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)
There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America.
[David Barton, president of Wallbuilders and a close ally of the Christian Coalition, 1994 Anti-Defamation League Report]
My heart-warming tale of self-affirmation
Deep homologies in the pharyngeal arches
Symmetry breaking and genetic assimilation
That revolting article about earwax and smegma
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Boo hoo | Main | Advent podcast day 2 »
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 2, 2008 10:46 AM, by PZ Myers
The Unreasonable Faith blog has started a series on "An Evil God?", documenting the horrible little stories and nasty tribal morality of the Bible.
He has already started with page 1. It's a l o n g book, so he's committing himself to a very long series, I think.
Comments
Posted by: Roger | December 2, 2008 10:50 AM
Hmmm...looks like this could be worth following. I wonder if they've thought of publishing this (along with the best comments on each section) as a book !!
Rog
Posted by: Scaryduck | December 2, 2008 10:57 AM
He looks an interesting, intelligent writer. Nice find.
*bookmarked*
Posted by: Daniel Florien | December 2, 2008 11:04 AM
@Roger: I have in fact thought of that, and that's the plan. Didn't think about the comments part though -- interesting idea!
@Scaryduck: Thanks!
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | December 2, 2008 11:12 AM
Didn't Mark Twain do something similar to this? Not, of course, that this should discourage the folks over at Unreasonable Faith. If anything, it underlines that there is a fine and oft-ignored tradition of Biblical criticism that should be practiced and highlighted more often.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 2, 2008 11:17 AM
From the comments:
No wonder we can't get through to creationists!
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 2, 2008 11:25 AM
I'd think one could link to Ingersoll's writings, or any number of others (some being the founding fathers), to cover this adequately.
I suppose the problem is that people wouldn't read what's already been written. Nonetheless, I can't get very excited over anyone treading such well-worn paths yet again.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Ruben | December 2, 2008 11:36 AM
Hmm! Tasty! I have always said it: I'm glad there is no God, if there was one and it was like the Bible says, no way I would want to be in his hands!
@Emmet: LOL, good one! :)
Posted by: inkadu | December 2, 2008 11:37 AM
Ingersoll never used the phrase "epic fail," therefore his writing is not punchy and fresh.
Posted by: Daniel Florien | December 2, 2008 11:39 AM
@Der Bruno Stroszek:
I'm not aware of Twain doing something like this, but I know he wrote his "Dairy of Adam & Eve" poking fun of Genesis (which is hilarious) and also his "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice" which talks generally about some of the absurdity of the Bible and the historical results of it.
But there is alot of Twain I haven't read, so I'm sure I've missed lots of good stuff. If I'm missing something similar to this, please let me know!
@Glen Davidson:
Ingersoll does have some great writings on this which I have read. You are right, though -- many people won't read a simple Ingersoll link. And of course most of what people say has already been said -- but what's the fun if we stop talking and just link? There's always room for fresh conversation. Hopefully I'm bringing a unique perspective to the table and making people think about some things that they normally wouldn't think about.
Posted by: SEF | December 2, 2008 11:39 AM
NB:
Evil Bible
Dark Bible
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
etc
Posted by: IST | December 2, 2008 11:49 AM
The comments there are an interesting read... this should be worth following. I'm especially looking forward to seeing how the commenter that accuses Daniel of quote mining plans to "slap him with the context", seeing as most of those quotes stand alone.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 11:54 AM
I cannot get too worked up over his menthod and approach in denouncing his former (?) reliance on religion. His wording, constant references to his former god (always a capital for him) and lamenting this god is the cause of all suffering, is put in such a way that I find it hard to accept that he has completely weaned himself away from his former religion and stress. This is akin to an avowed atheist wearing a tee shirt that says "Thank God I am an Atheist!" You don't excoriate the very thing you don't believe in by giving credence to it by alluding to it's existence. I don't regard his method with approval, and I question his sincereity in total freedom from religion.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 2, 2008 11:54 AM
Good luck with it, and I hope that it causes many to think.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: genesgalore | December 2, 2008 12:09 PM
the whole of human history is filled with nasty, tribal morality
Posted by: Daniel Florien | December 2, 2008 12:10 PM
@Holbach:
I'm trying to write for both atheists and Christians. Capitalizing "God" is automatic for me, and though I often do it lowercase purposely, I don't see either as a big deal.
It would make for a very tedious article if every time I was referring to God I qualified it with "God, whom the Christians believe in but doesn't REALLY exist" and "God, who doesn't exist but is mentioned in this passage"! I sure wouldn't read it, and you wouldn't either.
I find it interesting you "question [my] sincereity in total freedom from religion." You're like the antithesis of most of the emails I receive -- usually it is from Christians questioning my former sincerity to Christianity!
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 12:18 PM
Daniel Florien @ 15
Which sincereity is in question? Your christianity or your atheism? I submit this with sincereity to accept you as one or the other, that is all, with no ridicule ascribed to the truth of either, but not both.
Posted by: watercat | December 2, 2008 12:23 PM
Some sites doing the same thing with the Koran:
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/
http://uzzas.blogspot.com/
http://atheistexile.com/blog/index.php
and the Bible:
http://a4atheist.wordpress.com/
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2008 12:27 PM
Unless 90% of the world not only believes in it but thinks you're an evil person because you don't. And "Thank God I'm an Atheist" is a joke.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 12:42 PM
tsg @ 17
No, it's not a joke. I take my atheism seriously, and don't give it short shrift with stupid innuendo. A good tee shirt would be this: "There are no gods, but there are atheists." A negative followed by a positive, or if you prefer it with more strenght, reverse the comment. Short and realistically direct.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 12:45 PM
There does not seem to be much room for whimsy in Holbach's life.
Posted by: costanza | December 2, 2008 12:50 PM
Re #9
Try "Letters From the Earth" (Mark Twain)
Posted by: tsg | December 2, 2008 12:56 PM
Yes, it is.
And incredibly dull. Humor can be an effective means of communication. You might look into ordering: Humor, sense of, qty 1.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 2, 2008 1:00 PM
...which obviously means that nobody else is allowed to joke about their own atheism, right? Meh!
IMHO, anything worth taking seriously is worth joking about.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | December 2, 2008 1:07 PM
Every now and then in my travels through libraries or bookstores I'll see various collections of Bible stories for children, sometimes illustrated with those god-awful (ha ha!) sappy, big-eyed greeting card style kids playing the various "roles" in the story. I'd love to see someone put together a book of Bible stories illustrated in the same fashion, but focusing on all the nasty stuff in the Bible. The drowning of the wicked in the Flood, the trials of Job,all the fornication and smiting, all the gross and ugly wretchedness that is kept out the usual "Children's Bible Stories" collections. To have those big-headed, sad-eyed poppets wading hip deep in gore or lost in debauchery would be perversely amusing. An x-rated "children's " Bible. Imagine that.
Posted by: SEF | December 2, 2008 1:16 PM
Punchier version: "Atheists exist; gods don't." - few enough words to just about be visible at a worthwhile distance (especially split across front and back).Posted by: Ka | December 2, 2008 1:16 PM
Regarding the Quran, I recommend: http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Rob | December 2, 2008 1:45 PM
@Daniel Florian:
So he was milking it for all it was worth?
Posted by: CrypticLife | December 2, 2008 1:46 PM
Note to self: do not accuse Holbach of concern trolling
Actually, I don't find that sort of thing to be a very good joke, either, but it's still a joke. It doesn't cause me to go around questioning motives or actual beliefs.
Pointing out how utterly ridiculous scripture is can sometimes help, I think. Life of Brian shows it can be quite comical, at any rate.
Posted by: Your Name's Not Bruce? | December 2, 2008 1:46 PM
If theology were really a science, I would think that one of the things that theologists would research is how "God's Word" becomes a book. Does he dictate it to a secretary, does he write it out longhand himself? What about all those translators, editors and compilers? Is God whispering in their ears, guiding the whole process along, making sure it doesn't become a big,long version of the telephone game? What about the creation story(ies)? Nobody to take dictation. It doesn't say that God wrote it down while he was busy creatin'. Doesn't even say he took notes for referring to later. At least Muslims have a story behind their book, however unlikely, to explain the chain of command in how it got into print (well, calligraphy). But the Bible-not so much. I've always wondered how that is supposed to have worked.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 1:48 PM
#12 - Holbach - Once again I agree with you my friend, and I too question his sincerity and strength of conviction. But I am intrigued enough to go back and read his blog a few more times. He is going to have to try harder to get an 'A' from me in bible bashing.
Posted by: Jaroo242 | December 2, 2008 1:55 PM
Since this site is apparently a parody of William Lane Craig's I was wondering what people make of his critique of modern evolutionary theory,http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6711.
Posted by: watercat | December 2, 2008 2:00 PM
@23 There is such a book. I think Amazon has it but I can't remember the title. It had big bloody pics of the 'bald head vs bears' story.
Also for the koran,
http://uzzas.blogspot.com/
There are several blogs deconstructing scripture. I posted some but i guess the spam gaurd caught it for having too many links.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 2:05 PM
#19 - Janine - Betcha ol' Holbach is full of whimsy. He just doesn't twirl in public like I do. Wheeee!!!!
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2008 2:08 PM
At least Muslims have a story behind their book, however unlikely, to explain the chain of command in how it got into print (well, calligraphy). But the Bible-not so much. I've always wondered how that is supposed to have worked.
Well, the fundies have their own ridiculous version whereby the Torah was essentially dictated to Moses, well, except the parts he's in himself, which he takes care of as YHWH's ghostwriter, and, oh, except for the part where Moses DIES (talk about a ghostwriter, heh).
And then all the rest of it (including redactions and translations) is supposed to be "divinely inspired" so that what is plainly the work of myriad individuals can still be considered The Literal Word of God.
And there's a whole industry for hand-waving away the self-contradictions in this "inspired" text. I think they're powering the state of Alabama with the energy so produced.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 2:19 PM
Patricia @ 29
I'm sure we think as one on most anti-religious ideas Patricia, and we are in agreement as to Daniel Florian's comment at #15. His very first sentence marks his indecisiveness as to which side he ascribes to, atheists AND christians. One or the other, not playing both sides of the fence.
Posted by: secularguy | December 2, 2008 2:26 PM
Holbach(#12) wrote:
I (a life-long atheist and increasingly anti-theism-istic) prefer to use the capitalized God to refer to supreme-being type Gods, and use the lower-case god for the lesser gods of polytheism, who really are not of much significance in the conflict between religionism and rationalism.Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 2:32 PM
Janine @ 19
I assure you I enjoy and deal with much whimsy of all sorts in my life, but I do not find anything whimsical in regards to religion and all manner of superstitious nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, religion should be subjected to ridicule, not whimsy or anything of a comic nature which only tends to make light of a serious subject. There is whimsy in cartoons and fantasy and wharever we may so deign, but religion is far from a whimsical nature and makes it known that it is not to be taken in a light or farcical manner. This is as it should be accepted and so ridiculed in any manner possible. However I may be regarded by my fellow commenters, my atheism is sincere and resolute, and whimsy is reserved for those things I take delight and comic relief in.
Posted by: gazza | December 2, 2008 2:35 PM
@Holbach
I had a very comprehensive Catholic upbringing. So I know how they walk the walk and talk the talk. If the time and audience is right then there's a place for de-bunking their faith in the manner they understand it. I could just say its superstitious nonsense (which it is) but pulling apart the nitty-gritty details can also do the job.
So I'm sure Florian's approach has its use for the audience he's aiming at. Rather interesting in fact for me, as someone who has altogether too much of that clutter rattling around in my brain.
Maybe you had the good fortune not to have had a proper religious education. So maybe you don't know the enemy well enough!
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 2:38 PM
SEF @ 24
I like your version better, simpler and more direct front to back.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 2:39 PM
SEF @ 24
I like your version better, simpler and more direct front to back.
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2008 2:41 PM
His very first sentence marks his indecisiveness as to which side he ascribes to, atheists AND christians.
Nonsense, Holbach. He says: "I'm trying to write for both atheists and Christians." That's a statement about the intended audience for his project, not about his own convictions. I suppose in your True Atheism, preaching to anyone not in the choir is tantamount to handing out copies of the Gospel of John on the street and concluding all communications with "Yours in Christ," but it really is tiresome to have you constantly railing against all those who fail your stridency test.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 2:44 PM
secularguy @ 35
Seriously, there is a difference?
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | December 2, 2008 2:45 PM
Ah, I knew I'd seen it somewhere:
The Bible According to Mark Twain
Apparently it's a compilation of all his articles on Christianity, some of which have been mentioned by Daniel Florian above, but some of which hasn't been published outside of this collection.
I first heard about it in a Harper's Monthly editorial; they printed a wonderful excerpt which describes the God of the Old Testament as - I'm quoting from memory here, but it's something close to this - "a tyrant without compare" and a purveyor of the worst genocides the world has ever seen, then saying that "it is the most damnatory biography that ever saw print". Not exact quotes, but I remember the sentiments very clearly.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | December 2, 2008 2:47 PM
Holbach doesn't think religion is funny. Pete Rooke doesn't think Christmas is funny. Spud doesn't think the vicar with a potato up his ass is funny. Spot the difference.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 2:54 PM
CJO - Do you find those who come here preaching religion to be equally as tiresome?
What do you consider appropriate instead of constant railing against them and their never ending stupidity? I would genuinely like to know, as I am every bit as whole hog or none in attitude as Holbach is.
Posted by: stogoe | December 2, 2008 2:58 PM
Holbach, seriously, you need to
1) take the stick out of your ass,
2) order a Sense of Humor and some Chill Pills, and
3) apply both liberally to the turgid meatsack you call your body.
Honestly, stop being a jackass.
Posted by: secularguy | December 2, 2008 2:59 PM
Holbach (#41),
well yes, I think so. Belief in polytheism is insignificant - the greek and norse gods are considered mere myth, while the notion that there is a God, who is higher and of more importance than anything else, and thus can be used to justify anything, is one of the core problems with religion, in my opinion.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 3:05 PM
stogoe @ 45
Seriously, are you a freaking moron or a bigger jackass and smartass than I am?
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | December 2, 2008 3:08 PM
Here's a question for you: before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, did they know it was wrong to disobey God's command?
Obviously not, since that would mean that they already knew the difference between good and evil.
The story fails even within its own narrative. Epic Fail!
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 3:10 PM
secularguy @ 46
Good grief, they are all myths no matter how you define them or what historical crap you attach to them!
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2008 3:13 PM
What do you consider appropriate instead of constant railing against them and their never ending stupidity?
I have no problem with that, per se, and do plenty of it myself. That's not what I'm talking about. Holbach rails against commenters here who, in his eyes, are not sufficiently strident in their atheism. It's annoying, and it's largely a one-note concert, to the point where a Holbach-comment-generator would be a trivially easy (if stupendously pointless) script to write, and I doubt whether anybody could tell the Holbach chatbot from the real thing.
Posted by: 60613 | December 2, 2008 3:20 PM
Oh sweet lord!
TALK TALK TALK BLATHER BLATHER BALTHER YAP YAP YAP
Y'all are lazy stuffed shirts full of hot air.
STOP TALKING - GO OUT INTO THE WORLD AND MAKE IT A BETTER PLACE! Screw the church, screw the atheists, screw all this useless palaver.
ACT! Damn you! Hand out toys, ladel soup at the local kitchen, round up blankets and pillows for the homeless shelter, go visit random strangers in a nursing home, volunteer to help someone learn how to read!
This talk is killing me! DO SOMETHING! JUST SHUT UP AND GO DO SOMETHING!
blowhards - y'all make me sick!
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 3:22 PM
Alright! I admit it! I am coming out of the closest. I love Jesus. It is so cool.
Posted by: secularguy | December 2, 2008 3:22 PM
#46,
So fucking what? All myths are not equal, that is: All myths don't have consequences of equal severity.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 2, 2008 3:24 PM
Useless comment.
But who says we aren't doing those things?
And why shouldn't people discuss these things.
In other words do you have a good point or just that real shitty one?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 2, 2008 3:27 PM
You can talk all you want, but you gotta know the territory.
Posted by: SC | December 2, 2008 3:28 PM
In the time it took 60613 to write that rant, (s)he could have done much good in the world. For shame, 60613.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 3:28 PM
CJO @ 50
You have the annoying habit of not reading my comments too closely and thoroughly, or perhaps it is that you not only do not agree with the things I say, but you appear to have a hang up with issues you regard as not in mesh with your own and therefore criticize them with snide remarks as to my too strident atheism. My atheism is definitely real, but yours tend to the chatbox version in all it's venue.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 3:28 PM
Jesus is like a lizard running around on the nub of my heart.
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2008 3:28 PM
Y'all are lazy stuffed shirts full of hot air.
Yor concern is noted.
ACT! Damn you! Hand out toys, ladel soup at the local kitchen, round up blankets and pillows for the homeless shelter, go visit random strangers in a nursing home, volunteer to help someone learn how to read!
I missed the part where commenting on a blog conflicts with any of these estimable activities. Do you spend all of your free time doing these things?
This talk is killing me!
So don't fucking read it. Sheesh.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 3:31 PM
Janine - Haw, haw! You come out of the closet with jezus and they promptly take down the video. What a sinner you are!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 2, 2008 3:38 PM
On case of [Gg]od...
I regard it as elementary English to capitalise "God" as a proper noun when refering to the specific deity of the Abrahamic religions (or any other god called "God"), and "god" when used as a common noun, referring to some deity but none in particular. It's rather inconvenient that the Christians have chosen to call their god "God", a little like calling a town "Town", but that's the way it is.
I have to say that I've always regarded the notion of attaching "respect" to capitalisation as being insufferably ignorant, as if by writing "George Bush" rather than "george bush", one demonstrates some kind of undeserved respect for him rather than merely demonstrating that one has had competent English teachers.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 3:39 PM
secularguy @ 53
I cannot seem to persuade you to understand what myths are and what no matter you try to explain them and in any manner, they are still myths. Here is one more try and I'll leave it at that: "A pig in satin is still a pig."
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 3:43 PM
Jello Jesus with extra Mojo.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 2, 2008 3:46 PM
Do any myths have actual consequences?
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 3:47 PM
Emmet, when I use "god" to refer to the big sky daddy, it is meant to show my lack of respect for the concept. Just like when I refer to GWB as "dubya".
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 3:54 PM
Patricia @ 60
Ha! No luck for me either in watching the video Janine tried to offer. Hell, trying to explain my atheism is getting to be a real pain in the ass, and I just might revert back to religion and go on the other side and have all my detractors here rant against me for switching back and trying to reconvert me so that they'll rant at me again to get back to atheism and fight the religious retards. Whew! Hell, let's discuss the merits of the great Looney Tunes and see if that subject merits as much controversy as degrees of atheism does! Holy crap! Don't worry Patricia, I'll be an atheist until I drop no matter how many and how much phony comments are thrown at me on this site.
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2008 3:55 PM
My atheism is definitely real, but yours tend to the chatbox version in all it's venue.
First of all, this is frankly incoherent. Looks like the script could use some work. Second, I have no doubts that your atheism is real. You're not responding to the substance of my criticism, but I do note the skillful use of the rubber/glue gambit. Oldest trick in the chatbot toolkit. Really, you're not doing yourself any favors here.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 3:59 PM
Hint, my first link is not a video.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 4:00 PM
CJO - Thank You for explaining your remark. While I do not agree with you on Holbach's comments, I will spend some time considering your point of view. I have been accused of being too harsh as well.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 4:04 PM
Janine - Oh. See that's what twirling without alcohol gets me. Kack!
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 2, 2008 4:06 PM
Janine @65,
IMHO, no god or politician is sufficiently important to warrant violating perfectly good rules or conventions of a language.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 2, 2008 4:08 PM
"Capitalizing "God" is automatic for me, and though I often do it lowercase purposely, I don't see either as a big deal."
We've tried numerous times to explain to Holbach that capitalizing "God" is just the proper way to denote a proper noun in English, like Aphrodite or Frankie Yankovic or Beck. But he won't have it.
"but religion is far from a whimsical nature and makes it known that it is not to be taken in a light or farcical manner."
All the more reason why we should treat religion in a light and irreverent manner, to take that power away from it. Laughter always wins.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | December 2, 2008 4:14 PM
Emmet, I understand what you mean. In fact, it is almost enough to make me change my mind.
Almost.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 4:16 PM
Holbach - I enjoy your comments. I've recently been told by a member of my family that I am rabid and verging on fanatic, so I've been trying to round my edges a bit. When the family complains I listen.
Posted by: watercat | December 2, 2008 4:20 PM
Birds of a feather... Ayatollah Khomeini:"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
Now that's funny! It's what the nuns said in grade school.
Here's another one for the bible, with cool pictures:
http://analicingthebible.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | December 2, 2008 4:35 PM
Janine,
It seems to me that it's at least arguable that to "decapitalize" God, but not Thor, Kali, or Apollo, is to accord one mythical figure particular significance over the others. I fail to see any reason to do that. Either way, it's nothing I'm going to get my knickers in a knot over.
*shrug*
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 4:45 PM
Patricia @ 74
Point well received, and thanks.
Posted by: John Morales | December 2, 2008 5:01 PM
Holbach,
You are too dogmatic in your opinion; there is nothing in what post to suggest the use of God is other than naming the main character of the story. Were Daniel to have used god, it'd seem affected and petty.Your posts lead me to think you treat atheism as an ideology.
Posted by: young european | December 2, 2008 5:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Posted by: MikeM | December 2, 2008 5:12 PM
Your Name's Not Bruce?, I give you the Lego Bible:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
That's creative.
Posted by: stogoe | December 2, 2008 5:14 PM
Holbach's two chief weapons are fear and surprise. And ruthless efficiency. Frankly, it would be better for everyone if he took his McCarthyism somewhere else.
Posted by: jamie d | December 2, 2008 5:23 PM
I have always enjoyed the take on the bible presented by the avant-garde rock group The Residents in their performance art video "Wormwood"... it's a little hard to find, but well worth it. I think excerpts are floating around youtube...
Posted by: Sunny Day | December 2, 2008 5:24 PM
@ Holbach
"I cannot get too worked up over his menthod and approach in denouncing his former (?) reliance on religion. His wording, constant references to his former god (always a capital for him) and lamenting this god is the cause of all suffering, is put in such a way that I find it hard to accept that he has completely weaned himself....."
"Hell, trying to explain my atheism is getting to be a real pain in the ass, and I just might revert back to religion and go on the other side and have all my detractors here rant"
Have you just considered shutting the hell up and NOT taking others to task over the misunderstanding you have for other peoples atheism?
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 5:28 PM
Holbach - No point made toward you or your comments. That was strictly just the comment to me about my attitude. What's made it even harder to take is all the Christmas Bazaar's I've been peddling at. I get at least 50 "gawd bless you" hurled at me every day. Grrr!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 2, 2008 5:39 PM
RevBDC (@64):
No, but belief in myths does, and not all such consequences are equal, which is I think what secularguy was getting at. Belief in the single God of the Abrahamic religions is socially toxic, both because it is so widespread and because the notion of a single all-powerful supreme being is particularly at odds with personal or intellectual freedom; belief in the Norse or Greek gods is not especially worrisome, for pretty much the exactly converse reasons.
I gotta say, this thread has been surprisingly tiresome: Usually it's the trolls taking chippy little potshots at people, not the Good Guys™!
Not that anyone asked for my opinion, but...
1. Joking about something does not mean you don't take it seriously.
2. Addressing yourself to people who don't share your beliefs does not mean you don't actually believe your beliefs yourself (nor does some triviality of capitalization).
3. A large percentage of us (and a large majority of Americans) were born into a default religion, and it takes an intellectual and emotional journey to arrive at atheism. Pissing on people because you don't perceive them as being as far along on the journey as you are doesn't help anyone.
[deep breath]
BTW, Sven (@55): What can you tell me about the consequences of the Uneeda Biscuit in the airtight sanitary package? ;^)
Posted by: CJO | December 2, 2008 5:44 PM
I have always enjoyed the take on the bible presented by the avant-garde rock group The Residents in their performance art video "Wormwood"... it's a little hard to find, but well worth it. I think excerpts are floating around youtube...
I saw that performed live, in Athens of all places, in an honest-to-goodness (though modern) Greek amphitheater. It was pretty damn cool.
Representative moment: After a lengthy musical re-telling of the trials of Job, "Funny story, I know. But it happened to a friend of mine, just the other day..."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | December 2, 2008 5:55 PM
Emmet (@76):
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that discrepancy before, but now that you bring it up, I think it's a matter of treating Thor, Kali, Apollo, et al., more like literary characters and less like "real" gods. That is: Nobody cares whether you capitalize Thor because nobody takes Thor seriously as a god; since there are (effectively) no believers, there's no need to use typographical flourishes to make plain our disbelief.
In addition, in polytheistic schemes, the names of the gods are more like names: A monotheist wouldn't say that "God" was a name (maybe Yahweh, or the 8.999 billion other names); instead, s/he would say something like "there are many false gods but only one true God." It's that one-true-ness that we're denying when we make a point of lowercasing god... for those who bother to worry about such things.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 2, 2008 6:03 PM
i think i could get used to this kind of treatment of the Bible. I take it then PZ that you will keep this as an update like Friday Cephelapod and Radio reminder. Right? I certainly hope so.
Humans can't be faulted for doing what they want, because if they didn't, evil wouldn't exist. If that were the case, there would be nothing to make God look better by comparison. All these stories serve to do is point out the incompetance of God by constantly giving examples of how he's better. God, by definition, needs no comparisons, so all that he has done is pointless masochism.
As a side note, that God's creations were imperfect shows that God is imperfect. A perfect thing can Never become imperfect, directly or indirectly; and since humans are image-bearers of God (whatever the hell that means), we would be unable to mar that image without having already been made imperfect. How can a God lower his standars like that in the first place? Where's his perfectionism then?
It doesn't apply to Good, only Evil. Evil has all the weapons, all the bases, all the intelligence, but Good people are expected to win out in this "Spiritual War?" Sounds like God himself is delusional.
Posted by: Holbach | December 2, 2008 6:05 PM
stogoe @ 81
You can determine McCarthyism from my statements when no reference is infered or otherwise? Man, even that surprises me, and I know my opinions better than you do.
Posted by: Wowbagger | December 2, 2008 6:08 PM
I tend to use 'god' as a noun but not a proper noun, hence the lack of capitalisation - and, since I usually refer, when writing about it, to describe said deity as 'your god' or 'the xian god' it's not in a context that requires capitalisation.
Besides, isn't the judeo-xian god named Yahweh? I feel that by using god with a capital 'g' supports the ridiculous implication that theirs is more real and relevant to the discussion than anyone else's.
Posted by: Patricia | December 2, 2008 6:09 PM
er, Bill, there actually are rather a lot of people taking Thor seriously.