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)
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for amoment on a correct metaphysics…. Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary; it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, "To Hell with argument, I have faith." That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason. Objectivism advocates reason as man's sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and thats all.
[Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism", lecture series (1976), Lecture 2]
That revolting article about earwax and smegma
Why are flounder funny-looking?
Anencephaly and right-wing moralizers
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« God speaks up | Main | Cheap plaster saint »
Category: Kooks
Posted on: November 20, 2008 12:31 PM, by PZ Myers
Remember the Rev. Evan Cockshaw? He put a silly poll on the web, and then was quite miffed when we answered it. It turns out that he has lately been dunning Seed, demanding that my post and your comments be taken down! He has also added a redirect to his site so that links from here won't work.
Isn't that sooooo cute?
P.S. Seed has said "no", quite plainly. They do not meddle in blog content at all.
Comments
Posted by: Damien | November 20, 2008 12:34 PM
Sounds like it's time to do a little link-bouncing of our own.
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 12:35 PM
That's an amusing redirect. Especially considering that we can see the URL of his site when we put the mouse over the link. Just type it in and you can get there.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 12:39 PM
I think this picture demonstrates the Good Reverend through out this whole very minor internet non issue..
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 12:39 PM
Wow... for such a well-meaning, righteous, community-helping saint of a man (self described), this attempt at pure censorship and demand for reverence is downright deplorable.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Cockshaw.
You don't get it, and you never will. You don't like the negative response to your religious blather, then don't opt to publicize yourself and your beliefs on the internet, and CERTAINLY don't intentionally target atheists and the like by setting up metatags the way you did. What did you expect would happen you ignorant godbot?
Posted by: Michelle | November 20, 2008 12:40 PM
Oh yea... And then he posted in your comments. It was hilarious.
I love these people. If you disagree and laugh at them, they simply want you gone.
PS: We didn't write to your registrant to ask them to destroy your website, did we?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 12:40 PM
In case anyone missed it the last time I posted it, this "Atheist Eve" cartoon is highly appropriate.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 20, 2008 12:41 PM
I still haven't figured out what Rev. Cockshaw's problem is, other than he wasn't controlling everything. Maybe we need to chip in and buy him a gift to make up for his inconvenience; say a crybaby doll.
Posted by: Rowen | November 20, 2008 12:41 PM
Isn't this the exact thing that he was complaining about when we went to visit his website? Except we didn't try and get it shut down. I guess there goes that turning the other cheek thing.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 20, 2008 12:42 PM
Damn, getting traffic to his site, is he? The shock must be draining, what with some people actually thinking about what was on his site.
Retreat from thought, good Reverend, since it won't make god seem any more likely.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 12:42 PM
Or, even easier, right click on the link and "open in new window" works just as well.
Posted by: vespera | November 20, 2008 12:42 PM
As a recovering Anglican (Episcopalian, technically, but it's all the same), Cockshaw's hypocrisy just confirms me in my atheism (not that I needed more confirmation). Evangelism: you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 20, 2008 12:44 PM
@Emmet Caulfield, #6: Thank you; that sums it all up nicely, and I have to share that with some people.
Posted by: Shamar | November 20, 2008 12:45 PM
I still don't see the poll that you guys were talking about anywhere on the page. Do you have to post a story to see it or something??
Posted by: Amy | November 20, 2008 12:49 PM
I have the same problem Shamar, and did last time the page was linked here!
Posted by: Holbach | November 20, 2008 12:49 PM
Ah, the poor rev moron. Why doesn't he get his imaginary god to do his pathetic work for him? Have him come back here and this time we'll go for the kill.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 20, 2008 12:50 PM
@Shamar: He took down the poll because he didn't like the way it was turning out. The discussion among us and some debate with the Rev. Cockshaw takes place in the comments of the original post.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 12:50 PM
he took it down after he discovered people were actually
SHOOOOOOOOOOOCKER
answering it.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 12:51 PM
No, the poll is gone. Cockshaw removed the poll after an hour or so of Pharyngulation the other day, then came here to whine about it. See the thread PZ links to at the top.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 12:52 PM
My favourite thing about that episode is that he isn't just a vicar with a modem. The diocese hired him as their web outreach chap; this is as net-savvy as the CofE gets, apparently. And he put his little site with keywords "Dawkins, atheist, blah blah" and filled with piss-weak apologetics. Then he was and yet he was shocked - shocked! - at some poll-crashing and snark from godless websites.
I'm just amazed that anyone that couldn't see the fail in that plan is actually able to type.
Posted by: Carol | November 20, 2008 12:55 PM
Hi Pharyngulites:
I found a poll to crash that could actually make a difference. There is an office supply company in Texas that is offering a $25K "makeover" to whichever charitable organization wins the poll. Of course, one of the "charitable" organizations is a bogus "crisis pregnancy" center that has already put the word out to all the anti-choice websites and is currently leading in votes.
The sad thing about that is that there is an emergency homeless shelter on the list that could help actually born people. It's a Christian organization, granted, but you can't really knock the work they do. That's the one I would recommend pushing, but of course, there is also a local Habitat for Humanity, humane society, and a youth organization.
Anyway, this is the address of the office supply poll:
http://www.perryop.com/
You can vote from any area of the country, and the poll closes on November 23.
Thanks!
Posted by: Kamikaze189 | November 20, 2008 12:56 PM
To be fair, the Rev did not seem all that concerned about us voting on the poll. He was bothered that people were voting many times on it. The point being that it's one thing to have an inaccurate sample unrepresentative of society, but it's another to have people screw the thing up from the get-go.
Second, the Rev was having to deal with people putting fake or otherwise filterable comments on his site. It was no more designed to be a platform for atheism than this site is for Christianity. And after all our talk about not having religion forced on us, isn't this forcing atheism on someone else? How isn't it hypocritical to mess with his website?
The worst thing out of all of this is that this Rev. Cockshaw has religion in what appears to be a knitting sort of habit. PZ said that's where he wants religion, and yet he's sent the hordes against a guy who has set up a harmless, even though pointless, website. The Rev even came on here and refrained from telling us we're going to hell, and did his best to negotiate. It looked to me like he didn't even have a condescending tone, let alone fling insults. As far as believers go, he's not bad.
At the least, you (PZ) should be telling commenters here to stop putting nonsense on the Rev's website when you mention it.
Posted by: Shamar | November 20, 2008 12:58 PM
//[QUOTE]@Shamar: He took down the poll because he didn't like the way it was turning out. The discussion among us and some debate with the Rev. Cockshaw takes place in the comments of the original post.//[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I had the same problem when I went there from the original thread the other day. I guess I read the thread after he had already taken it down, oh well....
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 12:58 PM
Kamikaze189
You tried to make the same point in the last thread... you were flat-out wrong then, and you are just as wrong now. Go back and read that thread if you need a refresher as to why...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 20, 2008 1:00 PM
You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Posted by: Chris P | November 20, 2008 1:00 PM
What was already posted on his website was total nonsense. I did not post nonsense, I posted what I believed to be the truth.
Chris P
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 20, 2008 1:02 PM
Rev'd Evan is a fish not worth frying. I'm gonna leave the poor sap alone.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 20, 2008 1:03 PM
Man, this poll crashing stuff keeps getting funnier.
First, the God Poll guy comes in, calls us all terrorists, and asks Seed to remove PZ. Then he realizes what "crashing a poll" actually means. Ironically, then his poll "crashes" due to bad software that couldn't handle the increase traffic.
Now, Rev. Cocksure removes the poll after a while because
As for his complaint about stupid story submissions, some of the stories he puts on the main page fit that category.
Posted by: H.H. | November 20, 2008 1:09 PM
I remember that he kept asking that we just leave him and his website alone. But the internet is a public marketplace of ideas. Sure, you can encrypt and password protect website not intended for the public, but this was obviously not such a place. He wanted to get his message out to people. A message that I feel, quite frankly, should not be allowed to go out unchallenged. Does he have a right to proselytize on the internet? Of course. Does he have the right to complain when we belittle or combat his efforts? Nope.
Good reverend Cockshaw--It's the internet, bitch! Deal with it.
Posted by: DaveH | November 20, 2008 1:09 PM
Remember, this is the christianity of the CofE/Anglicans/Episcopalians
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xcTNWehOn5I
Posted by: Jake | November 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Okay, question: What is this doing on that site?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Thank you Reverend Cockshaw for merely attempting to silence us when you could have called for a bloody jihad like that other religion. It's through actions like this that we see the true love that springs eternal from the Christian breast (unlike that other religion). I cannot express in words how grateful I am that Christians such as yourself allow me to exist on this earth (as long as I'm quiet about it) until that glorious day when I will be judged by God and sentenced to eternal hellfire for my heresy. Incidentally, I hope to see you there on that day, smiling and laughing as God metes out his torture to me and rewards you for the suffering you've endured on earth via the odious discomfort of sharing a planet with those who believe other than you do--again, unlike that other religion which encourages its followers to swiftly send unbelievers to their eternal punishment, leaving its adherents to focus only on the joys of knowing God in the afterlife and depriving them of the prurient happiness that can only come from watching God justly punish the wicked.)
You are the very model of Christianity for us all.
Posted by: Wolfhound | November 20, 2008 1:13 PM
Not content with being a mere Liar for Jesus, he is also a Whiner for Jesus.
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2008 1:14 PM
The Reverend Evan Cockshaw is not giving a good account of himself at all. First rule of screwups, "When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging."
1. Hasn't he ever heard of freedom of speech? The internet is a public commons, deal with it.
2. He just proved that the churches can dish out propaganda by the trainload but can't take a teaspoon of mostly hilarious counter-propaganda. They should grow a brain, a backbone, and a sense of humor.
3. He didn't seem dumb, a problem with many priests these days due to recruitment failures. OTOH, his inept floundering indicates some sort of mental straitjacket. Unfortunate, who knows how that happened?
Posted by: Penny | November 20, 2008 1:17 PM
Carol #20
"Anyway, this is the address of the office supply poll:
http://www.perryop.com/
You can vote from any area of the country, and the poll closes on November 23."
You can also vote from outside the USA - I just did.
(and how do you do block quoted, please?)
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 1:17 PM
Online polls are pointless and stupid. There no more scientific and accurate whether you vote once or 10 times. The message is "online straw polls are meaningless" not "we are a powerful online voting group". This was explained to Cockshaw several times.
So a few people submitted some parodies to take the piss out of his online propaganda piece. Boo fucking hoo. Welcome to the Internet.
No, Cockshaw's first post had some pretty arrogant snipe about our "false belief". That irritated a few people. Negotiate my ass. He came here to whine. His hyperbole about letter-bombs from hateful atheists was offensive.
I agree. I'm sure he's a great guy who works very hard in the community. He's a harmless CoE vicar who tripped on a hornet's nest, got stung, then went back to the hornet's nest to complain to the hornets. He'll know better next time. He's not bad or stupid or nasty, just naïve.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 20, 2008 1:19 PM
Wrong. He's an official representative of the official church of a major country. He's not some random harmless old grandma doing this privately as a hobby. This is his job. If he can't take any criticism of his organization, or of the dogma his organization espouses, then he needs to find another job.Posted by: CaptainKendrick | November 20, 2008 1:20 PM
Posted by: Jake | November 20, 2008 1:10 PM
Okay, question: What is this doing on that site?
YEAH?! I saw that flash by real fast too, so didn't get to read the whole thing, but just assumed it was a sarcastic message to atheists, but now I'm confused....
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 1:21 PM
Second time I've done this recently: s/There/They're/
*cringe*
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 1:28 PM
Well, he's also blatantly dishonest. And that was the source of our problem with him and his actions. When pressed for an answer as to whether or not he would have taken down the poll had the results been skewed in another direction, he would not answer... and when asked if he would review and accept honest anecdotes from people who politely gave their testimony as to why they did not believe, he was equally unwilling to answer...
As a result, I think the mocking and derision and satirical testimonies were more than appropriate to highlight the hypocrisy.
Posted by: Ticktock | November 20, 2008 1:32 PM
A new poll at MSNBC about whether "In God We Trust" should be eliminated from US Currency.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10103521/
We are losing.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 1:34 PM
Another problem with this analogy, Kamikaze189, is that in case you hadn't noticed, christians are given every opportunity on this site to express their views and thoughts... they are given that platform without filtering or censorship. Why? Because unlike them, we can handle it quite readily, and are not afraid to have our viewpoints publicly challenged.
Just be prepared for a ripping rebuttal if you do choose to express your religious ideals here.
Posted by: 60613 | November 20, 2008 1:41 PM
Cockshaw's too cocksure.
Pity.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 20, 2008 1:44 PM
He admitted that it wasn't a meaningful poll, said that it was just for fun, but still removed it because the results were biased? I think it is fair to say that the opposing bias wouldn't have been met with the same response.
There is no rationale to suggest that any particular set of meaningless results is any more significant than any other set of equally meaningless results, except to promote an agenda. He didn't like our agenda, so chose to hide the result.
Still, it is his website, and he should feel free to do as he pleases with it, but it is a little rich to then attempt to justify blatent (but pretty minor) dishonesty by coming to this site to defend his actions.
I do agree that he was harshly treated, but he could have avoided that by not attempting to justify hmself or proselytize on this site. I also don't think that there was any good to served by submitting parodic testimonies, since those already to be found on the site do a much better job.
Posted by: windy | November 20, 2008 1:47 PM
No, he just "believed" people were doing that, based on no evidence that I saw.
Posted by: ennui | November 20, 2008 1:55 PM
All I wanted, after he came here to complain, was for the Rev. to answer his own question. Especially after he admitted that the answers submitted to his site so far were severely lacking, I thought for sure that he would give us some apologetics. But all we got was more whining and irrelevant diversion.
He folded his hand because he knew he had rags. Maybe he was using his site to mine new arguments, to avert a crisis of faith? He must be sorely disappointed.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 20, 2008 1:55 PM
windy (#44):
He doesn't need evidence — he has proof 'cause he believes.
:-/
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 20, 2008 2:09 PM
@40: Are you sure that's a new poll, or is it just the same years-old one that keeps getting emailed around?
Posted by: Aseem | November 20, 2008 2:10 PM
@windy @ #44
Well, he did cite the number of votes exceeding the number of individual voters that he could see on his site as evidence that people had voted multiple times, though it does not necessarily mean that the multiple voters had to be from the winning side. But, I find it awfully funny that he created a poll that allowed people to vote multiple times on it, and then took it down when he realized people are actually doing that. I mean, what did he expect?
Posted by: Karl Withakay | November 20, 2008 2:10 PM
It's a shame when you can't get people you have no control over to behave like you want them to.
Change the site to a free membership system with a logon and terms of use. Purge whatever content you don't like. Ban undesirable members. Limit people to view only without logon. Problem solved.
It's either a public forum or it isn't.
I'm good with crashing the poll- it did ask "Does God exist?", what would be the point of the poll if they only expected believers to partake in it? (Don't ask a question if you're not willing to accept the answer.)
However, the site is asking people to "contribute their real stories of God being involved and active in their lives" and posting stories intended to highlight the stupidity of the whole concept is violating the spirit of the open invitation to post just a little bit.
The Rev did mention that he accepted that there would be some sincere, but poor quality posts that would get marginalized as the better posts got ranked and bubbled up to the top. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of atheists collectively got together and instead of flaming his site with a bunch of BS posts, decided to rank the most obviously pathetic, Jesus freak, embarrassing to even the most evangelical Christians posts with top rankings such that the cream of delusion would float to the top? It justs asks for a user ranking, it doesn't ask you to rate how good a reason to believe in God it is. So since it doesn't give you a criteria to rank it on, I guess you can choose your own, such as most delusional story 5/5.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 2:12 PM
Rev. Cockshaw is a vicar in the post-industrial Black Country. He probably spends most of his time doing the job of a social work (while occasionally mention god). And is he wants his website as crowd sourced "reasons to believe" there is no reason he should have to open it up as public forum; Wikipedia "censors" material not helping the project as well; it's a perfectly reasonable practice.
But none of this is a reason to claim that the rev or his website should be immune from mockery. He's speaking in the public square and he was directly criticising someone else's campaign (and used keywords that attract people sympathetic to that campaign). On what ground can he reject to being criticised in turn. Trying to get linking articles taken down is the action of a complete dick.
Posted by: GS | November 20, 2008 2:16 PM
You are not being fair PZ.
Some arguments in that page are quite persuasive; check this one:
"I believe in God because ...there is no other explanation for what has happenend in His world and in my life. I used to be an ahiest but when I went to church to begin with i though it was wack but for some strange reason i felt i had to be there to know for sure
and i then sarted 2 believe in god an i turned 2 chrisianity and im soon 2 be chrsitened wen i look bk in my life at all the things iv dun gud n bad i know now that he was always there tellin me that it was wrong n not 2 do i but i disobeyed him n ended up in prison n it wasn't till after i came ou ov prison wen i actually urned 2 chritianity he has helped me wih so much in very liltte time i have known him he has helped me turn away from drugs n im also turnin away from smoking he has helped me 2 learn 2 love my enimies as we are all the same born to this world by he hand ov god there is acually no posibiliy that this world could be made by a human being not 1 man could make a single plant from no thing not even from chemicals so there 4 the big bang thoery can't be true if they can't make a plant out ov chemicals then how can an explosion ov matter do it so there 4 i have come 2 the conclusion that god him self is real u may not believe this story but the only way u will know for sure is if u go 2 church and seek him out ur self"
Posted by: Ubi Dubium | November 20, 2008 2:18 PM
@ #20
I voted in that poll, but I noticed that both the homeless shelter and Habitat for Humanity mentioned god in their description. The Humane Society did not, so I voted for them.
Posted by: Peter Mc | November 20, 2008 2:22 PM
Poor Rev. Cockup. Played with fire, got burned.
Posted by: IST | November 20, 2008 2:26 PM
Aseem @48> It actually didn't allow multiple votes when I attempted.. told me I had already voted in that poll that day. I'm sure with his lovely security all I needed to do was remove cookies and vote again, but I couldn't be buggered to do so.
Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2008 2:33 PM
I used to be an ahiest
Is that someone who never greets anyone else?
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 20, 2008 2:36 PM
In the original Cocksure thread, the Rev said @ 419:
Gee, it's almost like the Reverend's professed belief in free speech was insincere.
Posted by: Jason Failes | November 20, 2008 2:40 PM
Carlie for the win.
Another possibility:
Do you think he's avoiding bearing false witness through atrocious spelling?
I mean, if it's nonsense, it can't be a lie, right, god?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 2:41 PM
Dammit, Screechy Monkey, I had just copied that bit of hypocrisy from the last thread and was getting ready to make the same point... well done and a good find!
Honestly, is there a better point that can be made about Rev. Cockshaw than that? He's shown himself to be a dishonest, hypocritical liar trying to hide behind his "good deeds and community service". And the sad part of this is, there is a strong lesson for him to be learned through all of this regarding human behavior outside of his insular world... a lesson that is sure to escape him completely.
Posted by: ggab | November 20, 2008 2:45 PM
Did he or did he not try to have this blog taken down?
Isn't that an attack on free speech?
Every time i started to feel bad for him, feel that he was probably a decent fella in over his pay grade on these forums, he'd say something obviously underhanded or self riteous.
He could have left well enough alone, but chose to attack PZed's blog.
He couldn't beat us with words so he tried to have us shut up in other ways. I say that we see what he is really made of now.
Fuck him and his sleazy tactics.
He is intellectually AND morally deficient.
Posted by: heliobates | November 20, 2008 2:51 PM
It's someone who denies that greetings exist.
Posted by: ggab | November 20, 2008 2:53 PM
Heliobates
You can't disprove a greeting.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 20, 2008 2:53 PM
"Is that someone who never greets anyone else? "
No, I think it just means they use more proper forms of greeting, such as the full "Hello" or "Hallo", or perhaps "Good morrow to ye."
Posted by: MH | November 20, 2008 2:54 PM
LOL at this section from an interview with the Rev:
The stupid, it burneth.
He's a creationist too! Yippee!
Here's the rest of the interview with "Evan Cockshaw - Astrophysicist" (err, Evan, you really need a PhD in Astrophysics in order to call yourself an Astrophysicist. "Wannabe Astrophysicist" you might get away with).
Posted by: 2-D Man | November 20, 2008 2:56 PM
"I believe in God because whenever some mean ol' atheist points out how stupid my beliefs are, the get censored."
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 20, 2008 2:58 PM
From the interview linked above: "new age weirdness"
Geez, Rev, glass houses and all that.
Posted by: Robert W | November 20, 2008 3:01 PM
Since when does a web site NOT want traffic? Oh yeah! When it's a cracker worshiping think skinned bible shaker!
Darn that "group of atheists" he referenced when he first changed his submit-you-story link.
Another point: So, when you don't like the results you just change the rules of the game!!
Lordy lordy lordy, these people just get more and more pathetic.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 3:07 PM
a doing-some-tedious-but-symbolic-ritual-with-a-cracker, thin skinned bible shaker. Seriously they burned people for these subtleties.Posted by: MH | November 20, 2008 3:07 PM
And interestingly, he's the guy behind a software company called FishFood Media.
Their main product is a crappy looking piece of software called Easy Worship, that is somewhere between a karaoke machine and Powerpoint, and which they sell for £250! If you believe in Jebus, you can get a 50% discount, though.
:)
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 3:08 PM
Gimme a break. He was treated with kid-gloves. If he's going to engage in online evangelism for the CoE, he need to grow a pair of Internet cojones and not expect everyone to behave like they're drinking Earl Grey and eating cucumber sandwiches in the rectory after a cricket match on the village green.
Posted by: heliobates | November 20, 2008 3:09 PM
@ggab: well played!
That's why I'm not an ahist. Or even an aghist.
I see people talking all the time. How did they start? Talking can't come from nothing.
Therefore greetings exist.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 3:11 PM
I agree with your general point, but he lives in West Bromwich, not an episode of Miss Marple.Posted by: Diagoras | November 20, 2008 3:15 PM
http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news.aspx?action=view&id=734
So you can have an easier time imagining his face red with righteous indignation. Cheers.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 3:21 PM
Posted by: Richard Wolford | November 20, 2008 3:28 PM
So, what, reality was too hard for him and he decided to just go with the "goddidit" answer? Hmm, guess it is easier to say "god's will" than trying to calculate energy states.
Posted by: Lowell | November 20, 2008 3:29 PM
Thanks for the link, Diagoras.
The stupidity abounds in that interview with Cockshaw. Aside from the usual equivocations on the word "belief," you also get this nugget:
Therefore, the god described in my book exists. Very compelling, Cockshaw.
It's no wonder he didn't try to argue his case in this forum. He'd be way out of his league.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 20, 2008 3:36 PM
I'm more of an anti-hiest. I actively oppose all forms of greetings.
Posted by: MH | November 20, 2008 3:36 PM
Article about the Rev:
Church Leaders welcome Black Country Missioner
Streetwise? LOL, I think not.
Posted by: Diagoras | November 20, 2008 3:37 PM
Yeah - he starts with the assumption of a created universe. I'm sure the field of astrophysics is really, really, sad they lost such a brilliant contributor to their field. /snark
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 3:39 PM
I'm trying to think of something funnier than an evangelical-minded Anglican vicar trying to be down wit the kids. So far I have "a high-church Anglican vicar trying to be down with the kids".
Posted by: Diagoras | November 20, 2008 3:40 PM
Don't scoff at his prowess at Streetwise, MH.
He put two points in it on his character sheet, and everything.
Posted by: MH | November 20, 2008 3:45 PM
From here.
Oh, Evan. We'd LOVE to hear about the "arguments for the existence of God in the light of the new physics"! If you don't want to talk about it here, sign up at richarddawkins.net/forum. Think of it as missionary work.
Posted by: ggab | November 20, 2008 3:50 PM
Jimminy
I grew up in northern Kentucky, so I was raised a Howdyist.
Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 3:51 PM
What a funny fucker. You'd think that the way he acts that he's ungrateful for the publicity you gave him. You turned his silly little attempt to bring Christianity to the public into an ol' fashioned atheist beat-up-the-Christian party. We so often do that throughout history, it's so sad that we aristocratic atheists keep persecuting their religious belief by simply existing. It must be so hard for them to know that people think their most sacred of beliefs is an absurdity. And all they wanted to do was publicly evangelise without having anyone answer "no" on their stupid poll. The answer "no" was only there for showing purposes, not to be actually clicked...
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 20, 2008 3:54 PM
Ah so he lied about being an astrophysicist too. How surprising.I took a few semesters of history in college and have been hiking around some native-american ruins.
By golly that must make me an archaeologist! Whoopeeeee!
*dons Indiana Jones fedora and bullwhip*
Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2008 3:58 PM
As I recall, his website wasn't just supposed to be an in-group praise and worship website; it was an apologetics site, a rebuttal to the atheist bus campaign which was designed for people to give their reasons for believing in God in order to convert visitors. For that to happen, they need non-christian visitors, I think. They claimed to want doubters and fence-sitters to have ALL the information they needed, so they could "make up their own minds" (Christians really like that phrase, as if the default is being forced to conclude things at gunpoint.)
That's debate. That's not a closed forum. You get involved in debate, you should expect -- and welcome -- disagreement from the other side. You should particularly expect it when you act as if your side is the underdog finally having their say -- when Christians have been aggressively proselytizing for hundreds of years with churches on every corner, and atheists just put up some signs on a bus, for crying out loud.
By the way I found a fascinating personal account of the Alpha course, from the point of view of an atheist. This is how they persuade nonchristians to become Christian. These are the arguments they give -- and they're mostly variations of what was on the Rev. C's site.
http://alphacoursereview.wordpress.com/page/2/
It's in reverse order, so you have to scroll down to start at the beginning, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page again for "next entries" when you're done -- but it's addictive. I think it only goes up to Week 10 so far. The minister in the account also seems like a nice sort of chap, and the believers are nice, too. But the theology does odd things to nice people.
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2008 3:58 PM
What is it with West Bromwhich? Evan indicated it was some post apocalyptic depressed area of some sort.
We have those all over the USA too. Much of the midwest is emptying out and those so called small towns loved by christofascists are becoming all but ghost towns. Not even going to mention the rust belt places where houses can be bought for $1.00 and might not be worth that much. Or the coal mining areas of Apalachia after all the coal has been mined out.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 20, 2008 4:01 PM
Just visited the site in question and found some naughty boy or girl seems to have hacked it. The greeter (home) page puts up the following message as one of three, alongside the photo of some naked bloke touching the noodly appendage of the FSM (blessings be upon him), heavily disguised as an old git with a beard.
"The poster campaign by a group of atheists and part funded by the author Richard Dawkins has been really very succesful, in some ways at least. Raising 10 times more than the £11,000 originally hoped for they will now be placing posters all over the UK. We'd like to say 'Thanks'!!!"
Unless, of course, the reverend is becoming a bit too "cocksure".