Pharyngula

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 15, 2009 2:24 PM

Cdesign proponentsist gets op-ed space in Boston Globe. Film at 11.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 15, 2009 2:27 PM

Fuck shit dick pussy damn hell asshole semprini

Posted by: Sam the Man | July 15, 2009 2:38 PM

There is no god and PZ Myers is his prophet.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 15, 2009 2:39 PM

I see from the latest rebuttal that MK still do not know how to use commas or the difference between commas and dashes. When I look at any of MK's writing after reading the Pluto excerpt, that's all I can see.

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 15, 2009 2:41 PM

This comment is awaiting moderation at The Intersection. It's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. For now.

M&K: “We describe the full incident in the book….”

And with that, my last shred of respect for either of you is gone. I’ve read your ‘account’ of Crackergate in UA, and it doesn’t even come close to being complete. It’s entirely one-sided and self-serving, dishonest and cowardly.

The anti-science religious right is far and away more intolerant, more bigoted, and much, much more hateful than the ‘new atheists’ have ever been, yet you insist they must be treated with “respect.” That’s very nice, and I’m sure they’ll appreciate it. Your “respect” will make their task of dismantling religious freedom and science education in America that much easier, in both the short term and the long run.

They’ll thank you for your respect, then get on with the business of electing creationist school boards, introducing new anti-evolution legislation in their states each year, promoting ‘abstinence only’ sex-ed programs and killing their children with ‘faith-based medicine…the list goes on and on. We’ve all seen how much harm they can do, and will do.

“Respect” isn’t going to stop them. You’re wasting your time, and everyone else’s by perpetuating this pointless debate about how to engage with irrational theists. Those that are doing the most damage to science education in America will never change, or give up their anti-science agenda. The only proper way to deal with them is to expose their lies, mock their foolishness, and when they cross the line, take legal action against them.

The two of you clearly have no idea what the real problem is, who the real enemy is, or how they actually think. You’re not part of the solution; you’re part of the problem. And PZ Myers was mistaken: your book is worse than ‘useless.’ It’s pathetically misguided.

Rt

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 15, 2009 2:42 PM

This comment is awaiting moderation at The Intersection. It's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. For now.

M&K: “We describe the full incident in the book….”

And with that, my last shred of respect for either of you is gone. I’ve read your ‘account’ of Crackergate in UA, and it doesn’t even come close to being complete. It’s entirely one-sided and self-serving, dishonest and cowardly.

The anti-science religious right is far and away more intolerant, more bigoted, and much, much more hateful than the ‘new atheists’ have ever been, yet you insist they must be treated with “respect.” That’s very nice, and I’m sure they’ll appreciate it. Your “respect” will make their task of dismantling religious freedom and science education in America that much easier, in both the short term and the long run.

They’ll thank you for your respect, then get on with the business of electing creationist school boards, introducing new anti-evolution legislation in their states each year, promoting ‘abstinence only’ sex-ed programs and killing their children with ‘faith-based medicine…the list goes on and on. We’ve all seen how much harm they can do, and will do.

“Respect” isn’t going to stop them. You’re wasting your time, and everyone else’s by perpetuating this pointless debate about how to engage with irrational theists. Those that are doing the most damage to science education in America will never change, or give up their anti-science agenda. The only proper way to deal with them is to expose their lies, mock their foolishness, and when they cross the line, take legal action against them.

The two of you clearly have no idea what the real problem is, who the real enemy is, or how they actually think. You’re not part of the solution; you’re part of the problem. And PZ Myers was mistaken: your book is worse than ‘useless.’ It’s pathetically misguided.

Rt

Posted by: skyotter | July 15, 2009 2:44 PM

i watched "Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus" last night. hilariously bad, yet sometimes intentionally funny. they don't even *try* to get *any* science right

totally worth it.

Posted by: Kirk | July 15, 2009 2:47 PM

Just read that commentary in the Globe and put in a comment there chastising the Globe for sacrificing its commitment to the journalistic value of truth in a desperate attempt to pull in readers.

Posted by: mk | July 15, 2009 2:49 PM

@ MrFire...
No, no, no... I was 'mk' long before they were! ;^}

It's kinda weird to see so much nastiness directed at MK or M&K. It's not me folks!

Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 2:50 PM

You're also supposed to read this, which should cover most of the scatological expressions of outrage.

Belgium

Posted by: Mozglubov | July 15, 2009 2:51 PM

@#12
That line from the Dalai Lama really struck me... it's not compatibility if you have to make a choice between them. Just because you have people like Ken Miller and the Dalai Lama who profess that they will choose science over religion (as opposed to the majority of people who will choose religion over science) doesn't change the fact that they are being forced to make that choice because, at the heart of the matter, science and religion (other than the ever nebulous deism) are fundamentally incompatible.

Posted by: sharky | July 15, 2009 2:56 PM

... back up a step? Were they seriously saying Pharyngula commenters are nothing more than a mob of attack goons? Did I mishear that on the internet?

Hm. Note of support in the idea that commenters here can suddenly mass on other sites: poll crashes. But those aren't really malicious enforcing of a cause. They're more playing with statistics usually geared to a selected audience, and now slanted the other way by a random post on the internet.

But while I commented here before I ever went there, I was neutral (with a note of impatience towards accomodationism) and hung out there to learn more of their stance. What made me skeptical of their good intentions was their behavior in debate and dialogue. Then that behavior made me critical. And what made me decide never to go there again (which is why I'm not entirely sure what they said about commenters here.)

Maybe if I were to BUY THE BOOK as so often exhorted, I would see their post-publication shenanigans differently, but past experience reminds me I have never seen the light by giving someone money.

Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 2:57 PM

For the last day or so, every comment I make on The Intersection goes to moderation. I guess they don't like me or something? Or maybe any post that contains the words "Mooney", "Myers", or "Pharyngula" goes to moderation, since I try to be to the point and directly address people. Irritating.

Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 2:59 PM

And that audience will largely agree that Myers’ communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.

Maybe M&K had a predisposition to the disease before, but now they really have been infested with Kw*k-flu. M&K are just as effective as Kw*k at flogging PZ and really putting him in his place.

Back to Emily Dickenson: "such dimity convictions..." all fluff and worry and little content.

Crackergate was highly effective. Moreover, after crackergate I learned a good deal about fossils, geology and physics.

Posted by: SEF | July 15, 2009 3:00 PM

promoting ‘abstinence only’ sex-ed programs

Along those lines, they have a new way of fleecing the same idiots - and (as with the whole basis of religion) they don't even have to have anything real to sell:

Telegraph
Grauniad

Posted by: lose_the_woo | July 15, 2009 3:02 PM

Ok, so the head has been cut off of this snake 3 or 4 times now. Albeit, each time it grows back with less sense. So how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop?

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 3:11 PM

A direct link to my comment? *swoon*

I guess that makes me an Official Sycophant now?

Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 3:15 PM

A comment on the Dawkins website notes that:

Mr. Meechum, the editor-in-chief of Newsweek, is a big-time born-again Christian. So no surprise here.

Pop tarts are not even in the same class as pie.

Posted by: Kitty'sBitch | July 15, 2009 3:16 PM

Alex #31

1017 licks

I was a shut in as a child.
I got better.

Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 15, 2009 3:17 PM

Stu, you are not allowed to swoon, the fainting couch is occupied.

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 15, 2009 3:22 PM

Apologies for the long-ish double post. The oh-so-excellent ScienceBlogs software said 'try again' so I did. Oops.

And I got the same message the first time I tried to post this apology, so I played it safe and waited, hoping to avoid another double-post.

It never posted. So I'm trying it again anyway. And I really hope this doesn't end up double-posting yet again.

I hate computers.

Rt

ps -- back on topic, did I mention M&K are a couple of misguided twonks?

Posted by: Geoff | July 15, 2009 3:24 PM

Well now I really can't wait to read PZ's book now...

Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 3:27 PM

@44

I would rather abide with my children in a tent than relinquish my privilege of entering the house of the Lord.

To further elucidate: She means that if she does not pay her tithe, she will not be allowed into the Temple.

Posted by: Hank Fox | July 15, 2009 3:29 PM

PZ, you're totally justified in everything you say.

However, just so you know, to some of us this is like being 9 years old and hearing your parents having a loud fight in the next room.

The very FACT that these people are fighting, people you respect and love, and aside from the details of the issues under discussion, is very, very disturbing.

Posted by: Dieter | July 15, 2009 3:34 PM

By reading the comments done so far one can conclude:

1: PZ Myers did not read the book before reviewing it. Neither honest, nor professional.

2: His readers are as open to serious debate as a creationist to science.

3: M and K are correct when they label Pharyngula and Myers as uncivil.

Posted by: MikeyM | July 15, 2009 3:35 PM

Further developments in the "creationism is religious superstition" lawsuit.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-farnan-high-2492867-school-history

Teacher James Corbett was sued by a student who was offended by remarks that disparaged religion.

Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 3:38 PM

@Dieter #49

Argument by assertion. Fail.

Posted by: uppity cracka | July 15, 2009 3:42 PM

i'm not a scientist...didn't grow up interested in it. i actually find, with my layperson brain, that PZ explains complicated sciencey crap pretty well. Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. have also spurred a rebirth of interest in this "science" idea, despite the claim that the new atheist movement is somehow hurting the public's collective feelings. also, if you're offending the o'relly watching, reactionary archie bunker types you're really not breaking new ground. those people weren't exactly lining up for exhibits at the science museum or petitioning for more funding for research (unless it's research about kickin' out mexicans). however, you have no idea how many musicians and artists that i hang out with that have read the new atheist books (especially Dawkins), read this blog, have acquired more than their prior cursory understanding of evolution and have gained a new appreciation for science. it's a lot of people. maybe the authors are just jealous that nobody finds them inspiring? no...that would just be...childish.

the new atheist movement is inspiring young people to question the religious establishment and appreciate what the scientific community has to offer. PZ---not part of the problem, no, part of the solution...yep.

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 3:44 PM

PZ, I'm sorry to see you getting the Sister Souljah treatment from Mooney. While I was not a fan of Crackergate myself (I thought it was a mostly harmless, but gratuitous stunt), Mooney is wrong to make so-called militant atheists out as a problem underlying scientific illiteracy.

I'm dismayed personally at how Mooney's seemingly been co-opted by the "elitist scientist" meme, as that's been a staple of Republican Party rhetoric anytime the scientific facts have run contrary to the interests of tobacco or oil companies, etc.

I don't think religion is THE problem for science though, with the obvious exception of the theory of evolution. I think that most people have never been very well informed about a wide variety of scientific topics, and thus are vulnerable to snake oil salesmen of all kinds, and not just Republicans!

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 15, 2009 3:46 PM

Reading the article linked by MikeyM in #51, I am amused by the student's whine that he won't be able to take AP European History for fear of being all persecuted and stuff. Cry me a Rubicon, kid. If you were serious, you could read books on your own, practice your essay writing and take the exam without going through the class. I took the AP Computer Science test after dropping the class halfway and the AP Biology exam without enrolling in the course at all, and I aced both of them. What one fool can do, another can.

Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 3:47 PM

Dieter @49: You claim that PZ did not read the book. Oh, yes, he did. Go back this far in the Unscientific America discussions and you will see that PZ received a review copy and read the book. So you can strike that false comment off your list.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_how_scien.php

Posted by: F | July 15, 2009 3:51 PM

That was one friggin' awesome comment at the other end of the link. Rage on.

Posted by: Sastra | July 15, 2009 4:04 PM

"Calm and respectful debate" is often code for an agreement not to debate. Don't worry, your belief in the supernatural will not be scrutinized, criticized, or analyzed. It won't be mocked or made fun of. In fact, the fact that you believe in the supernatural will not be scrutinized, criticized, or analyzed either. We will grant it calm respect. It's okay to believe in things on faith. You can draw lines wherever you want, and you're not only a good person, you're a good person for doing so.

So now it's your turn. Reciprocate the favor. Try to find a way to accept science by drawing your arbitrary line further down the fact claim area. We can meet then in the Golden Middle.

I don't think this will work. In fact, I don't think this should work. It's like asking the head of Alternative and Complementary Medicine at General Hospital to leave off the coffee enemas and cranial-sacral therapy, and they can fiddle around with homeopathy for vague aches and pains. That will be fine.

To paraphrase Robert L. Park on the subject of alt med, religion is not a separate field of knowledge: it's a separate culture -- a culture of credulity. And accepting magic at the tippy top makes it awfully hard to confine it at any point from dropping down from its skyhooks to areas below, and dangling into the cranes.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 15, 2009 4:09 PM

Here is the formal mathematical falsification of evolution - William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "LIFES CONSERVATION LAW: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information"

Bullshit.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 15, 2009 4:11 PM

A better link on the Dembski/Marks tomfoolery.

Posted by: Logicel | July 15, 2009 4:12 PM

Dieter @49, please fucking apologize to PZ for being uncivil as you accused him of not doing something he has done since he has read the book in question. In addition, you are a tedious, boring, and inane babbler. And your mom has smelly feet.

Posted by: xebecs | July 15, 2009 4:16 PM

Mooney's book has the wrong title. It should be:

My Personal Vendetta Against PZ Myers, Volume I

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | July 15, 2009 4:18 PM

Well, PZ, I hope you're happy. You have single-handedly destroyed American scientific literacy. The event of your cracker desecration even created a ripple in the space-time continuum that perverted causality and retroactively caused the Snopes Monkey Trial.

Posted by: Butter | July 15, 2009 4:20 PM

PZ, you're totally justified in everything you say.

However, just so you know, to some of us this is like being 9 years old and hearing your parents having a loud fight in the next room.

Well then, it's fortunate that we're all over the age of nine, and don't view PZ as a father figure.

Posted by: Kristine | July 15, 2009 4:21 PM

*Sigh* Oh, FFS. I read an article about a science curriculum that actually used a "question the evidence" approach to evolution, utilizing small group discussion and evidence-based inquiry, that results in a creationist's nightmare (students leaving the class more convinced of the evidence for evolution than they were earlier). I posted it at the Intersection during one of the last blow-ups, asking for Chris's input. At his Discovery site I linked to my own comment again. Let's see if he wants to have a constructive discussion, or just bitch about PZ.

I make a distinction between defending PZ's right to offend people and provoke them, and promoting science. I should think that most people could, too.

And if I read "Dawkins blah blah child abuse blah" once more I am going to scream. Dawkins said repeatedly and clearly that it was also child abuse to indoctrinate children into atheism. He would teach comparative religion; he's against teaching children about hell, as I am.

Posted by: Badger3k | July 15, 2009 4:26 PM

Now, now..th' book ain't worthless...when I's goin' to my outhouse, th' book be providen' plenty of use, although I got's to soften' 'er up or else I gets the paper cuts. ;P

Posted by: robotaholic | July 15, 2009 4:28 PM

haha, I am reading the new blog entry on the intersection-

lol all the comments are anti-MK/Nisbet- it's cracking me up

Posted by: Prometheus | July 15, 2009 4:29 PM

#58 nigelTheBold

At this point I don't think M&K can be regarded as accommodating, acquiescent, or even tolerant(in the sense that one develops a tolerance to narcotics) they have gone over. They are at best collaborators with organized religion, although I can think of a worse word for what they are doing.

I'll try this again because I liked the John Wayne heuristic reference (Mine is: What would a bear do?)

An accommodationist is not supposed to be at odds with the proposition that magical thinking is antithetical to empiricism.

There is not supposed to be a difference in goals, just strategy.

If you think time is on your side but you may be weaker than your opposition you are a Fabian Strategist. You babble about two truths and twin magisteria while quietly wrecking the supply lines, picking off stragglers and burning crops.

It works. Washington used it. It eventually kicked Napoleon’s butt.

I can’t live with it. It takes too long

While we nip at each others ankles more generations of scores of children are going to get brain raped and this is our fight not theirs.

If you see your position as strong with the numbers on your side you take the field.

I favor a Zugzwang followed by a Cannae Tactic while observant always of the Von Moltke sensibility.

In other words call them out in the front yard and pound them(figuratively).

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 15, 2009 4:33 PM

My comment that I posted on The Intersection:

"#

S&C: I agree totally that spearing a Eucharist with a rusty nail advances science very directly. Since religion often does oppose science, an act that made religion go away suddenly and without cost or difficulty could be said to benefit science but there would probably be immediate unforeseen consequences that in the short term might out weight that. Whatever.

But I’d like you to consider this. I, as a communicator, educator, and scientist, do things to advance science. But I also do things to advance human rights in certain parts of the world. (As you know.) Those things do not necessarily advance science in any direct way, though expanding basic human rights would enhance education generally and so on and so forth so there would be indirect positive effects. But the point is, not everything I do in the way of communication or science blogging (or should I say “blogging on a science blog”) is about science, and should not be (and is generally not) judged in terms of science.

Same with PZ. He is on a crusade. It is a crusade that is hard, dangrous, make him plenty of enemies, and that many people fully support and that is important. Yes, there is a connection between science and anti-religion that PZ makes, but in truth, specific actions such as crackergate are not that closely conneted, and I doubt wheter PZ thought about (he can correct me if I’m wrong) the effects on science itself or science education per se. To put it another way: PZ is a developmental biologist. He did the Crackergate thing. He could have been an English Literature prof and done the same thing.

Here’s another thing I’d like to bring up. One of the reasons my review of your book is not out yet (aside from me getting a nasty cold) is that the nature and contents of the review become increasingly important to me and harder to address as this debate expands and boils over. That is not a bad thing per se, it just means that my job is getting really hard . I could make it easy by just jumping on one bandwagon or another and doing what everybody else is doing. But it is not what I believe. Which is why I wrote my Acommodationist/New Atheist piece (click my name above to see that).

As I say in that post, I think that there are two or three important issues that actually define what has to happen (in the big picture, not mythologically) over which there is no disagreement between the two of you and PZ and me and lots of others.

The amount of forward movement that your book has created (and I think there will be forward movement) is discounted by this debate. Can we possibly fix this?

I have been trying to work with you two guys, and obviously Sheril and I have had some real success working together recently. To the onlooker: Oh, yes, there is a fair amount of one on one communication and this whole Silence in the Enemy thing happened because Sheril started it and various allies, such as myself, communicated, joined up, conspired, brought others in, and did stuff with no problem whatsoever amongst us.

Yet at the same time I was totally in with PZ on Crackergate. It was I who posted the pieces by the friend of the young man who had the Eucharist, and yes, it was I who discovered the image of Jesus on the banana peel. There is a reason that when people who don’t like me get mad at me they call me “PZ Junior” and there is a reason that when people call me that I think “What a nice thing do say. And PZ is, after all, much much older than me.”

Perhaps my message here really is that I’m an enigma. But what I’d prefer my message to be is this: We actually agree on the fundamentals. Let’s get past this (it will take time to do so) and then kick ass. Please.
"

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 15, 2009 4:37 PM

@ robotaholic #83:

I've noticed that being associated with Nisbet really seems to annoy Mooney. I wonder why?

Whatever the reason, it's amusing.

Rt

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 15, 2009 4:40 PM

A PZ shaped windmill would not work for shit. I see him more in the hydro or perhaps nuclear area.

Posted by: charley | July 15, 2009 4:41 PM

I think Mooney's next effort should be a book of etiquette for scientists covering both professional and personal behavior. This could be the "go to" source for all of us technical and scientific types who are unable to speak and act appropriately without his guidance.

Posted by: Otto | July 15, 2009 4:45 PM

The creation of god.

In the beginning people had lots of gods.
So why did the Hebrews suddenly switch to a single god? The bible is fairly clear when it happened: On the exodus from Egypt. The Hebrews escaped from Pharaoh, the all powerful ruler of Egypt. Their leaders could never achieve that kind of power so Moses did a slick trick: He invented the creator of the world as a special deity of the Hebrews: In the image of Pharaoh he created him.
It was not easy to make it stick, the Golden Calf et al were quite popular but eventually the One was quite a success, so much so that he escaped the narrow world of Israel and even turned against them in an orgy of antisemitism.

A propaganda coup run amok!

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 4:46 PM

"A PZ shaped windmill would not work for shit. I see him more in the hydro or perhaps nuclear area. "

Given how much the wind blows in Morris, you gotta work with the analogy you got!

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 15, 2009 4:48 PM

David Wilford @#90

When I read most of the comments here, I'm reminded of when my dog barks incessantly at nothing much happening outside. At least I can tell her to can it!

Wow... how inadvertantly appropriate for the topic. Perhaps, David, instead of dismissively and likely irritatedly telling your dog to simply can it, you might take the approach that what she is barking at is actually important to her, and might be worth investigating for yourself if you were interested in doing much more than poking your head out the door and squinting into the darkness.

Nah... it's much easier to just get tired of the barking and shout "can it".

Posted by: Aquaria | July 15, 2009 4:48 PM

Dieter:

Do you have evidence for any of your assertions?

Did you not read PZ's review of the book?

How are commenters uncivil? Because they use naughty words sometimes? Do you have evidence that it harms science for people to talk about it using naughty words in an informal setting?

Here's an assertion for you: Mooney and other accommodationists are jealous because the outspoken atheists are getting the lion's share of attention.

It was the "New" atheist outrage that had Paula Zahn backtrack from a scandalous attack on atheists, and give atheists a heretofore unheard of chance to state their side of the matter. Do you understand how unlikely that would have been before Dawkins, Harris, et al., had made atheism relevant again? Do you understand that it's been okay for too long to attack atheists, science and rationality at will in American culture, and so much that theists/creationists are stunned when atheists/scientists fight back? They're so used to getting their way that they think it's beyond the pale for atheists/scientists to even defend themselves. That is what accommodation has gotten us.

Looney and his ilk like to think they are "Framing" or "accommodating," but what they actually practice is appeasement: Appease power, appease insanity, appease your attackers. They act like an abused spouse--they keep trying all these methods to try to prevent the next blow, without realizing that nothing can prevent it. The only thing that will stop the abuse is to get the hell away...or die. The "New" atheists are the friends telling the abused to get the hell out, and file charges against the abuser. And they get treated about the same way as such friends usually are: They're told they're mean, that they're not helping, they're making things worse, etc.

No, what's making things worse is staying there and taking the crap, rather than standing up for yourself.

Posted by: Otto | July 15, 2009 4:56 PM

Something to waste time
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

More religious and frantic:
http://www.geocities.com/yossarian70038/PIANOSA9/jesusdance_PIANOSA9.html

Posted by: Pat Gunn | July 15, 2009 4:58 PM

@Pareidolius #82:

That may be the case, but these are not virtues, they are character flaws. It is possible to be a militant atheist without being a troll. Parading around your shortcomings doesn't make them any less childish.

PZ Meyers:
I respect that you're a militant atheist and a scientist (I am the first in a sense and, working in academia, aspire to be the second). I find your blog educational on science topics, I (usually) like the poll crashing, and I often enjoy your links. I don't like that some of your posts are philosophically sloppy, and I despise the culture you encourage surrounding this blog in the comment section. If we are to replace religious philosophies with secular ones (and I believe we should try), we should mould ourselves into examples of how people should/could be. This is not an easy task, and it involves stepping away from a lot of the behaviours you encourage here (the whole circus atmosphere over who-shall-be-banned being a good example). Having been involved in organised atheism for quite some time, I have met many people who I would be glad to see share in the secular culture we would build/reinforce. Your commenters don't seem to fit the bill. I'm not sure if you do either, at least as you've shown yourself here.

If you want to better serve the movement, you should be more philosophically careful, encourage personal growth of people, and change the toxic atmosphere of your blog. None of these conflict with a belief (that I believe we share) that the world can be better off with secular world-outlooks than religious ones and that we should strive to replace the latter with the former.

*returns to lurking*

Posted by: Greg Laden | July 15, 2009 5:01 PM

Lynna: Thank you. Sorry for the errors. I tend to focus my editing laser beam on paid work.

Now, I'd like to introduce you to the most read post on my blog site: http://tinyurl.com/misteaks

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 15, 2009 5:02 PM

Dear Atheists, Rationalists, Intellectuals, Scientists, Democrats, Liberal Humanists, and other sinful hell-bound folks,

As a born-again, Bible-believing, young-earth-creationist, spirit-filled Christian, I'd just like to say 'Keep it up!' I haven't had so much fun since my Bible Class teacher recommended we read 'The 120 Days of Sodom' under the mistaken impression it was a text of Biblical history.

In my morning prayers, I chatted to Jesus about this ongoing controversy:

SB: Dear Jesus, that take-no-prisoners atheist PZ Myers and his hell-bound bovver boys are giving a couple of gentle souls named Mooney and Kirshenbaum a good kicking because they accused PZM of daring to promote a culture war that sets science against religion.

JESUS: Yes! It's working well isn't it?

SB: What Lord? You know about this?

JESUS: Know about it? I'm chairman of the committee that came up with the plan. Me, Mohammed, Gabriel and a couple of dead popes got the idea from Lucifer.

SB: L...l...lucifer? You mean Satan! What was his idea?

JESUS: Liberal Christianity.

SB: Liberal Christianity? What...like intellectual, touchy-feely Anglicanism?

JESUS: Exactly Smoggy! Do you know how much liberal Christians have fucked things up for we deities and prophets? Their watered down, wishy-washy, lets-all-hold-hands and get in touch with our inner-mother-deity sort of faith has set real Christianity back centuries. They're religious accommodationists of the worst kind. Their doughy Christian woo-woo dissolves difference and promotes love and harmony.

SB: And that's bad, Jesus?

JESUS: Bad? It's a fucking disaster. Religion is black and white. You're in or you're out. And if you're in, you're one of the elect and you can do whatever the fuck you like to the pagans and heretics because they're all going to burn for eternity anyway.

SB: So how does this relate to Myers, Mooney and wotsername?

JESUS: Well, Myers is dangerous. He understands that REAL Christians want nothing more than to fuck science over because it makes people think for themselves. And once people start thinking, then the Bible, and the Koran, and Jesus crackers, and flaming chariots, and virgin births etc.etc. all start to seem more than a little naff.

SB: Don't worry Jesus. No thinking for me...ever!

JESUS: Good boy, Smoggy. Straight to Heaven and eternal blow-jobs for you.

SB: Wow...eternal blow-jobs...really?

JESUS: No. But tell enough people I told you it was true, and you can start your own church. Think of the tax breaks!

SB: So, what's your great plan with Mooney and Thingey?

JESUS: Accommodationism! Get them preaching to scientists about tolerance, and acceptance, and open dialogue, and valuing difference, and good manners, and mutual respect, and inclusive world-views, and before you know it, scientists with the balls to speak up for their discipline will be demonized as pariahs. And from there it's just a small step to teaching creationism as science, and dumbing the world's most powerful nation right down to the level of a mind-numbing theocracy.

SB: Wow Jesus...awesome. Praise your holy name!

JESUS: Thank you Smoggy.

[long pause]

SB: Jesus?

JESUS: [sigh] Yes, Smoggy?

SB: About this Church of the Eternal Blow-Job idea...

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 5:05 PM

"Civility is bullshit."

No, it isn't. Grow up.

Posted by: windy | July 15, 2009 5:08 PM

Peter Beattie wrote:
Seeing as Mooneybaum have taken the argument up one step to just about kindergarten level, this is perhaps the most charitable summary of their prissy post:

Heh, I wonder if Mooney has regretted his special praise for you last week :)

Posted by: SC, OM | July 15, 2009 5:11 PM

Shorter David Wilford:

Woof.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | July 15, 2009 5:13 PM

David #108

I suggest you take in a larger sampling of the comments then, since I've been reading the comments here for several years, on all topics, science-related and otherwise, and find your "echo-chamber" concern-trolling to not only be unfounded, but not all that original.

That it irks you to find repeated criticisms of poorly constructed arguments by persons who share a similar viewpoint is simply confusing to me, considering the nature of this blog and its readership. Why don't you actually find fault with the content of a specific argument or range of arguments than with the fact that they seem to be shared by the majority of the commenters... or is there really no argument there?

Posted by: eddie | July 15, 2009 5:14 PM

Check this out;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lk12y

Interview with Lynn Margulis. May be available on iPlayer sometime later in the week.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 15, 2009 5:22 PM

. If we are to replace religious philosophies with secular ones (and I believe we should try), we should mould ourselves into examples of how people should/could be.

We already have, dumbass. We enshrined them in things like the Constitution, and our laws.

we should mould ourselves into examples of how people should/could be

What claptrap. To quote Charles Barkley, I am not a role model. I have enough to do in my life without having to put myself on an impossible pedestal you build for me. Who's to say that you know what's the "ideal" atheist/secularist must be, or that there must be one at all?

Become a Christian if you want to dictate to others who and what they're supposed to be.

Until then, fuck off.

Posted by: Sastra | July 15, 2009 5:27 PM

Pat Gunn #105 wrote:

If you want to better serve the movement, you should be more philosophically careful, encourage personal growth of people, and change the toxic atmosphere of your blog. None of these conflict with a belief (that I believe we share) that the world can be better off with secular world-outlooks than religious ones and that we should strive to replace the latter with the former.

I think PZ would argue that he is philosophically honest, and that the "toxic atmosphere" of the blog is, for the most part, a healthy counterbalance to the unearned deference given to religious claims, and the over-concern with politeness at the expense of truth.

Like you, I have also been involved with "organized atheism" for some time (no, not a leader or anything, but involved), and I think you're placing too much emphasis on one very excellent strategy, and failing to see the value of other strategies. Persuasion comes in many forms, and not all of them are going to meet the religious ideal of what it means to be civil. Won't meet your ideal either. Ideals are ... idealistic.

Perhaps what the 'atheist movement' needs are multiple voices, arguing and contending, and competing on a fair ground which doesn't equate passion with fanaticism, and doesn't see strong disagreement as abuse, and can take hard knocks and demands for evidence and scorn heaped up. It works for science, and democracy.

The pendulum has to swing. Being nice is fine and dandy and all, but when it comes to effecting real change it's probably over-rated.

Posted by: Watchman | July 15, 2009 5:30 PM

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day, like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr

"Facts are stubborn things." - John Adams.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

But anyway.

I'd like to remind everyone that there's a difference between civility and "clean" language. Tell me, which is more civil?

1. "That idea is totally fucking wrong."

2. "Only an ignorant fool would come up with such an ill-conceived notion."

Posted by: Prometheus | July 15, 2009 5:38 PM

Civility is abiding by a set of social rules upon which we are all in agreement.

PZ has his rules M&K have theirs.

The claim is moot.

They are employing a legalistic gambit and not making a legitimate criticism.

If you fall for it you are a de facto fuckwit.

M&K accomodationist/Evangelical Creationist Christian Civility = Having run out of ideas, I would like to make the argument about tone.

It's an anecephalics pocket version of wedge strategy.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 15, 2009 5:48 PM

the secular society I want to build involves a hell of a lot of swearing, and also some occasional incivility.

Cool. Add some gratuitous nudity, and I'm in.

Posted by: Palo | July 15, 2009 5:52 PM

M&K say Mooney's take on PZ cannot be bigotry because M is an atheist himself, and K cannot either because she likes M and M is an atheist. Now, Mooney (and K in the book) spends a lot of time trying to make a distinction between "atheists" (Sagan, Gould, Mooney?)and "new atheists" (PZ, Dawkins), apparently concluding that the bad is in the "new" atheists. But when Mooney wants to defend the charge of bigotry, he collapses all forms of "atheism" ("I am an atheist, how can I be anti-atheists?") in one in a self-serving and dishonest way.

Posted by: Qwerty | July 15, 2009 6:05 PM

Stu said it best.

Posted by: MikeyM | July 15, 2009 6:07 PM

Posted by: Aquaria | July 15, 2009 4:07 PM

#58:

John Wayne was a philanderer, a coward and a traitor. While people like Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, and Tyrone Power went off to war, often leaving behind wives and young children (Jane Fonda was 5 or 6 years old when her father went to war), Wayne boo-hooed to the studio about having a wife and kids and enlisted the stuido's help in helping him avoid military service. He raked in the dough while the real leading men, the real heroes, went off to fight on soldier's pay.

For a moment there, it sounded like you were talking about Saint Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Damian | July 15, 2009 6:10 PM

So often it appears that people mistake their own personality traits, as well as their own tolerance for swearing and incivility, for that which is preferable. It's an honest, but basic error — "well, I'm always civil, and I don't like swearing, so why are you doing exactly that, because it cannot be a good thing".

Well, I don't swear very often, and I'm almost always civil with people (more so on the internet, for some reason), and yet, I don't expect everyone else to be as I am. In fact, what a horribly boring world we would live in if there was no incivility, whatsoever, and particularly if nobody ever swore.

As Stephen Fry says, "The sort of twee person who thinks swearing is in any way a sign of a lack of education or of a lack of verbal interest is just fucking lunatic. Or they say, 'It's not necessary.' As if that should stop one doing it. Things not being necessary is what makes life interesting."

Stephen Fry on the Joys of Swearing

Posted by: J-Dog | July 15, 2009 6:17 PM

re: Post 64 - BA^77!!!111.

Dembski = Total FAIL. If you are not afraid to discuss it with evil evolutionists, come to ATBC. We haven't had a crazed ID Creationist since FTK slunk off sometime last year. You will be welcome!

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 15, 2009 6:25 PM

Excellent comments Stu.

Posted by: windy | July 15, 2009 6:27 PM

Meanwhile, in the meat world:

"The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee just passed health care reform legislation that contains a public plan option. Despite the fact that 160 Republican amendments were accepted, the bill still did not garner any Republican votes."

See, civility and bending over backwards to accommodate your opponents really work!

Posted by: MadScientist | July 15, 2009 6:29 PM

I got bored long ago; it seems you can't have an intelligent discussion with M&K on this matter. It's like debating (if you can call it that) Ken Ham. I'll just be uncivil instead. Sometimes I feel like erupting into a Shakesperian rant:

"You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!"

Posted by: Lindsay | July 15, 2009 6:30 PM

PZ -

I have been a fan of your blog for many years. Your science writing was one reason I decided to pursue graduate school and enter into science professionally.

However, I can honestly say I am devastatingly disappointed with how you have handled criticism (constructive or not). I have found it childish, shallow, and frankly beneath my image of you as a proponent of reason and a professional. It seems that you have had so many people telling you "yes!" on this blog over the past year or two, that you've become the proverbial Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch. Maybe you should consider the criticism, even if you don't end up changing your behavior. Everyone can be a better person.

We met once at SICB a couple years ago, but I don't expect you to remember who I am. I don't even expect you to care about what I have to say. Just know that there is some nameless, faceless scientist out there who was let down by their role model.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 15, 2009 6:36 PM

Lindsay, PZ and others here might care more about what you have to say on the matter if you might point to specific examples.

How is anyone supposed to learn from criticism if it amounts to little more than "I don't like what you did"?

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 15, 2009 6:41 PM

Lindsay, that's your own fault for adopting a role model. PZ is human just like you.

Posted by: Damian | July 15, 2009 6:48 PM

Lindsay:

Have you read PZ's review (and follow up about what they said about the "new atheists"), M&K's three part reply, as well as PZ's replies to each reply?

If so, who out of the two parties has seriously engaged with the substance of the argument? One of them, both, or neither?

Because from where I'm sitting, M&K have made numerous assertions, none of which have been backed up by any evidence, and PZ has made several substantive posts saying essentially that. In fact, several well respected bloggers (PZ, Jerry Coyne, Russell Blackford, Ophelia Benson, among others) have been trying to get M&K to engage with the substantive aspects of their complaints for weeks, and as yet, there has been nothing coming back the other way.

At this point, I'm almost certain that this whole episode has really been one big publicity stunt to help to sell their new book.

So, I'd also like to reiterate what Brownian has said: what exactly is your problem?

Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 15, 2009 6:59 PM

Please overlook my typos and grammatical errors in the post above... Long day!

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 15, 2009 7:01 PM

I disagree with Glen about respecting beliefs, but I wouldn't call that post concern trolling. He does at least attempt to give a rationale for his reasoning.

Posted by: EvoBiologist | July 15, 2009 7:04 PM

Here is my own response on their blog:

Regarding bigotry, it is my understanding that your book (correct me if I’m wrong) is basically telling the “New Atheists” (in contrast to more “generic atheists” like Mooney - hence bigotry could still be at work) that they should shut up and quit using science as a tool to combat religious beliefs. Now personally, I try to be civil and only combat those religious beliefs that directly conflict with things I see as important for society, ignoring more benign beliefs (like communion wafers) even when I think they are silly. However, I wouldn’t presume that my approach is the only valid one, nor that it is wrong for people to use science to more generally combat belief in supernatural phenomena. It is ignorant to claim that there is no good reason (logical or practical) for doing so, and if there is, then who am I (and who are you) to claim that doing so is wrong, particularly considering the recent “coming out” of atheists all over the world (including myself) that no doubt is inextricably tied to the “New Atheist” movement .

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 15, 2009 7:08 PM

Prometheus writes:
quietly wrecking the supply lines, picking off stragglers and burning crops.

It works. Washington used it. It eventually kicked Napoleon’s butt.

When did Washington go up against Bonaparte? Or are you saying that Barclay De Tolly used insurgency-style tactics? (Which Washington didn't...) Or are you talking about some alternative comic book history I'm not familiar with?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 15, 2009 7:11 PM

Nicely played Brownian. Did Kwak convince you that he is a scientist? ;)

Posted by: lose_the_woo | July 15, 2009 7:21 PM

I for one, would probably find it easy to leave the religious alone if they didn't insist on making truth-claims about reality and meddling with the pursuit of knowledge. These are only ploys - cheap, transparent attempts - to insinuate their religion into relevant discussions in an effort to gain respect and add buoyancy to their vapid delusions. Then they claim insult whenever their unsupportable ideas or behaviors are challenged. Funny that when evidence and rational thought won't help their cause, how quickly they turn to the safety of "being offended".

Every time they choose to enter the discussion, wherever it be, they should be solidly challenged. And when they play their little bait-and-switch "respect my beliefs" game, they should be harshly ridiculed.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 15, 2009 7:28 PM

I think you can disagree with Glen all you want (I certainly don't agree with all the points he made there), but "concern troll" is not the right phrase.

To me, a concern troll is someone who only pretends to share your goals so as to justify reciting the other side's talking points (especially fraudulent ones). I don't doubt Glen's sincerity.

Posted by: MyaR | July 15, 2009 7:31 PM

To all you assailing the "uncivil", some food for thought:

To act in a way that is both sexist and racist, to maintain one's class privilege, it is only necessary to act in the customary, ordinary, usual, even polite manner. -- Joanna Russ

Just add in "accommodationist" and "religionist" or your favorite majority term -- supporting the culture's status quo. You cannot defend yourself as a minority without being uncivil, because the standards of civility preclude anything you say from being civil. So perhaps making a point of being blatantly uncivil might just have an actual purpose and isn't childish at all.

(And that's my real beef with M/K -- they don't seem to realize that their prescription for "calm" conversation precludes any challenging of the status quo, and that is a necessary part of change.)

Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 7:38 PM

Are you by any chance a libertarian yourself? Never mind, it doesn't matter to me.

No. And I disagree with them most heartily. But I readily recognize that whenever one tries to argue their points, they are quickly shouted down (good argument is involved, but so is a lot of "you're evil and you want to let poor people die". Perhaps they deserve a 3 post rule to point out their actual beliefs, while a lot of them do fit the quoted text if taken to their logical conclusion not all do).

But I must tell you that you are way off in your characterization of Pharyngula. It is not wrong to have strong opinions, as long as you can defend those opinions from a logically valid standpoint and with evidence. That is what the regular commenters at Pharyngula do.

Yes, a large number do. It's why I've been lurking and very occasionally posting here for quite some time. I am not off in my description, though. It's basic nature wrt in-groups. Eventually on certain issues you hit a point where there's so much shared context and shared opinion that the signal to noise ration when engaging the "other" gets lower. There are always still worthwhile posts by many of the regulars, but it's enough of a flood of opposition that one has little time or motivation to engage. I was not insulting Pharyngula. I'm quite fond. I was just saying that denying any degree of mob mentality is just silly (be it here or any other web forum, or any sufficiently large gathering in meatspace).

There are differences of opinion, strong differences at times; that occurs because there may often be more than a single POV for looking at something critically. But the underlying theme at Pharyngula has always been that points are argued based on evidence and cold-hard logic. What value of an opinion that cannot be defended from the standpoint of reason?

I'm not new here. I never said people argued without evidence or logic. I said that on some issues, there is so much loud opposition that it is not a worthwhile endeavor to engage. I really don't see how this is controversial. Crackergate would be no different than previously given examples. I have no problem with PZ's actions, but complaining about it would get basically the whole of Pharyngula arguing against you, some with logic, some simply with anger and annoyance since it's already been hashed out in several thousand comment posts and there is so much shared context between people that were there that they have little interest or desire in arguing the positives and negatives of the action. Some people do, some would just tell you to fuck off no matter what tack you took criticizing Crackergate.

Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 15, 2009 7:44 PM

Screechy Monkey @167:

To me, a concern troll is someone who only pretends to share your goals so as to justify reciting the other side's talking points (especially fraudulent ones). I don't doubt Glen's sincerity.

Posted by: dinkum | July 15, 2009 7:47 PM

Question for the crowd....Do you think, maybe, the M&K don't use expletives because they are just about self promotion and don't really care about the purported subject matter enough to get their blood up?

Fucken A.

Cussin' doesn't mix very well with the Mom-and-Apple-Pie schtick they're pushing.

Of course, Mooney's whiny meltdown feedback loop isn't exactly image-enhancing, either.

Posted by: shishinden | July 15, 2009 7:53 PM

Just read the article in question.

Really couldn't be bothered to leave a comment there - didn't see the point. Did notice some familiar IDs though: in places it feels like an open thread for every cretin who dipped their toes into the Pharyngula shark pool and got their clown shoes stepped on.

It seems a lot of this back and forth could be resolved by the dynamic duo living up to their billing as science writers and putting some data out there. Polling data proving their assertion that the nasty atheists are turning the good folks off science. I'd even accept a Zogby poll.

I expect I'll be waiting for some time. Perhaps someone (an editor or concerned parent) should point out to M/K the irony of writing a book named "Unscientific America" while seemingly pulling their arguments in defence of their screed from that most fundamental, yet unscientific of orifices.

PS England to win the Ashes 4-0-0. Sweet dreams from the UK.

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 7:54 PM

"To act in a way that is both sexist and racist, to maintain one's class privilege, it is only necessary to act in the customary, ordinary, usual, even polite manner." -- Joanna Russ

It's an insult to Russ to quote the above as a lame excuse for indulging in crass language, as her point has nothing to do with merely being a jerk.

Posted by: Logicel | July 15, 2009 8:01 PM

Pat Gunn @ 105: ...we should mould ourselves into examples of how people should/could be.
________

I disrespectfully disagree. What does those trite words even mean? Why don't you try being yourself instead of moulding yourself into an example? That truly sounds fucked up. It is the way of the religious. Instead of accepting yourself with all your foibles and making the best of your limitations, you are constantly trying to force yourself into a perfect mould? Perfection does not exist.

You seems like a joyless sod. Give me an individual who is rough around the social edges than a crank like you any day. You may have no god belief, but you stink from the disease of religion anyway which is basically being ill at ease being human.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 15, 2009 8:18 PM

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 7:54 PM

"To act in a way that is both sexist and racist, to maintain one's class privilege, it is only necessary to act in the customary, ordinary, usual, even polite manner." -- Joanna Russ

It's an insult to Russ to quote the above as a lame excuse for indulging in crass language, as her point has nothing to do with merely being a jerk.

The poster did not quote Russ as a lame excuse for indulging in crass language, but as a good excuse for being uncivil and disturbing the status quo.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Respectfully,

truthspeaker

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 9:22 PM

truthspeaker, you're playing right into the stereotype of the sort of jerk that Mooney is complaining about. I know around here that's not unusual, but you and others are giving plenty of fodder for nutpickers to feast on. Something to think about when it comes to the politics of the subject, IMO.

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 9:53 PM

I know around here that's not unusual, but you and others are giving plenty of fodder for nutpickers to feast on.

Okidoki. Let me know when the squirrels arrive then.

Oh, and YCIN. Dick.

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 10:00 PM

Alan: you're going to need a LOT of work to get to Time Cube, but I love your thinking!

Posted by: CW | July 15, 2009 10:04 PM

Do you realise it's not going to make anyone here self-censor their expression?

The poster did not quote Russ as a lame excuse for indulging in crass language, but as a good excuse for being uncivil and disturbing the status quo.

Now kindly go fuck yourself.

Posted by: Lowell | July 15, 2009 10:10 PM

Oh, my, dog. It looks like they're preparing to enter Crackergate part deux over there, only more remote in time from the events, so those poor offended people will have even less of an idea of what actually happened.

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 10:19 PM

Wait, Sastra, aren't you one of them theists that aren't supposed to exist here?

Posted by: The MadPanda | July 15, 2009 10:21 PM

Stu:

A masterful example of a deserved counterstroke upside the noggin with a vorpal thesaurus! Well done, sir, well done indeed.

I still prefer the Lenski Response as a wonderful example of graceful response to utter imbecility under pressure, but there are times when nothing truly eases the psychic agony of dealing with Teh Stoopids like a round of harsh language artfully applied.

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 10:25 PM

CW: the little addenda (at least in my case) are snipes at the hubris, not the point. I think you're right in saying that for neophytes they seem petty. Perhaps we should instate a 5 post rule for petty snipes?

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | July 15, 2009 10:28 PM

[Message!]

Posted by: Carlie | July 15, 2009 10:37 PM

Call me Nynaeve... the One True Source only flows when I am angered.

I would totally love you for that reference if Jordan hadn't stretched the damn thing out so much everyone lost interest and then went and DIED before he bothered to wrap it all up.:p

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 10:48 PM

I would totally love you for that reference if Jordan hadn't stretched the damn thing out so much everyone lost interest and then went and DIED before he bothered to wrap it all up

ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME?

I'm only two books in, but that's it. I'm done. A good family friend is going to get a good "you could've damned well told me, you sad sod knee-biter" rodgering, I can tell you that.

Fuck, Stephen King made it through getting hit by a goddamned van to survive to finish the Dark Tower series, for crying out loud (and very well, might I add -- Vol IV was myeah all around, but V-VII step it up and tie every damned thing he ever wrote together so admirably I was teary by the end of it).

Posted by: Stu | July 15, 2009 10:52 PM

Sastra: mea culpa. You are one of a good crop of occasionally moderate voices here that have me all confused.

Posted by: Brazuzan | July 15, 2009 11:00 PM

Will PZ send a copy of his own book to Mooney asking for a review and then start the Flame War II? I already miss this one.

Posted by: Carlie | July 15, 2009 11:09 PM

I just went over to read part III of M&K. I find it hilarious that the post is directly over one labeled "Shark!", because with that post they have officially jumped it. Even with as mad as I was at them yesterday, I could still see a little glimmer of possibility that they were just not that smart, not that good at argumentation or supporting an assertion, that they were wrong but bumbling. Now? Nope. That piece was the most vicious smear campaign I've seen in a long, long time, and it's entirely deliberate. They know exactly what they're doing, and that it's wrong, and they're positively gleeful about it.

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 15, 2009 11:15 PM

Andy @190:

Yeah, I know what you mean. I spoke my peace and left hours ago. Since then I've spent some time actually being productive, too. Now I'm just checking in again to see if anything's changed.

Nope. Not a damn thing. Pharyngula's still snarky as fuck-all; The Intersection's still lame.

Robotaholic @100: Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Rt

Posted by: Roadtripper | July 15, 2009 11:19 PM

Andy @190:

Yeah, I know what you mean. I spoke my peace and left hours ago. Since then I've spent some time actually being productive, too. Now I'm just checking in again to see if anything's changed.

Nope. Not a damn thing. Pharyngula's still snarky as fuck-all; The Intersection's still lame.

Robotaholic @100: Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Rt

Posted by: Discombobulated | July 15, 2009 11:26 PM

Since this an "open thread for general revilement", can someone point me to the thread where Silver Fox was finally banned? I seem to have missed that moment of hilarity.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 15, 2009 11:36 PM

Posted by: David Wilford | July 15, 2009 9:22 PM

truthspeaker, you're playing right into the stereotype of the sort of jerk that Mooney is complaining about. I know around here that's not unusual, but you and others are giving plenty of fodder for nutpickers to feast on. Something to think about when it comes to the politics of the subject, IMO.

I care absolutely nothing about the opinions of people who are offended by the use of the phrase "go fuck yourself".

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 15, 2009 11:48 PM

When a poster deliberately accuses a poster of using a quote to support something he didn't use it to support, damn right I'm going to swear at them.

It's possible to lie, deceive, bully, and manipulate without using crass language. When we kid ourselves that all civil statements are reasonable statements, we set ourselves up to fall victim to liars and bullies.

I repeat: this is not the snugglenet.

Posted by: MyaR | July 16, 2009 12:00 AM

I'm a she, not a he. Just go with singular 'they', it's much less offensive than "go fuck yourself"*. outside the quotation marks, and it's not the last time I'll do it!

* Not that I'm offended by people saying other people should go fuck themselves. It's just that no one can be more offended than grammar nazis.

Posted by: Christian Mystics | July 16, 2009 12:19 AM

Okay friends, let's watch Harris on The O' Reilly Factor in 2004 on terrorism and religion (and crackers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExMLKOuySA

I rarely agree with Poppa Bear, but isn't he right? Won't declaring war on Islam just provoke more hatred of the West?

Not necessarily, I'll admit... but Harris would have to go into a bit more depth concerning his "war of ideas." If we can defeat fundamentalist ideologies of whatever stripe with words and culture instead of missiles and prisons, then I suppose we (the "scientifically educated") ought to rationally engineer the populace such that they become immune to belief.

Harris studies belief neurologically. Here is a paper: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1694723,00.html

So, what is the best way to make people immune to irrational belief? Sending them into caves for years to meditate like "proper mystics"?

Harris on the deeper transcendent reality we can experience that makes a mockery of religious denominations:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&feature=fvw

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 16, 2009 12:24 AM

I hope it's not too late to mention a certain point concerning the wholesale use of the "New Atheist" moniker. If one takes this careless appellation seriously then one could only assume that some virus had infected a small population of non worshipers and has since spread through wider populations like green corn goes through the new maid. It would seem that a new creature, not tolerable like the old agnostics, has sprung upon the scene and seriously discommoded some very, ahh, proper defenders of all those other ways of knowing.

That dog don't hunt. There are no New Atheists!

We are the same ones that have been around since dirt was invented. There is just one difference between now (including the recent past*) and all the rest of history that seems to have escaped even the keenest eyes that would have otherwise be given over to beholding the face of . . . what was it? . . . if they hadn't been so rudely distracted. No big deal. See, these days people all over the planet can communicate in real time; just like we used to do with drums but much louder.

When interested people in diverse places found out about this marvel they naturally established a huge variety of communicating places devoted to common interests. A most human thing to do. Certain of these places are populated by a class of people who have no love of faith or church and some who even consider such to be a poor way to measure life's values.

*hem. please excuse me*

AND WE FLOCK TO THESE PLACES TO TALK ABOUT OUR STUFF AND TO LAUGH AT STUFF WE FIND LAUGHABLE!!!!!!!!!!

*I'm sorry. But that felt really good*

We come and hold forth and lurk and laugh and spew beverages because we never had a place like this. Not for such huge numbers of people. The best we used to hope for was to live next to a like minded neighbor or having a coworker or family member to have wide ranging and dangerous conversations with. Why, it used to be that it was damned tough to be able to talk so freely at all, what with having to muffle our speech so as not to offend anyone who might be listening. Such things are hard to do in small numbers.

The InnerTubes have provided the same blessing to the heathen and godless that it has to those who have a new, urgent pledge request. And we'll take every bit as much advantage of it as the Holy Fucking Church will. Or as the blinkered lackwits pushing some brand of assumed piety and righteousness will. Or any kind or -ness, for that matter.

So, say it loud and say it proud. "We are NOT New Atheists!! We are the same ones who have always lurked and have lately found a safer, very convenient and apparently effective way to speak up! We Are Old, Dammit. OLD! (Curiously, we do seem to integrate technology into our lives a bit better than some.)"

Happy Monkey, anyway. And please pass the bacon.

* recent past = something like the five plus decades that I can recall, on a good day.

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 12:32 AM

They know exactly what they're doing

Remember: never attribute to malice what can be explained by mere incompetence.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 16, 2009 12:36 AM

Crudely Wrott wrote:

That dog don't hunt. There are no New Atheists!

As several posters - here, there and everywhere - have pointed out, it's equivalent to using the term 'uppity', and reveals exactly the same about the character of the person employing it as that term did in its day.

Visiting the M&K blog has been a learning experience, though - apparently content-deprived name-dropper J*hn Kw*k is a deist, and considers deism to be a religion. I hadn't heard that before.

And I got to sink the boot into the odious Silver Fox a few times, too. That's always an uplifting experience.

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 12:45 AM

Christian Mystics,

Spiritual but not religious, what would that mean? Any takers?

Shootin' the breeze?

Probably woo, but I'm hardly gonna watch it based on your recommendation.

"Spiritual values", heh.

There's a lot more woo around than just religion, you know. Plenty of "spiritual" atheists around. Heard of Scientologists? Heard of Raëlians? Heard of Wiccans?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 16, 2009 12:47 AM

Spiritual but not religious, what would that mean?

I think the expression is 'wanting to have your cake and eat it, too'. I've heard that used by Christians wanting to avoid criticism by distancing themselves from the actions of a church - much along the lines of 'no, it's not a belief system, it's a person relationship with Christ'.

I have a sense of wonder about things; I don't need to describe it as 'spiritual', even though it's just as valid as what people who like to call what they have 'spiritual'.

Posted by: articulett | July 16, 2009 12:48 AM

Wowbagger et. al., I congratulate you on your service to humanity. Getting the Kwoks of the world in a tizzy keeps them from wreaking havoc in the real world.

I think it's sort of cute to tie them up in a frenzy of having to prove to themselves how moral and righteous and moderate they are. There's something sporting in the whole endeavor. And if you push the right buttons often enough, maybe their heads will explode. (A girl can dream, can't she?)

It must be embarrassing for K&M to have such... "groupies". I know Abbie is glad to be free of Kwok's attentions. I don't read much Kwok and McCarthy, but I find the responses they generate to be quite fun.

Posted by: Christian Mystics | July 16, 2009 12:55 AM

Let's point out just how arrogant it is to imagine that you are "in on" divine secretes given to you personally by the invisible undetectable creator of the universe

The unfortunate thing is that, to most of middle America, the scientific establishment appears to be "in on" divine (from L. divinationem: the power of foreseeing, prediction) secrets. Fundies are unable to fathom how a mote of dust in a sunbeam came to life, or how geologists measure the age of the earth, because they have been told their whole lives that scientific knowledge obscures the truth of their dogmas. Arguments from incredulity are the product of this ignorance.

But supposing we know all of this... quantum mechanics, expansionary cosmology, evolutionary theory, psychology/psychoanalysis (revealing the unconscious, instinctual roots of human behavior), what are we to make of life? With religion off the table, what guides our values? I'm especially curious in light of what Rabbi Michael Lerner says about global capitalism at 6:05 of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TM2HsdkvXU&feature=channel

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 1:04 AM

Christian Mystics @239,

I'm especially curious in light of what Rabbi Michael Lerner says about global capitalism at 6:05 of this video: [link]

Is this Rabbi an economist or political scientist or otherwise qualified to pontificate about global capitalism?

If he has no more expertise than I do, why the hell should I bother to listen to him?

Posted by: Christian Mystics | July 16, 2009 1:13 AM

articulett...

I suspect most people that Mooney would label "new atheists" passed through a stage where they'd have called themselves "spiritual but not religious".

What do you think comes after the atheist stage?

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 1:16 AM

I think the expression is 'wanting to have your cake and eat it, too'. I've heard that used by Christians wanting to avoid criticism by distancing themselves from the actions of a church - much along the lines of 'no, it's not a belief system, it's a person relationship with Christ'.

+googol.

I suspect most people that Mooney would label "new atheists" passed through a stage where they'd have called themselves "spiritual but not religious". I bet Sheril refers to herself that way.

No, she really seems to have dug her heels in at "Jewish agnostic". Comfortably oblivious at the contradiction in terms and the irony of it all.

Then again, Mooney nor Kirschenbaum seem to have gotten outfitted with a functional ability for self-examination, irony or sense of humor. In the category of humorless, taking-themselves-way-too-fucking-seriously, blustering, self-important blowards, I nominate...

Posted by: articulett | July 16, 2009 1:18 AM

CM,
Atheists have values and morals just like everyone else, they just don't attribute it to magic men in the sky. We inherit a rough guide to morality (reciprocity) and it's coded in our culture, laws, families, and social norms. On any measure you care to use, the godless are just as moral if not more so than their god-fearing peers. Plus, they never commit immoral acts for an imagined higher purpose or because they've come to believe god wants them too.

Other primates behave similarly. Heck, they don't have genocide and wars (though the males do often form gangs and commit violence... not the bonobos though... they are female centered and use orgasms to temper aggression).

My dog doesn't eat the cats nor pee in the house and she looks guiltier than my kid when she eats steals my food. (By the way, when she steals my forbidden food, I blame myself... I don't curse her and all her descendants for eternity and I am not "all loving".)

But if you need to believe that an invisible guy is watching you and that another invisible guy will punish you if you are bad in order to treat others the way you'd want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot-- then, by all means, keep on believing in your sky fairy. I'm not trying to get you to stop believing in Jesus any more than you are trying to get Tom Cruise to stop believing in Xenu... but, make no mistake about it, I think both beliefs are equally silly and equally unnecessary.

Anything that religion can achieve, secular society can achieve better and more honestly. It did so before humans invented gods, and continues to do so as they let their god go. We've stopped sacrificing virgins to volcano gods, and we've managed to survive. We've done quite well without our rain gods and lightening throwing gods. I think we'll do okay without our megalomaniac monotheistic invisible tyrants too. Look how many of us here are doing just that.

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 1:28 AM

I think we'll do okay without our megalomaniac monotheistic invisible tyrants too. Look how many of us here are doing just that.

Bullshit. You are raping animals. Rick Santorum said so.

Posted by: Matthew Segall | July 16, 2009 1:30 AM

Christian Mystics @ 228,

Would this count as "spiritual but not religious"? Or would it jive with an atheist?

Cosmologist Brian Swimme about the emergence of life on earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaI6lCNZvZ0

Posted by: ChristianMystics | July 16, 2009 1:34 AM

articulett...

Moral it is. What's it mean? Reciprocity, you say? You scratch my back, I scratch yours? What would that entail politically, what would it require of our legal system (which I'm sure all atheists would agree is still slightly archaic -- capital punishment when it costs several times more that life imprisonment? No gay marriage? Illegality of cannabis? Tax exempt religions?)?

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 1:37 AM

PS Christian Mystics, I draw your attention in particular to Stoicism, Epicureanism and 'enlightened self-interest'.

Each of those has had much influence on my morality.

Posted by: ChristianMystics | July 16, 2009 1:46 AM

John Morales,

Is Stoicism necessarily pantheist, or does it depend?

Posted by: articulett | July 16, 2009 1:50 AM

Bullshit. You are raping animals. Rick Santorum said so.

I don't have the proper anatomy for raping (though I haven't checked for the invisible kind used to impregnate a virgin against her will... we are ALL created in god's image, right?)

Of course, who knows what my higher succubus self might be doing while I am asleep.

Posted by: windy | July 16, 2009 1:54 AM

I think M&K just don't get the Pharyngula sense of humour. It freaks them out. They seem to be horribly earnest, aching to accommodate the sensibilities of the faithful, afraid to offend the believers.

There was an interesting comment there from the author of Idiot America (another target of M&K's ire),

"And not for nothing, but I’m still a semi-practicing Roman Catholic. I have it on good scriptural authority that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church. So I don’t think I have to worry about bloggers much. Which is to say that y’all seem most bothered by mockery, whether that stems from atheism or from plain old Irish Catholic wiseassery.
You should lighten up about that."

Posted by: aratina cage | July 16, 2009 2:02 AM

I just stopped by the Intersection and caught this hot mess:

Our book will be read by a different and far more open-minded audience. It’s already happening. And that audience will largely agree that Myers’ communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.

Posted by: anaxagoras | July 16, 2009 2:06 AM

Christian Mystics:
"...to who, what, or where are we to look for our values in a post-religious world? Thoughts?" (#246)

Easy answer?
1. Empathy
2. The golden rule

That's pretty much where the values come from for most theists (not all, sadly) too, though they may not realize it. It doesn't originate from holy texts, as evidenced by the widespread cherry-picking--most theists ignore or choose not to apply many anachronistic parts of their own holy texts.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 16, 2009 2:10 AM

"Jewish agnostic" isn't really a contradiction. I have several Jewish friends who are atheists or agnostics, but who have strong Jewish cultural ties and traditions. There are plenty of agnostic Christians who celebrate Christmas without excluding all the religious trappings. Cultural Christians, they're called. I guess that's what I am - and I know I'm not the only one here.

Posted by: articulett | July 16, 2009 2:16 AM

Sorry CM, I don't feel like getting into a morality discussion with a "Christian Mystic". I don't imagine that I have "big answers". My politics tend to be very liberal, progressive, and secular/scientific-- Sagan and Dawkins-esque.

But this is a thread for general revilement. I believe that threads of general revilement are good for society. I can spew my general revilement here, and it will make it easier to keep my more specific revilement to myself in my real life.

All those who don't wish to hear about what I, Stu, Sastra, John Morales, PZ, or others revile, can go to other internet places where they can revile what they please... or discuss "Christian mysticism in a secular world." I promise to leave them alone to opinion-proffer at will. (Although I reserve the right to express my revilement at the Intersection for catharsis.)(The period goes inside the parenthesis, right?)

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 2:20 AM

Christian Mystics,

Is Stoicism necessarily pantheist, or does it depend?

Please remember it was a product of its time; but I'm very glad you've read the article.
Yes, we're part of nature, not outside of it, and that's a very important consideration — there is no dichotomy.
No, stoicism is a philosophy, not a theology. It is not necessarily pantheist, it applies equally well whether logos is considered abstract or concrete.

I hope you see how religion doesn't have a monopoly on such concepts; if anything, it hitches a ride on the coat-tails of philosophy.

Posted by: ChristianMystics | July 16, 2009 2:29 AM

aratina cage,

how about recognizing that the sources for values even today are based on shared experiences? Despite the lines we draw between ourselves, the biological differences, and the numerous aberrations (murderers, psychotics, etc.), there are certain things that are common to all life and all humans.

Where do I sign up? Shared experience is the source of moral wisdom, I certainly cannot dispute that. As for our biological relatedness, it extends far beyond even our own species. So how are we to inhabit the earth together? What should the world be trying to accomplish in the next 50-100 years?

Posted by: Logicel | July 16, 2009 2:30 AM

Christian Mystics: With religion off the table, what guides our values?

All the human traits which religion has hijacked and are still intact will continue to guide us: our evolved empathy, learning from our mistakes (hence cherry picking of holy books), striving to do good, etc.

I rejected religious faith early on in my life--though I was subjected to sustained indoctrination as a small child--because not only was there no evidence of the supernatural, religious beliefs to me were a boring mishmash of uselessness and triteness, when they were not enforcing fear, guilt, and stupidity.

I sought out philosophy, sociology, psychology as I grew older to nourish my mind and heart. The reason I chose these disciplines, is because they delivered, unlike religion. This mantra that religious beliefs are guiding drives me nuts. Yeah, they guide all right, right into a cesspool of credulity and inanity.

Posted by: ChristianMystics | July 16, 2009 2:35 AM

John Morales,

...stoicism is a philosophy, not a theology.

The difference being that philosophers give reasons while theologists do not?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 16, 2009 2:41 AM

Christianity - and other religions - like to claim they're responsible for morality, but they're full of crap; anything they tout as being 'divine' is simply the product of human social evolution.

Which is one of the things that annoys me the most about the claims made about Jesus - namely that, because humanity was too stupid to realise that it's good to be peaceful and generous and kind to each other on its own, we must have needed the man-god to appear and show us how it's done.

Accepting that claim totally undermines our achievement as social animals. Altruism is what humanity learned through experience. It certainly wasn't a gift from some god - especially one who, prior to the alleged messiah, was mostly about authoritarianism, fear and punishing dissent and disobedience.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 16, 2009 2:42 AM

In other news, seein' as this is the thread for general revilement, I'd just like to say I think Pop Tarts are pretty icky.

canned cranberry sauce; cut into disks; with the pattern of the can still recognizable

I'm still stupidly attrackted to a woman more than a decade my junior. (Suggestions?)

is this the internet person you spoke about before? have you met her in person yet? if not, most likely that alone would solve your problems (or make them worse... but at least then it wouldn't be a weird internet thing anymore)

Posted by: aratina cage | July 16, 2009 2:43 AM

So how are we to inhabit the earth together? What should the world be trying to accomplish in the next 50-100 years? -ChristianMystics

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 2:48 AM

Anaxagoras @265, "... The golden rule".

Actually, I prefer the reverse golden rule: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

--

ChristianTroll:

The difference being that philosophers give reasons while theologists do not?

No, the difference being that philosophy is secular.

Posted by: ChristianMystics | July 16, 2009 2:55 AM

John Morales,

"Empathy" and the other things aside from ancient pantheism were references to Malcolm, anaxagoras, articulett... Meant no offense to you, my apologize for making an easily misinterpreted comment. I was just trying to get the point across that the earth is in quite a spot at the moment and that such answers, while nice, are not exactly of the scope I was hoping for.

Posted by: tomh | July 16, 2009 3:18 AM

@ #73
What do you call someone who only pretends to recite one's own side's purported talking points, and misrepresents one's own side's position, in order to show how justified the other side is in their condemnation of one's own side?

Too complicated for me. That Davidson post rubbed me the wrong way too, when I read it over there at Kwokville. It seemed that he was just whining over there where he would get some sympathy because it was too scary to post here. Kind of sad.

Posted by: tomh | July 16, 2009 3:41 AM

Oops, #289 should be @173 Posted by: Kausik Datta

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 4:07 AM

bad Jim @288, quite so.

(FWIW, I take some pride in independently coming up with it, back when I first examined the golden rule, lo these many years ago.)

--

ChristianMystics, hm. I shall be charitable, against my better judgement, and respond to you as if you were not a troll.

I was just trying to get the point across that the earth is in quite a spot at the moment and that such answers, while nice, are not exactly of the scope I was hoping for.

I do not share your pessimism; the Earth is fine and the future looks rosy to me. (cf. Club of Rome).

We (humanity) are merely more informed and more aware than we were in days of yore, and aware of issues that once were beyond us, thanks to modern science and communications.

Your earlier questions were answered, though you disdained the responses you received; there is no 'magic bullet' or failproof formula that we know of, and to expect such is naive. So far as I'm concerned, whatever those problems humanity faces are, religion exacerbates, not ameliorates them.

My personal opinion is that it's time for humanity to grow up and face its challenges with a clear mind, not wishful thinking and a delusional mindset. Let us take responsibility for our destiny.

Mysticism and religion should be hobbies, not guides to life; that should be left to science and philosophy.

Posted by: TechSlave | July 16, 2009 4:20 AM

Ah, bask in the snark. Feel its mystical healing power wash over you...oh, shit, wait. That's the provable cathartic effect of saying what you damned well think, and saying fuck off here rather than to the boss.

Never been much involved in a 'atheist culture', like bastion of sass @ 292. But tip-toe through the goddamned tulips every day at work makes this kind of moment needful.

As for the civility argument: Taking the high road rarely wins, sad to say. If you want a somewhat valid role model, look towards the types of debate that have flourished in Western society since the age of the Greek city-state. Public, unrelenting, and in many cases ending in bloodshed. We're at keyboards and I'm not offering you a choice of saber or pistol. I call that fucking civil.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | July 16, 2009 4:37 AM

Spiritual but not religious, what would that mean?

If you ask 100 people what this means you'd probably get 100 different answers. I generally think of religious as doing something repetitively, like going to church every Sunday, praying and reading a religious text daily, and subscribing to a specific religion.

I think of spiritual as a belief in God or a higher power and right and wrong -- and seeking to live a just life without subscribing to a religion. An atheists version of spiritual may only include a belief in right and wrong and seeking to live justly according to their perception of what that is.

I believe Paul the apostle was making a distinction between spiritual and religious in Romans 2 when he said (substituting "atheists" for "Gentiles" to apply it to a modern context):

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when atheists, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | July 16, 2009 4:41 AM

One could also say appreciation of nature is a type of spirituality. The pursuit of knowledge through science might be considered an extreme form of this appreciation. In fact, whenever I look at Einstien's picture, with raised eyebrowse imprinted on his face, what I see is the face of a profoundly spiritual person.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 16, 2009 4:54 AM

One could also say appreciation of nature is a type of spirituality. The pursuit of knowledge through science might be considered an extreme form of this appreciation. In fact, whenever I look at Einstien's picture, with raised eyebrowse imprinted on his face, what I see is the face of a profoundly spiritual person.

Randy, I'm impressed. Very well said.

Posted by: truth machine | July 16, 2009 6:09 AM

@Sastra #88

I'm resurrecting this persona to say "Here here!" M&K can blame it all on me. When I first started posting, there wasn't a lot of invective here, and I was often taken to task for my "tone", but eventually I won many people over -- even some of the strongest critics of my tone like Azkyroth and David Marjanović -- with content. Now, I'm proud to say, invective is not only common but promoted! I didn't retire this persona because my work was done (for the actual reason, google "Fuck you, you hurtful prick." -- there's only one hit), but I might as well have.

Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 6:26 AM

@303: 師傅!

Posted by: Rorschach | July 16, 2009 6:44 AM

Posted by: truth machine | July 16, 2009 6:09 AM [kill]​[hide comment]

@Sastra #88

I'm resurrecting this persona [ ]..

Please do !

for the actual reason, google "Fuck you, you hurtful prick.

I just did.
Shit,I didnt know this happened !
Stay around mate,in whatever incarnation you like.

Posted by: Logicel | July 16, 2009 7:04 AM

Randy: In fact, whenever I look at Einstien's picture, with raised eyebrowse imprinted on his face, what I see is the face of a profoundly spiritual person.
_____

Yes, Randy, your last couple of comments were lucid which I enjoyed. However, the reflectiveness in Einstein's eyes and the relaxed and receptive set of his facial features shows the kind of open mind where one's brains have not fallen out. Is awed receptivity to the natural world spirituality? If so, then many atheists are extremely spiritual, a spirituality that needs not one iota of the supernatural.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 16, 2009 7:31 AM

Heh heh heh - on the M&K blog their number-one PZ-hater Anthony McCarthy has just commented on how the cracker in the incident can't possibly have been a genuinely consecrated one.

I got sick of explaining the lengths to which PZ went to verify the claim so I've pointed out that this would, if true, render every complain made about him - including those M&K are using as a key feature of their book - groundless.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2009 8:11 AM

Heh heh heh - on the M&K blog their number-one PZ-hater Anthony McCarthy has just commented on how the cracker in the incident can't possibly have been a genuinely consecrated one.

I got sick of explaining the lengths to which PZ went to verify the claim so I've pointed out that this would, if true, render every complain made about him - including those M&K are using as a key feature of their book - groundless.

I am beginning to understand M&K's point after reading so much from Kwak and McCarthy. They appear to treat the religious as though they were mentally ill. We are not to burden the religious with claims their beliefs are unsupported by evidence as they do not know any better.

Well if they are using Kwak and McCarthy as examples of the mentally unstable minds we must not offend then I can see how M&K came to the opinions they did. Kwak and McCarthy cannot understand the concept of evidence. Both are also dishonest and lack any insight into their behaviour. If you think Kwak and McCarthy are representative of religious people in general then I see how you could think it is unfair to be cruel to them by demanding stuff like evidence. Being cruel to the mentally is not nice behaviour. However M&K should surely be telling both Kwak and McCarthy, in private, to seek the help of mental health professionals.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 16, 2009 8:22 AM

However M&K should surely be telling both Kwak and McCarthy, in private, to seek the help of mental health professionals.

This whole episode has been quite hilarious.
Well,for us.
Not necessarily for M&K,I reckon.
Talk about people you dont want to speak for your side..:-)

Posted by: Colonel Molerat | July 16, 2009 8:31 AM

"Or if you've got anything else interesting to say, feel free to announce it."

Oooh, can I take this opportunity to link to that slimey slimeball Andrew Brown's latest blog-post:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/jul/10/religion-atheism

And the Merseyside Skeptic Society's response:

http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/index.php/2009/07/freudian-cif-errors-of-an-old-guardian-bloggist/
?

He is trying to argue that, since Freud wasn't correct in his psychological work, his atheism is therefore invalid.
Even in one of Britain's most reliable, sane and generally-ok newspapers, this lunatic gets free rein for quackery regularly. It's just the latest in the Guardian baiting atheists in order to get readership.
It is almost on-topic - he appears to be a self-hating atheist, blaming 'new atheism' for the world's ills and, it seems, praying that one day he'll be able to believe.
Ah well, I'm game for feeding the troll.

Posted by: XD | July 16, 2009 8:46 AM

Fucking non-standard tags. I'll try again:

On an earlier thread I was told that during transubstantiation the wafer becomes the body of Christ, but also does not change at all. The substance of the wafer changes, but you cannot detect the change by analysing the wafer. You can know the wager has changed but there is no way of knowing the wafer has changed.

Ahhhhhhh.... the idiocy is making me rage.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 9:03 AM

Fuck, I hate The Intersection. Half my comments get moderated, and half of those are never published. Here's what I just tried to post:

Anthony “Joe” McCarthy,

By the way, I did an experiment. I tried making a phony host out of a piece of bread. It was homemade so it flattened with a bit of difficulty but it was quite possible. It’s the easiest thing you could imagine to press a design into one and dry it out. I used the cross from my old rosary beads.

Translation: Like at me, I’m so sciency! With my great mind I managed to prove that one piece of bread can be made to look like another piece of bread !1!one!
Stay tuned for upcoming peer review article on the subject.

I wouldn’t believe it unless I had the guy’s name and saw him in person to make sure it was him in the video, not if he was allegedly an observant Catholic at the time the video was taken.

Translation: I use radical skepticism at my opponents’ claims, but for my own me repeating it over and over is good enough (see my claim of being banned from Pharyngula). This double standard does not bother me whatsoever.

I just got done talking to one of my relatives who has been a Eucharistic minister in her Roman Catholic parish for about twenty years. First, she’d never heard of PZ Myers or his famous stunt, so tough luck. She didn’t seem to be as distraught about it as you guys would have hoped either.

No, PZ intended to offend and he did offend, I’m just questioning if the incident was the Great Desecration that he asserts it was

Translation: Like another McCarthy I have no regard whatsoever for the truth. I just like trying to defame my opponents by repeating dumb claims over and over again (see my claim of being banned from Pharyngula).
I have no sense of decency either.

It doesn’t matter if the host was phonied up or real

Translation: It doesn’t matter whether it’s real or not, but watch me spend hours trying to prove it’s not real.

(No wonder Owlmirror does this. It’s so fun!)

Posted by: Ben in Texas | July 16, 2009 9:21 AM

Bastion @ 292

Thanks for writing what I've been too lazy to express. I feel the same way. Sums it up perfectly.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2009 9:33 AM

Spiritual but not religious, what would that mean?

I've always taken it as something like, "An intensely emotional experience/sense/feeling/whatever that a person feels the need to attribute to something 'more' than 'mere' emotion."

Posted by: Badger3k | July 16, 2009 10:58 AM

CM -"I was just trying to get the point across that the earth is in quite a spot at the moment and that such answers, while nice, are not exactly of the scope I was hoping for."

The Earth is not really in a spot, although humans and other living things are (especially due to AGM, etc), but...that's different how? Humanity has always been balanced on a knife edge.

Most people have a fairly coherent and consistent set of standards - we want safety, food, shelter, friends et al, but there will always be competing ways of getting those things. We want this variety and diversity, even with the downsides of such things.

The problems come when people stop thinking for themselves and want to rely on the "wisdom" of others. By all means, look everywhere and anywhere for advice, but use reason and compassion to make the determination what is best for you and others. Just don't go looking for someone to give you the answer - make your own. If someone says "X", ask yourself - does that make sense? What support does that have? What are the consequences? What are the costs? Is this something I want to see happen? Does it fit with my own ideas and ideals?

I think that some older philosophy makes a lot of sense (such as the stoicism posted above) - but that is because the wisdom contained within is pretty basic, and humans and human society has not really evolved all that much in our extremely short lifespan, and sometimes what was good advice once is still good advice. Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism also contain good advice. They, along with others (such as Christianity) also contain much garbage that should be tossed on the scrap heap. The Christian advice to slaves, for instance. We humans have at least evolved that much as a society that (mostly) we agree that slavery is bad (based upon ideas of shared humanity and common values, empathy, etc).

I also prefer the modified golden rule, do unto others as they would want you to do unto them (avoiding the problem of the "what if they are masochists/sadists/sociopaths/etc" argument.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 16, 2009 11:55 AM

I'm resurrecting this persona to say "Here here!"

Posted by: SC, OM | July 16, 2009 12:07 PM

That's a reasonable request, of course, but perhaps it was remorse, not injury, that prompted his retirement. His efforts at coming back with a new handle and a kinder, gentler approach suggest that this may be the case, at least in part.

Well, I'd question the "kinder, gentler approach" aspect. That his approach wasn't significantly different under his other guises is what enabled me to recognize almost immediately that it was him. And if it was remorse, then he should say so, and avoid the cryptic allusions. As I said, he has been cruel to me in private communications, so I'm certainly not going to interpret it that way. And I don't much care for his quoting my angry words rather than simply linking to the thread in question.

Again, I've never said or implied that he shouldn't be posting here (preferably under his original 'nym*). In fact, I've said to him privately that I was sure that people would miss his contributions were he to stop.

*I do think the morphing business is just stupid (if something of an entertaining game). If you have a distinctive viewpoint and style, you're only going to fool people by suppressing it completely, and then what's the fucking point of posting at all?

Posted by: FastLane | July 16, 2009 12:17 PM

Our book will be read by a different and far more open-minded audience. It’s already happening. And that audience will largely agree that Myers’ communion wafer desecration [as incorrectly characterized in our book] was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.

What a couple of fucknuts. Uh oh, I used a swear word!

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 12:32 PM

Wow. I knew Kwok was clinically insane, but I'll have to add McCarthy to the list.

You know, I could be doing another experiment here, based on what Wowbagger and the rest of you guys have been saying.

I’m going to have to go buy some bananas to see if I can calculate sizes, but I think the scale might be a bit off.

In the mean time, I’m finding your panic on this great question almost as interesting as the last few times I’ve had a long go-round with the PZ’s Avengers. I’ve gained a few insights into the real nature of him and the new atheist fad.

There are so many "THORAZINE! STAT!" moments in there, I lost count.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2009 12:37 PM

Good grief that McCarthy character is an idiot.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 12:41 PM

LMAO!!!

I like how McCarthy claims WE are obsessed with whether or not the Eucharist host was real after posting literally a dozen comments on the subject, playing with bread to make it look like a host, talking to his Catholics relatives about the feasibility of taking a host, and now going to buy bananas to compare his "host" with photos of the real thing.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 16, 2009 12:48 PM

I think he was saying that he was the "origin" of much of the invective.

Well, that's a generous reading, drawing on the subsequent sentence. But perhaps I'm giving him too much credit in assuming it was a play on words...

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 16, 2009 12:54 PM

Does anyone know what it is McCarthy claims to teach ?

Posted by: bonze | July 16, 2009 1:21 PM

So... I signed up on the Newsweek site to convey my gratitude to M&K, and submitted the following comment:

It's good to see someone acknowledge that science must sometimes yield to the higher truths imparted by faith.

Were it not for surreptitious sacrifices made by the priests of Huitzilopochtli to sustain him in his struggles against darkness (conducted at subatomic levels as yet poorly understood by modern science) the Sun would have been extinguished, and we would have been plunged into darkness. It's time for scientists to acknowledge this truth, and support the return of human sacrifice to its proper place of honor within society!

Posted by: Badger3k | July 16, 2009 1:48 PM

I did forget the Banana! I guess McCarthy is a friend of Ray Comfort. We already have the Kwokoduck, so I guess...BananaCarthy?

Windy @342 - glad I wasn't drinking - this is a school laptop I'm on now, and I can't afford to buy another!

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 16, 2009 2:28 PM

(It's time for another break from the ongoing game of "Dump on the Dorks".)

Dragon Earth: The Tragedy of the Mountain Giant

As noted before in this thread, the Mountain Giant, Gyges promontora is descended from Heidelberg Man, Homo heidelbergensis. The oldest specimens were found in the western Swiss Alps, near the city of Geneva. While of an adult individual less than 10 feet tall, the skeleton still exhibited traits characteristic of modern Mountain Giants; decreased brain size, a comparatively primitive pelvis, and short legs with long arms. Even 70,000 years ago the species was starting to exhibit the atavistic traits now considered diagnostic of the animal.

Polymath Isaac Newton considered the Mountain Giant a type of ape, which had wandered into Europe instead of Africa after disembarking from Noah's ark. Lavosier, who actually had a couple of Mountain Giant friends, considered them a sort of degenerate human punished by God for some transgression. It wasn't until the discovery of Heidelberg Man that the first clues to the origins of the Mountain Giant were revealed. Though it would take recent advances in genetics and genetic divination to establish the connection firmly.

The Mountain Giant is now believed to have arisen from a remnant population of Heidelberg Man after the return of the glaciers and the subsequent rise of the Neanderthals. Forced into a constrained area at a high altitude and at colder temperatures, the archaic humans were forced to adapt. What resulted was an animal of great size, a tolerance for cold and the innate ability to concentrate the air immediately about itself in a sort of apportation. An ability so efficient the typical Mountain Giant cannot tolerate altitudes below 5,000 feet. The Tibetan sub-species G. p. Tibetae struggles to survive locations below 10,000 feet.

Thanks to recent advances in genetics we know now that the Mountain Giant's atavisms are due to mutations in the genome which acted to force development in a more ape-like pattern. In the case of the Tibetan Mountain Giant to the point the creature is equally at ease knuckle walking as going bipedal.

That is the tragedy of the Mountain Giant. Descended from what is now thought to be a fairly intelligent, capable species of human, the modern Mountain Giant is of low intelligence with a bestial nature. A few rare Mountain Giants are capable of functioniscg in society in a limited fashion, but the great majority must be kept in reserves where they can be monitored and protected. And where sophonts can be protected from them.

One last thing to note about Mountain Giants. The Tibetan sub-species has been submitted for species status. In addition, it would appear the Mongolian sub-species G. p. mongolensis appears to be on the cusp of speciation. If it is acknowledged the Mongolian Mountain Giant has evolved into a new species in historical times it would be a zoological first. The fact the new species would also be placed into a new genus -the arguments pro and con are involved and contentious, with pro winning so far- adds to the fun.

(We now return you to your snark fest. :) )

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2009 2:45 PM

Allan, got any links for that?

Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 3:01 PM

Stu @352: I was thinking of you, Stu. I know how much you like a double entendre.

Posted by: Badger3k | July 16, 2009 3:09 PM

I just was rereading the comments to find the PT link for Kwokoduck - holy cow! I had forgotten he was a birther, but I didn't know about the "Messiah" bits, or the fact that he "only" agrees with Rush Limbaugh 50% of the time (whats 50% of 1000% crazy?), but that he is also related to the famous Chaplain Yee! Forget the Six Degrees of Bacon....MMMMMM, Bacon......where was I? Oh yeah, we need six degrees of Kwakky Doodle Dandy (points to spotting the reference :) ).

Posted by: Badger3k | July 16, 2009 3:14 PM

I just was rereading the comments to find the PT link for Kwokoduck - holy cow! I had forgotten he was a birther, but I didn't know about the "Messiah" bits, or the fact that he "only" agrees with Rush Limbaugh 50% of the time (whats 50% of 1000% crazy?), but that he is also related to the famous Chaplain Yee! Forget the Six Degrees of Bacon....MMMMMM, Bacon......where was I? Oh yeah, we need six degrees of Kwakky Doodle (points to spotting the reference :) ).

Uh-oh - I had some kind of glitch on my computer while trying to post (not the typical submission timeout stuff), so I'll edit this (including my reference) and resubmit - sorry if this ends up a double post, but it doesn't show when I got back to this page.

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 3:20 PM

ol' saucy Stu

Hey, I'm not old!

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 16, 2009 3:50 PM

Lynna @348. This particular troll hasn't shown up on Pharyngula to my knowledge, but he's a shining example of your point, I think. This comment was directed at me, and he was banned as a result.

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 4:04 PM

Happeh is somewhat of an internet celebrity. Look around. Completely, utterly out to lunch.

Posted by: JoshS | July 16, 2009 4:17 PM

Stu, no - Davison?? I thought he was too busy creating new blogs because, you know, they fill up with comments and then they're all full. So you have to create a whole new one if you want to post again.

Posted by: FastLane | July 16, 2009 4:23 PM

Lynna, everyone loves a good tongue lashing!!

....and a good double entendre!

Posted by: SC, OM | July 16, 2009 4:31 PM

OK, Stu and Sven you have to stop. How am I supposed to get anything done when I'm following the show at the kookah lounge?

Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 16, 2009 4:36 PM

Another negative take on MK:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/07/chris-mooney-and-sheril-kirshenbaum-in.html

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 4:41 PM

Sven,

Is that THE John A. Davison? The one who said such risible things about Ken Miller?

PURE WIN!

Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 4:44 PM

Example of tolerance being a one-way street: An atheist or agnostic will not stand in the way of a religious person partaking in rituals, including having clerics at their bedside when they are dying, friends offering prayers at the death bed, etc. But religious people will not leave a dying atheist/agnostic alone. In my experience, that's what happens in nursing homes and hospitals.

Posted by: Josh | July 16, 2009 4:47 PM

I don't really think Heddle is a troll. He's answered the few questions I've asked him directly and succinctly. Depending on the day, it is possible to engage him in actual discussion. Where that discussion does is another matter, but to throw him into the same room as The Kw*k seems a little unfair.

*shrug*

Just an opinion.

Posted by: JoshS | July 16, 2009 4:57 PM

Patricia, is that you over there egging on Teh Davison? So naughty, so good.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 16, 2009 5:03 PM

wtf is with the moderation over there...? I've never posted on the Intersection before, I didn't use any swearwords, didn't mention pharyngula or PZ...

you think the word "masturbation" triggers it, too?

Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 5:09 PM

I've never posted on the Intersection before

Perhaps that's the key. Being held in moderation might be the default state until and unless you've had enough posts officially cleared.

Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if your chosen word was on many, fairly generic, moderation hit lists.

Posted by: Lowell | July 16, 2009 5:16 PM

I don't see any pattern in whether my posts go to moderation or not. Some go straight through, even the one using the most vulgar word I've used there so far ("damn"). Others go to moderation for anywhere from 5 to 30 mins. I never posted there before this kerfuffle.

Posted by: Lynna | July 16, 2009 5:24 PM

Josh S @384: I like "JoshS Official SpokesGay" -- best damned handle ever. Makes me smile every time I see it.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 16, 2009 5:47 PM

I'm surprised I haven't been outed yet. This is such a scream, most fun I've had in days.

Posted by: Paul | July 16, 2009 5:53 PM

Kwok told me to shut up. I'm rather proud of that. It's not often he loses his temper like that...normally when you respond or point out his idiocy he just makes a new post completely misrepresenting you and dropping more names. But no, I just got a "shut up you're a jerk".

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 16, 2009 6:06 PM

well fuck me, the comment didn't seem to have made it through. Vapors, indeed. all I did was make a joke about the link to that happeh theory thingy

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 6:29 PM

Patricia Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Anthony McCarthy @555 - Thank you for the reply, and suggestion to look up Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister Roman Catholic, which I will do. Knowing the correct title will help me a great deal.

Oh my fuck that was funny.

It's a shame Davison only managed a drive-by -- although allowances should be made for a loon his age, I suppose.

I love it so!

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 7:00 PM

So now I am Stu, OS, AM?

The honor!

Posted by: Feynmaniac, BM | July 16, 2009 7:09 PM

"Stu, Lowell, Feynmaniac, gilt, best minds of the new atheism, cream of the crop."- Anthony McCarthy

Everyone needs to remember that comment the next time they cast a vote for the Order of Molly! lol

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 16, 2009 7:36 PM

Just as I suspected. You Best Minds are insufferable.

Next thing we know you'll all be sporting BM heraldric crests on your blazer pockets.

Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 16, 2009 8:05 PM

Nothing reviling to vent about, but esteemed systems biologist Brian Goodwin passed away last night. Unless you're familiar with neo-Darwinism's scientific competitors, the Evo-Devo and DST paradigms, you probably haven't heard of him. Goodwin was what PZ has referred to as a "structuralist." For him, evolution was more about self-organization and the laws of mathematical form than natural selection. I recommend his book, "How the Leopard Changed Its Spots."

Also, here is an essay he wrote about science and culture in a book titled: "The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the 21st Century":

What stands out clearly today is the powerful alliance of science, technology, and business which has created a global culture whose primary principles are based on prediction, control, innovation, management, and expansion. Underlying these principles are rationality and power, which Francis Bacon championed as the path to understanding nature and using that knowledge to liberate humanity from bondage. This strategy has worked extraordinarily well. We do indeed have the means to liberate all human beings from hunger and poverty, with the production of wealth and goods achieved through the application of scientific knowledge and the expansion engine that drives capitalism.

However, things have not worked out quite as predicted. A large and increasing fraction of the world's population still lives in hunger and poverty; agricultural land and natural resources are being destroyed at an increasing rate; the pollution of land, sea, and air is affecting all life on the planet; the atmosphere grows more and more turbulent as a result of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels; species are going extinct at a rate not seen since the extinction spasms of the Permian and the end of the Cretaceous; and the ability of nation-states to protect their citizens dwindles with the rise of transnational organizations that enforce unregulated global trade in goods and services. The extraordinary expansion of our information technology has created conditions wherein decisions about investment and movement of capital can destabilize markets and even dissolve governments. The increasing chaos of the weather is reflected in widespread political chaos, in which traditional discourse seems powerless to achieve stability and security--which is what science and technology, the gifts of modernity, had offered us in the first place. Unexpectedly, we have been plunged into a Dark Age much more dangerous than the Thirty Years' War, because the disintegration is now global.

The rest of the essay: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:hMiJPVb2-_oJ:www.tectics.com/In%2520the%2520Shadow%2520of%2520Culture%2520-%2520Goodwin.doc+brian+goodwin+%22In+the+Shadow+of+Culture%22.&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 16, 2009 8:43 PM

I'm going to get a glass of wine and pout.

The only thing worse than an ignorant slut is a whiny ignorant slut.

Posted by: Sili | July 16, 2009 9:43 PM

Well, the guy who discovered Green Fluourescent Protein ended up driving taxis, didn't he? I'm sure Kw*k travels no other way.

Hmmmmm - wouldn't he hate it if we all just suddenly stopped talking about him?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 16, 2009 9:52 PM

Dang, I forgot about filters.

I should have signed in as Samson the Righteous or some such and called Daisy Deadhead an ignorant slut.

That's winey slut to you Himself. ;)

Posted by: Kseniya | July 16, 2009 10:28 PM

Mountain Giants. Cool.

Posted by: Stu | July 16, 2009 10:51 PM

Oh Patricia, you uninformed tramp...

Posted by: SEF | July 17, 2009 3:38 AM

@ Badger3k #406:

SEF@390 - couldn't tell if you were joking

The winking smiley at the end wasn't a big enough clue for you then?

Posted by: designsoda | July 17, 2009 1:04 PM

Just wanted to share this post by Brian Carnell. After reading it I'm not sure how anyone could take Chris Mooney seriously ever again.

http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2009/does-chris-mooney-even-know-what-is-in-unscientific-america

Posted by: designsoda | July 17, 2009 1:09 PM

Just wanted to share this post by Brian Carnell. After reading it I'm not sure how anyone could take Chris Mooney seriously ever again.

http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2009/does-chris-mooney-even-know-what-is-in-unscientific-america

Posted by: designsoda | July 17, 2009 1:17 PM

Just wanted to share this post by Brian Carnell. After reading it I'm not sure how anyone could take Chris Mooney seriously ever again.

http://brian.carnell.com/articles/2009/does-chris-mooney-even-know-what-is-in-unscientific-america

Posted by: designsoda | July 17, 2009 1:23 PM

So sorry about the quintuple post! I was getting error messages each time.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 17, 2009 10:49 PM

RBDC, #418

The science I mention is all stuff I've run across in my perambulations around magazines, books, and the Net. How it applies to mountain giants is all stuff I made up.

As for where I found the science, I forget. One of my traits that led me to suspect I have Aspergers. I remember neat facts and ideas, but forget where I found them. Anybody else reading this who has any idea where I got the science from is welcome to join in and add what they know.

Posted by: Kseniya | July 17, 2009 11:29 PM

Alan, I liked it a lot!

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 19, 2009 4:36 AM

John Morales, #426

With a touch of a book on Snouters. Ask Darren Naish about it. :)

In any case, we know continue with the Dragon Earth hill giant.

The hill giant (Gyges rusticus) was once thought to be ancestral to all of Earth's giants. Not until the discovery of the earliest mountain giants was the truth revealed. Even then there was a great deal of disagreement, largely because the hill giant is much more human in appearance than the modern mountain giant.

At present the hill giant is thought to be descended from a more human appearing sub-species of archaic mountain giant, Gyges promontora archea. A small group of iconoclasts insist the ancestor of the hill giant was an older species from which the modern mountain giant also descended. This animal they have given the name Gyges sierra.

All that aside the hill giant is more tolerant of higher air pressure than the mountain giant, and thus can live at lower altitudes. Still the animal prefers hills and low mountains, finding flat land and valleys uncomfortable. Being the size of an American sasquatch -about eight feet tall and 800 pounds in weight, the hill giant is the smallest of the giants. With the exception of a colony living in the state of Colorado, most hill giants are found in Central Europe and Anatolian Turkey. There is one sub-species, though certain researchers have proposed that the Mount Arafat area hill giants be given sub-species status, and a certain party insists that the Mt. Arafat hill giants are actually a remnant population of G. sierra.

Once known as vile tempered violent beasts, the modern hill giant has followed the lead of the ogre and taken up the ways of peace. Most are either Christians, Buddhists, or an esoteric combination of both philosophies. A dedication to a focused, proactive pacifism is typical of all but a very few hill giant congregations. This is not to say that hill giants are utterly opposed to violence, when necessary.

Because of their early identification with Scandinavians hill giants have taken up many aspect of Scandinavian culture. Going so far as to refer to Jesus and Mahatma as the White Christ and the White Buddha respectively.

At present hill giant numbers have slowed their steady decline, now losing just a few thousand every year. Still, with a population numbering in the low millions, hill giants are considered threatened. Ongoing work in hill giant fertility is hoped to reverse this trend and lead to an increase in population by the middle of the century.

Should this thread continue for a few days more I'll see about posting a comment about the stone giant. We'll see how it goes. :)

Posted by: fashionabee | October 19, 2009 8:29 AM

The fad refers to the styles and customs prevalent at a preordained time. In its most workaday habit nonetheless, "style" describes the fashionable clothing style. Myriad fashions are stylish in varied cultures at any preordained time. Prominent is the picture that the dispatch of sketch and style whim modification more rapidly than the taste as a whole. Dernier cri designers create and cast clothing articles.

The terms "fashionable" and "unfashionable" were employed to describe whether someone or something fits in with the tenor or steady not so in vogue, understandable system of expression. Anyway, more so in the modern stage items termed 'not so simultaneous' may indeed spasmodically into the name 'Retro.' Retro frame allows guide shifts, such as 'full of years is quickly altered,' accordingly fashionable. The provisions "vogue" is often euphemistic pre-owned in a utter nous, as a synonym after bewitchment, looker and style[citation needed]. In this sense, fashions are a sort of communal art, in every way which a culture examines its notions of beauty and goodness. The relating to "fashion" is also again employed in a argumentative nous, as a synonym on the side of fads and trends, and materialism.

There exist a tons of cities recognized as global fashion centers or the craze capitals. Fashion Weeks are held in these cities where designers manifest their chic clothing collections to audiences. The main four cities are London, Paris, Milan and New York - these four are distinguished looking for their biggest influence on worldwide approach and are headquarters to the greatest style companies. Other cities, including Tokyo, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Berlin, Rome, Buenos Aires, Toronto, Hong Kong, Dubai, Sгo Paulo, Sydney, Moscow, and Miami also curb way weeks and are better recognized every year.

[URL=http://fashion-2009-2010.info/fashion-week/videos-of-pet-fashion-week.html]videos of pet fashion week[/URL]

[URL=http://fashion-2009-2010.info/1950-fashion/1950s-fashion-m.html]1950s fashion m[/URL]

[URL=http://fashion-2009-2010.info/fashion-background.html]fashion background[/URL]