That's what it's all about : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.

[John Adams, letter to John Taylor]

A Taste of Pharyngula

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« In which Andrew Brown gets everything completely wrong | Main | Amreen and Lokesh »

That's what it's all about

Category: Godlessness • Humor
Posted on: June 21, 2009 11:02 AM, by PZ Myers

(via Revere)

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/112977

Comments

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | June 21, 2009 11:10 AM

LOL!!! That is just SO offensive, it's brilliant!!!

(And painfully, it's also quite accurate. Something else for True Believers to be offended about.)

^_^

Posted by: SciencePundit | June 21, 2009 11:17 AM

I think I've seen that before, but it was well worth watching again (and again ...).

Posted by: Bull of the woods | June 21, 2009 11:19 AM

But wait there's more!!! You also get the privilege of paying a 10% salvation tax. HA!

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 21, 2009 11:28 AM

I've seen it before, but it's still awesome; and painfully true

Posted by: s.k. johnson | June 21, 2009 11:50 AM

Another big joke for the day:

Ray Comfort solicits others to do his evolution homework - 'cause he doesn't have time, awwwww. He even specifies what he does and doesn't want...

http://www.wearesmrt.com/bb/viewforum.php?f=23

Posted by: Troy | June 21, 2009 11:59 AM

This was just perfect!

Posted by: Roland Branconnier | June 21, 2009 12:48 PM

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

- Richard Dawkins

Posted by: SerenGoch | June 21, 2009 1:46 PM

I'd like to be pedantic and point out that the Tripitaka would be a pile of books 5 feet high rather that one slim volume.
And out of that small Buddhist library, here's my favourite bit:

Kalama Sutta
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your books
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find anything that agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.”

Posted by: noodles | June 21, 2009 2:50 PM

"re: Tripitaka would be a pile of books 5 feet high..."

And the Talmud, and the Vedas... what's your point? Damn, I hate when people post "bible" quotes including ones from the Buddhist superstition. Buddhist quotes are an exercise in vagueness masquerading as profundity: "You are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all." But don't worry, if you follow theses rules (gay is bad, etc.) you wont actually be dead when you die.

#10

Posted by: James | June 21, 2009 3:17 PM

"re: "You are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all." But don't worry, if you follow theses rules (gay is bad, etc.) you wont actually be dead when you die."

Your understanding of Buddhism is abysmal.

Sure, there are a lot of tosh in the Buddhist texts, but I always thought that the Kalama Sutra to be a real inspired bit of advice. In fact, I think it mirrors the atheist mindset perfectly.

Personally, I think Buddhism isn't even a religion at all in the strictest sense of the word. It's mostly a philosophy. There's never any compulsion for any of its adherents to follow all, or even any of its rules. It encourages freedom of thought and independence from dogma - and Buddha himself was probably one of the world's earliest atheists. He told people to distrust the fat, corrupt Brahmins of his time, and to seek Enlightenment on their own.

Over time, Buddha himself got absorbed into the Hindu pantheon (they claimed that he was the tenth reincarnation of Vishnu, or something). When Buddhism reached China and became what we know today as Mahayana Buddhism, Buddha became some sort of Messiah figure. And then there's Tantric Tibetan Buddhism... and Zen...

I feel that the Kalama Sutra really speaks through all the syncretic, superstitious static Buddhism got buried under over the millennia.

#11

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 21, 2009 3:45 PM

I feel that the Kalama Sutra really speaks through all the syncretic, superstitious static Buddhism got buried under over the millennia.

Another goddist pitching his favorite flavor of woo.

#12

Posted by: noodles | June 21, 2009 3:45 PM

re: "Your understanding of Buddhism is abysmal."

Yes, it really does bother me when Buddhism is presented as as not being religious superstitions garbage like all the other make-believe silliness.

What is religion? Justin {Martyr} in "Dialogue with Tryfo the Jew" asserted that Christianity was a philosophy and set about to explain why it is the best philosophy by comparing Christianity to the popular schools of philosopy of the time.

I suppose one could assert that religions are by some measure philosophy plus some superstition [philosophy + supernaturalism = religion]. Ergo, Buddhism is a religion. Even the "intellectual" less goofy Western versions are nonsense.

However, to me it seems:

[obedience to conservative social rules of a society + supernatualism = Fundamentalist Religion]

[a vain attempt to discard primitive superstition + supernaturalism = Liberal Religion]

#13

Posted by: whitebird | June 21, 2009 3:59 PM

Whycome they put a picture of a lady in traditional tribal garb (0:24, looks like from Rajasthan) with people wearing overtly religious garb in the "funny looking clothes!" sequence? Lederhosen are pretty funny looking, most Bavarians are catholic...you know?

Anyway, still funny.

#14

Posted by: Stygian | June 21, 2009 4:08 PM

This is the BEST reasoning that I have ever seen to become religious. I may just have to convert today!

#15

Posted by: Jim T | June 21, 2009 4:38 PM

Seriously, I once heard someone say that secular humanism is a cult. I think that's pretty much there. Yeah, sure, there a lot of religious nuts out there, but please don't assume you understand this thing called religion. That war to destroy any and all religion is as bad as the religion you're trying to destroy.

#16

Posted by: Last Hussar | June 21, 2009 4:43 PM

SerenGoch posts a Buddhist quote that basically says "Think for your self"

Tis Himself and and noodles sneer at it because it comes from a religeous text.

So, to be an atheist I shouldn't think for myself?

#17

Posted by: TheEngima32 | June 21, 2009 4:54 PM

Buddhism is unique because it's an atheistic religion. Speaking strictly, there really isn't a "god" of Buddhism - it talks about Karma, reincarnation, and other fun stuff, and then it turns around and applies it to the gods of the world - if you accept that they exist. The polar opposite of Buddhism is Deism, which is a faith in a deity without a religion, rather than a faith in a religion without a deity.

The video is hilariously true. It's a shame that the people who need to see it won't watch it because they'll be to busy being offended by it, but they tend to say something about the truth... and it usually has to do with shoes... ? :)

- Enigma

#18

Posted by: Richie P | June 21, 2009 5:08 PM

#15 Jim T

Who said anything about "trying to destroy any and all religion". Has it crossed your mind that we might just be trying to trim away it's excesses. Maybe we are trying to alter it to make it more about the social and cultural aspects than the beliefs. Maybe we are simply trying to give alternative belief systems, like Humanism an equal chance. Maybe we are fighting the many priveledges that religion so frequently and undeservedly gets. Maybe, we are trying to give children a chance not to be labelled by the faith of their parents. Maybe we don't want our children to be taught nonsense in Science class, or grow up with brainwashed "pro-life" or homophobic views. Or maybe we are in the anti-theism game just for a good laugh at religion's expense (which it invariably and regularly gives us!). The list goes on.......

There are many, many reasons to express antipathy towards religion. Do I want all religion "destroyed"? Not really no. Do I think that there is ample reason to criticise it? Absolutely yes.

#19

Posted by: Rey Fox | June 21, 2009 5:16 PM

"Seriously, I once heard someone say that secular humanism is a cult. I think that's pretty much there. "

Uh huh. You can tell by all of our charismatic messiah figures, rituals, brainwashing tactics, isolation of members from society, etc. Oh wait, none of that is true.

#20

Posted by: noodles | June 21, 2009 5:20 PM

SerenGoch posts a Buddhist quote that basically says "Think for your self" ...and noodles sneer at it because it comes from a religeous text.

Oh ye of too much faith. Do you really think the Kalama Sutta he is quoting from honestly encouraging one to think for oneself?

Let's see... "On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes."

The gist of the Kalama Sutta is to not accept old tradition, old teachers, or [those other] old books, but rather accept the new Buddhist religion. And of course, if you don't believe that Buddhism is the best religion... the Buddha himself allowed monks who had the power to read minds to examine him for his inner purity. Says so right in the Kalama Sutta so it must be true. That's that then. Pretty much proves that we should switch from the old traditional religion to Buddhism. Buddha was examined by a monk who can read minds. Good enough for me.

#21

Posted by: Lurky | June 21, 2009 5:39 PM

#15

So writing a book and being vocal is comparable to genocide and religious people killing each other? Oh come on how deluded can you get. To be branded a militant religidiot you have to kill, but to be a militant atheist all you need to do is write a frickin' book.

#22

Posted by: noodles | June 21, 2009 5:48 PM

Buddhism is unique because it's an atheistic religion.

I hear that statement a lot. Not sure it's true. Certainly not true of traditional Buddhist cosmology. I suppose high-brow Western style Buddhism does not require acceptance of a anthropomorphized deity. However, it still falls into the Theistic category if you include Autotheism. Additionally, I have yet to be convinced that the mechanism by which one's foibles are tabulated and an appropriate assignment, upon death, meter-out isn't a form of Pantheism. Of course, it's nearly impossible to analyze these whimsies because they are by necessity inherently vague.

#23

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | June 21, 2009 6:22 PM

SerenGoch posts a Buddhist quote that basically says "Think for your self" Tis Himself ... sneer[s] at it because it comes from a religeous text.

The Kalama Sutta tells the story of the Buddha stopping in a village and answering questions from the villagers. Many preachers and assorted holy men wandered through this village, teaching, giving sermons, and criticizing all the other wandering clerics. The villagers ask the Buddha which holy man should they believe in and (surprise surprise) the Buddha answers: "Me!"

Of course, being an ascetic holy man, he gives a long sermon and approaches his conclusion obliquely. He explains that one should not accept religious teachings blindly. Only if a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it.

The Buddha then has a mind-reading monk check him out to see if he is blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness and guess what, the Buddha passes the test! There is much rejoicing in the village because the ~~messiah~~ Buddha has come to teach them the truth.

In other words, the preacher comes to town and preaches a sermon. James likes the sermon and quotes from it. As I said before "Another goddist pitching his favorite flavor of woo."

#24

Posted by: SerenGoch | June 21, 2009 8:34 PM

The mind reading monk isn't in the Kalama Sutta, Tis Himself, although he does appear elsewhere in another sutta and he's not talking to the same bunch of villagers. For sure there is woo in Buddhist texts, but if someone had a couple of decades free to put together the Sceptic's Annotated Pali Canon, they would find lots of Good Stuff too! Personally, noodles, I think yes the Buddha really is encouraging people to think for themselves in the Kalana Sutta. Anyway, I quoted it as a response to the bit in the video with the pile of books and ”Do you enjoy reading the same stuff over and over and over for the rest of your life?” as an example of something I intend to read over and over. There's some good stuff in Ecclesiastes as well but I guess this is not the best context for posting inspiring quotes from the scriptures.

#25

Posted by: foxfire | June 21, 2009 9:42 PM

Utterly brilliant! PZ, thanks for sharing (I needed the laugh)

#26

Posted by: Cowcakes | June 21, 2009 10:25 PM

Thanks PZ I needed a smile today. Also got strange looks from workmates while listening through headphones.

#27

Posted by: James | June 22, 2009 12:23 AM

"Re:Another goddist pitching his favorite flavor of woo.

English is not my 1st language, and I apologise if I have somehow given you the impression that I'm a "goddist" or whatever other names you care to tag me with. I am an atheist (or a freethinker, as people like me are often called in my country).

I'm from Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim country where less than 1% of the population is godless. Atheists are so scarce here that even in a higher institute of learning - say, a medical school (particularly the one I'm attending now) - has little more than one atheist in a hundred students. Half the students in my medical school have not heard of evolution. Of the half who did, half of that number actively rejects evolution completely. The remainder could not care less. Viruses developing resistance through natural selection? Micro-fucking-evolution.

There's no Evolution vs IDiocy controversy here. Mainly because evolution is not even mentioned in our biology textbooks. I brought it up in class once and was ridiculed by my Muslim schoolteacher and classmates. One time, I was beaten up in school by a Muslim senior for saying something disrespectful about the prophet Muhammad (I merely opined that there's no way of ever finding out for sure if Muhammad actually received the Koran from Gabriel). The mostly Muslim faculty insisted that I asked for it.

Now, I was merely musing about Buddhism from a philosophical and literary viewpoint, and suggested the possibility that Buddhism did, in fact, began as an atheistic philosophy... and how it changed as it crossed time and borders. I was not pitching my "favorite flavor of woo" as you've have accused me of doing, Tis' Himself. Stripped of all its supernatural noise, I don't see how Buddhism is any different from epicureanism, secular humanism, or any other branch of philosophy expounding a worldview.

The Kalama Sutra and the entire Buddhist library mean no more to me than a copy of the Lord of the Ring does.

P.S. Maybe, just maybe, it'd be more beneficial to our cause if some atheists can be a little less dickish, judgmental and kneejerk when it comes to religion on comment boards like this. If I was a theist looking to explore and possibly to embrace the idea of atheism, I'd think that the entire New Atheist movement consists only of rude, unthinking contrarians and would want nothing to do with it.

#28

Posted by: Kagehi | June 22, 2009 2:12 AM

Had that feeling myself sometimes James. Some seem to take a reactionary stance to the "idea" of someone quoting religion without bothering to note "why", so long as part of the "why" is to make a suggestion that some parts are not absolutely terrible. I have no problem imagining myself that, without the limits of the time period, Buddha may have "intended" a secular view point, and that it didn't "stick" with the rest of the world, who decided to instead either invent, or exaggerate, the language and ideas he used, to make it all into something he never intended. We can't know though. Its quite possible he was like Plato or others in the old world. Perfectly happy to point out all the stupid things about blind belief and what gods did or didn't do, know, etc., but still "unwilling" to give up certain concepts entirely, either out of realization that he would never convince others to do so, or due to actually still believing some of them himself.

But, to simply dismiss the whole thing as woo, instead of at least allowing for the possibility of arguing for such a view, and that he would, possibly, have had more in common with PZ than with Dembski in "modern" times, isn't very useful. Its arguing that the whole thing is bad, not just the mythical BS. And.. most of us don't even go "that" far with the Bible, in as much as we are willing to allow that the character in its later chapters talked about some semi-reasonable things, even if the rest of it is total BS.

Buddhism could easily be the mirror image, someone with good idea "at the start", which had a lot of fools turning it into something else.

#29

Posted by: rrt | June 22, 2009 2:42 AM

Re: PZ's title for this post...it reminds me of an oddly appropriate quote from the great Londo Mollari (should one look at it metaphorically, which one should for so much of Straczynski's writing):

"Here! Six thousand years of recorded history, a history that includes remarkable composers, astonishing symphonies, but what is the one song that half of them sing to their children generation after generation?

You put your right hand in, you put your right hand out
You put your whole self in, and you turn yourself about
You do the hokey pokey
You give a little shout
That's what it's all about

It doesn't mean anything. I have been studying it for seven days. I had the computer analyse it. I swear to you, it does not mean a thing!"

#30

Posted by: windy | June 22, 2009 3:18 AM

I don't think it's necessarily "pitching woo" to quote glimmerings of reason and skepticism from different religious traditions, as long as it's understood that they don't validate a particular tradition... it's what Jennifer Hecht did in Doubt: A History, after all.

Plus, it's good material for countering the "all religions essentially agree" meme!
"I am the way, the truth and the life" -Jesus
"The way that can be named is not the Way" -Tao te Ching

#31

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 22, 2009 5:56 AM

James | June 22, 2009 12:23 AM

Well said. I say that as one of the more dickish atheists out there.

To add to that, we need to avoid making the same basic logical fallacy as the religious douches who talk about "Stalin was an atheist" or "Mao was an atheist", which is like saying that because Hitler liked puppies we should exterminate dogs.

That an ideology was overall, pretty awful, does not mean that there aren't some elements in them that are worthwhile.

Religious texts can include some good stuff in them, that doesn't make the religion true. And that in general religion is a terrible influence on the world, doesn't make the good stuff any less good.

When we approach them, we need to consider them as we do fiction, which is to say sometimes I will quote Lord of the Rings (Gandalf on the death penalty had me) without thinking that Morgoth awaits in chains to destroy the world.

And I can quote the Tao te Ching without actually being a Taoist.

#32

Posted by: John Morales | June 22, 2009 6:49 AM

Ah, yes. Buddhism.

cf. The making of modern Tibet By A. Tom Grunfeld
to see what a Buddhist theocracy was like.

#33

Posted by: James | June 22, 2009 7:25 AM

Alternatively, you can do some reading on Ashoka for a glimpse of a more positive sort of Buddhist Theocracy.

I'm not familiar with Grunfeld's work but I did read several academic articles on how backward, dogmatic, cruel and outright evil Old Tibet really was.

#34

Posted by: Stubby Spires | June 22, 2009 8:14 AM

"I'd be a Buddhist except for Richard Gere."
--Kinky Friedman

#35

Posted by: John Morales | June 22, 2009 8:17 AM

Thank you, James. Good counterpoint.

#36

Posted by: DebinOz | June 22, 2009 9:29 AM

Well, I have finally found the cult I must join - The Cult of Snuggie!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT1RIxkTAR8&feature=related

#37

Posted by: xebecs | June 22, 2009 10:00 AM