Pharyngula

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 6:23 PM

at the end of the poll, when it shows the results, I got this tagline:

NOW: See a gallery of alarming images from anti-abortion websites

which leads to this article:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/524/anti-abortion-websites.html

which has a parade of the horrible incendiary images and pages from the anti-abortion terrorist enablers.

Posted by: Porco Dio | June 15, 2009 6:29 PM

horrific! the type of person that lives in the good ol' us of a... i'm pretty sure websites like that would get shut down here in the EU.

freedom of speech does not extend to the silencing of those who disagree with you.

Posted by: ckitching | June 15, 2009 6:34 PM

I love this quote: "The pro-life movement is the most peaceful social movement in our nation's history."

Pulled straight out of his behind, I'm betting.

Posted by: octopod | June 15, 2009 6:40 PM

Well looky there. Page is now winning by a factor of 2.

Posted by: Randomfactor | June 15, 2009 6:41 PM

A transplant saved my late wife's life eight years ago (and several other folks as well). Anyone want to look at an organ harvest?

Posted by: Agathodemon | June 15, 2009 6:52 PM

To an extent, especially on the issue of birth control, Christina Page was talking past Troy Newman. He believes most forms of birth control are abortion. Anything, that could in theory, even if rare, prevent the implantation of a "baby" is abortion. I think this includes birth control pills, IUD s, and RU486. I suspect they would also include condoms because they might leak and besides the Catholic Church says they're not effective anyway. They are also pathologically anti-sex and many believe that procreation is the only reason for it. Therefore, anything that thwarts that end is evil. I suspect there is some sort of mental short circuit that prevents them from looking at the situation in a rational manner [i.e. religion].

Posted by: Steve_C | June 15, 2009 6:58 PM

Well we fixed that poll quickly.

Posted by: Perpy | June 15, 2009 7:01 PM

Well, did my share on this poll too.

Posted by: wazza | June 15, 2009 7:14 PM

More Issue Clashes from NOW

Should gay marriage be legalalized?

Posted by: damnedyankee | June 15, 2009 7:17 PM

Pharyngula against a poll with 1000 total votes? that makes Mythbuster's shooting fish in a barrel with a Gatling gun look like reasonable force.

Yeah, I know.

(Maniacal laughter)

Posted by: AVSN | June 15, 2009 7:18 PM

had to vote not sure. i've heard the same arguements before from both sides. I'd say i'd like to see more from both sides.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 7:24 PM

that's an interesting argument, techskeptic.

have you floated it on the sea of shit that are the pro-life forums to see what response you get?

I'm curious as to what the reactions will be, and if they will in any way be rational.

Posted by: AVSN | June 15, 2009 7:35 PM

truth be told did not get an error message on this particular double post. just got a white screen. I'm sure the good PZ has the time to delete the extra post NOT! Live with it irRev.BDC

Posted by: Walter Silveira | June 15, 2009 7:37 PM

oh ho ho, 83%'d

Posted by: slang | June 15, 2009 7:39 PM

"defines life starting at conception" ... bwaahaha. 'nuff said.

Posted by: SVN | June 15, 2009 7:42 PM

He might whine about how unfair life is ;)

Posted by: AVSN | June 15, 2009 7:45 PM

Do you think Mr Newman will update the post in which he crowed about winning?

prob'ly not

Posted by: Ivan | June 15, 2009 7:57 PM

There's another abortion debate, about abortion counseling, that we can vote on:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/329/abortion-debate.html

Very few votes so far.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 15, 2009 7:59 PM

Troy Newman lied about being pro-life. He and his organization aided and abetted Dr. Tiller's death. I believe the legal term is "accessory before the fact."

Posted by: Yodood | June 15, 2009 8:08 PM

For a bunch of supposedly logic based scientists, you folks pay an awfully lot of respect to the authority of the biggest mob to determine the proper way to conduct everyone's private affairs. Do you really believe people guide their lives by polls? Or do you just enjoy smashing the No Choicers? Either way, its a pretty sad statement for science.

There's a huge difference between atheists and antitheists; atheists are indifferent to faith in a deity, antitheists let theocracy consume them while giving it validity by opposing such a preposterous bunch of myths with constant attempts at logical argument.

Posted by: raven | June 15, 2009 8:14 PM

Operation Xian Terrorism are tied in with Scott Roeder, the latest in a long line of xian assassins. As to how and how close, presumably Homeland Security and the FBI are investigating right now.

They've been involved in murders before. As far as I can tell, it goes like this.
1. Find someone with mental problems that shares their extremist Death Cult religion and ideology.

2. Wind them up.

3. Point them in the direction of their chosen victim.

4. Hope and pray that the stooge manages to kill the targeted doc.

5. Issue statement about how peaceful xian terrorists are and it is all too bad but it is doc X's own fault, may god rest his soul.

6. Repeat .
Of course this is just exploiting the mentally ill but compared to their other activities of lying, ruining lives, and various forms of terrorism, this is no big deal to them.

Posted by: littlejohn | June 15, 2009 8:16 PM

And another poll! What do you think of gay marriage?

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/521/gay-marriage-debate.html

Posted by: Katherine | June 15, 2009 8:25 PM

86% for Page after my vote

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 15, 2009 8:33 PM

Hehehehe... yeah, troll fail.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 8:34 PM

Do you really believe people guide their lives by polls?

frankly, since you don't understand the real point of online poll smashing, I'll spell it out for you:

No.

Because there is no way to make a public online poll scientific.

OTOH, there ARE ways of making polls scientific (it's tough but doable), and the information they reveal can be quite valuable.

here's a rough lesson (though really, there is even more to properly designing a scientific poll):

http://www.ncpp.org/?q=node/4

now, if you read that, it might begin to dawn on you why it is actually valuable to crash non-scientific polls and prove, time and again, just how meaningless they are.

Posted by: Yodood | June 15, 2009 8:44 PM

For a bunch of supposedly logic based scientists, you folks pay an awfully lot of respect to the authority of the biggest mob to determine the proper way to conduct everyone's private affairs. Do you really believe people guide their lives by polls? Or do you just enjoy smashing the No Choicers? Either way, its a pretty sad statement for science.

There's a huge difference between atheists and antitheists; atheists are indifferent to faith in a deity, antitheists let theocracy consume them while giving it validity by opposing such a preposterous bunch of myths with constant attemts at logical argument.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 15, 2009 8:48 PM

Yodood, enough already. Say something once, why say it again? Besides, people have addressed your concern.

And for your information, a large percentage of posters here are not scientists. Get your facts straight.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 15, 2009 8:55 PM

Concern troll is concerned.

Posted by: Helena Handbag | June 15, 2009 9:18 PM

Vote now at 88% humane.

I've been known to use a sharpie to fix the typo on those bumper stickers that are obviously supposed to say "Abortion Stops A Beating." Just doing my bit as an editor.

Posted by: Yodood | June 15, 2009 9:31 PM

I apologize for the multiple postings, but not for what I said.

@#49
"These people surround themselves with like-minded individuals and then validate their beliefs by pointing out that everyone around them agrees

Posted by: ckitching | June 15, 2009 9:52 PM

Yodood, the local TV news stations run polls, and then report the results on TV, as "Here's what you think". Crashing these polls helps prove that they don't resemble what people are thinking in any way, shape or form, and that they are trivially manipulated.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2009 10:00 PM

(#60 which got truncated by the same mechanism which posted me three times

YOU posted your crap 3 times, because you refused to read the message that pops up when you posted the first time.

kinda like you ignore all the responses to your post while posting more drivel yet again.

you have our leave to fuck the hell off, now.

Posted by: Ivence | June 15, 2009 10:12 PM

@Rocket Mike #65

Have you ever looked at it from this angle:

If those embryos are designed by a loving god who gives each and every one of them a soul that is to be protected by law, then why has he condemned, to low ball it, 60% of every human to ever exist to death before they are a few weeks old?

This isn't carnage, this is allowing someone to live a better life and have kids once they are capable of supporting them, and it is their decision. Faith has nothing to add to this discussion.

Posted by: Dianne | June 15, 2009 10:19 PM

I keep reading that 60-80% of fertilized human eggs fail to implant, thus resulting in an abortion. Those of true faith should not do anything that would continue this carnage.

Yes and why aren't they out there lobbying for a new NIH center to study implantation failure? If 60-80% of newborns died within the first few days of life, I'd be demanding research to reduce that number, even at the expense of research into other health problems such as cancer or heart disease. Yet the best I've seen a pro-lifer argue is that these deaths aren't important because they aren't "murders". Weak, very weak. If murders are the only deaths that count, why do we even have an NIH?

Posted by: LeeLeeOne | June 15, 2009 10:34 PM

BTW: For anyone interested, those "shocking images of anti-abortion websites" contain the near criminal activity of anti-abortion activists. These pages show just to what depth and breadth they strive towards domestic terrorism. There are no gory pictures.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 15, 2009 10:49 PM

I'll echo LeeLeeOne.

The screenshots that are shown include names, addresses and aerial photographs. Taken together they are quite similar to how the military identifies targets.

The difference is that the military is prepared to destroy the targeted location and/or individual, as has been amply demonstrated of late. But the pro-lifers (excuse me) only post this information out of their deep concern for all life, from natural conception to natural death*.

*Includes death by outraged bogdotherers whose fervent devotion to that which is unseen buggers all hell out of what is seen.*

Posted by: aratina cage | June 15, 2009 11:16 PM

A few hours later and Cristina is crushing the crazies with 91% of 5,118 votes to... hardly anything at all! Good wins, evil is defeated once again compliments of the Pharynguhorde.

Posted by: Bill G | June 15, 2009 11:42 PM

Just voted for Christine and it was 94% in her column.

Posted by: aratina cage | June 15, 2009 11:50 PM

Oh hey, check this out: Cristina wrote more about this interview on Huffington Post. In the article, she reveals more of the ugliness hiding behind Newman.

Posted by: Timebender13 | June 16, 2009 12:40 AM

I think abortion has been one of the most difficult political battles for me to tell which side I'm on. I mean, most topics some would consider controversial I can easily tell what side I'm on and explain why, using logic and reason (evolution, for example is true, and I can explain it). Abortion was the one thing I just uneasily took a side on (Pro-Choice) without knowing why. After doing some research, I think I have made up my mind. I think it should be legal when it threatens the life or welfare of the mother or family, in cases of rape, failed contraception, etc. But where do we draw the line?

I mean, the mother's rights override the rights of the fetus. That much is clear. But does she have the right to abort if the child is nothing more than an inconvenience? If there is a logical answer either way, please point it out. This one has me stumped!

Posted by: Petrander | June 16, 2009 12:47 AM

Christina Page, you are really cool!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 16, 2009 1:20 AM

holy fuck... did you guys follow the link in the douchenozzle's answers to the Kansas DHE report? here's some interesting stats from it:

Youngest mother 12
Youngest father 13
Youngest divorce 13 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Incidentally, it also says shit-all about why women were having late-term abortions, as far as I can tell

Posted by: oldcola | June 16, 2009 1:47 AM

Don't be nervous MattB #85, here, this is a 8% Newman 92% Page result for ~6000 votes.

Page should do better.

Posted by: Porco Dio | June 16, 2009 3:02 AM

one of the christards on the PBS site had the following to say:

Commenter: Robufo2000 The far left hate site Pharyngula is openly fornicating this poll like it does so many others.

PBS, you have been fornigulated.

i lolled

Posted by: Jason A. | June 16, 2009 3:12 AM

Ouch, Page up 96%. That's gotta hurt.

They can't even use their standard pretense of 'the atheists ruined the poll!' since the posting on the Operation Rescue site was an attempt at poll crashing, and predated this post...

Posted by: Ploon | June 16, 2009 3:36 AM

"Pre-born child"? WTbleedingF? Terrific example of Newspeak.

"Blaming [us] only serves to inflame emotions." Pot, kettle, black. There goes another irony meter.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 16, 2009 3:57 AM

fornicating? is this some new fundie craziness, to subsitute "fuck" with "fornicate"? cuz that's bloody fornicatingfucking stupid.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 16, 2009 4:14 AM

Jadehawk @ 94:

to subsitute "fuck" with "fornicate"?

English language fail.

Posted by: Steanshovelmama | June 16, 2009 4:22 AM

98%. Ha! Dumb poll. And dumb forced-pregnancy brigade pushing lies and cruelty as an alternative to safe, accurate birth control information.

Posted by: Chris | June 16, 2009 5:33 AM

"He can do that because He's God"

Who is?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 16, 2009 6:03 AM

Chris @ 100:

"He can do that because He's God"
Who is?

You know -- old chap, long white beard, throne. Looks a bit like this.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 16, 2009 6:57 AM

... the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.

And the Lord spake thus: See ye not that this be my ball? Did I not commandeth thee to pass it to Me? Yee have failed me: This be my ball, and I shall taketh it away: and it pleased the Lord to take His ball back: and He did sulk just a little way from the park... And lo, the Lord did bring a plague upon those that wronged him: for they did not pass Him the ball: and He did bring a plague uopon their children and their households: for surely as their fathers did not pass Him the ball, so shall their male seed be punished... And God said unto them: I'm not being childish, 'tis you who is childish...

Worship the god-child. Because he could squash you like a fly.

Probably in some kind of major earthquake event which also flattens a nursery, killing all 35 infants inside, and causes minor flesh-wounds to a passing child-molester. But it was His work, and you can't say it wasn't.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 16, 2009 7:09 AM

Filthy's "logic" ASSerting that we ought to "worship" his celestial lunatic friend because the jerkoff "made" us reminds me of that old parental talking point used when frustrated with a child of "I brought you into the world, and I can take you out of it."

Nowadays, Filthy, we have things called secular morals, and true respect for life that's here, not life that maybe sorta could be. We don't think it's okay for parents to kill their kids who are birthed. You vicious deity seems to think it's okay for him to do that, and you support that, clearly.

That's why some atheists think you and your imaginary friend are hypocritical psychopaths.

Posted by: Dahan | June 16, 2009 7:26 AM

Piltdown... you're just silly! You're fun when you're off your meds but you should probably go ahead and take them anyways.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 7:59 AM

You shouldn't worship Him because He has the power to kill you and everybody. You should worship Him because He has the right to kill you and everybody. He (alone) has that right because He created you and everybody.

Fear not love.

We get it.

/eyeroll

Posted by: John Morales | June 16, 2009 8:07 AM

JennyAnyDots, yeah. Pharyngulation brings in around 10 kilovotes in the immediate. This instance seems a bit anemic.

Posted by: Dianne | June 16, 2009 8:32 AM

So all you scientists get cracking and make this idea work. Then you can implant all the unwanted embryos in the anti-choice campaigners.

Hey, I've repeatedly offered pro-life men (or those presenting as men on the web) the chance to be part of a historic experiment in which I implant a "snowflake baby" on their intestinal lining, monitor the pregnancy, help with the c-section (if they survive to the point it'll be necessary) and write up the results. Would you believe that I've so far gotten NOT ONE volunteer? It's almost as if they don't really believe that the "snowflakes" are really babies either!

Even worse, not one of them has called my bluff. A person of even mild medical sophistication should realize that no IRB in the world would approve this project and getting funding for it would be simply out of the question. But few pro-lifers are known for their medical sophistication.

Posted by: Ygern | June 16, 2009 8:41 AM

Troy Newman's site is now bleating the following:

Note: Once we posted this notice, liberal bloggers became outraged (as per the viscious flood of messages we received) and the PBS debate was slammed with 4,500 votes in 2 hours. The debate poll had only about 450 votes in the entire week prior to that. When honest voting was taking place, Newman was leading and when honest debate takes place, Americans reject late abortions on viable babies. However, it seems that PBS and thier pro-abortion cohorts cannot stand to allow the pro-life position to win in honest voting.]

I am still trying to understand how voting against him is "dishonest" voting... but then I suppose there is no logic to it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 8:43 AM

Note: Once we posted this notice, liberal bloggers became outraged (as per the viscious flood of messages we received) and the PBS debate was slammed with 4,500 votes in 2 hours. The debate poll had only about 450 votes in the entire week prior to that. When honest voting was taking place, Newman was leading and when honest debate takes place, Americans reject late abortions on viable babies. However, it seems that PBS and thier pro-abortion cohorts cannot stand to allow the pro-life position to win in honest voting.]

Translation: WAAAHHHHHH

Posted by: John Morales | June 16, 2009 8:49 AM

Piltdown:

Jadehawk @ 94:
to subsitute "fuck" with "fornicate"?

English language fail.

Context comprehension fail. Your inappropriate quibbling is noted.

Original quote: "... Pharyngula is openly fornicating this poll ..."

Clear intent: fornicating = fucking.

Piltdown: Wrong! 'fornicating' means fucking someone other than one's spouse!*

Pildown, you've a passable, but hardly superior command of English.
I myself have a somewhat above average modicum of expertise at it, but compared to you... well. And, even then, I only nitpick at egregious examples of misuse.

--
* it originally meant partaking of the services of a prostitute, and it was an euphemism.

Posted by: Sleeper | June 16, 2009 9:07 AM

@Piltdown (#95) You've hung around with Satanists long enough to know their habits?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 16, 2009 9:41 AM

Honest Voting

Nice to see that Operation Rescue shares a similar concept of polling with ZANU-PF (or possibly, Norm Coleman).

It is only fair and democratic if I agree with the result.

Nice concept: I win the poll, I lose the poll - I still win.

Posted by: Nothing Sacred | June 16, 2009 10:07 AM

Another Gay Marriage poll, if anyone's interested: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/poll/1,,661-5040217,00.html Currently, segregation is winning. Any Aussies want to weigh in and tell us if that's the dominant feeling there these days?

Posted by: DebinOz | June 16, 2009 10:24 AM

As an Australian, I can definitely say that discrimination against same-sex couples is the dominant feeling. Especially amongst those who read that rag the Herald Sun. Just voted, and was surprised to see it as close as it was!

Although the current federal government has chipped away at the previous 70 plus pieces of legislation that discriminate against same-sex couples (such as retirement and tax benefits, etc), I will have a stroke if same-sex marriage is legalised in my lifetime. I can see some states somehow legalising some mutant of same-sex 'unions', but not marriage.

Posted by: DebinOz | June 16, 2009 10:32 AM

As an Australian, I can definitely say that discrimination against same-sex couples is the dominant feeling. Especially amongst those who read that rag the Herald Sun. Just voted, and was surprised to see it as close as it was!

Although the current federal government has chipped away at the previous 70 plus pieces of legislation that discriminate against same-sex couples (such as retirement and tax benefits, etc), I will have a stroke if same-sex marriage is legalised in my lifetime. I can see some states somehow legalising some mutant of same-sex 'unions', but not marriage.

Australia is now just starting to address the fact that we don't even have a federal charter of human rights. And in the states that do have such a thing, the charters really have no legal teeth because there is not a lot of recourse in the courts; more lip-service than anything. And your average man-in-the-street thinks that these charters are mainly to help convicted people from being treated poorly.

Your average Australian thinks that everyone will do the 'right thing', and are stunned and amazed when there are clear cases of discrimination against someone that they know!

Posted by: One Eyed Jack | June 16, 2009 11:52 AM

Newman has now closed that article to comments and added a little note about mean liberals crashing his poll. Of course, he's still declaring a victory.

Typical coward. Unable to handle criticism, they just shut everyone out.

Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 12:58 PM

Newman has now closed that article to comments and added a little note about mean liberals crashing his poll. Of course, he's still declaring a victory.

Typical coward. Unable to handle criticism, they just shut everyone out.

Hey, you got off lucky. So far. Troy Newman runs a terrorist organization that recruits the dumb and mentally ill as disposable killers. You know you have seriously irritated Troy about 1 second before a bullet crashes through your brain.

It's a Death Cult xian morality thing.

Posted by: Laura | June 16, 2009 2:16 PM

Glad to see that Page is at 94%, while Troy's bar is too small to read the %. Also glad to see the "not sure" bar is non-existent.

Posted by: Lee | June 16, 2009 7:34 PM

Cristina won.

It's emotionally easier for me to argue the pro life side. But in a free society we do not make peoples decisions for them. I can think of no decisions more difficult or personal than when life really begins, and what a woman can do with her own body. These decisions belong to the mother. If you are pro life, the morally correct thing to do is to make choosing life easier by providing support after the baby is born.

Posted by: Rob | June 16, 2009 7:57 PM

Haha, this is one of my fav things about this blog. :P Poll crashing!

----------------------

Don;t you mean pole fornicating?

Congrats to Newman for winning - without fornication of the poll that is.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 8:18 PM

...

Before that, it was more usual to take the first two letters of XPICTOC, and write "xpian" for "Christian." Priests would record Christenings using the shorthand "xpen" or "xpn."

ah, even better, one less letter.

xpn it is.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 16, 2009 8:25 PM

Even mad fascists get it right occasionally.

stopped clock, just like you.

your rants have become long, tedious, and boring.

Posted by: raven | June 16, 2009 8:32 PM

I was under the impression it comes from the greek word xristos, though these guys date its usage to the early 1600's:

Most sources give it's derivation to the dawn of Xiaity. Remember, much of the NT was written first in Greek.

As to how it became an insult. It didn't. This is just the latests in fundie passive aggressive wacko kid's stuff.

1. Make up an arbitrary rule.

2. When someone breaks your arbitrary and senseless rule, cry persecution. If no one is looking stone them to death.

This is how "Happy Holidays" became a blood libel.

Don't worry they will come up with another passive aggressive trick soon enough. It's not like they spend their free time thinking or anything. If zygotes are Preborns, than people will have to be known as Predeads. And freedom will be known as slavery.

"All you atheistic Predeads are going to hell if you spell Xian like St. Augustine."

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 16, 2009 8:38 PM

One Eyed Jack @ 132:

Newman has now closed that article to comments and added a little note about mean liberals crashing his poll. Of course, he's still declaring a victory. Typical coward. Unable to handle criticism, they just shut everyone out.

He wasn't objecting to criticism, just to retarded adolescents who think it's kewl to crash his equally dumb poll.

Nothing Sacred @ 126:

Another Gay Marriage poll, if anyone's interested

I wonder ... if 'gay marriage' was universally legalised, would it be appropriate to give these as wedding gifts?

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 16, 2009 9:31 PM

Dear Piltdown Man @ 143

I really don't know how to begin addressing you. I feel quite shy and fluttery in my tummy.

I just want to say that I've never been quite so proud to be a Christian as right now this very minute when I finished reading your comments and could absorb the clinical precision with which you carved up those atheists. You were like Zorro! "Swish...swish...swish...Pilly carves a "P" with his blade." Bless you brother, bless you!

Do you know that in my devotional chat with Christ this very morning, I was lamenting to him how stupid we Christians generally seem when we appear on Pharyngula? Honestly, an extraterrestrial visitor reading the comments would think Christians were a tribe of inbred lowbrows with minimal education, a willingness to believe whatever superstition was forced down our throats as children, congenital intolerance for anyone who is different to us, and a profound semantic confusion about Christian love, namely that it has two meanings, the first being that we love those who agree with our narrow minded prejudices, and the second being that we love the idea that all the atheist fuckers (and Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc.) will burn in hell for eternity.

But Christ who is my all in all counseled me gently: "Wait, Smoggy," he said. "Verily all those things may be correct, but no one buys a house for its sewerage system. Wait until you have discovered Piltdown Man, for he is special unto me, being like a brand new designer kitchen that concealeth the termites in the floorboards. He is able to spell, type in lower case, and use html tags."

And here you are! And I weep with joy and praise my savior.

And Pilly I agreed entirely when you said "that all God's acts are necessarily right - there is no other source of right". Brother Padraic, who was God On Earth, when I was a small terrified boy in the Christian Brothers' orphanage, used to say exactly that. "I'm the only source of right, yer little bastards" he'd say to us. And it was hard to argue with that when he was buggering our bottoms in the Lord's Holy name. And as you say our Heavenly Father is just as necessarily right when he buggers us. For he is treating us with the same Divine Justice as he did all those people he buggered in the Old Testament. Praise His mighty and terrifying name! As you say, from the Big Guy down the Bible provides irrefutable proof that there are no checks and balances on the religious.

I fear I'm starting to get all 'fannish'. Let me finish by saying you are in my prayers Pilly! And in the prayers of my friend Floyd Rubber. We're so glad to have you on our side in this holy war.

Your brother in Christian warriordom
S. Batzrubble

PS I nearly forgot. Jesus asked me to tell you that for your years of well-deserved ridicule you have earned your ARMOUR OF GOD. Congratulations brother. You will henceforth be known as Sir Piltdown Man.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 16, 2009 10:51 PM

PRAISE GOD!

That's a vast improvement on Smoggy...

Thank you Jesus.

Posted by: Sir Piltdow Man | June 16, 2009 11:06 PM

Which Keebler Elf are you? The fudgepacker?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 16, 2009 11:12 PM

We need a few of rounds of Survivor Pharyngula. I have a small list. They will not be missed. And Pilty is on that list.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 16, 2009 11:34 PM

Is Sir Piltdown Man really so naive as to believe that anal sex (and assorted variations and kinks) lie solely within the scope of homosexuality?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 16, 2009 11:49 PM

Is Sir Piltdown Man really so naive as to believe that anal sex (and assorted variations and kinks) lie solely within the scope of homosexuality?

If not, then why does he consistently - and persistently - attempt to demonstrate that he is?

Pilty is wholly unconcerned with any aspect of facts or truth.

Posted by: The Arbourist | June 17, 2009 12:20 AM

I was reading this and then posted my another view of the abortion issue. Having trouble getting people to respond to the argument, rather than repeating the same old pro-life statements over and over....it goes likes this:

1) A person owns themselves
2) Self ownership implies the right to free will
3) In having free will, you cannot have a duty to perform any affirmative actions.

Conclusion– You have no duty to provide another with the means to live.

Therefore it is permissible to remove anything classified as a separate entity from your body.

It seems like a fairly tight argument to me, but comments would be appreciated so I can further refine the argument.

Posted by: Zarquon | June 17, 2009 1:38 AM

A child who is never made to feel any fear of his parents is being subjected to a very subtle form of child abuse

You really are a demented fuckwit, Pilty. What's your real name and address so we can report you to Child Protection Services?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 17, 2009 3:18 AM

Piltdown Man also belongs to the Show Your Son Your Penis Early And Often school of fatherhood.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 17, 2009 3:34 AM

Piltdown wrote:

I was rather disappointed yall couldn't tell.

Yeah, remember that Piltdown is rarely just offensively ignorant, homophobic, fascistic and closed-minded; he's usually crushingly dull as well.

For the same reason we should honour our parents - filial obligation.

But I've met my parents and neither I (nor anyone else) has ever doubted their existence, nor provided a completely valid explanation for my existence that cannot include them. They actually contributed in some way to my life; I can contact them and they will respond.

Your god, on the other hand? Not so much. You get him down here to answer a few of the hard questions and then maybe we'll think about fulfilling this 'obligation'.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 17, 2009 4:19 AM

In order to function any system of authority requires an element of fear.

Only if you redefine "fear" so as to encompass a much broader spectrum of motivations than fear. I try to avoid getting traffic tickets because I prefer not to pay the fines. But I do not fear the traffic cop, nor the judge, when these are below-misdemeanor offenses and there is no possibility of going to jail. I do not ever experience an emotion that can honestly be called fear in regard to a traffic stop, yet the system functions adequately without my fear.

A child can be motivated by the loss of a toy and the corresponding frustration. This does not require fear.

I do not mean to say that there are no possible circumstances when a child should not be made fearful; a small child who runs out into traffic may need a spanking, in order to have a strong motivator before they can imagine the consequences of being hit by a car. I could be wrong about that. I'm not a parent, and it's just an example I've heard from parents.

But even allowing for certain circumstances like that, there's no way to know ahead of time that a particular child will ever be in those circumstances. To say that all children necessarily must be made to feel fear, well, that's just your sadism talking.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 17, 2009 4:23 AM

All due proportion kept, of course. Authority is not the same thing as raw power, and fear that is not lovingly orientated to the delineation of moral boundaries is mere tyranny, whether in a familial or social context.

Your moral boundaries are tyrannical to begin with.

How hard would you beat a child for being gay? Open hand, or closed fist?

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 17, 2009 4:29 AM

Sir soontobenotappearinginthispicture is a good little nazi, ain't he?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 17, 2009 5:13 AM

Why would creating people give [God] the right to kill them?

Hmm, that's a good question. Maybe it's not the act of creating people as such that gives God the right to kill them but simply the fact that all God's acts are necessarily right - there is no other source of right.

So evidently, you've never even thought about this before. What a fucking moron you are, Pilty. There are, of course, other sources of right - the interests and preferences of those we share the world with, for a start. However, even if there were not, how would that make God's acts "necessarily right"?

Why would it mean we should worship [God]?

For the same reason we should honour our parents - filial obligation.

So a child whose parents regularly bugger and torture him/her should honour them? You piece of stinking shit. I do have to wonder just what your unfortunate children have suffered at your hands, you demented sadist.

Posted by: John Morales | June 17, 2009 6:10 AM

Jadehawk @147, I think there is nothing ungrammatical in the usage 'substitute with' when 'substitute' is used as a transitive verb, as it is in this case.

I reckon Piltdown meant his accusation in the sense I interpreted it (I remember how he previously distinguished between a 'cross' and a 'crucifix' just to quibble), and that his follow-up is an ad-hoc rationalisation.

I may be wrong, of course. But I doubt it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 17, 2009 4:44 PM

Fear and respect are not mutually exclusive, but an element of fear is necessary because parents are authority figures, the first such authority figures encountered by the child and as such emblematic of authority itself.

In order to function any system of authority requires an element of fear. To believe that authority can be supported solely by rational respect based on a considered appreciation of the mutually beneficial needs of the individual and society is to live in a ST:TNG universe, not the real world. (Vide De Maistre.)

All due proportion kept, of course. Authority is not the same thing as raw power, and fear that is not lovingly orientated to the delineation of moral boundaries is mere tyranny, whether in a familial or social context.

fear of authority is a good thing? :-/

this incidentally reminds me of a blog post someone linked to not too long ago about conservative vs. liberal attitudes towards authority. it was basically that conservatives believe authority comes automatically with a position, and attacking the holder of a position means attacking the position itself, and should not be done regardless of the transgressions of the person holding the position. liberals on the other hand consider authority to come from the actions and behaviors of a person holding a position, and as such deserve criticism and even deposition from their position (or even formal legal punishment) if they're being incompetent, dangerous, or criminal while holding a position.

authority should NEVER be feared. authority must deserve its respect, or else it has no right to be an authority.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 17, 2009 6:56 PM

Piltdown Man wrote:

An obvious limit to our autonomy is the fact that we do not get to choose our sex.

This reminds me of the problem I have with the 'free will' argument Christians use for why their God could not create us to be unable to sin or not believe in him.

I cannot fly (without a device), teleport myself from continent to continent, or instantaneously make my hair straight, purple, 3 feet long and smelling of blueberries; how, precisely, can I be consisdered to have 'free will'?

So, if your god exists he saw fit to limit what I can do; claiming that creating us to be unable to sin or disbelieve in him is somehow the abrogation of 'free will' is a pathetic non-argument.

Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 7:13 AM

Piltdown,

I'm sure it's incorrect but it was a petty point and after learning that English is Jadehawk's fourth language I'm suitably chastened.

Ok, that was honorable. I give you credit for it.

Posted by: Holydust | June 18, 2009 12:01 PM

The poll article now complains that Newman "was winning" until "liberal bloggers" came and unfairly skewed the poll.

When honest voting was taking place, Newman was leading and when honest debate takes place, Americans reject late abortions on viable babies.

Note that they themselves point out that the poll only had 450 votes before the crashing occurred.

I wasn't aware that 450 right-wingers on an obscure site represented the majority opinion of Americans -- were you?

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 18, 2009 6:05 PM

Wowbagger @ 182:

the problem I have with the 'free will' argument Christians use for why their God could not create us to be unable to sin or not believe in him. I cannot fly (without a device), teleport myself from continent to continent, or instantaneously make my hair straight, purple, 3 feet long and smelling of blueberries; how, precisely, can I be consisdered to have 'free will'? So, if your god exists he saw fit to limit what I can do; claiming that creating us to be unable to sin or disbelieve in him is somehow the abrogation of 'free will' is a pathetic non-argument.

I think where you're going wrong here is in thinking of the inability to sin as a kind of limitation which God could theoretically impose on His creations. The opposite is the case -- an inability to sin is the consequence of the limitless perfection which God alone can possess.

- God is a necessarily perfect being and as such is unable to sin (because sin is an imperfection).

- God's creations are necessarily imperfect beings (because they are not God).

- Among God's imperfect creations, human beings and angelic intelligences share the distinction of being free rational agents (it was God's pleasure to create beings capable of freely reciprocating His love).

- As free rational agents, their imperfection necessarily includes the potential to fall into sin (because sin is a free act of the rational will).

God I love the smell of Thomism in the morning.

Posted by: John Morales | June 18, 2009 6:32 PM

OED reference: Despite the potential confusion, the second, newer use is acceptable, although still disapproved of by some people.

Piltdown: "I'm a traditionalist."

Yes, we know. The point being, you were factually wrong.
There was no "English language fail [sic]".

Thanks for looking it up, Bernard.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 18, 2009 7:22 PM

That doesn't mean the child should honour its parents' evil commands or evil actions.

If that were true the Old Testament would be a thin pamphlet.

I think where you're going wrong here is in thinking of the inability to sin as a kind of limitation which God could theoretically impose on His creations.

So, you're saying your god isn't omnipotent? That he couldn't have created humans without the ability to sin? Funny, I didn't realise you believed his powers were so limited.

God I love the smell of Thomism in the morning.

Only if Thomism is a strong deodorant.

'You can't see the forest for the trees
You can't smell your own shit on your knees'
- Marilyn Manson, The Beautiful People.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 18, 2009 10:30 PM

Says alot for someone who would quote such a weirdo.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 18, 2009 10:45 PM

a traditionalist who uses internet-speak? I think not.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | June 18, 2009 11:02 PM

Dear Evolution Denier@193

Thank you for speaking up for Christian sanity! While I don’t have a clue what “delusion phsychopathic pedophiles” actually means, it is an evocative desecration of the English language that Jesus would be proud of. And both God and I thought your riff on “sick perverted pedophile marilyn manson” was a masterpiece of alliterative spleen. Legally I’m not sure ‘They’ can call Mr Manson “homo erectus rape a boy manson”, because he has a name already and it would need to be changed by deed poll. But if ‘They’ can assassinate Kennedy and cause 9/11, then persuading Mr Manson to change his name shouldn’t be too difficult. I agree with you that it is certainly the case that you can tell someone’s a pervert by looking at him. Take Denis Rader. He was a respectable looking elder in the Lutheran Church so I don’t think anyone was surprised he turned out to be a serial killer.

As for yourself, how are you holding up? The Holy Spirit told me you were looking a little peaky. Do you need more exercise? Or perhaps your diet is a problem. Do you always wrap your turds in pink panties and microwave them? I’m not saying you shouldn’t eat whatever you fancy…but perhaps a little more fresh fruit and veges might balance things out?

Yours in Christian concern

Smoggy Batzrubble

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 18, 2009 11:25 PM

They should call him homo erectus rape a boy manson. That's what he looks like. He has the mind of Micheal Jackson and the looks of a 10 day old microwaved terd with pink panties wrapped around it.

Just feel the hate coming from this person.

Listen, jackass; don't you ever make statements of how much hate comes from us. You do the same thing.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 19, 2009 3:23 AM

concern about satanism as fundie hysteria

prove it's not.

and i don't mean "assert blindly" as is your usual wont.

I'm sure it will be entertaining.

He's just a flak catcher for the real satanists who operate below the radar.

spoken like the true paranoid schizophrenic addle-headed conspiracy nut we all know you are.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 19, 2009 4:19 AM

He's just a flak catcher for the real satanists who operate below the radar.

Oh noes! Quick, someone save us from the 'real' Satanists - because, you know, Satan is real and people who worship him can do magic and turn Christians to evil. Won't somebody think of the children?

I'd love for Satan to exist. If there were a god I'd certainly want to be on the side that wasn't his.

PS for anyone who hasn't seen this side of Piltdown before it's important to note that he actually believes Satan is real.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 9:54 AM

More garbage from Pilty:

There are, of course, other sources of right - the interests and preferences of those we share the world with, for a start.

Which, as they are often irreconcilable, cannot be a source of judgment on what's right.

Crap, as usual. We have to take into account what interests are more important, how many people's interests are involved on each side, how far we can reduce the irreconcilability. In other words, we have to act like adults and take responsibility for our own moral decisions, not pretend the answers are all written down for us somewhere. But I quite understand that you are completely incapable of doing that.

What is distinctive about socialism is its belief that a massive coordinated effort by a centralized state apparatus with coercive powers is required to make the citizenry fulfill its moral duty.

Add socialism to the long, long list of subjects on which Pilty is invincibly ignorant. Actually, what he has there sounds more like a description of the theocracy he wants to impose on us.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 19, 2009 4:23 PM

Wowbagger @ 204:

Quick, someone save us from the 'real' Satanists - because, you know, Satan is real and people who worship him ... PS for anyone who hasn't seen this side of Piltdown before it's important to note that he actually believes Satan is real.

I do, but it's also important to note that most modern satanists don't believe Satan is real any more than you do. Although there are still some old-fashioned devil-worshippers out there (who shouldn't be underestimated), much of what passes for 'satanism' today is merely warmed-over social Darwinism with a dash of Nietzsche and a pinch of Hitler.

For these twats, 'Satan' is merely a convenient symbol to spook simple-minded Prots and encapsulate an anti-Christian morality of 'might makes right' (- although some of the wooier varieties do think their idol has a kind of semi-autonomous existence as a Jungian archetype or viral memeplex).

All of which Satan is very happy to encourage for now -- the last thing he wants is for his stooges to realize he actually exists.

I'd love for Satan to exist. If there were a god I'd certainly want to be on the side that wasn't his.

Be careful what you wish for.

Nerd of Redhead @ 207:

So, Pilty believes in the Trinity and Satan. That makes 4 deities. So Pilty is a polytheist.

The Trinity in easy-to-grasp diagrammatic form.

Ha'Satan ('The Enemy") is not a deity, of course, but merely an angel - Helel Ben-Shahar/Lucifer - with ideas above his station.

Ichthyic @ 202:

concern about satanism as fundie hysteria
prove it's not.

I'm willing to try.

Posted by: John Morales | June 19, 2009 8:31 PM

Piltdown:

The Trinity in easy-to-grasp diagrammatic form.

The only thing easy to grasp is that it stating a contradiction. The diagram does not obfuscate this.

Translating the diagram to a statement:
(p ≠ f) & (p ≠ s) & (p = d) & (f = d) & (f ≠ s) & (s = d)

Contradictions are always false.
Hence, the "Trinity" is provably false.

Only the ignorant, the stupid and the faithful (not mutually exclusive categories, as you show) accept contradictions as true.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 21, 2009 11:41 AM

Knockgoats @ 206:

There are, of course, other sources of right - the interests and preferences of those we share the world with, for a start.

Which, as they are often irreconcilable, cannot be a source of judgment on what's right.

Crap, as usual. We have to take into account what interests are more important...

Who is this "we" that's taking account? And by what criteria do "we" judge the relative "importance" of competing interests?

... how many people's interests are involved on each side...

What happens if one interest is judged to be more important than its opposing interest, yet the latter has more "people's interests involved"? Does a majority determine importance or do you agree with whoever it was (Richard Crossman?) who said that the liberal elitism of the statute book should trump the reactionary populism of the marketplace?

how far we can reduce the irreconcilability.

Good luck with that.

What is distinctive about socialism is its belief that a massive coordinated effort by a centralized state apparatus with coercive powers is required to make the citizenry fulfill its moral duty.

Add socialism to the long, long list of subjects on which Pilty is invincibly ignorant.

I thought a central doctrine of socialism was the redistribution of wealth by the state in order to achieve a supposedly more equitable society?

@ 205:

God's acts are necessarily right because God is necessarily perfect.

Crap. If by "God", you mean "the creator of the universe", and if we assume that such a being exists, it is obviously not perfect, since it has created an evidently imperfect universe. You theists are so stupid.

Only God can be perfect. Anything He creates is necessarily imperfect simply because it is not God. A "perfect universe" would be God but God cannot create Himself as there can only be one, uncreated God.

When we say (as our imperfect language forces us to) that God "cannot" do this, we are not contradicting His omnipotence but pointing to a necessary corollary of it. If God could create another God, He would no longer be omnipotent.

That's a piece of senseless verbiage - what on earth would it mean to "give due honour to its parents insofar as they are its parents"? You have not answered the question why such unconditional "honour" should be given.
No honour is due, from anyone, to parents who bugger and torture their children.

I disagree. The honour due to parents is primordial. I'm not saying it outranks other considerations, but is prior to and independent of them. It would be due even if a child were put in a situation where he or she was justified in killing his or her parents.

I know a Mrs Y who was repeatedly sexually abused by her father, Mr X. This man (a satanist btw) had also fathered a child by his own sister. Mr X's brother (also a satanist) shared his proclivities.

Mr X also abused his son Z, who was encouraged in turn to abuse his sister Y. In later years Z followed his father and uncle into satanism and subjected his own daughter to sexual abuse.

Mrs Y eventually managed to break free of her family. She is under no illusions about her father and brother's evil and burns with anger at their misdeeds. But she continues to love them and is unable to do otherwise. Make of that what you will.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | June 21, 2009 12:03 PM

Ichthyic @ 202:

concern about satanism as fundie hysteria

prove it's not.

Exhibit A

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 21, 2009 12:22 PM

umm....pilty... wasn't Judas' betrayal of Jesus sort of instrumental to Jesus death and resurrection, and therefore sort of a necessary condition to the whole "dying for your sins?" bit?

sounds more like scapegoating the poor dude (Judas) who drew the short straw at the last supper

also: Neo-paganism != Satanism

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 21, 2009 12:33 PM

Where will it end?

it's called evolution of language. deal with it. without it, you'd be speaking German (saxon, to be precise) right now.

Posted by: John Morales | June 22, 2009 4:56 AM

Piltdown:

That online modern Compact Oxford English Dictionary is contradicted by my big fuck-off two-volume 1950s edition of the OED. As far as I'm concerned, Bernard has produced an example of a once-authoritative institution succumbing to general cultural decline.

Okies, I just went to the other room and looked it up on my two-volume edition (New Shorter OED, 1993 edition) and sure enough, page 3125 shows it as followed by by or with when used as a transitive verb.

Maybe you should write to Oxford and inform them they have got it wrong, eh? ;)

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 29, 2009 8:25 AM

That online modern Compact Oxford English Dictionary is contradicted by my big fuck-off two-volume 1950s edition of the OED.

You've missed the point; the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English describes usage, as well as meaning.

In that respect, the OED offers much lower temporal resolution, because it only incorporates established usage. It doesn't necessarily reflect transient usage, which is to say that the OED will wait longer before listing a new usage to assess whether or not it is permanent. Also, to some degree the OED is less concerned with grammatical construction, than the sense and meaning of a word. A new grammatical construction that doesn't alter sense will not necessarily be listed, since the OED only lists the earliest coinage of a sense.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 2, 2009 4:13 AM

John Morales @ 219:

Your attempt at natural language obfuscation fails, because Bob is a father (not the father); because Bob is a builder (not the builder). There is only one Bob, but there are many builders and many fathers. Go on, replace the diagram with Bob as the God, builder as Spirit, father as the Father and son as the Son. (e.g. the builder is not the father, but the builder is Bob and the father is Bob, etc.) See how much sense it makes.

I don't see that my "obfuscation" (I prefer to think of it as a clarification) fails. The point is that the word "is" is not univocal. Even if there were only one builder, father etc, you could still say "Bob the builder is not Bob the father", in the sense that his fatherhood is distinct from his work. They are two separate aspects of the same being.

Of course, unlike Bob, God's "aspects" manifest themselves as separate persons. You may say that's meaningless or impossible, but I don't see that it's logically contradictory.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 4:36 AM

Of course, unlike Bob, God's "aspects" manifest themselves as separate persons. You may say that's meaningless or impossible, but I don't see that it's logically contradictory. - Pilty

However, the claim that Jesus was "wholly God and wholly man" is certainly logically contradictory, as "God" and "man" have incompatible attributes. It's as stupid as claiming that something is "wholly a cabbage and wholly an elephant". We therefore know without a shadow of a doubt that doctrinally orthodox Christianity is false.

Your "exhibit B" @251 is pathetic: one obviously brain-damaged murderer, with no evidence whatever that he was part of any organised satanist group. There have been plenty of serial killers who claimed that God told them to commit their crimes - the "Yorkshire Ripper" and "Bible John" spring to mind - and of course "Holy Church" has murdered many, many thousands of "heretics", "witches", etc.

Posted by: John Morales | July 2, 2009 5:09 AM

Wow, just came home again to more Piltdown "clarification".

Of course, unlike Bob, God's "aspects" manifest themselves as separate persons. You may say that's meaningless or impossible, but I don't see that it's logically contradictory.

Sigh. Aspects are not entities, but perceptible attributes.
Either there are 3 entities, or there is one.
Those options are (logically) mutually exclusive, and no sophistry can hide that.

The Trinity basically is saying 1=3, and that is plain bullshit.

So that shows the decline was well under way by 1993. I blame the Six-Six-Sixties.

Yes, English was inchoate until the specific edition of your dictionary, and senescent thereafter. Of all the editions ever made, only the "1950's edition" is right, snf all others were and shall be henceforth wrong.

Sure.

(John & Bernard - do you have any opinions on the link I provided earlier?)

Yeah. It was mentioned (I'm not about to search for you) here sometime back; it boils down to a children's dictionary being a rather small subset of the words in the English language, and those that are falling into desuetude being omitted to allow for more relevant ones. Big deal.

Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 6:08 AM

Exhibit C - slightly more impressive, but still very obviously just a violent teenage gang, without connections to any organised satanist cult. This case is nothing to do with the fundie panic about "satanic ritual abuse" - alleged organised child abuse and multiple murder, particularly of babies, for which no evidence ever emerged beyond "recovered memories", but which led to the persecution of innocent parents and nursery workers.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 2, 2009 6:45 PM

John Morales @ 228:

Of course, unlike Bob, God's "aspects" manifest themselves as separate persons. You may say that's meaningless or impossible, but I don't see that it's logically contradictory.

Sigh. Aspects are not entities, but perceptible attributes. Either there are 3 entities, or there is one. Those options are (logically) mutually exclusive, and no sophistry can hide that.

Let's try again. How about a single computer running a single program which makes three robots perform three different tasks?

The robots are separate entities, yet share the same animating principle.

Knockgoats @ 226:

However, the claim that Jesus was "wholly God and wholly man" is certainly logically contradictory, as "God" and "man" have incompatible attributes. It's as stupid as claiming that something is "wholly a cabbage and wholly an elephant". We therefore know without a shadow of a doubt that doctrinally orthodox Christianity is false.

I believe the formula is true God and true man. I don't think the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union implies that Jesus' human body somehow took on the attributes of God the Father.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 7:22 PM

The flora & fauna omissions are probably because atheists & liberals are basically urban creatures who hate the countryside for its associations with traditional customs and national identity.

Oh please. I'm going to assume that was an attempt at humor, something I've told you to stay away from.

I guess you missed the whole hippie thing. Real get away from nature, urban, conservative types.

Most of the people I knew who I used to rock and ice climb and backcountry ski with were liberal and many were atheists. Not really very urban when we were hanging 1500 feet of the valley floor in Zion or hiking at 5 AM to ski chutes in the Tetons on a huge powder day.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 7:27 PM

Dear Pilty,

You can't begin to imagine what a relief it is to me to have you explain something that until now made not one bit of sense and was, I confess, a test on my faith. Now that I understand that the trinity is a happy clank of linked robots, I shall begin witnessing to unbelievers about 'God the Android', 'God the Cyborg' [half man half god], and 'God the Ghost in the Machine.'

But wait! What about...'the controlling computer'? Is Pilty saying that the Trinity is really The Quaternity? Is there a fourth intelligence even more omniscient and eternal? Quick, I must ask Jesus!

"Dear Jesus?"
"Yes, Smoggy?"
"Is the Godhead encompassed by a fourth even greater controlling consciousness?"
"Indeed Smoggy, I/WE are surrounded and protected by a fourth. It is a powerful revelation afforded only to our faithful Piltdown Man."
"Wow! So this surrounding, protecting uberGod. He's like a...a...fourth-skin?"
"So to speak."
"And is the Divine FourthSkin more eternal and omniscient and all powerful?"
"Well, not really. Like Americans we in the TRINITYplusONE share the fiction that all are created equal, even though we know some are more equal than others."
"Don't you feel equal?"
"Well I sure didn't in the Garden of Gethsemane when I asked to have the cup taken from me and my father refused. You don't get over scars like that in a hurry."

Jesus wept.

"And Jesus, I'm sorry to upset you, but can I ask one more question?"
"If you must."
"Are you still TRULY God and TRULY Man?"
"Well, I am for official functions. But the getup is stupid. Have you seen my end times GodMan costume? I have to wear a golden girdle, for fucksake, just because I've been drinking a few extra beers. And they've got some "flame-of-fire" contact lenses for me, and worst of all, there's going to be a sharp two-edged sword, coming out of my mouth. Can you imagine what a doofus I'll look? And what about my sex life? Mary Magdalene says that whenever the sword is IN cunnilingus is OUT. Co-equal? Hah! What a crock of shit!"

Posted by: Happy Kiwi | July 2, 2009 7:44 PM

Piltdown Man

Your "satanic" exhibits mean nothing. The fundamentalist christian hysteria over satanism, is no different to the hysteria whipped up in Salem about witches. It's the product of a collective delusion. And what happens is that certain groups or individuals (and some with mental illness) who oppose mainstream conformity, manipulate such beliefs just to yank on the chains of credulous idiots like you... In reality you hysterics are far more dangerous than any 'satanists'--your kind have thought the ages burned, tortured and maimed in god's name, and even in this present age innocent people have been victimised and destroyed by your sort whipping-up satanist hysteria.

There is no God and there is no Satan. That's why your examples are meaningless. Your examples are in fact the product of a shared delusion that christians and satanists ascribe to. We all know that millions more people have been killed by Christians. To a rational atheist, both Christians and Satanists are two sides of the same coin of superstition.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 2, 2009 8:02 PM

The trinity was an attempt to shoehorn Jebus and his daddy into monotheism. The holy spook was added to give flavoring to what was otherwise a theological disaster.

One of the reasons that Jews do not accept Jebus is that in Judaism monotheism means "one god." This three-in-one stuff is just another example of how Christianity doesn't make sense. Zombie Jebus, the Noachian flud, and all the other silliness that various sects and cults of Christianity revel in is just further evidence that Christian logic is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 8:15 PM

"God's supposed to be good, so he'll take care of us without us asking..."

Supposed to be good?

That particular phrase is a reminder of what is, to me, is one of the biggest mysteries of Christianity - that they've got a bible full of genocide, infanticide and other horror stories and yet seem to believe the monster responsible is somehow 'good'. Sure, the people who believe in said god claim he's good - but that's weapons-grade denial in its purest form.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 2, 2009 8:20 PM

Wowbagger @ 237:

Well, without belief in your god there can't be belief in Satan

Happy Kiwi @ 238:

Your examples are in fact the product of a shared delusion that christians and satanists ascribe to. ... To a rational atheist, both Christians and Satanists are two sides of the same coin of superstition.

Piltdown Man @ 208:

... most modern satanists don't believe Satan is real any more than you do. Although there are still some old-fashioned devil-worshippers out there (who shouldn't be underestimated), much of what passes for 'satanism' today is merely warmed-over social Darwinism with a dash of Nietzsche and a pinch of Hitler. For these twats, 'Satan' is merely a convenient symbol to spook simple-minded Prots and encapsulate an anti-Christian morality of 'might makes right' (- although some of the wooier varieties do think their idol has a kind of semi-autonomous existence as a Jungian archetype or viral memeplex).

Posted by: Happy Kiwi | July 2, 2009 8:27 PM

What is your point, Piltdown Man?

That real Satanism exists because you say it does?

How many Satanists do you actually know? Can you confirm first hand that modern satanists don't believe Satan is real?

Tell us exactly how much research you have carried out to support these assertions. They sound suspiciously like the recycled urban legends of the faithful that have their roots in such stupidity as backward masking. The only reason you think this is because you hang out with a like-minded collection of deluded and credulous godbots. IT'S ALL MADE UP! And it's time you grew up and stopped seeing the world like a child.

Posted by: Bronze Age Man | July 2, 2009 9:14 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 243:

Dear Brother Pilty,

How can you tell me not to take things too literally? I am a Bible-Believing-Young-Earth-Creationist. I believe in God's infallible word and I dare not NOT take it too literally. And every Christian I know believes that the Bible is God's infallible word.

Yours in one meaning

Smoggy

It pains me to say it, Smoggy, but your words have a savour of what the great de Maistre justly called "the son of pride, the father of anarchy" -- Protestantism. The stench of heresy assails my nostrils.

Fret not, Smoggy - I know you err through ignorance rather than contumacity. I therefore humbly submit one of my posts from some threads back: unworthy though it is, I hope it may serve to clarify your clouded intellect:-

Two points about Bible interpretation:

Firstly, where the Church has made no definitive pronouncement about a particular passage of Scripture, one is free to interpret it as one pleases - provided, of course, one's interpretation does not run counter to Catholic doctrine! So if, for example, I choose to understand the First Beast of the Apocalypse as a symbol of the Roman Empire, the United States of America or both, that's fine. It's just my interpretation, permitted insofar as it contradicts no Church dogma, and conversely of zero doctrinal weight. In the unlikely event that the Church were to issue a definitive ruling that the apocalyptic Beast is in fact solely a symbol of the European Union, I would be obliged to abandon my private interpretation, which I now see was erroneous.

Secondly, while there is indeed a long tradition of interpreting passages of Scripture in an allegorical or typological sense, such are a 'bonus', over and above the literal meaning, not in place of it. So one is free to see the Israelites' escape from the tyranny of Pharaoh as a prophetic foreshadowing of the Christian faithful's liberation from the tyranny of the Devil. But one is not thereby free to deny the historical truth of the Exodus narrative.

Something like the creation account in Genesis is more problematical as it is arguably unclear from the text itself how much of it is intended to be understood as literal history, how much as mythopoeia. This is where we need the Church to step in and clarify matters, as it did in the following statements by the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.

Smoggy, contd:

PS Pilty, Between us, this actually confuses me, because there seem to be forever appearing exceptions to the Infallible Word. So how come all the other Christians know them and I don't? I was all set to stone my adulterous neighbor the other day, until another Christian said we don't do that anymore. And he also said I can't keep my slaves. And you should have seen the fuss when I killed my eldest son for defying me. I showed the judge the verse, but he can't have been a Bible-believing Christian. And Father Colm was very angry when I threw old Mr Gorbals out of church, even after I'd explained that his operation for testicular cancer meant he could no longer enter the house of the Lord because his stones had been damaged, Father Colm just called me a literal fool! What should I do, Pilty O My Brother? Is the Word of the Lord all right all the time; all right some of the time; right in places except when it isn't; more right in some parts than in others; situation specific; or a crock of supersitious bronze-age shit?

It's very simple, Smoggy.

You see, the ritual and legal prescriptions in the OT were mandated by God for a particular people at a particular time. They were never intended to be permanent. However, certain of them embodied permanent moral principles which remain valid even though the specific legal and ritual prescriptions laid down in the Old Testament are no longer binding. Hence, adultery remains a sin despite the fact that adulterers are no longer executed by stoning.

It's a matter of drawing a distinction between those parts of the Mosaic law that detail ephemeral ritual injunctions and those which embody enduring moral principles. And in the case of the latter, we make a further distinction between the moral principle itself and the specific legal sanction laid down in the OT law.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 10:05 PM

Dear Brother Bronze Age Man,

Praise the Lord for your detailed and lengthy exposition in answer to my query. I confess I dosed off a few times on the way as I am normally unable to read more than five lines of arcane justification in a sitting, but Jesus, who was reading over my shoulder, kept nudging me awake because he too was keen, as he put it, "To learn how to make sense of the Old Man's deranged mind."

So thank you from us both for clearing that up.

It is true that I swing more towards Protestantism these days. Ever since my childhood in the Christian Brothers orphanage, where Brother Padraic regularly ministered to my soul and anus, I haven’t been able to attend the Mother church without feeling a desperate need to shit.

It does excite me that “where the Church has made no definitive pronouncement about a particular passage of Scripture, one is free to interpret it as one pleases.” Personally, I’ve always believed that the first beast of the apocalypse was a feral merino ram named bumfuck. I’m also a great believer in allegorical truth, and have no doubt that the Israelites' escape from the tyranny of Pharaoh is a prophetic foreshadowing of the end of religion.

A very special thank you for the long clarification from the Pontifical Biblical Commission. Not that I read it, but I’ve always found tortured religious exegesis to have a marvellously staunching effect on my haemorrhoids. Indeed, that lot of gibberish you posted has restored my anus to newborn perfection.

Your last explanation to simple old Smoggy, is the one both Jesus and I most value. Now, if you could just give us full chapter and verse on which ritual and legal prescriptions in the OT were ‘mandated by God for a particular people at a particular time’ and which embody ‘permanent moral principles which remain valid’ then we will promulgate them universally. Jesus says he particularly wants to use the list to win some arguments with the rest of the Trinity, because neither the Father nor the Son nor the Holy Ghost have ever been able to agree on what’s ritual and legend and what’s a permanent moral principle.

It’s a bit of a shame that adultery remains a sin though, don’t you think? In my experience, thy neighbour’s wife is always ready to put out for a decent sized meatstick. And anyway, who decided the change in specific legal sanctions? It can’t have been Jesus, because hundreds of years after he came and went and came and went again the mother church was merrily maiming and torturing in His Holy Name. I suppose you’ll tell me it was a divine revelation to the Pope and his offsiders. But aren’t they the same ones that approved breast rippers, anal pears, bastinados and the rack in the first place?

Now Jesus is pissed off with me. For a moment there he thought you’d solved all his problems and he was looking forward to winning one for the younger generation. Now he says it’s the same old story, the more people clarify something the more confused and utterly bonkers it all becomes.

Yours in hope of bacon in the afterlife

Smoggy

Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 5:54 AM

Piltdown:

Let's try again. How about a single computer running a single program which makes three robots perform three different tasks?

The robots are separate entities, yet share the same animating principle.

LOL.

That's one for FSTDT!

Well excuse me.

NO.

Not until you recant your malevolent execration of reason and humanity, and stop wishing things were such that I would be condemned to physical excruciation and even death for adhering to my intellectual honesty.
Your wish for recusants such as I is despicable, and in my opinion, inexcusable.

Yet you have the gall to accuse Oxford University Press of being Orwellian in some conspiracy to enforce Newspeak.

You have some gall, asking to be excused!

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 3, 2009 6:35 AM

John Morales wrote:

That's one for FSTDT!

Can we also submit to them his comment that 'might makes right' is anti-Christian? That one literally had me speechless - and that's no small achievement.

Posted by: Bronze Age Man | July 4, 2009 7:57 AM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 250:

It is true that I swing more towards Protestantism these days. Ever since my childhood in the Christian Brothers orphanage, where Brother Padraic regularly ministered to my soul and anus, I haven’t been able to attend the Mother church without feeling a desperate need to shit.

It grieves me to hear you fell foul of a Sodomite Infiltrator, Smoggy. They get everywhere nowadays. But believe me, Protestantism isn't the answer. Offer up your sufferings as a living sacrifice to Jesus and unite yourself with His suffering.

For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us: so also by Christ doth our comfort abound ... That our hope for you may be steadfast: knowing that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so shall you be also of the consolation.

Pray that the Sodomite might not be unrepentant unto eternal damnation.

I’m also a great believer in allegorical truth, and have no doubt that the Israelites' escape from the tyranny of Pharaoh is a prophetic foreshadowing of the end of religion.

Nice one, Smoggy. "A prophetic foreshadowing of the end of religion" -- now that's what I call satire!

Now, if you could just give us full chapter and verse on which ritual and legal prescriptions in the OT were ‘mandated by God for a particular people at a particular time’ and which embody ‘permanent moral principles which remain valid’ then we will promulgate them universally.

Been there, done that. See the Catechism of the Council of Trent for starters. Get with the programme, Smog.

BTW, try not to let your imagination run away with you & don't believe everything you read on the internet. Anal pears indeed.

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 4, 2009 11:36 AM

John Morales @ 252:

Well excuse me.

NO.

Then you're in no position to express concern about a supposed lack of "basic politeness" on my part as you did @ 221.

Not until you recant your malevolent execration of reason and humanity, and stop wishing things were such that I would be condemned to physical excruciation and even death for adhering to my intellectual honesty.

I don't believe anyone should be tortured or executed for holding an erroneous opinion, only if they consititute a real and present danger to society. You could call it the 'Sam Harris Doctrine'.

@ 257:

Choke pear.

I know what they are & as far as I know they were not used by the Inquisition. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Posted by: John Morales | July 5, 2009 7:26 AM

Piltdown:

Then you're in no position to express concern about a supposed lack of "basic politeness" on my part as you did @ 221.

Tu quoque.

I don't believe anyone should be tortured or executed for holding an erroneous opinion, only if they consititute a real and present danger to society. You could call it the 'Sam Harris Doctrine'.

I call it casuistry; I know damn well you've not repudiated your approbation of the Inquisition and its basis.
You do realise this is just what the historical Inquisition claimed, and yet somehow heretics and "witches" were considered to be just such a danger and treated accordingly (unless they capitulated to force and 'recanted'? Just like they were supposed to be put to the torture but once, so that multiple sessions over multiple days were rationalised as merely the "continuation" of the one torture. Despicable.

[Choke pear.]
I know what they are & as far as I know they were not used by the Inquisition. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

You're quite correct here, the methods used were less complicated, such as the strappado or the rack. If you wish, I can list the more common ones for you. (Note I saw for myself a travelling exhibition of actual torture devices used by the Spanish Inquisition when I last visited Spain in 1993.)

For what it's worth, I think that in those days worse and more elaborate tortures than the inquisition were employed by Kings and other royalty, in their dungeons, to extract information or just to punish. To claim that this somehow excuses the "Holy Church" from its usage, however, is also a tu quoque (and don't claim that because a lot of it was 'special rendition', that excuses them).

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 5, 2009 7:39 AM

Ordo Templi Orientis is still in existence and still promoting Crowley's ideas.

The Inquisition, now named the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is still in existence and still threatens excommunication for bishops who tell the cops about child raping clergy. Pope Benny used to be the Chief Inquisitioner which means he's the direct corporate descendant of Torquemada.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 5, 2009 3:58 PM

Dear Brothers Bronze Age Man and Piltdown Man,

God has a special mission for you, Oh My Brothers.

He wants you to go over to the long-running thread, "Son of the Bride of the Thread that Will Not Die" and take on the slavering hordes of demon atheists in His Holy Name. It’s Here!

Your work here is done, but your work there is only beginning.

Go and witness!
Go and carve the sign of the cross in their fat wobbly atheists asses.

Do it for Jesus!

Posted by: Piltdown Man | July 7, 2009 4:52 PM

Smoggy Batzrubble @ 264:

Dear Brothers Bronze Age Man and Piltdown Man, God has a special mission for you, Oh My Brothers. He wants you to go over to the long-running thread, "Son of the Bride of the Thread that Will Not Die" and take on the slavering hordes of demon atheists in His Holy Name. It’s Here!

Your work here is done, but your work there is only beginning.
Go and witness!
Go and carve the sign of the cross in their fat wobbly atheists asses.
Do it for Jesus!

No can do, Smoggy. If I don't respond to John Morales' recent posts I risk a further censure for rudeness (see #221).

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 10:05 PM

Piltdown @266,

No can do, Smoggy. If I don't respond to John Morales' recent posts I risk a further censure for rudeness (see #221).

First, @221 I was waiting for a response to a direct challenge; this is not now the case. Your response to Smoggy is therefore a disingenuous reply.

Second, you should note that my surname is not a plural, hence correct grammatical usage (though superseded in recent times, but you are known to be a traditionalist) requires a possesive form of 'Morales's'.

Third, flattering though it is to be so highly regarded by you that you fear to wish to incur my censure, this is not an attitude that is consistent with your frequent pontifications. It thus appears disingenuous.

Nonethesess, taking you at your word (appearances can deceive), I hereby grant you leave to (nay, urge you to) follow Brother Smoggy's most reasonable suggestion.

Posted by: John Morales | July 7, 2009 10:24 PM

BAM, it's in no way established that Shakespeare was a Catholic. Wishful thinking is your mode, of course, so no surprise there.

Someone who was, however, much more representative of a (in)famous Catholic was Tomás de Torquemada.

And you and Piltdown would've been pretty quickly branded as Heretics by him, you betcha!