You are, no doubt, respected for your position and your expertise. As such, you also bear a responsibility to those whom you teach to be civil and use your reason to bring others to the truth. Degrading a religious faith is an abuse of your position in society. Arguing against the doctrine of the Eucharist in a rational matter would have been a better choice. Then you could have engaged in an interesting debate. Many people would have benefited. I hope that you will consider your approach to such issues in the future. I'm sure you are a busy man, but if you would like to correspond more on the matter, I would be happy to speak with you.
if you want to get some real laughs and giggles, why not say something really disparaging about Allah?? i think we all know why, let's see how wild and kooky you are and do that, we all know attacking Christians is easy, i think you were the kind of kid who would hand over your lunch money to the bullies at school instead of standing up for yourself, by the way, what are you doing for mankind that equals what a Mother Teresa did, and she believed in the Eucharist...oh i know, you teach biology......that is a big deal.
Your plans to publicly and intentionally debase a consecrated communion wafer have recently come to my attention. While I have the utmost respect for your right to freedom of speech, I have to strongly discourage you in this course of action. Just because you can do something, does not mean you should. Not only will you deeply offend and disrespect millions of Catholics, Orthodox and Episcopalians with such an act, you will violate the sense of mutual respect and understanding that has allowed this nation to be a forum of shared knowledge and a haven for the persecuted. Perhaps you are unaware of it due to its lack of publicity, but anti-Catholicism is alive and well. While this act might seem to be a harmless act of protest to you, it only reinforces the bigotry that many of us face on a daily basis. This act would be as offensive to Catholics as a desecration of the Koran would be to Muslims. I doubt your employers would approve of a plan for you to publicly defile the Koran, so I would hope that they will not endorse your current plan either. Why do you feel the need to do this? I am happy for you to voice disapproval with the Catholic Church, but can't you find some other, intelligent and meaningful way of doing it? Debate a Bishop, write a paper, make a TV appearance, burn the Papal flag, just don't carry out your plan. If you have grievances with the Church, explain your position in a public forum. That's the American thing to do.
You have asked your reader to provide you with communion wafers for the purpose of "show[ing] you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare." I readily concede that it is extremely strange, even a little creepy, to believe that a wafer is in a real sense God, and yet that is what I do believe. I have no objection to your jokes and satirical remarks -- they're not much different from what Protestants have been saying for five hundred years, and indeed what Berengar of Tours said in the eleventh century. However, I do ask you this: that you not actually carry out your plan. I wouldn't ordinarily make such a request of a stranger, but the thing can hardly matter to you one way or the other -- as you put it, it's a cracker -- and it does matter to me. I have tried to find an analogy to explain my request and this is the best I can do: you might be entirely right that a old rag is worthless and should be thrown out, yet, if that rag were a small child's security blanket, I doubt you would do so, to spare the child's feelings. I put myself in the place of that child, and ask: Please don't. I'm not asking for respect, only for a small kindness of omission: not trampling feelings for the sake of the trampling.
What do you hold sacred?
Do you respect the faith of others?
Does your employer support all kinds of diversity EXCEPT religious?
Do you support all manner of rule and law breakers?
Your threat is foolish and your reaction to the Catholic League borders on psychotic.
I urge you not to desecrate the Eucharist.
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.
Such a sacrilege would not only be deeply offensive to Catholics, but also to people of all faiths for such a blatant disrespect of a profoundly held religious belief.
I am getting more accustomed to the idea that there apparently exists a nascent consensus in certain academic circles that it is OK to bait Catholics (whilst other faiths- whether of religious or secular pedigree- are either ignored, tolerated, or, in certain privileged instances of natural selection, jammed down our throats by judicial decree).
I simply wish to point out that such a consensus is odious. It is ugly, uncivilized, and perfectly know-nothing.
I hope that you will determine it to be in the best interests of your institution- as it most certainly is in the best interest of limiting further self-humiliation of this ignorant boor Meyers- to advise him to leave his Catholic-bashing to his private time and resources.
You must be crazy.
Myers, you certainly sound like a B.Y.E.
What do you do in your spare time, watch The Exorcist and root for Satan?
You supposedly "teach" science and math?
I doubt it.
Remember that Freedom of Speech is not freedom to harm others, which is what you are doing.
But since you are snug in your relative values of the moment, I know that will mean nothing to you, or your sick ego.
I can't tell you how disappointed I am regarding remarks of desecrating something that is Sacred to my family and all Catholics; the Holy Eucharist The University of Minnesota Morris should be a beacon of enlightenment, not a cave of prejudice, hatred and ignorance. I have twins in high school and the University of Minnesota Morris is one university where I, unfortunately, will not allow them to attend. I will not have them present at a University that will entertain individuals who will hate them for their religion.
don't know what your beliefs are, but it is sad that you have no regard for those many millions of us who love the catholic church and the Holy Eucharist. It is disappointing that someone in your position, in a university teaching our young, future leaders to desecrate something others deem holy. Perhaps you should be more considerate and learn some basic manners. You don't need a college degree for that, do you? Certainly, this is a scathing indictment on your "institution of higher learning".
I ran across your blog via a link from Mark Shea's website.
Your blog is, in my opinion, a very inspirational site.
I'm retired from the military, a college graduate, and have a 99th percentile IQ, verified by High School, college, and military intelligence testing. Since you are a professor, I assume you understand percentile rankings.
I am also a convert to the Catholic Church, being fully accepted into the Church in my early 40s.
I must tell you that, far from being offended by your commentary, I am, rather, confirmed in my beliefs, and inspired by your hatred of Christ.
I used to believe, essentially, as you do, though without the vitriolic hatred. I had nothing against people who believed in God, regardless of their denominational persuasion. I just didn't buy it.
But, over the years, as I experienced life, educated myself, studied (as a hobby) subjects such as physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics, history, theology, biology, and many other topics, I found myself realizing that there may be more to our existence than simple happenstance.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I appreciate your blog. Christ foretold you, and many others just like you, two millennia ago when He prophesied that his followers would be hated because of Him. Pretty clever for someone you regard either as a myth, or as a deranged lunatic.
Remember, PZ, you have absolutely no verifiable explanation of why, or how, we are here. None. Your atheism is a faith equal to or exceeding that of the most committed religious zealot. You have no proof whatsoever of your atheistic beliefs. None. Zilch. Zero. You are no different in your faith than Mohammed Atta, or any of the 9/11 killers. In a way you are worse than they were; you are "educated" and "civilized", whereas they were simply indoctrinated. But you and your kind are the greatest killers in the history of Man; see, for example, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao: they were all intellectual secularists, just like you.
You're not at all intelligent, PZ; you've simply adopted the 1960s default position of taking a contrarian position to accepted or conventional wisdom, and imagining that you've adopted a position of "enlightenment". It's sad, really; you've achieved a position of educational eminence, yet have never learned how to think.
If you really want a wafer to desecrate, you're welcome to come to meet me in Skowhegan at my Church; I'll give you one, and gladly, and sadly, watch you make a fool of yourself. I'm not a bit bothered that you don't believe in God; God may be, but I'm not.
You're a bully, a coward, a bigot, a dullard masquerading as an intellectual, and an extremely poor writer. Incidentally, perusing the comments on your blog I was struck by the extraordinarily poor grammar and writing skills of your disciples, in addition to their ignorance, hatred, and bigotry. But not terribly surprised, actually.
As a graduate student and a convert to Catholicism (through my own, intellectual choosing), I find your disdain of Catholics and their beliefs deplorable, immature, and unprofessional. I hope that as a historian that I never call for such disrespect for any world religion as you have done, much less be responsible for the scandal that it would bring to the devotee's hearts, faith, and well-being.
As an employee of the state, much like yourself, I would also think such offensive speculation would jeopardize my standing in the field and would limit me as I try to advance in my chosen career path.
I hope that others contact you as well, and that a heartfelt and sincere apology to Catholics and those that happen to not share you 'enlightened' worldview would be much appreciated by all involved in this ugly and unfortunate event.
Your posting on your website titled "It's a frackin' cracker!" was both rude and insensitive toward the beliefs of millions of people. Your opinions about whether or not the Eucharist is actually God are your own, and I respect your opinion, but desecrating another's sacred and holy object is not at all respectable. Ripping apart the Eucharist for those of the Catholic faith is equivalantly worse than force-feeding a cow to a Hindu, or displaying pictures of Allah to insult the Muslim community. You do not need to act like an ass to express your beliefs. I request that you refrain from treating my God in such a disrespectful manner; in case you do not comprehend how much your suggestion has upset people, it might be equivalent to your grief had someone threatened to run over your children. Your opinions are your own, but they don't give you license to do whatever you please. I hope your research in the biological field continues to be successful and I thank you for your time.
So i just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your ideas about the Eucharist. It really demonstrates how incredibly far the modern man has gone to reject God and any form of religion. It shows how far we have fallen that you, a so called PROFESSOR would say these things. Why do you not post something like, "Its just a ROCk" for the Temple of the Mount and offer desecration and cursing for a piece of it. Why do you act like this? Biology has nothing to do with theology so why do you get involved? Your behavior is that of a child, not a PhD.
You should be ashamed of yourself and you should delete the post and offer an apology because alot of people are offended by your comments.
If it's just a cracker, then why not just desecrate an unconsecrated host?
How about a Koran, Dr. M? How about speaking w/ a Catholic theologian?
It is absolutely unacceptable to have on faculty a professor who does not represent and honor true showmanship and academic professionalism. It is abhorring that a University should labor such a person in question of doubtful virtuous character. Teachers and faculty members represent, both as a whole and in parts, the quality and the degree of excellence of the institution. But evidence have shown to the contrary. If the University wishes to maintain its high standard and prestige, it must show the dependability on part of the administration to keep and sustain the good reputation of its academia and people.
I have read your blog before for information on evolution and found it very informative. I find it sad that you also use it to broadcast irrational, foul-mouthed rants. You are giving yourself, your university, and all biology professors a bad name. Is it only when dealing with scientific data that you can muster self-control and rational thinking (rather than running, first thing, to ad hominem)? Or can you be trusted even to impartially evaluate scientific arguments? Show some respect and please try to use a little decorum. If you were to similarly insult any group--ANY group--other than Catholics, there would be a media uproar.
I am Catholic and I understand why you wrote the posts such as "frackin cracker." I would like to say take the instance you have a personal prized possession that to many looks like nothing special. People would look at it and say "it`s just a rock" or something along those lines but to you it is so much more. Now imagine someone threatened to take it and damage or destroy it (which I am not at all threatening) how would you feel? What if they actually did such a thing? Shock and outrage would probably comprise all or part of your reaction correct?
To you the host the Eucharist is a cracker, yes it certainly looks like one, smells like one and so on. For Catholics though when the priest speaks the words of consecration something called transubstantiation takes place whereby the appearance of bread and wine remain but they become the body blood, soul and divinity of Jesus. Yes it is difficult to grasp I know but for Catholics who believe (including me) that that really is Jesus defending the Eucharist is a big deal for that reason, they think it really is Him. They see value in that "cracker" that you do not the same way you see value in a simple object that I do not. It is only through discussion not desecration that we can come to understand the meaning behind things we hold as special but to the other look like nothing.
I would ask of you to take to your nearest Catholic church any hosts that people may send you, and give them to the priest. Please do not do anything to them. The Eucharist (those crackers) is something special to me and I would appreciate your co operation in not harming something I care about even though you do not see its value.
May I ask you to click the following link to find out how Catholics feel about our Eucharist? http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
Take your time and explore it...please explore with an open mind. I wish you well in mind, body and spirit...I wish you Eternal Truths, and a Hunger to seize you to know these Truths.
Please also, click the banner above to feed the physically Hungry. There are rising food prices and we believe that Jesus is present in everyone. But He is physically present in the Consecrated Host, and He feeds us spiritually with His Body and Blood in a form we accept as food - bread.
I can't describe to you how deeply I know this. It is out-of-this-world information.
Even if you never believe in the Reality of God in the Consecrated Host, I would humbly ask you to respect the beliefs of others and please don't do what you have said you will do.
Prayers, Blessings, Happiness now and for Eternity be yours!
I read an article on Catholic On-line about your intentions on desecration of the holy Eucharist. It is shameful that a person in your position of leadership over our youth in this nation would act in this manner. You should stop your sinful actions and apologize to the many Catholics who you have truly offended.
In the end, you are accountable which I will pray for your soul.
Myers rant and threats against the Holy Eucharist are a sad, but not a historically unfamiliar occurrence. I think Myers would have fit in well with other movements throughout history that sought to treat the Holy Eucharist with unholy regard. The Anarchists of the Spanish Civil War would have welcome Myers with opened arms, for example, and they surely would have supplied him with a large bundle of Eucharists.
Those throughout history that have attacked the Holy Eucharist in such a way harbor a deep seated resentment for things holy. And for Catholics, it doesn't get much holier than the Eucharist. The Holy Eucharist represents Jesus Christ himself to Catholics, and it is beyond me why Myers would think it appropriate to desecrate Jesus Christ (again fitting in quite well with Anarchists and such). (Ironically, of course, Jesus represents the "Truth", and it's laughable that Univ. professor would harbor such deep resentment for the truth).
Myers is a wonderful example of an intelligent professor who, by way of his hatred of the Eucharist, has no respect for his Catholic students or co-workers. Send this professor packing. As a Catholic and an alumni of the University of MN, this man lacks an essential characteristic needed to be a Univ of MN employee, and that would of course be a basic respect for others.
As a devote Catholic I am deeply saddened by your recent statements. I respect everyone's free will to believe what they believe but you have crossed the line from personal belief to attacking and degrading the very most important facet of my belief. I fully support your right to your beliefs and will gladly fight to protect those rights but please lets keep this a discussion. I can disagree with your beliefs but I would never destroy something you hold a sacrosanct like Darwin's personal diaries for example just because I don't fully agree with him.
that a scientist-- someone in the business of seeking truth-- is so utterly blind to it.
Do you find yourself amusing? I bet you do. Your latest , about the Holy Eucharist , just makes you repugnant.
Do you have RESPECT for anything, anyone, yourself? This is not a rhetorical question. Why must you offend?
I'm sorry that you are an atheist. I'm sorry that the Church hurt you in some way. We will pray for you, your pathology is in need of prayer.
"Love One Another ,as I Have Loved You!"
I wish to express my alarm and concern over the hateful comments of Dr. PZ Meyers concerning the desecration of the Eucharist. As a faithful Catholic and a trained cell biologist (MS Biochemistry, University of Idaho, Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology, Arizona State University), I am deeply offended at Dr. Meyers' intention to desecrate that which millions of Catholics across the country (and billions of Catholics across the world) hold as most sacred. I am certainly a believer in the freedom of speech. However, this hatred goes too far. The University of Minnesota, I am sure, values diversity in thought and in life. Dr. Meyers' comments and intentions far eclipse academic freedom, free speech, and civility. How can he claim tolerance when he is being completely intolerant of Catholic belief and practice? He is targeting a specific group of people for their beliefs and is attacking them for the sole purpose of denigrating them. I don't have a problem that Dr. Meyers would disagree with me about almost everything. The university is a setting where different ideas are to be weighed and debated. However, Dr. Meyers is only concerned with hatred and bigoted attack. I wonder what the response of the University of Minnesota would be if the group he was attacking were a minority, or Jewish, or Muslim, or gay? With the publicly expressed opinions and intentions of Dr. Meyers, how would one expect a Catholic student to be treated by him? Clearly as a parent and academic, I could never support anyone going to the University of Minnesota if these are the kinds of faculty members it employs.
Imagine, if you will, a steel ball the size of the earth.
Every 1,000 years, a sparrow flies by and lightly brushes its wing against the steel ball.
When those light brushes wear the steel ball down to nothing, eternity will have just begun.
That's a long, long, long time. Some of us will be spending that time in happiness with God in heaven and some of us will be spending that time suffering with Satan in hell.
Showing disrespect for God and the Eucharist is a good way to end up with Satan.
What college did you attend that taught you to be so disrespectful? It does not bespeak of the dignity we would expect of a college professor.
ou are nothing but a coward. You would not choose a Muslim symbol to desecrate because you would be in grave danger. You pick a Catholic symbol because you know that Catholics will just pray for you.
Your actions constitute a hate crime. There will be no prosecution because hate crime laws were designed to put White Christian males in jail.
PLEASE Prof.Myers, Use your wonderful God given gift of learning to find out exactly what it is you plan to desecrate... NOT what you THINK it is!
I'm writing about your blog post from July 8 ("IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER!"). This is not a piece of hate mail, and I'm sorry that you're receiving hate mail. I don't have a very complete understanding of the incident, but, based on what seems to have happened, while I don't approve of what Mr. Cook did, I disapprove of the efforts to go after him, and I even admire your willingness to stick up for the young man -- while not admiring some of the rhetoric you use while doing so - which I find in places to be needlessly abusive (and yes, I do recognize some on the other side are needlessly abusive, too). But what really concerns me are your proposals in your penultimate ("So, what to do") paragraph. It's as if your goal in writing that paragraph was to see if you could meet (and *perhaps* even surpass!) the stupidity and meanness of the worst of the examples you took to task earlier in your post. I had planned to argue to you that you should rescind that plan, complete with careful analyses of when and how we should take into account the beliefs of others that we consider to be false in deciding how to treat the people in question. But I've read some of your blog posts, and based on my sense of your character, I have faith that you need no argument from me here: If you just take a deep breath and objectively consider what you wrote, keeping in mind the many Catholics (and other Christian too, for that matter) who are innocent in this matter but whom you would be needlessly hurting by what you propose (even if their being hurt depends upon beliefs they hold that you take to be obviously false), I am confident you will be able to see the light. On the other hand, if I have read your character wrong (as I'm often inclined to do, being disposed to being overly charitable [perhaps even gullible] in my judgments of people, as many Christian friends have told me, based on my admiration for important aspects of Prof. Dawkins's character), and you still think yours is a great idea after a little consideration, you are probably beyond the reach of the help of any argument I could produce, anyway.
Hey you cocksucker! I am not holy but I have respect for the religion. Go ahead and do what you intend to and then see what transpires, Ego te provoko, you worthless piece of tenured shit.
We pray for your soul. Jesus loves you, and He tells us that we are to love you too. We feel sorry for you, that evidently you believe life is just about yourself and the "here and now". What do you have to look forward to? Old age? What comes after that??? We pray for your conversion,
It is very rude to make fun of someone's religion, even if you do not agree with that belief. Very sad indeed.
I wonder what has caused you to be filled with so much hate that it would drive you to these childish antics. One would think someone of your intelligence would find something more productive to to with his time.
I have no love for the Catholic church and don't like organized religion. But I do have Catholic friends and coworkers and they seem like nice people.
If for some reason you are offended by the Catholic church then I suggest you go out and get thicker skin. I have learned a long time ago that being offended at every little thing does nothing but cause medical problems and a shorter life.
I read today that you made disparaging remarks about the holy Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to every Catholic. Your remarks are extremely offensive, hateful, and immoral to say the least. Its hard to believe you could say such things rather than sticking to your area of study. Clearly you have a dislike for the Catholic Church and God for that matter. I sincerely pray for you this day that you will find God in your life. I hope you consider writing an apology regarding your remarks.
I think you underestimate the importance of mythology and ritual in the human condition. Yes, even your human condition. After all, your diploma is just a bit of cloth and ink, isn't it. I don't suppose you'd mind if I just whip one up in my basement and start teaching biology, do you? Oh that's right, yours was consecrated by the Dean in a Late-Middle-Ages ritual. There is a lot of wrong in this situation, but you are also wrong. Please read some Joseph Campbell.
p.s., I'm not a religious whacko, I am in fact a VP of engineering and also a computer science graduate student working on my dissertation in theoretical computer science at night. I do attend church, but not Catholic; I personally don't believe in transubstantiation. The communion ritual is an important part of the Christian church's ability to propagate itself and has been effective for many centuries. As a biologist you should respect that.
Nice Job Mr. Myers!
Thank you for finally showing those Catholic jerks what's what!!! You're the man! You're so smart! How did you ever figure the whole thing out! "Kick the pope in the balls!!!" Way to bring that holy roller back to earth! You must be like, the smartest person I've ever written an email to, you obviously have such a wide and deep understanding of history and the world! I mean....you're a big important professor!!! At UM!!! That Catholic Church and its 2,000 year history has nothing on you man, you've got them pinned.
Don't worry, you didn't make yourself look like a totally ignorant fool. You looked smart! And witty! Sacrilege...that's a big word, even for a smart guy like you, did you have to look it up? And don't worry...you didn't sound like a venomous hater, you sounded respectful and accepting of the Catholics, just like I'm sure you do with all people who have different beliefs than yours.....I'm going to go out a trash a mosque, and then key the first car I see in a parking lot that has one of those rainbow stickers on it, just so I can be like you!
I have just read with deep and heartfelt emotion of your intention to desecrate that which us Catholics call the Holy Sacrament of the Altar but which you call a "Frackin' Cracker". Please! I appeal to your better sense of respect for all to refrain from this act which is already causing me and those of the Catholic Community great pain. The intention to do this causes deep grief to those of us who hold the belief that the Host, once consecrated, is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I am not asking you to believe this. Far from it. I am simply asking you to respect our beliefs and to refrain from committing this act of anger and utmost disrespect towards that which over 1 billion people world wide hold sacred.
Of course you are entitled to your views on the situation which occured last week in relation to a student taking the Host from the Church and "holding it hostage" and its consequences and rightly so, but please understand that we have our views too and, greater than views, they consititue the source and summit of all we believe. In carrying out the sacrilege you threaten upon that which we consider Holy, you can in fact carry out no greater act of disrespect and hurt. You hit right at the core of our beliefs which I know you understand we are entitled to hold and believe without any disrespect or violence. Perpetrating this act will hit us all very much and will cause many of us much grief. Is this truly what you want? Are you wondering how will we respond? There is only one way we can respond and that is the way of love and forgivness. There should not ever be any violent repercussions form anyone who calls themselves Catholic. We will forgive your actions yet we will grieve over them deeply.
I finish this mail literally on my knees, begging of you to reconsider your proposed actions and turn away from the feelings of anger you have towards us. You are certainly a man of respected intelligence and your position in life has confirmed this. Your position in the world may not change as a result of your actions but remember that every decision must be followed with personal responsibility and the carried memories that you have inflicted a very great wound upon many hearts. If, at present as you read this, there are already any Hosts in your possession, please return them to their rightful place i.e. the nearest Catholic Church. Simply return them. If you don't wish to apolgise for your actions, don't apologise. Just know that if you do the right thing and return them, many hearts will be most grateful and will not forget your change of heart.
Re: communion wafer... You are one sick man. One day, eventually, you'll have to face what you've said today in an honest light. No, really, you will.
Save yourself some grief. Resign, go find Ward Churchill and just hang out in the same slime hole.
It is disappointing to read of your recent comments. I doubt you would dare say such insulting things about other groups such as Jews, Muslims, or gays but do feel empowered to engage in such a tirade when it comes to Catholics!
The mark of an educated person is the ability to reason and think critically. It seems your education has been deficient.
As a Catholic, I am offended by the insulting and crass comments you recently made about the Holy Eucharist. I firmly believe that this "frackin' cracker", as you described it, is indeed the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. If I am wrong as to the nature and identity of the Holy Eucharist and it is indeed nothing more than a wafer, your comments are still needlessly crass, offensive and incendiary. On the other hand, if I am correct, then you are also guilty of a serious offense against God for even uttering such words.
I urge you to retract and apologize for your comments. I also urge you to exercise more prudence, restraint, respect and charity in the future -- regardless of the target.
I don't know you or what your life is like, so I don't judge you personally. You may be both nice and decent, personally. But your comments were certainly not. I hope this was merely one of those moments we all have during our lives in which we look back and think "that was not one of my better moments."
While I do candidly believe some sort of discipline is in order because of the extreme and public nature of your comments, I will also be praying for your well-being -- both temporal and eternal.
You will discover soon enough what your blasphemy gets you. Since you have said your hateful lies where me and my friends can see them, it will be sooner than you think. You'll wish you had a cracker in Hell!
Rude, hostile, insulting bigotry may get you more page hits, but it hardly contributes much to the public discourse on religion.
If your goal was to simply appeal to the lowest common denominator, then congratulations - you win the internets. I'm sure the suburban rich white teen "rebelz" that infest your comments section are tremendously proud of you.
Thanks for, once again, making it even more difficult to be an atheist in America.
I am in complete disbelief that Professor Myers is still in good standing at your university after his mocking and hateful rampage against Catholicism's central and most sacred doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. I urge you as President of of UM-Morris to not only make him apologize for his remarks but discipline his hateful speech.
Please take a moment to read what Mr. Meyers has posted on his faculty page on your university's website:
"Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?...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."
Is this the standard we can expect from faculty members at your state university?
Mr. Myers:
How old are you? I cannot believe that a "professor," representing his 1) college 2) country
3)state 4) family 5) himself...chooses to throw a temper tantrum which gets international attention. You will desecrate the Eucharist, huh? I live in Germany. We had lots of your ilk running around here 65 years ago...and you may have read about the consequences. Why don't you desecrate the Koran, or a Torah? You do not believe in either of them either, but, like all cowards, you stroke your big Morris, Minnesota ego by attacking the last legal target of predjudice...the Catholic Church. Boy, you must have really been hurt at one time...maybe by someone in the Church. Grow up! Act like an educator. Swallow your pride, admit you said something absolutely stupid, and seek humility.
I hope you weren't serious about what you were threatening to do. I disagree with many different beliefs of people but I respect their right to their beliefs, including your right to disagree. I would not wish you harm or want to deface your property or possessions. You may have wanted to get attention, and that you have. I ask you to reconsider the sacra ledge you proposed, if only because it is hurtful to others. I will pray for you.
I own 4 guns. I bet liberal vermin like you don't own any.
Why would you be so insensitive to Catholics worldwide with your hateful ranting's about something billions of people worldwide hold so dear? I just wanted you to know that your words cause me a profound sadness and I pray you come to feel heartfelt contrition over the pain your words have caused to so many.
Professor Myers is a disgusting, immature guttersnipe. You should put him in the unemployment line post haste.
If he had insulted Jews, or Muslims this wouldn't even be a question...the bum would have been fired.
Come on down to Florida. We know how to welcome bastards like you.....with a bullet.
Try desecrating anything Muslim and see what happens.
Why are you against Catholics? I'm sure we don't care how you worship. You must just be trying to get attention.
Just for your information: The main reason the Eucharist is so closely guarded is that they are coveted by those who participate in satanism and the black mass. It's not a "frackin' cracker" to them.
PS. I'm ashamed a professor from a Minnesota University would utter such depraved private thoughts.
I hope that you will consider the abusive and completely unnecessary behavior of Paul Myers in its true light. His hate speech is beyond offensive, even to those of use who are not Donohue-esque zealots.
Please try having the same respect for others that you expect (and demand) for yourself.
On his blog Pharyngula, PZ Myers asked that letters of support for him be sent to you. In good conscience, however, I can't do that. Reading Myers' writings on Pharyngula quickly convinces any reader who doesn't share his faith in Darwinism that the man is an insufferable ass who brings discredit to your university. If you're not ashamed to have him on your faculty, you should be.
Over the past few days controversy has erupted over your stated intention to obtain a concecrated host from a Catholic Church and to desecrate it live on the web. Having read your original post on the subject I find the level of disrespect displayed towards Catholics absurd, it abounds with irational ad hominum attacks and falls short of the standards that students such as myself expect from those who teach us. Whilst I can understand that some of your views of Catholics have been coloured by abusive comments from my fellow co-relgionists, it could be argued that you have intentionally baited them with your less than tactful comments and that you bought this torrent of absue on yourself. Whilst I respect you as a professor in your established field, I would also ask that you respect my beliefs and those of my co-religionists
Aren't you cool! Another big-mouthed Christian buster. Play with the Sacrament, demon boy. Everything will play out in the end.
Are you by chance a former Catholic? What happened in your past to turn your soul to sludge? You are in my prayers.
If you would like the controversy which your hateful anti-Catholic bigotry has initiated to go away immediately, all you have to do is recant your pledge to desecrate the Eucharist and apologize to the Catholics and others whom you have offended.
Hopefully you are man enough to do that. You're in my prayers, Paul, for you must truly be a broken vessel. I am very sorry for you, and for the distraction from your academic career which your unfortunate vitriol has visited upon you.
Just because you do not appreciate the Eucharist, is no reason to assault what is so precious to me. The Eucharist is not a "thing" , but a PERSON....Jesus Christ,.. who is truly present in that form of Bread. Even though you don't have the faith to believe it doesn't take away the fact. I don't live in your house,....but that doesn't give me the right to spray-paint your house. Why are you so offended for the student??? Isn't it REALLY your own pride and anger with God that you are not the man you are supposed to be??? Do you resent the fact that God lives whether or not you "allow" Him to? The Eucharist is the MOST PRECIOUS POSSESSION EVER to HAVE. It is my MOST PRECIOUS POSSESSION--and to desecrate Him is to mutilate me.
I understand how when people don't understand something, they are scared of it. I've made that connection with you and the Holy Eucharist. I'm disappointed that you would, as a respected professor, make hateful remarks that offend not only Catholics, but all people who hold thier sacred tradition and beliefs close to thier heart. I'm disappointed with your actions, but I pray that one day your heart will be opened. You are free to believe anything that you would like...a joy of living in the United States, even if it's that you believe the Eucharist is a frickin cracker, but your proposed hate acts against that "cracker" are a bit extreme in behavior.
I DONT SPEAK FOR ALL CATHOLICS BUT MOST OF US HAVE HAD SOME GREAT EDUCATIONS FROM GRADE SCHOOL TO GRADUATE LEVEL.
WERE EVEN RANKED SECOND BEHIND THE JEWISH COMMUNITY. WE RESPECT BILL THATS WHY HE SPEAKS FOR MOST OF US AND WE APPRECIATE IT. WE SEE IN YOUR COMMENTS THAT WE NEED THE BILL'S OF THIS WORLD TO FIGHT FOR US EVEN THOUGH WE CAN DO APPOLOGETICS FOR OURSELVES.
WE RESPECT OTHERS AND WE EXPECT THE SAME FROM ANYONE ELSE. ITS EXPECTED OF MOST PEOPLE IF NOT ALL PEOPLE'S TO RESPECT OTHERS. ITS TO BAD THE
WORLD IS LOOSING THIS RESPECT.
ANYWAY WE EXPECT WHICH DOESNT ALWAYS HAPPEN THAT OTHERS RESPECT THAT TINY LITTLE WAFER
BECAUSE WE RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE TRADITIONS. IT PROBABLY COMES FROM THE STUDY OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY THAT I SAY THIS. HMM I GUESS AS A CATHOLIC I REALLY CAN SPELL THESE
WORDS WITH INTELLIGENCE AND UN-
DERSTANDING. I GUESS IM NOT SOME
IGNORANT CATHOLIC WITH A SUPERSTITIOUS NATURE. WOW I WONDER WHERE THIS CAME FROM?
MUST BE COMPLETELY EVEOLUTION AND NOT REVELATION. PERSONALLY
IT IS REVELATION.
You just don't have the backbone to attack the Muslims do you? A bit of a castrati are we? Coward
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I am socked to hear that you have threatened to desecrate the Holy Eucharist. I find this as shameful bigotry against the Catholic Church.
I respect all mainstream religion in out fine country. I hope you will start respecting mine. There is no room for this type of behavior in our country. I urge you think about what is causing you to act the way you are to sincerely apologize to all Roman Catholics.
You are very misguided. Why you would chose to attack others beliefs and show such hostility is beyond me to understand. You need to show a little control and self respect. Any how I will say a few rosaries for you and perhaps you will get well again. Best Regards
May you come to know the love of Jesus in the miracle of the Eucharist. All are welcome!
Mr. Myers...If you have a problem with religion why not rationally debate it, instead of attacking the most important part of our Catholic religion, the "sacred host, the Eucharist" which to us is the "Body & Blood of Jesus." Please, persecution and hate will not address your complaints and disagreements. Let's act civilly...God bless...By the way, when I first read about your diatribe, I thought of St. Paul. I do believe God can work miracles...I'll be praying for you...Please pray for me...
Hey, professor... I dare you to show the same sacrilege with "equal fanfare" to the Muslim religion. Perhaps you can dunk a Koran in a jar of urine and post that on the web with some funny comments? Oh wait.... I guess your version of atheism doesn't include hating a religion that would surely respond by threatening your life and limb huh? You pitiful, immature coward.
You just made this Catholic's prayer list. You may make it to heaven yet brother. Peace.
I think you should do the right thing and apologize for your hateful remarks toward Catholics. I don't know what brought about your hatred, but I guarantee you, it will never make you happy. Turn it around.
if your college wont fire you ill come out there and take care of the problem for them
If you're looking for something to desecrate, why don't you try a Quran? I'll even buy it for you! It won't cost you a thing! Think of the attention you'll get! What? You won't do that? Why? Oh! You're a COWARD! C'mon paulie, put on some big boy pants, cowboy up, grow some balls and just do it. You pick on a true religion of peace and won't do anything to upset followers of a pedophilic so-called "prophet". Count your blessings that Catholics don't behead people, ass hole.
I'll pray that this hatred leaves you.
You're a bigot and a hypocrite. Try insulting Muslim's and then I'll support your biased attack against Catholics.
Dear Professor Myers:
Or, should I say, "intellectual pygmy" masquerading as a professor?
I undersatnd you want a Eucharistic host to desecrate and insult my religion" ? Well, professor, I shall be happy to provide you with one in person. Please name the place and time.
Since you are brave behind your blog, threatening Bill O' Donahue of the Catholic League saying you would be happy to kick him in the balls, why don't you try that with this Catholic veteran? I will be in Minnesota for the Republican convention and would be pleased to deliver your special host to you.
I'm really looking forward to coming to Minneapolis in September. Hoping you take me up on my offer...
You sound like a terribly insecure little man. I am astonished that the University would even employ you. By the way, who gives a rats ass about zebrafish? You ought to do extensive research about how an idiot like you survives to adulthood?
Sir, if any of what we've learned is accurate, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are just another example of what is wrong with our culture; freedom out of control.
idiot.
After reading several of your blog posts, I find that you compose them with all the grace and wit of a third-grader who has just learned some dirty words. I encourage you to continue your Don Quixote-like crusade against religion, for the venom you spew does more harm to your cause than anything else. How can a man who supposedly lauds "reason" waste his time insulting a God he doesn't believe in? Thank you for keeping the stereotype of the angry, bitter atheist alive. Kudos.
I am not sure what would cause someone to act so hateful toward Catholics and our Lord Jesus Christ. Others are angry at you, but I am very sad. I feel so sorry for you. One does not have to believe in Jesus if they choose not to. No on will try and force you to believe in Jesus Christ nor that the Eucharistic host is His body, blood, soul, and divinity. So why is it that you must try and stir up problems? I cannot believe that it is because your life is so boring. You must have been hurt by someone and for that I am sorry. I will pray for your healing and that you will not feel such hate.
GET A REAL JOB!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you for your comment regarding the desecration of the Eucharist. I am sure Jesus has heard it and will respond accordingly. It may hurt a little, but don't worry, we Catholics will pray that you'll still live long enough to repent. If you don't apologize, we Catholics won't be able to see you from where we spend our eternity. You won't have a lick of a chance.
Your comments to Bill Donohue were ridiculous, dangerous (for you) and really not worthy of comment. But - well - since I like Bill and I pray for you - well - maybe someone should comment!
A Professor???? At a university???!!! What a shame!!!!!!!!
Are you so starved for attention that you must take other folks faith and ridicule it? I know I should respond by prayer for you, but right now I am just puzzled. What is your purpose? Like anti-Semitism, bigotry, prejudice, etc., it's folks like you who need a watchdog like Donahue. I am glad he is there. I hope like the rest of your ilk, you will be "taught" how inflammatory your words are, since you seem to be oblivious to any other intelligent reasoning.
I will try not to say anything that will encourage you and your counterparts in attacking the Catholic Church or the faithful. I think it's so sad that you are ignorant and intolerant of things other people hold dear to their hearts. Let me give you an example.
I live in Kansas. Lots of jokes about that - I can take it. It's beautiful here and I have no desire to live anywhere else. From the west side of the state where the July air can be hot and dry during the day and cool and calm at night, to the east side of the state where the towns are bigger, there's more vegetation, more "culture", and more people than cows. I've stayed in New York City, Washington, DC, Atlanta, GA, etc. I lived for a short time in Ft. Worth, TX. People in New York City are great at making jokes about Kansas, but they've never been here to know how glorious the lifestyle is. Most of the people I know here in Kansas are well-traveled; we know what "the big city" is like - we've been there, done that. But how many people in the city can understand the simple joy of sitting on the porch and waving at neighbors as they take their evening walk or how much fun a 4th of July celebration is on the town square? I have relatives who live on the east coast and it took them a week to relax and enjoy life; they were so keyed up. Even in Wichita (the biggest city in Kansas), people know when wheat harvest is and pray for good weather for the farmers. We pull together and we pray together. Catholic or Protestant, we hope the best for each other.
You on the other hand, seem to be happiest when causing other people pain or consternation. Why? What has happened to you in your lifetime that you are so bitter you have to attack another's beliefs? We probably don't want to go there. It just makes me wonder and feel so sad.
Catholics have not asked you to give us anything, so just let us be! Isn't that what the United States is all about? If you don't like it, maybe you should live somewhere else.
I just want you to know that I and my family will be praying for you. God bless you.
You could use a little more tact and manners in your current PR debacle.
Your first amendment rights do not insulate you from looking foolish.
Don't like what you are hearing? Look in a mirror or videotape yourself before you go in public.
Catholics do not hate you ,but you are courting their indignation by your stupidity as your proposed
anti catholic sacrilege.
I see you love getting attention. Were you deprived of it as a child? Do you think your family would be proud of your puerile , offensive behaviour? Is that how they raised you? You owe Catholics and indeed, all decent minded human beings an apology for your ignorant comments and antics.
What this all boils down to in the end is that you are just a silly old man clamouring for public attention.
My hope is that, aside from mockery, you shall be deprived of it.
You are a monster. We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you (and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly). How dare you insult the Lord God like that. Losers like you will suffer. I hope and pray that this will loose you your job and your career.
What have we Catholics done to you? Why do wish to desecrate the Eucharist? You probably know that we believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To desecrate it would be the vilest act you could ever commit against us. Please respect our religion as we respect yours and everybody's.
Myers, your opinion of God will be your undoing. There are more than 5 Billion people on this planet that belives God has given you and all others the capability to move civilization forward in His Name.
I can't help feeling sorry for you, to desacrate God, Creator of the World will be delt with in His time.
Please do NOT desecrate the Eucharist in any way. Please, I beg you to NOT damage what is So PRECIOUS to me. It is usually disillusion with unrelated issues that causes people to strike out. But that is exactly what Jesus came to address,.. and to offer healing and purpose. If you only KNEW.... I will pray for you and for whatever healing of lost dreams you may be enduring.
I understand that you accept, on Faith, the unproven Theory of Evolution. I haven't made up my mind about it yet, as we haven't quite found those pesky "missing links"--I like to keep an open mind about all theories until one is proven beyond all doubt. However, after reading your illogical and puerile rants against Catholics recently, I've come to the conclusion that you must be partially right about evolution. I don't know about the rest of us folks, but you are most certainly just a few swings away from being a monkey.
Since you mentioned fatwa, I bet you don't have the balls to descreat a Koran. They are a people of the Book also. Go ahead, I dare you.
You shouldn't open your mouth and trash our beliefs. And if you have balls, go after the Muslim....or I forgot you scare. You are a very smart individual, build something with it, but don't pull everyone down with you.
I believe the consecrated host is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't care whether you believe it or not. In this country we have freedom of religion. I don't approve of anyone taking my religion away from me.
If this is not the Paul Myers who is making news today for planning to desecrate The Eucharist, forgive me.
If it is, may God forgive you.
Only the general contempt for Catholics in this culture allows you to call it a cracker. It is in fact the body of Christ.
Would you degrade something Jewish? How about something representing the nation of Islam? Many web sites are alerting people like me to contact your employer to decry your blasphemy, and I just did.
Perhaps atheists like you are praying you have tenure...if not, I would be looking in the Chronicle for a new piece of chalk.
I am writing to express my concerns about Professor Myers announcement of his intentions to desecrate the Eucharist. Such a remark is not consistent with the cultural competency that an institution of higher learning should represent. As a psychologist, I am quite familiar with University of Minnesota's academic reputation. Please take steps to defend the integrity of your institution by appropriately disciplining such bigoted, hateful, and culturally insensitive remarks. Fortunately, the Catholic religion teaches the virtues of peace, tolerance, and charity. Such threats against some other religions would be met with force, which is why I think it not a stretch to assume that Catholicism is subject to such cowardly attacks.
Why are your people so fowl towards Catholics?
Sir?; Shame on you! May God forgive you and I will pray for you. You should seek help soon
Does it make you nervous knowing that so many people are praying for you? You might just get converted!!
Why don't you stick to your professional credentials and expound on something you know about and want to know about. Leave the rest of us alone.
We haven't done you any harm in following our religion as Catholics. I don't get the beef. Furthermore, you are a "public servant" paid by the taxpayers of Minnesota.
Your unprofessional and disrespectful attitude toward Catholics and the Catholic Faith looks really bad and the taxpayers have got to be wondering why are we paying this guy?
As a matter of fact I am wondering that very same thing about 90% of the professors in the United States who seem to have become experts on everything except what they are supposed to teach.
So please, BUG OFF.
thought you professors were all liberal, feel good about yourself and let others do what they want types. How come you are the total opposite? Talk about disrespectful, non liberal, non productive, divisive speech and thoughts. You should be ashamed. In this world where everybody works for inclusion, you distance yourself and disrespect millions of people who, as Catholics respect the Host as THE Body and Blood of Christ ? How dare you!
I am sponsoring efforts to get you fired for your comments on the CATHOLIC EUCHARIST - free speech has nothing to do with your idiotic & disrespectful comments - Now just go pick on the Muslims - or are you too afraid - you must be - you assinine PHD - too afraid to affront a religious belief that would terminate you. God Bless
DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR REGARDING THE MUSLIM RELIGION? I DOUBT YOU DO, YOU KNOW THEY WOULD LOP YOUR HEAD OFF ! ATTACKING CHRISTIANS, ESPECIALLY CATHOLICS IS EASY FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU !
Don't you have anything better to do with your life? I would be interested to know what religion you were raised. If a person has a happy and fruitful life they don't go out of there way to degrade anothers religion. - - God Bless America and you. - -
You want to desecrate my Lord & Savior? Well, I'm going to say a prayer for you because, I know you do not know what you are doing. Sham on you........ Snap out of it.....
I feel compelled to write you to express the offense and hurt I feel as a Catholic for your apparent disregard and callous for what I and other Catholics hold most dear -- the sacrament of communion. I have no idea what motivates your hatred and scorn for the Church and her beliefs.
I can only hope and pray that whatever your issues are, some resolution can be found which dissipates the tension and prevents more words and possible actions which are offensive to many sincere believers, and, as one who has spent an hour each day in a Catholic church or chapel in prayer for the past 35 years feels confident to say, to the Lord himself.
I don't really know who you are other than you don't like Catholics or Jesus Christ. That is your right in a free society.
But I would like to ask you not to desecrate the Holy Eucharist. We Catholics know it is the body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus. Your threats to desecrate Jesus is extremely hurtful to us. Advancing a free, good, and charitable society comes from respecting others not mocking their belief and desecration what others hold dear.
Hello Bad Boy Myers,
You need help, what do you want? Jesus (only son of God) gave his young life to save every one, even you!
God the father is sad that you Mr.. Myers have sided with Hate.
As a good Catholic Man I must Pray for you Mr. Myers, who hates Christianity.
Hells gates are wide open for hateful people Mr. Myers.
Hope to meet you in Heaven Mr. Myers.
I find it hard to believe that there is such anti Catholic and anti God hatered being spued by anybody let alone supposedly 'educated' people. I will work to let as many people as possible know there are still people like you taking advantage of the freedom America offers. Eventually people like you get their just deserve. I hope you get yours sooner than later.
If you really think the Blessed Eucharist is just a "farckin' cracker" then I challenge you to do a little scientific research...
beginning here -> http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
Check especially this sight here, -> http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html if you have the balls and intellectual integrity to stand up to what you'll find.
In short Mr. Myers what you'll find, if you are honest with yourself, is that you're wrong. It's not just a "frackin' cracker". It's Him who made you.
You really need to get your head around what that means. In the mean time I'll pray for you.
I was outraged to learn of your call to desecrate a Communion host. Why such hatred against the Catholic Church?
Would you do the same against the Koran and the Islamic faith or the sacred Torah and the Jews? I
Please do not offend Our Lord. I am praying for you.
You're nothing more than a poor, pathetic little coward. You rant that you're going to desecrate the Communion Host knowing full well that the worst that you'll suffer are a few denunciatory editorials and maybe a censure or two. Oh! The horror of it all!! Do you want to demonstrate REAL courage by desecrating a religious symbol? Make an image of Mohamed (one serious affront to Islam) then desecrate it (another even more serious affront to the "religion of peace"). Of course, that would expose your person to actual, corporeal danger. What's the matter? Don't you have the stomach for real confrontation? You're pathetic.
Bill Donohue defends the Catholic Faith and does a wonderful job of it. When he sees disrespect or irreverence, especially in the extreme, he takes action.
Your threat to desecrate a consecrated Host is a most vicious and hateful action for which you know in your heart you need to apologize.
Please retract your threat of sacrilege and apologize to those you have offended. Most of all, please apologize to your God and Creator for your blasphemy. He doesn't deserve it.
Dear Little Paul,
It appears that you are a naughty little man and have been doing things you shouldn't be doing! Shame on you!
Once you get your unique proclivities for sin under control, you will certainly have a greater appreciation for your own existence. Surely, your current brazen boast and desire to desecrate the Eucharist, stems from some unresolved childhood trauma. There are ways to find peace and forgiveness. They, that hurt you, do not represent the Loving Father in Heaven. Clearly, your hatred flows from inside and is affecting your very dignity as a human being.
You have been made in the Image and Likeness of God. The angry feelings you have cannot diminish this Truth. He created you for greatness and gave you intelligence. I challenge you to take that intelligence and go searching for the existence of God.
In the mean time, I adjure you to a life with honor and be a man that young people can admire, instead of an embittered curmudgeon, whining about how terrible things have been for you.
I will pray for you.
You are a very little man. I will pray for you.
I was wondering why you would want to do something that would be so painful to so many people. Anyway, whatever the reason, I will remember you in my prayers so that whatever it is that causes you so much hatred can be reconciled in yourself, before you hurt yourself as well as others.
You need to repent and give your life to God. You just may find yourself in "Hell" for what you have done to God's church when you die.
I am a deacon in the Anglican Church. I want to voice my concern and disapproval of Professor Myers' comments regarding his intentions toward the Holy Eucharist. I can only imagine the discomfort that this will cause his students who profess the Christian faith.
As a publicly supported university, the University of Minnesota Morris is to provide a safe learning environment for all of its students. While there needs to be a spirit of academic inquiry and freedom in this institution of higher learning, Professor Myers' comments hold no academic value although they do create a hostile learning environment for Christian students. I can only imagine the turmoil I would face if I were a biology student at your institution and had to study under a professor who set out to make a mockery of my faith in such a manner. While I respect one's freedom of speech, as a professor at your institution, Professor Myers has a responsibility to consider the impact of his words and actions on his students. I agree with others that what Professor Myers is involved in is nothing less than a form of hate speech.
I trust that you will take the concerns of the Christian community into consideration as you consider your response to this matter. Thank you for your consideration.
I want to thank you for reminding me how wonderful it is to be Catholic. Your anger toward the Eucharist makes clear to me how powerful It must be. I promise to pray for you when I receive Him tomorrow at Mass. I promise to become a better Catholic in response to your promise of desecration. May God give peace to you!
If you want to have anti Catholic views, fine. do so on your own time.
I am emailing you to pray for you and that God may reveal to you His mysterious love and mercy.
Jesus, I Trust in You. Jesus, we trust in You. Jesus, in the most holy sacrament, have mercy on us. God the Father, for the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world. Eternal Father, we offer you the body, blood, soul, and divinity of your dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ in atonement for our sins and those of the whole world. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallow be Thy Name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, give us this day our Daily Bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Amen. Hail Mary, full of grace the Lord is with thee, blessed are thou among woman and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb, Jesus, holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. All Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning is now and ever will be, world without end. Amen.
Fatwa? Is this the go-to accusation of those who believe Catholics are credulous, cracker-munching provincials? Your response to Bill Donahue was puerile bravado and begs the original question: why would an educator choose to denigrate the sacred belief of others irrespective of his own convictions? The vitriol you spewed regarding the student who came under scrutiny evinced a total ignorance of Catholic teaching and, worse, a reductionist mentality that conflates religious faith with irrationality. You are a prisoner, sir, of your strictured understanding. My condolences.
I do not appreciate you bigoted and religious intolerance of any faith or credible believe, especially the Catholic Faith. Your intent to obtain and desecrate a host is at least unbecoming of a University professor. A professor is supposed to show tolerance and respect for other viewpoints, let along a long standing and respected religion as the Catholic faith.
You indeed show your self to be a miscreant of society and certainly do not deserve to be teaching anything anywhere as far as I and millions of Americans are concerned.
Where did you learn this trash of hate from anyway?
May God have Mercy on your soul.
You won't get any threats from me, unless it is to see that you loose your job you do not deserve.
Are you in love with yourself. Satan has tried for over 2000 years to destroy us (Catholic Church) and has failed miserably. You will, too. Saint Michael defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him. Mary, Mother of God, protect your Church from those that wish us harm.
Hey, fella, we're praying for you.
Your problems obviously run deep. It's all very sad, but there's only so much anyone can do to help you.
being that you are clearly an egotistical little man and I am loathe to give it to you but I still am compelled to say, it is not a "fricken cracker" to millions of Roman Catholics nor is it to me "Professor".
If you are so brave, why don't you steal a prayer rug from a local mosque and defile that? Of course you wouldn't dare do that because you haven't any balls and the islamists would REALLY killyou, unlike Catholics.....You are nothing more than a typical liberal jerk from Minnesota...Your head is like the state you live in, full of holes.
You should be checked out by a very good psychiatrist. Your mind is indeed in trouble. You now have had your 15 minutes of fame. What next? You should be praying for your life.
Please respect people who believe with their heart and soul, of the transubstatiaton miracle at our Holy Mass each day of the week, the real presence of our Creator is being received by all of us who are baptized in the Apostolic Catholic Church, we believe in God the Father almighty and all the saints. We ask for the conversion of souls, and pray for you. Thank you.
I love America. It is the only country in the world where the intellectually inferior and sublimely mediocre can get an advanced degree. You prove the theory that it is possible to be educated beyond one's intelligence.
Have a nice angry day!
You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key.
I would pray for you, but it is too late. You are damned.
I dare you to broadcast to the world your intention to show some real contempt for religion by wiping your backside with a picture of Mohammed and some pages from the Koran. You'll get the world- wide fatwa you are whining about and the front page of every newspaper would have a picture of your decapitated body for all to see. Or do you only have the "courage" to insult those who you know would never hurt you (nasty emails notwithstanding) no matter how vile you are. For the record, I'm not a Catholic.
Jesus will always forgive your vileness; Mohammed will cut your stupid head off. Got guts or are you just another phony anti-Christian warrior ?
I am writing this to express my deep outrage and sorrow for your recent call for desecration of the Eucharist and the offer to post examples of this abuse on your website. This is truly a deep wound to our Lord, Jesus Christ who we believe is truly present in the Eucharist, as well as a very hateful act toward our Catholic faith. You would not dream to express such hatred toward Islam or any other religion, so why are you concentrating on mine? I am sure this does not agree with university policy or mission! I respectfully ask that you apologize for your hateful remarks and refrain from making more in the future. Perhaps if you educated yourself on the Catholic faith, you would understand better what a gift the Eucharist truly is, and I would challenge you to do so as a man who values education. I will pray that you develop more tolerance and understanding, and less hate and vindictiveness.
Comments
Posted by: Rob Sterling | July 11, 2008 6:44 PM
You deserve nasty email. You're a jackass trying to draw attention to yourself. Grow up.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 6:46 PM
Funny how they threaten you and then, in the same paragraph, suggest that they're so very peaceful.
If these little wankers are so impressed with militant Islam, why don't they just convert?
Posted by: kubenzi | July 11, 2008 6:48 PM
I love you PZ.Let the games begin!
oh and since i am up on the top here i would like to remind the catholic readers here who keep crying "agression" and speaking of Threats,be sure to look your boy Donohue up on youtube with christopher hitchens.Watch Donohue request a fist fight within the first minute of speaking!
PZ dumped all his scrap irony on my yard,didnt he?
Posted by: simmi | July 11, 2008 6:48 PM
My irony meter exploded just around here:
"PS: I find it rather funny that so many people are incredibly tolerant (nice buzzword) until they feel offended. Then all tolerance goes out the window."
Dang ... gotta get a new one now ...
Posted by: Anna | July 11, 2008 6:48 PM
@Rob Sterling
No one, no matter the deed, should receive such mail. If people disagree, then it may be worth it to stop reading each other's blogs, but death threats?
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | July 11, 2008 6:48 PM
We will know they are Christians by their love, by their love. Yes, we will know they are Christians by their love.
Posted by: Daniel Flores-Islas | July 11, 2008 6:49 PM
Sure, sorry but how is PZ trying to draw attention to himself?
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 6:49 PM
Also, I'm wishin' that they'd go away.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 11, 2008 6:49 PM
You do kind of get left with the impression that these Christians wish they had the guts to kill people and blow things up when faced with those who disagree with them.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 11, 2008 6:52 PM
Wow, if that doesn't make you pay for your "crimes," nothing will.
I couldn't (well, wouldn't) read more than a small percentage of that tiresome bilge.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Jammer | July 11, 2008 6:52 PM
Jesus H. Christ people...it's a CRACKER...lighten the hell up!
Posted by: Chayanov | July 11, 2008 6:53 PM
I got bored halfway through the first one.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 11, 2008 6:53 PM
Funny how they threaten you and then, in the same paragraph, suggest that they're so very peaceful.
See also: 'We come in peace/Shoot to kill/Shoot to kill/Shoot to kill...'
Seriously, eyes bugging out particularly at 'We need another inquisition'...
I want to believe that's Herr Poe, at it again. Poe, man, is that you? Please tell me that's you...
Posted by: Adnan Ahmad | July 11, 2008 6:53 PM
I wanted to write something meaningful and profound.
But...
...All this is over a cracker?
I...no.
Posted by: PurpleHaze | July 11, 2008 6:54 PM
You are a terrific human being. I hold your name in high regard in my little world. Keep up the great work.
"K is for "Kenghis Khan"; He was a very nice person. History has no record of him. There is a moral in that, somewhere."
Harlan Ellison
Posted by: marc buhler | July 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Gee "Mister" Myers,
Those catholics surely must only recognize degrees and academic appointments in the Seminary, eh?
Maybe you should sign up to one of those web-based diploma mills and earn yourself a better title.
(signed) Dr. Marc Buhler, Ph.D.
(rotflmao - is there an echo here?)
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 6:54 PM
I wonder if all those people really will pray for you.
Posted by: yakaru | July 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Great site, great work, PZ. I have enrolled to study biology here in Germany, largely because your site has helped me realize that I love the subject.
Thank you.
Posted by: LisaJ | July 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Wow! I do not envy you right now, but I absolutely, 100% agree with your stance. This response is just unbelievable. How can these dimwits not see that this really is just a frigging cracker they're talking about! They really don't seem to get it!
Keep up the good work, PZ. I am totally with you!
Posted by: Corey Schlueter | July 11, 2008 6:56 PM
The other day, I watching the South Park episode on Mormons. In the commentary, Matt and Trey talk about people saying that Mormons are silly for in believing Joseph Smith. They mention that it is no more silly than what other religions believe in, especially, Catholicism.
Posted by: Mark | July 11, 2008 6:57 PM
"Why are your people so fowl towards Catholics?"
Because they're cuckoo for Jesus?
Because they keep ducking the issues?
Because it dovetails so nicely with skepticism?
Because they keep crowing on about how morally superior they are?
Because they keep robin the poor to pay the rich?
OK, I'm done. It's like shooting pheasants in a barrel.
Posted by: mr-zero | July 11, 2008 6:57 PM
There seems to be a lot of confusion between your and you're. Is this a catholic thing?
Z
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 11, 2008 6:57 PM
There seems to be an epidemic of fatwa envy.
Posted by: jorge666 | July 11, 2008 6:58 PM
I love all the comments about the respect the catlikkers demand for their particular brand of lunacy, but go out of their way to demand repeated desecration of the Koran. Several of them volunteered to send PZ a copy of it.
What bunch of two faced tools!
Posted by: Michael Pack | July 11, 2008 6:58 PM
Religious groups show their true colours and intent time and time again. Disgusting. And these people think there's a special place for them, a reward for their good behavior in this life. LOL.
Posted by: andrew | July 11, 2008 6:58 PM
wow those emails are truly boring and vapid. trash indeed
Posted by: Michael Edmondson | July 11, 2008 6:58 PM
Wow... That was some venom. I thought I knew something about hate mail... but no... you win.
Posted by: Rob Sterling | July 11, 2008 6:59 PM
@Anna - I didn't see any death threats. There was one apparent NON-Catholic who said that Catholics ought to use a hollowpoint (bullet) on "PZ", but a "death threat" is a first-person kinda thing. Most of the rest were trying to argue with him in a fairly open and peaceful way.
@Daniel Flores-Isla: "PZ" might as well be standing on his lawn wearing a clown costume screaming "look at me! look at me!"
One lesson I learned from my grandfather was that if you go looking for trouble, you'll usually find it. I learned another from my grandmother, which is that it's rude and cruel to offend people needlessly. Obviously nobody bother to teach "PZ" either lesson, and the result is that he's grown into a smug jerk.
Posted by: soteos | July 11, 2008 6:59 PM
It's utterly amazing how not one single Catholic understands the real issue in the slightest. This isn't about cracker hating. This is about death threats and unnecessary harassment towards both the child and to PZ over something trivial. It astonishes me that none of these people can comprehend that.
Posted by: James Goetz | July 11, 2008 6:59 PM
PZ, you at least should be able to appreciate the humor in "Paul, why are you persecuting Me?"
By the way, did you really request over the air that somebody bring you a supposedly transubstantiated wafer from a Roman Catholic service?
Posted by: Paul Thoreau | July 11, 2008 7:01 PM
My response to comment #1 is basically the same as what Mr. Sterling writes redirected back at him: Grow up.
My response to the whole "cracker" thing is One Man's Body Of Christ Is Another Man's Frackin' Cracker.
Posted by: Mark | July 11, 2008 7:01 PM
Rob Sterling:
You're wrong: "You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key."
But I'm sure he or she meant it in the nicest way.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 11, 2008 7:03 PM
Don't you know? It's done out of love!
Posted by: kubenzi | July 11, 2008 7:04 PM
Hey rob sterling.
just curious.what was going on with your internet tubes that resulted in you skimming over the email that advised PZ to look under his car before he starts it?
Posted by: MikeM | July 11, 2008 7:05 PM
Food for thought:
"If you cannot trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a cracker?"
Rebuttal:
"It is not a choice. It is a cracker."
I think I read that on the back of a semi trailer once. It was right next to one of those naked chrome ladies.
Posted by: NelC | July 11, 2008 7:05 PM
All that in the last two days?! Goodness. And they want to know why you're mad at them?
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 11, 2008 7:06 PM
Rob Sterling missed this one, too:
"Come on down to Florida. We know how to welcome bastards like you.....with a bullet."
Posted by: Efogoto | July 11, 2008 7:06 PM
I liked this one:
"and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly"
Pilate didn't wash his hands so neatly.
Posted by: llewelly | July 11, 2008 7:07 PM
My favorite:
Surely anyone who is in love with one's self is a tool of the Devil.
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 7:07 PM
Dang. With all the ones who quoted the "frackin' cracker" as highly objectionable, I wonder what they would have said if they had read the original title?
became quite un-scientific in what he would or would not do to a small 'host', and before photographers as well.
There were photographs?!?!?!?! Do tell.
Professor Paul Z. Myers is either insane or, if there is a difference, a rabid hater of the Catholic Church
I love this line. It makes me laugh.
Posted by: room101 | July 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Hmmm...lots of these idiots seem to think that PZ has it out for xtians only. They just don't get it - he's an equal opportunity deity hater...
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | July 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Complainer: "If you want to have anti Catholic views, fine. do so on your own time."
Fail!
Seriously. The Catholic League sure can stir up a bunch of people who have no idea what is going on.
The comments I'm reading seem to believe that the Defenders of the Host are the first group that ever considered complaining to the administration about PZ. He is an infamous atheist, liberal biologist at at public university. That just screams "target" to the anti-intellectual, Fox-news crowd.
A few tips:
1.) You are not the first and will not be the last people who get mad at PZ.
2.) PZ has tenure and good rapport with his students.
3.) What PZ says on scienceblogs he says as a private person, not as a public employee.
4.) If it weren't for PZ, most of us would have never heard about UMN-Morris, its great deals, and great education.
5.) Trying to silence PZ is only going to make him stronger.
Posted by: Danio | July 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Holy shit, PZ, that's some high-test crazy. The intermittent doses of similar sentiments I've seen on the (what are we up to now? four?) 'crackergate' threads have been quite funny. But lined up like this without interruption they illustrate a stark irrationality that's extremely disturbing.
On the bright side, the 'afterlife' threats far outnumber the true death threats. However, the messages that do threaten violent retaliation are truly chilling. Please be careful, dear man.
Posted by: El Herring | July 11, 2008 7:09 PM
Touched a nerve there, obviously.
If only people could save some of that vitriol for issues that really matter, like... no, what's the point of listing them, we all know what they are.
Posted by: ManhattanMC | July 11, 2008 7:10 PM
"Oh no I don't believe it
you say that you think you know
the meaning of love
you say that you really know
I think you should check it again
how can you say
what you believe
will be the key to a
world of love ?
Oh no I don't believe it
you say that you think you know
the meaning of love
you say love is all we need
you say with your love you can change
all of the fools
all of the hate
I think you're probably
out to lunch"
Zappa
Hundreds of ad hominems and half a dozen
death threats.
You must be doing something right PZ.
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | July 11, 2008 7:10 PM
PS - I find it rather funny that so many people are incredibly tolerant (nice buzzword) until they feel offended. Then all tolerance goes out the window.
Well, quite.
Letter of support sent, PZ.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 7:10 PM
Judging from the mail these people are really confused about what needs respect in this world. Religion fails to work as advertised... again.
Posted by: Andrew Skegg | July 11, 2008 7:11 PM
Most of these idiots demand we respect a biscuit, yet fail to see why others might find that illogical. Odd. From what I can see PZ has not directly attacked the Catholic faith - he has merely pointed out the irrational hysteria surrounding the supposed desecration of a snack food.
To all those who replied above - please show evidence that a wafer actually converts into the bodily flesh of your Messiah. Once this has been done we can continue this conversation.
Posted by: Nicole | July 11, 2008 7:12 PM
As a "recovering Catholic," to borrow the phrase, I'm rather amused by all this. I would bet that nearly none of these people have read your blog before, and are all up in arms because someone probably sent them the link, or some such. Hmm, Maybe you've gone viral, PZ? In any case, hate mail is to be expected, but the extra security and the letters to your university's president are just silly. Many of these are more than happy to desecrate another religion's tokens, but get up in arms about this. Phew.
Well, that's convinced me to write a letter on your behalf. If academics cannot express themselves on non-university websites without censure of some sort, then we are in a sorry state indeed.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 11, 2008 7:12 PM
The New Inquisition
Posted by: kubenzi | July 11, 2008 7:13 PM
remix request:
can anyone do one of those youtube remixes with techno using Donohue's "lets take it outside" comment from the Fox debate with Hitchens?
the reason i ask is,it would be frackin hilarious
Posted by: Rob Sterling | July 11, 2008 7:14 PM
To everybody who thinks there's a death threat among those messages - a death threat would be phrased in the form of an imminent, first person warning. It wouldn't be formed in an ambiguous, passive-voiced warning.
So the bottom line is that "PZ" has gone out of his way to offend tens of millions of American Catholics (and a billion or so outside the US) - WHO DID HIM NO HARM WHATSOEVER - and yet hasn't received even one death threat. In fact, the bulk of the email he received represents an attempt to reach common ground or show him the error of his ways.
Yet in his ARROGANCE he presents it as tedious and nonsensical.
Also by the way, I was raised Catholic but don't believe in the divinity of God, Jesus or anybody else. I just consider rude, crude, ignorant behavior such as "PZ" has exhibited to be a major problem in the U.S. - certainly a bigger problem than transubstantiation.
Posted by: Biff the Bartender | July 11, 2008 7:15 PM
Really? All this for a cracker? Here's an experiment I heard about a long time ago...
Make some "host" wafers, but include arsenic in the batter. Have the priest transubstantiate them.
If, as the nutjobs believe, it is now the body of christ, then the arsenic will have no affect on the eater.
Munch away!
If not, then you don't TRULY BELIEVE the transubstantiation took place. End of story.
Thanks for reading!
Posted by: Richard N | July 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Funny that, from a quick glance, I get more of an anti-muslim vibe, than anti-Myers. As #2 suggested, militant Islam sure seem to have left a deep impression on most of these writers.
Posted by: Sarah | July 11, 2008 7:16 PM
You are right, very boring after a while. I think I got through the first 10 though. These people are nuts.
Posted by: Britomart | July 11, 2008 7:17 PM
I admit I fizzled out about half way thru that mess, but I dont think I saw anyone who actually understod the original complaint.
Did I miss something ?
Thank you kindly
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 7:17 PM
One gets the impression that everyone has a raging idiot hidden inside, and that many, if not most religious people make very little attempt to restrain it. I mean, honestly, what frothing moron calls for the destruction of the career and or life of a man simply because he thinks that calling the theft and smudging of a church wafer a "hate crime" is a ridiculous absurdity?
I dread to think of the radioactive fallout that would result if Professor Myers spoke ill of Thin Mints.
Posted by: Spinoza | July 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Talk about your false dichotomies!!!
Can't get a falser dichotomy than that! LOL
Posted by: Mark | July 11, 2008 7:19 PM
#57:
HOW DARE YOU DESECRATE THE MOST BLESSED OF SUGARED WAFERS!!!!!!!!111111!1 ZOMG IZ PERZEKEWSHUN! I KAN HAZ SELFRITCHUZ INDIGNAYSHUN!
Posted by: Sir Jebbington | July 11, 2008 7:19 PM
So... he disproved the theory that people know everything at birth?I can see the headlines now.
Education Is Used to Acquire Knowledge Outside of Information Already Known
You forgot, "in theology."
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 7:20 PM
I only got as far as the third or forth death threat.
What is the difference between the church of christ and the church of the Antichrist? From reading the emails, nothing whatsoever. About the same as between a xian and moslem terrorist which is zero.
So what is the point?
Posted by: Spero Melior | July 11, 2008 7:20 PM
In the interest of harmony, let's focus on the positive, creative bits. For instance, I love that one of them used jihad as a verb - "Jerk like yourself would get jihaded".
Posted by: El Herring | July 11, 2008 7:20 PM
Also I'd like to point out that Dr. Myers hasn't actually done anything other than to post a few words on his own blog. Just that. I don't recall reading anything hateful, as some of those emails claim. I don't recall him threatening anybody (as in any living person). Just a bit of harmless mockery, which we regular readers of this blog know and understand well. Sticks and stones, guys. Lighten up!
Posted by: BellaB | July 11, 2008 7:22 PM
The rather longish one in all caps is probably the funniest thing I've read all day.
" HMM I GUESS AS A CATHOLIC I REALLY CAN SPELL THESE
WORDS WITH INTELLIGENCE AND UN-
DERSTANDING."
This is after writing 'appologetics' and 'loosing.' Not to mention the grammatical mistakes. Sorry, but if you're going to write something praising your own articulateness, you'd better proofread it. Better yet, get someone who actually IS articulate to do it for you. LOL.
Posted by: room101 | July 11, 2008 7:22 PM
Oh, and here's my ALL-TIME favorite line from these idiots' emails:
"...in case you do not comprehend how much your suggestion has upset people, it might be equivalent to your grief had someone threatened to run over your children..."
You have got to be FUCKING kidding me. Please tell this isn't what these fucktards really think.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 7:23 PM
MY BRAIN HURTS!!
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 7:23 PM
I just consider rude, crude, ignorant behavior such as "PZ" has exhibited to be a major problem in the U.S. - certainly a bigger problem than transubstantiation.
What about the rude, crude, ignorant behavior of religious weirdo's trying to ruin someones life and sending death threats over a cracker?
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 11, 2008 7:24 PM
I'm not as punny as Mark, but "Why are your people so fowl towards Catholics?" was my favorite too.
Posted by: Stanton | July 11, 2008 7:24 PM
I always feel that way whenever someone presents me with a Samoa.
Posted by: mr-zero | July 11, 2008 7:25 PM
Rob Sterling
"I learned another from my grandmother[...] that it's rude and cruel to offend people needlessly. "
Rob Sterling
"You deserve nasty email. You're a jackass trying to draw attention to yourself. Grow up."
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 7:26 PM
"You have got to be FUCKING kidding me. Please tell this isn't what these fucktards really think."
Tell me about it. Even if I did bruise that easily, I don't know why I'd ever want to go and tell everyone about it.
"I dread to think of the radioactive fallout that would result if Professor Myers spoke ill of Thin Mints."
Everyone knows that Samoas are way better. I blaspheme heartily!
Posted by: Ignignockt | July 11, 2008 7:26 PM
The comment that really puts this whole thing in the proper light: "This is truly a deep wound to our Lord, Jesus Christ"
Really? I had thought the triune god was made of sterner stuff.
Posted by: Saddlebred | July 11, 2008 7:26 PM
Scary stuff...
Personally, if I had no other method of wiping, any holy text would do.
I find it somewhat bizarre how many of your new found friends manage to invoke both the immense size of their religion whilst simultaneously invoking the Christian Persecution Complex.
Posted by: E. Beck | July 11, 2008 7:26 PM
I'm a Chemist, maybe someone should procure some sacrament cracker and send it to me -instead of PZ- and I will run a few experiments that will determine if it is indeed flesh or flour.
I'm sure, whatever the outcome, the religious will accept the results... as they did with the turin cloth fiasco. They did, right?
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | July 11, 2008 7:26 PM
By the power invested in me by my Unitarian Universalist internet ordination, I hereby consecrate all bread-based products in the world. Your box of Cheez-Its is now officially a box of cheese-flavored God.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | July 11, 2008 7:27 PM
Dear #1 (but trying to be #2!) Rob Sterling,
It's still just a friggin' cracker, as tasteless and un-spirtual as your sort of asses are unintelligent.
Your sort of "christian's" idea of "hate-speech" is as ridiculous as a Klan member's idea of "reverse discrimination." To ally yourself with a piece of vain, stupid excrement like Bill D. idetifies you as unworthy of more than one piece of ridicule (in hopes it will stimulate you to examine the hole that is your life) before a final dismissal.
With no respect to someone who links to a blog and then cuts of comments,
-- BC
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 7:27 PM
*reads #69* Oh...NO YOU DI'NT. You just got a JIHAD on your ass!
Posted by: yakaru | July 11, 2008 7:29 PM
Yup, they sure like their crackers, these guys...I guess it's hard to stop eating them once you get started.
Posted by: Err | July 11, 2008 7:29 PM
Inignokt:
"Really? I had thought the triune god was made of sterner stuff."
GOD IS A PANSY-ASS!
Posted by: Joan | July 11, 2008 7:30 PM
May God forgive you !!!
Posted by: Santoki | July 11, 2008 7:31 PM
lol, look at all that attention.
There must be a way to make some money off these guys. PZ, automate an email reply that apologizes, asks for forgiveness, claims that you are changing your life, quitting your job, and turning to christ. All this requires money, of course, so if they could find it in their warm christian hearts please send $25.99 to [insert address here].
:)
(p.s. extra bonus: this income might qualify as non-taxable!)
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 7:32 PM
Look at all these unenlightened assholes praying for PZ Myers's conversion. Waste of effort if you ask me. Why don't you pray instead for an end to world hunger and religiously fueled hatred? If you're not part of the solution, well you know the rest.
Posted by: ChrisKG | July 11, 2008 7:32 PM
Joan,
I forgive god for being a dumb-ass for hiding in crackers.
Posted by: michel | July 11, 2008 7:33 PM
pz even took the time to edit out most of the names??? i really wonder if he 'other side' would be so decent.
well, with reason on your side it's probably easier to be reasonable.
Posted by: Jason B | July 11, 2008 7:33 PM
Amazing. I think I threw up a little reading this. For all the screaming, whining, shaming, and threatening, none of them really could deny that it's a CRACKER we are talking about here.
Posted by: SC | July 11, 2008 7:34 PM
OK. I had to stop reading and comment when I got to this one:
Would those be the same anarchists in whose torture and executions the Catholic Church had joyfully participated for the previous 50 years? Whose children were taken away because they hadn't been baptised? Who suffered in their schools? Whose every movement for greater freedom, justice, or rationality was opposed by the Church? Whom they executed by the thousands during and after the War (and Revolution), with priests blessing the guns of Franco's firing squads? Who, if they weren't lucky enough to escape into exile, were imprisoned and forced to work as slave laborers, with the full participation of the Church? Who, if they survived, had to live in a confessional dictatorship where women had virtually no rights, even to leave a physically abusive husband, and gay men were subjected to brutal treatment?
Those anarchists? Yeah, I imagine they would have been happy to supply him with some fucking crackers.
Posted by: Bill Mintohue | July 11, 2008 7:35 PM
Man, what the fuck? Thin Mints are the greatest cookie ever made, you attention whoring, hate-filled douche. They are the first and best of the cookies, and you need to respect them. If you ever leave them in a warm room so that the chocolate shell melts into a gooey mess then, so help me, you'd better lock your doors and check under your car before you turn the ignition. And you're only saying this becaue people like me, who like thin mints, are so motherfucking peaceful. I should take you out back and kick your ass, you hate-filled hatemongering hate criminal. I don't know why you're so intolerant, and I'm going to have to hire a bodyguard now. I'll pray for you because I love you.
Posted by: room101 | July 11, 2008 7:36 PM
Consider the following scenario:
You're in a small room:
1) in one corner a man has an eight year old girl hostage and holds a knife to her throat
2) in the other corner another man has a blessed cracker and is threatening to crush it with a hammer
You only have 5 seconds to react; you can choose to save ONLY ONE - the girl or the cracker
Something tells me that the majority of people who sent those emails above would actually HESITATE before making their decision.
FRIGHTENING....
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 11, 2008 7:36 PM
Made it about a third of the way through before it all started running together. I always think the weakest rebuttals are those that focus on spelling errors, but really folks a spell checker is not a tool of the anti-xrist. OK? Even Rush Limbaugh used to hawk those improve your language skills courses on his show and he was right on that one item, people do pay more attention when you present a clear and concise message. Of course, spraying spittle on your interlocutor is also considered rude, folks.
May read some more comments later, but it is kinda like a glass bottomed boat tour of a sewer.
Pax Nabisco
Posted by: Lago | July 11, 2008 7:37 PM
"Perhaps Mr Myers has deep seated animosity toward Christians and somehow seeks redress for his earlier years as a Jewish person (assumed) growing up in the wrong neighbourhood?"
HahhhahahahhhhhHHAHAHAHAH.. Ugh! My Arm!! (thud)
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | July 11, 2008 7:38 PM
That's funny, there is even one of those that actually makes some sense. (The one about the pet rock).
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 11, 2008 7:38 PM
Wow. If the Catholics I grew up with, went to church with, served mass with, etc. etc. were anything like these motherfuckers, I'd have become an apostate at age 3.
What a bunch of assholes.
So, who's going to be the first to assert that the death-threateners aren't True Catholic™? Or will the Catholics be the first Christians to step up to the plate and acknowledge their hate-filled tendencies?
Posted by: SC | July 11, 2008 7:38 PM
This one pretty much says it all:
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 7:38 PM
"Perhaps Mr Myers has deep seated animosity toward Christians and somehow seeks redress for his earlier years as a Jewish person (assumed) growing up in the wrong neighbourhood?"
Was that quote taken from grandwizard@kkk.com by any chance?
Posted by: co | July 11, 2008 7:39 PM
PZ, thank you for bringing such idiocy into the spotlight. As many before me have said, reading the drivel of the offended religious is getting boring, and makes me a sad panda.
I'm sure you are probably yawning by this point, at their repeated points (and ours!). I'm exhausted trying to keep up with 1/10th of the information being posted about this, and of course none of it is being personally directed at me (except in the most general of ways), nor at my inbox.
Best wishes. I'll keep some PZ beer money on me at all times, on the off-chance that I have a chance to buy you a brew some day and let you just forget about this phoophraw for a while.
Keep up the good fight. More importantly, keep up the *right* fight.
Posted by: garth | July 11, 2008 7:39 PM
i'm sure someone beat me to it, but @ Rob Sterling: are you so insensate as to suggest that someone posting on their OWN BLOG their OWN FEELINGS is somehow trying to "draw attention to themselves", while you come and post aggrieved, snide, weak smack talk and you're NOT DOING WHAT YOU SAY HE'S DOING?
Are you that stupid? Wait...you're the only one who can't see what a moron you are. It's sad, really.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 11, 2008 7:39 PM
I rather like the one that says "We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you" -- at least he's honest.
I should mention that this is maybe two thirds of the negative mail I received, but that just eyeballing it, the amount of positive email is about 3 or 4 times the total telling me they'll pray for me or shoot me..
Posted by: Mark | July 11, 2008 7:40 PM
Bill Mintohue: that was way funny. Good job. Eleventy billion points for you and a bonus life. Plus the BFG 9000 for good measure.
Posted by: foole | July 11, 2008 7:40 PM
I am just amazed. They really believe that it is the flesh of Jesus. So what do they do? Eat it! I thought there was a taboo against cannabalism.
Posted by: Dustin | July 11, 2008 7:40 PM
If the wrong neighborhood that the young Jewish PZ Myers grew up in was, say, Berlitz in 1243 then, yes, I could understand why he would have an itty bittly little chip on his shoulder about this.Posted by: baley | July 11, 2008 7:41 PM
Bloody Christian Taleban morons. They simply cant afford a sense of prospective and believe in the literaly in their holy books
IT'S A FUCKING CRACKER!
Is it ok to incinerate it? what about throw it in the dump?
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 7:41 PM
This one forgot to add, "My dick is bigger than yours and I can drink you under the table. NASCAR FOREVAH!"
Posted by: Jason W | July 11, 2008 7:43 PM
I'm curious how PZ's supposedly drawing all of that attention to himself. Let's see.
1) He posts, on his blog, which is made for the postings, about the cracker fiasco. No, that's not it..
2) Bill Donohue points out his blog and the links to it (apparently twice now). No, not PZ there...
3) Thousands of people comment on the issue, requiring more posts, just for maintenance reasons be opened..Still not there..
4) Radio stations and newspapers ask him for interviews because of all the attention the kerfluffle is getting. Don't think that's him either...
4) People ask him to post the letters he's been receiving and PZ obliges. Don't think that one counts either.
The only ones I see drawing attention to themselves are Donohue, making press releases, and people who like chatting about this mess. Unless I'm missing something. Anyone?
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 7:44 PM
I have to admit that the Catholics have lost by winning. They have demonstrated that they can sink as low as fundies which is an amazing accomplishment but not a positive one.
And Myers has won. He has just proved that the difference between a Catholic terrorist and a Moslem terrorist is zero, nothing.
Oh well, it will be easy to head on back to the Dark Ages. They seem to be just barely below the surface anyway.
Posted by: Barron | July 11, 2008 7:44 PM
Investing that much meaning in any object is frightening. And it's wrapped up in such nasty revenge fantasies. But it's all done with love so it's ok.
Posted by: Muse142 | July 11, 2008 7:44 PM
That is a large volume of stupid in them there emails.
I think I lost IQ points just scrolling through it.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 11, 2008 7:44 PM
I seriously doubt they would, room101. Deep down inside, they know it's just bread. The average Catholic gives little more than lip service to the tenets of his or her belief. It's only because they feel they're being persecuted that they're all up in arms. I guarantee half these fuckers are only Catholic for an hour each Sunday (a few extra on holidays), on the census, and when someone dares to question the authority of the Pope.
Blessed are the poor, but since churches are already blessed, there's no harm in gilding them with stolen Aztec gold, right?
Posted by: Victor (The) | July 11, 2008 7:44 PM
"Turn the other cheek" is a Christian saying, is it not?
Chin up, PZ. You've done nothing wrong.
I'm still trying to figure out who, what or where is the victim.
Posted by: St. Michael | July 11, 2008 7:45 PM
"...and let him know that 21st century people don't go bashing other folks religious beliefs."
It's odd, I find I have no problem bashing everyone else's religious beliefs. I have also found that most religious people have no problem bashing my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Posted by: room101 | July 11, 2008 7:46 PM
Bill Montahue @87: CLASSIC!
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 7:46 PM
You forgot, "in theology."
Wait, is that like the fortune cookie game? It's all funnier if you add "in theology" to the end?
I find it amusing that they've used their imaginations so much - PZ never actually said how he would desecrate the cracker. For all we know, he meant to put it on a desk and make it listen to a biology lecture. Or maybe put it in a tank with a squid and see what would happen.
Posted by: Ashley | July 11, 2008 7:46 PM
Those people are so ridiculous. I can't believe they're getting their panties in a bunch over this. I still don't see what the big deal is.
The only thing that came to my mind when I read those emails was 'crazy'.
Posted by: rufustfirefly | July 11, 2008 7:47 PM
I liked the one that asked "didn't your priest show you enough love when you were a boy?". That's a good one.
Posted by: Deepspacebeans | July 11, 2008 7:47 PM
I find it interesting that many of these people choose to pray for you. At the very least, this should server as further confirmation of the impotence of prayer.
Also the whole daring you to desecrate the koran, in the kind of tone that says, "I won't threaten physical harm, but I will not be rushing in to help you should another group do so. In fact, I kind of wish this harm upon you, in a passive-aggressive fashion."
Posted by: Rachel | July 11, 2008 7:48 PM
I have a couple of questions:
* Whenever I eat something, some of what I ate tends to get stuck in my teeth (hence the need for brushing). If I eat this cracker (aka Eucharist) and some of it remains stuck in my teeth as I leave the church, would I be kidnapping Jesus?
* If the Church can do the magic of turning a cracker into a body, why can't they have some sort of auto-magic that turns the body back into a cracker when someone tries to leave a church with it? That would seem to me the best anti-kidnapping mechanism there is.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 11, 2008 7:49 PM
Re: Chayanov@9
"You do kind of get left with the impression that these Christians wish they had the guts to kill people and blow things up when faced with those who disagree with them."
It's not a matter of guts- how much "guts" does it take for a Wahabist in Saudi Arabia to stone a middle-aged woman for witchcraft? What these Christains (no typo) wish for is a non-secular government that wouldn't punish them for smiting a heretic.
Posted by: Nic Nicholson | July 11, 2008 7:50 PM
I think I can help all of you--
Repeat after me:
It's not a cracker, it's the body of Christ.
It's not a cracker, it's the body of Christ.
It's not a cracker, it's...
Keep that up for six or seven years. Do it with your children, the younger the better. It's a family thing, you know!
Posted by: BennyP | July 11, 2008 7:50 PM
Am I still allowed to twist the tops off of Oreos?
I don't want to make jesus cry.
Posted by: El Herring | July 11, 2008 7:50 PM
I always used to wonder about the whole holy water thing too - maybe somebody can answer some of these:
If I dilute holy water (HW to save typing) with ordinary water, is the mixture still holy? If so, how much? Less holy than undiluted HW, or the same? If less, then what actual difference would that make, in terms of its healing power, or whatever? And how would anybody be able to tell HW from diluted HW, and from ordinary water?
Does HW stay holy forever, or does it have some kind of half-life? If it stays holy, then all the water that's been holified all these years is still sloshing about, and we've all probably got a certain percentage in our bodies, right?
Is there a limit to how much water a priest can holify at a time? If not, then why not just bless the whole ocean and be done with it?
If I freeze HW do I get holy ice? If I boil it, do I get holy steam? If I electrolyse it, do I end up with holy hydrogen and holy oxygen? (Wow! What would breathing holy oxygen be like?)
I could go on...
Posted by: kubenzi | July 11, 2008 7:51 PM
HOW DARE YOU DESECRATE THE MOST BLESSED OF SUGARED WAFERS!!!!!!!!111111!1 ZOMG IZ PERZEKEWSHUN! I KAN HAZ SELFRITCHUZ INDIGNAYSHUN!
lol
remember folks,and you can quote me on this,the only "noodley appendages" are the ones Ceiling Cat is watching being masterbated
Posted by: Aaron | July 11, 2008 7:51 PM
Wow -- I got through about 5.
Kudos to you for getting through enough to find choice quotes, copy and paste, and then post.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 11, 2008 7:51 PM
I... I... I had no idea Catholics had it so hard! Constantly under attack, and all they want to do is quietly practise their faith and not impose it or their values on the rest of the world! :(
How could I have been so wrong all this time? Now I know next time I read about some bishop telling people not to have their daughters vaccinated against HPV because it'll turn them into wanton little hussies, I'll know it's really PZ Myers trying to give the innocent Catholics of the world a bad name!
Shame on you, PZ Myers, for getting me to think that the Vatican does its damnedest to ensure that condoms aren't used to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa! Shame!
Shame on you for making me think Ratzinger has called same-sex unions "immoral, unnatural and harmful" or said about them "To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral"!
Shame on you for making me think that Catholics are hypocrites who criticize and demean to their heart's content, but get outraged when their ridiculous superstitions are called what they are!
SHAME!
One of those e-mails asked you if you see a soul when you look in a mirror. I've no doubt you don't, just ask I don't see a soul in my mirror. You with your "reason", "reality", and "outrage over a young man receiving death threats because of a cracker". What about the unreasonable, unrealistic Catholics who threatened his life? Huh?
But seriously, Catholics. AIDS in Africa is epidemic. Some good sex education and condoms would go a long way toward alleviating the suffering if you'd just get your collective heads out of your Dark Aged asses. And no, I've no problem pointing out that Mohammed married a six-year-old then consummated that marriage when she was nine, which would pretty much make him a pedophile by today's standards. Though in his favour, his followers don't ritually eat him.
Posted by: co | July 11, 2008 7:52 PM
#118 said: Am I still allowed to twist the tops off of Oreos?
I don't want to make jesus cry.
And release his Creamy Goodness? The Man would probably thank you heartily.
Posted by: Kristine | July 11, 2008 7:52 PM
The President of the Unites States just wadded up the planet and threw it into to cosmic garbage can and these hand-wringing nutjobs are sobbing over the communion wafer.
It's Jared Diamond's Collapse all over again.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 7:53 PM
Brownian, OM:
Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | July 11, 2008 7:54 PM
Even though Rob Sterling has been a jackass and demonstrated that he can't live by the rules he believes should be imposed on everyone else (among other things he's drawing attention to himself by providing a link to his own blog), he may have a point that PZ Myers has not received death threats. He may be technically right.
Does that mean that these threats should not be taken seriously, though? Furthermore, even if they may not technically be death threats, shouldn't any threat of violence be taken seriously?
Posted by: The Broilermaster | July 11, 2008 7:54 PM
What sort of rediculous straw-man fallacy are these people pulling to constantly reference "you wouldn't do that to a Koran! SUCKER I JUST BURNED YOU RIGHT GOOD!!".
Idiots.
Posted by: John Morris | July 11, 2008 7:55 PM
I am supporting you PZ - you are a good person and your opinions are perfectly logical - fuck religious idiots
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2008 7:55 PM
I get a sense of wistful longing for the militant Catholicism of yore, seeing all those references to the Koran.
Heehee.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 7:55 PM
Again, tons of the cravenly, cowardly misappropriation of the word "bigotry" to describe criticism of their IDEAS... something which can not be bigotry.
Catholics, get over yourselves. YOUR ideas are subject to criticism in the same way that any others are, and this is not, can never be bigotry.
ALL ideas are fair game for scrutiny.
Posted by: room101 | July 11, 2008 7:56 PM
Brownian @107:
"I seriously doubt they would, room101. Deep down inside, they know it's just bread. "
Yes, I know that you're right, brownian. I should have thought that through. I need to stop thinking that people actually are (or do) what they claim to believe.
I'm just tired of hearing these idiots claiming that what PZ did was in any way equivalent to the threat of physical harm to someone.
Posted by: Josh West | July 11, 2008 7:56 PM
#52 Rob Sterling:
You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key.
Come on down to Georgia. We know how to welcome bastards like you.....with a bullet.
Would you consider these lines threats? What if someone posted this to your blog, or emailed them to you? Would you brush it off as unimportant, or would you go batshit and try and get the senders arrested? Rhetorical question really, we both know the answer. Hypocrite.
Posted by: Nick Tacik | July 11, 2008 7:57 PM
People are stupid.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 7:57 PM
Dang it, my comment didn't post correctly.
That would be Amy, last thread, AFAIK.
Posted by: Crackers | July 11, 2008 7:58 PM
Carlie @ 111 wrote "PZ never actually said how he would desecrate the cracker." That's the most mind-boggling thing of the whole hate crime accusation! When I read it, I thought he was going to *gasp* eat the thing... What could be more "horrible" than an atheist eating a cracker...?
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 7:58 PM
PZ
You're a brilliant scientist but you're a pathetic communicator.
Obviously people take you quite seriously as advocating desecration of their holy objects. If that's what you calling for (I know it's not) then you need to make that clear. If you're engaging in satire then you really need to make that clear because apparently a whole lot of folks don't appreciate your attempt at satire.
Come on PZ. You've obviously got a huge soapbox. A little clarity would go a long way to putting down a lot of negative publicity against atheists.
On the other hand perhaps you like the attention. Unfortunately that would make you somewhat of an attention whore. (Yes, folks, I understand that I've just engaged in my own little bit of attention whoredom.)
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Hey, I've got a query:
Has anyone suggested a 'Cracker Challenge', along the same lines as the blasphemy challenge? If it has been suggested already, apologies, but I find I don't have the wherewithal to comb thru 1000's of comments like I used to.
Cracker has a whole new meaning, now.
Posted by: Spud | July 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Letter of support (and, I flatter myself to think, quite a good one) sent, Prof. And I'm in England, for fuck's sake.
Posted by: Keith B | July 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Catholics want to feel persecuted like Jews have been so bad it's pathetic.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 8:01 PM
@St. Michael
Indeed, none of these people use the example of desecrating pirate regalia. It makes you wonder if they don't consider that something to be offended about.
Posted by: Rob Sterling | July 11, 2008 8:01 PM
@mr-zero: Well, obviously I didn't think this instance was 'needless'.
@Garth: So everybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid? You're a model of circumspection and humility.
One of the things people often learn as they grow up - though not many of the denizens of this blog, apparently - is that even smart people are often wrong. And once someone accepts the fallibility not just of himself but also of the people he looks up to, humility is a common consequence. I don't believe in God but I learned that in Catholic Sunday School.
Most of the comments on this blog seem to be people trying to reassure themselves of their intelligence by asserting intellectual and moral deficits of Christians. Which is not surprising because it also seems to be "PZ"'s motive, and it's more than a little pathetic.
Posted by: Josh West | July 11, 2008 8:02 PM
#136 Ron in Houston
Does it really fucking matter. Satire or not, people are getting death threats and insults and physical assault over a CRACKER.
Posted by: themann1086 | July 11, 2008 8:02 PM
It's Jared Diamond's Collapse all over again.
Had to comment just for this:
OMG YOU READ IT TOO!!!!1!ONE!!
Yeah, that book kept making me think "Oh shit, that's US".
Oh, I stand with PZ on this. I don't always but seriously, no secular, pluralistic society can criminalize blasphemy.
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 8:02 PM
The more I read, the more I realize that "I will pray for you" is just a euphemism for, "Fuck you!"
It's always said in the same way, the same tone. And it usually ends the conversation.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 8:05 PM
I don't know why these Catholics are praying for Myers conversion.
After their display of mindless, homicidal frenzy as moslem terrorist clones who would want to be one? I bet this will cost them some members who were apathetic or on the fence. or even merely sane and intelligent.
Posted by: Mark | July 11, 2008 8:06 PM
What. The. Hell. This is even worse than threatening to kill over some cartoon in a Danish newspaper... how truly warped must these folks' minds be?
By the way, I love the fact that one of these guys tried to "prove" the sanctity of the Eucharist with a web page describing supposed Catholic miracles from the 13th century. How's that for empirical evidence?
Posted by: ChrisGose | July 11, 2008 8:06 PM
From reading some of those things, it seems these Catholics are extremely jealous of the Islamic way of getting things done and are pissed off that Catholicism doesn't allow them to use violence to get what they want. At least not anymore.
Posted by: Steven | July 11, 2008 8:06 PM
Retardation must exist as a wave and a theist. A self propagating wave that knows no bounds.
Posted by: Alex | July 11, 2008 8:07 PM
*salutes #23*
"Fatwa envy." Classic.
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 8:07 PM
The more I read, the more I realize that "I will pray for you" is just a euphemism for, "Fuck you!"
Oh, it totally is. It's one of the biggest put-downs in the Christian arsenal. It also often means "Wow, sucks to be you, I'm glad I'm so much better than you are!" Its corollary is "How can I pray for you this week?" which means "Hand over all the good gossip about yourself now, or I'll go around telling everyone else at church that you're backsliding and not fully entering the Fellowship of Believers anymore".
The doubletalk in churches can be breathtaking.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:08 PM
Calladus (#144):
"Oh, yeah, well I'll pray for you too!"
"Yeah, well, I prayed for your mom last night!"
"Shut your pray-hole, or I'll pray for yo' sister until she's like, 'Oh God oh God oh God oh God'!"
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 11, 2008 8:09 PM
I don't see how the word "hypocrite" applies here. I'm pretty sure that PZ's stance is that atheism is the default (Russell's Teapot, people!), and that the alternatives are laughably unsubstantiated, and so he laughs accordingly. I don't seem to remember him ever calling for "tolerance" of atheism as just another stripe in the rainbow of handed-down beliefs, nor for reverence for its symbols, as if there were anything equivalent to a magic God cracker in "Atheism".
Posted by: David | July 11, 2008 8:11 PM
A little scary how many there are?...
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 8:11 PM
It's a good thing PZ didn't insult an Oreo. Just imagine the outrage from all the fat bastards sitting in front of their computers right now..
I have to agree with all those who have previously commented on the militant muslim-envy in the quotes above - it's pretty scary.
On the other hand, aren't muslims so used to being insulted that it'd take more than PZ insulting their diet to get them all riled up?
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 11, 2008 8:11 PM
Here's the Official Guide to Christian Cliches and Phrases
Posted by: chigurh | July 11, 2008 8:12 PM
astounding levels of stupidity. perhaps you should send them all primers on basic logic and grammar, and we can all 'pray' that they read them. sounds like a bunch of home-school "professors" and used car salesman with nothing better to do
Posted by: Cory Albrecht | July 11, 2008 8:12 PM
Why is it that nobody comments on teh emails like this on:
Your posting on your website titled "It's a frackin' cracker!" was both rude and insensitive toward the beliefs of millions of people. Your opinions about whether or not the Eucharist is actually God are your own, and I respect your opinion, but desecrating another's sacred and holy object is not at all respectable. Ripping apart the Eucharist for those of the Catholic faith is equivalantly worse than force-feeding a cow to a Hindu, or displaying pictures of Allah to insult the Muslim community. You do not need to act like an ass to express your beliefs. I request that you refrain from treating my God in such a disrespectful manner; in case you do not comprehend how much your suggestion has upset people, it might be equivalent to your grief had someone threatened to run over your children. Your opinions are your own, but they don't give you license to do whatever you please. I hope your research in the biological field continues to be successful and I thank you for your time.
It's a moderate response that in no way threatens Dr. Myers. Indeed, the worse it does is call him an ass. It's a polite request for Dr. Myers to grow up and not act like a childish jerk. So how come nobody is commenting on it? Probably because it disproves some people's fondly held opinions that all people with religious beliefs are violent, hateful wackos.
Now I like reading Dr. Myer's blog every day, and I agree with his opinion on Creationism and Intelligent Design. I cheer every time he manages to show the Discovery Instute being the fools that they are.
But in this instance, I think Dr. Myers is just acting like an insensitive jerk and lowering himself to the contemptible level of many of the creationists one sees in talk.origins or alt.talk.creationism who so easily slip into ad hominem arguments.
It seems like Dr. Myers has not learned the old adage that starts "You catch more flies with honey...".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:12 PM
I'm starting to think that fatwa envy is better than my attempt at a coinage, Koran envy. Of course, it will be up to an online poll to decide.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 8:12 PM
Ron in Houston, #136, wrote:
Ron, if you realised what PZ's intent was, and looked at the number of posts here, the number of posts on other blogs, and the number of news stories which are now informing people all over the world of what has happened, you'd realise that he's a communications genius.
Here's a hint: it's the same reason Dawkins' book is called The God Delusion and not The God Belief We Don't Agree With.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 11, 2008 8:13 PM
PZ, you may be taking over as "The Most Hated Atheist" since Carlin has died and Dawkins hasn't come out with an anti-god book for a while.
Don't forget your old friends. We hate religion as much as ever.
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD, BMWCCA | July 11, 2008 8:13 PM
@#28
"I learned another from my grandmother, which is that it's rude and cruel to offend people needlessly... [PZ Myers has] grown into a smug jerk."
I'm guessing he 'needed' to be called a 'smug jerk'?
[Or have I (once again) been taken in by sly satire?]
Posted by: Ebo Tebo | July 11, 2008 8:13 PM
Mother Whore!! It's just a frackin' cracker!!!
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 8:13 PM
"Yeah, well, I prayed for your mom last night!"
Blake, when I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING all through freakin' church this week, it will be all. your. fault.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 8:13 PM
Ron, in case you hadn't noticed, the biggest result of this is that Catholics are exposing themselves to be unhinged loonies. (Well, SOME Catholics, I guess is more fair)
If PZ's image is tarnished in the eyes of said loonies in the process, indeed if all atheists' images are, I think that hardly matters.
Rational people can all see this for what it is - lunatics practically rioting over a cracker, and a man unabashedly (and maybe in some eyes rudely) pointing out that fact.
Better to be seen as somewhat rude but rational than as insane.
As for the irrational people and how they see this, who cares. You can't influence crazy.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 11, 2008 8:14 PM
Rod Sterling, please take your inability to read somewhere else. I'm not a teacher, and thus there's no reason why I should waste my time helping you to do something your wise ol' Granny was too busy fillin' your head with Farmer's Almanac-type wisdom to ensure you knew how to do.
Posted by: Catherine | July 11, 2008 8:14 PM
"I seriously doubt they would, room101. Deep down inside, they know it's just bread."
I don't know, Brownian--back when I was Catholic and attending Bible Study, one of the women there said she'd seriously agonize over a situation similar to this: namely, if a man with a gun pointed to her kid's head told her to renounce god or he'd shoot.
A depressingly, completely-true story.
Posted by: GS | July 11, 2008 8:14 PM
What's the deal with Catho-apologists frothing about Koran? Should PZ be "balanced" in his religion 'reviews'? Wow, retardation galore even in the world's most "advanced" nation!
Posted by: Hessenroots | July 11, 2008 8:15 PM
My eyes started to go cross after number 6...too much of the same drivel.
PZ, I feel sorry for you and pres. B's inboxes.
Hopefully the average lifespan of a troll will keep the inanity to a subtle roar over the weekend.
Posted by: Carlie | July 11, 2008 8:16 PM
So how come nobody is commenting on it?
Ok, I will. I obviously have nothing better to do on a Friday night.
in case you do not comprehend how much your suggestion has upset people, it might be equivalent to your grief had someone threatened to run over your children.
If your grief over a cracker being taken back to a pew is equivalent to someone threatening to kill your children, your religion has messed your shit up more than ought to be legal, and your sense of morality is totally fucked up.
There, better?
Posted by: ngong | July 11, 2008 8:16 PM
Amongst the more reasonable criticisms, there still doesn't seem to be any admission that the response in Florida was perhaps a bit overboard.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 11, 2008 8:18 PM
..."Shut your pray-hole, or I'll pray for yo' sister until she's like, 'Oh God oh God oh God oh God'!"
(Holds sides painfully...)
Can Ah Get An Ay MEN bruthahs 'n sistahs?
Posted by: Nicol | July 11, 2008 8:19 PM
"If that is the case then Christians everywhere apologise and assure him we do not hate Jewish people but love them as elder brothers and sisters in Christ."
Which is why we're totally okay with the "holy" Zionist holocaust of the Palestinians, but we fuckin' hate our younger brothers and sisters of Islam, right?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:19 PM
Or, just possibly, it's because (a) we don't actually hold that opinion, because we have enough religious folk in our social and familial circles to know otherwise, while (b) it's not the kind of response worth worrying about.
Don't you read comic strips?
And as long as we're reducing both our capacities for critical thought and our understanding of the human condition to old adages befitting bumper stickers, how about the one which goes, "Well-behaved women seldom make history"? I admit, there's an analogy involved here.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 8:20 PM
PZ, these emails are offering you an opportunity to really make your point. Most of these people seem to
thinkhave been told by Donohue that you have a specific mad-on for Catholics, beyond the Webster Cook issue. Obviously, anybody who thinks you balk at criticizing Islam is a CL ass-puppet who can't be bothered to actually search your site for posts like this one. Perhaps if you rose to their challenge and posted a Muslim blasphemy, you might at least get your point across that you don't play favorites when calling bullshit bullshit.Posted by: pcarini | July 11, 2008 8:20 PM
Three words that apparently nobody understands: prejudice, hatred, bigotry. Ideas are not people.
Posted by: El Herring | July 11, 2008 8:20 PM
Blake Stacey, that was praying funny. In fact I've had a good few chuckles at all of this madness in the last couple of days. Cheered me up no end!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 8:20 PM
Cory Albrecht reminded us of the old adage: "You catch more flies with honey...".
I think it was a character played by Tommy Lee Jones responded to that by saying, 'Who wants flies?'
Posted by: Brian | July 11, 2008 8:21 PM
I'm loving this whole controversy. Pharyngula has struck a nerve!
Much of this hate mail isn't particularly vitriolic. In fact, many of these people are probably very reasonable people otherwise which demonstrates how bizarre an effect religious belief has on society. I don't think even PZ would argue that most Catholics are deranged, even if the belief in the eucharist is indeed deranged. But because it's a part of someone's faith, how dare we criticize it. It's amazing to me how all these people are able to throw their rationality out the door for this one (absurd) thing.
IT'S A FUCKING CRACKER!
Posted by: dysphemism | July 11, 2008 8:21 PM
It amazes me how many of these writers are incapable of recognizing the fundamental distinction between respect for the person and respect for the idea.
The former is a fundamental tenet of basic human rights and dignity, the latter is not a right at all. Given the choice of respecting a belief (such as the belief that, say, all members of group x deserve to be killed/stoned/converted/shown the "error of the ways," because a much-translated and heavily-edited old text declares it so) or respecting the individual humans involved (the rights of the individuals in question to be free from being killed/stoned/converted/etc), I would hope that a basic respect for humankind would lead any sensible person to err on the side of the latter. To hold respect for an idea above respect for the individual is to grant certain beliefs the leeway to impose these ideas (and their direct behavioral antecedents) over basic individual sovereignty - essentially, allowing the beliefs of one group of people to dictate the rights and actions of another.
Contrary to what the most vehement of apologists writing in to attack Dr. Myers would like to believe, no one individual has the right to claim that their ideas must dictate the behavior of any other individual, no matter how "deeply held" and personal these beliefs may be. Simply put: just because it hurts your feelings when I point out the ludicrousness of your ideas does not mean you have any right to keep me from saying so, and to assume otherwise is to elevate that abstract belief above the very tangible reality of my individuality and rights thereof.
Dr. Myers isn't attacking the individual here. He isn't inciting any action against Catholics. He's inciting action against the perpetuation of what he considers to be irrational and largely harmful myths - including, as anyone who has actually read the Bible will note, considerable beliefs about the worth and humanity of large swaths of your fellow humans.
He hit it right on the head, first off: what happens in this country regularly to people who have been identified by the religious majority as "inferior", men such as Michael Shephard, is a hate crime. Pointing out the ridiculousness of an idea is not.
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 8:22 PM
#119 - obviously diluting holy water just makes it stronger - aren't you familiar with Homeopathy?
I figure a 30x solution would raise anyone from the dead!
Posted by: Ben Abbott | July 11, 2008 8:22 PM
Strange how so many accuse you of some vile intent and then act it out against you ;-)
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 8:24 PM
These threads are providing pretty solid comedy.
Hopefully some radical stand-up guy is in here taking notes, what with Carlin gone.
Posted by: Jimi | July 11, 2008 8:24 PM
How about a new YouTube challenge? "Desecrate the Eucharist" It practically writes itself so to speak.
Posted by: Brian | July 11, 2008 8:24 PM
To #179
Beautifully said. You captured what I was trying to say in #178. Very nicely done.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 8:24 PM
If you can't tell the difference between a cracker and your kids, you need to turn yourself in for psychiatric treatment.
And whatever you do, don't reproduce. Studies have shown that people who can't tell the difference between children or crackers invariably end up tossing their kids in the garbage while tucking a cracker into bed or feeding them to the dog by accident.
Posted by: Eli | July 11, 2008 8:24 PM
Catholics: bitter much? Go to Mass or something to chill out. When you go up for communion, take a good hard long at that cracker. Do you really, truly believe that that is the body and blood of a man who died more than two thousand years ago?
Do you honestly, in totality, believe that when a priest says a couple of prayers, something that IS bread and wine can change into a man's body? Even though it has not changed in any measurable way? How is that more sensible than me taking a piece of Wonder Bread and singing at it, then believing it is a piece of my great-grandmother's arm? Would I not be psychotic for believing this, and moreover for eating something I believed to be human flesh?
So before you get all indignant at PZ, consider what you're defending. It is illogic in the highest degree, and I'd say borderline mental.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 8:25 PM
IT'S A PRAYING CRACKER!
Posted by: Ben Abbott | July 11, 2008 8:26 PM
dysphemism, nice comments!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:27 PM
Calladus (#180):
Hah! A hit, a very palpable hit!
Posted by: True Bob | July 11, 2008 8:27 PM
What I find interesting is the combination of Koran Envy, claims of respecting all religions, and calling Followers of Teh Prophet "muzzies".
That's some god damned respect for others, there.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 8:28 PM
"This is truly a deep wound to our Lord, Jesus Christ"
There's still enough undecomposed corpse to be wounded? That's crazy.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 11, 2008 8:28 PM
You can thank secular laws for that, not Catholicism, ChrisGose. If they had their way, they'd be pulling out the iron maiden right now, and I ain't talkin' The Number of the Beast on vinyl.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 8:28 PM
I just had this conversation with my dad
Dad: "Hey, I'm gonna take a shower; do you need to use the bathroom?"
Me: "No-- check this shit out. A bunch of Catholics are threatening to kill a university professor for insulting a cracker."
Dad: "Hahahahahaha... what a bunch of stupid fucking people."
Posted by: Rob the Lurker FCD, BMWCCA | July 11, 2008 8:29 PM
@#87 ROTFLMAO
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 8:30 PM
Brian:
IT'S A PRAYING CRACKER!
fixed it.
Thanks Blake Stacey!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 11, 2008 8:31 PM
My responses to a few of these idiots:
"If he plans to do so, please let me know so I can give prior notice to the Muslim communities in your State AND recommend to a mathematics instructor I know to apply to fill the sudden vacancy of Dr. Myers' position."
Dr. Myers teaches biology moron.
"Yesterday almost no one outside of the narrow confines of Minnesota academia had ever heard the name of Paul Zachary Myers. But today the name rings with infamy, and has become synonomous with hatred and intolerance."
Drama queen. Oh and a little research on your part would have revealed that Myers well known before this incident from his blog and from his appearance in Expelled .
"I just read the July 8, 2008 rant by Prof. Myers, in which he pledges to desecrate the Catholic Eucharist (which Catholics consider to be holy). Frankly, I am astounded that your University would allow such vitriolic hatred and bigotry to be spewed from one of its Professors! I don't think I've ever before come across such prejudice and hatred in print! "
Read Mein Kampf, your Holy Book, or....well anything because you obviously don't you read much.
"We need to hit him where it hurts. Perhaps I should grab a copy of his Holy Book, which I assume to be Darwin's Origin of Species, and desecrate that! LOL!!"
Go ahead...you wouldn't understand it anyway. And no one would really care, except maybe your local fire department.
"Biology has nothing to do with theology so why do you get involved?"
Indeed not, that is why it's been so successful in explaining nature. So one person can only be interested in one topic?
"It is absolutely unacceptable to have on faculty a professor who does not represent and honor true showmanship and academic professionalism."
Showmanship? He's a professor, not an opera singer. Also, these remarks were on his personal blog so "academic professionalism" has nothing to do with it.
"Since you are brave behind your blog, threatening Bill O' Donahue of the Catholic League saying you would be happy to kick him in the balls, why don't you try that with this Catholic veteran? "
He never said that. He said he wouldn't trade hostage wafers for seeing the pope kick Donahue (no O') in the balls. Reading skills people.
"You are a monster. We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you (and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly)."
Wow, how moral of the church not to kill a person with their own hands and just merely send them to those who will kill them.
Captain, there's too much stupid. My brain can't take anymore. Oh and for the (many!) people saying that PZ said something critical of Isalm, do a simple search in the Pharyngula archives. You'll see how badly you have embarassed yourself.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 8:31 PM
"Hopefully some radical stand-up guy is in here taking notes, what with Carlin gone."
I won't ever do stand-up (I'm too antisocial), but I'm definitely insane enough to write a Carlin-esque psychotic rampa-- sorry, a "Carlin-esque routine."
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 8:31 PM
@#191
There's still enough undecomposed corpse to be wounded? That's crazy.
Not only that, but apparently you can wound the god of the catholics with words.
Not so omnipotent now, are we?
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 8:32 PM
Darn it, too late! Pray! This thread moves too fast!
Posted by: AJ | July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
So... much... stupid... aaarrrghhh... hurts...
Posted by: Tsugradstudent | July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
Raven #104
I said something similar on another science blog, the other day. (He has just proved that the difference between a Catholic terrorist and a Moslem terrorist is zero, nothing.) and was called out on it. Even though, I disagree with the owner who called me out on it (along with the several fundies), I can appreciate his stance that most Christians are not as zealous as their Moslem counterparts. I still stand by the statement and this whole entire incident, I believes proves the point.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
So, let me get this straight: Catholics are okay with priests fucking their kids, but they're upset by kids fucking with their crackers.
The cognitive dissonance! It burns!
Posted by: bunnycatch3r | July 11, 2008 8:35 PM
PZ has more people praying for him than the pope. With all of that prayer I guess he won't be an athiest for long. Nice knowing you PZ... enjoy your life as a christian.
Posted by: chigurh | July 11, 2008 8:36 PM
@157 "Ripping apart the Eucharist for those of the Catholic faith is equivalantly worse than force-feeding a cow to a Hindu," are you fucking serious? forcefeeding=legitmate crime. soiling a cracker, um no.
"displaying pictures of Allah to insult the Muslim community." we dont play wacko favorites. That is by definition the exercise of freedom of speech and expression. they are as wacko as any christian. http://www.acepilots.com/mt/wp-content/uploads/2006/02/Muhammed%20drawing%20newspaper.jpg
"You do not need to act like an ass to express your beliefs." like threatening to arrest someone for violating them? threatening to harm? take their job? ridiculously hypocritical. this is not a theocracy. we can be assholes if we choose. better than being completely delusional.
"I request that you refrain from treating my God in such a disrespectful manner; in case you do not comprehend how much your suggestion has upset people, it might be equivalent to your grief had someone threatened to run over your children." -what fucking fantasy world are you living in. children are real. you can touch them. they grow, eat, make mistakes, and even bleed. they love you, need you. threatening to run over someones child IS IN NO WAY COMPARABLE to someone criticizing whatever your supposed relationship with god is. If you honestly are so batshit insane that stealing a cracker is equivalent to the death of a child, perhaps you should meet someone who has lost and get some fucking perspective.
"Your opinions are your own, but they don't give you license to do whatever you please." oh the irony.
"Probably because it disproves some people's fondly held opinions that all people with religious beliefs are violent, hateful wackos." because every single letter and argument is completely logically bankrupt, we can safely conclude they are all wackos. I dont see any of the nonviolent ones discouraging the threats.There are legitimate problems in the world, dont waste our time trying to make us feel sorry for these fairies
Posted by: Rarus.vir | July 11, 2008 8:36 PM
Funny how a simple difference of opinion can sometimes bring out the true nature of people. Sure, PZ might have gone a little overboard for a man in his office, but the backlash makes that look like nothing. People need to learn to be mad without being nasty, they need to let differing opinions inspire them to check their own beliefs, and to remember a time in our own life when we ourselves weren't correct about something. I don't see anyone being totally defendable here, all have sinned you might say, right at the start when this college kid did a stupid pointless thing and got us all stirred up. Let's try and remember what we have in common with each other. Let it all end.
PZ, I learned something out of all this, as I'm sure you did too. What we take away from this hopefully will make us both better people.
Posted by: ngong | July 11, 2008 8:36 PM
I can only suppose, then, that you also wouldn't mind defecating on a Buddha in a temple, or urinating on a Torah while it's still in its Ark, or maybe you'd go for stuffing a Koran down a toilet and flushing.
Just google "Buddha Shit" and you'll get myriad Zen tales of Buddha image desecration on the part of adherents.
Some religions certainly are far less uptight than others. Judging from the e-mails, it appears that Catholicism aspires to the anal-retentiveness of Islam.
Posted by: El Herring | July 11, 2008 8:36 PM
Calladus, I did consider the homeopathy angle too, but I didn't want to labour my point. However:
How about blessing just one drop of HW, then tipping it into the Pacific Ocean? Now that should produce some serious HHW (Homeopathic Holy Water, or H2W for short!)
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | July 11, 2008 8:38 PM
Oh, yes. Dawkins wrote about it in The God Dilution.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 8:38 PM
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l227/dingdong34/Cat%20Macros/ButthurtPost1.jpg If the image doesn't load, click the link.
That is what the Catholic assholes should have sent you instead of these intellectually bankrupt death threats.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 11, 2008 8:39 PM
Yikes! Seeing the hysteria PZ has created I think I will lay off publishing my cartoon drawings of Muhammad discreting a wafer while eating a hamburger at a neo-Nazi rally.
Posted by: Mena | July 11, 2008 8:39 PM
In one of those weird acts of serendipity, I found this because I was looking for an animal training video for a friend who is a vet and needs to get a bobcat under control at her facility. I have no idea what bread shaped body parts have to do with animal training but the guy does interesting, but kind of gross, work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKSO7m3-MH8
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:40 PM
We now have a new euphemism, people! Hooray! Now let's go get down and pray to celebrate!
But it looks like we've got a serious problem, too. According to Matthew 6:5-7,
Well, you know the rest. But 1 Timothy 2:8 says,
Can we pray outside our closets or not? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: AJ | July 11, 2008 8:41 PM
"I DONT SPEAK FOR ALL CATHOLICS BUT MOST OF US HAVE HAD SOME GREAT EDUCATIONS FROM GRADE SCHOOL TO GRADUATE LEVEL.
WERE EVEN RANKED SECOND BEHIND THE JEWISH COMMUNITY. WE RESPECT BILL THATS WHY HE SPEAKS FOR MOST OF US AND WE APPRECIATE IT. WE SEE IN YOUR COMMENTS THAT WE NEED THE BILL'S OF THIS WORLD TO FIGHT FOR US EVEN THOUGH WE CAN DO APPOLOGETICS FOR OURSELVES."
I has som gr8 edukationz!
Posted by: Patrick | July 11, 2008 8:41 PM
All I can muster is a LOLLLLLLLLLL
Posted by: Rahne | July 11, 2008 8:41 PM
IM EMPLORING PZ DONT DESICRAET CRAKER. U SUCH BIGGGOT
Posted by: Dr. T. S. Loosli | July 11, 2008 8:42 PM
The opinion of the illuminated is/has been rather predictable of late. Sad to see that you, too, have been the subject of superficial outrage and poor logic. Time to pity those who just exercise their bigotry and ignorance with unashamed brazenness.
They are all atheists too. It just one god (their Catholic god) that they make the exception for. When they come to understand that they are atheists too, then (an only then) will they realize that you simply are, through reason and science, able to hold all god concepts to the same standard of proof.
Sometimes it is embarrassing that there are Americans so ignorant, irrational, and illogical as to believe that their existences are divine, rather than infrequent.
HH =)
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 8:43 PM
I was surprised to find that koran envy is actually not in use that much on the internets, and we seem to have a relatively new meme here. Google results two and three point at the cracker threads here on Pharyngula already, out of 8 results in total.
Pretty soon the first thing Google will return when searching for "koran envy" will be posts about catholics getting their panties in a twist over crackers.
Please PZ, do go on. :)
Posted by: PZ is a fool.... | July 11, 2008 8:43 PM
"Galton's idolatry of science and his rejection of Christian faith-- a view hardly distinguishable, except by its erudition, from Myers' view-- had a profound influence on 20th century medical science and practice. Ideas have consequences, and ideas have antecedents. The science that rose from these atheist and Darwinist ideas-- the science of eugenics-- gave rise to the darkest era in the history of medicine. Myers' virulent Darwinism and his anti-Christian bigotry are just uncommonly repellant expressions of Galton's intrinsically repellant ideology. The metaphysical basis for eugenics-- the Darwinist understanding of human origins-- lives on in the atheist claque in contemporary science."
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/5-0&fp=4877b0e581ffaddb&ei=Wfx3SKnLIZP2_AH5s9WGBA&url=http%3A//www.evolutionnews.org/2008/07/myers_old_ideas.html&cid=0&usg=AFQjCNEToNrK8BGqTwFTBnhSJbDcNIpihQ
Myers is a joke (and hazard); Catholics are not the only one to realize this fact.
Posted by: Andrew | July 11, 2008 8:43 PM
PZ did you seriously read through all that bullshit? I couldnt stomach it!!! I read like 8 of them and recieved(lol sp?) severe brain damage.
Religion deserves no respect!
Posted by: Sastra | July 11, 2008 8:44 PM
Sorry, I couldn't read through all of them. It got too repetitive.
None of the letters seemed to understand that PZ wasn't reacting against the Eucharist itself -- he was reacting against the over-reaction to its "desecration."
It's analogous to responding to the Muslim hysteria over the cartoons by drawing a stick figure with an arrow and the word "Mohammed" pointing to it -- and posting it on a blog. Or publically naming your Teddy Bear "Mohammed" as a show of solidarity with the teacher who was persecuted. The point is to show that the outrage is disproportional.
There is no real harm committed. We are not going to play the game that says that there has been harm committed. It's a cracker, a picture, a teddy bear. Your fantasy world is not part of the common ground we all stand on.
Instead, what is their analogy?
Well, here's an analogy which has been occurring to me more and more frequently recently.
Puss 'n Boots. From the movie Shrek.
He's an arrogant, cocksure little braggart, strutting and preening and throwing his weight around. And then, what happens when he is really cornered?
The big, sad little kitty eyes. The sweet, fuzzy little kitty face. Those darling little kitty lips, trembling with emotion and sensitivity. Awwwwwww ... how cute. Leave the little guy alone.
That's the Catholics -- Christians -- theists in general. They're powerful, smug, and sneer at those foolish atheists who just don't get it, do they. And when you do anything to call their bluff, point out the obvious, mention that the emperor is naked ---- awwwww. It's the BIG KITTY EYES.
Oh noes!! These are my sacred, sacred beliefs. This is so very, very hurtful. You are taking away the most precious thing I have. Mommy, this man says my puppy who died doesn't still love me in heaven anymore. Mommy?
So it looks like mommy has to kick our butts, now, because of what we did to their sweet, gentle, fragile, CUTE little feelings. They were weak and defenseless, and we attacked their baby sensibilities.
This is the rage of parents, protecting a helpless child. Not the cracker. Themselves.
Puss 'n Boots Apologetics.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 8:45 PM
Fucking hilarious. Give us more, give us more.
Posted by: Robert | July 11, 2008 8:45 PM
It amazes me how many of the emails either stated they did not know why PZ is taking his stance, or misrepresented it. It's clear they didn't actually read the "fracking cracker" post in question. So how come they are offended by it?
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 8:46 PM
You owe me a keyboard!Posted by: Theodore Shulman | July 11, 2008 8:46 PM
Hi PZ. I am a radical agnostic rationalist and I used to be an immunochemist and I love your blog and agree with almost everything you write. However, I respectfully disagree with your decision to desecrate a sacred symbol, for two reasons: 1. I think you will alienate potential converts to non-religion, and 2. By desecrating a Catholic symbol but not a Muslim one, you confirm the pernicious idea that plausible threats of violent retaliation can be used to increase respect for (or at least respectful treatment of) the religion that makes such threats.
Sincerely, --Ted.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 8:47 PM
@ 218
Let me be the first to say.. not this shit again!
Posted by: El Herring | July 11, 2008 8:48 PM
Also brings a whole new meaning to "praying with one hand"...
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:48 PM
Bzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing. Eugenics is just the attempt to do selective breeding on human beings, and farmers have been breeding plants and animals since before the dawn of history (in other words, for longer than Young-Earth Creationists think the Universe has existed).
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 8:49 PM
Woah, so much hatred and being offended... all over a cracker.
If Catholics want to show any evidence that a priest saying a few words turns a cracker into a dead jew zombie, then I'm sure PZ Myers and everyone else here would cease. But it was a cracker before the priest touched it, it was a cracker after it was given to the person taking communion, and it will continue to be a cracker until it's digested by the body.
It's a cracker ffs!
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 8:49 PM
Guys, I appreciate that PZ has antagonized the Catholics to the point where they show that they're not much different than those dreaded Muslim fundamentalists.
PZ didn't just say "your belief is absurd." What PZ did in a lame attempt at satire was to say "your belief is absurd, people should go into your sacred space and desecrate your idols."
Sorry folks. There is a big difference between saying Christianity is stupid and encouraging people to go into a church to get you a cross to desecrate on Youtube.
Shame on PZ. Check his post all you sycophants.
Posted by: Betsy | July 11, 2008 8:50 PM
Dear Rob Sterling:
To everybody who thinks there's a death threat among those messages - a death threat would be phrased in the form of an imminent, first person warning. It wouldn't be formed in an ambiguous, passive-voiced warning.
If this were really the case, the Secret Service would not have investigated teenagers for drawing pictures of a beheaded GWB in art class.
Posted by: Betard | July 11, 2008 8:50 PM
"I will work to let as many people as possible know there are still people like you taking advantage of the freedom America offers."
So we shouldn't take advantage of the freedom that American soldiers have died for?
Posted by: Patrick | July 11, 2008 8:50 PM
The way these people talk, it's like Catholics are being hauled off to camps.
Donohue et al 'If it were the jews/muslims,whateverdumbfuckidea' the media would be all over you.
Give me a break.
Posted by: chigurh | July 11, 2008 8:51 PM
@218
strong reference. A+
Posted by: PZ is a fool.... | July 11, 2008 8:51 PM
PS - for a "scholar," Myers writes at very low levels of eloquence and/or intelligence.
Posted by: Greg | July 11, 2008 8:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg
Nuff said!
Posted by: Santiago | July 11, 2008 8:54 PM
It's. A. Fucking. Cracker.
If it were pissing on a holy book, you could make the case that it's a book, and it's not cool to desecrate books. You can *learn* something from books. If it were torching a building, you could make a case from it's architecture, it's history or the sheer usefulness of a place with four walls and a ceiling.
But it's a fucking cracker, and one destined to be crushed, bathed in acid, turned into waste and excreted into a toilet (by Catholics!) at that.
This has been a day of despairing for the human race, no doubt about that.
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 8:54 PM
@Ron in Houston
Wow, what a damn good idea ;)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 8:55 PM
1. Point me to a person who was alienated from rationalism on these grounds. Once we have evidence, then we can talk.
2. (a) No symbol has yet been desecrated. All we've seen is talk about it, the proposal of a hypothetical scenario, which (to my reckoning) carries equal weight to the denunciations of Islam hosted on this site before.
(b) Where were you when we were suggesting that PZ glue a bunch of crackers to a Koran, wrap it in the American flag and set it on fire with liquid oxygen and a blowtorch? Throw in a hammer and sickle, too, for all I care: fuck — I mean, I'll pray for all your symbols.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 8:55 PM
@ Ted in #224
"radical agnostic rationalist"
What the hell does that even mean?
"I think you will alienate potential converts to non-religion"
Yeah, it's pretty obvious any of the people quoted above could have "converted" anytime soon. Is "non-religion" protelyzing now?
"By desecrating a Catholic symbol but not a Muslim one, you confirm the pernicious idea that plausible threats of violent retaliation can be used to increase respect for (or at least respectful treatment of) the religion that makes such threats."
Have you read any of the comments so far? I think we might have something in this "Koran envy" term.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 8:56 PM
Sorry you haven't thought it through. Paul Hill murdered two MDs and was executed by the state of Florida. Osama helped kill 3,000 at the World Trade Center and is a hero in much of the Moslem world.
So what is the difference. After all, 3,000 is more than 2.
The difference is the USA has enforced laws against burning witches, assassinating MDs, flying planes into skyscrapers, Inquisitions, lynchings and so on. This is a secular state ruled by laws and neutral on religions who aren't given any secular powers.
Without the state's laws backed up by the courts and cops, how long would PZ Myers, any evolutionary biologists, and any heretics or rival sects last? About 5 minutes.
If the wingnut fanatics posting death threats could get away with it, we would look like Iraq or Afghanistan and fall to the same standard of living.
There is no difference between xian or moslem terrorists. There is a huge difference between the societies they operate in. We don't let ours run around loose and they know it.
Posted by: Santiago | July 11, 2008 8:57 PM
"No of course not, because you are a typical whiny college professor. Are you upset because your boyhood priest didn't show you any love?"
I'm confused, is this a Catholic actually joking about Catholic priests molesting children, as if it were a normal/good thing?
Posted by: rumrunner | July 11, 2008 8:59 PM
"Woah, so much hatred and being offended... all over a cracker."
Social autism at it's finest!
Atheists/eugenicists much be practicing what they preach - i.e. selective breeding within their gene pool...
And, PZ has proven himself to be nothing more than a cocksucking, zebrafish-fondling fool...
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 8:59 PM
From one email: "What do you have against Catholics and our faith to make you say such harsh and evil things?"
Speaking for myself only, I can't respect people who threaten murder because of a cracker.
I have other problems with Catholics besides the terrorism. Their beliefs, and I unfortunately know all about their beliefs, couldn't possibly be more insane. The jesus in a cracker is just a small part of the insanity.
Posted by: Patches | July 11, 2008 8:59 PM
Why is it that only THEIR belief of "the cracker is magical" needs to be respected, but OUR belief of "um... it's just a cracker" necessitates grievous punishment?
I hope no one blogs about planning to cook some pork chops, it might offend the Jews.
Posted by: JD | July 11, 2008 9:00 PM
PZ, didn't you mention quite some time ago you were writing a book? If not, then you should.
"It's just a Goddamn cracker" would be a great title or subtitle.
Posted by: Kel | July 11, 2008 9:00 PM
Are you saying it's not a cracker?
Posted by: Reed Braden | July 11, 2008 9:01 PM
Yup.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 11, 2008 9:01 PM
Holy snapping Christ Crackers Batman, there sure are a lot of rabid, violence prone Catholics out there. Whilst I didn't read all the emails, I did notice a disturbing trend in the ones I did read. I find it highly ironic that so many of these 'loving Christians', express their outrage by either explicitly or implicitly advocating the use of physical violence against you.
They dare you to ridicule Islam in the same way as you did Catholicism, in the hope that some rabid Muslim might then come along and kill you.
I'm certain that if Catholics were ever permitted to burn their opponents at the stake again, then some of these people would be among the first to volunteer to go and collect the firewood. : D
Here are a couple of gems from that litany of hate and loathing.
"IF Catholics had half the testosterone of muzzies, the answer would be simple. Holy hollowpoint. But alas, I expect they will whimper and grovel as usual."
Followed soon after by,
"PS - I find it rather funny that so many people are incredibly tolerant (nice buzzword) until they feel offended. Then all tolerance goes out the window."
The irony is palpable!!!
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 9:01 PM
There is a big difference between saying Christianity is stupid and encouraging people to go into a church to get you a cross to desecrate on Youtube.
Shame on PZ. Check his post all you sycophants.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 8:49 PM
PZ never told anyone to get a cross or desecrate anything.
Ron in Houston is just another liar for Chirst.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 9:02 PM
Eugenics is alive and well, and we're getting it right this time (see links). As usual, you're missing the point (in the broad sense of "you") that science is neutral and policy is susceptible to ideology. The Nazi eugenicists were appropriating the energy of a scientific revolution to serve their own political ends, something your guru Egnor could give seminars on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics
http://books.google.com/books?id=yqaV_3QzYFMC&dq=liberal+eugenics&pg=PP1&ots=zgXhC2adM0&sig=Fvpv_j4YsoiY1bOb6cr-jX2upu4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 9:02 PM
PZ has proven himself to be nothing more than a cocksucking...
It's really hard to pay a higher compliment.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 9:03 PM
That's a strong case, indeed. However, just for the fun of it, I can imagine cases where burning a book might be acceptable. For example:
I would not advocating stealing the public library's only copy of Ann Coulter's Godless and burning it. If nothing else, humanity might benefit from a record of authoritarian stupidity, and it could provide research material for a future novelist (supposing our species does not self-destruct before that novel can get written). On the other hand, if we were filming a movie with a book-burning scene — like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade or Fahrenheit 451, let's say — then buying Coulter or Dobson's crap from a used-book shop doesn't sound like such a bad idea. The prop department deserves to have fun, too.
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 9:03 PM
Ron in Houston,
BTW - how is Houston? I lived there for 12 years. Before moving there I never knew that cockroaches could be 3 inches long and fly in swarms! And the fire ants, and 200 days of rain a year... at least the food was decent.
My take? If PZ acquires a Eucharist through theft, then I'll be with you to condemn that act. Police should charge him with a crime equivalent to the property value of one communion cracker.
But if PZ gets a cracker through re-gifting, then I have no problem with what he does with it.
As far as a person receiving communion for the express purpose of sending it to PZ - if there is no agreement between the priest and recipient about the final destination of the Eucharist, then I don't see how it could be immoral to re-gift something you were given.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 9:04 PM
Sorry. #250 was addressed to #218.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 9:04 PM
Thought experiment:
If I legally purchase a religious symbol, and choose to desecrate it in the privacy of my own home, what laws have I broken?
Posted by: Elf Eye | July 11, 2008 9:04 PM
My favorites:
"I find it rather funny that so many people are incredibly tolerant (nice buzzword) until they feel offended. Then all tolerance goes out the window." (already referenced by others but just so good that I had to point it out again)
"...why would an alleged intelligent person (supposed) become so enraged over a 'Frackin Cracker'?" (applied to PZ, and, like the previous one, apparently without any awareness of irony)
Maybe somebody has already suggested this, but how about a sort of "I am Spartacus" day. Tomorrow everybody could include the phrase "It's a frackin' cracker!" in their blog.
Posted by: pcarini | July 11, 2008 9:04 PM
Rob Sterling, clear back @ #52
In case this hasn't been resolved earlier in the thread:
PZ didn't "[go] out of his way to offend" anybody. He did make a post saying he'd maltreat a cracker. Donohue and Co. then took offense and spread news of this far and wide, in order to help a maximum number of other people take offense.
I can not offend anybody, but they can choose to be offended at anything I do or say.
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 9:06 PM
That just gets funnier and funnier!
Posted by: bill o'reo | July 11, 2008 9:07 PM
My whole body is shaking and tears are falling on my keyboard. Someone said something about abusing the Sacred Oreo. The Cookie from Heaven, the Snack Food of Angels. I know we Oreans are divided into groups that eat the Holy Cookie in different ways. I am of the bit into the whole Holy Oreo but there are no theological reasons preventing one from twisting off the top and licking the Holy White Filling.
The greatest post was the one from the guy who wanted you to do a scientific investigation of the cracker so he linked to a "Miracles of the Eucharist." I've always wondered why god wastes his powers making bleeding (in the scientific sense)cracker. Why doesn't he zap away all the hunger in the world? He probably can't make that many crackers.
Posted by: Santiago | July 11, 2008 9:08 PM
"Yesterday almost no one outside of the narrow confines of Minnesota academia had ever heard the name of Paul Zachary Myers. But today the name rings with infamy, and has become synonomous with hatred and intolerance. You might have gained renown for some tremendous scientific breakthrough, or for touching the minds and hearts of your students. Instead you have become notorious for your ignorance and your bigotry. Your story, Paul, is truly tragic."
It seems like every single one of these e-mails contains enough insight into the ignorance and narrow-mindedness of Catholics to have warranted its own post in normal circumstances.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 9:08 PM
Dammit. This FUCKING CRACKER shit is hilarious and annoying--I'm not getting any dissertation work done tonight!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 11, 2008 9:08 PM
Dang it, "would not advocating" should have been "would not advocate". People are showing up to my friend's birthday party, so I should be leaving the Internet behind, anyway. . . .
— Philip Stacey
Posted by: Sastra | July 11, 2008 9:09 PM
Xeno #239 wrote:
No, I'm leaning towards the term Fatwa envy. The Christians here are not wishing they had the Quran instead of the Bible. They are wishing they had the power, ability, and above all the cultural approval to place a fatwa on someone who offends their religious sensibilities. They covet Islamic violence, not scripture.
They're chaffing against the ropes of the Enlightenment. They may also be just a bit pissed at that character who said they were supposed to be meek and mild, and turn the other cheek. They like him better later on, in Revelation.
Fatwa envy.
Posted by: SC | July 11, 2008 9:09 PM
We should go easy on 'em. Some of these people just need to get prayed.
Posted by: Susannah | July 11, 2008 9:10 PM
"Why are your people so fowl towards Catholics?"
Is that another way to call us "chicken"?
Posted by: Theodore Shulman | July 11, 2008 9:11 PM
Raven #240: Paul Hill was not Catholic, and he murdered only ONE MD (his other victim was an escort, not an MD).
Xeno #239, by "radical agnostic rationalist" I mean the duel belief that human beings are constitutively incapable of knowing anything whatsoever about the supernatural (including whether or not there is a god), and that the truth or falsity of any hypothesis is properly decided by reason and experiment.
Posted by: Wes | July 11, 2008 9:11 PM
Did you even bother to read any of those emails?
Those are clear death threats, whether you like it or not. Especially the second one and the fourth one are stated in clear, first person, unambiguous terms. How are these not death threats?
Posted by: Noadi | July 11, 2008 9:13 PM
Please don't torture our tentacled overlord's favored ones like that. Do you want Cthulhu's wrath down on you?
Posted by: Kryth | July 11, 2008 9:14 PM
What's up with the stupid meme of saying 'you wouldn't say that to a muslin'. Little Ray Comfort parrots. Like that has anything to do with how moronic your stupid frelling religion is.
Why does Jesus need absurd, cass, witless clods to protect him?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 9:14 PM
If I'm getting this right, we should be hauling lorries with sacred items from all over the world with us at all times and "desecrate" each one appropriately whenever we want to say something about a religion.
I'm drawing the line at pirate regalia btw. No praying way that I'm gonna miss my chance for a beer volcano when I die.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | July 11, 2008 9:15 PM
Not to harp on an issue or hijack the thread, but in further response to #218 and for general enjoyment, here's an excellent article on the politics and ideology of enhancement.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-i-support-liberal-eugenics-406804.html
Posted by: True Bob | July 11, 2008 9:15 PM
Ands look what can happen for sending nasty and threatening emails:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Former_U.S._diplomat_gets_year_for_0711.html
Forgive me, I forgot how to make a nice purty link.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 9:16 PM
I'm thinking of naming my new blog "It's not a blog, it's just a goddamned cracker."
Posted by: True Bob | July 11, 2008 9:18 PM
He's not the savior, he's a very frackin cracker!
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 9:20 PM
Sastra #263 wrote:
"No, I'm leaning towards the term Fatwa envy."
You make a strong case for it. However, if we want to be "correct", the wiki on Fatwa states:
"Western media frequently uses the term incorrectly to specifically mean an Islamic law pronouncing a death sentence upon someone who is considered an infidel or a blasphemer, whereas the term's correct definition is significantly broader."
I took your comment to suggest just that interpretation.
In any case, I think this radical religious fanatic-envy displayed here is better as a joke, mostly because it being truthful would be very horrific indeed.
Posted by: JM Inc. | July 11, 2008 9:22 PM
Godsdamnit PZ! I'm getting sick of all this desecration business! We all know what the issue is here, very few of these Catholics seem to be able to figure out. Spell it out for them, make your point already and then get back to writing something for us about mollusc reproduction! Please write something about mollusc reproduction?
Oh, and by the way, I'm not sure if anybody's pointed this out so far (chances are pretty good, but I'm not going to read through two thousand or so comments!), but you can't just get any old Hosts and do something to them, the Words of Institution must be spoken by an apostolically ordained, non-schismatic Priest or Bishop for it to become the Eucharist (benefits of a liberal Catholic upbringing). Incidentally, why not kill two related birds with one stone and say something to set the Orthodox Church into persecution-apoplexy as well; it oughtn't to be that hard, they're practically the same thing despite all their absurd nitpicking.
Actually, you know, I think somebody is going to have to bring a box of "Wheat Thins" to every Pharyngufest from now on.
Posted by: Julia | July 11, 2008 9:23 PM
Word. Most of the "don't take my blankie, mean Mr. Atheist"-type e-mails are knee-jerks from morons who got an incoherent forward about this from their church group or something. They read about three sentences of the post, fired off a whiny e-mail, and haven't since given the matter a thought.
These e-mails remind me of the way that a kid reacts when someone tries to throw away an old toy that's been lying ignored in the back of the closet for three years. It's been completely forgotten until someone tries to get rid of it, at which point it's suddenly the only thing they've ever truly loved. From what people have posted in other threads, basically every Catholic EVER has some wacky story about getting Jesus stuck in their braces or whatever. No one actually cares about the stupid cracker, and the writers (I use the term loosely) wouldn't generally think twice (or even once) about it. They may go on about the the lord and the host and how it's the most precious thing imaginable and blah blah blah, but they'd save the damn kid.
Posted by: J.D. | July 11, 2008 9:24 PM
Ridicule is the price of ridiculousness. And just because a billion of you don't think that holy crackers are ridiculous doesn't make you any more right in that regard than the one man who thinks his sacred Kit Kat bars are nothing to joke about.
Posted by: WithoutSol | July 11, 2008 9:25 PM
I was particularly confused by the e-mail in which the author labels PZ's blog as inspirational and disparages it for its lack of intelligence at the same time. Within this e-mail the author points out his 99th percentile IQ and the fact that after studying cosmology and quantum physics (as a hobby) before converting to Catholicism because it didn't make since to him.
This man's arrogance is astonishing. It seems that he read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time once and proceeds to call himself a self educated cosmologist. This mad did not understand what he read, and turned to the "God of the gaps".
Posted by: IBY | July 11, 2008 9:26 PM
Oh man, the hate mails, they are funny and priceless.
Posted by: Faith Minus | July 11, 2008 9:27 PM
Holy sweet jesus on a cracker has the crazy descended on this blog! haha Please give us more! This is just about the most entertaining reading I've had in a while.
IT'S A GOD DAMN CRACKER!!
You catholics out there might want to revisit the ten commandants. Pay special attention to #2, you know the one about idols?
Posted by: rb | July 11, 2008 9:27 PM
A "picture of Mohammed"? Ingesting Our Lord seems to have turned these people into religious crackers.
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 9:29 PM
The most severe form of excommunication is called Anathema. It used to have a ceremony involving the Pope, and ended with the following:
"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive [NAME] himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."
The guy was then liable to be taken to the Inquisition.
Posted by: Tsugradstudent | July 11, 2008 9:30 PM
Raven (240)
I wasn't arguing with you about the statement. Please accept my apology if that is how it came across. I agree that the only difference (ideologically) between Islamic fundies and Christian fundies is a dress code. I also agree that fundamentalists are essentially neutered in this country, but given an opportunity, would not hesitate to resort to the tactics seen in the Middle East
Posted by: Duvenoy | July 11, 2008 9:31 PM
Well, I managed about 30 or so before my retinas detached. Some of these people need the kind of help that they won't find in some dumb church, Christian, Muslim, nor even Scientologist -- it's all the same thing, anyway.
I say feed the frakin' cracker to the parrot. Somebody might as well get some use out of it.
doov
Posted by: Patricia | July 11, 2008 9:32 PM
#87 - Bill Mintahue - Oh, aye brother! I'll be yer body guard, in the ancient manner of clan MacMadder - bare breasted and tight fisted. Let the Athinmintists come on! Riff-raff! Hatefilled, hatemongering, heretics. Thin Mints are the one, the TRUE, and the only cookie. Forever and ever, Pax Mintus.
Posted by: IBY | July 11, 2008 9:33 PM
I especially love the way they call it "hate speech."
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 9:33 PM
http://www.kobrascorner.com/philo/fuckyourwafers.png
If you think PZ Myers is insulting, you've never encountered me before. :P
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 9:34 PM
John
I'm sure you're ignorant enough of religion to not exactly know what PZ advocated. Otherwise I'd just tell you that you simply either didn't read the clear words of the post or you're just full of shit.
And for the record, I'm an atheist. I could lie for Christ but that would be a little absurd since I would be lying for something I don't believe in.
Calladus
Re-gifting is just as morally bankrupt and abusive as what PZ first advocated.
Personally, I'm sick of people saying how shocked and dismayed they are about theistic behavior when they are basically acting the same or worse.
Calling people "demented fuckwits" is not exactly the moral high road people.
Real nice PZ. You're a shining example of high minded rational argument.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 9:35 PM
Thin Mints are the one, the TRUE, and the only cookie. Forever and ever, Pax Mintus.
You've never had the God of Biscuits's white chocolate chip oatmeal cookies. Talk about a divine experience.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 9:36 PM
#288
With a title like that, I actually expected wafer-fucking. What I got instead was pretty tame. :(
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 9:38 PM
#291
Sorry to disappoint. I planned on doing a stop-motion film where a few holy crackers have sexual relations with a Little Debbie's devil food snack cake.
Posted by: Jon H | July 11, 2008 9:38 PM
Hm.
Mathematically, the purloined eucharist wafer must surely represent only an infinitesimal quantity of Jesus, right?
Divide one average-sized human among the countless wafers consumed in the last 2000 years, and you get a very small amount of Jesus per wafer.
And that's assuming early Christians didn't bogart the Christ and take larger portions because they expected the second coming to happen soon.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 9:39 PM
Sorry to disappoint. I planned on doing a stop-motion film where a few holy crackers have sexual relations with a Little Debbie's devil food snack cake.
See if you can get mini-pitas. Much hotter!
Posted by: Burns | July 11, 2008 9:40 PM
Who know there were so many rabid, extremist atheist out there???
No class.....no civility.....and no clue.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 9:41 PM
Ron @ #289
"Personally, I'm sick of people saying how shocked and dismayed they are about theistic behavior when they are basically acting the same or worse."
How exactly do you figure the people saying cracker worship is stupid is the "same or worse" than saying human life is less valuable than a cracker?
Note: plenty of people are NOT in fact asserting this, but are reacting to how catholics reacted way in the beginning of this whole incident.
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 9:42 PM
And a concern troll.
PZ has received death threats. People have told him that they would kill him. That's not exactly the high moral road that you seem to be looking for.
Or do you only expect sweetness and light from atheists?
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 9:42 PM
#294
Having never done as stop-motion film before, and having a really low budget as it is, I can't make any promises. If it turns out good, I'll consider a sequel.
Posted by: shaxanth27 | July 11, 2008 9:43 PM
I can see that the cover that the moderates provide for extremism is effectively blown. They're really very much alike.
(Actually, it's been the extremists who've been making the moderates appear to be better than they actually are)
Posted by: steve_h | July 11, 2008 9:43 PM
Wes, none of those "threats" are in the form "I am definitely going to kill you". Some are merely hinting at an ability to have PZ killed should they so wish, or to certainly kill him, but only if he strays into their neck of the woods. In some cases they could be interpreted as helpful warnings to watch out for religious people such as themselves, who might express their disappointment in an unfortunate manner. However, Christians, unlike the adherants of certain other religions don't try to coerce with threats of violence. Anyone who says otherwise can expect a lengthy spell of readjustment therapy in the afterlife.
Posted by: Michael Bo | July 11, 2008 9:43 PM
I so know what the wife and I will do on sunday. Instead of the usual brunch after a long and immoral night out on the town here in Copenhagen, we're going to sneak into the only catholic church I know of here, and pilfer a few cookies. We've thought up a few good uses for them... All of them sort of breaking the commandments, I'm afraid.
I do have one worry though. If somehow a child should be the product of this "frolicking", can we get child support from the church then? After all, him Jesus was involved in the ummmm, process, you might say.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 9:43 PM
Ron in Houston wrote:
There's an even bigger difference between reminding people that all religious beliefs are stupid in a blog read by a few thousand people, and spotting the opportunity for a way to let the Christians demonstrate their own moral failings and illustrate the mindboggling inanity of their belief system in such a manner that the incident will be escalated and the message will go out to many, many thousands.
PZ gave them enough rope; they've done a stellar job of hanging themselves.
Posted by: Richard | July 11, 2008 9:44 PM
One of your artisty types needs to make a cartoon drawing of Muhammad...eating a communion wafer!
The perfect sacrilege...
Posted by: Goonerette | July 11, 2008 9:44 PM
Personal favourites:
and
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 11, 2008 9:45 PM
Biff: "Make some 'host' wafers, but include arsenic in the batter."
The arsenic would not be transubstantiated, it would remain. Read the chapters on the Eucharist and the Mass in Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism (Ignatius Press, 1988). He covers that. A better objection is why would the communion bread effect someone with "celiac disease" if the whole bread in the host was supposedly transubstantiated into Jesus. Hint: that's answered also at Catholic Answers www.catholic.com
Most of the Email P.Z. received appeared to be well reasoned. I didn't see any crazy death threats. It is what I expected to see.
P.Z. is much different in person than he is on the blog. I've seen him on Expelled, heard him on radio. I think he would be a wonderful dinner guest. I would have a million questions. I'm a Ken Miller evolutionist myself.
Anyone have questions on Catholicism, meet us at Catholic Answers forums, 90000+ strong.
http://forums.catholic.com
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=252632 (thread on P.Z.)
Phil P
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 9:45 PM
And for the record, I'm an atheist.
Christians who lie about being christians make baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 9:45 PM
One of your artisty types needs to make a cartoon drawing of Muhammad...eating a communion wafer!
The perfect sacrilege...
Off a priest's cock!
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 9:45 PM
Steve @ #300
Wow. Surely, you're trolling right now? Right?
Posted by: Kristine | July 11, 2008 9:45 PM
I started wondering who manufactured communion wafers in the first place - and then I found these delectable recipies.
But what if you're allergic? Gluten-free wafers.
Some people eat them as snacks "like corn chips and peanuts."
New-fangled Millennium Issue wafers.
Bill Donohue's going to be busy finding websites to get offended by.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Yo, PZ, if anyone shows up at the door with a halberd, GET OUT OF THE HOUSE PRONTO!!!
http://www.benoa.net/italy/vatican/pages/Vatican-16.html
Unless, of course, you can "magic missile" him.
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 9:47 PM
Ron
I know exactly what he said. Paraphrased, He said that if anyone sent him a consecrated host he would show Bill some real desecration.
That in no way lines up with your claim that he:
So you are clearly misrepresenting what that circumstances were to make the position of the complaining Catholics seem more reasonable and the position on PZ more egregious.
So you were lying for Christ (or Christians if you prefer).
More evidence that you don't have a clue.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 9:48 PM
Ron, you're getting tedious.
New concern troll, please.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 9:50 PM
Kobra,
Those look more like Ecstasy - which I'd be a little more upset to see burn than crispy christy crackers.
Flaming disco biscuits for all!
Posted by: freelunch | July 11, 2008 9:50 PM
And to think I was listening to Salman Rushdie tonight.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 9:51 PM
"The arsenic would not be transubstantiated, it would remain"
You mean just like all of the other ingredients?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 11, 2008 9:53 PM
"However, Christians, unlike the adherants of certain other religions don't try to coerce with threats of violence."
Oh, Stevie Ray Wrong, this is only because we have a SECULAR GOVERNMENT! No, the country was not founded on Christian principles, get the B.S. notion out of your fool head. Have you ever heard of the Salem witch trials? Were the hangmen not Christians? For that matter, was Eric Robert Rudolph not a Christian?
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 9:53 PM
Phil @ 305
Thanks for the links, pal! Plenty more comedy over there.
Some samples just from the first page:
"Wow. I read his blog. What a hate-filled individual. That at least allows me to cross off one potential college campus for my kids."
"I bet if he said he was going to desecrate a Koran, there would be an uproar heard around the world in the MSM and he would be immediately fired."
"Ironically, this "professor" was one of the targets in Expelled."
"I bet he won't do the same thing to something that Muslums consider Holy, I doubt he would desecrate a picture of Mohammed."
"While I was quite enraged and saddened when I first read this, I have come to realize we must pray for these individuals that they may change the errors of their ways and thinking. My poor Jesus!"
Posted by: The502 | July 11, 2008 9:54 PM
Maybe they didn't understand.... It's. A. Cracker.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | July 11, 2008 9:54 PM
I just read all 170 (+/- 1) emails -- yes, every bit of the deluded, religious insanity contained within them. All over a piece of fucking bread.
Fuck, but those Wacky Wafer Worshipers missed that 3rd Commandment...
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 9:56 PM
Phil #306
Perhaps you didn't look hard enough. Wes, in #267, gave several examples:
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 11, 2008 9:58 PM
Steel ball? Sparrow every 1000 years? Wearing the ball down? That's what hell is like??*
Now I know what hell is like - I just read through all that crap. It's amazing that some of these knuckle-dragging eucharist gaggers can figure out a keyboard, considering how stupid they are.
(* At least one creotard appears to understand evolutionary time-scales!)
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 10:00 PM
JoJo @ #319
Phil (#306) said:
"I didn't see any crazy death threats."
Obviously he meant that the death threats were perfectly reasonable ones, as others have already suggested here.
Posted by: Jon | July 11, 2008 10:01 PM
Silly Catholics, respect is for people (not ideas or rabbits).
I believe the Catholic League's argument here boils down to:
"You have offended us by not taking our special beliefs seriously. We have a right not to be offended, especially regarding our special beliefs. This right trumps your right to not share our special beliefs and to say so publicly. Furthermore, there must be grave consequences for people such as you, because there are more of us than there are of you. And because there are so many of us that share these special beliefs, we can push people like you around, and most of the time, we do."
Posted by: Patricia | July 11, 2008 10:01 PM
#290 - MAJeff,OM - Way to embarrass me! Point out that I have never had the experience of white chocolate chip oatmeal cookies.
So, Meester well traveled oatmeal lover, why do you think I signed on as a Strumpet and not a Slut? Fie!
I taunt you outrageously, and flounce passed your table.
Your aunties smell of crrrackers!
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2008 10:02 PM
The stupidity demonstrated in these letters is matched only by the stupidity demonstrated in the comments section. But...I suppose it is nice to see that neither atheists or Catholics have a monopoly on smug self-righteousness.
Myers and Donohue deserve each other. Epic fail for everyone involved.
Posted by: True Bob | July 11, 2008 10:02 PM
I call Poe on #300.
And Ron, please come up with some new shtick. Your level of apparent concern should have you crying like a baby without a cracker.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 11, 2008 10:03 PM
One common thread with these assholes e-mailing PZ is that they're not regular Pharyngula readers. They came here via links that were found in their idiotic religious blogs and suddenly, their overly sensitive dispositions were offended when faced with reality.
I do admit that there are some religious lines that can't be crossed on threats of violence or academic suicide. If I decided to burn a heap of Yarmulkes, I don't think Jews would take kindly to that, I do believe they would bark anti-semitism and win. Granted, it's harder to seperate the religion from the ethnicity among jews, so anything that offends their religious beliefs, may seem like an offense to their ethnicities. If I took kosher foods and happened to trample them under food, they might not take too kindly to that either. It's similar with Islam I suppose. If I drew a picture of Mohammed on a blog, I might get so much static and death threats that the university might have to vocally reprimand me. At the moment, it's easier to pick on the religious icons of Christians because they're so annoying and also the majority. It's not as though PZ doesn't criticize muslims or jews for their behavior though. It's just that in this day and age, it's easier to completely mock christianity, while we will mock judaism and islam, but with caveats. We'll mock idiotic religious leaders, stupid beliefs, and behaviors, yet we won't go so far as mocking their sacred relics like we will with Christianity. Part of it I guess is the fact that many of us come from such backgrounds so it's easier to mock it. It's the same as comedians who mock their given race because it's deemed less offensive then jokes on account of other races. Perhaps one day, all religious idiocy can be equally satirized...and on that day, I suppose dragons will usurp their dominance and take over the planet.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 10:03 PM
John
The only way you can get a consecrated communion wafer is to subvert the Catholics during their mass. Whether I agree with Catholic theology or not, that's just wrong. For your knowledge, the Catholics only consecrate so many "hosts." After the communion service the Priest must eat all the remaining consecrated hosts. So, the only way that someone can get their hands on a "consecrated host" is to go into their service, and try to disrupt it by not immediately consuming the host. That's why the people came unglued when that UCF student didn't immediately consume the "host."
It is crazy? Yeah to someone who is an atheist. However, it's their church, it's their service. We're Americans and they have the lawful right to practice their religion. PZ advocated violating the same precious first amendment that people invoke for him to call people demented fuckwits by advocating people interfere with the Catholics constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their religion.
Craig
Dude, you don't like it then don't read. Perhaps you could contribute something to the discussion other than calling people trolls.
So far I haven't taken the intellectual high road like PZ and called people demented fuckwits. However, I'm getting close.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 11, 2008 10:03 PM
Some of these are fantastic.
Wait, you lost me...
Posted by: Trolleyfish | July 11, 2008 10:04 PM
From what I read, this is my favorite:
"You are no different in your faith than Mohammed Atta, or any of the 9/11 killers. In a way you are worse than they were; you are 'educated' and 'civilized', whereas they were simply indoctrinated."
This, coming from Mr. 99th Percentile IQ. You're worse than people who crash planes into buildings.
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so depressing.
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 10:04 PM
How dare you call my grandmother "morally bankrupt"! You are a sad and evil man.
Posted by: Jon H | July 11, 2008 10:05 PM
Communion wafers can be ordered online. They're cheap. Presumably they haven't gone through the Jesusifier.
PZ ought to buy a couple hundred, 'bless' them for atheism (or the FSM), and give them away as prizes.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 10:05 PM
#290 - MAJeff,OM - Way to embarrass me! Point out that I have never had the experience of white chocolate chip oatmeal cookies.
So, Meester well traveled oatmeal lover, why do you think I signed on as a Strumpet and not a Slut? Fie!
I taunt you outrageously, and flounce passed your table.
Your aunties smell of crrrackers!
My aunties may smell of crackers, but my cookies bring all the boys to the bar!
SLUT PRIDE! Where's my parade?!
[Like the horrible, awful, hateful atheist I am, I make cookies for my students on the last day of class, be it the day they turn in papers or during the final exam--white chocolate chip oatmeal, and sometimes mint chocolate chip oatmeal for December finals)
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 11, 2008 10:05 PM
I followed up on Phil's (305) hint to see what the church says about parishioners who are allergic to gluten. Instead of an answer, I found irony:
and thenWhen he uses the word reality, I don't think he knows what it means.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 10:06 PM
Craig @ 311
Ugh... you had to ask for a new concern troll, didn't you? And thus we have Eric @ 324. Wonderous.
Posted by: catta | July 11, 2008 10:06 PM
@295...
just to refresh your memory:
Number of death threats from atheists to anyone involved: 0.
Number of death threats from Catholics to a) the original victim (in case you'd forgotten, the poor sod who failed to chew his wafer and was threatened, which is what caused the problem in the first place, not the concept of transsubstantiation) and b) PZ: several dozen by now, apparently.
Think again about the "rabid" and "extremist" labels.
Posted by: affraid of retribution | July 11, 2008 10:06 PM
"One of your artisty types needs to make a cartoon drawing of Muhammad...eating a communion wafer!
The perfect sacrilege..."
No, it would have to be a drawing of mohammad ON a communion waffer
Posted by: unicow | July 11, 2008 10:06 PM
So, reading these letters, I've learned that:
1) Many Catholics believe that they're terribly persecuted and it's considered socially acceptable to criticize Catholicism but no other religion (especially Islam).
2) Many of these same Catholics have absolutely no qualms about suggesting that people desecrate Islamic religious icons.
Wouldn't that sort of defeat their first argument? I mean, they seem to have no trouble criticizing Islam.
Hold on, I'm misattributing logic to these people. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 10:08 PM
"The only way you can get a consecrated communion wafer is to subvert the Catholics during their mass."
Now, this is just wrong. I could go to a catholic priest I know and get one. (Let's just say he picks his beliefs).
So much for your hypothesis, I suppose?
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 10:09 PM
Ron in Houston,
I wrote of this in an earlier post, but I'll mention it again - why do you think Dawkins' book is called The God Delusion and not The God Belief We Don't Agree With?
Posted by: Sastra | July 11, 2008 10:09 PM
Phil #306 wrote:
Since Phil is a Catholic, he may have a valid point. You see, the substance of the letters was indeed reasonable. The parts of the letters which we could read were only the appearances, which are visible to the senses. Those may have seemed irrational, overblown, hysterical, histrionic, violent, or puerile, true -- but only to the eyes of the world. And the worldly.
What they were in themselves, the underlying reality, was well reasoned.
It's another miracle!
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 10:11 PM
The Catholics are really upset about their crackers not be respected. The only proper thing to do now is continue ridiculing them relentlessly.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 11, 2008 10:11 PM
ref. post by SC #264:
"We should go easy on 'em. Some of these people just need to get prayed."
Did you mean prayed, or 'preyed'?
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 11, 2008 10:12 PM
Posted by: The502 | July 11, 2008 9:54 PMNo, they fully believe that the blessed Eucharist is the Body of Christ. They are simply expecting civil law authorities to enforce a crime that exists within their spiritual tenets. They think that the government should protect their beliefs from dissent, rather than maintain an environment in which they are free to believe them, which is the main conflict. As a former catholic, I would merely scoff at what the kid did with the communion wafer. If he chooses to do that with it, then he has the right. It is not valuable in the monetary sense, and therefore, this crime is a moral one at best, but is certainly not within the jurisdiction of the civil law enforcement officers to enforce.
He disrespected your faith - get over it. Excommunicate him, expel him from church proceedings, and criticize him as you wish, but know that you have no right to demand criminal proceedings against him, because your religious beliefs do not - in any way - have any legal standing that would allow you to prosecute this man for his actions.
Posted by: Logicel | July 11, 2008 10:13 PM
I just consider rude, crude, ignorant behavior such as "PZ" has exhibited to be a major problem in the U.S. - certainly a bigger problem than transubstantiation.
______
Transubstantiation is not a problem, it does not exist.
PZ is neither ignorant or crude, as he is well informed and elegantly and joyfully precise in his surgical slicing up bull shit and then cathartically flushing it away. And he is reputed to be a very polite and gentle man in person. Cleverly presented satire is not being rude.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 11, 2008 10:13 PM
"Why are your people so fowl towards Catholics?"
I guess that PZ just couldn't help 'crowing' about it. : D
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 10:13 PM
DingoDave @ #342
I believe his joke was a take on "they need to get laid".
Posted by: Quine | July 11, 2008 10:13 PM
Not many Catholics know that before the 8th century, it was "just a cracker" (or more like a broken off hunk of bread). The basic voodoo principle of transubstantiation came later [ref] as more and more bogus philosophy worked backwards to justify the religion. It is time someone stood up and told Catholics that they have been taught a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in either history or fact (thank you, PZ).
It is just a cracker. Get over it.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 10:13 PM
Sastra wrote:
Emphasis mine - that pretty describes the bible, doesn't it? And that the word of their 'loving' god. No wonder they have warped values.
Posted by: Bader3k | July 11, 2008 10:14 PM
I see some trolls have made it to the table. Do we feed them or not?
Maybe we can give them a holy cracker, assuming they go for the cannibalism schtick.
I do have to admit I am confused by the Egnor comment (250) - is that satire, is it written to the cracker-worshippers, or are we supposed to take that loon - excuse me, whackjob - Egnor seriously?
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 11, 2008 10:14 PM
WE RESPECT OTHERS AND WE EXPECT THE SAME FROM ANYONE ELSE. ITS EXPECTED OF MOST PEOPLE IF NOT ALL PEOPLE'S TO RESPECT OTHERS.
The point is that the era of respect for irrationality and superstition is ending. You should respect people on things they don't choose, but you don't have respect them for things that they do choose, such as beliefs and actions. No longer can some beliefs, no matter how idiotic, be immune from criticism.
Desecrating a communion wafer is a form of political speech viz-a-viz United States law.
See my nice summary of this affair:
http://neuraltransmissions.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/on-sacred-cows-and-sacred-crackers/
Posted by: True Bob | July 11, 2008 10:16 PM
Criminy, Ron, you have really lost the flick.
This entire hullabaloo arose from DEATH THREATS to a cad, from fellow catholics. A CATHOLIC doofus, who wanted to show his pal the Holy Snack. He was assaulted (an actual crime, regardless of the place or ceremony) and his life was threatened (another actual crime), as well as his matriculation (he's very close to completion). PZ riffs on this in a pretty transparently sarcastic manner. For some people sarcasm is hard to understand - but if you have to explain it...
Your concerns are pitiful and stupid. Your sense of proportion, like all these catlick hate emailers, is so out of whack it's inconceivable that you could interact with other humans without being constantly bullied. I'll believe you about being atheist, but I suspect you're in the closet. Perhaps you're also a Log Cabin Republican?
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 10:16 PM
brokenSoldier @ #343
Well formulated, good points!
Posted by: steve_h | July 11, 2008 10:17 PM
Sorry, 300 was intended as a parody of Rob "no death threats here" Sterling. I thought my dismissal of clear death threats as somehow ambigious, and torture in Hell as "readjustment therapy" rather than a violent threat in its own right would have been sufficiently over the top to indicate parody. No way around Poe :(
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 10:18 PM
Sastra #340
Hallelujah! The scales have fallen from my eyes. I have seen the light. I will sacrifice a virgin or two for the greater glory of whichever deity is appropriate.
No, wait! If I become a Catholic I'd have to get my vasectomy reversed. It was bad enough getting the damn thing in the first place.
Never mind. The scales are back in place.
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 10:18 PM
No shit. I grew up in the Episcopal church. As I said, you are clueless. But even if I had not spent 30+ years going to church anyone following the comments in these threads would have a very good idea of the hoops that are jumped through to follow the dogma of the faith.
I would point out that the trick of the stunt that Dr. Myers had mentioned would be to not disrupt the service. Take communion but palm rather than eat the host. If a person is spotted I suspect they can just eat the host, or claim a dry throat or some such story to excuse the delay in consumption.
And, big freaking deal, it is just baked dough. Some churches use wafers, ours uses homemade organic wheat bread, but it is still just bread.
So I still wonder why did you lie about what PZ proposed.
Posted by: richbank | July 11, 2008 10:19 PM
#98:
Is that a doom reference? major props.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 10:19 PM
#351 got it right.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 10:19 PM
Ron. Nobody cares about your whiny pissant concern. Take it elsewhere.
"It's analogous to responding to the Muslim hysteria over the cartoons by drawing a stick figure with an arrow and the word "Mohammed" pointing to it -- and posting it on a blog."
Here's something that just occurred to me. All the people who are freaking out about the mere prospect of some atheists desecrating a holy object, would they freak out this bad if the above was our plan? To wantonly take up a pencil and depict the prophet Mohammed? Would we get the same pearl-clutching about that? My guess is no, we wouldn't. Because few of them know any Muslims and so they don't really care that they would likely take that sort of thing just as seriously as host desecration. And anyway, that was a Free Speech issue, oh yes.
"And you're only saying this becaue people like me, who like thin mints, are so motherfucking peaceful. I should take you out back and kick your ass, you hate-filled hatemongering hate criminal"
Sounds like someone's got a case of Tagalong Envy.
Oh, and Blake? Don't leave! You're the undisputed pwner of this thread! What, some party is more important than us? I'll pray for you, motherprayer!
(That Instant Rimshot site is great, but it really ought to be a Windows sidebar gadget instead, or maybe even a button on my computer)
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 10:20 PM
For all you people who say, "for gosh sakes it's only a *fill in expletive* cracker, you only show your total ignorance.
PZ didn't just say it's a cracker. He said, "hey all you dumb fuck atheists out there" go get me a real consecrated communion wafer and I'll make a demented fuckwit out of myself and post myself on the internet desecrating it.
This morning I was pissed off at the people who would dare to mess with PZ and his job. This afternoon I'm pissed off at PZ for being such a fuckwit and not immediately retracting his call for people to go fuck with the Catholics.
All you dumbass sycophants who laugh and pat PZ on the back going "good one PZ" are a disgrace. Sorry for all the fucking profanity but it seems that most of the atheists on this blog don't get the point unless it's preceded by a least one "fucking" word of profanity.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 10:20 PM
I believe Ron when he says he's an atheist. It's a framing thing.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 11, 2008 10:22 PM
God, damn.
I could really go for some zombie messiah carpaccio right now.
Posted by: Paper Hand | July 11, 2008 10:23 PM
Jonathon Swift couldn't've done a better job of showing just how absurd religion is. I thought the Big End/Little End dispute in Gulliver's Travels was good, but this crackergate has it beat!
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 10:23 PM
#359
http://www.kobrascorner.com/philo/fuckyourwafers.png
Who cares what PZ did? Look at that shit. That's some hardcore blasphemy right there. And it was all ME.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 11, 2008 10:24 PM
@ 359
Swear words make the baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:25 PM
Swear words make the baby Jesus cry.
mmmmm, them's good jebus tears.
*slurp*
Posted by: Kergillian | July 11, 2008 10:25 PM
LOL
What a bunch of lunatics.
Posted by: True Bob | July 11, 2008 10:26 PM
Ron, it sounds like we are getting closer to your root problems. Now tell me, how is your relationship with your father?
/freud
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 10:26 PM
I could really go for some zombie messiah carpaccio right now.
It's better if you get it fresh off the cross. After two thousand years, zombie flesh gets a little slimy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:27 PM
Who cares what PZ did? Look at that shit. That's some hardcore blasphemy right there. And it was all ME.
fuck, man, don't post it HERE, go send the link to your local newspaper, and to Bill Donowhore!
Posted by: Calladus | July 11, 2008 10:27 PM
I'll pray for you Ron
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 10:27 PM
Ron, please.
You're going to bust a vein going around being that angry at people. Why don't you just chill out, sit down and have a.. cracker!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 10:27 PM
/freud
Christmas Freud? HAPPY!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 10:28 PM
PZ didn't just say it's a cracker. He said, "hey all you dumb fuck atheists out there" go get me a real consecrated communion wafer and I'll make a demented fuckwit out of myself and post myself on the internet desecrating it.
Your totally exaggerated characterization notwithstanding, did you stop for even one minute and go back to the biginning and ask yourself why PZ went to the lengths of ridicule he did in this case?
Hint 1: "It doesn't matter" is the wrong answer.
Hint 2: Look up "proportional response".
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 10:29 PM
Ron, so far all you have contributed is "you're wrong. Youre wrong. Youre Wrong."
Plus mischaracterizations and lies... you've contributed some of those too.
Bottom line is, all PZ did was state a simple truth. Thinking a cracker is a deity is crazy.
You've argued that such beliefs have to be respected, that its wrong to call a spade a spade, that people are rude and horrible for pointing out simple obvious truths and calling out crazy dangerous bullshit...
and you've lied and mischaracterized and built straw men.
This is what you've contributed. Lies, and pleas for the acceptance of insane, violent bullshit.
YOU don't like what I've posted... calling you a troll. Well, you are a troll. You are the classic definition of a troll. You post comment after comment reiterating the same dishonest points, you deliberately ignore any responses that point out your falsehoods, and you continue spread the same bullshit.
You are a dishonest, tedious troll. If you don't like what I've written, please DO read it again... and again.
Posted by: Patricia | July 11, 2008 10:30 PM
Oh! So now we finally get to the truth of it. MAJeff is a chip slinging slut.
So Meester, white chocolate, and Meester, mint chocolate how is it that you sashay past Harlot - straight on to Slut? Does your mincing, fancy pants OM just haul that big one out?
I taunt you for a second time. Your uncles fondle moleskin!
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 10:30 PM
John
Yeah, I'm an ex Episcopalian also. However to go up and palm the wafer is just a juvenile fucking stunt. Do you really want to be associated with that?
What he's calling people to do is just stupid. It's hateful and ignorant.
Look, I'm all for calling out the absurdity of transubstantiation and how the idea of a God that demands a blood sacrifice as just an absurd prospect. However calling people to perform juvenile fucking stunts just so you can prove your intellectual superiority is just as fucking intellectually absurd as what the theists believe.
Yes, there are ways he could obtain a consecrated host that aren't the direct result of deception and juvenile behavior. However, it is still just as absurd, stupid, and juvenile as the belief of theists.
If we want to throw stones at others then we shouldn't live in glass houses.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 10:30 PM
Ron in Houston, you still haven't answered my question. Here it is again:
Why do you think Dawkins' book is called The God Delusion and not The God Belief We Don't Agree With?
Posted by: Brian | July 11, 2008 10:30 PM
All you jackass pansy Catholics who are trying to outsource your violence to muslims because you like to think of yourselves as "tolerant" can eat a bowl of dicks. Grow a pair, you bunch of wankers.
If you want to threaten somebody, do it. This "hinting" shit is just pathetic and sad. You've all fallen so far from the Inquisition and the Crusades. Afraid of your own shadows.
Pick a fuckin' testament and stick with it already. We'll laugh at you either way.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:30 PM
He said, "hey all you dumb fuck atheists out there" go get me a real consecrated communion wafer and I'll make a demented fuckwit out of myself and post myself on the internet desecrating it.
*looks for quoted section in any of PZ's posts*
hmm, nope.
your fantasy world is LARGE, Ron.
Now swear some more, so I can get this consecrated wafer I'm holding to cry more tears.
yuuummmmy.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 10:30 PM
Ron -
I wish PZ would talk about his "desecration" comment. To me, it looked like a "stop picking on the kid I'll show you desecration" to take some of the heat for the kid. Maybe he could apologize. It would be nice to always take the high road. But after seeing what ends up in his email, I'm not sure I could be as rational as he is being.
Posted by: wazza | July 11, 2008 10:31 PM
I sometimes think it's cruel to bait trolls like this... but then I read the email PZ gets...
So, PZ, when are you getting around to the Koran thing? I hear Salman Rushdie has a spare bedroom...
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 10:31 PM
#369
I hope some Fundie sees it. It's not like they can find out where I live. Unlike PZ, I'm VERY careful about the information I give out. Paranoid, even.
Maybe if they realize that there are people with a worse attitude in the world than PZ Myers could ever muster (he seems like such a nice fellow), then it might put things into perspective.
OR, more likely, I'm being far too optimistic.
Posted by: shonny | July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
#75 -
Shouldn't that have been "Cheesuits"??
After that particularly charming branch of cat'licking assasins.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
how is it that you sashay past Harlot - straight on to Slut?
I put out...often.
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
Who's making money on these wafers, anyways?
A box of those little (unconsecrated) crackers costs $17.95! How many saltines can you get for that kind of cash?
Follow the money, baby.
Posted by: windy | July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
While waiting for PZ to deliver, have you read Aristotle on mollusc reproduction?
Posted by: Quine | July 11, 2008 10:33 PM
Not many Catholics know that before the 8th century, it was "just a cracker" (or more like a broken off hunk of bread). The basic voodoo principle of transubstantiation came later [ref] as more and more bogus philosophy worked backwards to justify the religion. It is time someone stood up and told Catholics that they have been taught a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that has no basis in either history or fact (thank you, PZ).
It is just a cracker. Get over it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:34 PM
Maybe he could apologize.
sure he COULD, but why SHOULD he.
that was entirely rhetorical, btw, since obviously he shouldn't, given the perfect response garnered from all the nutbags.
why on earth would someone attempt to stop the ridiculous from so publicly shooting themselves in the face?
I think you'll see an apology from PZ right around the time the CC decides to voluntarily dissolve itself as an organization.
In short, you aren't seeing the big picture here.
He IS taking the "high road", and it requires donning a fucking firesuit to survive it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 11, 2008 10:34 PM
Here's a leading contestant for Most Clueless Catholic Correspondent:
If you have grievances with the Church, explain your position in a public forum. That's the American thing to do.
The brain boggles. How do professional satirists keep up?
Posted by: Robin Zebrowski | July 11, 2008 10:35 PM
Are you upset because your boyhood priest didn't show you any love?
Unholy Shit!
I just had to skip straight from that bit, over all the comments, and say that I just blew juice out of my nose laughing at the incredible irony and SELF-HATRED this person must have.
WOW.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 11, 2008 10:36 PM
Please do NOT desecrate the Eucharist in any way. Please, I beg you to NOT damage what is So PRECIOUS to me.
Is this the religious version of this ?
LEAVE THE CRACKER ALONE!
Posted by: Maragon | July 11, 2008 10:36 PM
I think my favorite is the guy who claims to have an IQ in the 99th percentile all while making fallacious claims about religion, evolution, history and the proper usage of grammar.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:37 PM
If you have grievances with the Church, explain your position in a public forum. That's the American thing to do.
The brain boggles. How do professional satirists keep up?
ROTLFLMAO!!!
that indeed, is the goddamned funniest post I've seen so far.
thanks.
unfortunately, it's only hilarious in context, otherwise I'd say it's a keeper.
Posted by: reuben | July 11, 2008 10:37 PM
These threads have made me incredibly sad.
I'm sad for the poor state of humanity that we can, post enlightenment, be arguing (to the point of threats of physical violence no less) about the relative moral merits of performing an action on what is (regardless of the symbolic value placed upon it), nought but a piece of bread.
It is an insight into the frailty of the human mind that we can so easily confound words/symbols/ideas/objects/deeds into one and the same.
I am sad, because I thought we lived in a rational age, and I was wrong.
Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 10:39 PM
Does anyone else feel like they're watching Scooby-Doo when Ron in Houston participates in a thread?
I just keep seeing the same post over and over and over again. Please, make him stop! I beg you.
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2008 10:39 PM
Fatwa envy.
Perfect.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:39 PM
I am sad, because I thought we lived in a rational age, and I was wrong.
actually, you should be glad. Now you know how much work we really have to do to keep these delusionauts from robbing you of your last illusions that you live in a rational age.
don't get sad, get even.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 10:39 PM
#394
"I am sad, because I thought we lived in a rational age, and I was wrong."
A certain level of wisdom can come from repeatedly being wrong... or maybe that was pessimism; I forget which.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 10:40 PM
Wowbagger
I didn't respond because I basically agree that belief in God is a form of delusion.
However, unlike a lot of people, I don't ridicule and call people "demented fuckwits" because they suffer from a delusion.
There's a maxim that something really isn't a lie if you believe that it's true.
I sometimes deal with people who honestly believe that the CIA are tapping their phones. Do I call them demented fuckwits and screw with their delusions? No, I'm nice, kind and try to being them make them realize that their belief is not supported by evidence.
PZ's post was unadulterated bull shit. You can call me a troll or whatever, but I think he did a disservice to athiests with his post.
Posted by: lurker_above | July 11, 2008 10:40 PM
Paul, why are you persecuting Me?
Gotta admit that was a good one. Haha.
Posted by: EyeNoU | July 11, 2008 10:40 PM
When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom,"Let It Be".......I'll get my coat.
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 11, 2008 10:40 PM
I know that this is late, but I wanted to say that I wholeheartedly support you, PZ. I have been offended by things others have said in the past, and I love them for it (well, some of it anyway-- can get too nasty). People need to grow up a bit, I think.
This is just way out of hand for insulting a damned cracker. We make fun of people who panic when they break mirrors, or who play the lottery, so why can't we make fun of people who believe patently inane things? We all are at the receiving end of such mockery at some point or another, and ideally, it helps us hone our beliefs. Here it is, some people are willing to extinguish another human life over a percieved insult to a piece of wannabe bread, and they expect to be treated with respect for that? I'm sorry, but no.
I do understand that there's a lot of Catholics out there who aren't nearly so rabid about this, and power to them for their sanity. Thank you for not being the scum of the society, and for keeping things in perspective.
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 10:41 PM
Dear Concern Troll,
You just don't get it, do you. You think that PZ went too far and upset the poor, persecuted Catholics. You fail to realize that PZ was responding to assault and death threats aimed at that kid in Florida. PZ was angry, probably more angry than you are.
Now PZ has received death threats. We haven't heard a peep out of you condemning the criminals making those threats. Instead, you keep whining because your sense of decorum has been violated. Get over yourself. The universe does not revolve around you. People do not have to act the way you want them to. Your complaint has been noted but no action is likely to be taken.
BTW, if you respond to this post, don't bother to use foul language. I spent 20 years in the Navy. If you're trying to shock me, I've heard it before. If you're trying to impress me, I've heard it done a lot better. And if you're trying to persuade me to your point of view, that's not the way to go about it.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 10:41 PM
You know what, Ron?
it WOULD be a juvenile stunt.
But YOU and the Catholics seem to be the only people who are taking his comment seriously. Everyone else sees it as a joke.
But lets say someone really does it. What is it then? A juvenile stunt.
You're upset to the point of bursting a bloodvessel over the remote possibility that someone might do a juvenile stunt.
Are you that upset over the threats to that kids' life? To his education? To PZ's life? To his employment?
You're a fucking fool, Ron. There are plenty of things worth being upset about, a theoretical juvenile stunt is not one of them.
You know another term for "juvenile stunt?" "98% of American Popular Culture."
You're apoplectic over the possibility of a stunt that's not even outrageous enough to make the outtakes for the typical MTV show.
Get a fucking grip. Stop drinking that Texas water or something.
Posted by: BobC | July 11, 2008 10:42 PM
Interesting email. A lot of "you're going to hell" and "I'm praying for you" and "why don't you pick on the Muslims instead of us". Also, lots of misspelled words and capital letters. Catholics are pretty much the same as the Fundies. They're all uneducated hicks.
Posted by: Taz | July 11, 2008 10:43 PM
I would just like to point out to all those saying "I dare him to desecrate a Koran" that the only reason PZ is safer with you Catholics is because of the secular laws of the US, not the inherent superiority of your religion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:43 PM
Is this the religious version of this ?
LOL!!
damn, that's good.
can't believe you're the first to make that connection.
*applause*
"We're lucky [the CC] even performs for you bastards!"
"When is it professional to publicly bash someone who's going through a hard time."
LOL
yeah those sex scandals have really put the CC through some hard times.
Man you should send that link to PZ, and have him use it as the start of the next inevitable thread!
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 10:43 PM
Dear Religious Fucktards of the Catholic Faith,
Five hundred million children will not live to see adulthood because they're (or will be) starving to death right now. We produce more than enough food and have the carrying capacity, if we intensely farmed only the arable land we now have under plow with modern methods (like they do in Holland), to feed 67 billion people.
Which is to say, we have the ability to do the job. We only need to supply the resources.
The Catholic Church EARNED according to the Vatican, $422 BILLION dollars (with expenses of $188 billion) in 2000. Their stock portfolio alone appreciated $125 billion in 1999. Their real estate sector ended fiscal year 2000 shows expenses of 51.852 billion and income of 81.749 billion, thus closing with a gain of 29.887 billion.
This does not include each Parrish's income as they are separately incorporated and have their own financials. This is just the Holy See in Rome with its 2700 employees.
The combined Catholic Churches of the World, if they choose to live a Christian life, as talked about in Acts, could apply those resources to this problem. If they had the will.
With billions in profits, and billions, possibly trillions, in resources around the globe, the Catholic Church could buy a lot of tractors. They could build thousands upon thousands of hospitals, schools and low-income-housing units. In fact, it is conceivable that those resources could eradicate poverty and hunger within our lifetime if they were properly applied.
Yet, you don't actually do much. In fact, you do so little, compared to your resources that it is, from the perspective of the Sermon on the Mount, Acts and many of the Epistles, a sin. A literal sin against the commandments of God to help your fellow man as you callously let your fellow man die of starvation while your priests live in gilded castles and live the lives of the rich and famous.
So, as Jesus said, and I'll paraphrase, "Do not concern yourself with the mote in your neighbor's eye, rather the plank in yours." And with you puppies, it's not a plank, it's a fucking GIANT REDWOOD.
So, put up or shut up. And, please, take your faux outrage and put it where the sun doesn't shine. You are hypocrites that, if your religion is true and your God exists, are going to burn in hell for all eternity thinking "Shit, what the hell did I do wrong?"
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 10:44 PM
Damian
Get a grip on yourself. There just fucking words for gosh sake.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 11, 2008 10:44 PM
The most interesting thing that PZ could do would be to publish a series of pictures of desecrations, thus offering a critique (or "political satire") of a representative sample of religions. He could grill a steak (offensive to Hindus), eat some pork, burn a communion wafer, show a stick figure drawing of Mohamed, and so on.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 10:44 PM
However to go up and palm the wafer is just a juvenile fucking stunt.
Yeah... it probably is. As was what the kid did that started this whole thing in the first place. We agree up to that point... and this is where you go far off the trail. It's what happened after that that is the point. What the Catholics did after that was more than just juvenile, it was insane over-reaction that bordered on, if not crossed over to, criminal. And it is this action that begat the mockery and derision of PZ. And dammit rightfully so. What happened after the "juvenile act" outrageous. Where's your outrage at that behavior?
As I already said... proportional response. Get over it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:45 PM
btw, did you ever see Seth Green's response?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCZSDxA8_JA&NR=1
someone needs to do a CC response in the same vein.
Posted by: John | July 11, 2008 10:45 PM
How am I in any way associated with that?
So even if his gathering of host doesn't involve others sending them to him it is silly, or are you arguing that he should take this path?
I don't see this as involving throwing stones or glass houses. It is simply a graphic display that what one considers sacred, others might consider a (very) light snack.
And that those who profess to follow a religion of unconditional love and acceptance probably should not physically assault people in church, send death threats to them or try to get them expelled if they violate the dogma the follow
One last thing. I also rememeber that you lied in your description about what PZ said. That you did it more than once and that you still have not admited to that fact. Yet you feel it is your job to tell others what is proper.
Is this not a bit of a contradiction.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 11, 2008 10:46 PM
Bow wow.
Like dogs, they, and us (to some appreciable degree) answer the barking from down the street with a similar plaint. Bow wow.
Gary Larson drew a great cartoon depicting a scientist equipped with a device for translating canine declarations. Through his headphones he heard the endless translation, "Hey! Hey! Hey!"
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 11, 2008 10:48 PM
Of all the crackers in all the places, I had to run into you, you communion wafer. How dare you not make me ingest you as the lord intended. Now, stop avoiding my molars and enjoy the feeling of my salivary amylase digesting your flesh, feel the joy as you rush down my esophagus and through the cardiac sphincter into my stomach. As you mix in well with the rest of the chyme, don't forget to take that detour through the pyloric sphincter into my duodenum, were most of your flesh will be completely broken down. Don't let the usable 12% left over make you feel too sad, because the ilium and jejunum will take care of that. As you make your way through the cecum into my large intestine, don't forget to take a look at that blind pinhole that leads to the appendix, which sadly you'll never see. Take a perstalsis induced ride through the ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon and don't fear the rectal drop, because soon, you'll be in a fancy porcelaine bowl, and eventually in a large sewer with many of your friends, including perhaps one that worked its way through Bill Donohue.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 11, 2008 10:49 PM
For those who think that PZ is being threatened I would ask: do you really honestly take it seriously? Obviously not. I don't see him going into hiding, hiring security, asking for police protection, or taking any special precautions. He, and all of you, know that PZ is perfectly safe attacking Catholicism. Some of the "threats" are obviously pranks or perhaps even hoaxes perpetrated by fellow atheists to make Catholics look bad. Likewise, everyone, including PZ, knows that if he in fact did desecrate a Quran he would be in fear of his life. Also if he did express a belief in intelligent design at a biology convention he would be in fear of his job. So please spare us the mock horror. He obviously does not care at how hurtful his actions are towards others, so why should be express shock that some people don't like him?
It is interesting that so many liberals demand "respect" for all points of view, especially their own, and yet give none to their opponents. If PZ did something like this to another group his university would discipline him. That's a fact and you all know it. Now he gets to play the poor little martyr while in fact being a persecutor. Such hypocrisy is stunning even by modern liberal standards. His little hissy fit has fed his desire to be noticed. Teens often try to do things to shock their parents. I would have to say that PZ is unsuited for teaching. Maybe when he becomes an adult and a professional that might change. Hopeful his university will decide that he needs a "time out." Perhaps he could write 1000 times on the blackboard: "I will try to act like an responsible adult."
Posted by: cicely | July 11, 2008 10:49 PM
Late to the party (again!), but...
Up at #119 (or thereabouts), concerning Holy Water--I can't find the exact article wherein I recently read that there's a serious problem with bacteria-contaminated Holy Water, but a quick Google turned up these:
Holy water : a risk factor for hospital-acquired infection (abstract) http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3043354 , and
Holy water fonts are reservoirs of pathogenic bacteria (abstract) http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/emi/2002/00000004/00000010/art00008
If this were representative of Holy Water in general, then I think we would need to consider the homeopathic harming power of diluted Holy Water, rather than its healing power.
I also see a certain irony in the use of possibly contaminated Holy Water for washing the crumbs of the consecrated wafers off of the ritually prescribed vessels.
Posted by: PsiWavefunction | July 11, 2008 10:49 PM
Wow. Just...wow. People cannot understand the very meaning of 'free speech'.
Not even gonna read anymore. These people are not worth my time. And that's coming from a lowly undergraduate...
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 10:49 PM
"He IS taking the "high road", and it requires donning a fucking firesuit to survive it."
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The high road in an argument, to me, means never letting them get to you, never mocking them (even if they deserve it), never trying to annoy them (even though it is fun).
Unfortunately, doing that in this case is completely fucking pointless, as his hate mail shows. These people are *not* going to argue rationally, and they will *never* listen to reason. So it is understandable for PZ (and anyone) to give up on trying to be nice (& framing it for their consumption.)
So, yes, I really would prefer not to upset people. I can't help it, it's stuck in my brain somehow. However, I'm not stupid, and realize that rational behavior has gotten atheists exactly nowhere. PZ is taking the steps that need to be taken & getting the heat for it. And I will support him in that.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 10:50 PM
Ron, I've been well acquainted with mental patients myself.
I have known many delusional people. One who killed himself because of the "future people" talking to him through his TV.
When dealing one-on-one with a delusional person, you should not brusquely point out his delusions. But that its NOT the situation here.
When dealing with a massive organization which has political power, affects public policy, and is intentionally trying to destroy a person's education, and more... you MUST point out that this organization, this oppresive powerful group, is based on delusion.
If you can't see the difference, its because your ego won't let you in the face of others' contradiction and criticism of you.
I've spent time in TX, I've experienced how Texans are about such things.... if you're like any of the Texans I knew, it's impossible for you to admit you're wrong.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 11, 2008 10:50 PM
Christ, what a bunch of douchebags.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 10:51 PM
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by: Optimus Primate | July 11, 2008 10:52 PM
I would just like to say, for the record, "Fuck Islam. Muhammad was a transvestite. Allah is pretend."
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 10:52 PM
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 7:58 PM
Shit. I thought the whiny concern troll left. If there were even an argument to get the blood going. But no... Just fucking whining... Like a three-year-old who isn't getting his cookie...
Seriously, dude, we get it. You don't approve.
None of us care. Good bye.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 10:53 PM
"So, yes, I really would prefer not to upset people. I can't help it, it's stuck in my brain somehow. However, I'm not stupid, and realize that rational behavior has gotten atheists exactly nowhere. PZ is taking the steps that need to be taken & getting the heat for it. And I will support him in that."
See, that's the thing... when he calls them demented I don;t think he's silly enough to think he's going to shake them out of it.
When dealing with people who are a thousand degrees past reason, you can't talk to them... you have to talk ABOUT them... point at them and show the obvious to the people sitting on the fence.
And people on the fence are likely to think "Geez, PZ Myers is kinda rude... and holy crap those Catholics are fucking deranged."
Job done.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:54 PM
There[sic] just fucking words for gosh sake.
no, these are fucking words:
intercourse (very woody)
penis (kinda tinny)
vagina
sheathing the sword
midnight dancing
getting pounded
horizontal mambo
...
Posted by: btb | July 11, 2008 10:54 PM
Er watch yourself PZ...
"if your college wont fire you ill come out there and take care of the problem for them"
I don't like the sound of some of these MagicCrackerLoons you've attracted.
We atheists have no use for martyrs...
Posted by: Robin Zebrowski | July 11, 2008 10:54 PM
OK, I read a few more. I couldn't resist. In one breath they say "HOW DARE YOU THREATEN MY BELIEFS" and in the next they offer to send you a Koran to crap on or ask you to eat a pork sandwich in a mosque? They don't see the contradiction at all, do they?
As Jon Stewart says, "It's always funny until it's your guy, isn't it?"
As an atheist it REALLY upsets me there's no hell for these folks. I WISH they actually had it right.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 11, 2008 10:54 PM
I doubt many of the e-mailers are real Catholics, because nobody has called PZ "hijo de puta". I would also imagine that many of these right-wingers have a history of railing against "political correctness". Thirdly, they are up in arms over PZ satirically threatening to desecrate a wafer, but would be the first to claim that certain rightards who say that muslims should be converted at gunpoint (while American men and women are embroiled in a conflict that was supposed to liberate and democratize muslims, no less) were only joking.
IOKIYAAR.
Posted by: Sastra | July 11, 2008 10:55 PM
Ron in Houston #327 wrote:
I agree with you that entering a church and taking a blessed communion wafer under false pretenses isn't right. Technically, it's unethical. I don't think PZ should have suggested it, and was a bit surprised he did. He was very careful to tell people that he didn't want them to sneak in to see Expelled without paying, and from what I remember didn't either suggest or endorse paying for another movie, and then sneaking in, either.
However, I think we are perhaps getting into the ethical area where one commits a minor wrong in order to help right a larger wrong -- which is taking a minor wrong and treating it like a MAJOR wrong. Quietly slipping a communion wafer out of the mouth is considered an act of violence and kidnapping, a personal assault, with commensurate penalties? That's unethical, too, and I think that needs to be pointed out.
But it is undercut a bit by the fact that anyone who "scores PZ some consecrated communion wafers" is beginning with that minor wrong. You're right.
Of course, the whole point the Catholics are making is that this is NOT a minor wrong. And the point on the other side is that OH YES IT IS.
It's just a cracker. A frackin' cracker.
Well, if PZ had asked me beforehand if he should ask people to sneak something out of a church, I would have said no. But, he didn't ask me. And I understand his point, his argument, and the issue. I also see how the reaction to his threat is every bit as overblown as the original reaction he was reacting to.
So it's not that you're completely wrong here. You may even be right. It's that the situation seems to be complicated by other factors which may cancel the first one. The unworthy shall not have the host. If an unworthy TAKES the host, that's wrong. If an unworthy tapdances on the host, I don't care. Blasphemy is not a crime. The Catholics seem to be just as upset -- more upset -- over the tapdancing. That's apparently the part that's now being focused on, both sides.
And I'm more sure of my ground there.
So where are we? The end justifies the means? A minor fault to correct a major one? Maybe. This isn't quite like drawing Mohammed, because anyone can draw Mohammed. It's not like it only counts if you use the special holy pen which must be snitched. Don't like the snitching part.
If it were up to me, I'd rather PZ not do anything childish on a video either. I remember that atheist who wrote the naturalistic philosophy book and then went on UTube and put dog poop on a Bible. It undercut his image as a scholar, and it was hard to take him seriously anymore.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 10:55 PM
intercourse (very woody)
penis (kinda tinny)
vagina
sheathing the sword
midnight dancing
getting pounded
horizontal mambo
PLAY TIME!!!!
Posted by: Patricia | July 11, 2008 10:56 PM
#361/385 - w00+ speaks! Dammit, my old knees can't take falling out of my chair twice in one evening.
MAJeff - ahh, I see, experiance claims the prize! I serve you more grog & swill. SLUT!!! ;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 10:57 PM
I don't see him going into hiding, hiring security, asking for police protection
you mean, like the Catholic church in question did when someone took home a fucking cracker?
Posted by: QED | July 11, 2008 10:59 PM
It appears about half the letters are heart-felt responses from those hurt and insulted by the original piece. Fair enough. The rest, I think, are simply frightened. Notice how many immediately reference Muslims, or the Quran. America has never been more polarized, thanks to its toxic leadership that panders to people's fears and insecurities. And that same toxic leadership breeds and enables toxic fearbots like Donohue. To those who cling to their religion for comfort in an ever more quickly changing and shrinking world, removal of their perceived "protection" from Muslims, homosexuals, and yes, even "evolutionists", must truly be an event summoning extreme measures, even death threats. After all, it's their very lives they believe to be fighting for.
The tactic of using religion to rule has been increasingly abused in America, to the point where an insult to religion draws an exaggerated response from the Christian right, ironically similar to that of the Muslim extremists they fear. The mixing of religion and government as an end to power is doomed to fail. The question is, will it destroy our nation as it so predictably has in other regions of the world?
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 10:59 PM
Craig
Perhaps I'm a fucking fool. I certainly don't think that we can take a high road and lecture theists when we act like a bunch of asshats ourselves.
If that makes me a fucking fool then so be it. I'm certainly not bursting a blood vessel of going "apoplectic" over it.
Frankly, just give it up Craig. If you think anyone either theistic, atheistic or on the fence is going to be persuaded by PZ calling people demented fuckwits then you're the fucking fool.
It appears that PZ likes to preach to a bunch of mindless sycophants who will stoke his ego and laugh at all his juvenile bullshit.
If you want to keep that up then go ahead. As for me, I'm saying that PZ doesn't speak for me.
Posted by: rightsaid | July 11, 2008 11:00 PM
Oh Friar J, I do hope your post was a joke. Liberalism is not the issue here. You are so deep in your hole, you can't see straight.
PZ (and like minded individuals) do not "demand "respect" for all points of view". That would be a dumb position. Some people think it is okay to molest their children or young church members. Who would demand respect for that point of view?
PZ made fun of your silly beliefs. I am sure it hurts, but he has every right to not respect thinking a cracker in any context has any great importance.
Finally, do you and others urging PZ to insult Islamic beliefs (which I am sure he has done) realize how hypocritical that is?
Believing in the demonstrably untrue does not deserve any respect.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:00 PM
He was very careful to tell people that he didn't want them to sneak in to see Expelled without paying
because that would be a very real crime. taking away a cracker that is given to you? not a crime.
or did you somehow forget that small difference?
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 11:01 PM
Ironically, you don't catch flies with honey. The like rotting shit. Which may include naturally produced vinegar as the sugars corrupt.
But, from a broad, historical perspective, being nice to the religious hasn't seem to have paid any dividends. Just ask the Jews. Or any other people who thought to ingratiate themselves with a dominant faith.
It has been shown that if you pay them tribute, they'll ask for more and rape your women, kill your children and desecrate your faith while destroying your civilization. History has shown us that through-out the Americas - North, Central and South. And in Africa, Asia Minor and even in Europe. Even when the people were countrymen, neighbors and relatives.
In other words, may as well fight the bastards. They're out for you anyway.
Posted by: Turdus | July 11, 2008 11:01 PM
I have not read all the comments, so I don't know if someone has said this already, but WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO "TURN THE OTHER CHEEK"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:01 PM
If it were up to me, I'd rather PZ not do anything childish on a video either.
I'm sure I speak for the vast majority who actually understand the point of the effort in saying:
It's a good thing it's not up to you.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:04 PM
If that makes me a fucking fool then so be it. I'm certainly not bursting a blood vessel of going "apoplectic" over it.
All evidence to the contrary...
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 11, 2008 11:04 PM
Ron in Houston, wrote:
Fair enough - and thanks for responding. But I will explain what I've been alluding to in asking that question. I suspect he picked the word 'delusion' because that's more inflammatory. Why would he do that? To have people react to that title, and draw more attention to it.
Why would he do that? Because his goal in writing the book was, at least in part, to show how foolish religious beliefs are. The believers reacted to this in such a way that it only helped Dawkins' cause - illustrating that even religions that pretend to be modern and progressive are mired in antique superstition and nonsense. And aren't as keen on peace and love as they claim.
PZ has done the same thing. He saw an opportunity to criticise religion in such a way that the believers he was criticising would come a-running to defend it, and, in doing so, remind people of exactly how stupid their beliefs are, and how hypocritical the violent and hateful adherents of a religion that claim forgiveness as a cornerstone can be. He gave them rope; they hanged themselves.
A magic biscuit? That becomes Jesus' flesh? Threatening a kid's life over that? Threatening a blogger for pointing it out as extreme?
I'd say that if one theistic 'fence-sitter' read any of the vast number of blogs or articles about this event started to think about how bizarre it is to believe in something like transubstantiation, and then turned that analysis on their own beliefs, PZ (like Dawkins) has achieved his goal - even if they don't free themselves from their faith.
Simply put: he wants people to think more about religion - and you can't argue he hasn't done that.
Posted by: wÓÒ† | July 11, 2008 11:04 PM
I think all the Christians and all the Muslims should have a big fight, and settle once and for all who's got the better system.
That should turn out pretty well.
Posted by: btb | July 11, 2008 11:05 PM
Ron@435
Living in a modern, educated society and believing that overpriced dry crackers become the literal flesh of a 2000 year old zombie when enchanted by a man in a funny hat IS demented fuckwittery.
'Round here, we call a spade a spade, son.
Posted by: Damian | July 11, 2008 11:05 PM
Fr. J said:
Come on, Fr. J, even you don't believe this. Why don't you grow some balls for once in you life and actually condemn the people that have threatened to either blow up PZ's car, or put a bullet in him. Stop it with all of this, "hoaxes perpetrated by fellow atheists to make Catholics look bad", nonsense. Do you realize just how pathetic and morally bankrupt that sounds?
And I see that you are indulging in some Fatwa Envy, as well.
Fr. J said:
I'm not interested in your respect. If I want it, I'll expect to earn it, and you can say anything that you like to me, I couldn't care less.
And you will not earn my respect until you actually produce an honest argument. That's the deal. You better get used to it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 11:05 PM
So, from Father J, we once again get the message: Death threats, no big deal. Mistreating a cracker, BAAAAD. And on and on it goes.
Also, no one here thinks that all "points of view" should be "respected". That's a straw man created out of your inability to separate ideas from people.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 11:05 PM
"See, that's the thing... when he calls them demented I don;t think he's silly enough to think he's going to shake them out of it." (craig)
um... I didn't expect them to shake out of it. I *agree* with you that you have to point out the ridiculousness of their claims (and especially their stunning hypocrisy.)
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 11:07 PM
#439: Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Scopes Trial... need I go on?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:08 PM
Perhaps I'm a fucking fool
perhaps, Ron?
perhaps you meant that rhetorically?
And people on the fence are likely to think "Geez, PZ Myers is kinda rude... and holy crap those Catholics are fucking deranged."
Job done.
It's good to see there are many here that actually DO get the point of this exercise.
It's enough.
Posted by: raven | July 11, 2008 11:08 PM
Gee you're stupid. If you've received death threats, you don't advertise your security precautions. They are meant to be a surprise and they are supposed to work.
I would not be spending a lot of time around PZ's house late at night.
And BTW, they are highly illegal and the cops will investigate and arrest the criminals. Happened to me once and the FBI picked them up and they were indicted on felonies.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:08 PM
Ok I'm here. Who's on the spit and who's turning the crank?
Posted by: Bill Mintohue | July 11, 2008 11:09 PM
What is wrong with you people? You're all filling this thread with your perverse carnal lusts for oatmeal cookies. I don't know why you think you'll get away with your oatmeal agenda, but there are good, decent people in this country who still know that a cookie is defined as a crisp minty wafer encased in chocolate. Yeah, you'll deny it, but pretty good about picking out who the oatmeal lovers are. I think this has something to do with the Jews -- everyone knows they're running Hollywood and filling our kids' heads with the idea that oatmeal cookies are supposed to be "tolerated". Look, most Americans love Thin Mints, guys like MAJeff want a brawl. He should be careful what he wishes for because there are those who pine to deliver. Watch what you say; I love you and I'll pray for all of you.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:11 PM
"As for me, I'm saying that PZ doesn't speak for me."
Yes, yes, we fucking get that Ron. you have said it over and over and over, in several thread.
Interspersed with your lies, you have made it clear.
We understand that you don't agree with the things PZ said. You've also made it repeatedly clear that you don't agree with things PZ NEVER said but that you dishonestly attribute to him anyway.
Let it be known to all from here on out that PZ Myers does not speak for Ron. Let it hereby also be known that that the fictional PZ Myers that is the product either of Ron's own delusion or his dishonesty also does not speak for Ron.
I'd also like to say that PZ doesn't speak for me. He speaks for himself. *I* speak for me. And when I do, I routinely say that all religion is idiotic insane delusion.
Grow some balls, Ron. If you don't want PZ speaking for you, don't put him in the position of doing so, since he hasn't done so himself.
Go start your own blog where you can kiss religious ass.
Posted by: Behavioral Psychologist | July 11, 2008 11:11 PM
Suckers. Do you really think the administration of the University is in the dark about what PZ does in this blog? Do you really think this 'cracker' incident was somehow different from all the other incendiary garbage posted on this blog? Puh-leez.
Your emails mean nothing. Only actions that affect the bottom-line of the university matter. If students flock to be taught be PZ, then the university keeps him. If he loses the support of his peers, grant funding, or can't attract students, then the university finds a reason to let him go.
I am actually here to protest something else entirely. I am tired of seeing RELIGION in the Last-24-hrs channel of scienceblogs.com. As this blog seems to be dominated by discussions regarding RELIGION, can it be removed from scienceblogs.com altogether? (The dymanic and interactions that emerge in this blog are interesting to study from a detached perspective, so maybe this blog qualifies as 'science' in the 'experiment in progress' sense of the word... Still, I think we've established the behavioral patterns that emerge here. Let's end this experiment.)
Science doesn't exist to do battle with religion. Darwin would be mortified to know with what actions PZ has associated his name. Darwin may be your hero, PZ, but he would disown you as a disciple.
Posted by: Alex | July 11, 2008 11:11 PM
Go pray for yourself, twit.
Yeah, well I'll pray for you, asshole!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:11 PM
Bill, I don't know who you are or when you got here, but if I missed you earlier I'm sorry for it.
Posted by: Kristine | July 11, 2008 11:12 PM
As for me, I'm saying that PZ doesn't speak for me.
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAPTRAP.
No one claimed to speak for you. Ron in Houston - Is this you? "Truth is an absolute defense to libel or slander." Is it, now?
PZ spoke the truth.
Posted by: Reverend Raven | July 11, 2008 11:12 PM
Fr. J is a troll pretending to be a priest. Nothing says they have to be smart but they weed the really stupid and crazy ones out.
Posted by: Kobra | July 11, 2008 11:12 PM
@453
I can't but help but chuckle at that.
Posted by: Promo | July 11, 2008 11:13 PM
"because that would be a very real crime. taking away a cracker that is given to you? not a crime.
or did you somehow forget that small difference"
Ichthyic is obviously socially autistic and incapable of understanding the basics of civil discourse/action.
You are a example of the extreme secular ideologue that this country has rejected and will continue to reject.
Utilitarianism is a dangerous joke, my friend, and so are you.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:13 PM
Science doesn't exist to do battle with religion.
Well science better wake it's dumb ass up then, because religion has declared war on it.
Posted by: wÓÒ† | July 11, 2008 11:13 PM
So I just went and read the Wikipedia article on transubstantiation, and now I'm convinced that people just make shit up.
And if you thought transubstantiation was wacky, check out Eucharistic adoration.
Only marginally less batshit insane than magic Mormon underpants.
Posted by: Dan | July 11, 2008 11:14 PM
Ron in Houston-
In addition to what Sastra and Craig have stated, I would remind you that there are, literally, a billion Catholics in the world. I think they're gonna be okay. Was Myers a little out of line? Probably. But I can't generate much sympathy for them just because some dude from the academic fringe may have insulted a small percentage of their group.
Someone said it earlier - proportional response.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 11, 2008 11:14 PM
"I own 4 guns. I bet liberal vermin like you don't own any."
That nice. This "liberal" owns 10.
Posted by: E.V. | July 11, 2008 11:14 PM
"I own 4 guns. I bet liberal vermin like you don't own any"
You talkin' to me?
You lose. I'm an atheist, a democrat, and follow Secular Humanism, but I live in Texas...
So unless you were trying to harm me or my family, there's no problem, Bubba. Live and let live.
Posted by: John Marley | July 11, 2008 11:14 PM
Feel the Xian Love(TM)!
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 11:15 PM
Huh? Like you've read this blog how long? Seriously. PZ bases Islam too.
Now, when it comes to "honor killings" I dispute him because he's FUCKING WRONG to the cause. i.e., it's not Islam, it's FUCKING TRIBALISM and happens with people of ALL MAJOR FAITHS so STOP FUCKING SPLITTING (we're talking the psychological concept here).
He also tends to FUCKING IGNORE that there are just as many cafeteria Muslims as any other cafeteria plan religion and that what is chosen from the religion tends to reflect the underlying cultural and economic conditions, not the other way around. Christianity, during the middle ages, was just as demented as much of Islam now.
But otherwise, yes, he does righteously bash Islam. Because too many demented fuckwits use it as a weapon for their bile. Just like these idiot Catholics are right now.
But I rant...
Posted by: AlanWCan | July 11, 2008 11:16 PM
Well, I'm guessing that none of these pious pricks with the Islamic beheading envy have ever heard of the IRA then? Catholic to a man. And pricks too.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 11:17 PM
Behavioral Psychologist-
No, I think that science *does* exist to do battle with religion, at least partially. Science is there to explain the natural world without resorting to superstition, to drag irrational beliefs out into the daylight, and to take off the blinders that men put on themselves to make it easier to pretend the universe was designed especially for them.
Mind you, I'd like to see some more squid pictures myself.
Posted by: Moses | July 11, 2008 11:17 PM
Suck it, Jesus! It's time for bed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:17 PM
3 here. And I eat lots of meat. And as often as i can I smoke it.
Wait. Did you have a point Mr. conservative slow person?
Posted by: DingoDave | July 11, 2008 11:17 PM
Dear PZ, I think that you might have cause for some genuine concern regarding some of the e-mail responses that you have received about you recent articles.
For example;
"Does it make you nervous knowing that so many people are praying for you? You might just get converted!!"
According to a recent study on the power of prayer for recovering post-operative Heart patients (funded by the John Templeton Foundation), the people being prayed for did worse than the people who weren't. Does this mean that you will become MORE of an atheist because these people are praying for you? : D
"If you really think the Blessed Eucharist is just a "farckin' cracker" then I challenge you to do a little scientific research...In short Mr. Myers what you'll find, if you are honest with yourself, is that you're wrong. It's not just a "frackin' cracker". It's Him who made you."
: D Is this one a 'Poe'?
"Thank you for your comment regarding the desecration of the Eucharist. I am sure Jesus has heard it and will respond accordingly. It may hurt a little, but don't worry.."
Watch out PZ, this one is threatening to sick Jesus onto you. How do I go about getting an 'Attack Jesus'? Can I buy one at Walmart?
"You are a monster. We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you (and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly). Losers like you will suffer. I hope and pray that this will loose you your job and your career."
This guy wants to sick the Pope onto you. After all, the Pope WAS the head of the 'Office of the Holy Inquisition' before he got his promotion.
"Do you want to demonstrate REAL courage by desecrating a religious symbol? Make an image of Mohamed (one serious affront to Islam) then desecrate it (another even more serious affront to the "religion of peace"). Of course, that would expose your person to actual, corporeal danger. What's the matter? Don't you have the stomach for real confrontation?"
This guy wants to get the Muslims to do his dirty work for him.
"You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key."
This guy must be an Italian Catholic.
"I own 4 guns. I bet liberal vermin like you don't own any."
This guy must belong to the 'Guns for Jesus' association.
"Come on down to Florida. We know how to welcome bastards like you.....with a bullet."
Who would have guessed that the entire population of Florida was out to get you?
These are some seriously 'Demented Fuckwits'. (TM)
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 11:18 PM
Nothing "perhaps" about it. I don't know about "fucking" because I know nothing, and could care even less, about your sex life. But "fool" is definitely there. So are "whiny," "self-righteous," "pompous," "self-centered," "preachy," "smug" and "sanctimonious."
Posted by: facebock | July 11, 2008 11:18 PM
"I remember that atheist who wrote the naturalistic philosophy book and then went on UTube and put dog poop on a Bible. It undercut his image as a scholar, and it was hard to take him seriously anymore."
Exactly, and the same goes for PZ Myers -- except for the fact that he has not been taken seriously for some time now.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 11, 2008 11:18 PM
Behavioral Psychologist @ 454
By that measure, Dispatches from the Culture Wars should be removed from ScienceBlogs, since Ed Brayton has no training in science and rarely talks about it except in the tangential sense of commenting on school curriculum issues.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | July 11, 2008 11:20 PM
The sweet irony of it all that that PeaZed is not protesting the concept of the Eucharist but rather the ridiculous and violent reaction by Catholics to people who do not share their reverence for a cracker. Predictable, a portion of the Catholic population continues to fulfill the stereotype.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
Exactly, and the same goes for PZ Myers -- except for the fact that he has not been taken seriously for some time now - by me.
There... fixed that for you.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
"um... I didn't expect them to shake out of it. I *agree* with you that you have to point out the ridiculousness of their claims (and especially their stunning hypocrisy.)
Posted by: mandrake
yeah Mandrake I was agreeing with you, Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
436-I didn't urge him to desecrate the Quran. I just used it as an illustration of what we all know: he is totally safe and to claim otherwise is disingenuous at best. Also my point was that in his university, and most of the others, it is demanded in the code of conduct that one be respectful of others. Now if he wants that removed from their code so that he can be a jerk then by all means remove it. But don't selectively prosecute disrespect. For example if he wrote something that insulted homosexuals we both know he would be suspended by now. I say level the playing field.
445 and 446-Again, you and I both know that PZ has nothing to fear. Your pretend shock and horror is embarrassing. I find liberals are the ones who issue fatwas. Usually against people like myself. The man is basically putting a huge chip on his shoulder and bumping into people daring them to knock it off. Perhaps he is compensating for being bullied as a child.
Ideas vs. people? I see a great deal of disrespect for people (and ideas). Does PZ care about the people he has insulted? I expect not. An adult argues against our belief in the most holy Eucharist. He does not insult those who hold the belief, especially if he doesn't know them personally. Our belief in the Eucharist doesn't hurt anyone, so one cannot claim that it is a burden on you who don't believe. I have to say that I have never, I repeat never, had a civil argument from an atheist. Normally I am personally insulted within minutes. I don't instigate it, so why is that? Ask yourself that question and do so honestly. Thank you and God bless.
Posted by: wÓÒ† | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
PZ, you might as well open this thread to John A. Davison at this point, because it can't possibly get any more fucked up than it already is.
I love it so!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
Just wait until you get a hold of the presuppositionalists.
Posted by: facebock | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
"That nice. This "liberal" owns 10."
HAHAHAH - you idiots are exactly like the extremists that you claim to be against!
Isn't that ironic!
Posted by: IBY | July 11, 2008 11:21 PM
There is another thing that is really hateful. Some of you profess to be with FSM, yet you eat the spaghetti with meatballs. Don't you guys know that FSM transubstantiate into the spaghetti with meatballs? It may not be FSM, however it is FSM. Even you guys who don't believe it shouldn't eat it, it is extremely disrespectful and hateful. PZ, I know you have eaten spaghetti with meatballs, and I hope these Catholics get to fire you, and I wish the same for all of you who eat it.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 11:23 PM
Dan
Seriously dude, we agree. I just want people to stop laughing and slapping PZ on the back and start realizing that PZ is not doing atheists any real favors.
Kristine
Yep that's me. No one is denying PZ's right to say what he did. I just seem to be in a substantial minority questioning the wisdom of him saying it.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:25 PM
"except for the fact that he has not been taken seriously for some time now."
Exactly. That's why when he posted his "its a goddamned cracker" comment, nobody even noticed.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:25 PM
Yeah that Ayatollah Khomeini was a real liberal.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:26 PM
You are a example of the extreme secular ideologue that this country has rejected and will continue to reject.
at last, someone who understands me!
I was beginning to wonder.
...are you single?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:26 PM
@ Fr. J
I have to say that I have never, I repeat never, had a civil argument from an atheist. Normally I am personally insulted within minutes.
You want to know the funniest part in that statement? That you never consider for a moment that the reason for this might be you and not the atheist.
Chew on that a while, good friar.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:27 PM
"it is demanded in the code of conduct that one be respectful of others"
That's not the same as being respectful of others' IDEAS.
No university could exist if it demanded that no ideas be criticized.
Posted by: Sastra | July 11, 2008 11:27 PM
Ichthyic #437 wrote:
I think this point was debated for about 500 comments on one of the other posts. The cracker is given only under certain conditions, which the recipient secretly intends to violate.
Not a crime, no. But a bit morally hazy. Yeah.
I'm off to bed.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 11:28 PM
"I find liberals are the ones who issue fatwas.Usually against people like myself."
Huh. Can you name one?
Posted by: Alt Numlock | July 11, 2008 11:29 PM
You guys are doing a bang-up job representing science to everyone else as applied anti-theism. May knowledge of your movement spread across the land!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:30 PM
Not a crime, no.
well, then why do you compare that with people illegally entering a movie theater?
that was my point, and it has nothing to do with "moral haziness".
Posted by: PCD | July 11, 2008 11:30 PM
Reading this blog is like reading the prose on the wall of the shitter in high school.
You people are in college?
What sophomoric and banal minds these young "atheists" have.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 11, 2008 11:31 PM
As a side note, I noticed that the latest "On Faith" tripe is up, and it seems to be about a non-Catholic who took communion at Tim Russert's funeral. I saw that at least Cal Thomas got it half-right, when he said it was an empty ritual, I believe. I wonder how much Fatwa-envy (or Koran-envy) this lady will get from Billy D over her desecration of the zombie-cake.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:32 PM
"Not a crime, no. But a bit morally hazy. Yeah."
Point taken. Lest I be immoral, from here on in I vow never to take, under possibly false premises, small crackers from organizations which have among their official policies the protection from prosecution of child rapists.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:32 PM
You guys are doing a bang-up job representing science to everyone else as applied anti-theism
funny, I must have missed the part where science was implied, even tangentially, in any of this.
oh, that's right, you just like to imagine it is to make an irrelevant point.
like Darwin->Hitler, right?
moron.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 11:33 PM
"You guys are doing a bang-up job representing science to everyone else as applied anti-theism. May knowledge of your movement spread across the land!"
Yeah, that would be great. Thanks for understanding.
Posted by: Dan | July 11, 2008 11:33 PM
Alt Numlock -
There's probably fewer than 300 people looking at these comments right now, and except for a few dozen curious folk, we're probably all already atheists. There may be a "movement", but I can promise you it's not spreading from here.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 11:35 PM
Behavioral Psychologist @ #454
"Science doesn't exist to do battle with religion. Darwin would be mortified to know with what actions PZ has associated his name. Darwin may be your hero, PZ, but he would disown you as a disciple."
Up until that little gem, you almost had me.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:35 PM
I just want people to stop laughing and slapping PZ on the back and start realizing that PZ is not doing atheists any real favors.
I don't remember electing you to speak for the rest of us "atheists". I think we can decide that on our own without your "outrage", thanks. PZ does us "atheists" a huge favor every day he continues to fight religious nonsense and "dumbfuckery". This incident included. Speak for yourself.
I just seem to be in a substantial minority questioning the wisdom of him saying it.
Awww... how sweet it is of you to reduce your venom-spewing dialogue down to the innocuous "merely questioning the wisdom of him saying it". Don't sell yourself short, dude... you were a downright self-righteous prick for quite a while there... stand up and be proud! Don't water it down now.
Posted by: eyerock | July 11, 2008 11:36 PM
Holy crap!!!!
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 11, 2008 11:37 PM
@Fr. J
For those who think that PZ is being threatened I would ask: do you really honestly take it seriously?
Would you like to try it out if it's so safe? Apparently all you have to do is point to some religious wacko's trying to destroy someones life over a cracker, on the internet.
He, and all of you, know that PZ is perfectly safe attacking Catholicism. Some of the "threats" are obviously pranks or perhaps even hoaxes perpetrated by fellow atheists to make Catholics look bad.
Yeah, that look in the mirror must've been quite hard, I'll forgive you the obvious denial and projection you display to deal with it.
Also if he did express a belief in intelligent design at a biology convention he would be in fear of his job.
Biology conventions are for scientists, ID doesn't qualify as science, it does pass as a carefully cultivated, sectarian christian creation myth in some US states. Although ID'ers are free to go to biology conferences, they never do, even though they are paid through wingnut welfare and don't have to fear for their jobs. Very strange situation there isn't it? Next you'll demand we employ people to teach alchemy and astrology in physics and astronomy class. Academic freedom and all that...
Would you want to comment on how many biology teachers are unable to to their job properly because of threats and harassment condoned, even encouraged, by several christian sects in the US? Maybe about Chris Cormer then? How about the Dover trial?
It is interesting that so many liberals demand "respect" for all points of view, especially their own, and yet give none to their opponents.
You are confusing your strawman for the arguments people here are making. Nobody here demands respect for all points of view, quite the opposite even. You've made enough posts to know this already and yet your so blinded by your ideology that the stupid is dripping from your post. You honestly can't seem to help being a total idiot.
If PZ did something like this to another group his university would discipline him. That's a fact and you all know it.
Man, how deep is that hole that you are digging for yourself supposed to become?! I guess the campus police is having a hard time finding PZ.
Please get over yourself, PZ ridiculed religious wackos for attempting to destroy someones life, even threatening to kill someone over a cracker. You keep reminding us of your particular sect, but we honestly don't care.
Posted by: SteveC | July 11, 2008 11:37 PM
The fact that people get pissed of when you desecrate their *completely idiotic cracker* is enough reason to desecrate them.
The cracker-morons get pissed? Good. Perfect. Only an idiot would get pissed about such a thing, and those who get pissed mark themselves as idiots and mark their religion as idiotic as well.
Idiotic beliefs *deserve* ridicule, not respect.
Posted by: promo | July 11, 2008 11:37 PM
Ichthyic,
"at last, someone who understands me!
I was beginning to wonder.
...are you single?"
Denial.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 11:37 PM
"I just want people to stop laughing and slapping PZ on the back and start realizing that PZ is not doing atheists any real favors."
Ain't gonna happen. And you're awfully presumptious to continually tell the blogger what to write and the audience what to think.
In other words, fuck off.
Posted by: bradhouse | July 11, 2008 11:38 PM
Hang in there PZ. For each negative comment you receive there are a mountain of people who support you.
As you said.. it is just a cracker.
Posted by: Efisio | July 11, 2008 11:40 PM
Finally there is marked behavorial development. Tactile sensetivity appears, and the flexions that occurred in uncoordinated individual monotomes during the late segmentation period become orchestrated into rhythmic bouts of tiniwabku.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 11:40 PM
"Reading this blog is like reading the prose on the wall of the shitter in high school."
And now your handwriting is up there too.
Posted by: PZ is a fool.... | July 11, 2008 11:42 PM
My guess is that these guys on here are being passed over by natural selection - for the football team, no less! - and need a place to vent their frustration.
Small minded, rejected, little angry, cocksuckers (out of necessity, of course - or is it biology?)
Posted by: Dan | July 11, 2008 11:42 PM
Geez, some pots and kettles in this thread, on both sides...
Posted by: Fr. J | July 11, 2008 11:44 PM
Here are some university policies. If you all mean what you say then these should be changed.
1. UMM is committed to providing a safe environment for all students and employees. It is committed to equal educational access and opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.
#Note that this is followed by procedures to punish those who insult others for ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. So do you think it's okay to disparage black people or homosexuals? Do you think this policy should be deleted?
2. Discrimination and Harassment
Discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated in UMM housing facilities. Violations of these policies will be referred to the Director of Residential Life and/or the Student Behavior Committee for appropriate action. Also see harassment policies under University Policies and Regulations
Disruptive Behavior
Behavior which is disruptive to other residents and may alarm, anger, disturb, or endanger the safety of others is prohibited. This includes but is not limited to fighting, disruption of meetings, and prank activities.
# So if you harass homosexuals you are punished. But if you harass Catholics...?
3. Public Areas
Public areas in the residence halls consist of all lounges, kitchens, bathrooms, hallways and stairwells. Conduct in these areas is to be appropriate, not offensive and respectful; this includes conversations, language, postings and activities. Also, for everyone's convenience and use, no personal furniture or furniture from your room is allowed to be left in these areas. The cutting and dying of hair is not permitted in any public areas (this includes bathrooms, kitchens and lounges). Public areas, such as the kitchen or lounge area, should not be used for personal hygiene. Please use your designated bathroom.
** Offensive includes (but not limited) derogatory/demeaning remarks, swearing/swear words, private or sexual comments and/or actions**
#So if I use demeaning remarks about homosexuals or women I can be punished. But if I demean Catholics...? You support free speech, so what about insulting minorities? Do you then agree that there should be NO policies about harassment?
I am sure there are also policies applying to faculty and staff. Do you get the point? Many of you demand such special protections for yourselves, but now want to exclude other groups (like Catholics). Does PZ support eliminating such codes or if not will he admit that he has violated his universities code of conduct?
Posted by: JoJo | July 11, 2008 11:45 PM
Fr.[?]J
Oh, you mean like the one Pat Robertson issued against Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or like Fred Phelps continually issues against every American who isn't him or Jack Chick issues against a whole bunch of folks including Catholics? Pope Benedict said some pretty harsh things about Muslims a while ago and didn't really recant what he said. So sure, we believe that only liberals issue fatwas. As the Brits say, "Pull the other one, it's got bells on it."
There's a saying in the NFL, "You can bullshit the spectators but you can't bullshit the players." There's folks issuing death threats and trying to get PZ Myers fired because of your belief in the magic cracker. There are some pretty smart folks here. Please don't insult our intelligence.
I can get you several reasons. (1) In your posts you've accused other people of lying. This tends to annoy people. (2) In your posts you come across as a pompous, patronizing prig. This also tends to annoy people. (3) Lastly, you make it plain that you don't respect atheists, so why should we respect you? In short, sir, you are an ass and make this obvious.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:46 PM
Lame.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:47 PM
"My guess is that these guys on here are being passed over by natural selection - for the football team, no less! - and need a place to vent their frustration.
Small minded, rejected, little angry, cocksuckers (out of necessity, of course - or is it biology?)"
Hmmm... you could be right. Let me mull that over for a second...
Yeah, I guess you must be right. I'm just way too small minded to think a cookie is also a space wizard.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:47 PM
@ 510
Ahhh... another comment from the witty and enlightened. You go on and keep guessing, buddy... I'm sure it served you well on your GED.
Small minded, rejected, little angry, cocksuckers (out of necessity, of course - or is it biology?)
M-O-O-N... that spells homophobe.
Posted by: N.K. | July 11, 2008 11:47 PM
"I would pray for you, but it is too late. You are damned."
AWW, IS PZ ALREADY ON THE LIST OF NAUGHTY BOYS? IS HE GETTING A LUMP OF COAL AND A LAKE OF FIRE FOR CHRISTMAS?
I always find it saddening to see just how low and morally destitute these people are.
Also, this stuff about omg-you-are-making-science-look-like-anti-theism is complete tosh. Where, in any of this, did science come up? This was all about a poor young man getting death threats because he didn't eat a cracker. If anything, I would say the Catholics are doing a bang-up job of making religion look like anti-humanism.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 11:48 PM
So when did it become unjust to criticise stupid ideas?
I mean, if I were to say that anyone who believes the Oreo to be holy must be insane - is this disrespectful?
Aren't we drawn into a never-ending list of things we cannot criticise because people might actually BELIEVE it? And on the flip-side, is the only barrier to this how MANY people believe it?
Or, is it just that - for some reason - people think religious ideas are somehow above "regular" ideas, and that criticism therefore becomes an attack on their person?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:49 PM
Small minded, rejected, little angry, cocksuckers (out of necessity, of course - or is it biology?)
Did you have something intelligent for the discussion?
Oh and I played football. It was fun but big wall aid climbing is much more of a rush.
Idiot.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 11, 2008 11:49 PM
It's good to see that the Lavender Mafia is apparently kicking the shit out of Nazinger's gang.
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:49 PM
"Also, this stuff about omg-you-are-making-science-look-like-anti-theism is complete tosh. Where, in any of this, did science come up? This was all about a poor young man getting death threats because he didn't eat a cracker. If anything, I would say the Catholics are doing a bang-up job of making religion look like anti-humanism."
Well, personally I do think claims of magic words turning a cracker into the body of a 2000 year old dead man are within the realm of science.
Posted by: mandrake | July 11, 2008 11:50 PM
"Small minded, rejected, little angry, cocksuckers (out of necessity, of course - or is it biology?)"
I'm trying to understand this insult but it is eluding me. People have to suck cocks to be on the football team? No, wait, they have to suck the biology teacher's cock? To be on the football team?
I'm just not getting it.
Posted by: gwangung | July 11, 2008 11:50 PM
Fr. J--
Don't be an idiot. If you act like an idiot, you'll get treated like an idiot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:51 PM
Yes, Rev. BDC screwed up a blockquote.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 11, 2008 11:51 PM
Rev Fox
I'm don't believe in telling people what to write or what to think. That's just the reason that I don't like religion.
However, if you think that you can be persuasive by just telling people to "fuck off" well then you're as fucking delusional as the theists.
If you think PZ did the right thing by posting what he did, then say it. If not then you're just a waste of bandwidth.
I'm trying to persuade people that PZ didn't really do atheists any favors by posting what he did.
Make up your own mind. It's a free country.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 11, 2008 11:52 PM
Fr. J @ 512
Did you miss the part where this blog and PZ's opinions expressed therein are in no way affiliated with the University and therefor not subject in any way to the university policies you so sanctimoniously spewed forth, even if he did violate them (which he did not, by the by)? Or are facts just too bothersome for you to consider?
Posted by: Steve Ulven | July 11, 2008 11:52 PM
What is with this daring you to bash the Koran? Don't be scared of muslims (lack of caps intentional). Be scared of these motherfuckers! They are goddamn cannibal wannabes!!! Fantasizing about eating flesh and drinking blood? They are preparing for something, and it cannot be good for us.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2008 11:53 PM
Here are some university policies. If you all mean what you say then these should be changed.
1. UMM is committed to providing a safe environment for all students and employees. It is committed to equal educational access and opportunity to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.
and so who is denying Catholics access? who are the ones trying to deny a safe environment to students?
actually, you're right, not the UMM, but the UCF (which has similar policy statements), should change them to exclude catholics, who they apparently feel can freely violate the "safe environment" clause by assaulting and threatening students.
#Note that this is followed by procedures to punish those who insult others for ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. So do you think it's okay to disparage black people or homosexuals? Do you think this policy should be deleted?
ideology does not equal race, or sexual orientation. You morons always conflate the two incorrectly.
2. Discrimination and Harassment
Discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated in UMM housing facilities. Violations of these policies will be referred to the Director of Residential Life and/or the Student Behavior Committee for appropriate action. Also see harassment policies under University Policies and Regulations
uh huh, so where, exactly do you see the discrimination coming from?
where has PZ said there shouldn't be any catholic students at UMM?
show me.
Disruptive Behavior
Behavior which is disruptive to other residents and may alarm, anger, disturb, or endanger the safety of others is prohibited. This includes but is not limited to fighting, disruption of meetings, and prank activities.
who disrupted the church service, the guy who wanted to show his buddy the cracker, or the "church leader" who physically assaulted him to try and get it back?
# So if you harass homosexuals you are punished. But if you harass Catholics...?
again, you are conflating issues, see above. decrying an irrational notion is NOT racism or sexism.
I'm not even going to bother tearing apart the rest of your ridiculous "analysis by false analogy".
It's not worth the time, and I've already made the only points that are relevant to your drivel.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 11, 2008 11:53 PM
"I find liberals are the ones who issue fatwas. Usually against people like myself."
Fr.J is no priest, he throws the word "liberals" around too much to be taken seriously. So, how many of those lefty pinko Maryknoll types have threatened ya, Padre?
As a liberal, the only fatwa I have declared is against chocolate "martinis" and their ilk (there's that word again). You see, I have called on all martini mujahedeen to wage a gin jihad on all false martinis. Like, I mean, they're not bad drinks, but martinis? Never!
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2008 11:55 PM
Ah, the gentle scattering of sniper troll bullets.
Never a problem, of course - they're using blanks and can't aim worth shit.
#510 is a classic specimen.
Posted by: Xeno | July 11, 2008 11:55 PM
Ron
"I'm trying to persuade people that PZ didn't really do atheists any favors by posting what he did."
Why would we need him to do us favours?
Also,
"I think PZ did the right thing by posting what he did".
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 11, 2008 11:55 PM
Yep, still the same old message from the Father. E-mail harrassment is no big deal, boys will be boys. But speaking ill of a cracker is apparently grounds for firing. We don't buy it, Padre.
"Fr. J is a troll pretending to be a priest. Nothing says they have to be smart but they weed the really stupid and crazy ones out."
I'm not sure I quite believe that. Have you ever taken a good look around the country at how many churches there are? Millions. Even in the tiniest little town there could be more than one. And in every church, there's at least one, if not up to a score of clerics. You can't tell me that they're all the cream of intellect. Just like the way there will always be some crazy/stupid teachers that manage to make a career, particularly in rural or otherwise disinvested areas, there will surely be some demented crazies in the priesthood.
Posted by: Promo | July 11, 2008 11:56 PM
Bigprettydave:
"Oh and I played football. It was fun but big wall aid climbing is much more of a rush. Idiot."
Do you have guns, too, big boy???
Are you single?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:56 PM
Listen up people, This whole thing about being upset about a paper printing cartoons about your religion is no reason to be calling for the death of people or getting your diapers all in a bunch. All this outrage is better used to be focused on the teachings of your book.
Hold on, whats the date?
Posted by: Fr. J | July 11, 2008 11:57 PM
JoJo, if you want patronizing I urge you to read what the atheists have written on this blog. Some people here have lied. For example blaming all wars on religion etc. Many have insulted me personally, including you. I am not hard to get along with and my problem with atheists is not me. They believe that anyone who is a theist is stupid and immediately treat them accordingly. That's the problem. If you want to claim it's okay to disrespect ideas but not persons then show me in your posts. Good night and God bless.
Posted by: BMD | July 11, 2008 11:57 PM
I spewed out my nose when I saw the one about the big steal ball. Too funny. The first thing that came to mind was "Oh, did PZ lose one?"
Posted by: craig | July 11, 2008 11:58 PM
I'm don't believe in telling people what to write or what to think.
Ron, you fucking liar. You've REPEATEDLY been telling people what to write.
You repeatedly have said you don't think PZ should have said what he said. You have also repeatedly said you didn't think PZ should have said things that he never DID say but which who kept falsely claiming he said...
And several times you have made the request (close to a demand) that PZ write a some sort of retraction or clarification to meet your approval.
If I were like you Ron, I would ask you to retract your statements lest someone thing you represent the rest of us and thereby conclude that ALL atheists are lying assholes.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 11, 2008 11:59 PM
@Fr. J
No and no. Moving on.
Depends on what you mean by harassing. Not eating a cracker doesn't quite qualify.
Insulting a group of people just because they belong to a certain group is bigotry. If I followed a bunch of catholics around and said, "those damn catholics are all boy-lovers," that would be an unacceptable harassment. However, criticizing your ridiculous beliefs still fall under my academic freedom.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 11, 2008 11:59 PM
I do and am married. Sorry sally.
Do you have a point or did your porn subscriptions run out because your mom found out you were using her credit card?
Posted by: Goldfishflakes | July 12, 2008 12:00 AM
as far as the comment about PZ "hiding in the insulated academia"...
Well, I'm sure he isn't hiding as much as simply surrounding himself with INTELLIGENT human beings...ya know, those who don't spend their weekends in fairy tale land...oh, I mean churches. lol
Posted by: Todd | July 12, 2008 12:01 AM
On a hunch I went into MS Word and typed "eucharist," "why do you hate Catholics," "you idiot" and "why don't you desecrate a Koran" when that annoying Clippy showed up saying "Hey, it looks like you're writing an anti-Catholic hate letter. Would you like to use the Catholic apologist wizard?"
And here I was wondering why all those letters used the same ridiculous arguments.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:02 AM
Well if someone said that they'd be wrong. but I'd like you to produce that comment. If you can't you're lying.
Find it and right click the date link and then paste it in the comments here. Support your accusations.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2008 12:02 AM
They believe that anyone who is a theist is stupid and immediately treat them accordingly.
sometimes by giving them awards:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php
see re: Scott Hatfield (very much a Christian).
in short, you're not only wrong, you seem bound and determined to shoot yourself in the head to prove it.
Posted by: Fr. raven | July 12, 2008 12:03 AM
Yeah we got the point a while ago. You are a troll pretending to be a priest. And lying a lot.
PZ never said one word about excluding Catholics from any public universities. What he did say is, "It is just a frackin cracker."
You could be excommunicated for impersonating a priest but I doubt you are a Catholic either so it doesn't matter.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 12:04 AM
No, its just you.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 12, 2008 12:05 AM
Science doesn't exist to do battle with religion. Darwin would be mortified to know with what actions PZ has associated his name.
You have got to be kidding me, that ranks as one of the most inane comments ever. Maybe you missed this, but Darwins name got associated with a lot worse then mistreating some fucking crackers. I guess you just weren't looking while a whole discipline of science and education was being undermined and attacked by fundamentalist fruitcakes and still is.
Don't come whining here when the theocracy arrives at your door. KTHXBAI.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:05 AM
I also am upset about the claim that all wars were started by religion.
It's only *most* at best. Could be as few as half.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2008 12:05 AM
@ Fr. J...
How can you live with yourself when you lie about calling other people liars... to wit, you said:
Some people here have lied. For example blaming all wars on religion etc.
That is a lie, and a poor one at that. Find the post, anywhere on this blog, where someone, as an atheist, blamed ALL wars on religion. Go on... link to it. I'll wait. Or would you rather just admit that you just made that up for effect? I doubt you've spent more than 10 minutes reading any content on this blog outside of this topic. And that's not an insult, it's an honest observation and a challenge for you to prove you are not a liar.
They believe that anyone who is a theist is stupid and immediately treat them accordingly. That's the problem.
Then I submit that your sampling of atheists is not only small but poor... and makes you more than a little pre-judgmental, I think.
Posted by: AndyD | July 12, 2008 12:05 AM
When Ben Stein said "science leads to killing people" I thought he was an idiot. Now I see what he really meant.
He really should issue a clarification "scientists enrage religious fundamentalists so much they end up wanting to kill someone".
Posted by: promo | July 12, 2008 12:06 AM
BigPrettyChip: "I do and am married. Sorry sally."
Sally, eh.....pretty homophobic for a "free thinker."
As you idiots would say: "my irony meter just exploded!"
You people are too funny! (in a pathetic and self absorbed sort of way)
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 12:06 AM
(shameless repost)
So when did it become unjust to criticise stupid ideas?
I mean, if I were to say that anyone who believes the Oreo to be holy must be insane - is this disrespectful?
Aren't we drawn into a never-ending list of things we cannot criticise because people might actually BELIEVE it? And on the flip-side, is the only barrier to this how MANY people believe it?
Or, is it just that - for some reason - people think religious ideas are somehow above "regular" ideas, and that criticism therefore becomes an attack on their person?
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 12:06 AM
And while you're at it, fr.j, would you give us an example to support your "it's mostly liberals who declare fatwas" theory?
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 12:09 AM
Wars, eh.....like the 100,000,000 killed by the secular communist states in the past 100 years...
Fucking idiots.
Posted by: hje | July 12, 2008 12:10 AM
I'm amazed how many of the commenters elevate symbols (Eucharist wafer) over people (children targeted by pedophile priests). I'm haven't heard a fraction of this disgust in reference to the abuse carried out by the clergy of the Catholic Church.
And I thought fundamentalist Protestants had a monopoly on outrage.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 12:11 AM
"If you think PZ did the right thing by posting what he did, then say it. If not then you're just a waste of bandwidth."
I think PZ has every right to say whatever he wants on his blog. I don't think there is any clear cut "right" or "wrong" thing to do in this situation. But if I were pressed, I'd say, yes, he was right to post his feelings on the subject. And he was even right to suggest that people abscond from Mass with communion wafers, if that was his prerogative. The worst that could happen is that he gets a few wafers in the mail, probably crushed and mangled. It's not as if he's necessarily going to DO anything with them. He didn't even tell anyone to actually disrupt Mass. Most likely, no one will notice anything, and no one will therefore be offended because there are no victims to this "crime".
And at any rate, if anyone actually does such a thing, it would kind of be their responsibility, wouldn't it? Are you the sort of person who wants to ban all violent television and/or video games because some kid might try to emulate them? Give the Pharyngula audience a little credit.
"However, if you think that you can be persuasive by just telling people to "fuck off" well then you're as fucking delusional as the theists."
Please, are we really going to get into a competition over who's more persuasive? Because I really don't care. I suppose I wish I could persuade you to leave, because your concern is overblown, incredibly tiresome, and repetitive, but I'm not going to put any personal stake into the matter.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2008 12:11 AM
Hey! Promo wants a body-count contest!
You must be new around here, muffin...
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:11 AM
Wait a minute...
My spidey sense is tingling.
Is it possible that Ron for TX is a sockpuppet for Fr J, and perhaps even promo?
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 12:12 AM
I'm gonna pray for you guys. You're so mean and vindictive. How dare you take offense at a rich, powerful group for calling itself a victim over a sacred snack when said group was also historically responsible for some extremely nasty murders, hate crimes and cruelty. You're being downright hateful by speaking up against such a time-honored, long-lasting entity.
I bet you guys wouldn't pull this sort of thing with the Esoteric Order of Dagon. I bet you bunch of spineless cowards wouldn't march into the center of Innsmouth and declare Cthulhu a myth and his followers fools!*
Typical liberal bravery, picking on the little sweet guys who tortured, kidnapped and burned at the stake those who opposed them or had the audacity to believe differently.
*I guess Cthulhu is, himself, possibly spineless. This is neither here nor there.
Posted by: Fr. 386sx | July 12, 2008 12:12 AM
Everybody look how stupid this is:
Pretty stupid. I still can't get over how stupid that is. Oh well!
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 12:12 AM
I take it back - secular progressives do NOT even need war for their slaughter...most were liquidations of internal populace.
Atheists are such utilitarian hypocrites - that is what makes them dangerous.
Posted by: Stanton | July 12, 2008 12:13 AM
No, what Ben Stein meant when he said "Science leads to killing people" is that not thinking "GODDIDIT" as the alpha and omega in science will lead you to 1) reject God, and 2) develop an uncontrollable urge to devise ways of rounding up all of the neighborhood Jewish people and murdering them.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | July 12, 2008 12:13 AM
Also... You are catholics (lack of caps intentional). Your group is notorious for not reading the bible at all. This is not to say that none of you do, or that any other denomenations are any better, I do not think many are any better. As with most other denomenations, most of you just sit and listen to what the person up front is saying and that is it. No homework, you showed up to class so you receive an A.
If you are one who goes by this method, there is no reason that any of us should take you seriously. Many of the people that respond here have actually read the entire bible and the apocryphal works. In fact, I would be willing to bet that, percentage-wise, more Atheists have read the entire bible than christians (again, showing my disrespect by lacking caps).
It is hard to take anyone seriously when they are so offended by something someone says and when asked why, they can only provide a canned response (most likely copied from a website or the pulpit), nothing more.
What is going on here is a bunch of people, who are not quite informed completely, reading their e-mail update and responding as they are instructed (blindly, by the way).
So for those of you keeping track here, this is why you are failing. You are, again, following blind demands by someone that you have given power over you. You are not thinking for yourselves or evaluating the entire situation.
Nice job on making yourselves look like asses again!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:14 AM
Like I said, do you have a point or do you want to continue with the playground antics? You are amusing in a "like my 8 year old niece" kind of way but you sure aren't very bright.
Seriously, if you need someone to resub you for your porn subscriptions I'm not going to be able to help you. There are better things to do with your time than to come to a grown ups blog and make an ass out of your self. I suggest you find out what they are.
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 12:16 AM
Fr. 386sx@559:
No, trying to use your own holy book as evidence for your religion is stupid.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:16 AM
"I bet you bunch of spineless cowards wouldn't march into the center of Innsmouth and declare Cthulhu a myth and his followers fools!*"
I refuse to insult any deity whose name I can't pronounce.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 12:16 AM
I'm not sure if you understand that part of history. In any case, it is a non sequitur.
Prove it.
Posted by: Todd | July 12, 2008 12:17 AM
I mean, if I were to say that anyone who believes the Oreo to be holy must be insane - is this disrespectful?
Hey Xeno, to answer your question, no, but Jesus would taste a whole lot better with double stuffing.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 12, 2008 12:18 AM
Not only is it stupid, it's also a blatant lie. He says right there he'll do anything you ask him to, but he doesn't.
Posted by: Dan | July 12, 2008 12:18 AM
"And I thought fundamentalist Protestants had a monopoly on outrage."
They do. 99.999998% of Catholics have never heard of PZ Myers, and they wouldn't care what he says even if they did know who he was.
This is manufactured "outrage" by Donohue and his goons in order to score cheap political points.
I don't think the Pope is losing any sleep over this.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 12:19 AM
"Atheists are such utilitarian hypocrites - that is what makes them dangerous."
I'm not an expert in philosophy, but I seem to remember utilitarianism being the principle that one should choose actions that result in the greatest good for the greatest number of people. What's so dangerous about that?
Posted by: promo | July 12, 2008 12:19 AM
Atheist morality:::::::::::::::::
Atheist general: how do we get rid of this population of underclass that are hampering progress in our 10 year plan?
Atheist leader: I know, let's biologically reclassify them as under-humans and then collectivize their farm lands for our progressive industrialization program for the vanguard!
Atheist general: you are right, they are less than human and are in the way of OUR PROGRESS! Plus they do not think like us and are backward peoples.
End of Story (Ukraine, anyone?)
Posted by: kubenzi | July 12, 2008 12:20 AM
lol@muzzies.
you cathys,so funny
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:20 AM
"I don't think the Pope is losing any sleep over this."
I don't think the Pope is losing sleep over anything. If he had a conscience he'd have offed himself or died of shame long ago.
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 12:21 AM
Rey Fox,
Thanks for proving my point...what could possibly go wrong!
Posted by: NanuNanu | July 12, 2008 12:23 AM
Please, promo, get off of mommy and daddy's computer and go to bed.
And just for shits and giggles, and maybe to prove how stupid you really are, what was Hitler's faith?
Posted by: Dan | July 12, 2008 12:23 AM
"I don't think the Pope is losing sleep over anything. If he had a conscience he'd have offed himself or died of shame long ago."
Is he that bad? I haven't been paying attention (I probably should, but hey - I'm busy).
I do know he looks a lot like Darth Sidious. That can't be a good think.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:24 AM
ok, well since it appears to be just me, Rey, and the troll, I'm gonna go. I hear woot is gonna have their famous bag o' crap up for sale tonight.
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 12:24 AM
For a modern less dramatic example of centralized, scientific utilitarianism gone wrong, one word: bio-fuel
Try to think for yourselves, kids...really now!
Posted by: Theodore | July 12, 2008 12:24 AM
The immortal words of the great master come to mind:
"Get in line in that processional
Step into that small confessional
There the guy that's got religion 'll
Tell you if your sin's original
If it is, try playing it safer
Drink the wine and chew the wafer
Two-four-six-eight
Time to transubstantiate!"
http://www.amazon.com/Remains-Tom-Lehrer/dp/B00004SWBH/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1215836602&sr=8-1
Posted by: Geoff | July 12, 2008 12:24 AM
Maybe if you had said 'friggin' cracker...
Posted by: Rob | July 12, 2008 12:24 AM
I'm glad I go by "Rob" only...that other guy's going to ruin my rep.
If you need any tips on handling the Catholic League, put a call in to Kevin Smith. He's been though this before.
All because of a movie with a rubber poop monster and George Carlin as a Cardinal.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 12:25 AM
Craig:
kuh-THOOL-hoo
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 12, 2008 12:25 AM
Communists in Russia were secular?!
Is this the version of secularism where one dogma gets privileged above all competing ideas in a society, with a totalitarian leader on top? Like, bizarro-secularism?
Posted by: Dan | July 12, 2008 12:25 AM
*that would be "good thing"
jesus, I must be getting brain damage from reading promo's bullshit
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2008 12:25 AM
@ Promo
Christian morality:::::::::::::::::
Christian general: how do we get rid of this population of underclass that are hampering progress in our 10 year plan?
Christian leader: I know, let's threaten to torture them till they convert then kill most of 'em anyhow...
Christian general: you are right, they are less than human and are in the way of OUR PROGRESS! Plus they do not think like us and are backward peoples.
End of Story (Most of the last 1800 years of European history, anyone?)
There... fixed that for you.
Posted by: IBY | July 12, 2008 12:26 AM
@promo
Have you ever been in High School history class? I suggest study them. You will see they kill people for power.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 12:28 AM
I don't think you understand either the science or the politics behind this one. I mean, where in the world did you get utilitarianism from this?
I don't think it is very polite for someone your age to call us kids.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 12:29 AM
Just glad someone read it, Todd.
Personally, I'd open Jesus up first and get to the creamy inside, and then consume the two part exterior as an aside.
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 12:29 AM
promo:
enough. you apparently just want to come in here and throw around a bunch of talking points that you've picked up from Fox News, mixed in with truly juvenile insults.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about, and what's more, you don't care, either.
I could start arguing with you about your bizarre hallucinations of pseudo-Atheist warfare and why it's total bullshit, but I don't think you're capable of understanding a rational argument. (I don't even think *you're* less than human, and you've been wasting our time trying to prove it.)
Also, nobody uses the term "cocksucker" except men who are insecure in their masculinity. Hopefully you are young and therefore have an excuse.
Go away and find your naked Ann Coulter pics to make you feel better.
Posted by: galapagos | July 12, 2008 12:29 AM
"Paul, why are you persecuting Me?"
^^^is this supposed to be from the frackin cracker?
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 12:30 AM
ICBY states: "Have you ever been in High School history class? I suggest study them."
Have you been to your local EFL class? It does not look like it...
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:31 AM
"Is he that bad? I haven't been paying attention (I probably should, but hey - I'm busy)."
Well, apart from being a former Nazi (well, Hitler Youth at least), and having authored Catholic policy to hide and protect child rapists, plus the routine anti-gay and anti-birth-control stuff, he's actually a really swell guy.
Posted by: Paul | July 12, 2008 12:32 AM
Mr. Myers has the absolute right to his free speech. HOWEVER, it is an extreme act of aggression to make threats against the Holy Eucharist that we Catholics know to be the Body of Christ.
As an Irish Catholic, I strongly urge Mr. Myers to continue to exercise his right of free speech to reflect whatever is truly in his heart. By the same token, I strongly urge him to keep it at speech only, without the action to desecrate what is Holy. To do otherwise is good for no one.
Posted by: Don | July 12, 2008 12:32 AM
I want to start a new website called "ChristOnACracker.com" where users can exchange Jesus recipes. Just wait till you taste my Broccoli Savior Casserole!
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:33 AM
hey wait, mandrake, I've used the word cocksucker a few times. :(
I didn't mean it as an insult, though.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 12:33 AM
Sastra: "Since Phil is a Catholic, he may have a valid point. You see, the substance of the letters was indeed reasonable. The parts of the letters which we could read were only the appearances, which are visible to the senses."
Nice try but...we don't believe e-mails or letters are transubstantiated. Transubstantiation (meaning "change of substance") applies only to the consecrated host during Mass. Of course you knew that already. That's the teaching in the Catechism, in Ludwig Ott's Fundmentals of Catholic Dogma, it is the historical teaching of the Church through all the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors going back to John 6:51ff and "This is my body" in the Eucharist narratives in the Bible. That's why Catholics believe it today, that's why the Church believes it. The literal Eucharist view is quite clear as early as St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) who learned his teaching from St. John the apostle.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
It's not a cracker BTW, that's more in baptist churches (or Protestant / evangelical / fundamentalist "baptistic" type services) or others who use actual crackers and grape juice. They do not accept transubstantiation or even "sacraments" for the most part. It is (literally) "crackers and grape juice" to them which are only symbolic of the body and blood of Christ.
The correct Catholic term would be the "host" (Latin hostia for victim or offering, since Christ is "made present" to us) or the "communion wafer." It is not a cracker neither in taste nor texture. No one calls it a "cracker" but fundamentalists or atheists who don't know anything about the Eucharist. It would be like a Catholic referring to evolution as "King Kong theory of creation" (yes, Bill Donohue is wrong on that one). I accept the science of evolution fully and defend it vigorously at Catholic Answers forums. Now that we got that settled....
Since I rarely post here (maybe once a year, but I try to read often), I'll answer a few objections as this thread is up my alley. I apologize for missing a few of P.Z.'s death threats. I didn't read all the Emails posted, I'm surprised P.Z. even has the time to read through all that!
On the "celiac disease" objection, Karl Keating (president of Catholic Answers) actually didn't answer it in that E-letter post that was linked above. He only dealt with the official Catholic teaching that rice cannot be substituted for bread. His suggestion was that person who is allergic to gluten could take the consecrated wine instead (which is also "the whole body and blood of Jesus" according to Catholic teaching).
The actual objection to transubstantiation I brought up was this: "why does someone with celiac disease (allergy to the gluten in bread) become effected by a consecrated host since the bread in the host was (supposedly) transubstantiated (or changed) into the body and blood of Jesus?"
Of course both baptists and atheists would agree, there is no change, and that's their answer. The Catholic answer (I would have to look this up more fully) would probably have to do with the "substance" being changed, but the appearances or "accidents" still effecting the person. Under a microscope, a consecrated host would look the same as a "regular" (unconsecrated) host. The sacrament is a "mystery" (which is where the word sacrament comes from, sacramentum in Latin, and mysterion in Greek) just as the Incarnation (John 1:1,14), since Jesus did not "look" like God when he walked the earth. He did perform "miracles" which were outward signs of his divinity, and similarly there are such things as "Eucharistic miracles" which you can look up online (yes they have been critiqued by skeptic Joe Nickell).
As for transubstantiation supposedly not being believed or developed in the Church until the 8th or 9th century AD, that is historically incorrect. It is true the term itself doesn't show up until the 11th and 12th century debates on the Eucharist, with the term officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD. The Radbertus-Ratramnus "debate" in the 9th century did not concern "transubstantiation." The Church believed the doctrine well before that, although the terminology to explain the doctrine was not fully worked out.
My source here is Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (TAN Books, 1974), and Anglo-Catholic scholar Darwell Stone's A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (a two-volume set from 1909), older but probably the best there is on the history and development of the doctrine.
Berengarius (or Berengar) of Tours was the first one (c. 1050 AD) to suggest the Eucharist was purely "symbolic." All the Church Fathers hundreds of years before him took Jesus' words "This is My Body" literally and used terms very close to "transubstantiation" in Latin and Greek. See especially the western/Latin Father St. Ambrose, and such eastern/Greek Fathers as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene. They used various terms for "change" or "transform" of the Eucharist elements into the "body and blood of Christ" that closely approximates "transubstantiation" (Latin for "change of substance"). The Orthodox as well who split from Catholics in the 11th century, used the same term in Greek for "change of substance" (metousiosis). So they basically believe the same thing.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num31.htm
St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 AD), who some try to argue held a purely "symbolic" view (he did use "symbol" and "figure" terms as did others), also said:
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (St. Augustine, Psalms 33:1:10)
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (St. Augustine, Psalms 98:9)
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num30.htm
So it is wrong to suggest the teaching was "invented" by the Church in the 8th or 9th century. It is the teaching of Jesus, and there was development in the terminology and in the practice, but both the "Real Presence" and "sacrifice of the Mass" (Christ's sacrifice is "made present" during Mass) is there in the Bible and all the major Fathers east and west.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
I also recommend all the debates on my page here
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
Like I said, I don't think P.Z. has a problem with folks like me (or Kenneth R. Miller) who defend the science of evolution. We are in the same boat together against the 50% of Americans who despise evolution and science since they think it threatens their faith.
Excellent new book which I think P.Z. mentioned -- Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Giberson. Although "believe" I wouldn't use, I use "accept" since one accepts the data, evidence and arguments, one doesn't have to have "faith" to do that. And there is such a thing as "Reasonable Faith" (see William Lane Craig's updated 2008 book of that title, and the current July 2008 cover of "Christianity Today" magazine).
That's it I'm done.
Phil P
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 12, 2008 12:33 AM
Moses (#408):
Great bolshy yarblockos, man. You make me want to pray for you.
Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 12:34 AM
Fr.[?] J, #535
Or I can read what you've written.
It wasn't any of us who claimed that the death threats against PZ were written by atheists. In fact, it was you. It wasn't even hyperbolic, like the supposed comment about wars. It was a flat out lie, and quite transparent. Incidentally, while not all wars are caused by religion, some are and were. It's estimated that about 1/3 of the population of modern Germany and Czech Republic died during the Thirty Years War, which had religion, particularly the principle of cuius regio, eius religio, as a cause.
Did mean ol' JoJo insult lil' ickums? Poor fluffy. Don't you worry your pointy little head about that bully. I'll take him out back and beat the shit out of him.
That is an opinion which others may not hold. I, for one, think it's a piece of self-delusion on your part. As I said previously, you come across as a pompous, patronizing prig. In fact, you do so in the above quote. Furthermore, you insinuated that some of us had manufactured the death threat emails. As I said before, that means you call us, collectively, liars. And you honestly don't understand why we might take umbrage at this claim? You are self-deluding.
You hold a belief that The Big Guy In The Sky magically transforms crackers into himself and you don't think this is stupid? I've heard you god-bothers come up with some real wacko ideas, but the magic cracker is one of the stupidest.
In all honesty, I not only don't respect your ideas, I don't respect you. You've given me no reason to respect you, quite apart from any religious or other beliefs. You are a pompous, patronizing prig.
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bestow His noodly goodness upon you.
Posted by: XeshaBlu | July 12, 2008 12:34 AM
Yet another example of the perverted understanding the followers of the Abrahamic faith's have of the relationship between symbol and reality.
Not only is this no different than the Islamic world taking umbrage over some squiggly lines of ink on a page, it is functionally unchanged from imbuing a painting of a bison on a cave wall with magical properties.
Sad to see that religiot thinking has evolved so little. Or maybe that's the point?
Posted by: IBY | July 12, 2008 12:35 AM
@promo
No thanks, but I am sure you could get one. Anything you write is unintelligible to a person with average or higher IQ.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 12, 2008 12:35 AM
Paul (#593):
So. . . burning 3,000 consecrated communion wafers would be a greater crime against humanity than 9/11?
Perspective: you're doing it wrong!
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 12:35 AM
craig:
oops, sorry. You're right. It's only people who use it as an insult who tend to be pathetic.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 12:36 AM
#593
"Mr. Myers has the absolute right to his free speech. HOWEVER, it is an extreme act of aggression to make threats against the Holy Eucharist that we Catholics know to be the Body of Christ."
Too late, bro. The gauntlet's been thrown. Any of your holy crackers we get our godless hands on, we're gonna desecrate the living shit out of. If God wants to stop us, he can form himself Voltron-style out of cracker bits and politely ask us to stop. That might give us pause. You, on the other hand... Not so persuasive. You're just the guy who idolizes a cracker, so your opinion is kind of loony tunes.
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 12:36 AM
Celtic_Evolution,
Except for the fact that hundreds of millions were killed in the atheist actions vs the 100,000 killed in your example.
Numbers matter -- utilitarian atheism (communism etc.) allows for unrestricted killing in the name of utopia.
Christian "utopia" is not found on this earth and it will never be attempted.
Adios for now.
(I bet you hate Spanish as Adios means "to God") Atheists are such a bore!
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 12:37 AM
To do otherwise is good for no one.
I disagree. I think that would really brighten my day up.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:37 AM
Are you dense?
Threatening a cracker? really. Do you think Jesus or God is pissed about a cracker? Shouldn't you be focused on feeding the poor and other teachings in that book of yours? I bet the Jesus I hear about (sometimes) would be WAY more concerned about that.
Um... well. That's where we are. PZ in what was probably jest threatened a cracker. You Catholics have threatened a life and a career among other things.
Perspective please!
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 12:37 AM
Paul @ #593
"Mr. Myers has the absolute right to his free speech. HOWEVER, it is an extreme act of aggression to make threats against the Holy Eucharist that we Catholics know to be the Body of Christ."
Like I said before, is the only thing separating what stupid idea it is possible to make fun of the number of followers to that idea?
No one is suggesting we murder Italians for their love of spaghetti, in the name of FSM. Why is that, you think?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:38 AM
Paul, with all due respect, if you think that's an extreme act of aggression, you've lost all perspective.
Its a cracker. You don't "know" it to be the body of anyone. You just think you do. That's your problem and none of our concern.
An act against a cracker is at most an act against a cracker - and other people's misguided ideas. That is NOT extreme. Acts against ideas are routine, commonplace, allowable and desirable.
Paul, grab hold of reality and find a little bit of concern for REAL acts of aggression, such as the death threats against the college student, and the attempts to ruin his education, and the attempts to get PZ Myers fired (futile though they will be)
Or the many far worse acts of aggression, some (but not all) made in the name of religion.
It's a cracker. It's just a fucking cracker.
Posted by: IBY | July 12, 2008 12:39 AM
Uhhmm Promo, utopia never mattered to the people on top of the communist government. I want to emphasize this once again, P-O-W-E-R. Do you get it? I guess not.
Posted by: buckyball | July 12, 2008 12:39 AM
Wow.
Could somebody who is Catholic explain why, in the above e-mails:
156 times the word "Catholic" is used
vs.
55 times the word "God" is used
34 times the word "Jesus" is used
20 times the word "Christian" is used
Yet not one instance of the word "Scripture" or "Bible".
Hmmm.
Anyway, while we're on the topic, I'm still waiting for someone to explain this one to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_adoration
Posted by: Dan | July 12, 2008 12:40 AM
Craig -
Shit, I forgot about the Hitler Youth thing.
Gawd, you'd think that with 10 million (or whatever) priests they could come up with someone a little less odious to do the job...
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 12, 2008 12:41 AM
I call that totalitarian tyranny, not atheism.
And funny thing...I'm a big bad atheist, as are many of the others commenting here, and we oppose mass murder, dictatorship, pogroms, oppression, etc. It's very, very silly for you to come in here and tell us we're pinin' for an auto-da-fe and the execution of millions.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:42 AM
promo needs to go back to school to figure out what the driving force in Stalin and Mao's communism was.
1st hint. Not atheism.
2nd hint. Paranoia
3rd hint. What do unscrupulous people do with power?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 12:42 AM
Man, do I have complaints. Yesterday's thread: 1227 comments. I got close to 600 and had to give up. I enjoyed it all but really, where has the art of condensation gone? Only to Borden's?
A few pts, related to things I read. One anti-PZ poster wrote:
"OMFG!" I can only surmise that hers was a farting God as the standard translation would be blasphemous. It might also explain the foul weather hereabouts of late.
Andrew Sullivan: with his initial pro-war agenda and his much-publicized unsafe sex practices, purports to lecture others on his definition of bigotry. Nothing new there; it's the same old tory.
holding the wafer hostage: As I commented at the original catholic.org Donohue article, I remain unclear how the kid held the thing hostage. Was it kidnapped from a chalice? Or did the priest hand it to him. If the latter, does the gift become a kidnapee when one refuses to chew on the poor captive? Or did it become an offense only when he departed the chapel? Was he followed by a posse demanding the hostage's return? Were there ransom demands? If he had swallowed it and hung around the church till the poor bugger had been obliterated by digestive acids, eventually working its way to a spot adjoining the sphincter, would departure then be a hostage situation or is that considered a sacred spot for the Lord to take up lodging?
In that same comments section, a priest also commented:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=28553
and called for PZ's arrest. Considering my last point made, PZ, should the gendarmes come knocking, I urge you to put the cracker up your bum, disproving any claims of defilement.
Another article there is titled "Pope Prefers Communion on the Tongue". But it doesn't say if he prefers that on the first date or a later one.
Regarding the need for additional security in Minneapolis: Thomas Foley (R-Sans Atlas) can perform a ritual blessing and make St. Paul appear, which can shield the GOP faithful from the extreme danger of biological practices.
Finally, a letter to the offendee:
Dear Mr. Donohue;
At Morris, we have a chemistry professor demanding we learn the 'table of elements' but none of them include unleavened bread. In physics, the professor teaches us about the big bang which doesn't make conception sound so immaculate. Can you please redirect your effort to get these two professors fired instead of that biology guy? Hurry please before my finals are graded. Mr. Myers has assured me of a 2.0 but I need your divine intervention before the others desecrate that into a lower numeral...
And for my last act,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f72CTDe4-0
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 12:43 AM
this is the funniest shit that will probably happen all year to anyone. I'm calling it a top 5. You can't just make a play-by-play of this magnitude up out of thin air.
I reckon I'll be telling me grandkids about that one time when ol PZ called a cracker a cracker.
yarr...
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 12:43 AM
Why is it that you people never have the decency to learn the history that you use in your "arguments."
Posted by: Atheologian | July 12, 2008 12:43 AM
Here is the letter I sent to Mr. Bruininks in support of PZ Myers:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bruininks,
A university should be a place where ideas can be exchanged freely without fear of reprisal. Our constitution guarantees freedom of speech as our most basic right. Yet there our those in our society who would silence those with whom they do not agree. William Donohue and the Catholic League are a perfect example of these people. The Catholic League claims to be an anti-defamation organization, but Mr. Donohue has repeatedly used his position as its president to attack gays and progressives. Now he is using his position to attack Professor Myers.
What is Professor Myers' crime? He did not call for violence against anybody. He did use hate speech against anybody. So what did he do? He attacked an idea. The Catholic Church and its followers believe that a wafer can literally become the flesh of their god. Professor Myers is simply calling them on the absurdity of this claim and also reacting to the threats of violence against the young man who took the eucharist wafer in a previous incident. Mr. Donohue claims to have received hate mail over this incident, but has yet to produce any of it. Professor Myers, on the other hand, has posted some of the deranged hate mail that he has received to his blog. Hate mail that he has received from Catholics who have been directed to his site by the Catholic League and Mr. Donohue. Mr. Donohue wrote "if I get any death threats, it won't be hard to connect the dots". Considering that Professor Myers actually has received death threats, is it fair to say that we can also connect the dots?
A rational world view is essential to life in the 21st century. Medieval superstitions have no place in our modern society. Host desecration should not be a crime in 21st century America. Mr Bruininks, I urge you to support Professor Myers and stand with us on the side of rationality and the free exchange of ideas and against those who would silence us and return us to a darker age.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:45 AM
Oh well. That glass of Cabernet was pretty good. I guess I need to clean it off the monitor.
Posted by: Paul | July 12, 2008 12:47 AM
Craig
What is "reality" really? Does it only exist while YOU are alive on this earth? What will reality when the human race does not exist anymore? Will there be any reality then? My question is rhetorical. The reality then will be spiritual. It is time you expand your human closed mind and read up on the topic...consider the Bible as a starting point.
For you to have no respect for the Eucharist says that you have no understanding. Before you insult someone or something, consider learning about it first.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 12:48 AM
Craig
It's impossible to follow someone's logic in this particular type of forum. Here's where I'm coming from. PZ posted his cracker post asking people to bring him a consecrated communion wafer to desecrate on the internet.
While I'm sure some Catholics are up in arms just for the post, what they really are up in arms about is that PZ seems to be asking people to come into their church and screw with their mass.
Now PZ was interviewed by a Minnesota newspaper and backtracked a bit. He made it quite clear that his post was satire and that he wasn't actively advocating people go and defile the Catholic mass.
He's creating a false dichotomy on this forum by failing to connect the dots and openly saying that he's not advocating that people go in and screw with Catholics in their mass.
My honest belief is that he needs to clear the air, stop all this nonsense and make it clear on his blog that he was engaging in satire and not actively advocating people helping him desecrate the Catholic mass.
We can walk around kicking each other in our virtual nuts or we can try to be honest and just say plainly what we think.
My opinion is that PZ hasn't done that. It's his blog and he can clear the record or not. To the extent that he doesn't do that, I'm going to criticize him. You fail to understand that me saying what I think he should write is not the same as telling him he must write X. Criticizing him for not writing X is not the same as saying he must write X.
I'm not telling him what to write but I believe that to the extent that he's said things in different forums without putting all the pieces together he's being intellectually dishonest and should make a complete record on this blog.
It's his virtual world. He can clear the record or not. I have the right, subject to PZ's sole discretion to criticize him on his forum. If he feels that I'm too disruptive, he has the right to ban me from his blog. I mean no disrespect to PZ Myers. He's a good scientist and I'm thankful for the times that he bitch slaps creationists.
I really understand where he was coming from in that post. I just feel that he went over the top, needs to defuse an ugly controversy and put end the PZ Myers vs. the Catholic universe mess.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 12, 2008 12:49 AM
I'm still a fan of the idea that PZ "desecrate" the cracker by examining it under a microscope. "Hi, I'm PZ Myers, tenured professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris, and I've been receiving death threats for promising to do just what I'm about to do, right now. One of these crackers has been blessed by a priest, and one of them came straight from the box. I don't know which — they were prepared by my graduate students.
"Who are off praying with each other right now.
"Now, it's time to see if we can find a difference between real Jesus and the Placebo Christ."
At some point, one should work in a joke about what would happen if we took the idea that the essence of an object had nothing to do with any of its observable characteristics seriously. Apply cracker logic to anything else in life, and what do you get? Well, I suppose it's a way that a man can still be straight when he only has sex with other men. . . .
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:49 AM
Paul.
I want whatever you are smoking.
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 12:49 AM
"For you to have no respect for the Eucharist says that you have no understanding."
I'm not sure how that follows.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2008 12:50 AM
@ Promo
Step 1: Extract cranium from rectum.
Step 2: Pick up a history book.
Spet 3: Read it.
Step 4: Don't be stupid enough to blame state-sponsored killing on atheism... that little gem's been slapped down on this and a hundred other sources so many times I can't keep count.
Step 5: Don't be seriously stupid enough to ever, EVER think that christianity's death count plateaus at 100,000. I doubt even the Pope would argue that one.
Step 6: Until you get through the first 5 steps, stop talking over your head on subjects with people far more knowledgable than you... you will end up looking stupid and resorting to name calling and boorish schoolyard behavior.
Now go get some sleep, cupcake... it's way past your bedtime.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 12, 2008 12:50 AM
Maybe Promo would like to take this moment to recognize the systematic eradication of non-christians from Europe by murder, rape and conversion by the sword as ordered by various popes. I suppose christians and their popes weren't all that well tuned in with their loving gods morals yet.
Someone posted a nice bible verse here recently that was used a lot in that time I bet. Something about people not with god not being people anyway. Oh well, you know the bible, plenty of hateful stuff to pick from there.
You don't have to apologize for not knowing this stuff, we atheists are used to your level ignorance.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 12:51 AM
Paul,
1) State rethorical question
2) Answer rethorical question
3) Assert absolute truth in answer
4) Suggest people who don't follow this logic don't understand
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:53 AM
Paul, reality is what is, regardless of my existence or yours and regardless of how either of us feel about it. Regardless of the existence or lack of existence of the human race.
Our planet is a rather small one of several orbiting our star.
There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy. There are hundreds of billions of other galaxies, each with billions of stars and planets, in the universe.
Grow up, grow a set and scrape up the courage to discard the conceit that your are the center of the universe and that what you think and feel, and the span of your lifetime has any effect whatsoever upon the 99.99999999999xxx percent of the universe that isn't you.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 12:54 AM
Actually, many of the e-mail aren't that horrible. Some are just attempting to explain the emotional reaction some Catholics are having to the post.
The "your a liberal college prof living off my tax dollars" are just tiresome.
Taking aside the letters that cross the line, this is to be expected when you say provocative things. That's how it goes.
I read more into this and it is hilarious that all this started (according to the student) because people at the church physically assaulted him. (They didn't hit him in the face, but they wrestled with him.) He was raised Catholic and claims that he simply wanted to show his non-Catholic friend (who was curious about Catholicism) what the wafer looked like. He kept the wafer as a STANCE AGAINST PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.
wow.
At any rate, I don't really think that rampant acts of "sacrilege" are generally reasonable. I support Dr. Myer's right to say what he wants, but hope he doesn't follow through (and I doubt he has the intention to). I'm not sure how reasonable a "Eucharist Challenge" would be either.
At some point, doing things like this is just too cruel. Just think of someone who places THAT much emphasis on a "blessed" wafer - they are certainly not well.
Being naughty to the "Body of Christ" around Catholics is about as horrible as yelling "INCOMING!" around a group of vets and laughing at the people who duck under chairs.
It's making fun of the psychologically damaged.
Posted by: IBY | July 12, 2008 12:54 AM
@Paul
We learned about it, and it is not right to harass someone for it, cause then, wouldn't that make the person a hypocrite? Oh, and the answer to reality is yes, it still exists even if I don't exists, and thinking something doesn't make what you think of the physical world real. Dinosaurs have existed millions of years ago, and that doesn't make it unreal. As for what reality is, it is this world in which we live in, aren't you happy with just being alive? And how will dying make reality spiritual? oh and many atheists have read the bible.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 12, 2008 12:54 AM
Heaven forbid I suggest that it says we have too much understanding to grant a foolish ritual respect.
(If this message posts, then Heaven is doing a piss-poor job of forbidding.)
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 12:55 AM
Grow up, grow a set and scrape up the courage to discard the conceit that your are the center of the universe and that what you think and feel, and the span of your lifetime has any effect whatsoever upon the 99.99999999999xxx percent of the universe that isn't you.
Oh no, craig you big mean atheist. Now Paul's going to cry.
Posted by: IBY | July 12, 2008 12:56 AM
Correction, reality is the universe in which we live and if by chance, other universes exists, then they are real too.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 12:56 AM
Hey, all you dregs of the human race - PZ has to worry what God will do to him. A few years ago a couple thought it was funny to have sex at St. Patrick's Cathedral. The man was struck dead a few months later, not by a human, but by God. God doesn't take blasphemy and sacriledge lightly. To Him it's a serious matter.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 12:57 AM
Atheologian, beautiful.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 12, 2008 12:58 AM
Xeno @ #346
"I believe his joke was a take on "they need to get laid".
Back to comedy school for me!
Posted by: DB | July 12, 2008 12:58 AM
Someone had said "you catch more flies with honey" Somewhere in the comments. I can't remember, I stopped reading them about #200.
It's an interesting analogy really. My own experimentation of this old saying came up with a different result.
The experiment was simple, I placed two bowls outside my house on my deck out back. One was full of honey, the other was full of vinegar. Each day I would count the bugs that were found dead or alive in or on the bowl. Then I would clean the bowls out and try again.
Day One of the experiment I had 10 stuck in the honey. I had 27 floating around in the vinegar. Day two of the experiment I had 14 in the honey and 19 in the vinegar. Day 3 produced 21 in the honey and 32 in the vinegar. The saying wasn't adding up at this point. (I should note that these were the total of all bugs found and not just flies).
Then I tried a control experiment by just placing the honey outside by itself and not placing any vinegar with it. Then after 3 days I switched it and placed a new bowl of vinegar outside each day. The numbers still showed that the Vinegar caught more.
I should add that on day 2 of the control I had a chipmunk sitting on the bowl of honey, though that really doesn't count, it was rather cute.
I plan to try the test again some day with a cage to prevent wildlife from interfering with the experiment. As well as to count only flies and not all the types of bugs. But so far, it seems that being nice and sweet doesn't attract as much as being bitter.
Now that I've rambled on needlessly. I have to say those are pretty standard issues emails from fanatics. Then again, there were just too many for me to sit and read in one go. I'll have to come back and finish it some day.
Posted by: Cooper | July 12, 2008 12:59 AM
Uh, what's with the assumption that PZ was raised a Jew? That just comes totally out of nowhere. Totally baffling.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2008 12:59 AM
"Now, it's time to see if we can find a difference between real Jesus and the Placebo Christ."
Just examine the placebo cracker, then watch everybody get all hysterical, and then break the news to them that it was only the placebo all along.
Everybody looks like idiots, and PZ Myers gets spared eternal damnation too. Perfect!
Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 1:01 AM
I feel tempted to write some articles on the Thirty Years War or the Fourth Crusade (the one where the Crusaders sacked Christian Constantinople and never did fight the Muslims). Some of these people just don't know any history.
Incidently, it was the Catholic Venetians who got the Crusaders to attack Byzantium. The Venetians, who had a thriving trade with the Seljuk Sultanate, wanted to seriously damage their Byzantine merchant rivals.
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 1:02 AM
you know, Jenn, is that really the sort of thing you want to start bringing up? There's probably been sex in Catholic Churches before, but I doubt anyone thought it was funny. Last I heard God hadn't struck down any priests. Or are they immune?
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2008 1:03 AM
I did not think any of you would get what I am saying. All I ask is that you learn more about what you believe to be a hoax. You may find out that a Religion that has survived for over 2000 years may have some truth to it.
"Upon this rock you shall build my Chruch, Peter" Peter was the first Pope, desiganted by Jesus himself at that moment.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:03 AM
Yeah it sucked when Richard Dawkins and Chritopher Hitchens were stuck dea... oh never mind.
but its a good thing Jerry Falwell is still around.
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2008 1:04 AM
I did not think any of you would get what I am saying. All I ask is that you learn more about what you believe to be a hoax. You may find out that a Religion that has survived for over 2000 years may have some truth to it.
"Upon this rock you shall build my Chruch, Peter" Peter was the first Pope, designated by Jesus himself at that moment.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 12, 2008 1:05 AM
"I strongly urge you ... To do otherwise is good for no one."
Another threat from the pious. It is an exact copy of the bullshit "moderate" muslims were throwing around after their fundie cultmembers stabbed a man on the street for having an opinion.
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 1:05 AM
to Jenn @ #632
-how do you know god struck him down? and, assuming arguendo, it was for having sex in a cathedral, do you think it was probably because the intercourse was with a woman older than 18?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 1:05 AM
yes, yes, Ron I know exactly where you are coming from.
You are coming from the same exact place as EVERY other person on every other blog's comments threads who complains about what the blogger wrote, says what he thinks the blogger should write instead to get their approval, and then insists that they aren't telling that blogger what to say as they repeat their complaints over and over endlessly.
We GOT it a long time ago, Ron. You don't like what PZ said, you don't like the things he never said but which you repeatedly lied about him having said, and you don't want to tell him what to write, but you really think he should write "xxxx" and you're going to say so over and over and over again until he finally DOES say the things which in no way and under no circumstances are you trying to tell him he should write.
We got it the first several dozen times.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 1:05 AM
@JoJo #638
I think it is a given that Christian fundamentalists don't know anything outside the bible. Scratch that, often they don't know the bible all that well either.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 12, 2008 1:07 AM
@ Paul
I think what you fail to understand is that on the whole, in my experience, atheists know infinitely more about religion and the Bible than the vast majority of christians. It's much of the reason many of us, myself included, don't believe in that garbage anymore. Once you actually take the time to look into this stuff deeply, you get turned off pretty quickly, if you are a rationally thinking human being. Just look through the posts around here... we're a pretty knowledgable bunch.
So, thanks for the sermon... but no thanks.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:07 AM
Really paul? you think none of us have researched and read about it?
I think you need to read up on Shiva. I think if you did you would realize that you might be making big mistake. you know Hinduism has been around for 7000 years.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 1:08 AM
Paul #642
Some beliefs survive for their truth value, others for their memetic / psychological value even despite the truth.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 1:09 AM
Okay, wow, I can't get through all of the post or the comments. So I'm sorry if I'm repetitive.
I really thought better of catholicism. I had been focused on the evangelical fundie-ism in the last few years, since science education is so important to me, and catholics have been pretty hands off with evolution. Growing up as a catholic, I had few run-ins with such intolerance as I see here. I'm ashamed, and quite glad to have left that whole religion behind years ago.
Because of that background, I feel like I can begin to see past "IT'S JUST A CRACKER!" People really do seem to believe that is IS the body of their lord. (Personally, I was somewhere between it's *actually* god and it's just a symbol, since with all the BS I did believe, changine matter was not one of them.) But now if we look at that aspect, that it's not just a cracker to these people, that it IS their god, the case isn't much better. After all, can't an omniscient, omnipotent god fend for himself? Does the lord need this much protection and indignation? If anything, the perpetrator needs protection from being smited (smote?) by the lord of the cracker.
Just saying...
Posted by: Ignignockt | July 12, 2008 1:10 AM
"Hey, all you dregs of the human race - PZ has to worry what God will do to him. A few years ago a couple thought it was funny to have sex at St. Patrick's Cathedral. The man was struck dead a few months later, not by a human, but by God. God doesn't take blasphemy and sacriledge (sic) lightly. To Him it's a serious matter."
Jen, you believe God takes blasphemy and sacrilege seriously? Why? How could one possibly harm an omnipotent creator of a hundred quadrillion suns? You make Yahweh out to be some sort of mafia boss. Why would you worship such a creature?
(Besides, I can think of no more appropriate celebration of your deity than life-affirming intercourse in its presence!)
Posted by: Dave W. | July 12, 2008 1:10 AM
A Challenge to Catholics:
If you'll take the time and effort to write five paragraphs condemning all of your fellow Catholics who have sent death threats to student Cook and professor Myers, in no uncertain terms, for being decidedly unchristian, you will reclaim enough of the moral high ground to spend one paragraph expressing your thoughts on PZ Myers' texual insult to you, so long as that paragraph includes no mention of other religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations or other minority groups, nor any mention of PZ's alleged fate, further death threats, hate crimes or other insults. Crossing those lines would be an instant surrender of said moral high ground, and just cause for further ridicule.
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 1:11 AM
Paul,
seriously, do you really think everyone here has never studied the Bible? A lot of Atheists used to be religious. I sang in the Church Choir, went to church *every* sunday (more than any Catholic I ever met),went to Sunday School, was confirmed in 6th grade...
and then reached the age of cognizance. Believe it or not, some people find that studying the Bible (and its 3 versions of Genesis, and the Gospels that were left out, etc) makes them *question* their faith.
Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 1:11 AM
The sky is falling!
Just as an aside, I'd like to know why The Big Guy In The Sky didn't stop the Reformation. If Catholicism is The True Faith™, then you'd expect TBGITS to toss a few lightning bolts at Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, and John Knox. Maybe he wanted to rest his arm for bowling night.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 1:11 AM
btw - After reading Jenn's comment I want to say that I certainly hope that one day many of those that fear God are able to work through the indoctrination and terror of their religion.
All these e-mails talking about how "sad" PZ is and how they hope that PZ is one day "saved"...I know they are completely sincere.
I used to be a very devote Christian and I was able to escape. I don't hate Christians or make fun of them - but I do see the majority as Christians as victims.
It's horrible to me that your church as placed so much fear in you, and filled your head with so many lies, that a mere THREAT of abusing a blessed wafer is emotionally and psychologically on par with real human tragedy.
If you even feel like leaving the church and shedding the FEAR of God and the FEAR of Satan and the FEAR of Hell - it isn't easy, but there is support for you. Beyond the name-calling and arrogance; there are compassionate people that have been in your position and have had the courage to get out from under the suffocating grip of religion and are willing to help.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:12 AM
Well, you certainly addressed the sex part of the comment without acknowledging "you dregs of the human race" part. Of course being at the bottom of the heap, your minds cannot go above filth to a higher level.
I didn't know that all the people one of you so smugly named ever had sex in a Cathedral. Of course God struck him dead. He is the Author of life.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 1:12 AM
DingoDave:
You missed a post earlier in the thread where someone observed that "I'll pray for you" in those letters meant about the same thing as "fuck you". For a brief, merry time "pray" meant "fuck" in this thread.
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2008 1:12 AM
Hi Big Dumb Chimp,
The Catholic Church was around for only 2000 years - that is the New Testament. Prior to that was the Old Testament which is really Judiaism that pre-dates Hiduisim.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2008 1:13 AM
I did not think any of you would get what I am saying. All I ask is that you learn more about what you believe to be a hoax. You may find out that a Religion that has survived for over 2000 years may have some truth to it.
"Upon this rock you shall build my Chruch, Peter" Peter was the first Pope, desiganted by Jesus himself at that moment.
That doesn't sound like somebody designating somebody to be a Pope. Of course it has "some truth" to it when you can make the "truth" be whatever you want it to be.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 12, 2008 1:13 AM
by: EyeNoU @ #401
"When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom,"Let It Be".......I'll get my coat."
I see we have another fan of 'The Fast Show' among us. Same here. But..."you aint seen me...roight?"
Posted by: Robert Maynard | July 12, 2008 1:13 AM
Just registering my support for Professor Myers. :)
It's worrying how the Catholics quoted here are upset that when Islam is insulted, shit gets real, and people quite often die, but Catholicism is open game for big meanies. This idea that Myers is a coward for attacking Catholicism instead of Islam is sick. It shouldn't take courage to make fun of any ideology.
Do they really wish they still had the insulating protection of vicious mob violence as a defense against detractors? They sure used to.
Having an ideology it is DANGEROUS to make fun of isn't something to aspire to.
Gangsters, all of them - even the grannies.
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:14 AM
snicker
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 1:15 AM
I've answered some of the objections in this thread to the Eucharist, but P.Z. won't post them because my answers are too detailed, too well researched, and too long. I didn't copy/paste, it was from me. Took about an hour.
Take any of your best objections to the Eucharist and transubstantiation or any Catholic teaching to the Catholic Answers forums. We deal with this stuff all the time. Warning: the profanity will get you banned over there, so you don't want to come in guns blazing with F--- bombs.
http://forums.catholic.com
Post in Apologetics forum and let me know you're from P.Z.'s blog.
Phil P
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 1:15 AM
"Last I heard God hadn't struck down any priests. Or are they immune?"
Mandrake, weren't you paying attention? Pope Ratzi says its OK for the priests to screw... well, as long as they screw kids.
Interesting anecdote... as a kid I knew several priests, and some nuns. Not Catholic though... I think Russian Orthodox? Anyway, everyone knew which nuns were which priests "girlfriends," etc... and of course there were the priests who liked feeling up my pre-pubescent sister and hitting on my mom.
And the one who got a little too touchy feely with me.
On the plus side, they gave me my first beer - when I was 7.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 1:16 AM
Jenn #656
You know, just when I thought you people couldn't get any dumber. Here you come to prove me wrong. All I can say is, I will pray for you all night long.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:16 AM
Jenn: A few years ago a couple thought it was funny to have sex at St. Patrick's Cathedral. The man was struck dead a few months later, not by a human, but by God.
I had sex in a church when I was 17. I'm 55 now. God clearly approved of my sex. Maybe that guy just wasn't doing it in a way that pleased the Lord.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 1:17 AM
"You may find out that a Religion that has survived for over 2000 years may have some truth to it."
Which one?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:17 AM
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 1:17 AM
jenn,
why don'y you write your comments on a piece of paper and fold it up. then tuck it under your pillow and fall asleep on it. and then when you wake up, realize how stupid it sounds.
But seriously, if god is the 'author of life'(tm), then how do you account for the thousands of incidences of genetic diseases? is that the work he produces that is rushed to the printers without the a spellcheck?
Posted by: BMurray | July 12, 2008 1:17 AM
I had sex in a cathedral once. That was 22 years ago and all is well. Of course, there are a lot of people with my name, so maybe God couldn't be bothered to make sure he lightning-bolted the right one.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 1:18 AM
"You may find out that a Religion that has survived for over 2000 years may have some truth to it."
Yes, Taoism, Zarathustaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism.. surely, they must all be true. And since age is apparently a factor, the oldest one of them is the truest?
Help me out here, man.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 1:19 AM
OH! I have a confession to make! Wow I almost forgot about this....
I was recently out as an atheist when this happened. And my grandmother who is all devout-Catholic and such in front of people in the community but a completely heinous, two-faced, lying, cheating, nasty woman to her family, had particularly annoyed me one day. So in my somewhat immature anger, I dumped out her special little bottle of holy water and replaced it with tap water when she wasn't around. I don't even know why. Maybe it was part rebellion and anger against my former religion in addition to the anger of the latest strife she was causing in my family and a small bit of hope that she would later claim that it "helped" her and I would know that my little experiment proved that it was in her head. But dammit it felt good.
Alright, bring on the damning...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:20 AM
god damn it. Must preview especially when drinking bourbon.
Blockquote failure
Posted by: baryogenesis | July 12, 2008 1:20 AM
Years ago when my daughter was staying with her catholic cousin, she went to mass just to be polite. When she received the host, she put it in her pocket. She was a teenager and told me she thought it was gross. She later chucked it in the waste basket in her cousin's room (where she was sleeping) and her cousin completely freaked upon discovering it. The contrast of emotions was a learning experience for me (having "lapsed" decades previously). But I wouldn't describe the host as a cracker because if I remember, it "melts in your mouth, not in your hand".
Posted by: mandrake | July 12, 2008 1:20 AM
Damn you, BDC, you realize that the first thing I thought when I read that was "Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens had sex in St. Paul's Cathedral?!" Honestly, I could have lived without *that* image...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:23 AM
hehe. yeah. As the night goes on and the bourbon flows... the typos increase.
Plus, Eddie Murphy is on Comedy Central.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 1:23 AM
/me boggles... Did I just read that?
Posted by: gbusch | July 12, 2008 1:25 AM
I see a artistic theme forming in my minds eye for any and all illicit consecrated hosts that arrive by mail. If desecration is in order then perhaps an educational desecration should be the object of focus. If each eucharist is desecrated in a manner befitting a great evil wrought by the catholic faith (in the name of their god or bible) then perhaps each video will forcibly humble the faithful as to the real history that binds the aggregate of their faith. Constructive atonement for sins long lost in the pages of history.
Perhaps others can contribute worthy suggestions?
Reserve one for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_Massacre
method of desecration: K-tel dice-o-matic
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 1:25 AM
Aw, frak. #666 and #670, your confessions totally beat mine.
Think I can get my Jewish-atheist bf to desecrate a church with me?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:26 AM
the bourbon flows
From the 'oles in your palms and shins, I bet.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:29 AM
Still can't admit that you're the dregs of humanity? Too low and common to be reasonable thinking men capable of rational thought.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 1:31 AM
Jenn. I'm not a man. I gave birth, so I'm pretty sure of that.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 1:31 AM
I am a "dreg of humanity".
Now what?
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 1:31 AM
Craig
I frankly don't give a shit whether PZ Myers ever clears the record on his blog. It's a sad state of affairs that he's so full of himself to only say "it was satire" on a paper that gets distributed in his local community but won't say the same thing on this blog. PZ, are you afraid of losing your status as a lion of the atheist community?
It's also pretty damn pathetic to stir up a bunch of shit and then asks people to get your back. If he needs you bunch of mindless sycophants to write letters in support of him then that's frankly pathetic.
You can defend him all you want. Like I've said before what he said was BS and he need to clear the air.
PZ - be a man. Stand on your own two feet or say clearly what you mean. If you stand for logic, reason and intellectual honestly then why don't you show it.
You can be an attention whore to your sympathetic audience or you can be intellectually honest. If you want to talk trash then you better be prepared to get trash back.
Which will it be PZ?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:31 AM
Nicole @ #679: if he's too thunderbolt-adverse, remind him there's heretics afoot who'd gladly challenge the meteorology for a star like you.
;-)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:31 AM
Ok jenn, I'll play. Will you? How are we the dregs of society? Please in detail, tell us. What puts you above us? Are you superior to us?
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 1:32 AM
could you define 'dregs of humanity'? i'm not sure if we fit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:33 AM
society meant to be humanity.
Still, jenn answer my questions
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:33 AM
Yeah, pcarini. He gives life and He TAKES it away also. You came from Him, and at death, you go back to Him.
Posted by: DingoDave | July 12, 2008 1:33 AM
Ref. buckyball @ #609
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_adoration
"Eucharistic adoration is a practice in the Roman Catholic and in Anglican Churches, in which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed to and adored by the faithful."
Ref e-mail. - "Please do NOT desecrate the Eucharist in any way. Please, I beg you to NOT damage what is So PRECIOUS to me."
And Catholics have the nerve to claim that they don't practice idolatry???
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2008 1:33 AM
Wow, this is my first time to this board. It really has become apparent that liberalism truly is a mental disorder. It seems most of you cannot hold a conversation without the use of bad language and espousing venom meant to hurt others. It is also apparent that most of you maintain a child like education of history. I suggest educating yourself by reading and personal research, instead of relying on the government and bad prefessors like Myers.
In the words of John McCain, that was just some "straight talk" for your benefit...take it or leave it.
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 1:33 AM
"Uhhmm Promo, utopia never mattered to the people on top of the communist government."
IBCY, you are an idiot -- the workers utopia and "freedom" for all was the foundation of all communist theory.
As for PZ's little remark, Marx also was looking to oppose the oppression of his day and ended up creating the worst imaginable situation in history.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Are all atheists as myopic as you PZ Myers?
Posted by: Dutch Delight | July 12, 2008 1:34 AM
P.Z. won't post them because my answers are too detailed, too well researched, and too long.
Well, thats a tad presumptuous to sandwich "well researched" in there as a reason for PZ not posting them.
The short answer to the claim you are making is probably that Randi will offer you a million dollars if it's really that spectacular. You get to formulate your claim yourself and you are expected to present a protocol to test that claim that will remove all doubt about it.
I'm not 100% sure Randi is all that happy to do sectarian religious claims of this nature, but then supernatural claims are supernatural claims.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 1:34 AM
I thought you would love that. Wait, are you coming on to us?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 1:35 AM
Ron @ #684
I could object to much more in your post, but it's not really worth it.
"If you want to talk trash then you better be prepared to get trash back."
Looking around these threads (and the one the good catholic posted) you fail to see that very landfill?
Posted by: ngong | July 12, 2008 1:35 AM
I did not think any of you would get what I am saying. All I ask is that you learn more about what you believe to be a hoax. You may find out that a Religion that has survived for over 2000 years may have some truth to it.
Pub-medding "transubstantiation" doesn't generate even the vaguest evidence that the notion has any truth to it.
You will, however, find some interesting historical
background on the belief. Apparently, there was serious debate in the 9th Century as to whether transubstantiation is merely symbolic or not. The prime proponent of that view, of course, was murdered by his own monks. Another popular view was that the complete loaf of bread contained the whole of Jesus' body, so the particular piece you get might be his eye or nose or big toe.
It seems like everytime I make the effort to learn about this 2,000 year old religion, the murkier it becomes. Just an accumulation of ideas that have, via survival of the fittest (literally!), managed to hang on for a bit longer than some others.
Posted by: Jason | July 12, 2008 1:35 AM
Yeah, I agree with the other people who mentioned it: #87 is priceless.
Posted by: karen marie | July 12, 2008 1:36 AM
apparently the writers of many of the letters pz myers posts above never bothered to look into the story which provoked his remarks.
if they had, i think the discussion would necessarily include such topics as the appropriateness of physical assault upon congregants by church leaders in any location but most especially inside a church, the appropriateness of circulating incomplete or misleading stories in order to assassinate the character and credibility of the victim of such an assault or perhaps even a discussion of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of and reasons why catholics feel frightened and threatened in regard to their wafer.
but no, none of them apparently bothered to do what was actually very simple -- even i was able to do it -- track down details, including statements issued contemporaneously by various parties directly involved, and compare those to the wild claims being made about the seminal event. bingo, i'm no longer suffering from false and/or mis-impressions. although now instead of feeling disgusted by the obvious -- people who direct death threats at a kid who, theoretically, "pulled a prank," "behaved disrespectfully toward a common, replaceable object which, regardless of it's extraordinaily nominal financial value, is nonethelss an important symbol to members of the catholic faith," i am feeling something more akin to loathing toward an expanded group.
my sense of loathing is now extended additionally to those directly responsible for orchestrating a faux scandal for the sole purpose of covering up and/or excusing the remarkably poor self control of a "church leader" who committed an assault on an individual attending a church service in order to avoid responsibility.
these people continue to assassinate mr. cook's character and credibility with demonstrably false yet unwithdrawn claims that he is a thief, a liar, a desecrater of sacred objects and a hostage taker. not content with that, they are additionally attempting to disrupt his life further by demanding he be expelled from school, making him defend himself against their libelous and false accusations.
as a result of this outrage, mr. cook has become the center of a firestorm not of his creation but of theirs, including threats against his personal health and well-being.
but is that enough for this dangerously irresponsible group? noooo.
just when you think they can't make your head explode yet again, they have the temerity to get hysterical vapors when pz myers writes a snarky post about people who are so astonishingly stupid or willfully malicious as to deliberately mislead and provoke others into believing that mr. cook had misappropriated a wafer, a thin cracker, a bit of baked flour and water and then declared this made-up act "a hate crime" -- nay, more than a hate crime -- this was the worst possible thing you could do to a catholic, worse even than killing them.
"holy crap! what say you? you are advocating the murder of any person 'caught' violating wafer etiquette? are you kidding me? are you insane?"
personally, i think pz myers' response was appropriate and rational, if you believe that life is a precious thing and not something which should be forfeit over a difference of opinion with regard to disposal of baked goods.
once you have the facts to replace the fictional "some guy stole a communion wafer and was holding it hostage and some smarty pants college professor who's an atheist is promising more wafer theft and desecration," the only reasonable response becomes "oh, crap, they assaulted the guy? inside the church? and then they lied and accused him of stealing a wafer and holding it ransom because he doesn't like the school fees policy? and they did that after they learned he had filed a complaint with the school about having been assaulted inside the church, by a church leader? are you kidding? how much do you think they'll pay to settle with him? will bill donahue and the catholic league have to kick in some cash given his/their significant participation in smearing mr. cook's name as a desecrater, a hostage taker and a disrupter of church services? man, that's going to be one big settlement!"
pz myers' part in all this? he attempted to bring people's attention to the fact that self-identifying catholic leaders are advocating murder of perceived violaters of their idiosyncratic religious beliefs revolving around the handling of tiny, unseasoned, cheese-less baked goods.
if you search out and read the various "news" reports (primarily found at websites of various fox news affiliates and at least one florida abc affiliate) you will discover that mr. cook is directly quoted fairly extensively, explained himself clearly and comes across as an intelligent and thoughtful person, quite the opposite of the vicious caricature church officials, bill donahue and the catholic league and their supporters would have you believe.
Posted by: DB | July 12, 2008 1:36 AM
Isn't all of humanity considered 'the dregs of humanity' these days by someone? Even for minor infractions that only affect a personal viewpoint, that which in large has no effect on anything.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:37 AM
dregs of humanity
I've been called worse by people who actually had a point and a head it was sitting on.
Posted by: ThatGirl | July 12, 2008 1:37 AM
@681, Jenn
*puts on thick NY accent from childhood*
Alright sweetheart, seriously? Accusing those who champion skepticism and rational thought as being incapable of reasonable thinking? Insinuating that bronze age myths do consist of rational thought? You may be the one with problems of rational thought, believing in fairy tales, myths, and unverifiable stories, selecting the "truths" that you want to hear.
Dregs? Honey, dregs? You haven't met the dregs. Dregs of humanity are those that revel in the misfortunes of others... oh wait, sounds a bit like you.
*losing the accent*
Ugh, letting this shit get to me can't be good.
Posted by: Promo | July 12, 2008 1:38 AM
"PZ - be a man. Stand on your own two feet or say clearly what you mean. If you stand for logic, reason and intellectual honestly then why don't you show it."
----------------------------------------------------
Right on!
PZ is a Pussy and a hack.......he only wants to enter the "bay boy" atheist club with the stunt.
Feeling left out, PZ? Do you cry yourself to sleep over regarding your continued anonymity?
Pathetic!
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 12, 2008 1:38 AM
This is disturbing:
These people are sick. How can anyone in their right mind defend or even respect a religion with parishioners such as these. I'd be afraid to go to church with these mad fucks running around in the general population.
For what it's worth, PZ, I'm sorry you have to go through this with these lunatics. I hope you are safe.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 1:39 AM
to Paul @ 691, I have left your advice since it is worthless.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 1:39 AM
ron -
I've only been commenting on this blog for a short time, but I would put money on the fact that most of his readers (and even those new to his blog like myself) realized it was satire on the get-go.
It read to me as: "Pick on someone your own size!"
It also played out beautify as a great number of people explained just how important a blessed wafer was to them personally - pleading for the wafer's safety - etc. I just don't know if ANYONE (through his words) came to the realization of how absurd and repugnant it is to emotionally invest in an object to this extreme.
Pity that.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:39 AM
You have to understand the word "dregs" first. Sediment, grounds, corrupt matter, etc. You get the idea. And humanity means just that and not "society" because there are some humans that do not live in a so called society but possibly in jungles, but are better people than what is witnessed in these comments. Can you understand that so far? Are your minds able to rise above your ignorance yet?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:40 AM
In the words of John McCain
Christ, how many dead deities can one person worship?
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 1:41 AM
ron:
he first has to lose his life before he can 'get it back'.
you know why there is a request for writing the president of the unniversity? It's because ego-deprived ninnies like yourself, Donahue, Jenn, and the lot, are acting just like fundamnentalist muslims.
Grow some balls, man-up, and stop getting a boner every time someone doesn't grovel at the religion chosen by your parents.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:42 AM
No shit. Bill, whoever you are. I have a man crush on you.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 1:42 AM
LOL, thanks Kevin.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 1:42 AM
Jenn @ #689
Accepting, for the moment, that God gave me life and will take it away, how am I to know which of the many gods for whom this claim is made is actually responsible?
What, so he is now the Earth? Are you sure you're not arguing somewhat for a pantheistic belief? Isn't that heresy in your church?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 1:43 AM
"It is also apparent that most of you maintain a child like education of history. I suggest educating yourself by reading and personal research"
This from the guy who suggested catholicism (or possibly christianity) was truthful because it had lasted over 2000 years, and then failed to comment on the wide variety of other religions that passed that same bar.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 1:43 AM
@Jenn #706
I think you just confused yourself. What was the point you were trying to make?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 1:44 AM
I believe that, Catherine, and when I was a Catholic I fantasized about the similar opportunities to profess my faith in the face of death (hey, young boys think about stuff like that). Faith in God, and faith in a little bit of bread are not on par.
I doubt that realistically, the woman would have agonized if someone held a gun to her kid's head and a piece of the host over a toilet and asked her to choose which to save.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:44 AM
Promo, seriously. bed time.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 1:46 AM
Jenn @ #706
"You have to understand the word "dregs" first. Sediment, grounds, corrupt matter, etc. You get the idea."
Oh, you mean dirt? Like what god made Adam out of?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 1:46 AM
"I frankly don't give a shit whether PZ Myers ever clears the record on his blog.
"Like I've said before what he said was BS and he need to clear the air."
"PZ - be a man. Stand on your own two feet or say clearly what you mean."
"Which will it be PZ?"
yeah, Rob, you'd never deem to tell PZ what to say. You'd never tell a blogger what to write.
Jesus, Rob, you don't even have the self-awareness not to contradict your main argument in a single post.
You repeatedly demand PZ say what you want him to say, the way you want him to say it.
You repeatedly lie about what he said. You repeatedly lie about your own demands.
You repeatedly criticize other commenters for the content of their comments and the way they express themselves, but when anyone else criticizes your comments, or points out your LIES, you either continue to spread the lies or tell people if they don't like your comments, then don't read them. A demand you don't follow yourself when it comes to others or PZ.
The entire substance of your argument is that YOU will criticize what PZ and others say and nobody can criticize what you say, and you're going to scream and cry and hold your breath until they do.
You're a pathetic little baby, Rob. A liar, a hypocrite, and a pathetic little baby. Grow the fuck up you little worm.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 1:48 AM
Jen @706 for the "Epic Fail" award.
Demonstrate in some reasonable fashion that the group of normal commenters here is ignorant. Ignorant of what, pray tell?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:48 AM
Jenn. What jungles?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 1:48 AM
Are your minds able to rise above your ignorance yet?
Sure. You have nothing logical to say and are resorting to middle school flame wars. Easy enough. And your opinion of us ultimately matters not because it's certifiably wrong.
Why just yesterday, I was the King of Prussia and you were a mere urn with a chip on its shoulder.
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2008 1:49 AM
Xeno - I addressed your question - see #658
Posted by: AdamK | July 12, 2008 1:49 AM
"If I electrolyse it, do I end up with holy hydrogen and holy oxygen?"
Don't be ridiculous! You get two hos of hydrogen and one ly of oxygen!
Posted by: Jason | July 12, 2008 1:50 AM
In the year 2274:
Teacher: "Alright, what was the cause of the first world war?"
Student: "The assassination of Ferdinand of Austria"
Teacher: "Good, and what caused the second world war?"
Student: "Germany invading Poland."
Teacher: "Very good. And what was the cause of World War Three?"
Student: "A liberal professor insulting a baked good."
Posted by: DingoDave | July 12, 2008 1:51 AM
ref. Blake Stacey @ #620
"I'm still a fan of the idea that PZ "desecrate" the cracker by examining it under a microscope."
Perhaps he could dissect one using a dissection microscope. He could then run some standard tests using the chopped up pieces, to test whether there were any traces of human material present in them. This would be an appropriate method for a biologist to use for desecrating a cracker, and he'd be furthering scientific research at the same time.
Blake, you're a genius.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 1:52 AM
@ Jason #723
Finally on this thread, something prophetic!!
Posted by: ngong | July 12, 2008 1:53 AM
PZ is playing with fire, apparently. Giordano Bruno was burnt at stake, with one of the reasons being his incorrect views on transubstantiation.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 1:54 AM
Brownian: "I believe that, Catherine, and when I was a Catholic I fantasized about the similar opportunities to profess my faith in the face of death (hey, young boys think about stuff like that)."
Not just the boys, sadly. I, too, thought about that as a young Catholic girl, and hoped that my faith would hold up like that of the martyrs. These days, I value my life, and the lives of those around me, a bit more highly.
Posted by: Mick | July 12, 2008 1:55 AM
I love how few of them can tell the differenc between a blog and a classroom.
Posted by: aarrgghh | July 12, 2008 1:55 AM
jérôme @ 91:
well, let's just say he makes more sense than his fellow pitchfork-and-torch-bearers. but even that one doesn't quite pass muster. can't fault him for trying, though.
no, a more fitting analogy would have pz demanding universal reverence for not just his own pet rock, but universal reverence for all pet rocks everywhere, and every pet rock ever made and ever to be made!
and of course, we couldn't call pz an imbecile because that would be hateful and blasphemous!
but what other possible response is there? to quote jefferson:
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 12, 2008 1:57 AM
The only thing I understand in this disjointed collection of words is that you must really be a very difficult person to talk to. After all, you seem to have a bit of a problem staying on your message.
Ritalin might help you, Jenn. Seriously. Whatever you were trying to say there just flew right off the rails before turning into a flaming wreck somewhere in the center of Sillytown.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 1:59 AM
Paul @ #721 (and #658)
"The Catholic Church was around for only 2000 years - that is the New Testament. Prior to that was the Old Testament which is really Judiaism that pre-dates Hiduisim."
According to Cambridge History of Religion we have Zarathustraism, Meditirranean religions AND Indian religions predating Judaism.
Is your hypothesis still that "oldest wins"?
Posted by: Protobiochemist | July 12, 2008 2:00 AM
well, since everyone else and their brother are commenting on these threads.....out of the lurking to attempt 'humour'.
@617:
"Oh well. That glass of Cabernet was pretty good. I guess I need to clean it off the monitor."
Careful Rev. BigDumbChimp, who knows WHAT they'll do when you start spitting their god's blood around!
I can has laftur?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:00 AM
So you're jewish? Cool.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 2:00 AM
Jesus, PZ, please don't piss off the Catholics again. Given what they've written here, they're apparently even more fucking stupid than the fundie evangelicals.
I wouldn't have thought it possible, but perhaps this is one of the mysteries they're always bloviating about (see comments by Jenn for exemplary vacuity.) I've honestly never encountered such pig-headed, uninformed, and bizarro pride in one's own inability to think, and I work for the fucking government.
What's incredibly ironic about it all is that I could argue any of these fucks under the table (both pro and con) even when I was a Catholic. If I didn't find Poes so annoying, I'd be tempted to sock puppet myself just to show these assholes what a theist who can think sounds like.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 2:01 AM
Capital Dan, The problem is your weak mind that cannot overcome your arrogance in order to understand a simple rational reasonable comment.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 2:01 AM
And you claim to be qualified to judge? Either of the posters or of your Jungle People? Fuck you and the self-righteous horse you rode in on. Hell, fuck you with the self-righteous horse you rode in on.
With each additional post you make it more clear that you use your religion as a stool to elevate yourself above others, and as a cudgel to beat them over the head with. I don't have too much trouble with religion in general, but it's exactly this fucking attitude that I find repugnant, and each religion I've investigated promotes it to some degree. I had always assumed the Catholic church to be more "modern", as far as making concessions to reality, than some of the others. Looks like that isn't necessarily the case.
Posted by: Beauregard T. Manlytexas | July 12, 2008 2:02 AM
Why I insist Professor Myers stay up all night and respond to the demands of real men! How dare he not define his satire with LOL and smileyfaces to ensure the angry masses of godfearers know his true intents! Obviously he must be cowering in his bed, fast asleep, catching Zs as only mewling liberals are wont to do while the Army of God stands vigilant against the... hey, who drank my Schlitz?
Posted by: JJR | July 12, 2008 2:02 AM
Very LATE to this party, but I think these past few threads have been the only ones where I've actually seen WOOT speak rather than post his trademark links... :-)
Totally tangent, but the Swiss Guards actually are an elite military organization. Sure, they've got the guys with the ceremonial Pole arms, but they've also got the guys with the dark suits and Glock pistols and H&K submachine guns and the like. Just like the Royal Guards at Buckingham Palace, who are also not just "toy soldiers" but some of the toughest troops in the British military.
Also, wanted to note that neither the FBI nor the Secret Service would agree with Rod on what constitutes a "Death threat".
I'm an atheist, I'm from Texas, my politics range from Green to Red, I'm staunchly pro-RKBA and own a goodly number of semiauto rifles (SKS, WASR-10, AR-15), a couple of leverguns, shotguns, and handguns (semiautos and revolvers).
I'm perfectly willing to live and let live, but I will be resisting any attempts to burn me at the stake or anything like that; Not that I think ya'll would, I'm just sayin'.
Why is it Christians assume all atheists hate guns and don't even know how to defend themselves? Don't go acting on that assumption, you crazy Christians.
Oh, and I HATE that Catholic dodge about "we just turned the guilty over to the state for punishment during the Inquisition". Still accessories to state-sanctioned murder for of innocents for victimless "crimes" against religious dogma, and we won't ever let you forget it.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 2:02 AM
Apologies.. my rant above is directed at Jenn #706.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 2:04 AM
As the night goes on, the commenters seem to be coming faster.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:04 AM
of the cartoon hating Islamic horde.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 2:04 AM
Slightly OT... watching an Stargate SG-1 episode where the prophets of the Ori are trying to convince everyone that the Ori are the true gods! With all their contrived miracles and such. After all, the Goauld were false gods but THESE are the REAL thing.
Heh. Another reason I love scifi.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 2:05 AM
"Not just the boys, sadly. I, too, thought about that as a young Catholic girl, and hoped that my faith would hold up like that of the martyrs. These days, I value my life, and the lives of those around me, a bit more highly."
A hypothetical question was posed to our classroom in high school. The teacher asked, "If a gun was to your head, would you deny your faith?"
I was the ONLY one in the entire class (all professed Christians) that said I would not deny my faith.
Ironically, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who became an atheist.
Posted by: Autumn | July 12, 2008 2:05 AM
Okay, for a second there I thought promo was going to be given a pass on the whole "judaism predates every other religion" bullshit by hiding it in his other steaming piles of bullshit.
Posted by: FO | July 12, 2008 2:05 AM
Apparently someone's confusing "high minded" and "rational" with hypocritical, I-respect-your-religion shutting up against religious fuckwittery.
Hey Catholic retards, that cracker you ate's gonna wind up as shit in your toilet. If THAT'S not desecration, I don't know what is.
...
OK, it's excretion.
=======
I don't kill. I don't smoke. I don't peddle narcotics. I don't steal. I don't drink (and drive). I don't rape altar boys. I don't rape. I don't terrorize people.
I do eat crackers. I do shit them out afterwards.
I guess that makes me the "dregs of humanity."
...
...
Retard.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 2:06 AM
Yeah - JUNGLES. That was the manly name before we had to feminize everything according to political correctness and call them "rain forests."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:08 AM
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 2:09 AM
Protobiochemist @ #732
"Careful Rev. BigDumbChimp, who knows WHAT they'll do when you start spitting their god's blood around!"
I smirked! :)
Brownian @ #734
"If I didn't find Poes so annoying, I'd be tempted to sock puppet myself just to show these assholes what a theist who can think sounds like."
So you're no longer catholic, but you're still theist? Otherwise, wouldn't said arguments have a hollow core?
Oh, wait - they already do. :(
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 2:09 AM
@Jenn #735
I want you to read over your post at #706, see if *you* could understand what you were saying. Really, if literacy is not your strong suit, I'd suggest you not embarrass yourself any more.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 2:10 AM
Rev: "Were there a lot of links? Comments with a lot of links get held up in moderation most of the time."
Yes, there were 5 or so. All to my own site www.bringyou.to site and to Catholic Answers. The objections I was addressing:
(1) "transubstantiation was invented in the 8th century" -- Wrong! Demolished by me. Google for "Eucharist in the Fathers" currently I am #2 or "Augustine on the Eucharist" (#1) or "Orthodoxy and Transubstantiation" (#1)
(2) the "celiac disease" objection, I think is a good objection (I brought it up) and I didn't really address it; neither did Karl Keating in the "E-letter" linked way above by someone else from www.catholic.com
(3) the terminology on "cracker" doesn't apply to Catholic teaching; people are confusing with the literal "crackers and grape juice" used at some baptist or baptistic like services; the Catholic host or communion wafer doesn't look, taste, or feel like a cracker so it's not proper to call it that; i.e. don't say "IT'S JUST A CRACKER" say "IT'S JUST A PIECE OF BREAD" and that's fine; of course I object to P.Z. asking people to send in consecrated hosts so he can "desecrate" them, and I don't think he would do that anyway; as I mentioned, P.Z. in person is a completely different person than this "P.Z." on his blog; e.g. he would not say "F--- Y--" to Ken Miller and proceed to desecrate a consecrated host -- I highly doubt it!
And I'll add a fourth one:
(4) it is no more insane to think a piece of bread is Christ, then to think a man can be God; if Christ is God as all Christians believe (i.e. the doctrine of the Incarnation), and God said "This is My body" in the context of the Eucharist and communion service (Liturgy), and the whole history of Christianity (the Church Fathers, the Saints, and Doctors) took this Eucharist narrative literally, then it only makes sense for Christians today (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants) to take this literally. And that is why the Church takes this literally and very seriously. It is not a matter of science, since it is a "mystery" (where the Latin word sacramentum or Greek mysterion comes from). And you don't desecrate "holy objects" -- that's not nice. For example, I would not take a knife to the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx, nor spit on the Lincoln memorial or the original Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution, or pea on the grave of Charles Darwin or any great scientist for crying out loud!
Read the full history of our doctrine in Anglo-Catholic scholar Darwell Stone's two-volume A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
That's it pretty much. I would like to go back and forth with some of you but too bad there are way too many unhelpful F--- Y-- comments on P.Z.'s blog. If P.Z. would simply set his "moderation bot" to ignore or hold up short comments with the F--- word in them, that would probably be better.
PLEASE convince me the Catholic eucharist is wrong, that Jesus didn't teach it, or any number of objections you can make. Of course you'll want to listen to all the William Lane Craig debates on my page here, he is not Catholic but defends the Christian "essentials" quite well
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
Phil P
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 2:10 AM
"A few years ago a couple thought it was funny to have sex at St. Patrick's Cathedral. The man was struck dead a few months later, not by a human, but by God."
And on his car door handle...they found...A HOOK! *AIEEEEE!*
"Hey, all you dregs of the human race"
"Of course being at the bottom of the heap, your minds cannot go above filth to a higher level."
"You have to understand the word "dregs" first. Sediment, grounds, corrupt matter, etc. You get the idea. "
Jenn? You're starting to turn me on.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:11 AM
What? You didn't even answer my question in your disjointed answer. WHAT jungles?
Are you capable of making a coherent point? What the hell are you talking about?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 2:12 AM
Wow. I've never actually watched someone get dumber by the minute.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 2:14 AM
PhilVaz #750
it is no more insane to think a piece of bread is Christ, then to think a man can be God
Yep, they're equally batshit beliefs.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:14 AM
I have, but this was faster.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 2:15 AM
@Jenn #746
Are you fucking serious? You just made me snort in my drink.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 2:15 AM
feminize to rain forests....?
BWAH HA HA HA!!! Poe?
*distracted by Michael Shanks and Ben Browder on TV....*
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 2:16 AM
Nicole, I recall reading a Catholic school primer printed around 1920 that instructed girls it was not a sin to take one's life to prevent an act of imminently being raped.
That was when I decided the Catholic life was not for me.
It also didn't help that one Irish-American Father would question me in the confessional if I told him I'd gone past 'first base' with a gf. He wanted EVERY detail and I could hear him breathing funny.
THe Catholic and US Christian church sexual hangups were pretty convincing evidence that there was something very, very strange going on. Their hangups about all our hidden innies and outies was just so perverse that it seemed way too witchdoctory coo-coo to me.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 2:16 AM
"Yeah - JUNGLES. That was the manly name before we had to feminize everything according to political correctness and call them "rain forests.""
Oh man, this is great stuff. You should have your own one-woman show.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:18 AM
Phil, you never made any support for factual truth of transubstantiation. That was all a bunch of side commentary.
Were you trying to prove something there, because if you were that was an utter failure.
Was I misunderstanding your intention?
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 2:18 AM
PhilVaz @ #750
Fuck you, Phil.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 2:20 AM
Rey, it's pretty obvious Jenn is hosting a one woman show in her own head.
Five bucks says most of her family and all of her coworkers can't stand her.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 2:20 AM
Paul says:
"it is no more insane to think a piece of bread is Christ, then to think a man can be God"
I think you're on to something here..
That aside, haven't I already asked where the line of stupid beliefs should be drawn?
Could you address this issue, please. Is threatening spaghetti eaters justified and unquestionable, because you believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:20 AM
Well. I may not recover from that.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 2:21 AM
How about this? The wafer doesn't change in any measurable way during its blessing. In the absence of any compelling non-scientific reasons to believe it's anything special, I'll think of it as a piece of bread, or more likely "just a cracker".
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 2:22 AM
Ten bucks says Jenn's on medication. I refuse to believe that people can be this retarded without chemical help.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:23 AM
Well i don't know about her friends, family or coworkers, but I LOVE HER.
That shit is GOLD.
Posted by: Beauregard T. Manlytexas | July 12, 2008 2:23 AM
rain forests
Where ah live, we calls 'em toothpick farms.
Hey Jenn, kin ah stick mah finger in yer bellybuttin?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 2:24 AM
"(4) it is no more insane to think a piece of bread is Christ, then to think a man can be God"
That's the trouble, really. Once you've opened the door to one silly unfounded belief, there's really nothing stopping you from believing all sorts of other weird things.
"For example, I would not take a knife to the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx, nor spit on the Lincoln memorial or the original Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution, or pea on the grave of Charles Darwin or any great scientist for crying out loud!"
None of which are items that are mass-produced and freely handed out to people once a week.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 2:24 AM
to Phil @750,
you are making the "presuposition" that the bible is correct. (Hope I spelled that right) Those of us here do recognize the bible as a piece of lit, we don't recognize it as being inspired by some divine being. The point isn't whether jesus laid down the rules around the eucharist, it is extremely hard to nail down jesus as an actual historical person, much less that the account of him captured the literal instructions that he gave to his followers.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 2:25 AM
To "Retard FO"...Yep! You said it! You certainly qualify as a human dreg. However, don't worry. Try using your MIND to actually THINK instead of emotionally spewing out ridiculous epithets, and you can rise above your pathetic condition.
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 2:25 AM
gdlchmst: i just had a similar thought. Her posts are reminiscent of Charly from the book "flowers from algernon". except withou any experimental surgery.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 2:26 AM
"And on his car door handle...they found...A HOOK! *AIEEEEE!*"
ROFL!!!
Posted by: Michael Keeling | July 12, 2008 2:26 AM
Professor Myers! I'm a recovering catholic. I'd have to say your my hero. I would have loved to have been taught by you! And hopefully one day my child will be taught by someone like you, someone with common sense. Thank you Professor and Kudos!
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 2:26 AM
[me]: Fuck you, Phil.
[BDC]: Well. I may not recover from that.
I can be devastatingly witty at times...
Posted by: baryogenesis | July 12, 2008 2:26 AM
Went to mass every Sunday until grade 1. Then lined up outside of church at 8am Mon thru Fri for mass. Then we marched across the the street to the school for 9am classes.Was an altar boy. Still went to mass with my family on Sunday. Saturday was the only day I didn't go to mass through grade 8. Then I went another 4 yrs to catholic high school. Had enough. I really believed in it . For years after realizing the wtf of it all, I hung onto occult beliefs as a substitute. These "evil" blogs have enabled me to unfold my inner thinking person. I value the earlier experience to some extent (by immersing yourself in something, you learn a lot), but it delayed my intellectual growth by decades.It's really all so very silly.Have to let go of Santa eventually if you want to grow up.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:27 AM
i love you
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 12, 2008 2:27 AM
Jenn? I don't know how to tell you this, but there wasn't a single god damned thing in your babble that made the slightest bit of sense.
I'd ask others to back me up on this, Jenn, but as you can see from their response regarding comment #706, and the underused puddle of sludge between your ears that produced it, I'm thinking there really is no need.
Of course, you're far too arrogant to admit you screwed up since, well, you're a typical Bible thumping roundhead, and humility is a foreign concept to a lot of you folks.
In other words, Jenn:
Hey! I just realized something, Jenn. Are you Miss Teen South Carolina?
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 2:28 AM
Phil-
I certainly think that if PZ actually starting desecrating "hosts" it would cross the line deeply from commentary to just being plane rude. I'll support you there - even though I'm an "evil atheist" :)
I'm sure there is a reasonable theological basis to the idea of transubstantiation, but I was raised Lutheran so I don't know ANYTHING about it. I do know that we most likely differ greatly on the definition of "idolatry".
I object to the sacred nature of the "host" on theological grounds only due to the idea that materials are unimportant to God. (You know: There is no circumcision or circumcision - God doesn't care if you eat sacrificed meat so get over it - The golden calf incident - blah blah blah)
I object to the sacred nature of the "host" as an atheist and humanist. I object to the idea that an impractical material object would hold so much significants to a person that they would be moved to *physically assault* a student over the matter, write anguished letters pleading for the object to be spared harm, and likening the mistreatment of the object to the mistreatment of real, living, breathing, human beings.
I don't think that is at issue here however. Vocally disagreeing with PZ's comments aren't either. I think what is really a core issue here is that CERTAIN individuals are attempting to cause REAL HARM to Mr. Cook and Dr. Meyer because of their actions (and their PERCEIVED actions).
THAT - is disturbing to me. Being a college educator myself who has very strong, controversial opinions, this issue is of direct concern to me.
Perhaps, condemning the action of those individuals is something we can agree on?
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 2:28 AM
Sorry, but your beliefs about the Eucharist don't really matter here. You know what it means to Catholics so your intention is very clear. It's an act of hatred. End of story. There is no getting around that. This is not the way that educated adults behave in a civilized society.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 2:28 AM
"For example, I would not take a knife to the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx, nor spit on the Lincoln memorial or the original Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution, or pea on the grave of Charles Darwin or any great scientist for crying out loud!"
Ok, how about this: What if a group of crazy people told you that all toilet paper on the planet was exactly the same as the U.S. constitution and equally "sacred." Would you still wipe your ass with it?
I mean, if crackers can be holy and a bunch of people can swallow that BS, this isn't exactly a stretch.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 2:29 AM
for god's sake, don't pea on anyone's grave!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 12, 2008 2:29 AM
You keep using those words. I KNOW they don't mean what you think they mean.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 2:30 AM
Baryogenesis: Glad to see you've been deprogrammed.
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 2:31 AM
jenn
just because you use the word 'rational' does not make you yourself rational.
just because you use the word 'think' (and capitalize all letters) does not mean you yourself are performing that function.
you of all people should be cautious of using such words.
Posted by: Jesus H. Christ | July 12, 2008 2:31 AM
I rose above my pathetic condition once. Then I got dragged back into it by the televangelists.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 2:32 AM
Man, I call PZ's atheism and raise him two blasphemies.
I'm just more of a humanist than an atheist and can understand (while I disagree) with the whole reason the Catholics got their nose out of joint.
What doesn't appear on this blog is PZ's statement to his local newspaper that he meant the post as satire.
Fine, it was satire. However, it's quite apparent to this stupid Texan that a large majority of the rest of the world didn't quite grasp that fact and are now talking trash about atheists.
I'm just sick of the fact that PZ stirs up a whole bunch of crap, and then proceeds to wash his hand of the whole mess saying, "See, they're crazy."
Yes, some of them are crazy. However PZ has stirred up the ire of the other 95% who were were content to let atheists be so long as we let them be. How did he do that? By threatening to fuck with them.
Now a bunch of you people think it's OK and well within your rights to fuck with people you don't like. I strongly disagree. Just because I have a right to do something doesn't mean that I should do it.
I'm all for PZ's right to fuck with people. It's a free country and free speech gives him the right to say whatever in the fuck he wants. However, don't go out and fuck with people and then try to play some sort of lame victim card.
PZ enjoy your trip to Atlanta. I will strongly support your right to stir the shit. However, I reserve the right to cuss you when your shit starts hitting others.
I think right now your shit is getting spread far and wide.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 2:32 AM
@ Jenn @771
Keep digging, you are halfway to China. Seriously, post a cogent argument for your position. The things that you are responding to were written because you haven't actually posted a cogent argument yet!
FFS, stop being a parrot and think!
The FSC would have pounded you into the figurative dirt for writing the things that you have done on a homework assignment!
Posted by: loose | July 12, 2008 2:33 AM
"I mean, if crackers can be holy and a bunch of people can swallow that BS, this isn't exactly a stretch."
OctoberMermaid you are one a dumb, salty cunt.
Posted by: aarrgghh | July 12, 2008 2:34 AM
rey fox @ 769 ftw:
scooooore!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:34 AM
The OTHER 95%!?!?!?!
Shit! I'm not answer the phone when my mother calls.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 2:35 AM
Jim @ #780
"You know what it means to Catholics so your intention is very clear. It's an act of hatred. End of story. There is no getting around that."
It's getting tiresome to point out, but when does a belief transcend the barrier between "obviously stupid, which anyone can point out" and "obviously stupid, which noone can point out due to people believing it"?
Would you stop eating spaghetti, if it were sacred to me?
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 2:35 AM
Jim - If you go back to read PZ's original post, it is clear that the majority of his anger is directed at individuals who he NAMES and QUOTES, concerning their actions against a student in Florida.
He was certainly harsh - and I really can't "see into his heart" to know how he feels.
However, I do know that I personally tend to separate my hatred of religion and my hatred for people. I tend to avoid hating people.
A good analogy is the Christian mantra of "hating the sin, but loving the sinner".
I hate religion. I hate religion the way some people hate famine and disease. I do not, however, hate religious people. Just like those who feed the hungry to not HATE the hungry people - but hate the hunger.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 2:35 AM
They were never content to just let atheists be, they are just legally bound to do so.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2008 2:36 AM
HEHEHE.
After reading what people sent in support of PZ and what people actually sent to PZ...
I don't think he has anything to worry about.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 2:36 AM
Well, you boys probably don't have families, do you? You're too disagreeable, mean, arrogant and stupid, really, to put it bluntly. You're none of you are man enough to love anyone but yourselves.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 2:37 AM
"Sorry, but your beliefs about the Eucharist don't really matter here. You know what it means to Catholics so your intention is very clear. It's an act of hatred. End of story."
Yeah, they believe a bland snack food is the literal, honest-to-goodness flesh of their one-in-three kaleidoscope wacky God.
We should totally, like, respect that. It's not crazy or stupid at all. No, it's a fluffy, warm security blanket to insulate them from reality, so we should totally leave it alone. Nevermind that these people sometimes find their way into positions of power and do wacky, silly, lovable things like kill people who believe differently or decide important decisions based on stories from their favorite myths.
I guess as long as a lot of people believe something really stupid, it's beyond reproach. Who needs evidence or rationality. A lot of people get all warm and fuzzy over it, so let's leave it alone. They weren't the "Dark Ages," they were the "Cozy, romantically-lit Ages!"
You know how educated, civilized adults should NOT act? Like spoiled petulant children who throw a tantrum when they're told that their favorite TV show is make-believe.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 2:37 AM
This is not the way that educated adults behave in a civilized society.
Somebody mixed up the entrance signs again. This here's a blog, Jim. You wanted the other door. Look for the jackboots symbol next time.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 2:39 AM
Kevin @#758
Yikes! That's one I haven't heard yet. Scary.
Luckily I missed most of the sex-guilt. My mother made sure to have the sensible "birds and bees" talks with me.
My favorite was after a particularly guilt-filled sex education class for our confirmation education. After hearing about how birth control was an abomination and all that jazz, she explained condoms and the pill on the car ride home, and made me promise to use them when I was old enough for sex. And believe it or not, I turned out just fine! Take that, abstinence-only nuts.
Oh boy... just got "Every Sperm is Sacred" stuck in my head...
I'm so amused by all this, but I think it's bedtime... I have produce to pickup tomorrow morning. Wonder if it will come with crackers?
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 2:39 AM
BGT - Is that short for bigot?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 2:39 AM
Jim, wrong.
By your argument, any belief, and any little worthless object, if considered holy and sacred by some group of demonstrably delusional people, must then be treated as sacred by everyone else.
Bullshit. If an idiotic, insane idea is cherished by Catholics, or Jews, or Scientologists, do the sane people have to treat it as sacred? NO.
And frankly, Jim, since it's extremely unlikely that you yourself treat as sacred everything everyone else holds sacred, then making that statement makes you a hypocrite.
Have you ever eaten a hamburger, Jim? If so, you're a hypocrite.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 2:40 AM
Jen # 796,
with that comment you have crossed from being a child that needs to be rudely awakened into being a simple troll.
Congrats for piss poor reasoning skills.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:41 AM
There you go again saying things that let us peek into your window of idiocy.
Well I might be mean and disagreeable. Occasionally I am arrogant. I'm one HELL of a cook.
Stupid I'm going to say no. My wife (oooops family :) ) might disagree.
did i say i LOVE you jenn?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 2:42 AM
BGT - Is that short for bigot?
Jenn, don't use words that you don't understand.
Posted by: BobC | July 12, 2008 2:42 AM
Just in case there was any doubt about the insanity of Catholics, look at this email. It's got Satan, Saint Michael, Mary, the devil, and God, all in one paragraph.
"Are you in love with yourself. Satan has tried for over 2000 years to destroy us (Catholic Church) and has failed miserably. You will, too. Saint Michael defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him. Mary, Mother of God, protect your Church from those that wish us harm."
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 2:42 AM
"Try using your MIND to actually THINK instead of emotionally spewing out ridiculous epithets, and you can rise above your pathetic condition."
Yes Mistress, I am worthless, I am scum, I am dregs! Please whip me again!
"Well, you boys probably don't have families, do you? You're too disagreeable, mean, arrogant and stupid, really, to put it bluntly. You're none of you are man enough to love anyone but yourselves."
But Mistress, I love you! Even though I know I am not worthy, I love you! Please...just let me kiss your stiletto-heels to prove it!
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 2:42 AM
ron said, "However PZ has stirred up the ire of the other 95% who were were content to let atheists be so long as we let them be. How did he do that? By threatening to fuck with them"
Nonsense.
Catholics have always been on the which hunt to take advantage of other minority groups so as to benefit from increased influence. Think WWII, bozo. Bill Donahue is doing exactly that.
Also, PZ never threatened anyone. Not only does satire mean "not serious, taken in jest", but if he were going to fucking with anything, it would be a few carbohydrate calories, not actual human beings, a point I believe that was made in addressing the original article.
Perhaps if all your wacko friends were decisive in killing cephalopods, then I think we'd be on equal terms. (And that's a stretch I can take no further for you).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:43 AM
What is a bigot jenn.
/wave
i love you!
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 2:44 AM
Jim @ #780:
Neither does yours. Until you come up with a valid (i.e. not invoking the big sky-daddy) reason why just talk of "mistreating" a piece of bread justifies death threats, and why handling it justifies unwanted physical abuse, than your beliefs have no place here either. Beliefs are fine, but where they intersect with the real world care must be taken that they aren't valued over human life.
Hatred against whom? The cracker? Sorry, hate-crimes require an actual crime to have been committed. Hurting somebody's feelings is not a hate-crime.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 2:45 AM
"Ok, how about this: What if a group of crazy people told you that all toilet paper on the planet was exactly the same as the U.S. constitution and equally "sacred." Would you still wipe your ass with it?
I mean, if crackers can be holy and a bunch of people can swallow that BS, this isn't exactly a stretch."
Actually, it is a stretch. You can call that person crazy for his view of that toilet paper if you want to. But there is a BIG difference here. You can go to the store and purchase all the toilet paper you want and do whatever you want to do with it. But when you know how that "crazy person" views the toilet paper in his possession, and you decieve him into giving it to you for no other reason than to desecrate it for your own amusement, then it's an act of hatred. If you told that person what you thought about his toilet paper and what you intended to do with it, he'd never give it to you.
If you really believed that there is no difference, then why not just go to the store and buy some crackers? Or why don't you just order some hosts online? Your actions are as clear as can be. There is a world of difference between the two.
Or better yet, why not just live and let live? What's with the juvenile behavior? Does that really better society?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 2:45 AM
Craig @ #802
"If an idiotic, insane idea is cherished by Catholics, or Jews, or Scientologists, do the sane people have to treat it as sacred? NO."
Dammit Craig, that whole post was great. Why must you say what I wanted to say, only much better? :/
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 2:46 AM
Jen @801
I shouldn't feed the troll, but have you ever heard of Morris Garages? You are probably way to young to know what that is. Put MG in front of the handle, and then do a google search.
As for your reasoning skills, and how they would have been looked upon by the FSC, here is my high school:
http://www.cbhs.org
and here is my college:
http://www.cbu.edu
None of the Brothers would have given you passing grades on anything that required some serious thought. I respect them, I have none for you.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 2:47 AM
Well, you boys probably don't have families, do you?
I, for one, don't believe my family is the business of a mean-mouthed, insulting internet troll who has yet had anything to say that relates to the debate between reason and the unreasonableness shown to a young college student who 'kidnapped' an inanimate object.
Say goodnight, Jenn. The brainworms are blocking the content again.
Posted by: Soybomb | July 12, 2008 2:47 AM
I love the blend of comments. Its a nice mix of "religion deserves respect" and "you're picking on catholics because they're peaceful" mixed in with "well okay pick on Islam, we don't like that one" and death threats from those peaceful catholics.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 2:47 AM
Okay, naz. Look at what some of your Catholic brothers and sisters are writing in this post. They are disgracing their religion, YOUR religion, with their hatred.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:47 AM
Do any of the catholic whiners eat beef? Our hindu brothers and sisters are completely OFFENDED that you do.
Posted by: tim gueguen | July 12, 2008 2:48 AM
This is a great example of why I find the idea of organised religion silly. We're supposed to believe a Supreme Being capable of creating the entire Universe is so obsessed with trivia that the disposition of a piece of unleavened wafer is so important to him that his followers should get upset about it. Sorry, does not compute.
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 2:49 AM
jim said, "Or better yet, why not just live and let live? What's with the juvenile behavior? Does that really better society?"
Clearly you have skipped the blog post and went right to the bottom of the comments section.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 2:50 AM
"Well, you boys probably don't have families, do you? You're too disagreeable, mean, arrogant and stupid, really, to put it bluntly. You're none of you are man enough to love anyone but yourselves."
Seriously Jenn - Could you lay off the misogyny for a couple hours? Also, could you make a point somewhere between all the sexist insults?
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 2:50 AM
"Or better yet, why not just live and let live? What's with the juvenile behavior? Does that really better society?"
EXCELLENT question! Course, we'd be pleased as peaches to live and let live, but the trouble is, silly people with silly beliefs start forgetting that old line about how "your right to swing your fist ends at my face."
But I forgot. It's the mean old atheists who are the bad guys, and the poor, helpless religious, er, minority who are the persecuted.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 2:51 AM
"Does that really better society?"
If it ends up with less people willing to kill over crackers, then yes, it does better society.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 2:51 AM
I have produce to pickup tomorrow morning. Wonder if it will come with crackers?
Must. Resist. Innuendo. Jokes.
Gnite, Nicole. Pleasant dreams.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:53 AM
I'm going to bed. I had intentions to be up for the sunrise for some photography ... but that is in 4 hours. I'll still make it.
But I want to leave with this one thought
Jenn
i love you.
Posted by: j.d. | July 12, 2008 2:55 AM
octobermermaid: your post provoked a thought. yes, numberwise we are a minority.
but are we not the rational majority? that's kinda catchy actually....
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 2:58 AM
gdlchmst said:
"They were never content to just let atheists be, they are just legally bound to do so."
Given. However, PZ has now given them ammunition to claim that we're just a bunch of irreligious terrorists.
I'd love to be able to clear this mess up by posting somewhere that I think PZ didn't mean it and was just engaging in satire.
I can't. PZ can, but it doesn't appear that he's able or willing.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 2:59 AM
Capital Dan. My comments started in the 200's under another name, so no, you wouldn't understand - mainly because it makes sense.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:01 AM
"Does that really better society?"
If it ends up with less people willing to kill over crackers, then yes, it does better society.
Until the Cheez-Whiz transubstantiators show up on their Big Wheels and threaten to get us fired from the plantation..
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 3:01 AM
"By your argument, any belief, and any little worthless object, if considered holy and sacred by some group of demonstrably delusional people, must then be treated as sacred by everyone else."
And for all those similar comments, you're free to eat however many crackers you want to and do whatever else you want to. But your intent to go into a Catholic church to take what would not be given to you if you stated your intention up front is wrong. Regardless of what Catholics believe, they hold a small few consecrated hosts in their possession. They're not trying to stop grocery stores for selling crackers. They're not trying to prevent the sale of unconsecrated hosts either. Nobody is forcing their beliefs on you. Nobody is pushing you inside of a Catholic church. Make fun of Catholics all you want to. Eat all the crackers you want to. But to go out of your way to go into a Catholic church and take what would not otherwise be given to you is wrong. And your actions are filled with hatred.
Cows are everywhere. Consecrated Hosts exist only inside the walls of a Catholic church. There is a WORLD of difference. You can very easily live your life quite happily without ever pissing off Catholics. You do so only for your own amusement.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 3:03 AM
sinmantyx #820
I think that counts as misandry. :P
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 3:03 AM
They can claim what they want, it doesn't make it true. Now if it is the PR problem you are worried about, then you don't understand what PZ is trying to do.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 3:04 AM
Jim @ #811:
I believe an act of hatred has to have, well, hate involved. Show me how having a jest at a crazy person's expense implies hatred of the person. Say the crazy person thought you were dead serious, was anybody harmed? What about a person who hasn't yet been given the toilet paper by the crazy person, but instead makes a half serious comment about what he'd do with the toilet paper?
Is "Conspiracy to Use Toilet Paper For a Cause Not Explicitly Intended by The Provider of Said Toilet Paper" in the lawbooks somewhere?
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | July 12, 2008 3:04 AM
PZ, you need to commission a real zinger of a youtube from Pat Conlon. That should give these loons pause for thought.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 12, 2008 3:04 AM
Well, now... That's just a brilliant piece of
attention whoringwriting there, Jenn. Do you even think when you're typing, or do you just enjoy banging on the keys?It's funny, though. You're reduced to attacking what you think are our family lives, but, oddly, not only do they have nothing to do with this conversation, you are also completely ignorant about them. But, that doesn't stop you in your petty, self-righteous judgment, does it?
It's kind of sad to see someone so lonely that they will make a monumental ass out of themselves just so people will pay attention to her.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 3:05 AM
#825
"octobermermaid: your post provoked a thought."
I'm sorry. That has never been my intention and I refuse to take any responsibility.
Posted by: Hez | July 12, 2008 3:05 AM
And we all thank you for contributing to his popularity by posting a comment on his blog!
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play scum cookie with a few friends and a eucharist.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 3:06 AM
#820 - sinmantyx - The comment was in response to being asked if my family and friends/co-workers hated me. Yopu know...more of the hate speech that's in this blog.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 3:07 AM
#820 - sinmantyx - The comment was in response to being asked if my family and friends/co-workers hated me. You know...more of the hate speech that's in this blog.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2008 3:08 AM
They reeeeeeely don't get it.
Think about it Catholics... you're upset about people making fun of your wafers.
Think about WHY. Never mind, you won't. This is so silly.
These people just make me happy to not be one of them. Deluded and ridiculous.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 3:09 AM
I think what Jenn really craves is to be laid. Then again, isn't that what we all want.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:09 AM
Naz, they will only be seen as hate crimes by idiots.
A hate crime is something which is a crime anyway, with the added motivation of hate.
If I stomp on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that someone gave me under the pretenses I was going to eat it - all to prove my contempt for the the PB&J, it's NOT a hate crime no matter how loudly some sandwich worshipper wails that it is.
Furthermore, this is not a case of PZ threatening a cracker just to piss of Catholics for fun. Its a case of insane Catholics threatening the LIFE of a kid for keeping a cracker out of curiosity.
Catholics threaten the kids life, they organize a campaign to get him booted from school.
When PZ makes a mock threat to their sacred cracker as a way of pointing out their horrible actions toward this poor kid, HIS life is threatened, and an organized campaign is mounted to get him fired.
But you're mad about the fucking cookie. NO mention of the threats to PZ or the kid.
You know what that makes you, Naz? It makes you immoral.
Of all the complaining Catholics coming here, none denounced the threats against the kid. The only mention of the the threats by them was to claim they were hoaxes.
NONE denounced the attempts to get the kid booted from school. A couple denounced the attempts to get PZ fired, most didn't.
THATS the story here.
1. Kid keeps cracker out of curiosity.
2. Insane Catholics threaten kids life and school career.
3. PZ criticizes them for this
4. Catholics mount campaign to get PZ fired, with press releases containing deliberate distortions of fact.
Thats it. Delusional nutcases acting crazy and threatening people, and outraged that someone is calling them on their immoral, dangerous and insane behavior.
Someone said "the whole world is watching." True. The world is watching a bunch of insane religious fanatics attempt to terrorize others... and fail.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 3:10 AM
It's kind of fun to watch from the sidelines, but I don't understand why you all are wasting so much energy on a troll like Jenn. There hasn't been much of a point to the conversation over the last hours. It's just been a tennis match of insults.
Posted by: Dark Matter | July 12, 2008 3:10 AM
My, oh, my, there are a lot of Catholics here...
I'm surprised nobody's brought up another bit of history. In the Middle Ages, peasants used to take pieces of the Eucharist during Easter and take them to plant in their fields, to help bless them and make them more fertile. (Obviously, given the Black Death and similar events, it didn't really work.) Christianity back then basically was Catholicism; there wasn't really another form yet. Would that be considered desecration today?
Oh, and I'm just going to throw this out there: It's not even a particularly tasty cracker. Honestly, if they used Carr's Water Biscuits, it might be a bit more persuasive, but as it is Jesus tastes like a rather tough Saltine. Isn't the fact that they can't even make Jesus delicious desecration?
@ naz, 799: I took Myers' comments at the time as a joke - a very, very funny one - and I still think he was making one and it was good. It was all of y'all Catholics that went and turned this into a serious shouting match. I especially love the way you keep whining that nobody's picking on the OTHER religions - how very tolerant and mature of you! Remember, Myers wasn't the one making death threats to anyone - you were, to a student (who was in fact Catholic as well!) and a university professor who was expressing personal views in a blog community mostly peopled by atheists, agnostics, nontheists, and deists. In other words, his comments were made for and intended for a specific audience, who understood the joke and got it. Who's hating now?
Posted by: Ryne Hatfield | July 12, 2008 3:11 AM
Dear "Lord" PZ!
My father passed the information of this "heinous" act on to me on July 11th and I had to see to believe it(Am I a "Doubting Thomas" then?).
Anyway, the cracker in question is just a symbol. That is what gets me a riled up about this. The bread is just symbolizing the "Body of Christ" just like the wine symbolizes the "Blood of Christ". While I could if I wanted to, I will not send you any Eucharist. While I'm not a very devout Chatholic/Christrian (lost track of which one I really am over my 19 years in the faith) I hold it to a little respect for the Host, but i love reading thinga like this. If one can not laugh at one's own faith, then one is taking it way too seriously.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 3:13 AM
"You know how educated, civilized adults should NOT act? Like spoiled petulant children who throw a tantrum when they're told that their favorite TV show is make-believe."
I'm not throwing a temper tantrum because of a difference in beliefs. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe. None of this is about a difference in beliefs. It's about childish behavior. It's about a person's actions, not a person's beliefs.
Posted by: paradoctor | July 12, 2008 3:13 AM
How to desecrate a wafer, while showing complete respect:
First, obtain two communion wafers, one consecrated, the other one not.
Switch them around a few times, so you can't tell which one is which.
Then invite Mr. Donohue, and perhaps a priest, over to determine which one is which.
They won't be able to. There's no difference between the two, and this experiment proves it.
And there you are; desecration complete. You could even give both wafers, untouched, to Mr. Donohue; for your spiritual point will be proven.
Posted by: BGT | July 12, 2008 3:14 AM
@ 841
I will leave that up to the rest of you brave souls here to plumb those depths. Unfortunately, in direct contradiction to Jenn's earlier comments, I do have a family, and don't feel that attempting to satisfy that particular craving of Jen's would be conducive to keeping that family, much less be exciting enough for me to be able to finish....
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 12, 2008 3:14 AM
gdlchmst
I appreciate that PZ was satirizing the whole absurdity of the UCF incident. However, he could have accomplished that goal without causing a massive PR mess.
He could even fix some of the PR mess but has chosen not to do so. I'm trying to withhold judgment. However, I'm not too hopeful so far.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 3:15 AM
#835 - Capital Dan - See post above to sinmantyx. It's was no business of anyone to ask me if my family, friends and co-workers hate me. Why are you so angry? Did I hit a raw nerve? So according to you, it's OK for people to be
anti-Catholic bigots, Catholic bashers, Catholic haters and to say anything you want even about my family, but it isn't OK for me to say that you are a mere little boy, wearing his emotions on his sleeve while his brain lies asleep.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 3:16 AM
You are right, Neural Transmissions. Which is why I will bid you all good night.
Happy cracker abusing.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 3:17 AM
Also, PZ's original request was this:
He didn't ask any atheist to go through the line under false pretenses and get a cracker, nor did he ask anybody to break into a church and get one. Is it entirely unthinkable that some more liberal Catholic would palm one and send it along? Perhaps someone out there doesn't necessarily buy the literal interpretation of the eucharist and also thinks that this whole flap is silly. Someone upthread a way said he knew a priest who wouldn't have a problem passing one along. Would this still be considered a hate-crime, even if done by a Catholic?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:17 AM
Naz: When did you people become so warped and socially autistic?
On July 12, 2008 at precisely 2:56 AM .
And Jim, try not grouping us all as one entity. Some of the folks here have tried to seriously address these things reasonably. Some, like me, are playing around because - in my case - I think teasing overly serious folks is amusing. Which makes me a prick, occasionally. Me, not them.
Ever hear that reformed smokers are the worst? Well, reformed Catholics can be just as bad. I don't like what the Catholic Church has taught me, don't consider it any more sacred than the Elks Club, and frankly, I've seen it mess up a lot of lives pretty bad. So in my case, it's not just about amusement. And it's not to provoke hatred. It's to express my own opinion that the destructiveness of the Catholic church, like other branches of other faiths has no claim to demand that I must respect it.
I respect more than a few Catholics, but not the Vatican, not the extremists and certainly not the cretinous mercenary merchants like Donohue.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 3:18 AM
Craig @ #842
"Of all the complaining Catholics coming here, none denounced the threats against the kid."
It's that "priest raping children" story all over again.
Posted by: BobC | July 12, 2008 3:20 AM
Did anyone ask the shit-for-brains Catholics here what the Ruler of the Universe would think about a university student who refuses to eat a cracker? Does Mr. God give a shit about a cracker?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:21 AM
"I'm trying to withhold judgment. "
Ok, after your many other posts, this is just really funny.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 3:23 AM
I see that the concern troll wankers are still at it, thread after thread. Considering how ineffective their "You shouldn't do that!" whines are, one can see it as a form of insanity.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 3:24 AM
"EXCELLENT question! Course, we'd be pleased as peaches to live and let live, but the trouble is, silly people with silly beliefs start forgetting that old line about how "your right to swing your fist ends at my face."
But I forgot. It's the mean old atheists who are the bad guys, and the poor, helpless religious, er, minority who are the persecuted."
The point I've made repeatedly is that nobody is forcing Atheists into Catholic churches to take the Eucharist and do with it what they choose. You are correct that "your right to swing your fist ends at my face." If nobody ever went into a Catholic church to take something deceitfully, then there wouldn't be any issues at all. It's a REALLY easy concept.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 12, 2008 3:25 AM
#850
People were saying your family and those around you probably don't like you because all we've seen of you here is a miserable, unstable jerk.
Your response to this was to be a miserable, unstable jerk.
People point this out to you and you cleverly respond by being a miserable, unstable jerk.
You just spout off random crazy things without anything to back it up. People can't talk to you rationally because you aren't rational. You're either a troll or just a few notches above being functionally retarded.
I mean, I really don't even know what to say to you or if it's even worth paying any more attention to you at all.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 12, 2008 3:25 AM
Ron
PZ is not trying to win over any converts, he is trying to make atheist rights as accepted and mainstream as women's rights and black rights. In order to do that, he pushes the envelope (Although one can hardly call what PZ said pushing the envelope).
Now really, good night all.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 3:26 AM
Naz,
"One or two kids on campus threaten him - NOT all Catholics or the Catholic Church..."
I want you to verify this statement with sources.
"PZ's used this small incident to promote his anti Catholic bigotry and to incite hate against Catholics for his own gain, nothing more, nothing less."
I want you to verify this by explaining how you can read minds.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 3:27 AM
Very low - and it is very low that the atheists on here do not see this stunt and call for aggression against Catholic practices as unethical.
The atheists on here see that you're a pathetic shit who gives them all the more reason to think poorly of Catholics. Well done.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 3:29 AM
Your saying that one or two death threats is acceptable as retaliation for someone taking a cracker home instead of eating it?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:29 AM
OK gnite folks... my last observation...
In a few days this will have blown over. Jesus will be the same as he always has been (nonexistent).
Catholics will move on to their next outrage, whatever Fox and Donohue tell them.
PZ will keep his job, won't retract a thing, will have added yet more readers to his blog, and will continue criticizing crazy BS.
In all of this, there have basically been a very few kinds of comments.
1. Catholics outraged. Big surprise there.
2. A few Catholics have said things like "I never/always knew atheists were so horrible." Bad PR? No. None of these people were ever about to defend atheism in any way shape or form.
3. Many atheists saying "wow these people are crazy." Same as above, no minds changed, no net effect.
and most importantly
4. Those who have posted, nominal Catholics some, new atheists others, who have said this has really opened their eyes to how deranged religion can make people.
The worst you a rational person could come away from this thinking about atheists are rude and perhaps even intolerant. The worst a rational person can come away from this thinking about the religious is that they are completely irrational and in fact dangerous.
Job done.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 3:30 AM
naz:
"Socially autistic?"
There's that catchphrase again. We got some serious sock-puppetry going on here.
jenn:
"My comments started in the 200's under another name"
And there's the proof. Who is really who? Is Jenn actually not the hot dominatrix I've taken her to be? The foundation is crumbling under my feet! Help me Jesus! Verily there is no truth without thee!
Posted by: BobC | July 12, 2008 3:30 AM
Hey shit-for-brains naz. Do you think God gives a shit about crackers?
Do you think your creator of the universe really cares if some human ape on an insignificant planet does not want to eat a cracker?
Do Catholics ever have an original thought? Do they ever think for themselves? Have they ever considered the possibility that some or all of their beliefs are bullshit? Or do they just blindly believe everything they were trained to believe?
Catholics are like dogs. Train the dog or train the Catholic, and they will do what they're told.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:31 AM
Rey, I've suspected for quite a while that Rob and a bunch of others for the last few hours are the same person.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 3:34 AM
With the risk of sounding like all the rest of you, I'll add my vote to one large sock-puppet farm in action! ;)
Posted by: Keith B | July 12, 2008 3:35 AM
Someone needs to make some "I have a Eucharist cracker in my pocket" t-shirts. I'm sure over the course of a month of steady exposure and assaults, the image of Catholicism around the country would be damaged enough to ensure that hundreds of altar boys go unmolested for the next three years.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2008 3:35 AM
What a bunch of babies.
You have silly beliefs... atheists think almost ALL religious beliefs and rituals are silly and a stupid waste of time. There's nothing special about the catholic faith. It just seems to have its own peculiar "body of christ, blood of christ" weirdness. It's RIPE for mocking and ridicule. But it's not special in anyway. Just funny. Too fucking bad. Don't read PZ's blog.
He's called for the desecration of WAFERS. Bad tasting stupid pieces of bread(not even really) that catholics imbue with meaning. It's your silly faith that gives that almost worthless cracker importance because a priest says a prayer and then a mythical god makes that cracker special because the priest asked him to.
It's GOOFY. As goofy as holding a necklace and saying Hail Mary's and Our Fathers.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:36 AM
It's just been a tennis match of insults.
I'm always lookin' for that Thirty Love.
And Ron? What 'PR mess' do you refer to? PZ's job is not at risk. His teaching skills are well thought of by thousands beyond his physical classroom. He's indicated that most of those who threaten him don't frighten him because he can spot the blowhards. Controversy provides a broader audience, and not all are detractors. You might prefer not to be unpopular with a few dozen people. But PZ was making a very pertinent point about how crazy some folks act about silly things. And did so quite well.
Nobody gets into a public debate on religiousity without expecting detractors. So you're trying to suggest ways PZ can clean something up that he doesn't think requires a broom nor a mop.
Advice to fix what isn't broken just really doesn't persuade much.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 3:40 AM
#850 Jenn
I really hate the Christian religion - including Catholicism. I hate the Muslim religion as well. I dislike the Jewish religion. I have a very strong loathing for Scientology. I think Mormonism is particularly bizarre.
Religion is NOT like race, sexual orientation or ethnicity. Religion is something you chose. It involves modes of thinking, rituals, dogma, etc. However, unlike race, sexual orientation and ethnicity: it does not describe who a person IS. Instead, religion describes how a person sees the world around them.
It is entirely possible to strongly dislike a religion and still have compassion and even LOVE for those bound by that religion.
For example: Is hating "honor killings" hating Muslims? - or is acting against "honor killings" showing respect and love for women being murdered by their families in the name of "honor"?
I'm sorry some people on this forum have insulted you - but stooping down and throwing insults doesn't work.
Sometimes "reasoned" debate doesn't "work" either, however. Many times theists and atheists have perspectives so different from one another, that the disconnect in world-view simply hampers any sort of meaningful discussion.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:42 AM
Thanks Naz.
Again, a Catholic discounts death threats against the kid. Again, same Catholic doesn't even mention that Catholics in official positions (not "kids") tried to get him booted from school.
Again, no denunciations of the threats against PZ.
Again, no denunciations of attempts to get him fired for expressing his opinion on his own blog.
AGAIN, a claim that a man posting to his own blog is an attack on others, an attempt to get attention - with no corresponding mention of the Catholics who in their attempts to get him fired... SENT OUT PRESS RELEASES.
A blog post is a cry for attention, but press releases are not worth mentioning.
NO MENTION of the fact that in these press releases, these devout, ever-so-moral Catholics used the God-honored tactic of DISTORTING THE TRUTH.
Thanks you, Naz/Rob/Jenn whoever the fuck. Thank you and please keep posting.
We need you to keep demonstrating that religion is not only insane, but that it provides the perfect excuse so many need for being immoral, dishonest and to attempt to hurt and control others.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 3:44 AM
It's about childish behavior. It's about a person's actions, not a person's beliefs.
In your case, yes, it's about you being a patronizing git, aka a concern troll. Here's clue: no one is going to change their behavior as a result of your wankery; on the contrary, it just encourages us!
Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | July 12, 2008 3:45 AM
@#11 Jammer --
That's sort of the problem. I'm willing to bet the vast majority, if not all of them, aren't able to *really* believe the absurd notion that a cracker is actually the body of Jesus -- but they want to at least believe that they believe. So rather than letting PZ's statement stand as a threat to their tenuously held theology, they use it as a way to reinforce it -- after all, if they are vehement enough in their opposition of PZ's stance (death threats being the most extreme case), they must be equally vehement in their crazy cracker belief.
p.s. Yes, I'm back :).
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2008 3:45 AM
Making fun of religion isn't hate...
it's fun!
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 3:46 AM
I really would love to see one of you show me where this atheist hate of Catholics that PZ supposedly incited is.
Throughout the comments, not one person makes the claim that they hate Catholics. Many, many posters use this atheist hate as proof of something or the other, but it doesn't seem to exist, at least not on this thread.
Finding someone's beliefs to be silly or even repugnant is entirely different from having hate toward that person. Hell, one can even hate someone's beliefs or ideas without having any hate for that person.
"aggression against Catholic practices"? Can a person be aggressive toward something as nebulous as a practice? Can you show me an example from this thread of someone demonstrating aggression toward a practice? Was somebody hurt in the process?
Posted by: Kadin | July 12, 2008 3:47 AM
Hey, people...you do realise that it's a cracker, right?
This is insane.
And for those who are unaware, the transubstantiation dogma, AFAIK, states that the accident (physical part) of the bread is all that remains of the original cracker. That is why it (superficially) appears to remain a cracker, and resemble a cracker in any and all conceivable ways. Spiritually (you know, where it counts), it's Jesus.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 3:47 AM
Rev: "Phil, you never made any support for factual truth of transubstantiation. That was all a bunch of side commentary. Were you trying to prove something there, because if you were that was an utter failure. Was I misunderstanding your intention?"
I'll try again. The objection made earlier (I think made twice now) was "transubstantiation was invented in the 8th or 9th century." That's what I disputed. The post that hasn't shown up yet demonstrated (with links, I'll avoid the links now):
FACT (1) the first one to teach a purely "symbolic" Eucharist was Berengarius (or Berengar) of Tours c. 1050 AD;
FACT (2) the word "transubstantiation" wasn't used until the 11th and 12th centuries, and it was first officially endorsed at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD; although this is not a problem because of Fact (4);
FACT (3) the Radbertus-Ratramnus "debate" of the 9th century wasn't over "transubstantiation" or "symbolic" Eucharist either;
FACT (4) ALL the orthodox Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church from St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) to St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) held a Catholic view of a literal, real, substantial "presence of Christ" in the Eucharist, even though the word "transubstantiation" wasn't used early on (it WAS used by Aquinas who lived after the 1215 AD Fourth Latern Council);
FACT (5) the terminology that WAS used by the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors were the Latin/Greek terms for "change" or "transform" or "convert" of the bread/wine elements into the "body and blood of Christ" which very closely approximates the word -transubstantiation- (or "change of substance");
FACT (6) the Orthodox believe the same thing as Catholics (using the Greek term -metousiosis- for "change of substance"), and they inherit the same eastern Fathers as us who used very literal terminology (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene).
If Facts (1) to (6) are correct, we can conclude: It was not an "invention" of the 8th or 9th century, but the teaching was there all along. The terminology and practice developed in both east and west, but that is the same with all Christian and Catholic doctrines (the Incarnation, the Trinity, the sacraments, the Papacy, the Marian doctrines all developed).
In addition, St. Augustine, who some (wrongly) claim held a "symbolical" view, while he too didn't use the word "transubstantiation" used very literal words of the Eucharist:
"That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Sermons 227)
"The Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread. For not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, BECOMES CHRIST'S BODY." (Sermons 234:2)
"How this ['And he was carried in his own hands'] should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: 'THIS IS MY BODY.' FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS." (Psalms 33:1:10)
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church) on St. Augustine:
"But, on the other hand, he calls the celebration of the communion -verissimum sacrificium- [a 'true sacrifice'] of the body of Christ. The church, he says, offers (immolat) to God the sacrifice of thanks in the body of Christ, from the days of the apostles through the sure succession of the bishops down to our time. But the church at the same time offers, with Christ, herself, as the body of Christ, to God. As all are one body, so also all are together the same sacrifice [De civit Dei 10:20 Latin given]." (Schaff, volume 3, page 507)
"The subject of the sacrifice is the body of Jesus Christ, which is as TRULY PRESENT on the altar of the church, as it once was on the altar of the cross, and which now offers itself to God through his priest. Hence the frequent language of the liturgies: 'Thou art he who offerest, and who art offered, O Christ, our God.' Augustine, however, connects with this, as we have already said, the true and important moral idea of the self-sacrifice of the whole redeemed church to God. The prayers of the liturgies do the same." (page 508)
"Even St. Augustine, with Tertullian, teaches plainly, as an OLD tradition, that the eucharistic sacrifice, the intercessions or -suffragia- and alms, of the living are of benefit to the departed believers, so that the Lord deals more mercifully with them than their sins deserve [Serm 172:2 Latin given]. His noble mother, Monica, when dying, told him he might bury her body where he pleased, and should give himself no concern for it, only she begged of him that he would remember her SOUL at the altar of the Lord [Confess 1:9:27 Latin given]. (page 510)
J.N.D. Kelly on St. Augustine:
'This sacrifice,' he remarks [De civ dei 17:20:2], 'succeeded all those sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slaughtered in anticipation of what was to come....For instead of all those sacrifices and oblations His BODY IS OFFERED, and is DISTRIBUTED to the participants.'
"The Christian supper presupposes the death on the cross [Serm 112:1]. The self-same Christ Who was slain there is in a real sense slaughtered daily [sacramentally in an unbloody manner] by the faithful, so that the sacrifice which was offered once for all in bloody form is sacramentally RENEWED upon our altars with the OBLATION of His BODY AND BLOOD [Ep 98:9; C. Faust 20:18; 20:21]. From this it is clear that, if the eucharistic sacrifice is essentially a 'similitude' or 'memorial' of Calvary, it includes MUCH MORE than that. In the first place, it involves a REAL, though sacramental, OFFERING of Christ's BODY AND BLOOD; He is Himself the priest, but also the OBLATION [De civ dei 10:20]. In the second place, however, along with this oblation of the Head, it involves the offering of His members, since the fruit of the sacrifice is, precisely, their union in His mystical body [cf. De civ dei 10:6]...." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 454-455)
Darwell Stone on St. Augustine and the west:
"There is like terminology in the West. A canon of the Council of Arles, held in 314 A.D., like the Council of Nicaea eleven years later in the East, incidentally contains the word 'OFFER' to describe the work of the presbyters which the deacons might not perform [Canon 15]. St. Optatus of Milevis uses the words 'SACRIFICE' and 'OFFER' in regard to the Eucharist [2:12]. St. Ambrose says that it is part of the work of the Christian ministry to 'OFFER SACRIFICE for the people'; that Christ 'is Himself on earth when the body of Christ is OFFERED'; and that the word of Christ 'consecrates the SACRIFICE which is OFFERED' [In Ps 38 Enar 25]. St. Augustine refers to the Eucharist as 'the SACRIFICE of our redemption,' 'the SACRIFICE of the Mediator,' 'the SACRIFICE of peace,' 'the SACRIFICE of love,' 'the SACRIFICE of the BODY and BLOOD of the Lord,' 'the SACRIFICE of the Church' [Conf 9:32; Enchir 110; In Ps 21 Enar 2:28; In Ps 33 Enar 1:5; De civ Dei 10:20]. St. Leo speaks of 'the OFFERING of the SACRIFICE' as an act of Christian worship [Serm 26:1; 91:3]."
So the Catholic defense is not a scientific one, it is a biblical and historical one. John 6:51ff and "This is My Body" are our main texts.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
As I said, it is no more "batshit" to believe in the Incarnation of Christ (God becoming man) than the "incarnation" of the Eucharist. If Christ is God as all Catholics and Christians believe, and Christ said "This is My Body" in the context of the Eucharist and Liturgy, and the entire history of Christianity passed on this belief and believed it true, it only makes sense today for the Church to continue to believe that. Again it is a mystery (Greek -mysterion- or Latin -sacramentum-). The "outward signs" (or "evidence") for this divinity/deity of Christ belief are the miracles of Christ (especially his Resurrection), and the "Eucharistic miracles" (you can search for those online, also rebuttals by skeptic Joe Nickell).
And do I need to remind you that P.Z. Myers would be absolutely intellectually annihilated by William Lane Craig in debate? OK, maybe just my opinion (but check my audio page). Richard Dawkins has refused to debate Craig. Too bad.
Bless You, not Fuck You!
Phil P
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:50 AM
I worked for a Catholic organization.
My father is on the Board of Directors of a Catholic organization.
You know what? None of them would claim the a cracker is God amongst themselves. Not one of them.
They might publicly in an event like this, but that's just for show and solidarity.
They know its bullshit. They just get off on martyrdom.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:52 AM
"As I said, it is no more "batshit" to believe in the Incarnation of Christ (God becoming man) than the "incarnation" of the Eucharist."
This is indeed true. They are both equally batshit.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 3:52 AM
"If I stomp on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that someone gave me under the pretenses I was going to eat it - all to prove my contempt for the the PB&J, it's NOT a hate crime no matter how loudly some sandwich worshipper wails that it is."
This is not true. If you simply held contempt for the PB&J sandwich, you would likely refuse it. You most definitely would not go out of your way to obtain it. Nobody is walking around the streets forcing the Eucharist on Atheists. The hatred exists when an Atheist goes out of their way to go into a Catholic church to obtain the Eucharist for the sole purpose of descrating it. Nobody is forcing you into a Catholic church. Your intentions would be quite clear in this specific case. Why wouldn't you just keep walking right past the Catholic church and not even go inside?
If Professor Myers wants to criticize anyone who makes death threats, then I'm right there with him. What has Donohue and others up in arms is not criticism of death threats but his call to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only. Do not cloud the issue.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 3:52 AM
I like how these people are going to "pray" for you. Like it's a threat in and of itself.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 12, 2008 3:52 AM
I said nothing about your family, Jenn. You're getting a little delusional. If you're going to accuse me of things, please try to make sure they're actually true. You'll look less like an idiot then.
If by seeing Catholicism as nothing more than a bunch of people suckered into believing a fairy tale qualifies as bigotry, hatred, or bashing, then I guess I'm guilty, Jenn.
Other than that, no. You didn't hit a nerve. I know you wanted to, and I hope it doesn't upset you that you missed. But, I'm not angry in the least. In fact, I don't think my response to your prattle expressed any anger whatsoever. You don't seem capable of reading with any level of comprehension.
Besides, it's kind of hard being angry at you when I'm laughing at pretty much everything you say. For you, it's just the same pleading for attention by spouting out the same insults. You come here, you annoy, you insult, and you try very hard to be a tedious chore just so someone will engage you in your sad, little game.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 3:53 AM
Do Catholics ever have an original thought? Do they ever think for themselves?
Sure. Just the overly serious ones don't. For them, the Pope is the authority, he is Christ returned to lead us all. Which, if I'm following correctly, means the Pope is a bit of unleavened bread with all the answers.
And don't even raise the topics of purgatory or limbo or why God considered such separations necessary (but only for Catholics). And don't go looking in the dictionary for what 'catholic' means, because the first definition might shock you:
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
But the dictionary can't be trusted because God didn't write it. A wafer did.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 12, 2008 3:53 AM
Geezus. Thanks for boring us to tears. It's still a fuckin cracker.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 3:56 AM
"Do not cloud the issue."
Ok, I won't cloud the issue. I'm not planning to do this, but if I walk into a Catholic church to take communion and pocket the wafer, take it home, stick it in a bottle of piss and post pics on the net, it is NOT a hate crime.
In the US at least, it would never and could never be prosecuted as a hate crime. And if you honestly think its a hate crime, you are startlingly stupid.
Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 3:58 AM
Yes, that's right - it was a double play. I demand full credit, and will accept nothing less.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 3:59 AM
Phil @ #880
"As I said, it is no more "batshit" to believe in the Incarnation of Christ (God becoming man) than the "incarnation" of the Eucharist."
All that text, and I think you missed out on the request to "[make] any support for factual truth of transubstantiation" (note "factual truth").
If this "truth" is so apparent, why don't all christians believe it? Hell, not even all *catholics* believe it, as evidenced in statements in these threads and even on the catholic forum.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:00 AM
What has Donohue and others up in arms is not criticism of death threats but his call to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only.
Exactly. EXACTLY.
What has them up in arms is NOT the death threats to a kid, and is threats to purloin a biscuit.
NOT up in arms over death threats. Up in arms over threats to a cracker.
How wonderfully moral of them. How wonderfully, lovingly moral of them.
How wonderful of you to demand that we clarify that Catholics are NOT up in arms over death threats to a kid, that that's not important to them, threats to desecrate a wafer are more important.
I happily clarify that point.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:01 AM
I don't think you can harm the wafer by sticking it in urine, as its final destination is a turd anyhow.
Posted by: Mondoterrifico | July 12, 2008 4:01 AM
It is a magic cracker, not special, magic! Believers in the magic cracker are "special" though.
Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | July 12, 2008 4:02 AM
Catholics claim that the consecrated cracker is Jesus.
Catholics claim that Jesus is god.
Catholics claim that this is the same god as the god of Abraham and Isaac.
Catholics believe in the veracity of the Bible, which documents numerous instances of racially motivated genocide perpetrated by this god.
So by Catholic belief, the cracker is guilty of crimes against humanity -- the Church is harboring a known criminal.
We must extradite the cracker and hold it responsible for its crimes!
(I'm sure when the time comes, it will be more than happy to plead the fifth....)
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 4:02 AM
Craig @ #888
"..stick it in a bottle of piss and post pics on the net, it is NOT a hate crime"
Indeed. Why not call it *art*, like Piss Christ?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:03 AM
"If you simply held contempt for the PB&J sandwich, you would likely refuse it. You most definitely would not go out of your way to obtain it."
You don't know me very well. If I hate a sandwich, man do I hate a sandwich.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 4:03 AM
If Professor Myers wants to criticize anyone who makes death threats, then I'm right there with him.
No one gives flying fuck where you are, you pompous piece of concern troll shit. (Although the schadenfreude from you pukes being so damned concerned is a pleasant amusement.)
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 4:03 AM
Craig @ #888
"..stick it in a bottle of piss and post pics on the net, it is NOT a hate crime"
Indeed. Why not call it *art*, like Piss Christ?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:05 AM
I'm just wondering... when God is impregnating a virgin, is there a risk of crumbs in the bed?
Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 4:06 AM
Hi, Etha! Welcome back!
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 4:06 AM
"I like how these people are going to "pray" for you. Like it's a threat in and of itself."
Jennie, if you like that, please read comments #144 and #151. You'll learn a valuable new swear word. :)
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 4:06 AM
PhilVaz @ #880:
Please Phil, link it next time. Most of the people here who doubt transubstantiation don't believe even the foundation of your claims, that a god exists and that Jesus exists to be magically integrated with a wafer. Why should any of us atheists take biblical passages as evidence of transubstantiation? Or the beliefs of St. Augstine, etc. which are based on them? Until the core issue of belief in a god is established, your 1500+ word post is just as much literary masturbation.
I'll agree with you about how equivalently 'batshit' the propositions you compare are, it's just that I think they're both completely out of touch with reality. The burden of testable proof lies with you, at least if you're trying to convince me, but please link any extra lengthly material next time. The forum allows at least 2-3 links before posts get sent to the moderation queue, more if they're links to scienceblogs.com (AFAIK).
Posted by: Damian | July 12, 2008 4:07 AM
PhilVaz:
That's right, because debate is the proper format to contest intellectual acumen.
And PZ would wipe the floor with WLC where biology is concerned. Disciplines are like that.
I actually feel sorry for you that WLC is one of the best that you have. He presented the best philosophical arguments in favor of God on the Christianity Today website, I believe. Suffice to say, you're struggling.
Some of them arguments have been reworked and restated several times now, and they weren't convincing the first time. Not to sound to cocky, of course, and there are some genuinely interesting new ideas.
#876 Hi Etha!
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 4:08 AM
Phil - Thanks for the theology lesson. I did skim it. I am going to bed soon. I appreciate you took the time and effort to write your comment.
However, since I'm finally leaving this debate, I could resist a light jab:
Wasn't St. Augustine the sex-addict that transferred his own personal problems on the world by imposed the concept of "original sin" on Catholics and other Christians - asserting that the most fundamental, healthy, (and dare I say) sacred act human beings can engage in is sinful and of the devil?
...and didn't Aquinas disagree with the asserting that life began at conception and instead believe that a early term fetuses had the souls of vegetables?
I'm sure the person you are specifically answering and some others may find the opinions of these men interesting and relevant, but I do not see them (or the Catholic church for that matter) an authority nor do I see the holy books of a religion an authority.
Simply put there are two cases here:
1) the host is the actually body of Christ and is sacred
2) it is simply symbolic
In case 1), I would refuse to worship a deity that would place impractical physical objects in such high regard. In case 2), I would find the ritual worth while, but the materials of that ritual worth only what I could sell them for.
Is it ironic that the atheists are generally arguing against materialism?
Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 4:14 AM
What has them up in arms is NOT the death threats to a kid, and is threats to purloin a biscuit.
Well, when you put it like that, it just sounds stupid.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 4:14 AM
Isn't their an Amendment that gives us the right to bear crackers?
That's why the compulsion to regulate our ownership of crackers seems suspect. Why do agnostics and atheists get denied this right? After all, crackers don't kill people. They feed them.
Which explaines why hordes of atheists have been tearing down church doors and stealing the wafers that were secretly blessed pre-Mass and sending them to PZ Myers.
Yep, that's the threat he posed. And it was impossible for anyone to see he wasn't serious.
Arrest that man, this I know, because my Bible tells me so.
I'm gonna trick him, though. I'm buying some unblessed ones. Then all the Catholics will mock him because it'll be so-o-o-o obvious that they're not the real stolen ones the atheist hordes kidnapped for his devious plans.
MWa-HA-HAAA, that'll show 'im.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:14 AM
"(I'm sure when the time comes, it will be more than happy to plead the fifth....)"
If we send him to Guantanimo, he'll crumble for sure.
Posted by: Damian | July 12, 2008 4:15 AM
Jim, please show us where PZ specifically "call(s) to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only?"
You're just making stuff up, and you know it. That is what you have derived from his blog post, but that is not what it says. Please refrain from making that argument.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 12, 2008 4:16 AM
I have heard stories about some communion first timers vomiting thinking about eating flesh. Special pans to prevent Eucharist crumbs from falling on the floor and *horrors* rats eating them.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 12, 2008 4:18 AM
Does digestion neutralize the Eucharist's consecration or does one's poo need to be deposited in a special urn for disposal by a special priest class?
Posted by: cak | July 12, 2008 4:19 AM
The people who emailed you are clearly not christians. They are just the deranged pretending to be christians. You can't just call yourself a christian and it magically happens, you have to act like a christian ALL the time.
Anybody who acts like this while claiming to be a christian is a liar, and should be told that they are.
Posted by: pcarini | July 12, 2008 4:20 AM
SC (about "I will pray for you" meaning "Fuck you"):
Gladly. All hail SC!
Etha Williams, OM
Welcome back! The time away hasn't made you any less sharp, I see.
Jim @ #883:
How about you don't cloud the issue, dumbass. PZ never called for atheists to go inside of Catholic churches for any reason. See my post at #852. All he asked was "Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?"
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:20 AM
Damian, Jim is oddly using the same lie that Rob has been using.
What a piece of work is this man - so infinite in sockpuppets, so lacking in reason.
Posted by: wrpd | July 12, 2008 4:20 AM
Kevin I had a similar experience in a confessional. I told the priest that I had masturbated. His voice got weird and he started asking me what technique I used (probably 'cause he didn't know how to, I thought) and he asked me what I was thinking about when I did it. It probably was after watching an episode of Wild Wild West where Robert Conrad was half-naked for most of the episode, but, then I was jerking off at least once a day. That's when I got up and left. My father made me go to confession with my brother at least once a year but I learned to confess just little sins, like disobeying my parents or stealing candy, just to get done with it.
And Todd, Don't fuck with the Holy Oreo. I once knew a woman whose cousin's neighbor said bad things about the O and the next day he was found dead and there were chocolate crumbs all over his body.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:21 AM
Yes, Rey Fox! It seems I've been in the praying dark this whole time! Using everyday common curse words instead of the almighty swear!
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:23 AM
"Special pans to prevent Eucharist crumbs from falling on the floor and *horrors* rats eating them.
Ok, now I DO hate Catholics. Rats are cool!
What the hell does their cookie god have against rats?!?!?
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 4:25 AM
If we send him to Guantanimo, he'll crumble for sure.
Stop it, Craig. You're torturing me.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 4:26 AM
An absurd "no true Scotsman" fallacy. These people are Christians according to the dictionary.
Posted by: sinmantyx | July 12, 2008 4:27 AM
"Does digestion neutralize the Eucharist's consecration or does one's poo need to be deposited in a special urn for disposal by a special priest class?"
I think they put them on the same shelf as the maxi-pads containing fertilized eggs that failed to implant.
:P
With that, I say good night/morning.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:28 AM
Just for the record. Athiests have the BEST sense of humor. You guys crack me up!
Posted by: speedwell | July 12, 2008 4:29 AM
Cak @ #911: Anybody who acts like this while claiming to be a christian is a liar, and should be told that they are.
Oh, right, right. I remember from when I was a Christian that we were to not judge others, lest we be judged (and presumably found wanting) by the Lord.
So what special dispensation did you get to discriminate between your fellow Christians so that you could separate the sheep from the goats?
Maybe you can also tell whether I was a "true Christian" before I became an atheist. Make sure you show your work. No points for "you can't have been one or you wouldn't have become an atheist." Use those super magical powers of discrimination.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 4:30 AM
Cak @ #911
"Anybody who acts like this while claiming to be a christian is a liar, and should be told that they are."
You mean "no true christian.." along the No True Scotsman fallacy?
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2008 4:32 AM
If Professor Myers wants to criticize anyone who makes death threats, then I'm right there with him. What has Donohue and others up in arms is not criticism of death threats but his call to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only.
Are they up in arms about the threats too? Or is it just the crackers. Seems to me like they should be more upset about the threats than the crackers.
Do not cloud the issue.
Oh okay thanks.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:33 AM
We should listen to the Catholics, we shouldn't criticize them.
After all, it's not like they've been been criticizing atheists. Every week. In church sermons. For thousands of years.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | July 12, 2008 4:34 AM
Well, it looks like you folks tied down the town so this old cowpoke is off to bunkybye land.
And if you succeed in stopping this cracker epidemic, be sure to hit some Protestant sanctuaries because they still transubstantiate fairly decent wine, which is more fun to desecrate with.
Posted by: Claudia | July 12, 2008 4:35 AM
OH...YOUR...GOD!!!
Wow, okay, so I'm loving the peeps that are trying to explain the death threats away...too funny.
I don't know if someone already addressed this because I couldn't read all the comments, but Rob Sterling's attempt was the best!
//To everybody who thinks there's a death threat among
those messages - a death threat would be phrased in the
form of an imminent, first person warning. It wouldn't be
formed in an ambiguous, passive-voiced warning.//
First of all, the man's knowledge of death threat ettiquette is astounding. Secondly, its scary and crazy.
An "imminent, first person warning" would be, I suppose, "I'M going to kill you today." According to the Sterling's Death Threat Rules, no one said this. Therefore, no one has threatened PZ's life. All true. Back in the REAL WORLD where scary, crazy Catholics are pissed over threatening the safety of a CRACKER, people have been putting the not oft used form of second person death threats.
"YOU are really fucked now. (YOU, implied)Lock your doors
at night, and (YOU, implied) check under your car before
you turn the ignition key."
I guess there are loopholes in legality when threatening to "explode" someone.
This is fun...! ...and kinda sad...
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2008 4:36 AM
If Professor Myers wants to criticize anyone who makes death threats, then I'm right there with him. What has Donohue and others up in arms is not criticism of death threats but his call to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only.
Hey dude, how come "Donohue and others" aren't more worried about the kid than the crackers? Why is that?
Do not cloud the issue.
Oh okay. Thanks.
Posted by: Jim1138 | July 12, 2008 4:37 AM
Need some Eucharists? Order from the Benedictine Sisters:
Benedictine Sisters Cracker Company
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 4:38 AM
"You don't know me very well. If I hate a sandwich, man do I hate a sandwich."
That was exactly my point. Your actions are motivated by hate.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 12, 2008 4:38 AM
To Jim and all our new Catholic friends here at Pharyngula - I've some bad news for you. You've all been had. Sold lemons. Played for suckers.
PZ's entire goal for the first post, all those thousands of comment ago, was to highlight the batshit loonery - firstly, of those who believe that there's anything sacred about a cracker no matter how many times a priest waves his magic wand over it; and, secondly, for threatening a guy for not treating it in accordance with the beliefs.
This caused Donohue & co. to go berserk. PZ saw an opportunity to get his message out to a much wider audience than the Pharyngulites - since he knew the bottom-feeding media would be on this in no time at all - so he stirred the pot to see what happened.
Now, not only has he let the Catholics show how fucking crazy the eucharist concept is, but he's set them up to show how vile they can be when threatened - ironic considering that they're meant to be adherents of a religion that preaches love, tolerance and - above all else - forgiveness.
Many of you have exposed yourselves - here, on other blogs, and in the media - for the violent, hate-filled, superstitious, nonsensical-ooga-booga-believing fools that you are.
Thanks for playing. You've been great.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2008 4:41 AM
If Professor Myers wants to criticize anyone who makes death threats, then I'm right there with him. What has Donohue and others up in arms is not criticism of death threats but his call to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only.
Hey sparky, hows come "Donohue and others" are more worried about the crackers than they are worried about anything else in whole entire damn planet?
Do not cloud the issue.
Oh, okey dokey. Thank you.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:41 AM
Post #930:
Wowbagger!!! shhh!! Don't tell them that! They might learn something!
Posted by: T | July 12, 2008 4:42 AM
Wafer Meatloaf
* 1 egg
* 1/3 cup chili sauce
* 1/3 cup slim milk
* 1/2 teaspoon worcestershire sauce
* 2 tablespoons minced onions
* 2 tablespoons chopped bell peppers
* 1 clove of garlic
* 1 lb ground beef (lean)
* 1 dash salt and pepper, to taste
* 1 dash garlic powder
* 35 communion wafers (blessed or unblessed), broke apart
Mix ingredients together, bake in greased pan at 375 degrees for one hour. Serve a with red wine.
Posted by: Jesus H. Christ | July 12, 2008 4:42 AM
"You don't know me very well. If I hate a sandwich, man do I hate a sandwich."
Jim: That was exactly my point. Your actions are motivated by hate.
This shall be called 'sandwichogyny'. I'll cover hate in my next decree.
So it goes.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:45 AM
I love meatloaf! I bet it's divine made with eucharists!!
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:47 AM
"That was exactly my point. Your actions are motivated by hate."
No, your point was that if I did something mean to an inanimate object that someone cherished and gave to me, that that would be a hate crime.
Whether my mean actions were motivated by hate or not, it would NOT be a hate crime.
An action becomes a hate crime when something that is a crime is motivated by hate.
It's NOT a hate crime when something that ISN'T a crime is motivated by hate.
But you already know that. You're just playing the fool because you can't admit you're wrong.
If I hate the Simpsons and change the channel, that's nto a hate crime. If I hate Jews and wipe my ass with the Torah, that's not a hate crime. If I hate Catholics and punch one in the nose or vandalize a church, that may be a hate crime.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 12, 2008 4:48 AM
Jennie wrote:
You took the words right outta my mouth...
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:50 AM
"And if you succeed in stopping this cracker epidemic, be sure to hit some Protestant sanctuaries because they still transubstantiate fairly decent wine, which is more fun to desecrate with."
I need to find some rastafarians and desecrate some of thier stuff.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 4:52 AM
What I wrote:
"What has Donohue and others up in arms is not criticism of death threats but his call to have other Atheists enter Catholic churches for one purpose and one purpose only."
What you wrote:
"Exactly. EXACTLY.
What has them up in arms is NOT the death threats to a kid, and is threats to purloin a biscuit."
This does not make logical sense. Why would they be in up arms over something they see eye-to-eye on? If two people agree that death threats are wrong, then why would they argue with each other about it? I don't see how your comment follows from mine.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:54 AM
Jim, you are far more dense than I imagined. He's curious as to why Donohue is not making a stand against those threatening the kid.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 4:58 AM
"If two people agree that death threats are wrong, then why would they argue with each other about it? I don't see how your comment follows from mine."
I have seen no national press releases from Donohue condemning the death threats to the kid. I have seen no demands from them that those threatening the kids graduation from school be fired.
I have seen no outrage from Catholics over the treatment of this kid. Only outrage of Catholics TOWARDS the kid.
I see no calls from Donohue or other Catholics for protection of this kid. There were, however, apparently additional security sent to the kids school - to protect the wafers.
ALL evidence is that Donohue and his ilk at best don't give a damn about the kid, and at worst are against him.
All evidence is that Donohue and his ilk care far, far more for their wafers than for actual people getting threats.
All evidence is that Donohue and his ilk are in fact BEHIND threats to people, and consider threats to people to be a fair response to threats to a cookie.
So no, they do NOT see eye to eye on it.
Posted by: Big City | July 12, 2008 4:58 AM
Goddamn.
Fuck Catholics.
Fuck Christians.
Fuck all religious people.
I am so sick of this shit.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 5:05 AM
This does not make logical sense.
How would an idiot like you know?
Why would they be in up arms over something they see eye-to-eye on?
Yeah, right, why would two people both, say, horrified by genocide be up in arms over it?
If two people agree that death threats are wrong, then why would they argue with each other about it?
"up in arms" doesn't mean "arguing", you fucking git.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2008 5:05 AM
All evidence is that Donohue and his ilk care far, far more for their wafers than for actual people getting threats.
Of coarse they are more worried about the wafers. The wafers are the creator of the universe. And the wafers do not like being treated with disrespect, nor do the wafers like it when people stand idly by and allow them be disrespected by others.
The wafers are the most imporatant thing in the universe. Second to none!
Posted by: Nibien | July 12, 2008 5:06 AM
"What is "reality" really? Does it only exist while YOU are alive on this earth? What will reality when the human race does not exist anymore? Will there be any reality then? My question is rhetorical. The reality then will be spiritual. It is time you expand your human closed mind and read up on the topic...consider the Bible as a starting point."
Man, it's like someone took an intro philosophy course.
And then failed in every aspect.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 12, 2008 5:11 AM
Unshaven man in trench coat: "You better watch your step, Sterling! You've pissed off the wrong people this time, see? Scumbags like you have...accidents. Accidents which leave you at the bottom of the river with a hole in your skull and weights tied to your feet. By the way, I happen to have a pair of fifty-pound weights and some rope in the trunk of my car. And a .45 in the glove compartment."
Rob Sterling: "What a friendly man!"
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 12, 2008 5:12 AM
"You don't know me very well. If I hate a sandwich, man do I hate a sandwich."
That was exactly my point. Your actions are motivated by hate.
You might as well have "bad faith" tattooed on your forehead.
Posted by: BobC | July 12, 2008 5:12 AM
cak #911: "The people who emailed you are clearly not christians. They are just the deranged pretending to be christians. You can't just call yourself a christian and it magically happens, you have to act like a christian ALL the time."
Actually to be a Catholic a person has to be deranged. Only an idiot could believe Jesus gets inserted into a wafer when a priest says some magic words.
The death threats are not the only problem. Catholic shitheads are trying to get a student expelled and a professor fired because of a worthless tasteless piece of bread. It's very obvious Catholics are world-class assholes and batshit crazy.
I'm going to rub this cracker incident into the faces of Catholics for the next several years. Catholics must never be allowed to forget they're no better than Muslim terrorists.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 5:13 AM
Did Jim go to sleep? Or did Craig finally put him in his place?
Posted by: Karl | July 12, 2008 5:15 AM
I stole a cracker and named it Mohammed.
I am so dead :(
Posted by: T | July 12, 2008 5:19 AM
The cracker argument was one of the big aspects of the reformation, protestants rejected the idea that the bread actually becomes the body of Christ. A source of big theological differences between those various flavors of Jesus. Buckets-O-Blood spilled all over the place because of it.
The Cracker has a history... The bizarre idea is being scrutinized once again.
Notice how a priest is careful to make sure that all the crumbs are handled at the end of a mass. He doesn't want to get some Jesus on the floor!
Can you see how they react in almost a similar manner as the Muslim people did for the Danish Cartoon of Muhammad? Death threats? Hmm... No violence yet... but never rule it out, even with Catholics. It's higly likely that those types of reactions are innate in every religion if someone hits the right chord. A pictoral of Muhammad for Islam, the Cracker for the Catholic.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 5:22 AM
I'm fairly certain, that if Jesus were to come to earth "again" as you Christians believe, he'd avoid the whole lot of you. You people have him hanging from a cross and pretend to eat him and drink his blood.
Posted by: Ananamuss | July 12, 2008 5:25 AM
Ahhhh, it's Christians lying for Jesus, again....
It reminds me why I am so lucky to have never believed in the first place. Yep, I was born an atheist, have remained one my entire life and will die secure in the knowledge that that there is no god or gods.
I guess, though, that it's not fair that I have to be honest and moral, that I must love my fellow man as I would love myself and that I must do those things without the promise or expectation of reward. I do suppose it's unfair that I have to be good because I wish to be, and not because I'm afraid of what's going to happen to me after I die. Yes, I suppose in your eyes that makes me somehow less worthy than you, because I don't need to be threatened or rewarded to act like a decent human being, if only because you have not yet let go of your jealousy and your hate.
Yeah, I guess that makes me scum of the earth, eh, Christian commenters? That I would have the gall to expect that you would try to be good people because it's the right thing to do must just burn your biscuits something fierce.
That anyone would ask you to speak out against someone making death threats or trying to ruin someone's life is just too much to ask of you, isn't it?
That I, a lowly atheist who doesn't drink, do drugs, steal, lie, cheat or commit or condone acts of violence would request that you actually follow the tenets of your own faith, instead of merely paying them lip service must make you feel very guilty.
...then again, I guess you only want to focus on the things you can use to make yourselves feel better about your sorry moral state. So here's something for you to focus on:
I am a better Christian than you are, and I don't even believe in God.
There, I said it. I have followed the teachings of the Christian faith with more dedication than you have. I have taken the lessons of Christ to heart, despite the fact that I do not think he was a god made flesh. I have been able to be a good person, living a good life of love and peace, without once feeling guilty about being human.
Perhaps *that's* the part that really pisses "Christians" off, that I get all the joy and all the love, with none of that horrible guilt.
Maybe, just maybe you can consult with a priest or pastor who can help you to see all the ways you have failed in your quest for heaven, and maybe, just maybe you can someday realize how little effort it takes to be Christlike. It's really not hard, it only requires that you open yourself to love, hope and forgiveness.
Posted by: KennyisNOTdead | July 12, 2008 5:42 AM
LOL! There are more people posting emails against Myers than there are active people on this blog.
Just goes to show you how small and in the minority that the Atheists are on here. It also shows how shallow they are as well.
It's a good thing that I can follow science without having to follow atheism and its backwards world view.
"Tolerance is for everyone except the people that I disagree with." - Probably some anonymous Atheist.
Sorry for a little trolling but to be honest I just can't take most of you seriously and I don't think the real world can either.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 12, 2008 5:52 AM
Very strange. In my eyes, the real violence, intolerance and hystery was in the death threats addressed to the poor students. Not PZ's joke/provocation. How can those people not see it? Do their brains badly need glasses?
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 5:57 AM
"An action becomes a hate crime when something that is a crime is motivated by hate."
Did I even use the word crime? I believe I only ever mentioned that your actions would be motivated by hate. Here's what I wrote:
"Sorry, but your beliefs about the Eucharist don't really matter here. You know what it means to Catholics so your intention is very clear. It's an act of hatred. End of story. There is no getting around that. This is not the way that educated adults behave in a civilized society."
I hadn't even approached the topic of whether or not it's a crime. I simply expect more from educated adults for starters. But people don't even seem capable of having a civilized conversation, much less act like a decent human being.
And as Wowbagger points out, this is hatred towards individuals, not the Eucharist itself.
"Now, not only has he let the Catholics show how fucking crazy the eucharist concept is, but he's set them up to show how vile they can be when threatened - ironic considering that they're meant to be adherents of a religion that preaches love, tolerance and - above all else - forgiveness."
It's hatred towards Catholics. It's a "threat". Explain to me how this in any way, shape, or form represents the actions of intelligent human beings. Why is this necessary? This does absolutely nothing to build up or advance our society. Hatred breeds hatred. It tears our society down. I've read a lot of claims about Catholics and Christians in general being ignorant or uneducated. But you'd be hard pressed to find any intelligent comments anywhere here. There's a lot of name calling and a lot of intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by: Ananamuss | July 12, 2008 6:05 AM
..and you, Jim, are a shining example of that dishonesty. That you equate threatening a cracker with threatening the life of two human beings shows just how far you are from reasonable, rational or human.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 6:08 AM
If you never said hate crime, then I was confusing you with someone else.
But you are wrong. Showing how crazy the religion is is NOT hatred toward Catholics. Its love of reality, and condemnation of irrationally-based mistreatment of others.
I know many Catholics, I worked for a Catholic organization. My father is on the Board of Directors of a Catholic organization. He is an atheist, and considers their beliefs crazy, and they pretty much know this, but they are all his friends.
I know and like some of them. I don't hate them, I don't hate them for being Catholic, I don't hate the Catholic religion or any other religion.
But I can see that fact that the beliefs of the Catholic religion (and all others) and flat-out insane. Crazy. Wildly delusional. And in general, damaging to society.
And I say so whenever my opinion is called for. And when that irrational belief system threatens real people, or their jobs, or the educational system, or our rights and freedoms, I call it out in no uncertain terms. I call it for what it is in clear unmistakable language.
I MOCK and ridicule preposterous, idiotic and damaging ideas.
And not one ounce of it is motivated by hatred. My mother is mildly religious, I love her, and she knows my beliefs, and I can state them freely to her, and she knows I love her.
All of my friends, everyone I know - whether religious or not, know what I think of religion, and I pull no punches. I say its senseless, crazy, delusional, and damaging.
And I don't hate any of them, they don't hate me I suspect, and I don't hate a single person on this planet.
If you are unable to see that VALID criticism of ideas is not hatred, STRIDENT criticism of damaging ideas is not hatred, then that is a failure in your mind. You are lacking something. And that's sad, but there's nothing I personally can do about it, and I'm not going to change my appropriate behavior of subjecting all ideas to scrutiny and criticizing the silly and damaging ones.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 6:13 AM
Ok, end of thread.
Its all Kenny. Banned repeatedly, dishonestly posts under dozens of names/ID.
A mentally ill person, makes no sense to engage him. He needs serious help.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 6:14 AM
We need another Inquisition to root out idiots like you (and anyway, the Church only excommunicated heretics and witches, then handed them over to the state for punishment. We never executed them directly). (My emphasis.)
So that's alright then.
PZ, considering the results of the study sponsored by the Templeton Foundation - that knowing you are being prayed for is a significant health risk - I wonder if all the promises to pray for you should also be considered death threats, in addition to the more explicit ones!
Posted by: Emo God | July 12, 2008 6:17 AM
Sorry for a little trolling but to be honest I just can't take most of you seriously and I don't think the real world can either.
Six billion people. A Catholic minority. I gave you free breeding privileges. How'd you get outnumbered?
Crackers? You're kidding, right?
Geegoshwilly, you mean you gave up weegy-weegy for Wheat Thins?!? Because of the erectile dysfunction draq queen in that preposterous hat?
That does it. The next universe can forget about free will. If you don't use it, you lose it.
I just hope you guys don't get sick of all the eggrolls and sticky rice.
Stick that in your 'real' world; us immortals hardly take limpdicks seriously when you can't get it up for the best gifts you're given.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 12, 2008 6:20 AM
Hey Rob Sterling speaking as someone, who along with his coworkers, has been advised in the past to check under our cars in the mornings, I can tell you it is no fun to tell your young kids to wait in the rain while you check under your car, while trying not to get rose thorns in your but. I understand the institute now runs a free minibus service to take workers to local transport hubs.
This was of course due to animal rights loonies (now sat on hard by her majesty's police and judiciary), rather than religious loonies. But does it matter who blows you up? you are still dead. Which makes that threat a death threat.
Besides, PZ didn't start this, he only commented on it. Donohue is the one who failed to turn the other cheek.
Posted by: Matt | July 12, 2008 6:21 AM
Well, you were right when you said it was tiresome to read, PZ. That and incredibly annoying. I need to go and wash my brain clean with something.... I started watching Rome season 2 last night, I think I'll continue with that.
Posted by: WYSTAN | July 12, 2008 6:24 AM
To keep things straight and accurate: it was stated in these comments that the RC priest must consume all not-distributed consecrated hosts at the conclusion of the Holy Mass. This is NOT altogether the case. A certain number of consecrated hosts are RESERVED. These are used for hospitalized patients, shut-ins, and so forth. Also, for the weekday liturgies during the Great Lent there are special "Presanctified" liturgies using reserved, pre-consecrated hosts.
Posted by: black wolf | July 12, 2008 6:25 AM
As much as I disdain the thinly veiled (or actual, I haven't rad all of the emails or comments here) death threats, nobody's been shot and no embassies have been torched. Nor do I expect it to happen. Even if psychologically civilization is only a thin finish on our behavior, it is enough for most people to not succumb to a violent mob mentality.
However juvenile 'Christnapping' a cracker may be, personally attacking someone who does it is borderline sociopathic behavior. As is attributing personhood and magical transformation to such an object, including semantic trickery to explain away the magical and formative elements. And that is what PZ discussed and rightfully ridiculed.
It is as obvious as psychologically explainable that people, in this case Catholics, have a strong need to preserve a realm of magical and esoteric thinking and deny the existence of a world that daily confronts them with an often harsh physical reality of natural, unjust and indifferent causes and effects. Our society has accepted people's right to their personal realm of denial, and we have institutions for those people whose delusions overflow. However this right ends where someone else's right to refuse acceptance of collective suspension of disbelief begins. If your state of mind cannot cope with ridicule or the confrontation with reason, it is you that needs to analyze this potentially dangerous mindset, and its not others' or society's role to provide a protected wildthought reserve for you.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 6:32 AM
"Jim, you are far more dense than I imagined. He's curious as to why Donohue is not making a stand against those threatening the kid."
Well, first, what does that have to do with what I wrote? What was all the "EXACTLY" about? There was no "EXACTLY" about anything I wrote.
Second, my guess would be that only Webster seems to be aware of the alleged threats. I've been looking, but can't seem to find anything. As far as I'm aware, death threats are taken very seriously and there would be criminal charges. Who is it that Donohue should be taking a stand against? I've seen allegations of death threats, but no evidence. If there is evidence, can you send me a link or something? I'd be interested in providing that to Donohue to see if he responds to it or just doesn't care. I really don't know that much about him.
Posted by: Jonathan Rothwell | July 12, 2008 6:34 AM
I'm bored now. I now need to go and find a washing machine cycle to examine, that'll be more interesting.
Posted by: Marc Geerlings | July 12, 2008 6:34 AM
I feeling sick reading this mails. Forced by a nun, who was my teacher, who tied my left hand to force me to write with my right hand and so singled me out from the first day on as a sort of dirty freak who isn't behaving normal like the rest of those nice catholic children I can not feel any sympahty for there position to force their weird ideas of morals on the rest of us.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 12, 2008 6:41 AM
#876, welcome back Etha. No, that is not a cracker in my pocket, just happy to see you. (grin)
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 6:42 AM
Xeno: "All that text, and I think you missed out on the request to "[make] any support for factual truth of transubstantiation" (note "factual truth"). If this "truth" is so apparent, why don't all christians believe it?"
That's a good question and a book like Darwell Stone's two-volume A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (especially volume 2 which covers the Protestant Reformation) would answer that question. Also a book like Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation by Francis Clark, S.J. would answer it. They show in detail why some (not all) Protestants abandoned the literal belief in the 16th century. Lutherans had almost identical beliefs as Catholics, and we can see that in Lutheran theologian's Martin Chemnitz's 16th century critique of the Council of Trent.
However, if my Facts (1) to (7) on the Eucharist above are indeed Facts, then every Christian should believe the Catholic Eucharist (and every Christian should be Catholic as well). Catholics who do not believe it are either (A) ignorant of their own Church's teaching on the Eucharist, or (B) deliberately rejecting their Church's teaching and therefore being disobedient to their Church's authority.
The historical claim I was answering is "transubstantiation wasn't believed or was invented in the 8th or 9th century." I have successfully answered that quite thoroughly. Jesus taught it, the Bible teaches it, all the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church taught it for 1000 years. That should be enough for every Christian.
For some Christians (those independent kind, or those like John Shelby Spong) it is not enough, and for atheists it is not since they need scientific or evidential support since "it looks like bread, tastes like bread, smells like bread, therefore it is bread." Your scientific support (or at least something science cannot explain) would be the "Eucharistic miracles" (disputed by skeptics like Joe Nickell), although I have not looked deeply into those. For me, the consistent teaching of the Church down through the ages is enough. I already believe in God and Christ which helps.
pcarini: "Please Phil, link it next time. Most of the people here who doubt transubstantiation don't believe even the foundation of your claims, that a god exists and that Jesus exists to be magically integrated with a wafer. Why should any of us atheists take biblical passages as evidence of transubstantiation?"
I tried to link, but was moderated. So now I copy/paste the historical evidence. The claim I was answering was "transubstantiation was invented" later. I thoroughly answered that. Now of course I am assuming:
(A) God exists (a good book is Swinburne's The Existence of God or Craig's Reasonable Faith).
(B) Jesus of Nazareth existed, and claimed to be God or at least the promised "Messiah."
(C) Jesus performed miracles and (especially) rose from the dead, therefore proved to be God (one good book is Craig's short one The Son Rises).
(D) Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church to teach His truth through the apostles and their successors, i.e. St. Peter in the seat or authority of the Papacy as Bishop of Rome, the bishops throughout the world as their general successors, etc. (a book would be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church by Whitehead)
Atheists get stuck on (A). Deists get stuck on (C). Protestants and non-Catholic Christians get stuck on (D). All professional historians acknowledge (B) so that is not a problem. The disputes are with (A), (C), and (D). Maybe I'll get to those later, but I'm sure many Christian and/or Catholic apologists have tried in here.
Any of you atheist dumbshits (sorry couldn't resist, this blog changes one's vocabulary) read Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft / Ronald Tacelli ? Here is chapter 8 on the Resurrection summarized:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num9.htm
Damian: "That's right, because debate is the proper format to contest intellectual acumen. And PZ would wipe the floor with WLC where biology is concerned. Disciplines are like that."
William Lane Craig doesn't write against evolution or biology or science, but he does have a chapter on "Naturalism and Intelligent Design" in the 2007 book by Dembski/Ruse so perhaps they could debate that. P.Z. Myers often ridicules the Christian and/or Catholic faith, something he only does on his blog and would never do in person since he is too polite, so how about Willam Lane Craig and P.Z. politely debate the following:
RESOLVED: "God is a delusion"
Of course in this debate, P.Z. would have the burden of proof since the affirmative in a debate normally does. I would love to see this. Craig would wipe the floor, P.Z. would have to clean up.
Phil P
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 12, 2008 6:47 AM
Willam Lane Craig and P.Z. politely debate the following:
I see no point in a debate. I seen (and read) debates in which Craig was involved. It is not worth having a scientific rationalist try to engage with someone who bases premises on "what seems obvious to me". That is not the way reason works.
Posted by: Donovan | July 12, 2008 6:48 AM
I don't think any of these people know who PZ is. They accuse him of attacking only Catholics, or only Christians, and dare him to taunt Mulims. I think if PZ had enough of the wood claimed to be the original cross, he would start a fire with it to burn the supposed original text of the Koran, and then use the resulting ashes to write "Hindus Suck!" on all the cows in India. Or rather, I would. I honestly don't know what PZ would do... Okay, meaningless rant, but really, can anybody score me some cross wood? It would be found in a little goden box on a Catholic alter.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 12, 2008 6:49 AM
Some reflexions in 3 parts for your reading pleasure (?)...
1. "First amendment right", said Bill D. Let me think about this. So, saying "Kill him!" is protected free speech? Is that how US law works? Is there also a religious exemption for incitation to violence?
2. I think most people here have strong admiration for Charles Darwin. Old Charles is not a god of any kind, but a man of great scientific creativity, an example and inspiration or, in the words of SJ Gould, "an intellectual hero". Well, a Darwin-hater could distort Darwin's message; he could say Darwin became a Jehovah Witness on his death bed; he could even make photoshopped pictures of Darwin naked performing acts of pedo-necro-zoophilia (that is, having sex with dead baby animals). Many of us would find this sad. All of us would take it as a sign of severe stupidity. Non of us would call it a sacrilege of a desecration. So, sorry, there's definitely no symmetry between the religious fanatics us Pharyngula readers.
3. I think that PZ's littke "desecration challenge" is rather childish. Yes, it's true that grown men, including myself, and also university professors, can take pleasure in childish acts. The "Blasphemy Challenge" has been called childish: I think it is, but only partly. The non-childish part consists in stating your views. The childish one is the pure fun of enraging people. Something PZ often likes to do, and well, we need people like that (I'm certainly not one of those, and I sometimes regret it). Well, perhaps I'd like people to be enraged when put in front of their own fallacies and contradictions, not merely when prodded. It may be that they would be unable to spot the fallacy anyway. But isn't this a good way to explore? Does that make me a kind of "appeaser"?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 6:49 AM
Jim,
"I've seen allegations of death threats, but no evidence."
Surely, you'd expect a kid who reportedly "just wants all this to go away" to launch an internet campaign chronicling said evidence of death threats, or even launching an official investigation?
END SARCASM
If you bothered to read the original article that PZ referenced, you'd find:
"Catholics worldwide became furious." and
"Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger."
That's pretty much what you'd find in an article of that length.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 6:56 AM
It is hardly surprising that Catholics think communism is the same thing as atheism, and that Stalin's motivation was a hatred of god. It is after all what the Catholic Church has taught over the years. The Catholic Church even voiced its approval when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, seeing it as a battle between Christianity and Atheism. I tend to find Catholics remarkably ignorant of the relationship between their church and the right-wing dictators of the C20th. It was one that does any credit to the Catholic church.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 6:57 AM
human beings are constitutively incapable of knowing anything whatsoever about the supernatural (including whether or not there is a god) - Theodore Shulman
Nonsense. We can't know that there is no god, but once some definite characteristics are ascribed, we can ask whether the existence of a god with those characteristics is compatible with observation. For example, we can be confident there is no omnipotent and omnibenevolent god - the hypthesis that there is, is clearly incompatible with the existence of suffering and evil.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 6:59 AM
"I've seen allegations of death threats, but no evidence. If there is evidence, can you send me a link or something?"
Try looking on this very blog. You will find examples of the e-mails PZ has received. Then come back and admit you were wrong.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:01 AM
Phil @ #970
Well, I guess I literally asked for that round of text bludgeoning.
"However, if my Facts (1) to (7) on the Eucharist above are indeed Facts, then every Christian should believe the Catholic Eucharist (and every Christian should be Catholic as well). Catholics who do not believe it are either (A) ignorant of their own Church's teaching on the Eucharist, or (B) deliberately rejecting their Church's teaching and therefore being disobedient to their Church's authority."
The way you state that is interesting, and suggests that you are wrong. For if you were right, and you had "facts", what would that say about all those christians and catholics that do NOT believe in this? Are they ignorant? Stupid? Or maybe they need some time in "re-education" groups?
Wait - I have it! They have not yet seen the correct truth, right?
What are your thoughts on this?
"I would love to see this. Craig would wipe the floor, P.Z. would have to clean up."
My dad can beat up your dad. My favourite musical group outrocks yours. The floor is lava.
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 7:07 AM
"But you are wrong. Showing how crazy the religion is is NOT hatred toward Catholics. Its love of reality, and condemnation of irrationally-based mistreatment of others."
Define "showing". That is where the hate comes in. If it was having a rational conversation between two intelligent human beings, then I might agree. But I think the actions speak quite clearly.
"If you are unable to see that VALID criticism of ideas is not hatred, STRIDENT criticism of damaging ideas is not hatred, then that is a failure in your mind. You are lacking something."
I've got absolutely no problems with "VALID criticism". But the actions suggested, as has been agreed to above, are motivated by hate. Should I actually believe that if your mother was a devout Catholic rather than "mildly religious" that you'd still think it was a good idea to desecrate the Eucharist in front of her?
Posted by: dutchie | July 12, 2008 7:07 AM
"Judge a man not by his friends, but by his enemies"
I forgot where I read that, or who said it, but looking at what sort of enemies you've made, PZ, you're some kind of Hero .
People believing a cracker to be God is...strange, but it's their right to believe it. PZ getting mad at those people for sending death threats to a kid, who apperantly, didn't share that belief and didn't treat the cracker that was given to him as if it were God "In the Flesh", is, well, that just shows he's a compassionate human being who respects that poor kids beliefs (or lack thereof).
Oh whatever, you can't argue with religious people anyway. Now excuse me, I have to go rescue my brothers (they go to a Christian school...)
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:08 AM
Donovan @ #972
Cross wood?
That is pretty lame.
Now, what you want to do, is score some genuine holy foreskin. Yes, you see - being that Jesus was a jew, he was of course circumcised. While his mortal coil may have been nailed, dead and resurrected so that no part of his body was left in the mortal world - the Holy Prepuce remained!
..and you thought the magical cracker story was insane?
Oh, being that we're supposed to be all sensitive and stuff - does anyone actually believe in this? Because if someone does, I obviously can't call it on being a stupid & whacky belief, right?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:11 AM
Jim @ #979
"Define "showing". That is where the hate comes in. If it was having a rational conversation between two intelligent human beings, then I might agree. But I think the actions speak quite clearly."
Define "the actions".
Posted by: Sauceress | July 12, 2008 7:16 AM
Kenny
http://www.rabid-squirrel.com/
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:17 AM
Nick @ #976
"We can't know that there is no god, but once some definite characteristics are ascribed, we can ask whether the existence of a god with those characteristics is compatible with observation."
Fantastic. I'm stealing this.
It's bothered me to no end in the creationist/ID ramblings - the idea that we cannot say squat about there being or not being "a god" (as in undefined god), when what they're really proposing is a defined god, and often very precisely defined at that.
Enter the holy cracker controversy, and arguments to the effect of "no one is able to say if god isn't magically popping up inside certain bread".
Posted by: Jim | July 12, 2008 7:24 AM
"Try looking on this very blog. You will find examples of the e-mails PZ has received. Then come back and admit you were wrong."
Maybe it's because it's late, but the question was about Donohue not speaking out against death threats to Webster.
I only saw one comment that may or may not have been considered a death threat towards Professor Myers. I would hope he'd take it seriously and alert the authorities. Emails are easily traced.
But most of the comments in the emails he posted demonstrate that Catholics are passive, not a threat. Most claim that he goes after Catholics specifically because there is no threat of violence, unlike desecrating something sacred to Muslims (which I would be equally vocal about).
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 7:24 AM
Phil Vaz,
why do you belittle your faith so much ?
What are you worried about ?
According to a revelation received by Paul, this is the instruction Jesus is supposed to have given to his disciples ;
It's quite clear isn't it ?
Transbustantiation is only supposed to be meant for the faithful, and consumption is to be done by the faithful, in remembrance of Christ. It looses complete meaning when it's done by a non believer, so why react ?
So, why do you corrupt the message of Jesus so much ? Why only focus on ritual and forget the message ? What are you worried about if a non believer takes a fracking cracker and destroys it, it's quite obvious that it has nothing to do with what we are supposed to believe, if at all the Bible is historical evidence, Christ himself was talking about, so what are you worried about ? Can you not see that when Catholics react to this, they belittle their own faith to such an extent to make it so ridiculous ?
Why can't you be a bit more intelligent than the average lot and simply not react, nothing stops you from practicing your faith and believing what you want, but no, it's the usual bad reflex of the religious folks, they always want others to obbey their rules, afterall, that's what they have been doing for centuries.
Don't you see that we know that it's the body of Christ for you the faithful ? But can't you understand that it's not the body of Christ for us, the non faithful ? And there is nothing in what Christ said or did that leads to the conclusion that it remains the body of Christ when a non faithful takes it. So what are you worried about ?
Posted by: Buzz Buzz | July 12, 2008 7:27 AM
"I've got absolutely no problems with "VALID criticism". But the actions suggested, as has been agreed to above, are motivated by hate. Should I actually believe that if your mother was a devout Catholic rather than "mildly religious" that you'd still think it was a good idea to desecrate the Eucharist in front of her?"
Frankly, if I shell out the $4.99 to mail order it to my home via the internet it isn't anyone's business what I do with it, regardless of whether anyone thinks it's the flesh of Jesus or not. Nobody is protected from having their sensibilities offended by law, and having those sensibilities violated isn't justification to send out death threats, as is the case in this messed up, silly little story. The fact that it's all over a frickin' cracker is just the cherry on top.
If it really is so holy, I'm wondering why they're not all up in arms over it being available on the internet for $4.99 in the first place. I'm also wondering why they sell it in whole wheat and white versions when it ends up being human flesh before you eat it anyway. But hey, what do I know?
Maybe I'll order a box this weekend and eat the whole thing with a can of cheese whiz. I've had a taste of communion wafers before. You'd really think that Jesus would taste better.
...And damn, have you ever drunk his blood? What a booze hound!
There must have been a 24/7 party going on around that guy.
Back to seriousness though, if I do that, and I will if I feel like it, it doesn't mean that I hate Catholics. You have to have your head shoved pretty far up your own ass to think that it does. What it does mean is that I don't respect certain beliefs held by some Catholics. And I'm not required to. Don't like it? Tough shit.
Posted by: Spooky | July 12, 2008 7:28 AM
I may be too late, but ...
El Herring @ #119
Regarding the properties of diluted Holy Water ...
I think it depends on which edition of Dungeons & Dragons you are using. Check out the 4th Edition for the latest ... I'm sticking with 3.5.
;)
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:32 AM
Buzz Buzz
"If it really is so holy, I'm wondering why they're not all up in arms over it being available on the internet for $4.99 in the first place."
You are forgetting that it is only the exact same bread a priest has cast a magic spell on that is holy.
Now, if you'd take a bought cracker to a church and dip it in holy water - WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?
OH SHI-
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 7:33 AM
I'm leaning towards the term Fatwa envy. - Sastra
I agree - captures the mentality perfectly.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 7:36 AM
Xeno: "Wait - I have it! They have not yet seen the correct truth, right? What are your thoughts on this?"
Ask a difficult question that requires some explanation, get an answer with a lot of detail. That's how it works. I meant to say six points. Which of my (1) to (6) points above are not factual (historically). Look it up if you have to. I'll give you some time.
FACT (1) the first one to teach a purely "symbolic" Eucharist was Berengarius (or Berengar) of Tours c. 1050 AD;
FACT (2) the word "transubstantiation" wasn't used until the 11th and 12th centuries, and it was first officially endorsed at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 AD; although this is not a problem because of Fact (4);
FACT (3) the Radbertus-Ratramnus "debate" of the 9th century wasn't over "transubstantiation" or "symbolic" Eucharist either;
FACT (4) ALL the orthodox Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church from St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) to St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) held a Catholic view of a literal, real, substantial "presence of Christ" in the Eucharist, even though the word "transubstantiation" wasn't used early on (it WAS used by Aquinas who lived after the 1215 AD Fourth Lateran Council);
FACT (5) the terminology that WAS used by the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors were the Latin/Greek terms for "change" or "transform" or "convert" of the bread/wine elements into the "body and blood of Christ" which very closely approximates the word -transubstantiation- (or "change of substance");
FACT (6) the Orthodox believe the same thing as Catholics (using the Greek term -metousiosis- for "change of substance"), and they inherit the same eastern Fathers as us who used very literal terminology (e.g. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene).
If (1) to (6) are correct, then it follows (A) Every Christian should believe the Catholic Eucharist, (B) Every Christian should be Catholic (or at least Orthodox I'll grant).
We already know what the teaching of the Catholic Church is NOW (that is not in dispute, see the Catechism paragraphs 1322ff). My little "debate" in here was on whether it was historically taught. It was. And NOW every Catholic who rejects that teaching is either (X) ignorant of their own faith, (Y) if they are not ignorant but understand transubstantiation, then they are rejecting the teachings of their own Church. So YES, it is very clear that Catholics who reject their own Church's teaching are either ignorant or disobedient.
Now that I have established transubstantiation historically, do we move on to God's existence, historical Jesus, Jesus' resurrection, or the founding of the Catholic Church by Jesus.
Or is it just Fuck You PhilVaz, you've said enough already. Or we can take it to Catholic Answers forums and I'll do my best William Lane Craig (Catholic version) imitation for you. Sorry there's that Pharyngula language again changing my vocabulary.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
Phil P
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:41 AM
Phil @ #991
"Ask a difficult question that requires some explanation, get an answer with a lot of detail. That's how it works. I meant to say six points. Which of my (1) to (6) points above are not factual (historically). Look it up if you have to. I'll give you some time."
Thanks for answering!
Only, could you try again - this time actually reading what I wrote?
I did not want a debate about the finer points of this theology. I stated pretty clearly my question, in relation to the assumption you initially seemed to agree with - that many christians and catholics in fact do NOT agree with you.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:45 AM
Phil,
I guess I'm confused at this point:
"So YES, it is very clear that Catholics who reject their own Church's teaching are either ignorant or disobedient."
You're saying all christians should be catholics, and all catholics that do not support the holy cracker theory are either ignorant or disobedient, right?
That is, you're not actually leaving any room - as I had assumed - for alternative truth, instead categorically judging the whole of christianity (and indirectly all other religions)?
Posted by: roy sansom | July 12, 2008 7:48 AM
What does "frackin" mean?
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 7:48 AM
Phil Vaz,
I'm still confused as to what you are trying to achieve here, can you be specific ?
Are you trying to convinve us that we should become Catholics ?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 7:51 AM
Roy,
"Frackin'" or "frakking" (or a number of other spellings) is simply "fucking", but in the parlance suited for TV created by the show Battlestar Galactica (the new version, that is).
Sufficiently nerdy for online usage.
Posted by: NiCrush | July 12, 2008 7:53 AM
Wait, what's tiresome to read again - the people defending their faith or your backslappers? Your backslappers outnumber them by 10 to 1. I ain't a backslapper. Take religion or leave religion, it's a simple choice.
Posted by: Am I you? | July 12, 2008 7:57 AM
Hey Phil Vaz, read this:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html
Yeah I know it's geocities. Ignore that part and just read it.
And have fun!
Posted by: BobbyEarle | July 12, 2008 8:00 AM
It is good to see Etha again...how ya been, kid?
In other news the Kenster has returned from all that book learnin', and reveals that he should have stuck with that Bowling 101 elective.
Posted by: Badjuggler | July 12, 2008 8:10 AM
I got as far as "muzzies".
What the hell are muzzies?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 8:10 AM
Fr. J is a troll pretending to be a priest. Nothing says they have to be smart but they weed the really stupid and crazy ones out. - Reverend Raven
Used to. But they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days - its mostly pedophiles, and those who couldn't get any other form of employment, who are interested in that "career path".
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 8:20 AM
Xeno: "I stated pretty clearly my question, in relation to the assumption you initially seemed to agree with - that many christians and catholics in fact do NOT agree with you."
Already answered. Almost all Christians do not understand the history of transubstantiation (TRANSUB) which is why they don't believe it now. Most of them are not aware of facts (1) to (6), they think either (A) TRANSUB was invented in the 8th or 9th century (as falsely stated twice in these blog comments), or (B) was invented at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. They don't understand the development of doctrine, and the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers on the subject, both Real Presence and sacrifice of the Mass.
Xeno: "That is, you're not actually leaving any room - as I had assumed - for alternative truth, instead categorically judging the whole of christianity (and indirectly all other religions)?"
I am only judging one doctrine (Eucharist, the subject of this blog) among all the Christian denominations. We haven't discussed Baptism yet (another doctrine that "divides" Christians). Hint: Baptismal regeneration was more unanimous than the Eucharist and the historical sources (even hostile anti-Catholic ones) agree with this point. I am not talking about Islam vs. Christianity, or any other religion at this time.
Next.
negen: "I'm still confused as to what you are trying to achieve here, can you be specific ?"
Yeah, answer historically the objections to transubstantiation. Done. Also post as much as I can as fast as I can in a short time while P.Z. is still asleep.
negen: "Are you trying to convince us that we should become Catholics ?"
Yes, that is the long term goal. The short term goal is to prove to all the atheist dumbshits who think TRANSUB was invented in the 8th, 9th, or 13th century, that the doctrine of "Real Presence" and "sacrifice of the Mass" was believed historically for at least 1000 years.
Today transubstantiation, tomorrow the world! It's a long haul: (A) God exists, (B) Jesus exists, (C) miracles are possible, (D) Jesus claimed to be God, (E) Jesus rose from the dead, (F) Jesus established the Catholic Church to teach the truth on faith and morals (not science BTW, but faith and morals).
negen: "Phil Vaz, why do you belittle your faith so much ? What are you worried about ? According to a revelation received by Paul, this is the instruction Jesus is supposed to have given to his disciples...."
Sorry it's a little more detailed than that. St. Paul wrote a bit more than that (1 Cor 11:27,29; 10:16-21). I suggest you look into John 6:51ff, the background of the Greek "Do this" and -anamnesis- and this article:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
Phil P
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 8:21 AM
The people defending their faith? Defending their many-million member faith, which is headed by the all-powerful but seemingly helpless creator of the universe... by issuing death threats against a kid who didn't eat his magic cookie, and by trying to get fire a guy who said mean, mean things about their death threats and magic cookie on his blog.
Man, I feel so sorry for the all-powerful creator of the universe and his millions of followers. The trauma they must have endured.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 8:21 AM
"I got as far as "muzzies".
What the hell are muzzies?"
It is a term used by stupid people to refer to muslims. Often the same people will refer to arabs as ragheads or towelheads. Their sense of geography tends be screwed so quite often they will call use the raghead when talking about Iranians.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 12, 2008 8:26 AM
Kenny! Hi! See you got that weekend pass from the home. Don't forget to take your meds just because the nurse is not around to hand them to you.
Pax Nabisco
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 8:28 AM
Well Phil, you've convinced me for one.
I now fully see the logic in the claims that some guy in a robe saying words over a cracker magically turns it into the flesh of a 2000-year-dead human who was actually the son of a god who was actually he himself, that he impregnated a virgin with his son who was actually himself so that his son/his self could be murdered so that he could then rise from the dead to forgive those who he had arranged to murder him for murdering him.
Thanks for clearing that up. And for a moment, I thought the whole thing was just insane mumbo jumbo.
Posted by: steve zara | July 12, 2008 8:32 AM
Today transubstantiation, tomorrow the world! It's a long haul: (A) God exists, (B) Jesus exists, (C) miracles are possible, (D) Jesus claimed to be God, (E) Jesus rose from the dead, (F) Jesus established the Catholic Church to teach the truth on faith and morals (not science BTW, but faith and morals).
You have a far, far longer haul than that.
You first have to establish that the supernaturalism is even a viable concept. They have you have to establish that supernaturalism can be demonstrated (something I consider impossible). Then you have to show how minds (which we only know of in the context of biology) can have a non-materialistic foundation... and I have barely got started.
Also, even if you demonstrate all of your points, you haven't even begun to deal with the issue of how we are supposed to recognise the truth that Jesus preached.
All religion, no matter how sophisticated it may seem, no matter what the theologists say, comes down to trusting gut feelings and words in old books. All theology does is to try and make excuses for that. It does not even start to come close to showing that it is true.
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 12, 2008 8:37 AM
#997
Take religion or leave religion, it's a simple choice.
No, it isn't. I am gay. Religion won't "take or leave" me. It works hard all the time to undermine my rights and condemn me.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 8:41 AM
Phil @ #1002
"Almost all Christians do not understand the history of transubstantiation (TRANSUB) which is why they don't believe it now."
I think it would be fair to call this statement so close-minded it actually connects your anterior to your posterior.
To be clear about what I mean, I know a great many christians. Most of them do not follow any denomination to the letter. Quite a few hold very vague, "god is in everything"-views. They still call themselves christians and see no problem with that.
I doubt that any of them would be swayed by your assertion.
Do you think that maybe the answer to why y'all don't believe the same thing is not so much different teachings, as the problem of trying to instil "one true interpretation" from something that.. isn't true?
"We haven't discussed Baptism yet (another doctrine that "divides" Christians)."
Let's not.
"Yes, that [converting everyone to catholicism] is the long term goal."
You know, it's so much easier to sympathise with non-protelyzing religions.
Posted by: Nemo | July 12, 2008 8:43 AM
I've taken to just skimming these cracker threads for PZ's own comments. There just aren't enough hours in the day.
So I have to ask: PZ, are you actually reading all these comments? If so, you are a true champion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 8:44 AM
To add to what Steve Zara has said, the Catholic church is one of the worst offenders when it comes to discriminating against gay people. The church actively opposes allowing gays the right to marry or adopt. Somehow though they do not consider that to be bigotry.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 8:45 AM
AmI: "Hey Phil Vaz, read this...."
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html
AmI: "Yeah I know it's geocities. Ignore that part and just read it."
I'll read the site, and raise it by five books:
Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Kreeft / Tacelli
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (new edition, 2007) by Craig Blomberg
Reasonable Faith (new edition, 2008) by William Lane Craig
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham (Eerdmans, 2006)
The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Baker, 2007) by Eddy / Boyd
And another one: The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright (only 800 pages)
Have fun! (I guess it depends on which arguments you want to believe are the better arguments, a web site by itself is not gonna do it).
I think Dom John Chapman utterly demolishes that Geocities site on the primacy of Peter:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num16.htm
Chapman was Anglican but became Catholic when he was 25. He was one of the greatest patristic scholars of the late 19th, early 20th century and authored many of the articles in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia (that is online).
Phil P
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 8:48 AM
Steve makes a good point at #1008 that's also been one of those things that bothers me about - in this case - the moderators, the people who seem to pop up in every debate stating that "both sides have their merits" and "let's not fight, have ice-cream instead", while neglecting to observe that people act according to their beliefs.
It's not like these beliefs exist in some static internal world where they don't affect anyone outside the believer.
What's happened here with the cracker alone should show this. But much more importantly, the political agenda driven on by (among other things) religious zealotry to oppress others, is not something you can sweep under the rug with a blanket statement about "merits".
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 8:56 AM
I still haven't heard anyone discussing the merits of the Catholic church's official policy of hiding and protecting from prosecution the child-raping members of its staff.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 9:01 AM
Phil Vaz,
I think you should read your own bible !
Another instruction given by Jesus which is very clear, if we are supposed to believe in the historical authenticity of this text, if you are unworthy, do not eat this bread. So, what are you worried about if a non believer destroys it ?
Posted by: MYOB | July 12, 2008 9:03 AM
"Christians who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist."
Christ in a cracker?
I dare anyone to say this several times and NOT LAUGH YOUR ASS OFF.
Posted by: Joel Grant | July 12, 2008 9:07 AM
I am outraged that no one - NOT ONE SINGLE SINNING FORNICATING PERSON - had addressed the MOST IMPORTANT POINT. This is the point: the crackers are NOT the "body of Christ."
I proved long ago, in a fourteen volume work of genius called "Don't ralph Ralph" that the crackers, when blessed, turn into the body of an auto mechanic from Yonkers named Ralph (last name unknown).
I don't know about anyone else, but I think PZ and all of the rest of you WILL ROT IN YONKERS FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS for your disrespect of Ralph's body.
OK, Ralph's body was nothing to be proud of, but please focus. Even if Ralph's pot belly and hairy back were the source of endless amusement when he went to the beach. That's not the point.
You don't walk out of the church with Ralph in your mouth.
Posted by: Raiko | July 12, 2008 9:08 AM
Wow... that IS tiring.
Did you read all of these?
I agree with that one: "I love America. It is the only country in the world where the intellectually inferior and sublimely mediocre can get an advanced degree."
Oh wait... they didn't mean Catholics, did they?
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 9:11 AM
craig: "Well Phil, you've convinced me for one."
Here let me re-word your paragraph to at least make it sound more convincing, and something I would say:
I now fully see the logic in the priesthood of the Catholic Church, passed on for 2000 years from Jesus Christ and His holy apostles, when an ordained priest says the words of consecration over the bread and wine, which words were passed on from Jesus Christ, through his apostles, through the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers and Saints, sacramentally turns the Eucharist elements into the flesh and blood ("he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me" and "This is my body...this is my blood...") of the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, one in being with the Father, the Creator Almighty, and that the sacrifice he offered for the sins of the world could forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Amen.
Much better!
craig: "Thanks for clearing that up."
Not a problem! Join your local R.C.I.A. program at the Catholic parish in your city.
Phil P
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2008 9:12 AM
not something you can sweep under the rug with a blanket statement about "merits".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_ground
also known as "the fallacy of the golden mean".
I'm sure you will likely find almost ALL of the fallacies listed on the following page being utilized by the religious apologists in recent threads:
http://kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 9:14 AM
The reality then will be spiritual. It is time you expand your human closed mind and read up on the topic...consider the Bible as a starting point.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Bock the Robber | July 12, 2008 9:14 AM
People in this country think Scientology is utterly crazy, and they're right. It's insane. An alien from Venus does not live inside your head.
Yet these very same people belong to a religion whose central teaching is that Jesus turns himself into a biscuit.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:16 AM
Gosh Phil, you wrecked it.
The way I said it, it sounded so simple, plausible and sane.
You went and threw alla those extra words in there and now its back to looking like astoundingly insane bullshit that only a severely deluded mental case would ever believe.
You have dashed my faith in the Father, Son, and the Holy Cookie.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 9:20 AM
Ichthyic - thanks!
I love that taking the plunge in threads like these usually yields some nuggets. Logical fallacies are tough to avoid. Especially when they often easily help your rhetoric (as long as you don't get called on it). ;)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 9:20 AM
At least Jenn admits that her god is a murderous monster. Does explain the terror she and so many of the other fuckwits live in. Imagine, being killed for having sex; what a loving caring repugnant beast she loves. Speaks highly of her.
That and the "rain forest PC jungle" idiocy speaks highly of her intelligence.
Posted by: MissAgentGirl | July 12, 2008 9:22 AM
phil said:
Unfortunately Phil, the road you are taking for your "long haul" is shaped like a donut.
Hope that's not to sciencey for you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2008 9:23 AM
Here let me re-word your paragraph to at least make it sound more convincing, and something I would say:
somehow, I just don't think Phil is getting the point. Not surprising though, since apparently his goal is to try and convince us not to become catholics, but rather that he is good at apologetics and to visit his site.
sadly, he is not good at apologetics, though he might think so based on the lack of competition in these threads from supposed actual catholics.
It seems the only challenges he is getting are from atheists who know as much about apologetics (or more) than he does.
what this tells me is that Phil is literally wasting his time in apologetics.
the people who claim to be catholic simply don't care, because they already think they know all they need to, and the atheists don't care, because they readily see through apologetics to begin with. That's why they are atheists.
seriously, Phil. I do hope this is just a hobby for you.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:24 AM
I'm pretty sure "Jenn" admitted to being a troll, probably Kenny.
Kenny was apparently using many of his personalities tonight.
Posted by: Michelle | July 12, 2008 9:26 AM
I agree with Paul. The Bible is an excellent starting point. Everyone should read it.
Afterall, it's what made me an atheist. I'm like Penn and Teller on this, read it! We need more atheists!
Posted by: chrisD | July 12, 2008 9:26 AM
Mr. P:
Any way you put it it's still just a fantasy. Good job on the translation though.
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 12, 2008 9:26 AM
I just hope the Washington Times uses an appropriate image.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 9:27 AM
So, ichthyic shorter Phil:
blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2008 9:27 AM
Kenny was apparently
using many of his personalities[off his meds again] tonight.PZ is really going to have to seriously consider a limited form of registration to block the likes of undead Kenny.
Posted by: scott | July 12, 2008 9:28 AM
if it's just a cracker, then rise above it and give it back. they're not harming anyone with their silly cracker games so let them get on with it and stop tormenting people.
a 5 year old doesn't really get any added security from carrying a blanket round but you wouldn't steel that from him for any reason would you?
the guy should be a bigger man and stop upsetting people. he's giving atheists a rep for bullying.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:28 AM
Actually I don't know jack shit about apologetics.
I don't know a huge amount about most religions either, I stopped listening when Christianity was explained to me when I was 4 years old and I immediately recognized it as being fairy tales.
I don't think you have to be very well educated (my formal education ended around 8th grade) to have a decent bullshit detector.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2008 9:29 AM
So, ichthyic shorter Phil:
yes, but with sprinkles on top.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 9:29 AM
which guy, scott?
No one has a cracker except the catholics--and their supply companies. Did you not read any of the background materials, or are you just trolling for the sake of it?
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 9:31 AM
Xeno: "Most of them do not follow any denomination to the letter. Quite a few hold very vague, 'god is in everything'-views. They still call themselves christians and see no problem with that."
If so, then they need to read the Creeds, they need to understand the classic Christian creeds, and they need to understand a little Christian history (the Fathers, the Councils, etc). I definitely wouldn't start explaining "transubstantiation" to these kinds of people, we need to start with God and the Trinity then. Christianity is not a "make it up as I go along" kind of religion. If God is in everything, that is a pantheistic belief. Historically, Christianity is not pantheism.
To call yourself a "Christian" we need to have some standard of belief. Who is Jesus, and who is God, for example. That is what the classic Creeds are for. The Bible alone is not enough since it doesn't define what a "Christian" is to believe, nor is it enough what any individual thinks of "Christianity." Virtually all Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants would agree on this: we need to go back to the Christian Creeds. These define the "essentials" of Christianity. And forget transubstantiation and eucharist for the moment, is what I would say to your "pantheist" Christians.
Phil P
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 9:32 AM
Citizen Z, that is an awesome picture. I'm *so* stealing it.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 9:33 AM
And forget transubstantiation and eucharist for the moment, is what I would say to your "pantheist" Christians.
And they should care why?
Even the bloody creeds are made up.
more 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: Vincent | July 12, 2008 9:33 AM
Dr. Myers:
We stand in support of you!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 9:34 AM
"if it's just a cracker, then rise above it and give it back. they're not harming anyone with their silly cracker games so let them get on with it and stop tormenting people."
Scott, try reading. If you had bothered to do that you would have found out that Cook has indeed handed back the wafer.
Why did you have to try and pretend he hadn't ?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 9:35 AM
Why did you have to try and pretend he hadn't ?
concern trolling....or just plain ol' trolling.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 9:37 AM
Pay attention, Scott. PZ didnt actually steal anybody's cookie.
And yes, they ARE harming people with their cracker games. They are harming the kid they threatened to kill, and who Catholic officials tried to get tossed out of school.
They are trying to harm PZ by getting him fired for expressing his opinion.
They are harming us all by going on TV and issuing press releases stridently asserting that NOBODY is allowed to criticize their wacko beliefs... that while they can criticize everyone else in their sermons every week, NOBODY is allowed to criticize them.
They are hurting everyone but LITERALLY putting forth the notion that "nothing is more vile than threatening to desecrate" their cookie.
Nothing. Not murder, not their death threats against others, not their priests who rape kids, not their official church policy of hiding and protecting their child rapists... none of that is as vile as threatening to desecrate their cookie.
They are harming MANY. And they have killed many in the past.
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 9:38 AM
Scott @ #1034
"if it's just a cracker, then rise above it and give it back."
The original cracker is already returned. This was mentioned in the very first post concerning this.
"they're not harming anyone with their silly cracker games so let them get on with it and stop tormenting people."
On the other hand, they are threatening to harm people possibly interfering with their silly cracker games.
"the guy should be a bigger man and stop upsetting people. he's giving atheists a rep for bullying. "
You really haven't read anything relevant to this whole discussion, have you?
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 9:46 AM
Phil @ #1038
I think you are missing my point time and time again. Or, you just have a pin-hole vision of the world that boggles my mind.
"To call yourself a "Christian" we need to have some standard of belief. "
You are dangerously close to the whole "No True Scotsman"-deal. The fact of the matter is that these people consider themselves christian, are considered by others to be christian, and would likely not be swayed by your arguments.
The pantheism is mixed up with the trinity and other select ingredients until their own view of what's real emerges.
For you to say that they are wrong..? Wasn't the whole thing started from individuals contact with god? And the idea is that while that may be, *these* people don't know what they're talking about?
Posted by: MYOB | July 12, 2008 9:52 AM
What individuals such as us and PZ find so annoying about this sort of thing is how these people can so blatantly ignore the real meaning of what it is they are saying? If their exact words or actions were spoken or carried out or mirrored in some other context where the names and such were switched, these people would laugh at them and call them insane, but when they are discussed or carried out in the christian context they become sane and absolute truth.
The eucharist is compared to some one's flesh and we are asked to eat it.
If this were asked of you in some other context would you not be taken back either in disbelief or concern with the people who asked it?
So if someone were to be holding a cracker in his hand and say this is my flesh, eat it! That I should not be surprised or think this person insane? Wouldn't you call the cops just in case this guy isn't some sort of cannibal?
What gives???
Yet these people think this 'ritual' is above reproach? It should not be questioned?
Why would some one ask us to eat his body and drink his blood to begin with??????
This is one of the foundations of this nation's majority faith? Eating someone's flesh and drinking their blood?
Is this not literally INSANE????
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 9:53 AM
Yeah - JUNGLES. That was the manly name before we had to feminize everything according to political correctness and call them "rain forests." - Jenn
Priceless. If you're a poe, Jenn, you're a bloody good one. If not - ever heard of dry tropical forests? And can you really think people who live in jungles don't live in societies? I mean really?
Posted by: Fedor | July 12, 2008 9:54 AM
Ludricous. I am not for offending anyone's belief, but when they react in such an outrageous way it just pisses me off. Amazing how the tribal beliefs of some aggressive, paranoid little desert clan has passed on to this day and age.
"Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammunition..."
I look forward to your molesting some fracking crackers...
Posted by: Epinephrine | July 12, 2008 9:59 AM
I'm sure Mendel wouldn't mind. It might even be considered appopriate.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 9:59 AM
Phil Vaz,
don't you see that actually reading the Bible carefully is one of the things that convinces many of us to give up on these kinds of ridiculous antique goatherders beliefs ?
It's so full of logical contradictions, inconsistencies, gross historical errors, that it's impossible to read this and think back, how can people still believe in this ?
Just take this one single verse for example, the one we are talking about :
So, what are we supposed to believe here ? If it were really his body, why are we supposed to eat it in remembrance of him ? Does this sound at all logical ? If it were only a symbol of his body, then yes, we eat it in remembrance of him, but if it were really his body, he wouldn't have said eat it in remembrance of me, he would have said, do this so that I'm always with you, or something like that.
The problem is that the whole bible is like that, nothing makes sense, it's been writen for people who have absolutely not an once of critical reasoning, and then theologians who try to wiggle their way through this and spend centuries trying to derive all kinds of nebulous doctrines, and you think that you are going to impress us with this ?
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 10:01 AM
Yes, MYOB it is literally insane.
Which is why they flip their empty lids when someone points it out.
Pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, they can do nothing but screech like banshees and attack the messenger.
And this is what those who aren't religious but don't like these events don't get.
This screeching, these ineffectual attempts to get PZ fired, these fruitless attempts to "shame" us into shutting up are simply evidence that ITS WORKING.
Their beliefs are indefensible, so of course they can't defend them, they don't even try. They just screech and try to claim that their beliefs must not be criticized.
We have found their weak spot, and they can't do a damned thing... their beliefs are being exposed for the insanity that they are, and all of their protestations merely serve to underscore that point.
The screaming isn't evidence that we've made a mistake, its evidence that we're being successful.
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 12, 2008 10:04 AM
Those who are posting that Phil says "blah" are correct.
Phil really has to start from first principles, which is proving supernaturalism a coherent concept. Until he has done that, and progressed through dozens of other stages of logical proof, he can't say anything about God, the bible, Jesus...
Posted by: SteadyEddy | July 12, 2008 10:10 AM
Thanks for sharing these emails PZ... interesting to read what delusional people are writing.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 10:11 AM
I've noticed that and pointed it out a few times. The kid was SHARING HIS FAITH with a heathen friend and wanted to show him this important part of his faith.
Yet the clergy,et.al., massively over-reacted.
The kid filed an assult charge because they grabbed him.
So, the Church, like it always does when it's wrong, instead of APPOLOGIZING, went on the offensive over the cracker the kid ended up not eating.
But beyond that, why do these Christians think God is fucking helpless, like some doddering old man? All they needed to do was let GOD PUNISH HIM. Right?
After all, God's allegedly so fucking powerful that HE COULD EASILY TAKE CARE OF ANYONE WHO OFFENDED HIM and CLEARLY, if the tales are to be believed, DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP AT ALL!!!
Seriously, the guy can flood the world, bring the dead back to life, destroy both Sodom and Gomorrah, visit plagues upon entire nations, kill every first born son in a nation at will and can smite sinners with fire and brimstone.
What the hell kind of help does God need from a nun or some 70-year old priest? Or any of his mouth-breathing followers?
If anyone is showing "disrespect" it's got to be the followers who automatically assume that God's too weak to do anything about it... Of course, I think a lot of them, secretly, don't believe and hold onto their faith as a shield from depression, angst and hopelessness while remaining in an infantile state... But that's just my opinion, I can't prove it.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | July 12, 2008 10:24 AM
"You do kind of get left with the impression that these Christians wish they had the guts to kill people and blow things up when faced with those who disagree with them."
Oh they have the guts. Just wait till they pervert the foundations of American law further. They've already been blaming many of our problems on others for decades, be it religious groups in other lands, renegade governments, or smaller groups here like the GLBT community, Muslims, etc. Religious majorities know no boundaries when it comes to their own pet world view. Actions, especially violent ones initiated by strong arm government figures with a willing populace ready to eat up the next helping of law enforced upon others not like them, become a lot easier to justify when you've got 70-80% of the population. Mass delusion serves the ends of the worst in humanity, always for the supposed "right and good" reasons. The only "good" sign is that that 70-80% is comprised of multiple religious sects, and not just one.
And make no mistake: If and when they start doing away with whomever they deem unfit, they'll feel themselves entirely above the common Muslim terrorist. But the only thing that will differentiate the two, realistically, is that one will be wearing a suit and tie, and the other will not be.
Posted by: David | July 12, 2008 10:31 AM
Now everyone, don't mind Jenn. She has been trolling around the blogs looking to comment on all of the posts related to this matter. She hit me a couple of days ago, made no sense whatsoever, and refuses to leave me alone.
It's like having your own, personal, pope.
She makes me sad.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 10:34 AM
Whined by Fr. J | July 11, 2008 11:57 PM
Actually, what you got was the mirror of what you did with your very first post which clearly fit this definition:
to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly
You came here, on your soapbox, to put PZ Myers, and this community "in it's place." You got your ass handed to you and mocked because, when you pontificate, lie and act like a baby, you get patronized.
That's how the Internet works. Duh.
Yes you have. In this post even. Like this:Nobody, that I saw, blamed "ALL WARS" on religion. Religion is the prime motivation of numerous wars, but so are economics, racism and other factors.
If that claim was made, I suspect it was a rhetorical charge thrown out by one of you God-botters.
Actually, your problem is DENIAL. You suffer from the delusion that we must respect your ideas. We do not. From there, you take offense when we laugh at your feeble canard-filled arguments.
Really, you're suffering from delusions of adequacy when you think you actually made a salient point or a substantive argument. And coming to a gunfight with a knife... That's laughable.
We don't treat them at all, UNTIL THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTHS and PROVE THEY'RE STUPID. Seriously, you come in here with the SAME STUPID ARGUMENTS YEAR-AFTER-YEAR.
You want to be treated like an intelligent adult, act like one. So far you've acted like a petulant teenager with an 8-year olds grasp of the issues.
There you go again. Rubbing in your unearned superiority in our faces. You don't even recognize how OFFENSIVE your "god bless" crap is... Yet your kind does it all the time... Like you're being "above the fray."
You want respect? Fucking act respectful. You god-bots have societies power. We're the massive minority. You show us respect instead of abuse and a presupposed superiority that oozes from every post and maybe we'll be nice.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2008 10:35 AM
Shit. I must be really due for what I did on that altar in 1989...
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 10:40 AM
I for one never said it was wrong to disrespect people.
I merely have repeatedly pointed out that claiming that criticizing an idea is NOT the same as criticizing a person, and that when people make that claim they are wrong, and often making the claim out of a cowardly attempt to defend their beliefs without literally defending them.
On the subject of disrespecting actual people, I think it's perfectly fine to disrespect those deserving of it. Like that vile pig Bill Donohue.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 10:41 AM
Phil Vaz,
to give you an idea of how ridiculous a rational thinker may approach this issue of transsubstantiation, I will take for reference this article on gluten free hosts;
The church has apparently approved low gluten hosts (0.01%) gluten, but some people are wondering, how low can they go ?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur47.htm
Listen to how ridiculous the whole thing becomes :
"I AM SURE IT IS ONLY A QUESTION THE CHURCH CAN DECIDE"
So, how can the church decide what is the minimum percentage of gluten acceptable for the host to be capable of transsubstantiation ? How do they proceed to get the answer ?
Why don't thay say that ONE molecule of Gluten is enough, like this we will know the formula,
I don't know where they find it in the bible though, but that's another matter.
Don't you see how far the church is willing to corrupt the message of Christ, just in order to save face ?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 10:42 AM
ahhhhh goood morning /streeeeeeeeeeetch.
If you eat beef you are desecrating their beliefs. Where and how it is done really makes no difference. How would you feel about me say dropping a crucifix in a beaker of urine or smearing elephant shit on a picture of the Virgin mary.... but just not in your presence? Or using the bible as my personal stash of toilet paper... not in your presence? Even if you don't know about it it would still be disrespecting some you you people's beliefs.
Just so you know I don't advocate what the kid did. i think it was sophomoric and rude.
I think a cracker is a cracker no matter who says something over it but I would never do that. But I can and will stand back and laugh while I point my finger at you folks who's panties are so in a bunch over this.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 10:45 AM
Christianity really hasn't been around 2000 years. It's modern form, really, maybe 1600 for most the tenants to be in place.
But there are many, much older, still active religions on this big blue marble we call earth. Which kind of FUCKS UP YOUR ARGUMENT a bit, you ignorant twat.
Judaism has been around in various forms from 1,600 BCE. With the massive re-write from Israeli POLYTHEISM to Judean MONOTHEISM by the Judean priests occurring around 700 BCE.
Old as that may be, Hinduism is recognized as the OLDEST 'formal' religion.
Buddhism also predates Christianity.
Chinese folk religion, including ancestor worship, is something I don't have a lot of knowledge about. It may, or may not, depending on how you view it as a religion, be the actual oldest known religion from a 'civilized' region. Adherents of this religion are often classified as Taoists or Confucianists. Some have adopted some buddhist practices withing their religion and are called buddhists. Others mix-and-match from those philosophies and even take in some from western religions. Really, it's extremely complex and would require years of study to be able to adequately describe.
(And would be wasted on self-centered twats like yourself, so why should I bother. You don't care about what anyone believes but you.)
Posted by: Charles Darwin | July 12, 2008 10:46 AM
"or pea on the grave of Charles Darwin or any great scientist for crying out loud!"
Given that I was buried - against my stated intentions - in Westminster Abbey, anyone trying to relieve themselves on my grave would find themselves with splashed shoes and spending time at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
Epinephrine @ 1050: excellent riposte. I raise a glass of sherry in your direction.
Posted by: Brent | July 12, 2008 10:48 AM
PhilVaz: "That is what the classic Creeds are for."
They have Classic Creeds now? Darn, and I was just getting used to New Creeds (tm).
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 10:51 AM
So, if I play with Jesus' holy water, I can get two ho's? Sign me up!
Posted by: CLM | July 12, 2008 10:53 AM
Wow! You really got the nuts come out of the woodwork on this one.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 10:55 AM
"Remember, PZ, you have absolutely no verifiable explanation of why, or how, we are here. None. Your atheism is a faith equal to or exceeding that of the most committed religious zealot."
Wow, 99th percentile IQ or not, that email author is completely wrong.
Is his A-Thorism zealous? His A-Poseidonism? Pathetic. These people have no evidence. Nothing but shrieking, wounded tribalist sensibilities.
BTW, even if evolution were wholly discredited, that doesn't make the Vatican's outlandish claims one bit more valid.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 11:01 AM
Did you consider MPD? Or that she hears voices? Because she reminds me of a couple of the mentally ill whose trusts I run...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:02 AM
Phil i just went back and read all the posts after I went to bed last night and you still have not, it appears, even attempted to answer the request for factual evidence of the factual truth of transubstantiation.
All you are doing is taking circular argumentation and expanding it to a very long and drawn out recitation of scripture and repeating other peoples take on scripture.
I can boil it down for you.
Transubstantiation is true because people say it is true. They say it is true because other people who said it was true say it is true. These people say it is true because they read some words in the bible and took them literally. The words int eh bible are true because, well duh, they are in the bible.
No no where in there is any actual evidence.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 12, 2008 11:06 AM
"HAHAHAH - you idiots are exactly like the extremists that you claim to be against!"
So, owning firearms makes you an "extremist?"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:08 AM
That was promo right? Ignore him, I think he stayed up too late without a nap yesterday and got cranky.
Posted by: Sasha | July 12, 2008 11:09 AM
It's the condescending tone of "I/we are praying for you" that amuses me. Sounds like the conventional Sunday "confession & repentance" that so many Catholics humor every week.
Posted by: Dan | July 12, 2008 11:12 AM
Matthew 11:25
At that time Jesus said in reply, "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.
Peace+
Posted by: George | July 12, 2008 11:12 AM
Who knew. Catholics and Muslims are both affraid of someone critical of thier views. Religion is such a fragile thing, I guess, any comment to the wise may crumble the whole facade.
I was raised catholic, some values taught were worthwhile - service to others, tolerance, and, so I thought, an intellectual challenge of ones views. I guess not. While I no longer believe in god, I had still a warm place for the values. I guess I am losing that too in the face of such a meaningless tirade. Catholics are really nothing more than any other religious group. Insane.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:18 AM
dan
Dan, it calls to you to go forth and get yourself a bronco,
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 11:19 AM
I see you evil minions of satan are still at work.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 11:19 AM
Damn, I just woke up and this conversation is still going +200 posts. And some of you are the same people!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:22 AM
HI JENN!
While I now think you are a Poe or maybe even Kenny
i still wuv u a whole bunch
Posted by: E.V. | July 12, 2008 11:24 AM
Feel like you've yelled "FAKE" at a pro wrestling match and now all the inginant old ladies around the arena are smacking you with their purses and mullet-haired men are bellowing "shut up, Dude" ?
Ron from Houston, claims he knows it's fake. He has made it clear that if we yell "fake" we're rude to the audience and makes everyone who understands that Pro Wresting is just entertainment look bad. Point taken. And then he reiterates this point. And then he elaborates about how douchebag/dick-like it is, and how he would NEVER kill anyone's buzz over WWF while at the arena and that blah,blah, blah...
He made his point, but now he won't shut up until he is sure everyone accepts him as the authority on how a skeptic should behave. And for the life of him, he doesn't understand why everyone thinks he's a troll after redundantly expressing what we understood the first time he expressed it.
I get it , Ron. I just don't feel your views jibe with mine. I don't speak for you, don't presume to speak for me. So go have your Emily Post control freak meltdown elsewhere.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 11:26 AM
PhilVaz: "To call yourself a 'Christian' we need to have some standard of belief."
Xeno: "You are dangerously close to the whole 'No True Scotsman'-deal. The fact of the matter is that these people consider themselves christian...."
Based on what? Show me pantheism in the Bible, and more importantly, show me pantheism in the early Fathers: St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110), St. Justin Martyr (c. 150) forward, to St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. Why should I believe pantheism is a "Christian" belief when it was never considered such? That's what I would ask them. Pantheism is the belief that God is all and all is God, or God is "everything." It is a classic Hindu belief, not a Christian one. Never was.
Xeno: "....are considered by others to be christian...."
Name the others. What I really want are their biblical arguments for pantheism, and more importantly, their historical arguments for pantheism as being "Christian." If you cannot provide anything, they cannot consider themselves Christian. Period. Otherwise we are defining "Christianity" by "whatever I want it to be." Sorry, there has to be a standard of belief. Christianity is not "whatever I want it to be." If we can't agree on that, we cannot agree on anything.
Xeno: "....and would likely not be swayed by your arguments."
Remember, I am not a fundamentalist or evangelical or independent "Christian" whatever. I have a standard of belief: that is the historical Creeds, Tradition, and the Bible. As a Catholic I belong to a historical Christian Church with over 1 billion members (according to World Christian Encyclopedia stats). I can demonstrate historically and logically that my beliefs go back to Jesus and His apostles. I have done that on eucharist, I can do that on baptism, on the Trinity, etc.
If these pantheist people consider themselves Christian, I would ask them to show me pantheism is either (1) taught in the Bible, or (2) can be traced back through the early Fathers and saints to Jesus and his apostles.
Otherwise, why should I believe what they believe is "Christian" ? Give me their basis or standard for belief. If they say "Bible" fine -- show me pantheism in the Bible. If they say "the early Church" fine -- show me pantheism in the writings of the early Church. If they say I don't have any basis for it, Christianity is whatever I say it is. I will not accept that, and we'll have to agree to disagree.
Catholics don't commit the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, you have us confused with fundamentalist "Bible-believing" (supposedly) independent Christians. If they claim to be "Catholic" that's another issue -- I simply point them to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the "sure norm for the faith" according to John Paul II when it was published. That is the modern standard for what Catholics believe today.
Another view of this: if I define evolution as "people came from monkeys," would you accept that as an adequate definition of evolution? Or would I need to revise that?
Is "evolution" whatever I think or say it is, or does it have an accepted definition by science? Same idea as defining Christianity. Except change "science" to "history" and scientists become "the early Fathers."
Phil P
Posted by: Travis Cook | July 12, 2008 11:27 AM
Sir,
I too am well-educated and gainfully employed as an academic. I am quite familiar with the works of François-Marie Arouetand the other great philosophes of the 18th century. I might even be described as an expert on the early enlightenment (perhaps a commentary on the state of education today if nothing else). As I understand it, the great concern of the time was a blind and vengeful zealotry. According to some of the more sober philosophers of the age, even atheism was not wholly exempt from zealotry. I am wondering if this is a subject you have considered, and whether or not your offer to offend Catholics doesn't serve as an incitement in the court of good sense.
Are you not a little worried that your passion, which some might see as a sort of "pneumatophobia," if I can borrow a phrase from Cudworth and Shaftesbury, distracts from your arguments? I do not doubt that such nastiness will please those of an adolescent turn of mind, but what of the honest scientist and the philosopher? But a more urgent concern can be found. It seems to me that a man who places his confidence in reason to guide him through life must guard against obscuring his own sight with ire, whether it be theological or anti-theological. It is the same as with lying, I suspect. Appart from a concern for one's own reputation and one's duty to others, a man has a duty to himself to think clearly. Without that, what are we, I wonder.
I would welcome your reply.
Sincerely,
Travis Cook
St. John's College, Santa Fe;
Belmont Abbey College, NC
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 11:27 AM
I see you evil minions of satan are still at work.
Got any fetuses for us to barbeque?
Posted by: Kyle Rybski | July 12, 2008 11:29 AM
My favourite has to be the first.
'I know you are smarter than most people and probably even God himself, if you even believe in God. But you could learn something in humility.'
Seriously, isn't that amazing?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Mr. Travis Cook,
What is your take on the reaction of the Catholics to the kid who, I admit, pulled a dumb stunt?
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 11:33 AM
MAJeff @ #1805 - Most particularly, you qualify as not only one of the minions, but Satan's littlest most evil of them all. You and He might even be one and the same.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 11:34 AM
MAJeff @ #1805 - Most particularly, you qualify as not only one of the minions, but Satan's littlest most evil of them all. You and he might even be one and the same.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 11:37 AM
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 11:37 AM
If you read a newspaper article about what actually happened, including Cook's side of the story, and not just histrionics of Catholics on the Internet, or press releases by the Catholic League:
http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
You'll find that his intention was to take the host back to his seat to show his friend, that some parishioners got physical with him (grabbed him and wouldn't let him go), and that it wasn't until after this happened that he decided to take the host home with him. In fact, he has filed charges within the university system against several parishioners.
Posted by: Tony | July 12, 2008 11:38 AM
One of the posts to PZ (line 617) challenged us to do a little scientific research about the eucharistic miracles. I wonder if anyone has looked at those sites. (a)http://www.acfp2000.com/Miracles/eucharistic.html (b)http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm
I don't know... the evidence is pretty compelling... Its hard to argue against second-hand information and folk tales that have persisted for hundreds of years. Sounds more like "Big Wig" control tactics and ergot poisoning in most cases.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 11:38 AM
So when you finally get his side of the story, and not just the histrionics of Catholics, he doesn't look like that big of asshole. In fact, it's mostly the Catholics who are insane in their reactions.
Posted by: llewelly | July 12, 2008 11:40 AM
Looks like a full internet is no longer a freak occurrence for you, PZ.
Posted by: Eljay | July 12, 2008 11:40 AM
The outrage is because somebody had the guts to say look, the emperor has no clothes.
Pick your eucarist out of a cracker lineup 100% reliably everytime and i say you may at least have a case for saying its something other than a piece of bread. But in reality you cannot so your bare ass is just flapping about in the wind making you look like fools.
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 11:44 AM
Exactly, Aristotelian/Thomist philosophy is bullshit. If you can't differentiate two things in any way, then they are the same. Objects don't have an essence. They are made of waveparticles, but you won't find that in any holy book.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 11:45 AM
John Paul II
there's an asshole to whom I'm not going to listen.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 11:48 AM
Kick ass. MAJeff is TEH DEBIL! I always wanted the devil's recipe for hot sauce. Jeff?
Damn, I need a new recipe again?
I'm still keeping up with soup and cookies.
You and He might even be one and the same.
I am Satan! You'd better fear me motherfuckers! I'm coming to steal your souls and your crackers!
Posted by: Geral | July 12, 2008 11:48 AM
I like how so many emails want you to offend Muslims too. It's too bad they're not nearly as vocal in the US, where it's the Christians who spout the nonsense. When Muslims do something idiotic halfway across the world, PZ doesn't hesitate to call them morons.
In any case, what happened to turning the other cheek? Why would good Christians want to offend other faiths while they try to defend their own?
The irony is delicious.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 11:50 AM
Rev Dumbo @ 1807 - With your weak mind you more than likely will not understand this. You make fun of Catholics doing the will of God, while you and your friends of equally puny intelligence unwittingly do the will of satan.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 11:52 AM
KENNY!
got any more NDE stories for us to make fun of?
Posted by: Just another heathen | July 12, 2008 11:59 AM
Isn't there some sort of twelve step program for Catholics?
Hi, my name is Jenn and I have 32 cats. Just the other day, I assaulted a young man who took my cats cracker and then yelled at a bunch of people for stepping on my personal piece of the internet.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 12, 2008 12:03 PM
Setting aside the silly misspelling, you're welcome to walk into Westminster Abbey and urinate on the floor. I won't mind, Charles Darwin won't even notice, but the Church of England might get a little pissy about it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 12:03 PM
Neural T.
well, if this is really the story he wishes to stick to, I would advise him to rapidly change the content of this facebook page on which he appears as one of the signatories.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=18707785558
The whole thing just doesn't fit.
Either he does like PZ, and fine, welcome to the club, or he indeed sticks to the story that his intention was only to show the Eucharist to his friend and not to disrupt mass or anything, but because people got physical, that's why he reacted, and etc... which makes sense, but then why the facebook page where it's all about atheism and funds that are diverted by the church ?
Posted by: commissarjs | July 12, 2008 12:04 PM
Ron in Houston @ 328
For your knowledge, the Catholics only consecrate so many "hosts." After the communion service the Priest must eat all the remaining consecrated hosts.
That's not true. Leftovers are stored in the tabernacle. It's the extra wine that is drank.
So, the only way that someone can get their hands on a "consecrated host" is to go into their service, and try to disrupt it by not immediately consuming the host.
Actually, the host is handed to you or placed directly in your mouth by the priest. There's no cafeteria monitors to make sure you consume your slice of jeebus.
PZ advocated violating the same precious first amendment that people invoke for him to call people demented fuckwits by advocating people interfere with the Catholics constitutionally guaranteed right to practice their religion.
You don't understand the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't state that everyone is obligated to follow and respect the religious beliefs of others. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The first amendment actually guarantees the right to proclaim that a person will desecrate something sacred to others as long as that person isn't doing it at the behest of the government.
Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 12:07 PM
there's an asshole to whom I'm not going to listen.
From an article that I linked to yesterday:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200806300247.html
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 12:09 PM
There's no such thing as Satan. He is as fictional as the Tooth Fairy.
Just thought I'd remind some of our posters here of that...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:16 PM
I'm doing the will of god because... and I've been Holding back on this....
I AM GOD
and I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE YOU Jenn
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 12:16 PM
negen: "So, what are we supposed to believe here ? If it were really his body, why are we supposed to eat it in remembrance of him ? Does this sound at all logical ? If it were only a symbol of his body, then yes, we eat it in remembrance of him, but if it were really his body, he wouldn't have said eat it in remembrance of me, he would have said, do this so that I'm always with you, or something like that."
You need to look up the background to the word -anamnesis- (translated "remembrance" or "comemmoration"), it is not simply "remembering" something in the mind, but recalling it fully and making it present. It also has a "sacrificial" background. I present a complete explanation of the biblical texts, the Catholic interpretation of them, and all the major statements of the Church Fathers from the end of the first century to about 500 AD (excluding St. Augustine which requires a separate article).
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num8.htm
Rev: "I can boil it down for you."
Again, like I did with "craig" I will have to re-word your statement so it makes sense, and is how I am actually defending the eucharist (and transubstantiation) historically:
Transubstantiation is true because ALL the Church Fathers, ALL the Christian saints, and ALL Church Doctors believed it is a true Christian doctrine. They received it from Jesus Christ, who passed it on to his apostles, then to their successor bishops. The historical evidence is also found throughout the Liturgies of the Catholic Church both east and west. Nobody in the Church questioned the belief that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ until Berengarius of Tours in 1050 AD. That is fully documented historically in such works as A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist by Darwell Stone. The words of Jesus found in the Bible "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life..." and "This is My Body....This is My Blood" were taken and interpreted literally as referring to the Eucharist for at least 1000 years unanimously.
Rev: "No where in there is any actual evidence."
I'm sorry, but that is historical evidence that the belief in the true, real, substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the "sacrifice of the Mass" was held unanimously by all Christians for at least 1000 years. After the Reformation (500 years later) some Protestants started to doubt the belief and resorted to pure "symbol" or "figure" (those who rejected sacraments such as the Anabaptists).
Darwell Stone on the early history:
"...THROUGHOUT the writers of the period the identification of the ELEMENTS WITH THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST appears to be the ruling idea."
"The belief that the Eucharist IS A SACRIFICE is found EVERYWHERE. This belief is coupled with strong repudiations of carnal sacrifices; and is saved from being Judaic by the recognition of the ELEMENTS AS CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD, of the union of the action of the Church on earth with that of Christ in heaven, and of the spiritual character of that whole priestly life and service and action of the community as the body of Christ which is a distinguishing mark of the Christian system." (A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, volume 1, page 54, emphasis added)
JND Kelly's Summary of the Ante-Nicene Fathers
"....the eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian SACRIFICE from the closing decade of the first century, if not earlier. Malachi's prediction (1,10f) that the Lord would reject the Jewish sacrifices and instead would have 'a pure offering' made to Him by the Gentiles in every place was early seized upon by Christians [Did 14,3; Justin dial 41,2f; Irenaeus ad haer 4,17,5] as a prophecy of the eucharist....It was natural for early Christians to think of the eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper....Ignatius roundly declares [Smyrn 6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised'. The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom 7,3]. CLEARLY he intends this realism to be taken STRICTLY, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' DENIAL of the REALITY of Christ's body....Justin actually refers to the CHANGE [1 Apol 66,2]....So Irenaeus teaches [Haer 4,17,5; 4,18,4; 5,2,3] that the bread and wine are REALLY the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more IMPRESSIVE because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic REJECTION of the Lord's real humanity. Like Justin, too, he seems to postulate a CHANGE [Haer 4,18,5].....The eucharist was also, of course, the great act of worship of Christians, their SACRIFICE. The writers and liturgies of the period are UNANIMOUS in recognizing it as such." (Early Christian Doctrines, page 196-198, 214 emphasis added)
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA under Eucharist (as Sacrament)
"Nothing is more solid than the UNANIMITY of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for the first 1,500 years of the Church. The spontaneous uproar caused by men such as Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088) only attests the more to the unquestioned acceptance of the Real Presence. This UNANIMOUS belief of 1,500 years is itself an argument to its truth. For it is impossible that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, could leave the Church in error over a long period of time about one of the central doctrines of Christianity, according to the argument from prescription." (NCE, volume 5, page 604)
That's all I was saying. This answers the objection that the belief was invented sometime in the 8th or 9th century AD.
Of course this assumes several things, as I've already pointed out:
(1) God exists
(2) therefore, supernatural miracles are possible
(3) Jesus exists (not a problem historically)
(4) Jesus rose from the dead establishing his claims to divinity/deity
(5) Jesus established the Catholic Church to teach the truth on faith and morals
(6) Historically this Church began with the 12 apostles as leaders, and was succeeded by the bishops of the Catholic Church, with St. Peter and the Popes in Rome
Even though (5) and (6) are not accepted fully by Protestants/Orthodox, they would accept the evidence of the early Fathers. Atheists/skeptics/rationalists etc do not accept assumptions (1) or (2) or (4) so we would have to start there before anything in "Christian doctrine" can be discussed (such as eucharist or transubstantiation). The basic idea here is, regarding Christian doctrine (not science, but Christian doctrine), something unanimously (or virtual unanimous) believed by all the early Christians, should be accepted as true. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (cf. John 14:16f; 16:13; Matt 28:20; etc) and St. Paul that the Church is "the pillar and foundation [or ground] of the truth." (1 Tim 3:15)
Of course all Christian doctrine is based on the revelation from God (the Bible ultimately), we don't claim otherwise. But the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible would not have to be established to accept the Resurrection (as William Lane Craig argues).
Phil P
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 12:19 PM
negen #1101
It's possible that his intentions have evolved and changed as his he watched the hysterical reaction over all of this.
Posted by: craig | July 12, 2008 12:19 PM
""The church cannot be held responsible for the guilt of its members that have acted against the evangelic law; they will be called to account for their own actions."
Well isn't that handy. Since these people were representatives of the church, acting on the church's behalf, and representing their actions as being the actions of the church, that pretty much means that the church can never be held responsible for anything, ever.
The church has in the past officially done heinous shit, but when called on it in the future they can essentially say "we don't do that anymore, so you can't hold us responsible for having done it then."
How moral.
Posted by: yzfool | July 12, 2008 12:20 PM
Rey Fox @71
Everyone knows that Samoas are way better. I blaspheme heartily!
I simply can not condone your heretical utterances any longer. It is well known that Tagalongs are the one, true cookie. All praises to the Holy peanut butter and his true Son, chocolate!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:20 PM
Phil I know you mean well here but are you even paying attention?
I'm not arguing that people believe that the Eucharist is true. If that is what you are saying you've wasted a lot of space because the reaction of the Catolics freaking out is a good sign that people believe it.
yes you have to ASSUME the whole basis of your argument is true to prove it is true. That's the definition of circular reasoning.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 12:21 PM
Transubstantiation is true because ALL the Church Fathers, ALL the Christian saints, and ALL Church Doctors believed it is a true Christian doctrine.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 12:21 PM
The AA @1104 - Yes, TAA there is a devil. The proof is you and your like minded brothers. Satan's biggest lie is that he does not exist, and you believe the lie.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 12:22 PM
Jesus existing is not a problem historically?
I'd really have to dispute that. Where are the contemporaneous accounts?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2008 12:22 PM
John Paul II clearly was not aware that after the war there was a group at work within the Vatican providing nazis with identity documents in order that they could avoid arrest by the occupying powers and flee Germany. Of course he also did his best to ensure no one else knew about the activities of the group as he refused to allow historians access to the records.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:23 PM
*HUGS :)
Posted by: Neural Transmissions | July 12, 2008 12:23 PM
Transubstantiation is true because ALL the Church Fathers, ALL the Christian saints, and ALL Church Doctors believed it is a true Christian doctrine.
No, sorry, that doesn't make something true. Reality makes something true.
If all the Church fathers said Jimmie the Cat was a dog, but he looked like a cat, acted like a cat, and his sequenced DNA came back as cat DNA, he would still be a cat. No amount of prayer or ritual would make him a dog.
Posted by: commissarjs | July 12, 2008 12:23 PM
Fr. J @ 417
Some of the "threats" are obviously pranks or perhaps even hoaxes perpetrated by fellow atheists to make Catholics look bad.
No need to fake it. The catholic church and a goodly number of its' followers have been doing that quite well for the past 1,700 years. But your powers of prophecy and omniscience intrigue me. Are you Jeebus?
If PZ did something like this to another group his university would discipline him. That's a fact and you all know it.
Actually no, that's not a fact. PZ mocks woo from all the various woo merchants on a regular basis. He also offered to desecrate the Koran too. Fortunately those posts are all still stored on this blog. Perhaps you should look before you speak.
Posted by: Joe Momma | July 12, 2008 12:23 PM
So how come nobody is commenting on it?
Allow me.
Ripping apart the Eucharist for those of the Catholic faith is equivalantly worse than force-feeding a cow to a Hindu
You're kidding, right? Desecrating a cracker is worse than physically forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs? Are you like, stupid or something?
There. That's about the level of response it deserves. Happy now?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 12, 2008 12:25 PM
c'mon Jenn,
N.D.E.s!
N.D.E.s!
C'mon, don't let us down. BRING TEH CRAZY!!! Belief in some satan-woo isn't enough. N.D.E.S!!!!!
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 12:26 PM
Phil, at 880 makes a large, impassioned plea about the history of the Doctrine of Transubstantion.
Phil is dead wrong. Because Phil ignores that his research is based on corrupt data. Like it or not, Phil, the bible has been changed by your Catholic Priests who, before the dark ages, made substantial changes to it in order to bolster their particular religious views vis other Christian faiths.
Specifically, the Last Supper is one of those LATER ADDED passages. In the Last Supper...Jesus says, "This is my body which has been given for you; do this in remembrance of me." And he gives the cup and says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you."
But those verses are missing from some of the oldest and best manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. Further, without those verses, Luke nowhere else talks about Jesus' death as being an atonement, a sacrifice for the sake of others.
It also turns out that the account in Luke about Jesus sweating blood as he prays in the garden is missing from our oldest and best manuscripts. This too was added later.
The parable about not stoning the woman? It's in John. It was added later and was MOVED from either from Matthew or Mark (I can't remember which off the top of my head and remodeling has put my reference materials in boxes).
Anyway, Transubstantion does NOT trace back to this Jesus guy. It traces back to the 4th or 5th Century when it was added into Luke.
The same happened with the Trinity. There was nothing in the original manuscripts. So it was added by the early Catholics to bolster their doctrine against their competition.
That a Christian conduced "research" from a corrupt, self-affirming document that they've deliberately changed to bolster what they believe is funny. My attitude is so what? It's phony research conducted with a pre-ordained conclusion where all contrary evidence of prior acts of malfeasance and tampering is excluded.
Fortunately, in these modern times, Western biblical archeology is getting beyond the "The Bible is Unquestionably True" paradigm. And crap like this is becoming well known, versus a dark and buried secret hidden from us since the dark ages.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 12, 2008 12:26 PM
SC (Comment #93):
I found that one rather touching. It's about the only one of them that appeals to an honest human emotion.
Posted by: Neural T | July 12, 2008 12:26 PM
The spontaneous uproar caused by men such as Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088) only attests the more to the unquestioned acceptance of the Real Presence.
This is laughable. "I believe it because it is absurd!" Berengarius was just calling them on their bullshit, which would be obvious to anyone not brainwashed by their doctrines from childhood.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 12:29 PM
Nobody in the Church questioned the belief that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ until Berengarius of Tours in 1050 AD.
Wow. That means absolutely everyone in the Church was a raving nutcase - and an admitted cannibal - for about 1000 years! That's impressive!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:29 PM
How the hell did I miss that.
I mean. Wow. Finally some honesty.
The bible is like a small child's security blanket.
Perfect. I'm going to have to keep the link to that stored somewhere.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 12:30 PM
Rev Big Dummy @ 1105 - You, TAA. PZ etc have been given free will by God. With that gift, you willfully choose to do evil. You believe there is no God, or no satan, no evil, so that you can continue to live and wallow in your own sensual animal-like existence. I say "animal-like" because you are like the animals who were made without rational minds. Humans are made with rational minds, but you willfully choose to let your mind sit inert, while your animal instincts take over. You are blinded by your own choice.
Posted by: commissarjs | July 12, 2008 12:31 PM
Jenn @ 1112
Negative. The very idea is ludicrous. Every civilized person knows that Pluto is the lord of the underworld. The very idea that some upstart fallen angel could be the equal of a true god is laughable.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM
Jenn,
Atheists are no more proof that the devil exists than toasters are proof that Zeus exists. Have you ever heard of a non-sequitur?
You have no evidence that Satan exists. Simply stating you believe it doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:32 PM
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Jenn makes wackey arguments
But Rev. BDC still LOOOOOOOOVVES YOU!!!
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2008 12:34 PM
The history doesn't matter. The entire issue is little more than an argument akin to stating that Santa Claus squeezes not only into chimneys of any size whatsoever--but also even create one, go down it, and make it disappear as if it had never been there...for all those homes that don't have chimneys.
So many Byzantine, long-winded arguments, yet all are the equivalent of those "serious" theological debates about angels waltz-tango-foxtrotting on a pinhead, a tiresome attempt to divert from the real problem: The evidence of the deity is rather...thin. Full stop. Nothing beyond that matters.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 12:37 PM
1126 - Satan is not God's equal. God created the angels therefore satan is a created creature while God is uncreated because He always existed.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 12:37 PM
It's interesting to look at the life of Berengarius of Tours, about whom I admit to knowing nothing but the name before now: it appears his work was one of the first faint flickers of reviving rationality after the rule of unreason imposed on western europe by the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 12, 2008 12:38 PM
Phil P (or is that Phil Vaz?), you are to be commended for keeping a cool head here, but honestly, why haven't you responded to the questions/criticism of previous commenters who have pointed out that atheists don't even accept the existence of the supernatural? OK, so maybe you've "proven" some things about the Eucharist, although I'm sure there are Protestant apologists who would disagree with that and marshall plenty of evidence against your claims.
But really, so what?
I think Christianity is based on legends, that it's alleged founder may have indeed existed, but was only a Jewish zealot if he did. More than that, I believe there is no good reason for accepting the existence of the so-called "supernatural". So why on Earth would I care what Church Father So-and-So thought or how to translate a Greek word from what is very obviously NOT a supernaturally inspired "Scripture"?
Posted by: Neural T | July 12, 2008 12:38 PM
You, TAA. PZ etc have been given free will by God. With that gift, you willfully choose to do evil. You believe there is no God, or no satan, no evil, so that you can continue to live and wallow in your own sensual animal-like existence.
mmmmm, sensual animal-like existence. That sounds hot. I'll keep it.
As for the rest, why do we "do evil" automatically just because we don't believe in God? Oh, right. That's Christian morality. It doesn't matter how many people you kill if you accept Jesus before you die. The murderer goes to heaven and the atheist who never hurt anyone goes to hell.
You can keep that morality.
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 12:40 PM
Afternoon all! Still going I see? I know what piss off Catholics enough to make them leave...
*runs around naked*
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 12:42 PM
"...what will piss off..."
Sorry for the bad grammar.
Posted by: SC | July 12, 2008 12:42 PM
I found that one rather touching. It's about the only one of them that appeals to an honest human emotion.
I agree. It's pathetic, in both senses of the word.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 12:42 PM
TAA @ 1127 - Just because you say that God doesn't exist doesn't make it so either. You have no evidence that He doesn't exist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:43 PM
SMOOCHES!!
I
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:46 PM
I love you Jenn.
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 12, 2008 12:47 PM
Phil. You seem to be missing the nature of rational discussion. It does not matter how many people believe that bits of cracker are part of Jesus, or for how long they have believed that. It is all question-begging until you have proved the existence of God.
So, as I posted earlier, you first have to prove the supernatural a coherent concept that can be shown to exist.
I suggest you start with that.
Posted by: JoJo | July 12, 2008 12:48 PM
Not me. This is the weekend. I'm not working today.
Besides, it's been determined that we're an ilk, not minions.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 12:49 PM
Jenn,
You're the one claiming God/Satan/et al are real, not me. The burden lay with you to provide evidence.
Otherwise every crazy, unfounded assertion ever made would have to command respect because we can't "disprove" them (Zeus, Ra, Thor etc).
Posted by: Neural T | July 12, 2008 12:50 PM
*sigh* Have you ever been in a debate before, Jenn?
The onus of proof is on the one making the assertion. To reject a proposition is not itself an assertion. When you claim that God exists, that he has certain characteristics (including human character flaws like anger and jealousy), that he sent a demigod to save his people, and that by performing a ritual we can instantiate that demigod in a processed wheat product, YOU have to provide evidence for those claims.
BTW, you haven't proven that all the other gods DON'T exist either. Why aren't you Hindu or Sikh?
Posted by: mewletter | July 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Aaaahhh! Too horrible to read those emails. Too disgusting to read... I actually stopped reading on the 3rd email. No wonder PZ warn us. Those are seemingly perfect examples of how low those religious people. (Can I call them Pharisees? They really remind me of them...)
Hopefully I won't meet any of those kind in person; Aahh! What a nightmare...
Will try to help the Prof. to get out of this ugly mess.
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Everyone knows that Samoas are way better. I blaspheme heartily!
I simply can not condone your heretical utterances any longer. It is well known that Tagalongs are the one, true cookie. All praises to the Holy peanut butter and his true Son, chocolate!
Oh, come now. Everyone knows that Tagalongs are the cookie of creation, and Samoas are the cookie of destruction. All-Abouts are the cookie of maintenance, and of course Do-si-dos are the cookie of hell, which is where they belong.
Posted by: Neural T | July 12, 2008 12:52 PM
Jenn, continuing to make bald assertions will get you nowhere. We demand evidence. It's the only reliable way to differentiate truth from fiction. All other discussion is moot.
I'm beginning to think you're a troll.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 12:53 PM
Stop trying to rationalize with Jenn. She is fueled by emotions and emotions only.
That's why i love her.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 12:54 PM
I can demonstrate historically and logically that my beliefs go back to Jesus and His apostles.
Tosh. Read Geza Vermes or John Dominic Crossan.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 12:55 PM
Rev.,
I'm just shocked to still hear these arguments. "You can't disprove (absurd proposition X)" doesn't fly anywhere else in life, why on earth do they suppose it's convincing here?
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 12, 2008 12:56 PM
Phil, I think I can safely speak for the majority here when I say that nobody gives a shit about your blatherings concerning your superstitious nonsense nor the book in which the idiocy is published. No matter how hard you try, unless you've already been brainwashed and have thrown common sense and critical thinking to the wind, you can't possibly believe something as moronic as a saltine=supernatural being. Please feel free to pimp your stupid blog someplace else.
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2008 12:57 PM
Sorry about that - the second sentence in my 1145 should have also been italicized as a quote from 1109.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:00 PM
because believing in fairy tales is comforting. Any attempt to shatter that comfort will be met with a strong emotional response. Emotional responses can be very irrational. As Jenn has demonstrated.
But i still WUB HER BERRY BERRY MUCH
Posted by: Neural T | July 12, 2008 1:03 PM
Here's a classic point: I submit we are both atheists. You reject thousands of gods. I just reject one more god than you.
If you think about why you reject all those other gods, you will realize why I reject yours.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 12, 2008 1:05 PM
Sastra (Comment #341):
... wins the thread. Brilliant.
Posted by: Calladus | July 12, 2008 1:05 PM
Holy Hooves - I go offline for a long pray and then to bed... and when I wake up - 800 MORE comments to read through!?
And now we have Jenn -
Okay Jenn, I'll see your invisible friend, and raise you. So unless you can prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn does NOT exist, then you're wrong.
I know, because the lovely Invisible Pink Unicorn TOLD me that you're wrong, and that you should drop the wafers and start eating pizza instead.
And stay away from Spaghetti - that's heresy!
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:07 PM
Nick Gotts @ #1148 John Dominic Crossan lives in Orlando. He's probably the one who taught Webster Cook how to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 1:08 PM
Actually, I suspect sarcasm to your idiocy.
Posted by: George Smiley | July 12, 2008 1:08 PM
" The proof is you and your like minded brothers. Satan's biggest lie is that he does not exist, and you believe the lie."
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know these people. You've never met them or had an actual conversation with them. You have not the foggiest idea of what they actually believe or how they conduct thier lives.
That's behavior that looks a whole lot like bearing false witness, honey, and in the Caltholic faith, it's a mortal sin.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:13 PM
Yes, I'm sure at the Atheist weekley word domination meetings they hatched their Nefarious plan to torment a cracker and it's millions of whimpering followers.
I know they didn't discus my love for you there Jenn, but I am not ashamed.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:14 PM
George @ 1158 - Don't be silly. By reading their, and your comments, one can see that they not only do not know what they are talking about, but that they do not WANT to know. No one has to meet them; their words speak for what is in their hearts.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:16 PM
While I would love to meet you, this can not be. My love will always have to be a distant love. A strong but distant love.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 1:18 PM
Actually, they didn't. That's the funny thing.
They decided these things were true because THEY believed them to be true. Then, to make them true, the early Catholics ADDED to the scriptures. They added the doctrine of the Trinity. They added the last supper.
Then, having added these things, made claims about them being there all this time. Even though the historical evidence says they weren't.
What you don't know is that we've got early manuscripts of Luke. Earlier than the ones that were changed by the Catholics. The Last Supper wasn't there. Jesus sweating blood in the Garden of Gethsemane wasn't there.
These were added hundreds of years after the earliest Luke manuscripts were written. By Catholic Priests. There are other additions, by Catholic Priests, to the bible.
In the end, entire line of reasoning is based on an lie perpetuated since the dark ages and is circular. Your forefathers believed a certain thing. They added the "evidence" of their beliefs to the bible. Then they said "These things are true because they're in the bible, so we believe them."
Dude, never assume an atheist isn't at least as well-read as you. And doesn't have more information about dirty church secrets, and the origins of your religion, than you. Because a LOT OF US on this blog do. Including me.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 1:19 PM
Jenn--I'm still waiting for the evidence that God and Satan exist. I'm prepared to change my mind to suit new facts and understandings
Provide the evidence for Christian claims or you're just bullshitting. I suspect you'll be unable; these claims aren't exactly new.
Posted by: Kyle | July 12, 2008 1:26 PM
I think you should actually take these threats seriously. They are, after all and self admittedly, cannibals.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 12, 2008 1:27 PM
Dear Joel@1016
I don't know about anyone else, but I think PZ and all of the rest of you WILL ROT IN YONKERS FOR WEEKS AND WEEKS for your disrespect of Ralph's body.
Man alive, I've never disrespected Ralph (he's our FedEx guy at work) and I've been rotting in Yonkers for over a decade. Yonkers does, however, have the biggest population of "mint-lookin' guido girls (TM)" in the country, outside of Joisey.
Welcome back, Etha!
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 12, 2008 1:30 PM
Neural T #1107,
well if that's true that his intentions have evolved, why doesn't he explain it on this facebook page ?
Why doesn't he defend himself better ? He seems to be very ill advised.
All I'm saying is that this facebook page is bad evidence and some people are going to use it against him.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 1:31 PM
I'll answer this one, and that's about it. Yes, "God exists" needs to be established before I can establish the eucharist. I was only responding to the historical claims.
Adamant: "Jesus existing is not a problem historically? I'd really have to dispute that. Where are the contemporaneous accounts?"
Not a problem, that is correct. You cannot dispute it. I say this because the only people who do dispute the historical Jesus are Internet folks or eccentrics. Professional historians and "Jesus scholars" are unanimously agreed that not only did Jesus exist, we can at least establish many facts about him (e.g. for example, that he was cruficied under Pontius Pilate).
These quotes from historians will do for now:
Günther Bornkamm: "...to doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all...was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here." (Jesus of Nazareth, 28)
Rudolf Bultmann: "Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community." (Jesus and the Word, 13)
Michael Grant: "This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth....But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned....To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, 200)
Paul Maier: "...the total evidence [for the existence of Jesus] is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation." ("Did Jesus Really Exist," an article on www.4Truth.net)
Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: "There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of 'Q'." ("Josh McDowell's 'Evidence' for Jesus," also Wells The Jesus Myth [Open Court, 1999])
Craig Blomberg: "Combining the evidence of Thallus, Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius, one can accumulate enough data to refute the fanciful notion that Jesus never existed, without even appealing to the testimony of Jewish or Christian sources." (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 197)
Robert Van Voorst: "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, 6, 14, 16)
Will Durant: "The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul....No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion....in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ....no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel." (Ceasar and Christ, volume 3 of Story of Civilization)
Graham Stanton of Cambridge: "Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher." (The Gospels and Jesus)
Bishop N.T. Wright: "It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today [aside from G.A. Wells, etc], who doubt the existence of Jesus....No Jewish, Christian, atheist, or agnostic scholars have ever taken that [proposition] seriously since. It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest." ("The Self-Revelation of God in Human History" from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese [HarperOne, 2007])
Basically the "non-historical Jesus" concept is dead as a scholarly question. No one has defended that in mainstream NT scholarship for about 100 years. If you are looking for rebuttals to eccentric folks like Robert Price, Earl Doherty, or G.A. Wells (who changed his mind in the mid 1990s), I would suggest The Jesus Legend by Eddy/Boyd (Baker, 2007), or Shattering the Christ Myth by J.P. Holding (2008).
Phil P
Posted by: Monti0 | July 12, 2008 1:33 PM
My fav:
"We need to hit him where it hurts. Perhaps I should grab a copy of his Holy Book, which I assume to be Darwin's Origin of Species, and desecrate that! LOL!!"
Really?
Other than the fact that I will need to spend a few bucks to get a new copy, there is nothing that prevents *me* from taking a crap on a copy of The Origin of Species.
Why? Because it's just a "frackin" book! It's paper, glue and ink.
"Desecrating" it would not change the content / ideas that are contained within... At all. Ever.
Is the same not true for the (VERY POWERFUL and EXTREMELY TRUE and INFINITELY WONDERFUL) ideas and power contained in the bible / Qur'an / Torah / communion wafer?
An all powerful god? Being held "hostage" via a cracker by a puny human?
Surely the omnipotent God / Jesus / whatever could survive a bit of their / his / its flesh being held in a plastic baggie / fed to a dog, being crushed and smoked with some weed (Holy smoke? Sorry...) / crapped on / etc., etc.?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:35 PM
Phil I appreciate your attempt here but all of the historical claims of people existing that believe the Eucharist is true mean nothing without first establishing the validity of the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:38 PM
Sorry hit submit to early that should read
Phil I appreciate your attempt here but all of the historical claims of people existing that believe the Eucharist is true mean nothing except that they believe it is true. Without first establishing the validity of the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus it means nothing.
Posted by: Moses | July 12, 2008 1:41 PM
Of course there is no evidence. This is why the Catholics ADDED THE LAST SUPPER to Luke hundreds of years after it had been written. They believed to be true, so they added it in. Now, since it's in the bible, it must be true. Perfect circular reasoning with manufactured evidence.
Phil, like most Christians, really doesn't realize that his source materials are changed, often dramatically, by the early Catholics. And that, like a kid who downloads an essay from the Internet, makes a few changes, and calls it his term paper doesn't realise there are tools to expose the fraud.
Later, when the professor uses one of the term paper verification services, like Mydropbox.com or Turnitin and BOOM, it's an F. The kid thinks he got ripped off by the Term Paper service and sold him a crap essay. Little does he understand the tools are there to catch his cheating butt.
Well, archeology is starting to do that now. Modern archeology has had a paradigm shift in the way collects and interprets data. It's gotten away from "reinforcing and interpreting through" the Christian Bible phase in which it was stuck for well over 200 years. And it looks pretty grim for the God botherers.
As for your observation, congratulations. You saw the exact circular argument repeated without thought by Phil. So, you get a...
CRACKER!!!!!
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 1:41 PM
TAA @ 1163 - There is evidence of God all around in the beauty of the natural world which is a reflection of Him. However, blind people cannot see. There is evidence of satan by reading this blog and the hate it contains which comes from human hearts made of stone. You cannot see because you will not use your mind in the purpose for which it was made.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 12, 2008 1:42 PM
MAJeff,OM... since you are the devil, could you post a recipe for your famous "food cake"?
Phil, you really should turn your scholastic efforts toward more worthy (read reality-based) goals. All that writing, and all you've provided is blatherskite.
Posted by: The Smart Patrol | July 12, 2008 1:47 PM
I love you PZ!
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:48 PM
No hate from me Jenn. Only love.
Posted by: Eshto | July 12, 2008 1:51 PM
Christians burned people at the stake for centuries; devised numerous torture techniques and devices in the Middle Ages to punish "heresy"; during the so-called age of discovery they conquered entire continents, enslaved and murdered the people there and forced the rest to convert to their religion; they persecuted Galileo and other scientists; in the 20th century they helped the Nazis exterminate Jews and other minorities; and now they continue to fight against the civil rights of gays, atheists, and anyone else who they decide is a sinner...
And they're the ones who are offended?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Posted by: Wolfhound | July 12, 2008 1:54 PM
I've been wondering what grade Jenn finished before she dropped out of school since her level of discourse, credulousness, and appeal to emotion is on par with that of most six-year-olds I work with. Of course, she could have been home skooled, which would explain a lot...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 1:55 PM
MAJeffLucifer's blog ranting Cook book.Contains these favorites and more!!!
MAJeff Food Cake
MAJeffed Eggs
Hell's Red Velvet 7 layer Cake
Hell Fire and Brimstone Hot Sauce (I'll burn ya twice and for eternity)
Posted by: buckyball | July 12, 2008 1:57 PM
@ PhilVaz, #882:
"...I turn to Christ, because it is He whom I seek here; and I discover how the earth is adored without impiety, how without impiety the footstool of His feet is adored. For He received earth from earth; because flesh is from the earth, and He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord's feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING." (Psalms 98:9)
Huh. I find that Psalm 98:9 [NIV] reads:
"...let them sing before the Lord, for he comes to judge the earth. He will judge the world in righteousness and the peoples with equity."
I don't get your explanation.
@ PhilVaz, #993:
@ DingoDave, #692:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_adoration
"And Catholics have the nerve to claim that they don't practice idolatry???"
I remember watching a news broadcast once where they showed a wafer inside of a glass or a plastic box, and it was being prayed in front of repeatedly.
All. Day. Long.
Phil, don't you think this is taking things a little too far? How is it not idolatry?
@ PhilVaz, #1040:
"The Bible alone is not enough since it doesn't define what a "Christian" is to believe, nor is it enough what any individual thinks of "Christianity."
Really. Have you actually read the Bible cover to cover? Does it support your position?
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 12, 2008 2:04 PM
Uh, RevBDC, having some idea where MAJeff, OM is coming from, would it not be a Red Velvet Mafia cake?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:09 PM
Well everyone knows that "that" mafia is just a front group for satanists and Jenn says that MAJeff is the DEVIL INCARNATE, soooooo I just went with it.
Posted by: Christina Newman | July 12, 2008 2:13 PM
situations like these make me mortified and embarrassed that I ever associated with the Christian religion. I am not an atheist, but I find this whole situation completely ridiculous and laughable...and horrifying at the same time...I go back and forth between laughing and feeling completely disgusted with the religious right.
I can understand suggesting that the blog not be connected with the UMM website...but seriously people, if anyone else, with any other profession, posted a well-written, sarcastic blog that was perhaps a tad bit offensive, he/she would not receive death threats and letters to their place of work asking them to be fired.
Also... I'm pretty sure that a cracker and a prayer rug or koran are a bit different to destroy, seeing as a cracker has a value of about a penny....and destruction of property is not the same as putting a cracker in ones pocket.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 12, 2008 2:16 PM
"Well everyone knows that "that" mafia is just a front group for satanists"
So, Rev, is it Anton LaVey, or (wait for it!)...
ANTON LA GAY???!!!
OMSFG!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2008 2:29 PM
hehehe
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 2:36 PM
bucky: "Huh. I find that Psalm 98:9 [NIV] reads"
Psalms 98:9 is a reference to St. Augustine's writings, not to the Psalms of the Bible. Like the other 5 or so quotes I gave from St. Augustine, the references are to Augustine's writings. The source I am using is mainly The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens. The Augustine volume is the third (green) volume. You want to learn a little about the Church Fathers. All of St. Augustine's writings are online in various translations. Look for his commentary on the Psalms for the writings referring to those.
bucky: "Phil, don't you think this is taking things a little too far? How is it not idolatry?"
As for the fundamentalist Protestant charge of "idolatry" basically, if it is Christ, it is not idolatry, since Christians are to worship and adore Christ. Which is what St. Augustine's point was here: "BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH UNLESS FIRST HE ADORES IT....AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING."
Philip Schaff on St. Ambrose and St. Augustine: "Ambrose speaks once of the flesh of Christ 'which we today ADORE in the mysteries,' and Augustine, of an ADORATION [at least "in the wider sense" of bowing the knee in respect] preceding the participation of the flesh of Christ [footnotes #2 and #3 gives the original Latin from these Fathers]." (History of the Christian Church, volume 3, page 502)
The Orthodox who broke from the Catholic Church in the 11th century, believe the same thing:
The Orthodox Confession of 1640 reads --
"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood."
"Where it is fitting to WORSHIP and ADORE the Holy Eucharist even as our Savior Jesus Himself."
"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery...." (from Darwell Stone, A History, chapter 4 "Eastern Theology from the Sixth Century to the Present Time")
bucky: "Really. Have you actually read the Bible cover to cover? Does it support your position?"
The claim I was making is that the Bible does not tell us what a "Christian" is to believe. What is essential Christian doctrine, and what is non-essential, according to the Bible? It does not say. The Bible uses the word "Christian" maybe 2 or 3 times (1 Peter 4; Acts 11), but it doesn't tell us what they are to believe, explicitly, in a systematic well-defined fashion. That is what the Creeds, Catechisms, and Confessions are for. The Creeds tell Christians what is essential, and Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants would agree with that.
Phil P
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 12, 2008 2:37 PM
Okay, two responses, first to Jenn:
Again, the beauty of the world is not in way sufficient evidence for the existence of any particular god. It's a total non-sequitur. Even if the Abrahimic God were real this would be a pathetic line of argument. You have closed your mind off to rational argument in a way that I or no other skeptical atheist would. I could be convinced of the existence of God; you apparently could never be swayed from your original view no matter what. That is cult mentality. And with that, our exchange is over.
Phil, I am not a scholar of that period so I am not well-placed to engage in a historical pissing match with you. I'm simply unpersuaded that the Jesus described in the Gospels actually existed. I asked for contemporaneous accounts and you gave me a load of bunk likely from believers themselves.
Posted by: Beowulff | July 12, 2008 2:50 PM
Jenn, you believe in Satan, does that make you a polytheist?
And explain to me, if Satan is doing all these evil things, why does God not stop him? Is God not aware of Satan's evil work? Then God is not omniscient. Is God not able to stop Satan's evil? Then God is not omnipotent. Or is God not willing to stop Satan's evil? Then God is not omnibenevolent. If God is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why worship him in the first place?
(Yes, it's a variant of Epicurius' paradox, but in this case, the standard excuse of "Free will" won't work - free will was only given to humans, not to Satan, so that should not prevent God from stopping Satan from doing evil.)
Posted by: robhoofd | July 12, 2008 2:52 PM
I'm feeding my goldfish eucharists from now on! For solidarity, and for the lulz.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 12, 2008 2:59 PM
Moses: "Of course there is no evidence. This is why the Catholics ADDED THE LAST SUPPER to Luke hundreds of years after it had been written."
You keep saying this but you do not provide a source (unless I missed it). Please provide your source that the following was added hundreds of years after the first century:
"For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
You are saying Luke 22:16-20 was not in Luke's Gospel until hundreds of years later? Can you provide the source for this? Most NT scholars date Luke to the 80s, some earlier to the 70s or 60s. What you probably mean is that not every word in Luke 22:16-20 is textually certain (i.e. there are some variants). I do not have a problem with that. But you do not mean that the entire Eucharist narrative of Luke was "added later." If so, document this. Acceptable scholars would be Bruce Metzger (NT critical scholar), I. Howard Marshall or W. Ward Gasque (Greek Commentary on the Gospel of Luke), Joachim Jeremias (his book on the Eucharist), J.N.D. Kelly or Philip Schaff on the early Fathers, etc.
BTW, the same Eucharist narrative with slight variation is found in Matthew 26, and Mark 14, and 1 Corinthians 11. I think you forgot about that. So we have it in four separate sources. St. John covers it in John chapter 6.
Phil P
Posted by: God | July 12, 2008 3:01 PM
Satan is My sockpuppet.
Because humans are gullible. I fool them, they fool each other, and best of all, they fool themselves.
I win no matter what!
Posted by: buckyball | July 12, 2008 3:08 PM
@PhilVaz, #1185:
"As for the fundamentalist Protestant charge of "idolatry" basically, if it is Christ, it is not idolatry, since Christians are to worship and adore Christ"
So, Deuteronomy 5:8-9 no longer applies?
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or woship them..."
I suppose one could argue that since there is probably not a giant, floating wafer in heaven, this Scripture does not apply...
"The claim I was making is that the Bible does not tell us what a "Christian" is to believe. What is essential Christian doctrine, and what is non-essential, according to the Bible? It does not say. The Bible uses the word "Christian" maybe 2 or 3 times (1 Peter 4; Acts 11), but it doesn't tell us what they are to believe, explicitly, in a systematic well-defined fashion. That is what the Creeds, Catechisms, and Confessions are for. The Creeds tell Christians what is essential, and Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants would agree with that."
You didn't answer my question.
The Bible does discuss several "essential" doctrines. Paul give abundant instructions on how to live out "the faith". And if the word does not answer a specific issue, doesn't James 1:5 give sufficient direction? Is it not also written that God will write his law on people's hearts (instead of tablets of stone)?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2008 3:17 PM
"I see you evil minions of satan are still at work."
NO! Satan is not my master, nor is his earthly avatar, Massachusetts Jeff! I live only to serve you!
"You believe there is no God, or no satan, no evil, so that you can continue to live and wallow in your own sensual animal-like existence."
Yes! YES!
Rev:
"My love will always have to be a distant love. A strong but distant love."
And you had better keep it that way! It is ME she favors with her whip!
Posted by: Strakh | July 12, 2008 3:41 PM
I've read the original story, researched the source material, and read these hilarious comments without having to contribute, but I've grown so sick of the batshit crazy ravings of PhilVaz I just can't hold it in...
PhilVaz!
Yes, YOU! There is NO god, there was NO jesus, and there is NO SUCH THING as crackers turning into the flesh of a god when a perverted, filthy old pederast uses the same mouth he just violated an innocent boy with to say secret, arcane words over it...
And quoting the words of some other batshit crazy fucktards from recent or ancient history doesn't prove shit. All it demonstrates is that you are well versed with shit that supports your insanity and NOTHING ELSE!
You have been given way too many chances here, you batshit crazy fucktard, and now it's time to PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Demonstrate, repeatedly, and PUBLICALLY, the PROOF that a cracker becomes the 'living flesh' of a god. What constitutes PROOF? Multiple physical tests, you batshit crazy fucktard! Physical, verifiable tests that will PROVE, to all and sundry, that an actual cracker became flesh...
Until you do, you are nothing but another batshit crazy fucktard claiming ridiculous, stupid shit and quoting the drooling ravings of other batshit crazy fucktards at nauseating, disgusting, and completely pointless lengths to justify your insanity.
And none of this "Well, it's a mystery" shit, either, PhilVaz! Physical PROOF! Or shut the fuck up!
NOW! HERE! FOR ALL TO SEE! DO IT! PROVE IT!
We're all waiting, PhilVaz.
The floor is yours.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 3:53 PM
If it was having a rational conversation between two intelligent human beings - Jim
It's impossible to have a rational conversation with someone who believes a man in a dress mumbling a few words over a cracker can (invisibly) turn it into part of the body of another man who has been dead nearly 2000 years.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 3:54 PM
#1193 "And quoting the words of some other batshit crazy fucktards from recent or ancient history doesn't prove shit. All it demonstrates is that you are well versed with shit that supports your insanity and NOTHING ELSE!"
I was thinking the same thing, but with fewer swear words.
Posted by: wrpd | July 12, 2008 3:58 PM
The Velvet Mafia was a good flick.
Posted by: Strakh | July 12, 2008 3:59 PM
Yeah, sorry about that, Jennie.
The level of discourse defecated from PhilVaz is so disgusting, so ridiculous, any language higher than Eric Cartman is just wasted...
The challenge still stands, though, and I notice a deafening...silence.
Posted by: hbuttle | July 12, 2008 4:02 PM
to PhilVaz, #1080
"As a Catholic I belong to a historical Christian Church with over 1 billion members (according to World Christian Encyclopedia stats)."
NO.
first, a significant amount (at least 5%-10%) of that billion doesn't even call himself a catholic. (for example i'm not a catholic but the catholic church counts me in, just because decades ago i was unwillingly baptised).
second, a massive amount (maybe 70%-80%) of that billion doesn't even know all the dogmas they are required to believe in to be considered a catholic by your standard. they don't know what the transubstantiation is, who the immaculate conception is about, and so on.
you can be part of a coherent (and crazy...) christian minority, or you can be part of a majority of christian hypocrites, but you can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Jennie | July 12, 2008 4:04 PM
No apologies necessary! I'm a grown woman, and honestly I swear like a sailor. The only reason I point it out, is because these defenders of the wafer have repeatedly avoided questions by pointing out the "language" used.
As if the word shit complicates the whole thread.
Yes, there is often a deafening silence from these defenders. I believe it's because your correct that they are silent, but it may be that they are looking up the answer in their brains, I mean the Bible.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:06 PM
Take religion or leave religion, it's a simple choice.
- NiCrush
No it isn't, because so many of the religious try to force their weird views of right and wrong on everyone else.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:12 PM
craig@1005 - Real OM material! The core of Catholic doctrine in one paragraph!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:17 PM
I guess it depends on which arguments you want to believe are the better arguments Phil Vaz
You know, that sounds remarkably like admitting that the evidence and arguments for your religious convictions are so weak that they would not compel the belief of a rational person - but then, I knew that already.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:21 PM
Phil Vaz@1018
You just obscured the clarity of craig's formulation with a lot of fancy words. Means the same and its still completely insane.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:39 PM
Satan is not God's equal. - Jenn
"Why God no kill the devil?"
Posted by: dave | July 12, 2008 4:40 PM
Just another heathen (1099):
Probably not. From the standard of posts I've seen from these people, I'm not sure how many of them can count to five much less twelve...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:43 PM
Just because you say that God doesn't exist doesn't make it so either. You have no evidence that He doesn't exist. Jenn
Jenn, the evidence is overwhelming. Your "God" is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and absolutely good - yet there is evil and suffering in the world. This proves your "God" doesn't exist: if it did, it would bring this evil and suffering to an end immediately.
Posted by: Strakh | July 12, 2008 4:49 PM
Hey PhilVaz!
The challenge stands: prove crackers become flesh and I'll stop hounding you.
Or have you shut the fuck up because you KNOW you CANNOT prove it?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 12, 2008 4:49 PM
John Dominic Crossan lives in Orlando. He's probably the one who taught Webster Cook how to desecrate the Blessed Sacrament. - Jenn
This surely couldn't be a sign of humour from Jenn, could it? Assuming it's not, Jenn, does it really require a course of instruction from a renowned Biblical scholar to be able to desecrate a cracker?
Posted by: ttread | July 12, 2008 4:51 PM
As I was writing my letter of support for PZ, it occurred to me that the response by the Catholics proves their own disbelief and thus hypocrisy. Assume for a moment that transubstantiation is true and that the consecrated wafer is actually Christ. If a person were to abuse or destroy the wafer, then that person would have committed a direct offense against part of the Holy Trinity, a mortal sin that would doom him/her to eternal hell. No other person would be involved or should even care. He's not taking a wafer away from anyone - I'm sure the priests have a sufficient supply.
By contrast, much of the mail PZ has received speaks of "harming" Catholics, as if he has done something to them personally. Some threaten him with harassment, loss of his job, or even physical harm. What this tells me is that they don't really believe the story either - their "Host" seems to be invisible and powerless. The reason they feel the need to intervene is that they don't want their "Sacrament" exposed for what it is - an absurd ritual. The whole thing is so ridiculous it's just making Catholics look foolish.
Posted by: Ulairion | July 12, 2008 4:57 PM
I tried, I honestly tried to read all the hatemail, but my brain shut down halfway through, maybe to protect my sanity from the flaming stoopid
I'm retired from the military, a college graduate, and have a 99th percentile IQ, verified by High School, college, and military intelligence testing. Since you are a professor, I assume you understand percentile rankings.
I am also a convert to the Catholic Church, being fully accepted into the Church in my early 40s.
After reading that I'm wondering if he got the 99th percentile OR if he got 99 points. Anyone even slightly familiar with IQ tests knows how huge is that difference. My bet is on a 99 points score for obvious reasons
Posted by: Nullifidian | July 12, 2008 5:01 PM
Here is an excerpt of his July 8 post, "It's a Frackin' Cracker!" accessed from the U of M website:
I love how they give away that they haven't actually read your post, merely Donaghue's hysterical response to it.
Posted by: Brian Macker | July 12, 2008 5:24 PM
Ron in Houston,
I believe you that you are an atheist but if so then please go edit the post titled, Godless Communists on your blog because it makes you look like a raving fundamentalist.
Now as to your concerns. Well I think it is possible to score a Eucharist without disrupting the ceremony so you've lost me there. You seem to agree when you say,
How do you believe this would be done given your other statement about how much tight control they have?
I believe that once they put it in your mouth then it's yours. Furthermore if they aren't careful and they are not then this can happen without deception. I know they aren't because I've been to Catholic services and they hand these out to whoever comes up and kneels.
The only thing I find of concern with PZ post was the phrase "if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one,".
That is easily read as asking someone to do just about anything. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret that as a call to disrupt, steal, break into, etc. So could understand that if you actually brought it up. However you didn't.
Instead you seemed to fabrication some notion that it's impossible to get a Eucharist without disrupting a service. I don't think that's the case.
I also think you are mistaken to think that there is some "cause of atheism" or whatever you said. I don't understand why you think that way. All you share with the other posters here and PZ Myers is a lack in belief. You might as well be talking about the "cause of aleprechaunism".
Despite what some of the others say about "We all don't care" well they don't speak for everyone. They wish they did but they don't. I've come to recognize many things that makes me a lot closer to your opinions on this matter than many of theirs.
But you are being silly if you think of PZ as your representative. Yeah sure there are going to be bigots out there who think that every "atheist" is out to steal the crackers but that's in part their problem. Funny thing is that in this regard PZ is no better than them.
He assumes everyone in a group no matter how loosely defined is of the same opinion on everything. As an example he attacks all libertarians as vile because of the opinions of some. Does the same with Catholics. I suspect he doesn't talk much with any Catholic friends he has. Some are quite liberal and laugh at this kind of thing.
Many of the commenters here are attracted to that kind of thinking and do the same thing. If you have a contrary opinion they have to stamp it out no matter what the cost. They're rude nasty childish and the like. They go even further than PZ does, and frankly that's what would concern me about his calls to "do anything it takes". One of them may take him up on it.
So there are atheists out here who know what you are talking about.
My solution to dealing with this whole issue of people pigeonholing is to not use any of the standard labels anymore. I don't refer to myself as a atheist because I have many positive philosophical beliefs that are not captured by "atheist". I'm not a communist for instance, or an objectivist. What I had been calling myself was a responsibilian which pretty much screws up attempts to pigeonhole.
Posted by: Brian Macker | July 12, 2008 5:34 PM
They are concerned that you are involving them via their organization. Like if some Myers were advocating that people adopt dogs from PETA or ASPCA and bring them to him for vivisection.
Just like they might fear his even speaking out might endanger their child to burn in hell forever.
I still think it's crazy but it actually does "involve them" in their own worldview.
Besides he advocated "doing what it takes" in getting the cracker and that might possibly involve them. Just like if some crazed member of PETA said that it's members should "do whatever it takes" to free Myer's zebrafish. They might just break in, distrupt a class, or something else.
Had he not included that phrase then he would have been on much more solid ground. I think he should apologize for that as hyperbole and retract it, but I very much doubt he will do so.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 12, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment 212:
If you have some holy hands available, yes.
Comment 224:
How appropriate for people who believe in the divine inspiration of:
(Never mind that Paul contradicts the synoptic gospels here, though...)
Posted by: davem | July 12, 2008 6:22 PM
So the book that is the only piece of evidence extant that God and Christ even exist(ed), doesn't tell you anything about your religion?Astonishing. So why not just ignore it? You could then clear your brain of silly thoughts, and access what some of us like to call reality.
Posted by: DLC | July 12, 2008 6:45 PM
All this fuss over . . . a cracker.
Sturm and drang over a farkin peice of flour & water.
I'm stunned. Absolutely stunned.
Posted by: waldteufel | July 12, 2008 6:46 PM
Today, I sent via snail mail the following letter to
the president of the University of Minnesota:
Dear President Bruininks:
I write to you in complete support of Dr. P.Z. Myers in his current conflict with the Catholic League.
This current controversy is really about free speech. Dr.Myers must be supported by those whovalue the very core of what the academy and the university most need: honest opinions expressed openly by all who participate in open discourse.
Support for Dr. Myers in this context is support for all who value our inherent freedoms and rights so eloquently expressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Dr. Myers didn't threaten anyone, and he didn't question anyone's rights to express themselves. He merely expressed his opinions, as he often does on his blog, of the irrationality and vacuity of religion.
Everyone has the absolute right to criticize what he says and/or how he says it. Nobody has the right to silence or
censure him.
Sincerely,
(signed with proper name and address)
Posted by: Esme | July 12, 2008 7:07 PM
I counted two death threats before I gave up reading your emails. The sense of perspective is astounding. That you would even ASK to desecrate a wafer, an inanimate object which is freely distributed, merits threats of death? Honestly?
Posted by: Greg | July 12, 2008 7:25 PM
Oh man. I started cracking up at the comment about you getting "jihaded."
What does that even MEAN?
Sorry you've had to put up with this BS.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | July 12, 2008 7:26 PM
One of the Cathars' arguments against Catholicism was that to provide crackers for all the faithful through a millennium and change, Christ's body would have had to be as big as a mountain.(Now, it would be unfair to conclude the Cathars were rationalists. Much like Catholics, they were happy to invoke rationalism when it suited their purposes and abandon it when not.)
Posted by: Futility | July 12, 2008 8:01 PM
Very tiresome, indeed. Didn't make it past the 10th mail or so. My irony meter didn't survive this assault.
It might have been mentioned already somewhere in the myriads of comments posted here. We must be grateful for the separation of church and state and do everything to keep it intact. This provides a glimpse into what will happen if this boundary is swept away. The inquisition will come back with a vengeance. I am not saying that all religious people will welcome it but they will tacitly agree out of fear to be next. It appears to be inherent in almost all religions (and this was obvious since a long time, well before 9/11 and its aftermath brought it out into broad daylight.)
Posted by: Xeno | July 12, 2008 8:13 PM
Just another heathen @ #1099
"Isn't there some sort of twelve step program for Catholics?"
Given that the regular 12 step program requires you to surrender to a higher force, I don't think this would be advisable. If you wanted to turn it on it's head (what with drunkards supposed to give in to god), you could say that a recovering catholic has to surrender to booze.
But I think that would just create a loop.
Posted by: ghostdancers_way | July 12, 2008 9:03 PM
I sent a letter to the President's office in support of you, PZ. I hope that it gets read, I made it quite clear that the Theocrats can't have it both ways, they can't disparage other's religion and not expect it to return to them. Freedom of Speech being the center piece of my letter to the President of UMM. Thanks for getting Billy's blood pressure up again.
Michael
Posted by: Ivan Salzo | July 12, 2008 9:52 PM
Professor Myers,
It is sad to watch such a shift towards fundamentalism in the country where democratic republic was born. If reason and science lead some educated citizens to abandon their faith, religions appear to seduce a greater number of individuals who place their beliefs above the values of modern nations. I was raised by a catholic family. At those times, no matter how many "crackers" someone would eat, this would have no significance in the abscence of faith. I see no difference between eating an Eucharist without faith and walking away from a church without eating it. However, I am not a believer anymore...
Posted by: Grook | July 12, 2008 10:03 PM
Ok, this has been bothering me:
Why is the host supposed to bleed if you desecrate it? I mean, the blood of Christ is already a separate entity, right? It just seems kind of redundant to me.
Posted by: Patricia | July 12, 2008 10:35 PM
Etha! Welcome back. :)
Rev. BigDumbChimp - you may not be getting very far with Jenn - but man, all that luuuuv - it's starting to get to me. I just may see the light.
Posted by: Michelle | July 12, 2008 10:46 PM
I don't know all the details, as I'm not terribly interested... But plans to desecrate a holy wafer sounds like a high school prank. You know, something a bunch of goth brats would do while proclaiming themselves to be too cool for god, or witches, or whatever.
And for the record, I'm a recovering Catholic who abhores organized religion. I don't find the idea offensive at all, just stupid. Come on now, can't you think of something better to do with your time?
Posted by: Nicole | July 12, 2008 11:01 PM
Michelle @ #1227
"I don't know all the details, as I'm not terribly interested... "
There were no "plans" but a biting commentary on some hysterical death-threats aimed an innocently curious college student... followed by more hysteria. You may want to inform yourself of the situation before passing judgment.
Posted by: Jenn | July 12, 2008 11:37 PM
The "death threats" are lies fabricated by Cook and Myers.
Posted by: cheeb | July 12, 2008 11:49 PM
Not sure if I can get my devout Catholic theologian mom to post here, but she considers the Catholic League "ultraconservative fundamentalist crackpots." Her answer to #100something
"Consider the following scenario:
You're in a small room:
1) in one corner a man has an eight year old girl hostage and holds a knife to her throat
2) in the other corner another man has a blessed cracker and is threatening to crush it with a hammer
You only have 5 seconds to react; you can choose to save ONLY ONE - the girl or the cracker"
was indeed, the girl, without hesitation. The explanation being that, similar to what other commenters have asked, Jesus is stronger than a guy with a hammer. He already gave up his life, and he would want the girl saved.
As much as I hate to defend Catholicism or any religion, I respect my parents, who manage to be Catholic yet otherwise very intelligent (and my dad, a scientist, a CFI member and a Gould fan.) They admit that I put up a good debate, though. ^_^
Posted by: Leanne | July 13, 2008 12:02 AM
Hmmmm . . . all this uproar over bread, huh?
It makes me sick how upset some catholics are getting over a small piece of bread all the while claiming total ignorance of their religions oppression of women.
So the way I figure it the hierarchy is as follows God > Jesus > Man > Bread > Wine . . . Woman, and I suppose altar boys come last. They really tend to get shafted, don't they.
Sure, I can see how a piece of bread deserves all of this attention.
Posted by: ttread | July 13, 2008 12:07 AM
#1213
I want to know whether or not they believe that Christ would actually be harmed if his cracker form is destroyed. Would any Catholic be harmed in any way? How? I suspect it's just a tired old ritual that they don't believe in any more than atheists do - they just don't want anyone to talk about it.
I see your point here - although a dog from PETA would involve some actual investment of time and money on their behalf - not just muttering of some words over a 2-cent wafer.
Or they might be afraid that exposition of their silly ritual might threaten their organization and its traditions.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 13, 2008 12:30 AM
Strakh: "PhilVaz!"
Who, me?
Strakh: "Yes, YOU! There is NO god, there was NO jesus, and there is NO SUCH THING as crackers turning into the flesh of a god when a perverted, filthy old pederast uses the same mouth he just violated an innocent boy with to say secret, arcane words over it...And quoting the words of some other batshit crazy fucktards from recent or ancient history doesn't prove shit. All it demonstrates is that you are well versed with shit that supports your insanity and NOTHING ELSE! You have been given way too many chances here, you batshit crazy fucktard, and now it's time to PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!"
What was that? I didn't quite get what you are saying.
Take it to Catholic Answers forums.
I won't debate you here. Too crowded, and I don't like the format.
http://forums.catholic.com/
Go to Apologetics forum, and type "Challenge to PhilVaz" as a subject heading or something similar and perhaps I will respond. But you'll have to word your challenge in a less obscene manner. Hee hee. I've already explained my position and defense of the Eucharist quite completely in here. I would just be repeating myself. But at CA Forums there we can have an extended conversation in a polite and respectful manner. And maybe get into other issues. Anything you want as long as you are polite and respectful, just as P.Z. Myers is in "real life" and unlike this fake and phony persona he creates on his blog.
And at CA Forums you can choose the "styleid" = CA Blue (see bottom left of board) if you want a nice screen format over there. The default is orange ugly and scrunched. Thanks. That basically goes for anyone over here. See you at CA Forums.
======================================
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF DROPPINGS!
Man: What?
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS
STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
======================================
Posted by: Becca | July 13, 2008 12:33 AM
Ok, so several of those notes are perfectly reasonable expressions of disagreement.
But a totally shocking percentage seem to be obsessed with imaginary millitant muslims.
I find that as disturbing as any of it.
Posted by: Don Smith, FCD | July 13, 2008 12:34 AM
Wow, what anger! Why can't they direct all that energy at something useful like keeping religion out of science classes? And none of them appear to have read the controversy that started it all.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 13, 2008 1:00 AM
In before thread closing.
Posted by: Mijan | July 13, 2008 1:05 AM
Hmmm... whether or not I think that someone's religious beliefs are a bit whacked, I generally try to act out of common courtesy and respect in regards to their beliefs. If something is truly sacred to someone, then I wouldn't mess with it just to rile them up. It seems pointless... and it would also lower me to their level, because people like that do stuff to piss off other people all the time.
I was raised Catholic, and I understand why they got a bit upset over this. I think it's kinda excessive and extreme (even when I was still part of the church as a kid, I saw the SYMBOLISM in the Eucharist, but I didn't buy into that "transmutation" stuff), but I understand why they're upset.
However, I can't understand any basis for the extreme nature of their collective reaction, even based on "Catholic logic". Violence and hatred SHOULD be the worst thing you can enact on another person, and stealing a piece of bread isn't remotely worth threatening violence against that person. And then, the kid hadn't really don't anything overboard. He wasn't posting bizarre pictures of the wafer on the internet or making strange threats. He just HAD it. Unbelievable.
Even their own Bible says that it's not what goes into a person that defiles him, but what comes out. Likewise, I don't see any way that what you eat could make you holy or give you salvation... especially not a wafer that tastes like stale styrofoam. However, what's "coming out" of the vociferously malicious Catholics should certainly be enough to defile them. Threats of violence and murder against this college kid? Good grief.
Also, why the hell are student fees and tax dollars going to fund a church on a PUBLIC university campus? If the Catholics on campus want a church, they can fund it with a weekly collection plate and donations just like any other church. As far as I'm concerned, that kid's student fees bought that stupid little wafer, and he's entitled to examine it if he wants to.
I also feel like mentioning that I left the church for many reasons, and sh*t like this is part of it. The discrimination against women, the complete lack of common sense and logic, and the distrust of free thought had a lot to do with it. I'm a Biologist myself... I think the natural world holds a lot more answers than a bunch of ancient tribal stories. I'll still respect people's right to believe what they want, and if clinging to ancient tribal stories makes them feel better, then that's fine, as long as they keep their fairy tales out of my laboratory, my government, and my life.
And finally... it's not a cracker. Crackers are, at least, somewhat tasty. The Kashi brand "Tasty Little Crackers" are excellent. Even Wheat Thins are delightful. Eucharist wafers taste like stale styrofoam, as I said. Not worthy of the title "cracker".
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 1:12 AM
After all the failed apologetics (better known as much circular reasoning on key issues) posted by Phil, and the tangential references to biblical archeology posted by Moses and others, it would seem fitting to include a couple of links to Hector Avalos. Also included for those who are unfamiliar with professors of theology that actually HAVE seriously looked at the relevant issues of archaeological evidence for the last 30 years.
Hector Avalos: How Archaeology Killed Biblical History:
part 1:
http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/Itemid,65/
part 2:
http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/Itemid,61/id,17/
enjoy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 1:14 AM
oops, part 1 link should be this, instead:
http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/Itemid,61/id,16/
It's available on youtube and AOL videos, as well.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 1:16 AM
It seems pointless...
then, you either didn't look very closely, or don't see very clearly.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 1:19 AM
Threats of violence and murder against this college kid? Good grief.
Also, why the hell are student fees and tax dollars going to fund a church on a PUBLIC university campus?
I also feel like mentioning that I left the church for many reasons, and sh*t like this is part of it.
my apologies, apparently you did see the point, even if you stated otherwise.
I'm sure you understand why I was confused.
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 1:26 AM
Liar liar pants on fire? The supposed "death threats" to Cook and Myers are fabricated LIES!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 1:37 AM
Liar liar pants on fire?
*squeeel* we've regressed to second grade!
what's this mean, Jenn:
IKYABWAI
?
"Jungle" is such a woody word, don't you think?
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 1:43 AM
Stupid fish man?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 1:48 AM
Stupid fish man?
yes, insane Jungle girl?
oh, you mean you thought that's what IKYABWAI stood for.
man, thought all graduates of second grade knew what that meant.
*shrug*
are you capable of using google?
are you off your meds tonight?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 13, 2008 1:48 AM
"Liar liar pants on fire?"
You don't know the half of it, dear mistress...
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 2:02 AM
How about this, fish man - IKYAASFMR?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 13, 2008 2:08 AM
Jenn, why do you torment me with your lack of favor? Strike, dear mistress, and cure my heart!
...
I have spoken out of turn, I am sorry. I shall crawl back to the filth now...
Posted by: Strakh | July 13, 2008 2:12 AM
RE#1233:
How unoriginal you are! YOU entered this forum, YOU defecated HUGE turds of insanity attempting to defend the indefensible, and when you are addressed DIRECTLY and given the chance to PROVE your claim, you prissily whine "You're so meeeeeeean! I'm not gonna play anymore! I'm changing the rules! You gotta do it MY way!"
Unoriginal, as well as childish. So many yellow-bellied cowards like yourself have done the exact same thing so many times over the years the dodge has become a classic.
It is, however, PhilVaz, bullshit. PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP, HERE, not somewhere else. YOU came HERE, YOU finish what you started HERE or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You don't change the rules, you don't run to another place and say, let's do it here, YOU came HERE, YOU finish it HERE. Simple enough for you?
Physical tests that can be performed by any reputable scientist, PhilVaz, that PROVE your little cracker became the living flesh of a living god. Either produce it or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Because until you do, it's just another batshit crazy fucktard claim, just like saying you have over 300 trillion pink unicorns up your butt. Just as stupid, just as pointless, and just as ridiculous.
Quit your whining and pony up.
NOW!
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 2:17 AM
Rey Fox - Y?SSTBDRGN.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 2:27 AM
I have spoken out of turn, I am sorry. I shall crawl back to the filth now...
step ahead!
"her" second grade insults have cut me to the quick.
Posted by: windy | July 13, 2008 2:27 AM
Hey guys, did you notice a certain... theme... about our Jenn? Check this out:
To quote ERV: AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 13, 2008 2:29 AM
Strakh: "Physical tests that can be performed by any reputable scientist, PhilVaz, that PROVE your little cracker became the living flesh of a living god. Either produce it or SHUT THE FUCK UP."
Physical tests performed by scientists is not why the Catholic Church believes the bread/wine become the body/blood of Christ. It is a unanimous teaching on this Christian doctrine, passed on from Christ, to his apostles, through the early Fathers and the entire history of Christianity in its Mass and Liturgies. It is basically a truth of divine revelation. It is not a scientifically testable thing.
However, there are the Eucharistic miracles, but as I said, I am not an expert in those. But we can explore those at CA Forums if you like. Those would be at least scientifically "debunkable."
CA Forums are here http://forums.catholic.com
Phil P
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 2:29 AM
...btw:
I shall crawl back to the filth now...
I think you need to use the word "dregs" in order to impress Jenn.
as in:
"...crawl back into the dregs..."
dregs is woody, and "filth", well, that's kinda tinny, see?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 2:33 AM
It is a unanimous teaching
better known as cult indoctrination.
enough with the spamming, Phil, you've got enough ads up at this point.
seriously, nobody gives a rat's ass about your hobby.
It IS a hobby, right? you don't actually expect to make a living as an apologist, right?
Posted by: windy | July 13, 2008 2:48 AM
Jenn, why do you torment me with your lack of favor? Strike, dear mistress, and cure my heart!
Careful, or you'll sound much too modern and feminized for our Jenn. Try putting a little more H. Rider Haggard into it. Or possibly Mandingo.
Posted by: PhilVaz | July 13, 2008 2:57 AM
Ich: "It IS a hobby, right? you don't actually expect to make a living as an apologist, right?"
I don't, but Catholic Answers and a few others are able to make enough to do it full-time. I've done this as a hobby, since about 1994 online, starting with FidoNet. Yep been at this a long time. But I am more used to debating with fundamentalists and evangelicals who already accept the God and Bible thing. In here and at Internet Infidels it's a longer haul as I've mentioned.
I only posted in this thread because I have studied a lot on this particular topic (history of the Eucharist) and saw an opportunity to post a couple notes on P.Z.'s blog which I do read every now and then. I find it very entertaining and informative, and especially weird why P.Z. puts on this fake and phony persona how he supposedly hates religion so much, when in "real life" he is a completely different, polite and respectful, person. I find that very strange. Although most people are like that online I guess, they present a different personality.
I read the P.Z. blog, sometimes Dembski's blog (but was kicked out of there the end of 2006 hee hee), and Panda's Thumb, and other creation-evolution ones they link to. Most of the time I'll be at the CA Forums (they only started back in 2004, but are pushing 100,000 members which is nice).
You know this will probably be the only thread I'll ever post in P.Z.'s blog (I think I've averaged less than 1 post a year in here), and then you won't see me for another 7 months or years, so what's the big deal? Aren't you glad to see someone like me every once in a while? Hee hee.
Phil P
Posted by: Twisted_Colour | July 13, 2008 3:19 AM
There seems to be a lot of people who want to see the Koran desecrated. Bring on the fatwas!!
Posted by: Strakh | July 13, 2008 3:36 AM
RE#1253:
Exactly!
You believe shit, get pissed when we make fun of your stupid shit beliefs, then go all postal on a college kid. Guess it's better than trying to bang him like so many priests love to do, but still...
Go home. Stupid shit beliefs are stupid shit beliefs. They, nor you, deserve ANY respect. No evidence, no proof, just stupid shit, like the piss-drinkers of India, the Peyote smokers of southwestern America, and the child-rapists of the Mormons. And you wonder why reasonable people laugh at you.
You're pathetic.
You had your chance, you blew it, just like all the pathetic, batshit crazy fucktards that have preceeded you.
Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 3:38 AM
Aren't you glad to see someone like me every once in a while?
well, phil, if you had used that "incisive" mind of yours, you might have had a thought pop in there to the effect of:
"Hmm, I don't often post on this blog, so maybe regulars see religious apologists on a frequent basis?"
and you'd be right.
if, of course, you could have managed to have such a thought.
perish the thought.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 13, 2008 5:24 AM
Okay, I think poor Jenn is having a complete dissociative episode now. I am no longer turned on.
"Try putting a little more H. Rider Haggard into it. Or possibly Mandingo."
Lou Reed isn't good enough? Oh well. I should be in bed anyway.
Posted by: Hugo | July 13, 2008 6:52 AM
I'm still trying to find out why the removal of the Eucharist from a church (when it's not been swallowed) is such a crime.
I've prayed to the FSM for guidance but his noodliness won't respond.
Posted by: yakaru | July 13, 2008 7:07 AM
@1234 becca - "...But a totally shocking percentage seem to be obsessed with imaginary militant muslims.
I find that as disturbing as any of it."
Looking through the hate mail again I see only one brief mention of the possiblility of desecrating the Torah, compared to the countless challenges to deface the Koran.
Posted by: yakaru | July 13, 2008 7:15 AM
@ichthyic
Hobby is a nice woody word, but Eucharist I don't like. It's too tinny.
Posted by: Darkchilde | July 13, 2008 8:19 AM
What can I say? Christians say they are loving and tolerant, but we do see their real face every day, and not just in incidents like this. What I deem religions to be, is hypocritical, and hateful towards anyone who disagrees, doesn't see their point of view, and they shout "offense", "blasphemy", etc. every time they see their beliefs dismantled by reason, logic, and science.
@Catholics: it's a cracker! I have tasted it (though I have been baptized orthodox, and now I am atheist) and it tastes like a wafer! And not a very good one at that.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 8:49 AM
There is evidence of God all around in the beauty of the natural world which is a reflection of Him.
EPIC FAIL KENNY!
You need to do better than that or I'm going to send one of my evil spirits to steal your soul.
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: DuckPhup | July 13, 2008 8:52 AM
I get a hoot out of stuff like this: "I believe that the "frackin' cracker", as you so cleverly referred to the Sacred Host, is the Body of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ consecrated by a priest at Mass under the appearance of a wafer of unleavened bread. This is my faith and that of millions of other orthodox Catholics. You have offended us grievously."
They just do nor seem to understand that gullibility, irrationality, willful ignorance, self-deception, self-delusion, intellectual dishonesty, lies, hypocrisy and toxic, drooling stupidity are grievously offensive to sane, rational people... ESPECIALLY when they are all packaged neatly together, as they are in religion.
That said, though... we should be duly grateful that we HAVE religion, because that gives us a way to confront all of those dubious 'qualities', and to expose them and ridicule them, with great efficiency. The Abrahamic death-cults of desert monotheism... particularly the christ-cult... are especially useful in that regard.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 8:54 AM
Uh, RevBDC, having some idea where MAJeff, OM is coming from, would it not be a Red Velvet Mafia cake?
Lavender velvet mafia cake.
C'mon, it's not enough that I'm Satan. I'm a fag, too. Gotta get Nazinger on my ass guys! Deprive me of rights! Send me to Hell! Be a good Christian!
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 13, 2008 8:56 AM
#1265
That is an unhelpful generalisation. Most people are decent, and most people are religious. The reaction to Cook and PZ had been outrageous, but it does not mean we are seeing "the real face of Christians". What we are seeing is some unpleasant nutters use religion as an excuse to be nutty and unpleasant. That is what is wrong with religion - it empowers people to act like that and to consider it praiseworthy.
Also, I am afraid that just saying "it's a cracker" isn't exactly going to change minds, it is? If we want to change minds, we are going to have to do better than that!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 8:56 AM
I don't know all the details, as I'm not terribly interested... But plans to desecrate a holy wafer sounds like a high school prank. You know, something a bunch of goth brats would do while proclaiming themselves to be too cool for god, or witches, or whatever.
Translation: I'm too fucking lazy to pay attention, but I'm going to be an asshole about it anyway.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 8:59 AM
Liar liar pants on fire? The supposed "death threats" to Cook and Myers are fabricated LIES!
evidence Kenntard. I know you have trouble producing it. But put up or shut the fuck up.
Or bring back more NDEs for us to laugh at.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 9:00 AM
Try putting a little more H. Rider Haggard into it.
Don't you mean C. Meth Haggard?
Posted by: LawnBoy | July 13, 2008 9:17 AM
I'm somewhat new here. What's "NDE"?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 9:25 AM
I'm somewhat new here. What's "NDE"?
Near Death Experience.
We've had an spectacularly stupid troll who keeps going on and on and on and on about how NDEs are scientific proof of god, but who just can't deal with scientific explanations for those same phenomena.
It also continually repeats nonsense like "the evidence is reality but you are willfully blind and won't see it."
Kenny is the NDE troll=Jenn
Now, back to cooking up some Satancakes (pancakes but hotter) for breakfast.
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 10:08 AM
With your minds weakened by corruption and interested only in riducule you are unable to grasp the magnificence of the Catholic faith in its fullness, beauty and glory.
I'm going to Mass now, where, when I consume the Host, I will ask God to put obstacles in your path, so that one day you will know Him. Many of you will not understand what "obstacles in your path" means, so I won't explain.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 10:10 AM
SPECTACULARLY stupid.
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 10:16 AM
Steve Zara in #1269 states:
Perhaps you are right, but I think this is quite revealing about the ability of this relgion to disseminate morality.
Do you think that the people making death threats and such-like are devout Catholics or not?
It seems to me that if they weren't then PZ Meyers' comments would have hardly bothered them that much. If we are talking about generally unpleasant people that just do this kind of thing anyway then perhaps Prof. Myers should be handing these letters to the FBI.
It does seem to be more than just unpleasant dispositions at work here. These people are acting in response to a call to arms in Ayatollah Donahue's fatwa against Prof. Myers are they not? This strikes me as being symptomatic of the way that Catholics are being encouraged to think, not merely unhinged individuals acting on their independently derrived philosophy.
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 10:24 AM
Jenn in #1275 states:
Obviously threats of death and violence from your bretherin against those who satirize riddiculous practices are not something you a prepared to condemn. Far greater is the crime of riddiculing Catholicism for such childish and inhumane behaviour. Oh yes this this the glory of the Catholic faith. I think I'll remain a moral free heathen, it would seem I am far less likely to do anyone harm that way.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 13, 2008 10:28 AM
Jenn at #1275, have a nice time at mass. If you see the holy ghost remind him he promised to do halloween at my house this year and he promised to bring spray cheese.
Pax Nabisco
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 10:33 AM
Come on Jenn, let us see the moral backbone of a Catholic. I shouldn't have to do this, as any decent human being would do it anyway, but here goes; I invite you to condemn your bretherin here in public for their threats of violence and death.
Have you got it in you to be a decent human being or are you just a Catholic?
Posted by: ken nohe | July 13, 2008 10:46 AM
I have always wanted to write a blog to exchange ideas with other people, then I read the comments you get on a mildly provocative note and see how morrons seem to be everywhere, rising like zoombies from the fresh ground of an old graveyard and wonder What the hell!
Kids chewing on the stuff... "Nice" would Borat say. But after reading all this mail, I hope the University will take action and import stones of the right size from Saudi Arabia to insure proper punishment. If only because you can't be doing your job with such a full in-box.
Good luck with the bigot.
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 13, 2008 11:06 AM
Do you think that the people making death threats and such-like are devout Catholics or not?
I suspect they are. One of the dangerous things about religion is how it allows people to come up with their own morality, and then call it God-given. This can bypass conscience and reason. But, this also means that even though the death-threat-people are probably devout catholics, so are the majority of Catholics who are decent people (who think that their decency comes from God)
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 12:03 PM
Steve Zara states in #1282
Probably true, but is it not also the case that the Bible itself encourages a mentality consistent with such behaviour? There are many passages advocating violence (amongst other things).
What I am getting at is that some people that would otherwise be non-violent are pretty much exalted to be violent and unreasonable by the Bible. Christianity is supposed to be based on using the Biblical Jesus as a morally exemplary figure as a shining example of how to behave. However even in the extremely moderately christian UK, vicars seem to leave out the point that people really shoudn't behave as the Old Testament would have it, and they still cite the Bible as a whole as their 'good book'. They don't even teach that the Old Testament is mythical in its content. Now transpose this absence of reason or sensible guidance onto poorly educated and probably low IQ folk. Would should we expect to see as a result in such an experiment? I submit to you that the experiment has and is being conducted and the evidence of its results are right here on this board in the words of people like Jenn.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 13, 2008 12:08 PM
Some more (possibly useless) reflections :
- What are the fundagelicals thinking about all this ? To them, transsubstantiation is a crazy doctrine, an error, perhaps even devil-inspired (I supposed that's what Jack Chick would say). So they shouldn't care about a wafer. But on the principle, they should support fanatics of all kinds. So ?
- Perhaps I'm not a good reference concerning the New Testament. But I can't find the place where Jesus says : "You will love my holy wafers more than your neighbor". Can someone give me the verse number ?
- By the way, Jesus himself still hasn't reacted concerning the theft of one of his body parts. Do you think he will?
And my personal conclusion on the whole matter:
I can't think of any meaning of the word "sane" for which a sane person would value a religious item more than human life.
Posted by: Spinoza | July 13, 2008 12:17 PM
Offensive on so many levels... lol.
Have you considered considering taking this into consideration yet PZ?
Posted by: Nana | July 13, 2008 12:30 PM
All these histronics over a frackin' cracker show why religion should be a hobby such as knitting.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 12:32 PM
So, Kenny, have a good time with your cannibalism?
Did you carry through and wish for us to all suffer, oh good and loving idiot?
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 13, 2008 12:38 PM
Probably true, but is it not also the case that the Bible itself encourages a mentality consistent with such behaviour?
Since when have Christians followed the bible? :)
What I am getting at is that some people that would otherwise be non-violent are pretty much exalted to be violent and unreasonable by the Bible.
I think you are wrong. At least I hope you are wrong.
I think it works like this: people who have a tendency to be violent, or a tendency to threats of violence, are encouraged in this by religious views. Find the right religion, or the right passages from the bible, and you can think that being wicked is virtuous.
I don't think that religion encourages decent people to be nasty. I think it provides cover for unpleasant people to be nasty and to consider themselves virtuous. Because religion has respect, we can't ask these nasty people to justify themselves.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 13, 2008 12:42 PM
Oh, and by the way...
I know several Catholics, or people who consider themselves good Catholics, who don't believe that the wafer actually becomes the body of Jesus during mass. They consider this idea too crazy, I guess. They view the communion wafer as a symbol. I know: it actually makes them heretics. I suggest the Catholic church takes a survey to know what its flock really think about the main doctrinal points...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 12:52 PM
I suggest the Catholic church takes a survey to know what its flock really think about the main doctrinal points...
this is a problem of an ancient institution trying to rule in the contemporary world. We secularists--and hell even some Catholics, see Voices of the Faithful--and a lot of Protestant denominations value the conscience of the individual, and indeed the laity play a role in making decisions as to how "the word" should be interpreted, who should lead the organization. The laity have none of that power in the RCC. It is a completely top-down institution. It's an institutional church, and the opinions of the flock are meaningless, as their role is to "pay, pray, and obey."
That's not to excuse the authoritarian idiocy, but no survey will be forthcoming because the laity's opinions are quite simply irrelevant.
Posted by: JoJo | July 13, 2008 1:16 PM
Not going to happen.
Shortly after the Vatican II Council, there was a papal commission, which included married couples, established to consider contraception. The commission's report said that that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.
Four commission members issued a minority report saying that birth control was against the word of God. Archbishop Karol Wojtyła, later Pope John Paul II, also argued against the majority report and, in a letter to Paul VI, said that accepting the report would undermine Paul's authority as Pope.
In the infamous encyclical Humanae Vitae, Paul rejected the commission's recommendations. One reason that Paul gave was that the commission's report was not unanimous, since six members out of 72 disagreed with the majority.
The Catholic Church operates on the "one man-one vote" system. The Pope's the man and he gets the vote.* What the rest of the church, particularly the laity believes, is inconsequential.
*A line shamelessly paraphrased from Terry Pratchett.
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 1:23 PM
Today's Gospel Reading at Mass clearly meant YOU PEOPLE!!
"You shall indeed hear, but not understand.
And seeing you shall see, but not perceive.
Gross is the heart of this people;
With their ears they have been dull of hearing,
And their eyes they have shut:
Lest at any time they should see with their eyes
And hear with their ears and understand with their heart
And be converted and I heal them"
In other words, with corrupted minds you willfully do not WANT to understand. Even a small child, innocent of mind, is wiser than all of you together.
Have a GREAT day verbally ripping me to shreds!! Enjoy!
Jenn
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 1:32 PM
so, kenny, did you enjoy fantasizing about us while talking to yourself and eating a cracker?
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 1:41 PM
Reposted:
Come on Jenn, let us see the moral backbone of a Catholic. I shouldn't have to do this, as any decent human being would do it anyway, but here goes; I invite you to condemn your bretherin here in public for their threats of violence and death.
Have you got it in you to be a decent human being or are you just a Catholic?
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 1:56 PM
Steve Zara writes in #1288:
Again I don't disagree, but I am saying that the Bible must have influence on the way people think. The religious certainly seem to think so otherwise they would not be so ardent in promoting it as a moral guide.
Look at the high proportion of muslims martyrs. Are you seriously suggesting that these people would just go out and commit atrocities regardless of the teachings of the Koran or any particular interpretation of it? I don't think that that is a reasonable assumption.
The rates of violent crime are far higher in extreme religious states than anywhere else. For what you are suggesting to be true, that prediposition alone is at work, then that would suggest that there is a genetic component to the problem.
In contradiction to this we see that 2nd and 3rd generation muslims whose ancesters have moved to more moderate climes like the UK are far more reasonable and less violent. This really suggests that it is not predisposition at work but culture. Culture embedded in religious books in the muslims case, and I sumbit that the same is true of followers of the bible to some extent. This really doesn't seem like an unreasonable proposition to me.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 13, 2008 2:45 PM
"Have a GREAT day verbally ripping me to shreds!!"
Wait, now you want to play the Sub? I'm confused.
I don't think Jenn is Kenny at all. Kenny is far too self-aggrandizing to want to pretend to be someone else for the purpose of flinging even more unhinged statements than usual at us.
Posted by: JoJo | July 13, 2008 2:59 PM
Not quite. Our minds are not corrupted. We don't need a 2,000 year old book or a man in a dress to tell us what to believe. Furthermore, we do understand. We understand what you believe, we consider it on its merits, and find that if the consequences weren't so serious, it would be silly.
Mythology is an interesting study. So is crowd psychology. I've read a book or two on social motivation, absolutely fascinating. All of these are useful in learning about religion.
No, Jenn, your complaint isn't that we don't understand. Your complaint is that we've considered your mass delusion (pun not intended) and rejected it.
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 3:23 PM
Dear Catholics that don't like being riddiculed,
I invite you to read the article Idiot America.
I hope this explains why you are being riddiculed sufficiently clearly for you to comprehend.
Posted by: Daffey | July 13, 2008 3:29 PM
Well now, this is interesting. I usually don't jump into these things, since I am convinced the Internet is breeding the same radicalism that those back alley papers in Europe did in the early 20th century. But, I couldn't resist. As a former non-believer who became Christian (I realized that the non-believers weren't any better than believers, so obviously abandoning religious faith doesn't do anything - which allowed me to look at the truth of the issues at hand), I can say this is the problem I had with non-believers. Generally, with few exceptions, they treated their non-belief with a zeal that would shame a fundamentalist. Having contempt, loathing, and derision for others and their beliefs, they often hid rather cowardly behind some split hair of reasoning to try to convince people that they weren't as intolerant, judgmental, and condescending in their views toward the same people they accused of the exact same things. Should we want Prof. Myers canned or dismissed? Of course not. Just like Fred Phelps is a dream come true for non-believers, an atheist version of Fred Phelps can only help the cause of people who believe. So all believers need to back down, show love, and wait. The outcome of actions like this can only help the way.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 13, 2008 3:41 PM
Apparently, we're the equivalent of someone who wishes violence upon people, who intentionally provoke people to violence, and who enjoy AIDS and 9/11.
The delusions run deep with this one.
Posted by: Joe | July 13, 2008 3:51 PM
wow. catholics are funny. three cheers for the free world, where the most that pissed off nuts can do is spam someone's university office...
Posted by: commissarjs | July 13, 2008 4:06 PM
Jenn @ 1130
Durh, of course. Both Satan and Yahweh are fictional. Pluto is the warden of the dead. Not a pair fictional entities created by desert nomads.
Posted by: JoJo | July 13, 2008 4:09 PM
What is it with the theists whining about atheists being intolerant. Fr. J complained last night, in one of the most condescending, pompous utterances I've ever read, that atheists insult him while he's just sweetness and light. Now this guy, Daffey, makes a similar gripe.
In my experience, there are three reactions when I say I'm an atheist: (1) Some people could care less. Often they are also atheists. (2) Some people attempt, with more or less success, to discuss my position dispassionately. (3) A large number of people try to convert me, usually to some flavor of Christianity.
I try to tell this third group that I would prefer not to be proselytized. Very occasionally my wish is honored and the subject changes. Much more often, the conversion attempts become even more strident. Plus, all too often, I get called immoral or I get compared to the arch-atheist Stalin or I'm told not to bother to pack an overcoat for the afterlife.
If the majority of theists weren't judgemental, patronizing or hateful, I would probably be nicer discussing my beliefs or lack thereof. But when I'm told in no uncertain terms that I'm going to Hell because I'm as immoral as Stalin, I get a bit perturbed.
If you're polite to me, I'll be polite back. If you're a jerk, I can be one too.
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 4:48 PM
Come on Catholics, let us see the moral backbone of a Catholic. I shouldn't have to do this, as any decent human being would do it anyway, but here goes; I invite you to condemn your bretherin here in public for their threats of violence and death.
Any takers?
Posted by: Ian Kirwan | July 13, 2008 5:02 PM
Looks like the Catholics have been at it again:
"Sex abuse scandal in Autralia"
Posted by: daffey | July 13, 2008 5:09 PM
JoJo
If I may. The atheist excuse that 'the theist made me do it' doesn't hold water to any thinking person. The problem is, in recent years, atheists have tried to push human failures as being a result of religious belief. But to do this, atheists have to show that they are, in fact, better behaved than theists. My experience, including as a non-believer, was the opposite of yours. When anything about God/religion was mentioned in the presence of a non-believer, even in passing, as often as not the non-believer in question would wade into the conversation like an invasion force at Normandy. Likewise, the talk about people of faith and their beliefs often were crude, disrespectful, and condescending at best. Again, I have no problem with that, since I don't think religion is the cause of evil in the world. But for atheists to keep up that particular mantra, that it is religion that makes evil fanatics out of people, they had best stop pointing fingers and start showing by their deeds that their alternative is any better. They had best stop being as fanatics as the religious people they accuse. And given the recent turn by the new atheism, that doesn't look promising in the least.
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 13, 2008 5:36 PM
Again I don't disagree, but I am saying that the Bible must have influence on the way people think. The religious certainly seem to think so otherwise they would not be so ardent in promoting it as a moral guide.
Look at the high proportion of muslims martyrs. Are you seriously suggesting that these people would just go out and commit atrocities regardless of the teachings of the Koran or any particular interpretation of it? I don't think that that is a reasonable assumption.
Note how the religious only say that the Bible is a moral guide when it agrees with them.
I am not suggesting that some people would not go out and commit atrocities without religion. What I am saying is that religion prevents people from questioning.
I think that religion is thinking without a seat-belt. Not everyone is going to end up in a crash, but for those who do, they are going to suffer more.
I honestly don't think that people do bad things because of the Bible. What they do is use the bible as a justification for doing bad things, and then calling those bad things virtuous. That is the danger of religion - people get to write their own political and moral agendas and delude even themselves into believing that that is God's will.
Posted by: Neural T | July 13, 2008 6:04 PM
Reading these debates with Catholics makes me feel dumber as I go along. Intermittently, I have to pick up my copy of The Road to Reality by Penrose and reread a few sections into order to regenerate some neurons. By the way, The Road to Reality describes an infinitely more accurate picture of the cosmos than the Bible.
Posted by: DC | July 13, 2008 6:44 PM
Does this controversy help cast atheism and rationality in a better light or a worse one? I think the latter.
Posted by: Robbie | July 13, 2008 7:56 PM
If the Soul exists, then the only sacrilege taking place here is religion in all its many glassy guises. Religion itself is cruise control for the mind and body.
You religious busybodies and bullies lean back in faux safety against the soft underbelly of you upturned God. Gathering like folds of fat around the waist of a wasted tramp in the evening of his existence.
Religion is the back-pedalling evil twin of social progress.
It's not a matter of debating whether God exists. Eliminate the bloated cog.
A God should not exist.
Posted by: JoJo | July 13, 2008 8:18 PM
daffey #1306
Why am I not surprised that you reject the possibility that atheists are sneered at by your bunch?
I see. You don't believe that 9/11 was done by radical, fundamentalist Muslims. Nor do you accept that Daniel Pearl was killed by other Muslims. Ever hear about The Troubles in Northern Ireland? No, I guess not. And the little spat between Hamas and Israel is just two neighbors being grouchy at each other.
Not every problem in the world is the result of religion. But a whole lot of them are. Get your head out of the sand and look around. Just as an example, consider that Iran is a genuine theocracy run by real-life religious fanatics.
Indulge in hyperbole much? I don't expect an honest to goodness theist to admit that he was lying, but in your heart you know that you were. Sure, you may know one or two atheists who are like this. But I would bet large amounts of money that the majority of atheists aren't.
I realize that you're just trying to justify the whining you tried to peddle before. I doubt you'll get many takers here. The regulars here live in the real world and know how things really are.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 8:49 PM
But to do this, atheists have to show that they are, in fact, better behaved than theists.
posted by: "daffey"
who, evidently, forgot to leave the "e" out of their handle.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 8:52 PM
btw, did "Jenn" bring us back some limp biscuits from mass?
Today's Gospel Reading at Mass clearly meant YOU PEOPLE!!
why, yes, yes it did.
Posted by: Richard | July 13, 2008 9:07 PM
Don't these people understand that you're planning on storing your defiled Eucharist in a space hollowed out in the middle of your KorBibRah. Not unlike the amazing TurDucken, the KorBibRah is a compilation of things that should never be attempted by mortal man. Where a TurDucken is a series of poultry cooked one with in the other, the KorBibRah is a sequence of holy books hollowed out and jammed, one within the next. What better to store a supply of suitably defiled Flesh of God?
Posted by: DaveG | July 13, 2008 10:12 PM
What a bunch of bleating sheep (the Catholics).
The 2nd letter writer has it all wrong. I've worked in industry for 21 years and have yet to see a meritocracy. Asskisscracy is more like it.
Posted by: swangeese | July 13, 2008 10:28 PM
To the person way upthread that wanted to know more about adoration:
One of the parishes I attended had a small side chapel that was always open. If you came in through the door, the altar was at the very back with the host in a gold cross holder in the middle. Pews were set up in front of the altar and you would pray the rosary or whatever. There were also prayer books available.
It's great if you want a quiet place to read or collect your thoughts, but really boring otherwise. Personally I never got wrapped up in the cracker worship like some obviously do.
Lots of Catholic (and Christian) traditions are pagan in origin or even occultish ,but they do mental gymnastics in order to rationalize it as 'truth' and not that 'bad' stuff the other guys do.
Posted by: Jenn | July 13, 2008 10:57 PM
btw, stupid fish man, I have a tank full of common minnows (zebrafish) that I'm gonna use as bait for bigger fish. The second tankfull will be poisoned in their water, and ALL the embryos will be smashed!!!
Posted by: John Kusters | July 13, 2008 11:05 PM
Does this controversy help cast atheism and rationality in a better light or a worse one?
As an individual who is also an atheist, I should care why?
...atheists have to show that they are, in fact, better behaved than theists....
Again, why the requirements? Has someone been elected grand poobah of all things Atheistic while my back was turned?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2008 11:12 PM
The second tankfull will be poisoned in their water, and ALL the embryos will be smashed!!!
spoken like a true death-cultist.
thanks for the demonstration.
please, do feel free to videotape it and put it up on youtube just to curse at me with.
the horror.
the horror.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 12:25 AM
#1319 - What about you and your friends who, in the above comments, talked about putting a baby on a spit and having a bar-be-que, then joked about what type of sauce to use? Atheists bring about the Kulture of Death itself.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2008 2:47 AM
Atheists bring about the Kulture of Death itself.
You mean we get you to reveal your true nature?
thanks for letting us know.
we've been working hard on it for decades now.
(in between coming up with new recipes for BBQ baby-back ribs)
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 14, 2008 4:21 AM
Does this controversy help cast atheism and rationality in a better light or a worse one? I think the latter.
The recognition that atheism is rational and theism isn't is welcome, but the notion of rationality being cast in a bad light is quite incoherent.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 14, 2008 5:15 AM
To call yourself a "Christian" we need to have some standard of belief. Who is Jesus, and who is God, for example. That is what the classic Creeds are for. The Bible alone is not enough since it doesn't define what a "Christian" is to believe, nor is it enough what any individual thinks of "Christianity."
My my. This cretin PhilVaz says his long term goal is to convert everyone here to Catholicism. Aside from the fact that that's a sure path to the dungeon for Godbotting, his brain is apparently too filled with religious pus to grasp the fact that people here don't believe things that they are "to" believe, that they employ a quite different process that has nothing to do with any "standard of belief". This fool talks about Christians who are "deliberately rejecting their Church's teaching and therefore being disobedient to their Church's authority", failing to grasp that people here aren't obeyers and don't give a flying fuck about any "authority" when it comes to beliefs. Any person or institution that sets out to enforce beliefs is committing a grave crime against humanity.
Posted by: Hugo | July 14, 2008 7:27 AM
"I have tried to find an analogy to explain my request and this is the best I can do: you might be entirely right that a old rag is worthless and should be thrown out, yet, if that rag were a small child's security blanket, I doubt you would do so, to spare the child's feelings. I put myself in the place of that child, and ask: Please don't."
Indeed, and when that child is 30 and still has his blanket he has to live with the ridicule that he'll get at every step he takes!
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 9:11 AM
#1320 - s fish man - You know precisely what I mean. It's exactly like satan to twist words. You and your Godless atheism bring about the Kulture of Death, hence your coldness and lack of humanity. Your coldness and lack of humanity fueled by your hatred of goodness are archtypical signs of evil at work in you.
You lie when you say you don't believe in God, or a god. Satan is your god. Your hatred for religion, for goodness, your arrogance all stem from evil. However,
you will never admit any of it but only hide behind your atheist religion - and it IS a religion since satan is your god.
Pascal's Wager might be something for you to contemplate, that is if your mind can comprehend a concept larger than minnows.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 14, 2008 9:23 AM
Pascal's Wager might be something for you to contemplate - Jenn
Gosh, Jenn, you are the first Christian ever to bring that up on this blog! I'll bet it results in hundreds of instant conversions. Indeed, I'm down on my knees praying for the Lord's forgiveness even as I write!
/irony
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 14, 2008 9:25 AM
@1326 Sorry: /irony -> /sarcasm
Posted by: Strakh | July 14, 2008 10:41 AM
Jenn at #1325:
Pardon for breaking in on your thrashing, after all, Nick can obviously handle someone of your caliber while he sleeps, but:
Pascal's Wager!!!!????
Are you really THAT stupid? Is that REALLY the BEST you can come up with? I have heard that hundreds of times and have shoved it right up the self-righteous assess of every idiot that muttered it.
Jenn, Jenn, Jenn, you ignorant slut (cue the applause for SNL and the Great Chevy Chase) if you want to play with the big dogs, stop pissing like a puppy, ok?
Toughen up, smarten up, and maybe, just maybe, you might not get your tiny little pinhead handed back to you every time you have your handlers type your responses...
Posted by: Dragonfire | July 14, 2008 10:56 AM
Do these people not understand the concept of sarcasm?
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 14, 2008 11:40 AM
Steve Zara (Comment #1288):
Not directly, perhaps, but commitment to any all-encompassing ideology (religious or otherwise) often makes it easier for one's normal disposition towards decent behaviour to be overridden in the name of what the ideology proclaims to be the "greater good". It's certainly not a problem unique to religion, but many forms of religion remain cases in point.
Posted by: Iain Walker | July 14, 2008 11:45 AM
Jenn (Comment #1325):
Which bit of it would you like us to contemplate? Its employment of the fallacy of false dilemma, or its cynical and dishonest appeal to self-interest?
Posted by: Aegis | July 14, 2008 1:48 PM
"I'm afraid God will get the last laugh on this one. GOD IS NOT MOCKED"
And yet, this is consistently disproven.
Posted by: Gem Newman | July 14, 2008 2:37 PM
I believe that many of the emails listed here fail to take into proper account the fact that Communion Wafers are given to members of the congregation. Once a person has been given a thing, no one (not the giver, nor anyone else, involved or not) has a right to demand that that person receiving the item do any specific thing to it (imbibe it, for example) or refrain from doing any thing (tear it into pieces, for instance).
Those who equate Professor Myers' threats to desecrate a Communion Wafer to threatening to run over a person's children (or to stealing and tearing up a Torah from a Synagogue) fail to address the fact that these wafers are given to members of the congregation to ingest. Presumably, children are not being offered up for the same purposes (nor, to my knowledge, are Jewish holy books--stealing them shouldn't enter into the equation, as the Communion Wafers are not being stolen).
When a person is given something, that thing is now his or hers, and he or she is free to give it to another. Once it is out of a person's hands... it is out of that person's hands.
While it is certainly insensitive to tear up (or otherwise abuse) something that has been given as a gift, it seems that in some cases oversensitivity to the beliefs of others is wrong. If my beliefs mandate that I harm myself or others, for example, it is perfectly justifiable for another to be insensitive to them.
Professor Myers is being insensitive, yes. He knows it. He is being deliberately insensitive. You are perhaps well within your rights to be offended. But please remember: No person has the right to go through life demanding that no one offer him or her offence. Everyone takes umbrage with different things, some of which are found to be quite absurd by the great majority of the world. Personally, I don't much care for profanity, but I make no attempt to prevent others from using it. You decide what offends you; no one else. As such, you have no right to make demands on others based on what you find offensive.
I prefer to eat my crackers. Perhaps Professor Myers likes to tear his into little pieces and stomp on them. Unless he is hurting someone (and unless it demonstrated in some rational manner--as opposed to simply asserting that transubstantiated flesh doesn't mind being eaten, but doesn't like being stepped on), it's none of your business.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 2:44 PM
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 9:11 AM
That is some highly concentrated spiteful stupidity.
Posted by: Gem Newman | July 14, 2008 2:49 PM
In response to #933:
The term "sandwichogyny" would refer to the concept of female sandwiches. The Greek root "gyn" means "female" (as in "gynecology", literally the study of females, or "androgyny", the concept of a thing that is both male and female). I believe that you might want to use the prefix of "misogyny", which means "hate" (as in "misanthrope", or "hateful person"), making "misandwichery" or "missandwichery" or some such thing. Best of luck!
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 2:50 PM
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 9:11 AMYou can use blind wagering and the philosophical equivalence of hedging your bet to determine your worldview, but I - and I'm positive I'm not alone on this here - would rather use something more concrete and convincing...namely, evidence. If you intend to convince someone that their worldview is incorrect, Pascal's Wager is quite an ineffective way to go about it.
Posted by: Gem Newman | July 14, 2008 4:15 PM
"Please take a moment to read what Mr. Meyers [sic] has posted on his faculty page on your university's website..."
I hope that someone reminds these folks that none of this was posted on Dr. Myers' faculty page, nor is it even hosted on a UMM server.
Although there is a link to the Pharyngula weblog on his faculty page, trying to locate the specific article in question isn't easy. It is, in fact, far easier to locate the article using Google, whose webcrawling bot not only links it to Pharyngula but also to the specific article in question. I don't see anyone blaming Google for this...
Posted by: Lord Zero | July 14, 2008 4:25 PM
Mmm, i grew tired of reading them.
They show in different values the same picture.
The cracker its more than just a cracker,
and if some group of people thinks otherwise
im obligated to do think the same, or at last
act as if care.
In fact, its disrespectufull, but anyway, who
cares ?. Its going to be a cracker forever
even if all the earth population believes it to
be the body of a god. Period.
Posted by: bonefish | July 14, 2008 4:50 PM
Damn, had to quit reading after a few because my eyes started to cross and I was hearing faint chanting...
Why didn't anyone threaten a comfy chair, eh?
Disappointed I am.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 4:57 PM
#1326-1338 - Pascal's Wager: You weak-minded atheists will be in Hell by the time you figure out the concept of Pascal's Wager. Oh well! Too late then.
However, since people CHOOSE Hell, you will be where you desire for all eternity. There will be no turning back; you will belong totally to Satan forever.
Posted by: Gem Newman | July 14, 2008 5:02 PM
Many of these people are suggesting that Professor Myers is cowardly for not insulting Islam, Judaism, gays, and blacks (the latter two being falsely equated to the former, as following Muslim or Jewish doctrine is a matter of choice, while being black or being gay are not). This completely ignores the fact that Myers' article is response to an event that took place in a Catholic church and the outrage that followed.
That Professor Myers made no statements about Islam or Judaism in this article has nothing to do with fear of practitioners of those religions; it instead speaks to the fact that the event to which he is responding had nothing to do with Muslims or Jews.
And we all know that Christians are perfectly capable of murdering others for the sake of their beliefs. Now please, let's not be ridiculous.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 5:04 PM
#1326-1338 - Pascal's Wager: You weak-minded atheists will be in Hell by the time you figure out the concept of Pascal's Wager. Oh well! Too late then.
However, since people CHOOSE Hell, you will be where you desire for all eternity. There will be no turning back; you will belong totally to Satan forever.
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: Gem Newman | July 14, 2008 5:37 PM
"I understand that you accept, on Faith, the unproven Theory of Evolution. I haven't made up my mind about it yet, as we haven't quite found those pesky "missing links"--I like to keep an open mind about all theories until one is proven beyond all doubt."
Is anyone else as sick of hearing about this as I am? First off, science isn't in the business of proving anything. The scientific method is about gathering and evaluating empirical evidence and subjecting it rational, skeptical inquiry. Theories that don't fit the evidence are thrown out or revised until they do, and new evidence is coming in all the time. Based on the sum total of evidence currently available, evolution by process of natural selection is the best explanation that we have for the diversity of the various species.
Professor Myers' advocacy of the theory of evolution has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with evidence. I presume that the person cited here believes in the theory of gravity (another theory that hasn't been "proven beyond all doubt"); however, I doubt that anyone would maintain that this person's belief is motivated by faith.
If you're going to go about your life calling yourself open-minded, you might want to examine evidence from both sides of the debate, rather than simply indulging the intellectually impoverished propaganda of your chosen side. Dozens of the so-called "missing links" have been found, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between lower primates and humans, etc. Please, if you're going to make an assertion, at least back yourself up! Otherwise you risk ending up sounding like Yomin Postelnik.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 5:50 PM
#1342 Ma Jeff - Little boy, you're a troll. Are you in second grade? Off your meds tonight? Trying to get attention?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 6:30 PM
#1342 Ma Jeff - Little boy, you're a troll. Are you in second grade? Off your meds tonight? Trying to get attention?
waiting for you to say something of substance.
You're a hateful little monster, aren't you.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 6:51 PM
#1345 - MAJeff - Not nearly as hateful as atheist cannibals who joke about bar-b-quing babies, having "baby-back ribs" and thinking up different sauces. That is as hateful as a person can get.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 6:56 PM
you're very silly, Jenn, very silly.
You think that damning actual living people to eternal torture and wishing harm upon them is nothing, while dark humor is evidence of misanthropic evil.
Beyond being silly, you're a very stupid person with no sense of proportion. Bad jokes are worse than wishing harm on humans, and hating other humans makes a better person than making fun of a cracker. What a sick world you live in.
Posted by: Aaron Kinney | July 14, 2008 7:13 PM
Re: Jenn and Pascal's Wager:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#pascal
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 14, 2008 8:34 PM
I find many of their letters interesting as they show that they're more guilty of what they accuse you of than you are yourself. I'm just gonna jot down a few random thoughts I had as I read some of the letters, some might be repeats of the comments above and there might also be some other things worth commenting on from the letters, but I have not yet taken the time to read all the letters and comments. Just take any repeated points as me seconding the first person statement.
First thing that really offended me is their lack of knowledge of other religions. I know several practicing satanists and there is no black mass ritual, nor anything in their religion using a cracker either blessed or not blessed.
As for the statements that the christian church is respected, I say that's flat out wrong. It might be respected by those who drink the christian cool aid, but by and large the rest of us merely tolerate your existence.
2000 years, big whoop, my faith has artifacts that date back into prehistory and it's still going despite christianity trying to systematically destroy it over several hundred years. No mythical evil tempter who only has power over men when it's given to him tried to take us out, we had a real assault on us by real people using real weapons to attack the healers and peacemakers*, people who had sworn not to harm others. Ideas that the christian church in this day and age is at all peaceful, loving, or any of that other crap is a dirty lie as well. If it were true there wouldn't be things like the day of remembrance to give a moment of silence for people killed in the name of the christian god for living a different life than what you accept. Even the churches roots are based on war and killing those of a different faith while destroying items sacred to them.
The whole flip-flop from all powerful god to completely helpless cause some priest put a bit of him into a cracker is also absurd. What this says to me is either god will do something to prevent PZ from doing anything to the cracker, or there's something wrong with your god, something along the lines of him not being real or at least not having any actual power. Then again the whole all powerful, perfect, and singular god thing is the only different from the pagan religions you tried to wipe out. Being persecuted for believing, resurrection stories (especially ones that happen across 3 days), the idea of a holy trinity, your holidays, and etcetera are all things that have been done to death before your religion was ever founded. The sacrament (having food and drink for divine reasons) manages to be a little different, in that you're consuming stuff that's supposed to magically made into the flesh and blood of the divine instead of blessing the food and drink for consumption by the divine that is invoked into ones self, but that could just be from your general unwillingness to learn about other religions even as you steal their beliefs while killing them.
I'm sure there's plenty of other points worth making, but I feel my brain being damaged by the letters so I'll just call this list good.
*look into Druidity, and find the real story, not the lies propagated by the church to justify their actions and soothe their consciences after slaughtering villages of people who wouldn't fight back.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 10:12 PM
#1347 - Ma Jeff- Are you actually that stupid? YOU damn YOUR OWN SELF to Hell. When YOU stand before Almighty God at the moment of YOUR death and see Him, YOU will more than likely choose Hell for YOURSELF because YOU hate God so much that YOU do not want to be with Him. It's YOUR choice. It's CLEAR that YOU hate God, don't believe in Him, so, naturally YOU will choose what YOU love which is evil, and that is Satan and his Hell.
YOU might think it'll be just like being on this blog - fabulously cute (YOU think) with evil jokes and words of hatred, vile epithets, ridicule. However, Satan, being the father of lies, has lied to YOU. Life in Hell is infinitely more evil than even this blog and YOU will suffer from YOUR OWN CHOICE. But, hey. Have a great time. YOU are a very stupid person with no sense of proportion when it comes to YOUR eternity.
YOU and the rest of the atheists are hypocrites. YOU can say ANYTHING to Catholics, but let a Catholic say anything to YOU and YOU get mad!! You only turn my words back on me because you can't think of an intelligent response.
Happy Eternal Hell to YOU!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:17 PM
What a ridiculously stupid and hateful person you are Jenn, and what a monstrously hateful god you worship. What a pathetic monster you are.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:18 PM
Face it Jenn, you're not a good human being. You value crackers over human lives.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 10:20 PM
#1349 - Are you really that weak-minded, Felstatstu? What strikes me most forcibly about paganism and witchcraft is that, if it weren't so dangerous and evil, it would be so flaming SILLY.
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 10:22 PM
Jenn, you certainly are the spitting image of the loving Christian. And when I say spitting, I mean as in venom.
Honestly. How can you possibly live with such hatred seething within you? Have you ever considered psychological counseling? It can be extraordinarily beneficial.
Oh, and I advise you to lay off the religious stuff. It's turning you nasty.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:25 PM
so, Jenn, does the thought of people being tortured for eternity make you tingle "down there?"
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 10:27 PM
Jenn, # 1353 wrote:
Okay, I'm calling Poe on Jenn. No-one could possibly be that stupid.
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 10:28 PM
MAJeff (1355):
She did seem to launch into that "you're going to hell" diatribe with a kind of orgasm gusto, no? Hmmm... perhaps that's worth exploring. The sado-masochistic aspects of hardcore Christianity. Passion plays, and all...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:31 PM
She did seem to launch into that "you're going to hell" diatribe with a kind of orgasm gusto, no? Hmmm... perhaps that's worth exploring. The sado-masochistic aspects of hardcore Christianity. Passion plays, and all...
Hell, the ecstasy of the stigmata--sexual pleasure and torture wounds. There's a real erotic fetishization of pain and suffering, and causing it.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 10:35 PM
#1351-2 MaJeff - God is a loving God; He gave you the gift of Free Will. What are YOU doing with it? Choosing an empty and meaningless life - filled with pornography? Hate? Arrogance? The opposite would be purity, love, humility. Are they in your life anywhere?
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 10:35 PM
Hell, the ecstasy of the stigmata--sexual pleasure and torture wounds.
I am amazed at how so many Christians find any kind of sexual expression depraved, yet always describe their own or others' mutilation in service to their God in the same words that a lousy romance writer describes the encounter between a randy wench and a strapping privateer. Pornographic piety is just too... weird.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 10:37 PM
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 10:12 PM
Actually, its argumentation following the path of least resistance. If there were much logical and reasoned substance to your comments, it would make the rest of us have to actually analyze them and counter the good points. As it stands, your words themselves are unfounded and based on irrational and supernatural premises, so no extra work needs to be done.
Thanks! And happy godbotting to you...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:37 PM
God is a loving God;
such a good little lie
getting all tingly, Jenn? Feeling guilty about it? Need to go beat yourself up to get off? go with it girl!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 10:38 PM
I stand by my call of Poe. She's calling someone else's religious belief silly.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:41 PM
Hate?
Jenn, who is getting off on the idea of other people suffering? It's not me.
Who is praying to their imaginary friend to make other people's lives worse? Not be.
Who's valuing a cracker over human lives? Not me.
Who's demonstrating the characteristics of hate in these comments? that would be you.
is your breathing getting a little heavier, your hand moving to those forbidden regions, as you imagine God causing more and more pain to those you despise?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:43 PM
I stand by my call of Poe. She's calling someone else's religious belief silly.
That's not an indication of Poe, but a very common and standard response from many religious people.
She may be Poe, but it's not because she's more stupid than many, many believers. Kenny comes to mind. She may be an angrier Kenny sockpuppet. She may be a Poe. She may be a truly hateful little monster.
She's a fun chew toy for the moment, though.
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 10:45 PM
is your breathing getting a little heavier, your hand moving to those forbidden regions, as you imagine God causing more and more pain to those you despise?
Holy shit! It's Nurse Diesel from High Anxiety - and she's wearing a leather nun's habit! AAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 10:46 PM
MaJeff & Bob - The reason you hate me so much is that the Truth is unbearable for you to hear. In addition, you make the most absurd statements about Catholicism that shows the world how ignorant you are.
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 10:51 PM
I don't hate you, Jenn. I kinda feel sorry for you. If you're authentically this religiously brainwashed and hateful, then I pity you for the terrible life of fear and bitterness you have volunteered for. If you're only playing the vicious little Christian for the sake of getting a few jollies, then I pity you for the pathetic existence that has led you to consider this a form of entertainment.
No inconsistencies here, I assure you!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 10:51 PM
Jenn, don't leave me out of this. I've made plenty of statements about the absurdity of catholicism (yeah, you got the words in the wrong order in your post, so i've fixed that for you) as well.
Where's the love, Jenn, where's the love?
PS you're right MA Jeff - this is fun. More fun, even, than throwing a bone for a dog to fetch. Yet strangely similar...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 10:56 PM
The reason you hate me so much is that the Truth is unbearable for you to hear.
Again, who is it that has been demonstrating deep hatred in this thread? Who is fantasizing about torture? Who is demanding human suffering over a cracker? That would be you.
Those naughty feelings must be getting pretty strong. The unfocused tingle, getting closer, somewhat intensifying. Breathing getting a bit heavier...can't touch...but must....
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 10:58 PM
Great. I thought this was supposed to be limited to MENTAL masturbation. Then again - has anyone ever done a study to determine how many Christians climaxed during The Passion of the Christ? I bet there were a whooooooole lot of 'em.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 11:01 PM
I thought this was supposed to be limited to MENTAL masturbation
For me it is. I don't know nuthin' about masturbation and lady parts.
Posted by: frog | July 14, 2008 11:18 PM
Bobber: I am amazed at how so many Christians find any kind of sexual expression depraved, yet always describe their own or others' mutilation in service to their God in the same words that a lousy romance writer describes the encounter between a randy wench and a strapping privateer. Pornographic piety is just too... weird.
Bobber, I guess you're not into S&M? The repression is absolutely essential to a good S&M orgasm --- the ultimate in S&M is mental, it's self and other hatred.
The ultimate S&M orgasm involves no physical pleasure, or even pain, at all.
To the rest of you: Outstanding. Particularly Phil, who can't seem to see his own eyes --- just wow.
Posted by: Jenn | July 14, 2008 11:20 PM
Why, MAJeff, are you homosexual? And, Bobber. What's YOUR problem? A misogynist? Porgnographer? Look at little children do you? A bear? A flame? Hard core?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 11:24 PM
Oh, the sexual hatred is coming out. The feelings must be getting more intense, more localized.
The skin must be getting tenderer to the touch, the lips a little dry, but the tip of the tongue doesn't have enough saliva. Instead, it makes the lips tingle.
MORE TORTURE IMAGES! must lubricate!
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 11:41 PM
Jenn, even when i thought you couldn't get any more pathetic, you throw in homophobia. You are a complete loser.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 14, 2008 11:43 PM
Jenn, even when i thought you couldn't get any more pathetic, you throw in homophobia. You are a complete loser.
Why wouldn't she? It's Catholic doctrine.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 14, 2008 11:50 PM
I stand by my call of Poe. She's calling someone else's religious belief silly.
You folks keep getting Poe's Law backwards. Basically, it says that, if some religious nutcase seems so whacked that you think it must be a parody, you've underestimated how whacked religious nutcases can be.
Posted by: Stanton | July 14, 2008 11:58 PM
Jenn, did it ever occur to you that the aggression you are receiving in this thread is because you are using your faith as an excuse to insult people and promote lies?
I mean, do you even understand the concept of "atheism," in that an "atheist" does not recognize the existence of God or other supernatural beings because they do not see evidence of them? Atheism is not devil-worshiping, as you so claimed. If you wish to contradict me, please do so by providing an atheist who truthfully claims to worship the devil.
Posted by: Bobber | July 14, 2008 11:59 PM
frog said: "Bobber, I guess you're not into S&M?"
Nah, nothing too punishing. Boring, that's me! Unless I'm drinking wine out of the Viking horn... then, it's naked Twister, and all bets are off.
Jenn said: "What's YOUR problem? A misogynist? Porgnographer? Look at little children do you? A bear? A flame? Hard core?"
No, no, no, yes, no, no. I'm Sicilian, so the bear thing comes with the genes. Ever see those movies supposedly showing Bigfoot in the woods? That's me going for a stroll while camping.
See how having a sense of humor can make even the nastiest jibes just kinda slough off? No, you probably can't.
Wowbagger said: "Jenn, even when i thought you couldn't get any more pathetic, you throw in homophobia."
As I said before, the super-religious are just scared of sex in general, and anything out of the "norm" in particular. I really do feel sorry for people who hate the very thought of sexuality. As a liberal, socialist, commie, freedom-loving, smoke 'em if you got 'em, life-is-too-short-so-let's-fuck atheist, I find my outlook on the world ever so much sunnier than theirs.
Posted by: Strakh | July 15, 2008 5:17 AM
Jenn at #1374:
Say there, Jenn, are you recruiting for your parish priest? If MAJeff is a child, will you rush the news to your Pederast in Black?
Can you even imagine the irony of you snarking someone about this when your religion's priests are world renowned for humping as many little boys as they can possibly get away with?
Are you even paying attention to what your handlers are typing or are you just as stupid as we are beginning to suspect?
Posted by: Jenn | July 15, 2008 7:16 AM
#1375-1381 - To all you foolish and corrupt God haters: It's obvious that reason is your enemy and that you love darkness instead of light. You elevate all that is vile and by doing so glorify Satan.
One definition of Hell is "the absence of God". You live now on earth where the beauty of nature sustains you, but as your minds descend further into moral corruption, hate, and hoplessness the result is normally suicide. Once dead, the real abscence of God begins and satan will reveal himself to you with all his vengeance.
God does not so much as send you to hell - you choose hell for yourself. As you reject God in life, you will also reject Him in eternity. Between Heaven and hell, hell will be yours.
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 15, 2008 7:29 AM
Jenn, at any #, have you met Jolene from the Fresh Cracker thread? I think you two would hit it off nicely. I do not think you would be lovers, but you do have much in common.
Can we take your last post to indicate you are leaving? If so, thanks for stopping by, have a cracker, don't let the confessional door, or the priest, hit you in the ass.
Yes, responding to your anger with scorn, slight regard and contempt. You are welcome.
Pax Nabisco
P.S. I do appreciate you not offering to pray for us, nice to see the hatred unfiltered.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 7:31 AM
Jenn,
Thanks for including me - FINALLY. I was beginning to think i wasn't trying hard enough.
I don't hate god - that would be a complete waste of time (and energy) because I don't believe he exists. Ditto heaven, hell and satan.
You, on the other hand, are full of hate. And hate leads to the dark side. See? Everyone can quote words from things humans made up. Plus Star Wars had cool lasers and shit. If the bible had had the Millennium Falcon in it, it might have been half decent. But it didn't - so it sucks ass. Big time.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 7:43 AM
Jenn's back for a morning tickle.
Just let the hate wash over you Jenn. You'll be wet shortly.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 7:57 AM
It's CLEAR that YOU hate God, don't believe in Him - Jenn
Jenn, how is it you do not see how ridiculous this is? How can anyone hate something they don't believe in? OK, when you're reading a novel, I suppose you can "hate" the bad guy, but only a psychotic mistakes this for a real-life emotion. Hm, I suppose I've answered my own question!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 8:06 AM
The "death threats" are lies fabricated by Cook and Myers. - Jenn
Clearly, since she could only know this by occult means, Jenn is a witch! Now we know what the Bible says about witches, don't we? You've nothing to fear from us atheists, but you'd better watch out for your fellow Christians, Jenn!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 8:10 AM
What strikes me most forcibly about paganism and witchcraft is that, if it weren't so dangerous and evil, it would be so flaming SILLY. - Jenn the cracker-worshipper
My irony meter just leapt out of the window, screaming that it simply couldn't take any more.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 8:31 AM
Just like Fred Phelps is a dream come true for non-believers, an atheist version of Fred Phelps can only help the cause of people who believe. So all believers need to back down, show love, and wait. The outcome of actions like this can only help the way. - Daffey
""I don't care what you do with me, Brer Fox" said Brer Rabbit. "Just don't fling me in that briar patch over there. Roast me, Brer Fox, but don't fling me in in that briar patch," said Brer Rabbit."
Posted by: Jenn | July 15, 2008 8:36 AM
1383-1388 God does exist but by the time you atheists see the reality, you will be dead and it will be too late. At that point you will discover satan with whom you will be for eternity.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 8:38 AM
ooooh...she's bringing up the torture. She must be feeling randy!
Do you think about Jesus, too, when you touch yourself? Does the guilt make it dirtier and hotter?
Posted by: spurge | July 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Jenn
You are boring me.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 8:46 AM
God does exist but by the time you atheists see the reality, you will be dead and it will be too late. - Jenn the torture-freak
You're being inconsistent Jenn. Earlier you implied that those who die come face to face with God and then choose hell.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 8:47 AM
BTW,
I made too much food for breakfast. Anyone want some fetuscakes benedict? They're young and fresh, so kind of like soft-shell crabs. Mighty tasty!
Posted by: John Morales | July 15, 2008 8:51 AM
Hey Jenn, pray for me too.
Hm, better pray lots. I'm depraved.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 15, 2008 8:59 AM
One thing is sure, Jenn is in Hell already...
Posted by: Bobber | July 15, 2008 9:04 AM
Jenn, I think you need to brush up on your conversion techniques. "You're all going to hell" is the verbal equivalent of monkeys hurling their own feces.
Posted by: Gem Newman | July 15, 2008 10:03 AM
Jenn, I'm certain that I'm not the only person wondering this, but I feel that on behalf of the group I must ask: Have you even read the Bible?
I don't believe the Bible to be the literal, or even figurative, Word of God, nor do I believe that it contains any holy decrees. If you believe that the deity described in the Bible is an accurate representation of the creator of the world, then best of luck to you. I, quite frankly, would rather not worship a hateful, vindictive, jealous, homophobic, racist, sexist, petty, bigoted, unforgiving, genocidal monster, whether He exists or not.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 10:21 AM
Awwww poor Jenn. So deluded and self righteous. Phhht.
Posted by: John Martin | July 15, 2008 3:50 PM
I sent a perfectly respectful letter to you discussing my concerns about your plans. I was hoping that an intelligent, educated man would have the intellectual maturity to enter into a discourse or acknowledge a position that he may not hold...but perhaps I was wrong. There is one reason that should be acceptable to the liberal reader - to desecrete the Host is an action that is hateful, mean, narrowminded, and prejudiced. It is no different from any other hate crime. Hate the institution, hate the doctrine - fine. But this action will cause pain to millions of devout believers who are seeing something they cherish trammeled and abused.
As to the threats - I wouldn't be surprised they weren't the acts of people trying to ramp up the controversy. Most Catholics I know - and I know a lot of them - have expressed sorrow and regret when we discuss crimes like this one. Angry? Of course I am angry. My beliefs and convictions are being violated by your actions.
I will pray for you - and for those who embrace their hatred who have spewed forth their venom in this forum. It's fine to disagree. It's not acceptable to be so hateful and vile. A truly educated person would argue on the merits of their position - pity that most of these posts have been infantile, childish, and puerile.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 4:00 PM
I will pray for you
fuck you too
Posted by: frog | July 15, 2008 4:22 PM
John Martin: Most Catholics I know - and I know a lot of them - have expressed sorrow and regret when we discuss crimes like this one. Angry? Of course I am angry. My beliefs and convictions are being violated by your actions.
Wow. The moral monsters come out of the woodwork. He's not "sorrowful and regretful" about death threats -- oh no, doesn't appear as a crime at all in JMs posting.
So well spoken for a caricature of a human being.
Posted by: Jenn | July 15, 2008 6:27 PM
MaJeffie, Nick, etc - Finally figured out why all of you talk about sex and hate God so much. It's because you all have tiny penises.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 6:30 PM
oooh...she's back, bringing the hate.
Must be filling that itch, huh Jenn?
Posted by: Steve_C | July 15, 2008 6:35 PM
Hate god? Like the way you hate unicorns?!?! You unicorn bigot! You have no soul if you hate unicorns!
Anyone who hates unicorns is frigid and never gets laid.
It's written down, in a book, somewhere... I think.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 6:42 PM
What's really sad, though, Steve_C, is that Jenn is so incompetent that she cannot make a connection between the insult and the reason for the insult, and she can't even bring any creativity to bear. So driven by blind hatred, she makes herself even more stupid and incoherent.
Or, she's just a fuckwit in the first place.
Posted by: Jenn | July 15, 2008 7:35 PM
What a bunch of whiny babies. You verbally brutalize people and think it's funny, but when someons turns the tables on you, you cry like the emotionally immature little boys you are. Your stupid, incoherent and hypocritical statements -that you think are hilariously funny, each of you trying to impress the others with what you imagine as wit - reveal you for what you are -inconsequential men with narrow-minds. Try maturity and see if your outlook improves. Dorks.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 15, 2008 7:40 PM
...and tiny penises! Don't forget the tiny penises, there, Ms. Mature.Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 15, 2008 7:44 PM
Ah, and the maturity card comes out.
All of this makes sense coming from a person so driven by hatred that she fantasizes about, desires, longs for, and enjoys the thought of actual human beings being tortured for all eternity.
But she's a good person.
With a huge cock.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 15, 2008 7:47 PM
Jenn,
I'm your huckleberry.
when someons turns the tables on you
That implies someone responding with something which was equal to what was delivered to them. You have yet to display anything resembling equality on any level - either well-constructed arguments or witty, cutting insults.
stupid, incoherent and hypocritical statements
Um, you attacked someone else's religion because it's (and I quote) 'silly' - do i really need to point out to you that you believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, loaves and fishes, water into wine, resurrection, heaven, hell, angels, devils and so forth? How is that any less 'silly'? Feel free to explain.
inconsequential men with narrow-minds
Hypocrisy again - and making a huge assumption that everyone posting replies to you is male.
Try maturity and see if your outlook improves
I'll paraphrase something you should be familiar with - but I wouldn't be surprised if you aren't: let she who is without sin cast the first stone...
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 7:48 PM
What a bunch of whiny babies. You verbally brutalize people
wow, such perfect projection.
*sniff*
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 7:59 PM
Pascal's Wager might be something for you to contemplate
well, Jenn, if Satan is my god, as you say, then it would appear I have already not only contemplated it, but come up with my own conclusion, yes?
Not nearly as hateful as atheist cannibals who joke about bar-b-quing babies, having "baby-back ribs" and thinking up different sauces. That is as hateful as a person can get.
Hey, Jeff, did you ever get those recipes for long-pig I sent ya a few months back?
July is always a good month for BBQ long-pig.
I keep thinking "Jenn" might actually be the screaming church lady:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GryIDBEgkzM
(HA! I bet you thought I was going to link to the OTHER screaming xian woman)
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 15, 2008 7:59 PM
Jenn,
You are aware that witchcraft was not mentioned in the bible until a re-translation (shortly before the burning times if I recall my dates correctly) influenced not by a religious figure, but at the whim of a secular king. Know what another name for witchcraft was before that point? It was called the healing art. I don't know about your sect, but in the church I grew up in we had a few points in our books and songs that said things along the lines of "I will learn the healing art."
Do though explain how I am weak minded by having a belief different from yours that's based on actually learning about other people before judging them. I'm really not seeing how learning about satanists and their rituals before judging them is at all weak minded. It seems to me the weak mind is one who accepts everything they hear as truth only when it's already in agreement with what they want to hear, for example the belief that satanists are evil because some preacher told you they use a blessed cracker in their black mass.
Frankly though, I have nothing against your god beyond the fact that I don't believe in him. What I do have problems with is his lying, cheating, violent, hypocritical, etc fan club. I've met and known hundreds of so called christians, and about 60ish pagans, and from those samples I can say I have not met a single christian more christlike than any pagan I know. In addition to that I can also say that from my observations the traits that get respected in christian churches and cause the people to be called "a good christian" or "so very christlike" are exactly the things condemned in the bible. It's "love the sinner, hate the sin" not "hate and prejudge everyone different from you" nor does the bible condone the actions that cause the above mentioned day of remembrance.
I'm also going to take it from your statement of "What strikes me most forcibly about paganism and witchcraft is that, if it weren't so dangerous and evil, it would be so flaming SILLY" that you don't actually know anything about my religion. That's some serious false witness there, but go ahead and enlighten me as to what is so dangerous about paganism, not based on what your preacher and the christian sites say about us, but based on our actual rituals and observances. How about some examples of whats so evil beyond us not believing in your god as well? I'll bet there's not a single statement you can make about this. Negative points if you quote the preacher who claims to have been a high priest in one of the ceremonial ordo's since the ordo he claims to have led has never had a high priest, and the members didn't recognize him when asked about him. I'll not tell you who did this though, it's your job to avoid the lies spewed freely by your side in your efforts to actually converse on this subject.
But lets step back from all that for now, and just look at the hate rhetoric spewed by you. In it you lie, show disdain for your fellow man, do not turn the other cheek, and show yourself to be the hypocrite. If we take the assumption that your faith really is right I'll rest easy knowing your actions have certainly damned you more than my actions have damned me. Don't believe that you're more in the wrong, go look up the various sins I've listed for you, that book has some clear statements about some of those sins.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2008 8:03 PM
Oh, allright...
here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns
DARKSIDED!
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 15, 2008 8:12 PM
Felt I should expand on Wowbagger's post in one part.
"Um, you attacked someone else's religion because it's (and I quote) 'silly' - do i really need to point out to you that you believe in an invisible magic man in the sky, loaves and fishes, water into wine, resurrection, heaven, hell, angels, devils and so forth? How is that any less 'silly'? Feel free to explain."
Not only was it an attack claiming it as silly, but it's an attack based on not knowing anything beyond the notion that I might not believe in her magic man in the sky. There are christian witches, I've not personally met any beyond a few chat rooms I used to visit a while ago, but it shows that being pagan doesn't even mean being non-christian. Now my initial post could be taken to mean I don't believe in the christian god, but I don't say that, I merely pointed out that there's nothing original about him or his son. I mention artifacts going back to prehistory, but that can mean a statue of a god or goddess just as readily as a stone pentacle for xyz ritual.
Attacks based on assumptions and ignorance do not work Jenn, if you want anyone to take a single work your saying seriously you'll have to use your brain a little before you post.
Posted by: Felstatsu | July 15, 2008 8:20 PM
Bleh, why can't I participate in at least one blog comment section without making a glaring typo.
Final paragraph should say "if you want anyone to take a single word your saying seriously" instead of "single work."
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 15, 2008 8:26 PM
"God does not so much as send you to hell - you choose hell for yourself."
There's the thin justification that they all throw in to supposedly prevent people from thinking that they get off on eternal torture. That God either can't stop me from damning myself and is therefore not all-powerful, or he just won't, and is therefore not all-loving. It's a ridiculous notion, but if one keeps it rigidly compartmentalized, it makes a nice way to absolve yourself from any guilt caused by worshipping a god who saw it fit to create Hell.
"There's a real erotic fetishization of pain and suffering, and causing it."
Kiss the boot of shiny shiny leather.
Posted by: kweenofdenyl | July 15, 2008 8:54 PM
jenn at #1382
"but as your minds descend further into moral corruption, hate, and hoplessness the result is normally suicide"
Do you have anything factual to back this up with? Or is this just a wishful rant?
Posted by: Clair | July 16, 2008 8:22 AM
I couldn't get past the 3rd one before I couldn't stop rolling my eyes, preventing me from reading any further.
*sigh*
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 16, 2008 8:37 AM
MaJeffie, Nick, etc - Finally figured out why all of you talk about sex and hate God so much. It's because you all have tiny penises. - Jenn
Not only a witch, but clearly a very powerful one! If she can see the details of the male anatomy across thousands of miles, she can probably alter them! Be afraid, guys, be very afraid, respect her beliefs, or Jenn will shrink your penis!
p.s. Jenn, I haven't previously mentioned sex in this thread, other than indirectly in a single jibe about pedophiles becoming Catholic priests - which is well attested.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 3:03 PM
You know I've been following this and reading your comments since this started. I'm a devout catholic so of course I'm offended by your talk about the Eucharist and threats to desecrate it. In response to an earlier posters comments "Do you think this people will really pray for you", I want you to know that I sincerely will be. For all of you that are so convinced God doesn't exist and think this is all just Catholics being oversensitive, know that I will be praying for you tonight when I go to mass. Debating with you is pointless, you have your positions and my words won't get through to you. You are the sole intention I will be focusing on when I go to mass tonight. May God forgive you. "Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of hell. Please lead all souls to heaven especially those most in need of thy mercy, Amen"
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 3:05 PM
You are the sole intention I will be focusing on when I go to mass tonight. May God forgive you. "Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of hell. Please lead all souls to heaven especially those most in need of thy mercy, Amen"
Oooooh. More meaningless talking to one's self.
And a big ol' "Fuck you" to you too.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 3:13 PM
MAJeff, thank you for your post proving me right. I'll say an extra prayer for you.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 3:15 PM
I'll say an extra prayer for you.
"fuck you" right back atcha.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 4:20 PM
Everytime you insult me and direct your anger at me when I try to do God's will you only bring me closer to heaven and a greater reward. You can spew your hate at me all day.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 16, 2008 4:28 PM
So you're admitting that it really is all about you?
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 4:33 PM
MaJeff responding with "Fuck you" to each of my posts...yes I would say it's reasonable to say that's about me.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 16, 2008 4:47 PM
Actually, I think for him, it's more about all religionists. They make him grumpy.
But what I was referring to was the fact that the ultimate reason for your prayer appears to be in anticipation of the reward. In other words, you're praying because you, personally, will benefit from it.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 5:00 PM
If you gleaned that from my post then I think you misunderstood my intent. When a person is insulted (as in this case) or in any way suffers for Christ their reward in heaven is greater. Prayer is not done for a reward as you put it. Please do not infer in anyway that praying for someone makes me think I get any benefit whatsoever, that would be self serving. My intent of praying (in my earlier post) is that I (and we as Catholics) are hopeful that all people, believers and non will make it to heaven. So my intent is praying is for the non believers here that they might one day accept God in their lives. I'm not going to get much further into a discussion about it, my intent by posting was not to get drawn into a debate, this is hardly the forum for it. My intent in posting was to let all of those who don't believe in God or that think it's just a cracker that not everyone reacts with hate or anger. I sincerely hope that responding with respect and love that it might open someone's eyes. And thank you Owlmirror for being respectful in our conversation.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 5:02 PM
Also adding that I'm walking away from the computer for the day so I won't be responding to subsequent postings.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 16, 2008 5:36 PM
"When a person is insulted (as in this case) or in any way suffers for Christ their reward in heaven is greater."
Huh. I've never actually seen the need for self-martyrdom written down like that before. Must be why there are so many Christian trolls around here, they're collecting heaven points.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 16, 2008 5:57 PM
Yet how could it not be self-serving? You say that there is a reward, and that you are aware of it.
As ever, I appreciate apokatastasis. But it really isn't up to you.
Yet the prayer is useless. It cannot affect me, and it cannot affect God regarding me (because God would not act to affect my free will, according to Catholic doctrine).
So it certainly looks like the only benefit is to yourself.
Posted by: Mike | July 16, 2008 8:28 PM
Owlmirror I did my best to explain, I guess it wasn't good enough. As I said earlier, I'm not going to get drawn into a debate. We're on opposite sides of the river, hope you find a bridge across one day, good luck.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2008 8:44 PM
Actually, I think for him, it's more about all religionists. They make him grumpy
Just the arrogant fuckwits who think "I'll pray for you" is welcome and somehow unagressive.
But, while Mikey's off talking to himself, I had a lovely dinner with a friend.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 17, 2008 2:10 AM
Perhaps you could pray for better communication skills.
Or perhaps you could pray for the answer to the question of why anyone prays, given that God is not affected by prayer.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 17, 2008 2:15 AM
Everytime you insult me and direct your anger at me when I try to do God's will you only bring me closer to heaven and a greater reward. You can spew your hate at me all day.
give me your wallet and the keys to your car.
now.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2008 6:02 PM
If your original blog was about anything that had to do with Islam, these same people would probably be sending you emails of praise. Keep up the good work, friend.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 17, 2008 6:22 PM
"Remember that Freedom of Speech is not freedom to harm others, which is what you are doing." from an anti-PZ rant.
My favorite, all PZ threatened was a cracker.
Posted by: dg | July 17, 2008 6:59 PM
Myers expressing an intention to desecrate the "cracker" does nothing but speak very poorly about himself. Its one thing to hear anti-religious trash talk from some random nameless stranger on a generic atheist forum, but to hear it from someone who is a professor at a University, gives the whole thing a new perspective.
It opens the true rational mind to the reality that Myers has caused irrepairable damage to a) the atheist movement parading under "science" and "rationality" b)the integrity of a website that calls itself "scienceblogs.com". Considering he uses the headline "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" surprising no one noticed the jesters hat on the University Professors head.
Serious atheist circles (if any) now have to deal with Myers, who is merrily sawing away at the atheist tree of "science" and "rationality".
Posted by: Steve_C | July 17, 2008 7:11 PM
dg... concern noted.
But you're wrong.
Posted by: Strakh | July 18, 2008 4:03 AM
Note on #1439, by dg:
Hey, dg! Not only are you wrong, you're spectacularly wrong!
WTF is "the atheist movement?"
There is no "atheist movement," peckerhead.
Either you're just another troll, or you are truly that misinformed?
"atheist movement" indeed....
Posted by: dg | July 18, 2008 4:20 AM
# 1441
The Atheist movement is the networks of atheist communities online and otherwise. Feel free to pretend they dont exist.
Posted by: Paul W. | July 18, 2008 4:49 AM
Is this a 1:1 deal, with your reward increased by the same amount I make you suffer for Jesus? Or less, or more?
Am I doing you a favor if I make you suffer, or is Jesus only partly subsidizing my sadism?
If it's more than partial, why do Christians complain so bitterly if we make them suffer?
But maybe that explains why Christian trolls so often seem like gluttons for punishment.
Posted by: Galahad Simms | July 24, 2008 7:56 PM
PZ,
Every now and then we need a reminder as to why it is bad to interrupt cannibals at their lunch.
Keep thinking.
-GS
Posted by: The Mediocre Jesus | July 24, 2008 10:39 PM
"the KorBibRah is a sequence of holy books hollowed out and jammed, one within the next. What better to store a supply of suitably defiled Flesh of God?"
I prefer the TorBiblRan, it's like a Toblerone, but with 100% more blasphemy!
Posted by: Laura Erasmus | July 26, 2008 1:47 PM
I am an outsider looking in. I read this story and have two scenarios and a question. Here are two situations we are all aware of involving the Catholic Church...
A young man is GIVEN a "symbol" of Jesus. He does not consume this "symbol" at the time prescribed. He faces consequences that involve accusations of "Theft". He also receives DEATH THREATS if this "symbol" of Jesus is not returned. Parents have entrusted their own children to "Men of Faith" to take care of their children while they are serving in "Gods House" as Alter boys etc. Reports come out through the years of more and more children being raped by the Priests they have been entrusted to by their parents. What are the Priests threatened with? A few have been felt the consequences a secular law, as in Jail time. But what happened to the rest? Many were transferred to other Diocese'. As any outsider looking in. Answer this question.... In comparison, which of these scenarios is the greater evil and truly effect the people involved?
Posted by: Victoria Chapman | August 12, 2008 7:50 AM
An interesting experiment, and one I think rightly demonstrates the strange 'sacred cows' that we have. A cracker is a cracker to those people who think its a cracker, and to those think its actually the body of their God, then its the body of their God, and they go nuts thinking you've desecrated something they hold holy. Their reaction is quite predictable, if not in any way rational.
My question is: Having put a rusty nail through a cracker that some people consider sacred and then dumped coffee grinds and a banana peel on it, and then mocked those people for their predictable if not rational reaction, would you (general you) be happy to do the same to a piece of cloth?
Would it then make a difference to your feelings regarding that bit of cloth if it just happened to be the flag of the USA (or your own country's flag, for that matter, although the flag of the USA would get the most attention on the internet)?
If you'd feel in any way uncomfortable about ripping through the the Stars & stripes with a rusty nail, placing it in the garbage and then dumping used coffee grinds & a banana peel, then please ask yourself why you'd think of a piece of cloth any different to a dry cracker. Sure, *some* people see it as something special, a symbol as something holy, indeed, perhaps a holy object in its own right. But the flag of the USA is just a piece of cloth, just like a 'host' is just a cracker.
And if I did get a flag of the USA, and put a rusty nail through it, and then after placing it in my trash, put some used coffee grinds and a banana peel onto it, and published my results on the Internet, whilst I could smugly point out that their reaction to some bit of cloth is entirely irrational, I certainly wouldn't be surprised at getting death threats from those who take their patriotism *seriously*.
The question of course, why would I *want* to do that to the flag of the USA? I know damn well it would piss a lot of people off, and most likely result in death threats. Would pissing that many people off to make my point be worthwhile?
Personally, I don't think so. Those who get the point about flags (and crackers) would get the point about flags (and crackers) without me actually going through with it. Those people who would have an irrational reaction to a flag are unlikely to get the 'point' no matter how many times its made (with or without photographic evidence).
I wonder if this cracker stunt has changed anyone's minds, or got anyone to think. I hope so, although suspect not. Those who see the point saw the point before the photo, those that are frothing at the mouth at the desecration still aren't going to 'get it' and the rest of the world is going to use the internet for looking at porn rather than this blog.
But at least you (PZ Myer) had the balls to do it, knowing the reaction you were going to get, so credit where credit is due. I'm not going to 'desecrate' the Stars & Stripes for the cause; I'm a chicken. But feel free to try it some time yourself if you like. It will probably get a bigger reaction than the cracker.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 12, 2008 7:58 AM
Way to miss the point Victoria. Try again.
Posted by: Victoria Chapman | August 12, 2008 6:50 PM
Steve_C,
What is the point that I missed? (Serious question, I'd appreciate an answer, please)
Summary of part one of my post:
Some people hold a particular type of cracker sacred. Dr Myers offended them by treating it without the respect they (irrationally) believe it deserves. He treated it like, well, a cracker.
Some people (irrationally) hold a particular type of cloth (the flag of the USA) if not sacred, then very special. If it were to be treated in the same way that Dr Myers treated the cracker, they'd get upset. And yet, people use dishcloths every day, so its not *cloth* that is special.
In both cases, it is not what the material actually is, but what it *means* to a group of people (an irrational meaning or otherwise).
What is the inherent difference?
Summary of part two of my post:
What did Dr Myers hope to achieve by doing this?
The folks who already understood what was going on didn't need the extra demonstration.
The Catholics predictably objected and have done some seriously irrational things like withdraw funding, and as far as I understand it, have gone so far as making death threats. I admire his courage in that regard, as I am sure he knew this was going to happen.
Have any minds been changed by this?
Still, its got a lot of attention (1449 posts) and perhaps the dialogue therein has been useful to at least some. If that was what Dr Myers wished to achieve, then he's done remarkably well.
Posted by: Chris Townsend | October 4, 2008 10:51 AM
I have read these comments sent to Myers and am not really impressed by the "hatred" shown in them for PZ Myers. There is clearly some anger and also many prayers as well. Some thank Myers for drawing them closer to God. In all these posts, I have found only one or two indirect death threats. I would never support death threats, that's for sure. As a theist, many atheists have sent me hate mail over this, using a lot of vulgar language, and many have even hope that all theists be "wiped out" (even better than a death threat -- a genocide threat!) It is clear that Myers, by supporting theft and desecration of sacred objects, wanted to get a lot of attention. Now he has it, and is a hero to atheists around the nation, perhaps around the world. I hope he enjoys his fame. But, one question, does he really understand how bad atheists look when they reject "reason" and stoop down towards hate speech and hate crimes? What ever happened to atheists like Arthur C. Clarke? I miss his calm maturity. He would never do something so infantile as this.
Posted by: tanushree | January 24, 2009 8:18 AM
can you send me mails through email
Posted by: james | March 9, 2009 4:50 PM
i was looking for material about catholics for my new blog when i came across this. astonishing that you received so much hate mail, as well as so many comments, on this! maybe i should write up an article on what i think of catholics, then their masses of blatherers will give me lots of hits .... :)
Posted by: shannon quinn | October 23, 2009 2:06 PM
are you a racist? Like you to come to countries where Catholicism is the main religion and shout that out loud. I wonder what made you give up on your religion? cause it s kinda sad trashing others believes like you are.
I am only 14 and if I can accept the theories of god and evolution I'm sure you can a grown man who is supposedly a professor can accept them as well and stop trashing others religion.
some day you will need religion in your life if anything bad was to happen to u or a loved one who will u call for (oh god help me )That is what you will say i bet
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 23, 2009 2:16 PM
Might want to check your dictionary
As far as I knew, the internet was pretty much world wide.
The ability to reason and think clearly while assessing the case for the supernatural. I'll go out on a limb and guess he found it left wanting.
I know you're only 14 so I'll be nice. There is no "theory of god". There is blind assertion of the idea of god. There is nothing to suggest there is a god or gods so accepting them is a silly thing to do. Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence. Not accepting it is also a silly thing to do.
Got it?
Kid you've got a lot of living to do. Hopefully it will make you wiser. You're going to need it.
Posted by: Sastra | October 23, 2009 2:25 PM
shannon quinn #1453 wrote:
Catholicism isn't a race, it's a set of beliefs. There's nothing "racist" about saying something is wrong -- after all, you yourself came into this blog to say the writer was wrong, and posted on a defunct thread which is over a year old. I don't know if you will stick around to read replies, but if you want to have your views considered by others, you owe it to others to consider their views. Golden Rule, etc.
PZ Myers knows that many people accept both evolution, and theism. He (and others) argue that the existence of God ought to be taken seriously and approached scientifically: when one does so, the hypothesis falls apart. It's not likely to be true.
He is old enough to value consistency, and integrity. So are you.
So, in other words, it's not about whether religion is true or not -- only whether it's useful. If the only reason to believe in God is because it makes things easier on people, that's not an argument for God. It's an argument for making our comfort the most important thing -- more important, even, than truth.
Is that how you see it?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
October 23, 2009 2:25 PM
Something tells me this kid has had a traumatic life. Xer (her or his) god is a wretched god; it is only there as a pacifier in times of emotional or physical pain.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 23, 2009 2:27 PM
You obviously don't understand the differences between science and religion. Science requires evidence. Usually hard physical evidence. Science also will amend its theories and even drop them if they don't explain the evidence.Religion is dependent on accepting something without evidence. It presupposes that a deity exists and there is a holy book. There is no way to determine if the bible is really a book of fiction, or the word of a deity. But, there is no good physical evidence for any deities, much less the Xian god, or that the bible isn't a work of fiction. So your religion isn't a theory, it isn't even an idea, just a presupposition. So, just because you believe a fallacious presupposition, we don't have to respect that fallacy. Nor should you expect us not to point out the fallacy to you.
There is no need of religion in any persons life. The presupposition that religion is required is false. Atheists have very nice lives.Posted by: Rorschach | October 23, 2009 2:28 PM
Why, Ghostbusters of course !
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 23, 2009 2:42 PM
shannon, punctuation--of any kind--is your friend.
Posted by: niuzai033
|
December 23, 2009 3:11 AM
Lrg prdcts whlsl sl, prvds cstmrs dmnd
Posted by: non stamp collector
|
August 24, 2010 5:50 AM
soo, still cant sort out the bit where its pz doing the hatred bit and the kind loving xtians being, well kind and loving and forgiving