Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The convent is opposed to all that is sacred in human nature.
[Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays]
Development, medicine, and evolution of the neck and shoulder
Evolution of Hormone Signaling
« Galápagos Album: Iguana swarm | Main | Help our physicist brethren and sisters with a poll »
Category: Kooks
Posted on: September 10, 2008 4:34 PM, by PZ Myers
I quiver in fear that my number is up, now that Dinesh has caught on. With great trepidation, I read his screed, certain that such a brilliant mind would demolish my godless ways with his deep insight.
Well, no. He's indignant, but he's got nothing to say. Oh, well, I'm sure there might be someone out there with greater wit than him who will teach me a lesson.
Comments
Posted by: Michelle | September 10, 2008 4:38 PM
How many weeks has it been again? I guess he was too busy following another dead cow.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 10, 2008 4:41 PM
Yeah, I saw that.
Dinesh seems to write as if you're surprised that you upset people, rather than recognizing that upsetting people with silly ideas was the point. Hm, D'Souza missing the point, what were the odds?
Hint to D'Souza: the mere fact that a person says that he 'doesn't understand why people are upset' is no indication that he doesn't really know why. He may just be saying that there's no good reason to be upset, and the actual reason happens to be a poor one.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Matt | September 10, 2008 4:42 PM
D'Souza wrote: This would be like someone burning a cross and then saying, "I cannot understand why all those black people are upset? All I did was set fire to a piece of wood."
No no no no no. Racism is real. God is not.
Posted by: J Myers | September 10, 2008 4:44 PM
He's indignant, but he's got nothing to say.
So he's Sarah Palin?
Posted by: Markus | September 10, 2008 4:49 PM
Who actually reads Dinesh's articles? OK, maybe the headline just popped on a news thread and that someone just had to follow it....
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 10, 2008 4:55 PM
Things must be pretty good in the world to complain about desecration of a snack food. There must be no war, famine, plagues, natural disasters, political strife.
Things must be pretty good.
Posted by: Tiki Idyll | September 10, 2008 4:56 PM
Dinesh writes "the problem with people like Myers and Dawkins is not that they are complete morons. It is that they are biologists who know something about one thing but pretend that they know a lot about other things."
He simultaneously notes that PZ knows a lot about biology and has thus implied that PZ stands on solid ground discussing evolution (which he may or may not agree with) while assuming that someone can only know a lot about a single topic. Apparently, Dinesh's single topic is crackers.
Posted by: Roger | September 10, 2008 4:56 PM
Oh, teh noes! Dinesh D'Souza picks up on the one thing older than John McCain and acts like it's an outrage. An OUTRAGE, I tells ya! His comparison of cross-burning to PZ's desecration of the crackers and books is not only wrong, but utterly offensive and ignorant of history. What a moron.
Posted by: Travis | September 10, 2008 4:58 PM
I notice that Minsinformed Fatwah Envy only took a handful of posts to come up in the comments over there.
Posted by: Svan | September 10, 2008 5:01 PM
you're a wimp. anybody can pick on catholics, they turn the other cheek. show us you're a man - desecrate a koran.
or are you just too afraid?
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 10, 2008 5:02 PM
What gets me is they act like they are being persecuted. They are the largest cultural group in the US, and they act like everyone is out to get them. The media is attacking them I think one post said.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | September 10, 2008 5:03 PM
Svan: Please, please, please tell me you're joking.
Posted by: Brian | September 10, 2008 5:04 PM
"Oh, well, I'm sure there might be someone out there with greater wit than him who will teach me a lesson."
Yup. They're called the commenters on his blog.
Brian
Posted by: Jason | September 10, 2008 5:05 PM
Heh, they didn't even make it three comments before fatwa envy.
And only 10 over here...
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | September 10, 2008 5:05 PM
Dinesh!
Gesundheit!
That's all I got. Sorry. :)
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | September 10, 2008 5:06 PM
Personally, I find that analogy sickening and I'm not even African-American. To advance as analogous the throwing of an inanimate object in the trash, and an act of gross physical intimidation -- a prelude to murder -- is obscene and depraved.
Shame on D'Fucktard for parroting such a malignant analogy.
Posted by: David D.G. | September 10, 2008 5:08 PM
Svan,
HE DID, nailing a page from the Koran and The God Delusion with the same nail as went through the stupid cracker -- proximity to which probably defiled the Koran more than the nail did.
Funny thing, though -- while Catholics have foamed at the mouth and threatened PZ with everything ranging from firing to violence to DEATH, Muslims have had no problem with him. And neither have atheists for him "desecrating" a copy of Dawkins' book.
~David D.G.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 5:09 PM
Oh! Goodie, goodie! *bouncing in chair* Fresh trolls, fresh trolls!
Thanks PZ!
Posted by: Alex | September 10, 2008 5:09 PM
D'Souza wrote: This would be like someone burning a cross and then saying, "I cannot understand why all those black people are upset? All I did was set fire to a piece of wood."
Uh no.
What PZ did would be like putting a rusty nail in and throw into a trash can, the person who burns crosses.
Posted by: SC | September 10, 2008 5:09 PM
Yup. Still funny.
Posted by: craig | September 10, 2008 5:10 PM
Whereas D'Souza is a person who knows nothing but thinks he knows everything.
Posted by: Luke | September 10, 2008 5:10 PM
Anyone who uses the "but look at the good things that religion has done" argument should be honest and preface this with "OK, I concede religion isn't true, but..."
Instead they ommit this crucial point and hope that nobody notices.
Posted by: Alex | September 10, 2008 5:10 PM
Except that the person who burns crosses is a real person AND NOT A CRACKER!
Posted by: reverted | September 10, 2008 5:14 PM
ROFL! Svan, you seriously are retarded. Got eyes? (Actually LOOK at that photograph, moron.)
Posted by: Hap | September 10, 2008 5:15 PM
DdS keeps forgetting the difference between the Cracker Sonata and burning crosses - the people who burnt the crosses, also burnt (and lynched, and raped, etc.) black people, thus making the burning cross a fairly explicit threat with at least some credibility. I don't really remember that thing with Prof. Myers leading a crack team of killers into churches, desecrating their Communion wafers, and then slaughtering everyone present, but I'm sure that if that were the case, the desecration of a Communion wafer would constitute an explicit threat sinilar to the burning cross. Or maybe they just came into churches and secretly impaled their Communion wafers (and loaves of bread), sending DVDs of their evil acts afterwards to the churches. That might be a threat as well. Oh wait, those things never happened. Oops. So what is the equivalence, exactly?
I think he also forgot that when threats came around, it was those who claimed to hold beliefs in sanctity of life and love for people who were quick to threaten death over the desecration (threatened desecreation) who sent them. Members of a group who, once upon a time, had killed people for similar reasons. It would seem that the symbolic threat doesn't exactly work the way DdS thinks it does. Consistency or historical awareness isn't really his style, anyway.
Posted by: Sigmund | September 10, 2008 5:15 PM
I thought this one had died a death weeks ago.
One serious piece of advice to PZ in case he's interviewed again on this matter is to approach it in a more prepared manner to the Irish interview where you didn't bother to explain the context.
Posted by: SC | September 10, 2008 5:15 PM
These people seem to consider outrage and indignation to be content.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 5:20 PM
D'Souza writes:
First, I have to say, this smallpox strawman is particularly dumb.
Second, even without entering into a discussion about whether it s correct that Christianity was a powerful force in the past behind those achevements, why would one consider that it is the case nowadays or will be in the future ?
What has Christianity to do with the LHC ? Or the human genome project ? Or the first man on the moon ? Or the establishment of the European Union ? Or the Olympic games ? Or recent architectural wonders ?
Absolutely nothing !
Does Mr D'Souza think before he writes ?
Posted by: Sigmund | September 10, 2008 5:20 PM
#17
"HE DID, nailing a page from the Koran and The God Delusion with the same nail as went through the stupid cracker "
Wait a second.
He defiled 'The God Delusion'????
Damn you Myers.
Damn you all to .....errrr.......actually nowhere.
Posted by: CJO | September 10, 2008 5:24 PM
Not to provide comfort to fatwa enviers, but...
I think it should be noted that PZ did not, in fact, desecrate an item sacred to Islam. Technically, a translated copy of the Quran is not "The Quran." Only in Arabic is it actually sacred.
Fatwa envy is still the height of hypocritical stupidity, but the answer is not "he did!" because he really didn't.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 5:24 PM
Svan - You moron, get on your winged horse and fly off. Idiot, you're not even trying.
Quiet Desperation - Funny! ;o)
Posted by: Santoki | September 10, 2008 5:24 PM
"And neither have atheists for him "desecrating" a copy of Dawkins' book."
Wait, PZ desecrated Dawkins' book?
ALRIGHT THAT DOES IT, NOW HE'S GONE TOO FAR.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 10, 2008 5:27 PM
Here is my experience with D'Souza:
He debated Michael Shermer in public at my local university. Very polite, very careful in what he said. The next day, he lectured at a local church symposium. I was in the audience, because I was the token atheist on a debate panel the church put together. Gone was the polite, reasoned response for this new audience. It was now all straw men atheists to tear apart, claims that atheists like Dawkins wanted your civil rights taken away, and your children forcefully indoctrinated into godlessness.
When I later mentioned what D'Souza said, and that I wanted a copy of the DVD of his talk they made, suddenly it was not available (this church burns DVD's during services and hands them to you on the way out, they have such good multimedia resources).
My point is that D'Souza tries to keep a public profile for credibility, in private, he panders for pay.
Posted by: Hap | September 10, 2008 5:30 PM
The "burning cross" analogy is even better - in that cases people (Christians) desecrated their own symbol to intimidate and threaten black people who had the temerity to live. On the other hand, a cracker is desecrated after some more Christians harrass (and threaten with death) someone who did not treat their symbol appropriately - and that act is a much more credible threat (and a more harmful one) than the explicit threats made by those around Mr. Scott, or those made by people employing burning crosses.
Analogies, Mr. deSouza - you're doing them wrong.
Posted by: Steven Carr | September 10, 2008 5:30 PM
D'Souza really got you when he compared your throwing a piece of bread in the bin with the Klu Klux Klan burning crosses as a threat to black people.
Hang on! That doesn't make any sense at all.
I threw some bread in the rubbish bin yesterday. I guess I am also a moron , just like D' Souza said....
Posted by: senecasam | September 10, 2008 5:31 PM
Amazing! D'Snooza is weeks late to this party, and manages to write two complete paragraphs before launching into the ad hominem attack.
"Semi-fame" and "undistinguished scholarship"? Got caught looking into the mirror again.
Posted by: John Knight | September 10, 2008 5:38 PM
He's indignant, but he's got nothing to say.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Posted by: AtheistAcolyte | September 10, 2008 5:43 PM
PZ, then D'Souza:
I think the better analogy would be "smallpox is to be credited with all the lives saved by eliminating smallpox."
Religion certainly didn't build Gothic spires; human hands and the knowledge of mathematics and architecture did. Certainly, the Church may have funded such creative endeavours with their massive treasuries (vow of poverty, anyone?), but I'm equally certain no monks untrained in the construction sciences of the time were able to build such things.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | September 10, 2008 5:44 PM
"Smallpox has nothing to do with the building of Gothic spires and astronomical observatories ..
Oh but I had images of tiny little smallpoxes, climbing up on ladders, hammers and nails in hand, perhaps showing a litle bit of the obligatory builder's arse-crack and building cathedrals and stuff.
Seriously that smallpox analogy was probably the single most fucking dumb thing I have read on the intertoobs this year. Of course I have to keep in mind its only September and we haven't heard from Ben Stein in a while...
Posted by: Corgihound | September 10, 2008 5:46 PM
Dinesh seems to infer in his diatribe that scientific endeavors as seen in building Gothic cathedrals and astronomical observatories owe their existence primarily to Religion. "Patronage" certainly helped finance such projects, but the emerging technology developed in spite of the Church, not because of it. I think Mark Twain said it best over a hundred years ago:
""The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born."
Amen!
Posted by: bostjan | September 10, 2008 5:47 PM
[b]Asked whether Christianity deserves credit for founding the first Western hospitals, universities and even scientific breakthroughs, Myers said, "No. People made those contributions to Western civilization."[/b]
Didn't greek's, Egyptian's, Roman's and others culturas made this kinde of things if not even biger. Greeks have even known how big is earth. Europeans have just stolen all knowlage from muslim, greek's, chines and than cenzurized it, that fited to their idea of god.
Sorry because of my english, I try it as much as I could.
Posted by: Randy | September 10, 2008 5:48 PM
After the asinine cross burning analogy, perhaps he should change his name to Dinesh D'Singenuous.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | September 10, 2008 5:49 PM
"He's indignant, but he's got nothing to say.
Pot. Kettle. Black."
See a kettle. See John Knight. See John Knight intellectually outclassed by a kettle.
Blackout.
Posted by: frog | September 10, 2008 5:51 PM
It's always entertaining to peruse such threads - the Christian trolls have this tendency to reveal their true beliefs sooo clearly.
On DD's thread, there several threats to rape atheists (and one counter-threat), several statements that we must believe in fairy tales, for otherwise the unwashed masses would rise up, and of course the numerous "you must respect our madness --- but don't expect the same in return".
I always find the tendency to rape and rape fantasies particularly interesting - it really reveals the fascist impulse behind the whole fantasy, the whole Freudian basis for this game. Push any troll hard enough, and sooner or later it will show up.
Posted by: Alan Chapman | September 10, 2008 5:53 PM
Dinesh's article and the reader comments consist of page after page of logical fallacies. So many people are utterly bereft of even the most rudimentary critical thinking ability.
Posted by: Jared | September 10, 2008 5:53 PM
Why are these blathering idiots not locked up in an asylum? Oh, right, because thousands of people believe it, it's "true." I LOVE the idea of truth by democratic vote.
Posted by: frog | September 10, 2008 5:53 PM
"Smallpox has nothing to do with the building of Gothic spires and astronomical observatories ..
And it appears that DD's education is deficient. In Africa and India, the worship of smallpox was fairly common, with temples and such built to worship the terrible goddess.
Not Gothic and not astronomical (as far as I've read), but definitely architectural and liturgical.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 10, 2008 5:54 PM
Perhaps the great scientist Pascal Wager can teach you the lesson you need:
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 10, 2008 5:54 PM
Umm... that stuff at the link... that wasn't supposed to be an actual essay, was it? Are we sure that wasn't just some sorta space-filling semi-coherent autowhine? Lorem ipsum for some still-in-production webzine with a weird sense of humour? Mebbe kicked out by a Markov generator preloaded with below publishing grade letters to the editor?
Posted by: Tracy Walker | September 10, 2008 5:55 PM
bostjan : Your English is fine, and your points well made.
Posted by: Doug | September 10, 2008 5:56 PM
If I hold logic and common sense sacred then can I get upset with D'nesh for desecrating it?
Posted by: Snark7 | September 10, 2008 6:00 PM
"Have pity on them."
Well...that's about the whole point of christians:
Pitying people that they are in no position at all to pity.
This smug little dumbfuck has to be among the most stupid people I've ever had to read.
Posted by: Warren | September 10, 2008 6:03 PM
Even from the "poor little me" victim stance, this "argument" doesn't make sense.
Black people are born black and don't deserve persecution. Religious people are ignorant by choice, and damned well deserve to be mocked into silence.
Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 6:04 PM
I read it, I wish I hadn't. After Shermer sang D'Souza's praises, I expected something at least tangible and poignant. Instead it's just a rehash of the same asinine points made by catholics all through this.
*sigh* at least he didn't compare it to the holocaust, though making it about race was pretty bad.
Posted by: Zar | September 10, 2008 6:05 PM
bostjan, # 41:
Not to mention that the Sumerians, a bunch of polytheists who considered prostitution a sacrament, invented frickin' civilization. They invented writing and the wheel, founded schools, built magnificent ziggurats, set law and order (contrary to popular belief, Hammurabi was not the first to do this), standardized measurements (a tricky task in those days), and were incredibly talented farmers. They also did a fair amount of math, including square roots. Should we praise Inanna/Ishtar for the crafts of writing and poetry? Should we praise Ninazu for medicine, or Nanna for standardized weights and measures?
The fact that the adherents of a religion managed to do some pretty neat things doesn't prove the existence of their god(s). Yes, the Sumerians kicked off civilization. That doesn't mean that Gilgamesh was really 2/3 god. The Egyptians created magnificent works of architecture. Doesn't mean Ra or Osiris is real. The Greeks created science. Doesn't mean Zeus is real.
Posted by: rob | September 10, 2008 6:05 PM
i think you may actually have to give credit to religion for building all those hospitals and stuff. after all, by fleecing the people for hundreds of years, they have a lot of money to spend on such things. kinda like mobsters that build community centers to ingratiate themselves to the neighborhood.
hey, ain't i cynical today!
Posted by: Hugo | September 10, 2008 6:05 PM
D'Souza's comments reminded me of this, from Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/desalvo.asp
Basically, in '71 Texas rep. Tom Moore Jr. sponsored a bill honoring Albert de Salvo (a.k.a. "The Boston Strangler") and his contributions to society.
And D'Souza is right. Christianity has supported scientific research...but only when it falls in line with their ancient dogmas.
And as good as that support was, science isn't about kowtowing to someone's silly book; it's about facts and evidence (sorry if I'm shortchanging science here with my cruddy explanation).
Posted by: ChrisGose | September 10, 2008 6:05 PM
What a surprise, fatwa envy in the comments section of the article.
Posted by: windy, OM | September 10, 2008 6:05 PM
The smallpox analogy was originally PZ's, not Dinesh's.
Posted by: Cerberus | September 10, 2008 6:06 PM
#48
No...wait...seriously. Really? You really...wow. That's it, all the other trolls can go home, I think I've finally found the dumbest one.
And here we see the fruits of the glorious successful experiment in banning all forms of knowledge in defense of conservatism.
Hint: It's Blaise Pascal
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 6:07 PM
#13 - Brian - "commenter's on his blog." Bingo! That's exactly what Dinesh wants.
Tough crackers. Let the cowardly little weasel show up here.
Posted by: GMA | September 10, 2008 6:09 PM
1. The Florida student did not hold ANYONE hostage. What a deceptive distortion of reality.
2. I can easily invent a religion whose followers' beliefs are deeply insulted whenever Dinesh D'Souza says or writes anything and then call my followers to arms whenever he does.
3. Bottom-line: Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Posted by: Holbach | September 10, 2008 6:11 PM
Ah, Dinesh D'Crapa is back on the lunatic express again! I loathe this creep, (no, not because he is brown, to dispel this bullshit that may arise) but because he represents uppermost what religion can do to a person considered to be very smart. But there is the crux of the matter. PZ mentioned him as a "brilliant mind", but any mind that can encompass irrational ideas does not deserve being called brilliant. Would he be considered brilliant if he espoused the spiritual qualities of the Tooth Fairy? So transpose that to what we consider the irrational ideas of imaginary gods and the transfer has to be taken on merit and fact. And he mentions that "here we see Myers thought in all its glorious idiocy", having used the qualifier "glorious" in a manner that rendered his smirk moot. This bug-eyed cretin has the false sense and demeanor that he is smart and more than willing and able to debate rational minds. There is a method to waylay this insufferable lizard and that is to debate him in public with the condition that there will be no debate unless his god is present at the debate. No god, no debate. And if he counters with that you must have the great Charles Darwin present for your side, you just have to say that this is impossible, because he once was alive, but now he is dead, and we cannot return the dead for a live debate. Er, your response, Mr D'Crapa?
Posted by: CJO | September 10, 2008 6:13 PM
I can easily invent a religion whose followers' beliefs are deeply insulted whenever Dinesh D'Souza says or writes anything...
No religion, or invention, needed. It's called "intelligence."
Posted by: Clemens | September 10, 2008 6:15 PM
You don't need to be a professor in theology or philosophy to say that the believe in god is unfounded exactly in the same way as you don't need a degree in fashion design and textile technique to point at the emperor and say: He's naked.
Thanks to Dawkins for this nice analogy.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 10, 2008 6:17 PM
That Christanity has influenced our past, especially western civilization, is self evident. What would have happened if Europeans had not believed in the myths of the bible, I really don't know.
How does this imply that civilization requires Christanity or religion in the future in order to further its progression and help to improve people's lives ?
I only see evidence of the contrary, ie that Christianty and other religions exacerbate violent tribal behaviors, by promissing a better afterlife gets people to rationalize inequalities and teaches them to be less critical of those in positions of authority, it helps them to feel artificially happier and less willing to demand progress.
Also I see absolutely no benefit from religion when it comes to overcoming the most critical issues of the 21st century for mankind, overpopulation, diminishing resources, and AGW. By making people believe that there is a God who cares for us and who can intervene when needed, humans are just more likely to escape their responsibilites.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | September 10, 2008 6:19 PM
Windy OM @ #59
I meant Dinesh's the response to the smallpox analogy. Sorry, apologies if anyone took it to mean the original analogy by PZ. Typing this mornign with a cranky teething 15 month old sitting on my lap and its not coming out real well.
Posted by: John Robie | September 10, 2008 6:20 PM
D'Souza is an absolute idiot. If you were in any doubt on the matter PZ, earning his enmity is proof that you're on the right track.
Does this mean his knuckle-dragging readers are going to start showing up here?
Posted by: ennui | September 10, 2008 6:20 PM
This was so dumb, even AOL should be embarrassed.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 6:20 PM
I just felt a wobble in The Farce.
Posted by: Cris | September 10, 2008 6:21 PM
I have a certain fondness for any mention of D'Souza on this site, since he was the spark for PZ's coinage of the xkcd-inspired acronym SIWOTI.
Posted by: Holbach | September 10, 2008 6:21 PM
Svan @ 10
No, we are not afraid, and certainly not of your imaginary god. How can we be afraid of nothing that does not exist? Can you get this ghost god of your to come down and beat the crap out of us? Whether your phony god is of catholic origin or of insane origin, it is one and the same, and so we have nothing to fear from make believe crap. We are not afraid of your imaginary god, and yet you tremble with fear at the mere thought and mention of this same god. Are you completely blind and insane to the realities that I just described in the most sarcastic terms? Let's see your god.
Posted by: Peter Mc | September 10, 2008 6:22 PM
BE AFRAID!
Hang on, I just read it.
Oh go on then, piss yourself laughing.
Posted by: Newfie | September 10, 2008 6:25 PM
*feeds Dinesh a peanut*
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | September 10, 2008 6:25 PM
Dinesh sez:
Where "praise" = "opined that the guy shouldn't be assaulted, expelled, or persecuted," "stole" = "was handed directly," and "holding hostage" = "put some baked wheat-paste in a Baggie."
what a moroon.
Posted by: info_dump | September 10, 2008 6:25 PM
What a D'Ouchebag!
Posted by: Ick of the East | September 10, 2008 6:27 PM
You don't need to be a professor in theology or philosophy to say that the believe in god is unfounded..
You do if you want to hide your conclusion in 300 pages of crap.
.
Posted by: Danio | September 10, 2008 6:32 PM
The Courtier's Reply is home-grown.
Posted by: The 502 | September 10, 2008 6:33 PM
D'Souza is tiresome. After reading two of his articles a while back, I was done with him. Not only does he lie to make his point, he has no understanding of logic.
He wrote an article called, "What Atheists Kant Refute". It is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Also, I wrote a refutation to it on my blog. (see link above)
Posted by: Zeno | September 10, 2008 6:43 PM
Hoo, boy! You're in trouble now, PZ! If it weren't for his gigantic modesty, D'Souza would admit that he is the greatest scholar and theoretician in the ranks of today's conservative movement. Even sadder: He's right!
It's like being assaulted by a teacup poodle: noisy and unpleasant but danger-free. Socks may need darning afterward.
Posted by: Michael | September 10, 2008 6:44 PM
Dinesh - proof of evolution:
Ronald Reagan -> George W. Bush -> Sarah Palin
Posted by: amphiox | September 10, 2008 6:45 PM
I think one must be fair and concede that there is in fact more to religion that just belief in a deity, and that, over the course of its history, religion has accomplish a great deal, both good and bad.
What is striking to me is that for all the good things religion has contributed to, the belief in a deity aspect does not appear to have been required, but for most of the bad things, the belief in a deity is required.
Posted by: Escuerd | September 10, 2008 6:48 PM
It's interesting how many angry people like to disparage the quality of PZ's academic credentials while having none of their own. D'Souza's not the first I've seen doing this. I'm amazed that people with no academic background at all feel so comfortable in deriding the accomplishments of professors who do real science.
Ironically, I've noticed significant depth of thought in many things that PZ has written, while I've never seen anything written by D'Souza that goes beyond the most superficial level of thought.
Posted by: El Herring | September 10, 2008 6:50 PM
Warren #53:
Excellent point, worthy of being quoted. Mind if I make a note of that?
Posted by: Escuerd | September 10, 2008 6:54 PM
Actually, the points about Fatwah envy are interesting. I'm surprised that D'Souza didn't mention the desecration of the Qur'an too, since he seems to have a special place in his heart for "mainstream Muslims" (read: the social equivalent of the really conservative Christians). After all, they hate gays and atheists too.
Can't we all just get along and kill our common enemies: people who don't believe in magic?
Posted by: nicknick bobick | September 10, 2008 6:55 PM
I first became aware of Distort D'Newsa in 1995 when his book, "The End of Racism" was published. If anyone can be accused of burning crosses it is this sorry excuse for a man. He could be the poster boy for every fundamentalist conservative cause of the last 50 years.
Posted by: SASnSA | September 10, 2008 6:58 PM
Actually if I remember right, it was PZ that gave Dawkins that analogy.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | September 10, 2008 7:01 PM
Dinesh once asked me to join him as a partner in pontification a few years back. Something I wrote apparently. Rejected the idea, as can be proved by my continuing poverty and sobriety.
Mendacity is a Dinesh best served to slime molds.
If you meet d'Souza on the road, point and laugh. Wincing and hugging your ribs tight as you guffaw is a not infrequent consequence of this.
Posted by: El Herring | September 10, 2008 7:01 PM
Amphiox #82:
That's a good one too.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 7:03 PM
This is a typical pastor ploy. Back when I was a good church lady, I had to read a book called Antagonists in the Church, by Kenneth C. Haugk to learn how to help defend against just such a move as Dinesh is playing.
He must be seething with rage over Dumbass Donahue getting all the donations and attention.
Posted by: Buck Mulligan | September 10, 2008 7:06 PM
"Oh, well, I'm sure there might be someone out there with greater wit than him who will teach me a lesson.
Indeed....
Posted by: Rob | September 10, 2008 7:10 PM
@48:
Let's add some morals and ethics to Pascal's wager, shall we?
A) God exists and pays attention to actions, not words. Belief means nothing, therefore, there is no need to believe.
B) God exists, and belief is paramount over actions. God is an egotistical bastard and does not deserve support. I for one can not support an entity like this. Belief is anathema to my morality. Therefore, I must not believe.
Slightly different conclusion than Pascal.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 7:15 PM
Oh, no you don't Alan.
You owe frog an apology for your vile posts last night.
Posted by: Nancy | September 10, 2008 7:20 PM
While I consider myself an atheist and admirer of PZ, I strongly feel that his actions (desecrating the "cracker") were unnecessary.
In this instance he acted like a petulant child sticking his tongue out at those whose beliefs are different from his own. He's better than that.
And now, he really should just let it go. He made his point.
ENOUGH!
Posted by: valor | September 10, 2008 7:20 PM
Actually, in a way, Christianity is responsible for the modern conception of Hospitals and healthcare. As the great heretic (read, excommunicated Catholic priest, now deceased) Ivan Illich, will(would have) tell you, the sacrilegious nature of modern healthcare (yes, the hospital, technically sacrilegious) is teh fault of Christians who were unable to live up to Jesus' mandate that they minister the sick themselves, so they gathered all the sick in one place, so that a designated group of people could care for them, rather than every single Christian ministering to their own sick.
So, the failure of Christians to be good Christians is the root of Hospitals, and therefore, Christianity is indirectly responsible for the hospital. But then, smallpox is indirectly responsible for vaccines, too.
Posted by: valor | September 10, 2008 7:23 PM
also, Dinesh D'Souza is a "newsblogger"? WTH? I guess AOL has a broad definition of what is news. I, for instance, do not consider medieval philosophies news. But perhaps I fail to consider the vast expanse of time.
Posted by: Holbach | September 10, 2008 7:25 PM
Warren @ 53
Yes, an apt and worthy comment and one which I have expressed ever since being an ardent atheist. When these same religious adults have all the means at hand to ponder the many logical reasons against religion,and consciously choose to maintain that stance, then as you say, they should be mocked, but not only into silence, but ridiculed into self-debasing. There is just no excuse for maintaining a life of irrational ideas, when that very life has absolutely no need for those ideas. When I reached adulthood I had no difficulty in sloughing off the pox of religion, and there is no excuse why others cannot.
Posted by: young european | September 10, 2008 7:27 PM
So how much credit does the Christian religion deserve for the Red Cross?
Posted by: Neural T | September 10, 2008 7:28 PM
I wish you had said, "Oh noes!"
Posted by: reverted | September 10, 2008 7:32 PM
@ 98: Exactly.
Clara Barton, founder of The Red Cross, wavered between freethought and deism. She was NOT a Christian.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | September 10, 2008 7:33 PM
See that.
I always felt that reading Ann Coulters books, you loose brain cells.
But this proves that if you fuck Ann Coulter, your brain turns to shit.
Posted by: Lluraa | September 10, 2008 7:39 PM
While I consider myself an atheist and admirer of PZ, I strongly feel that his actions (desecrating the "cracker") were unnecessary.
In this instance he acted like a petulant child sticking his tongue out at those whose beliefs are different from his own. He's better than that.
And now, he really should just let it go. He made his point.
ENOUGH!
THANK YOU NANCY, MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY.
Posted by: Holbach | September 10, 2008 7:40 PM
Benjamin Franklin @ 101
Which begs the question; if Ann Coulter was a pile of shit, would she still have a brain?
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 7:41 PM
On the other hand reverted - the corrupt jackals of the Red Cross charged my father for everything they gave out during the Korean War. That sounds pretty christian.
Posted by: Bob Vogel | September 10, 2008 7:41 PM
#33 - Yes, I totally agree with you. D'Sousa writes only to create controversy - this is his entire "schtick". I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe what he writes.
Sometimes, tho, I wonder about PZ. At times he comes across more than willing to stir the pot just to get hits. But most all of what he writes turns out real when you check up a bit. Can't say that for D'Sousa. He makes up stuff, and ignores more important stuff, along the way of making his point - for a paycheck.
Posted by: Michael X | September 10, 2008 7:43 PM
The responsible answer to this Dinesh is: "we'll never know and it would intellectually dishonest to assume so." It should be remembered though that at the time, nearly ALL western civ was christian. If a category includes everyone, then it doesn't really help us understand the behavior of anyone.
Also, such an assumption makes those who did do good things out to be naturally shoddy people who were only good because of their religion. And that's a pretty low view of your fellow man.
Further, it's also a random claim. How come it wasn't their nationality that made them good people? Or their favorite pass-time? Does Dinesh write stupid things because he's republican? Or because he's dishonest to begin with, does that make him prone to be a republican?
All sorts of questions that any honest scholar and social critic should ask. The absence of such subtly doesn't bode well...
Posted by: Danio | September 10, 2008 7:44 PM
Well, Golly, Concern Troll Nancy, I'm sure he'll take this under advisement. If you're even halfway paying attention, the majority of the Crackergate posts clearly reveal that it is in fact the Catholics and their allies, including concerned non-believers like yourself, who are having difficulty 'letting it go'. This isn't PZ continuing to goad them, this is PZ updating the readership as to the chronic hysteria over 'blasphemy crimes' for which he himself was, at best, a one-off catalyst.
By the way, would you consider PZ's behavior more 'petulant' than, say, a mailbox crammed full of death threats that range from hilarious to downright disturbing? Or the relentless harassment of Webster Cook? Just curious. Unless you are contemplating PZ's actions in a vacuum, any negativity associated with his limited and specific actions is spectacularly dwarfed by the corresponding actions and reactions of the Christians and their apologists.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 7:45 PM
DOH! Gave out -to him - in the Korean War.
headdesk
Posted by: Peter | September 10, 2008 7:48 PM
I think Julia Sweeney nailed it in 'Letting go of god' when she said "Dinesh D'Souza is full of shit!"
Posted by: Danio | September 10, 2008 7:49 PM
Benjamin Franklin & Holbach.
Uh Oh! Someone mentioned Ann Coulter!
(This is usually Ichthyic's bit, but as I haven't seen him today I thought I'd do the honors.)
Posted by: Holbach | September 10, 2008 7:52 PM
Rob @ 56
Yeah, and then they have the freaking gall to staff those same hospitals with doctors, nurses, medical equipment, medicines and modern medical practice, instead of just a cot with a horse blanket and prayers as the sole avenue of healing. Reality always gives way to senseless nonsense.
Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 7:54 PM
I always find that funny. Why doesn't the likes of D'Souza chastise theists who don't have degrees in philosophy or theology? Does he extend this analogy to other mythical creatures? Is it even possible to say that elves and unicorns don't exist without a degree in cryptozoology (I hope such a degree doesn't exist)?What does D'Souza even hold a degree in anyway?
Posted by: reverted | September 10, 2008 8:08 PM
@109:
Actually, that was with regards to Deepak Chopra. But, it could just as easily have been Dinesh d'Sousa. heh
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | September 10, 2008 8:09 PM
Kel asked,
English, and that's all.
The prick is full of ironic assholery.
Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 8:19 PM
So he holds a degree in English, yet he's written books on politics & culture (sociology), debates with a passion the existence of God (theology), tries to discuss 9/11 (history), and talks about minority struggles (psychology), yet he complains that biologists aren't qualified to talk on theism?!? The word hypocrite comes to mind.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 10, 2008 8:23 PM
How does that goof have a column anywhere?
What a godbot.
Posted by: Caveat | September 10, 2008 8:27 PM
What a wanker. That's the first thing I've read by him and it was a waste of 30 seconds.
I guess the thought hasn't occurred to him that people achieved things in spite of the iron grip of the religious mafia, not because of it.
Sigh...about those observatories....
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | September 10, 2008 8:31 PM
Yep, and an wanton self-promoter.
I recall him declaring victory after a debate with Hitchens in 2007, one where all the audience were believers and he frequently had the final word.
Mighty huge, his pomposity is.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 10, 2008 8:32 PM
Dinesh D'Souza wrote "The End of Racism"; so, if he thinks racism is over, why is he harping on it?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 10, 2008 8:33 PM
First off, the small pox analogy is a bit weak. I prefer to go with the wife beater analogy. Every wife beater buys her flowers now and then. Such is the interaction between religion and scientific developments. And not just science. In the immediate aftermath of Emperor Constantine's decree making Christianity the state religion Christians set about a massive book burning project (along with looting pagans' homes and temples, something that Constantine had to reverse, ordering the newly empowered Christians to give back the loot). They attempted to eradicate as much pagan scholarship as possible. Then there's the burning of the library at Alexandria (twice, once by the Christians and the coup de grace by the Moslems about century later). My personal favorite was the outlawing of geometry in the 15th century.
I do feel a bit sick every time someone tries the "Christianity promoted science" line. That they choose not to burn books, execute people as heretics, or outlaw study of something during the rare period of relative sanity constitutes a new use of the word "support" with which I am up to now not familiar. I do realize that the people who toe that line truly believe their alternate reality, as historical records remain as meaningless to them as any other form of evidence.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 10, 2008 8:34 PM
X on a cracker. Go and run some errands and 100 posts magically appear. Just reading PZ's synopsis gives me no desire to read the posting. I need all my brain cells for work.
The whole crackergate affair will be off the map as soon as the catlicks let it drop. It isn't PZ's call on stopping things. At least some concerned trolls showed up for Patricia's sake.
Posted by: William | September 10, 2008 8:37 PM
You know, this cross-burning analogy has been made pretty consistently by those protesting Crackergate. Here's a thought about how we might again illustrate the point they're missing...
...is anyone here, or anyone you know, an African-American atheist with a lawn and a few bucks to buy a couple of two-by-fours and some gasoline?
Maybe we could try explaining once again the difference between a meaningful, vile act of threat and harm, and an act that treats a mere thing as a mere thing.
What a statement it would make: "I am an atheist. I refuse to be frightened by ghosts and shadows. Men are real; men can threaten me. Weapons are real; weapons can harm me. Words and symbols, no matter how historically weighted, cannot. I am black, and I am atheist, and I seize this symbol from those who would use it to terrorize by and for religion." And light it up.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 10, 2008 8:38 PM
People don't seem to be getting the point of my smallpox comparison. I'm not saying that smallpox caused cathedrals to be built -- I'm pointing out that it too was ubiquitous, like religion, and we wouldn't pin architecture on it. In the case of religion, everyone was religious. You can neither say it enabled or disabled progress.
I'd also say that the actual beliefs of the religious were irrelevant: we see that people built cathedrals, not angels.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 10, 2008 8:47 PM
Nope. Hospitals existed in the Arab world before that. (And so did universities.)
Whoever has the most liberal faith leads in science and in social policy. Been that way throughout the last 3000 years, at least.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 10, 2008 8:48 PM
Someone on salon.com deconstructed Dinesh D'Souza's over his book The Enemy at Home. Essentially D'Souza tries to blame the "cultural left" (that would be us, I guess) for provoking the 911 attacks. Alex Koppelman read Bin-Laden's fatwah which D'Souza used as a basis for his conclusion. It's delightful to read as Koppelman quotes sections of the fatwah to D'Souza and you get to watch D'Souza squirm and backpedal. By the end of the interview it's obvious that D'Souza did not even read it but just used the fatwah as a source to give a scholarly appearance to his own opinions and factoids pulled out of his ass.
D'Souza's degree of intellectual dishonesty is actually larger than it appears in your rear-view mirror. Here's a link to the D'Souza interview for those interested.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 10, 2008 8:52 PM
I forgot to explain that the Muslim world had a more liberal faith than the Christian one till 1200 or 1300 or so. Then the fundies took over, and progress stopped. A few hundred years later the Enlightenment started in Europe, and that led directly to where we are now.
Where?
Posted by: sara | September 10, 2008 8:55 PM
Ugh! This again? This is not just ejaculation; this is seriously a masturbation addiction. Next!
Posted by: Doctorb | September 10, 2008 8:56 PM
Cathedrals are great. Castles are also great. Without feudalism and warfare, we wouldn't have castles. Without ancient Egyptian theocratic despotism we wouldn't have pyramids.
Heck, without organized crime we probably wouldn't have the Annenberg Foundation. I guess I never gave enough credit to gangsters.
Posted by: Kel | September 10, 2008 9:00 PM
Also, without organised crime, prohibition may never have ended in the United States. They also helped bring alcohol to those in need in the 20s.
"To alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems"
Posted by: Max verret | September 10, 2008 9:08 PM
Ah, come on fellows:
"D'Souza is an idiot"
"D'Souza is a moron"
Disliking a fellow is one thing but disconnecting from reality to diss him is something else
D'Souza graduated from Dartmouth Phi Beta Kappa. He wrote almost a dozen books before the age of 40, many of which ended up on the New York Times bestseller list, and he dusted off the likes of Hitchens in a public disputation.
I think some of you are just a little green around the gills.
Posted by: CJO | September 10, 2008 9:12 PM
Well, Golly, Concern Troll Nancy, I'm sure he'll take this under advisement. If you're even halfway paying attention, the majority of the Crackergate posts clearly reveal that it is in fact the Catholics and their allies, including concerned non-believers like yourself, who are having difficulty 'letting it go'. This isn't PZ continuing to goad them, this is PZ updating the readership as to the chronic hysteria over 'blasphemy crimes' for which he himself was, at best, a one-off catalyst.
By the way, would you consider PZ's behavior more 'petulant' than, say, a mailbox crammed full of death threats that range from hilarious to downright disturbing? Or the relentless harassment of Webster Cook? Just curious. Unless you are contemplating PZ's actions in a vacuum, any negativity associated with his limited and specific actions is spectacularly dwarfed by the corresponding actions and reactions of the Christians and their apologists.
Best respone to a crackergate concern troll Evar.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 10, 2008 9:19 PM
If he's really all that intelligent, then he really should know better. Which would mean that he's being stupid on purpose.
Which means that he's a mendacious deceitful dishonest lying sack of shit.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 10, 2008 9:25 PM
Until PZ starts lynching Catholics, I will continue to read this blog.
Posted by: frog | September 10, 2008 9:31 PM
PZ: #123 People don't seem to be getting the point of my smallpox comparison. I'm not saying that smallpox caused cathedrals to be built -- I'm pointing out that it too was ubiquitous, like religion, and we wouldn't pin architecture on it. In the case of religion, everyone was religious. You can neither say it enabled or disabled progress.
But it is particularly funny that smallpox "inspired" temples in the same way that cookie-Zombie did: Google found me this (since my senility is so advanced) - http://books.google.com/books?id=r-OYL6Khg0UC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=smallpox+temple&source=web&ots=BzcV0t2cSU&sig=umFBolYjIE9ryIfMPF2ouDs6Rt4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
and this http://gotindia.blogspot.com/2008/05/offerings-to-goddess-of-smallpox.html
and this http://www.stanford.edu/~siegelr/india/shitalamata.html
and this
http://www.spinybabbler.org/art_complex/kathmandu.htm
The latter is part of a world heritage site! Right up there with Gothic cathedrals, ain't it?
DD needs to learn to google (and you could use it too...)
Posted by: frog | September 10, 2008 9:35 PM
Max: D'Souza graduated from Dartmouth Phi Beta Kappa. He wrote almost a dozen books before the age of 40, many of which ended up on the New York Times bestseller list, and he dusted off the likes of Hitchens in a public disputation.
You're right. He's not an idiot. He's a liar - an intellectually dishonest shill for the worst in the human spirit. He sells out the truth for a few shekels - maybe he'll even kiss it on the cheek! He's a scumbag who has the long-range vision of the German industrialists of the 30s who sold out their neighbors for a few bucks, before finding themselves stripped by their erstwhile allies.
But he is "smart".
Posted by: frog | September 10, 2008 9:40 PM
DM: I forgot to explain that the Muslim world had a more liberal faith than the Christian one till 1200 or 1300 or so. Then the fundies took over, and progress stopped. A few hundred years later the Enlightenment started in Europe, and that led directly to where we are now.
And if you look into the history of the period (1200-1500), there often appear a lot of characters shifting back and forth between the Christian and Muslim worlds through the Byzantine and Hispanic interfaces -- and later through the Turks. A hell of a lot of folks with a great deal of knowledge who transferred that knowledge to where it would be safer, at the time.
A lesson for us in the US to learn. When you shut the doors of the mind down, it will migrate, with massive historical effects.
Posted by: Michael X | September 10, 2008 10:07 PM
Oh Max, reading you tell people not to act green around the gills has made my night.
And do keep these small facts in mind:
Graduating from Dartmouth is no claim on truth.
Writing a number of books, at any age, is no claim on truth.
And your opinion of his debating skills against another person is no claim on truth.
Lets be realistic. In this thread alone, Dinesh's claims have been shattered. That is the only fact worth observing in the present context.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 10, 2008 10:16 PM
Michael X, you forgot the most important conclusion. Supporting liars means you are one. Max Verret bears false witness.
Posted by: extatyzoma | September 10, 2008 10:22 PM
DDS really likes whining, i imagine he was an especially whiney little boy.
Posted by: Sui Generis | September 10, 2008 10:24 PM
We're feeling seasick? This phrase isn't a metaphoric equivalent for envy despite the green reference. You're obviously no D'Souza or Myers for that matter, Shakespeare.Posted by: theinquisitor | September 10, 2008 10:28 PM
Yeah the atheists in the dark ages didn't do anything to benefit society, because they were too busy being tortured to death. Good point Dinesh.
Posted by: Michael X | September 10, 2008 10:34 PM
Good point NoR. As it stands, I believe "Max Verret" and "false witness" are fast becoming synonyms.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 10, 2008 10:59 PM
Berkeley awarded a doctorate to Jonathan Wells. Antonin Scalia graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown, and thinks creationists made a better argument than the scientists before the court.
And most of the people who got us into Iraq and Vietnam went to Yale and Princeton.
Posted by: Max Verret | September 10, 2008 11:14 PM
"He's a mendacious deceitful, dishonest lying sack of shit"
"He's a scumbag and a shill"
D'Souza noted that atheists have stopped referring to themselves as "the brites". With a vocabulary like the above is there any wonder why.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 10, 2008 11:17 PM
"With a vocabulary like the above is there any wonder why."
Are any of those words untrue?
Posted by: Max Verret | September 10, 2008 11:22 PM
Moore at 143
"Antonin Scalia graduated Summa at Georgetown". I studied at Georgetown but I think he was there before my time.
Do you know if he is Phi Beta Kappa. If so, I'm going to have to upgrade my opinion of him.
Posted by: Nancy | September 10, 2008 11:25 PM
#107 Danio.
HIS actions, THEIR actions....Tsk,tsk,task...Didn't you ever learn that "two wrongs don't make a right"? Ever hear of taking the high road?
I expect MORE of PZ. I think he stooped to their level when he did what he did. He didn't have to get involved at all. WHAT WAS THE POINT?
And, did you call me a "troll"? LMAO.
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 11:30 PM
Dammit frog & Nerd! You've hooked a good one this time.
Sure, I go to supper and look what happens. Wheee!
Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | September 10, 2008 11:31 PM
@ Svan #10
"show us you're a man - burn a koran."
New lyrics to "Barbar-ann"?
@Alex #23
The person who burns a cross usually is a CRACKER.
Posted by: Max Verret | September 10, 2008 11:33 PM
Fox at 145
"Are any of those words untrue".
Some of them are, I assume, meant to be metaphors. In that sense I don't know if they're true or not. Literally, of course, they're not true. He's not a sack of shit and he's not a scumbag. What I do know is that that level of vocabulary is one that would not ordinarily be associated with "the brites".
Posted by: Patricia | September 10, 2008 11:42 PM
Exodus 20:16 - Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Can't find thou shalt not be a complete idiot and believe that Dinesh could EVER out debate Hitchens. I've watched Dinesh, he's a frother.
Posted by: mikeg | September 10, 2008 11:43 PM
... " who know something about one thing but pretend that they know a lot about other things"... wtf?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 10, 2008 11:50 PM
All of which makes it even worse when you listen to the idiocy he spews.
Those are the words of a full class douchebag who's ideology has so clouded his mind that he can only speak as someone who is so sheltered from reality that he repeatedly regurgitates some of the most myopic views of the current state of the word.
Other than one very annoyingly repetitive commenter here, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who likes the term "Brites".
Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 12:03 AM
"Brights", Max. B-R-I-G-H-T-S. (and remember, please, to end rhetorical questions with question marks.) It is also fallacious to claim that "atheists" call themselves anything, because we are not one united entity. So it would follow that anyone claiming that we've stopped calling themselves something is false on its very face.
And if I followed your logic, and took you to be an an example for why all christians were logically inept, I too would fall to the fallacy of making glittering generalizations. Even though you are apparently incapable of following a logical argument.
Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | September 11, 2008 12:05 AM
PZ #123
"I'd also say that the actual beliefs of the religious were irrelevant: we see that people built cathedrals, not angels."
Hold on there, professor. I'm pretty sure that people did "buil[d]" angels. . . .
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 11, 2008 12:06 AM
#153
Not just the current state of the (world). His history is just as myopic. According to D'Souza, the whole Catholic Church/Galileo affair was a minor misunderstanding, and Galileo gladly renounced his views after a polite request...from the man who burned Bruno alive after years of torture, of which Galileo was well aware.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 12:08 AM
We tried the high road.
Socrates got to drink poison. That was the last merciful death for not worshipping the right gawds. After that it was burning, hanging, torturing, pressing, murder, rape and genocide.
Yep, by golly, that ol' high road looks real down home friendly.
Suffering in silence has been ever so helpful too!
PZ is a beacon in a shitfesterd morass of idiocy. Don't like it, well, take the advice of Don Quixote, another woo soaked 'character' - clap heels to thine Ass and hence!
Posted by: H.H. | September 11, 2008 12:08 AM
You don't think that level of vocabulary is normally associated with people who don't believe in the supernatural? Why the fuck would you make that dumbass assumption? Oh, fuck face that you are, you probably thought "brites" picked that name because they wanted to imply they were "brighter" or more intelligent than other people. Not true, of course, but when have dishonest shits like yourself ever cared for truth? No, they just wanted a positive name. God forbid the Christian majority let any other group pick a name with positive connotations. The paranoid freaks were sooo worried it was a secret dig against them. And look, you fell into the same trap! Guess your secret fears of inadequacy may be true after all.But to answer your main point, some very, very intelligent people are more than comfortable using "bad" words. It's the stupid who need to get up on their soapbox and moralize in order to feel superior. Asshat.
Posted by: Max Verret | September 11, 2008 12:10 AM
Big Dumb at 153
Sorry Big Dumb, I didn't mean to personally send you ballistic. However, you did miss my point in your angst to expiate your venom at D'Souza.
The point of my original post was in response to references on this thread to D'Souza as an idiot or a moron. I simply wanted to point out that a Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth who had written about a dozen books, many on the New Youk Times bestseller list was not an idiot or a moron. He may be a lot of other things but obviously not an idiot or a moron. Hopefully, the "brites" could raise their level of vocabulary, but then all I got was "sack of shit" and "scumbag.
Posted by: Travis | September 11, 2008 12:16 AM
"What I do know is that that level of vocabulary is one that would not ordinarily be associated with "the brites"."
Clumsy mass ad hominem, Max?
The POINT being raised, leaving aside vocabulary (which you should favour doing as it means I'll ignore your hilarious misuse of "green around the gills") is that Dinesh D'Souza is a proven liar.
Care to address the point, or would you prefer to keep dancing around whether we call ourselves "Brights" or not?
Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 12:16 AM
"we've stopped calling themselves"
Is actually be read as:
"we've stopped calling ourselves"
Oy, the errors...
Though I must say, "Casillero del Diablo" Cabernet Sauvignon is a really good reason to make typos.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 12:21 AM
Dammit BigDumbChimp, now I'm gonna have to buy that frothers book. Had no idea where he stood on slavery. Thanks!
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 11, 2008 12:22 AM
"What I do know is that that level of vocabulary is one that would not ordinarily be associated with "the brites"."
And this is a totally superficial and useless argument.
"Hopefully, the "brites" could raise their level of vocabulary, but then all I got was "sack of shit" and "scumbag."
You also got a thorough demonstration of Dinesh's idiocy, but of course, you didn't read it. No, you'd rather whine pitifully about our language. Maybe Kseniya will come by later on and unleash her Shakespearian assault on you, and then our overall vocabulary level would go up, but I don't think you're worth the bother.
Posted by: LanceR | September 11, 2008 12:22 AM
*sigh*
Anyone else miss Kenny?
*ducks*
Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 12:24 AM
Max, the terms 'Idiot", "Scumbag" and "Moron" are value judgements based upon the actions of any particular human being. They are not determined or influenced by what school one has gone to or how many books one has written.
To decide the truth of an argument based upon the history of an individual or their upbringing or their schooling is what we call an "argument from authority" and it is a classic fallacy.
Thus, your arguments are classic examples of not knowing what you're talking about.
Posted by: ANSEO | September 11, 2008 12:28 AM
Christianity took guys with names like Thorfinn Skullcrusher and Eric Bloodaxe and put a bit of polish on them. Too bad. I don,t think P.Z Myers had a consecrated host in his possession. So no need for anyone to be upset.
Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 12:28 AM
Here Ray, let me lend my favorite from Macbeth: "All that is within him does condemn itself for being there."Posted by: Hal | September 11, 2008 12:29 AM
You know, there's a category for DDS (and Coulter, Goldberg, Krauthammer, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc., etc.) which needs a vigorous, recognisable name. Personally, I refer to them as Right Wing Attention Whores, or RWAHs, which doesn't scan. There are so many of them, and they are so loud (and lunatic), that for years now they have constituted a distinct species.
It's obvious that spouting their beliefs (or what they pretend to be their beliefs) pays lavishly. It's equally obvious that they will assume any position that their clients pay them to assume. Watching them tiptoe the line between libertarian and 'conservative' fantasies is particularly entertaining.
Nail the perfect title for these wankers and ridicule will become much easier. Suggestions?
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Rey - Is not Cervantes of Spain worthy of at least a nod? ;o)
Posted by: Max Verret | September 11, 2008 12:30 AM
Re: HH at 158
Sorry again, the point I was making was that D'Souza is not a moron or idiot. Those are well defined words and he does not qualify. Is he a "sack of shit", a "scumbag" or a "douchbag" as he was called. As I noted earlier, I'm not sure what these presumed metaphors mean. So, I'm not sure if they're appropriate or not. With regard to the "brites", I was simple implying that this is not the level of language that one would ordinarliy associate with Mensa members.
Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 12:31 AM
ANSEO, do you have any reason to believe that? Or are you just assuming without looking up whether or not PZ had reason to believe he did?
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 11, 2008 12:32 AM
#168
DIMS? Deistic Ignorant Misanthropes?
Posted by: Kel | September 11, 2008 12:33 AM
What makes you think that?Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 12:36 AM
My advice would be to change your expectations. All of humanity is capable of getting irritated at reading willful inanity. To assume that vulgarity is only for the lowest among us is to detach oneself from reality, and to also set nonsensical restrictions on what qualifies as a reasonable argument. 2 plus fuckin' 2 = 4 is still a truthful, accurate sentence. Even if you wouldn't "ordinarliy associate with Mensa members".
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 11, 2008 12:43 AM
@126 re: outlawing geometry.
The Catholic church briefly outlawed the teaching of geometry. I recall a James Burke documentary series called The Day the Universe Changed in which he explained that as Europeans acquired knowledge from the Islamic world through the Moors in Spain that the concept of the triangle bothered the church leaders. You see, there are 180 degrees in a triangle. Period. Not 179, not 181. Even God could not add or subtract a single degree. Placing limits on God did not sit well with the church leaders. (Heresy, I think. That's a belief that the church considers wrong enough to kill you for. Blasphemy is when you say something they can kill you for). Eventually, they relented, possibly having realized that making such a stink over triangles is only going to make naughty children want to play with them anyway.
BTW the conquest of Spain by Christians was a gradual one taking place over the 1400s, with peaceful coexistence punctuating war. Much of the scientific knowledge of the early renaissance originated in the Islamic part of the world and came to Europeans from the Moors. The Europeans having had their dark ages did not even have words for some of the concepts, hence the Arabic words entering English such as acme, zenith, azimuth, alcohol, magazine, and so on.
Posted by: Wowbagger | September 11, 2008 12:48 AM
Max Verret,
I guess there's some value in being able to call something a multifunctional leverage-intensive organo-compound ferro-metal combination device - but why bother? We have a word for it: spade.
Just like 'sack of shit' and 'scumbag' are appropriate to describe a disingenuous turd like D'souza. But you're right about him not being stupid - which actually makes him worse as far as I'm concerned, since it means he can choose to be otherwise but doesn't.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 12:50 AM
#164 - LanceR - Actually, yes.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 11, 2008 12:51 AM
You want Shakespearean? I gots yer Shakespearean right here.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 12:55 AM
And I merely wanted to point out that despite all that education and authorship that D'Sousa still says a great many things that one would expect to only come from the mouth (or hand) or a total idiot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 12:57 AM
should be
"of a total idiot."
and of course should be D'Souza...
Sorry it's getting late.
Posted by: Ben Brulotte | September 11, 2008 12:59 AM
>>>>>Here we see Myers' thought in all its glorious idiocy. No, Myers, the two are not even comparable. Smallpox has nothing to do with the building of Gothic spires and astronomical observatories and setting up institutions like Harvard and the Red Cross. Christianity was a powerful motivating force in why people did those things. You can find all this out by opening up a history book.
If Mr. D'Souza actually had read a history book or two he might have understood that the worldwide dommination of Christian societies has everything to do with Smallpox and NOTHING to do with Christianity. Gothic spires? So what! Ever heard of Machu Picchu?! Chichen Itza?! This guy needs to read "Guns Germs and Steel" before he makes a complete ass out of himself...I guess its too late though...
Posted by: Ben Brulotte | September 11, 2008 1:01 AM
Sorry there is supposed to be a better separation between the quote from D'Souza's article and my actual opinion there...
I suppose someone's going to tear into me mistakenly now.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 11, 2008 1:06 AM
Ben Burlotte you complete idio... Oh sorry, I see, bad formatting.
Another flaw I see in D'Souza's Theory of All Goods Things Come from Christians is the same flaw I see when people claim all the Founding Fathers were Christian. If you kill/deport/intimidate everyone who is not Christian or destroy anything not made by Christians, I guess it makes it easy to claim everything left is Christian in origin.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 1:09 AM
He didn't have a consecrated host... of all the sour owl shit to come across this thread, that is one of the stupidest remarks yet.
Fool, the whole thing revolved on the cracker being consecrated.
Or, if you want to get even dirtier - I have FAITH that PZ would only desecrate a truly sacred body of christ.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | September 11, 2008 1:09 AM
Could I get a thesaurus check on Max in #159?
The way he uses those words in his first paragraph seems a little off to me. Not quite Mrs. Malaprop, but getting there.
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 1:11 AM
Ah, Nancy's back, and she's packing some CAPS LOCK heat.
Easy there, schoolmarm. Leaving aside the fact that the number of wrongs in this scenario exceeds '2' by many orders of magnitude, and passing over the assumption that what PZ did is universally accepted to be 'wrong' in the first place, the fact that you are equating 'actions' with 'wrongs' at all is, frankly, a tad disconcerting. And by 'more', you mean what, exactly? A respectfully worded letter to Bill Donohue pleading for understanding and unity? A stern rebuke of Webster Cook for acting like a dick in a house of worship? Judging by the rest of your comment, I grok that 'more' actually means 'less'.
He chose to get involved, and made some splendidly lucid, harder-to-miss-than-the-broad-side-of-a-dayglo-barn points in the bargain; to wit, that (a)nothing is sacred, and (b)that people who feel their nutty beliefs deserve universal respect are deluded. The 'Great Desecration' was a justifiably frustrated response to a bunch of whiny Christians claiming persecution for the umpteenth time without cause. You clearly disagree with his methods, but all the querulous reproofs in the world won't change the intent or the impact of PZ's actions.
Well, to be accurate, I called you a 'concern troll'. Look it up if you aren't aware of the distinction. However, if you wish to broaden the term to just plain 'troll', that's fine too. Trolls of lore are notoriously dimwitted and combative. Just sayin'.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 11, 2008 1:15 AM
Per request at #185
However, you did miss my point in your gloomy, neurotic feeling of atonement of your poisonous hatred of D'Souza.
Or something like that.
Posted by: Kel | September 11, 2008 1:15 AM
If it wasn't consecreated, then PZ Myer's actions would be symbolic. And thus the outrage of the Catholics is not at the act of desecration, but the act of defiance. Maybe there is something to learn out of this...Posted by: Alan Kellogg | September 11, 2008 1:28 AM
Patricia, #93
Your behavior in the matter gives me no assurance you would not seek to gain some sort of triumphalist advantage over yours truly. I have cause to disagree with you, and your continued vindictive behavior gives me cause to distrust you in this matter. You have let your rage dictate to your reason, and so you become unreliable on this subject. I cannot trust you.
I trust Myers because he deals honestly with people. I do not trust d'Souza because he does not deal honestly with people. I cannot trust you to deal honestly with me, and that is why I will not do as you demand.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 1:35 AM
Huzzah Danio!
Two sane people in Oregon.
Sheesh. :(
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 1:46 AM
Alan - Your behavior to frog last night was vile. You owe frog an apology.
Pointing that out is not a demand, it is a recognition of simple courtesy.
You stated that you have problems, OK, I accept that as true on your word.
But that sexist, pelvis cracker scene is inappropriate and frog did not deserve one word of it.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | September 11, 2008 1:52 AM
Steven, #175
A triangle only adds up to 180 degrees on a flat plain. Curve the surface and you can get triangles with greater or lesser degrees. Thus God becomes impossible according to your reasoning only in an ideal --- that is, perfect --- universe. Therefor God can only exist in an imperfect universe.
Remember, the sleep of reason produces monsters because reason is sleeping.
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 1:54 AM
Ack! Is one of them Scott??
*ducks to avoid a face full of Sangria*
Posted by: Kel | September 11, 2008 1:59 AM
I'd assume one is Linus Torvalds, the other is Chuck Palahniuk.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 1:59 AM
Danio - Yup! *grin*
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 2:07 AM
Ahh, time for us ol' gals to toddle off to bed.
In the immortal words of Leon Redbone - Please don't talk about me when I'm gone, sweet darlin. ;o)
Good night Sweethearts!
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | September 11, 2008 2:08 AM
Patricia, #191
Now first, Frog can speak for himself. Unless he's younger than we think --- and the way he speaks he just might be --- we should hope he's capable of engaging in a mature conversation.
Was I vile? I had cause. When Frog writes in opposition to someone he is hateful and nasty. He does more to damage the causes and people he supports through his writing than he does to hurt the causes and people he opposes. People hate negativity by and large. Give them a reason to support your cause and you'll do a lot better than when you speak ill of that which you oppose. Offer solutions, not constant rounds of condemnation.
If you can think of nothing substantially positive to say about your favored cause, maybe your cause has not earned your favor.
Posted by: Dreadneck | September 11, 2008 2:10 AM
But will they do it pro bono? :) lol
Posted by: Dreadneck | September 11, 2008 2:13 AM
I only ask because we godless liberals just hate having to pay for anything~
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | September 11, 2008 2:32 AM
bostjan: "Didn't greek's, Egyptian's, Roman's and others culturas made this kinde of things if not even biger."
Boom. You answered better than Myers did!
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 11, 2008 2:36 AM
Dinesh - proof of evolution:
Ronald Reagan -> George W. Bush -> Sarah Palin -> Box of Hammers
Posted by: H.H. | September 11, 2008 2:43 AM
Actually, Mensa members curse like fucking sailors.Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2008 4:10 AM
Poor Max, so utterly flummoxed by the admittedly common and vulgar idiomatic expression "lying sack of shit".
Very well.
Just to appease Max's inability to cope with hyperbolic metaphor, invective, and logomachy, I will amend my sentence to:
There.
PS: By the way Max, unless you literally do have something wrong with the language processing portions of your brain, it sure looks like you are also being stupid on purpose...
Posted by: shonny | September 11, 2008 4:26 AM
That Dinesh critter should go into politics (or become a preacher).
He is the grand master of uttering thousands of words without saying anything worthwhile.
Posted by: FlameDuck | September 11, 2008 5:27 AM
Well in the defense of Smallpox it had little do do with the Spanish Inquisition, or silent acceptance of the Holocaust either. A little bit of a one sided arguement there. How can you possibly say "Religion caused all these great things" (which is demonstrably wrong, but I digress) and at the same time ignore all the atrocities committed in its name?
Posted by: JC | September 11, 2008 7:51 AM
They need to leave the dead horse alone. It's been mangled enough already.
Posted by: Dale Austin | September 11, 2008 7:58 AM
Re #104
Patricia:
"The Red Cross sold coffee and doughnuts instead of giving them away to military personnel during World War II at the request by the U.S. Secretary of War. This caused bad feelings at the time and has spawned myths ever since, including accusations that the Red Cross sold other items such as sweaters and cigarettes (false) and that the Red Cross sold coffee and doughnuts in other conflicts (false)."
That's the executive summary. Hindsight is always 20/20, and if I'd been running the organization at the time I'd have told Secretary Stimson to get stuffed. The agreement with the government was renegotiated in 1946. I think the confusion for your father and a great many other Korea vets is that there appear to have been canteens provided and stocked by the military-and for which the military charged-that had Red Cross personnel attached to them. If you are interested, I can provide some pdf's with more information.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 8:04 AM
He should let it go? Are PZ's alter egos Willy Donohue and Dinesh D'Souza?
Posted by: Moses | September 11, 2008 8:06 AM
I really like the comments on the piece. The usual "he wouldn't do that to a muslim object..."
Posted by: Ian | September 11, 2008 8:15 AM
Dense & Deluded is "indignant, but he's got nothing to say"?
So what's new?!
Posted by: Nancy | September 11, 2008 8:41 AM
#186 Danio
I wish we could have breakfast today. It's 9/11........I'm sure we could find much to talk about. Maybe I could find out why you are so combative and find it necessary to insult me. We could talk about PZ and his intelligence and how he can influence public opinion w/out resorting to callous and immature "tactics" such as the one in question.
It's 8:40 am in NYC and my heart is elsewhere. I hope you have a good day. Enough.
Namaste
Posted by: Moses | September 11, 2008 8:43 AM
Which means he was a liberal arts major. I graduated from my Alma Matter, which happened to be one of the Top-5 in the country for Accounting Summa Cum Laude and with Distinction in Accountancy. I was a Becker CPA Review scholarship recipient (given to the top graduating senior). I was in Beta Gamma Sigma, Golden Key and Beta Alpha Psi, all national honor societies.
I changed majors multiple times - Accounting to Math (computer science) to Engineering (mechanical) and back to Accounting. I started minors in Philosophy, Economics and English but did not complete any of them.
None of this is proof that I know what the hell I'm talking about. Or that I'm HONEST in what I'm talking about.
Nor does it prove I'm particularly smart. There were many people in my major that did almost as well. They would just grind 70+ hours a week. For all you know, I could have been one of them.
Additionally, once you're in (meeting the minimum requirements), you're in. It doesn't mean that you were able to continue at that high level of academic performance. I saw that a lot in Beta Alpha Psi. Somebody marginal got an A- in Intermediate Accounting by the skin of her/his teeth and was in. Yet they regressed back to their individual mean as a 'B' student because they couldn't handle the harder accounting classes.
So, all-in-all, Phi Beta Kappa only means, to me, that at one time the little English major had decent-enough grades (at a grade inflated university, which mine wasn't) to get in the society, and that is all. It doesn't mean that he was particularly bright, especially in light of English is a "bullshit" (that is, you feed bullshit to your professors) major.
Maybe if he was in a technical major, like engineering, biology, math, astronomy, etc. I might take his whole Phi Beta Kappa thing seriously. In those majors, you've got to know your stuff. You just can't bullshit your way through.
I've read some of them. He first book was ok. They rapidly declined in scholarship, intellectual rigor and, frankly, sense as he's continued. I think it is obvious that at this point he's simply pandering to a segment of society that is suffering from emotional retardation and is in search of confirmation bias.
The books themselves are horrid. But so are romance novels and they sell like gangbusters. Getting me to the point that even horrible books sell to their target market.
That's simply delusional. You watched that debate, you couldn't pierce D'Sousa's lies (which were probably confirming the bullshit in your head) and you declared him winner. We see this all the time at church-sponsored "evolution" debates. Some liar, like Ham or Hovind gets up there and throws the most outrageous lies and falsities up against the wall, and he "wins" the debate against the actual science because the AUDIENCE IS TOO STUPID, BIASED and IGNORANT to evaluate the audience.
Do you realize that, if it weren't for being a moral person, I would try to start my own mega-church? The religious proles are morons and I know how to manipulate them with religious bull-shit. I could crank down MILLIONS every year, like Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Creflo Dollar, et. al.
It'd be so easy... Give them the fire. Give them the show. They'll give you their money.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 8:52 AM
That was disgusting. Nancy wtf.
Seriously. The fact you just used the anniversary of 9/11 as some sort of defense on a blog as to why you can't comment is frankly, horrid.
If you are truly feeling as bad as you want us to think you are, then you wouldn't have just done that. Instead you come off like some asshole using that to protect yourself.
What a sick fuck you are.
Posted by: Moses | September 11, 2008 8:57 AM
Ooops... Some liar, like Ham or Hovind gets up there and throws the most outrageous lies and falsities up against the wall, and he "wins" the debate against the actual science because the AUDIENCE IS TOO STUPID, BIASED and IGNORANT to evaluate the audience.
I meant "evidence." Need more coffee.
Posted by: Bruce Perry | September 11, 2008 9:00 AM
It's almost a tradition for me to drop the following observation into Dinesh threads.
At Dartmouth, we often referred to him as Distort D'Newsa.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 11, 2008 9:05 AM
Hint: I didn't write it, I just reported it.Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 9:29 AM
Danio @ #107
"...this is PZ updating the readership...".
Yeah, and the McCain campaign is just making a big deal out of the 'lipstick on a pig' comment to 'update the readership'. Couldn't be to garner attention....
PZ is full of himself. He soaks it all up everytime something new comes out from Donahue or whoever else..."Look at me! Look at me!" I'm not saying the hate mail from Catholics, death threats etc. are any better (and in fact are worse), but PZ is a nagging little prick who can't stand it when the spotlight isn't on him.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 9:30 AM
Rev. BDC #213 Amen Brother!
Nancy seems to have some problems.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 9:35 AM
QDA, why does PZ have to the one to back down? He did not start the mess. The person who caused Crackergate in the first place, i.e. Bill Donohue, should be the one to back down. If Donohue would STFU about the situation, nobody would have anything to cite.
Posted by: LongtimeLurker | September 11, 2008 9:42 AM
Did anyone else notice that D'Souza wrote a typo into a direct quote from PZ?
On his blog Pharyngula, Myers wrote "It's a Frackin' Cracker" and said that if someone would send him a eucharist he would "show you sacrelige, gladly and with much fanfare."
Is this a deliberate attempt to smear PZ's credibility, or just an indication that D'Souza can't even copy and paste competently?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 9:49 AM
Um, the spotlight IS on him. Both D'Souza and Fuckhead Donohue wrote about him. You expect him not to comment?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 11, 2008 10:00 AM
@192 Allan Kellog:
Ah, the old "curved lines, drawn on a saddle type triangle argument" (secret agent 86 stokes his chin) third time I fell for that one this week.
But seriously, when the lines are curved it's not a triangle anymore. Second, the 180 degrees in a triangle is not an argument against the existence of God ™ but simply a statement that this is a physical law of the universe which a hypothetical God ™ type person can not alter. Reality, what a concept!
Attempting to argue that the number of degrees inside a triangle are mutable leads to some practical absurdities. GPS no longer works, you lose your depth perception and all manner of range finding devices no longer function once you start adding and removing degrees from a triangle. (Hint: they all use triangulation). Watch what you say about gravity - we could all be thrown off the world if you're not careful.
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 10:02 AM
NoR and Rev.:
Yes, I do expect him not to comment, and I expect the same of D'Souza and Donohue. Just let it go. If Donohue or D'Souza had a blog that was half as entertaining as this one, I'd be there saying the same damn thing.
Bill Donohue is a nutjob. PZ pandering to him just doesn't make much sense to me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 10:06 AM
Ok you expect them not to yet they did. This is a blog. A place where science is discussed but also a place where good heated conversation / commenting is encouraged on other topics and yet you expect him to ignore those blatantly idiotic comments directed at him?
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 10:07 AM
And possibly the most pathetic, grasping attempt to exploit that tragedy for personal ends I've ever come across (apart from Giuliani, of course).
Posted by: freelunch | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM
"OK, I concede religion isn't true, but look at the good things that religion has done."
You can do so well with a foundation of deceit.
Posted by: Bunk | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM
I read some of the comments at d'nothing's site. Again, several times, in ignorance, Christians dare PZ to desecrate something Muslim. I get the distinct feeling that some Christians are quite jealous of their Muslim kin and their directives to kill anyone who dare disagree with them. I find it quite frightening actually.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 11, 2008 10:21 AM
From the thread on d'Souza's blog post: "Please do not try to force your religion ( your belief that there is no God) on me by making fun of what I believe." qfcxmen at 9:42AM on Sep 11th 2008
Where do they dig these idiots up?
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 10:21 AM
They all keep commenting - they all need to get the last word on something that has been beat to death already anyway. Why shouldn't it be PZ to end it? Again I ask, what is the point in responding to blatantly idiotic comments?
Continuing to address it here surely isn't accomplishing anything other than providing some sort of entertainment for those that still care for whatever reason. At what point to idiotic comments become so idiotic that they don't justify a response? I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just thing the topic has been covered - if Donohue want to keep blabbering about it, doesn't that speak to his idiocy more than it does to anything else?
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 11, 2008 10:23 AM
Bunk | September 11, 2008 10:15 AM #227
See Fatwa envy.
Posted by: nobody | September 11, 2008 10:25 AM
Well, I dunno. The idea that you are a moron who knows something about one thing but pretends that you know a lot about other things is pretty much spot on. When you talk about SCIENCE here, particularly biology, you come across as knowing, if not wise. But when it comes to just about anything else, politics, religion, public policy, kids, (except slasher movies. You're right on that one as well) you come off as a complete moron.
D'Souza has your number. But as you've been forever, based on your screeds, you're in denial. Always will be.
Oh well.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 11, 2008 10:31 AM
Clearly QDA would rather people not speak out when they see people being treated badly, as Webster Cook was. I suspect QDA is a moral coward.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 10:37 AM
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 9:29 AM
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 10:02 AM
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 10:21 AM
You reached that point with remarkable speed, QDA. Bug off.
Posted by: Jesse | September 11, 2008 10:38 AM
Weren't there a few early astronomers who were persecuted and killed by Christians. God, who were they? I swear their "astronomical observations" challenged religious orthodoxy and they paid the price. Mallileo? Pocernicus? The fuck was that?!?!
Dinesh has been balls deep in Ann Coulter, for whatever that's worth.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM
QDA, Donohue started the mess. He needs to do the christian thing and forget it. Write him, not us. Your hypocritcal concern is noted.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM
QDA (#229) intuited,
Exactly! It's entertainment for most of us.
Where does that fall in Ninny's and your's undefined high road?
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM
Matt Penfold @ #232:
I have never suggested PZ shouldn't have spoken out in the first place - nor have a suggested Donohue shouldn't have spoken out. Donohue's response (i.e. - calling for Cook's expulsion, etc.) was inappropriate but was not a blatant attack on the core beliefs of a group of people as was PZ's response to Donohue. PZ could have made his point well enough without 'the great desecration', just as Donohue could have made his without suggesting Cook's actions were anything more than a trivial, slightly-offensive act that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
My point at this point in time, is that this issue is well past being about 'speaking out when people are being treated badly'. It is now about who can get the last word and who can grab the most attention, which is absurd.
I still have yet to receive an answer to my question - "Why shouldn't it be PZ to end it? Why do Donohue's ridiculous comments still justify a response?
And 'he started it' may have worked in Kindergarten, but if we're being 'rational', I don't buy it. I'm afraid I'm less 'moral coward' and more 'don't we have better things to discuss'. Sorry to disappoint you - you seem content to continue to beat a dead horse.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 11, 2008 10:51 AM
QDA,
OK, so you think the talking about this should stop.
Then why the fuck are you not stopping talking about it ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 10:53 AM
QDA, please post a link to the letter you have sent to Bill Donohue asking him to step down from the argument.
If you can't do that, take your concern elsewhere. Your concern has been noted and rejected.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | September 11, 2008 10:55 AM
Matt P asked,
Don't you recall?
QDA thinks the burden is on you to ignore his/her/its idiotic comments.
How dare you resist, it must be all your fault that QDA is forced to repeatedly say how much he/she/it doesn't like this!
Posted by: CrypticLife | September 11, 2008 10:59 AM
Well, what I can say is that reading D'Souza's writing is a lot funnier than reading yours. It's such a laughably feckless whine.
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 11:03 AM
SC @ #233
"You reached that point with remarkable speed, QDA. Bug off."
Responding to a legitimate question with personal insults. Nice.
You're not interested in other opinions? Rather than arguing a point and/or agreeing with the majority of views expressed here, I should just 'bug off'. Close-minded science. Oxymoron, no?
Posted by: wÒÓkerist | September 11, 2008 11:05 AM
(+)
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 11:09 AM
Ryan F Stello @ #240 -
Yes, I'm the one who should stop and the other 200+ posts on this thread are perfectly OK to continue. If you're going to have a standard at least be fair enough to apply it to everyone equally.
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 11:12 AM
You're right, I haven't sent a letter to Donohue - I haven't sent a letter to PZ - I'm really not much of a letter sender. This whole pile of shit gets us nowhere. I guess I'll 'take my concerns elsewhere' you hypocritical fucks. Thanks for nothing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 11:13 AM
QDA, if you can talk about something other than "PZ must step down", then do so. You have more than exhaused that topic.
I still don't see the link to the letter to Bill Donohue.
Posted by: Epinephrine | September 11, 2008 11:17 AM
Not to get drawn into whatever bizarre concept is being discussed, but I'll argue that "triangle" does indeed apply to lines on curved surfaces, following various non-Euclidean geometries. Had a good course on axiomatic theories and the foundations of gemoettry in which we played with the 5th postulate, and under various replacement 5th postulates such triangles really do exist.
Obviously, it depends on your definition of "triangle", but I think since we know that space is indeed curved and that hyperbolic geometries do indeed exist, the argument that a triangle must have internal angles adding up to 180 degrees based on a fifth postulate that doesn't actually model the world is a bit silly. Sure, they look like they add to 180 degrees, because of the relatively low curvature of space where we are.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | September 11, 2008 11:18 AM
I didn't ask you to stop. You seem a tad confused, dear.
I do, and my standards includes this:
Directive 9-b(1):
direct challenges should be answered on a case-by-case basis (determined by factors such as generosity or douche-level of the other party), and ignored at your own peril.
Incidentally, that's also the answer why Myers shouldn't automatically be the one to back away from D'Sucka's stink-bomb.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Epinephrine | September 11, 2008 11:24 AM
You do know that GPS relies on relativity?
"As surprising as it may be, general relativity already has practical applications which affect many people in their work and play. The U.S. Global Positioning System, or GPS, used by military and civilians for navigation and other purposes, includes corrections for the effects of both special and general relativity. The portable GPS receiver determines position by passively receiving signals from several GPS satellites at one time, then determining the receiver's location, altitude, and velocity with precision. This determination depends on the time signals transmitted from the GPS satellites, which carry atomic clocks. Since the satellites are moving, corrections for special relativity are required; since the satellites are at a distance from the Earth, corrections for general relativity are required. The system is precise enough for relativistic effects to make a difference."
From http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativity/einstein2.html
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 11, 2008 11:28 AM
I didn't know about this D'Souza guy. I read his column. Now I wonder if he's as ignorant as he's dumb? Or is it the reverse?
Posted by: Elyse | September 11, 2008 11:28 AM
"Apparently figuring that such antics were more likely to gain attention than his own relatively undistinguished scholarship, Myers decided to get into the act himself."
tee hee hee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 11, 2008 11:29 AM
You are the only one who is telling everyone to stop. It seems it is you who cannot practice what they are telling others to do since you refuse to keep quiet.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 11:43 AM
Perhaps in part because people like you are still saying things like "Donohue's response...was inappropriate but was not a blatant attack on the core beliefs of a group of people as was PZ's response to Donohue" without recognizing how much of this has been about the right - and the need - to demonstrate that no beliefs are sacred and to challenge them, particularly when they are attached to an oppressive institution and worldview.
If you're annoyed by the continuing discussion of the incident here, imagine how tiresome others must find your stale meta-analysis thereof.
Posted by: LotharLoo | September 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Dinash is a fucking moron. After I watched the Dinash-Shermer debate I lost my respect for both; For Dinash because he was so unbelievably thick, arrogant, self-righteous and stupid and for Shermer because he softly let Dinash get away with so much loads of bullshit that the smell could have suffocated all the audience.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 12:11 PM
Responding to a legitimate question with personal insults. Nice.
Actually, "Bug off, idiot" is a perfectly legitimate response to "Shut up."
Close-minded science. Oxymoron, no?
Depends. Close to what?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 12:20 PM
But how are we going to continue to play now that you've taken the ball and gone home?
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 12:27 PM
Crap! The incendiary stupid from Nancy, QDA and nobody is sucking the Oxygen from the room.
Nancy, this is truly one of the most vile and witless rejoinders I have ever seen. I have quite lost my appetite for breakfast. All evidence from your comments on this thread suggests that you might just deserve the life sentence you are currently serving inside the prison of your narrow world view.
To avoid future combative engagements, as they obviously bring out the worst in you, I suggest you spend less time on this blog and more time over at Matt Nisbet's place. If you do choose to come back another day, however, you can expect the SIWOTI hammer to continue to drop on you--at least until you stop the vapid concern trolling and make a cogent argument. I won't get my hopes up.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 12:39 PM
I wonder if Nancy, Sara, and Lluraa (and I think there's another one on occasion) are the same person. They exhibit the same concerns.
Posted by: frog | September 11, 2008 1:03 PM
Max: Those are well defined words and he does not qualify. Is he a "sack of shit", a "scumbag" or a "douchbag" as he was called. As I noted earlier, I'm not sure what these presumed metaphors mean. So, I'm not sure if they're appropriate or not.
You don't know what these metaphors mean???? You appear to read and write English fairly decently, so I find that difficult to believe.
Sack of shit: clearly implies that he's filled with shit, which references a level of misrepresentation that casts doubt on every word he says, including "the".
Scumbag: see sack of shit. Full of mendacity, a lack of principles beside self-interest. "A bag of scum".
Douchebag: see scumbag and sack of shit. A worthless item that should be immediately dumped after usage.
Are you really saying that you don't understand those metaphors? Is it a mental disorder, or has lying become so endemic to the Christian mindset that even the most obvious of lies don't cause a moment of reflection?
Posted by: R.C. Moore | September 11, 2008 1:05 PM
Corrects for relativity actually. I think GPS would still work without it. Maybe. I don't know if the universe would exist with out relativity, which would make the issue moot.
Way out of my league here!
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 11, 2008 1:13 PM
QDA, there is a very simple concept you don't get.
This is MY blog. My personal blog. I write about whatever interests ME. It's true -- when some nationally known fruitcake criticizes me, I find that interesting, and I'm likely to write about it.
That's the way it works.
Now if you want a blog that doesn't give a good goddamn about PZ Myers or what PZ Myers thinks, there are eleventy billion of them out there. If you don't want to hear at all about PZ Myers, this is exactly the wrong place to be.
You're welcome to continue to complain for at least a little while longer, but really -- it makes you look like an idiot to voluntarily come on to PZ Myers' blog and whine bitterly that there's all this stuff written by and about PZ Myers littering up the joint.
Posted by: IceFarmer | September 11, 2008 1:34 PM
Well, D'Souza, like many other completely glosses over all the details, skips many of the facts, and tries to villify something he sees as wrong by presenting a skewed vision. Can anyone here be really suprised.
Keep doing what your doing, PZ. It's good to have a link minded voice out there that isn't afraid to speak up and challenge BS.
Btw, QDA, this is PZ's personal blog. You sound like a jackass for criticizing PZ posting his opinions on his own personal blog. Keep up the good work, dumbass.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 1:37 PM
#197 - Alan Kellogg - "Was I vile? I had cause. Frog is hateful and nasty."... Right, blame the victim. "Frog can speak for himself." There, you are correct.
#207 - Dale Austin - oh, wow. I have never heard the actual facts and names. Like most children, I had heard the war stories and simply believed my father and his veteran friends. Will be seeing my dad tomorrow, and I'll ask him what exactly the Red Cross was charging for in Korea. Thanks for the info!
(apologies to the punctuation police)
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 1:46 PM
I wonder if the name of Greg Laden's blog makes QDA-style carping less likely there...
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 2:04 PM
I strangely honored. I garnered a comment from the 'Great One' himself.
"You're welcome to continue to complain for at least a little while longer,..."
I'll take that as a threat of censorship - how "Palin" of you. Hell, you're practically Catholic!
"This is MY blog. My personal blog. I write about whatever interests ME."
"Btw, QDA, this is PZ's personal blog."
So using your trains of thought, someone could build a cross made out of THEIR lumber, THEIR personal lumber ), and burn it on THEIR property, THEIR personal property (or mow a swastika into their lawn, etc.) and it's ok, because those that it might offend can simply choose to drive another route or avert their eyes. Afterall, it's just a frackin' burning cross, it's just a frackin' swasticka - and as long as it's on their personal property/blog/domain it OK.
Btw, despite disagreeing with you on this, I can appreciate your thoughts on the evolution argument from your most recent post. Your common sense does seem to bode well for you at times.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 2:09 PM
First. Yes. It's called free speech.
Second. Those are two of the worse analogies to the situation that have been expressed, and you aren't the first one to do so but it shows a seriously myopic view of recent history and how those actions have been used.
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 2:13 PM
Posted by: QDA | September 11, 2008 2:04 PM
I strangely honored. I garnered a comment from the 'Great One' himself.
"You're welcome to continue to complain for at least a little while longer,..."
I'll take that as a threat of censorship - how "Palin" of you. Hell, you're practically Catholic!
You are mistaken about that. Not allowing you to post here is not censorship. You are not being denied the use of the internet. It is more a kin to a group of people getting up and moving away from a silly and stupid person. Or is a person no longer desiring to talk to you a form of censorship?
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 2:19 PM
QDA, here are two questions; how is a person's race, which a person does not get to decide anything like a person's religion, which a person gets to decide? Also, where is the threat against you by PZ's actions?
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 2:20 PM
I strangely honored. I garnered a comment from the 'Great One' himself.
I'm never really surprised to see comments like this, reflecting an authoritarian mindset, from people like QDA.
because those that it might offend can simply choose to drive another route
Or, in the case of the internet, enter a different tube. But no - you're stuck in the Pharyngula tube! How to escape?!
Posted by: That Other Kid | September 11, 2008 2:20 PM
Maybe I'm crazy, but I always thought "Fatwa Envy" referred to a catholic's (secret?) desire to throw death threats at anyone who dissents. I thought the whole thing was that they wouldn't DARE insult Islam cause those f***ers'll kill ya.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | September 11, 2008 2:21 PM
QDA, You're back!
Isn't a bit hypocritical that you said you were taking your concerns elsewhere, tho?
The internet is a pretty wide road, you don't have to drive through here if you don't need to.
In other words: your anologies need work.
You're not farkin' worthy to use that frelling word.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 2:33 PM
Isn't a bit hypocritical that you said you were taking your concerns elsewhere, tho?
A promise he concluded, amusingly in retrospect, with "you hypocritical fucks."
Posted by: Sili | September 11, 2008 2:35 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT @ #153
Wait. Hwut?
Pardon me, but won't most people (for whom it matters) consider D'S'o'u's'a', himself, black?
He's no Ghandi, but I'm pretty sure he'd still get thrown off the train for having the gall to sit in first class. Or does D'istort know his place and only ride third class like a good second-class citizen?
Eurrghh! He's worse than I ever suspected.
On the plus side, though, I've made two notes for September Mollies in this thread already. It coulda been three, but it seems your Majesty is gonna get Mollified for August.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 2:40 PM
Heh. Thanks!
Yeah D'Souza's idiocy goes beyond his whining about atheists.
Posted by: Frost | September 11, 2008 2:44 PM
reverted @ #100
I'm late to the party, as usual, and somewhat off-topic, but...
Just want to point out, that although Clara Barton was indeed the founder of the American Red Cross, the person behind the whole organisation was a Swiss man called Henri Dunant. He did profess to be a christian, but was critical of organised religion. He witnessed the horrific aftermath of the battle of Solferino (circa 40000 dead or left wounded on the field in a single day) and that became the inspiration for the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863. The original mission of the Red Cross was to care for the wounded soldiers. The red cross symbol is actually a reversed flag of Swizerland, a neutral nation, and not a religious symbol per se.
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 2:51 PM
Sorry, Frost, but I have to assume that most people are not familiar with The Battle Solferino.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 3:01 PM
the person behind the whole organisation was a Swiss man called Henri Dunant
Who had his own influences, by the way:
- The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen, Paul Gordon Lauren, 1998, p. 58
Posted by: frog | September 11, 2008 3:05 PM
Patricia: #263#197 - Alan Kellogg - "Was I vile? I had cause. Frog is hateful and nasty."... Right, blame the victim. "Frog can speak for himself." There, you are correct.
Thanks, Patricia. I always get a kick out of watching the "oh-so-moral" Christian conservatives illustrate their mental disorders. I've seen it so many times - beneath that stiff, inflexible armor is a seething hatred of women (and therefore "liberals" and "Jews" who are so effeminate in their minds). Which probably means that under it all is a hatred of momma. I lose interest after they let the cat out of the bag; what is there to say to the insane?
My pet theory is that you become a radical leftist because you hate your father for abusing your mother; and you become a radical rightist because you hate your mother for letting your father abuse her.
Of course excepting those that take on a political ideology because they either were raised with decency, or to join a club. Allen clearly falls into the mother-haters categories.
You know, if I understood his ranting correctly, what set him off was simply that I stated the fact that we had killed, as collateral damage, 100k to 1000k Iraqis - a completely objective and unassailable statement. Reality has a liberal bias, you know!
Posted by: H.H. | September 11, 2008 3:06 PM
Janine ID, interesting. Wiki reports that The Battle Solferino was the last major battle in world history where all the involved armies were under the personal command of their monarchs. Well, until Armageddon, of course.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 11, 2008 3:20 PM
QDA | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM #237
'PZ could have made his point well enough without 'the great desecration''
Yes but what would be the fun in that?
'I still have yet to receive an answer to my question - "Why shouldn't it be PZ to end it? Why do Donohue's ridiculous comments still justify a response?'
Well on this occasion it was a fellow called Dinesh d'Souza, who is usually slightly more sensible than Bill Donohue. I'd say personally that anything that can keep Bill frothing away impotently is a good thing. It really doesn't take much to set him off as Bitch PhD discovered last month.
The poor fellow seems to be on auto-baste.
Posted by: August Berkshire | September 11, 2008 3:24 PM
I just posted this on d'Souza's blog:
302. Not only did Myers desecrate a Eucharist, he also threw in the trash some pages from a Koran and some pages from "The God Delusion" by atheist Richard Dawkins, to prove, in Myers' words, that NOTHING IS SACRED.
As for Christians and hospitals, it seems to me that they are mopping up in embarrassment over the poor performance of their god (diseases, birth defects, and natural disasters).
The reason some people have to do "the Lord's work" is because "the Lord" isn't doing it himself. And if we're doing the work, then why shouldn't we, as Myers says, take the credit?
Posted by: Margaret | September 11, 2008 3:31 PM
Zeno: "It's like being assaulted by a teacup poodle: noisy and unpleasant but danger-free. Socks may need darning afterward."
Yeah, well, the poodle is rabid and thereby not danger-free to those who haven't been vaccinated by the ability to think critically.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 3:36 PM
Yeah D'Souza's idiocy goes beyond his whining about atheists.
That's for sure. I, too, read his book years ago, so he's been on my radar for some time. I read the interview that Steven Dunlap linked to @ #125 last night, and originally intended a point-by-point refutation. But it would have been too much work - almost every sentence he uttered was a fabrication. At one point he says:
He really says this. Not the CIA's coup to oust the democratically-elected Mossadeq or installing and maintaining a brutal dictator in power for two decades. The problem was not providing enough support to the dictator to keep him in power in the face of popular revolt. His argument about the "cultural dimension" is repugnant for different reasons. He's a lying, distorting scumbag who will say anything if it suits his personal or political agenda.
Posted by: frog | September 11, 2008 3:48 PM
SC: He really says this. Not the CIA's coup to oust the democratically-elected Mossadeq or installing and maintaining a brutal dictator in power for two decades
What's interesting about DD's statement is the assumption that the US has so much power that it can indefinitely keep a selected tyrant in power; that the "people" are powerless in the face of Authority.
Which goes to show you what democracy means to him and his ilk - a show to hide the gun behind the curtain. It's patently untrue, historically speaking (how many examples -- Cuba, Russia...); and it's not just the right that makes this mistake. You often have folks on the left assuming that we put Pinochet in power, for example, rather than being just one more set of players primarily dominated by the internal players.
Is DD too stupid to see this? I doubt it... Just one more con-man in that carnival of freaks that is the right.
Posted by: reverted | September 11, 2008 4:03 PM
Frost @ 275: Yes, thank-you. I somehow managed to omit "American" from that sentence, and it should, of course, be there. So... oops. And, thanks for pointing that out. :) (But, she was absolutely vital in establishing American "membership"; and, she was not a Christian.)
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 5:15 PM
Frog - I don't have any training with mentally ill people, but he does seem to be a very troubled person. I noticed also that he was OK and then just snapped.
One of the reasons I think PZ has so many female commenters is because he quashes that sort of thing before it gets out of hand if the other commenters don't.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | September 11, 2008 5:15 PM
Good Lord, Myers,
Even when you've been a complete boor and jerk, you force me to sympathize with you by letting me know what enemies you've made.
I think, however, there may be a fallacious argument hiding here: Dinesh D'Souza is a monumental twit (and a lying sack of crap); he's attacked me for my wafer stunt; ergo that stunt was AOK. Just because you make all the right enemies, it doesn't NECESSARILY follow that you were doing the right thing.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | September 11, 2008 5:18 PM
BTW, I haven't yet received a thank you for my letter of support to your Dean. I'm sure that was an oversight, and I'll be hearing from you any day now.
Posted by: Nancy | September 11, 2008 5:19 PM
Danio - All that venom....it's just breakfast. Yes, this atheist has a narrow mind. That's why I "hang out" on this blog.
I promise to agree w/ everything PZ does and says from this day forward. Is that better?
Damn........steaks on the grill.......gotta run. Life calling....you should try it sometime.
Hugs - Nancy
Posted by: Dan | September 11, 2008 5:19 PM
"The fact that the adherents of a religion managed to do some pretty neat things doesn't prove the existence of their god(s)."
We humans have evolved with brains which allow us to derive much pleasure from being with and communicating with other humans. Whether this ability has survival value, or simply drifted in with something else, it's there. We obtain comparable feelings from being out in and contemplating nature. All of these deep and deeply rewarding feelings which we share with other human beings have inspired art, music, poetry, etc. and continue to add a sense of the "sacred" to our daily lives. However, like having gum on our shoes, we have been unable to detach from the belief that our deepest feelings are coming to us from some supernatural entity or entities. For thousands of years we have been at the mercy of various people who claim to receive direct revelations from "beyond." We are encouraged to feel elevated if we can believe these folks with absolutely no evidence other than their claims. Imagine a world in which everyone recognized that their deepest feelings and values were arising from within themselves, perhaps being modified by the experiences of others, and were shared by all of us. There just might not be anyone left to travel half-way around the world to kill!
Posted by: Hank | September 11, 2008 5:24 PM
"Myers rose to semi-fame, or perhaps I should say notoriety, when he praised University of Central Florida student Webster Cook who stole the eucharist from a church and held it hostage."
Sorry, but I couldn't read beyond this sentence. Will someone tell me how you hold a CRACKER hostage? These people are nutz!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 5:27 PM
Danio - All that venom....it's just breakfast. Yes, this atheist has a narrow mind. That's why I "hang out" on this blog.
I promise to agree w/ everything PZ does and says from this day forward. Is that better?
Pretty dumb frankly. No one asks commenters to agree with PZ. Just to be rational and support your opinion. You ran and hid using the most disgusting of aprons to hide behind.
yes run and hide again after your drive by. I see you blamed it on steaks instead of 9/11 this time. Good.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 5:29 PM
blockquote fail
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 5:36 PM
I would love to see Myers attempt to debate Dinesh. Of course, this would never happen, because Myers knows that Dinesh would destroy him. I'm confident that Dinesh is open to such a debate -- after all, he's debated *much* more distinguished scholars, such as Dennet and Singer, and much more polished debaters, such as Hitchens. He's even repeatedly called out Dawkins, who has of course done everything to avoid meeting Dinesh in debate. So, Myers, why not go for it? (Actually, I'd rather see you debate William Lane Craig, but if you're afraid of D'souza, there's no way you'll go anywhere near Craig.)
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 5:38 PM
Hiding so cunningly as to be seen only by Mr. Baker - a fallacy leprechaun.
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 5:39 PM
*Dennett
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 5:40 PM
A face to face debate? Debate does nothing but show who can "win" the debate. It does nothing to show which has the most valid point.
Kent Hovind is a prime example. The audience may think he wins, but in a point by point refutation he is shown for the fraud he is.
Debates do not settle points of argument. They settle competitions.
Posted by: SC | September 11, 2008 5:42 PM
*shudder*
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 5:50 PM
"Debate does nothing but show who can "win" the debate. It does nothing to show which has the most valid point."
Nonsense. Sure, some people will be distracted by cheap rhetorical tricks, but there will also be many who will see through them. What a debate does, when it's properly structured, is require one to defend one's position in the face of aggressive questioning. It's easy to sit behind a computer and call people who disagree with you 'stupid' all day long (this seems to be PZ's favorite argument); it's a bit more difficult to answer difficult questions from them (which, while they can be ignored in a piece of writing, can't be avoided very effectively in front of an audience), and to respond directly to their arguments.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 5:56 PM
Ok fine. But rarely are they set up this way. The thing you miss is that everything D'Souza said has been said innumerable times and answered. He's late to the show with nothing new to say. Hence the short answer from PZ.
You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger audience than the internet. If D'Souza or yourself have something new to add please we all encourage you to do so.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 5:58 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp - Thank you!
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 5:59 PM
Nancy: Still wrong. And projecting like crazy.
If you are an atheist (and I have no reason to suspect that you are being deceitful about this) you are a prime example of how little this identification actually encompasses. Lack of god-belief does not, in and of itself, guarantee rationality, reason, or intelligence. Like your predecessor, Brenda von Ahsen, you amply demonstrate that 'atheists' can be as crashingly obtuse as anyone else.
SC, you owe me a new keyboard, girlfriend :D
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2008 6:06 PM
Fixed.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 11, 2008 6:10 PM
Epinephrine @ 249 and Moore @ 260
Thanks for the mention of relativity and its practical applications. GPS brings together a number of concepts from theoretical physics and mathematics.
I have no idea how to address RC Moore's question about whether the universe would exist without relativity. Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time is a good read, and Leonard Susskind's The Cosmic Landscape indulges in some speculation about the origin of the universe and possible alternate universes. Susskind was a bit harder for me to slog through, but interesting. Good luck.
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 6:13 PM
Eric, I have listened to Dinesh's debates. It is merely a variation of the Gish Gallop.
Gish uses a standardized presentation during debates. While undertaking research for a debate with Gish, Michael Shermer noted that for several debates Gish's opening, assumptions about his opponent, slides and even jokes remained identical. In the debate itself, Shermer stated he was not an atheist and willing to accept the existence of a divine creator, but Gish's rebuttal concerned itself primarily with proving that Shermer was an atheist and therefore immoral.
Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs. Others have accused Gish of stonewalling arguments with fabricated facts or figures.
Denesh, during his part of the debate, tosses out so much bad ideas and wrong ideas, his opponent is staggered by the amount of crap that must be refuted. And it takes more time and effort to beat back crap.
Debating Denesh is a sucker's bet. Better to point out everywhere where he is wrong. Your challenge means nothing and proves nothing.
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 6:14 PM
"The thing you miss is that everything D'Souza said has been said innumerable times and answered."
"You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger audience than the internet. If D'Souza or yourself have something new to add please we all encourage you to do so."
These two remarks exemplify the problem with internet debates (especially those that take place on blog posts). Look at your first remark: "Everything D'souza said has been said innumerable times and answered." First, it's not a question of 'answering' what Dinesh says, but of refuting it. Second, it's also the case that those 'answers' you refer to have themselves been answered innumerable times. Third, I sincerely doubt that you've read everything Dinesh has ever written, yet you're quite quick to claim that 'everything' he has said has been answered.
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Eric, I think the Rev meant that everything D'Souza said (in this article, to which we are now responding) has been asked and answered ad nauseum, which is entirely true.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 6:26 PM
Agreed. Blogs are not places for structured debate unless that structure is set up ahead of time.
Well since this is in reference to "Crackergate" they have been both answered and refuted. Innumerable times. Many of us have gotten sick (I'll assume PZ to be in this group) of the same repeated points over and over. He (D'Souza) hasn't brought anything new to this subject. I'm sure PZ is tired of repeating himself. If you or D'Souza would like to peruse the 10-20 or so posts and all the comments on this subject and then find something new to bring up then fine. Please do. A debate on the points already refuted would seem like a waste of time. I don't speak for PZ though. While i doubt he'll answer this, my guess is he, like myself, would see this proposed debate as pointless.
By whom? I've yet to see an argument on Crackergate that holds up well unless you accept "my feelings are hurt" as an answer.
Granted, I have not read everything that D'Souza has written. I have however read the post he made that is the subject matter of this very post we are commenting on and my point stands.
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 6:30 PM
"Debating Denesh is a sucker's bet."
Apparently, Hitchens, Shermer, Singer, Dennett, etc. disagree with you.
Hitchens has called Dinesh the most formidable debater, on any topic, that he's ever faced. Indeed, it was a debate with Dinesh that changed Hitchens' views about socialism.
Shermer has called Dinesh a first rate scholar.
Singer has debated Dinesh multiple times.
Your post is another example of the nonsense that passes for reason on too many blog posts. You plagiarize a wiki article (note that your second and third paragraphs are presented as if they're your own), make an unsubstantiated comparison between D'souza and Gish, and completely ignore the facts (i.e. how other respected scholars regard Dinesh, examples of which I've adduced above).
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 6:45 PM
The Atheist Who Desecrated the Eucharist
Posted Sep 10th 2008 12:00PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Proclaiming "nothing is sacred," atheist P.Z. Myers took the Christian eucharist, pierced it with a rusty nail, and threw it into the garbage. Then he posed his action on the world wide web.
Lie by omission. Also included were a few pages of an english translation of The Koran and The God Delusion.
Who is Myers? He's a biology professor at the University of Minnesota and a close ally of Richard Dawkins. In fact, Dawkins has praised Myers, conducted public conversations with him, and I count several links to Myers' articles on richarddawkins.net. Dawkins also urged his fans to write in support of Myers.
Myers rose to semi-fame, or perhaps I should say notoriety, when he praised University of Central Florida student Webster Cook who stole the eucharist from a church and held it hostage. Apparently figuring that such antics were more likely to gain attention than his own relatively undistinguished scholarship, Myers decided to get into the act himself.
PZ Myers already made enough of a name for himself that the makers of Expelled had him as one of their rouge's gallery. Also, PZ came to Webster Cook's defense when The Catholic League was calling for Cook to be punished. Yet more lies by omission.
On his blog Pharyngula, Myers wrote "It's a Frackin' Cracker" and said that if someone would send him a eucharist he would "show you sacrelige, gladly and with much fanfare." Myers' desecration was widely viewed on the web and raised much comment, much of it infuriated--but we can assume that this was Myers' intention.
Once more, there was an outcry before PZ entered the fray.
Asked whether he cared about injuring the feelings of Christians, Myers professed surprise. "I've got so many people writing me and saying that I have seriously hurt them. But what have I done? I have thrown away a cracker."
PZ did not profess surprise. He merely point out the obvious, who was harmed?
This would be like someone burning a cross and then saying, "I cannot understand why all those black people are upset? All I did was set fire to a piece of wood." If a child did it, you can possibly say he was innocent. But when a professor acts this way, isn't malevolence the obvious explanation?
Now he is comparing PZ's actions with a violent racist act. Bad analogy. I person is usually not able to pick what race they pass as. A person gets to choose what religion they follow or even if the choose no religion. Also, at no time did PZ nor Webster Cook threaten to harm anyone.
The National Catholic Register caught up with Myers recently and asked him the source of his hostility toward religion. "Religion has been selling everybody a bill of goods for so many years. It's about time somebody spoke up and said it's a load of nonsense."
Asked whether Christianity deserves credit for founding the first Western hospitals, universities and even scientific breakthroughs, Myers said, "No. People made those contributions to Western civilization."
But werent' those people Christians acting on their religious convictions? "That's like saying that because for so many years people got smallpox, smallpox is to be credited for all the virtue men have done."
Here we see Myers' thought in all its glorious idiocy. No, Myers, the two are not even comparable. Smallpox has nothing to do with the building of Gothic spires and astronomical observatories and setting up institutions like Harvard and the Red Cross. Christianity was a powerful motivating force in why people did those things. You can find all this out by opening up a history book.
If Dinesh picked up more then one history book, he could see that plenty of non-christians started up similar charitable organizations, made great scientific discoveries and built great buildings that did not have Gothic spires.
People are motivated by many things. It is too simplistic to place the credit with christianity.
The problem with people like Myers and Dawkins is not that they are complete morons. It is that they are biologists who know something about one thing but pretend that they know a lot about other things. Consequently they come across sounding like morons. Have pity on them.
People like Myers and Dawkins have been dealing with complete morons who insist that they know better then them about biology. And the funny thing, those same morans tend to claim superior knowledge then any scholar because of their connection to there god. Myers and Dawkins have every right to criticize these godbots.
Eric, this is an example of Dinesh D'Souza's though? It is not at all impressive. I blew apart every point that Dinesh make. And I am sure there are at least two dozen regulars here who can do a better job of smashing Dinesh's word.
Dinesh is not worth debating. Dinesh is not worth spending much time pondering. Eric, your challenge is worthless.
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Your post is another example of the nonsense that passes for reason on too many blog posts. You plagiarize a wiki article (note that your second and third paragraphs are presented as if they're your own), make an unsubstantiated comparison between D'souza and Gish, and completely ignore the facts (i.e. how other respected scholars regard Dinesh, examples of which I've adduced above).
That was included to show what a Gish Gallop is. I caught onto Dinesh's style before I heard of the term. He tosses out so much verbal flack that a person ncannot answer all of the BS. As for passing off the wiki as my thought, that was my mistake. I should have blockquoted those three paragraphs.
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 6:59 PM
Eric,
Sources (in context) for the rave reviews from Hitchens et al?
I'll allow that D'Souza is definitely more articulate and erudite than, say, Ray Comfort. He can make a point that will resonate with like-minded people, and he does possess some debating skills, although if the content of his debate positions is anything like his blog and books, it must feature a preponderance of strawman arguments. Point being, his ability to turn a phrase doesn't make his arguments any more persuasive. Or right.
And 'plagiarism' is a bit of a knee-jerk response to Janine's #305, considering that she linked to the source, and knowing how finicky the blockquote feature can be with text broken into multiple paragraphs. Lighten up, dude.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 7:06 PM
Well said Danio. Eric is starting to sound like a banjo with one string.
Posted by: Nancy | September 11, 2008 7:08 PM
"Pretty dumb frankly. No one asks commenters to agree with PZ. Just to be rational and support your opinion. You ran and hid using the most disgusting of aprons to hide behind."
Chimp. Run? Not me. I really did have steaks on the grill.
You see, I can't sit around here non-stop every day and exchange gibes. What is there to support? My opinion is that PZ acted in an immature fashion when he desecrated a host....period....it's MY OPINION.
Now, my opinion of you is that you are an angry, hostile individual whom, I suspect, gains pleasure from stirring the pot on this blog.
I am an atheist "in the trenches". I don't pretend to be anything other than what I am. I'm not Ivy League educated and there's not a chance that I'll ever be asked to speak in public about evolution, darwinism or science in general.
Raised and educated in Catholic schools, I am now an atheist. I am raising my kids to ask questions and can proudly say that, so far, four of them (out of six) call themselves agnostics. But, they're still young......they'll get there. I advise them to listen to all opinions and, when they choose to speak, do so in a respectful manner.
I did not insult you at any point. Same goes for Danio. I just don't get your brand of commentary.
And, now......once again........life calls. It's a nice evening.......sun is setting. I'm heading out to take a swim........maybe have a cigar (husband is waiting). The dishes can wait.
This will be my last comment. I'm pretty tired.
Namaste - Nancy
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Rev, I apologize. I understood you to be referring to everything that D'souza has said about religion in general. I should've been clearer: I would like to see a debate about, say, the existence of god, or about the effects of religion on society -- two topics PZ addresses quite frequently -- take place between Dinesh and Myers.
With respect to the current debate, I have not yet seen a well thought out response to Dinesh's criticism of PZ's "It's only a cracker" remark. Dinesh correctly pointed out that the same sort of remark could be made by racists burning crosses. Here's how Dinesh's point was addressed.
Matt (#3) responded with 'Racism is real; god is not." But this is obvious nonsense, since it supposes that if god isn't real, those who believe in him can't be subjected to bigotry. Tell that to the jews.
Emmett (#16) says that the two are not comparable because one is an act of intimidation, while the other is not. This too is nonsense: Dinesh is rsponding to the notion that Christians shouldn't be upset because of the physical characteristics of the eucharist (it's a cracker) by pointing out the obvious fact that what matters is not the physical nature of the signifier, but what it signifies. A flag is just a piece of colored cloth, but we know that many people will be quite upset if you deliberately burn one in front of them.
Hap (#25) makes the same mistake as Emmett: they both pick an irrelevant disanalogy, comment on it, and pretend to have answered Dinesh. Again, whether PZ's act was meant as an act of intimidation (I don't think it was; rather, it was meant to ridicule) is irrelevant: the point is that you can't deny what is signified by x by pointing out its physical characteristics.
Warren (#53) said that the relevant difference is that blacks are black by choice, while religious people choose to be religious. Need I even comment on the stupidity of this remark? He assumes that bigotry cannot exist in areas where choice is involved. Obviously, this is absurd.
There. That's it. I've just read through each post, and every one that attempted a response to Dinesh presented a variation of the horrible responses I've addressed above (I'll note that *very* few addressed D'souza's point), simply insulted D'souza (the vast majority fall into this pathetic category), or addressed another topic altogether.
Do you honestly consider this to be evidence that, with respect to this topic, "everything D'Souza said has been said innumerable times and answered"?
Hardly.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Namaste, odd choice of words for an atheist.
Posted by: CJO | September 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Mhm. That and a coupla bucks'll get you a Starbucks. You see, you've done nothing, zero, nada, zilch to support that opinion, oh, other than enable your caps-lock key. We're not impressed. Nor do we give a flying fuck what you and hubby had for dinner, or any of the other irrelevant bullshit you season your alarmingly vacuous drivel with. I hope you are gone, as you are a twit.
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 7:24 PM
Eric, please locate the search engine at the top left of this page and enter the term 'cracker'. This will take you to the 10+ previous blog entries on this topic. The comments on many of these entries exceeds 1000. After you have read through them all, feel free to come back and tell us what aspect of D'Souza's recent article hasn't been covered.
Posted by: Michael X | September 11, 2008 7:38 PM
it's MY OPINION
When I see people run out to say that they have a right to their opinion I instantly know that while I may be interested in the truth, they are not.
You do indeed have the right to voice your opinion Nancy. We also have the right to savage it as narrow and weak. If you wish to defend your point, do so. If you don't, don't. But no complaining about the packaging the opinions of others may come in.
I suppose you can't do much about being called an idiot by some people right? After all, it is simply their opinion. And if what you seem to believe is true, then they have no responsibility to back up their opinions.
Posted by: Janine ID | September 11, 2008 7:38 PM
Erik: Dinesh correctly pointed out that the same sort of remark could be made by racists burning crosses. Here's how Dinesh's point was addressed.
No wonder Erik is impressed by Dinesh's debating style.
Race is something you are born with. One is free to pick one's religion or lack of one.
Attacking a person because of their race is monstrous. Criticizing a person's choice of believe is fair game.
Cross burning is the threat of violence that, in years past was backed up with violence and murder. Nailing a nail through a cracker, as well as the Koran and The God Delusion, is not a threat to anyone. And is not meant to be a threat of physical violence.
In other words, this is a bad analogy that falls apart if you stop to think about it.
Also, it is insulting and demeaning to claim that having your feelings hurt is comparable to the sufferings of people the were attacked by racists like the KKK. Do you serious think that there bis an atheist organization that is rounding up all the good catholics?
Please get in touch with reality.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 7:39 PM
This is the one that holds water however. As someone's race is not a choice. Being critical of someone's race is not attacking something that can be defended beyond a call for tolerance (or pointing out obvious stupidity in the racial claims).
Beliefs are different. You choose to be a Catholic (not you but whomever). You make that choice based on a number of things. Culture, parents, education, study, etc.. You should be able to defend those things. Being critical of a belief is not being a bigot. Trying to demonstrate the absurdity of said beliefs is not being a bigot. Catholics saying it is diminishes what real bigots do.
Beliefs, no matter how sacred are not above criticism. Religion does not get a pass just because of the emotional ties people have to it. PZ's reaction was to the actions of the Catholics involved. A point that is either ignored, quickly brushed over or distorted by every critic I have heard or read so far, D'Souza included. PZ's point was in part that the response of the Catholics involved was not in measure to the actions of Cook and in part that a physical item does not share the worth of a human being's well being (as well as some others). This was brought on by death threats, physical assaults and harassment of cook.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 7:40 PM
damn it
blockquote fail again. Should end after "hardly"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 11, 2008 7:43 PM
Angry - depends on the situation
Hostile - only when provoked
Gains pleasure from stirring the pot - with out a doubt
I would have only had a passing issue with your comments if you hadn't exploited the date and it's anniversary for your own means.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2008 7:52 PM
Pointing out that a cracker is just a cracker, and a book is just a book is entirely different in intent and symbolism that burning a cross.
When someone burns a cross on the lawn of a non-white person are they saying...
that their skin color is unimportant, that something doesn't exist, that they disagree with something?
No.
PZ's intent was quite clearly described. Burning a cross is a crime of intimidation and of hate. Destroying a cracker is pointing out the obvious, nothing is sacred, especially hokey superstitions.
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Here's a source for the Shermer quote (note the blurbs on the side of the page) http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
Here's the Hitchens remark (go to 3:50 into the segment)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueSJHRU7B9o&feature=related
Janine ID, try following your poorly thought out premises to their logical conclusions. Again, your premises lead to the conclusion that characteristics determined by choice cannot be subjected to bigotry. Suppose I choose tomorrow to convert to Judaism. Does this mean that I cannot be subject to anti-semitism? After all, I did choose to become a Jew. The answer is obvious. Please, try thinking through the implications of your premises before you attempt to tell another to get in touch with reality.
Rev, I would never suggest that religious beliefs should be above criticism (c'mon, I called for a debate between Myers and D'souza), and I would not identify criticism with bigotry, but I would also not claim that since such beliefs are chosen, that those who choose them therefore cannot be subjected to bigotry. Obviously, they can.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2008 8:02 PM
Destroying a cracker is not bigotry.
Posted by: Kel | September 11, 2008 8:03 PM
Ahh, but Steve C, you forget the Christian Persecution Complex or CPC for short. God is their uniting race, so any attack on God is an attack on them. ;)
Why aren't Catholics who are outraged rushing to the defence of those poor and innocent cows that are being slaughtered against the sacred beliefs of the Hindus? Oh that's right. They couldn't care less about any other religion's sacred rights. All they care about is having their own held as sacred. It's not tolerance, it's submission. The members of the church are trying to flex a muscle that atrophied long ago. We live in a pluralistic society, having one religion's beliefs having to be adhered to by the rest of the population is completely unsustainable, not to mention entirely impractical.
Muslims shouldn't censor non-muslims over what non-muslims do, likewise Catholics shouldn't censor non-Catholics over what non-Catholics do. To push censorship of what one holds as sacred is an act of conformity. If Catholics want to believe a cracker turns into Jebus, that's their choice. But to kick up a fuss because someone says otherwise destroys the pluralistic nature of a liberal democracy.
Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 8:04 PM
Alas, my editing privileges as a PZMinion have spoiled me. What I wouldn't give for a comment editing feature on this site.
Agreement: the third line in #318 should read "...comments.....exceed 1000."
Nancy, if you're still reading, it seems that the net result of our exchange is that you read the insults and overlooked the bulk of the content, including several questions addressed directly to you. I would encourage you to go back and reread the comments I addressed to you, if you can. Please note that at no time did I, or anyone else, suggest that you should abandon your OPINION. We merely asked you to support it. Yes, that is what we do, and if you 'hang out' here as much as you imply, you should know that. Many of us are scientists, and science is a field in which no OPINIONS are considered valid without justification. This tenet transfers to all other areas of life quite nicely, and cuts down remarkably on the amount of bullshit one has to sift through on a daily basis.
I can't speak for everyone, but I would find your OPINION far more interesting if I had the opportunity to understand the basis of it. Accusations of petulant or immature behavior are not valid, especially as they suggest that you are not taking the entire cracker saga into account, but merely reacting viscerally to PZ's 'desecration' as an isolated, random act of Catholic-baiting. Your comments in response to the RBDC, however, (which, for the record, stand alone as the one instance in which you actually responded directly to a challenge/request for clarification on this thread) indicate that you don't feel it's necessary to provide any support for your OPINION. Pity. It could have been a much more stimulating and amicable conversation if you had turned your repeated desire to analyze my perceived animosity into a motivation to clarify your own position.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | September 11, 2008 8:15 PM
@ 283 and 284 SC and Frog
The interesting bits come out in the primary sources. Foreign Relations of the United States publishes declassified high level Government documents about 30 years after their creation. The documents regarding the ouster of Mossadeq and the installation of the Shah of Iran have many interesting revelations. The University of Wisconsin has made the full text available via the web. If you are ambitious enough to slog through D'Souza's interview or even one of his books, examining the primary sources he is either ignoring or hasn't read may be fun. (Or then again, maybe not).
Foreign Relations of the U.S. through the University of Wisconsin
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 8:16 PM
"Destroying a cracker is not bigotry."
Neither is burning a couple of pieces of wood shaped like a 't'.
However, cross burning (which is to be distinguished *in terms of what it signifies* from burning two pieces of wood shaped like a 't') is at least evidence of bigotry.
Destroying a cracker isn't bigotry.
However, Eucharist desecration (which is to be distinguished *in terms of what it signifies* from destroying a cracker) is at least evidence of bigotry.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2008 8:22 PM
And they are wrong to do so. The symbol is not the thing; the flag is not the people.
As I wrote elsewhere:
Even if the symbol were the thing, the cracker does not stand for Catholics. That even follows from your own theology: The cracker stands for, or is, God.
God, as defined by Catholics, does not exist.
However, even if the Catholic God did exist, then even by your own theology, that God is eternal and omnipotent and omniscient.
So in other words, even by your own theology, God is big enough and powerful enough to take care of his own
goddamfrackin' self.Posted by: Danio | September 11, 2008 8:29 PM
I would argue that the circumstances under which the cross were acted upon make all the difference in the world as to how these acts should be interpreted. Intent matters, a lot.
Moreover, for those who don't believe in transubstantiation, 'Eucharist desecration' and 'destroying a cracker' are, in fact, quite indistinguishable acts. That's kind of the point. (again, I refer you the eleventy gajillion posts and comments that have already dealt with this. The search engine is your friend.)
Posted by: Kel | September 11, 2008 8:40 PM
If we want to be reductionist, all humans are just made up of sub-atomic particles. Yet killing a human is a horrendous crime. The issue here is not that symbolism is important, of course it's important. PZ Myers, just like all of us realise that Catholics find that cracker goddamn sacred. The issue is that sacredness was held above and beyond the liberty afforded in a liberal democracy to the point where a person had their life threatened.
Destroying the symbol is going to piss off people, it's going to get a severe reaction. But there is a HUGE difference between burning a flag or nailing a communion wafer to burning a cross on the lawn of a black person. Eric, you should be able to recognise that burning the cross isn't the problem, it's the threat of violence and racial superiority that comes with burning the cross. They are not comparable.
What PZ Myers did was insensitive to Catholics, but it's not bigotry any more than you eating a steak is bigotry to Hindus. This is a liberal democracy and thus the sacred for one religion is not and cannot be adhered to by those not of the religion. When that is broken (as in the case of Webster Cook), it's our duty as defenders of liberty to show that nothing is above the basic rights of others. Just like we should view the Muhammad cartoons, just like we should eat steak. Looking at this as bigotry is missing the point by a long long way!
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 8:51 PM
"Moreover, for those who don't believe in transubstantiation, 'Eucharist desecration' and 'destroying a cracker' are, in fact, quite indistinguishable acts. That's kind of the point."
No, that's not at all true. If it were, then why go through the trouble of entering a church, absconding with a Eucharist, sticking a nail through it, throwing it in the trash, and posting the whole thing on the web? You would not say that PZ's act is the "quite indistinguishable" from the very same act performed on a Ritz cracker. Why not? Because the act with a Ritz cracker *carries no significance*. If PZ were to have posted a video of himself performing the same act on a Saltine, everyone would rightly conclude that he'd gone nuts. Therefore, the two acts are *obviously* distinguishable. Let me quote your own words here: Intent matters, a lot.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 8:55 PM
Eric, can you prove PZ ever entered a Catholic church to take a host? You need to go and read the whole threads. In this case, just the one with desecration.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2008 9:02 PM
Yet Webster Cook's intent was to show the cracker to a friend, then consume it as usual.
One of his fellow parishioners went apeshit crazy at even that minor variation.
Where is the respect for Webster Cook's intent?
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 9:21 PM
Nerd, I'm aware of the fact that PZ never entered the church, *but that's not the point*: someone did! In other words, PZ didn't use a Saltine or a Ritz, he requested and used a consecrated host. This is why it's not, as Danio said, 'indistinguishable' -- even for those who don't believe in transubstantiation -- from destroying an cracker.
Posted by: eric | September 11, 2008 9:22 PM
Nerd, I'm aware of the fact that PZ never entered the church, *but that's not the point*: someone did! In other words, PZ didn't use a Saltine or a Ritz, he requested and used a consecrated host. This is why it's not, as Danio said, 'indistinguishable' -- even for those who don't believe in transubstantiation -- from destroying a cracker.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 11, 2008 9:28 PM
Eric, go and read the desecration post. You are arguing from ignorance.
Posted by: shonny | September 11, 2008 10:33 PM
That Hubbard critter also wrote a lot of books, and sold them in the plentifold. That didn't improve the content.
Shit by any other name is still shit.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 11, 2008 11:11 PM
The point is that the "eucharist" is just a cracker despite what a priest has done to it.
It's not anything but some cheaply made bland tasting bread. How can you be so deaf to what PZ said about it. It's like saying Obama called Palin a pig... when you can watch the video and clearly see that Obama did not such thing.
Just because the Catholics are offended by "The Great Desecration" doesn't mean PZ is a bigot. I'm not a bigot. I was raised Catholic. Unless you believe that the host has been "transmorgified", you have no reason to be offended.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 11:25 PM
Eric, Your lover is waiting for you over on the Open Thread.
Posted by: Patricia | September 11, 2008 11:38 PM
Dammit Steve C. - You haul out your transmorgified, just like that!
Now all the sluts are gettin' squidgey. Come on man, put it away unless you have some for all of us.
Teachers pet!
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | September 11, 2008 11:43 PM
Proclaiming "nothing is sacred," atheist P.Z. Myers took the Christian eucharist, pierced it with a rusty nail, and threw it into the garbage. Then he posed his action on the world wide web.
Shouldn't it, technically speaking, be the "Catholic eucharist" (ie: all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic)? And perhaps his spellcheck was broken but I think PZ "Posted" his action on the web. I know this is usually considered nitpicking, but I was under the impression this D' Souza guy was supposed to be some kind of genius.
Posted by: Kendo | September 12, 2008 12:14 AM
If I'm reading too much into this PZ, please excuse my tendency to do such. I interpreted crackergate as a perfect satire of "taking on the sin" of another, so to speak. These hypocrites don't seem to get the idea that they claim to worship whom they do, because that guy was thought to have taken upon himself the wrath of religious zealots. It's just too wickedly funny that none of them seems to get that. Again, perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | September 12, 2008 11:50 AM
The problem is Eric is a fucking retarded eejit.
I say ignore it...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 12, 2008 12:05 PM
It's funny eric because beside the "fatway envy" "you wouldn't do that to a koran you pussy" comments from Catholics, one of the most common ones was questioning whether it really was a
trans-fattransubstantiated wafer. They were concerned. So the act of getting a real one was important to demonstrate PZ's point. So you're right it does make a difference in this instance because PZ was making a point.But besides that it does not. There is no difference on a one to one.
Posted by: LotharLoo | September 12, 2008 12:08 PM
SC: He really says this. Not the CIA's coup to oust the democratically-elected Mossadeq or installing and maintaining a brutal dictator in power for two decades. The problem was not providing enough support to the dictator to keep him in power in the face of popular revolt.
Holyshit. What a scumbag. How gutless one should be to support the neo-con policy of wrecking havoc, murder and mayhem around the globe?
In some other place, the same lowlife said the christian invaders did a very fine job of forcefully converting his ancestors forcefully to christianity, because Christianity is so true and right. By the same logic, I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps on the Ann Coulter wagon idea of "let's invade their countries and convert them to Christianity". What an arrogant self-righteous ass.
Posted by: eric | September 12, 2008 12:23 PM
Jay Hovah: "The problem is Eric is a fucking retarded eejit.
I say ignore it..."
Note the difference between my posts and Jay's: I actually present arguments, while Jay does simply throws out insults.
Jay, 'the problem' is that you're imtimidated by those who actually present arguments. If you prefer to ignore those who defend their positions, and call them idiots instead of presenting a rational critique of your own, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you're somehow smarter because of it, since we all know that the opposite is true.
By the way, don't you know that people in polite society don't use the word 'retarded' anymore?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 12, 2008 12:31 PM
Eric, if you act and post like you know and comprehend nothing, you will be called names demeaning your intelligence. Maybe if you showed some, you would get respect. Have you read the 30,000 posts from the crackergate affair yet so you can post intelligently?
Posted by: Anri | September 12, 2008 1:34 PM
eric:
Being critical of a belief is not the same as hating a person. Ideas are not people, and they cannot be hurt, upset, or intimidated.
With regards to the cross burning issue, anyone is free to burn a cross they own on property they own. Really.
Please, for the sake of everyone here, understand these two points at least, to begin with.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 12, 2008 4:25 PM
Come get some of this transmorgification.
Posted by: Andy | September 12, 2008 4:30 PM
PZ, I posted this over there in the hopes that I could "Save" some of them... Sorry, had to.
Your comment:
The article and these comments completely miss the point of what
Myers did. Myers didn't decide one day to desecrate a sacred
cracker. I really suggest all of you religious folk go to his site
and see the reason for it.
I assure you there was one. Here, I'll help you find it quickly:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
PZ was pointing out the incredibly ridiculous reaction of church
officials, University officials, and well, Christians in their
overreaction to a boy who took one from a church, reportedly to show
a friend. This wasn't some exercise on his part to just stomp on
some religious symbolism (or actual body part of Christ...however you
see it....) it was to show how people would, through their beliefs,
try to do everything in their power to DESTROY this kid because of
what was, basically, a cracker.
Now I know this article was written so that you could add another
bullet to your "Liberals and Atheists are ruining America!" clip, but
the truth, which ironically Christians claim to be the keepers of, is
that PZ Meyers was pointing out that these Christians considered a
cracker more important than a human being. It's really really that
simple, and it's really that sad.
Please, do yourself a favor and use that brain that you claim was
made just for you by God, and see what actually happened before you
comment on how evil PZ is. You might just find that your anger might
be better aimed at the guy who just lied to you.
Posted by: eric | September 12, 2008 5:35 PM
Nerd: "Eric, if you act and post like you know and comprehend nothing, you will be called names demeaning your intelligence."
You've got to be kidding me. Again, I've presented arguments, and I've refuted arguments. As for those who 'post like [they] know and comprehend nothing,' here's an example of what I've been dealing with:
"Being critical of a belief is not the same as hating a person. Ideas are not people, and they cannot be hurt, upset, or intimidated.
With regards to the cross burning issue, anyone is free to burn a cross they own on property they own. Really.
Please, for the sake of everyone here, understand these two points at least, to begin with."
Let's look at this, Nerd.
First, while being critical of a belief is not a necessary condition of bigotry, it *can* be a sufficient condition. Here's a simple example: If I convert to Judaism tomorrow, I will have satisfied the only condition required for some to subject me to certain forms of antisemitism. Now, I'm not saying that religious beliefs cannot be criticized -- of course they can, and they should be. But let's not pretend that bigotry cannot hide behind the banner of 'criticism.' Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that it frequently does. Also, don't pretend that my problem is with 'being critical of ideas': I called for a debate between Myers and D'souza, for cryin' out loud.
Second, while ideas are not people, people hold ideas (yes, it's true -- this is the only way ideas can exist, unless your a Platonist or a theist), and the people holding those ideas are capable of both harming others with those ideas and of being harmed by those ideas. A simple example of both is easily found in much of contemporary American racism. Most racism in the U.S. today is nonviolent, and many of today's racists have no power whatsoever. Yet, would you therefore conclude that such racism isn't an instance of bigotry, since it's 'just criticism of an idea' (the idea that we're all equal)? It's just an idea itself as well, isn't it (viz. the idea that we're not equal)? And let's not forget that the reason that even non-violent, powerless racism offends us is because it clashes with other ideas, e.g. the idea of human equality. So please, let's not pretend that 'we're just talking about ideas,' and not in any way about people.
Third, of course people are free to burn crosses on their property. PZ is free to do what he did as well. I never suggested that such acts should be illegal, or otherwise prevented. However, if a man burns a cross on his front lawn, I'm going to call him a racist. If a man paints a swastika on his garage door, I'm going to call him an antisemite. See, your problem is that you want to prevent others from criticizing Myers, so in fact you've got it exactly backwards: I'm not trying to preclude debate and criticism; you are.
See, Nerd? I have been similarly demolishing every argument presented so far, and all you and the others can come up with is, "Go and read the thousands of other posts on the topic." I'm sorry, but if the quality of the arguments there is in any way similar to the quality here, I'm not very interested. If you think you have an argument I can't answer, go ahead and present it. But first you'll have to keep in mind just what my point is: I was only criticizing Myers' stupid remark about the Eucharist being 'just a cracker,' and about the criticism of Dinesh's point that this is similar to saying that a cross burning is 'just setting two pieces of wood on fire.' Again, my only point was that you've confused the signifier with what it signifies. My second point, which has come out in the conversations I've had here on this issue, is that Myers' action can indeed be characterized as evidence of bigotry, and that you can no more hide behind the 'it's just criticism of an idea' notion than a racist can hide behind 'I'm just criticizing the idea that all people are equal.' All criticism can't be identified with bigotry, but it doesn't follow that no instance of criticism can be evidence of bigotry. C'mon, there are extremely simple, uncontroversial points.
Posted by: eric | September 12, 2008 5:44 PM
*C'mon, these are extremely simple, uncontroversial points.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 12, 2008 5:54 PM
Nonsense and bafflegab.
You might have a point if the cracker symbolized Catholics; if nailing a cracker had ever been used as a threat against Catholics; if PZ's clear and express intent had been against Catholics in general rather than being against a specific example of Catholic bigotry and insanity.
But it doesn't, it hasn't, and it wasn't.
Your argument fails utterly.
Now go find something else to be silly about.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 12, 2008 5:57 PM
Another fine piece of catolick tripe.
Nothing is sacred. Deal with it elsewhere.
Posted by: CJO | September 12, 2008 6:01 PM
You haven't "demolished" anything but the idea that you have something productive to contribute.
As your posts get longer, your arguments get more and more divorced from the reality of what took place. The reason people are saying you should familiarize yourself with the incident is that the accusations of bigotry and analogies to racist intimidation tactics have been addressed, specifically, by PZ and others.
Case in point. In your zeal to make some, any, kind of argument, since you've convinced yourself that cracker abuse must, MUST be an example of Something Bad, you've utterly removed the very sense of what is meant by "racism" from your characterization of it. It has nothing to do with ideas; it is a belief about persons. It's not even legitimate to say that rejection of the idea that we're all equal is a concommitant of racist attitudes, because it's easy to imagine a hypothetical racist saying, "All men were created equal, sure, I just don't like the ones with brown skins." It's like you're saying that punching someone in the nose is just a criticism of the idea that it's wrong to go about punching people in the nose. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
Posted by: Danio | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM
I wouldn't have thought it possible that one could be simultaneously so overwrought and soporific, but you nailed it, man.
BIGOTRY: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice.
Driving a nail through a wafer and throwing it in your wastebasket ≠ bigotry. Not even close. Get a grip, Eric.
Posted by: John Knight | September 12, 2008 6:27 PM
Rob is Jewish by birth, but he has recently converted to Christianity. He hasn't told his family yet.
Now, suppose his family invites him to Passover dinner, and suppose that he accepts. He puts on his nice clothes, goes to the house, and is served Passover dinner. When the lamb is served, he takes his plate, stands up saying, "Follow me," walks outside, and dumps the meal in the middle of the street. He then loudly "explains" why the Passover meal is an outdated, unnecessary symbol.
Is Rob a jerk or not?
Let me suggest a moral proposition: If someone offers you a gift for a specific purpose, and you take it intending to use it for a completely contrary purpose, you have engaged in deception and theft by fraud. If you enter someone's home or meeting-place to steal by fraud in this way, then you have severely offended his hospitality.
Such behavior is only acceptable if there is an overriding moral purpose that justifies these offenses. So what is the overriding moral purpose behind a conspiracy to fraudulently acquire & publicly desecrate a communion wafer? The only "purpose" here is to offend Christians (especially Catholics), to gain notoriety through being offensive, and to gain the approval of other people with similar attitudes.
IOW, it's a little like the KKK burning a cross downtown, except that it is meant to offend Catholics rather than blacks.
P.S.: I am not Catholic & do not believe in transubstantiation. However, good manners are still good manners, and bad manners are rampant.
Posted by: CJO | September 12, 2008 6:36 PM
The only "purpose" here is to offend Christians (especially Catholics), to gain notoriety through being offensive, and to gain the approval of other people with similar attitudes.
Good Gawd, where are these morons coming from, and when will the supply of them be exhausted? PZ stated his purpose, and it was none of these. Are you accusing him of lying about his motives, or are you just another clueless blowhard? Have you read any of the original sequence of posts on the matter? Are you aware that you are not bringing forward anything that we haven't heard a thousand times by now? Do you just enjoy appearing clueless and bloviating about things you have made no effort to understand?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | September 12, 2008 6:37 PM
John, Yawn. Same arguments used during the 30,000 (or more, I forget the final tally) posts during Crackergate. Failed then, fail now. Nothing is sacred. Deal with it.
Posted by: frog | September 12, 2008 6:41 PM
John Knight: The only "purpose" here is to offend Christians (especially Catholics), to gain notoriety through being offensive, and to gain the approval of other people with similar attitudes.
...
IOW, it's a little like the KKK burning a cross downtown, except that it is meant to offend Catholics rather than blacks.
Says who? The purpose has been explained over and over, ad nausem - to support the kid who was assaulted in the first place, to illustrate that the "good Christians" are just as likely to send death threats when they are offended as the "evuuul muslims", to assert everyone's first amendment rights to offend the sacred.
If you don't get that, you either haven't followed the story closely enough to have a right to have a respectable opinion, or you're just another liar.
But the worst is yet to come. Do you somehow imagine that burning a cross is meant to "offend" blacks? Have you no historical consciousness, or are you such a racist that you are trying to whitewash history? Burning a cross is a clear threat - as clear as shouting "I'm gonna lynch you nigger". Just like vandalizing a synagogue with a swaztika is a clear statement that "kike, you're next in the gas chamber". It is not, at all, like your original example, where someone is simply offensive and should be thrown out of the house.
Your analogy is deeply offensive to anyone who's family has been terrorized by the KKK and their ilk.
If Donahue's response was "PZ's a dick, and I will never invite him to my home"... that would have been a reasonable response and no one would fault him; it would also have undercut PZ's message, by affirming that his cult did not feel that they have the right to legally censure someone for simply transgressing their private rules.
He chose to affirm his wish for a theocratic state - as do you by reducing this to a question of rudeness.
Posted by: Wowbagger | September 12, 2008 6:46 PM
John Knight, #360
Your arguments and analogies have been heard and refuted - dozens of times - in the many, many threads on this topic. I'm sorry you're late to the party, but that's the way it is.
If you want to play catch-up use the search this blog function on the top left hand side of the page; type in cracker and you'll have a choice of threads to read through. Apart from seeing people try - and fail - every possible analogy (keep an eye out for Pete Rooke; he's a charmer) to 'explain' it, you'll read that there are plenty of christians (and catholics) who don't think what PZ did was all that bad - and you'll also read that there a surprising number of christians who are, for want of a better term, batshit insane.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 12, 2008 6:51 PM
If Christians (especially Catholics) have used a prior such incident to attack someone (physically and socially), then doing it again deliberately, emphasizing while doing so that taking offense is insane, and based on insanity, shows solidarity with the prior victim(s) of such offense.
To put it bluntly, offended Catholics have in the past committed murder because they were offended. Even now, they threaten murder.
You say you are not a Catholic. Do you support Catholic bad manners? If you oppose them, then your analogy of the KKK and cross burning makes no sense.
It is the Catholics who have proffered death threats and social punishment for religious violation, just like the KKK. It is Bill Donohue who is acting like a white-sheeted bigot angry over an uppity black who has dared to sit in the front of the bus.
PZ has not called for any threat or punishment against Catholics. He has demanded that Catholics should not have the right to inflict punishment for religious violation.
So... which side are you on, again?
Posted by: Anri | September 12, 2008 7:02 PM
Hi, eric.
Actually, I prefer to think of myself as a geek, not a nerd, but whatever floats your boat.
Of course racism is not just a matter of being critical of the idea that all people are born equal. It means disliking all members of a given group of people, based simply on the fact that they are members of that group. Have you seen any evidence that the posters here hate Catholics (including the few that actually are Catholics)? Or merely that we revile and disdain the concept that a small piece of bread is valued beyond the worth of a human life?
I can honestly say that I wouldn't hate anyone based solely on who holding such an absurd belief. But I can equally well say that I hate, with a deep passion, the belief, and will go out of my way to make it seem asinine. Because that's one way to change the minds of otherwise good and moral people, people who you should in no wise hate, about something that stupid, ridiculous, and morally vacuous.
It's not the only way. It might not be your way, or a way you like seeing. But it is one way. And, according to a number of personal stories told by a number of different posts (on the threads you refuse to read), it does, sometimes, work.
Posted by: John Knight | September 12, 2008 7:52 PM
Ooooooh. Nice rationalizations.
(NB: A rationalization is not a refutation. Sorry.)
You guys hate God & hate people who try to honor God. And you are willing to twist logic to justify your hostility. Surprise, surprise.
Posted by: Kel | September 12, 2008 8:01 PM
To look at the morality of it is to miss the point. Of course it was insensitive by PZ Myers, there's no question of that. But to look at it that way is to miss the meaning of the action. It wasn't to piss off Catholics, it was to show that the symbol has been put above life. Webster Cook was physically assaulted (by a priest no less), and had his life threatened by Catholics for simply wanting to show the cracker to a friend. That's putting a symbol as a higher value than human life...
Dr Zoidberg: "Yes, I'm burning the flag. To preserve the freedom it represents."
Quite simply John, do you find it immoral to eat beef for religious sensibilities? If not, why not? The Hindus consider the cow a sacred animal, and the cow is much more alive than a fracken' cracker.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 12, 2008 8:09 PM
Yes and I hate Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and Cthulhu (though I know he'd like it). It's really tough to hate something that doesn't exist.
There really needs to be a Religious commenter check list.
And I don't hate Christians. I love many christians, but I don't base my feelings on a person on whether they are a Christian, Jew, Atheist or whatever. I base it on the person.
Posted by: Kel | September 12, 2008 8:15 PM
I went to a public talk by a former Catholic priest last night, I've got to say he was a very impressive man. Why would I hate him because of his different worldview? Likewise why would I hate those in my extended family who believe in God? Or the people at work, or my friends, or just random strangers down the street? There's no reason to hate God as God doesn't exist, and hating something that doesn't exist is stupid. And there's no reason to hate Xtians, because aside from a few nutters (there are nutters everywhere) most of them are kind and warm people; just like in every other religion, just like in the non-religious community.In short, the only time I really don't like an Xtian is when he's either spouting religious sensibilities at me, trying to promote mythology over science, or playing the persecution card.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 12, 2008 8:16 PM
Wow. Thanks for the information.
You misspelled 9iu11ani.
Burning a cross was used as a threat. (A threat that was not just made, but often acted out, all the way to killing people.) This is also very widely known. Therefore, if you burn a cross, I will assume you know full well this was used as a threat, and I'll therefore conclude that you want to make this very threat. Threatening people with murder is illegal for good reasons.
Piercing a consecrated host (together with pages from a Koran and The God Delusion no less) is not being used as a threat and has never been. It is intended to make us point and laugh at those who see this as a horrible act.
Do you understand it better now?
Emphasis added. Why don't you go and find out?
(You'll find that the quality varies very widely. We are, after all, talking about several thousand comments.)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 12, 2008 8:28 PM
Logic -- ur doin it rong.
All those nice comments 363 through 366 -- all wasted on you. What a shame.
Posted by: Wowbagger | September 12, 2008 8:45 PM
John Knight - did you actually read any of the approximately 30,000 comments pertaining to this topic on earlier threads? As opposed to the SIX comments posted after you appeared here?
I'm guessing you didn't. How intellectually dishonest of you - not that that's coming as too much of a surprise, considering you're a christian; it's been drilled into you as a way to express your 'faith'. Don't go eating that fruit from the tree of knowledge, now. You might start thinking for yourself.
Hate god? Only as much as you hate leprechauns. Do you hate leprechauns, John?
Posted by: JoJo | September 12, 2008 8:56 PM
Another fine product of the John Knight Red Herring & Strawman Construction Company.
I don't hate god, any of the almost infinite number of gods that mankind has invented. I hate the effects that some of these gods have had on people. I really don't see how honoring Huitzilopochtli required killing six youths and six maidens every month. I fail to see how anyone can be impressed by sacrificing children to Moloch. Don't get me started on the Thirty Years War, where several brands of Christianity tried to show their particular flavor of Jebus worship was better than all the others by killing about one-third of the population of central Europe.
In short, what's god done to deserve honoring?
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 12, 2008 10:29 PM
You think that it is correct to honor god by threatening and attacking people?
Religious people are indeed willing to twist logic to justify their hostility.
It's always a nasty surprise when a mirror is held up to religion's face, twisted in hatred.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | September 12, 2008 10:48 PM
"You guys hate God & hate people who try to honor God. And you are willing to twist logic to justify your hostility."
Not at all. We're just willing to point out the flaming obvious.
We concede you've got all the hatred covered, quite transparently, in how readily you impugn the offense in others you simply do not agree with.
Very unchristian of you. (Isn't there a commandment that advises against bearing false witness against thine fellow man?)
Remember: we're just willing to point out the flaming obvious. If it troubles thee, look first to the sty in thine own eye.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | September 12, 2008 11:58 PM
Is Dinesh D'Souza still m'Ann Coulter's Number One Safe Metrosexual Whipping Boy?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 13, 2008 12:36 AM
John Knight hates Santa, Buddha, Tor and the tooth faerie. What a bigot.
Probably hates unicorns and dragons too.
Posted by: eric | September 13, 2008 12:50 AM
"Nonsense and bafflegab.
You might have a point if the cracker symbolized Catholics; if nailing a cracker had ever been used as a threat against Catholics;"
No, what's nonsense is your supposition that the presence of a threat is an essential element of bigotry; it isn't.
"if PZ's clear and express intent had been against Catholics in general rather than being against a specific example of Catholic bigotry and insanity."
I agree completely with his outrage at the foolishness that followed Cook's initial taking of the consecrated host. My only point is that it's also foolish to react to wave of outrage directed at him (Myers) by saying it's just a cracker. And he clearly *did* direct his actions against all Catholics, inter alia: remember his remark? Nothing is sacred. (Of course, Myers doesn't believe this. If tomorrow his favorite liberal principle were questioned by a Republican, he'd be outraged, and treat that principle as if it were sacred. And he doesn't believe that we should question 'everything'; if he does, then perhaps he should look into self referential paradoxes and infinite regresses, both of which are entailed by his precept.)
"But it doesn't, it hasn't, and it wasn't.
Your argument fails utterly."
See above.
"Now go find something else to be silly about."
Actually, I've just met my daily 'silly quota' by wasting my time responding to your horrible arguments.
"It [racism] has nothing to do with ideas; it is a belief about persons."
And beliefs about people aren't ideas? (That's a rhetorical question). What you're missing is that instances of bigotry aren't exhausted by examples of racism (or of threats, etc.). Again, criticizing an idea isn't a necessary condition of bigotry, but it is, in some cases, sufficient. If I convert to Judaism tomorrow, I change my ideas (and, depending on the sect, some of my practices). However, this change of ideas on my part now makes me a potential target of some forms of antisemitism.
"It's not even legitimate to say that rejection of the idea that we're all equal is a concommitant of racist attitudes, because it's easy to imagine a hypothetical racist saying, "All men were created equal, sure, I just don't like the ones with brown skins."
You accused me of 'reaching' earlier, but you're the one who's reaching here. I never said that the belief that all people aren't 'created' equal is a necessary condition of racism, yet this is precisely what your response presupposes. However, it is certainly a motivating element of some racist ideologies.
"Driving a nail through a wafer and throwing it in your wastebasket ≠ bigotry. Not even close. Get a grip, Eric."
I didn't say it was bigotry. I said that it could be *evidence* of bigotry. The bloody knife on the floor isn't 'the murder,' but it certainly could be evidence of murder. That's an important distinction, you know.
"Hi, eric.
Actually, I prefer to think of myself as a geek, not a nerd, but whatever floats your boat."
Anri, I was using the content of your post to address someone called Nerd of Redhead; I wasn't calling you a nerd. Though, since I consider myself to be a nerd, an