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)
[Fundamentalists] never wonder why, if herpes is sent by 'god' to scourge "adulterers," whooping cough and measles weren't purposely created to lambaste children.
[Fred Woodworth]
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« 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