…and this is a 
I hope you're not feeling restive, and struggling to suppress an urge to smash the crockery — but if you are, go smash this poll instead.
Is it Possible to Believe in God and Darwin?
Yes 79%
No 20%
Undecided 1%
Silly poll. Of course it is possible, since people do.
You're in luck — this one actually has two polls.
Evolution, Creationism or Both - Which Do You Believe?
Evolution is a myth 7%
God is a myth 34%
I believe in both 51%
I'm not sure 9%
I have a strange tingling sensation in my forebrain that portends some major changes in both polls.
Comments
Posted by: Igor | July 2, 2009 9:58 AM
I didn't realize there was any controversy as to whether Darwin existed.
Posted by: Watchman | July 2, 2009 10:04 AM
Apparently there's controversy everywhere you look.
Posted by: jellay
|
July 2, 2009 10:05 AM
Ah! But was Darwin's mother a virgin or not?
Makes it sound as though Darwin is some sort of complement to God. Other good questions: Is it possible to believe in God and cheese? Is it possible to believe in God and the Holocaust?
Posted by: jim | July 2, 2009 10:09 AM
There is no entry for" I think both are myths. Not that I would vote for that.
Posted by: Geds | July 2, 2009 10:16 AM
What else can we add to that top poll?
"Is it possible to believe in the Chicago Public Library system and the Library of Alexandria?"
"Is it possible to believe in horses and unicorns?"
"Is it possible to believe in the shuttle program and Star Trek?"
"Is it possible to believe in Josef Stalin and Joe McCarthy?"
The only possible answer to their question is "Yes." But I don't think that "yes" means what they think it means. Not only can you "believe in" both, but I'm pretty sure that 100% of the planet would agree that Darwin existed. But knowing Darwin existed says absolutely nothing about the belief in evolution. The whole thing is a hopeless muddle.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 2, 2009 10:18 AM
Since the preface to the question is:
It makes it much easier to vote No, even though, as Peasey states, it is clearly possible.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 2, 2009 10:24 AM
I don't like the phrasing of the first poll. It sounds like Darwin is the evolutionists' god. When are they going to get it? He is not our god; he was our prophet. Why is that so difficult to understand?!
Putting that aside, the question is still ridiculous on its face. Of course Darwin really lived on Earth; we have the historical records to prove it!
Posted by: Tom Coward | July 2, 2009 10:25 AM
Be sure to check out the comments threads following the poll. Includes a new "theory" explaining the "out of Africa" hypothesis and why there are black people in both Africa and Australia. (Spoiler: It was genes, NOT evolution!(?))
Posted by: Brock | July 2, 2009 10:33 AM
Ha, this is indeed a crappy poll. But at least it's nice to have one that finally lets me choose "god is a myth" at face value.
Also: Dinosaurs! (that's not relevant to anything, I just like dinosaurs)
Posted by: Becky | July 2, 2009 10:34 AM
God is a myth is up to 88%!
I never thought Darwin could be a myth. I can't answer poll #1, it's too poorly worded. Must be written by a creationist.
Posted by: lostinasia | July 2, 2009 10:40 AM
Oh my, I'm so scared about typing this and getting my foot bitten off, but... I seem to have missed the argument where evolution/ science disproves God. I'm an atheist, and any evidence I've seen for the existence of deities is extraordinarily weak, and I suppose evolutionary theory helped wipe out one of those bits of evidence, but how does that lead to disproving?
In other words, it seems pretty easy to me to believe in both Thor (that is the god we're talking about, right?) and evolution. I don't see WHY I'd believe that, but I don't see how they're mutally exclusive. Just like I COULD believe in evolution and that orbiting teapot - they don't contradict each other, do they?
(Please don't let's get into the semantics of "believe".)
Posted by: ZippoBibrok5E8 | July 2, 2009 10:41 AM
I've always hated the phrasing "believe in evolution." Is it overly pedantic of me to point out that evolution is not a belief system? You either accept it or reject it. Belief, or faith, does not enter into it.
It feels to me like when we (meaning people who DO accept evolution) use that phrasing, we're kind of conceding their (meaning the theist's) frame.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 2, 2009 10:46 AM
@#11:
Science does not disprove God per se, but does render utterly moot most religion-based claims about the nature of the universe. It doesn't make God impossible, just unnecessary.
Posted by: ZippoBibrok5E8 | July 2, 2009 10:47 AM
For the record, #11 had not yet been posted when I was typing up my comment about the semantics of "believe".
Posted by: lostinasia | July 2, 2009 10:52 AM
Alyson Miers (#13 as I type this): exactly! Which is why I voted for the second poll but ignored the first. Logically I'd say "Yes, it is possible", but I don't really want to say that.
ZippoBibrok5E8/ #12 & #14: sorry. Bad timing on both our parts. I agree with you, "believe" is a weird word to use with scientific theory.
Posted by: Sarcastro | July 2, 2009 10:57 AM
Skwisgaar: This is dildoes. Doesn't he know there's no such things as religion?
Nathan: You mean you don't believe in god. There is such thing as religion.
Skwisgaar: Den proves it! Shows me a miracle that religion exists!
Nathan: Well, there's a bible right there.
Skwisgaar: Oh. Well. Then I guess I re-evalutates my life then.
Posted by: Brock | July 2, 2009 10:57 AM
@lostinasia (#11): Oh, I agree with your comment as stated. The problem is when you try to make claims about Thor interacting with the physical world, answering prayers, creating life, smiting people, starting plaques & famine, whatever. Those conflict with known physics (aka reality). The only Thor you could possibly believe in without causing conflicts is a Thor that cause the Big Bang with his hammer and then starting nanoseconds later spent the next 13.6 billion years doing absolutely nothing.
Posted by: Dianne | July 2, 2009 11:12 AM
The second poll is incomplete. There's no reason that someone couldn't believe that both god and evolution are myths. Maybe we were all created 6000 years ago by completely non-supernatural beings about which we know nothing as of yet. (NOT my belief: I'm just making trouble.)
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 2, 2009 11:16 AM
Properly, they'd have written, "Is it possible to believe in God and to believe Darwin". That's a bit false as well, since we don't really "believe Darwin" as such, but it's close enough.
"Believe in Darwin." That's just too close to the BS that the DI puts out about "believing in evolution," "believing in materialism," and other ways that they have of lying.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: tsg | July 2, 2009 11:21 AM
I answered "no" to the "Is it Possible to Believe in God and Darwin?" question. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers especially when it's a stupid online poll trying to prove a stupid point.
Posted by: tsg | July 2, 2009 11:33 AM
Personally, I'm on a campaign to take back the word "believe". I use it to mean "understand to be true" and the faith-heads that want to put some additional connotations into it can go climb a tree.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 2, 2009 11:39 AM
There's something to be said for taking back the word "believe" in the normal sense of "recognize as true." That's why I don't mind "believe Darwin" even though "believe evolution" would be better.
"Believe in Darwin" is objectionable, regardless. I could even go for "believe in evolution" in an informal statement, but we certainly do not "believe in Darwin." His wife, kids, and friends might have "believed in Darwin," yet it's nothing for us to do.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: James Sweet | July 2, 2009 11:43 AM
I have yet to see this on a Chick tract:
Do you accept Darwin as your personal Lord and Savior?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Posted by: Qwerty | July 2, 2009 11:50 AM
I clicked on the stories at the poll's site and someone's pet python strangled their two-year old daughter. Another animal will probably get slaughtered for the stupidity of its owner. Shame!
Posted by: Happy Tentacles
|
July 2, 2009 11:54 AM
'God is a myth' up to 94%. The wording of the first poll is too poor to deserve a response.
Posted by: tsg | July 2, 2009 12:12 PM
@lostinasia #11
I'm only going to nibble on it a little bit ....
The short answer is "define god". Religions almost invariably make testable claims about gods that have been (or can be) shown to be false. In those cases, science can and does disprove god. But without a definition of what god is, it's simply building goalposts with wheels on for easy moving. In other words, theological whack-a-mole. What it really means is that science can't disprove all possible gods, which is true but entirely meaningless since most people who believe in god believe in one particular god. That some other possible god is not disprovable doesn't mean squat concerning theirs.
Posted by: tsg | July 2, 2009 12:25 PM
I agree. "Believe in" tends to be reserved for the mythical to the point that having to believe in something (almost) proves it mythical. You don't believe in the mailman[1].
I would even go so far as to make it all one word and let people do all the believeinning they want.
[1] Shamelessly stolen from Terry Prachett: "Granny didn't believe in gods. That's not to say she didn't think they existed. She knew they did. She dealt with them on a daily basis. But she didn't believe in them. It would be like believing in the mailman."
Posted by: LightningRose | July 2, 2009 12:41 PM
Help me, oh fellow Pharyngulites!
I made the first comment as "guest" at the following news site:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/19901223/detail.html
and a bunch of godbotters took offense to my suggesting that someone's deity was ineffectual by not preventing their heart attack in the first place.
I'd appreciate if everyone reading this would head over there and click on "yes, I like this comment". The current score is "-26 by 28 votes". I'd love to see that reversed by a significant majority. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Ian | July 2, 2009 12:52 PM
I think I can interpret the first poll: is it possible to consistently believe in God and evolution. Obviously it's possible for someone to say she believes in both (people do say that), but it could be argued that such a person has to either distort what the Bible says and/or twist the science in order to pull it off.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2009 12:56 PM
Science does not disprove god in principle, but it places pretty touch restrictions on what a god can do.
Essentially science rules out an interventionist god. That means no miracles, no answering of prayers, no healing of the sick. It means that there is not a lot left that a god can do, and such a god is not the god typically worshipped by believers. It also means that god becomes redundant as any kind of explanation.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 2, 2009 12:56 PM
LightningRose@28
Your comment was gone, so I added a new one.
Posted by: Nero Null | July 2, 2009 1:07 PM
Can I just voice my opinion that 99% of the 20% that said "no" are probably religious? I've never heard a professed atheist say that you can't believe in "god" and evolution. I've only ever heard that from religious fundamentalist f***giraffes.
Posted by: Zorg | July 2, 2009 1:08 PM
Well, it's up to 95% believing God is a myth, right now. I guess that's one poll well crashed.
Posted by: iarnuocon | July 2, 2009 1:14 PM
As a long-time user of Newsvine, I'd just like to point out that Newsvine users make their own polls, and that the majority of Newsvine's material is created by individuals of varying degrees of skill. While I think it's great that PZ noticed something on Newsvine (and am only sorry that it wasn't any of my stuff), poll crashing this kid is unlikely to make much of an impact.
What would be better is if some of the folks here would actually comment on his article to point out WHY his poll sucks.
We should educate them one at a time if we have to.
Posted by: LightningRose | July 2, 2009 1:45 PM
daveau @#31,
Interesting. I can still see my comment in Firefox, but not IE. They must be using a cookie in an attempt to delude me.
Thanks, anyway.
Posted by: daveau | July 2, 2009 2:02 PM
Rose-
Don't see it in Firefox, either.
But I'm 11 by 11 (thanks guys) and added another comment in a reply to illegal beagle. See if you can guess which one it is...
Posted by: daveau
|
July 2, 2009 2:24 PM
I added reply to Bill, too. And you can vote for yourself if you bounce back and forth between IE and Firefox. This is just too easy. Simpletons.
Posted by: Cephus | July 2, 2009 3:13 PM
I don't get what needs to be changed for the top poll, it's already doing perfectly well. It is possible to believe in God and Darwin. It doesn't ask if it's intelligent or rational, only if it's possible, which obviously it is.
The second one had gotten a proper adjustment though.
Posted by: Bryn | July 2, 2009 3:25 PM
The second poll appears to have been shocked to death by a landslide of votes. When I go to the Newsvine page, I can vote for the first poll, but the second only shows the results. 95% are voting the reality party with, "God is a myth".
Posted by: Fatboy | July 2, 2009 3:36 PM
Well, an easier resolution for such a person would be to simply say that the Bible is the work of people and not the divinely inspired word of God. It just doesn't follow that if the Bible is wrong then gods don't exist. Sure, recognizing that the Bible is wrong can be a useful stepping stone away from Christianity, but it doesn't lead to atheism in one leap.
So what if Thor's actions conflict with known physics. If he had the power to create the universe and its physics, certainly he would have the power to intervene in whatever way he chose. The issue isn't that it would be impossible for Thor to do such things, it's that we haven't seen it.
I agree with LostInAsia. I'm not an atheist because there's any evidence against gods, but because of the utter lack of evidence for gods.
Posted by: Fatboy | July 2, 2009 3:40 PM
Or to put it another way, I like the story of Russell's teapot.
Posted by: Joe
|
July 2, 2009 3:57 PM
re: Belief
That's why I never say I "believe" in evolution. I say that I understand and accept evolution. "Disbelief" in evolution comes from misunderstanding (thanks to the lying for jesus &c) and from simple rejection out of hand (lying for jesus again).
Posted by: ctgopks
|
July 2, 2009 4:22 PM
I think of belief as acting as if something is true. Another post used understanding something to be true, which is also fine. I believe my current car will start when I turn the key in the ignition, but that was not always true of other cars I have owned. I believe the Theory of Evolution -- I act as if it is true. (I do not believe in either Darwin or cars, or gods.)
This definition allows me to watch my beloved bad Sci-Fi films by suspending disbelief. I tried that with gods many years ago, but the same thing happened as does with Sci-Fi: not only did reality eventually burst my bubble, but, truthfully, I knew all along that it was a bubble. If someone could have convinced me that religion was as much fun as Sci-Fi, I might to this day suspend disbelief in it occasionally. Alas, no.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 2, 2009 5:33 PM
Re:'believing evolution'
The problem with this issue (as to whether saying you 'believe evolution' is accurate) is that there are really two different things that are meant by 'believe'. The first is the dictionary definition - 'to accept as true'. The second is what is generally meant in a religious context - 'to accept as true, regardless of any evidence, or lack thereof, for or against'.
Whether by accident or design, the creotards have managed to conflate those two definitions, and thus are trying to spread it around that when anyone says they 'believe evolution', it's akin to a Christian saying they 'believe Jesus died on the cross for me', and thus those who 'believe evolution' are just as 'religious' as the creationists and their unquestioning belief in a magical Sky-Daddy. In reality, most people who say they 'believe evolution' mean that in the context of the first definition - and the reason they 'accept it as true' is because that's what the evidence indicates.
In my opinion, the best way to combat this is to do what I seem to remember seeing Richard Dawkins doing once or twice, when he was asked the question directly - say that, yes, you believe evolution because that's what the evidence indicates.
Posted by: Gordon | July 2, 2009 5:56 PM
Currently 39% say evolution is a myth!
Something is seriously wrong with this poll.
Posted by: Skemono | July 2, 2009 6:07 PM
Uh, hm. It's now at 47% believe evolution is a myth vs. 51% believe God is a myth. Looks like some religious group is flooding the poll. Work harder, guys!
Posted by: Whiskeyjack
|
July 2, 2009 6:20 PM
Ack! "Evolution is a myth" has taken the lead again...
Posted by: skeptical | July 2, 2009 6:21 PM
Only 33% say God is a myth? Have people voted yet, or did we just fail miserably?
Posted by: Mike | July 2, 2009 6:26 PM
Well, guys, I think we just got rolled on the myth question. The vote is up to 56% Evolution is a Myth (and climbing rapidly) and 42% God is a myth. The way it was behaving, I suspect divine intervention (God or a sysadmin).
Posted by: Anonym | July 2, 2009 6:27 PM
Percy Bysshe Shelley (Notes to Queen Mab) -
"This is the pivot upon which all religions turn: they all assume that it is in our power to believe or not to believe; whereas the mind can believe only that which it thinks true. A human being can be supposed accountable only for those actions which are influenced by his will. But belief is utterly distinct from and unconnected with volition; it is the apprehension of the agreement or disagreement of the ideas that compose any proposition. Belief is a passion or involuntary operation of the mind; and, like other passions, its intensity is precisely proportionate to the degree of excitement. Volition is essential to merit or demerit. But the Christian religion attaches the highest possible degree of merit and demerit to that which is worthy of neither, and which is totally unconnected with the peculiar faculty of the mind the presence of which is essential to their being."
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2009 7:12 PM
You were right! Just not the way you hoped.
(Also, apparently 79% of people who voted don't think you can hold both a believe in Darwin and a belief in God. Interesting controversy, now they're trying to deny Darwin even existed in the first place!)
Posted by: Erik | July 2, 2009 7:25 PM
The total number of votes on the 2nd poll is going up by about 300 every few seconds. Divine intervention for sure...time to update my belief system, I guess ;)
Posted by: ginckgo | July 2, 2009 7:26 PM
Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket couldn't have rigged it better!
Posted by: MadScientist | July 2, 2009 7:33 PM
Aha! They finally admit Creationism = god = religion -- why were they telling us otherwise during the trials?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 2, 2009 7:37 PM
In the second poll it's now:
Evilution is a myth: 80%
God is a myth: 19%
Well, that's no fun when the creatards have scripts too. That or they were so sure they'd be pharyngulated that the credits for votes have been swapped around ...
Posted by: littlejohn | July 2, 2009 7:38 PM
We're getting counter-crashed, and frankly, we're losing badly.
I don't know how to set up vote-bot (I actually had sex and friends and stuff in school), but some of you do. Please get into action here. We simply can't be beaten in a poll-crashing contest.
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 2, 2009 7:40 PM
There are so many things wrong with that first question that it's hard to figure out where to begin. Sloppy thinking, it annoys me so.
Posted by: Mr T | July 2, 2009 7:48 PM
"Evolution is a myth": 81%
"God is a myth": 18%
Total: 35117
That's a shame. I doubt more pharyngulation could help this pointless poll.
Posted by: Katherine | July 2, 2009 7:51 PM
Argh I might as well start asking people who ask me if I believe in whatever if they believe in me. If they say they don't need to believe in me because I'm right in front of them then I'll at least know they are sane. "Do you believe in Darwin," what nonsense!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 2, 2009 7:52 PM
When I was a boy I would frequently hear the old folks use the phrase "I believe" quite frequently. Much more than my parent's generation used it and in quite a different sense from (most?) of contemporary use.
I remember the old folks saying:
I reckon, I guess, I think, I declare, I deduce, I see that it is apparent that . . .
These examples show the different meanings intended by the speakers, some of whom taught me things that are still serving me well. I started emulating them because I could understand the versatility of the word and because I was a kid and was learning.
Then in the second grade or so this monkey-faced kid asked me, "Don't you believe in God?" Honestly, I didn't know how to answer given that my understanding of the word didn't go there. It hung me up for a while. Anymore I consciously use the word sparingly though I'd like to employ it more in that easy way the old timers did.
I believe that's enough.
Posted by: nick nick bobick | July 2, 2009 7:56 PM
Some Freeper has obviously sicced a vote-bot on the second poll: 82% believe evolution is a myth. Another worthless poll lost by the good guys.
Posted by: littlejohn | July 2, 2009 8:17 PM
What? You're giving up? Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? No! Did we give up when the Mexicans sank the Maine? No! Did we give up when the Japanese attacked the Alamo? No!
We can't be out-nerded!
This is a situation that calls for some seriously demented anti-social behavior. And we're just the people to do it!
Who's with me? Fire up those vote-bots! Somebody get me a drink! If it's war they want, it's war they'll get!
Posted by: Deathweaver516 | July 2, 2009 9:03 PM
I don't believe in Darwin, but I believe in his BOOK.
Play on Paul Erdos' famous saying.
Posted by: Guardian of the Poll | July 2, 2009 9:33 PM
Is it possible for people to belive in God and Darwin? The answer is YES! Darwin was a man. However, belief in evolution and God is impossible since they directly contradict each other.
I still cannot beleive you people are still fornicating polls aroud here. bet you have some lovely shiney flagpoles to fornicate with for Independence Day don't you? Let me guess, you don't celebrate it do you?
Poll fornication is silly and nasty. Stop fornicating polls.
Posted by: Guardian of the Poll | July 2, 2009 9:47 PM
I have a strange tingling sensation in my forebrain that portends some major changes in both polls."
-----------------
I think you better get some toilet paper ready. That's you bowels moving.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 2, 2009 10:10 PM
What do you suppose the odds are that they're just editing the poll?
Posted by: BicycleRepairMan | July 2, 2009 10:17 PM
Oh man, we lost a vote-war. First Michael Jackson dies and now this, if pointless polls cant be pharyngulated, is there really any point to life? This is an outrage. Someone with no life and programming skills make a votebot NOW, you know its for the greater good.
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 10:29 PM
How has it escaped all of you that religion and science are mutually compatible? There is no such thing as scientific truth and religious truth. All truth can be circumscribed into one whole.
When we study how the earth has come to be, we are learning how our creator performed this marvelous event. When we study evolution by natural selection, we learn the means by which our creator brought these things to pass.
I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. I do believe in evolution. I also believe in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a Mormon), and there is nothing in science that invalidates this Restored Gospel. It all fits together perfectly. Scientific discover does not disprove my religion; rather, it supports each and every claim made by prophets who speak to God for the benefit of our souls.
Oh. I know it's hard because you all just feel so darn witty after saying it, but it's Mormon, not moron. I get the joke. It's funny, I'll admit; but only the first five times.
Posted by: Mike | July 2, 2009 10:33 PM
It was happening too fast for remote inputs in my opinion, automated or not. Likely some system administrator or someone with priority access screwing around so the results came out "right". It's just not fair when the other side cheats too. Kind of funny though. I guess we yanked their chain.
Posted by: Guardian of The Poll | July 2, 2009 10:35 PM
This is funny. How does it feel not be able to fornicate you polls now?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 10:36 PM
Really? Can you cite the scientific journals that back up the value of wearing magic underwear? How about the archaeological evidence to support your religion's claims regarding the ethnicity of native Americans?
Posted by: Steve_C | July 2, 2009 10:36 PM
ARe you wearing magic underwear? Just curious.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 2, 2009 10:37 PM
oh look, a Mormon Concern Troll. go here, read it, stop bothering us with your unoriginal concerns.
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 10:39 PM
@Wowbagger:
The absence of evidence does not invalidate a hypothesis; it just doesn't prove it to be true.
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 10:42 PM
@Steve_C
They are called garments. And, yes I am.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 10:45 PM
Dear Brother Mormon Missionary
Welcome to Pharyngula!
I too am a missionary for the one true faith--Catholicism!
And, BTW, I've already told these hell-bound atheists that science supports my one true faith! Do you realize how confused they're going to be if you turn up here with another true faith? I've already had to drive off two Episcopalians, a Presbyterian, a Scientologist and one Obeah man. Couldn't you just go and proselytize elsewhere? There are plenty of atheists around you know. Their numbers are increasing exponentially. You'll have no problem finding a thread full of people to laugh at you and your delusions.
Yours in the name of a CATHOLIC God, Christ and all His Saints,
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 2, 2009 10:45 PM
you fail at science. hypotheses are disproved, not proven. and an idea that can be neither proven nor disproved is not a hypothesis, it's mental masturbation.
-----
P.S. why does spellcheck accept "proven", but not "disproven"? am I missing some grammatical quirk there?
Posted by: Steve_C | July 2, 2009 10:45 PM
Are they magic "garments'?
Posted by: Bryn | July 2, 2009 10:47 PM
Except, of course, for the pesky DNA evidence that shows that neither the Native Americans nor the Polynesians were descended from a bunch of sea-going Israelites. Nor is there any scientific evidence for a world-wide flood, modern horses, domesticated cattle, oxen, asses or goats or chariots in pre-European-contact America, or cockatrices or fiery serpents. Yup, the scientific evidence is just a-stackin' on up in favor of the Book of Mormon.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 10:49 PM
What kind of magic? Can you fly? Turn us into newts? Or are we talking rabbit out of the hat type magic
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 10:50 PM
MormonMissionary wrote:
But that's not what you wrote earlier; you said this:
'Not invalidating' is not the same as 'supporting', is it?
Give this line of argument up, dude. As religions go you're at the especially looney end of the spectrum, and the most easily identified as the result of a scam (or possibly scamola) by a first class huckster - well, except for Scientology.
Though I do apprecaite your sect's existence for the fact that I use it to undermine other Christian's claims to validity on the grounds of flexibility of interpretation.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 2, 2009 10:50 PM
How do you account for there being no genetic, anthropological, linguistic or archeological evidence that anyone from the Middle East ever came to the Americas before 1500?
Posted by: Jason | July 2, 2009 10:50 PM
For some bonus fun in six minutes;
Here is Mormonism Animated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nwEGsQM5CQ
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 10:50 PM
@Smoggy Batzrubble:
I respect your faith. You do have a piece of the truth, but after Christ was crucified and the apostles were killed, the priesthood (the authority of God) left with them.
Thankfully, God restores this priesthood authority for the final time, never to be taken away from the earth again!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 10:51 PM
Dear MissionMormonary
We Catholics have magic undergarments too you know! We crush up the consecrated host and pour it in our undies. Next time you see a Priest walking funny, just consider how close HE is to JESUS. I'll bet you Mormons don't have Christ in YOUR undies!
Yours in Christian Competition
Smoggy
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 10:52 PM
Oh please oh wise missionary tell us the Truth.
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 10:55 PM
@Rev. BigDumbChimp:
They aren't magic. They are sacred.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 2, 2009 10:55 PM
Mormonism: Scientology of the 19th century
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 10:58 PM
@Rev. BigDumbChimp:
They aren't magic. They are sacred.
Posted by: Darren | July 2, 2009 10:59 PM
Oh noes! A failed Pharyngulation!
Obviously we didn't have god on our side.
Posted by: MormonMissioanry | July 2, 2009 11:00 PM
@Smoggy Batzrubble
That is ridiculous. Christ is not in anyone's underwear.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 11:00 PM
Dear Mormonmissionimpossible,
We've got more than "a piece of the truth" bucko, we've got THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
As for your "priest's hood", the bad news is that full circumcision is back on God's menu and my avenging buddy Floyd Rubber is heading straight for Salt Lake City as we speak, shears in hand, to clip your six inched down to a single figure. The Mother Church is going to make sure all you magic panty boys are gonna pee sitting down.
You wanna Holy war? We've been doing this for millennia!
Smoggy, High Inquisitor
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 11:01 PM
Okay, you said upthread the science supports your beliefs. If that's so, you should be able to design a scientific experiment that can distinguish between 'sacred' garments and ordinary, non-sacred ones in order support your belief that such a thing as 'sacred' exists.
How would you begin this experiment?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:02 PM
Define sacred
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:03 PM
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:04 PM
I may never stop laughing about that
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 11:06 PM
And also for the record, oh my brother Mormon terrorist blog infiltrator, I checked with Jesus on my Catholic Prayer Hotline, and he says he's happy to be in the underpants of ANY Catholic who puts a cracker in there believing. "But!" He added, "I will never inhabit the Satanic Magic Underpants of Morons!" And then he got the giggles.
And don't blame me for the "Morons" crack. It's not my fault even Jesus finds you ridiculous.
Signed
Smoggy, God's One True General
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:07 PM
Mormon Missionary, please tell us how science supports your particularly... um... unique version of faith.
Tell us about your founder and his origins. And the golden plates and the angel Moron.. I mean Moroni
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:07 PM
I cannot discuss things as holy as the garment with all of you because they are too sacred. Christ said that we shouldn't cast our pearls before swine. I suggest you all start at more simpler truths, like the fact that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees and restored the true church on the earth!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:10 PM
Again , you use that word truth, I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Jason | July 2, 2009 11:10 PM
Where's Lucy Harris when you need her?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 2, 2009 11:11 PM
seconded. that was better than the unintentional porn on Rapture Ready
Posted by: Damian | July 2, 2009 11:11 PM
Actually, that isn't true for a number of reasons. As Victor Stenger points out, in science — and I would say that this works equally well outside of science, as well — an absence of evidence is in fact excellent evidence of absence. How could it not be? That doesn't mean that there will never be any good evidence, however.
The question here is about justifiable belief. I can predict with a great deal of certainty that you do not accept the same methods — faith, revelation, authority, etc — in almost any other aspect of your life. So in other words, you are not being consistent.
And you know perfectly well that it isn't acceptable to tell your boss at work that you are late every morning because you happen to have faith that you will arrive on time. In almost every other aspect of your life, you expect to see good evidence for something before you are willing to believe it, and certainly before you will act on it, but not concerning this one issue.
And I wouldn't mind if religious belief was a really small issue. But for most people it is one of, if not the, most important aspect of their life. So the excuse that there are other things that we all accept "on faith" doesn't hold, particularly as very few people see it as worthy of praise. In fact, it is almost universally frowned upon in every other aspect of our lives, except where religion is concerned.
Why is that, and by which method do you discriminate between competing religious claims?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:12 PM
Oh do tell. Porn is good, but unintentional porn has a little somthin' somthin'
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:13 PM
I cannot discuss things as holy as the garment with all of you because they are too sacred. Christ said that we shouldn't cast our pearls before swine. I suggest you all start at more simpler truths, like the fact that God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees and restored the true church on the earth!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 2, 2009 11:15 PM
Now I'm torn - is someone else posting under MormonMissionary's name, or have we been dealing with a rather well-executed Poe?
If it's the former - please stop; if it's the latter - congratulations, that was well done.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:17 PM
Well Wowbagger, in my not so limited experience with Scoops... i mean Mormons, they are not allowed to discuss things such as the garments.
They say it's a sacred thing, I always thought it was an embarrassment thing.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 11:18 PM
Hold on a minute, Mormon Guerilla
I also checked with Jesus about whether "God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees" and he said no that was all false. Let me quote him"
"I was nowhere near the grove of trees on that particular day, nor was God, who was indulging in his favorite pastime of watching abstinence pledgers having premarital sex. In fact, Joseph Smith was involved in a homosexual threesome in said grove and, fearing he'd been spied upon, made up the whole story to explain his unusually musky body odour."
Boy, I'll bet he's burning in the Catholic Hell right this minute!
DEATH TO HERETICS!!!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 2, 2009 11:18 PM
oh, it's just the standard stuff about them begging Jesus to come; or how they can't wait to fall down on their knees to worship at Jesus' feet (naked, since everybody will be raptured out of their clothes)
etc.
the forum is full of such unintentional hilariousness.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | July 2, 2009 11:20 PM
A well executed Poe I think. No one's dumb enough to take Smoggy that seriously.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 2, 2009 11:22 PM
Sacred underwear... riiiiight. You don't want to talk to atheists about because you know how silly it will sound. Like crackers that become Jesus.
Missionaries spread supserstition and backwards thinking.
No. Jesus did not appear before Smith. There is no true church. Only lies.
Posted by: echidna | July 2, 2009 11:23 PM
Internet polls are worthless and untrustworthy. That's our point. The godbotherers are demonstrating that they know this and they are willing to cheat.
Posted by: No Comfort in Lies
|
July 2, 2009 11:24 PM
Either a Christian site linked to this poll as well, or they deliberately reversed the results (i.e. if you click on "god is a myth" it claims you selected "evolution is a myth.") Those results certainly don't look like your typical P.Z. poll crash!
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:31 PM
This commenting is difficult for some reason, so I'm sorry if I leave someone out.
Smoggy- I'm beginning to believe that you are being facetious. I certainly hope that God does not speak that way to you.
Damian- I disagree. If I said I were on time for work, then how would you really know that I was on time? Just because I couldn't prove that I was on time with evidence does not mean that I was not, in fact, there on time.
Rev.- I'm not embarrassed about my religion. I just hold it sacred and dear.
Wowbagger- Truth is truth. That's that.
Let's not be insensitive, please. I already mentioned the "moron" jokes. Thank you. They're funny. But now they're old.
On a side note, did you all realize that the righteous will all one day become Gods of their own worlds. One day, the righteous will become perfected and be even as God is now. We will be able to create our own worlds. Isn't that idea thrilling!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 11:32 PM
Speaking of the risks of porn. Did you see this?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 2, 2009 11:36 PM
you're new here, aren't you. I believe PZ himself compared the comment section to piranha infested waters.
sure. so is all wishful thinking. that's what makes it wishful thinking
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:36 PM
@Steve_C:
I do not agree with the idea of crackers transforming into the body of Jesus. We take the sacrament in our faith, but the water represents his blood and the bread represents his body--not Jesus himself.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:37 PM
Fine. But up thread a few you said that science supports your religion.
I'd like to know how?
Posted by: Red John | July 2, 2009 11:39 PM
I was raised Mormon, so I know first hand that science does not support the claims of the Mormon church. For all those who think MormonMissionary might be a Poe, I don't think he is. Not talking about garments or other temple stuff is the standard party line, and I haven't seen him say anything 95% of most Mormons would say (except maybe his support for evolution). For our dear friend MormonMissionary, in addition to the questions already asked, would you explain how your belief that the Garden of Eden (and thus the origin of humankind) was in Missouri while all evidence points to this origin being in Africa?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:41 PM
Well now if we are going to get serious lets bring up native Americans and who they really are according to the Mormons.
Mormon Missionary care to elaborate on that?
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:42 PM
@Red John:
I'm so sorry you lost your faith. I hope you can reconcile it with science in the future, since they are not mutually exclusive.
Now, concerning the Garden of Eden. Once the laws of nature (by which God works) had produced an adequate man and woman, God took them and placed them into the Garden of Eden (don't take the picking up and dropping them off literally; the Bible isn't to be taken literally). There is nothing supernatural about God. He was like us once. We will be like him one day, too. IF we are righteous, that is.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 2, 2009 11:43 PM
"On a side note, did you all realize that the righteous will all one day become Gods of their own worlds. One day, the righteous will become perfected and be even as God is now. We will be able to create our own worlds. Isn't that idea thrilling!"
Thrilling? No it's bizarre. Delusional. Pathetic.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 11:44 PM
Dear Brother MormonMissionary
As I am a TRUE Christian I will turn the other cheek at your cruel accusation of facetiousness. But take the beam from your own eye, proselytizer of the imposterfaith!
My Christ is all in all to me, God is my Soul's breath, and the Holy Spirit is my hourly helper. I'm inspired to work for them, and to spread the Holy and Sacred Truth of the One True Mother Church.
Now... as I've just cast those pearls before you I assume you are oinking right now. When you are ready to turn from your sinful error and talk with me, I'm prepared to direct you on the path to righteousness. DO NOT MOCK GOD!
Signed Smoggy, Warrior for the Catholic Christ
PS And change your damned underwear!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:45 PM
Well that's true in that God doesn't exist.
Unless you were serious?
If so, that's easily the dumbest thing ever written on the internet by a believer.
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:45 PM
SOME of the Native Americans are descendants of a group of Israelites who traveled here. There account is recorded in the Book of Mormon. They themselves wrote it!
Not all of them are, however. This is why DNA evidence doesn't really pan out. Most Amer-Indians came from Asia by way of the Bearing Straight.
Posted by: Brandon | July 2, 2009 11:47 PM
You guys are seriously getting outcrashed in this poll.
Posted by: MormonMissionary | July 2, 2009 11:49 PM
@Smoggy Batzrubble
No need to curse. I was not mocking you, but I don't think someone who really respected Christ would speak of Him the way you do.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:49 PM
COP OUT
Oh please, none of them are. No DNA evidence supports that bit of stupidity. Putting that little "but" in there just makes it that much worse.
Please tell me how science supports your religion.
Posted by: Red John | July 2, 2009 11:49 PM
MormonMissionary:
Don't be sorry. I'm not. But, you didn't really answer my question. You addressed the Garden of Eden, but at no point did say anything about its location, which was the original question. Your religion and prophets have made specific claims about the location of the Garden of Eden. However, we know this place to be about as far away from the actual site of the origins of humankind as it is possible to be. How is this claim of your church supported by science?
Rev. BDC:
Also a good point. Maybe you'll get a better answer than I did.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:52 PM
Mormon Missionary tell us about Joesph Smith and who he was when he formed the church?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 2, 2009 11:53 PM
Wash your heretical mouth MM!
1. The Bible IS to be taken literally! We don't get to pick and choose about God's word. It isn't accessible to human interpretation. You are in error, and will be punished on judgement day.
2. There is EVERYTHING supernatural about God! One divine fart and he'll blow all you Mormon heretics off the face of the planet.
3. He was NOT like us once. He was like a super-buff Charleton Heston and he liked sticking it to underage Jewish virgins. If you're like that, then by GOD you should be locked up!
4. We will NOT be like him one day, too. We will be like sad little ants crawling around heaven doing his bidding and praising him for eternity.
Don't think he's letting you off the hook, bucko! All your heresy is being recorded in eternal longhand.
Saint Smoggy
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 2, 2009 11:58 PM
Mormon Missionary also please explain Divine Revelation and how convenient it was that by Divine Revelation the church decided that blacks could enter the church just about the time when racism was being stigmatized my the majority of the general population.
Posted by: Kel | July 2, 2009 11:58 PM
MormonMissionary has got to be a poe. Otherwise it is really really really really really sad for him.
Posted by: Red John | July 3, 2009 12:00 AM
Now he's just following party lines again. The Mormon church has been backpedaling away from their claims about Native American ancestory since at least 2006 when they changed the introduction to the Book of Mormon to say that Israelites are simply 'among' the ancestors of the Native Americans. MormonMissionary, until you can find one Native American that is descended from the 'Lamanites' then you can't say that the claims of your church are supported by the evidence.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 3, 2009 12:00 AM
my = by
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 3, 2009 12:02 AM
It's Friday afternoon in Noo Zillund!
When a godbot appears who is so stupid he makes Smoggy seem a paragon of reason, it's time to stop for a beer.
Farewell Fellow Pharyngulators
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 3, 2009 12:04 AM
Well, he can say it - it's just that, by doing so, he reveals himself as delusional and intellectually dishonest -but we kind of knew that already, didn't we?
Believe what you want to believe, MM - just don't lie about science backing it up when it doesn't.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 3, 2009 12:05 AM
that cop-out would only work if things like The DNA Ancestry Project, or the entire field of Genetic Anthropology, didn't exist. As it is, we have a pretty clear picture about who migrated from where.
Posted by: SpriteSuzi | July 3, 2009 12:10 AM
Smoggy,
OT, where in enzed? Just curious; I'm near Bay of Islands...
Suzi
Newbie, been lurking for ~3 weeks
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 3, 2009 12:18 AM
Canterbury Suzi,
With all the other polite, quiet, conservative South Islanders.
There's worse places to lurk from than the Bay of Islands
Posted by: Agersomnia | July 3, 2009 12:19 AM
I'm still early or do they hacked the poll themselves?
* Evolution is a myth
83%
* * God is a myth
16%
* I believe in both
1%
Is it Possible to Believe in God and Darwin?
* Yes
15%
* * No
85%
Posted by: Red John | July 3, 2009 12:19 AM
"Newbie, been lurking for ~3 weeks"
Heh, I've been lurking for at least a year.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 3, 2009 12:32 AM
I've been coming here for just over a year, but I don't think I lurked for very long before making my first post - however, since it's fair to say I'm a self-assured, opinionated so-and-so who enjoys seeing his words onscreen, that shouldn't come as much of a shock.
Posted by: SpriteSuzi | July 3, 2009 12:43 AM
Smoggy,
I've heard Canterbury is a beautiful place, but we haven't gotten that far south yet...maybe in summer!
Red,
You're being modest - I know I've seen your name on some good posts.
Wow,
I'm opinionated, but not so self-assured. I'm happy to sit here and root for the home team for a while more. (grin)
They've done something to the poll, and I can't back to the voting page! It's still showing 83% evilution is a myth...
Posted by: Kel | July 3, 2009 12:53 AM
I started commenting about a year ago, wasn't much of a lurker, never been really. It's kind of perverse in a way to sit there and "listen in" on the conversations of others. I suppose on places like this it's different, since it is less personal and more "intellectual" in terms of conversation.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 3, 2009 12:57 AM
# Evolution is a myth 83%
# * God is a myth 16%
Someone is going about things the wrong way.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 3, 2009 1:03 AM
I've been commenting way too long.
Posted by: Red John | July 3, 2009 1:05 AM
Thanks Suzi. I have posted occasionally, but I'm a little surprised that someone noticed (or at least remembered).
It looks like our missionary friend went away...
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 3, 2009 1:49 AM
MormonMissionary,
I'm curious, have your Mormon Elders taught you anything about Mountain Meadows in 1857? If so, what happened?
Posted by: Gorogh | July 3, 2009 1:51 AM
Is it possibly that major religious websites start organizing "poll twisting campaigns" of their own? Still pretty much the same figures, and a very high number of votes...
Posted by: Nominal Egg | July 3, 2009 1:52 AM
The Guardian of the Pole sure is obsessed with fornication, isn't he?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 3, 2009 2:11 AM
Kel wrote:
Well, it depends on the topic. I'm not a scientist, and what little science knowledge I possess has almost all been picked up by coming here - so I don't tend to try and add anything on threads that are more to do with evolutionary theory, for example.
Ditto any that are about mathematics, physics, economics (esp. when the dreaded L-word is involved) or climate science (for similiar reasons) - since I'm not well-versed enough on those either.
While I might have opinions on those topics, they aren't informed enough to add anything that everyone doesn't already know.
Posted by: Helgi Briem | July 3, 2009 4:53 AM
Yesterday it was at 97% for God is a myth. Now that's down to 17%. I suspect they did some tweaking of numbers themselves last night.
Posted by: Shoomi | July 3, 2009 6:47 AM
Two other New Zealanders on the great pharyngula? Here I was thinking I was the only one lurking here (Taranaki btw)
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 3, 2009 7:06 AM
I also believe in God and His Son, Jesus Christ. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a Mor
mon) - Moron MissionaryFixed for you. No charge.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 3, 2009 7:11 AM
Brandon
And?
The whole point of crashing polls (apart from the fun) is that they are not to be taken seriously.
They are meaningless.
They prove nothing.
I could possibly hack this site and get my computer to vote often, except I have morals.
The figures mean nothing.
That is why we crash polls, to demonstrate the total futility of their existence.
Posted by: midna | July 3, 2009 7:28 AM
I have been inspired by the likes of SpriteSuzi above to come out of my own lurking closet. I'm actually quite terrified!
Being in the UK, these Mormon types aren't quite the norm around here, so I was rather surprised to be stopped in the street by one on my way home from work the other day. Apparently a Mormon church has moved into my neighbourhood, and I can't resist a bit of mischief. He seemed like an affable chap - I love to hear an America twang calling me ma'am - but I was completely stumped as to how best to deal with this particular flavour of crazy. I hadn't heard of the Mormon Magic Underpants (TM) before I started reading this blog, so I'd just like to ask what other pertinent and uncomfortable questions can I raise with these kindly souls the next time one tries to delay me from my apres-work tipple?
Posted by: Echo | July 3, 2009 8:01 AM
I think someone else crashed this poll.
* Evolution is a myth
82%
* God is a myth
18%
* I believe in both
1%
* I'm not sure
0%
47,203 votes
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 3, 2009 8:01 AM
Perhaps MormonMissionary could explain that, despite the Book of Mormon being changed to reflect the lack of DNA evidence for its claims, every single Mormon prophet has continued to claim that the Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites. Does he know something his prophets don't?
Posted by: XD | July 3, 2009 8:06 AM
Off topic:
Has anyone else encountered censorship on ScienceBlogs? In the past couple of days, I've submitted comments on DrugMonkey and WhiteCoatUnderground, only for them to not make it through moderation. They were perfectly normal, on topic, and non-contentious.
Just wondered what the experience of others have been.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 3, 2009 8:17 AM
"explain why", not "explain that".
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 3, 2009 8:20 AM
It's quite possible that the comment system is just failing. It takes forever to post comments sometimes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 3, 2009 8:29 AM
yawn
Posted by: Heleen | July 3, 2009 8:37 AM
The poll has been crashed by creatonists.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 3, 2009 8:47 AM
It doesn't matter where the percentages go, it still shows that the pole is a worthless exercise in modifying numbers, rather than a survey of reality.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 3, 2009 8:51 AM
XD@160 - you SURE about that? Nearly every post here gets jammed and you get an error - but that does definately NOT mean that you were censored. I could be wrong on your specifics, but if you are getting the "Were you trying to submit a comment?" error (words to that effect) then you are not being censored.
Read the message - go back one page and refresh.
Of course, as I said, I could be wrong in your specific case. I have never posted to those two boards so I do not know if the employ moderation - but SB has long been problematic with posting comments. They DO get posted, but with error messages as well. Note the comments here that are duplicated/triplicated/multiplicated.
On topic, I think it is great that the Poll has been hacked either way - I refreshed after about 3 minutes and the vote count was up something like 20,000 more votes. Wrong way of course, but the "point" remains valid.
We just have to get "our" bits working before they get "their" bots working I guess.
JC
Posted by: XD | July 3, 2009 8:58 AM
Jack#166
The time-out issues only seem to apply to Pharyngula. The message received at the two blogs I mentioned is "your comment is awaiting moderation".
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 3, 2009 9:10 AM
What were you trying to post there?
Posted by: Craig | July 3, 2009 9:26 AM
I am bored by "MormonMissionary", so here goes....
The Mormon garment (i.e. temple undergarment) is worn by members of the LDS faith who have gone through the complete endowment ceremony. The garment originally consisted of a union suit (long underwear) with stitched-in markings in the form of a reverse-L and a V above the breasts, a horizontal line over the navel, and a horizontal line over the right knee. The original garments were one-piece and were to be worn under all other clothing; for women, this included under bras and such.
Modernly, the garment is now commonly two pieces (though one-piecers are available), has been shortened to t-shirt and boxer-brief (knee) lengths and is available in a variety of fabrics (cotton, cotton-poly, poly mesh, nylon, etc.). Though the garment is usually white, it's available in khaki and other colors for military and emergency personnel to comply with uniform standards.
Per LDS interpretation, the garment represents the coat of skins given to Adam and Eve when they were driven from the Garden of Eden. The markings, which are partly Masonic in origin, supposedly represent:
1. the compass - all truth can be circumscribed into one whole
2. the square - exactness in keeping the commandments of God
3. the navel mark - people are to be nourished on the word of God
4. the knee mark - in the day of His Second Coming, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.
The garment is given as part of the washing and anointing ceremony in the temple and is worn as "a shield and a protector", which some older Mormons take literally (cf. Bill Marriott). Although the garment is to be worn at all times, most Mormons do not wear it during sports, sex, or bathing, though you may find stricter interpretations among very old Mormons.
When the garment is worn out, the marks are to be cut out of the fabric and either burned or cut up to the point of being unrecognizable.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 3, 2009 9:28 AM
Yep. GrrlScientist didn't let a comment by me through, not even the third or fourth attempt after several months, and still hasn't replied to the e-mail I sent her about this several months ago. No attacks on her or any commenters, with references and stuff… <headshake>
Posted by: XD | July 3, 2009 9:38 AM
Mike#168
The topic was depression. As someone whose depression curtailed his career in science, I thought I could contribute. My comment was obviously not welcome, thought I really haven't a clue why.David#170
That's bizarre; you're one of the most consistently excellent commenters on the whole of ScienceBlogs.Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 3, 2009 10:57 AM
I hadn't heard of the Mormon Magic Underpants (TM) before I started reading this blog, so I'd just like to ask what other pertinent and uncomfortable questions can I raise with these kindly souls the next time one tries to delay me from my apres-work tipple?
Ask them about Smith being a known con-man.
Ask why no one has multiple wives anymore.
Ask about the ban on caffeine.
Hell, ask them about Hitler.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 3, 2009 11:06 AM
Crazy poll. I'm a committed Darwinian in my thought, but I in no way 'believe' in Darwin the way a committed Christian believes in God. I should know! This poll is all apples and oranges.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 3, 2009 11:25 AM
Posted by: Nanahuatzin
|
July 3, 2009 11:46 AM
David Marjanović @ 170
"GrrlScientist didn't let a comment by me through, not even the third or fourth attempt after several months,"
Now that you mention.. it seem she did not liked my coments on the mexican cuisine based on insects... (comenting on her, founding insect remains on a soup)
Probably she though it was a joke... ;)
Posted by: XD | July 3, 2009 12:12 PM
JadeHawk#174
I can understand that Pharyngula puts a strain on the blogging software (though Seed have had months to find a solution), but Greg's blog? I mean, I enjoy reading it from time-to-time, but no-one could call it busy.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that PZ and Greg are the most outspoken atheists on ScienceBlogs.
;)
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 3, 2009 12:41 PM
"Hell, ask them about Hitler. "
Hitler? Mormons and Hitler? Don't hold out on us man, give us the dirt!
Posted by: antistokes | July 3, 2009 1:03 PM
Ditto.
*grabbing popcorn*
....hey, are they actually anything like what's in that older south park episode ("all about the mormons")?
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 3, 2009 1:32 PM
Mormons practice "reverse baptism"-- baptizing dead people and their families so they can get into heaven*. They have baptized not only Hitler, but a good chunk of the Jews that were killed by the Nazis. Needless to say, many Jewish organizations have had a problem with this.
* Basically, a bunch of mormons sit around going through public records and baptizing everyone they can get their hands on, which is why they've got so much genealogical data about families all over the world.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 3, 2009 1:33 PM
Sorry if it's not as saucy as I lead you to believe, but it's sure to cause embarrassment to the missionaries!
Posted by: Lynna | July 3, 2009 1:43 PM
Uh-oh. Right now "Evolution is a myth" is at 81 percent; and "God is a myth" is at 19 Percent.
Posted by: Lynna | July 3, 2009 2:10 PM
Mormon Missionary, also #157 and #172: A former Mormon Bishop with 32 years in the LDS Church put up a good summary, with the added kick of personal experience. He also provides links for those that want to know more.
See http://www.exmormon.org/whyileft.htm
Posted by: Lynna | July 3, 2009 2:18 PM
More on the questions about undies: A friend of mine (male) used to put a piece of duct tape on each thigh, positioning the tape at the spot where sacred garments would end, if he had had any sacred garments. If any of the high school girls he was trying to date checked him for garmies by placing a hand on his thigh, they'd feel the tell-tale line and think he was Mormon. All doors (almost) were then open.
I've been felt up myself by women giving me particularly thorough hugs when trying to find out on the sly if I was Mormon or not. For a discussion of this and other garmie-related adventures, see http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon091.htm
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 3, 2009 2:47 PM
Tet Zoo, too.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 3, 2009 3:02 PM
Thanks, Lynna! I've seen some of the same points made elsewhere, but it's still worth a read.
I knew some mormon kids growing up and they just keep getting crazier and crazier about their religion as they get older. It makes me sad.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 3, 2009 4:06 PM
Mormon Missionary didn't really try to answer my question in #82. I guess the "scientific evidence" was a little too elusive.
Posted by: antistokes | July 3, 2009 4:28 PM
#183, Lynna
....so, you're saying, the mormon chicks feel the guys up/down....
kinda creepy, I'm just sayin' (as a former PK).
Posted by: Red John | July 3, 2009 4:31 PM
"....hey, are they actually anything like what's in that older south park episode ("all about the mormons")?"
That episode was pretty accurate if I remember it correctly.
Posted by: Lynna | July 3, 2009 5:25 PM
Just got back from a visit to Grand Targhee Resort, Teton Valley, and Driggs, Idaho. One of the Summer Festival activities is the offering of free hot air balloon rides on July 3rd. The local Senior Citizens group sold breakfast, which included no real coffee. The servers even ran out of the little bit of decaf coffee they brought. And I have a feeling that even offering decaf was a major concession to those of us influenced by Satan.
No tea, no coffee, but the Mormon staple of hot chocolate was abundant in the form of Nestle's packets. 5:30 AM (0:dark thirty) and no evil coffee.
We left as soon as we could, after performing our duties of interviewing various worthies and taking photos. We went straight to The Daily Buzz (also in Driggs). Death before decaf!
The tension between Mormons (whose families pioneered most of the towns around here) and the newcomers makes for difficulties. It's a step forward to see interaction and cooperation, even if it does entail decaf.
Posted by: antistokes | July 3, 2009 5:32 PM
...um, decaf? not a step froward...(at least the protestant churches had the sheer "human decency" to serve caffeine).....;)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 3, 2009 5:38 PM
hear, hear!
Posted by: Lynna | July 3, 2009 6:02 PM
OurDeadSelves @185 wrote
I know what you mean. If they don't get out, they get worse. For some, panic sets in... and panic requires ever-increasing repetitions of "I know the Church is true" and ever-stricter compliance with the Doctrine and Covenants.
I know two middle-aged guys who would like to get out, but can't, or they don't think they can. They were both sucked in when they were young, paid to go on 2-year missions, married in the Temple, and so forth. Now their businesses and careers are so closely entwined with Church relationships that it would be financial disaster for them to quit or to get excommunicated. They both also have families (wives, kids, extended families) that would be hurt if they left.
They both say that sometimes they wish they still had a Testimony (Mormons call an ill-defined feeling, a burning in the bosom, an inkling that the holy ghost is within -- they call that having a Testimony). It's hard to see the bunk, to know you're still being snookered daily, that your time and money are being taken, but to realize at the same time that it would be so very hard to leave the Church. Crazy. Depressed. Fucked over.
The present Mormon Prophet, Seer, and Revelator may be addicted to Pepsi. A guy who used to date Monson's daughter noted the empties by the Prophet's back door. So much for staying away from caffeine.
Posted by: Guradian of the Poll | July 3, 2009 7:29 PM
Since your fornication didn't work on this poll, can we move on to the next one. I'll surely laugh if it fails too. Maybe your poll fonication finally caught up with you PZ.
Onward Poll Fornication soldiers! HA Ha HA
Posted by: Mike | July 3, 2009 7:59 PM
Oh, fornicate it! The Guradian of the Trolls is still with us. May I respectfully suggest, Mr. Guradian, sir, that your typing, grammar, and punctuation skills could stand some improvement. I might also point out that there is a much simpler, four letter, f-word with almost exactly the same meaning as fornicate. Maybe it would help if you used the simpler word. Wouldn't strain your meager typing skills so much. It would also make your semi-comprehensible maunderings slightly less, I don't know, creepy.
See you at the polls.
Posted by: Zmidponk | July 3, 2009 8:14 PM
Graudnian of the Trolls, you really, really don't get the entire reason that PZ posts about polls like this, do you? It is to show how completely, totally and utterly pointless and inaccurate they are. As such, having a poll fucked one way proves this just as well as having it fucked the other.
Posted by: Guradian of the Polls | July 3, 2009 8:26 PM
Nevertheless, I remain guardian of the polls. I take up my spear and sheild and defend the territories of righteousness with a fierce loyalty. See you at the poll indeed.
Posted by: Mike | July 3, 2009 10:28 PM
Sorry, what was that? Did you mean shield?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 3, 2009 10:51 PM
Loyalty to what? Having your head up your ass? Being a loyal fuckwit doesn't mean much more than being a disloyal fuckwit.
Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 11:17 PM
Guradian of the Polls, you're funny.
Do go on about your spear and your sheild...
Posted by: Ceph | July 4, 2009 7:22 AM
Hmm.. The expected pharyngulazation of that poll appears to have been omiously diluted by other forces?
Yes 18%, No 82%
Evolution, Creationism or Both - Which Do You Believe?
Evolution is a myth 79%, God is a myth 20%, I believe in both 1%
Posted by: Ron | July 7, 2009 2:19 PM
We aren't the only poll crashers -
Simultanious belief in a god and evolution are overwhelmingly tipped in the NO catagory
The fact of evolution is believed to be a myth by an overwhelming percentage.