Pharyngula: A word I shall be stealing

#1

Big deal. Censorship is rampant, depending on whose ox is being gored.

See how far you get bringing up ID in a science class, for example.

Who ya kiddin, PZ. Atheists, when in control, have been the greatest censors of all time.

Posted by: Adam Hamilton | August 3, 2008 3:41 PM

#2

Who ya kiddin, PZ. Atheists, when in control, have been the greatest censors of all time.

Posted by: JimC | August 3, 2008 3:44 PM

#3

Theonoma...gives rise to the nasty and oft incurable...'godidittitus'.

Which most will realise as a forerunner to...'donotgiveajotwottheevidencesaysgoddiditanywayso yahboosuckstoyouathestictypesitus...usually the latter stages of this mind crippling degenerative sad and grief stricken disease....no known cure..except self healing...but that requires intelligence as a minimum qualification.

Posted by: the strangest brew | August 3, 2008 3:45 PM

#4

oops should have said example please under the above.

Posted by: JimC | August 3, 2008 3:46 PM

#5

Adam,

You are full of assertions but no facts to support your little rant. How many book burnings has the Church committed? Need we look at Galileo or Copernicus for censorship? You bring up ID in science class; what does ID have to do with science? Nothing. ID does not have a workable theory to propose except to say "magic man done it". So, try to be stupid somewhere else, ok.

Chris

Posted by: ChrisKG | August 3, 2008 3:47 PM

#6

Big deal. Censorship is rampant, depending on whose ox is being gored.
See how far you get bringing up ID in a science class, for example.

Who ya kiddin, PZ. Atheists, when in control, have been the greatest censors of all time.

You won't get far because ID is not science.

Theology class, now there's your target audience.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 3:50 PM

#7

See how far you get bringing up ID in a science class, for example.

ID does get brought up in science class — as an example of something that is not science.

Science is not about censorship. It is about proper labeling and definitions. "ID" does not fall under the definition of proper science, and it is properly labeled as "superstition" and/or "incoherent nonsense".

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 3, 2008 3:51 PM

#8

When I was a child I was physically and sexually abused by an atheist who was head of the local freethinkers group. They knew what he was doing, but kept quiet. What did I learn from that?

1. That atheists are evil, perverse, and abusive.
2. That atheist groups are bad and filled with abusers.
3. That atheism is false.

If that makes no sense and you would tell me that I cannot blame all atheists or their groups for what one does or that this doesn't disprove atheism I would ask you do do the following:

Substitute the word Christian for atheist and Christianity/Church for freethinkers group. Then apply your own logic. That's what I have just done. It is amazingly easy to refute atheist "logic." But then no one ever accused atheists of being very bright.

Posted by: Luke | August 3, 2008 4:03 PM

#9

Luke, you went through a lot of effort to display your ridiculous false dichotomy and strawman.

Posted by: Ben Abbott | August 3, 2008 4:08 PM

#10

That's what I have just done.

No, it isn't.

Posted by: MartinM | August 3, 2008 4:08 PM

#11

Re; #8.

Thanks for the thought experiment. Now let's return to reality.

Compare in real life the number of examples proven where someone of a humanistic or atheist persuasion has committed sex-crimes against the number of religious adherents. Allow for as many factors as possible and then see if you can arrive at any testable conclusions.

We'll still be here when you return to discuss your findings. In the meantime shove your little prejudices up your ass.

Posted by: AllanW | August 3, 2008 4:09 PM

#12

Anyone up to the task of providing a clear definition for "Theonomas"?

... oh, and many thanks to Adam and Luke for the contextual examples of this ailment ;-)

Posted by: Ben Abbott | August 3, 2008 4:10 PM

#13

See how far you get bringing up ID in a science class, for example.

Or multivariable calculus in a cooking class. Home Ec teachers are fascists.

Posted by: Todd | August 3, 2008 4:10 PM

#14

Owilmirror- (loud clapping)

Posted by: Zach | August 3, 2008 4:11 PM

#15

Wow, PZ. It looks like you have stumbled into a troll cave on this one!

Posted by: Tim | August 3, 2008 4:12 PM

#16

Man that was a bad attempt Luke.

First: That didn't happen.

Second: There isn't a worldwide mega powerful Atheist group that would have the power, means or desire to cover up the fictional abuse you describe. The Catholic Church did do that and willingly sheltered the Priests involved. In many cases continued to give the guilty positions where they could continue to abuse. So you fail again.

Third: no one claims that all Catholics are bad. We are however claiming that there is a systemic issue in the Catholic church that allowed the abuse to happen and worked hard to cover it up. And there is plenty of verifiable evidence to show this. So many are claiming he Catholic church is bad because we can point to reasons it actually is.

And finally, your dumbest point of all, no one is claiming because of the abuse, that Christianity is false. We are claiming it is false on it's own merits (or lack there of).

You haven't refuted anything except in your own mind.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 4:13 PM

#17

I was abused by an atheist and you don't care. You just heap scorn on me. You victimize the victim. Isn't that what you claim religious people do?

No straw man here. No apology from the atheists. Just more abuse. I guess if you think people are just a bunch of random molecules that it doesn't matter if they are abused. Thanks for revealing yourselves.

Posted by: Luke | August 3, 2008 4:14 PM

#18

#13. Actually you have it backwards. It would be like bringing up cooking in a multivariable calculus class.

Posted by: Tim | August 3, 2008 4:15 PM

#19

I can't believe you don't believe me. No one ever lies about abuse, ever. The accusation alone is proof. I demand an apology from atheists and all atheist groups. You are all in on it. It is a conspiracy. Don't defend yourselves. Just apologize and admit you are wrong.

Posted by: Luke | August 3, 2008 4:18 PM

#20

Luke: Did you press any charges? Can you give us the name of the group, when the incidents occurred, any other details? I would like to think that the response of a non-dogmatic group, in the face of such accusations, would be substantially different from the self-protective, reality-denying response of a dogmatically-oriented group -- but the proof is in the pudding. Please tell us everything you can about this group so that we can learn from our mistakes.

PZ: "theonoma" -- why not the simpler "theoma"? "-noma" sounds like it has something to do with nomenclature. Just my two wafers' worth.

Posted by: Woozle | August 3, 2008 4:20 PM

#21

Tim: It would be like bringing up cooking in a multivariable calculus class.

No wonder my students objected to my muffin recipe when the topic was moments of inertia of solids.

Posted by: Zeno | August 3, 2008 4:22 PM

#22

I call Poe's Law on Luke.

Posted by: Kieron | August 3, 2008 4:22 PM

#23

Damn You, Kathy Griffin!

Damn you to Hell for molesting your poolboy - Luke.

We have found the pictures of you taking him, naked, with leash and collar to the monthly Atheist Club meeting.

Sorry, Luke. I apologize for the atheists, even though I am not one, myself. But please realize, they are just a bunch of godless bastards. They know not what they do.

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | August 3, 2008 4:24 PM

#24

It appears Luke is already suffereing the final stages of a theonoma himself.
Fatal to the brain if not caught quickly...

When I was a child I was physically and sexually abused by a cook who was head of the local cooking group. They knew what he was doing, but kept quiet. What did I learn from that?

1. That cooks are evil, perverse, and abusive.
2. That cooking groups are bad and filled with abusers.
3. That cooking is false.

Look, i can play silly games with words too, aren't I clever.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 3, 2008 4:25 PM

#25

Woozle:

Not finding any etymology under carcinoma, I checked melanoma. The two ancestral terms are melas and oma. The S has been dropped from reasons unknown, but the N was added to separate the two terms. While I agree that theoma is simpler, theonoma makes the separate parts (of theo [god] and oma [disease, morbidity]) more distinct. (source: witionary.org)

Plus, people are already using it.

Furthermore, it makes it clearer to people familiar with the above (and similar) terms that we are drawing this relationship.

Posted by: SDyuaa | August 3, 2008 4:26 PM

#26

Luke: I was abused by an atheist and you don't care. You just heap scorn on me. You victimize the victim. Isn't that what you claim religious people do?

To quote several Catholic priests: "You were probably asking for it."

But don't worry, Luke. Soon we will tire of your trolling and will cease mocking you.

Posted by: Zeno | August 3, 2008 4:27 PM

#27

Did anybody in the authority structure of this freethinker organization attempt to cover up the abuse by moving the person out of state. Oh wait, there is no such thing as an "freethinker organization authority structure" as freethinker groups are all merely independent groups of like minded people with no real leadership. Epic analogy fail.

Posted by: me | August 3, 2008 4:27 PM

#28

I call Poe's Law on Luke.

Luke when you find yourself in a hole, the wrong thing to do is ask for a shovel.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 4:27 PM

#29

When I was a child I was physically and sexually abused by a Calculus Professor who was head of the local Multivariate Calculus group. They knew what he was doing, but kept quiet. What did I learn from that?

1. That Math Teachers are evil, perverse, and abusive.
2. That Math groups are bad and filled with abusers.
3. That Calculus is false.

If only I could have used this logic through college!

Posted by: Tim | August 3, 2008 4:28 PM

#30

I've noticed some of the symptoms of malignant theonoma:
1) It acts on the brain, reducing any capacity for rational thought
2) It secretes toxins which demand that the theonoma be stimulated at least weekly. This stimulation is generally in the form of close association with others who are likewise affectd, and produces endorphins which leave the sufferer with a state of euphoria.
3) Severe cases lead to an overwhelming desire to infect as many people as possible, to increase the periodic stimulation and resulting endorphin release

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 3, 2008 4:34 PM

#31

I thought that I had heard a similar word in the past. Merriam-Webster:

theonomy

Main Entry: the·on·o·my
Function: noun
Etymology: German Theonomie, from theo- the- (from Latin) + -nomie -nomy
Date: 1890

: the state of being theonomous : government by God

Posted by: bigjohn756 | August 3, 2008 4:34 PM

#32

Tim: 1. That Math Teachers are evil, perverse, and abusive.

Since point #1 is a universally recognized fact, I doubt that it is a deduction or conclusion of any kind. Perhaps it's an axiom.

Now I must finish grading that multivariate calculus exam.

Posted by: Zeno | August 3, 2008 4:35 PM

#33

Epic analogy fail.

As per usual. But what can you expect on that front from people who think that a metaphor is something to live by?

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | August 3, 2008 4:36 PM

#34

1. That cooks are evil, perverse, and abusive. 2. That cooking groups are bad and filled with abusers. 3. That cooking is false.

You bastard. You've figured us out.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 4:38 PM

#35

In addition to theonoma, we have recently seen coined platosphere (where Platonic concepts float) and fatwa envy (a personality trait displayed by some of P-Zed's nastier correspondents). I also particularly enjoyed the "I'll pray for you" meme and variations.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 3, 2008 4:38 PM

#36

An atheist was (reportedly) responsible for Luke's abuse and I hope that he/she is no longer able to do so.

Abuse happens.

But are atheists and freethinkers more likely to be abusers than members of an organisation that deliberately encouraged (sexual etc) deviancy? For example a men-only club that practices celibacy and cannibalism.

Luke - on your arguments. You perform a set of logical wanderings showing atheism to be false and then dismiss the result. i.e. you show atheism to be not false. Was this your preferred outcome?

Or are you out of your depth.?

Posted by: JB | August 3, 2008 4:45 PM

#37

FWIW, "Adam Hamilton" and "JimC" = two more puppets of the Kansas troll.

Luke? Either another nym or a Poe.

Posted by: nunyer | August 3, 2008 4:48 PM

#38

Theonoma! Awesome. It's so simple too... why didn't I think of that?

Luke, if you really were abused as a child, then I'm very sorry to hear that. It's a terrible thing to have happen to you. However, I can assure you that there is no such thing as an 'atheist/freethinkers group' that is substantial enough to cover up an agenda of sexual abuse. I live in Ottawa, Canada's capital city, and have not heard of a local 'freethinkers branch' that I can join. So your assertion that we are all 'in on it' and are all covering up and committing abuse is ridiculous and extremely offensive. I suggest that you see a therapist to overcome your abuse so that you can think clearly and rationally.

Posted by: LisaJ | August 3, 2008 4:48 PM

#39

Ironically, I looked it up and it took me to this;

Results 1 - 10 of about 79,400 for Theonomy. (0.07 seconds)
Search Results
Theonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term "Theonomy" has been used to describe various views which see the God revealed in the Bible as the sole source of human ethics. ...

I did type in Theonoma but it tried to correct me! Oh dear, I don't think that was the direction you wanted to go.

Posted by: Sondra | August 3, 2008 4:49 PM

#40

FWIW, "Adam Hamilton" and "JimC" = two more puppets of the Kansas troll.

I think JimC just posted a reply too fast. :p

Posted by: charfles | August 3, 2008 4:54 PM

#41

I think Google's just affronted when it can't give back at least ten thousand results, and tries to correct anyone searching for a rare term.

Posted by: SDyuaa | August 3, 2008 4:55 PM

#42

You people are so smart it's hard for me to keep up.

I love this discussion but I had to look up Poe's Law; too advanced for me, but now that I know, I love it.

Poe's Law
From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Poe's Law states:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing[1].

Poe's Law relates to fundamentalism, and the difficulty of identifying actual parodies of it. It suggests that, in general, it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they both sound equally ridiculous. The law also works in reverse: real fundamentalism can also be indistinguishable from parody fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they think he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.[citation needed]

Poe's Law was originally formulated by Christianforums.com user Nathan Poe[2]

Posted by: Sondra | August 3, 2008 5:04 PM

#43

See how far you get bringing up ID in a science class, for example.
Due to fairness, just as far as flat-earth theory or the flying spaghetti monster.

Posted by: Raiko | August 3, 2008 5:06 PM

#44

Luke flunked math.

Posted by: Todd | August 3, 2008 5:07 PM

#45

Luke - I am very sorry for you if you were abused as a child. No child deserves to be treated in such a heinous manner. However, I have to argue with your statement that no one lies about abuse; unfortunately, it happens quite often.
One case that comes to mind happened years ago in San Diego. It involved a man in his thirties who was mentally retarded and to be brutally honest, very odd looking. He worked as a janitor in an elementary school, and someone got the idea that he must be a pervert, based solely on his looks. Once the suggestion was made, parents jumped on it like it was fact and immediate began questioning their children about this poor man.
Many of the children were also creeped out by this man's appearance and so had no trouble believing that he was a "bad man." This man was subsequently arrested and brought to trial. Once the trial began, they were able to determine that every single child and parent had made up the stories of abuse. The children did this because they didn't know any better, and the parents because they were prejudiced by this man's physical appearance and mental disability.
Fortunately, justice was done in this case, and this poor man was found innocent, with parents and children alike apologizing to him for the abuse they heaped on him.
This is just one tale of "made up" abuse, but one reads about similar incidents quite often. I've even read about members of the Catholic church making up stories about being abused by priests, just because they are attention-seeking jerks who want some fame, no matter how tainted it is.
So again Luke, I am very sorry for you if you were abused, but it is absolutely not true that people never lie about being abused.

Posted by: hubris hurts | August 3, 2008 5:18 PM

#46

McMartin Preschool "Little Rascals Daycare" trial.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 5:24 PM

#47

should have had an "and" in there

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 5:26 PM

#48

@ BigJohn #31 - LMAO!! :-) Winner!

Now ... what's the cure for this cancerous condition?
It's been spreading all over the South. We need to find something to at least stop it from getting into yhe advanced stages!!

Posted by: S.Scott | August 3, 2008 5:27 PM

#49

"I guess if you think people are just a bunch of random molecules "

No, no, someone carefully determined which molecules would be incorporated in me and in which order. It took years! I'm glad, though, that I have ol' CH3CH2OH #X53JM990035 right in the center of my left atrium, though, it gives me particular inspiration. That molecule has a lot of history behind it.

Posted by: derw | August 3, 2008 5:30 PM

#50

I realise theonoma is being used already (pace SDyuaa at #25) but surely it's a theosarcoma?

Posted by: DaveH | August 3, 2008 5:32 PM

#51

Thank you Rev. BigDumbChimp, for providing more examples. The case that I was thinking of was Dale Akiki. I apologize, he was a nursery school volunteer, not an elementary school janitor. I was working from memory in my earlier post. Anyone interested in reading about this incident can go to http://www.ags.uci.edu/~dehill/witchhunt/cases/akiki.htm. I apologize, but I don't know how to make that address into an actual link.

Posted by: hubris hurts | August 3, 2008 5:33 PM

#52

lukanoma:

the malignant need to prove atheism is inherently evil.

Posted by: mayhempix | August 3, 2008 5:33 PM

#53

48*

Once diagnosed... rarely cured...

Posted by: the strangest brew | August 3, 2008 5:34 PM

#54

Well, don't I feel silly? I didn't have to do anything to turn an address into a link...obviously, this software is a lot smarter than I.

Posted by: hubris hurts | August 3, 2008 5:35 PM

#55

adamnoia:

the irrational belief in Christian persecution by evil atheists.

Posted by: mayhempix | August 3, 2008 5:38 PM

#56

@ 53 ... Shit! :-(

Posted by: S.Scott | August 3, 2008 5:39 PM

#57

52*
"lukanoma:

the malignant need to prove atheism is inherently evil."

And abjectly failing in awesome style everytime.

This only tends to rejuvenate the boss woo woo practitioners in to further shrill and hysterical spitting of the dummy because they be getting nowhere.
Must irritate them that the burning times are basically outlawed...ish!

Sad being delusional but at least they have a wanna be pope in their midst.

Donkeyhue the American Catholic wet dream, oh dear bit of an idiot though, never mind it never stopped anyone from being a pope in the past, imagined or otherwise!

Posted by: the strangest brew | August 3, 2008 5:50 PM

#58

@48: I think this calls for widespread use of medical marihuana.

Posted by: Maria | August 3, 2008 5:52 PM

#59

55*

"adamnoia:

the irrational belief in Christian persecution by evil atheists."

I would think they should thank the evil atheists...I thought a little gratuitous persecution would be good for their soul!
You see you try to help a Christian and what ya get...abuse and condemnation to hell...no pleasing 'em really!

Posted by: the strangest brew | August 3, 2008 6:09 PM

#60

ISV is such a wonderfully rich method of developing new words. It's particularly good because it creates a new word in every language that is willing to use it. Now, the only thing I'm not certain of is whether this is a proper ISV coinage or merely an inspired portmanteau.

Posted by: freelunch | August 3, 2008 6:34 PM

#61

|Theonoma|
agh, fabulous! should make that go viral- get it into the lexicon.

Posted by: dusty59 | August 3, 2008 6:45 PM

#62

*ahem* I resent the comparison of cooking to intelligent design. Cooking is a very useful skill. It is also an art that has been practised since before the dawn of recorded human history. It even has a role in human evolution.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 3, 2008 6:49 PM

#63

#1 - Atheists have been the "biggest censors of all time"? Although that's debatable, if you look at the regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il (who I assume you are referring to; Hitler was a Roman Catholic), you can quite quickly see that all of them possessed a cult of personality that apotheosizes them so that they are indistinguishable from an actual religion. A Cult of personalities is tantamount - or even indistinguishable - from a religion, it just has fewer members in most cases.

Posted by: Ulysses | August 3, 2008 6:51 PM

#64

I know that some pagans got a ruckus raised just talking playfully to some children who strayed over a property line. No abuse occurred.

Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | August 3, 2008 7:34 PM

#65

It looks malignant. Better get a theotomy before it metastasizes!

Posted by: Epistaxis | August 3, 2008 8:01 PM

#66

Adam at 1; Why not see how far you get brining souffle recipes up in maths class too. Why not?

Luke at 8; Atheists don't try to tell you that they are the source of all goodness in the world. If you are going to make extraordinary claims of goodness, you have to be extraoridinarily good, and yet the church fails abysmally. Of course, your "example" was a lie, wasn't it. What a good Christian you are, lying for Jebus.

Posted by: Louis Irving | August 3, 2008 8:09 PM

#67

Someone smarter than I needs to define theonoma on Urban Dictionary.
I did find this gem: Theolojism
1) Any words which come out of a theologians mouth in relation to god or any other imaginary thing.

2) The sexual fluid which is excreted from a theologian.
ex.: The priest answered his question with a load of theolojism.

Posted by: queenofdenyl | August 3, 2008 9:23 PM

#68

I've been trying to find a word for someone that is without science. I made one up and finally posted about it today. This seemed like a good time to bring it up. If you are interested, or have better ideas, come on over to my blog and let me know.

ascient - A person that lacks scientific knowledge or doesn't believe in scientific facts because of a conflicting belief system.

Posted by: Eric | August 3, 2008 9:24 PM

#69

Someone smarter than I needs to define theonoma on Urban Dictionary.

Done.

Posted by: SDyuaa | August 3, 2008 9:37 PM

#70

And I added ascient, too, because I liked it so much and it seems to fill a much-needed gap (the filling is needed, not the gap).

And not that I'm claiming to be smarter than someone I've never met, just perhaps more comfortable with defining words. I also added theonoma to Wiktionary's protologisims page at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/WT:LOP although I'll wait until I see ascient around to add that, also.

-Emu Sam, aka SDyuaa

Posted by: Emu Sam | August 3, 2008 9:45 PM

#71

Re: #39

And how far down the list was "find theonoma on eBay today!"

There are other online market bots that do that, too.

Posted by: CortxVortx | August 3, 2008 9:51 PM

#72

Luke #8 wrote:

When I was a child I was physically and sexually abused by an atheist who was head of the local freethinkers group. They knew what he was doing, but kept quiet. What did I learn from that?

1. That being an atheist does not necessarily make a person moral.
2. That there are serious ethical problems with the accountability and function of that atheist group.
3. That the hypothesis that the natural world contains no evil is inconsistent with the evidence.

And those responses to your analogy are much closer to what atheists have been saying about the Catholic Church. Belief in God is no guarantee of morality; there are serious ethical problems with how the Church is functioning; and -- well, I'm not really sure what the analog to the last one would be. Nobody used the cover-ups in the Catholic Church to argue that there was no God. That wouldn't follow, any more than the Aztec sacrifices means there's no God. I suppose one could have used it as a springboard for the Argument From Evil, but I don't think anyone did.

Posted by: Sastra | August 3, 2008 10:04 PM

#73

Ok, I'd like to propose a new term:

Theolo-gee: the argument that there must be a God because -- wow -- isn't everything just AMAZING!

Posted by: Sastra | August 3, 2008 10:08 PM

#74

Over in the source article, Ian Andreas Miller (http://diaphanus.livejournal.com/) has posted this:

"Happy to stand corrected... where's a classical Greek scholar when you need one?! :-)"

Right here!

I was also thinking that it ought to be theoma (theo- + -oma, o in theo- drops out before o), as in carcinoma, melanoma, sarcoma, steatoma, ecchymoma. The combining form in those words is -oma, not -noma.

Theonomous is from theos, "god," and nomos, "law."

Posted by: Greg | August 3, 2008 10:38 PM

#75

"Not finding any etymology under carcinoma, I checked melanoma. The two ancestral terms are melas and oma. The S has been dropped from reasons unknown, but the N was added to separate the two terms."

That's not why there's an n in there. Melas is a contraction of the form melans, where melan- is the stem of the word, and s is a grammatical ending. The n of the stem disappears before s. Blame that on the Greeks.

The stem melan- was added to the combining form -oma to get melanoma. The n was not simply added to separate the two terms.

The n in carcinoma is a part of carcino-, from Greek karkinos.

"Plus, people are already using it."

Then I think it's better to say that theonoma is a blend of theo- and carcinoma rather than a compound using the combining form -oma like carcinoma and melanoma.

Posted by: Ian Andreas Miller | August 3, 2008 10:38 PM

#76

Ok, I'd like to propose a new term:
Theolo-gee: the argument that there must be a God because -- wow -- isn't everything just AMAZING!

I love it

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 3, 2008 10:44 PM

#77

Theonoma...I love it, and I will be using it profusely from this point forward. It gives a name to Dawkins' idea of a "mind-virus" meme.

Posted by: Jeremy | August 3, 2008 10:45 PM

#78

Ian Miller, thanks for the explanation. Would you say that the contraction theoma is better than theo-oma, or would you recommend another term, assuming I wished to blend theos and oma?

I'll probably go with theo + (carci)noma because it had the dubious virtue of coming first to my attention.

Posted by: Emu Sam | August 3, 2008 10:50 PM

#79

Ok, I'd like to propose a new term:
Theolo-gee: the argument that there must be a God because -- wow -- isn't everything just AMAZING!

How about, theolo-GEE WHIZ!

Posted by: Eric | August 3, 2008 10:51 PM

#80

Theologee. That really is what it all comes down to for so many of the theists out there. Good one, Sastra.

I think there is power in naming something. Media power, amongst other things. Let's see some more of these tags, please.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | August 3, 2008 10:53 PM

#81

How about THEITOMA - when your brains are replaced with mush from exposure to excessive religion?

Posted by: Jim1138 | August 3, 2008 11:10 PM

#82

Apollo-getics: defending the reality of the moon landings.

Euch-arrest: The sacrament of incarcerating someone for stealing a cracker.

Theo-login: Someone who drops into Pharyngula to post another comment for Christ.

Posted by: Sastra | August 3, 2008 11:13 PM

#83

It's nice to see new terms are formed in here like #79 & #82.

As for the 'Luke', his posts remind me that he really NEEDS therapy treatment fast. Is it any possible to teach him how to think critically? Somehow, my 'baloney detection' tells me he fabricated the nonsense. And sorry Luke for not believing since we value concrete evidence over belief.

Anyway, I'm hoping to see more terms cropping out in here.

Posted by: mewletter | August 3, 2008 11:40 PM

#84

Theologenie: the act of summoning God to magically explain every problem.

And now I must get to bed...

Posted by: Sastra | August 3, 2008 11:52 PM

#85

It is amazingly easy to refute atheist "logic."

Uh, right ... because the millions of people who have a negative view of the Catholic Church because of its systematic sexual abuse and its coverup of same are all atheists.

Logic: ur doin it wrong, Luke.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 4, 2008 3:33 AM

#86

Starting in early on the contest for August's Molly, eh Sastra? :-)

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 4, 2008 3:37 AM

#87

Luke fabricated the whole thing. Just a troll. The only amusement (after teasing him of course) was watching all the Evil Atheists treat him more kindly than he is probably used to. It probably scared him off more than anything else.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 4, 2008 3:54 AM

#88

I was abused by an atheist and you don't care. You just heap scorn on me. You victimize the victim. Isn't that what you claim religious people do?

Luke's too dumb to keep track of his point, but people who aren't morons remember that in reality people were abused by Catholic priests, not atheists, so to the degree that the victims were scorned, reality upholds the claim.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 4, 2008 4:09 AM

#89

Luke fabricated the whole thing.

Um, maybe it's Aspergers. Luke isn't actually claiming it happened ... it's a sarcastic substitution analogy, which is a perfectly reasonable rhetorical strategy, if the logic and the facts are supportive. But sadly for Luke they aren't ... not even close.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 4, 2008 4:19 AM

#90

#35: "In addition to theonoma, we have recently seen coined platosphere (where Platonic concepts float) and fatwa envy (a personality trait displayed by some of P-Zed's nastier correspondents). I also particularly enjoyed the "I'll pray for you" meme and variations."
Posted by: Blake Stacey

Ain't English just a wonderful thaing?

Just when you think it couldn't get any better, along comes a whole new raft of pithy aphorisms. I feel sorry for the rest of them. (alternative languages that is)

I can't help feeling that we English speakers are nothing more than aphorism whores. Still, variety IS the spice of life I guess. "Viva la whoredom!"

Posted by: DingoDave | August 4, 2008 4:28 AM

#91

Richard Eis #87 wrote:

Luke fabricated the whole thing. Just a troll.

Well, I think Luke's original intent was just to make an analogy. If his deductions from atheists behaving badly don't follow, then the deductions we're making from Catholics behaving badly also don't follow. He assumed correctly that we'd see the error. His mistake was in what conclusions he thought we were drawing from the pedophile scandal. So it was a very bad analogy.

The subsequent "you guys just don't care" gambit, however, WAS classic trolling (deliberately making false or insincere statements in order to stir people up.)

truth machine #86 wrote:

Starting in early on the contest for August's Molly, eh Sastra? :-)

Naw, the Molly's like the Academy Awards: if you want serious consideration, you need to release your best work right before the vote, because people have short memories. ;)

Besides, traffic is up, and the competition is getting real stiff.

Posted by: Sastra, OM | August 4, 2008 8:41 AM

#92

Luke (Comment #8):

When I was a child I was physically and sexually abused by an atheist who was head of the local freethinkers group. They knew what he was doing, but kept quiet. What did I learn from that? 1. That atheists are evil, perverse, and abusive. 2. That atheist groups are bad and filled with abusers. 3. That atheism is false.

When I first read this, I assumed that this was an abstract counter-argument to (a strawman version of) the kinds of arguments employed by atheists and other critics of the Catholic Church with respect to clerical child abuse.

Then we get Comment #17:

I was abused by an atheist and you don't care. You just heap scorn on me. You victimize the victim. Isn't that what you claim religious people do?

So was Luke in fact making the claim in all seriousness? But just when I was beginning to think so, he comes out with Comment #19:

I can't believe you don't believe me. No one ever lies about abuse, ever. The accusation alone is proof.

which is not only manifestly false, but expresses an attitude towards standards of evidence that is both epistemologically insane and carries the most appalling moral and social consequences (as any victim of political and religious witch-hunts will tell you). Consequently, Luke becomes somewhat harder to take seriously.

And then we get:

I demand an apology from atheists and all atheist groups. You are all in on it. It is a conspiracy.

The silliness of which seriously undermines what's left of Luke's credibility.

So Luke, were you really abused as a child by an officer of a local freethinkers' group? Based on your posts quoted above, I'm rather inclined to doubt it. If you were, and you find the skeptical responses here hurtful, then I'm sorry, but the fault does not lie with us for being skeptical - it lies with you for failing to express yourself in a credible manner.

Posted by: Iain Walker | August 4, 2008 8:46 AM

#93

I'm thinking the "nomos" part of Theonoma refers to the greek word for law.

Posted by: bunnycatch3r | August 4, 2008 9:17 AM

#94

Theonoma is a progressive mind-numbing disorder which, fortunately, is amenable to treatment.
1) Doses of Rationalactivity. This includes taking logic classes and remedial science education.
2) Demotheropy. Visit the Galapagos and look at the various populations of tortoises.
3) Lobotomy. A hypothetical cure, but everyone knows nature abhors a vacuum.

Posted by: mothra | August 4, 2008 6:00 PM

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

A word I shall be stealing

Comments