…and this is a 
Sometimes these kooks reveal that they even read the blog…somewhat obsessively and angrily. This one seems to be a follow-up to yesterday's email, and I think he's unhappy that I put up that other crank's letter and not his. I'm sorry, but I don't even remember what his previous letter's point was, and if this one is any indication, it was another spittle-flecked disjointed ramble, and I'm afraid I don't read those with much attention. However, since he really wants to join the pantheon (a very crowded pantheon) of irate readers, I'm happy to oblige.
Don't get any ideas, though, all you other crackpots! This guy got away with it, but if you all start demanding your tirades be posted, I'm not going to be accommodating.
Well sir,
I hesitate to believe that your silence is some kind of assent to the truth of what I tried to express in my previous e-mail message yesterday. I notice in your "blog" today---somewhat amazingly considering the typical time constraints on an associate professor---that you graciously acknowledged receiving "11 weird harangues . . . in my mailbox this morning." Perhaps my harangue was one of these? Well mister you need to get a few harangues in your mailbox in the morning, if you don't mind my saying so. You opened up this silly door by being a "public figure" with an exceptionally big mouth who likes to put down other people---seemingly every day of his life---so take it like a man, would you please? Go ahead, dismiss me all you want, laugh at me, lump me in with all the other people you marginalize and stereotype. Oh I know, you probably feel so useful in your roles as atheist "blog-meister," small-town scientist, condemner of "inferior people," Lord over ALL "creationists" and defender of truth (as you seem to perceive it anyway), and you probably don't have time for my little rants. So be it. I don't care, I will write my rants anyway. Really, I am not trying to be clever or to persuade you of anything. Why would I do that? What would be the point? You've obviously heard it all before and you obviously know everything you need to know for your own personal fulfillment. So be it. What I am doing, in fact, is condemning you, as best I can. Why? Because in my estimation your actions reflect something that is fundamentally wrong and disgraceful, and I feel that it is my duty to write whether you read it or not---whether you butcher up my comments in your silly "blog" or not. Since we will probably never meet in person, this is the best I can do. It is, for me, a matter of principle or I would not feel or speak so strongly about it. Like you, I will not remain silent when I am offended by something or someone, especially something or someone in the public eye. This is not an attempt to offend you, rather, it is me telling you what I think about you since you have chosen to enter my world with your public presence. How is that you say? When, as of late, I have often to read about a certain person named "PZ Myers," often just in my ordinary non-specific reading, and when this person often does ridiculous bizarre things, apparently to gain attention to himself in furtherance of what appears to be a self-perceived "cause," it becomes a nuisance to me, and to many others who don't take the time to write you. Since you are a "public" person, I am entitled to tell you what I think and feel, whether you care or not. I am not writing depending on whether you care or not, obviously. Why do you think so many people write these "harangues" anyway, professor? Or perhaps you ONLY prefer to listen to the people who react favorably to you as a public entity? Wouldn't that be nice, if everyone thought you were peaches and cream? Think about it, would you please? To pretend to worship you, as others might, for sharing some superior insight you believe you have into the nature of things, would be lying on my part to say the least. I don't think that in much of any way, obviously quite the opposite is what I think: I think that you offer NO insight into the nature of things of any real or lasting value, and the only reason that you persist is most probably because you enjoy being a nuisance for its own sake. I think that if you actually did value getting at the true nature of our planet and the cosmos of which it is part, it wouldn't be so important for you to have daily opportunity to belittle others in a public forum like the internet---you would instead, as most decent people have in ages past, offer your particular contribution to knowledge humbly and with respect for others. You have earned my disrespect with your actions and words against others, and you do no service to humanity with such behaviour, no matter how strongly you feel about your scientific insights---they are not worth the pain you cause to others. Of course, you probably don't care to hear this.
Think about these two statements for a nanosecond:
What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know?
I don't believe that you can answer these questions at all. "Ahhh", you might say, (just to give a random example I picked up from your so-called "blog" today. You might say: (imagine a real arrogant guy with a beard for a second saying this)
"You need to know that whales had babies on land at one time, and what a profound revelation that is!"
This is an example of what you daily worry about? This is what I, therefore, need to worry about? I need to worry and think about how scientists think whales used to reproduce in the past? Or, I need to overly concern myself the fact that scientists believe that whales may have changed over millions of years? That's IT? That is an example of the kind of earth-shattering insight that you would share with humanity as a scientist? This is why you are so incessantly noisy and bothersome and offensive to others who don't happen to be scientists? This is why God is dead for you? Because whales like everything else in this incredible universe, have changed over time? That's just wonderful. Great. Do you think it is then justifiable to condemn other people because (for whatever reason) they may not believe just as you do as a professional scientist, (and who gives a fig whether it's about whales, it could be anything, that's just my example). Should we condemn the "common" people if they do not subscribe to certain ideas in other academic areas as well? Should this be the calling of all practitioners of academic subjects, to condemn others in an offensive manner, oh yes . . . in the name of truth? I honestly don't think you really care a bling for any brand of truth, but unfortunately that seems to have made you especially vociferous, and miracle or miracles the internet allows you to fully vent.
Probably you protest that we are strangers, and you object to receiving this kind of e-mail where I ask these kinds of questions and make these kind of observations. Perhaps we are strangers, but only in the sense that I have never met you in person as a fellow human being, that is to say, as a flesh and blood person; but your persona, which is to say, your social facade via the internet, and your actions as a person in the public forum are regrettably there for all to see, and this is what I know about PZ Myers; and it is this public persona that offends me that I am addressing. You are a professor at a university, but that of itself engenders nothing special to me, nor does it earn my automatic respect. You went to college and majored in biology. Would you like a medal or something? You seem to equate the noble profession of science, and particularly the subject of biology with atheism? My question is, why? And by what authority do you speak for scientists? Do you have a right to speak for all scientists? Or even all atheists? Can you see how your arrogant, dismissive attitude towards others might be offensive and an embarrassment to many, if not most scientists? Or, to many if not most atheists? Do you think scientists or atheists want to be thought of as being like that "communion-wafer maniac." Based on your example, should all scientists crusade against people of religious faith in the most offensive possible manner? I may have majored in biology myself, for all you know, I may have more degrees than you, but that is not the point. I have known and worked with many fine professors, and you sir, are not one. Not because of what you do or do not know, but because of your actions as a public figure and your lack of comportment as a supposedly learned man in the public eye. You undoubtedly believe that you are in some sense "saving the world" by condemning others, but what in God's name do you hope it will accomplish ? In the hope that there will be more "intellectual", sarcastic, blow-hards such as yourself? How liberating! What a positive boon for thinking people everywhere! What a vision for the future well-being of the human race! La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da. I have looked hard for a while now to find some redeeming qualities in all your brouhaha, but from one intellectual and humanist to another, they just ain't there.
You are a curiosity to me, as I find curious anyone---and forgive me here but I think that you yourself have made this a fact---as I find curious anyone who holds themselves in the public spotlight as possessing "special revelations" that we all need to know about as educated human beings. For those who daily "blog-in" to praise you for your "special insights," it seems perfectly natural to them in their eagerness to identify with you, and you become a kind of (forgive me) messiah to some of them undoubtedly in their zeal. I repeat: What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know? Answer: you don't know anything that I need to know. You think you know something profound about the way the world works? So what. Many people have this same delusion. You think evolution explains the world. So what, could be. I don't object to your science, I object to your arrogance in the public forum. I have known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up! You are an embarrassment to the academic world. With all your knowledge, your are in my estimation a failure as an educator, at least as far as one can judge from your public utterances and actions. You educate others in the false way to behave. You are doing more damage than good. You are a negative karma engine. As an atheist, perhaps the idea of doing damage while you can is for you a point of personal pride, but not everyone on the planet really gives a rat's behind about how you inject your personal vengeance against faith into your professional career, or how good you are at pretending to be superior to others. It would be a hoot, I am sure, to sit in on one of your classes. Who cares what the "truth" might be if it comes from some arrogant, prattle-mouth such as yourself. God forbid that one of your students may not think as you do! Do you really think you are doing scientists, your students, and the general public a favor by pretending to be some kind of lunatic, defacto "defender of the scientific cause"? Even the other atheist scientists of the world find you obnoxious, and wish you would be quiet. Probably never happen.
Don't let all the insipid praise that you may receive on your "blog" go to your head. Do something surprising and print this e-mail in your little internet newspaper, I would love to read 500 tons of criticism of what I have just written by your fellow maniacs.
just another human being,
David Hartmann
Man, this guy really needs to learn that if I put something on the web, he is not required to read it, especially since he has declared that I don't know anything he needs to know. I'm very concerned for his blood pressure.
Comments
Posted by: discipleofkitsch | February 5, 2009 8:04 AM
yeesh....anybody who can actually endure reading all that is a better man than I.
Posted by: Ranson | February 5, 2009 8:06 AM
I'm reminded of a quote by comedian Ron White:
"Let me tell YOU something about YOU that YOU don't know."
You're on the money with your assessment, PZ. Dude needs to step back from the computer and breathe. Or, failing that, go look at the "box-of-kittens-cam" or something.
Posted by: IST
|
February 5, 2009 8:09 AM
WTF? So his entire point is that he doesn't care what you have to say? Easy solution for you here, David: don't bother to read the blog. What a complete and utter waste of time and effort.
Posted by: Robin | February 5, 2009 8:10 AM
It's amazing how much trouble some people will go to to tell you they don't care.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | February 5, 2009 8:10 AM
Get to the frikking point!
Posted by: Martin | February 5, 2009 8:11 AM
Soooo many words and not a single atom of sense. What actually does this witless moron try to say ? Reading his crap is like opening the huuuuge karton your new computer is supposed to be in, just to discover it's just filled completely with these fluffy flakes. You dig and dig and dig and dang, there has to be *something*. But there just isn't. Only fluffy emptyness and stupidity.
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | February 5, 2009 8:12 AM
That was a REALLY long-winded way to just say ... FU!
Posted by: j.t.delaney | February 5, 2009 8:14 AM
Holy crap! Somebody needs a hug, and maybe some medication too.
Posted by: LisaJ | February 5, 2009 8:15 AM
Fellow maniac here,
PZ, I think this guy is infatuated with you. He keeps saying that he doesn't care what you think, but I can tell that he does.
And by the way, I think you're "peaches and cream" and you teach me things every day... so he's just a big dummy! I wonder if he's stopped kicking and come out of his corner yet.
Posted by: Cleon | February 5, 2009 8:16 AM
Sweet. Smurfy. Jebus.
Posted by: Scpetical Chymist | February 5, 2009 8:17 AM
My my! He is upset, isn't he? And what does he have against Whales? I think Whales is the finest part of the British Isles. When I was young, I used to love to spend my summers there. Oh wait a minute, that should be Wales, not Whales. That comes of reading too much Dylan Thomas.
Posted by: Pete Moulton | February 5, 2009 8:17 AM
How you do go on, David! Makes me wonder whom you're trying to convince.
Posted by: firemancarl | February 5, 2009 8:18 AM
I agree Kitsch! I had to start skimming, teh stoopid made my head hurt. Oh, why does it seem that nearly all creotards and IDiots never took and english comp. class?
Posted by: Ricky Gremlin | February 5, 2009 8:18 AM
Mr. Hartmann, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Posted by: ice9 | February 5, 2009 8:19 AM
Mr. Hartman is not sensible, but he is mechanically sound. Proper apostrophes, effective colons, paired long hyphens, good spelling, sound sentence structures...that's worth something. I even sussed out paragraphs, though I think the software gobbled up his indents. I want to commend him, especially if that entire screed was composed on short notice, as he says.
The Unabomber wrote precise prose, too.
ice
Posted by: JC | February 5, 2009 8:20 AM
"What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know?"
You know he is a crank
He needs to know this.
Posted by: Andy James | February 5, 2009 8:20 AM
Christians are apparently happy leading boorish, insipid, wonder-less existences, which require their daily affirmation that the universe is just as boring as their uneducated brains would lead them to believe. Thus justifying their lives of sloth and inaction.
Here in America, this is the best the clergy can expect to extract from their flocks. Were we in Iran, I wonder if this man would enjoy the systematic murder, justified by his barbaric religion, of those his clergy criticize.
Fundamentalist religion is a threat to civilization, not the basis of it.
Posted by: Alan Millar | February 5, 2009 8:21 AM
"I would love to read 500 tons of criticism of what I have just written by your fellow maniacs."
But you're not actually going to consider whether any of these points are valid, are you?
IMO, the fundamental reason why people like P Z Myers treat your opinions with such disrespect it because they are so horrendously uniformed or dogmatic. It's not opinion. He knows his field and hence recognises that you're just parroting myths.
You want respect for your debating points, but you're not coming to the party - figuring out what the debate is actually about. This is why he can be confident that you don't have more biology degrees than he does.
You would get the same treatment from an English academic if you wrote to complain that Shakespeare was over-rated crap because he was gay and anyway it wasn't him who wrote the plays. They know full well you haven't the least idea of what you're talking about, and therefore will accord you no respect.
Apologies for taking him seriously, he just sounds so desperate that I couldn't help feeling a little sympathetic.
Posted by: Thorn | February 5, 2009 8:21 AM
That is so very boring. What was he accusing pz of again? Was it something about forcing him to read this "so-called" blog?
I've never see anyone say so little with so many words.
Posted by: Nefari | February 5, 2009 8:22 AM
Christ on a stick! And this person is out there somewhere. I hope I don't ever encounter this guy and give him a REAL grievance, like fail to signal when merging.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
February 5, 2009 8:22 AM
It's all about him:
"Let me act stupid so I can bask in the attention."
Wouldn't it be nice if the critics of science finally learned enough to say something that needed an actual response rather than just mockery?
Posted by: Tobor Redrum | February 5, 2009 8:22 AM
Since he apparently wants to stir up a fuss, I think instead of giving this idiot the attention he craves, we should just ignore him and post as few comments as possible.
Oops, guess I blew that one. Oh well.
"Internet newspaper?" I shot coffee out of my nose at that one. Good thing it was decaf.
Posted by: Katkinkate | February 5, 2009 8:24 AM
Meh ... whatever. At least 1000 words of "You are arrogant, I don't agree with your world view and I want you to shut up."
Posted by: Joe W | February 5, 2009 8:24 AM
In all fairness "Negative Karma Engine" would be an excellent name for a rock band!
Posted by: Dr. J | February 5, 2009 8:25 AM
I have to admit I quit reading it too.
He won't get 500 tons of criticism (is that a new measure of electronic media storage I'm not familiar with?) as he's going to bore too many people.
In skimming around the highlighted parts, I particularly enjoyed the criticism of PZ not knowing when to shut up...this was about 4000 words into his letter with another 2000 words coming.
Posted by: Boletus | February 5, 2009 8:27 AM
The depths of American anti-intellectualism are staggering. This is all fun and games until they come to our houses singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic and bearing torches.
Posted by: Widgetas
|
February 5, 2009 8:28 AM
I'd like to see this guy have a coffee and a chat with Mr Hitchens.
Posted by: Eric the Half-Bee | February 5, 2009 8:29 AM
He claims to respect science, he wishes you would stick to science, and yet he's ridiculing you for thinking the discovery that maiacetus probably gave birth on land is important. What does he think scientists do when they're not blogging? What does he think science is?
I just found out that chemists keep getting all excited about discoveries in chemistry. It's just atoms, people. Get on with your lives!
Posted by: CortxVortx | February 5, 2009 8:29 AM
Bad case of verbal diarrhea.
Posted by: ice9 | February 5, 2009 8:30 AM
Actually, I think that the charge "negative karma engine" is a compliment.
but...what's the fuel?
ice
Posted by: Pete UK | February 5, 2009 8:31 AM
There is something in his ...turn of phrase? ... that makes me suspect he is British. How embarrassing. Sorry.
Posted by: Shite4Brains | February 5, 2009 8:32 AM
Prof, you really need to learn that if some crank sends you a rambling, psychotic email, you are not required to post it on your blog, especially since you have declared that such ramblings are the products of kooky, obsessive minds. I'm very concerned for your blood pressure (and the readability of your blog).
Posted by: Valhar2000 | February 5, 2009 8:32 AM
I am intrigued. Is this guy like that even in his everyday life? If so, who could possibly bear to stand next to him for longer than 5 minutes? If he is not, where do this nonsensical rants come from?
I really do wonder what kind of mind produces something like this.
Posted by: Furlong | February 5, 2009 8:33 AM
I remember David best as the toothy cohost of "Good Morning America" with Mariette Hartley back in the 70's. Sad to see him in his dotage.
Posted by: unicow | February 5, 2009 8:33 AM
Looks to me like Mr. Hartmann has a schoolboy crush on you, PZ.
Posted by: Zeno | February 5, 2009 8:33 AM
Whoa! Quotation marks around "blog"! This Hartmann guy is brutal. I'll bet you feel duly chastised now.
Don't feel bad, though. You could be providing a public service. There is a very real possibility that his brain-care specialist has assigned him to write you as a therapeutic act.
Posted by: defectiverobot | February 5, 2009 8:35 AM
Dear David Hartman,
I don't care about you either. Or your opinions. Or your opinions of my opinions. Or your opinions of other people's opinions on my opinions of your opinions. In fact, I don't care about you so much that I'm going to spend about two hours crafting a really long opinion about why I don't care about you. That's how much I don't care about you!
OK, so here goes, are you ready? Are you? You'd better be sitting down, because I don't care about you so much...
Oh wait. I'm bored already. I think I'll go read about whales instead. That at least provides insight into the biological nature of mammals.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by: Jeanette | February 5, 2009 8:37 AM
I'm glad that I'M not required to read everything you post, PZ, because that guy's email was WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY too long. I read the parts you wrote, and skimmed the lengthy email (something about HE thinks YOU think HE should be upset about how cool that whale fossil was), but I'm glad you say you're not going to turn your blog over to all of those blabbery whackos. I don't mind a lengthy diatribe when it's ABOUT something, but life is short. But I guess for those who believe in eternal life, time (among other things) doesn't have the same value that it for rational people.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | February 5, 2009 8:39 AM
Oh no - your negatative karma engine ran over the negative dogma engine...
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | February 5, 2009 8:41 AM
...need to feed all the crank emails through a markov chain-based generator. That way PZ could produce statistically accurate crank cretinist emails on demand!
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
February 5, 2009 8:41 AM
Think my fave bit was this:
What in God's name indeed. Oh wait, you already answered yourself: save the world. And then there's the minor problem with how athiests, um, don't do anything in God's name.
I didn't realize fail came in such high concentrations. I hope protective gear wasn't required to handle this stuff.
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | February 5, 2009 8:41 AM
That's like the longest email ever.
Posted by: Oliver | February 5, 2009 8:43 AM
@David Hartmann:
Here's something you don't know you pointless boob: you're a terrible stylist. A grasp of the basic grammatical tools is not a substitute for content.
I'd suggest you try again. Write something of substance this time. Something else you plainly don't understand is that this "blog"'s readership is open-minded enough to acknowledge a palpable hit when it's delivered.
Posted by: True Bob | February 5, 2009 8:43 AM
You guys are being too tough on him. In Hartmann's defense, he did spell "Myers" correctly.
Oh, and Mr. Hartmann, try to imagine how little we care about your daft opinions.
Posted by: Tack | February 5, 2009 8:44 AM
Yikes. tl;dr
Posted by: TrineDK | February 5, 2009 8:44 AM
I... tried... reading... the... hhrrzzzzz..... (snort)zz.. whole ... thing... (Yawn)
It was long wasn't it?
I failed...
Posted by: Epikt | February 5, 2009 8:47 AM
Did he just stop in mid-rant and break into a chorus of "Brown-Eyed Girl?"
Posted by: Guy G | February 5, 2009 8:48 AM
Two very insightful questions to ask. I think that if more people asked these questions about each other, the world might be a better place.
Ah. Maybe not.
Posted by: Dexter Fox | February 5, 2009 8:48 AM
Guy really needs to get to the point a bit faster. Really just rambles around a lot.
Posted by: Endor | February 5, 2009 8:48 AM
Someone already said it, but who is this guy trying to convince. Sounds like PZ hit a serious nerve and Mr. Hartman is struggling with some serious doubt.
I feel sorry for him. He's clearly trying way to hard to hold onto something that isn't working for him anymore.
Posted by: AwesomeJack16 | February 5, 2009 8:50 AM
That... diatribe was remarkably laced with insecurity. Notable of a passive-aggressive personality.
/e-diagnosis
But honestly, it reminds of when I broke up with a girlfriend a while back.
"I don't care what you think, but you're selfish and self-serving. Again, I could care less what you think, but I can't stand the way you keep the toilet seat up..." And so on and so forth.
But I think he may have a point. I don't particularly agree with the way P.Z. refers to the "common man" followers of creationism, since it has a way of chastising them and pushing them away instead of teaching them something about evolution.
BUT, I do agree with the way he mocks and makes aggressive criticisms of the so-called leaders of the creationist/ID movement. They are trying to bombast the educational system with their schlock and deserve to be made fun of.
Posted by: D | February 5, 2009 8:50 AM
We are the maniacs? People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks!!
Posted by: JeffreyD | February 5, 2009 8:51 AM
Ten points for grammar and spelling, zero for content.
Mr. Hartmann, I will take a crack at your questions - "What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know?" To the first, the answer is - How the world works. To the second - You are an ignorant fool. Sit in front of your mirror, read you rant aloud and think about how it sounds and makes you look. After this exercise you should realize that your manners and comprehension of life can only be equated to that of baboons and only then by libeling and slandering the habits and mentality of those creatures.
I also wonder why all of you ranters bring up that PZ lives in a small town and teaches at a Univ in the same. I thought the small town was the heart of America, Sarah Palin's real Americans. Was she not correct?
Ah well, need to get on with converting kittens to food and my experiments on making fuel from puppies. The life of an atheist is hectic.
Mr. Hartmann, I will pray for you.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: KI | February 5, 2009 8:52 AM
This is the kind of stuff that makes me wonder if I shouldn't get away from the computer and go do something worthwhile with my life.
Posted by: JKrudys | February 5, 2009 8:53 AM
Hey David Hartmann, just because you call yourself an intellectual and humanist, doesn't mean you are one. I'm not sure many of that type believe in "negative karma engines". And how do you write that long insane, rambling, babbling manifesto, and then come to the conclusion that PZ is the "arrogant" and "obnoxious" one. Yikes!
Posted by: Heather A. | February 5, 2009 8:53 AM
Gee, there are a lot of Associate Professor David Hartmanns out there. Too bad. I should like to send him an e-mail chiding him for his failure to use a comma around "sir" and "mister," his overuse of scare quotes, and the comma splice in his last sentence, among other things, such as lack of compelling content. F-minus-minus.
Posted by: DrFrank | February 5, 2009 8:53 AM
Wow, that email was so lacking in content it even missed out the usually compulsory references to Hitler.
Posted by: seventhrib | February 5, 2009 8:54 AM
I did read the whole thing because I am a hero. This was the best bit:
"You undoubtedly believe that you are in some sense "saving the world" by condemning others, but what in God's name do you hope it will accomplish ? In the hope that there will be more "intellectual", sarcastic, blow-hards such as yourself? How liberating! What a positive boon for thinking people everywhere! What a vision for the future well-being of the human race! La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da."
There's something really brilliant about how he calls PZ sarcastic and then immediately launches into what looks like an extreme parody of sarcasm, especially the la-de-dah bit. It's possible he was doing it all in an ironic way, but I have my doubts.
I really hope PZ Myers starts writing blog posts in that tone of voice. "Creationism! How true! How incredibly accurate! La-de-dah!"
Posted by: penn | February 5, 2009 8:54 AM
Shorter version for those who couldn't make it through (myself included):
You're an arrogant jerk who doesn't know/write anything I don't already know. I wish I knew how to quit you.
Posted by: Louis | February 5, 2009 8:55 AM
For those that didn't/won't read the entire thing: I just have and I came out of the experience dumber. Don't bother. There isn't one single coherent point to the whole thing.
Mr Hartman doesn't like PZ's actions, his (in Mr Hartman's "mind"*) arrogance, and well, the fact that PZ is now a "public figure" who has an opinion or two that Mr Hartman dislikes and isn't afraid to express it. Because PZ is a "public figure" Mr Hartman is free, very free it would seem, to send PZ anything he likes and critique him any way he likes.
Throughout the ENTIRE diatribe provided by Mr Hartman there is not one single argument other than "PZ = Teh Meenie" and how he should shut up and get back in his place. No comment on science (other than to dismiss it out of hand), no rational assessment of anything, just pure, unmedicated spleen venting. It's a less coherent version of the "framing" debate.
I'm thinking Mr Hartman needs to check into his local psychiatric unit and speak to someone about his obvious issues, which may or may not include: closet homosexuality inspired man love, mania, paranoia, schizophrenia and simply being a real life concerned lunatic.
I hope this helps.
Louis
*I can has scare quotes too. Ain't they fun?
Posted by: Veltyen | February 5, 2009 8:58 AM
tl;dr
Save time for reading something more worthwhile - like about titanoboas for instance.
Also an all purpose quick response to other emails of this type.
Posted by: Carpworld | February 5, 2009 8:59 AM
Wow, he's awesome, can i have him?
And "negative karma engine", nice going PZ! That's only one rung down from "internet haet machine"!
Posted by: fastpathguru | February 5, 2009 9:00 AM
Ad Hom much?
Posted by: Valor Phoenix | February 5, 2009 9:00 AM
I concur with commenter-#15. There are properly used em dashes right near a properly done quotation with ellipses for the unquoted excerpt. It's like he managed to pull out a grammar-guide worth of grammar in one insane rambling monologue.
As for those that don't want to read it, the beginning and ending ramble too much to have clear points other than, "You think I'm crazy, _you're_ the crazy one!" type assertions.
Oddly enough, there is a bit in the middle about whales and biology that's like a anti-climate change type going out to hump a tree, then demanding to know why that particular tree is so freaking important to the entire environment.
:PS: Bad PZ! Put the letter below the fold, the whole messy thing is bloating up the main page.
Posted by: Deepsix | February 5, 2009 9:00 AM
Wall of text crits you for 93847472! You die.
Hey PZ, how about a little warning on the length of the thesis before we start reading it? Not cool, man. Not cool.
Posted by: Greymalkin | February 5, 2009 9:01 AM
I've not read this email. I have a life. :-D
Okay.... I read bits and pieces. What is up with the quotes around "blog" (every single time). Isn't this a real blog? You could have fooled me...
Posted by: Mill | February 5, 2009 9:01 AM
"You offer no insight into the nature of things! Stop wasting your time blogging and get on with something useful and relevant to science!
What's that? A fossilised whale that needed to give birth on land has just been discovered? SO!?"
Five lines, dude. The most important part of writing is editing.
Posted by: Opisthokont | February 5, 2009 9:01 AM
I must admit, this fellow is remarkably lucid. Neither spelling nor grammar appear to provide a challenge, and given what PZ has posted from his detractors before, that alone is quite impressive. But on top of that, he actually seems to have a train of thought, and to represent it coherently!
Now, of course, his point seems to be that he has no concept of the value or process of science. That, and that he finds himself compelled to read everything by any public figure he has ever been exposed to, and that he has a duty to respond vociferously if nonsubstantively. That level of empty miscomprehension is not often combined with this level of clarity. Impressive, indeed!
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 5, 2009 9:02 AM
There is something in his ...turn of phrase? ... that makes me suspect he is British. - Pete, UK
Not American, anyway: "behaviour", not "behavior". How do Antipodeans and Canadians spell this word? But yes, this particular species of pointless blather strikes me as most likely to be British.
Oh, by the way PZ, here's some "insipid praise", just so you don't run short: on the whole I think your blog is quite good.
Posted by: stephanurus | February 5, 2009 9:03 AM
Boring letter. Now can we get back to the evilution, please?
stephanurus
Posted by: afterthought | February 5, 2009 9:04 AM
Well, on the plus side, David did manage to include the word "vociferous".
Posted by: CrypticLife | February 5, 2009 9:04 AM
Among other things, it sounds like he doesn't quite comprehend how science works.
He brings up the supposed insignificance of knowing the whale was once a land animal to his daily life. This is true, he probably doesn't need to know this on a daily basis. However, science is largely about small, incremental advances in knowledge, not the giant leaps forward. Knowing that science generally works this way means you don't assume every minor not-yet-repeated experiment signifies a paradigm shift even when the media presents it that way.
It's also probably the first time I've heard a troll complaining you offer too much science in your blog. If he wants something he can use on a daily basis (that doesn't involve understanding how logic and careful investigation works), he should subscribe to a restaurant blog or business blog instead.
Posted by: Don | February 5, 2009 9:05 AM
At the level of the sentence, at least, this poor fulminating fellow is not a bad writer. What a shame that he must dwell forever and ever among the benighted and the unredeemed.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | February 5, 2009 9:06 AM
"So be it. I don't care, I will write my rants anyway."
I guess he's used to talking to entities that don't respond to him.
I wonder what he makes of god's silence?
I'm really amazed he typed all of that out. If anyone ever DID meet him in person, I imagine he's the type to go off on a mindless rant and continue babbling long after you've backed away and escaped.
Posted by: latsot | February 5, 2009 9:07 AM
Mr Hartman,
Tim Berners-Lee just called. He says the Internet is not about you. Sorry.
Posted by: azqaz | February 5, 2009 9:07 AM
Wow. I truly hope that is one of the longer e-mail rants you have ever received. It was mind numbing in content and length.
That said it seems to come off to me as "Hello, I'm a masochist. Could you please print my rant so that I can be abused in the replies to get my kicks?"
Posted by: Clare | February 5, 2009 9:08 AM
Why is it. That so many people (and so many otherwise reasonable people - though I'm not sure this applies to Mr Hartmann at least during the time he was clattering furiously at his keyboard) are unable to happily disagree with things they disagree with, agree with what they do agree with, and refrain from condemning an entire person on the basis of how they put across those ideas.
I like to reserve my outrage for more important things.
Posted by: Faintpraise | February 5, 2009 9:08 AM
Well sir, lah de dah! I don't care a bling for this!
This letter was hilarious. I almost made it all the way through the densely packed invective. He sounds like a cross between Raffles the Gentleman Thief and a character from Gone With the Wind.
Posted by: valdemar | February 5, 2009 9:09 AM
The irony is that it's dickheads like this chap that created all the so-called 'militant atheists' in the first place. If ignorant fools would just shut up and stop dissing science we'd all be mild-mannered agnostics. Well, I probably would be.
Still, it's nice to think of the fundies all getting apoplexy and collapsing over their keyboards in a welter of righteous bloody drool because science bloggers write about science on their blogs.
Posted by: Rob | February 5, 2009 9:09 AM
Another fun form of repression:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/013535.html
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 9:09 AM
Louis:
Great assessment.
Poor David, the white male christian would-be tyrant, is becoming more impotent. He's the liar* that roared.
*(for Jebus)
Posted by: joeyess | February 5, 2009 9:11 AM
This wasn't required reading, was it Professor?
Because I simply couldn't get past the second paragraph before I went all cross-eyed.
Posted by: SteveR | February 5, 2009 9:11 AM
I made it as far as the first "What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know?" before my eyes glazed over and my brain actually interpreted the further ramblings as "Blah blah blah..."
Posted by: Aaron | February 5, 2009 9:11 AM
Without being a party-pooper, the guy actually has a pretty good point. PZ can be a colossal dick sometimes, for no other reason than to be one.
Posted by: petursey | February 5, 2009 9:12 AM
I can sum him up in one word "Cuckoo"
I've arranged for the nice men in the white jackets to call round and take Mr Hartmann to a nice padded room....
Posted by: CV | February 5, 2009 9:12 AM
@ 65
I agree, a little warning would be nice PZ. I think my cerebellum just fused.
Posted by: Joshua Tate
|
February 5, 2009 9:12 AM
It never ceases to amaze me, in my time on the internet, the lengths to which people will go to say they don't care about you (or your opinions, hobbies, etc.), when all they have to do is remove themselves from your site. Nothing is forcing anyone to go to any one site, and that's one of the beauties of the internet. All you have to do is stop reading. Then, you are no longer under the apparently oppressive views of those with whom you disagree (or about whom you don't care).
But still, people continually prove that in not caring, they somehow feel obligated to write a dissertation on why they shouldn't care, why others shouldn't care, and why you're wrong for caring about things yourself.
Posted by: Mill | February 5, 2009 9:13 AM
Faintpraise, you forgot "don't care a fig."
Posted by: Vic | February 5, 2009 9:13 AM
I use to try to understand religious people; to get into their head and see things from their side. I've been much happier since I've completely given up. It's painful. It may sound harsh, but they are all huge liars and frauds. They always claim to have some big deep agenda, but in truth they heard just heard or saw a comment that hurt them, so they lash out in an attempt to hurt the person that said it. Completely base instinct.
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 9:14 AM
Evidently Aaron has penis envy.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 5, 2009 9:14 AM
Diarrhea of the mouth, this guys got.
Not really worth 6 oz. of criticism. Shot thru & thru w/all kinds of cognitive dissonance.
(Yawn)
Posted by: Louis | February 5, 2009 9:14 AM
Why praise the guy's spelling and grammar? He's one step above totally frothing moron because he wrote the email in Word and used the spell/grammar check function? Come on people, if you can't practically SEE the underpants on this guy's head you've missed out somewhere! Reasonable written English is a very low bar to set given modern technology.
Since he went over and over and OVER the same point umpteen times (apparently PZ is a public figure dontcherknow, and thus entitled to receive frothing rants etc) I'm guessing some amphetamines were involved, or at least something that gives a pharmacologically similar result.
Aniwae, I dun fink speeling nor thou's grmeer is vat impawtahnt anihough.
Tongue firmly in cheek.
Louis
Posted by: Matt Heath | February 5, 2009 9:15 AM
Robin @4 wins everything
Posted by: quedula | February 5, 2009 9:15 AM
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Calm down Mr Hartmann, its only a website.
How did you manage to find it? Or, if it was accidental, why did you read it?
Posted by: Stephen Moore | February 5, 2009 9:15 AM
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
You're funny!
Sincerely,
Stephen Moore.
Posted by: Tully | February 5, 2009 9:16 AM
Wow. The stupidity, it burns. My brain started melting after the first couple of sentences...
Posted by: Fred Mounts
|
February 5, 2009 9:16 AM
Our Father which art in Morris, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in the ocean. Give us this day our daily squid. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us into temptation, and deliver us into evil(lution): For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Ramen.
Happy now, Fucktard Hartmann?
Posted by: CrypticLife | February 5, 2009 9:17 AM
so take it like a man, would you please?
There's something particularly unmanly about responding to email with a blog post? Do I get to invoke the whole "patriarchy" complaint now?
(no offense to marilove and Endor if you think it's a minor point. Actually, I think you'd rather agree that it's a damaging phrase)
Posted by: Philip1978 | February 5, 2009 9:18 AM
Thor's trousers!
Has this guy come up for air yet?
All I got from that was - "I know I don't know you in person PZ but you sure as hell annoy me cos your an arrogant public figure"
I am jealous - I only have 3 people praying for me at the moment and I got a very kind email from someone concerned that God loves me and is going to send me to hell unless I worship him!
:)
Posted by: Mr P | February 5, 2009 9:18 AM
My negative karma engine runs on biodiesel. I am planning on converting it to run on hydrogen in the near future.
But seriously, its not about what people NEED to know. If they can get dressed in the morning and feed themselves, not relive themselves in public, etc then they know all they NEED to. Its about the WANT to know.
Posted by: Karen | February 5, 2009 9:18 AM
Wow. I pity anyone who has to live with or deal with him on a daily basis. The nagging has to drive them a bit batty.
Posted by: KenMoore | February 5, 2009 9:18 AM
Dear David,
I'm not going to criticize you. I would only suggest that next time you decide to write one of these letters, instead open your mind and take the time to learn a little about science. Maybe you'll find something that interests you.
Yet another human being,
Ken
Posted by: Philip1978 | February 5, 2009 9:21 AM
I must humbly apologise for my use of the word "your" instead of "you're" - I am an English Graduate and so therefore don't know any better!
:)
Posted by: Isherwood | February 5, 2009 9:21 AM
Maniac # 443, checking in.
Mr. Hartmann, you have no idea who we (many more than 500) maniacs are. We respect Dr. Myers for his work, not his beard. We are fathers and mothers and grandparents who love their families and work hard. We're educated, and rational, and concerned for humanity.
In short, we're nothing like what you seem to think we are. You, however, have proven yourself exactly like we think you are. Bravo.
Posted by: Brasidas | February 5, 2009 9:21 AM
That letter defines the opposite of laconic: maximum word use; minimum information.
PeteUK @31. I immediately thought "British" (even "English"), too. I too apologise.
Posted by: quedula | February 5, 2009 9:22 AM
Yes, you are right Matt Heath.
Robin @4 says all that's really needed.
PZ should delete everything else to make sure Mr Hartmann doesn't miss it!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | February 5, 2009 9:22 AM
I read far enough to see that he spelled "PZ Myers" correctly. I knew from that point that this is not a true crank and that he would be boring.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | February 5, 2009 9:22 AM
Why is it that so many of these people who claim to follow the sky-fairy who wrote "love thy neighbour" also seem to make thinly (and not so thinly) veiled threats?
Lack of appropriate medication is the reason that springs to my mind.
Heh. I won't speak for everyone but sometimes I think PZ is a dick. I read here because it's interesting and there's often something to be learned. Being a dick and having something important or interesting to say are two things that simply aren't related. People who offer to pray for me are dicks too, but they're the kind that don't have anything important to say.
Personally, I would think it really weird if there were many PZ sycophants who just believed everything he said. In fact, I think PZ would think that is weird too, and wouldn't like it much.
WRONG!thanks for playing! As a minimum, he knows how to think critically and considers it important to spread the knowledge and benefits of thinking critically around to other people. Everyone needs to know how to think critically.
Posted by: Indianfreethinker | February 5, 2009 9:24 AM
I am a psychiatrist. Judging from this mail, this man really needs therapy.
Posted by: islandchris | February 5, 2009 9:25 AM
I have to confess I started skimming half way through - but his comments about the Whale ancestor giving birth on land illustrate that huge problem we have with religious America.
This is really cool stuff we're finding out about the world around us - unravelling a marvelous tale of 4 billion years of biological evolution. Whether its 1 ton snakes, Whale ancestors, the origins of the adaptive immune system or that breasts arose from teeth (so to speak) - these are truly fascinating insights into how we (the collective biosphere) came to be here. This is real insight.
I have no idea how educated David Hartman is, but his dismissal of the Whale information illustrates perfectly the kind of dark age people like him would bring upon all of us if they had the power to do so. They're trying to accomplish this right now through an assault on the education system (including Universities it now seems), and their mindset is well illustrated by the tone of this letter. They don't fight with alternative ideas, but try to dismiss scientific insights as incomplete or inadequate (without any details of course), and launch instead into ad hominem attacks and project all the intellectual detritus of religion ("belief", "worship" etc) onto their opponents.
Their tactics are identical to those used by the Republican right - and I'm pretty sure I could tell how David Hartman voted in the last election. They lost.
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 9:25 AM
David:
Hint - you're not an intellectual, you're a muddled-thinking crank.
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
February 5, 2009 9:25 AM
I tried but failed.
Couldn't get past " but my God, they knew when to shut up! "
(Is there a price for the one who read it ALL? IF so, I bet the price remains unclaimed...)
Posted by: Martha | February 5, 2009 9:26 AM
I agree with David Hartman. And it's kind of amusing to see how prophetic his words are - you are all proving him right by heaping tons of criticism on him.
You guys are all of bunch of educated idiots.
Posted by: Leanstrum | February 5, 2009 9:28 AM
Hey PZ, I think all this hostility may be hinding some rampant sexual attraction.
Posted by: Mark | February 5, 2009 9:28 AM
Let's see, you called PZ a "blowhard," implying he's, ummm, loquacious? Garrulous? Verbose? Hmmmmmmm....
You say you don't care what PZ has to say. In the words of another prolific writer, "The [believer] doth protest too much, methinks."
Please, please, please, Mr. Hartman, google "pithy" before writing again -- if for no other reason than to save a bit of wear and tear on your poor keyboard.
Posted by: CJY | February 5, 2009 9:29 AM
The man is lucid, and reasonably well educated, as implied by his decent grammar, spelling, and vocabulary. He's just very, very, very angry.
I can answer his big questions...
What does Mr. Myers (or any scientist) knows that you don't know? His field of expertise. Duh. Much like a physician, or auto mechanic, or cabinetmaker. It just happens to be, in this case, biology.
Why does Mr. Hartmann need to know these things? On a practical level, evolutionary theory is intertwined into: all subfields of biology, medicine, geology, and fairly significant chunks of chemistry and physics. Walking whales as a very, very, small but contributory part of the picture.
On a more basic level, the answer is "because it is there." Exactly the same reason why whats-his-name climbed Mt. Everest. Mr. Hartmann seems to have abandoned crucial facets of the human condition: curiosity and the lure of the challenge.
His rant reminds me of the surly high-school student in algebra asking, "Why should I bother learning this?" indicating a total lack of vision as to where this knowledge might lead.
Mr. Hartmann, you don't care. You don't want to question. You aren't curious. That's fine. You are free to spend your life in self-imposed ignorance.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 9:29 AM
I don't know, it may be me but I get this strange feeling that Mr. Hartman doesn't have an overly stimulated curiosity about the world.
I also think he has a hard time understanding what the whole blog thing is all about.
To paraphrase many a person
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
February 5, 2009 9:30 AM
He kind of made me feel like the Tinkerbell, the Chihuahua that belonged to Paris Hilton in South Park. Here's the Youtube, in German unfortunately, but you'll get the idea: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jIzRZr7zW0
Posted by: Brock | February 5, 2009 9:31 AM
If this guy is trying to condemn PZ, he could at least have the decency to be funny.
Although, I guess his utter failure to grasp how yet another "transitional" fossil fits into the greater scheme of evolution would be funny, if it wasn't such a common problem :(
Oh no, now *I'm* not being funny. Quick, look at the kitten:
http://filer.case.edu/bwb8/graphics/condemned_cat.jpg
Posted by: JPBrowning | February 5, 2009 9:31 AM
This may have been mentioned already, but I'm on my iPhone and it's hard to read all the comments on the small screen. Sorry for repeating topics if so.
Did anyone happen to notice that despite claiming to be a humanist and harbor nothing against science, he continually referred to it as "your science"? Indicating he has no faith in it himself. Not suprising, but odd how he went about it all. Also he said "my god" like nobody else is entitled to his god. Not that I care about his invisible friends. Just shows arrogance, and he supposedly doesn't like arrogance. Hypocrisy, the bounds of it never end.
Posted by: heliobates | February 5, 2009 9:31 AM
Epikt
That was made of win!
Posted by: Teh Merkin | February 5, 2009 9:32 AM
Too long. Didn't read.
I "think" it was the "quotation" marks that finally "got" to me. Why do the "creotards" do that? Do they even "know" what quotation "marks" are for?
Well, see you all "tomorrow" then. I have already exceeded my Recommended Daily Allowance of WGS*.
*Weapons-grade St00pid
Posted by: John | February 5, 2009 9:32 AM
What an amusing little friend you've made! Teehee!
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
February 5, 2009 9:32 AM
I don't like you, nor your "blog" .. would have sufficed.
Posted by: PaulD | February 5, 2009 9:33 AM
TL;DR
Posted by: dogmeatib | February 5, 2009 9:33 AM
DAMN! I actually was lured into this one and read the whole *&^%#$&@& thing! I kept hoping for a point ... waiting for it ... waiting for it ... nothing! It's like buying ticket to a terrible movie and saying to yourself, over and over again, "it just has to get better..." But it never does.
Simple response for Mr. Hartman and his intense "not caring" about PZ's blog ...
DON'T READ IT
Wow, that was rough, I had to think, and type, and, well, actually not so much ... it was surprisingly easy, and now I have the remaining 3 hours and 57 minutes to go do something productive... Yea me!
Posted by: Colby | February 5, 2009 9:33 AM
Thanks for the one sentence summaries. I couldn't get through the whole thing because he was arrogant and said nothing I cared about. (Oh, perhaps I would have written that statement over several pages instead and be just like him).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 9:33 AM
PZ where is the Doofus background?
If anything deserves it, this does.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | February 5, 2009 9:35 AM
Dear Mr Hartman,
OK, we get it. You don't care about whales. You don't feel you need to learn anything about them.
Perhaps I don't really need to, either. But I love to. I jump with joy each time I learn about a new fossil whale. I did when I first heard of Ambulocetus. I just did when I read about Maiacetus. I'm overjoyed about this.
Whales are our friends. I'm not talking about this silly "swim with dolphins" crap; I think the dolphins have a right not to be bothered by humans. But we share a planet with whales (and they are intelligent, did you know that?), and if you share a planet, you'd better be friends. And I like to learn about the history of whales, about how they came to be. Land animals slowly morphing, step by step, into sea dwelling animals, complete with flippers, a blowhole on top of the head, and many other adaptations. Isn't this crazy? Who would have guessed? And yet, it happened. We have many intermediary steps, and every now and then, a new one is discovered. Every time, it fits nicely within the known series, and every time, it makes me a little happy.
What makes you happy, Mr Hartman? Being with your loved ones? I hope so. But what makes you happy when you learn about it? Nothing? Or hearing that some supernatural being loves you? But where's the evidence? It would be physically possible for me to check every new thing I hear about whales. I could go see the newly discovered bones by myself. I could read more and understand better; or I could take a sabbatical and seriously study paleontology.
But what about you? Perhaps your nebulous being actually hates you, and it's its fault if you broke your leg or tragically lost a family member. Perhaps it plays dice, and gives you good or bad things on a whim. Perhaps it doesn't care, and it's not responsible of anything that happens to you. And perhaps it's simply not there, which is almost the same. Why choose one of those solutions rather than the others? What are the reasons? And what does it bring you?
Mr Hartman, please, try to be frineds with the whales rather than with supernatural beings. They do exist... but for how long? The more you'll know about them, the more you'll like them. Unlike gods, fairies, gnomes and devils, they actually need you to like them. Because they need us to stand up for them, to say that they must live on, not disappear from the face of the Earth. The Earth that we share with beings of flesh and blood, both human and non-human. There are so many things you need to learn about them. You can't be arrogant when you learn. Try it and you'll see.
Posted by: KI | February 5, 2009 9:35 AM
oh fuck not martha
Posted by: BG | February 5, 2009 9:35 AM
It is now my mission to Poe-up a crank email to see if I can get PZ to post it.
Posted by: Brasidas | February 5, 2009 9:36 AM
Hey, what happened to my comment?
Hate to repeat it in case it reappears, but...
That mail defined the opposite of laconic: maximum word use; minimum information.
PeteUK @31 I, too, thought "British" (even "English").
Posted by: Davey | February 5, 2009 9:36 AM
Jeez, my eyelids hit the deck with this rant. Note to Mr. Non-Stop: textual bloviating is not the same thing as having a point.
Posted by: Michael | February 5, 2009 9:36 AM
As I kept scrolling and scrolling (and scrolling), I was really hoping that it was from Ben Stein.
Oh well...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 9:36 AM
Or at least cleverly insulting.
Posted by: IST
|
February 5, 2009 9:37 AM
hmm... He might be a Brit, Canadian, Antipodean, or he might just have a pretentious affectation for writing in "British" English. Based on the rest of his pompous nonsense, I'd vote for the latter.
Posted by: Cruithne | February 5, 2009 9:38 AM
That, ladies and gentlemen is what happens when you let someone with both a narcissistic personality disorder and a massive inferiority complex loose on a keyboard.
You know those drunks who sidle up to you and slur...You think you're better than me?
Well duh, yeah I think I'm better than anyone who ever asks that question.
So mr fancy schmancy professor Myers, you think you're better than this guy with all your hi-falutin education and big words, do you, huh, do you?
Posted by: David Wiener | February 5, 2009 9:39 AM
I think I can sum this up (pardon me PZ if I get your side wrong)....
PZ (to the world): Please back up your assertions with verifiable facts, or kindly STFU
Mr. Hartman: I don't know any facts and I don't care if you do. You are mean because, because.... you want me know facts. PHHHHHTTTT!
There - I think that does it.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 5, 2009 9:40 AM
I too would like to complain about a certain "PZ Myers": this letter was a gold mine for the red font inline commentary. Now I feel compelled to waste most of the day ... No. Must not. Must work. Shouldn't activate snark hormones.
Skimming that monstrosity makes me fear for David Hartmann and anyone near him during one of these spells. Maybe he's all upset because he made it all the way to that final paragraph and then the power failed and he lost it all before hitting send and then he had to compose it all over again.
It's OK honey, just take the kids to your mother's and tie me to this chair. Bring me a pot of coffee. Make sure the dog has plenty of food and water and I'll call you in a few hours after I get this sent.
Also, I would like to have my rat's behind back. I know I sent it to you as a gift and as a token of my appreciation but David Hartmann was correct when he said that no one gives a rat's behind and I was wrong to send you one.
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 5, 2009 9:40 AM
No, the whales are just a cover. Like all Super Scientists, PZ is working in his secret lab, developing a Death Ray.
Soon, the whole world will be his.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: Michael | February 5, 2009 9:41 AM
As I kept scrolling and scrolling (and scrolling), I was really hoping that it was from Ben Stein.
Oh well...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 9:41 AM
How can any sane person agree with Mr. Hartmann? Talk about a pointless ramble. As the good Rev. BDC mentioned, if he doesn't like this blog, find another one. Or, even shut off the computer and read a book.
Posted by: Michigander | February 5, 2009 9:41 AM
Just for giggles (!) I pasted the text into OpenOffice and ran a word count - 1,980 words without ever making an actual point, posing a question or arguing a point. This reminds me very much of the disjointed ramblings you hear from schizophrenics, and may explain this guy's behavior. Any mental health professionals out there care to comment?
Posted by: Robert W | February 5, 2009 9:42 AM
Wow. I think I could actually feel my intelligence leaking out through my nose while reading this man's jumbled, nonsensical rant. Blood pressure should be the LEAST of his concerns.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 9:42 AM
Speak for yourself. I for one have a great respect for that beard.
It has powers.
Posted by: FishNChimps | February 5, 2009 9:42 AM
That was magnificent in a Shakespearean tragiclown self-deluded soliloquy arguing-myself-to-destruction kind of way.
Posted by: deep | February 5, 2009 9:43 AM
"internet newspaper"
heh
Posted by: GS | February 5, 2009 9:47 AM
PZ: I am amazed at the fact that you are able to read this kind of mail. The "Send to trash/delete" button would be too much a temptation for me!
Posted by: IST
|
February 5, 2009 9:48 AM
Martha> I'd greatly prefer to be an educated idiot rather to an uneducated ignoramus. You should try that next time you consider using the word educated as an insult. Anti-intellectualism may impress your bowling league friends, but it doesn't fly so well here.
Posted by: Ciaran | February 5, 2009 9:49 AM
That email was inspiring, lets all read blogs about things we don't care about and send emails to the authors telling them we don't really appreciate their tone. I've got some heavy words for a certain French Ceramics blogger.
Posted by: Greg Laden | February 5, 2009 9:49 AM
TAKE IT LIKE A MAN, PZ!!!
This will be how I greet PZ from now on.
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 5, 2009 9:50 AM
I say we try to do that weasly first-year C-student negotiation thing, and request that any exam questions be only on the first two sentences...
Which, okay, are all I can actually comment on. But those, for what it's worth, were sort of... sad, really. Someone seems to feel he's not getting enough attention...
Should we maybe get together a collection, buy him a puppy? A nice, wiggly, furry puppy that'll grow into a dog, and hang on his every word, lick his hand, tell him with soulful brown eyes that he's important, really...
Okay, yes, it'll cost us a bit. But think of the bandwidth and disk space it could save.
Posted by: Umilik | February 5, 2009 9:50 AM
All of you who managed to read through more than the first few sentences. You have my respect.
And, dear Mr Hartman, let me guess, you're some low-level bureaucrat, stuck in the same job for decades, composing government guidelines for the proper labeling of fish food containers. I understand. That would be frustrating, indeed.
Posted by: Marty | February 5, 2009 9:50 AM
Dear Mr. Hartmann,
If you're reading this, by now you're probably feeling a little disrespected. But I think there are things that you know that I need to know. Specifically, what type of tin foil hat works best to protect you from the space rays? Does name brand foil work better than generic? Is there a particular folding technique that offers more protection from the rays?
Anxiously awaiting your reply,
Marty
Posted by: Peter | February 5, 2009 9:51 AM
"La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da."
Christ! That underlined da was the clincher. I believe!
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
February 5, 2009 9:52 AM
congratulations for making PZ's blog Mr. Hartmann.
congratulations PZ for giving Mr. Hartmann the honour...
just wondering why you bothered to read his drivel though.... wife not home?? nothing on TV again??
lolz
Posted by: dingo | February 5, 2009 9:52 AM
. . . and his point was, what?
Posted by: Louis | February 5, 2009 9:53 AM
***In the spirit of good will, this is long and a side issue, skip over it to get on with the mockery!***
On the subject of not caring (and in the case of Mr Hartmann, sorry for earlier misspelling, not caring at quite some length), I have to agree with Joshua Tate @ 87 and others.
Think of an example, like Uncommon Descent. I don't agree with much they have to say there and I'm not particularly interested in the site. However, at AtBC there are a number of people who ARE interested and spend time at UD arguing with the denizens, or cataloguing their hilarious hypocrisy and nonsensical witterings. I do not condemn those who have a passion for the foibles of UD, I just don't share it to the same extent. Thus I very, very rarely go to UD. I am content to let it exist unmolested by me as the bastion of blithering incompetence and dishonesty that it is, just as I am content to enjoy the fruits of other people's interest in it. I cannot do everything nor be all things to all people.
It's the opposite of the "concern troll"/"offence" mentality. Almost by definition a concern troll is not actually concerned with the substance of the issues merely the form, just as are those people who cry "I'm offended!" at anything that violates the inner sanctum of their unconsidered ideology. The nature and validity of the question posed or offensive action done is never dealt with, only the form of it, i.e. the fact that it could/does offend someone somewhere. It's almost always the very definition of form over substance.
Unfortunately these many loud, concerned/offended voices drown out the sensible discussion that could be had. Hence why I referred to Mr Hartmann's spittle flecked correspondence above as a "less coherent version of the framing debate". In, for example, dealing with creationists the ONLY genuinely controversial debate to be had is a tactical one, i.e. how do we deal with them. Advocates of one model or another generally agree that how one deals with creationists is situational. However the many loud concerned/offended voices always manage to distract from that consensus and whip what could be a productive discussion over tactics into a polarised war over trivial forms.
I'll bet, since I am also a mean, militant, evangelical, angry, nasty, loud, vicious, offensive atheist like PZ, that if PZ (or I) were confronted by some old lady, pious in her faith and in her hospital bed waiting for death, neither of us would burst into the room crying "FUCK YOU OLD LADY!!! YOUR GOD IS A FICTION!! YOU'RE GOING TO DIE!!". We might privately think it is better for her to face the inevitable more rationally, we might not (situational, see?) but neither of us would go in condemning her for her faith. However, if instead we are faced with a comparatively hale and healthy old lady on the street stuffing a bible in our faces or attempting to legislate her faith without challenge or justification, then perhaps, just perhaps, we'd be a little less tactful. Different situations demand different tactics. Gosh, isn't THAT a revelation? ;-)
This is part of why I find the Mr Hartmanns of the world so bemusing. PZ, whilst certainly outspoken, has never been in my experience gratuitously offensive. Offensive undoubtedly, but never gratuitously so. Crackergate was the closest possible thing I can imagine, simply due to the very public whining that occurred because of it. Even that was not done gratuitously, it was done polemically. There was an important, and valid message there, one that the screaming hordes of the "concerned"/"offended" missed without exception. Offence is a valid and vital tool in challenging ANY status quo, and the situational appropriateness of its use is a subject for reasoned debate. Concern trolling/offence whoring like that of Mr Hartmann distracts from that very debate.
More than that appeals to offence/concern are fundamentally desire to control other people. A desire to remain unchallenged, to hold onto ideas in the face of evidence. To maintain some status quo, whatever that might be. It is an intellectually dishonest attempt to sidetrack the debate away from issues of substance because at some level the appellant to offence/concern knows that they haven't a leg to stand on.
So in the spirit of Mr Hartmann's illogical (and ironically arrogant) question about what PZ knows that Mr Hartmann doesn't and needs to know, I'll ask a couple of him and his ilk (I do so love that word): If, when you are offended by something I have done, have you ever considered what you might have done to offend me? More importantly have you ever considered why you are offended? Perhaps you need to be offended.
Apologies for length.
Louis
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
February 5, 2009 9:53 AM
This David Hartmann is one angry person.
He is angry at himself for being a failure apparently. He resents people who have an education and actually contribute to the world.
My guess is that his family has abandoned him and he is now alone with his failed life.
Posted by: Billy C | February 5, 2009 9:54 AM
So many words and no point at all? I think this has all been a huge mistake. Mr. Hartmann probably intended to submit his work to Social Text.
Posted by: jemand | February 5, 2009 9:55 AM
Actually, he has grammar, and spelling, and a basic grasp of the English language which enables him to write something understandable if he wouldn't go overboard and make a wall of text that one doesn't WANT to read...
Anyway. *I'd* say that probably puts him in the top 2 percent of angry criticizers PZ hears from....
But seriously dude. Why did you have to write something *THAT LONG* to say you just don't want to read this blog? Simple solution there....
Posted by: ngong | February 5, 2009 9:55 AM
Dear PZ
int i = 0;
while (i {
cout i++;
}
cout
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 5, 2009 9:56 AM
I heard that there's no chin behind PZ's beard...
(/Just two more hands for blogging.)
Posted by: WRMartin | February 5, 2009 9:56 AM
Martha @113:
Damn it, Martha! You should warn me first. Great! I have pieces of Irony Meter all over the room and now the fucking smoke detector is going off. Great! Just great! Thanks, dumbass.
Posted by: DaveX | February 5, 2009 9:56 AM
I'll save my reading time for something more substantial, thanks... a couple paragraphs in convince me that this writer isn't playing with a full deck. No sense piling on.
Posted by: Logicel | February 5, 2009 9:57 AM
IT'S A MIRACLE that this paranoid letter writer did not scare quote his entire missive (but then it would appear that he would be quoting himself, and I don't think that is possible as there is nobody at home). Hartman's ability to meddle must be downright 'overwhelming.'
Posted by: IST
|
February 5, 2009 9:57 AM
lovely.. Murphy bit me in #149... "to" should have been "than"... rewriting the entire sentence would have been helpful.
Posted by: Charles | February 5, 2009 9:57 AM
"Did he just stop in mid-rant and break into a chorus of 'Brown-Eyed Girl?'"
No, i think it was "Piano Man", but it may have been "Life Goes On".
Posted by: The Countess | February 5, 2009 9:57 AM
The whales. Please, someone, think of the whales. :)
Posted by: Umilik | February 5, 2009 10:00 AM
All of you who managed to read through more than the first few sentences. You have my respect.
And, dear Mr Hartman, let me guess, you're some low-level bureaucrat, stuck in the same job for decades, composing government guidelines for the proper labeling of fish food containers. I understand. That would be frustrating, indeed.
Posted by: ngong | February 5, 2009 10:01 AM
Ooops...something got lost after "submit".
Anyway, PZ, I am writing you to tell you that I am writing you to tell you that I write you to tell you (ad nauseum)....that you are very egocentric.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 10:03 AM
I'll just assume you are an uneducated idiot.
Who has the better standing to call someone an idiot?
Posted by: Kristine | February 5, 2009 10:04 AM
What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know?
Wow, is somebody feeling mighty insecure today?
Does somebody need attention? Or have blog envy? PZ, did you steal this man's girlfriend or something? ;-) He gets so frigging personal. Why does he think he needs to do something about somebody else's "arrogance?"
He seems very threatened by you, PZ. Well, he's also boring. This is the kind of guy who starts pestering me at the library or at the bus stop. (Believe me, cranks like this soon leave me alone having learned something that I thought they should know.)
Posted by: Valis
|
February 5, 2009 10:04 AM
@Nefari: Failure to signal is an Abomination! You will die heretic! Stone the heretic for not signalling!
Posted by: Oliver | February 5, 2009 10:05 AM
@Martha: not prophetic: he asked, we obliged.
Posted by: Rednomad | February 5, 2009 10:09 AM
A good example of quantity vs quality. He must have spent a while composing that!
Posted by: Dixie Big Burley | February 5, 2009 10:11 AM
La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da...?!?!? Did Woody Allen write this? This guy would be a great character in a Woody Allen movie.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 5, 2009 10:11 AM
PZ, you need a new hobby. Saving up all these nasty emails and their accompanying negative vibes is liable to do all sorts of crazy stuff to your PC's hard drive.
Have you tried boxing?
Posted by: rob | February 5, 2009 10:13 AM
well, that letter was...how do i put this nicely...um...long winded?
it also reminds me of some quotes:
"Never miss a good chance to shut up." ~Will Rogers
"If you keep your mouth shut you will never put your foot in it." ~Austin O'Malley
Posted by: Sauve | February 5, 2009 10:13 AM
Psh, who cares about whales.
Especially when they find shit like this;
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/02/05/giant.snake.colombia/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
:)
Posted by: ennui | February 5, 2009 10:13 AM
Sounds like the po' widdle guy needs a new box of crayons, a cookie, and a good long nap.
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 10:13 AM
That's Mrs. Hartmann to you, buster.Posted by: Mnosey | February 5, 2009 10:13 AM
Wow. I got through half and could not make it any further.
That's a whole lot of words to say nothing relevant.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | February 5, 2009 10:15 AM
Personally, I thought the only thing missing was calling PZ a "poopy-head".
Posted by: dsmccoy | February 5, 2009 10:16 AM
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Did the fellow actually arrive at a point in there somewhere? I lost interest before I found it.
Posted by: aratina | February 5, 2009 10:17 AM
Brilliant move, PZ. LMAO!
Posted by: AAB | February 5, 2009 10:17 AM
What is it that when people don't have a lot of points to make they just go on and on and on... this happens to me in person and in writings such as this.
Posted by: conelrad | February 5, 2009 10:17 AM
Didn't another recent critic of PZ's blog use
a hoot in a similar way? What is this
hoot of which they speak?
Posted by: Steve F
|
February 5, 2009 10:18 AM
I think Freud could have made a career with individuals like Mr. Hartmann. Oh wait, I think he did.
The irony of this post and many others of similar ilk, is the complete lack of introspection and self-assessment. The challenge to personal dogma is not met with intellectual dialogue but reflexive defensiveness which only serves to underscore the intellectual vacuity of the diatribe to begin with.
Posted by: Willy | February 5, 2009 10:20 AM
I lost interest and didn't finish. There's something to be said about brevity and he didn't say it.
Posted by: tom | February 5, 2009 10:21 AM
"You undoubtedly believe that you are in some sense "saving the world" by condemning others, but what in God's name do you hope it will accomplish ?"
PZ - he seems to be confusing you with jebus. Why does he hate is god so much?
Posted by: Steve Courtright | February 5, 2009 10:23 AM
He could have said all that in about one sentence.
Posted by: Black Jack Shellac | February 5, 2009 10:23 AM
He's obviously got problems, but he does have a way with words, you gotta give him that. I'm not sure I'd necessarily accuse the rant of being spittle-flecked either. It seemed to me fairly well reasoned, if somewhat disjointed, and obviously ad hominem. PZ has definitely posted lots of good examples of spittle-flecked invective, but I don't think this one belongs in that category.
Posted by: Clare | February 5, 2009 10:23 AM
At risk of sounding like I'm being obstreperous just for the sake of it - I partially agree with Martha. But only to the extent that these emails generate a lot of 'I hate to sound harsh but.. all religious people are x' style responses which do get bloodthirsty at times. But if there is a place for blanket generalisations then it is on a post about silly religious people on a blog that spends a lot of time exposing silly religious people, populated by readers who think that religion is silly. Therefore I do not know what people expect.
Certainly it is the simplest thing in the world to figure out that a lot of people who comment here don't quite mean precisely what they claim applies to 'ALL THOSE CRAZY RELIGIOUS PPLZ HEEHEEHAHAWHA' but as far as I'm concerned that is preceisely the point - it is here, in this haven of like-minded people that we get to go a little bit overboard and gleefully mock that which isn't always as mockable in day to day life.
Posted by: aref | February 5, 2009 10:24 AM
"He can compress the most words into the smallest ideas of any man I ever met." ---Abraham Lincoln
Posted by: shonny | February 5, 2009 10:25 AM
Ugh.
I stick to my view:
If you haven't got anything to say, please don't say it anyway.
That goes for Martha as well!
Posted by: David | February 5, 2009 10:25 AM
That's what I like; succinct emails.
Posted by: jose | February 5, 2009 10:25 AM
"I don't object to your science, I object to your arrogance in the public forum"
So the whole email is a HUGE ad hominem fallacy. Great.
Posted by: Steve | February 5, 2009 10:25 AM
Insipid praise? I just thought he was a good advocate for my viewpoint. I'm pretty sure they don't have ivory towers at UMM, nor is anyone bowing down to Dr. Myers, the Godslayer. If it isn't important to you, don't look. I, like Dr. Einstein, believe it is part of the greatest experience we can have.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Posted by: davem | February 5, 2009 10:26 AM
Unlike your good self...I think he's English, I'm ashamed to say. UK readers will immediately recognise the theme tune from the Archers.
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
February 5, 2009 10:26 AM
Signal-to-noise ratio: 0
Posted by: Lotharloo | February 5, 2009 10:26 AM
Somebody has to fix the unemployment issue. People have too much time on their hands.
Posted by: mds | February 5, 2009 10:26 AM
As per Marcus Ranum's suggestion @ #40, here's the output of a 2nd order Markov generator (found here). For more amusing results, I think you'd need a larger corpus than just this one email.
Well sir,
I hesitate to believe that you may receive on your "blog" today---somewhat amazingly considering the typical time constraints on an associate professor---that you graciously acknowledged receiving "11 weird harangues . . in my estimation a failure as an educator, at least as far as one can judge from your so-called "blog" today. You might say: (imagine a real arrogant guy with a beard for a second saying this)
"You need to worry about? This is not an attempt to offend you, rather, it is me telling you what I think: I think that in much of any way, obviously quite the opposite is what I think: I think that if you don't know anything that I don't believe that your silence is some kind of observations. Perhaps we are strangers, but only in the public forum are regrettably there for all you know, I may have changed over time? That's just wonderful. Great. Do you really care a bling for any brand of truth, but unfortunately that seems to have made you especially vociferous, and miracle or miracles the internet allows you to have daily opportunity to belittle others in an offensive manner, oh yes . . . in my previous e-mail message yesterday. I notice in your "blog" go to your arrogance in the public eye. This is an example of the human race! La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da. I have never met you in person as a supposedly learned man in the public spotlight as possessing "special revelations" that we all need to worry and think about how scientists think whales used to reproduce in the public spotlight as possessing "special revelations" that we all need to know about as educated human beings. For those who daily "blog-in" to praise you for your own personal fulfillment. So be it. What I am addressing. You are a professor at a university, but that of itself engenders nothing special to me, and to many if not most scientists? Or, to many if not most scientists? Or, to many others who don't happen to be a self-perceived "cause," it becomes a nuisance for its own sake. I think that you can answer these questions at all. "Ahhh", you might say, (just to give a random example I picked up from your public presence. How is that you can is for you to fully vent.
Probably you protest that we all need to know that I have often to read about a certain person named "PZ Myers," often just in my estimation a failure as an educator, at least as far as one can judge from your so-called "blog" today. You might say: (imagine a real arrogant guy with a beard for a second saying this)
"You need to know that I need to know that I need to know. You think you know that I need to know?
I don't care, I will not remain silent when I am doing, in fact, is condemning you, as best I can do.
Posted by: plashing vole | February 5, 2009 10:27 AM
I found his style quite compelling - like a semi-educated pub bore. I vote for him not being from the UK though. His name's pretty rare over here, and he uses American academic terminology (an associate professor is known here as a lecturer or even senior lecturer and actual professors are scarce). Is this what your talk radio is like?
Toodle-pip old beans!
Plashing Vole
Posted by: Donovan | February 5, 2009 10:27 AM
By Thor's Nipples! Does this guy really have nothing better to do than scream into the ether like this?
I'm sure he thinks he's seriously wounded Professor Myer's pride. All he's actually done is contribute to his impending Carpel Tunnel/Coronary attack.
Posted by: jynnan_tonnyx | February 5, 2009 10:29 AM
Shorter David Hartmann:
"I suffer from severe mental illness, and have a lot of free time on my hands. I also apparently hate you, for some reason I'm not entirely clear on."
Posted by: paul01 | February 5, 2009 10:29 AM
You must be a good speed reader. I couldn't get through it all.
Posted by: Kristine | February 5, 2009 10:30 AM
Yeah...and this kind of stuff kills me, too:
I agree with David Hartman. And it's kind of amusing to see how prophetic his words are...blah, blah... You guys are all of bunch of educated idiots.
Okay, Martha, let's assume you're right. My response can only be...SO? And? ;-)
I mean, are you in charge of the Pharyngulites? Or did visiting here and giving your diagnosis make you feel better about yourself? What problems in your life are you escaping by pronouncing as "idiots" people who obviously take up a lot of your time? Do you think you can solve your problems by trying to solve what you think are mine?
I have never been able to figure this out: why someone who spends so much time insulting another gives the object of their contempt so much attention and power. (I still get comments like this on my "Ken Ham's Museum Opens to Shut Minds" post.) It's really a compliment.
A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business.
- Eric Hoffer
Posted by: mothra | February 5, 2009 10:30 AM
After PZ writes his first book on evo-devo. His second book can be collected e-mail rants, from bat-shit crazy to the death threats, he has received from the religious community.
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 10:30 AM
No, Mr. Hartmann is far too erudite for talk radio.Posted by: shonny | February 5, 2009 10:30 AM
Notice that many (all!) godbots need to look up the two terms 'hate' and 'ridicule'. They'll find they are two very different concepts, and should not be confused.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 10:31 AM
He has no friends
But he gets a lot of mail
I'll bet he spent a little
Time in jail...
I heard he was up on the
Roof last night
Signaling with a flashlight
And what's that tune he's
Always whistling...
What's he building in there?
What's he building in there?
We have a right to know...
Posted by: andrew | February 5, 2009 10:34 AM
this guy sux..
/snooze
Posted by: Arno | February 5, 2009 10:36 AM
That, was the dullest thing ever. I tried to read it, but failed as the writer utterly failed to make ANY point. The message is not stupid, it is just completely useless.
That David totally sucks.
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 10:37 AM
SIWOTI by people who are TSTKTS.
(SIWOTITSTKTS - sih wat ee tisk ets, perhaps?)
Posted by: Dutchdoc
|
February 5, 2009 10:37 AM
#203: Thanks for Makov-izing the Hartmann email.
It almost makes more sense now!
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 5, 2009 10:39 AM
On the basis that she also quotes Waits, I'd like to vote twice for Janine for Molly this month. Can I do that?
Posted by: Equisetum | February 5, 2009 10:39 AM
"I have known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up!"
But my god, he sure didn't learn anything, did he?
Posted by: aratina | February 5, 2009 10:43 AM
As a fellow maniac, I love the creative new titles he bestows on PZ:
Negative Karma EngineLord over All CreationistsCommunion-Wafer ManiacAtheist BlogmeisterSmall-town ScientistCondemner of Inferior PeopleDefender of TruthDefacto Defender of the Scientific CauseA Positive Boon for Thinking People Everywhere
Posted by: kermit | February 5, 2009 10:44 AM
Umilik: "And, dear Mr Hartman, let me guess, you're some low-level bureaucrat, stuck in the same job for decades, composing government guidelines for the proper labeling of fish food containers. I understand. That would be frustrating, indeed."
I beg to differ. I suspect Mr. Hartman would find such a job fulfilling. Not only is he obviously not disturbed by interminable repetition, but his comment on the discovery of maiacetus being uninteresting suggests that he find *nothing interesting. I am not interested in all things, but because I *am intrigued or fascinated by many subjects, I understand why other people can find those others to be so.
Posted by: hje | February 5, 2009 10:44 AM
Re: "What do you know that I don't know? What do you know that I need to know?"
Uncle Rummy's advice comes to mind:
As you know, there are known knowns; there are things you know you need to know. You also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, you know there are some things you do not know you need to know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones you don't know you don't know, that you need to know.
Posted by: Jay | February 5, 2009 10:44 AM
PZ,
How dare you enter this man's "world" with your "public presence" along with all your "facts" and "truth"? Pfft, and you call yourself Lord over ALL "creationists."
Bad professor! No danish!
...ok, maybe just a nibble...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | February 5, 2009 10:44 AM
Broken plastic
Littered on the desk
Fragments of letters visible
A thin wisp of smoke rises from the shell of what used to be a keyboard
The man sitting in the chair is breathing hard
And is purple
Posted by: David in NY | February 5, 2009 10:45 AM
Seems to me that Mr. Hartmann is mainly upset that PZ does not respect people who believe in God. (Though I'm not sure where the whales fit in.) On the other hand, Mr. Hartmann shows precious little respect for atheists. Let him who is without sin throw the first stone, Mr. Hartmann.
And really, you do not have to read this blog. You're well ahead of many who write crank e-mails in your technical command of composition (though you might work on making your point more clearly), and your acknowledgement of the obvious change in species over time (that is, evolution by natural selection). So do yourself a favor and don't read this blog if it bothers you. So long.
Posted by: Bckcntry | February 5, 2009 10:45 AM
Wow, I zoned out after a couple paragraphs. Does he ever have with a point?
Posted by: Larynx | February 5, 2009 10:46 AM
#What do you know that I don't know?#
How to write a decent email, quick and to the point.
Posted by: Thuktun | February 5, 2009 10:49 AM
For writing with so little content, there sure is a LOT of it.
Posted by: Bckcntry | February 5, 2009 10:50 AM
I meant to ask if he has a point. Just for the record. Sigh...
Posted by: waldteufel | February 5, 2009 10:50 AM
Reading Mr. Hartmann's voluminous blathering put me in mind of the little kid digging through a pile of horse shit looking for a pony.
Posted by: Marley | February 5, 2009 10:51 AM
Read the FIRST line........read the LAST line. Everything in between........I've read a thousand times in other rants.
I've got better things to do w/ my time other then read his pyscho musings (And, you know what's coming here......got lots of dog poop in the yard that needs to be picked up....stuff like that).
Posted by: Hank Fox | February 5, 2009 10:52 AM
Bloody hell. And here I thought *I* was a compulsive over-writer.
Although I thought the insistent use of quotes around "blog" was weirdly cute.
Posted by: E.V. | February 5, 2009 10:52 AM
Yes , that Mr. Hartmann is a nice humanist and he's talked to all the scientists in the world and every one of them told him they think PZ is stinky. Oh, and he shouldn't write about whales having legs.Posted by: Sive | February 5, 2009 10:54 AM
I'm sure that this individual is not familiar with higher education. Honestly, you NEED a little (or a lot really) arrogance to get your PhD. So the arrogant thing could be said about most professors if you argue with them on the right topic.
@AwesomeJack16 - PZ may have some disrespect for the "common man" creationist but the leaders that you feel rightly deserve that disrespect would not be in the position of power that they are in without those individuals. They are the base that makes these issues possible. PZ can spend all day knocking down the top of the tower but it's the foundation that needs to be removed for the problem to cease.
@Martha Better to be an over-educated moron than a gullible mouth-breather.
Posted by: Jonathon | February 5, 2009 10:54 AM
Wow.... I wonder how long it took him to write all that crap. Just imagine how much more useful to himself it would have been had he invested that time in EDUCATING himself instead of wailing and gnashing his teeth in frustration against PZ Myers.
I truly feel sad for this guy. He must be scared to death of everything around him - including his own shadow. That level of fear is unhealthy!! And it also explains his dependence upon an authoritarian daddy-figure in the sky and a literal interpretation of scripture.
I think that proper medication and a good deprogrammer would really help. I can only hope that someone in his life loves him enough to seek out that help for him.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | February 5, 2009 10:55 AM
Okay I read through most of it before I baked a cake where my brain used to be. Apparently the whole concept of a 'BLOG' is lost on this guy. btw I liked this part:
I misread that as "when this person often does ridicule bizarre things," My brain was trying to make sense of his ramblings I guess.Later on in his dribble it was like I was in a middle of a large endless field. There were no crops growing, just masses of strawmen scare-crows.
Posted by: George | February 5, 2009 10:55 AM
I guess misery loves company, but PZ continue to post this sort of junk? It is certainly not interesting to read - there is absolutely nothing learned, no interesting arguments, just junk. It is certainly not worth a comment.
Now that said, we could add some interest. How about PZ posts, in some out of the way place, his top ten list of bat-^&%$ crazy emails for the month. Then, each month we have a poll to decide which is: (insert a theme here), e.g. crankiest, most deluded, most coherent (just for kicks), etc. We come up with 12 themes for each month of the year.
.... when given lemons make lemonade...
Posted by: michel | February 5, 2009 10:59 AM
now replace 'pz myers' with 'jebus' or 'god'.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 5, 2009 11:02 AM
Louis @ #92:
Yes, reasonable written English is a very low bar to set. But it's a bar that plenty of these idiots find utterly beyond their ability. The fact that this nutcase can manage to even use a grammar checking feature is an amazing feat, given the total batshit insanity of what he's saying here. Such a madman would normally be expected to need help tying his own shoes while fighting off the evil conspiracy of invisible radioactive squirrels trying to eat his testicles.
I also find it funny how many thousands of words this whackjob feels are needed to tell PZ that he needs to learn when to shut up. :P
Posted by: cpsmith | February 5, 2009 11:05 AM
Why do all these silly folks seem to think that anyone advocating for science is obligated to behave like Generic-Science-Guy, never doing or saying anything that might not reflect the beliefs and behaviors of the entire science community? How dare PZ say good things about athiests?! Science cannot be equated with atheism! How dare he express the opinion that crackers are not made of Jesus flesh?! It's like he's under the impression that he is entitled to his own views and opinions! Outrageous! Shame on you sir.
Posted by: SteveL | February 5, 2009 11:05 AM
I found it pretty funny. And could it be a poe?
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 5, 2009 11:06 AM
Actually, the letter is a fairly good characterization of PZ and it sets up a reasonable justification for critique in terms of his public persona.
Of course, PZ's disciples (ass-kissing sycophants)promptly took the bait and came out in immediate defense of the pied piper, probably in the hope of gaining some sort of "messianic" blessing.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 5, 2009 11:08 AM
... whether you butcher up my comments in your silly "blog" or not.
How can you, or anyone, butcher up comments which have no meat in them?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 5, 2009 11:08 AM
I look at these things and just think of how much effort and "intelligence" they think they're putting into them, I multiply by various large numbers, and then I know why thought and sense have such a tough time in this society.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 11:09 AM
Silver Fox, you never answered my question in the saddlebacking thread.
Do you prefer to be facing your partner during anal sex or are you more of doggie style type?
Posted by: Martin | February 5, 2009 11:09 AM
Well.... I'd like to adress this with a well known sentence from the brilliant Karl Popper:
"Wer´s nicht einfach und klar sagen kann, der soll schweigen und weiterarbeiten, bis er´s klar sagen kann."
Meaning: "Who's not able to state his case simple and clearly, should shut up and keep working, until he can."
Following this sage advice should prevent this kind of verbal diarrhea.
Posted by: JoshS, Official Spokesgay | February 5, 2009 11:09 AM
What is this "blog," of which you speak?
Posted by: Fiisi | February 5, 2009 11:11 AM
I condensed this for anyone who got bored after the first line.
Shorter Nice Guy(TM)Hartmann:
I hesitate to believe that your silence is some kind of assent to the truth of what I tried to express in my previous e-mail message yesterday. I notice in your "blog" today---somewhat amazingly considering the typical time constraints on an associate professor---that you graciously acknowledged receiving "11 weird harangues . . . in my mailbox this morning." You're moving with your auntie and your uncle in Bel-Air." I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said "Fresh" and there were dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought, naw, forget it, yo holmes to Bel-Air. I pulled up to the house about seven or eight and said to the cabbie "Yo holmes smell ya later." Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there, to sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.
I never loved you,
David
You're welcome, Pharyngulites. Carry on.
Posted by: Faintpraise | February 5, 2009 11:12 AM
davem @ 200, thanks for giving me a good laugh!
I'm another Brit, and I think this man is either an American affecting being British or an ex-pat who has moved to the US some time ago. There's something slightly off in his phrasing...although that could just be the same thing that is causing him to write massive essays full of nothing to strangers he doesn't like on the Internet.
Posted by: J. A. Baker | February 5, 2009 11:12 AM
Actually, I'm reminded of a different Ron White quote:
"You can't fix stupid."
Posted by: Jay | February 5, 2009 11:14 AM
That letter read like a 2-page run-on sentence. I would get more out of reading the instructions for making sticky rice. With all that bottled up nonsense, the dude should get a blog.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | February 5, 2009 11:14 AM
I can guarantee this dude thinks that atheists planted the transitional fossil evidence in our attempt to convert more people into our atheist religion.
Posted by: Jay | February 5, 2009 11:17 AM
I don't post here often, but this was the funniest thing I've read in a long, long while. Thanks for sharing. :)
Posted by: mothra | February 5, 2009 11:17 AM
The Bronze Wombat (241) scores a clean miss. It is (just) possible that David Hartmann was a Poe. But it's all Mullerian mimicry- all equally distasteful. Also, how does agreeing with another's world view make one a sycophant? Hartmann is: deluded, under educated, mis-informed, has tremendous self loathing and jealousy, or is a Poe.
YOU, Bronze Wombat, are simply a fool!
Posted by: Mu
|
February 5, 2009 11:18 AM
Vole @ 204, compared to talk radio this guy is gold. Talk radio is the same 2000 words of non-content, just without proper grammar, proper spelling (yes, you can here the mental typos) and without any structure whatsoever.
Posted by: Hannah | February 5, 2009 11:18 AM
Christ on a Bike! SRSLY TL;DR >>
Posted by: Cannonball Jones | February 5, 2009 11:19 AM
Man, I tried really hard to understand what he was attempting to say but I had to give up after couple of paragraphs. That fella meanders like I've never seen a man meander before. He has a point though, how dare you force him to read your blog every day? You're just plain rude...
Posted by: The Stumbling Block | February 5, 2009 11:20 AM
I absolutely loved what you did with the first one, red-lettering the idiot like it was an episode of MST3K. At first glance I was all... awwww, why didn't he do it to this one? Then I kept reading and reading and... does this guy know brevity is the soul of wit? Then I realized, there is no wit to him. Then I started on the second paragraph.
Yeah, reading this idiot is a waste of time, and my brain just flashed TILT. PZ, you do put up with some silly ones... but let me tell ya, I've been reading you for about three weeks now, and you hold your own very well. I can't finish his letter because I've just become allergic to bullshit.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 5, 2009 11:20 AM
I think my IQ just dropped 15 points reading that crap. Must learn to look away.
Posted by: Julian | February 5, 2009 11:21 AM
So what, he was offended that you decided to advertise another nut over him? This is why you shouldn't have posted that email yesterday; if you feed the trolls, they just start taking you for granted :p
Posted by: Chris | February 5, 2009 11:21 AM
With all of his supposed "degrees" the best he can muster is "You are a negative karma engine."
Seriously? If you going to just make crap up, let a better proverbial turd fall from your mouth than that.
:)
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 11:22 AM
And yet you keep coming here. Are you some kind of masochist?
And not that this comes as any surprise but you insist on describing the interactions here in religious terms. Shows off your mental shortcomings quite well.
But what the fuck, you think that the tedious screed had something of significance to say. Just be good to yourself, go to VD's blog and stay there.
Posted by: Mr P | February 5, 2009 11:22 AM
No offense PZ, but only once in my "ordinary non-specific reading" have I come across your name.
That being said, in my almost daily specific reading,I come across your name, well... almost daily.
Posted by: IasonOuabache | February 5, 2009 11:24 AM
tl;dr
Posted by: Chris | February 5, 2009 11:24 AM
With all of his supposed "degrees" the best he can muster is "You are a negative karma engine."
Seriously? If you going to just make crap up, let a better proverbial turd fall from your mouth than that.
:)
Posted by: Angel84 | February 5, 2009 11:24 AM
Wow, you really struck a nerve there huh PZ? Hey, guy that wrote this? Edit it down a little next time. I think your message wasn't strong enough to stand out in all that explanation as to why you feel it's your duty to say it. It's hard to be an effective writer if you come off every other sentence defensive as to why you need to say what you are saying. Just say it...with pride. Stand up for yourself if you have something to say and muster some authority or else people will always only laugh at you. Like I'm doing. Right now.
Posted by: The Kardinal | February 5, 2009 11:24 AM
I think that it's is hilarious ever since "Crackergate" we've been seeing these uber-Christians calling PZ a "non-published professor from a small-town-college in the middle of the midwest".
Meanwhile, less than a calendar year ago, after "Expelled" came out, a certain "Framer" (who I will not mention by name) called PZ "Big Science" who needs to shut up for a while and let others do the talking.
Which one is it, Christians?
Posted by: marilove | February 5, 2009 11:26 AM
LOL. He sounds like a 13 year old girl.
Posted by: ErikJ | February 5, 2009 11:27 AM
The content of this letter is so vacuously missing a point that I believe it has collapsed into massive black hole of thought. Unfortunately, a massive accretion disk of words has formed around the complete this lack ot thought, and the friction of so many run-on sentences and poorly expressed ideas are creating enourmous Gamma Ray Bursts of stupidity.
Posted by: Sean | February 5, 2009 11:30 AM
I have to be honest, his rambling prose put me to sleep long before i got to any of his (undoubted) Earth-shattering revelations. Oh the pain...
Posted by: Endor | February 5, 2009 11:31 AM
"LOL. He sounds like a 13 year old girl."
defending 'Twilight'. ;)
Posted by: ErikJ | February 5, 2009 11:31 AM
Bloody hell, that should be "formed around this complete lack of thought"
This once again reminds me why I always sound funnier in my head.
Posted by: strangest brew | February 5, 2009 11:31 AM
jeebus H Christus... up a stick with a sickly grin on his face!
WTF was that?
I bet he speaks like that...in a dead flat monotone without breath spaces...strangely compelling...totally brain dead..a true clone exhibiting hive behaviour.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | February 5, 2009 11:35 AM
Janine wins for Tom Waits reference....
"I get email"; we know what comes next
In this case, an immense wall of text--
So there's no other choice
But the standard "kook voice"--
Comic sans, pathologically vexed
We know briefness contributes to wit
And this fellow, he wanders... a bit.
And although there is levity
In sheer lack of brevity,
More words: greater chance that it's shit.
Posted by: Sili | February 5, 2009 11:39 AM
If only I knew how to embed images.
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 5, 2009 11:39 AM
PZ, You get email ... And quote from this guy at length to make him look silly - OK he does come across that way but it's kind of a waste of everyone's time IMHO. Do you check your email carefully? Whatever happened to that cute video link of the "singing green religious alien puppet" I sent you on 2/1? I think your fans would find it hilarious and using it has nothing to do with me per se. Well then I'll just try again on my own:
Check this thread in alt.fan.rawilson (based on strange writer Robert Anton Wilson, whom I admire and which offers a hint to take:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rawilson/browse_frm/thread/8a0baec=f5fe92c05#
Which links to http://www.fiveshock.com/ran/scary.html.
Wait a few minutes to hear about space angels and life on other planets etc. Later, quotes from the Book of Enoch, pics of UFOs and such. Yet other links bring up insistence this is not a Poe. (BTW might as well work in EAP's 200th birthday, not just Lincoln and Darwin!)
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 11:42 AM
I've been reading you for about three weeks now, and you hold your own very well. I can't finish his letter because I've just become allergic to bullshit.
Stay out of the archives then, you're risking anaphylactic shock!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 11:42 AM
Is someone holding a gun to your head Neil?
Posted by: catgirl | February 5, 2009 11:43 AM
This is so hilarious! I really shouldn't read your blog during work, because the constant laughter might tip off my boss. Anyway, someone needs to inform this guy that both the Methodist and Catholic churches, among other, have accepted evolution and don't believe it contradicts their faith.
Posted by: ctenotrish | February 5, 2009 11:45 AM
"La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da."
Well, that sure put you in YOUR place! Ha! So take that!
Seriously, my hat is off to you, PZ, simply for having to deal with the influx of crackpot emails. I am often irritated by the unsolicited vendor email ads I get, and I am sure they would be just a teensy fraction of your inbox. There are some craaaazy people out there.
Posted by: catgirl | February 5, 2009 11:47 AM
This guy goes on so much about how he doesn't like you that if we were in 8th grade, I would assume he had a huge crush on you. It's clearly obvious that he cares immensely about what you think of him, and he's mad that you don't care what he thinks of you.
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 11:47 AM
Of course, PZ's disciples (ass-kissing sycophants)promptly took the bait and came out in immediate defense of the pied piper, probably in the hope of gaining some sort of "messianic" blessing.
I smell gay worship fantasies Foxy.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: tms | February 5, 2009 11:52 AM
I have to admit that the Unibomber Manifesto immediately came to mind, another example of a well written, but nonsensical stream of consciousness
I suspect that Mr. Hartman is, today, ecstatic with the result of his rant. First, it was published by his nemesis, then it was commented upon extensively (273 and counting). I suppose that I should feel guilty for thus enabling his obsession, but then, I consider that we have probably saved a good number of people from listening to him talk to himself in a public place, and I am consoled.
T
Posted by: Prudence | February 5, 2009 11:53 AM
PZ, one of your clever programmer fans needs to write you an email spam filter for all those nutbags, leaving only the most hilarious and unhinged screeds for our collective delectation. Sure, the disjointed ranting was fun, but the fact that David Hartmann thinks your blog is an "internet newspaper" nearly made me shoot tea thru my nose in hysterics.
That email was made of 100% loony win.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 5, 2009 11:54 AM
Big chimp:
Janine:
Thank you for confirming at least part of my post - the part about ass-kissing sycophants.
Posted by: 0verlord
|
February 5, 2009 11:55 AM
I'd feel left out too if I worked so hard typing up a ten page dissertation on how the elitist professor is a big fat doo-doo head.
Posted by: garth | February 5, 2009 11:59 AM
that was one of the "funnier" "posts" on your "blog" i've read in a while.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 5, 2009 12:00 PM
One of the signature characteristics of the kooks who write to me is that they get very irate if I mention some other kook than themselves (see examples above). After all, every kook's obsession is the most important piece of lunacy in the world to them.
I'm sure that if I published the singing green religious alien puppet of Neil B, the woman who sent me the astrological proof that I was satan would be complaining next.
I hate to break the sad news to you, but just because you're crazy doesn't make you special and unique. My mailbox is testimony to the banality of dementia. Sorry.
Posted by: Andrew | February 5, 2009 12:01 PM
PZ isn't the messiah? The beard must of thrown me off. I would like to know this guy's definition of the word "blog". Last time I checked it was a place where a person can write about their thoughts or what interest them or just whatever they feel like. I also thought people could choose to read a blog or not. You better watch out PZ this guy is probably like that Bjork stalker. He thinks that you are actually writing this blog about him or to annoy him. You better be careful opening your mail.
Posted by: Fez | February 5, 2009 12:01 PM
Ok.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! *points* Fruitcake!
Feel better now Davey?
Posted by: MF | February 5, 2009 12:01 PM
Wow. PZ, you have a real knack of attracting the nutters.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | February 5, 2009 12:01 PM
Hey, you guys are missing something here.
This is from one of those software thingies that let's you input a topic and then spews out endless meaningless strings of words.
I'm surprised none of you noticed.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 12:03 PM
Stupid old goat, that was not about defending PZ. That was about verbally lashing out against a willfully obtuse git. There is a huge difference. You are ignoring that for both Chimpy and for me, you are such a great punching bag.
Posted by: Spiro Keat | February 5, 2009 12:03 PM
Hey, you guys are missing something here.
This is from one of those software thingies that let's you input a topic and then spews out endless meaningless strings of words.
I'm surprised none of you noticed.
Posted by: JB | February 5, 2009 12:03 PM
I don't "give a fig" or "care a bling" what all you jerks say. I think Dr. Myers and his so-called "blog" are totally "peaches and cream."
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 5, 2009 12:03 PM
But... but... I cut out all those letters from the newspaper and everything! It took hours!
(Pouts/Stamps foot...)
You're mean. I'm going to go find someone else to stalk.
Posted by: Jkessler | February 5, 2009 12:05 PM
tl;dr
Posted by: Holbach | February 5, 2009 12:05 PM
Drivel dribble.
Posted by: CaptainKendrick | February 5, 2009 12:06 PM
Whoah!!!!
PZ, did you actually READ that whole thing or did you just skim through it????
I started to glaze over over the end of the 1st or 2nd paragraph (not sure really, it all started to blur together...)
I find it odd how this fellow somehow ends up making your blog more about him then about you....very strange indeed...
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 5, 2009 12:07 PM
Kermit:
"but his comment on the discovery of maiacetus being uninteresting"
Mr. Hartmann's posting mentioned nothing about maiacetus. He did reference whales.
Thank you Kermit for letting us know that as one of the "brites" you would never stoop to calling a cetus a mere "whale". Obviously, you are a person of extraordinary knowledge and now we have all been made aware of that.
Posted by: sparkomatic | February 5, 2009 12:08 PM
A deep and heartfelt thanks to those of you who managed to make it through the entire rant and remain conscious long enough to summarize it for me. I did not have the strength you obviously possess.
Cuttlefish..I think I love you...
Posted by: OneHandClapping | February 5, 2009 12:08 PM
Mr. Hartmann,
I somehow doubt that you continue to read clear down here at number 270+, but I sincerely hope that you are.
I did read through your entire email, as posted. I don't disagree with what you are saying, as I find some atheist and skeptic sites a bit...exclusive in their thinking and writing. However, I hope that you took the same time and effort to send such a letter to sites like Answers in Genesis and others that reflect the same thought processes.
While science and scientists have tended in the past to be less vocal, now that the religulous right is attempting to pass off creationism and other ideas as science, it falls upon the scientific community to vociferously oppose such nonsense. Keep in mind, sites such as this were not created in a vacuum, more of a reaction to religious sites that condone non-scientific, and often non-constitutional changes to educational and other government systems.
Posted by: Hans | February 5, 2009 12:10 PM
PZ, please spare us, this letter takes 1/3 of your page !
Posted by: TurboFool | February 5, 2009 12:10 PM
I fell asleep halfway through and woke up at the end. I can't tell you how relieved I was, though, to find out that your blog is NOT required reading! Here I was, day after day, week after week, slaving away to read each and every post on Pharyngula because I thought I NEEDED to. Had I known it was optional all along I would have taken up knitting, or read the Bible. Okay, that's a lie, knitting's boring and last time I tried to read the Bible I fell asleep sooner than I did reading this fine man's repetitive tirade. But still, this is quite a relief to know I have the freedom to NOT read your blog. Now back to that fascinating article about whales giving birth on land. I'll feel much better reading it now that I'm choosing to do so.
Posted by: AdrianT | February 5, 2009 12:11 PM
Is this some slightly sophisticated spam generating machine, or a totally incoherent rant from a genuine human being? I cannot be sure..... I cannot believe anyone could sit down and write a thing like that, but then again there are a lot of people in America.
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 12:12 PM
Janine, you ignorant slut...
You are ignoring that for both Chimpy and for me, you are such a great punching bag.
Don't hog the douchebag! Leave some scraps for the rest of us!
Posted by: Warren | February 5, 2009 12:12 PM
Incuriosity is the underpinning of America's downfall. That's something I know that this clown needs to know.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 12:13 PM
The stupid old goat is upset that a commentator used the proper name for the walking whale. You are a sad piece of work. Go to VD's blog and stay there.
Posted by: Tom | February 5, 2009 12:14 PM
Shorter David Hartman: I disagree with the writing of Professor Myers.
Posted by: Hayley | February 5, 2009 12:15 PM
What a long, boring - and remarkably content free - screed that was; and I only read the first paragraph!!
I think that Mr Hartmann must have a lot of free time on his hands, I'm sure he could put it to much better use.
Posted by: Kay | February 5, 2009 12:18 PM
@68 Opisthokont
I must admit, this fellow is remarkably lucid. Neither spelling nor grammar appear to provide a challenge, and given what PZ has posted from his detractors before, that alone is quite impressive. But on top of that, he actually seems to have a train of thought, and to represent it coherently!em>
.
It looks like a train wreck of thought to me. Doesn't coherency and lucidity imply logical structure as well? Sheesh! I'd need a dictionary of logical fallacies to just to cover their depth and breadth.
This ones for you Dave:
If you've been reading this blog long enough to remember the "Communion-Wafer Maniac" then you've been reading for a long time. Apparently, you haven't been able to connect the dots. You imply that PZ thinks people "need to know that whales had babies on land at one time, and what a profound revelation that is!" and that this is his reason for not believing in god. But this isn't PZ's proof against god, it's a proof against creationism.
I'm sure the PZ has many excellent reasons for not believing in god--with logic probably being one of the predominant ones.
PS. Dave--don't you love the way that PZ saved some of his valueable "sciency" time by outsourcing his criticism to us!
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 5, 2009 12:21 PM
Big Dumb:
"Silver Fox, you never answered my question in the saddlebacking thread. Do you prefer to be facing your partner during anal sex or are you more of doggie style type?"
You are a vulgar individual with no self-respect. There is no point in me formally confirming your opinion of yourself which is by all accounts accurate and well deserved.
Posted by: Tom | February 5, 2009 12:21 PM
...to sit in on one of your classes. Who cares what the "truth" might be if it comes from some arrogant, prattle-mouth such as yourself. God forbid that one of your students may not think as you do!
Yes, I heard from one of your students who didn't think the way you did (apparently your student was more of a right brain thinker). He said you smacked him in the head with a Basset Hound and then shot off his left testicle with your laser pointer.
Posted by: Beep Beep Barbie Jeep | February 5, 2009 12:23 PM
Hey David:
I think I get what you're on about, but I was wondering
COULD YOU ELABORATE?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 12:23 PM
Stu, don't hold back. You are free to pile on. One of the pleasures here is seeing the silly old goat knocked around.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 5, 2009 12:24 PM
Dear David Hartmann,
Please give me back the minutes of my life I wasted reading your substance-free rant.
Cursing that I'm belong to the same species as you,
Feynmaniac
Posted by: Blue Fielder
|
February 5, 2009 12:24 PM
TEE ELL SEMICOLON DEE ARR
I got through one sentence and stopped. I hate nutbars. My mind filters them out.
I kind of wish they made an add-on for Firefox like AdBlock or NoScript, that blocked me from having to see the rantings of crazy fuckwads.
Posted by: Voice 0'Reason | February 5, 2009 12:28 PM
For a start, you need to know that those aren't statements.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 5, 2009 12:29 PM
If there's one take-home message from this email, it's this:
"just another human being"
That's it, David H. That's the message. All of this stuff about evolution-all of this science stuff is surely neat, but that's the real sentiment behind this let go of your god(s) business we atheists are on about.
I know the politicised and emotionally charged nature of the religion vs. religion, religion vs. science, and religion vs. non-religion easily lends itself to Othering--and boy, am I guilty of that sometimes--but most of us here don't actually want that, and are looking to end this pettiness. The problem is that science isn't going to go away, and it's going to continue to reveal facts about the universe that don't fit with millennia-old myths. And every time some crankpot takes issue with this and demands that we answer some nit-picking point about what we already know to so likely as to be as near as true as a theory can get just because he doesn't like it, then that sets us back, just as Steve Broten's daughter will be set back if she acquiesces to her father's demand that she only learn what he wants her to know. Does Steve's respect for his daughter's intellect and self-determination demonstrate that he shares the concept that she's also just another human being, or instead that he thinks she's just a smidgen lower and further from his God?
We're all just human beings, no more and no less, and the sooner we collectively realise it and stop reaching for some messiah to save us from ourselves, we can get on with the business of living and maybe make a better world for ourselves and each other along the way.
Maybe that's not earth-shattering to you, but to many of the religious out there, including Steve Broten it's obviously complete heresy.
At any rate, thanks for the reminder.
From just another human being.
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 12:29 PM
You are a vulgar individual with no self-respect.
Ah, sweet projection, thy name is Silver Fox.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | February 5, 2009 12:30 PM
I can handle creationists screed. What I can't handle are people who don't know how to use paragraphs. Seriously... is it really that hard?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 12:34 PM
And you Sir or Madam are a terrible bore who makes a point of displaying this daily by asking idiotic questions in unrelated threads that you could easily answer yourself. Beyond that you have an opinion about yourself that you engage in above the board courteous conversation when it is clearly demonstrateable that you do not. Hence my question.
Continuing, you have an incredible ability to not be able to see through the thin layers surrounding the bullshit you post as authorities on subjects which they clearly are not. Your constant use of Vox Day is prima facie evidence of that.
You are the ultimate example of the dunning-kruger effect in action except I doubt seriously that any further education on the subjects you spout off about would be able to make it through that faith hardened skull of yours.
Kindly sir, go fuck your delusional indignant self righteous self.
Was that vulgar enough?
idiot
Posted by: AJ Milne | February 5, 2009 12:34 PM
Ah, sweet projection, thy name is Silver Fox.
Well, just sayin', technically, banal != vulgar...
(Unless we're getting all philsophical on the vulgarity of banality. In which case I guess I'm right there with you.)
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 12:34 PM
I would have to disagree with that.(Surprising, isn't it?) Chimpy happens to have good taste in music. Nothing vulgar about that.
Posted by: Cay | February 5, 2009 12:36 PM
This cannot be for real. This guy must be spoofing. If not, the writer seems to believe that he is the center of the universe.
Posted by: aratina | February 5, 2009 12:37 PM
Keep it up! We're almost at the magic 500-ton mark at which point David Hartmann will indubitably chime in to tell us to "Chut-up!"
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 5, 2009 12:37 PM
You are a vulgar individual with no self-respect.
Ah, the theist's response to any discussion of sex other than platitudes relating to love or procreation.
A whole lot of people would still be alive or would've lived a lot longer if theists had similar attitudes towards violence.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | February 5, 2009 12:37 PM
"I'm sure that if I published the singing green religious alien puppet of Neil B, the woman who sent me the astrological proof that I was satan would be complaining next."
Oh man, those sound like fun.
You should set up a script so that you can flag emails as "crank," and they're automagically posted to a crank page, then we can all ignore them or use them for entertainment as we see fit. You could singlehandedly capture the whole market from FSTDT and put them out of business.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 12:39 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp @244 - Ewwww!
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 12:42 PM
You are the ultimate example of the dunning-kruger effect in action
Rev, I'm not so sure about that. Check out the live one on the "Here's one face of evil" thread.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 12:43 PM
Yes I apologize for the mental picture, but it had a purpose.
Posted by: Endor | February 5, 2009 12:43 PM
"You are a vulgar individual with no self-respect. There is no point in me formally confirming your opinion of yourself which is by all accounts accurate and well deserved."
Translation: he likes it both ways, Rev.
Posted by: John C. Welch | February 5, 2009 12:45 PM
Silver Fox?
Didn't Sabretooth kill her just to make Wolverine cry? Or did that plotline get retconned into oblivion. I can't keep up any more.
Either way, I think in all of them, she's quite dead, and as such should stop zombie commenting.
Posted by: uncle frogy | February 5, 2009 12:46 PM
I did read the whole f'n letter-email in case there was something I needed to know. Nothing there that was not in the first paragraph oh well.
I could not read all the posts in this thread though maybe later.
I would say it is odd that someone who says that they do not care much about whale history for example would read a blog by a biologist which includes such information. ??
I do like the "sciencey" posts though my technical knowledge is not so deep.
I do love knowing about the natural world and learning more is exciting. No such thing as too much!
Posted by: Lee Hartmann | February 5, 2009 12:49 PM
I'm embarrassed for the rest of us Hartmanns. Please, guy, go away.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
February 5, 2009 12:49 PM
Uh, what? You found some meaning here, really?
Please enlighten me; I must have missed it. No more than 100 words, though, ok?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 12:51 PM
Was she part of Alpha Flight?
Posted by: Elty | February 5, 2009 12:52 PM
"...but my God, they knew when to shut up! "
*Cut and paste rant to Word.
Ctrl A, select word count.*
1,980 words.
Hypocrite.
Posted by: Her Reference Ron Sullivan | February 5, 2009 12:53 PM
I'm with Spiro Kete here: machine-generated satire. (Didn't say entertaining satire.)
OK, that's my high moment of faith in the human species for this week.
Posted by: Qwerty | February 5, 2009 12:53 PM
Maybe PZ should post all of his harangues and let us award the best (which probably would be the worst) with a newly minted award.
And today's winner of the LEMON HARANGUE AWARD is: David Hartman
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 12:53 PM
Yes, I was having my first cup of coffee Chimpy. Now it's all over my keyboard.
The same old trolls driveling away everyday does have one good side effect, I'm getting more knitting done.
Posted by: Psi Wavefunction | February 5, 2009 12:54 PM
Protip: Professors have a lower-than-average threshold for tl;dr. This was too long even for a student... and we're used to reading reams of crap we can't make sense of =P
I think I lasted until paragraph 2. I tried, I really have...
Posted by: Carole | February 5, 2009 12:55 PM
Ciaran @ #150
That was laugh out loud funny. Wonderful.
Posted by: Rivet Heretic | February 5, 2009 12:55 PM
First, I love reading other people's hate mail. I sometimes wonder if it's a character fault. Thanks for that PZ.
Second, does anybody have any insight into why people think that you are being arrogant when you just lay out why they are wrong and don't sugar-coat it?
Posted by: S. Fisher | February 5, 2009 12:57 PM
Silver Fox: "Of course, PZ's disciples (ass-kissing sycophants)promptly took the bait and came out in immediate defense of the pied piper, probably in the hope of gaining some sort of "messianic" blessing."
Nah.....it's just kind of fun to make fun of religious (or otherwise) loonies. And this is a great place to do it. Hopefully in future it won't be so necessary. Oh..and "messiahs" and "blessings" are your trip and indicative of only your mindset.
Posted by: Eric | February 5, 2009 12:57 PM
They used to have a special kind of Internet for these kind of people. It was called AOL.
Posted by: Sherry
|
February 5, 2009 12:58 PM
I wonder if Kirk Cameron gets letters like this from atheists?
Posted by: CS | February 5, 2009 1:02 PM
I wish I had so much time to waste (all my spare time is wasted on reading PZ's "blog").
Posted by: salana | February 5, 2009 1:06 PM
If he's going to copy religious mumbo-jumbo from other religions, he could at least get it right. ALL karma is negative. Duh! I'm an atheist and even I knew that.
Posted by: Lazlo's Other | February 5, 2009 1:08 PM
Wow. I'm not an atheist, and I couldn't get through that. I come here for the science, but like Dave I don't care abut PZ's opinions. If he doesn't believe me I can take some vacation time, buy a plane ticket, and rent a car to get to him, so I can tell him I don't care. Um, Yeah.... So just let me know, OK? I'll be waiting.....
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 1:09 PM
They used to have a special kind of Internet for these kind of people. It was called AOL.
They still do -- only now, it's called YouTube comments.
Posted by: Ultima Thule | February 5, 2009 1:09 PM
The guy even uses the line that says all about his faulty logic and knowledge...: "how scientists think whales used to reproduce in the past"
Scientists see a phenomena, study/document it, experiment/theory, publish, discuss, review. And if its real, you can verify it and reproduce the experiment or even see it and study again, and verify if its true or false. So it's more like "how scientists document EVIDENCE about whales".
The critical mass of critical thinkers must be at those guy's door. Its his fear manifest. And surely one day he will get some huge ICH and see how dumb he is (i hope).
PZ, hold the fort, i am with you.
Posted by: OrbitalMike
|
February 5, 2009 1:13 PM
Mr Hartmann, you wrote:
It seems to me that you have a tendency to believe many impossible things, so why not one more and
STFU!
Anyway, I somewhat agree with the comment on being a "public figure": If you're going to say something in public, then you should expect to hear remarks about what you said in public.
That being said, why should remarks said in public show any respect for ideas that one finds repugnant? Why should remarks made in public refrain from causing offense? They shouldn't. If you take offense to things being written or don't want to have your silly ideas ridiculed, then you can either : 1) ignore it and get a life(no one is forcing you to read this blog, are they?), 2) Make your comment in private or public, and move on, 3) engage in debate, or 4) grab a soap box and start your own blog.
As for you, Mr Hartmann, you're just a
n attention whorewhiner with silly ideas that deserve no respect. A prime example of the rampant anti-intellectualism rampant in our society. I'm somewhat sorry I'm even giving you this modicum of attention. I'm only doing so to practice using HTML tags in the comments to PZ's blog.Posted by: Dahan | February 5, 2009 1:16 PM
Almost made it all the way through. As has been noted, a simple "I really hate you and don't care about you." would have sufficed.
He should either start or stop drinking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 1:16 PM
I could only make it through the first paragraph and had to stop. I have a report to finish today and I need my wits, such as they are, about me.
I have to admire PZ for his being able to screen these screeds.
Posted by: Jess T
|
February 5, 2009 1:16 PM
Ow. I almost went cross-eyed trying to read through that.
I think someone needs to convert Mr. Hartmann to the religion of paragraph breaks. All you have to do to join is hit the return key a few times.
Like so.
Posted by: Wouter | February 5, 2009 1:16 PM
Damn I actually read all that. Every couple of lines I was hoping it to go somewhere, sigh. :(
Posted by: OrbitalMike
|
February 5, 2009 1:17 PM
Mr Hartmann, you wrote:
It seems to me that you have a tendency to believe many impossible things, so why not one more and
STFU!
Anyway, I somewhat agree with the comment on being a "public figure": If you're going to say something in public, then you should expect to hear remarks about what you said in public.
That being said, why should remarks said in public show any respect for ideas that one finds repugnant? Why should remarks made in public refrain from causing offense? They shouldn't. If you take offense to things being written or don't want to have your silly ideas ridiculed, then you can either : 1) ignore it and get a life(no one is forcing you to read this blog, are they?), 2) Make your comment in private or public, and move on, 3) engage in debate, or 4) grab a soap box and start your own blog.
As for you, Mr Hartmann, you're just a
n attention whorewhiner with silly ideas that deserve no respect. A prime example of the rampant anti-intellectualism evident in our society. I'm somewhat sorry I'm even giving you this modicum of attention. I'm only doing so to practice using HTML tags in the comments to PZ's blog.Sorry if this got double posted
Posted by: bsk | February 5, 2009 1:19 PM
I AM GUNNERY SERGEANT HARTMANN, YOUR SENIOR DRILL INSTRUCTOR. FROM NOW ON YOU WILL SPEAK ONLY WHEN SPOKEN TO, AND THE FIRST AND LAST WORDS OUT OF YOUR FILTHY SEWERS WILL BE SIR. DO YOU MAGGOTS UNDERSTAND THAT?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 1:23 PM
Completely off topic but in case you have not heard, Lux Interior died. My world just got a little less cheerfully perverse.
Because of all of the "man did not come from goo" statements of the past couple of days, I will link to Goo Goo Muck. Stay sick! And remember, Rock-N-Roll is the Devil's music!
Posted by: CaptainKendrick | February 5, 2009 1:27 PM
If this guy were present in a room with PZ and a bunch of us having serious, civil conversations among ourselves, discussing evolution, science, religion, atheism, etc., he would be sitting (uninvited of course) in a corner, shaking his head back and forth, his hands pressed up against his ears and screaming "NYAH NYAY NYAH NYAH _I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!___ NYAH NYAH NHAH....."
That's pretty much what he does here on this ream of virtual paper....
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 5, 2009 1:27 PM
PZ Myers #287 wrote:
Um .. I think Neil B was just making suggestions for some additional amusing blog entries -- not seriously advancing a space alien theology. His views on property dualism may have sparked some arguments way in the back of some of the longer threads, but he's not a kook complaining that you're not featuring his kook theory. I think you misread him.
Posted by: No One Of Consequence | February 5, 2009 1:29 PM
1) How much does an average comment weigh? If we get it up to 500 comments is that equivilent to 500 tons?
2) How does someone complain about PZ having too much time on his hands spend the necessary amount of time to write that screed? Even with no thought and 50+ wpm, that had to take a half hour to compose.
3) Did I miss the post where PZ claimed to speak for anyone but himself? Scientist, atheist, or other?
Posted by: Garfunkel | February 5, 2009 1:30 PM
From what I've seen of Myers' daily rants on Pharyngula,
Hartman's characterization of the man is spot on.
Posted by: Doo Shabag | February 5, 2009 1:31 PM
Wow, I read the whole thing (only one?). There's too many comments to read through, and I'm sure someone has mentioned this, but my favorite part by far of this 1,980 word rant comes at word 1,710 where he says "they knew when to shut up!" Too bad he doesn't.
Posted by: norm! | February 5, 2009 1:33 PM
Mr. Hartmann,
You are an inspiration.
Yours,
Christian Bale
Posted by: All of Dave's base belongs to us | February 5, 2009 1:33 PM
That's funny. I was thinking about sending a sample of my goo to yesterday's crank...
Posted by: Jim Bob Cooter | February 5, 2009 1:35 PM
TLDNR
Posted by: mothwentbad | February 5, 2009 1:35 PM
You son of a bitch, PZ! Stop screwing around with this trivial walking whale bullshit and tell me how I can go to Heaven even if there's no god! I demand that you tell me, because the other guy, let me tell you - he's offering a lot more than walking whales and distant alligator cousins!
Posted by: Park | February 5, 2009 1:35 PM
Someone teach this guy the value of brevity.
Posted by: clinteas | February 5, 2009 1:37 PM
My,that was tedious....
The incoherent homicidal ones with spelling and grammar issues are way funnier....
Posted by: Dennis | February 5, 2009 1:37 PM
Wow. That's a lot of free time to write an e-mail....
Indeed- take it like a man.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 1:37 PM
Could you parse that for us all, because frankly the specific point of his whole email was tough to discern.
Posted by: Lee Picton | February 5, 2009 1:39 PM
OK. I confess. I read the whole thing, waiting to get to the point. What a bummer.
PZ, I don't think you should waste blog space on someone who clearly ISN'T ANY FUN. We do get entertaining whackos here from time to time, but this clearly wasn't one of them.
Mr. Hartman, there is one good use for your screed. You could prepackage it for the pharmaceutical industry. It would work as well as Thorizine and be much cheaper.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | February 5, 2009 1:42 PM
Brownian #318 Yes, yes, yes.
Also, Cuttlefish, thanks.
Posted by: Lowell | February 5, 2009 1:43 PM
Garfunkel #363
And what exactly was that "characterization"? Were you actually able to discern a cogent point (regardless of the accuracy of that point) from that rambing nonsense?
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 1:49 PM
You came back? You really should look up Silver Fox. I know you two could become special friends.
Posted by: DoctorOHM | February 5, 2009 1:50 PM
Seldom has so many words been used to say so little to so many.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
February 5, 2009 1:55 PM
The Teal Deer, it burns.
Posted by: NJ | February 5, 2009 1:57 PM
PZ @ 287:
And wouldn't "Banality of Dementia" be a great band name?
Posted by: tony | February 5, 2009 1:58 PM
Garfunkel puked
I was going to say something witty, along the lines of
» as an avid quotemining sockpupet, you would be able to find justification for ANY position in a screed that long» or did Garfunkel just find something on Pharyngula that he agree's with?» or even From what I've seen of Myers' daily rants on Pharyngula, Hartman's characterization of the man is
spot onsputum.In the end I couldn't find anything funny to say at all. So I won't.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 1:59 PM
Mr Garfunkel, if you don't like "the professor" then why do you hang around his blog like a dose of herpes?
It's not as if you have anything to contribute, and the post of village idiot is already filled by heddle/facilis.
Posted by: Dahan | February 5, 2009 2:04 PM
"From what I've seen of Myers' daily rants on Pharyngula,
Hartman's characterization of the man is spot on."
Lol! Thank you! I laughed harder at that than anything else in this thread, and there's some good stuff here.
Posted by: Stu
|
February 5, 2009 2:07 PM
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion Silver Fox's first name is Simon?
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 5, 2009 2:09 PM
PZ, could you please put the little image of the angry loon (tiny_gumby_trans.gif) in more places throughout these letters? Even though I'm already visualizing that image whilst reading their babbling tirades, it would be great to see it at the same time for even more lulz. Once per paragraph would be nice -- except in this guy's case, his English1010-violating, chapter-long paragraphs slightly reduce the effectiveness.
Anyway, the guy is hip with the 21st Century, for sure, with his "negative karma engine" and "bling" dropping and all.
Posted by: Garfunkel | February 5, 2009 2:09 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp: "Could you parse that for us all, because frankly the specific point of his whole email was tough to discern."
In a nutshell, Hartmann was saying that Myers comes across as an insufferable ass, except in the eyes of his amen chorus. Perhaps that's his purpose. If so, he's quite good at it. But I can assure you that Myers' rhetorical antics ensure that those who aren't themselves "godless liberals" won't take him seriously enough to actually be influenced by his "thinking." People who write and behave like Myers limit the size of their audience. I see that as a good thing. The marketplace of ideas is a healthier place when fanatics like Myers marginalize themselves by behaving in an infantile manner.
Posted by: BrianA | February 5, 2009 2:10 PM
Wow. I really tried reading all that but I just couldn't make it through. Somebody needs to learn how to just get to the point.
Posted by: Endor | February 5, 2009 2:13 PM
"People who write and behave like Myers limit the size of their audience. "
Thank you for watching another episode of "It's True because I think it is" with Garfunkel.
Posted by: SarahField | February 5, 2009 2:13 PM
What a long-winded loser.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 2:16 PM
As the number 1 atheist blog we have high standards. I suspect though that like most organisations we are seeking redundancies. Might I suggest that you, Mr Garfunkel, consider taking advantage?
I'm sure you have valuable seed to spill elsewhere.
Posted by: clinteas | February 5, 2009 2:21 PM
Drive-by religionists on Pharyngula say this a lot.Funny thing is,nothing could be further from the truth,seldom have I met such a diverse bunch of mostly clever and witty people from all kinds of academia (or non-academia).
The fact that there is a certain baseline agreement about the value of secular humanism and the damage that religion and its consequences does to mankind,does not make this an amen chorus.
But religionists tend to simplifications,it makes their world easier to understand.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 2:22 PM
In the marketplace of ideas, Garfunkel, you are losing. Among people who have gone over the evidence (No, I am not going to let go of that tidbit.), evolution is overwhelming. Yet you insist it is more philosophical that factual. But please do go on. You are doing well in marginalizing your extremist view.
Posted by: Garfunkel | February 5, 2009 2:24 PM
AnthonyK: "Mr Garfunkel, if you don't like 'the professor' then why do you hang around his blog like a dose of herpes?"
I don't "hang around" Pharyngula (I only recently checked in), but I'd heard that it was a repellent blog that was shameful to science, so I thought I'd check it out. I've discovered that what I heard was correct. I concede that my interest in the blog is now a bit perverse, but my interest will quickly wane, I'm sure, as it would for anyone who doesn't have the patience to wade through a bunch of self-congratulatory, adolescent, vulgar "arguments."
Posted by: Tom | February 5, 2009 2:26 PM
PZ as the Messiah?
Well, when I pray to PZ for entertainment, I get it daily. When I pray to one of the more commercially successful gods like jezis and yaway and ah-la for things they register a 100% failure rate. As far as messiahs go, the big three ain't got nuthin' on PZ.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 2:28 PM
Garfunkel, please review the scientific literature in detail, and tell us which of the hundreds of thousands of papers backing evolution are real, and which are just philosophy. Cite each paper and show your work as to your decision, or you get no credit.
Posted by: Beep Beep Barbie Jeep | February 5, 2009 2:29 PM
Thanks, Garf. I'll use that in the future.
"In a nutshell, Myers was saying that Ratzi comes across as an insufferable ass, except in the eyes of his amen chorus."
"In a nutshell, Myers was saying that Warren comes across as an insufferable ass, except in the eyes of his amen chorus."
"In a nutshell, Myers was saying that godbots come across as insufferable asses, except in the eyes of their amen chorus."
Posted by: tony | February 5, 2009 2:31 PM
Wow!
[snark]
I never know that Pharyngula was sdhameful to science
I shall stop reading this blog right away!
Thank you Mr Garfunkel for showing me the light!
[/snark]
what an idiot. Does this dimwit even know what science means?
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | February 5, 2009 2:31 PM
Well, at least we know this nut isn't one of your co-workers.
Posted by: JB | February 5, 2009 2:33 PM
@Garfunkel (#385):
Wow, for someone who spends his entire life preparing and looking forward to death, just because some ancient kooks wrote about an invisible man in the sky, you sure do carelessly throw out the word "fanatic."
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 2:34 PM
One has to wonder what Garfunkel's idea of science is? Does it included revealed knowledge?
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 2:34 PM
It will indeed be a sad day for all of us, Mr Garfunkel, when you tire of our vulgar profanities and leave. I trust that regulars here will be able to share our pain, move on, and resume our mundane lives without you.
Please give us good warning in ordere to set up any special self-help groups.
It's at times like this that I truly regret that we do not have the comfort of prayer.
Posted by: Davey | February 5, 2009 2:37 PM
Markovization is great! What fun. I ran it through a few more times:
Well sir,
I need to offend you, rather, it is me telling you really care a failure as an example I may receive on your "blog" today. You are regrettably there for a failure as an example I think that you protest that I picked up from your "blog" today. You might say: (imagine a beard for a Well sir,
I picked up from your "blog" today. You might say: (imagine a random example I notice in the human race! La-de-dah-de-dah-de-da. I think that you really care a random example I may have never met you really care a second saying this)
"You need to worry and to read about a beard for a second saying this)
Posted by: rgz | February 5, 2009 2:37 PM
I tried to read this so-called "email" in your so-called "blog" but it reeks of so-called "tl:dr".
Posted by: JB | February 5, 2009 2:42 PM
Davey @401:
Don't know why, but this line made me really happy.
Posted by: Circe of the Godless | February 5, 2009 2:44 PM
Wow, was there an actual POINT in there somewhere?? I mean apart from 'waaaah! I don't like you and I'd rather bury my head in the sand than look at the world'?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 2:45 PM
Janine @376 - Eewwww!
You and the Chimp are on an ick-roll today. Silver Fox with a special friend imagery spoiled the taste of my banana muffin.
Posted by: Dahan | February 5, 2009 2:45 PM
BTW, Garfunkle, if you're looking to make a name for yourself, you've got a long ways to go. We see people like you come and go here all the time. It takes real persistence/insanity to attain the legendary status of someone like Kenny or FtK.
However, although you're still minor league I'm pulling for you. You've got real potential.
Posted by: jonathan | February 5, 2009 2:47 PM
I hope one day to have as awesome a collection of titles as these.
"atheist "blog-meister," small-town scientist, condemner of "inferior people," Lord over ALL "creationists" and defender of truth"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 2:49 PM
Ok here's something.
I haven't seen you make any real arguments either.
Tell us your thoughts on science. What topics do you find interesting?
Posted by: Jason A. | February 5, 2009 2:49 PM
Holy crap, what the fuck is he talking about?
Just goes on and on in circles without ever really saying anything.
He could have saved a great deal of time by shortening his email to just 'I don't like you.'
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | February 5, 2009 2:50 PM
tldr
But oddly enough, I got a laugh out of that anyway.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 5, 2009 2:51 PM
SaraField @388:
David Hartmann or Garfunkel?Garfunkel @385:
Good thing for you my new Irony Meter is still in the box and hasn't been powered on yet or you'd be getting an earful from me right about now. I still haven't cleared all the smoke out of the room from the last meter that went *poof* when Martha's moronically ironic statement caught me with my Irony Meter on its high gain setting.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 2:52 PM
Patricia, methinks you are reading a different meaning to the term "special friends". It is all about the special view of science that they share. Yeah. That's it.
Posted by: cicely | February 5, 2009 2:54 PM
Mr. Hartmann,
It's okay. Really. No one is going to wrestle you to the ground and steal your faith. You are still allowed to believe anything you want.
However, if you are (as appears to be the case) uninterested in biology, evolution, and the opinions of the godless, you could save yourself a lot of distress by just reading the label. Right there at the top of the page it says, "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". What the heck were you expecting to see when you came here?
Posted by: Zorpheous | February 5, 2009 2:54 PM
Shorter (much shorter) David Hartmann,
I don't like you PZ, but read your blog and scream at my screen everyday.
Christ, what a fracking retread. Here's a hint Mr. Hartmann, if you don't like PZ, don't read him, simple, problem solved. I personal think that people like Hannity, Limbaugh and Coutler are a complete waste of bandwidth, TV/radio air time and paper pulp, so I simply don't read them. Saves me a lot of time,... time that can better spend,... like reading PZ's blog.
Posted by: Cylux | February 5, 2009 2:57 PM
I've read some meandering diatribes in my time, but that was by and far the most boring and tiresome. I mean he banged on for ages but never actually said anything, bar 'your a meanie and I don't like you'.
Posted by: Synchronium | February 5, 2009 2:57 PM
I love how all bloggers start off with 0 readers. The only way that increases is if people like what you have to say.
In other news, "Comment Not Found"
Posted by: Whiskeyjack | February 5, 2009 2:59 PM
The best part was when he took a potshot at science and in the next breath referred to the "miracle" of the internet.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 5, 2009 3:00 PM
"One has to wonder what Garfunkel's idea of science is? Does it included revealed knowledge?"
He was bandying the argument from solipsism yesterday. So I guess revealed knowledge would be the only way out of that. For the revelee, of course.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 5, 2009 3:02 PM
"However, although you're still minor league I'm pulling for you. You've got real potential."
Nah, he really hasn't done anything to distinguish himself from all the other poor dears who complain about the tone here.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 3:06 PM
But Rey, Garfunkel gave me my new title.
Posted by: Nessa
|
February 5, 2009 3:17 PM
Professor Myers, do you ever find the time to read ALL of the comments? I mean... over 400. This is crazy.
Posted by: All Dave's base belongs to us | February 5, 2009 3:18 PM
This blog is "repellent?"
What does it repell? And can it be bioengineeered to retard the spread of malaria?
Posted by: Ant | February 5, 2009 3:24 PM
Dave, you sound like a closet atheist. You need to read more blog's like this one, and then keep reading, and reading, and reading ...
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 5, 2009 3:29 PM
Hey PZ, that link was something I found out there for you guys to have fun looking at, it isn't about my ideas or something I created. So the one time I give you something to make fun of religious practice, the sort of thing you and commenters put up all the time, and a good one - you blow it off. Too pig-headed to even tell the difference? And your featured correspondent was boring, although at this point I can appreciate a little bit of his criticism. I think the video clip of the singing alien is funnier and worth more in "entertainment" value than that slogging trash, and so I told you. So what?
Asshole.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 5, 2009 3:34 PM
That's awesome. At least two to show up just to tell PZ how much he's disliked by everyone.
I wonder if Garfunkel and Hartmann demonstrate to the world how much they despise foreign cars by buying new model Camrys every year.
And how could I have missed these gems?
Earning fifty bucks as a guinea pig in a clinical trial doesn't count as working with professors.
This is where the morons always give themselves away. They think PhDs, master's, or even bachelor's degrees are like the section on conics in high school math: other than results on an exam, there's nothing to differentiate an expert from a non-expert. But if this doofus managed to make it through four years of any degree program without learning where the 'enter' key on a keyboard is, then his papers and exams should've been scrutinized a little more closely for plagiarism.
In other words, David, you're trying to convince us you just might be a master plumber, but you hold a pipe wrench like you've never seen a metal tool in your life. If you don't understand what this means, then ask one of your fine professor friends to explain it to you.
Posted by: issahla | February 5, 2009 3:34 PM
Dear PZ Messiah, please educate Ranty on the value of concise sentence structure.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 5, 2009 3:38 PM
Yo, Neil B: You have your own fucking blog. If the green alien dancers or mimes or whatever the fuck it was is really all that fucking important then post it on your fucking blog then wait for the traffic. Be patient.
Otherwise, go blow yourself. Or go blow a donkey. At least the donkey will care what you have on your mind. The folks here; not so much.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | February 5, 2009 3:50 PM
"Shameful to Science" would be a good band name.
Posted by: frog | February 5, 2009 3:51 PM
All you need to know is that food goes in one end, and it comes out the other.
Posted by: Brain Hertz
|
February 5, 2009 3:52 PM
I was about to post a response to Neil B, but WRMartin beat me to it.
Neil:
What he said.
Posted by: calm reason | February 5, 2009 3:55 PM
Mr Hartman could use a book of Shakespeare quotes, to help him learn to be concise. The Bard wrote a thought that describes Hartmann's email-
"sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 5, 2009 3:57 PM
Actually, WRMartin, I see that your response is ultimately the wisest take on the whole thing. Sure.
Posted by: Daniel M | February 5, 2009 4:06 PM
wow, I so gave up trying to be charitable and actually read the harangue after the second huge wall of text.
For those with more perseverance in the face of the niagara falls of the pointless wordspew, did he actually have a point?
I can just imagine the foam building up as his face gets redder and redder and redder until..pop! Aneurysm...dude, take a chill pill. Much like the telly, computers have an off-switch. Learn to use it.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | February 5, 2009 4:06 PM
David Hartmann, I offer you this counsel from St. Paul, whose letter to the Philippians I have slightly paraphrased:
"Finally, brother, whatsoever things are brief, whatsoever things are concise, whatsoever things are pithy, whatsoever things are succinct, whatsoever things are terse, whatsoever things are of few words expressed; if there be any point, and if there be any premise, think on these things."
Think of them long and well BEFORE you set fingers to keyboard.
Also, eschew quotation marks.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 5, 2009 4:09 PM
Neil B #432:
No, re my #361, I just think PZ was hasty and misread you.
(I couldn't get those links in #274 to work btw)
Posted by: Aphrodine | February 5, 2009 4:13 PM
[creotard WARBLEGARBLE]
"Oh I know, you probably feel so useful in your roles as atheist "blog-meister," small-town scientist, condemner of "inferior people," Lord over ALL "creationists" and defender of truth (as you seem to perceive it anyway), and you probably don't have time for my little rants."
[/creotard WARBLEGARBLE]
... WOAH! PZ is a "blog-meister?!" Any relation to Heat-meister and Freeze-meister, PZ? I can just hear the charming
ChristmasHappy Monkey carols now:"He's mister BLOG-MEISTER he's anti-god.
He's mister tentacle
He's mister CEPHALOPOD!"
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 4:19 PM
Thanks for clearing that up Janine. I'll be able to tackle my lunch now.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 4:24 PM
I am sick of this blog. I spend hours and hours on here, obsessing over it. It constantly frustrates me that although I have asserted, time and time again, in excruciating detail, my contrary opinion that God is God and Jesus is our saviour - but all I get is insults.
I have hijacked every thread and proved that I am right to my own satisfaction (and I have very high standards!), yet a conspiracy of narrow-monded rationalists and free thinkers insist on not taking them seriously.
I have continually criticised evolutionary "theory" with wit and insight, yet still the "scientific establishment" remains un-toppled.
I find the posters here to be a bunch of insufferable arseholes, and say so, yet get nothing but insults for my pains.
PZ Myers is in illiterit, arrogant vulva, who wouldn't reconise real science if it sequenced his genome and cured his cancer; he should get a life and stop posting on his infuriating blog as if he owned the place.
I am going now and will return to say the exact same thing over and over again till the Rapture comes.
Peace in Christ to you all.
Now fuck off and leave me alone.
Posted by: Ultima thule | February 5, 2009 4:31 PM
uhm...i just thought about this: a super chaotic experimentaxion about the psichology of the argumentation:
St paul, peter, john, _ insert common latin name here_ were a bunch of buggers. They couldn't interpret any of the words of god or christ with precision. They forgot to document with time periods the exact moments of the life of christ relevant for the sake of history sense... God is actually a guy inside a machine in a big green city...sometimes he even uses a flamming bush to scare little people... this is all true. As true as the religious fanatics make the story about any biologist or astronomer's life or work....
Must work on this a bit more...
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | February 5, 2009 4:33 PM
Hereby nominating AnthonyK (#438) for a Molly. That was dead on.
Posted by: Steve | February 5, 2009 4:39 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if the professor put up all the hate mail he gets if only to give us all a laugh?
Posted by: Azdak | February 5, 2009 4:40 PM
I second #440 -- AnthonyK's post was definitely worth the repetitive stress injury caused by scrolling to the bottom of the page. I was also amused to see someone else was expecting to see the original email transition suddenly into the Prince of Bel Air.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 5, 2009 4:42 PM
Actually frog, you only need to know that food goes in one end, and which end that is. The rest you'll figure out in 12-14 hours, depending on dietary fibre content.
Posted by: marty | February 5, 2009 4:51 PM
I'm sure there is a newspaper editor, wherever it is Mr Hartmann lives, who truly regrets publishing the email address for the "Letters to the Editor" section.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
February 5, 2009 4:53 PM
Mr Hartmann,
Paragraphs are your friends.
Posted by: Ryan | February 5, 2009 4:55 PM
In his defense you are a bit of an asshole :P
Posted by: Gilian | February 5, 2009 4:59 PM
Pfffftttt.
If I had been insane enough to write that incredibly long e-mail rant, I would have gone for the added Style bonus points and send in the bloody thing with snailmail, handwritten, on embossed paper.
A thought just occurred:
Wouldn't using a computer and / or the internet conflict with literal interpretation of the bible ?
Posted by: Happy Trollop | February 5, 2009 5:05 PM
It hasn't been easy picking a thread-winner, but I've read all of the 438 comments so far, and it's pretty plain that it's AnthonyK@438 FTW!
Posted by: Steve_C | February 5, 2009 5:12 PM
Yup! Sign him up for a molly!
Posted by: NFPendleton | February 5, 2009 5:13 PM
I liked the whale info, actually. And the big effin' snakes today.
FU, Hartmann. I didn't realize we were supposed to be solving the worlds problems on a frickin' blog.
Posted by: IBY | February 5, 2009 5:18 PM
That was the most painful ten minutes of my life. All he does is repeat the samething for a thousand paragraphs over and over again, and when he finally gets to the point, he moves to another topic for another thousand paragraphs. No matter how funny it was, by the end of it, I was in great pains, especially my neurons, and I wanted it to end. For some reason, I kept reading.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | February 5, 2009 5:25 PM
Great name for a blog, or for a bluegrass band that refuses to do stained glass bluegrass.
What do you know that this guy needs to know? Everything, it appears.
I'll bet he had to look up both "spittle" and "fleck."
Posted by: don kane | February 5, 2009 5:25 PM
Not to state the obvious, but is the "below the fold" function broken?
While it's good that diatribe is not wasting trees, it wasn't even worth the electrons.
Posted by: spinetingler | February 5, 2009 5:39 PM
my God, they knew when to shut up
my irony meter just 'sploded.
Posted by: Mike W | February 5, 2009 5:41 PM
Why is it that people with nothing to say, go on and on... and on.
damn.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 5, 2009 5:48 PM
@Daniel M [#433],
"For those with more perseverance in the face of the niagara falls of the pointless wordspew, did he actually have a point?"
Yes. He was upset; and he could've just as easily typed only "WAAAAAH!" before clicking "Send".
(Nice metaphor for his spew, BTW.)
Posted by: ricklend | February 5, 2009 5:49 PM
If the nonsense of David's e-mail could be harvested as energy, it would be enough to create a supernova. Could any human read that whole e-mail without his mind imploding? I read the whole thing and mine just did.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 5, 2009 5:50 PM
@me,
"just as easily"? WTF am I saying. I mean, "_way_ more easily"...
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 5, 2009 5:53 PM
@ricklend [#457],
"Could any human read that whole e-mail without his mind imploding?"
Yes. Mind is still intact. Creobot-humor doesn't yield implosion for me.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 5, 2009 6:03 PM
Oh, how interesting. I looked through the records, and "Garfunkel" is actually "Jim in Vermont" and "Superman" and "JohnDoe" and "Jackie".
Say goodbye. He's getting banned.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 6:06 PM
You see - total arrogance.
Banning someone just because he's a troll.
Who gave you the job of god of pharyngula, PZ?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 6:11 PM
Bye-bye Garfunkel!
Posted by: dieselrain | February 5, 2009 6:11 PM
I hope he reads all these comments to his rant. Gosh, he must have a lot of empty time on his hands. It must have taken him over an hour to write his scree. What a waste of space, him and his rant!
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 5, 2009 6:13 PM
Sastra - yeah, the context got mixed up but I'll grant I don't need to berate blog owners about their choice of content versus my suggestions. Just as an independent point, this stuff is indeed IMHO hilarious and fun to watch and listen. Try this link:
http://www.fiveshock.com/ran/scary.html
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 5, 2009 6:13 PM
Do not question me, or I will smite thee.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 6:16 PM
Bye-Bye Garfunkel, the next time you show up I expect you to turn in your homework showing the papers on evolution in scientific literature that are philosophy and not science. Show citations for all the papers in the literature. There are quite a few.
Posted by: Lord Zero | February 5, 2009 6:16 PM
Too long, didnt read.
In fact when i reached the part when i dispains the importance of the recent whale transitional fossil, i lost
all hope of readind something which actually made sense.
Posted by: Sastra | February 5, 2009 6:17 PM
Ah, too bad -- Garfunkle kept a lot of people busy and happy for quite a while on some of the other threads. But, PZ has the right to ban trolls who morph into other trolls.
But I do think he was unfair to Neil B in #287 (361, 424)-- jumped the gun and misread him. Perhaps these crank letters are getting him shell-shocked. The constant beat, beat, beat of the jungle drums will drive a man mad...
Posted by: Obeah | February 5, 2009 6:20 PM
It reads a bit like Vicky Pollard from Little Britain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzUniIMIuGU
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 5, 2009 6:22 PM
I just looked through one of the recent threads to remind myself of exactly the sort of rubbish posted by Garfunkel/JohnDoe/Jackie etc. - in one of them he (as JohnDoe) actually congratulated himself (as Jackie) for bringing up valid points*.
Morphing I've seen, but this is the first sockpuppetry I've experienced. Good to be rid of him/them.
*When I say 'valid points' I of course mean 'cowardly, completely worthless, self-indulgent blather by an idiot.'
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 6:22 PM
Hey, if we get to 500 comments, do we get one from Mr Hartmann? We'd like a word with him....but not 2000.
Joke time then:
How many creationists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None. Electricity is just a theory.
How many Heddles does it take to change a lightbulb?
That depends on your presuppositions, as he pointed out in a previous thread...
Your go!
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 5, 2009 6:23 PM
Neil B #464:
EGADS. Is that ... Bat Boy???
He ESCAPED!
(ok, couldn't watch more than a minute or so ... what is the point of it being... whatever it is?)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 5, 2009 6:25 PM
Garfunkle is Jackie?
No wonder she dodged my questions again.
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 5, 2009 6:34 PM
The point ... if you dig "weird stuff" and get a kick out of it, especially stunning conjunctions between things like fundamental religion and aliens, etc. I enjoy movies like "Eraserhead", strange comics like Zap Comix, etc. That digging of "weird stuff" also drives much of my interest in extreme cosmological and metaphysical theories, multiverses, universe-as-simulation, time travel paradoxes, mind uploaded into Platonic "computers" and offbeat theological speculations but of course no regard for the conventional beliefs and sources of the common people ;-)
Posted by: squeak | February 5, 2009 6:35 PM
So... He's agreeing with the fact that evolution happened... but he doesn't want people to be vocal about it? That 'normal' folk shouldn't be bothered with such stuff that might contradict their religion (as long as they believe in a strict interpretation) and upset them?
What?
"You are an embarrassment to the academic world. With all your knowledge, your are in my estimation a failure as an educator"
I think that he has to realize that the way someone speaks on their blog may be completely different than the way they are in the classroom, and that short of actually attending a class he really has no way of knowing what kind of professor PZ Myers may be.
"I notice in your "blog" today"
I love that he puts the word blog in quotations, as if because he doesn't agree with the content it shouldn't be considered a blog.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 5, 2009 6:35 PM
Bravo Anthony K! Bravo!
Posted by: aratina | February 5, 2009 7:00 PM
What a surprise about the sockpuppetry. Garfunkle's Jackie form was the most heinous with all her backwoods blather and condescending sweet-talk, although the Superman form was pretty bad, too. It is kind of disconcerting that someone would do that, but it's a good reminder of how nasty Christian love can be toward fellow human beings (the same goes for that ex-whatchamacallit poser). The sum total insipidness and bile from all those Garfunkle personalities really stands out in its shamefulness against David Hartmann's stream of unconsciousness.
Posted by: Newfie
|
February 5, 2009 7:00 PM
Just adding my bit of criticism for Mr. Hartmann, in the hopes that he make an appearance at the 453,592.37 kilogram mark.
Wow, all of Professor Myers' students have thought exactly as he does? I don't believe that. I'd wager that the good professor has had plenty of students with different viewpoints, on a myriad of issues and topics.
Posted by: Sastra
|
February 5, 2009 7:05 PM
Neil B #474 wrote:
Oh, I get the point of you posting it -- it's damn weird. I was asking if they ever get around to explaining why Bat Boy/ space alien / green demon from hell is praising God in song? Is it part of some larger story about Jesus on other planets?
Posted by: lewis e. haymes | February 5, 2009 7:12 PM
Better descended from that brave whale than a homo sap.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 5, 2009 7:14 PM
No wonder "Garfunkel" really disliked me, I did play rough with some of the other sockpuppets.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 5, 2009 7:20 PM
Huh. No wonder his whinging sounded so familiar.
Posted by: kamaka | February 5, 2009 7:23 PM
What is it with the sycophant, acolyte, ass-kisser, "messianic blessing" thing? Am I supposed to feel insulted or something??
Admittedly, I seldom disagree with PZ or what he's about with his (by definition: personal opinion) blog, but that hardly makes me a disciple.
Although PZ did lose me with that "smite" thing @ 465. Hell threats and smiting, heard all that shit before.
Now, a "deny beer" threat, that might engender some obedience. But PZ knows where to draw the line.
Posted by: Gordy | February 5, 2009 7:24 PM
They say that "brevity is the soul of wit" and this email does nothing to dispel that notion.
Posted by: mayhempix
|
February 5, 2009 7:26 PM
"...but my God, they knew when to shut up!"
Oh the irony!
Posted by: karen marie | February 5, 2009 7:31 PM
having fun yet, mr. hartmann?
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 5, 2009 7:32 PM
@479: OK, their point not mine .... Well this seems to be a very independent puppeteer or splinter group of "Christian Scientists" (not like Heddle, but the Baker sect.) This pupeteer David Hart loves the idea of mixing religion and space aliens, and prompts the "host" James to read in a pompous voice from the Odes of Solomon and the Book of Enoch (pseudographia called "lost books of the Bible" by some.) There are mentions of being taken up in chariots to other worlds, etc. (remember Ezekial and the connection to "Gods from outer space" etc?) James rolls his eyes from time to time, maybe he's giggling inside.
See also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsPwtJCuC-U.
Posted by: Robert DeCaire | February 5, 2009 7:36 PM
Wow. Considering how long it must have taken to output the mass of keystrokes required for such a voluminous screed, and one he apparently expected you to ignore, his time must not be worth very much to him.
Posted by: karen marie | February 5, 2009 7:44 PM
louis, up there at #58, imo, hits the nail squarely on the head.
i hope you read it, mr. hartmann. if you did, go back and read it a second time, perhaps a third and a fourth time, till it sinks in and you fully comprehend your error.
Posted by: Canuck | February 5, 2009 7:47 PM
Now that was some pretty crazy shit. I couldn't read it all. Got half way through and the whacko was just too thick to wade through. It would have helped if the guy knew what a paragraph was. I seriously think this one has a mental illness of some sort (apart from the religious one).
Posted by: marc buhler | February 5, 2009 7:49 PM
The 313th comment says what *really* needed to be said back at the very start - perhaps the good Mr. Hartmann could now pick up where he left off and enlighten us some more.
Posted by: GAZZA | February 5, 2009 7:57 PM
One of the things I find interesting about email is how many people apparently think that:
a) They're writing a letter on paper, and
b) That paper is really expensive, also
c) So is ink, so
d) They absolutely cannot go back, reread, or (FSM forbid) actually EDIT it before pressing "send".
I mean, really - endless running sentences that were content free - if he actually did have a point besides, "I don't like you very much PZ" I missed it by droning off halfway through (I thought the line break was it at first - imagine my surprise...)
Posted by: Libbie | February 5, 2009 8:00 PM
David Hartmann eats babies.
Posted by: lorraine | February 5, 2009 8:10 PM
We're so close to 500 comments!!!!
C'mon gang!
Oh, that prophetic David Hartmann *swoon*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 8:14 PM
Five hundred comments? Just to tick off the Hartmann? I'm game.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 8:25 PM
Does seem a shame to get 500 posts from such a lame screed though. I mean, I couldn't read the whole thing, but what exactly was his beef? Sod it, I don't care. Just 4 more to go...
Posted by: lorraine | February 5, 2009 8:30 PM
PZ - I'm begging you, PLEASE post the astrological proof that you are satan.
Posted by: Betz | February 5, 2009 8:31 PM
Ton Of Criticism(tm) #500 comin' up shortly!
Posted by: PeterM | February 5, 2009 8:35 PM
#499? #500? overshoot?
Posted by: kamaka | February 5, 2009 8:36 PM
Acolyte of PZ satan tries to be 500
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 5, 2009 8:36 PM
Where's fucking heddle when you want him? No, wait, I take that back.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | February 5, 2009 8:36 PM
I was really quite determined to read it all, when I saw how long it was... and I didn't last a page. This drivel is useless. It's not even humorously stupid - it's just banal idiocy from some jealous little nothing who thinks his opinion matters. Well, you've done it, Hartmann. You've gotten your mentally meager quaverings posted on a Major Blog. Now go away.
Posted by: PeterM | February 5, 2009 8:39 PM
BULLSHIT BINGO!!!
Dead Thread
Posted by: deang | February 5, 2009 8:42 PM
One of the reasons I could never have made it as an academic is that I can't read fast enough. With ridiculously long, incoherent rants like this guy's, I was reminded of that again: It took me for-fucking-ever! And it was completely senseless. I don't know how you do it. I guess years of having to grade students' essays gives you something of an advantage.
Posted by: bastion of sass | February 5, 2009 8:42 PM
I'm trying to decide what's worse for the brains of Pharyngula readers: concentrated super-strength stupid, or the kind of stupidity in David Hartmann's e=mail: a great volume of vague vapid vacuity.
Posted by: kamaka | February 5, 2009 8:48 PM
Hah, we have created the 500 tons of reason.
I am the chosen one, the 500th one, the anointed Son of PZ...
No more an acolyte, but a priest of...ummm, well...
But I swear I'm important now...
Help me out here, PZ...
Posted by: Angel Kaida | February 5, 2009 8:49 PM
Now I've managed to slog through it. My opinion of it has only gotten worse. Now I'm pissed off that I had to see inside this pretentious, self-important, anti-intellectual toad's hideous little mind. People are disgusting. I'm going to go read my Herodotus and pretend the world is better than it is.
Posted by: Mr Twiddle | February 5, 2009 9:11 PM
"Somewhat amazingly considering the typical time constraints on"....me, I am unable to read Ramblin' Dave's
unabridged tirade in its entirety even though he feels it's his duty to write (whether you read it or not) to inform you that he has "known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 5, 2009 9:16 PM
That's why my irony meter input has a heavy duty fuse. And I buy fuses by the gross.Posted by: dguy | February 5, 2009 9:30 PM
I liked that guy's email better when it came from Nigeria and offered huge sums of money in return for a small token of trust. On the plus side, at least his writing style hasn't changed much.
Posted by: tewhy | February 5, 2009 9:47 PM
Maybe instead of 500 tons of comments, he meant five hundred ten? That's exactly how many there were when I clicked...
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | February 5, 2009 9:59 PM
DAMMIT! I read through the whole pile of steaming elephant turd just to get to the punch-line "Respectfully" at the end... and it wasn't there!
How can a diatribe like that NOT end with a "Respectfully"?
I feel SO cheated...
Posted by: Dahan | February 5, 2009 10:04 PM
I'm not sure how to feel about what I posted back at 406 now. I didn't catch that Garfunkle actually already was one of our special ones. On the other hand I did see he had the potential.
I'm calling it a wash.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 5, 2009 10:17 PM
Taking one for the team:
Yeah, because a busy blogger who gets lots of email couldn't possibly have decided it wasn't worth his time.
Scare quotes are fun.
You speak as if PZ broke down and cried over it. He was just commenting with what I read as a mixture of mild annoyance and amusement. Perfectly normal.
If you want to be elevated above the stereotypical Creationist, try acting against the stereotype. Oh, and PZ's a professor, teaching actual useful science to students of a nation that's desperately in need of scientists. PZ doesn't lord over Creationists. He ridicules those people who demean themselves into the newage postmodernism of believing in bronze age myths at the same time as technology disproves it.
Okay, I'm already sick of this guy. Carry on.
Posted by: ChrisKG | February 5, 2009 10:28 PM
"Do not question me, or I will smite thee." -PZ
Who the hell needs Comedy Central? This is why I read Pharyngula.
HA!!
Posted by: JPS, FCD | February 5, 2009 10:32 PM
I swear I've seen at least one 1950s Ph.D. thesis in mathematics that was shorter than Hartmann's email.
As for the Unabomber being able to write precise prose (ice9 @ 15) -- fwiw, he has a math Ph.D.
Posted by: David | February 5, 2009 10:41 PM
That was a horrid case of tl;dr.
Either way, I managed to pick up a good bit of upset from reading it, although he didn't seem to be going very far with it.
Posted by: Mr Twiddle | February 5, 2009 10:55 PM
We could all learn a thing from minimalist Dave Huffmann;
"know when to shut up!"
Posted by: Steven Alleyn | February 5, 2009 10:58 PM
Why can't these people paragraph properly?
Posted by: 4mattb | February 5, 2009 11:00 PM
Over 500 comments. ROTFLMAO!!! I hope David enjoys reading them.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 5, 2009 11:17 PM
Maybe he meant to say "500 _short_ tons of comments" -- which translates to around 551 metric tons of comments.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 5, 2009 11:21 PM
...though "short" didn't seem to be anywhere in his vocabulary...
Posted by: A Free Man | February 6, 2009 12:04 AM
Any time I write a science post, even an innocuous one that doesn't involve evolution or animal research, I get at least a few crazies chiming in. But never have I gotten such an entertaining one! Well done, sir, you're clearly doing your job!
Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 6, 2009 12:37 AM
Clearly Hartmann isn't up to writing a Shakespeare yet - back to the typewriter!
Posted by: Michele | February 6, 2009 12:47 AM
Okay, this one made my brain hurt, a lot.
Posted by: ExitB | February 6, 2009 12:48 AM
Read this sentence, David.
David, read this sentence too.
Hope this helps.
Feel free to start again with the first sentence, David.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 12:50 AM
Nerd - Put a magneto and a kick start on your irony meter, she'll run no matter what the 'knuckle head'.
(Right Scooter?)
Posted by: Jeff | February 6, 2009 12:53 AM
Of all the blog topics to point out, he points out one that is actually pretty significant in terms of science on a science blog?
Wow. So like, the guy must REALLY hate whales or something. Especially when people try to force knowledge of whales down his throat by posting it on an internet blog that is about science that he would have to visit by his own volition and then read and continue to read after realizing it is not something he cares to know about.
Teehee.
Posted by: Riman Butterbur | February 6, 2009 1:08 AM
I believe it is (or should be) considered poor etiquette to respond to a blog posting by direct email to the poster. Isn't that what the comments are for?
Posted by: Eren O'Del | February 6, 2009 1:11 AM
I was getting a very good kick out of this email (what I gathered from it anyway) and the responses. Then I got to post #129, and felt compelled to say something.
Christophe Thill: Thank you for pointing out that we are indeed friends with the whales. We should care about them for all the reasons you mentioned: scientific understanding, the fact that whales are intelligent, and their endangerment.
Here's something else to consider. This is just a theory based on my limited knowledge, i.e. what I have read or learned in biology as well as what I know about dolphins, which are very closely related to whales. I will say right now that I could be wrong, but it is still worth the thought experiment.
We should care about whales because maybe, just maybe, they care about us.
Everyone knows that whales beach themselves, sometimes in droves. Does anyone really know why? I'll tell you right now that it's not for a lack of Zoloft. Some experts think that it is because the sonar from naval ships screws up their navigation ability. But whales have been beaching themselves for much longer than sonar technology has existed.
Whales are social creatures. Suppose one whale gets stranded because it got confused while navigating its way through the water (due to sonar interference or otherwise). That whale might send out a distress signal, and other whales will come swimming to the rescue. This would mean that whales care about one another.
The idea that they may care about us does not seem impossible. Their cousins, dolphins, have been known to show altruistic behavior towards other species, for example, swimming around surfers to protect them from sharks and even bumping the sharks away with their beaks. If a whale beached itself because of sonar interference, could it POSSIBLY be responding to a misinterpreted distress call, from another species no less?
Let me ask you, Mr. Hartmann: if a whale beaches itself in an attempt to rescue another living creature, and dies because of it, is this not similar to the story of the Jesus you so love and worship?
Whales are sentient creatures. They have feelings. They care about others. And they are REAL.
If there is a qualified person out there (a marine biologist for example) that has information to either support or refute my theory, I'd very much like to hear it.
Thank you.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 1:19 AM
#376
"From what I've seen of Myers' daily rants on Pharyngula,
Hartman's characterization of the man is spot on."
It's not so much his rants but what he rants about. Apparently, he has a respectable amount of education is evolutionary biology. That, like any other science studies the physical universe. He doesn't rant about that. He rants about people believing in God. That is metaphysics and as far as we know he has no appreciable training in that field. He and his devoted followers want proof of the existence of God. He has no grasp that faith, by definition, is the belief in something unseen. What he proposes is using physical science to prove the negative proposition that there is no God metaphysically. You can see the frustration that this would provoke.
Posted by: Chupacabras | February 6, 2009 1:44 AM
"Well sir, ".
Welly-welly-well?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 6, 2009 1:54 AM
"He rants about people believing in God."
And how those people organize witch hunts against those who they suspect of heresy, see the "atheist in Texas" thread.
"That is metaphysics and as far as we know he has no appreciable training in that field."
Does this training include snatching objects from the Master's hand?
"He and his devoted followers want proof of the existence of God. He has no grasp that faith, by definition, is the belief in something unseen."
In other words, making shit up. Gotcha. You guys have fun with that. Just keep it out of our schools and government.
Posted by: your Mighty Overload | February 6, 2009 2:23 AM
Silver Fox at 531
Well, it would seem to me that PZ is actually railing against people who believe in silly superstitions without any evidence whatsoever.
Your God is so good at hiding, it is completely indistinguishable from his not existing.
I would say he is also railing against the despicable actions by so many religious people (priests raping children, genital mutilation, stoning rape victims to death), many of which are directly sanctioned by your sky-daddy.
You want people to stop insulting Christians? Fine, how about Christians stop persecuting others, and quit trying to get creationism taught as science? How about religion people stop forcing their views upon children and defenseless people?
You want respect? Show us any credible evidence that you are not just blabbering to yourself every time that you pray; how about showing your beliefs are any more valid than people who believe in djins, fairies, alien abductions or any other religion you don't believe in?
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 2:56 AM
"And how those people organize witch hunts against those who they suspect of heresy, see the "atheist in Texas" thread."
Heresy and witch hunts have nothing to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science. If they are problematic, they are religion problems, not science problems and the solutions to those problems rest with schools and government not with scientists. There are indicators from science which point to an intelligent designer. This is a part of science and should be taught as a science indicator. This is problematic for naturalistic, materialistic scientists who would prefer not to consider these indicators. But that is a part of science and should be taught as such. Religion, of course, should be taught in religion class.
"In other words, making shit up."
If faith is "making things up", again, that is a religion problem, not a science problem.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 3:07 AM
Silver Fox:
There are people who claim that there are indicators from science which point to an intelligent designer but any intellectually honest person who knows anything about science knows they are lying.
Fixed it for you. No, no - that's alright. You're welcome.
No, it is a science problem, because you and people like you are attempting to have what you've made up accepted as science. Limit your nonsensical, childish fairy tales to church and you'll hear far fewer complaints from the defenders of science.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 3:18 AM
"PZ is actually railing against people who believe in silly superstitions without any evidence whatsoever."
What does that have to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science?
"I would say he is also railing against the despicable actions by so many religious people (priests raping children, genital mutilation, stoning rape victims to death)."
What does people behaving badly have to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science?
"How about religion people stop forcing their views upon children and defenseless people?"
What does evolutionary biology or any other physical science have to do with the way parents choose to raise their children?
"Show us any credible evidence that you are not just blabbering to yourself every time that you pray"
Why? What do people praying have to do with evolutionary biology or any other physical science?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 6, 2009 3:23 AM
More to the point, this is PZ's personal blog, and the word "godless" is right in the subtitle. This means he can "rant" about religion and its pernicious effects all he wants, and he has as much authority to do it as any cloistered theologian, since neither of them are actually studying anything real.
"If faith is "making things up", again, that is a religion problem, not a science problem. "
It's a problem for everyone caught in the crossfire of all the power plays of the religious out there.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 3:25 AM
SF, in his profound stupidity, wrote:
Your god you are obtuse. When parents tell their children that the Judeo-Christian god created the world in six days they are fucking lying about physical science.
When they tell their children Noah put one pair (or seven pairs, take your pick) of animals on the ark and every animal on the earth is a descendant of those animals they are fucking lying about physical science.
When Christians say that Jesus brought Lazarus back to life, healed the lepers, chased a demon into a herd of pigs and rose from the dead after the crucifixion they are fucking lying about physical science.
Or is that too complex for you to comprehend?
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 6, 2009 3:25 AM
You might as well be asking, what does religion have to do with evolutionary biology? The answer of course, is sweet fuck-all. But all those religious folks just keep getting in the way anyway.
Posted by: Aquaria | February 6, 2009 3:27 AM
I think PZ could set up a second blog where he does nothing but post his Gumby mail.
But then, perhaps he (and the rest of us) have wouldn't want to spend ALL of our time laughing at the lunatics among us.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 3:29 AM
What does being an evolutionary biologist have to do with not being able to talk in other fields? I'm assuming that you only speak on matters that you are academically qualified to talk about and on all other matters refrain from even the slightest comment?Posted by: Aquaria | February 6, 2009 3:33 AM
Honestly, if Silver doesn't see how his question is so divorced from the first statement, after his many months of being a moronic git around here, then he is too stupid to live.
PZ, it's time to get this disgusting troll out of here. I'm heartily sick of his infinite godbotting and insipidity.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 6, 2009 3:33 AM
Silver fox,
Are you seriously asking what superstitions like creationism have to do with "evolutionary biology or any other physical science"?
So, because he is a biologist he can only comment on biology and science?
First of all he does have threads to do with biology. Second, geez, you really think that someone who studies a field, teaches it at university, and does it for a living maybe doesn't want to write ONLY about in their free time? This is his personal blog. He can write whatever the fuck he wants. You're not required to read it.
Posted by: clinteas | February 6, 2009 3:33 AM
SF @ 531,
Incorrect.
2 issues here:
-Generally,the burdon of proof is on the person trying to postulate a being or fact where there is no need to do so and reality is well explained without doing so.
-You cant prove a negative,and noone is trying to prove with scientific means that no god exists,because it cant be done.See above.
Its a fallacy often made by the religious,youre not alone with it.
Again,a fallacy,you do not require training(whatever that would be,do you mean reading the bible,or philosophy?) in what you call metaphysics to apply Occam's razor and ask for proof of this deity that you want to introduce into a reality that works well without it.
What you call metaphysics(I assume you mean faith,theology,this kind of "meta"physics) is mythological woo from the bronze age,and irrelevant in any other than a historical sense to anyone capable of rational thought.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 3:41 AM
#536
"any intellectually honest person who knows anything about science knows they are lying."
Of course that's not true. I'll give you one example. The Director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, Ph.D, M.D., says you're wrong. There are few if any who know more about genetic science than he does. He wrote the book "The Language of God". Now, of course, you are going to find some way to discredit this intellectually honest Christian man of science. But again that is your problem, not a science problem.
So, the scientific indicators of intelligent design are science and should be taught as such.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 3:48 AM
I think Francis Collins would be surprised to hear that he believes in an intelligent designer. Last thing I heard from him, he seemed fairly outraged at the intelligent design movement.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 3:54 AM
"This means he can "rant" about religion and its pernicious effects all he wants"
Of course he can. He can also rant about whether Milton wrote some of Shakespeare; about whether Napoleon was a great military leader; about the mental health of Henry VIII. What he can't do is hold himself out as an authority on literature, history or religion.
Posted by: Chupacabras | February 6, 2009 3:54 AM
Uh... And what does this "intellectually honest Christian man of science" is proposing in said book?
Do we agree that even any intellectually honest man of science can be plain wrong?
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 4:04 AM
"they are fucking lying about physical science."
If in the course of raising their children parents decide to lie to their children, including about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, if they decide what view of physical science they present to THEIR children, what does that have to do with you or evolutionary biology. Just don't lie to your's.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 4:05 AM
Silver Fox,
Obviously you're unaware of what the expression 'intellectually honest' means. Why am I not surprised? Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
From Wikipedia, Intellectual dishonesty: the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
If he - or anyone else for that matter - has 'performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position' - then every thinking person on the planet would love to know exactly what was discovered.
Posted by: marc buhler | February 6, 2009 4:18 AM
Silver Fox @546,
There are actually *quite a few* who know as much about genetics as Francis Collins - they are called his "peers".
It's not like he's the Pope, or anything.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 4:20 AM
"What does being an evolutionary biologist have to do with not being able to talk in other fields?"
Evolutionary biologists, like carpenters and plumbers, can speak in any field they wish. The difference is that carpenters usually have enough sense not to try and give you an expert opinion as to why your toilet doesn't flush. Scientist on the other hand have no reluctance in telling people that they have no reason to believe in God.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 4:30 AM
"PZ, it's time to get this disgusting troll out of here. I'm heartily sick of his infinite godbotting and insipidity."
I guess this means that if you're not up to handling the discourse, then get rid of the opponent so that you can end your own embarrassment.
Posted by: Dr Horrible | February 6, 2009 4:31 AM
@365, norm! said
I was hoping that I'd get to the end of the email and the last line would read:
You and me are fucking done professionally.
Alas ... it wasn't an elaborately-crafted Poe.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 4:33 AM
Because, you obtuse lackwit, unless they are homeschooled, these children will attend school with children whose parents haven't lied to them, and teachers who don't want to lie to them either. Sadly, the parents who lie don't want their children taught the truth, because it will (obviously) counter the lies they've been telling them their whole lives. In order to protect these lies, these repugnant people join school boards in order to subvert and undermine the truth.
We can't do anything about parents lying to their own children. But when they attempt to make science teachers lie to other people's children then it most certainly affects me and everyone else.
If you and your deluded co-religionists want to go down the Amish path and separate yourself from the rest of the world so you may lie to your children about the world, knock yourselves out. But while you are interacting with people who want to tell the truth then you're going to meet with stiff resistance.
Posted by: Dr Horrible | February 6, 2009 4:34 AM
@554
I'm glad you didn't say worthy opponent. o.O
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | February 6, 2009 4:34 AM
His paragraphs are too long. And his e-mail was way longer than it needed to be. Some posters here could probably compete with that.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 4:35 AM
So anyone who does say one should believe in God has to be an accomplished theologian, both with extensive studies into comparative mythology, astrophysics & cosmology, human psychology,and understanding of both history and sociology? Or can any man give reasons for believing in God? It seems a misplaced attack to have a go at scientists for talking about believing in God when almost every person on this planet has an opinion on the matter. At least with scientists you know they have a decent understanding of the natural world and so can have some grounds to comment on it.Would you apply these same restrictive standards for anyone who talks about the existence of God, or just those who talk against it?
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 4:39 AM
I occasionally remark that if such things are required for a person to have before they are allowed to criticise a religion then they should be required for a person who wishes to join a religion.
As it is you don't even have to know how to spell Jesus to be counted a Christian.
Posted by: windy | February 6, 2009 4:42 AM
And what are the credentials of Dr Collins in the field of metaphysics, pray tell? Has he "appreciable training in that field"?
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 4:49 AM
I find it an immense double standard. In order to even begin to criticise religion, one is expected to be an intellectual superpower; having extensive knowledge in multiple fields. Though in reality, no matter what field you have expertise in, it's never the right one. A scientist may be able to tell you in intricate detail how a complex organism replicates, or how quantum physics works both on a quantum level and on a macroscopic level, they can tell you about the history of the universe - but all hell breaks loose if they do anything more than personally think that there's no god behind it. Likewise a philosopher doesn't have the historical knowledge, or a historian doesn't have the theological background, or a theologian doesn't have the historical background. No matter what your qualification, you can always be criticised for not having the right one.
Whereas on the other hand, in order to preach about religion, to say there is one or more gods, all you need to do is be able to preach in the first place. Not many ministers have many qualifications, and it seems the only qualification of being a witness or a beginner of a religion is to be credulous in the way one evangelises the religion. All it comes down to in the end is Silver Fox doesn't like the authority on which PZ Myers or anyone else says religion is wrong. Who cares if PZ Myers is a scientist, or a philosopher, or a historian, or a mythologist, or psychologist, or anything else? His qualification is irrelevant to the message that religion is bogus. By claiming that he shouldn't say so because he's a science is making a backwards appeal to authority.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 5:00 AM
"Generally,the burden of proof is on the person trying to postulate a being or fact where there is no need to do so and reality is well explained without doing so."
The problem there is that reality is not well explained with doing so. You're either caught in eternal causality or an eternal reality, neither of which makes any RATIONAL sense.
"You can't prove a negative,and noone is trying to prove with scientific means that no god exists"
The problem there is that the atheist lives the negative proposition: He does NOT believe in God. So if he can't disprove the positive proposition then he has no basis for his disbelief.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 5:05 AM
And really shouldn't it be the other way around? That it's not those who criticise the concept of God that need the intellectual qualifications, rather it should be those who make the positive claim in the first place. On what authority does one make the statement "God exists" or anything of that ilk? What qualifications does one need to obtain in order to be able to talk about the supernatural and the afterlife? Surely these are questions that need a proper answer, questions that should have been there from the beginning. Instead it's anyone who dares to doubt stories that have no empirical merit who are the ones out of their intellectual depth.
Honestly, how much qualification does one need to say that the Judeo-Christian construct of god has as much credulity as the Australian Aboriginal construct of god (the giant rainbow serpent)? How much qualification does one need to call religion mythology? It seems that any critic of the critics is really saying "you don't have any authority to tell me I'm wrong" yet demand they aren't treated to that same standard.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 5:09 AM
I do so love it when people say stupid things like this.
Okay, then Silver Fox - please provide your disproof for the gods of all other religions. You don't believe in every god that's ever existed, do you Silver Fox? If not, then you must have disproved all the gods other than Yahweh.
Just to get you started, here's a list of those beginning with the letter 'A'; please present your specific disproofs for each of them:
Agdistis or Angdistis
Ah Puch
Ahura Mazda
Alberich
Allah
Amaterasu
An
Anat
Andvari
Anshar
Anu
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
Once you've done that let me know and I'll post the 'B' list. What are you waiting for?
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 5:10 AM
"Last thing I heard from him, he seemed fairly outraged at the intelligent design movement."
Francis Collins' subtitle to his book The Language of God is Intellectual reflections of a Christian geneticist. He believes the world was created by God, that God chose evolution as the process of creation and he believes in Jesus Christ. I know he does because he said so in a public forum just a few days ago. Now he thinks the proper term should be BioLogos, not Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 5:10 AM
You are misrepresenting atheism there by focusing on the negative. The atheist argument is that there is no reason for belief, he does NOT believe because there is no reason TO believe. If one cannot find a reason to believe, they don't believe in it. Hence atheism. It's not the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, it's that there is no reason to believe that God DOES exist.Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 5:12 AM
Yes, he does. But that's different from an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer is the rebranded creator, not the type of deity Collins believes in.Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 5:15 AM
Don't worry Kel, we won't be hearing from Silver Fox again. As he's said, you can't disbelieve in something unless you can prove it doesn't exist; ergo, he must now prove that every god other than Yahweh doesn't exist or he admits he is wrong.
Which is it, Silver Fox? Are you going to withdraw your claim, or start listing proofs? I've got a pretty comprehensive list of gods in front of me; you forget even one and you've lost the argument.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | February 6, 2009 5:15 AM
SF,
It is also foolish to proclaim that the Emperor is naked when one has not studied the field of Imaginary Fabrics .
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 5:19 AM
"If he - or anyone else for that matter - has 'performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position' - then every thinking person on the planet would love to know exactly what was discovered."
Many on the planet already know it because they read his book The Language of God.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 5:26 AM
A tome stuffed with self-indulgent waffle and distinctly lacking anything other than the same old discredited and lackluster apologetics hardly counts as 'due diligence', Silver Fox.
But why are you wasting time on that old comment anyway? Thanks to your mistake you've got literally hundreds of gods to disprove. Or you admitting that atheists need not prove that Yahweh does not exist in order to make their claims?
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 5:36 AM
"All it comes down to in the end is Silver Fox doesn't like the authority on which PZ Myers or anyone else says religion is wrong."
It's not that I don't "like the authority" on which PZ says religion is wrong. I don't think he has the authority. He assumes it. What he has is an opinion which is no more or less authoritative than that of the man on the street.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 5:41 AM
He assumes authority? I think you are misrepresenting PZ and the nature of his arguments if you think it's an argument from authority.Posted by: Dr Horrible | February 6, 2009 5:52 AM
Silver Fox - are you gonna answer Wowbagger?
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 6:01 AM
Silver Fox, I see a comment from you but I don't see any proofs for the non-existence of gods other than Yahweh.
Why aren't you responding Silver Fox? Are you a coward? Do you lack the courage of your convictions? If you aren't afraid to answer, which is it? It's a pretty easy decision to make: do you believe in every god ever posited, or do atheists not have to provide disproof for Yahweh?
Alternatively, provide your proofs that Yahweh is the only god that exists. I even gave you a head-start with the 'A' gods.
I recommend that anyone responding to Silver Fox's post should remind him of his claim that, in order to disbelieve in a god, one must have provided proof that that god does not exist - and then ask him to disprove all gods other than the one he believes in.
You really screwed the pooch on this one, Silver Fox. And I'm going to make sure you never forget it.
Posted by: OrbitalMike
|
February 6, 2009 6:03 AM
All claims of the supernatural always state its ability to interact with the natural, so, in principle, the supernatural is subject to natural observation, interactions, etc., and therefore subject to being knowable by science. Stephen J Gould's NOMA is therefore hogwash.
Based solely on the claims of believers that the two magisteria do interact, then they do in principle overlap and science has something to say about the spiritual. And if they do not overlap and the spiritual does not interact with the material, then it is immaterial and for all practical purposes can be ignored, and using Occam's Razor safely sliced away.
Posted by: Kel | February 6, 2009 6:05 AM
I'm looking forward to Silver Fox demonstrating that PZ Myers argues on assumed authority. To me it just seems like he's dismissing PZ on the illusion of authority, so it would be nice if he could demonstrate where PZ has ever said anything along the lines of being an authority on religion because he's a scientist. Come on Silver Fox, it just seems like the last few posts of yours have been unfounded assertions. Please show some validity in your work.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 6, 2009 6:15 AM
Silver Fox, at last someone on Pharyngula who knows he's correct and is not afraid to say it. It's not just an opinion, it's your opinion, and as such not only inspired but also true.
I'm having problems with this aspect of reality too, and PZ's God like dominionism over it.
Please see my post no. 438 which I feel expresses our frustration most admirably.
Keep up the good work, SF, we'll teach those atheists the meaning of our truth!
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 6:18 AM
I think we can congratulate ourselves, Kel. Between us we've made Silver Fox paint himself into two corners at the same time. I guess that makes it a multidimensional FAIL on his part.
Posted by: Colonel Molerat | February 6, 2009 6:40 AM
Aw crap... I read the whole thing last night, then had to recover for a few hours, and now I've missed the party!
Posted by: Ultima Thule | February 6, 2009 7:43 AM
AnthonyK i have not seen any rational opposition of yours against evolution theory. I don't mean the first darwinian one, that one has Evolved to much a complex theory (introducing genetics, sociology, neurology, etc into the mix). And if you feel ofended just by "free thinkers" saying that they do not believe in god, the other side might also feel ofended when the read your coments saying that you believe that jesus was this and that and BigG is watching us.
Silver Fox is also one of that line of thought. - First (at least for me) i do not discriminate who wants to believe in "higher powers", this is a forum for discussion, and so both views may be discussion freely. - SF picks one scientist stating he is a believer so...so nothing. Even if Francis Collins want to believe in god, his entire work in the field of genetics will prove that evolution is Evidence. Francis might even just believe in his personnal view of god and jesus and nevertheless agree that evolution is a chaotic process of selection and probability (just a very small expression to define very quick evoltuion) and all facts and evidence of his work support this.
Please SF and AnthonyK respond to the challenge of wowbagger...it would be nice and constructive to yourselfs
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 6, 2009 7:51 AM
Ultima - I am joking. It can be difficult to tell the would-be satirical from the stupid but I try to remain firmly on the side of reality. See my previous post and multiple others for my take on all of this. I guess this counts as a success ;)
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | February 6, 2009 7:54 AM
I am in awe of anybody who managed to read through the whining drivel of that email. I started drifting off almost immediately. It seems that the writer's point is that his own feelings are hurt when some uninformed dumbass gets smacked down on some blog somewhere. As for the hundreds of posts in response, I think we need a new aphorism: "Where there's smoke, there's smoke."
I need a smoke.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 8:00 AM
Silver Fox, you need to answer Wowbagger in post #565.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 8:06 AM
Silver Fox is again showing us why he shouldn't be posting on any subject. New flash SF, if you don't like this blog, go to another blog you find more interesting. Otherwise, you need to follow your own advice and shut up on any subject you are not an expert in. That appears to be all other subjects. Now, are you going to be a man and go away, or a troll who just wants to disrupt things. You were almost banned once. You will be banned if you continue you present course for the worst crime of all--being boring.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 6, 2009 8:11 AM
You're wrong, Nerd of Redhead OM, if that is your real name. The worst crime of all is blasphemy/heresy/desecration of the host. Being boring ranks only slightly above denying the holocast in the list of punishable sins.
Posted by: Ultima Thule | February 6, 2009 8:22 AM
Yes, the People need to have an answer SF...
Posted by: kamaka | February 6, 2009 8:41 AM
Silver Fox
Please do let us know which church you attend and where it is. Certainly, one of us lives close enough to pay a visit during services. Wouldn't it be a fine thing for your congregation to hear a nice lecture on the basics of Natural Selection midway through services? Just the basics, mind you, church service can only handle so much science.
And then, of course, a few questions for the clergy-person about their qualifications to speak to the very nature of reality. Y'know, things like there is some interventionary entity who, on a special case basis, suspends the physical laws by which the universe apparently operates. Just how does one become qualified to make such claims, I wonder?
Claims about the nature of reality are not really immune from scientific inquiry, so as long as your church is being paid a visit, why don't we do a nice double-blind experiment on the efficacy of prayer? Just because that experiment has been done and shown only negative outcomes (it scared people to be prayed for), doesn't mean your congregation might not be more favored by the intervener. It's worth a shot, after all. Your pseudo-scientific claims about ID would deserve more attention if we had a bit of evidence, eh?
I think this would be a great change of pace from the usual woo-woo god-speak droning your congregation has to put up with on a typical Sunday.
Afterwards, failed experiment or not, all could go out and drink a hearty toast to science and to PZ Myers' health.
Posted by: Stark | February 6, 2009 9:05 AM
I've never seen so much non-argument from a supposed argument letter in my lifetime!
Jesus Fairy Christ the IV!
Posted by: Pete | February 6, 2009 9:31 AM
Goo and Proud!
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 6, 2009 9:56 AM
Well, looks like Silver Fox is taking the assignment seriously. Or else - nah, surely he couldn't be such a moral coward - he's gone from this thread and will pop up again on another pretending the challenge was never issued. No good, Silver Fox, that challenge will be repeated every time you show up, until you've either disproved the existence of every deity anyone can come up with other than your, or admitted that atheists are not required to disprove the existence of the latter. (In fact, though, disproving the existence of the Christian god (as opposed to the Jewish or Muslim one) is easy: Jesus is claimed to have been "wholly God and wholly man", and since "God" and "man" have incompatible attributes, that's logically impossible, and *poof*, there goes any possibility that doctrinally orthodox Christianity is true.)
Posted by: Kalemika | February 6, 2009 9:58 AM
This is just an absurd rant.
I'd be willing to put money on that he did a few shots of jack to work up the nerve before unloading this gem on you.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 10:36 AM
The old goat has me convinced, I cannot disprove any deity so I am now going to try to live by the laws of all deities. This is going to take a lot of juggling.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 10:56 AM
"It's not the absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, it's that there is no reason to believe that God DOES exist."
In that case any rational atheist would accept Pascal's Wager.
Posted by: kamaka | February 6, 2009 11:00 AM
Your comment presupposes Pascal's Wager is rational.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:02 AM
I'll start with Bacchus/Dionysus, Latis and T'shai-shen.
That way I can be wealthy enough to afford all the whiskey and get drunk enough to not care about the rest of the them.
That or I'll just follow Loki and give a hearty fuck you to the rest of the gods.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:04 AM
Silver Fox, post #565. Answer it or you will be proven the fool you keep making us think you are.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 11:05 AM
You are dead and you have accepted Pascal's Wager. Sadly, it seems the deity you are facing is not Pascal's God. But your soul is a nice between meal snack for the uncaring old god.
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 6, 2009 11:07 AM
In that case any rational atheist would accept Pascal's Wager. - Silver Fox
Oi! Where's your proof that no gods other than your own exist?
And don't be more of a fucking moron than you can help: Pascal's wager assumes that there is either no god, or the Christian one. Until you have provided the proof requested, it has absolutely no purchase. There could be a god who hates those who believe and punishes them with eternal torment, while rewarding atheists. Or a god who only lets those who are hanged, or who die in battle, into Valhalla. Or any one of an infinite number of other possiiblities. So you cannot even assign a low but finite probability to the existence of any specific god, with any specific set of requirements. In any case, as i've pointed out@592, we know the god of doctrinally orthodox Christianity does not exist, as his alleged attributes are logically impossible. since you can't prove Odin doesn't exist, Silver Fox, I suggest you accept a more plausible version of Pascal's wager, and go and hang yourself.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 11:10 AM
"he must now prove that every god other than Yahweh doesn't exist or he admits he is wrong."
As the Jewish Shema says Adonais Echad - God is One. So, all you have is a bunch of names - you don't have a bunch of Gods. Even in Israelite history God was not known by one name.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 11:14 AM
In the name of the silly old goat, there are no heresies. All deities are the same deity. How New Age.
Posted by: Endor | February 6, 2009 11:15 AM
"In that case any rational atheist would accept Pascal's Wager. "
*headdesk* How in the world, after so much time on this blog, could you so completely fail to grasp what you're saying? I always thought that calling religion brainwashing was overreaching, but no longer. You regurgitate what religion forced you to swallow, nothing more.
I'm embarrassed for you at this point.
Posted by: E.V. | February 6, 2009 11:18 AM
For a second there, i thought you wrote jiggling.Silver Fox:
There are so many theologians who would call bullshit on you.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 6, 2009 11:20 AM
No, Janine, IS, all Gods are Yahweh. Remember, even though every theist in the history of apologetics claims revelation from his or her deities, only the Christian has it right.
Really makes you wonder (since it was either Yahweh or none, and not every non-Christian could have been a liar) what sorts of things Yahweh whispered in Cleopatra's ear when he was impersonating Isis.
All gods may be one, but that one is a dishonest schizo.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 11:20 AM
Silver Fox, time for you to show some physical evidence for your imaginary god. Something that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin. Failing that (we have been there before, and we both know the answer is you have no physical evidence) the burden of proof falls up you to demonstrate the your silly imaginary god is the only possible god. I suggest you retire from this blog until you get the proof and can demonstrate it appropriately.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:26 AM
Nice try at a dodge.
So you think that your god is Loki and Huehuecoyotl including all the characteristic describing them?
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 11:33 AM
"Pascal's wager assumes that there is either no god, or the Christian one."
There is only one God regardless of what name you use. Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:35 AM
What flavor of Christianity do you subscribe to?
Posted by: Geek | February 6, 2009 11:41 AM
You must know that there are religions that have more than one god. There's a word for them: "polytheistic". Are they somehow more ridiculous than monotheistic religions? If so, why?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 11:42 AM
SF, the concept of god itself is a philosophical contradiction as far as some of us are concerned. It is absolutely not needed for anything. It's nothing but a null idea. If you need a god, you are welcome to the idea, but go away and leave us alone.
Posted by: Dahan | February 6, 2009 11:43 AM
"Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction."
Much like having a single god who is both omniscient and omnipotent is in the first place.
Are you telling us that an omniscient and omnipotent god couldn't create another omniscient and omnipotent god? Having done so, would we not have two gods?
Your mental masturbation aside. I'm still waiting for your proof.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:44 AM
This explanation should be choice.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 6, 2009 11:46 AM
Yeah. I'm confused. Why can't there be more than one god? If one exists, why not more? I mean, god can create lesser gods, and Satan, Demons and Angels are all gods of a sort, super natural and what not.
Once you say one god exists, there's no reason the floodgates don't open and we have many gods. I mean even god says there's other gods in the bible and he tell people not to follow them.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 11:48 AM
The Aztecs and the Spaniards prayed to the same deity. Yahweh loved him some good human sacrifices.
Did Yahweh get his penis sliced off by Nut?
Did Athena pop out full formed form Yahweh and then change gender in order to spread the word?
Posted by: Helfrick | February 6, 2009 11:49 AM
@Silver Fox
Go take a tour here: http://www.godchecker.com/. I think you'll find that your claim that there is one god is total horseshit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 11:52 AM
Not to mention the whole Trinity is a godhead hand waving.
Posted by: Lowell | February 6, 2009 11:55 AM
So, Silver Fox's god is also Mangar-kunjer-kunja, the Australian Aboriginal lizard-god who created the first humans after he found them clumped together on the side of a hill and separated them with a knife? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangar-kunjer-kunja
Doesn't that kind of conflict with the Genesis stories?
Posted by: Endor | February 6, 2009 12:10 PM
"There is only one God regardless of what name you use. Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction."
Ah, I think I'm starting to get. SF is slowly transitioning into Patronizing Racist land.
All those silly brown people just got it all wrong. Since all gods are different names for the same god, who is (conveniently) YOUR god, then clearly, those misguided savages were just confused.
Thank goodness they have you to clear it up for them.
Posted by: Knockgoats | February 6, 2009 12:11 PM
There is only one God regardless of what name you use.,/I> - Silver "Moron" Fox
Good grief you're so stupid. Even if you had shown this, which you haven't - assertion is not argument, let alone proof - Pascal's wager depends on it being clear what God demands. Even within the Abrahamic religions, there are different ideas of what God wants. Is it OK to eat pork? Are you required to drink wine in some circumstances, or forbidden from ever doing so? Can a man marry more than one wife at a time? Is divorce permitted? Is "thou shalt not kill" to be taken as meaning "thou shalt not kill"? Was Muhammed the final prophet of God or not? Was Jesus divine - so there's no way to salvation except through him, a prophet, or no-one special?
Oh by the way, how are your proofs that the gods with names beginning with "A" coming along? Ready to publish them and start on the "B"s yet?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 12:15 PM
Ashera, Baal, Diana, Tammuz, and The Queen of Heaven (Isis) are all recognized as deities in the Bible. Try reading your own damned book Silver Fox. May Eris, the goddess of discord, strife, and confusion move into your underpants.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | February 6, 2009 12:17 PM
Nutcase:
"I have known and admired some wonderful iconoclasts who had some genuine insights worth considering, but my God, they knew when to shut up!"
I bet the irony is lost on him.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 12:20 PM
Not if the underpants gnomes get there first.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 6, 2009 12:22 PM
No, theologists can get out of everything. You see, if God is above logic and logic is a mere creation of God, your disproof falls flat -- what is illogical is merely beyond the ability of us Puny Humans™ to grasp. Any sufficiently ineffable god is not falsifiable.
And so is Chemosh, who is God of Moab the same way that Yahwe is God of Israel (in the older parts of the Bible, not the newer ones where he has merged with his father El Elyon…).
Posted by: FosterDisbelief | February 6, 2009 12:31 PM
Next time I'm catching up on the blog here and I see a post that screams "tl;dr," I'm going to listen to my instincts and skip over it. How can anyone take that many words to say "I don't care!" My brain turned into oatmeal from reading that.
Mmm. Oatmeal.
As for the comment section...
If there is only one god with many different names, then why is yahweh so concerned about people worshiping other gods? If you are saying every religion has just worshiped the same god by different names, why would god care what they called him?
Every rational atheist would accept Pascal's wager? Only if Pascal's wager was logically defensible.
Posted by: IncaRoads | February 6, 2009 12:48 PM
He claims to be an intellectual and a humanist..... .
Lol lol loloololollollollollollooolllloooooooolll.... no, I can't no more, now it's time to go to bed and weep for humanity
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 6, 2009 12:51 PM
"What he can't do is hold himself out as an authority on literature, history or religion. "
Feh. Courtier's Reply. How much authority does one need on Tolkien to be able to believe that it's a work of fiction?
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 6, 2009 12:52 PM
There's only one God, sillies, and he's in my head. Hence I can absolutely reject all others without fear of logical inconsistencies. So, Silver Fox, you're wrong. There, now that wasn't so difficult was it?
Incidentally how did Pascal's Wager turn out? Did he win?
In any case he was clearly limited in his vision, a bitarian - a man of just two thoughts: Pense A and Pense B.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 12:56 PM
I'm still on my first cup of coffee, so brain isn't up to speed... what is tl;dr?
Posted by: Dan Powers | February 6, 2009 12:58 PM
Well now... mister fancy pants aka David Hartmann, needs a good cup of STFU.
I think he is most upset that anyone would have an opinion different from his. By the intensity and length of that letter I would say something is hitting close to the truth. Maybe David will just need to sink his head in the sand and just go ahead and pretend a little harder.
We need more people like PZ just to level the playing field with all the fundies out there.
Party on dudes!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 12:59 PM
too long; didn't read
Posted by: Lowell | February 6, 2009 1:01 PM
That's "too long; didn't read," Patricia. It's common usage in textspeak, and, unfortunately, it seems to be spreading.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 1:08 PM
Oh, thanks!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 1:16 PM
I'd seen tl;dr and was wondering what it meant, but hadn't got around to asking. Learned something new today.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 1:17 PM
Funny how the words of the silly old goat on this thread and the words of facilis and heddle on "The Stupid, It Burns" thread comes down to this: there is a god, he is necessary and I know this because he told me and you cannot disprove it.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
February 6, 2009 1:28 PM
Patricia and NoR,
urbandictionary.com is a worthy bookmark in times like these.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 1:42 PM
Thanks bonez brigade!
Janine, You're right about the three stooges (facilis, heddle & Silver Fox). I think heddle is making the biggest fool of himself. He is treated with a lot of respect on other bloggers sites, then he comes here and flounders around over his religion like a complete ass. It's getting pathetic.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 6, 2009 2:18 PM
Garfunkle is Shemp.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 2:38 PM
Learned two things today. That makes the day even better.Watching Heddle flounder in the sea of lies that was of his own making enhances it too. AnthonyK has added a few apt barbs that made for fun reading this morning.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 2:47 PM
Steve_C, we must at all times strive for the truth. Garfunkel is Jackie is Jim In Vermont is Superman is JohnDoe is Shemp. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.
Koo koo kachoo.
Posted by: Dean Booth | February 6, 2009 2:53 PM
If I had to guess, I'd say the email is from Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: Paliban Mom | February 6, 2009 2:53 PM
I know some things Mr. Hartmann needs to know:
Paragraph breaks are your friends.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Give respect to get respect.
I'd add Mr. Hartmann to my Christian Quotes section, but he's not said anything I'd consider the least bit inspirational.
Mr. Hartmann, you're no Jeffrey Dahmer.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 6, 2009 2:56 PM
Hehehe. Janine! Shemp was the bogus 4th stooge. Funny.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 3:01 PM
oh fucking great
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 3:03 PM
The fact that I know this scares me. Shemp was an original Stooge. He was part of the troupe when the Stooges were a Vaudeville act. He left before the first Stooge short. That was when the Stooges recruited the younger brother of Moe and Shemp, Curly.
Posted by: cicely | February 6, 2009 3:06 PM
Yes, about Pascal's Wager....
Possibly I'm reading it wrong, but it seems to me that the essence of P's W is that you don't have to really believe; you just have to fake it convincingly. Which leads me to the conclusion that, 1) God (here defined as the standard-issue quasi-Monotheistic Western Civ God) can't tell the difference between real belief and acting, or 2) God is basically only interested in headcount. He says, "If you don't believe only in Me, no Heaven for you!", but he'll totally settle for lip-service. And that it makes no difference to your after-life experience.
Also, that the "lie" implicit in the deception is of no consequence, Commandments to the contrary.
Do I misconstrue?
Posted by: Steve_C | February 6, 2009 3:06 PM
I knew that... but he wasn't as good as the "new" stooge.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 3:06 PM
Chimpy, did you read Paliban Mom?
I'd add Mr. Hartmann to my Christian Quotes section, but he's not said anything I'd consider the least bit inspirational.
Mr. Hartmann, you're no Jeffrey Dahmer.
That was funny.
Posted by: Happy Trollop | February 6, 2009 3:07 PM
Silver Fox,
Sorry, I just woke up this morning and finished the last 100 comments in this thread and noticed that you're beavering away on your disproofs for all those pesky other gods. Don't mean to pile on the work, but I'm thinking about worshipping another god I just made up: her name is 'Aaaabcdef'. Fundamentally, her adherents teach that worshipping her by having a tattoo of a tapdancing taxidermist emplaced on one's left armpit and standing on city streetcorners shouting nonsense syllables at any stranger wearing a black jumper ensures an afterlife with an endless supply of Oreo cookies.
Mmm... sacralicious!
Please add my new god to your list of gods you don't believe in, and tell me why that loving embrace of Oreos shouldn't be mine, since I'll be hard at work for the next several decades shouting at strangers.
Or maybe... you haven't yet been convinced that Aaaaabcdef exists?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 3:08 PM
Yeah. I did and it was funny.
I am just dreading the 70 comments trying to determine the level of poe of Paliban mom.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 3:10 PM
Paliban Mom - I can furnish you with a few choice quotes.
Posted by: Joshua Bowers | February 6, 2009 3:13 PM
This seems to me to be practically a textbook example of bulshytt.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 3:14 PM
Go take your meds Silver Fox.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 3:16 PM
nyuk nyuk
Posted by: Lowell | February 6, 2009 4:02 PM
I'd wager a bottle of single malt that if Silver Fox ever answers Wowbagger's question--which of course he should do before posting anything else here--he'll use Argument No. 124:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Any takers?
Posted by: aratina | February 6, 2009 4:09 PM
Wait a minute. Silver Foxy is actually right. They all are the same god because "god" is just another word for "voice in your head" using Hartmann's scary quotes.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 6, 2009 4:17 PM
Says who? Says who?Meanwhile, I'm giggling with glee that soon enough this site is going to be the number 1 search result for David Hartmann. So for the sake of my continued giggling let's please spell his name correctly (ends with 2 'n's). He may be famous one day as that amazing crank at Pharyngula.
Oh, yeah. That David Hartmann, ha! Etc.
He is coming in at #2 when searching for "David Hartmann" whales so we are making progress.
What is very odd is that the #1 result involves a David Hartmann and whale songs (Apparently. I can't get to the site from here.)
PZ Myers, David just called and he wanted me to let you know he's cancelling on Saturday's golf game.
Posted by: Negi | February 6, 2009 4:26 PM
tl;dr
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 4:29 PM
Nice try Silver Fox, but you don't get out of it. Even if we accept that any god that doesn't have a contemporary religious body claiming to worship it isn't around any more, that still leaves you with those that are. How about Hindu? There are, what, about a billion Hindus.
I think you should start with Ganesh. You don't believe in Ganesh, do you? If not, why not? What is your proof for his non-existence?
Remember, you'll stop getting hassled about this as soon as you do one very simple thing - admit that you were wrong about the positive claim of atheism and retract your argument that the atheist is required to prove the nonexistence of Yahweh.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 6, 2009 4:30 PM
" There's a word for them: "polytheistic". Are they somehow more ridiculous than monotheistic religions? If so, why?"
Why? I explained that at 608. God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity. There can be no division in unity. It is one. If there are two Gods, whatever one God has diminishes the unity of the first.If perfection is diminished, there is no God because there is no unity. There is a God and He is in perfect unity. He is ONE. Yes, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians had many Gods. They did have a main or top God which indicates that they were in the formation of a concept of God. People with more than one God are involved in a philosophical contradiction.
"Are they somehow more ridiculous than monotheistic religions?"
No they are not MORE ridiculous than monotheistic religions because monotheistic religions are not ridiculous. Polytheism is rationally untenable. If that makes them ridiculous, so be it.
Posted by: Steve_C | February 6, 2009 4:33 PM
Prove that God is perfection. Any evidence of it's perfectness? Other than the assertion of course.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 4:33 PM
SF, when are you going to present your argument? #660 is a pile of horse manure. Presumptions all over the place with no logical backing. Not as bad as Facilis the Fallicious Fool, but still bad.
Posted by: Endor | February 6, 2009 4:34 PM
"No they are not MORE ridiculous than monotheistic religions because monotheistic religions are not ridiculous."
that's the view from the entirely dishonest, embarrassingly silly seats.
Stop being a total coward and answer Wowbagger's question: "You don't believe in Ganesh, do you? If not, why not? What is your proof for his non-existence?"
Posted by: Ultima Thule | February 6, 2009 4:35 PM
uhm....when SF says that there are "rational atheits", are there more types of rational genres?
You can't put just all the gods in one bag... its philosophical illogical! You can't just say: "I am a bugger. 1,2,3,4, are buggers. So, I am 1,2,3,4,5,..." ... there are rules you know...
and i am still w8ing to the response for the challenge SF.
Posted by: Brownian
|
February 6, 2009 4:35 PM
Especially when the central canon of Hindu texts are specifically described as revealed knowledge (śrúti). If Silver Fox, Facilis, and the rest have no problem denying that the Hindu gods actually speak to their followers just as Yahweh is purported to, then why do they think we have an obligation to believe them when they claim the same?
Posted by: WRMartin | February 6, 2009 4:45 PM
Again, says who? SAYS WHO? Who says that if there is a god it is male? Says who? I guess if you get to pick your god's attributes then having it be able to do itself should be high up on the list, I guess. Or did your god have a rib or two removed and do some major stretching exercises? And inquiring minds really want to know if your god can rim itself too. Says who? Says who?I'm really curious because all you have is a large shit bucket full of claims. It stinks and really could use a rinse. But all I see is shit. Oh, is that your god's shit? That explains it all. Thanks, now I understand.
All hail the holy bucket of shit. Praise be the bucket of shit.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 4:46 PM
Silver Fox wrote:
That's a ridiculous claim, even by your standards. Wouldn't that depend on the philosophy they possess to convince themselves their god exist? You're measuring other people's gods against your god's standards, Silver Fox - which means you're assuming your concept of god is the correct one. Which you have no right to do until you disprove all the other gods.
So you say. But why? All you've done is make assertions, Silver Fox. What you've got to do now is back them up with arguments. Why, exactly, is polytheism rationally untenable? Remember you have to be able to show this by objective standards, not just by assuming that your god concept is correct and any god concepts that don't match yours aren't.
Remember, Silver Fox, there's an easy way out - admit atheists don't have to disprove Yahweh any more than you have to disprove Ganesh. The option's right there - you just have to take it.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 6, 2009 4:50 PM
What a surprise, the disgrace to genus vulpes is hiding again!
Do you believe in all of the following? If not, prove their non-existence or shut the fuck up.
Amaterasu, Bokonon, Coyote, Dionysius, Enki, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ganesh, Haephestus, Isis, John Frum, Kira, Laharl, Marduk, Nerull, Odin, Palkia, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Sideshow Bob, Thor, Ungoliant the Unlight, Vishnu, Waspinator, Xemnas, Yu Yevon, or Zeus.
(bonus points to anyone who can identify the sources of all these deities, some of which are there as a joke just to show how little respect I have for Silver fox's vacuous arguments)
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 6, 2009 4:57 PM
Silver Fox, #660: God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity. There can be no division in unity. It is one.
God is love. Love is blind. So God is blind.
This is a fun game, SF! Who else wants to play?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 4:59 PM
So you admit they were making it up too?
Posted by: WRMartin | February 6, 2009 4:59 PM
Phantomreader42:
John Frum is one of my all-time favorites. At least those folks are trying! ;)
Posted by: Endor | February 6, 2009 5:01 PM
"God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity. There can be no division in unity. It is one."
I'll take Vacuous Platitudes for $1000, Alex.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 5:02 PM
Translation: My god is true because I believe it to be so because a book tells me so that is written by god. Who tells me it was written by god? The book.
Shorter translation: I like to chase my tail.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 5:06 PM
Really
#608
There is only one God regardless of what name you use. Two gods would make no rational sense. It would be a philosophical contradiction.
That is an assertion sans any substantive support.
Not only are you an confused, you are an idiot.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 5:06 PM
mind if I quotemine?
No they are not MORE ridiculous than monotheistic religions
just so.
in another 1000 years, your religion will be seen by the irrational of that day to be just as, if not more ridiculous, than the Greek or Norse pantheons ever were.
...and they will "justify" their statement in exactly the same circular fashion as you do today.
I don't even need to live long enough to see it happen, I can laugh at you right now.
Posted by: Dahan | February 6, 2009 5:07 PM
SF,
"The union of God with himself is one of unity."
You've asked him about this? What about Yun-Yammka, the God of War, and Yun-Harla, the Goddess of Deception. They're twins. They're the same as your god, all gods are one, right?
"If there are two Gods, whatever one God has diminishes the unity of the first."
OK, so you get to decide what diminishes god? Or did god tell you this too?
"If perfection is diminished, there is no God because there is no unity."
So once again you're telling us your god couldn't actually create another god who was his equal. Well, guess your god's not omnipotent then. This means he's diminished and therefore doesn't exist. That's according to your own thought process. Glad to know we finally agree.
"There is a God and He is in perfect unity."
No, you just proved to me that he doesn't exist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 5:08 PM
Bah stupid blockquote fail
That is an assertion sans any substantive support.
Not only are you an confused, you are an idiot.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 6, 2009 5:24 PM
Are you suggesting here that God fucked Jesus? Was the Holy Ghost watching? I think that's disgusting. You Christians have filth minds. Except the Catholics. For them it's probably a sacrement. Hence... Please stop upsetting me with your Christo-porn.Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 6, 2009 5:27 PM
What about parsimony, that most of you sandbox tigers say you love so much? If there's any need for a God at all (I just say if, not whether) then the simplest belief would be, just "one" wouldn't it? And if by definition it means, whatever created the universe (again, if ... just to critique the framing) then referencing various notional entities without clear definitions is meaningless. You don't understand semantics.
Hey, what about multiple universes? Do you think they do or don't exist, and if so a similar problem comes up doesn't it ... why this possible world and not another one we can describe or that someone imagined or believed in.
I don't really care as much as you think I do, but I do like to kick sand back at bullies.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 6, 2009 5:29 PM
Silver Fox tried Pascal's Wager and that fell flat and now I await some amazing Facilis-grade logic using presuppositionalism crap.
Rinsing that bucket, Silver Fox?
Don't forget to scrub around the handles. Your god's shit has parasites. Incurable, brain eating parasites.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | February 6, 2009 5:30 PM
It's true what they say: Every time you kill a kitten, god masturbates.
Or was it the other way around? :P
Posted by: Chiroptera | February 6, 2009 5:34 PM
Neil B ☺ What about parsimony, that most of you sandbox tigers say you love so much?
I agree that many of the so-called "sandbox tigers" probably don't understand parsimony any better than you do. There seems to be a common misunderstanding about what it's supposed to be about.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 5:34 PM
Yes that would be the simplest assuming that. But which one?
Why the need of the trinity then?
Who are these various notional entities without clear definitions?
Posted by: SC, Sandbox Tiger, OM | February 6, 2009 5:40 PM
Oh, yeah.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 5:41 PM
Neil B wrote:
Nice try, Neil B. - but a fail nonetheless. If we accept parsimony, that only means there is a single god - it doesn't say anything about which single god, does it? So he still his to disprove any of the other monotheistic religions in order to maintain his own belief.
Oh, and this:
I
don'treally careas much as you think I dothat no-one's paying attention to me, butand I do like tokick sand backfling poo atbulliesmy betters, in the hopes they'll acknowledge me.Fixed it for you. No charge.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 5:42 PM
If there's any need for a God at all (I just say if, not whether) then the simplest belief would be, just "one" wouldn't it?
it entirely depends on how much variable behavior you wish to ascribe to a single entity, IMO.
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 6, 2009 5:46 PM
What do you mean, "which one" - you apparently don't understand the idea of defining by logical role instead of popular or specific descriptions. If "something" created it, then we could ask what it was like - it may resemble one or some of those notions, it may not, or it may be ambiguous or unanswerable or wrongly framed (like, "what color is an electron.") And there isn't any reason why an argument pertaining to the general question - is the universe self-sufficient etc. - would give any insight into that. That would be our tough luck if we cared and that was the best we could even get close to.
I'm just saying, that line of critique doesn't do anything. But you deserve credit for posing the challenge as an intelligent question (and not that I consider the approach or answer to any of this clear or obvious, I'm just ragging on the rag) instead of a booger flick.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 6, 2009 5:48 PM
I guess you do have a point. Simple, that is. In some English speaking countries they have other terms/phrases for it.Me, I'm all for delegating. God of hot water. God of tea. God of emptying the dishwasher. God of taking out the trash. God of walking my dog (Yes, I guess I did just type that!). God of, hey yeah, god of doing my work so I can make snarky comments online. God of why don't you give me 10% of what you make. God of doing my laundry. God of getting that slowpoke out of my way when I'm late. God of shining my shoes. The more gods the better. Homeopathic gods, if you will. Dilute them down until there really isn't anything left but what remains in the water's memory.
Oh, and Silver Fox needs a god of shit bucket cleaning.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 5:48 PM
According to the Encyclopedia of Gods, by Michael Jordon there are over 2,500 gods. The insistence of only one just makes you Stooges look all the sillier.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 5:51 PM
Honestly, having a pantheon of gods who are often at odds with each other makes a lot more sense than one god who is supposedly perfect and yet distressingly inconsistent. And it is supported by there having been numerous gods posited by humans over the centuries. It's also what plenty of the bible suggests, too - though most Christians seem to ignore that.
Having worked with a number of multidisciplinary teams over the year I would have to say that 'Intelligent' Design via committee explains things a lot better...
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 6:00 PM
WRMartin - Ask and ye shall receive...
Baldrick the shit bucket cleaner worshipped turnips, the god of turnips is: Egres.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 6:01 PM
Your god's shit has parasites. Incurable, brain eating parasites.
hmm, the bloody arsehole must have been on vacation in NZ and forgotten to take them with him when he left:
http://www.jasons.com/New-Zealand/new-zealand-health-information
I think this "god" character must have spent time at Debrett's spa, and ruined it for the rest of us.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 6, 2009 6:04 PM
Yes I understand defining by logical role, but that is meaningless in the whole of the discussion that is going on here in this post. SF is making direct assertions that the only god is the one in his book. Thereby having the characteristics ascribed to it. He is also claiming that all gods are merely different representations if his one god.
Past that SF is making assertions about his god being perfect without any support of that assertion beyond lame circular logic. The same circular logic he is applying to the dismissal of Quetzlcoatl and Bacchus and the million other gods created in the history of man.
So your question about parsimony has little meaning here if we aren't applying it to the discussion at hand (at least the one with SF which brought this up).
Again, not pertinent to this discussion. SF is making claims about his god and against all other gods. We know where he gets his god from and what characteristics are ascribed to it. We know what characteristics are applied to gods of other religions and cultures.
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 6, 2009 6:04 PM
Nice try, Neil B. - but a fail nonetheless. If we accept parsimony, that only means there is a single god - it doesn't say anything about which single god, does it? So he still his to disprove any of the other monotheistic religions in order to maintain his own belief.
It isn't a fail for me, only for anyone trying to support a specific "monotheistic religion". Yes I gladly grant that the simplicity of "one ultimate reality" or "one uncaused being" (do you think this stuff is that?) does not support say Christianity over Islam, as a Unitarian Universalist I don't want to do that anyway. I'm not here to support Silver Fox's ("he"?) specific religious idea, just explain why that argument about "gods" isn't so relevant to the general question. But maybe there's a "they" of some sort, if anything "behind it" at all. It's speculation, why not think speculation is OK as an adventure?
Nevertheless I don't need the idea of ultimate being/first cause as a means to an end (like supporting "God X"), I am just interested in the question by itself. Hence it makes relative sense to look at issues like necessary and contingent existence, why the laws, etc.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 6, 2009 6:05 PM
Neil B. wrote:
Which would be fine if Silver Fox were advocating deism, or some anonymous, unknown theistic deity about whom we know nothing, but he isn't.
His concept of god is based on said god having specific, defined characteristic that differentiate it from not only other monotheistic gods, but other Christian sects' versions of it. He has a bible - supposedly a revelation from his god - and doctrine and any other number of conditions dependent upon his god's specific attributes.
We're playing by the set of rules Silver Fox defined. He just didn't realise that we're cleverer than he is.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 6, 2009 6:10 PM
The silly old goat brayed;
God is perfection. The union of God with himself is one of unity.
I could help but remember The Symposium by Plato. Near the beginning, Socrates was describing a golden age where a person were a connected male and female and each person had a hole to place their unit. Funny, I have not thought of this in decades.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 6:10 PM
He just didn't realise that we're cleverer than he is.
...and that's not saying much.
really.
;)
Posted by: Neil B ☺ | February 6, 2009 6:11 PM
BTW: Yes I understand defining by logical role, but that is meaningless in the whole of the discussion that is going on here in this post. SF is making direct assertions that the only god is the one in his book. That's an exaggeration. Part of SF's apologetics was about Christianity (I presume), but I saw some criticisms here too about the general idea of one versus multiple Gods. That's what I was getting at, and it had gotten mixed up with the question of the type "If there is a God, which one 'is it'"? [which description is it most like, in effect.]
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 6:13 PM
yawn, Neil.
just...
*yawn*
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 6:13 PM
Ichthyic (raising libation glass).
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 6:16 PM
Every class I've ever taken on paganism has included triple gods/goddesses. It's just one more thing the christians got from earlier religions. Keep insisting on it Silver Fox.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 6:18 PM
Ichthyic (raising libation glass).
cheers, mate.
I'm still putting together a blog for New Zealand adventures. Been so busy with the actual "adventures", I haven't had time until now.
It'll be called: "Poke it With a Stick", and have already registered it (it's just blank at the moment).
I have a couple of days worth of pics to process first, then I'll put up the first couple of entries.
:P
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 6:28 PM
Good to see you back Ichthyic! If you run into Nick Gotts over there tell him he's missed.
Posted by: WRMartin | February 6, 2009 6:35 PM
Patricia @691 & Ichthyic @692, respectively:
&Is there anything that a snark like me can make an asinine comment about that doesn’t already have a god associated with it?
Hint for Silver Fox: Probably not.
And for that I am happy.
Happy Monkey!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 6:35 PM
Ichthyic, showing my age some by channeling Cheers. We need to poke SF with a sharp stick. It might get his attention. I'll look forward to your blog. Hope you are settling in.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 6, 2009 6:44 PM
If you run into Nick Gotts over there tell him he's missed.
It's a small place, I probably will.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 6:46 PM
WRMartin - My pleasure! It just proves that even an education in silly subjects can come in handy now and then.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
February 6, 2009 7:06 PM
This has been a long, hard post, so I think you guys (not you Silver Fox, or you Mr Hartmann) need a chuckle. So try this:
http://donottrustme.blogspot.com/2009/02/atheist-bus-slogan-generator.html
(I got "I had your God's mum - and she was shit" but then that's just me)
Posted by: Dr Horrible | February 6, 2009 7:12 PM
@600, The Frantic Fox blathered some stuff.
But doesn't the first commandment imply that the christian god is aware that there are other, more different, gods out there?
It says so in this book ...
Posted by: Paliban Mom | February 6, 2009 7:16 PM
BDChimp @ 650, I can't help it if your pals aren't bright enough to recognize the True Word of God when they read it. :)
Just like an atheist, suggesting that a kitten masturbates every time you kill God. >:( Disgusting!
@ Patricia, please feel free to contribute any Christian quotes you think would add value to the Quotes page. I look forward to your suggestions!
Posted by: Ultima Thule | February 6, 2009 7:21 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLF8UGr0hQ&feature=related
this is what you all should be watching!!! you damn non-believers!!! :D
Posted by: Dr Horrible | February 6, 2009 7:33 PM
@710
But, Troll, WHICH GOD?!?!?!
Posted by: expat | February 6, 2009 7:45 PM
David Hartmann, that was the single most amusing thing I've read all week. And to think that if you'd simply clicked on the little cross in the corner of your window you wouldn't have become incensed enough to write it.
Posted by: Ultima Thule | February 6, 2009 7:48 PM
I thought you need no basic intelect to understand the words of (the) god(s) Paliban Mom...w8 you actually need it! beacuse so many people (thousands of years ago) wrote it in ancient aramaic, then greek, then arabe, then latin, then english and spanish,so on... there are tons of books about the Word, dozens of religions around the Word, dozens of sects, and so on... and you mean there is only ONE? seem like a ton of them to me, tons of interpretation's and all that. YOu people (so called believers) focus in one book in english, don't check any history about it; just follow one smarter than you that can take of your money and make you feel like your life is worth something for the universe...please...
And i know one quote for your Christian blog: "If the universe is finite, has time and started once, why did god take infinite time to start it?" figure that out
and please check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DXl68NF_uI&feature=related
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 7:57 PM
She invites ME to leave quotes?
Lady, I can make the pope cry.
Posted by: Twin-Skies | February 6, 2009 7:58 PM
@Dr Horrible
Check the site dude - PalibanDaily is apparently a well-constructed Poe.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 8:09 PM
PM has been posting here for a few weeks. Comedy can be fickle, but today, she was spot on. (My Poedar is terrible, so recognizing her moniker was all I had to go on--plus the Dahmer reference in #642 was a touch of genius.)
Posted by: Dr Horrible | February 6, 2009 8:22 PM
@716
In that case - Funny Troll, WHICH ONE?!?!?!
:)
Thanks for the heads-up Twin-Skies ;)
Posted by: Zarquon | February 6, 2009 8:34 PM
If you run into Nick Gotts over there tell him he's missed.
Has he gone anywhere? He's posting as Knock Goats these days.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 6, 2009 8:43 PM
Zarquon - What?! When did that happen? Are you sure?
Dammit, I always get left out of the loop. *pout*
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 6, 2009 9:04 PM
Waterloo, Ichthyic!
I'm guessing that the ontological argument used by Maxie and facilis must be on that 300 Proofs page somewhere. I.e., I can postulate an infinite transcendent God, therefore God exists.
Posted by: Zarquon | February 6, 2009 9:33 PM
Hi Patricia,
Yes new year, new nick for our Nick.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 6, 2009 9:40 PM
Patricia, I think you were off selling your wares for the Squidmas holidays when Nick became Knock. He's the same ol' reprobate.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 7, 2009 1:16 AM
"Are you telling us that an omniscient and omnipotent god couldn't create another omniscient and omnipotent god?"
Yes, I am. Why? Because God is One. God is Unity. There is no division in God. We can think of God theoretically as omnipotent and omniscient, but in reality they are anthropomorphic characteristics of a unified divine nature. It has to be or there is no God and there is a God. To divide himself, God would be acting contrary to his nature. God is good so he cannot sin or command someone to sin which would be contrary to his nature.
Posted by: Lowell | February 7, 2009 1:36 AM
Looks like Silver Fox is having trouble with the definition of can't. It's a little-known secret that it's a contraction for cannot.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 7, 2009 1:42 AM
"admit that you were wrong about the positive claim of atheism and retract your argument that the atheist is required to prove the nonexistence of Yahweh."
To admit that would be contrary to reason. What I said was that the atheist lives the negative proposition. He does NOT believe in God. So if he is unable to disprove the positive proposition then there is no reasonable basis to his non belief other than his opinion that he sees no reason to believe in God. His opinion that he sees no reason to believe in God does not disprove the positive proposition.
Posted by: Lowell | February 7, 2009 1:43 AM
Oops. Didn't read SF's post very carefully. He used "cannot," and the post he was responding to used "couldn't."
Still, he's resorting to the god-botter's last line of defense: "divine" things are beyond human comprehension, the Lord works in mysterious ways, blah, blah, blah.
All the while giving not one single good reason why anyone should believe Yahweh is more likely to exist than leprechauns or invisible pink unicorns, etc.
Boring.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 1:49 AM
Silver Fox, your imaginary god does not exist. You have nothing but blather that just describes something in your mind. It does not preclude Side-Show Bob from the being the god. You need to go away and firm up your ideas. It should take you about a hundred years if you do it right. Until you show physical proof for you god, you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 7, 2009 1:56 AM
"Prove that God is perfection. Any evidence of it's perfectness? Other than the assertion of course."
The very nature of God requires perfection. An imperfect God would be no God. There is a God; ergo, he has to be perfect. That is a self-evident fact. There is no way to prove a self-evident fact because in order to do so you would have to use the fact itself for its own definition.
The difficulty here is attempting to deal with physical scientists for whom "proof" means something different. Again, what does the existence and nature of God have to do with physical science?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 1:59 AM
God doesn't exist until you prove he exists. Period, end of story. What part of that do you have trouble with. Your premise is wrong. Otherwise god only exists in your mind. Why do we need to consider your delusions? Either show the evidence or shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 7, 2009 2:08 AM
Silver Fox, #727 -
How does that logic support your positive non-belief in gods other than Yahweh? Look what happens when I change you words slightly:
What I said was that the
atheistChristian lives the negative proposition. He does NOT believe inGodGods other than Yahweh. So if he is unable to disprove the positive proposition then there is no reasonable basis to his non belief other than his opinion that he sees no reason to believe inGodGods other than Yahweh. His opinion that he sees no reason to believe inGodGods other than Yahweh does not disprove the positive proposition.See how easy that was? If it's still too hard, let me dumb it down for you: any argument you can present for not believing in other people's gods I can take and use for not believing in yours. I suggest you dwell on the old aphorism 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander.'
You know you only have two choices, Silver Fox. You can provide proof for the non-existence of every god other than Yahweh, or you can admit you were wrong and retract the claim that atheists are required to prove Yahweh does not exist.
Well, there is a third - you can just leave and not come back. But I don't want that - watching you squirm is far more entertaining than the satisfaction I would attain from having thrashed you so soundly that you quit the proving ground.
Posted by: Silver Fox | February 7, 2009 2:17 AM
"There is a God and He is in perfect unity."
No, see the quote at 660; "The union of God with himself is unity" God IS; he cannot be IN anything.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 7, 2009 2:27 AM
Silver Fox wrote:
I must have missed something - which of the gods-other-than-Yahweh is proof of the nonexistence of? You have to be more specific so I can cross it off my list.
Or can I take your lack of proofs for a retraction?
Posted by: clinteas | February 7, 2009 2:34 AM
733 comments now....
*hands out anti-SIWOTI pills to Wowbagger and Nerd*
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 7, 2009 2:44 AM
re: clinteas #734
I could stop but then Silver Fox might think he's gotten away with the most egregious logical error I've had the pleasure of contributing to.
And at least it's a civilised hour where I am. I'm starting to think that Nerd's spent his 30 years in chemistry developing a substance that allows him to go without sleep. That or he does it dolphin-style, constantly resting half his brain at a time. Heck, it'd still leave him plenty to spare to deal with the likes of Silver Fox and facilis.
Anyway, I'm just killing time 'til I head out for a co-worker's birthday drinks.
Posted by: clinteas | February 7, 2009 2:49 AM
Wowbagger,
I slept comfortably through the hottest day on record(46.4) and am getting ready for a night shift from hell LOL...
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 7, 2009 2:55 AM
clinteas,
Bugger me. I don't think we even got as high as 46° - and we've a cool change rolling in as I write; it's now a relatively mild 32.4°, which is a nice change. Going to be cool for the next week apparently.
This is a good thing. I can stop living in the lounge room (with air-con) the whole time I'm home.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 7, 2009 3:10 AM
"No, see the quote at 660; "The union of God with himself is unity" God IS; he cannot be IN anything."
Could this be the answer to the age-old riddle "If God is everywhere, is He in the toilet?" Apparently not.
Posted by: Wowbagger | February 7, 2009 3:22 AM
I think it's time for a song. This one's going out to Silver Fox (and not Rey Fox):
Fox on the run
You screamed and everybody comes a-running
Take a run and hide yourself away
Fox on the run
F-foxy, foxy on the run and hideaway
Sweet in more ways than one!
Posted by: Kel | February 7, 2009 3:25 AM
Why would anyone want to accept Pascal's Wager? Given the infinitesimal chance of choosing the right god, let alone the right parameters for belief. By accepting Pascal's Wager, you are accepting that belief for the sake of belief is rewarded, you are accepting that belief that the Christian deity is the right deity, and that there's an afterlife. In the eternal words of Homer Simpson: "But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder."Pascal's Wager is far too narrow, not to mention it misrepresents the how we believe. Do you, Silver Fox, only believe because of the promise of a reward in the afterlife, or would you choose to swap religions in light of a better reward? If not, what makes you think that an atheist will suddenly believe for the same reason? Pascal's Wager in that respect is like taking blizzard insurance in Fiji. The remote possibility of something being true does not give reason to believe it will happen or live your life as if it is it could happen. In Australia I don't feel I'm going to be mauled by a tyrannosaurus when I walk down the street, and even if a tyrannosaurus happened to survive 65 million years and be there to eat me, the absurdity of the proposition will not make me any more readily believe it will happen.
Pascal's Wager is the appeal of the desperate, those who cling to belief for the sake of reward, a means to convince when there's no evidence at all. Silver Fox, you really should actually learn what it means to be an atheist before you spew such inane shit.
Posted by: JCfromNC | February 7, 2009 3:32 AM
I can't decide which would be cooler to be -- a "negative karma engine" or a "demonic conservative ridicule-machine".
Of course, for PZ it would need to be changed to "creationist" "IDiot" or "fundamentalist" vice "conservative", but still.
Posted by: Kel | February 7, 2009 3:40 AM
Just as you don't believe in Thor, we don't believe in Yahweh. Your god is just one of thousands of gods that have come before us, and quite an absurd one at that. The Hindu eternal god Brahman which was around for about twice the time that Yahweh has been is far more in tune with the nature of reality than the theist god that you worship is. Does this make Brahman any more credulous than your theist deity? I would contend so.So why don't you believe in Brahman? Why don't you take the pantheistic deity that exploded itself and became the universe and lives on an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction? Remember that this belief is more ancient, yet the Hindu version of reality is far more like the modern way we describe the universe than the Christian one. Yet I would contend that Brahman is not real. I would contend that it was a myth generated by some folks in India well over 6000 years ago, and while it may be a good fit over reality, it's still a myth made my people who did not know and can not know the unknown. Likewise Yahweh is of the same ilk, another religion that 3000 years ago was created by a few tribes in the middle east. It's just another poor explanation of reality, how can you have been talking to atheists for so long and not even grasped the basic reasoning behind it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 8:42 AM
More assertions without support. You have not established that God's perfectness is a self evident fact. You just keep saying it.
That doesn't make it true.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 8:45 AM
If your god interacts with the physical world it has everything to do with it.
Posted by: Pasta Bake | February 7, 2009 10:01 AM
I'll repeat what someone said above.
"I've never see anyone say so little with so many words."
Clearly the individual does care or s/he would not have wasted so much energy composing such a childish ("You're wrong! Why? Just 'cause! You're wrong and I don't care! La la la, I can't hear you!") missive. I had hoped that PZ would simply reply with "Need I say more"; the brevity of his reply was roughly equivalent. To those of sound mind, no more is needed.
Posted by: Kel | February 7, 2009 11:13 AM
That's just it, in a reality where everything is determined by natural law, for a theist god to be a reality then there has to be a break in physical law. Of course not all gods are subject to this restriction, deist and pantheist gods can perfectly coexist with a scientific explanation of reality. But a theist has that trouble of reconciliation, that brings their god into a testable reality either indirectly or directly through measurement. Once you take any phenomena or event and allege "goddidit", then it's an allegation that god is working through nature in some form or another.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 11:25 AM
Then there is the philosophical god who does not interact with the natural world. Such a god cannot be proven or disproven, but only accepted on faith. But then, why that god and not another one as Wowbagger keeps pointing out? So at the end that comes down to why should I believe simply because you do? And how do you know you are not delusional for believing in god? Personally, philosophical gods are worthless and should be ignored. If you find comfort in such a god, believe, but be ashamed of your delusion and wash your hands afterwards.
Posted by: Kel | February 7, 2009 11:32 AM
In that respect, I have no problems with a deistic or pantheistic belief. It's not my bag, but really at that point it's just speculation on the unknown anyway and it satisfies the strong anthropic principle. In a way, I would argue that a deist or pantheist god would be a better fit to satisfy the strong anthropic principle than a theist god as there is no evidence that a theist god exists. Of course evidence of a theist god would change things, but it's a tall order to explain. In the end, all versions of god are nothing more than speculative nonsense, but at least some of them observe the boundaries of observation.
Posted by: Kevin | February 7, 2009 3:45 PM
that was a very long email....and you are up to 750 comments!
I don't have time to read it...but I gotta look...
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
February 7, 2009 4:08 PM
Mr Hartmann has since written to me again -- twice -- and insisted that I owe him another post for his lengthy rebuttal. I'm ignoring him. I think if he really wants to make his case, he could simply post a comment here.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 4:12 PM
Mr. Hartmann, where are you? Please post.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut | February 7, 2009 4:13 PM
That is just so precious. The comedy never ends.
Posted by: Rey Fox | February 7, 2009 4:16 PM
Some people just really don't understand the new media.
Posted by: viverravid | February 7, 2009 5:08 PM
I'd like to approach this from a different angle...
Silver Fox, if we allow (for the sake of argument) your Unitary conception of God, how how are you able to reliably identify the Christian Bible as a true and unaltered communication from this entity?
Posted by: cicely | February 7, 2009 7:51 PM
Silver Fox,
Just out of curiousity, what is your opinion of the validity of, say, varieties of Hinduism where its adherents hold that there is only one Supreme Being, with many named aspects? In what way is this different from the Trinity/Unity thing you keep referencing? Are you defending monotheism, in general terms, as reality, or just specifically your brand of monotheism (and possibly its relatives and derivatives)? If so, what makes your brand true, and the others false (where just saying, "'cause the Bible tells me so" is not considered a sufficient answer)?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | February 7, 2009 8:00 PM
Come on Hartmann, ignore the fins and fangs. Dive in!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 9:09 PM
SF you got some 'splainin to do
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
February 7, 2009 9:18 PM
OT, Rev. BDC, I obtained a 6-pack of Arrogant Bastard Ale today. I'm too tired to enjoy it after getting the Redhead home from the airport though. I'll let you know it goes when I get around to trying it out.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 9:22 PM
nice. I went to the local specialty beer store today and picked up maybe the hoppiest beer I've ever had. It was awesome.
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 7, 2009 9:56 PM
RBDC! I used to live within a stone's throw of Moylan's and still pick up the occasional growler from those guys. They're in North Marin County, and are renowned more for maltier concoctions, while it's further South in Larkspur, where their sister brewery is, known for the hops. On Wednesday we found out that we were fewer miles than we thought from the Hippie Store (Whole Foods) sharing a wall with a Trader Joe's in Napa. I picked up a Kilt Lifter (Scottish Ale) and an Imperial Stout, both from Moylan's.
You may enjoy the product of Lagunitas Brewery from Petaluma, which is in the habit of releasing special brews commemorating the anniversary of the release of Frank Zappa albums. I just had a barleywine celebrating the anniversary of Ruben and the Jets. They are always sure to err on the side of hoppiness.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | February 7, 2009 10:47 PM
Ha. The other beer I grabbed was that exact beer. I've moved to a whiskey for the night, but tomorrow...
And i LOVE barley wine.
I'm a HUGE zappa fan, so I can not resist anything associated with him.
Posted by: Ads | February 9, 2009 8:41 PM
tl;dr
Posted by: John H | February 13, 2009 10:50 AM
AnthonyK@708
I love that generator...I had 'God has a tiny penis, think about it, Mary didn't even feel him.