…and this is a 
Not this nonsense again: it's the argument that it's only natural to believe in gods.
Atheism really may be fighting against nature: humans have been hardwired by evolution to believe in God, scientists have suggested.
The idea has emerged from studies of the way children's brains develop and of the workings of the brain during religious experiences. They suggest that during evolution groups of humans with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs, perhaps because they tended to work together better and so stood a greater chance of survival.
The findings challenge campaigners against organised religion, such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. He has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood "indoctrination".
Oh, piss off, you tiresome apologists for superstition. Dawkins did not make any such simple-minded argument; The God Delusion really is becoming one of those books beloved by those who haven't read it for their ability to misrepresent it. There may very well be natural biases that incline people to see agency everywhere around them, and to accept the dogmas of the tribe. So what?
I am an atheist, and it feels good. I am not a mutant freak who is struggling against either my instincts, radio waves broadcast from CIA satellites, or the sub-etheric pleas of downy-winged angels. I have hardwired bits in my brain, I am sure, and I also have the forces of history and culture shaping the way I think, but that does not mean anything as shallow and simplistic as that I should surrender to my church for the good of my biological impulses.
I was also born with a brain that found object permanence extremely surprising. My parents could play peek-a-boo with me, and it took me a year or so to realize that it was not a massively beneficent act of nature that my mother's face could still exist! Behind her hands! When I wasn't looking! Hooray! Ha ha! This does not imply that thinking, conscious, educated adult human beings should continue to collapse in peals of childish laughter every time they open a door and find that their family doesn't vanish when they aren't in sight.
The weakly formed predispositions of babies are not obstacles to rational thought. Except, maybe, to adults with the brains of babies. The rest of us can grow out of that nonsense.
A clarification: I actually do think there are inborn biases that tend to make religious belief a path of least resistance for many people. To escape that trap is not 'fighting against nature', nor is it an obstacle to godlessness.
The Times article was a very poor mish-mash of Bruce Hood's ideas. Hood has his own commentary on the press — once again, some journalists make themselves the enemy of clarity of expression and accuracy.
Brain & Behavior
Comments
Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 7, 2009 7:12 PM
Are any of the apologists familiar with the word Sweden?
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | September 7, 2009 7:12 PM
Plus, you know, Dawkins already demolished the whole concept IN the God Delusion, comparing it to programming gone haywire, such as the kind that leads a moth to a flame.
Anyone who read the book would know that, but reading it is dangerous and might give Satan a foothold to infect you with doubt! Good, demure Christians know to avert their eyes.
Posted by: aineolach | September 7, 2009 7:14 PM
C'mon, who doesn't still enjoy a game of peek-a-boo?
Posted by: AZ Writer (Kim Hosey) | September 7, 2009 7:15 PM
I'm hardwired to do a lot of things I ought not to do. Early groups of humans also were predisposed to favor sweet and fatty things, since they needed to pack in the calories and sugar, right? So I'll just gorge on Twinkies. It's only natural.
Posted by: CatBallou
|
September 7, 2009 7:17 PM
That "year or so" it took you, PZ--that was your first year, right? 'Cause otherwise it's kind of sad.
Seriously, though, this "nature" argument merits only a tired "So what." (Not even a question mark)
Posted by: JosherK | September 7, 2009 7:19 PM
But without God, life is meaningless, and we will turn to things like FOOD, ALCOHOL, and the love of WOMEN! Can you think of anything more unnatural or depraved?
*tilts back glass of beer for another delicious sip*
Posted by: Kilre | September 7, 2009 7:19 PM
Twisting the facts to make it seem like belief in a god, when it was the social binding itself and not the supernatural, is and was a good thing.
We both interpret the same evidence differently, indeed.
Posted by: silentbob | September 7, 2009 7:23 PM
This gives me the opportunity to ask a question. I just returned from Barnes and Noble an hour ago. While there, I was thumbing through a book called "The Human Brain Book" by Rita Carter and Martyn Page. It's one of those big glossy popular science books. Somewhere about page 170, I noticed a small item about scrambled face studies. That's where they take photos of people and rearrange the features...putting an eye where the mouth is, putting a mouth in the forehead, etc.. The text claimed that when presented with a rapid sequence of pictures (some scrambled, some not), "believers" detected more faces than were really present and "skeptics" detected fewer faces than were really present. However, if the skeptics were given L-dopa, then they tended to detect more faces. So now I come to my question, has anyone ever heard of this study?
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | September 7, 2009 7:23 PM
Whether or not there are innate tendencies to believe in religion are distinct from whether or not there is any benefit in the modern era. Obviously, part of the tendency to believe in religion comes from the human tendency to assign agency to lots of stuff and also the human tendency to be overactive pattern seekers. But that's a much narrower claim.
There's some evidence that humans innately aren't good with calculating probability. If there were evidence that humans had an innate tendency to engage in the gambler's fallacy would that make it more acceptable for people to poorly estimate probabilities? If not, why is religion different?
Posted by: Rorschach | September 7, 2009 7:24 PM
Middle-eastern guy running around in my hospital yesterday, verbally and physically aggressive (as in, assaulting patients and visitors)preaching Islam to bystanders, known schizophrenic.
Certified him.
The boundaries between religion and mental illness are ill-defined indeed.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 7:27 PM
So, there is a competeive advantage to being religious?
Maybe so, unless you are one of those unfortunate heretics or infidels who have been brutally murdered throughout history for worshipping the 'wrong' god. Or one of the pious holy warriors who got himself gutted fighting to force his preferred woo on others. Or one of the countless unfortunates who continue to die from preventable diseases and treatable conditions across the world due to religiously mandated ignorance and fear of simple and efficacious medical procedures and contraception techniques. Or one of the countless people who have forsworn sex out of a misguided belief that it makes for 'purer' faith.
Just because something may have assisted us in our primitive state does not mean it is beneficial now. In early history, killing anyone who was not part of your own tribal group was probably a good and prudent survival strategy due to intense competition for resources. It might not go over so well today, though. Not many mating opportunities in prison, or so I hear.
Posted by: Tim Harris | September 7, 2009 7:28 PM
I've lived in Japan for over 30 years, and am acquainted with Japanese and other East Asian religions, as well as with Balinese religion. What strikes me about such claims as the one you have quoted is how stunningly parochial these people are; they appear to have no idea that there is more than one model for religion, and that some religions, Buddhism, for example, or Taoism, either don't posit a supreme being at all or posit what amounts to the God of Spinoza, viz., an indifferent nature. Yes, there are magical and superstitious accretions,but that is no evidence of hard-wiring for God. The people who propose these silly hypotheses and the journalists who breathlessly parrot them need to step out of their monotheistic box, learn a little about other religions and cultures, learn some respect for other ways of thinking and feeling, and understand that although putting forward, a la Robert Wright and Jim Manzi,little feel-good ideas may win you plaudits among the ignorant, it is neither true philosophy nor true science. In any event, if we are all hard-wired for God, why do atheists exist?
Posted by: FormerComposer | September 7, 2009 7:29 PM
@ #8
Here's a link for you:
NeuroWhoa blog
Posted by: AZ Writer (Kim Hosey) | September 7, 2009 7:29 PM
#7: Good point about that distinction. I'm a deconvert, and I sometimes do miss church -- but for entirely social reasons. I miss the getting together afterward and the whispered conversations during over-long sermons, the inside jokes and groups to which I belonged. Funnily enough, I'm perfectly able to find all these things without church.
And of course whether it's the social benefits or some other innate thing that makes us predisposed to believe, it's got nothing to do with truth.
Also, I can't help but be reminded of that Douglas Adams bit about the inclination to believe, with the drop of water.
Posted by: Sesoron | September 7, 2009 7:36 PM
Yeah, Dawkins addressed this directly in that book. It's an evolutionary advantage to believe what adults, especially your parents, tell you, because the kids who just did whatever they wanted got killed more often. I think that that tendency is enough for cultural ideas of any sort to self-replicate pretty well. When a cultural meme is introduced that includes social sanctions against those who question it, it increases its rate of self-replication. When a cultural meme includes strictures against non-reproductive sex, it increases the rate of reproduction, allowing that culture to absorb neighbors through greater population.
Just because religious belief is good at sustaining itself doesn't mean it's the best way to be. It's a consequence of humanity developing an imagination before they developed science.
Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 7:38 PM
"The God Delusion really is becoming one of those books beloved by those who haven't read it for their ability to misrepresent it."
Uhm, you mean like you representing all kinds of religions based on not reading, let alone trying to understand the contexts of, the writings of mankind's religions ?
Let the trolling begin.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 7, 2009 7:39 PM
From the article:
No, no it really doesn't. I hope that was just flagrant misinterpretation on the part of the reporter and not the sort of "science" Hood is practicing.
Anyways, maybe it's religion that evolves to persist only in so far as how well it takes advantage of human bonding. Religions that encourage excessive solitude and celibacy sure seem to die out or get rewritten to promote group activity and having children.
Posted by: LionDancer | September 7, 2009 7:40 PM
What. You're not an evil cephlapodian cthuluian mutant?
I must have the wrong site then.
Maybe it's Farungula.
Posted by: Andyo
|
September 7, 2009 7:43 PM
And also, the "it's not natural" argument is so fucking stupid and it's not even an argument. What's also not "natural"? Driving cars, using computers, watching TV, having blogs... Also, not raping and killing.
I wonder if the religious will admit homosexuality is all right because it's natural or even if they will ever agree it's natural. It's clear it is, but what the hell if it wasn't? How is it different from other non-natural behaviors?
Posted by: LuchinG | September 7, 2009 7:43 PM
Yes, we are born to believe... in the existence of other sentient beings. Most people do one extrange "imprinting" of that in believing that there's is a god, but it doesnt follow that because its natural to think that there are other sentient beings and my imaginary friend is a good guy, THEREFORE there must be a god.
Posted by: silentbob | September 7, 2009 7:44 PM
@ #13
Thank you very much. That's just what I was looking for! Sparkly things and shiny books always attract my attention, but I hate undocumented assertions.
Posted by: Sanity Jane | September 7, 2009 7:44 PM
Hmm... Why not play along with this by proudly embracing the putative mutation that gives us resistance to brain-hobbling superstition? Dawkins can be our Professor Xavier, and we can all adopt cool superhero names!
Posted by: toomanytribbles | September 7, 2009 7:45 PM
well said! i was tired of seeing this silliness floating around my rss.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 7, 2009 7:49 PM
troll @ 16,
As you will well know if you read the blog regularly, a lot of people here have read extensively about religion, more so than most fundies in fact.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 7:49 PM
Being the freak that I am, reading about a mental set up that helps babies survive the early part of life, therefore humans naturally are religious: I thought of sucking on nipples. Very useful for babies but not so much when one is older. (I heard that! Shut up and grow up!) That lead me to an old Sugarcubes song, Mama.
You can’t be safer can’t be more secure
Than with a breast in each palm,
With a breast in each palm,
That’s the way I was born
And that’s the way I want to die.
While fun, hardly necessary. I will shut up now at risk of...well, I can get quite juvenile also.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 7, 2009 7:54 PM
Man is born to believe. And if no church comes forward with its
title-deeds of truth, sustained by the tradition of sacred ages and by the conviction of countless generations to guide him, he will find altars and idols in his own heart and his own imagination.
- Benjamin Disraeli
A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.
- Charles Darwin
Posted by: TheVirginian | September 7, 2009 7:57 PM
I don't doubt that belief in gods, spirits, religion, etc. comes from something hardwired in the brain, but it's from an evolved, biological trait, not because Quetzalcoatl put a clue into our bodies that the Aztec gods exist.
We evolved with an ability to look for/see patterns in the world, both the real and the imaginary. (I don't think this is unique to us by any means, as many animals clearly possess such an ability, just not as complex or far-seeing as our potential.)
So ancient peoples would have had at least 3 reasons to infer a (false) pattern that some vast, powerful intelligences were at work in the world.
First, if people put up buildings, made clothing, created tools and arts, etc., it's not illogical to assume some greater power must have made the vastly greater world around them.
Second, ancient peoples saw patterns in nature - the seasons, signs of weather changes (red sky at night, sailor's delight, etc.), annual bursts of fertility among plants and animals. Again, one logical inference is that something intelligent created a pattern.
Third, when a pattern was violated - the Nile does not flood, winter is too long, drought hits, and for most people, disease strikes or death comes prematurely, people would look for patterns, and often see them. "We failed to offer our usual sacrifice to the gods, so this plague is a punishment." "We let people say blasphemous things about the gods, and now our valley and village flooded, so there must be a connection." "We lost a great battle despite our soldiers' bravery, so we obviously angered our gods by letting those soldiers from another city join us while wearing amulets dedicated to gods that we know are enemies of our gods."
This is not illogical or unnatural for people who don't know what science has told us about gravity, inertia, cosmology, medicine, etc. But people who do have access to such information have no excuse to hold such beliefs. We know that the patterns that ancient peoples saw and understood to support the existence of gods do not justify any such beliefs today. I don't know if the writers of this article exaggerated what the scientists said or if the scientists let theistic beliefs distort their findings. In either case, the article is nonsense.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 7:57 PM
And here is the Hoax, here to derail what could have been a fun tread.
Posted by: mikespeir | September 7, 2009 7:58 PM
I think the only longing we have naturally that might tend in that direction is a longing for security. Gods are just one more of our inventions in a long effort to make ourselves feel more secure.
Posted by: Noadi | September 7, 2009 7:58 PM
Here's my hypothesis on this: I think that argument confuses that sense of awe before nature and for lack of a better term a spiritual emotion that humans have. Those feelings I think are hardwired into us, back from the time when nature was an almost total unknown and the source of life and destruction (as it still is but we understand much of it now).
That feeling led our ancestors who hadn't yet developed science to create mythologies that explained and channeled that spiritual emotion. However just because we have this emotional response built into our brains doesn't mean it has to or should be channeled into worship of some higher being. It just as easily can be channeled into a wonder and love of the universe and it's immenseness and beauty. You don't need a god to feel that, there's no emptiness to being an atheist we've just found that we don't need religion to feed that emotional need. The universe is more than enough for that.
Posted by: jose | September 7, 2009 7:58 PM
And the forces of history and culture are massively stronger than them bits. We are not determined by our genes.Babies got no "hardwired" language. Therefore, speaking Spanish or English is against their Nature and biological instincts, which impulse them to say Gah-Gah! all the time, right?
Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 7:59 PM
@Rorschach
I quoted and replied to PZ, not people commenting on his blog. And sorry to disappoint you, but "to read extensively about religion" isn't the same as reading the actual scriptures of certain religions, and then reflecting on these with an open mind.
If people like PZ or Dawkins really did that, they'd have half as much ammunition against religion. Many or their arguments against religions are based on such an embarrassing lack of understanding of these religions that it's ridiculous, considering they're calling themsleves academics.
Which is not to say that they're basic stance (opposition of religion as an impediment to accumulation of knowledge about the natural world) is wrong - just that they way they go about it is really crude, to be gentle...
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 8:02 PM
That didn't actually sound apologetic to me at all. It sounded more like "look, there is a scientific explanation for why people believe in this nonsense". Which I believe was something Dawkins was discussing in the God Delusion as well - there was a whole chapter on the possible evolutionary advantage of religious belief
Posted by: TheVirginian | September 7, 2009 8:04 PM
Leander:
If you're trying to say that we nontheists misrepresent what religions say because we've never read religious texts, you're full of it. I rejected belief in Christianity, then in gods and all religions, precisely because I read religious texts.
Reading the Bible probably has created more atheists than any other since source. If Christians actually would read the Bible, as well as a selection of ancient Christian texts (I've read hundreds as a matter of historical interest), then all Christians with any intelligence, honesty and sense of moral decency would quit theism and religion in favor of nontheistic systems of thought. (I eventually realized that my trend of thinking post-superstition had a name - secular humanism. So that's how I describe myself.)
You sound like a typical voodoo worshiper. If someone rejects your superstition, it can only be because of ignorance. In fact, knowledge is the greatest threat to superstition. I hope I misunderstood you, but I doubt it. Please let me know if I've falsely accused you of superstition.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 8:05 PM
Leander, you do not get to address a comment solely to PZ. You make a statement here and everyone is free to respond in kind. You do not like it, you get your own blog and set the controls. Until then, do not complain when people whose name is not PZ responds.
Great way to act like a complete schmuck.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 7, 2009 8:05 PM
PZ Myers:
But it was a massively beneficent act, albeit not of nature.
That sounds like an admirable way of showing the requisite gratitude! Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven.
Posted by: jdhuey | September 7, 2009 8:08 PM
I know that this idea (that religion and the accompanying rituals and ceremonies lead to social cohesion and a group identity) has been around for a long long time - Plato expresses the idea and I'm sure he wasn't the first - but really, has anyone actually studied this to see if it is true? What I'm thinking is that if we accept the idea that religion is really just a parasite: perhaps groups don't get their social cohesion from a common religious experience (ceremonies, rituals, etc.) but that groups that have social cohesion are easily commandeered into performing religious activities.
Posted by: Aquaria | September 7, 2009 8:10 PM
Leander the moron:
Courtier's Reply. Learn it. Know it. That's all you're offering. You're asking people to "accept" ideas about an entity's properties/ wishes, when it's unclear if that being exists.
Vomit up your deity, then one can speak about what it is and what it expects.
Until then, it's all delusional speculation and mental masturbation.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 8:13 PM
So, Hoax, explain when one should be like a little child and when one should stop being a child and put away childish things?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:16 PM
Amen sister. And Leander, you are a complete schmuck. STFU concern troll.Posted by: TheVirginian | September 7, 2009 8:16 PM
That should be "single source," not "since source."
Leander: Based upon your comment 32, I might have partially misunderstood you, but I still think you're very wrong to argue that skeptics have not read or understood religious texts. An open mind that is imbued with a variety of knowledge from science, literature (particularly ancient literature), the arts, etc. will find religious texts to be a mix of qualities, but all of human origin and reflecting the mixed nature of humanity: A lot of thoughtful insight, a lot of nonsense, a lot of obvious, tiresome propaganda, and a lot of self-serving claptrap from authority figures, especially the clergy, who love fooling the yokels into giving them wealth, power and all the sex they can handle.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 7, 2009 8:18 PM
Leander wrote @ #32:
Too fucking bad. You post here, we read it, we respond. C'est la vie.
But but but MY religion is elegant, and deep, and profound, and COMPLETELY different from all OTHER religions. Really, it is! You can't possibly dismiss it without understanding all of the intricate details!
*yawn*
We've heard it all before. Come back when you have some evidence.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
September 7, 2009 8:20 PM
...That's so illogical. As a child, I never believed in that nonsense because my parents never told me anything about any deities. I was introduced to zealousness when I was a child and bumped into a couple religious teacher freakos, but nothing drastic. I never believed in it and it was just puzzling. It wasn't until I was a teenager that I started getting a bit freaked out by a close religious freako (and then calmed myself when I read the bible and realized it was such garbage.)
I asked her "why do you put God in front of your father and mother and sibblings on your website anyway?" (another thing I just can't understand.) and she started cramming me with her fanatism and I got a bit spooked.
But never. Ever. Ever did I truly believe there MIGHT be a god until people babbled to me about it.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 8:22 PM
PZ,
Isn't it about time you ripped apart another one of my blog entries?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 8:25 PM
Has anyone been looking through the comments on the article page? They range from inciteful and logical to truly disturbingly fundie drivel. Here's one of my favourite xian-gasms;
"Funny, when I go to church, I don't find too may scared people. The basis of faith is fellowship and helping others. God is a loving God - slow to anger. Maybe Mr Cruise is talking of the 16th century church - we've moved on. Believing in science is a wonderful thing but it can't give us a moral code. It also can't explain how life evolved from nothing. Slaying "the dragon of religion" has been tried in Russia, China, and North Korea to name a few and all have failed. Successful societies are based on freedom, faith, free enterprise, and family. Faith and family have declined in the U.K since the 1960s and the social consequences are for all to see. Give Jesus a chance - it wont hurt."Successful societies are based on freedom, faith, free enterprise, and family. Faith and family have declined in the U.K since the 1960s and the social consequences are for all to see. Give Jesus a chance - it wont hurt."
There is so much wrong with this statement, where to begin?
"Funny, when I go to church, I don't find too may scared people"
I think our friend would find that most religion is based almost exclusively on the faithful fearing the wrath of their psychotic and capricious sky fairy. They even talk about being 'god fearing'.
"God is a loving God - slow to anger. Maybe Mr Cruise is talking of the 16th century church - we've moved on"
Yes, a loving god who will condemn your ass to eternal hellfire if you have the gall to not believe in him. Conveniently, the supposedly eternal and unchanging god has donned a set of the Emperor's new clothes to fit to some degree with modern social mores, what with genocide being so passe these days.
"Believing in science is a wonderful thing but it can't give us a moral code. It also can't explain how life evolved from nothing. Slaying "the dragon of religion" has been tried in Russia, China, and North Korea to name a few and all have failed"
Since when did science aspire to the creation of a moral code? Has religion's morality, that has at various points included shielding child rapists, endorsing the bloodthirsty antics of tyrants, seeking to legitimise slavery, and propogating rampant misogyny and homophobia really worked to the commom good of humanity?
Science may not have all the answers about the origin of life but it is seeking the objective truth of this question, not trotting out trite fairy tales and calling it an explanation.
The Communist systems simply replaced the godhead with a social construct of equivalent authority; the 'workers utopia' in the same way as Fascism seeks to deify the 'fatherland'. These were nominally godless systems that functioned in a fashion very similar to organised religions. A desire to remove god from one's own life and from undue influence in the public sphere is a wholly seperate endeavour.
"Successful societies are based on freedom, faith, free enterprise, and family. Faith and family have declined in the U.K since the 1960s and the social consequences are for all to see. Give Jesus a chance - it wont hurt."
Freedom, faith, free enterprise, and family. This is practically the rallying cry of the religious right. Freedom and faith are rarely complimentary. In fact they are usually in conflict unless you are a white male of significant pecuniary resources.
The same is true of freedom and wholly free enterprise. 'Family values' are more often than not used as a cudgel to bludgeon anyone who does not conform to the narrow, puritanical moral expectations of the fundamentalist. The decline of faith and these pernicious concepts of family in the UK have not contributed to any 'social consequences' except in the fevered imaginations of religious apologists. The rise of rationalism in the UK and accross Europe has been a boon. In any case, their has been a sharp increase in Islam, but I assume that this is the wrong faith to have such a wonderful, social-panecea effect.
As for 'giving Jesus a chance' - it most certainly can hurt if you happen to be homosexual, or if you worship a different godhead, or if you are an atheist, or if you value free thought and reason at all. The UK has problems aplenty, but an injection of American-style evangelism and the hate-fuelled bigotry it breeds is the last thing that Britain needs.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 7, 2009 8:27 PM
No. You're boring.
Posted by: Texas Reader | September 7, 2009 8:28 PM
I GOT TO GIVE MY ATHEIST TESTIMONY LAST WEEK!!! - there's a very hardworking and friendly woman who was doing contract work at my office. Friday was her last day. We had lunch and I talked to her about the importance of the public option in health insurance reform, and told her that in terms of "what would jesus do" I was pretty sure he'd support it and was dismayed that the churches weren't pushing for it. That led to her asking if I was a christian, and when I told her I used to be but had become atheist, she wanted to know why. (She's a born again Baptist.)
I was able to share with her the process I went through in my 20's of letting go of the fear of hell that had been drummed into as a child in Baptist church (she had the same upbringing) and I used a valuable point from the comments here last week about how if you decide to believe in god to avoid hell you can't know WHICH of the god stories to believe in. It was a wonderfully civilized conversation and we are going to keep in touch.
Atheist witnessing, it's what's for lunch!
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 8:29 PM
Yah, I've read lots of scripture with an open mind, and most of it is inane babbling and bullshit patriarchal rule-making.
The Buddhist Suttas, not so much.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 8:30 PM
Nevertheless, some here might be interested in watching me take another beating from the great PZ Myers.
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 8:31 PM
@32:
Words seem to have a very deep and special significance to religious people. It has always struck me as odd about religious discussions, that they don't as much talk about things that happened, only things that were said. Point-Counterpoint arguments that I've heard never go "ah, but we see this happening, so you must be wrong", it always seems to be "ah, but St. Anselm said this, so that must be wrong".
This is what you seem to be doing here: people like Richard Dawkins point out that religious beliefs are on the face of it unnecessary to explain the world, because we can show physical, natural paths for life to progress, and no superstitious belief of any religion has ever been shown to have happened in reality - and you want people to not say that until they have read some texts, to see what the proponents of said religion have to say?
Sorry, but no text can ever overrule the facts of nature
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:33 PM
Leander #32 (or what is #32 before the Hoax's posts go away)
It's not your choice about who replies to you.
I read the Bible cover to cover (including the begats and discussions of house leprosy) three times. When I was done I was a confirmed atheist.
Fixed your error. No need to thank me.
You need to inform yourself of something called the Courtier's Reply.
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 8:36 PM
Randy, you are mistaken. I could not give a flying fuck about anything you have to say.
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 8:36 PM
Nevertheless, some here might be interested in watching me take another beating from the great PZ Myers
attention whore much?
Posted by: Acitta | September 7, 2009 8:37 PM
I don't quite understand the resistance to the scientific understanding of the functioning of the brain as it relates to religious belief that seems to prevail among many who comment on science or atheist related blogs. The majority of humans for most of human history seem to have had some kind of religious or superstitious belief and it seems to me that their brains must have had some part it it. Studying the brain in relation to religion therefor seems warranted to me. I get the impression that many of my fellow atheists prefer a sociological explanation to a neurological one for religious behavior and belief. I do not get the impression that the scientists quoted in the referenced article were "apologists" for religious belief, but rather that they were simply trying to understand it neurologically. The journalist who wrote the article may have made unwarranted extrapolations from the scientific data, but that is not the fault of the scientists doing the work.
Posted by: bastion of sass | September 7, 2009 8:39 PM
Guess there's something "miswired" in my kids' brains. Yay!
Neither (both now young adults) has ever believed in a god.
As they were growing up, I didn't present a case against--or for--theism. However, I did try to teach them rational thinking.
As they were exposed to various flavors of religion from relatives, friends, books, they never thought theism was anything but silly and beyond belief.
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 8:39 PM
The journalist who wrote the article may have made unwarranted extrapolations from the scientific data
I do believe that was the point of the post.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 8:41 PM
@Leander
Girl, pleez.* Like Leviticus with its fixation on the depravity of shellfish and Visa, the Freedom Fabric? That's some quality content worth defending, that is.
* Don't bother correcting me if you're actually a guy. I'll still call you girl.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 8:41 PM
Leander;
If you post on this blog, especially in a fashion that casts aspersions upon the intellectual capacity of PZ, and then become agitated when Pharyngulites other than PZ respond to you and essentially demand that we 'take you to our leader', you are going to get verbally eviscerated. It is an immutable law of Pharyngula. Try not to take it personally.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 8:41 PM
'Tis Himself, the Hoax has not been plonked. His posts will not be deleted. Or are you trying to play into the Hoax's persecution complex, you know the one, where he thinks he is a new Jew and we are out to get him?
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 8:42 PM
@54: sociology has a neurological basis as well, which can be explained by concepts such as evolution. As I said, Richard Dawkins discussed the evolutionary bases for belief in The God Delusion, and that is what I understand this study to have done as well. It's not ignored or resisted
I actually don't think the journalist tried to defend religion there. I don't think a defender of religion would say that religious belief is the result of evolution. I think PZ misinterpreted the articlePosted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:42 PM
Randy, go to YouTube and listen to John Mellencamp's "Hurts So Good" fifteen times. That'll substitute for any beating you might get.
Posted by: Creature of the Universe | September 7, 2009 8:45 PM
Hard wired to believe in god? God wouldn't be so sneaky...would he?
Brings into question the notion of adam and eves free will - just how free is gods free will then? Was their fall from grace just a setup???
Actually, notwithstanding the misrepresentation of Dawkins, the article is pretty damming to religion. Contrary to what is said - the findings DON’T challenge campaigners against organized religion... they reinforce them.
To quote from the article "Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,"...
"As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs REMAINS AS RELIGION."
...oh well...
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 8:48 PM
JoshS, I loves ya all to bits...but please do not use lines like this: * Don't bother correcting me if you're actually a guy. I'll still call you girl.
It sounds too much like you are using a gendered insult. And many of us female types do not think it is at all insulting to be female.
Posted by: arachnophilia | September 7, 2009 8:48 PM
indeed. i haven't read the god delusion either, so there are precisely three comments i can make:
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 8:49 PM
Is it just me, or do we have an embarrasment of 'dissenting opinion' riches on the thread today?
Coincidence? Or a concerted foray into the online land of the godless?
Fear not, new friends. Your collective concern has been noted.
Posted by: BenW
|
September 7, 2009 8:51 PM
You are thinking of a game of "How's your father".
Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 8:51 PM
@TheVirginian
"If you're trying to say that we nontheists misrepresent what religions say because we've never read religious texts, you're full of it."
It's exactly what I'm trying to say, and it's more favourable to you than if I said you're misrepresenting it because you read it. Think about that and who's really full of it for a second.
But again, I was not talking about you, I was talking about PZ and Dawkins. Unless the two come out and say they've read, comprehended and thought through the bible and other significant religious scriptures, I will assume, based on their writings and in their favor (!) that they have no clue what they're talking about.
"...would quit theism and religion in favor of nontheistic systems of thought."
Adopting a system of thought beyond this system being a working hypothesis is utterly stupid and ignorant, no matter what this system might be. I don't expect a person who calls someone who simply criticizes some blogger's education on religion a "voodoo worshiper [sic]" to grasp that, but I can try.
If you wanna give yourself a second chance at being clever, explain to me what that "your superstition" is that you're referring to.
@Janine, OMnivore
"Leander, you do not get to address a comment solely to PZ."
Yes I do. He has a blog, and a little feature that allows comment to specific blog posts of his. If I make use of this feature, it should be common sense to everyone that this comment is addressed solely to him, unless noted otherwise. I didn't note otherwise (except maybe addressing Dawkins).
"You make a statement here and everyone is free to respond in kind."
I never disputed that. That doesn't mean that automatically my comment is addressed to anyone ever commenting on this blog. Is that within range of your comprehension ?
@Aquaria
If you don't want to make yourself look like a complete f*cking idiot to ANYBODY reading your comment, please quote where I asked anyone to accept a deity (it'd help if you could specify which deity I was referring to), or where I suggested I had a deity in the first place. Do yourself a favour.
@'Tis Himself
"It's not your choice about who replies to you."
Is it so hard to comprehend that I didn't object to someone replying to me, but to someone twisting my reply to PZ (and Dawkins) to a general reply to commenters on this blog ? Is this place full of psychological and intellectual masochists ?
"I read the Bible cover to cover (including the begats and discussions of house leprosy) three times. When I was done I was a confirmed atheist."
Took you three times ? And where did I make a statement concluding that someone reading and contemplating the bible would become a believer ? It was about the range of criticism that such a person would be capable of. All these nuances and subtleties, sorry to bother you with that.
"Fixed your error. No need to thank me."
Should you not fix PZ's and Dawkins' error ? After all, according to you, if they read the whole thing, they could have so much more ammunition, right ?
"You need to inform yourself of something called the Courtier's Reply."
And, tremendous FAIL again...I did nowhere criticize PZ or Dawkins for not keeping up with secondary literature, but with reading, digesting, honestly reflecting the primary literature. As should be apparent to an internet-capable five-year-old reading my comment. Is there no chance you guys leave out to embarrass yourselves ?
I'll just quit commenting on further comments here. Like I stated elswehere on this blog, best response to trolling is to ignore it. But gosh dammit, people, you're a disgrace to any thinking person, whether they have a deity or not.
Posted by: travc | September 7, 2009 8:51 PM
There should be a special place in hell (metaphorically speaking) for people who use group selection as an explanation in this sort of way. Not data of course, but not even a plausible mechanism. No, they have an apparent effect they want to explain and group selection provides a nice sounding story... not any more scientific than "god did it" though.
It isn't like group selection has failed to be the right (dominant) factor in 95%+ of the cases it has be proposed. Wait, no, it is exactly like that.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 7, 2009 8:53 PM
@Leander:
I notice that you complain about PZ's misrepresentations despite the fact that all you provide are vague accusations while PZ provides detailed and specific documentation for his posts. Care to back up and explain your claims, or is that something you only expect others to do?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:53 PM
Janine, I could have sworn the banhammer hit the Hoax hard. But I just checked and you're right, he's somehow escaped his just deserts.
Possibly Pilty sees himself as the Wandering Jew.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 8:54 PM
I can accept the argument that people in general are inclined to believe in supernatural agency. I can also accept the science showing that believers in general see patterns where they aren't and sceptics sometimes miss patterns where they are. Also that increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain makes people more willing to see patterns where they aren't and decreases the accuracy of patterns.
In that respect, I can see that some people would be inclined to believe in god(s). However for God? I don't think so. God being the Judeo-Christian Islamist construct, and belief in such a being is wholly contingent on there being a meme. Seeing a higher power is one thing, but seeing a higher power who died for your sins and will help your soul survive after death? Not wired for that at all.
As for atheism, not everyone is wired to believe in supernatural agency. To say that everyone is wired that way is as bad as saying that it's all cultural. I don't see supernatural agency in the world, I don't even see how it could possibly be that there is supernatural agency. It may be I'm making a type 2 error (rejecting a truth), but I think it far more likely that believers make the type 1 error (believing a falsehood) because evolution has a selective bias towards the former.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 8:54 PM
@Janine,
Oh, dear, I had a feeling someone would take it that way. Truly didn't mean it that way. It's a term of affection, not an insult. I tend to forget not everyone is versed in 30-something Gay Men Lingo. In my circle, we all call each other "girl" when horsing around, and whether we're girls or boys. The origins of this must be lost in the historical mists. . .
It's properly used this way:
"Psst! Girl! You won't believe it. . she came out onstage with her wig on backwards, then this other one snatched her bald!"
I just meant to tease poor Leander a bit, since I suspected he'd be totally, completely confused. No offense intended:)))
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 8:56 PM
But I am fucking special. When I address a question to one person on an open blog, dammit, I expect everybody else to fucking shut up and not comment on it.
Superschmuck.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 8:58 PM
Anyway, anyone who wants to know more about this topic should read Michael Shermer's How We Believe. It's an engaging and informative read.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 8:59 PM
Concern troll is concerned.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 8:59 PM
Kel said:
It sounds like you have drifted into agnosticism.
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 9:00 PM
@65:
Dissenting opinion? I hope you're not referring to me. I haven't posted much (just once) here in the past, but I am a very long time reader, and I agree with most things presented here, which is why I keep reading it. I don't usually post because most threads are at comment #300 or so when I get around to reading them
I don't even disagree with PZ's point of view here, I just don't think he read the article correctly - I don't see how it defends religion at all. I think Ted Haggard would have a seizure if he read that argument
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 9:02 PM
@Leander,
Honest to Pete. Just what in blue blazes do you think is so reasonable about the Bible, and so unreasonable about the well-deserved poking it gets here? Have YOU read the damn thing? It's like the lowest budget soap opera ever. Nay, even the story lines about multiple personalities and secret rooms on The Young and The Restless make more sense. And the clothes are better.
Seriously - talking snakes? Burning bushes? Corpses resurrecting and lurching about the fertile crescent? A pox on cotton/poly blends? What does God have against wrinkle-free shirts?
Yeah, I'm ridiculing and making light of it, because that's the only sensible response. This shit is crazy, and it's insulting to the intelligence of any reasonable person. If you can't see that, the problem is yours, Leander, not everyone else's. Sometimes it is you.
Posted by: DuckPhup | September 7, 2009 9:03 PM
I don't think that we're hard-wired for 'god'... I think we're hard-wired for gullibility, self-deception and self-delusion.
'God' is a place-holder for 'knowledge'. Abstract thinking and communication in the absence of a knowledge-base and the technical means for extracting 'knowledge' from nature would inexorably have led to cognitive dissonance.
I was a very inquisitive child. One of the first questions that I remember asking was: "Daddy... what holds the sky up?" That question contains a key insight. My question was simply childish curiosity, which was quickly satisfied by my father's answer... the knowledge that the sky was not a 'thing', despite appearances. But in a time when such knowledge was NOT available... and there was no technical means to access it... the question would have profound significance. It is plainly obvious to the casual observer that the sky is a 'thing'... things fall down unless something is holding them up... but the sky does NOT fall down. Why not?
Curiosity becomes cognitive dissonance... and there is no 'knowledge' forthcoming to quench it. So... what do you do?
Knowledge is the ideal cure for cognitive dissonance (and for ignorance)... but it just so happens that the ILLUSION of knowledge (belief) is just as effective, and in terms of resources, it is a LOT cheaper to acquire than ACTUAL knowledge.
So... the formula is simple. Where you are unable to find an answer in nature (which was mostly), simply make-up an answer based on the supernatural, and accept it as a matter of faith... or bamboozlement... or because you've had the answer rammed down your throat by someone in a position of trust or authority.
Somewhere along the line, connivers figured out that if they were able to provide satisfactory answers to such questions, and weave those answers into interesting stories, other people would bring them food and take care of them, rather than having to fend for themselves.
The only thing that has really changed is that the scam is under ever-increasing existential threat by the ONLY thing that has the power to threaten 'god'... and that would be ACTUAL 'knowledge'.
For some of us, intelligence and critical thinking... properly applied... can overcome the hard-wiring.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 9:03 PM
Is that twice that Leander has accused the bulk of Pharyngulites of trolling? Because they responded to his post on Pharyngula? I thought trolling was employed, in accepted usage, to mean the deliberate attempt to disrupt a discussion thread. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think so.
As for;
"But gosh dammit, people, you're a disgrace to any thinking person, whether they have a deity or not."
Well, that's almost enough to hurt a chap's feelings. And here I thought that most Pharyngulites were actually rather reasonable and well informed, not to mention educated to a high degree (with my humble Masters, I feel rather academically underdressed).
What with Leander saying that he or she will no longer comment on this thread, if I did not know better I might suspect that Leander was in fact a drive by troll his/herself.
Surely it cannot be . . .
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 7, 2009 9:05 PM
Leander, two points that have you immediately pegged as a pugnacious twit:
1. No, you don't get to demand my attention and exclude everyone else. Well, you can, but as you have discovered, everyone will point and laugh at you.
2. You have made a baseless whine that is utterly useless. You claim there is something, some vague something, in the religious literature of which I am unaware. We cannot help but notice, however, that you fail to give even the slightest clue what it is.
Do try to say something interesting. I'm done with you otherwise.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 7, 2009 9:06 PM
JoshS, I knew what you meant. That is why I said I loved you, I did not want you to think I was attacking you or accusing you of being misogynistic. But you have to think of your audience and how your words will come across.
Coming from a radical dyke background, I use the word "bitch" as a term of endearment. But I am careful how I use it here. Context, babe. Context.
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 9:06 PM
The Young and the Restless?? How would you even know?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 9:11 PM
Anders @ 77;
Rest assured I was not referring to you. The post was aimed at Pilty, Leander and Intelligent Designer. Anyway, it was not my intent to offend, merely poke a little harmless fun at our theist guests.
Posted by: Jennifurret | September 7, 2009 9:11 PM
Yep, there are already religious people (Pastor Tom, unfortunately) who gloating that this is proof of God. Wtf. I already wasted my time by refuting him earlier today... I always find it weird that people who are anti-science will embrace science when they can twist it to fit their agenda.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 9:12 PM
Um. . this one time at bandcamp, um, this lady had it on, and um, I just was walking by. . .
I have a friend addicted to soaps, who sometimes forces me to watch them. Once you get over yourself for even watching them, it's comedy gold. People getting possessed, having multiple personality disorders (you know a character has been taken over by an "alter" when she puts on big schoolmarm glasses), being trapped in lavishly constructed secret rooms fancier than the Ritz-Carlton as "punishment." Good times.
Posted by: Marcus B. | September 7, 2009 9:14 PM
Leander said:
You say again and again that it is so obvious that PZ and Dawkins haven't read the Bible and other scriptures and that they misrepresent it.
But as so many other boring people you merely leave it at that, offering your say-so as some sort of proof. You don't give a single example of any specific time where they have done this. You just say "This is the way things are" and expect to be believed.
That doesn't fly with the scientifically minded types that hang around blogs like this. Show your data or shut up. If you would have given us some sort of example to defend your opinion we could have at least argued the point, but as it stands no one here will take you seriously.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:15 PM
Not The Young and the Restless. You should be watching As the Stomach Turns.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 9:16 PM
I better go back and read it.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 9:16 PM
@Janine, #82 -
Oh, good. I thought we were sympatico:) You're right about context. I don't want to offend anyone here (OK, that's a lie: I don't want to offend anyone of good faith who's not a troll). It is often surprising - and frustrating - how vehemently angry a few people have gotten over the kinds of usages you and I are describing. It frustrates me because it seems the entire onus is on the user to understand context, but the person offended has no obligation to temper their anger by understanding context reciprocally (not referring to you, of course). But, that seems to be the way it is.
I do miss your referring to yourself as a "vile bitch," though. You have no idea how many times I cackled out loud just reading that.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 9:21 PM
@'Tis Himself -
You're getting closer. If you want a real treat, try As the Stomach Churns . I'm still trying to figure out the target demographic for my longtime ambition: Specific Hospital.
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 9:21 PM
@84:
Good to hear :)
By the way, can someone clue me in on the blockquote magic? It doesn't behave like a block at all, it ends at line breaks. Do I really have to blockquote each line individually?
Posted by: Hughes | September 7, 2009 9:21 PM
#32
I think what Leander is saying is that to understand the holy books you need to believe them. He's confusing lack of belief with ignorance, thus he's a moron.
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 9:21 PM
Once you get over yourself for even watching them
TV shows are awful enough, but about 15 seconds into the first commercial, I'm outta there!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | September 7, 2009 9:21 PM
"Oh, Bother," said Pooh. "Again, the atheists must demonstrate that they are as facile as Kierkegaard and Voltaire or we shall never be able to take them at all seriously."
I find this absolutely thrilling and original to read, mostly because of all the people out there who are quite happy in accepting the statement that "Science tells us how the world goes, religion tells us the why," and yet demand that anyone who discusses religion from the non-believer's point of view must be fully versed in all of scriptures and all of theology before uttering a peep of protest. Be a dear, Leander, and pass me a honeypot.
Posted by: MadScientist | September 7, 2009 9:22 PM
It's natural to be ignorant - is that a good thing? Even if I were to accept the premise that it's natural to believe in gods (which I do not; my own limited observations suggest it is natural not to believe in gods), that neither makes belief in gods necessary nor desirable.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 7, 2009 9:22 PM
JoshS, perhaps I do need to bring it back. It seems I have been too demure lately.
Posted by: CatBallou
|
September 7, 2009 9:23 PM
Duckphup, I might be wrong, but I would argue that the sky is a thing, and furthermore, that it has fallen down, inasmuch as it actually touches the ground and continues up. In the same manner, the ocean has "fallen down" as far as it can go.
This comes too late for your childhood self, and I certainly don't want to undermine your filial respect! Maybe you can pass this answer on to any duckphuplings.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:24 PM
Only in the sense that I'm fallible. I've moved away from weak (agnostic) atheism and into strong atheism, that there cannot be a deity given how I understand the universe to work. Of course my understanding could be wrong, or that evidence could come up which shows that there is a deity at play in the everyday workings of our universe - and if either of those happened I'd change my view.So in terms of drifting into agnosticism? Hell no, I'm moving in the opposite direction. There's a difference between recognising one's own possibility to be fallible and not being decisive on the issue.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 9:25 PM
Greenwood,
I don't think much of what you said applies to me. I mean. "War" by Edwin Starr is in my top 10 play list.
It seems to me that the competition for resources has gotten more intense.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 9:27 PM
We're right on the same page. I find TV so insulting and irritating, I haven't owned one for 7 years. The only time I indulge this silliness is at a friend's house. It helps to watch with someone who the same warped sense of humor.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 7, 2009 9:27 PM
Heh. Ah yes... never read the primary texts, huh? This is the claim, now?
Ah, but I can only wish. Time woulda been better spent reading porn, on the whole...
Anyway. More importantly, since Leander and his ilk clearly have not read all of Pharyngula's comments threads (I mean, it's pretty obvious, from their embarrassingly poor grasp of... well... stuff I will fail to point out specifically), I'm afraid I cannot take their criticisms of our criticisms seriously...
(/Wow... I feel stupider just having typed that... Kids, I'm a professional... Don't try this at home...)
Posted by: CRShelton | September 7, 2009 9:27 PM
We're all born with sin too, right? I guess we shouldn't fight against that.
When you see yummy food eat until there is no more, when you feel your ego threatened it's best to beat the crap out of the other guy, and when you see pretty girls just follow your basest instincts wherever they take you, right?
It's always the religious numbnuts who want us to ignore our ability to override our primitive instincts. Part of being an atheist is that I get to *think* about what I do and make choices based on more than my hardwiring. I don't need the times to tell me that, and they aren't going to convince me it's wrong.
Posted by: Margaret | September 7, 2009 9:28 PM
Marcus B.
Take a look at the film Root of All Evil.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:29 PM
Anders #91
You need to put <br> after each line break to keep separate paragraphs in the same blockquote.
Posted by: Cheezits | September 7, 2009 9:29 PM
For heaven's sake! Just because someone has a theory for why it may be natural for carbon-based life-forms such as ourselves to believe weird things, doesn't mean you have to believe them. They're just saying that trying to get people to realize that they've been taught rubbish all their lives is going to meet with resistance. As if that wasn't obvious.
Posted by: Ben Isgur | September 7, 2009 9:31 PM
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=191463
Look at the creotards go!
Posted by: Carlie | September 7, 2009 9:33 PM
Unless the two come out and say they've read, comprehended and thought through the bible and other significant religious scriptures, I will assume, based on their writings and in their favor (!) that they have no clue what they're talking about.
Why would you assume that? You assuming they haven't read the Bible is as asinine as... no, wait, it's arrogant, that's what it is. Arrogant and condescending. You are assuming, based on absolutely no data, that PZ and Dawkins MUST not have read your holy book, because if they had, of course they'd be Real True Christians just like you! In case you hadn't noticed, PZ was raised as a Lutheran. Dawkins was raised in the CofE. Do you think they somehow magically escaped the reading of the Bible that everyone else around them in the same situation had to do? Or is it that your belief is so fragile that you must force yourself to think that people who disagree with you must not have read the Scriptures? Does it make you quail, Leander, to think that possibly there are people out there who were just like you once who now disbelieve everything that they used to hold dear? Does it break down that wall you hide behind so fearfully to know that reading the Bible is not an inoculation against atheism?
And your aside about "other significant scriptures" is hogwash. Either the Bible stands alone as the word of God, or it doesn't. If it needs large numbers of accessory texts to explain it properly, then God did a piss-poor job of communication in the first place. Kind of funny to screw up the most important message he could ever send to his people, isn't it?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:37 PM
PZ doesn't need to slice and dice you into an intellectual pulp. There are many of us here more than happy to that for him. You could, of course, always stop posting here. That is your wisest choice. But then, you have never shown any real wisdom.Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 9:40 PM
So NOR, are you volunteering to give me a beating?
Posted by: Carlie | September 7, 2009 9:40 PM
Dude, I don't think anyone here is into that kind of kink.
Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 9:41 PM
"No, you don't get to demand my attention and exclude everyone else. Well, you can, but as you have discovered, everyone will point and laugh at you."
Yeah, and make themselves look really dumb in the process. I really didn't expect you to join them though. Read my first comment (#16) again - I addressed you, and nobody else. Then Rorschach goes and talks (in #24) about all the people posting on here. None of whom I ever referred to. How could I, I don't all the positions of people posting on here ! In #32 I make clear in response to Rorschach that I was only addressing you, which makes sense - it's your blog, and like I said, I have no overview of what all the lurkers and commenters on here think. And nowhere did I state that I didn't want anybody else's attention or that nobody else could reply to me. Simple fact remains, black on white, that I initially addressed you and nobody else, somebody mistook that for me referring to everybody else on here, and I cleared it up. It's clear as day. Unless you show where I wanted to exclusively demand *your* attention and exclude everybody else...I'm done with you *replicating evil being shunned by PZ frown*
"...something, some vague something, in the religious literature of which I am unaware."
Pardon me if I didn't spell it out, considering you're an academic and such...I was simply referring to appreciating the historical, anthropological, sociological contexts involved in studying ancient texts, as opposed to taking them literally from a contemporary outsider perspective. Also I'd really appreciate if you could give a full list of religious texts that you have read, and tried to comprehend from perspectives other (like I mentioned above, historical, anthropological or sociological) than a simple contemporary, literal one, and how you would integrate your findings with the views and values of our contemporary culture. And please, do try to say something interesting (note: clever, funny, ridiculing, snarky doesn't equal interesting. Your blog taught me that.).
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:41 PM
Randy, I've already told you want to do. What's the matter with you? Are you deaf, dumb or disobedient?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 9:41 PM
Intelligent Designer, OP @ 100;
I think you are looking at the wrong post. I was talking about my post at no. 65.
You also wrote;
"It seems to me that the competition for resources has gotten more intense."
This is true, but the level of competition has moved to the organised state level and can in part be dealt with by such things as trade agreements and technological alternatives. It is hardly the individual or small tribal level 'state of nature' of ancient mankind. It has been argued that the entire purpose of the nation state is to remove an uncontrolled state of anarchy from the level of individuals or small social groupings and replace it with a state of demi-anarchy between national level actors.
War is undeniably an abomination, but in some parts of the world at least it is a state of being that is not ubiquitous, and some of those who engage in it do so according to a set of rules intended to minimise civilian casualties. The true state of nature of early mankind evinced no such restraint. Violence in pursuit of resources was a major concern of many early cultures. It was remorseless during the campaigning season and it was fought with few of the 'Jus in Bello' and 'Jus ad Bellum' concerns that some modern states aspire to.
Is the limitation of the use violence not the essence of what it means to be civilised?
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 9:42 PM
I do miss your referring to yourself as a "vile bitch," though.
Me, too, and all the other funny handle variations you have done.
I want to jump in here with the "girl" thing. I got the joke. After all, "official spokesgay" does give some hint.
And Janine, when I want to get a rise out of my "lipstick lesbian" sister, I call her a "dyke", your word, which gets her all crazy pissed off, so I don't do it very often.
The (good-natured) name-calling is all kinda funny to me. I don't mind being called "girlfriend".
What I'm getting at, I like that it's OK to "act gay" and be gay here. It's a breath of fresh air.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:43 PM
Leander, you are under the mistaken belief that reading the babble causes one to believe in imaginary deities. If you ever took the time to look at stories of conversion from theism to atheism, there is a very large theme there. We (I'm one of them) read the babble cover to cover, and discovered what an insane egotistical amoral warlord Yahweh is, and we have no desire to worship such a psychotic god. We know the babble, better than many xians. And we know what a book of fiction it is. So drop the Dawkins/PZ not knowing the babble business, or Patricia will trade babble quotes with you until you give up in awe.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 7, 2009 9:43 PM
Randy, Patricia would have given you time on her couch but I think you pissed her off.
Posted by: Jeremy | September 7, 2009 9:45 PM
Word.
I
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:48 PM
OKay, your designer is a figment of your imagination, you have nothing to even remotely refute evolution until your unscientific paper is published. And I'm not holding my breathe for that to happen, since whatever you connect will not withstand scientific scrutiny.I suspect you really want PZ to ban you. Why can't you just remove us from your bookmarks, and just ignore this site? That is what a real man would do. Let's see the size of your cojones...
Posted by: JoshS, Official Spokesgay | September 7, 2009 9:49 PM
OMG!!11!! Are you TEH GHEY?
Posted by: Carlie | September 7, 2009 9:51 PM
Leander, when you've been told that you cannot command a person's attention, responding to it by making a series of additional demands isn't likely to get you anywhere good. Unless, that is, you're vying with Randy for the beating stick.
Posted by: Enkidu
|
September 7, 2009 9:51 PM
There was a time when if was a natural fact that Africans were born to be slaves. We can leave our primitive past behind.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 7, 2009 9:52 PM
Nerd of Redhead @ 109;
"PZ doesn't need to slice and dice you into an intellectual pulp. There are many of us here more than happy to that for him."
Careful, NOR. We know nothing about this guy. He might enjoy that kind of stuff for all we know. You don't want to accidentally seem like you are giving him a come on.
Such internet misunderstandings rarely lead to good things.
Then again, I hear that's how Smoggy and Floyd Rubber ended up together . . .
(I'm just pulling your leg Intelligent Designer, all in the spirit of fun.)
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 9:53 PM
@112:
While that is an interesting field, and one which I enjoy a lot (I read a lot of Richard Carrier and the other authors at infidels.org for example), how does that affect your position on whether or not there is a god?
The fact remains that the concept of deities has arisen in multiple - possibly all - civilizations throughout history, and no two are alike. The fact that no two are alike should tell us that they are all wrong, so we need to look for other explanations for humanity's propensity to believe in utterly ludicrous propositions.
I don't see how any of this is predicated on one's history of reading the bible. It seems to be a study into human psychology and culture. The people you criticize, on the whole, aren't historians or psychologists, with one proposition in common: there is no god.
(thanks, 'Tis Himself, seems to work)
Posted by: Valdyr | September 7, 2009 9:54 PM
Randy should find a pro domme (or maybe dom, since he keeps asking for PZ) on craigslist or something to work out his unresolved tension. It's getting a bit creepy hearing his repeated requests to be beaten.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 9:54 PM
Once again, Leander - what does this have to do with the fact that it is objectively, obviously, delusional for people to believe in the literal truth of the Bible's claims? That's a reasonable question, and you really do have an obligation to answer it.
Why don't you understand that no one is objecting to the sociological, literary, or historical study of religion? Why won't you acknowledge that people are reacting to - and ridiculing - people that believe this stuff literally and make public decisions based on that belief? Don't ignore this, and don't pretend you don't know it.
What ox are you trying to gore? Come right out with it. I don't for a second believe your prissy, affected claim that it's intellectual philistinism that bothers you. I think you're upset that your preferred evidence-free belief system is held up to ordinary scrutiny. If that's your position, be adult enough to admit it.
Posted by: TheVirginian | September 7, 2009 9:56 PM
Leander:
I cannot personally attest to how much of the Bible that Professors Myers and Dawkins have read, but their general commentaries suggest a considerable familiarity with it.
What I can say is that I've read the Bible - excluding some sections so irredemiably boring that they put me to sleep every time (still can't get through the descriptions of how that Temple is supposed to be built) - as well as lots of Christian commentaries on it and modern, scholarly literature, both pro-Christianity and skeptical. In my knowledgeable assessment, the skeptics rock and the Christians whine.
It's not enough to just read the Bible, if you really want to understand it. You need to read the Enuma Elish to understand Gen. 1 in its historical context. You need to read the scholarly literature about Asherah worship, particularly how her alternate name was Eve and that she was represented in iconography as a nude woman associated with snakes and a magic fruit tree - to understand the expulsion from Eden story. Hint, it's a satire on goddesss worship in Israel.
Likewise, you cannot understand the Noah flood myth until you've read the much-older flood myths of Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Atrahesis (not to mention the related Greek flood myth).
I wish Christians would read other religious texts so they could understand the human origin of their own. Then they would realize that all the Bible stories look just like voodoo to skeptics. (Look at all the zombie stories in the Bible, particularly Lazarus and Jesus.) BTW, most Christians don't even know that there are 7 or 8 different Bibles. The Catholic Bible has texts that Protestants reject (the Apocrypha). Orthodox Catholics have 3-4 different Bibles that include varying mixes of Apocrypha. There's an Old Slavonic Bible with a different mix. And an Ethiopic Bible that has more books than the Catholic Bible. So when you say skeptics should read original religious texts, do you know that even Christians don't agree on what constitutes an "authentic" text. You don't give any indication that you do.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 7, 2009 9:57 PM
Little Leander #112
Aw, isn't that cute. Little Leander was yelling "looka me, PZ" and got annoyed that other people paid attention to him when he only wanted PZ to notice him.
Isn't it cute when Little Leander tries to be patronizing? He tries so hard. Maybe with some practice he can figure out how to do it.
Yep, we were right. Little Leander is trotting out the Courtier's Reply. "How dare you mock religion when you haven't read what I think is vitally important in knowing about something almost tangential about what you're mocking?"
"Have you read Buttmunch's Apology for Apologetics? How about Pickelheimer & Wang's Do Angels Tapdance Or Waltz On Pinheads?? If you haven't read these important, nay, vital texts, then you're not qualified to say anything about religion."
"Play the game MY way or else you're a big poopoo-head."
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 9:58 PM
OMG!!11!! Are you TEH GHEY?
NO! No! NO!
Don't even ask me that shit, you are threatening my, um, what is it you"re threatening?
I can't remember, but it's threatening.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 7, 2009 10:00 PM
And now that you've "spelled it out", you're still full of shit, you pompous blowhard. You've still not made an actual argument based on reasoned assessment of fact, and you STILL have not shown the proof of your assertion. Where is your evidence that leads to your assertion that neither PZ nor Dawkins has this background? Go on... we're still waiting.
Posted by: Anri | September 7, 2009 10:02 PM
Leander sez:
Ok, Leander, please tell us what religous books PZ and Dawkins have read, and understood, based on their writings.
Please be specific.
Alternately, as you have been asked to do, please list the overwhelmingly important points they have missed in the religions they have discussed.
Again, please be as specific as possible.
Of course, as you have made clear, responding to me would be beneath you, so I guess I have wasted my time in asking you to be clearer.
Pity - most prople enjoy, or at least tolerate, interest in their public statements.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 7, 2009 10:03 PM
It's like saying "we have an inbred fear of the dark; let's keep the lights on all the time."
Posted by: Wes | September 7, 2009 10:03 PM
Despite that article's misguided and erroneous attacks on atheism, it does mention some very interesting work. I've been following Bruce Hood, Pascal Boyer, Andrew Newberg and others who are studying the biological basis of belief. Most of it is speculation at this point, of course, but there have been some interesting findings. I don't think any of them have the answer yet, but it seems like we are slowly, lurchingly moving towards an answer.
Anyways, don't dismiss those scientists' research because the author of that article misused them to attack atheism.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 7, 2009 10:06 PM
Gregory Greenwood, you have heard wrong. Smoggy and Floyd Rubber meet while sharing the same prison cell.
Kamaka, while I have not thought much about it, you are right, people can act as faggy or dykie as they want here. (As an aside, I have known femmes who proudly carried Dyke March banners. They do not mind being called dykes, they just do not like being made invisible.) And the straight people have our backs when the homophobes show up. I wish it was the case in real life.
Enough derailing on my part.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 7, 2009 10:07 PM
I think we are mostly in agreement on this point. I may have mis-read it, but I think care was taken in this post to point directly at the mis-representation done by the journalist, not so much at the study itself nor the scientists engaged in it.
Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 10:09 PM
@133:
OK, could someone, anyone, point out where the article attacks atheism? It has an incompkete view of Dawkins' opinion, but to me that seems to be it.
This is the concluding line from the article
If it says anything at all about atheists, it's that they're in for a very hard time, getting people to break away from the superstitions.
I really don't see how this is in any way a religious apologetic article
Posted by: Cheezits | September 7, 2009 10:09 PM
It's like saying "we have an inbred fear of the dark; let's keep the lights on all the time."
Seems to me it's like saying "Other people have an inbred fear of light; let's not be surprised if they keep running back into the shadows". Some people need more time to for their eyes to adjust.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 7, 2009 10:10 PM
[Citation needed]
-Wikipedia
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 7, 2009 10:11 PM
Gregory Greenwood, you have heard wrong. Smoggy and Floyd Rubber meet while sharing the same prison cell.
Kamaka, while I have not thought much about it, you are right, people can act as faggy or dykie as they want here. (As an aside, I have known femmes who proudly carried Dyke March banners. They do not mind being called dykes, they just do not like being made invisible.) And the straight people have our backs when the homophobes show up. I wish it was the case in real life.
Enough derailing on my part.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 7, 2009 10:12 PM
Hmmm. Maybe. PZs dungen does have a google page rank of 5.
Because I find it more fun to converse with people that have perspectives different from mine. NOR, you could just stop responding to me, however, you are near if not at the top of the list of people I would really like to debate.
While I may not be able to refute evolution, I think I can refute the idea that evolution occurs by random mutation and natural selection. I think the simulation in my last blog entry takes a good step in that direction. Can you refute its results?
Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 10:15 PM
@Nerd of Redhead, OM
@Carlie
@Anders
@JoshS, Official SpokesGay
@TheVirginian
I already broke my promise to not comment any further by responding to PZ's comment, but right now, between sleepiness and job, I'm not gonna go any further into this. Should PZ see it fit to reply to my last comment himself, instead of letting his devotees jump in, I promise I will respind to your points (even the dumb/childish ones...hey Carlie, Nerd & Josh). Otherwise, I don't see any point in this.
Posted by: Snoof | September 7, 2009 10:16 PM
Trying to drum up some hits on your blog, eh, Intelligent Designer? Ad revenue not currently covering costs?
Your shameless attempt at whoring for clicks has been noted.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 7, 2009 10:17 PM
Oh shit! I double posted! I am mortified!
I think I need a new computer.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 7, 2009 10:17 PM
Sigh...
Posted by: kamaka | September 7, 2009 10:18 PM
his devotees
Your preconceptions are showing.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 7, 2009 10:19 PM
Sigh...
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 10:20 PM
@kamaka -
I love that you give as good as you get!
@Janine
Bitch, (sorry, couldn't resist:)), I know that's right! I hadn't thought about that aspect of Pharyngula either, and it is one thing that makes it cool. Looking back to when I started reading here years ago, it's awesome to reflect on the fact that the core posters here just have no time for bigoted bullshit, and you don't even have to ask - they jump right in and trounce the fools.
I don't even remember why I started calling myself Official SpokesGay - I think it was in response to some foolish homophobe, and it struck me as terribly funny to get all big about it.
I don't know where you live or how old you are Janine (I'm 35 and live in New England), but I've seen a whole lot of progress on the racism/homophobia front. 20 years ago, had the Internet existed, I doubt we would have found very many spots like this where it was just assumed that no one would dare spout off bigoted trash without being soundly thrashed. Thankfully, the real word is catching up, though too slowly, and in lumpy ways - my corner of NE is a hell of a lot more livable for LGBT and brown people than a lot of other areas.
Sorry, guess I'm derailing too and ought to stop.
@Leander - I'd still appreciate it if you'd answer what I and several other posters have asked. Reasonable, straightforward questions. Shouldn't be hard.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 10:21 PM
Delusional fool, you have several PhD scientists answering you. The fact the you claim it must be PZ shows you are an egotistical fool. And you wonder why we don't think much of you? Get a grip on reality. You and your concerns are not important to this blog.I have never visited your blog and have no intention of doing so. You have nothing cogent to say.
Posted by: Robert Grumbine | September 7, 2009 10:22 PM
Hmm. As you blogged a few years ago, when the paper first came out, we are also natural long distance runners. Indeed, evolved for it. I wonder how many people against you are engaging in that natural activity?
It's striking, really, how good we are at distance running. At sprinting, there's almost no land animal slower than us. Crocodiles, polar bears, ostriches, elephants, rhinos, cats, deer, antelope, ... can all outsprint us. It's hard to find any sizable land (or semi-land -- hippos can also beat us) animal that can't sprint faster than humans.
At distance running, on the other hand, we have few peers in the world. The list is: pronghorn antelope, wolves (and some of their descendants), humans. Horses do not make the cut, nor do antelope other than pronghorn. I'm not a particularly good distance runner (not particularly bad either, front of the middle of the pack when I'm in shape) and ran 50 km in 6 hours over trails (not a track, the way the sprinters times are measured -- tree roots, rocks, streams, etc., plus, I'm told, 3000 m elevation gain (and loss)). Few animals would survive such a run, and I did it for fun.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay (and dumb as a post) | September 7, 2009 10:23 PM
.I'll look forward to your respinse. Oh, and eat me raw.
Posted by: Richard Krehbiel | September 7, 2009 10:28 PM
Geez, PZ; don't start sounding anti-science yourself.
Given these two distinct questions:
#1: Is there a god?
#2: Does a belief in god confer any evolutionary advantages?
I am personally completely convinced that the correct answer to #1 is "no." But is there something fundamentally wrong with investigating #2? You're ranting like you think the question shouldn't be asked. Any answer to #2 has no bearing on #1 at all, so why feel threatened?
The linked article did not make the argument that belief in god suggests the reality of any god; just that humans seem to have instincts that lead to such beliefs. I suspected as much myself. It doesn't change my mind, and it doesn't make me think that religious belief is "better." I think a more accurate world view is more advantageous than superstition, but it requires a larger investment in education, and I don't fault early human societies for being unable to do that.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 7, 2009 10:32 PM
Someone buy IDiot a couple of wetsuits, wouldja?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 7, 2009 10:39 PM
He's feeling neglected because Ichthyic hasn't been around to kick his ass lately.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 7, 2009 10:39 PM
I'm fascinated by the theory that we naturally attribute agency to the mysterious world around us. Far from lending credence to theists, this should scare the bejesus out of them. The studies showing that children see agency where there is none is evidence that instinctual belief in supernatural beings is a psychological fake-out for coping with reality. It provides a rational basis for dismissing "personal Jesus" experiences on top of writing them off as hallucinations because it's not just crazy people anymore who experience supernatural events — if it is true then we all have that potential. Theism turns out to be a complete misunderstanding of reality and another messed up product of evolution like the human eye.
Religion though...ugh. I think the article's authors are gloating. The psychologist makes a guess that supernatural beliefs that are not shaken off become religion over time. I think it would be more correct to surmise that people integrate their own personal supernatural experiences (which are misunderstandings of reality by definition in these studies) into a religion if one exists. In no way does that make religious dogma true, and like I said before, I think it actually shows how religious dogma is false.
Really now, if you take the theism out of religion, what do you have left but culture? The authoritarianism, patriarchy, ethics, stories, traditions, etc. have been formed around this "black hole" god (it somehow manages to match up with each individuals "personal Jesus" experience) that doesn't exist at all and never did. I think the psychologist is conflating the culture surrounding the central theistic beliefs with the theistic beliefs themselves.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 10:45 PM
Are you going to turn it into a paper and send it off for peer review? Or is science done on blogs these days?Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 10:49 PM
"Do try to say something interesting. I'm done with you otherwise."
Which is of course an easy out to any answer I might give. Lack of response, be it out of laziness, ignorance or stupidity is always gonna look like I didn't have anything to say.
While I made the promise to respond even to people who were even outright insulting/stupid, should PZ bother to continue the dialogue he picked up, just to remind anybody who wants to tag me as a delusional fool for trying to talk to PZ.
He failed to continue what he engaged himself in, and like I showed, he made sure from the beginning he had a fine way out. I guess all the people with an intellectual disadvantage, who are do devoted to PZ and tried to make it seem like I was some religious nut (I dare you, find any neutral observer to read this thread and come to this conlusion), are gonna cheer now in oblivion of what really happened. Such is life, I guess.
Posted by: JoshS, Official Spokesgay | September 7, 2009 10:50 PM
Ooooo. . snap!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 10:53 PM
Sorry, you fail to understand the protocol here. PZ will start something. He may or may not add to it. He is under no obligation to answer to anybody, least of all concern trolls. The harder you try to get him to answer you, the more likely you will be ignored by him. As it should be. Get it, you aren't that important in the scheme of things here. You just delusionally think you are.Posted by: Patrick Hudson | September 7, 2009 10:55 PM
Well there's not much argument offered in the first place. There's not much of anything. I'm surprised there are two names on the bi-line for such a slim article. They merely call out atheists by name and then list a series of scientific findings from psychological brain research in the most cursory of manners. As if one could deduce from mere biological predilections entire philosophies and cosmologies.
Should we be surprised that our pattern seeking brains and in-group/out-group tendencies lend themselves to supernatural thinking? I always thought the entire enterprise of the enlightenment was to overcome irrational thought. Rationality is a discipline people. The best one we've ever came up with. Of course we suppress absurd or destructive feelings: It's called civilization.
At any rate, I'm pretty sure Hood is a non-believer and wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that none of the authorities mentioned believed in a judeo-christian god at all.
Posted by: Jim | September 7, 2009 10:56 PM
@Rob G #149: we had to evolve long distance running to catch up to those sprinters and convert them to dinner.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 10:56 PM
Fine, until your paper is published you still have nothing. Welcome to science, which you suck at.Posted by: K.A. | September 7, 2009 10:56 PM
It's a misrepresentation of the discovery that when one component of the temporal lobe is stimulated, it can make one feel less attuned to their perceptual experiences. It's the kind of feeling that might occur if, you know, you get lost in a beautiful piece of music or something. Or went into some transcendental state while you were pondering the essence of the flying spaghetti monster. How you extrapolate the capacity for being in "the zone" to "I am built to believe in the one creator, my God" requires lack of stimulation of other parts of the brain.
Posted by: moonkitty | September 7, 2009 11:05 PM
@Leander #67,
"but [I criticized PZ and Dawkins for not] reading, digesting, honestly reflecting the primary literature"
What primary literature?
Are you speaking of the disparate group of books now known colloquially as "the Bible"? (Which Bible?)
If you're as knowledgable as you
pretend to beclaim, surely you realize that that those books are themselves heavily redacted and imperfectly translated versions of earlier documents and oral traditions? And that they reflect different and often competing theologies and "historical" claims? And that some of those books were written expressly in order to correct and supercede others (the author of Luke clearly found Mark embarrassing, for example, and Ruth's author was challenging the racism of Ezra and Nehemiah)?You're simply parroting the horseshit claim that if atheists don't know the intricacies of theolog(ies), they have no right to criticize religion. The "new atheists" have presented compelling arguments against the existence of an omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent god. Familiarity with "scripture" is not necessary, and, indeed, belongs to another discussion--though it's certainly true that in-depth understanding of the not-so-primary literature gives us atheists that much more ammunition against god-belief.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | September 7, 2009 11:11 PM
There, fixed it for ya.Posted by: Skeeve
|
September 7, 2009 11:12 PM
I blogged about something similar last year.
http://skeeveblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/tainted-science.html
Made no sense then either.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 7, 2009 11:13 PM
#18: No, not Farungula; Ph'nglui.
Posted by: TheVirginian | September 7, 2009 11:16 PM
Leander:
I have offered several substantial responses to your remarks. You can ask PZ to answer all you want, but when other people point out the flaws in your comments, you cannot just pretend that we are not worthy of your wisdom. If you have some substantial response to my comments, especially my last one, where I list a few non-biblical sources of info relevant to the Bible, then please give them when you awake tomorrow. I will respond when I am awake (late-night job, late-morning riser).
If you cannot answer a few simple questions about studying the non-biblical, older sources of the Bible, then I stand by my original comment that you are full of it.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | September 7, 2009 11:18 PM
Fixed.Which implies that we believe in god(s), not because they exist, but because we have some biological hardwiring to see them (a religious pareidolia, so to speak). It may make Dawkins work harder but does not make god(s) a reality.
I always suspect that we create god(s) as substitute parental figures. Like baby ducks, we are imprinted with the need for a powerful, all-knowing, protective parental figure (who can often be demanding, irrational and cranky) when we are very young. At some point we realize our parents are only fallible mortals and search for a replacement. No mystery why god(s) are so often considered and even referred to as our 'father'.
Posted by: Kagato | September 7, 2009 11:18 PM
A bit late, but I felt like saying it anyway.
Or to put it another way,
People are inclined to make up supernatural explanations for things they don't understand. But if you don't come up with your own mysticism, there are plenty of other people who would like to make some up for you.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 11:19 PM
It seems like every crackpot and his dog is using the free exchange of information that is the internet to demonstrate how some known science is fallacious. And it may be that some of them have a case, but it seems never to leave the blogosphere. Surely if Stimpy has a case (I haven't seen his program in action yet because I don't have Silverlight installed - seriously tempted to write it myself) then that case should extend beyond the blogosphere and into academia.Posted by: Chemgirl
|
September 7, 2009 11:22 PM
I don't get it. You would think that they'd make the connection--if religious experience can be created in the brain by stimulating a certain area or whatever (I'm not feeling particularly eloquent tonight), then God is probably just a figment of our imagination. Duh! Just because you form a relationship with your imaginary friend doesn't make him real.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 7, 2009 11:31 PM
Oh, you bet. I was congratulating you on an excellent turn of phrase. The perfect, pithy put-down.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 7, 2009 11:39 PM
Yawn, don't hold your breathe. Kel, you dug up a paper by a guy at NIH who showed natural selection was necessary for stability, and didn't violate any information theory, much less chemical thermodynamics. Randy had better cite that paper in his historical section of his manuscript.Posted by: Anders | September 7, 2009 11:40 PM
I think the question the scientists were trying to answer is: why do we keep making shit up? Whether it be religion or astrology; faith healing or homeopathy, we the human race just can't seem to get rid of the nonsense. The article here didn't say we were hardwired for believing in the Christian god, it said we were hardwired for superstition: the belief in nonsense without evidence.
And the question is a good one. I'm not comfortable with saying "people are stupid" and leaving it at that, I think there has to be a reason why this stuff keeps coming up. The believers will obviously say it's because it's real, but that can be easily discounted - if it were real, it would be the same all over, and people wouldn't have to convince (proselytize) anyone, they could just show it.
No, there must be some other explanation, something rooted in the human psyche. In The God Delusion, Dawkins posited that it was some other effect gone awry. Maybe. It is a worthwhile field of study, and if we figure it out, then maybe it can be countered.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 7, 2009 11:41 PM
"Just because religious belief is good at sustaining itself doesn't mean it's the best way to be. It's a consequence of humanity developing an imagination before they developed science."
I can't decide whether atheists are hilarious, or simply pathetic, in your beliefs (and yes, I use the word "beliefs" deliberately).
The quote above says it all: that imagination is somehow more primitive than and separate from science. Yet imagination is what fuels new ideas all of the time! So now atheists are making fun of people with imagination, too? Like... great scientists with amazing imaginations??
Fundamentalist atheist-scientists try to deny that scientific understanding is completely free from belief as well as imagination, and is not fraught with incompleteness, constant bickering between scientists (within their own, as well as across various, scientific fields). What an utter waste of time such fundamentalist certainty always is.
Scientific "truths" and "facts" can be as ambiguous and fragile as and religious ones. Scientific knowledge changes every year, decade, and century --- and it's not all accruing, either. Some findings disprove other findings --- only to be disproven yet again.
Scientists who deny belief having a role in intelligent living and inquiry, and insist that science is somehow a complete and watertight way of objectively and factually understanding our world without the need of any belief or imagination, are living in much more of a fictional place than I do as a Christian who embraces science, yet realizes its inherent limitations and acknowledges its many ambiguities.
Science and religion may be quite different in their methods, but their efforts to explore and understand what we can never fully quantify, measure, comprehend, or agree upon are actually remarkably the same.
And accepting God and religion today in "modern times" is not apologizing for anything: it's acknowledging the very real roles of belief, imagination, wonder, and faith in all lives, and in all aspects of life --- scientific, philosophical, artistic, and religious.
Posted by: llewelly | September 7, 2009 11:43 PM
Just the other day you claimed "No surprise, you're all a bunch of mutants" . Clearly your words were directed at your tribe of Arch-Naive-Materialist-Mutant-New-Atheists. Can't have both ways, Mr. Professor.Posted by: Capital Dan
|
September 7, 2009 11:47 PM
LOL! Someone's feeling neglected.
Posted by: DominEditrix | September 7, 2009 11:51 PM
Odd that so many of us have raised atheist children without any problem, without having to overcome any hard-wiring.
The Offspring showed little interest in religion, other than to report that one of his classmates had told some students that they would 'go to Hell' if they didn't 'believe in the Pope', but his teacher had told everyone that wasn't true. [Yay, Miss Rhoda!] He did ask who Jesus was; I told him that Jesus was a guy in a story who went around telling people to be nice to each other and some mean guys killed him. 'Like a drive-by?' [Urban child, very early reader of newspaper headlines...]
In my entirely unscientific observation, children are ravenously curious. They soak up knowledge and language and want to know Why? [And yes, they soak up cultural memes, group mores, whatever makes them fit in with the tribe. That makes perfect sense as a survival mechanism.] Given that primitive man - and/or modern fundamentalists* - had no readily available means to answer why the stars shine, why the sky is blue, why the ivy twines, and why that cute Cro-Magnon girl makes the boys, um, interested - PM pretty much had to make up explanations. Ergo, gods and goddesses were the answer in lieu of nuclear fission, Rayleigh scattering, tropism and hormones.
In our house, we do, however, believe in the parking gods. One has to, in Los Angeles. One must pray, pour libations and occasionally sacrifice a celebutante in order to find somewhere to stash the Honda whilst sleeping.
* Remember, the fundies don't do science. It might make them think and that could lead to dancing.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
September 7, 2009 11:51 PM
Looks like someone's playing fast and loose with the definition of the word "imagination."
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 7, 2009 11:56 PM
Leander whined:
I'm intimately familiar with the primarily literature of the Abrahamic traditions. It's fucking abominable
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 7, 2009 11:59 PM
Remind me never to post at this time of night, with this much alcohol, ever again.
Posted by: David Richardson | September 8, 2009 12:01 AM
180 posts and no-one's posted the great H.L. Mencken quote "Religion is man's attempt to communicate with the weather"?
Says it all for me.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 12:11 AM
Who's a big boy now? You are! You're a big boy! And we're all very proud of you. You know, just yesterday I used the word "Jacobin" deliberately. I'm still not entirely sure what I meant by it, but I'm certain I used it deliberately.
Posted by: Jacinta Reid | September 8, 2009 12:12 AM
Just as scientists once proved that germs, not spirits, are the cause of illness, it can be shown that neurological/psychological artifacts are the cause of irrational belief. How is this a bad thing?
I am confused and exasperated at people who dismiss articles stating that there is evidence of an inherent inclination to hold irrational beliefs because a) It's daft to try to deny that people are not perfectly rational and b) the claims provide an explanation for what it is that ails (otherwise reasonably functional) religious people.
The science this kind of article is based on is not the enemy. It can be used to explain inclinations to believe in God without invoking God. It breaks the circular argument that people believe in God because God says they must believe in God.
People really believe that they believe because God wills it, but when it can be shown that no, they believe in God because the ability to do so was once a beneficial heritable trait just like preferring sweet foods was once a beneficial trait, there is hope that the inclination to "indulge" can be curtailed or even overcome.
The desire to eat sweet food persists in most of us, but because we know what it stems from, no reasonable person will mistake a craving to eat sweet things for an inalienable right to eat sweets at every impulse. (Of course, it also helps that no reasonable person will say "I crave and consume the chocolate because the chocolate commands it".)
I believe (and I don't think I am alone?) there is a survival advantage in the capacity to sustain unsubstantiated hope. Continuing to strive when it is not rational to do so is something that purely rational individuals cannot do, so the survival and proliferation of the trait to be a little irrational is logical. It is also an explanation of how so many people can believe in such weird, unverifiable woo-woo. Having an explanation for that would be a *good thing* right?
If so, please, please, please either stop contemptuously spurning this useful concept, or explain to me why it is so threatening and / or scientifically implausible.
I find being on the outer in this debate alarming. Am I missing some key information? Links, arguments, requests that I sober up and clarify what I mean ...any useful input would be very gratefully received.
Posted by: moonkitty | September 8, 2009 12:15 AM
@175
"The quote above says it all: that imagination is somehow more primitive than and separate from science. Yet imagination is what fuels new ideas all of the time! So now atheists are making fun of people with imagination, too?"
You need to work on your reading comprehension, sweetie. Nobody said that imagination is "separate from" science. Nobody is "making fun of" people with imagination, or denigrating imagination's importance in science or in any other human endeavor.
Saying that imagination is "more primitive than" science is merely acknowledging that it is more fundamental. Similarly, emotion is more primitive than reason; acknowledging that fact does not mean that we have contempt for emotion or that we deny that it is important (even to reasoning ability!)
That's just for starters. When you've learned to parse simple English sentences and have acquired a clue as to what folks here actually think, do come back and engage us (word: if you want to be taken at all seriously, lose the hysteria.)
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 12:15 AM
Still proud of myself for that one, too. So I know how you feel, Kristofer. But then you said something not quite so impressive:
No, we like imagination. Sesoron didn't make fun of anyone's imagination. But it is important to test our imaginations in reality.
People have been imagining for a long time that there's a father figure in the sky who cares for us. Yet we keep getting natural disasters, disease, and starving infants instead of divine love. I think it's time we imagine how to take care of each other, instead of waiting for some better day that may never come.
Posted by: Tulse | September 8, 2009 12:15 AM
This cuts both ways -- how many believers have read all the significant text of the world religions? Heck, how many have read the texts of their own religious tradition (asks the ex-Catholic)? Given the quoted argument, unless a believer has a deep familiarity with the arguments for all the other religions in the world, how can they know that their belief is the right one?
That said, I'd imagine that the vast majority of atheists were brought up in religious backgrounds -- I surely was, going to Catholic school until university, and going to religious retreats during the summers. It is idiotic to say that atheists don't have at least the same understanding of religious belief as the average believer does, since many of us at one time were believers.
As for the original article, I really don't see how humans being hardwired for belief is helpful at all to the religious, at least in the Christian tradition. The Christian god supposedly gave humans free will to believe or not, and surely a genetic instinct to believe would undercut that element that we keep hearing is so crucial to true faith. Indeed, I'd argue that any evidence that we have an inborn tendency to religious belief to be evidence against a Christian god.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 8, 2009 12:17 AM
Can you use the term 'projection' deliberately? How about 'strawman', 'misinformed', 'disingenuous' and 'intellectually dishonest'?
Not at all. When imagination is combined with reality, we get inventions and innovations. When imagination is recognised as fiction, we get stories. However, when imagination is recognised as fiction but still accepted as reality by the weak-minded and credulous - or, as is often the case, the wicked and duplicitous - we get religion.
Well, except that anything scientists debate has a grounding in reality, and is discussed in regards to the differing interpretations of what the evidence tells them - unlike religion, where the debates occur to distract attention away from the fact that there is no evidence to support the claim of the existence of gods.
Indeed, they are very very different. Science attempts to explain reality based on observing reality; religion attempts to subvert and deny reality when it doesn't fit with its presuppositions.
What does religion 'explore' or 'understand' beyond the benefits of circular arguments? You've got a book of folk tales which you insist is correct, and you spend all your time trying to either interpret it to fit reality or vice versa.
That isn't an exploration, it's an intellectually dishonest perversion of exploration.
Tripe - And that's putting it politely. All of those things are possible without religion, and with the benefit of not having to lie to anyone - least of all ourselves.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 12:23 AM
Jacinta Reid, I don't have any general disagreement with you. I think that PZ was most upset about the distortion of Dawkins' beliefs in the article. I'm also concerned that the headline and the tone of the story plays upon the reader's tendency to assume the naturalistic fallacy. The same story content could have been presented more responsibly (but then it wouldn't be The Times).
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 12:25 AM
We'll see, maybe Stimpy has something so it would be interesting to see just what results he has. I haven't run the program, and it doesn't look like I will because of his choice in programming languages. But I'll have a look through the source code sometime soon (is that available Randy? If so, can I view without the need for Visual Studio?) and wire it up in C++ so I can get some data churning going.As for what relevance it has to the real world, I'm not sure. In any case, it would be interesting if Stimpy wrote up his results and see what conclusions he drew from them. In any case, I'll wait to see what happens next.
Posted by: moonkitty | September 8, 2009 12:32 AM
@Jacinta Reid #184
For what it's worth, I'm with you and Anders. I don't get the hostility directed at the Times article. Religion in one form or another, and a propensity to believe in supernatural agencies, are universal to human culture. And researchers who are trying to figure out why that is are not promoting theism. They are not enemies of rationalism.
PZ, don't shoot the messengers.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | September 8, 2009 12:33 AM
Latest research indicates infants grasp object permanence at around 4 months of age, rather than a year. OTOH, you may have been a late bloomer in that regard. ;-)
Posted by: Johnson | September 8, 2009 12:40 AM
I must be against evolution then, as I did not believe in any Gods when I was younger. My parents kept me ignorant of the concept of God simply because they did not think it matters.
And now, I find the concept of God and all the so-called "Holy Books" to be ridiculous.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | September 8, 2009 12:52 AM
Posting the links that I posted in testes land when he brought up this issue:
The site of Bruce Hood, referenced in the article:
http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/videos/
Here is the Amazon link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/SuperSense-Why-We-Believe-Unbelievable/dp/0061452645
And, if you want to sample the book:
http://avaxhome.ws/ebooks/personality/SuperSenseBelieve.html
Plus, a (not directly related) poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/poll/2009/sep/07/religion-climate-change
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 1:02 AM
I am not so sure I was born to believe but I am sure I was born to lose.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 8, 2009 1:03 AM
Kristofer Layon,
Sigh, the quote clearly says "developing an imagination before they developed science"[Emphasis added]. Imagination is nice for writing stories, and can even useful to science. However if you are using that imagination to attempt to describe the world without some sort of checking mechanism (i.e, logic or empirical verification) all that imagination is just mental masturbation.
Except that science is self-correcting while religion is dogmatic (or almost always is).
Yes, and the fact that most scientists do NOT hold the view that science deals with absolute certainties or that scientists themselves are completely objective means you are attacking a strawman. Hell, you just said that "[s]cientific knowledge changes every year, decade, and century". Do you think these scientist would be changing the body of knowledge if they held science to be dogmatic?
Here are just two examples off the top of my head showing that Kristofer's characterization is wrong:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein
"I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
Sheesh, I wish before these people start their sophomoric rants about what scientists think they actually spend some time reading what scientists actually think.
No it's not. It's rationalizing the fairy tales told to you as a child in order to bring you some comfort.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | September 8, 2009 1:04 AM
I prefer Springsteen, Vile Bitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3t9SfrfDZM&feature=fvst
Somehow that sounds less civil than I intended...
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 1:15 AM
Darren Garrison, you prefer Springsteen over Johnny Thunders?
Philistine! I have too much junkie business too deal with this mess!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 1:15 AM
I think the leap from a perceived "supernatural agency" to perception of a "god" is causing grief. We have this god meme that we like to dump everything supernatural onto, but we go there too fast. One supernatural belief does not make a god. You have to have a plethora of supernatural beliefs first and then link them all together to have a god.The faitheists and believers may recognize how these studies are powerful pieces of evidence against theism and so we see them scrambling to steer the conversation toward the cultural value of modern-day monotheism. Their religious businesses depend on belief in gods, but our lives will continue to have meaning built on shared experiences and we will still form self-selecting social groups without theism or religion.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 8, 2009 1:22 AM
Kel,
I will publish the source code soon. However what is most interesting is the presentation on the Mutation View. I put a lot of work into the user interface to help explain why the results turn out like they did. You won't be able to visualize that by reading code.
Installing the Silverlight runtime won't hurt your computer. Unlike other Microsoft technologies, Silverlight runs in its own framework seperate from the operating system. As web or server technologies go it's very safe.
Posted by: Desert Son | September 8, 2009 1:23 AM
Just now able to log on, and only a moment as I'm knackered and soon to bed, but three cheers to Wowbagger, OM, Tulse, and Feynmaniac for some excellent posts just upthread.
In the meantime,
And I'd like to throw Motörhead into the mix, with a little help from Ice T :)
"Born to Raise Hell"
Going to invoke some imagination in the service of metaphor now as I venture off to duke it out with Hypnos and intentionally throw the fight ;)
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: bastion of sass | September 8, 2009 1:46 AM
Leander wrote:
I thought that AJ Milne addressed this when (s)he wrote:
However, maybe you'll understand the point AJ was making if it were phrased in language you might understand (You may refer to your own post @ #67):
Unless you come out and say you've read, comprehended and thought through all of PZ's posts and all the comments ever written in response to each, I will assume, based on your writings and in your favor (!) that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 8, 2009 1:46 AM
"Nevertheless, some here might be interested in watching me take another beating from the great PZ Myers."
You sick little monkey.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | September 8, 2009 2:03 AM
Kel,
I just popped over to your blog and found your weasel program.
runWeasel(int p_mutationRate, int p_averageChildren, string p_goal)
The problem is with the p_goal parameter of runWeasel. This is where you tell the weasel program what the answer is. Thus what you have written here is nothing more than a conversion algorithm as some atheist commenters here have already pointed out.
Posted by: What | September 8, 2009 2:10 AM
What a pile of horse droppings.
We humans are born with the drive to predict events in our surroundings. If we have poorly predictive models - religion and other superstitions - then all kinds of nonsensical predictions are made? Where's the mystery here?
Posted by: palochka | September 8, 2009 2:11 AM
@ 204
I don't know why I'm wasting my internet breath, but you have completely missed the point of the Weasel program. It shows that a selective algorithm will reach a given solution far faster than random chance. That is all.
Posted by: What | September 8, 2009 2:11 AM
No ? after second sentence above.
Posted by: Escuerd | September 8, 2009 2:12 AM
Kristofer Layon
I read that quite differently. No one is making fun of "people with imagination". They're stating that superstitions exist because imagination historically predates science (in particular, the scientific notion of experimentation).
What "fundamentalist atheist-scientists" are you talking about, exactly? Some that you have played out imaginary conversations with in your head?
I don't know any scientists (and I know a lot of atheistic scientists, mostly physicists and biologists) who have ever suggested that science is complete, always certain, or free of imagination.
I've known some who insist that there should be no belief involved, though that's usually a matter of using a different definition of "belief" than I do (i.e. they use the term as synonymous with "faith" rather meaning "a statement taken to describe the real world").
Yes, scientific knowledge does change. It's tentative, but the idea is that science converges on better and better models of the world.
The notion that science is no better than religion "because it can get things wrong" reeks of fetishization of absolute certainty.
Are you also using "belief" to mean "faith-based belief"? Because if not, I don't think I know any scientists who hold this position, and suspect they're just a figment of your imagination (Pre-emptive note: this does not constitute making fun of you for having an imagination).
Their efforts are remarkably the same? That's some pretty weak common ground. Method is actually important in learning about the world. Testing hypotheses against evidence is a powerful, successful method. The justifications for most religions are usually based on faith, and this "method" can be used to justify anything at all. It's arbitrary and worthless.
Accepting a god does is not the same as acknowledging that "belief, imagination, wonder and faith" have a real role in people's lives.
Further, science, which requires checking ones ideas against what we observe and even then holding them tentatively, is the antithesis of faith.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
September 8, 2009 2:13 AM
When i was a little girl, i loved to read storybooks. I used to devour the fables of La Fontaine, the fairytales of Grimm and Anderson.
From there i switched to cultural stories and fairytales. Roman, Greek, Norsk, Indonesian, Chineese folklore and mythology stories.
The stories of 1001 nights.
Inbetween those, i also read a children's version of the bible, that contained stories instead of the verses and such that the "normal" bible has.
I loved all of those books in the same way. Beautiful stories, nice life lessons.
Looking back on it now, i realise that i wish that just like those roman, green and norsk mythology, the bible will eventually be put in the same category.
People were able to let go of those believes, why not this silly one as well.
Posted by: Kangaroo-Jockey | September 8, 2009 2:15 AM
@204
That's a null point, it was originally proposed as an artificial selection program, as a comparison between random and cumulative mutation. Deliberately obfuscating is not helpful.
Posted by: Tom Mahon | September 8, 2009 2:17 AM
Wowbagger asserts...
"When imagination is combined with reality, we get inventions and innovations."
What nonsense! Cite one instance when your imagination combined with reality or turned out to be reality?
"When imagination is recognised as fiction, we get stories."
All the images of the imagination are fictional, and in most cases evil. Have a look in your local library or book shop, and you will see what I mean. Unless of course, the bag of supernatural blindness is still over your head.
"However, when imagination is recognised as fiction but still accepted as reality by the weak-minded and credulous - or, as is often the case, the wicked and duplicitous - we get religion."
Absolutely! We get the religion of evolution, where Darwin is elevated to the status of a god, and you and others make the annual pilgrimages to worship at his shrine. We also got the religion of science, especially in biology, where it is believe that one day, modern medicine will deliver to us eternal life. What a laugh!
Posted by: Kangaroo-Jockey | September 8, 2009 2:25 AM
Tom Mahon, I'm not really sure if this is appropriate, but please, for the love of reason, can you blather elsewhere?
As to your points:
Imagination + Reality = Innovation
I realise that this is simplistic, but the Wright Brothers, would like a word with you.
The others... I don't even know where to start your argument against fictional images is puritan drivel. The statement of '(where) Darwin is elevated to the status of a god' is plainly ridiculous. There is no 'Church of the Most High Darwin' No holy-days for his birth or death, no offerings made in the hope of favourable mutations for our children. Science is not a religion, neither is biology, and modern medicine does not intent to deliver 'eternal life' it aims to improve the quality of the (singular) life we get, and as a result, the length has increased.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 8, 2009 2:27 AM
Care to point out how evolution is religious in any sense, other then that it doesn't adhere to your dogmatic scripture? And where is this so call shrine? Since you sincerely believe that people to accept evolution as fact must be worshiping it in some satanic cult?
God, Tom stop being such a wack.
Modern medicine has given us longer lives than accepting Jejus (Korean accent) ever did.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 8, 2009 2:28 AM
You can read?
Posted by: What | September 8, 2009 2:30 AM
How stupid does one have to be to write that? Seriously. How stupid?Posted by: Azkyroth | September 8, 2009 2:35 AM
Jesus Mythical Christ you're thick. I suppose you think the "email" link is just for decoration?
Posted by: co | September 8, 2009 2:40 AM
Mahon, what you wrote in #211 has gone through ganz falsch into nicht einmal falsch territory.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 8, 2009 2:44 AM
What fucking relevance does that have to rejection of religion as it is actually practiced in the real world?
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 2:50 AM
We get the religion of evolution, where Darwin is elevated to the status of a god, and you and others make the annual pilgrimages to worship at his shrine.
Tom Mahon, you do realize that biologists can be taught the latest in biological science without one mention of Charles Darwin. He was merely a very good scientist whose theory began modern biology. For that, he is highly respected; no worshiped. And, pray tell, who here makes annual pilgrimages to, what? There is no shrine. There is no hajj, you blithering idiot!
Do you have a care taker to remind you to breathe?
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 3:04 AM
Do you even realise what I was trying to do with the program? It wasn't a simulation of evolution, it was just to show that the program Dawkins wrote back ~23 years ago can be achieved without locking, creationists often charge Dawkins with cheating in his algorithm - my copy shows that the algorithm works with our without locking.How about you actually take the algorithm for what it is instead of what it isn't. It's not a simulation of evolution, it's there to show that the weasel program works without locking.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 8, 2009 3:04 AM
Tom Mahon @ #211, I submit the following for your consideration:
1. Whereas you purport to be a True-Believing Christian (based on the writings found on your blog)
2. Whereas True Believing Christians are expected to follow the Second Commandment
3. Whereas The Second Commandment requires that you have no other Gods before your One True God
4. Whereas you assert that the science of biology is a religion
5. Whereas the religion of biology cannot be The One True Christian Religion in that it is distinct and separate from The One True Christian Religion
One must conclude that you consequently reject all of the products of the science of biology, including any and all medicines, medical treatments, or anything designed to improve, prolong, or otherwise "deliver eternal life."
How do you plead?
(And please remember to keep the Ninth Commandment when crafting your response.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 8, 2009 3:12 AM
Hilariously enough, you're an instance, Tom - I'd only ever imagined there are woo-soaked morons as stupid and ignorant as you in the world; you then show up here and prove that you do, in reality, exist.
EPIC FAIL!
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 8, 2009 3:34 AM
But if he's an "image" of your imagination, that means he's fictional and evil! Oh Darwin save me. The satanic missing fossils are sending vaguely annoying trolls to test my faith! Im going to have to recite my anatomy charts to restore my faith.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 8, 2009 3:38 AM
If belief was natural, why do people need to teach it to their children?
Posted by: Infidel.Michael | September 8, 2009 3:50 AM
Lesson learned: Brains have vestigal parts too.
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 8, 2009 3:52 AM
Piltdown,
...and the passage continues:
A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth.
Why did you omit that bit, I wonder?
Posted by: Anton Mates | September 8, 2009 3:56 AM
Oh, and just to finish that passage off:
By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.
Posted by: Bhima | September 8, 2009 3:57 AM
Robert Sapolsky (Professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, and by courtesy, Neurosurgery, at Stanford University.) has an excellent lecture available online about the biology of religion. He's goes to great pains to not call people with high religiosity "insane" or "mentally ill" but I think Dawkins has pretty much covered that.
http://blip.tv/file/2204956/
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 8, 2009 4:10 AM
Anton Mates asked (of Piltdown Man):
I'll take 'Intellectual Dishonesty' for $100, Alex.
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 8, 2009 4:15 AM
...Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky ...
Personally ive never found any atheists who had anything bad to say about imagination. As long as anyone hoping to spread the fruits of their imagination around comes prepared with rational argument, and isn't too forceful when it comes to sharing them with others, I say bring it on. Make this world a little more interesting.
Now, I understand this attitude is less likely to be shared by the religous types. And I'd just like to say that, anyone willing to label an idea as inherrently evil or taboo can go fuck themselves.
Posted by: Kagato | September 8, 2009 4:22 AM
You're really getting piled on for that last comment, Tom.
And rightly so; I do believe that may be the most ridiculous post I have seen here. Comic Sans does not do you justice.
Imagination is the ability to conceive of things you have not experienced. Every time you plan ahead for a new situation, you're using your imagination.
If you base your imagined scenario on real things you have encountered before, that would behave consistently with the way the real world works, then it's reality-based imagination. And if you put your scenario into action (eg, testing an experiment you've come up with) and it works, your imagination has just affected reality.
If your imagined scenario is not consistent with the real world (eg. thinking up a mythical creature), that is called fiction.
If you nonetheless believe your fictional scenario to be real, that is delusion.
Evil, you say! Don't do much planning ahead then?
Delusion.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 4:45 AM
Bhima,
that's an awesome video, thank you !
Posted by: joeyess | September 8, 2009 4:54 AM
this is as fine a deconstruction of a bogus argument that I have ever read. I have it bookmarked and will commit it to memory. Well played, Professor!!
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 8, 2009 4:54 AM
Janine @ 39:
Always a pleasure to enlighten a member of the fair sex. Jesus is using children as an exemplar of humility. St Paul is using childhood as a metaphor for spiritual immaturity. Different contexts, you see.
+ + +
Gregory Greenwood @ 45:
Couldn't the same be said about any system including secular democracy? They all have their rituals, icons, holy texts and heretics.
Gregory Greenwood @ 114:
Even if all that were true, technological advances have rendered modern warfare incomparably more destructive.
Not necessarily. Depends on what you mean by 'limitation'.
+ + +
Azkyroth @ 138:
Citation provided (pg 54).
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 8, 2009 4:56 AM
I seem to recall reading some speculation to the effect that our bipedal posture allows the rate of breathing to be decoupled from the gait since our lungs no longer have to expand or contract in time with the leg movements in order to have enough space.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | September 8, 2009 4:59 AM
My imagination combines with reality all the time. Right now I'm imagining a nice pasta arabbiata with some ham and olives, and steamed broccoli on the side. I have all the ingredients, and it's 7pm here, so I think I'll go off and do the reality bit now.
Posted by: Tom Morris | September 8, 2009 5:01 AM
1. Science has shown that belief in God is natural.
2. Therefore, belief in God is justified.
Compare:
1. Science has shown that rape is natural.
2. Therefore, rape is justified.
Posted by: Lars | September 8, 2009 5:02 AM
Wow. This drivel is even better than the previous trolling in this thread. I'm in awe.
Leander, can you top this? I dare you to. If you cannot, I reckon you're not worthy of PZ's unique attention.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 8, 2009 5:03 AM
Thanks; I needed something to help me get settled for bed.
Posted by: Erich | September 8, 2009 5:08 AM
Interesting thing is that I listened to a presentation by an Animal Cognitive Scientist last week. He explained that basically all human behaviour can be replicated with varying degrees of success in the animal kingdom. The level of development is only related to the age of the species. IE a crow has the same cognative behaviour as a chimp and they basically became species roundabout the same time. As an evolutionist the scientist is of course not able to bring in religion into his reference material BUT he said the only thing that seperates humans from animals is the ability to percieve an abstract being and lable that being god. Of course its the full circle after millenia of percieving god we as a species are now evolving away from the need to percieve god... But it was quite interesting to hear that this is such a crucial differentiation between us and monkeys.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 5:08 AM
*Sigh*
When will aussies ever get the subtleties of european cooking. There is no such thing as an aside if you are having pasta, maybe dessert, but broccoli on the side?? That's all wrong....
Of course that seems par for the course in a country where pizzas are regularly smothered by meat covered in barbecue sauce or similar,which is about the antithesis of a real pizza.....
I have moved to make my own bread and pizzas here, the available parodies are just too awful.
Posted by: Stephan Brun
|
September 8, 2009 5:20 AM
Carlie @111: Hehe. When I saw that, I was reminded of a certain sequence in Watchmen. I was sorely tempted to tell him to ask Rorschach...
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 5:21 AM
Azkyroth@138
Pilty's Darwin quote is from his autobiography. It can be found at:
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm
As is Pilty's normal practice, he has truncated the quote in a way that cannot but convict him of bearing false witness (of course, even if Darwin had stopped where Pilty does, it would not be an argument for the utility of religion, let alone its truth - Pilty's carefully cultivated medieval cast of mind leads him to believe that a quotation or a picture is a substantive argument). Here is the quote again, along with the following sentences:
"A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will recieve the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtely is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbiation he will then not recieve; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience."
Posted by: daniel m | September 8, 2009 5:28 AM
I think it's been said before - PZ calm down - it isn't whether our brains are hardwired for something that matters.
The fact seems to be we search for patterns in everything, so finding patterns that aren't there probably IS a natural thing.
The scientists who found this aren't wrong because we find patterns. What IS wrong (and hopefully THIS is the reason you're all frothed up and spitting) is when the IDiots and creotards say (wholly without reason) that because we DO look for patterns, that the patterns MUST MEAN SOMETHING.
That's retarded. That's saying seeing things that aren't there make them real.
I haven't clicked the link yet, so...when I do I'll probably froth at the mouth as well over the rampant stupidity if it's anything like AiG.
The second important thing is...we're not animals.
I mean YES we're animals, but civilized ones. Rape is wrong. Murder is wrong - the fact is it's natural in the natural world for both of these things to happen, and I'd be pretty disgusted by somebody saying we should rape and murder because we can.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 5:30 AM
What sequence??
Enjoying italian prosciutto on warm fresh baked rye bread here while watching this awesome Neuro lecture !
Posted by: SaintStephen | September 8, 2009 5:30 AM
Leander sez:
"Pardon me if I didn't spell it out, considering you're an academic and such...I was simply referring to appreciating the historical, anthropological, sociological contexts involved in studying ancient texts, as opposed to taking them literally from a contemporary outsider perspective. Also I'd really appreciate if you could give a full list of religious texts that you have read, and tried to comprehend from perspectives other (like I mentioned above, historical, anthropological or sociological) than a simple contemporary, literal one, and how you would integrate your findings with the views and values of our contemporary culture.
What is your point, Leander? Is it necessary to read every book on leprechology to understand leprechauns? Are you attempting to define a basis for morality in the ancient scriptures? What the hell is your point? Why should we read these texts? Will it help us understand the religious mind better? Will reading these texts help us to better wage the War on Reason with unreasonable, religious people like yourself?
Why don't YOU give all of US a list of these precious texts? Then, YOU tell us which ones are "primary" sources, and which ones are "secondary" sources. The burden of proof is on you, Missy, having made such a ridiculous claim (whatever it was!), to educate us.
Come on, let's hear it. And then, please make some kind of POINT, will ya? Are you female or male? If female, please invest in a vibrator... PRONTO. If male, then I have a few phone numbers you may be interested in.
Come on girl. We need a good laugh. Don't run away like the chicken-shit dumbass you are. Prove your point, if you have one.
Posted by: TheVirginian | September 8, 2009 5:36 AM
Kristopher Layon's comment is so nonsensical I won't waste time answering it. If Christians have any evidence for their beliefs, they would have produced such evidence by now. Their failure is all the condemnation that is required. Put up or shut up.
Posted by: Stephan Brun
|
September 8, 2009 5:48 AM
Rorschach: It's the scene where Dreiberg/Niteowl and Laurie Juspeczyk/Silk Spectre go out for the first time, and Dreiberg tells an anecdote about a "supervillain", Captain Carnage, who just wanted to be beat up. Most people declined, except Rorschach, who dropped him down an elevator shaft.
My apologies for comparing you, sir, with the homicidal maniac in the comic. I just thought it was a bit fun that there was an actual Rorschach posting.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 8, 2009 5:55 AM
But please, not furry. That's just wrong. *shifty eyes*
I'm still waiting for Leander to explain how deeper study of religious texts will make people who think prayer can cause rain or cure diabetes look any less ridiculous.
Posted by: No BS | September 8, 2009 5:58 AM
Religion is to thinking as the appendix is to ...
Posted by: Roameo
|
September 8, 2009 5:58 AM
Hoax retorts:
Yeah I suppose you could say that any system designed to manipulate and subdue entire populations acts exactly like an organised religion.
Still has nothing to do with morality. What was your point?
Posted by: bsk | September 8, 2009 5:58 AM
Neutral observer here... Leander seems like a bit of a religious nut to me.
Posted by: John Morales | September 8, 2009 6:02 AM
Interesting, if predictable, this thread.
As for religion, I think it began as animism, then (in some places) got elaborated into polytheism, and then (in some places) consolidated into monotheism.
In short — religion: Pareidolia writ large, and culturally reinforced.
Posted by: kiki | September 8, 2009 6:07 AM
Brings into question the notion of adam and eves free will - just how free is gods free will then? Was their fall from grace just a setup???
- "ADAM, EVE - DON'T EAT THIS APPLE, OR THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES."
- "What are 'consequences'?"
- "WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS."
- "What's 'bad'?"
- "ERM, IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF 'GOOD'."
- "What's 'good'?"
- "JUST EAT THE DAMN APPLE."
Posted by: SEF | September 8, 2009 6:08 AM
Off-topic @ Janine #52:
How many of those are there, anyway? Some insects do manage to copulate while flying but many others land for the act. Birds tend not to be flying. I'm not sure of the norm for bats. Humans cheat by using aircraft and hence are really on a surface (which merely happens to be detached from other surfaces) rather than flying. If one counts the weightlessness of space or regards swimming underwater as a form of "flying" though ...
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 6:08 AM
Bruce Hood is an atheist, but also apparently something of a faitheist.
Here's a quote from a review (I confess I have not read his book, and probably won't for lack of time):
"Hood’s treatise provides a much-needed counterbalance to hard-core skeptics by arguing that supersense, while not exactly grounded in rationality, ultimately gives our lives meaning." --Carl Hays
By "supersense", Hood just seems to mean superstitious beliefs and behaviour (e.g, to give a non-religious example, reluctance to wear a cardiagan or receive an organ donation from a murderer - according to a review, even "fervent atheists" show this reluctance; I can't understand why, myself). The word "supersense" is just a bit of (apparently successful) PR, to get the Lyall Watson crowd to buy the book.
Clearly, we are not hard-wired to believe in gods, let alone the Abrahamic nobodaddy; if we were, everyone would do so. Nor are such superstitions, or more conventionally religious ones, needed to "give our lives meaning"; I and many others here can attest to that. Belief in gods, ghosts, astrology etc. may well depend on an innate pattern-seeking and particularly agent-seeking tendency in human psychology, but we can and do learn to take account of and compensate for this tendency, just as we do with regard to visual illusions (which are much more clearly hard-wired), tendencies to seek confirmatory rather than disconfirming evidence of our hypotheses, the tendency to hyperbolic discounting, etc. Nor is there the slightest evidence that reducing the social role of religion has bad effects, or allows other superstitious beliefs to take its place (the highly religious USA is also the country where several million people claim to have been abducted by aliens). Finally, the existence of such a tendency may make universal atheism unlikely (although that certainly has not been demonstrated), but so what? We already know that secularization and a considerable atheist segment of the population are possible, and have beneficial effects. Let's keep arguing rationally for atheism and mocking the absurdities of irrational belief, and so push these things as far as we can.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 6:13 AM
And I'm still waiting for Leander to explain why all those accessory texts are necessary to understand God if his original book is so inspired and perfect and all, since the one thing you would expect him to get right is the communication of how not to go to hell. But no, Leander had to go and just call me names instead. I'm hurt.*
*(not really)
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 6:17 AM
Or another thought is childrens minds are hard wired for enculturation which will usually stay with the individual until death. This does not lend credence to the mind being hardwired for gods, god or the supernatural.
Posted by: John Morales | September 8, 2009 6:17 AM
Carlie, agreed.
Besides, I couldn't be stuffed to study the true Qur’an, since I'd have to learn Arabic to do so.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 6:22 AM
No harm done,sir !
I used to post under another name here, but after watching the movie I converted to this nick..:-)
And homicidal maniac,now come on ! Socially challenged, maybe....But we all have our reasons right ! We try to make of ourselves what others made of us...(engage existentialist mode)
Posted by: SEF | September 8, 2009 6:29 AM
@ Cheezits #137:
* Those would be the human cockroaches. ;-)
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 8, 2009 6:29 AM
Leander:
Here is an idea, maybe you should go read The God Delusion before commenting on what arguments Dawkins does and doesn't make in it.
Dawkins in TGD specifically references several elements of scripture (the story of Lot, and Joshua being a genocidal war criminal for example) in his argument on morality. He could hardly have done so if he hadn't actually read some scripture.
Dumbass.
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | September 8, 2009 6:52 AM
I used to think that religion was hardwired into the brain, but I now doubt it. The human brain is after all extremely plastic, such that the same brain that is capable of developing advanced musical talents (such as virtuoso violin playing) with a lot of practice, can also develop extreme religious fervour too with practice. Even if religious belief was genetic, I would expect that it would just be a predisposition along a normal bell curve, with a minority expressing extreme fervour, a minority being adamantly sceptical, and the great majority in the middle to varying degrees. And if it were genetic, then the observation that as countries become more affluent, the degree of religiosity decreases, would be extremely difficult to explain.
Posted by: uksceptic | September 8, 2009 7:04 AM
Bruce Hood has just posted his versions of events regardng this article. I suggest you check out his website;
http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/i-never-said/
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 7:14 AM
@kiki - You kill me! Creationists couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper bag.
@Knockgoats - I had similar thoughts after reading the blurb by Carl Hays about Bruce Hood's book and then seeing how Hood jumped from supernatural beliefs to religion in the article linked to in the original post.
@daniel m - Read what Knockgoats wrote. Hood (the first psychologist mentioned in the article) is hoodwinking theists into feeling all warm and fuzzy about their religions. I see no reason to calm down over it. We should raise our voices in protest as we do here.
@Bhima - Thanks for the link!
@truebutnotuseful - Hardcore Armstrongian believers such as Tom Mahon do think modern medicine is evil, along with pork products.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 8, 2009 7:18 AM
At to the OT:
Religion is pretty much endemic, but just what constitutes religion varies from place to place.
A lot of eastern religions, such as Taoism, Budhism and Confuscianism don't actually give much of a shit about whether god does or doesn't exist.
Then you have religions which basically form around honoured ancestors.
The nature of the gods shifts from culture to culture - some hold that a god is a perfect being and some hold that perfection is death.
So to say people are "Born to believe" fails because just what people believe varies pretty much from individual to individual.
Not only that, but much like studies into racial IQ, it is virtually impossible to allow for social factors here. Sure, superstition is rife but so is the crap that promotes it.
Advertising campaigns aim two barrels of bullshit like it being "time to believe" at the public, TV shows support it and the music industry tells us to follow our hearts, because our brains don't buy crappy CDs.
So how does this study allow for the fact that our software is essentially riddled with the "belief is good" virus? How does it show that belief is actually natural, as opposed to being an artifact from the barrage of kak we are hit with every time we interact with the world?
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 8, 2009 7:20 AM
-I don't even remember why I started calling myself Official SpokesGay - I think it was in response to some foolish homophobe, and it struck me as terribly funny to get all big about it.-
You cannot be official spokesGay unless you can say what the true Gay Agenda is.
I feel kinda sorry for all the people wrestling with Leander and intelligent designer. They clearly enjoy it, but you just end up covered in their filth. Hmm there's a saying there perhaps ;p
Posted by: bobxxxx | September 8, 2009 7:21 AM
adults with the brains of babies
Also known as Christians.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 7:23 AM
@uksceptic - Thanks. Highly relevant portion of Hood's self defense:
Guess we need to link back to that comic strip from the other day.Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 7:25 AM
You cannot be official spokesGay unless you can say what the true Gay Agenda is.
And promise everyone a toaster.
Posted by: Ben | September 8, 2009 7:30 AM
PZ, I expect better of you than this. Scientists have also demonstrated that we find fattier foods more tasty because they have a higher calorie density - but that doesn't mean it's 'natural' or good to sit on the couch and eat twinkies all day.
And you yourself are the first one to remind us that just because evolution did it to us doesn't mean that it's actually beneficial. Sometimes adaptation leads to unfortunate side effects.
Is it so hard to believe that the human brain evolved to be susceptible to certain kinds of stimulation - the false positive of pariedolia, for example, being safer than a false negative when there's actually something lurking in the bushes - which were beneficial to our survival in their original context, but which when taken all together result in a dangerous and unfortunate tendency to believe stupid shit?
Posted by: John Morales | September 8, 2009 7:32 AM
I don't normally plug, but I think NonStampCollector's The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker is just too appropriate here.
Posted by: Steve The Junker | September 8, 2009 7:32 AM
The original times article is brain-crunchingly stupid, but then the venality and laziness of many journalists is depressingly plain. The academics quoted seem equally bubble-headed: "(Professor Pascal) Boyer holds out little hope for atheism. “Religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems,” he said. “By contrast, disbelief is generally the work of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.” "
Is that a reasonable statement?
I would suggest an analogy here. Humans evolved a fear of the 'other'. It was, at earlier stages of our history, an advantage: other creatures, even if they looked a bit like us, might be very dangerous. Even our own species, if from a competing group, could be fatally aggressive to us - we were, and are, a territorial species. But from these roots spring xenophobia and racism. We all know that racist views are most likely to be held (and acted upon) by less well-educated people. But fear of those not like us can be, and is, overcome by positive teachings and experiences.
So, bearing that in mind, what if we paraphrase Prof. Boyer's statement?: "Professor X holds out little hope for multicultural societies “Racist thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems,” he said. “By contrast, racial tolerance is generally the work of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.”"
Would Prof. Boyer approve of the stance of someone who made *that* statement? If not, I wonder why not?
Posted by: Arno | September 8, 2009 7:34 AM
"Bruce Hood is an atheist, but also apparently something of a faitheist."
Actually, he isn't. I read the book and, in general, what he argues is that a lot of supernatural beliefs are focussed on the belief in an essence: an unchanging characteristic that makes things what they are. It is that particular notion that he can understand as being valuable to us human beings. Not a particular faith.
Also, seems Hood isn't too happy with this portrayal of the media of him: http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/i-never-said/
Seems like a general case of journalists being douchbags.
Posted by: shonny | September 8, 2009 7:45 AM
| Posted by: Leander | September 7, 2009 7:59 PM #32
Leander,
Go to mirror and look long and hard at image there.
Then you will know for sure what a fuckwit looks like.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 8, 2009 7:45 AM
-And promise everyone a toaster-
I didn't realise we get free toasters!!! I knew my life was missing true meaning. All hail 'The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker... and toast'
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 8, 2009 7:46 AM
Posted by: Arno | September 8, 2009 7:34 AM
I read it after my last post. It is the sort of thing that pisses me off - because I am a journalist (Technically anyway.)
Our profession is being crapped on by wankers who think they are too big to be ethical. What ends up happening is that when those of us who try to do a good job and report or edit honestly end up on the recieving end of "Ja, ja, ja that's what the newspapers say."
Media conspiracy theories lent weight because some unwiped asshole decided to sacrifice honesty for what is "sensational." My newsroom isn't perfect, but we at least try to get things right.
The UK Sunday Times though? They seem to have lost the whole fucking point to operating a newspaper - informing people. And I wish I could say they weren't the fucking standard template whenever God comes up in an international newspaper.
Posted by: MarkW | September 8, 2009 7:47 AM
Tulse says at #187:
Am I in a minority then? I can never remember thinking, when dragged to church (from a very young age), anything substantially different from "this is a load of fucking nonsense".Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 8, 2009 7:47 AM
In keeping with the wisdom of Leander, I shall henceforth address all religious comments to God himself, and I shall brook no comments from his wannabe helpers and spokespersons, except possibly the risen Jebus if he is reasonably polite.
Thank you.
Posted by: Mux Formica | September 8, 2009 7:49 AM
So if I may summarize, we have
a) psychologist emitting a whiff of accomodationism;
b) tendentious newspaper article which misrepresented
the psychologist's thoughts;
c) entertaining if somewhat generic rant from PZ;
d) even more entertaining thread w/almost 300 entries
featuring religious trolling, insults, counter-insults,
tips on gay terminology, clever remarks, insightful
comments, foodie braggadocio & a bunch of other stuff.
Now I can face the day!
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 8, 2009 7:57 AM
I was never superstitious either as far back as i remember. Sometimes stuff happened i didn't understand. I didn't ask my invisible friend about it.
Here's a question. If belief in the supernatural used to be useful, but isn't really as helpful any more, isn't it likely to start to be bred out of the population?
Posted by: Arno | September 8, 2009 8:00 AM
From the link I send before, Mux:
"I thought I made my position relatively clear as we discussed the evidence and studies that indicate that we are born with brains to seek out patterns and infer hidden mechanisms, forces and entities. That does not make me either religious or a religious apologist. For example, if there is a gene for psychopathic killers that does not make it morally acceptable."
So no, there is not even a whiff. Hood, Boyer and the other scientists are in this case completely without blame. Instead, it is just a journalist doing what he really shouldn't be doing: misrepresenting someone's views to fit his own ideas.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 8, 2009 8:09 AM
To be fair to Bruce, in interviews he talked about writing the book with believers in mind. He was taken by surprise that almost all the feedback he's gotten was from sceptics.Haven't had a chance to read the book yet myself, it's sitting on my "To Read" pile. Looking forward to it.
Posted by: Mark | September 8, 2009 8:14 AM
Hilarious. The statement completely ignores the many millennia of polytheist and animist beliefs.
It also ignores the fact that religion as a whole is a lifestyle choice.
The hubris of religionists using 'science' to prove their lifestyle choices is mind-boggling.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 8:30 AM
what he argues is that a lot of supernatural beliefs are focussed on the belief in an essence: an unchanging characteristic that makes things what they are. It is that particular notion that he can understand as being valuable to us human beings. Not a particular faith. Arno
Why does he think that valuable (if you can summarise)? It seems to me extremely damaging, potentiating not only religious and superstitious thinking, but racism and other forms of prejudice; and making anti-essentialist ideas such as evolution by random mutation and natural selection counter-intuitive to many people.
Posted by: Steve | September 8, 2009 8:31 AM
Can you spell "anthropomorphism," boys and girls? The most convincing explanation I've found of where Religion comes from is Stewart Guthrie's "Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion." Guthrie argues that Religion is just one of many manifestations of the human tendency to ascribe human attributes to non-human entities [real or imagined] and phenomena. That doesn't alter Professor Myers' point, though.
Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | September 8, 2009 8:43 AM
Wow. Methinks the professor protests way too much.
Look. For most of human history--hell, even today--humanity's lot is for the overwhelming majority a dog's breakfast. There's tons of suffering and most of us don't get a lot of what we want while people we don't like sometimes do. Thinking there's some judgemental, potentially understanding and approving big shot in the sky who's going to reward us and punish our enemies for all the bullcrap is a cheap and easy way of giving one's life meaning and the will to go on in addition to all that social cohesion stuff. Plus, if you can work yourself into a transcendent state, there's all them endorphins running ecstatic riot through one's body.
Ironically, religiosity is an evolutionary advantage, rather like a sense of humor.
Posted by: Nelson Muntz | September 8, 2009 8:55 AM
Keep in mind that we are all born atheists.
Religion stems from our innate ability to get things wrong. We are all innately susceptible to being fooled by sleight-of-hand, magic tricks, and fairy tales and other lies. We can all be mistaken. We all could be fooled into thinking we can change our luck. Or that wishing hard enough can make the wish come true, which is no different than praying to invisible sky fairies, the spirit of the tree trunk, or the stars in the sky.
If we'd never had religions, there'd never have been con artists.
Posted by: Richard Eis | September 8, 2009 8:58 AM
-Ironically, religiosity is an evolutionary advantage, rather like a sense of humor.-
Was an advantage.
Fundamentalism and a sense of humour? They certainly don't get irony, I know that much. No Leander it doesn't mean 'made of iron'.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 8:59 AM
@Steve
Yes, but I think the research is attempting to answer the "why" not the "how" by supporting the hypothesis that religion/superstition is built around an evolutionary adaptation (i.e., brain hardware produced by the Blind Watchmaker). Seeing agency where there is none is obviously advantageous in a world where standing around and observing rather than acting immediately out of fear could easily get one killed. This is just as true for the band of humans trying to get through a dense jungle unscathed as it is for the hunter tracking prey, the farmer who needs to hustle to save the crops at the first sign of extreme weather, and the ruler who needs to prevent challenges to authority.Posted by: Arno | September 8, 2009 9:11 AM
Knockgoats, those are its disadvantages. Indeed, psychological essentialism seems to be invoked when we deal with other groups to stereotype. However, it can also lead us to value ideas (or people) as being special and worth protecting. People are willing to die for a belief, whether that is a religion, or an ideal (democracy, freedom of speech etc), but also willing to invest huge amounts of money in the continued existence of others (including those terminally ill) because we implicitly seem to hold the idea that life is 'sacred' (or rather: that a living person has an essence that makes the person whom he is, and is irreplacable, and that therefore the existence of the person is prefered more than using that same amount of money to pay for hospital equipment that could save the lives of many more people) and shouldn't be thrown away.
And of course, the original studies of psychological essentialism posit that it serves as an essential tool in our cognitive make-up: it helps us to categorize things, which would be impossible if we didn't believe that something remains what it is, even if changed.
Posted by: AdrianT | September 8, 2009 9:32 AM
Born to believe?! No way.
To hell with all this - I prefer to take inspiration from that great 70's disco philosopher, Patrick Hernandez. (I have no clue if it made it to the Billboard charts but it was big in europe anyway...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVgM7qeAlko
...born to be alive ;-)))
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 9:47 AM
Arno@291,
I don't see that any of the things you list as advantages require essentialism, rather than the beliefs that many things have a degree of stability over time; that some of our classifications coincide with real discontinuities in the world (e.g. any existing free-living organism is either human or non-human - at present there are no doubtful cases); and that even where there are no such clear boundaries, then as Edmund Burke said: "While no man may draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are on the whole tolerably distinguishable.".
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 8, 2009 10:01 AM
Pilty @ 234;
"Always a pleasure to enlighten a member of the fair sex."
Watch yourself there. That statement comes accross as being rather condescending toward women in general. You presume to 'enlighten' Janine while knowing little about her. Methinks you might be in serious danger of a verbal backside-kicking from the self proclaimed 'vile bitch' herself. Then again, if Intelligent Designer is into that kind of thing, I make no assumptions about the proclivities of your august self.
"Couldn't the same be said about any system including secular democracy? They all have their rituals, icons, holy texts and heretics."
You may have a point here, but only to a certain degree. Democracy can only function if it has some mechanism of control over its populous. Without law, no society can acheive stability.
Having said this however, secular democracy is, in theory at least, ultimately answerable to its people unlike religious authority structures that place themselves above public accountability since their draw their supposed authority from a conveniently nebulous concept of god. Communism claims to act in the name of the 'Peoples' Replublic' or the 'Workers Utopia' or the 'Revolution' while effectively 'deifying' these concepts and deliberately seperating them from the actual interests of the common citizen in order to propogate a pseudo-technocracy where those who claim they 'know better' are empowered to administer society on behalf of the 'people' without ever consulting the public on any policy. Fascism pulls the same trick by similarly elevating the concept of the State itself and in some cases identifying this state with a single individual dictator who is considered to embody the 'spirit of the nation'. Religion's equivilent is the entrenchment of the god concept in the political sphere in order to accrue temporal authority.
We might ask does democracy fetishize the concept of the popular will in the same way? Up to a point it does, but when you have to win re-election every few years to maintain power the effect is limited.
"Even if all that were true, technological advances have rendered modern warfare incomparably more destructive."
Again, this is true but along with more powerful weapons our capacity to comprehend the consequences of their use has also grown. Imagine Ghengis Khan or Alexander the Great in possession of a few hundred nukes. With a modern understanding of nuclear winter and radiation they would doubtless have the sense to avoid their actual use, but without such knowledge they would hardly restrain themselves on the basis of humanitarian concerns. Some weapons have been rendered almost universally illegal, not because of their potential to exterminate our race but because they are considered to be too inhumane. Look at the outcry over the use of white phosphorous in the recent Israel/Lebenon war or the outlawing of cluster bombs. While it was true that the Pope outlawed the cross bow at one point in the medieval period this was done more in pursuit of balance of power issues than modernistic limited war concerns. I may be wrong in believing that we have evolved more stringent standards of ethics in warfare over time, but given the ever growing potency of modern weaponry we had all better hope I am not. It is hardly as though religion has a grand track record in the responsible use of force.
"Not necessarily. Depends on what you mean by 'limitation'."
The state maintains a (nominal at least) monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In a state of nature, it is doubtful that two persons with dissenting opinions could have a discussion such as ours in a peaceable fashion. If person 'A' was offended by the opinions held by person 'B'. There would be nothing to stop person 'A' from murdering person 'B'. Even in a system of wereguild, you can only extract the bloodprice if you and your tribe have the strength to do so. Equally, if person 'A' then encountered person 'C' who they wanted to 'know' in the biblical sense then nothing would stop them if they had the power to force their attentions on person 'C'. None of the above seems very civilised to me. The majority of law concerns itself with the prevention of just such unjustified application of force by one person or group of people upon another. Without the certainty of the sheild of law there would be little time for art, literature or science.
Posted by: RHM | September 8, 2009 10:18 AM
Thanks to ukskeptic @ #264 for the link.
Hood wrote:
"Jonathan thanked me and said that he would run the piece past me on Saturday for my approval. He didn’t.
As Saturday night passed, I thought that they had probably decided to drop the piece as it did not fit with the simple “Born to Believe in God” angle that he wanted to push when we initially spoke. So imagine my horror to read the title of the piece in the Sunday Times."
Hood is saying he was aware of the author's intent to misdirect yet horrified by the result? Is he really that naive? He fed the snake and it bit him. Oh my.
Misdirection masquerading as jounalism; misusing science and the words of scientists to prop up the beliefs of the misguided - again. It's tiresome and too prevalent, and should not be allowed to stand without rebuttal, even if it may seem redundant.
So, thanks for another great post PZ and to the authors of the many exceptional comments (delusional whackjobs not included).
Posted by: MK | September 8, 2009 10:24 AM
So they think males can not resist the urge to rape a woman whenever they see one? Being hard wired for something (even if it is), doesn't give you license to practice it.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 10:28 AM
Dear Strange Gods Before Me,
"I think it's time we imagine how to take care of each other, instead of waiting for some better day that may never come."
In light of the core Christian messages of caring for others, forgiveness, and hope, I couldn't agree with you more!
(but I will also agree that too many Christians, especially fundamentalist ones who choose to focus on arcane and irrelevant ideas mined from various corners of the Bible, are still blind to this core message of loving and taking care of each other)
Posted by: Drosera | September 8, 2009 10:31 AM
If belief in god is hardwired, then why does god demand of us that we have faith? Is he confused, or what?
But seriously. I don't know if the original article really argues that belief in the supernatural is hardwired, rather than a general heuristic that assigns meaning to patterns. If it does, then I would say that this is one of those articles that fill a much needed gap in the literature.
How does the author of this silly stuff imagine that a concept like 'the supernatural' could be encoded in our DNA? Or did he finally hit upon an explanation for all that junk DNA that we are carrying in our genes?
Posted by: SEF | September 8, 2009 10:32 AM
@ MK #296:
Yes, many of them (perhaps, scarily, through personal projection) really do believe that. Hence fundy Islam, fundy Christianity and fundy Judaism (and others?) all insisting that females cover themselves up. They don't have the wit to imagine or recognise that not everyone lacks self-control as much as they themselves do (and hence that they're the ones who need to be shut away, rather than all those tempting womenfolk).
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 10:36 AM
Tulse,
"As for the original article, I really don't see how humans being hardwired for belief is helpful at all to the religious, at least in the Christian tradition. The Christian god supposedly gave humans free will to believe or not, and surely a genetic instinct to believe would undercut that element that we keep hearing is so crucial to true faith. Indeed, I'd argue that any evidence that we have an inborn tendency to religious belief to be evidence against a Christian god."
As a Christian, I would have to side with you after considering this reasoning. I do subscribe to people being created free, so this would then mean that having a tendency to believe in God is not hardwired. In fact, I believe that a rational atheism (or, a belief that God may not likely exist) is a perfectly respectable and reasonable outcome of our freedom to believe in what we wish.
It's only when I read the hardcore certainty of people who insist that God cannot possibly exist that I recoil, as that is as patently unreasonable as the assertion that God must certainly exist. Extremism is either case is sadly lacking in reason and logic... not to mention imagination and intellectual curiosity.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Kristofer,
I really don't care what the "core Christian messages" are though. We ought to do it because it's right, not just because you found some pleasant myths in a dusty old book.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 10:44 AM
Would you care to name such a person ?
Only I am not aware of anyone making such a claim. PZ doesn't. Richard Dawkin's doesn't.
So just who do you think is making such a claim ?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 10:46 AM
I met this atheist one time at band camp.
Posted by: MarkW | September 8, 2009 10:47 AM
Kristofer Layon:
See?
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 10:47 AM
Feynmaniac,
"Sheesh, I wish before these people start their sophomoric rants about what scientists think they actually spend some time reading what scientists actually think."
And people railing against religion might want to do the same thing, and understand what most religious people think. Because if you did, you would come to the realization that most Christians like myself are just as dismissive of fundamentalism and Biblical inerrancy as you are.
And really, that's exactly the point of my examples regarding science: that it's a realm of inquiry where, when practiced honestly and openly, it is ripe with disagreement, debate, and wide ranges of interpretation. Yes, *interpretation*: scientists disagree on the meaning of facts and experimental outcomes all of the time, just like people of faith who debate religion do.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 10:49 AM
So Kristofer, are you in a better mood today? Because last night you came in here acting quite the flaming asshole.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 10:50 AM
SGBM, I would go further than 'because it is right'. With humans being social creatures, our survival depends on having these qualities. And I do get so very tired of the religious claiming these qualities solely for the members of their sect.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 10:53 AM
Nope, apparently not. You're still being a condescending ass.
Most of us come from liberal Christian backgrounds. We already know all this shit.
No, it's not "just like" that at all. Scientists have a way of resolving the disputes by further experiments. Religious people still can't decide whether God is unitary or trinitary. And you have no way of resolving it, because you have zero evidence one way or the other, zero evidence even that there is a God at all.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 10:53 AM
The is a significance difference between debate in science and debate in theology.
In science there is a final arbiter of who is right: reality. Theology has no such arbiter.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 10:55 AM
That too, Janine.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 11:01 AM
And really, that's exactly the point of my examples regarding science: that it's a realm of inquiry where, when practiced honestly and openly, it is ripe with disagreement, debate, and wide ranges of interpretation. Yes, *interpretation*: scientists disagree on the meaning of facts and experimental outcomes all of the time, just like people of faith who debate religion do. - Kristofer Layon
The difference is, scientists have developed systematic methods and institutions for error-correction - and these methods themselves are subject to revision in the light of experience. Hence, science does actually advance: disagreement occurs where it should - at the frontiers between knowledge and the unknown; and hence also, scientists from very different cultures can reach agreement on the facts. There is absolutely nothing of this kind in religion - there are no error-correcting methods, and it's all based on claims to authority, the interpretation of "sacred" texts, and personal "revelations". The Emperor is completely naked.
Posted by: SEF | September 8, 2009 11:05 AM
@ Matt Penfold #309:
Yes. Science is all about trying to find new, better ways of "appealing" to reality. Religion is all about trying to use old, bad ways of being the bogus authority to whom others are forced to appeal.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 11:05 AM
Aratina,
"We have this god meme that we like to dump everything supernatural onto, but we go there too fast. One supernatural belief does not make a god. You have to have a plethora of supernatural beliefs first and then link them all together to have a god."
Actually, for most Christians, I don't think we dwell much on supernatural beliefs at all. And that's where critics of Christianty (or any religion) frontload the debate with erroneous assertions about how religious people think and believe, which really makes their refutations of God and faith fall far short of being meaningful or effective.
And, this makes it so incredibly easy for me to refute: I'm a Christian, and focus on the core Christian messages of forgiveness, hope, caring for others, and boldly crossing social boundaries to advocate for justice and peace. There's nothing supernatural about any of this. Furthermore, I'm a Christian and either dismiss or severely devalue any supernatural aspects of Christianity that have little (if not nothing) to do with the core Christian messages that I've outlined here.
"...our lives will continue to have meaning built on shared experiences and we will still form self-selecting social groups without theism or religion"
Shared experiences that lead people to form social groups with a common set of beliefs and values: that's the very definition of religion, Aratina!
Which is exactly why you as an atheist, and I as a Christian, have so much more in common than you suggest.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 11:16 AM
What the hell is a god if not an ill defined supernatural entity?
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 11:17 AM
Shared experiences that lead people to form social groups with a common set of beliefs and values: that's the very definition of religion, Aratina! - Kristofer Layon
No, it isn't. That you can say such a thing indicates either extraordinary ignorance, or outright dishonesty. The core definitions of religion all include a reference to supernatural beliefs. Under your definition, trades unions, political parties, pressure groups would all be religions.
the core Christian messages of forgiveness, hope, caring for others, and boldly crossing social boundaries to advocate for justice and peace
Historically, these "core Christian messages" have been less in evidence among those calling themselves Christians than intolerance, authoritarianism and hate. There is plenty of those, for that matter, in the New Testament - let alone the Old.
Posted by: kamaka | September 8, 2009 11:19 AM
Actually, for most Christians, I don't think we dwell much on supernatural beliefs at all.
Our father, who art in heaven...
Posted by: SEF | September 8, 2009 11:24 AM
@ Kristofer Layon #313:
False. That's the definition of culture, not religion! In particular, you're espousing a cultural philosophy of "niceness" which you merely mislabel as Christianity (in order to pretend to have a monopoly on niceness and not be recognised as a nutter).
Religion is a set of cultural rituals and (unevidenced) beliefs based around appealing to (non-existent) powerful supernatural beings. If it doesn't involve magic (in thought, ritual and entities), it isn't really religion.
In addition, modern (evolved) religions typically misrepresent the nature of those imagined beings as good, while simultaneously describing them in ways which any sane and honest person would recognise as evil.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 11:24 AM
Janine,
"With humans being social creatures, our survival depends on having these qualities. And I do get so very tired of the religious claiming these qualities solely for the members of their sect."
Actually, many people seem to live quite well (at least by some measures) being uncaring, not generous, staying in their comfort zones instead of crossing social boundaries, not forgiving others, and not being hopeful. Just look around you.
So I would argue that to dismiss Christian messages as being merely common sense and logical is oversimplifying the human experience, given the number of people who don't embrace these ideas.
And too bad that you are tired of Christians embracing things that you also embrace. Why do atheists have to try to make Christians out to be wackos in order to disagree with them, and then you grow tired when many Christians are too similar to you? Basically, you frame the field of debate in a way that we can't win, right? We're either crazy or tiresome. That seems pretty unfair.
But I will agree with you in one sense: I also dismiss Christians who stake a claim that the core messages of Christianity are *solely* the intellectual property of Christianity. That's utterly bogus.
And that's precisely my point: a person who believes in atheism, and a person who believes in Christianity, yet fundamentally believe in a similar set of philosophical beliefs and goals are, in fact, much more similar than dissimilar. So why can't this be embraced and celebrated instead of denied or. when all else fails, seen as "tiresome"? What kind of bitterness and negativity fuel such a perspective that sharing common ground in beliefs is seen as tiresome?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 11:25 AM
Really? Prayer, holy water, communion, confession, the resurrection (the core belief of christianity)... every ONE of these is specifically supernatural.
Remove them and what you have is no longer religion... it's a country club.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 11:32 AM
"I have hardwired bits in my brain, I am sure,"
Couldn't have said it better myself. . . :-)
Your arrogance and obnoxiousness sure seems to be hardwired into your brain P. Z.
Do enjoy these Ad*Busted Freedom From Religion Foundation "FreeThought" Atheist Bus Campaign ads.
http://the-wonderful-wizard-of-uus.blogspot.com/2009/09/freedom-from-religion-foundation.html
A few more funny ones may be found on The Emerson Avenger blog.
Adios,
Robin Edgar aka The Emerson Avenger
Posted by: Silva | September 8, 2009 11:32 AM
I want my former church to turn into a country club. It has a great lawn for golf. We could turn the Madonna statue into a mini-golf prop for the kiddoes, and there's already a bar in the back, wherever they keep all that wine.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 11:33 AM
Layon,
We are still waiting for you to tell us who these atheists are who state there is certainly no god.
Do I take you failure to tell us is a tacit admission on your part you you made it up ?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 11:33 AM
What is wrong with your reading comprehension?
She said: "And I do get so very tired of the religious claiming these qualities solely for the members of their sect."
Why do Christians have to lie about atheists' ideas, say asinine things like "I can't decide whether atheists are hilarious, or simply pathetic", and then act surprised that they're treated like assholes just for acting like assholes?
You came in here lying and insulting everyone. Hey guess what. That's tiresome, Kristofer. Are you going to think about what you did?
Posted by: Drosera | September 8, 2009 11:38 AM
Okay, so the newspaper article did give a distorted view of the book (not an article as I said @298).
In his book Supersense, Bruce Hood argues more or less what I suggested @298: that we have a tendency to assign meaning to patterns.
I haven't read the book, but on Hood's website there is a summary, which shows that Hood is not above hyping his ideas himself:
This is hardly better than the newspaper crap about hardwired belief in god. Supernatural beliefs are essential in binding us together? No wonder that the religious crowd is delighted by this stuff.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 11:38 AM
Wow, Robin Edgar is the most obnoxious and insulting Unitarian Universalist I've ever met.
I'm truly shocked. I've always seen better behavior from UUs. I won't hold this one asshole against the whole church, but I'm still shocked.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 11:40 AM
Kristofer -
You're still making a category error... the part I highlighted above? Those qualities can be easily used to describe many chrsitians, or non-christians. The qualities themselves do not require a belief system to be displayed or rejected. Same as the so-called "positive qualities" of christianity. These qualities, both positive and negative, existed in humanity long before christianity ever existed.
Posted by: marilove | September 8, 2009 11:41 AM
I remember when I was a teenager, maybe 16 or 17, and was sitting around while some of my extended family were talking. They were talking about an "atheist" and how sad it was. I didn't grow up in a particularly religious household -- god was mentioned sometimes, but not often, and I'm still not 100% sure my dad believes -- and hadn't really taken time to think about how I felt about it all.
I remember sitting there, listening to them, and feeling uncomfortable. "Sad? Why is that sad? Do I believe?" And I started thinking about it. I think it was then that I started to realize that the idea of some man in the sky just did not make sense to me. That was a good 10 years ago, and a few years ago I moved solidly into the “atheist” camp.
It feels good.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 11:43 AM
Actually, many people seem to live quite well (at least by some measures) being uncaring, not generous, staying in their comfort zones instead of crossing social boundaries, not forgiving others, and not being hopeful. Just look around you.
Why, thank you! I did not notice the murderers, rapists, thieves, homophobes, warmongers and all of the other elements of humanity that causes me despair. Despite that, on the whole, humanity survives, in part, on those qualities of caring for others, forgiveness, and hope. If they were to disappear, our species would be extinct within a generation.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 11:46 AM
@Kristofer Layon
People don't have to even think about supernatural agency because it comes naturally. That is the point of "supersense" from what I can tell. For instances of supernatural belief, you likely pray and believe that your prayerful thoughts can be tapped into by your god; or perhaps when the wind is at your back and something goes your way, your god played a role in making it happen. If bad things occur after you do something you feel guilty about, is it a punishment or even a gentle nudging from your deity to get you back on the right path? Or take Francis Collins' frozen tri-icicle moment of clarity which he believed a god had crafted as a sign. In Minnesota, you probably don't live in an environment where stepping out in the woods alone will get you killed, you don't likely need to worry about crops or hunting to survive, and if a competitor challenges you at work you won't die over loss of the job. But if you don't have any "personal Jesus" moments, how can you be religious and call yourself Christian? Maybe you are a Christian atheist, but you might as well be a Harry Potter atheist in that case. Religions are cultural products, yes, but they include supernatural beliefs at their core, and monotheistic religions have a belief in a god at their core. The Democratic Party is not a religion because it is not based on supernatural beliefs; your definition of religion is incomplete. I am not meaning to suggest atheists and theists are different in any substantial way other than the theists' beliefs in a god or gods.Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 11:56 AM
:Wow, Robin Edgar is the most obnoxious and insulting Unitarian Universalist I've ever met.
Make that X Unitarian strange gods before me, even *excommunicated* Unitarian for daring to publicly expose and denounce the intolerant and abusive anti-religious and bigotry of the "fundamentalist atheist" subset of Unitarian*Universalists by peacefulkly protesting against it in front of the Unitarian Church of Montreal.
:I'm truly shocked.
ROTFLMU*UO!
You read this obnoxious and insulting blog and your "shocked" that I respond to obnoxiousness and insults with some obnoxiousness and insults of my own? Didn't you know that that kind of tit-for-tat behavior is hardwired into the human brain? :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9K5xpWrg_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mFj3zS2sTU
:I've always seen better behavior from UUs.
I haven't. . . I have seen and heard and even felt far worse behavior from *some* U*Us.
:I won't hold this one asshole against the whole church, but I'm still shocked.
I won't hold this one asshole against the whole church, but I'm still shocked. . .
http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2007/02/rev-victoria-weinsteins-sodomy-fantasy.html
Well not really. Very little in the way of obnoxious and insulting behavior on the part Unitarian Universalists, including obnoxious and insulting U*U clergy, shocks me these days.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 11:58 AM
Damn, Pharyngulites are fast! I took some time replying to Kristofer and I see many other people have said it much better than I already. :) If Kristofer Layon keeps coming around here, we'll have another atheist convert soon. One of the biggest roadblocks to apostasy for thinking Christians is the lack of communication with atheists. The possibility of rejecting the whole kit and caboodle of Christianity isn't acceptable within religious circles, even liberal ones, but here it is the norm.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | September 8, 2009 11:58 AM
Kristopher @313: "And, this makes it so incredibly easy for me to refute: I'm a Christian, and focus on the core Christian messages of forgiveness, hope, caring for others, and boldly crossing social boundaries to advocate for justice and peace. There's nothing supernatural about any of this. Furthermore, I'm a Christian and either dismiss or severely devalue any supernatural aspects of Christianity that have little (if not nothing) to do with the core Christian messages that I've outlined here."
Well, I went through a similar phase. But I realised that there was not much point in calling myself a "Christian" if I didn't believe any of the doctrines of Christianity. And it bothered me to assert belief to creeds and doctrines that I thought were false.
"Humanist" will do for me. It captures the caring, hope, justice and all the good stuff you mentioned without belief in talking donkeys, metaphysical "sin", magic, dead people resurrecting, etc.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 12:01 PM
Kristofer, what kind of Christian are you, anyway? What does Christianity give you that secular humanism doesn't, that makes you call yourself one? I'm honestly curious, because so far you've disavowed yourself of every belief that is religious in nature at all, let alone Christian. If your answer is "I'm a Christian because I like to go to church on Sunday and hang out with my friends", you're really not a "Christian" by the definition of the word. The definition requires a belief in the divinity of Christ, which is squarely in the realm of the supernatural.
As for understanding how religious people think, get bent. It's already been pointed out to you that a large number of commenters here come from Christian backgrounds. As for your grammar and its inherent meaning, it may be true that "most Christians like [myself]" are dismissive of fundamentalism, but if you meant to say "most Christians, like [myself]", that is absolutely not true. It amazes me when I hear liberal Christians trying to convince people that most Christians are just like them, when all it takes is looking at the numbers of adherents of each sect to blow that idea to smithereens.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 8, 2009 12:01 PM
Kristofer Layon,
As sgbm mentioned, many here were brought up Christian. I myself was and thought of myself as a Christian until I hit my teens. Even after that I spent 4 years in a Catholic high school. While in my own family their is a range starting from fundamentalist Seven Day Adventist to nonpracticing Catholic, it's (almost) entirely Christian. Yes, I know most Christians aren't fundies, and I think (with a few exceptions) most people here would agree. While the mental gymnastics the liberal Christians perform when the topic of the Old Testament comes up is amusing, at least they are embarrassed by it unlike the fundies. However, when it comes to the gospels and Jesus they stop with the "it's just a metaphor" game.
Anyway, I'm not sure why many of you Christians think Christianity is like some sort of esoteric topic few know about. It after all has ~1.8 billion followers.
I have already told you the difference between the two, as have others here: in science there is there is experimental verification. Religion doesn't have anything remotely like that.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | September 8, 2009 12:05 PM
If atheism is "fighting against nature," I think that makes it MORE necessary for us to be atheist.
Why?
Because that is essentially what we. Nature wants to kill us.
My conclusion? The fact that atheism might be "against nature" makes a pretty solid argument for looking in to it.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 12:08 PM
Aratina,
"I am not meaning to suggest atheists and theists are different in any substantial way other than the theists' beliefs in a god or gods."
I guess this is as much agreement as I can expect on a blog that is quite centered on atheism. =) Thanks for this statement.
Yes, it's true: my Christianity is also centered on my belief that there might be a God. Or, more accurately, that I believe in the possibility that God is real.
But it's actually quite a humbling belief. I don't insist that God is real, and I don't pretend to fully understand God. I don't think God is a he with a big beard, sitting in a place above me called heaven. And I'm intrigued by the idea of God coming to our world to be human (Jesus), but I can't fully grasp it, prove it, nor fault people for doubting it. I doubt it all the time, and wrestle with that doubt. But in the end, I believe that if God may be real, perhaps he can do things that I can't fully believe. It's just part of having this kind of faith --- it's not something that would make much sense to a non-Christian, I suppose.
I hope this isn't seen as too crazy and illogical. I see it as more of a comfort with the unknown and unseen, and less of a pursuit of and insistence of things that are unseen. I'm not dogmatic about the supernatural aspects of Christianity; indeed, it seems silly to be so, especially when the supernatural aspects have little to do with Christian life.
Finally, prayer and agency are indeed some of the most hard to grasp aspects of Christianity. I don't believe that prayer is a pipeline to God in a way that expects results, at least in ways that we should anticipate or assume. If God answers prayers, the answers may indeed be incomplete and rely on much human intervention. And if God acts in the world, he/she does so as depicted in the Bible: most of the time, through people.
Finally, if God is real and did create the world, I have no doubt that the process of creation has been unfolding for millennia and involves evolution. I don't find my Christian beliefs to be at odds with nature, scientific evidence of biology, nor scientific processes and methods.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 12:09 PM
From the Times Online article - In one study he found even ardent atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer, because of a superstitious belief that an individual’s personality could be stored in their organs. “This shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains,” he said.
God forbid that any "ardent atheist" aka *devout* atheist aka "fundamentalist atheist" should ever accept an organ transplant from a believer aka "Faith Head" eh? :-)
By the way P.Z. that "nonsense" that you are ranting about here was produced by a *scientist* and is supposedly *scientific*, so instead of obnoxiously and insulting ranting on about that "science* here how about if you challenge the methodology and *scientific* conclusions of the *science* of those studies?
Or is it possible that you just aren't that ahem "Bright" P.Z.?
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 12:10 PM
It's one thing to sit right here and talk shit. But I was shocked that a UU would go around deliberately looking to cause trouble and insult people in their own spaces.
But no surprise, you're such an asshole that they excommunicated you for it!
Well, my opinion of the Unitarian Universalist church just went up again. Good for them, keeping out the riffraff.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 12:16 PM
Once again you've misunderstood atheists, Kristofer.
I believe in the possibility that God is real.
I just don't think that it's a particularly large possibility.
As condescending and rude as you've been in this conversation, Kristofer, I think you could stand a bit more humbling.
And I hope you aren't implying that atheists have nothing to revere outside our own little egos. I normally wouldn't feel that I have to ask this, but you're being such a jerk, it seems quite possible coming from you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 12:20 PM
He did the same thing earlier when he said: "It's only when I read the hardcore certainty of people who insist that God cannot possibly exist that I recoil, as that is as patently unreasonable as the assertion that God must certainly exist. Extremism is either case is sadly lacking in reason and logic... not to mention imagination and intellectual curiosity".
It is clear that he does not understand atheism at all. It is very clear he has not read "The God Delusion" as he clearly is not aware that Dawkins' is only "almost certain there is no god". The almost seems to have escaped his notice.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 8, 2009 12:23 PM
Wow, how big a dick do you have to be to get excommunicated by Unitarians?!
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 12:26 PM
In Edgar's case probably a really really tiny one.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 12:27 PM
I think Kristofer just outed himself as an atheist. Way to go, Kristofer!
If it makes you feel uncomfortable, go ahead and say "agnostic" for awhile. But based on what you've said, you're definitely not a Christian. Not even close.
Posted by: Lynna | September 8, 2009 12:31 PM
Well, I'm late to the party thanks to spending three days in the backcountry of Idaho, where there is no mobile phone service and no internet connection.
First an OT aside, Alan B. and Josh, I took photos of some rare Jasperoid formations. Let me know if you want them sent to you. Also have one sample I could mail out.
Lots of commenters noted that the potshot aimed at Dawkins was way off target, but the one above, from comment #2, is great. The moth-to-flame explanation shows Dawkins at his best as an educator, and I've used the example as a corrective to "If God didn't want us to know and love him, he wouldn't have put a yearning for him in my heart."
I hope Dawkins, PZ, et. al. know that some of their best work is multiplied by we lesser folk happily ripping them off in conversations with our evangelical nemeses.
As for the dangerous footholds sought by Satan, that attitude is scary-real in my community. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd ban books. As it is, a gift of a science-related book may be refused with, "A scientist without God is an open door for Satan." Satan, is, apparently, both a foothold and a doorway.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 8, 2009 12:31 PM
Yep. The story goes looking for a conflict--as reporters are wont to do--preferably with a nice, safe target, like, say, a known critic of certain powerful institutions, of course--and whips it up jes' as frothy as it can manage on that hamhanded distortion, pretty much.
Kinda pathetic, really. And quelle fucking surprise. Let's ignore for a moment that such indoctrination and such a predisposition would work quite comfortably hand in hand--let's not explore, indeed, the dimensions of religious practice the story thus might uncover. Let's not say, even, that religions might also conceivably exploit just such a predisposition, in performing said indoctrination--something which also rather fits nicely with Dawkins' view of things, too... oh no...
(/I mean, that would take balls. As. If.)
Posted by: co | September 8, 2009 12:32 PM
I don't find my Christian beliefs to be at odds with nature, scientific evidence of biology, nor scientific processes and methods.
Given that, and your earlier statement about the comfort afforded you by your beliefs, and views of God, then it sounds like you are -- as Carlie says -- just a small mindset away from atheism.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 12:32 PM
I would be surprised if KL (a gopher) did not read The God Delusion. It seems he is using Dawkins talking points through a liberal Christian perspective.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 8, 2009 12:34 PM
This all you need to know about Robin Edgar:
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | September 8, 2009 12:35 PM
Forgive me for jumping in without reading the whole thread, but I just stumbled home from the AT yesterday evening, and the throughput here is just too huge to have any hope of catching up after a whole weekend away.
That said...
Janine:
I suspect your correspondent is not claiming that Christian theology doesn't "dwell much on supernatural beliefs," but rather that most nominally professing Christians don't dwell much on Christian theology. I suspect that's true: I suspect that a numerical majority of people who self-identify as Christian in the U.S. are middle-class members of mainstream churches, and a majority of them never think about God or any other aspect of Christian theology except when they're actually in church (and maybe even then only when they're actually listening to the sermon). It's no secret that for many, churchgoing is really somewhere between a Sunday social club and a relatively mindless family tradition. For many (and I suspect, the majority) of nominal Christians, the Christian theological narrative is only a frame story that creates a context for social activity, relatively painless charity, occasional public singing, and a handful of fun holidays; regardless of the exhortations from the pulpit, most of them don't really give over their lives to Christ, and make ever decision in that light.
Naturally, though, those "social" Christians are not the ones we hear from in politics and the news. They're the true "silent majority."
And, of course, it's a pretty poor defense of Christianity to claim that most Christians don't pay any significant attention to their ostensible core beliefs. If the best thing you can say about a social group is that they don't really believe the one thing that's their excuse for being a group in the first place, that's not exactly ringing praise.
It also doesn't mitigate the harm done by actual True Believers@reg; who try to ram their superstition into every aspect of public life. The nice, good-neighbor, nontheological "Christians" aren't as harmless as they seem, because they give political cover to radical theists who are, at heart, the agents of autocracy (could we call it theoautocracy?).
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 12:35 PM
He must have just ignored the chapter entitled "Why there is almost certainly no god". That or the copy he read has a misprint on every second page in the chapter with "almost" missing.
On a more serious level, it is hard to see how someone could read "The God Delusion" and come away thinking Dawkins is certain there is no god.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 12:42 PM
Matt Penfold, I also see him using Pascal's wager.
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
September 8, 2009 12:45 PM
"Fundamentalist atheist." I like that.
I'm also a fundamentalist aSanta, and a fundamentalist aEasterBunny.
Next week I will have to not slaughter a bull in accordance with my non-belief of the Bible. My fundamentalism also means I will have to not praise Jesus. Also, I am not required to speak in tongues to draw attention to how holy I am at the church I am in no way obligated by my fundamental lack of faith to attend.
It's tough being a fundamentalist atheist, what with all the restrictions and demands we can safely ignore.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 12:46 PM
Kristofer, I'm sorry that you seem to be having a difficult time understanding what people are saying. Let me explain:
These are not "Christian messages." They do not come from Christianity alone. The dogma of the Christian faith has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of these ideas. I know you recognize this later, but somehow you seem to be arguing both that they are and aren't exclusive to Christianity.
Where we agree, I have no problem. The issue is that you seem to think that the things we agree on come from your belief system and justify all the nonsense that comes with it.
First of all, you don't "believe" in atheism. That would be like learning to not play the piano.
Second, perhaps the bitterness, negativity, and labeling of your views as "tiresome" comes from the fact that you're being smugly dismissive, and essentially saying that we might as well be Christians if we're going to be nice people. It is tiresome to be told repeatedly about just how similar we really are when the REASONS for our similar philosophies are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED. Yours comes from dogma and a book. Ours comes from THINKING FOR OURSELVES.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | September 8, 2009 12:47 PM
So many errors, so little time to note them all.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 8, 2009 12:55 PM
So.... I can't interest you in my home-study course materials for that? AJ's How To Not Play The Piano--Vols. I-IV...?
(/You can also get it on Books on Blank Tape, if you find that more suits your lifestyle... Aaaand for an extra $4.95, we'll throw in How To Not Play the Banjo, the Bagpipes, or the Accordion... And Why.)
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 1:05 PM
That would be a damnable shame, to reject the love and grace of Keyboard Cat, son of Ceiling Cat.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 1:12 PM
Loved that.
Posted by: qwerty | September 8, 2009 1:25 PM
Hood tells a whiny tall tale about what the Times article actually said. He claims the reporters said or implied he had done "a study on atheism." He call this "factual errors [sic]"
They did not. They said Hood "found even ardent atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer ...". It sounds to me like he did a study about a cross section of individual from which he made a comment about atheists, now he is suffering from blabberer's regret.
Ironic that he titles his whiny post "I never said that."
Neither did they, Bruce. Grow a pair.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 1:30 PM
This isn't christianity... it's at best agnosticism, probably at this point fueled by Pascal's wager. Although, as others have pointed out, I suspect you may be closer to atheism... just not willing to cast off those shackles just yet.
Again, stop making the mistake of believing that most of us here aren't former chrisitians or other religious believers. Myself included (former Roman Catholic... I got better). And besides that, explain to me how what you described there is substantially different from belief in Greek mythology (from the perspective of an ancient Greek), keeping in mind that much of Greek mythology sprung from a need to explain that which they could not otherwise understand.
So again, why not believe in Greek mythology? Or any of the other countless religions that are available that provide "comfort with the unknown and unseen"? Or is it that it's just tough to pull yourself out of that which has been driven into you since you were old enough to remember? Again, I think you are closer to atheism than you are willing to admit.
It's been said before here... religion is a heavy suitcase. All you have to do is put it down.
Well, the unfortunate problem for you is that the essential literature that defines your christian beliefs IS at direct odds with nature and science. And so the question becomes, if you must reject some of that scripture in order to accept scientific explanations for nature, where do you draw the line? Christianity doesn't exist without the bible, and if the bible is wrong regarding the natural world, why accept its assertions about the supernatural world (i.e., god)? How does that make sense?
At some point you must accept that it makes more sense to throw it all out...
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Well, since people are still reading this one...
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/09/newspapers-are-born-to-exaggerate.html
Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 8, 2009 1:38 PM
Kristopher Layon - Since you are at the same university as PZ why don't you just walk up to him and tell him you think he's full of shit instead of godding up his blog?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | September 8, 2009 1:48 PM
Cuttlefish @ 360;
Another fantasic poem from the Atheist Bard! Bravo, sir. Bravo.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 8, 2009 2:08 PM
Run, fool, run with that goal post... But go too much further and you'll be in the next county, never mind out the stadium...
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 8, 2009 2:19 PM
Yeah, because a Christian Holy War killing twenty-million is exactly like a sharply worded reply to the editor of some specialty science journal with 10,000 subscribers... :snark:
Do you people EVER think... Seriously, some of us (like myself) were ordained in a major (or minor) faith. And we're not talking one of those "groovy organic hippie churches" where you become a priest with four tofu-turkey boxtops and $20.
And, as such, we have a broad and in-depth knowledge of matters religious to the specifics of our faith. And many of were scholarly beyond that and not only know our former sub-niche of faith, but have solid working knowledge of the hundreds of variations (by major grouping) of the vast stupidity that is religion.
And, by the way, disagreements in science (my wife is a scientist) are not like disagreements in religion. In science, you win or lose by the rules of parsimony as applied to your data.
In religion, the people with the bigger swords, or most charismatic leader, or deepest coffers tend to win...
Posted by: Lynna | September 8, 2009 2:22 PM
Bill Dauphin @349 wrote
I agree, Bill. But I'd like to add one point: Most people want something, anything, to remind them to be their better selves. They want something, anything, to force them to take the time to consider how the better aspects of their nature can be manifested, or perhaps encouraged. That they find this "something" in religion is more a testament to the pervasive nature of religion that to its efficacy in providing opportunities for self improvement.
For one thing, religions universally teach some bad behavior/attitudes along with the good stuff. And then there's that pesky unavoidable fact that each worshipper is focusing on his/her own version of God (all the while assuming that other congregants are in agreement). God is Love. God is the Blue Sky. God is Compassion. God is Me on a Good Day. God is the Republican Party. It's all pie-in-the-sky unfailingly contradicted by sacred texts and associated dogmas...and even more overwhelmingly contradicted by the differences between competing texts and dogmas.
If people feel that they can only aim to be their better selves in the context of religion, then an actual experience of becoming one's better self needs to be provided outside of religion. And it needs to be provided in a manner that encourages intellectual integrity. Sacrificing one's integrity is not a good trade-off, and any gains in the self-improvement category are temporary if you've sacrificed your integrity to get there.
Beyond the Sunday Social Club etc. that Bill mentions, and beyond the best-self goals, is the material success goal. People who are tightly networked in whatever theocracy is predominant will succeed in business. People outside the network may succeed in spite of the theocracy, but they will be an exception and their road to success will be rougher.
Posted by: Attila | September 8, 2009 2:48 PM
@ Leander
No I think there are some intellectual sadists here as well, who just have the belief, that sometimes stupidity needs to be painful.
Posted by: ben | September 8, 2009 3:08 PM
With the important difference that in science, the debates on the meanings of facts and experimental outcomes eventually lead to agreement on answers that are practically useful and which lead to fruitful new lines of inquiry, while in religion the meanings of such things are fruitlessly argued about forever, with no new knowledge developed (and occasional slaughters of people who others judge got the "wrong" answer).Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 8, 2009 3:11 PM
Wha…
If you want to have a private conversation with PZ, send him a fucking e-mail! The very point of a blog is to have a public conversation!
Are you, like, new on the Internet or something?
…Yeah. That was when Paul the Apostle's Epicurean upbringing got the "better" of him.
It was not an act at all.
At least that's by far the most parsimonious interpretation, isn't it?
Wow. That's almost beyond blogwhoring! Is it a self-parody?
And ostriches and rheas, apparently. Emus are another candidate.
What's more, when they introduced the requirement that all vowels must be indicated in the Qur'ān, 14 different versions had already delevoped… :-}
It is not a dialogue. We're sitting in a circle and talking, one at a time, and loud enough that the entire circle hears everything.
Posted by: roadrash548 | September 8, 2009 3:20 PM
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens at one of his numerous and brilliant debates: "We are pattern seeking animals, that's the good thing about us. Unfortunately, we are willing to accept conspiracy theory and junk theory over no theory."
Hardwired? Hardly.
Posted by: Pablo | September 8, 2009 3:38 PM
They could just watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure every week instead.
"Be excellent to each other."
But to the topic...I guess I must be degenerate or something. When it comes to being an atheist, the reason I quit believing was because I realized it went completely against my nature as a thinking, rational being. It didn't make sense that, in all other aspects, I thought rationally, but that I should abandon that when it comes to religion. So I became an atheist because it was more consistent with my nature than some made up "just so" story.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | September 8, 2009 3:38 PM
PZ, read all the way to the bottom:
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=184
Posted by: Tony | September 8, 2009 3:48 PM
I'm curious if anyone who read Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" found it similar to this kind of thinking. Certainly I think the article goes too far in saying that we're *hardwired* to believe in bullshit, but the idea that religion and indeed any social meme CAN be useful is not unreasonable. A study that confirmed we have a *bias* for believing BS is no more offensive than our appendix or our third molars.
Three points before people flame me for accomodation:
1) Such a view says NOTHING about whether what the religion's claims is true.
2) Such a view says NOTHING about the relative good to harm ratio of religion. What's good for my group might wipe yours out. It might even wipe out my group in the long run. The only things that makes memes persist are the properties they have that propagate them right now.
3) Atheism is STILL the justified position in the absence of corroborating evidence. Our ability to rise above our evolutionary shortcomings using only other abilities we've evolved is itself a triumph. We have, in a way, superseded our own limitations. The magnitude of that victory should feel far greater than any guilt we might feel over our dogma-craving residue.
Posted by: Daniel M | September 8, 2009 3:55 PM
@265: urge to kill...rising... *frothfrothfroth*
ARGH I can't believe they would say that!
Allowing your base animal instincts' ability to paint you warm fuzzy pictures to delude yourself with is NOT a good thing!
excuse me, I've just clawed half my monitor away and bitten the keyboard in two - I'm now typing by shorting contact pins with what's left of the cable...
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 3:58 PM
P.Z. is there real good reason why you can't post my response to Feynmaniac's question in comment #341?
If someone asks a question it seems only fair that I should be able to answer it.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 4:00 PM
Robin, if it has more than 3 links, it gets automatically held for moderation. Should pop up eventually.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 4:01 PM
Comment moderation was on for some reason when I submitted it. Perhaps because it contained a few URLs to supporting material. Maybe you could release it from "moderation" aka censorship. If it is somewhat off-topic you can thank your "followers" for asking off-topic questions. . .
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 4:05 PM
Thanks for the info Carlie. I kind of figured that out for myself as my comment above shows.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 4:06 PM
@Daniel M #373
I LOL'd. :)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 4:13 PM
Right... cause you came in here with on-topic, relevant conversation, correct?
Third line from your very first post (#320) to this thread (after a quote and a line of snark):
After which you followed up with a link to a blog post about Atheist Bus ads... off-topic indeed...
Piss off, Robin.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 8, 2009 4:17 PM
No need Edgar, we all know you're a huge dick (and a batshit crazy one too), you don't have to brag.Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 4:30 PM
Maybe you could release it from "moderation" aka censorship. - Robin Edgar
Your paranoia is showing. The "moderate if more than 3 links" applies to everyone. Repost it without so many links, or in parts, and it will get through.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 4:47 PM
What a bloody stupid and tedious git Robin is. This type of moderation is meant to capture spam. It is not for censorship. Has any post of yours been deleted? I am so sorry that most of the people here have the same reaction to you that your former UU comrades also have, open contempt and mocking.
Oh, wait, I am not sorry about that.
Fly, Robin, fly
Up, up to the sky
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | September 8, 2009 4:53 PM
My own experience includes a transformation from a rather orthodox believing christian, through a Layon-esque liberal belief in belief, to agnostocism, to finally admitting and embracing atheism.
FWIW, I think the tendency to hold on to the label and association with christianity is perhaps best understood as an aesthetic inclination; at least that is what it seemed to be for me. Finally, the cognitive dissonance and desire for intellectual honesty with myself and others moved me to leave the trappings and practice of my culturally inherited religion aside.
I still miss the music, the fellowship, and the ritual, but I'm happier being at peace with myself for acknowledging my atheism.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 5:08 PM
:This type of moderation is meant to capture spam.
I know what automated moderation of that type is intended for Vile Bitch, as should be clear from my follow-up comment. No "paranoia" involved.
:It is not for censorship.
It effectively becomes censorship if the comment is not released from moderation Vile Bitch.
:Has any post of yours been deleted?
One has yet to be released from moderation. . .
:I am so sorry that most of the people here have the same reaction to you that your former UU comrades also have, open contempt and mocking.
That's OK Vile Bitch. That's a two way street. . .
http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/search?q=bitch
For the record more and more UU bloggers are showing a healthy respect for The Emerson Avenger and my comments these days. I expect some of them even think The Wonderful Wizard of U*Us is kind of wonderful. :-)
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 5:15 PM
In response to several questions regarding "dogma" and "the Bible saying so":
1. Core Christian beliefs are hardly dogmatic. I made that clear already. Please re-read my comment about fighting poverty, crossing social boundaries, love, forgiveness, etc. (and I'm sorry that these are things shared by other faiths, too; I'm not the close-minded "these are mine, and *only* my beliefs" Christian that you insist that I need to be).
2. I, and the Christians I know, do not take the Bible literally, nor was it ever meant to be literal and infallible. (important historical note: *people* wrote the Bible) But yes, I can certainly appreciate that if you choose to believe that this is what it means to be Christian, than Christianity = craziness. But please stop telling me how to be a Christian, so then you can tell me that I'm a stupid Christian. That's a pretty unfair way to debate your way to success. Also, if you're going to debate the Bible with people, learn more about it first. Then you'll realize that it's actually a set of *many* books, of many genres.
3. Why do I keep "godding up" this blog? In an attempt to prove that Christians can participate in this debate, survive, and demonstrate that we actually don't believe much of what atheists insist that we believe. In short, the same reason that I participate in political debates with militant conservatives, and tell them that what they *say* I believe as a liberal is also wrong. It's simply defending truth and battling gross misconceptions. (and yes, this is probably futile)
4. Atheism isn't a belief: Well, yes it most certainly is. If you do not believe in the existence of something, that doesn't mean it's *not* a belief, merely because you label your belief as a belief in "nothing". It might justify your stance semantically, but it it philosophically meaningless. It's an utterly false argument, though it's one I can sort of understand. I mean, you're forced to try to make it, despite it making no logical sense. But Desmond Tutu refutes this better than I:
"We are always finding that we have to act as people of faith even when we are atheists. God has a wonderful sense of humor."
Indeed. =)
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 5:20 PM
It effectively becomes censorship if the comment is not released from moderation - Robin Edgar
No it doesn't. All you need to do is repost the content in parts.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 5:27 PM
I know what automated moderation of that type is intended for Vile Bitch, as should be clear from my follow-up comment. No "paranoia" involved.
Then why the fuck bring it up at all if you are not paranoid. You have never censored here yet as soon as one of your comments is held for moderation, you brought it up instead of waiting. Oh, but everyone is out to get you, well except for some UU members who are as cut off from reality as you are.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
Posted by: CJO | September 8, 2009 5:30 PM
If you do not believe in the existence of something, that doesn't mean it's *not* a belief, merely because you label your belief as a belief in "nothing". It might justify your stance semantically, but it it philosophically meaningless.
We hear it all the time, and it's BS. You're taking on a whole lot of beliefs, yourself, with this stance: your belief in the nonexistence of a pink leprechaun in your garden, your belief in the nonexistence of a just-slightly-paler shade of pink leprechaun in your garden, your belief in the nonexistence of a yet-just-a-smidge-paler shade of pink leprechaun in your garden... We can go on with pink for some time, but everyone knows leprechauns are green, right?
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | September 8, 2009 5:31 PM
KL wrote: Atheism isn't a belief: Well, yes it most certainly is. If you do not believe in the existence of something, that doesn't mean it's *not* a belief, merely because you label your belief as a belief in "nothing".
Sorry, but this is simply false. Atheism is a lack of belief in god's; no more, no less. Just because you are aesthetically inclined to cling to the cultural trappings of christianity and wish to call that belief, that does not empower you to define the absence of belief as a belief. Doing so only serves, I presume, to help justify your affection for belief by falsely proclaiming, "well everybody believes".
Posted by: IaMoL | September 8, 2009 5:33 PM
Only because the little voices in your head tell you so. My invisible make-believe friend had a great sense of humor too when I was a kid.Aren't you a little old for imaginary pals?
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 5:35 PM
Kristofer Layon,
By 'eck, but you're a self-satisfied git, Kristofer.
Core Christian beliefs are hardly dogmatic. I made that clear already. You claimed it. Not the same thing. Who are you to say what are and are not "core Christian beliefs". From what you have said, it's quite clear many Christians would not consider you one.
important historical note: *people* wrote the Bible
Well, well, and here's all us atheists thinking God wrote it.
if you're going to debate the Bible with people, learn more about it first.
If you hang around, you'll find there are plenty here (not me) who know a sight more about it than you do.
Atheism isn't a belief: Well, yes it most certainly is.
Agreed - in exactly the same sense as aleprachaunism is a belief.
Desmond Tutu refutes this better than I:
"We are always finding that we have to act as people of faith even when we are atheists. God has a wonderful sense of humor."
That's not a refutation of anything. And where the fuck does Tutu get off, presuming to speak for atheists?
Posted by: Marcus B. | September 8, 2009 5:41 PM
Kristofer Layon:
Have you tried to listen to the people who say what atheism is and isn't? Atheism isn't a belief in nothing. Who ever told you that atheists believe in nothing?
I do not believe that there are any gods. This does not mean that I actively disbelieve in gods, nor that I "believe in nothing".
I do not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, teapots in orbit around Mars, Flying Spaghetti Monsters et cetera. But I don't actively disbelieve in any of that either, and the fact that I don't believe that Russell's Teapot is out there doesn't mean that I "believe in nothing."
If someone shows me a unicorn I'll "believe in them" - that is, accept that they exist. It could happen, a horned equine isn't that far-fetched. If someone flies to Mars and shows me the teapot I'll accept that. If someone shows me good evidence of God Almighty I'll accept that He exists too.
But until such evidence exists I take the default position of non-belief in such entities. This does not constitute a "belief in nothing" nor is it a "belief" that they don't exist.
We all have that default position about almost everything undemonstrated. If you are a Christian you have the same kind of non-belief in almost everything I have, save for the Christian God. Does this mean that you have belief systems in regards to every single hypothetical? If you think so you have a very strange definition of the term "belief".
As have been pointed out previously there are many here who are very well-versed in the writings of the Bible, both "primary and secondary sources", as it were. Sure, there are a few rather ignorant people here, like me who has only read parts of it. But in general you'll find that people here are pretty knowledgeable about it.
Is there anywhere people on this blog has said something that makes it seem like we do not realize that the Bible is a collection of different books?
Posted by: Pete | September 8, 2009 5:53 PM
Is there an evolutionary reason why people enjoy story-telling? Just curious.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 5:54 PM
Kristofer, you keep saying "core Christian beliefs" when describing core humanistic beliefs. Core Christian beliefs are found in things like the creeds and belief statements of individual denominations. Whatever denomination you worship in has one. Even if you're at a "non-denominational" church, they also have a statement of belief. These all refer to what the religion believes about GOD, not about how people should treat each other. For pete's sake, look at the very word "Christian" for a moment. Doesn't that tell you something about the core belief of the religion?
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 5:54 PM
CJO,
"your belief in the nonexistence of a pink leprechaun in your garden"
Your example simply fits my argument just fine. Because no, I cannot prove that pink leprechauns do not exist if I chose to not believe that they do. And so it's a *belief* if I say that they do not. Which is exactly my point and that of Tutu as well: belief and faith are ubiquitous in all people, despite some people trying to deny that they are.
And to another who says "we get this argument all the time": well of course you do, because it's so obvious! I'm not claiming to be particularly novel with my logic: it's just blatantly obvious logic.
Finally, for people who seem to argue against rigid and shrill "Christian dogma": it seems to me that the absolute certainty with which some militant atheists insist that God cannot possibly exist (despite the lack of proof for such a belief) is far more dogmatic than my belief that God *might* exist, when I admit that I can't prove it. I can fully appreciate how many atheists would choose to not have faith in such possibility, but please spare us the dogmatic insistence that it's *impossible*.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 6:05 PM
Which is exactly my point and that of Tutu as well: belief and faith are ubiquitous in all people - Kristofer Layon
This is ridiculous nonsense. "Faith" is belief in something without evidence, or in spite of contrary evidence. If you want to use "belief" in such a wide sense that atheism and aleprachaunism are beliefs, OK. But claiming that the latter are "faiths" is plain dishonest. In that regard at least, you seem to be typical of the Christians who come here - although there are exceptions.
Posted by: CJO | September 8, 2009 6:07 PM
And so it's a *belief* if I say that they do not.
You're just restating, not arguing the point. The reductio response that I gave highlights the infinite number of beliefs you are claiming to hold, and that's just about leprechauns in various shades of pink, in your garden. There's an infinite number of beliefs you have to hold about red, green, and blue leprechauns too. And we haven't even got so far as the garden next door. How do you keep all these beliefs straight?
The atheist handles this by simply not believing. Can you really not see that it is you who is playing a semantic game with the term "belief" and not atheists?
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 6:09 PM
Kristofer, what denomination of church do you attend? I'll even look up their statement of belief for you. Their core beliefs are written down somewhere, and by calling yourself a member of their group you assert that you share those beliefs. And if you come back with "I don't attend church anywhere", then I'm simply going to laugh at you. If you don't go to church, and don't really believe in God, you really have absolutely no idea what a Christian is. In that case you stating you're a Christian because you have core beliefs on loving people and treating people well is like me saying I'm a dolphin because we're both mammals. You're defining yourself as part of a group based on plesiomorphic characters whilst ignoring that you have none of the synapomorphies of said group.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 6:11 PM
Carlie,
"For pete's sake, look at the very word "Christian" for a moment. Doesn't that tell you something about the core belief of the religion?"
Indeed, Carlie, that's exactly what I did when I cited these "humanist" beliefs: I recited the core teachings of Christ. The person that Christians hold righteous, and are taught to emulate in their lives.
Are there any teachings or examples of Christ that you take particular issue with? Because that would be a fair discussion to have about Christianity, and also a fair foundation on which to build a case for not subscribing to Christianity.
Christ was a supreme humanist. He was also a religious rebel, consistently questioning the dogmatic, self-righteous church authorities of his time. Sound familiar?
Frankly, Christ has more in common with reasonable-thinking atheists (who simply allow doubt, and belief in no God, to define their belief system) than he does with fundamentalist or militant Christians who use their faith to further injustice, deny science, or otherwise justify craziness with their religious zealotry.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 6:12 PM
This is totally fucking idiotic. I'm sorry to be profane, but it just IS.
Not believing in god does not in any way equate to "a belief in nothing". I don't HAVE a "belief in nothing".
Is BALD a hair color? Is NOT COLLECTING STAMPS a hobby? Is NOT BEING ABLE TO SING a talent? No? Then how the hell is NOT BELIEVING IN GODS a belief?
This is not philosophically meaningless or logically nonsensical. You're just inept and love to tilt at windmills.
Posted by: Lowell | September 8, 2009 6:14 PM
As others have already repeatedly asked in this thread, Kristofer: who are these people who "insist that God cannot possibly exist" with "absolute certainty"?
Posted by: CJO | September 8, 2009 6:18 PM
spare us the dogmatic insistence that it's *impossible*.
But who's saying that? It's possible the entire universe just popped into existence yesterday, or that "I" am a brain in a vat. I lose no more sleep over these preposterous scenarios than I do over the possibility that the universe is ruled by the kind of psychopathic cosmic overlord with an aversion to pork products told about in various storybooks.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 6:18 PM
Kristofer, what I'm saying is those are not CHRISTIAN beliefs. They are shared by every religion and secular organization pretty much ever. You can't claim that you're a Christian on the basis of the small number of beliefs that are shared by every other religion and nonreligion. The distinguishing characteristics of Christianity are a belief that there is a God, Jesus is his god son, and the Bible is the word of that God. For each denomination, it then gets more specific. If you aren't willing to agree with those, then you aren't a Christian. Again, the fact that I lactate doesn't make me a dolphin. Do you at least understand my analogy?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | September 8, 2009 6:20 PM
All truth claims about reality must withstand scrutiny. Skepticism is the default rational position when evaluating the veracity of any truth claim. Faith is the antithesis of that simple fact.
If someone wants to posit the existence of deities, then the burden is on them to demonstrate to others the evidence that so compelled them to make their claim. It is not up to the skeptical bystander to disprove anything.
The same approach works for bears, electrons, galaxies, etc..
It is the religious apologists that twist the concept of belief and assert that the notion of faith is something of virtue.
Faith is not a virtue, it's a cop out. It promotes willful ignorance and intellectual laziness. It fails at providing any substantive information when trying to understand reality.
That's why IMO religion is evil. It forces adherents into a state of cognitive dissonance for the sake of preserving a comfortable emotional state. This act of self-deception is the first step into the world of delusion and intellectual corruption.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 6:23 PM
Matthew 6:34. "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." In other words, he advocates not planning for the future.That's just one. There's also the fact that, rather than speak out against slavery, he uses the concept of slave-master relationships as imagery in his moral lessons. There's also the fact that almost all of the Beatitudes are worthless. "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake" comes to mind. Most people take the Beatitudes as hints at things that Jesus wanted people to be like.
This tells me two things:
Jesus, being a person who constantly spoke about God and what God wanted, was not a humanist.1. You have no clue what "humanist" means.
2. You have no clue what Jesus talked about, or the sorts of arguments he made. Have you actually read the Bible? Matthew 5:20 for example: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." He was no religious rebel. He just sought after a strict following of a new dogma. You want to talk about zealotry? Think of who the scribes and Pharisees were. They were the most devout, to-the-letter followers of the Jewish law and texts. Jesus wanted people to be more righteous than them. That is zealotry!
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 8, 2009 6:23 PM
Lowell wrote @ #401:
They're all too busy to post at the moment - they're off having their straw replenished for another round of beatings from Kristofer.
Posted by: Marcus B. | September 8, 2009 6:23 PM
And how many atheists like that have you met? I know very many atheists and I have not yet met a single one that takes that dogmatic stance of unbelief.
I believe that God might exist too! I don't find it likely, but it is possible. All the atheists I've discussed such matters with reason the same way.
And since you "believe" in the same way that most atheists "believe", your definition of what a Christian is seems as unorthodox as your definition of the term "belief". I assure you that very many Christians would say that you are not one.
That is not a bad thing. You seem like a nice person overall. I just have a lot of trouble discerning what your point is and why you have such strange definitions for some words.
Saying that Christ's humanist teachings are good does not constitute belief in his divinity. That I can find some good things in the Bible (and any other holy book) doesn't make me any less of an atheist.
My opinion is that the fact that I take issue with most of the other stuff in the Bible makes me decidedly not a Christian though. Even if I had some belief in a God figure I wouldn't be a Christian, even if I think that Jesus was a nice chap most of the time (when he wasn't stealing donkeys and whatnot) I don't trust in much of the rest of the book so no matter my beliefs about gods I wouldn't call myself a Christian.
Is there any particular reason that you call yourself specifically Christian? I don't mean that to sound like some kind of attack - I'm genuinely curious. You don't seem to think that there is anything in particular that makes the Bible's stories more likely than any other religious texts, you don't have absolute belief in God, you seem to just like things that Jesus said instead of worshiping him as the son of God.... How does this make you any different from the non-Christians here?
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 8, 2009 6:25 PM
Are there any teachings or examples of Christ that you take particular issue with? - Kristofer
Well first, there was never any such person as "Christ", which is a title, not a name. There probably was an original for the Jesus of the gospels, but if so we know practically nothing about him or his teachings. However, assuming you mean "Are there any teachings or examples attributed to the character "Jesus" in the Gospels that you take particular issue with?", then yes, certainly. Here's a few from the Gospel of Matthew (cribbed from the Sceptics' Annotated Bible):
# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
# Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19
# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12
# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." 8:21
# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below. 8:32
# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15
# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 10:28
# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36
# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50
# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 24:50-51
# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41
# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. 25:46
Given Jesus's cruelty, intolerance and authoritarianism, the violent record of Christianity is hardly a surprise.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 6:28 PM
Kristofer: If you don't believe the Bible is divine, why use it at all? Why inject the supernatural into your worldview at all, if you think that nature operates naturally and human beings are the real cause of changes in humanity? Why have this "reality plus" view of the world, where everything is exactly as we would expect it to be without anything supernatural, PLUS there's something supernatural making it look that way?
If you aren't willing to defend the Bible, it's pretty ridiculous to call yourself a Christian. The ethical practices you promote have little basis in anything but an incredibly loose interpretation of the Bible, and a disregard for anything in the book that contradicts what you think best.
Posted by: CJO | September 8, 2009 6:31 PM
Christ was a supreme humanist. He was also a religious rebel, consistently questioning the dogmatic, self-righteous church authorities of his time.
On what basis do you make these claims? The gospels taken together hardly present a coherent figure with a core set of values that can't be questioned via some other passage, and there's a great deal of variation in the characterization of "the historical Jesus" among scholars. Some are convinced that he was an apocalyptic prophet, others say that all the apocalypticism in Christian scripture is a later addition by the early church. Some see him as a somewhat Hellenized cynic sage; others maintain that he was first and foremost a Jewish peasant-radical. Some say he was opposed to Roman rule; others that his aims were not political at all.
What if he didn't exist at all (a reasonable question when the historical method turns up so many contradictory ? Would the humanist leanings of a 1st-century literary invention be values worth having faith in?
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 8, 2009 6:38 PM
Point of order: as we have repeatedly been reminded on this thread, this very characterization of our dear Don Quixote's actions here is grossly unfair, insofar as it lacks the high degree of epistemological persnicketiness expected--nay, demanded--in such discussions...
Insofar as, technically, those windmills might be giants.
(/Well-disguised giants, see...)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 8, 2009 6:39 PM
We're currently under a rather major spam attack. There are over 4000 spam messages in the queue awaiting my approval, and almost all of them are complete garbage.
I am not going to rummage through the garbage to find one comment from an obnoxious poster who is a demonstrable asshole, so no, you're going to have to retype it without all the links if you expect to see it published here.
Posted by: CJO | September 8, 2009 6:41 PM
Hm. wasn't quite done there. "...when the historical method turns up so many contradictory characterizations?" was the idea, though I wanted another word.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 6:43 PM
In the "it takes one to know one department" P. Z. Myers says, "I am not going to rummage through the garbage to find one comment from an obnoxious poster who is a demonstrable asshole. . ."
I think I will take that as a compliment P. Z.
Thanks for making my day! :-)
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 8, 2009 6:45 PM
It's not quite as funny as militant agnostics, dogmatic epistemic relativists and fundamentalist I'm-not-religious-I'm-spiritualists, but it's pretty funny.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | September 8, 2009 6:45 PM
Disbelief
Noun 1. disbeliefdisbelief - doubt about the truth of something
IMO it is inaccurate to describe atheism as the position that deities do not exist. Atheism simply asserts that there are, and never have been, any real reasons to think that deities exist.
There are an infinite supply of ideas that could be imagined that have absolutely no evidence or parallel in reality. So do we all then carry an infinite amount of "disbeliefs"?
Believing in a deity is not the same as asserting that there is not any evidence and therefore reason to think one might exist. It is the religionists that employ this word-game to somehow legitimize their illogical stance by giving it parity with the skeptical position.
The reason why they need to employ this verbal contortion is clear: they simply have no evidence or reasoned logic to produce that would be convincing.
Dear religionist, you want to claim the existence of deities? Fine. Why do you think such things exist?
That's really all the atheist is asking.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 8, 2009 6:46 PM
Here is a teaching of jezus that I personally find indefensible
So which of the people above do you hate Kristopher? Or are you just not a very good follower of christ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 6:46 PM
And still no personal response from PZ to Leander the concern troll. I guess you are stuck with us regulars... ;)
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 6:50 PM
Thank you, Patricia! That is the very quote that I was thinking of. Neither humane nor humanistic.
And I will repeat Patricia's question, just how much self loathing do you have? Which is really funny seeing now absolutely smug your statements have been.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 8, 2009 7:06 PM
You're welcome Janine! I was getting jealous of you getting all the Vile points. *snort*
Posted by: kamaka | September 8, 2009 7:12 PM
Atheism isn't a belief: Well, yes it most certainly is.
I get so tired of this.
Just because a whole lot of people "believe in" a bunch of made-up shit does not make my scepticism a "belief".
There is every reason to "believe" the godders have made all this crap up. The complete lack of evidence is all the evidence I need to know that the idea of some god is preposterous.
The whole concept is so mind-boggling stupid, it's beneath any serious consideration. Squeeze your eyes shut as tight as you like, all arguments claiming supernaturalism "could be so" are empty blathering.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 7:27 PM
Cue KL with a weak apologetic telling us how we've misinterpreted all those quotes from the bible that paint dear Jebus in a poor light in 4... 3... 2...
Posted by: kamaka | September 8, 2009 7:28 PM
Janine
I do believe the self-entitled one was using "Vile Bitch" like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: What | September 8, 2009 7:29 PM
Marcus #407
Not I!Posted by: John Morales | September 8, 2009 7:36 PM
Kamaka @423, I too got the sense that #384 was relishing the opportunity to address Janine thusly.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 7:39 PM
Vile Bitch asked/said - Then why the fuck bring it up at all if you are not paranoid. You have never censored here yet as soon as one of your comments is held for moderation, you brought it up instead of waiting.
I brought the subject of moderation/censorship up because my comment had been "moderated", whether automatically or not, and had not been posted for some time after I submitted it. i.e. I did wait a while and nothing happened. Besides that, I brought it up because Firefox crashed on me soon after posting that comment so my copy of it at my end vanished into thin cyberspace and I could not reproduce it exactly. I thought that it was quite reasonable for me to ask that the comment being held in moderation should be released *unless* P. Z. Myers had a very good reason for not releasing it. As you can see, it is now several hours after I posted that comment and P. Z. Myers is now categorically refusing to release it. . . So just who is being "paranoid" or just *insecure* here Vile Bitch?
:Oh, but everyone is out to get you, well except for some UU members who are as cut off from reality as you are.
Judging from his response P. Z. Myers is kind of, sort of, more-or-less "out to get me" wouldn't you say Vile Bitch? You know what they say eh? Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that P. Z. Myers isn't out to get you. . . Gotta laugh at probably *THE* most obnoxious (dare I say inflammatory?) "fundamentalist atheist" asshole in the world "namecalling" me "an obnoxious poster who is a demonstrable asshole" eh? I think they call that psychological projection Vile Bitch. . . :-)
:Fuck you and everything you stand for.
So just what exactly do I stand for Vile Bitch?
Do tell. . .
One thing I won't stand for is obnoxious aka "loud and often inflammatory" Atheist Supremacists who are themselves demonstrable assholes, if not obnoxiously demonstrating assholes. . . verbally defecating over God believing people.
Posted by: kamaka | September 8, 2009 7:44 PM
One thing I won't stand for is obnoxious
Hahaha...oh, man, I think I just peed my pants.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | September 8, 2009 7:49 PM
Having worked so hard to earn Ignorant Slut, and Gruesome Bitch perhaps I should trot my old moniker back out too. Although it isn't much balm for my Vile envy. :D
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 7:49 PM
Yawn, pot kettle black. Boring idjit.Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 8, 2009 7:50 PM
Robin... you appear quite taken with yourself... I can not for the life of me figure out why.
Umm... that would be you for not actually recognizing the "very good excuse" PZ gave you. All you've admitted here is that no excuse was going to be adequate for "censoring" your links, which I'm sure would have wowed us all. Get over yourself.
Yessir... QUITE taken with yourself, aren't you?
Now if you please, you've had your say, you have nothing of value to add to the conversation, and you are now simply stirring the pot for the fun of it. Piss off.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 7:52 PM
Still you.
Posted by: Marcus B. | September 8, 2009 7:54 PM
What #424
What I said still stands - I have never discussed with you :)
But if I were to discuss I would ask you if you are a rare example of an atheist who denies the possibility that God might possibly exist?
OK, so the stories about the God of the Bible aren't internally consistent, so I'd say that I can rule Him out as a possibility. But if we speak about some non-specific god or gods I have no way of saying "God/gods can't possibly exist." I find it very unlikely, but not impossible. I do not know everything.
Of course some things depend on all the little details about how you define gods and so on, but in a very general sense I can't with certainty say that gods absolutely do not exist. I treat gods the same way as leprechauns and unicorns. I very much don't believe that they exist, but they still might.
Are you of a different opinion on this matter?
And @Robin Edgar:
What the hell are you on about?
PZ is not "categorically refusing to release" your comment in particular. There is no conspiracy against you. You have never been censored.
PZ said that he will not go through the vast amount of spam to look for your comment, because it would take too much time and you are allowed to post it again with fewer links and it will go through.
It's simple and sensible. While of course you seem to be merely simple, since you don't seem to understand it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 8, 2009 7:56 PM
Robin 'Paranoid Asshole' Edgar asked (of Janine, OM):
I'd go with regular dishonesty, intellectual dishonesty, willful ignorance, stupidity, inanity, ludicrious pareidolia, strawmen, delusions, woo-kookery, whackjobbery, projection, paranoia, insecurity, persecution complexes, pissantry and obnoxious douchebaggery - all in the name of some archaic fairytale.
How's that grab you, loser?
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 7:57 PM
Oh Patricia, do bring your old names back, please! I was pining for Janine's vile bitchitude earlier in the thread, and she granted my wish. We can have the trifecta if you do!
And to everyone requesting toasters: The Company (you know, the ones with The Agenda) is no longer offering that premium, but I'm authorized to offer you some very fine sandwich presses instead.
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 8:10 PM
JoshS - Ask and ye shall receive.
It's the OM's on the end that make the whole thing so delicious.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | September 8, 2009 8:12 PM
For the toxic pile of sludge, people have told you how to get around PZ oh so mighty censorship net. Yet you refuse to follow this easy advise. Instead, you prefer to accuse PZ of being out to get you. Too lazy to put up separate posts yet willing to point at censorship that exists only in your diseased mind.
I stand by what I said earlier: Fuck you and everything you stand for! Damn but I have seen colicky babies that fussed less.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 8, 2009 8:16 PM
Looks like, as he has so many times before, brave Sir Robin has run away - crapping himself with fear and praying to his imaginary Jesus for help.
How's that working out for you, pissant?
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 8:16 PM
Oh, yeah! Patricia, you ignorant slut.
Oh, and Janine, RE appears to have "I'm persecuted" as his motto in life. Have disinfecting wipes at the ready, but check out some of his blog posts. Bat. Shit. Crazy. Anyone who thinks they've been persecuted by the Unitarians is not firing on all cylinders.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 8:17 PM
ERV suspects that scienceblogs have evolved sapience, to be able to filter out stupid messages as well as spam !
:-)
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 8:17 PM
Well, I don't think I'm in the mood to return to
SC, True Internet Pussy*, OM
or
SC, Feminist Concern Troll, OM
so I guess I'll have to wait for some more people to call me names.
Shouldn't take long... :)
*(know how you love that one, Patricia)
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 8:22 PM
Rorschach,
Feel free to adopt
Rorschach, Fawning Bootlicker
My gift to you. ;P
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | September 8, 2009 8:22 PM
And to everyone requesting toasters: The Company (you know, the ones with The Agenda) is no longer offering that premium, but I'm authorized to offer you some very fine sandwich presses instead.
How about some interior decorating advice?
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 8:23 PM
True Internet Pussy
Hummmmm...I missed that one. That has to be a good story.
Yes, JoshS, I have noticed that the toxic pile of sludge so enjoy being persecuted that he has to invent his own persecution. Having dealt with some UU people in the past, I find it a scream that he thinks that the UU church is after him.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 8:26 PM
Nerd of Redhead said - "Yawn, pot kettle black. Boring idjit."
So here's a riddle for you Nerd of Redhead.
You might want to get out your slide rule to help solve it. . .
What came first?
The pot or the rather stinky kettle of fish that P. Z. Myers cooked up for himself? :-)
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 8:28 PM
Yes, that one * does send me over the edge...but part of being an ignorant slut is being easy.
(Wait till Bride of Shrek reads this thread!)
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | September 8, 2009 8:28 PM
My hypothesis still stands that KL, though he doesn't really believe, is defensive about his claimed christianity because he's aesthetically enamored with it; it's pretty much an argument about what is really just a matter of taste.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 8:30 PM
Yeah, I'm rather. . .intrigued at SC's T.I.P. suggestion, but I'm not touching that topic. And the UU's - yeah, they're so mild-mannered they won't take their own side in an argument. If they're really upset with him, he must be real piece of work.
@Shaggy - This is one area in which I am a Bad Gay. Never given much thought to making the place look glamorous (I rely on my Good Gay friends for that). All I can tell you is, hire somebody to do shit like refinishing your wood floors and throw some high quality paint up. Even your drab furniture looks better.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 8:32 PM
Sadly, not really. Scott from Oregon, Mind-Boggled Internet Tough Guy, called me that IIRC for facing off with him virtually when he was on one of his "big boy in RL" rants.
***
Is Sastra a UU, or am I confused?
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
September 8, 2009 8:32 PM
Stupid Christian (#385)
Excuse me, but it sure seems like you're getting a lot of personal attention directed at your beliefs as you've explained them, so I don't think it's us building the straw men here. You're stupid for your own special fence-sitting holier-than-thou bullshitting. And you still need to cough up the name of an atheist who is saying there absolutely is no god.
That's been said by a few atheists in this thread already.
FFS, how many times do you need to be told that most of the people here were raised religious? Do you think we forgot how and what we once believed? Are you assuming we "converted" all our friends and loved ones to atheism such that we have no religious believers in our lives? Where does your assumption of our ignorance come from? Certainly not reality.
You object to atheists telling you what you believe but you're happy to tell us what we believe? Put this down as another reason why you're a moron.
(#395)
Now we're back to the "god does not exist" atheist you keep bringing up but refuse to name. Clearly it is you who doesn't understand the way atheists think regarding god(s) and rather than admit this, you confuse yourself with rhetoric.
NAME SUCH AN ATHEIST. Thanks.
Posted by: Carlie, fat feminazi cooter and defender of the faithless | September 8, 2009 8:33 PM
Robin, if you had been thinking at all, you should have been able to hit the back button on your browser to get back to the form page, filled in with your comment, after it "vanished into thin cyberspace", then cut out a link and resbumitted it. It's a little button with an arrow pointing to the left at the top of your browser. Try it. You'll like it.
I am highly amused that he keeps referring to Janine simply as "Vile Bitch", as if a moniker she has chosen for herself is somehow insulting. Reclamation, Robin: Ur doin it wrong.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 8:33 PM
RE,
thanks for the link to PZ's post, I had forgotten all about it, was a good one, and worth reposting !
:-)
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 8:33 PM
Toxic pile of sludge (TPOS), no one is going to answer your 'riddle' because you have already shown yourself to be a fool of epic quality.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 8, 2009 8:35 PM
Robin, go get your 'scrips and call your PDoc to tell him/her you've been off your meds. Soon you'll feel aaaaaall better. Nighty-night.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 8:36 PM
Vile Bitch said - "I find it a scream that he thinks that the UU church is after him."
Scream all you want Vile Bitch.
http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1998/060498/news5.html
http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2000/120700/news5.html
http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/121103/front.html
There's more where that came from but I can only do two or three links at a time it would seem.
Pity. There are so many others available that demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that at least one U*U church is "after" me (to use your words) and has been "out to get" its scapegoat for over 13 unlucky years now. . .
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 8:38 PM
Kristopher hasn't come back to answer my question.
Posted by: JoshS, Official Spokesgay | September 8, 2009 8:40 PM
Robin, you're insane. I'm not using that colloquially either - I mean it literally. Your beliefs are nuts.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 8:41 PM
SC, that was Scott from Oregon? No wonder I missed it, while I have not killfiled him, I do pass over his mind boggling screeds.
Carlie, love the moniker! As for Vile Bitch, it was a name that an one night christian troll laid upon me. So, being the twisted being that I am, I immediately picked it up. And yes, I laugh every time TPOS call me that.
Posted by: JoshS, Official Spokesgay | September 8, 2009 8:43 PM
OMG! Carlie, you just made me spit out all my coffee. You said cooter . FTW!
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 8:43 PM
What did I miss? I was busy calling Walton a useful idiot. Is Kristofer still being a condescending jerk? *reads thread*
Yep.
Kristofer, still no reply to this?
Posted by: Sastra | September 8, 2009 8:43 PM
I've read several apologetic books by Christian writers, and my favorite was probably Bishop John Shelby Spong's Christianity Must Change Or Die. As I recall, about 90% of it reads like a secular humanist book attacking religion, and the other 10% is vague Tillich-style hand-waving about God as ground of being, or something of the sort. Spong is about as liberal as you can get: he rejects Biblical literalism, Hell, the Trinity, the atonement, the divinity of Jesus, damnation, salvation, and the existence of the theistic God. When all that is cleared away, you get the pure intentions of Jesus, and a better understanding of God.
Right.
He spoke once to the American Humanist Association, and began by saying that he was so relieved to finally talk in front of an audience who thought he was too theologically conservative. An Episcopal Bishop, he has on occasion had armed guards to protect him from death threats -- from other Christians.
I would probably style the good bishop a "Christian humanist" (there are various definitions of 'humanism' flying around since the Renaissance.) But I can still sympathize with those Christians who say that Spong is No-True-Christian. I think that, when you start to creep religion too far into religious humanism, doctrinal conflicts start to turn into problems with basic definitions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 8, 2009 8:43 PM
I did. I says you are an egotistical idjit. Had the slide rule since college, so I trust it. You, not so much, if at all...Posted by: foxfire | September 8, 2009 8:44 PM
@426 Robin
Yo Robin - sometimes comments take a while to show up on ScienceBlogs and if Firefox crashed right after posting, your comment may have not made it to Pharyngula. That has happened to me several times, particularly when I spend a long time composing.
PZ's busy completing a book so I doubt he is waiting with bated breath to monitor every comment on his blog. In fact, I've been a reader for several years now and I've never seen a situation where he prevented a comment - he has nuked a few comments after the fact as well as kicked out several trolls who became onerous and weren't fun anymore (generally after asking for input from his readers).
So...maybe you are not important enough to censor and Firefox just lost your comment?
P.S. My "real" first name is Robin too....perhaps some of the other regulars can help me understand why I feel slightly "soiled" right now...
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 8:47 PM
Personally I think that some of these U*UTube videos of a Totalitarian Unitarian "Citizens' Police Officer" out to get my picket signs are a *scream*, but I am biased of course. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyI-oHZymvQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyKnDhDbtZg
Saving the best for last. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfxw1yZAS0M
Still ROTFLMU*UO!
Should be fun when I resume my protest next Sunday.
Posted by: Janine, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 8:48 PM
TPOS, being a relatively sane person, I would not want any one who thinks that a solar eclipse is some sort of supernatural event is associated with me. If that is persecution, I am actively persecuting you. But you have already shown that you have a very loose standard of persecution.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 8:49 PM
Found it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/spinelessness_as_usual.php#comment-1219827
(For your entertainment, see just above and below.)
Posted by: SaintStephen | September 8, 2009 8:49 PM
Steve The Junker #273
Excellent comment. Great stuff.
Posted by: Carlie | September 8, 2009 8:51 PM
Here's an illustration of it. (SFW, I think)
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 8:54 PM
@Carlie -
Oh, sweet Jebus, that's funny. You just know those lil' rainbow gay things coming out of it are making that whoo-woo-weeeer-wooooo sound that all 1950s spaceships do just before they land in a quiet suburban town.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 9:00 PM
Robin did you castrate yourself when the solar eclipse occurred? Are you angry that you couldn't be a heavens gater? That solar eclipse was not a surprise considering its time was plotted well in advance by mathematicians and astronomers.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 9:02 PM
I 'bout died.
Bill Stickers is innocent!
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 9:06 PM
Carlie, I FUCKING LOVE YOU! Seriously, I have to save that! But it needs to be updated. Those eggs should be watching The Rachel Maddow Show.
And I repeat, Carlie, I FUCKING LOVE YOU and your fat feminazi cooter!
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 9:07 PM
Ignorant Slut, and Gruesome Bitch
I am jealous. Brainless twit just doesn't have the right ring to it...
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 9:08 PM
Learned something new today. :)
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 9:09 PM
JoshS, Official Spokesgay said: Robin, you're insane. I'm not using that colloquially either - I mean it literally. Your beliefs are nuts.
That is a typical fundamentalist atheist response JoshS. It is exactly that kind of response that got the Unitarian Church of Montreal into a spot of trouble that it has yet to get itself out of. . . My beliefs about God are entirely compatible with standard aka basic (dare I say fundamental?) monotheistic beliefs. If my beliefs are "nuts", and I am "insane", so is every other person who believes in God. As someone who can claim to know that God exists on the basis of having undergone a profound revelatory experience of God, I figure that it is only a matter of some decades before you find out for yourself, and P. Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins & Co. discover to their chagrin, that I am far from insane and that my beliefs about God are by no means "nuts".
If you want to believe that it is just a totally meaningless random chance "coincidence" that the Earth's sun and moon have virtually identical apparent sizes and it is just another amazing "coincidence" that the totally eclipsed sun so distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of a gigantic "Eye in the Sky" aka "Eye of God" that's fine by me. I am very confident that the day will eventually come when you realize that you chose to wallow in ignorance rather than deal with the reality that this readily observable cosmic symbolism is the product of Intelligent Design and that it sends a clear message regarding God's divine omniscience to those with eyes to see. . .
Tell me that I am insane and that my monotheistic religious beliefs are nuts in a hundred years or so. . .
Yes, I know.
Casting pearls before swine.
Feel free to trample on them or even me.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 9:13 PM
Details, Robin. Just what sort of "trouble" are they in?
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 9:13 PM
If my beliefs are "nuts", and I am "insane", so is every other person who believes in God.
Ummm, OK, I would tend to agree, so what's your point?
Posted by: Sastra | September 8, 2009 9:16 PM
SC, OM #448 wrote:
No, I'm not a UU -- but I attended for a while, and they asked me to give some talks, and I think I've mentioned that here.
One of the little talks was on 'Humanism and the Unitarian Universalists' -- and I used some of my 15 minutes to point out that there's a bit of internal tension in the UU's, due to their having combined historical trends of humanism, transcendentalism, and liberal Christianity. You end up with an atheist-New Age-and in-between theological mix -- and that will only work if you approach the entire metaphysical issue with a loose, tolerant, isn't it wonderful that we all believe what we believe ethos appropriate to a social club dedicated to justice and environmental issues. UU's generally frown on criticizing anyone's "spiritual path" -- unless they've got an 'intolerant' spiritual path, like the Fundamentalists.
But that's not humanism. Humanism is method and science-based, and secular humanists don't respect New Agers any more than fundies, when it comes to their beliefs. Less, in some cases. And they don't like the imprecision of "spiritual" talk which slides around from one meaning to another.
There are mystics who have left UU in a huff, because the congregation was too humanist. And there are humanists who dropped UU because it was too woo-friendly. They vary a lot, from group to group. And over time in the same group.
I decided not to join because I had problems with the part of their creed (or guidelines) which say that one should not criticize religion. It conflicts with the other part saying that one should. And I wasn't happy with the usual nice way of resolving the conflict: just decide that, if it's a nice person, they can believe what they want.
I'm too mean to be a UU.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 9:19 PM
I am the eye in the sky
Looking at you
I can read your mind
I am the maker of rules
Dealing with fools
I can cheat you blind
And I don't need to see any more
To know that
I can read your mind, I can read your mind
Posted by: Carlie, fat feminazi cooter and defender of the faithless | September 8, 2009 9:19 PM
If my beliefs are "nuts", and I am "insane", so is every other person who believes in God.
And your point is...?
If you want to believe that it is just a totally meaningless random chance "coincidence" that the Earth's sun and moon have virtually identical apparent sizes
Um, you realize that's only at very specific times, right? The apparent size of each changes with its position relative to the horizon, and depending on the time of year. When you have two objects with different rotational orbits and speeds the apparent sizes are bound to match up at some point or other.
and it is just another amazing "coincidence" that the totally eclipsed sun so distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of a gigantic "Eye in the Sky"
Hm. Or maybe those "virtually identical apparent sizes" aren't so identical after all. I saw a floor tile in a bathroom once that had a pattern that looked like an iris and pupil, too, but that didn't make me take the myths about the porcelain god seriously.
As someone who can claim to know that God exists on the basis of having undergone a profound revelatory experience of God,
I had one of those once. In fact, I had many, over the course of several years.
I got over it, and eventually realized they were all figments of my imagination and indoctrination.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 9:22 PM
Robin Edgar, I just watched this video of yours and I can say without reservation that you are a terrible person.
You do not have any right to post your signs on the church's private property.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 8, 2009 9:23 PM
SC,
Hey, who called you blind ideologue back then ?? That's my moniker for you !
:P
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 9:27 PM
I am very confident that the day will eventually come when you realize that you chose to wallow in ignorance rather than deal with the reality that this readily observable cosmic symbolism is the product of Intelligent Design and that it sends a clear message regarding God's divine omniscience to those with eyes to see. . .
LSD
Posted by: SC, OM | September 8, 2009 9:35 PM
Thanks, Sastra. I remembered your having mentioned it, but couldn't recall what your relationship with it was. And thanks for the info.
Unsurprisingly, I can't remember who it had been on that specific occasion - whoever it was was not alone in his/her error.
But you're special, so consider it your very own. :)
I just looked it up, and it was Jams who called me a "trashy piece of work," which I love.
Posted by: Sister Hand Grenade of Reasoned Discussion | September 8, 2009 9:35 PM
Unitarian Jihad!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL
And the Unitarian Jihad Name Generator:
http://whump.com/dropbox/other/ujname.html
--
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 9:36 PM
SGBM @ 480
Oh, my!
And to think I broke my policy of not feeding trolls with this one...
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 9:36 PM
:Robin, if you had been thinking at all, you should have been able to hit the back button on your browser to get back to the form page, filled in with your comment, after it "vanished into thin cyberspace", then cut out a link and resbumitted it. It's a little button with an arrow pointing to the left at the top of your browser. Try it. You'll like it.
What part of Firefox crashed did you fail to understand? Also I did not feel any need to do that because I expected the moderated comment to be published within a reasonable time frame anyway. It was only after it was not posted within an hour or two that I asked my question about P.Z.'s moderation. Some of you "Brights" are far from bright. . .
:I am highly amused that he keeps referring to Janine simply as "Vile Bitch", as if a moniker she has chosen for herself is somehow insulting. Reclamation, Robin: Ur doin it wrong.
Not at all, I am fully confident that Janine positively LOVES her Vile Bitch monicker in much the same way that PeaceBang, aka Rev. Victoria Weinstein, has bragged to me about her cherished status as *THE* biggest fattest fuckingest bitch in the whole wide U*U World. . . :-)
JefFlyingV asked - Robin did you castrate yourself when the solar eclipse occurred?
Nope. Why would I do a silly thing like that?
:Are you angry that you couldn't be a heavens gater?
Not in the least. I am however a bit annoyed that one of the leading members of the Unitarian Church of Montreal falsely and maliciously labeled an inter-religious celebration of Creation that I had quite successfully organized as a "cult" in conversations with other Montreal Unitarians, and even had the gall to say -
"I hope what you are doing doesn't have anything to do with the Solar Temple."
to my face when I was in the process of organizing it.
:That solar eclipse was not a surprise considering its time was plotted well in advance by mathematicians and astronomers.
Which total solar eclipse JefFlyingV? Did I mention on in particular? I am perfectly aware that the times of solar eclipses are plotted well in advance by mathematicians and astronomers these days, in fact some prehistoric people went to considerable lengths to do just that. Ever hear of a place called Stonehenge?
To the "less than bright" "Bright" aka moron who "suggested" that I believe "that a solar eclipse is some sort of supernatural event", all I can say is please do present your supporting *evidence* that I ever said anything to that effect. You can't because I have never done so. Never. Not once. Total solar eclipses are natural events that hold *symbolic* religious meaning. You are not much better than the disingenuously lying or just plain idiotic fundamentalist atheists who *pretend* that I am claiming that the total solar eclipse is an actual "Eye of God" in order to try to paint me as a complete lunatic.
For the record - The words 'Atheist' and 'Intelligent' are not synonyms. There is no shortage of very stupid atheists in the world.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 9:36 PM
TOTALITARIAN UNITARIANS! Is that anything like EXTREME VANILLA! SGBM, I think it is time to unleash the Unitarian Jihad.
Posted by: SaintStephen | September 8, 2009 9:37 PM
@Kristofer Layon #336
And I'm intrigued by the idea of God coming to our world to be human (Jesus), but I can't fully grasp it, prove it, nor fault people for doubting it. I doubt it all the time, and wrestle with that doubt.
Because it's utter bollocks, that's why. You aren't a Christian at all, and believe me I know what one is, having been one myself for nearly 40 years. If you're suggesting Jesus wasn't the son of God, you're not a follower of Christ, you're a doubting Thomas -- a Judas, even. You may even be an atheist, and just don't have the maturity or guts to admit it.
We atheists can use a guy like you, however, because you are obviously intelligent and thoughtful. At your next church service, please volunteer to get up and testify to your sincere doubts. Tell the other sheeple that you can't wrap your smart mind around this crazy-ass concept. Be honest, and forthcoming. Then, do this on a regular basis.
You're deluded Kristofer, because you obviously think your self-appointed role as "ultimate arbitrator" between Christians and Atheists puts you somehow in a more tenable, logical position, when in fact it simply makes you look confused and silly. It's like you're saying the game of Roulette appears to be completely random, but you still have the insider knowledge of what number will pop up next.
Let go of your doubts. It's easy! Poof, they're gone! No magic Daddy in the sky. No sin. No guilt. No more crackers & wine cannibalism. As humans, we can all just do the right thing for the sake of it being right.
Posted by: Carlie, fat feminazi cooter and defender of the faithless | September 8, 2009 9:39 PM
Robin, I'm hurt! You addressed my misunderstanding of your firefox crash, but didn't even touch my comment about how the sun and moon look all kinds of different sizes. Want to tackle that one?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 8, 2009 9:39 PM
Robin 'paranoid delusional dipshit' Edgar squealed:
Consult a dictionary for a definition of the term 'fundamentalist' Robin. You'll find that, no matter what the definition is you're using it incorrectly when you use it with the term 'atheist'.
Er, no. There is no such thing as 'standard' or 'basic' (or even 'fundamental') about beliefs, yours or anyone else's. If there was then there would be only one Abrahmaic religion, with no sects. Your interpretations differ from those of other Christians and other Abrahamics - not the least because you appear to be a batshit loon of some description.
Claim whatever you want. Claim that on All Fool's Day you can turn into a duck who can play Beethoven's Ninth on a Gibson Les Paul; it's precisely as valid as your claims about your god - since you can't substantiate either claim with any actual evidence.
Pascal's Wager? Seriously? I guess the scum at the bottom of the barrel you were scraping from is deeper than I thought.
It's has less to do with what we want to believe, and more to do with whether or not we understand the wacky things our brains will allow us to believe if we don't exercise critical thinking. It's called pareidolia - look it up.
Why do you assume that, even if it is 'observable cosmic symbolism' that the eye isn't Odin's? Or Zeus's? Or Ahura Mazda's? Or the eye of a completely different god who is the one true god but not the Christian god?
What analysis allows you to make the leap from 'eye in the sky' to 'the eye in the sky is they eye of my god and not anyone else's'?
Are you stupid or just bad at maths? In a hundred years we'll all be dead. But if there are still people who have rejected reason and denied critical thinking enough to believe the nonsense you believe I have no doubt there'll be people like the posters here who will be telling them they are nuts.
Like we need an invitation.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 9:40 PM
Robin, TOPS, croaked:
Nope, sugar dumplin'. No such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. It's simply a lack of belief in God, no fundamental texts or dogma. Next.
Really? Believing that a solar eclipse was a sign from God meant for you makes you crackers. Even most Godbots don't want to associate with you.
.You said it, not me.
Oh, and also, like every other wackadoodle fundie I've ever met, you have no sense of humor . What you think is funny - pasting up Richard Dawkins quotes on fake billboards as if his statements were self-evidently hilarious - isn't. It doesn't even make sense.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 8, 2009 9:41 PM
Knockgoats,
"cribbed from the Sceptics' Annotated Bible"
Are you serious? Hm, I haven't not read that one.
...And neither have you. And you not only cite some of the craziest stuff that I've *never seen* in a real Bible, but you don't provide a single example accurate citation, so I can't look any of that up to reply as I have no idea from which books those alleged citations are from.
Here's a tip -- citing from the Bible uses this format: book name chapter: verse(s)
e.g. Matthew 1:2-3
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 9:44 PM
I am not a member of UU. Could I carry off having the name; Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 9:46 PM
I just love that kooky RE links to a story with this quote from him as an example of just how poor-poor-persecuted-lil-me he really is:
He's apparently incapable of recognizing that this makes him look like a moron.
Posted by: Sastra | September 8, 2009 9:48 PM
Robin Edgar #486 wrote:
If the meaning of the eclipse is only symbolic, then it's a bit difficult to understand why you call it "a profound revelatory experience of God." If some fact or truth is being revealed by something, we don't talk about metaphors and symbols.
Is "God" also a symbol to you?
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 9:48 PM
Kristofer, are you that stupid?
Look:
Watch me now, pretend I'm a muppet on Sesame Street if it helps.
Matthew?
5:17?
Matthew 5:17!
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 9:49 PM
And you not only cite some of the craziest stuff that I've *never seen* in a real Bible
Oh, please, it's all crazy shit, the whole damn thing.
Raising the dead, water into wine, floating off to "heaven", on and on, it's all crazy.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 8, 2009 9:49 PM
Yep. Gotta hand it to him. He does have a point...
I mean, if you're gonna go for the whole zombie Jewish dude what saved the world thing, really, this bit about the eclipse being the eye of Gawd or somesuch is hardly so much of a step beyond...
I mean, let's be fair. Mormons: zombie Jaysus in 'Murkuh (with golden plates), Scientology: thetans, DC-10s, volcanoes, Catholicism: zombie Jaysus talks through guy in dress in Rome... and then we've got this guy and the whole eclipse thing... Works for me. If he'd like to point out they all more or less could get along in the same ward pretty well, I'm okay with that, really...
Point being, once you get to the whole barking at the moon stage, what's the real difference between, say, doing more of a coyote yelp type thing versus 'aggrieved chihuahua chewing on own tail'... To each their own, I always say...
Mind you, I think the real problem is he's missing a huge opportunity, here. I mean, obviously, he's going after the wrong people...
I mean, sure, this minister character suggested he might be pychotic or somesuch... But I'm thinking he should drop these little fish in Montreal, go for the gold, make a call to Ronald Moore and David Eick. 'Cos I'm pretty sure they totally ripped off his whole 'eclipse as the iris of the Overlord' thing in that 'Eye of Jupiter' episode of theirs back a season or two...
Erm... But wait... I said 'episode', didn't I?
Oh dear... Umm... Mr. Totally Not Crazy Guy, see, that's 'television episode'. Not 'psychotic episode'. 'Cos hey, that'd just be uncalled for, see... I get it... Yer all touchy about that sorta insinuation...
Now now... Put the placards down, dude... Chill... I meant... Ummmm... crazy like an... umm... loon?... Err... No... That wasn't it... Umm... Fox? Yeeeeah.... That's it... Crazy like a fox!...
(/Oh, and also, I'm totally not saving the URL of this comment thread for the next time certain more garden variety godbotters found in this general vicinity start whinging endlessly about folk 'round here comparing religion with actual mental illness... 'Cos that'd just be wrong!)
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 9:50 PM
You surely could. You don't even have to join, so long as you can hold up an interesting chat over coffee.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 8, 2009 9:51 PM
So Robin is the "Eye of Gawd" loon. I remember hearing about him some time ago. When I first ran across his wacko idea I thought "fuck, what a wacko idea." Time has not improved my impression of his wacko idea.
So tell us, Robin, how do you account for annular eclipses?
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 9:51 PM
Only if it's followed by "also an extreme bitch."
@Robin, who spluttered:
Wowbagger schooled you, but I need to point out something else. Do you have any idea how garden variety, how common , how pedestrian your silly idea is? Cripes, religious nutters have been goo-gaaing over these simple physical coincidences for centuries - you ought to be embarrassed. At least the people who see Mary in pita bread (always looking suspiciously like a vulva, I might add) have the camp factor going for them. You're just boring. And crackers.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 9:51 PM
I can see from the most recent spate of responses to my recent comments that Atheists are failing to properly use the brains God gave them very effectively. Maybe you should think things through more before making comments that only prove your ignorance of the readily verifiable facts, if not your stupidity. . . I have better things to do with my time than rebut the poorly thought through "arguments" of "less than bright" 'Brights'.
@ strange gods before me aka shotgun of talking in ignorance
I guess you somehow missed the U*UTube videos in which it is made abundantly clear that the property three feet in from the sidewalk belongs to the City of Montreal and not the Unitarian Church of Montreal. That's me "terrible" for peacefully protesting against the false and malicious labeling of me as a "crazy" "psychotic" "nutcase" by intolerant and abusive Montreal Unitarian U*Us and saying that -
CULT IS A FOUR LETTER WORD
when it is falsely and maliciously used to describe a perfectly legitimate inter-religious event that several different faith groups, *including* some open-minded U*U Humanists BTW. . . freely participated in.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Antipodean Snarker | September 8, 2009 9:56 PM
Robin 'Batshit Loon' Edgar wrote:
You don't need anyone's help, Robin; when it comes to painting you as a complete lunatic you're an incredibly gifted self-portraitist.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 9:57 PM
Robin it is truly amazing that you equate solar eclipses with Stonhenge, this is ground breaking scientific news that you should share with the world. All I can say is wow. Are you a Canadian or did you have to make a dash for the border?
Posted by: JoshS, Official Spokesgay | September 8, 2009 9:58 PM
@Robin Egdar, Persecuted Wackadoodle -
Listen, I'm sure anyone reasonable here would support your right of free speech, and your right to protest. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean those principles don't stand. If the UU Church overstepped their bounds and tried to stop your legal protests, then I stand with you to condemn that action. While I would never condone any entity trying to stamp out the free speech rights of a citizen, I must say I have some sympathy for the beleaguered UUs. You're bugfuck nuts and you don't even know it.
Posted by: formosus
|
September 8, 2009 9:58 PM
This is a bit out of topic, but i really can't resist.
Thank you so much, Leander for teaching me what a true concern troll is. I didn't really have a firm idea of the concept until you showed up. Seriously. With your help, i even looked around for definitions online. And with those in hand, I took a look at you. You fit the bill so perfectly. "I'm not saying that I'm a theist.." "You're just making yourselves look bad..." "Can't we have a rational discussion..."
Seriously man, you're picture perfect.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 8, 2009 9:59 PM
Kristopher, your selective reading is impressive. Just before the parentheses you quoted was the following sentence: "Here's a few from the Gospel of Matthew"
also, in case you're too stupid to notice, those weren't quotes, they were descriptive sentences.
but hey, here's a few of the relevant quotes, found easily by the info KG provided (your google-fu must be very very weak)
*Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
*Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
*And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
well, at least you admit to not having read the damn thing very carefully... (or at all)
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 9:59 PM
Carlie the fat feminazi cooter and defender of the faithless said - Robin, I'm hurt! You addressed my misunderstanding of your firefox crash, but didn't even touch my comment about how the sun and moon look all kinds of different sizes. Want to tackle that one?
No Carlie. It is just too stupid to "tackle" I'm afraid. Go and figure it out for yourself and then come back here and tell everyone about your *misunderstanding* aka ignorance of astronomy and celestial geometry etc.
Come to think of it I did indirectly address it albeit not "tackle" it in the first paragraph of my previous comment here. . . #502
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 10:00 PM
Atheists are failing to properly use the brains God gave them
This one needs to be sent to the dungeon, PZ. As an act of mercy.
This place is not good for him.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 10:01 PM
It's plausible, but I don't believe that you have it together well enough to grok the law anyway, so I'm sure as hell not going to take your word for it.
In any case, you are nevertheless a terrible person. These people are trying to meet in peace and you harass them. You say in your video that you do it week after week.
You are terrible. Get over your petty little vendetta and get on with your life. Is this really what you think the Eye in the Sky wants you to do with your time? Shouldn't you be feeding hungry people?
Posted by: Sastra | September 8, 2009 10:06 PM
Robin Edgar wrote:
In other words, the solar eclipse is a 'supernatural event.' Supernatural beings or forces are using natural objects to reveal their nature and presence.
Our brains are good at finding 'hidden' messages and meanings in natural events and objects. The fact that you have to be looking for the connection is a red flag that it's only a self-generated 'symbol. There's no need to assume occult forces at work. The only thing that's being revealed is human nature.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 10:09 PM
Kristofer, is that REALLY the best response you have? He said they were FROM THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW, and EVERY CITATION LISTS A CHAPTER AND VERSE.
When's the last time you actually READ a bible??
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 10:10 PM
Damn it you brainless twit, why are you trying to take my chew toy away? SpokesGay not happy.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 8, 2009 10:10 PM
Stop! Stop! Strange Gods, can't you see, you totalitarian atheist, you!? You're oppressing him! The poor guy! All he's doing is parading up and down the sidewalk week after week after week after week after week after week after week with bright yellow signs telling the world what dreadful totalitarians these people are, and you... why... you're asking him to stop being such a total douche!
I mean, How could you! You nasty totalitarian atheist meanie, you!
(/Stamps foot for emphasis...)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Astronomical Asshole, OM | September 8, 2009 10:11 PM
Robin, while I'm not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV, I can say, without fear of contradiction, that you are sub-clinically neurotic. Or in other words, stark-staring bonkers.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Antipodean Snarker | September 8, 2009 10:13 PM
Robin Edgar, whackaloon punching bag, wrote:
Er, astronomy says nothing whatsoever about any of the coincidences observed from earth having any significance - any more than geology says anything about sacred rock formations. That would be astrology.
Who's doing the misunderstanding here, dumbass?
Posted by: bastion of sass | September 8, 2009 10:14 PM
JoshS, Official SpokesGay wrote:
Sorry, if I'm being recruited as a lesbian, I'm going to hold out for the premium screwdriver set. Thanks anyway.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Enlightenment | September 8, 2009 10:16 PM
Robin, why do you think that seeing an eclipse as the Eye of God is some sort of grand revelation? People have worshiped the sun longer than we've had verbal language. You're just delusional enough to think it's a new idea.
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 10:17 PM
Damn it you brainless twit, why are you trying to take my chew toy away? SpokesGay not happy.
So sorry, your happiness is very low on my list of priorities today.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 10:19 PM
Is Robin one of the scientists that Ken Ham employs for the aig group?
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 10:21 PM
Evil in the Bible:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=12&t=NASB#35
"Be dressed in readiness, and {keep} your lamps lit. Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open {the door} to him when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself {to serve,} and have them recline {at the table,} and will come up and wait on them. Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds {them} so, blessed are those {slaves.} But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into. You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect." Peter said, "Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone {else} as well?" And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave says in his heart, 'My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, {both} men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect {him} and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know {it,} and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
Jesus uses slavery as a metaphor to make his point, but he never condemns slavery or speaks out against it in any way. It is reasonable, then, to conclude that he approves of slavery. But even if you think that's too far and too unfair, it's still immoral that he never spoke out against slavery. He had a moral duty to do so, and he failed.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Antipodean Snarker | September 8, 2009 10:21 PM
MiketheInfidel wrote (of Robin Edgar):
I'm fairly sure that Robin Edgar is delusional enough to think that writing on the walls with feces is a pretty good way of communicating ideas. It's a pity (for him) that the staff at his 'residence' don't agree.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 10:23 PM
JefFlyingV flies off the handle to demonstrate his ignorance of science once again. . .
"Robin it is truly amazing that you equate solar eclipses with Stonhenge, this is ground breaking scientific news that you should share with the world. All I can say is wow. Are you a Canadian or did you have to make a dash for the border?"
I don't suppose it occurred to you that it might be a good idea, even a *Bright* idea. . . to Google -
Stonehenge and eclipses
before shooting your ignorant yap off here eh Jeff?
Ever hear of a guy called Gerald Hawkins?
How about Fred Hoyle?
Alexander Thom maybe?
But you're right Jeff, my take on Stonehenge and how it relates to eclipses does shed more light on why Stonehenge was built and could be considered to be "ground breaking scientific news" that I should share with the world. In fact I already have to some extent but, as with other "ground breaking scientific news" that should be shared with the world, some people either ignore it or even try to actively discredit it and suppress it in various ways. And no, I am no more "paranoid" about that phenomenon than Galileo was. From a purely anthropological perspective what I am claiming about the readily perceivable religious symbolism in eclipses, "coincidental" or not. . . helps to explain a lot of ancient religious beliefs and practices. My research into how total solar eclipses inspired the phoenix myth and winged sun disk symbols of diverse cultures around the world has even been cited by a respected French astronomer in one of his presentations.
A fellow by the name of Edward Walter Maunder figured out the connection between total solar eclipses and the Egyptian and Mesopotamian winged sun disk symbols in the mid-19th century but his "ground breaking scientific news" was conveniently ignored and forgotten until I resurrected it as it were. BTW Maunder either failed to twig onto the connection with the phoenix myth or kept it to himself for some reason. Lots of "ground breaking scientific news" gets dismissed out of hand, willfully ignored, or actively suppressed. Come to think of it isn't that what P. Z. Myers is doing with respect to the "ground breaking scientific news" he is trying to discredit here?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Enlightenment | September 8, 2009 10:24 PM
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 8, 2009 10:27 PM
I was debating if I should become a follower of Ra or of Apollo. After much deep thought, I thought I would go with something more modern.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 8, 2009 10:28 PM
JefFlyingV, you hit the jackpot!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, Obtuse Blockhead and Asshole, OM | September 8, 2009 10:29 PM
Indeed, as with Galileo, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. Sorry I haven't been following along here, but have we identified the shadowy villains that are sworn to keep news of the religious symbolism of solar eclipses a closely guarded secret known only to a few adepts?
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 10:29 PM
Sorry, if I'm being recruited as a lesbian, I'm going to hold out for the premium screwdriver set. Thanks anyway.
Not that I have anything against being recruited as a lesbian, but I fail to recall our fine gay spokesperson recruiting anyone for anything, except me one time which the two of us worked out...
What screwdriver set??
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 10:33 PM
Hey, we could do this. Want to march in rhythm? Tempo: fascissimo!
Posted by: Wowbagger, Antipodean Snarker | September 8, 2009 10:34 PM
I'm guessing Robin Edgar's batshit whackaloonery prevents him from comprehending sarcasm.
Then again, when a person's mind allows them to take the fact that planets and moons move around in space as proof of the existence of an invisible, super-powered sky fairy then there's probably very little they're going to process in the same way as a functional human being.
Posted by: Feynmaniac, Bastard Child of the Enligtenment | September 8, 2009 10:38 PM
Robin Edgar,
It doesn't really matter that your response to me ended up in moderation. From your posts on this thread you ended up answering my original question (i.e, "Wow, how big a dick do you have to be to get excommunicated by Unitarians?!").
BTW, this blog already has its own schizophrenic from Montreal. Try your luck here.
(Carlie, I love "defender of the faithless")
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, Old Fart, OM | September 8, 2009 10:41 PM
Solar eclipses ground breaking news? Been going on ever since the moon was formed, billions of years ago. Last eons news... *big bored yawwnn*
Only wackaloons think otherwise.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 10:43 PM
Here's an Alfred, Lord Tennyson quote all you verbally brawling ignorant "Brights" would do well to pay heed to. . .
"Blind and naked ignorance delivers brawling judgments, unashamed, on all things all day long"
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Benightedness said -
"Robin, why do you think that seeing an eclipse as the Eye of God is some sort of grand revelation? People have worshiped the sun longer than we've had verbal language. You're just delusional enough to think it's a new idea."
Wrong again. . .
You're just ignorant enough to say that I am "delusional enough to think it's a new idea" when I think no such thing. Seeing the total solar eclipse as the *symbolic* "Eye of God" IS some sort of grand revelation *today* because pretty much everyone forgot about the fact that it was seen as that sort of grand revelation in the past. I will remind you that I had a very profound revelatory experience that led me to that revelation. i.e. I got the distinct impression that God wanted people to be reminded about this ancient cosmic symbolism that human beings did know about and respond to in the past. A lot of prophetic experiences repeat things that have been said centuries before but have been forgotten or suppressed. Maybe you can tell me the when it was taught in any of the major monotheistic religions that the total solar eclipse's distinct similarity to the pupil and iris of an eye is what they would call a "Sign In The Heavens" symbolizing God's omniscience. I don't recall ever being taught that when I grew up but the fact of the matter is that God does exist, God is omniscient or at least highly aware of what goes on in the world and the total solar eclipse does in fact look a lot like an eye.
Posted by: Jadehawk, The Claymore of Looking at All Sides of the Question | September 8, 2009 10:46 PM
but, hey, at least he isn't claiming that solar and lunar eclipses can happen simultaneously! :-p
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 8, 2009 10:47 PM
Robin said:
Posted by: Jadehawk, The Claymore of Looking at All Sides of the Question | September 8, 2009 10:51 PM
also, personally, I find that solar eclipses remind me more of the Eye of Sauron.....
Posted by: foxfire | September 8, 2009 10:51 PM
@ Robin #486
Apparently you haven't quite grasped the concept of reading. I don't know who you think you were quoting with the "vanishing" sentence and it wasn't me (see #462).
Let me make this real simple for you:
If you thought you posted a comment on ScienceBlogs and it didn't immediately appear and your browser crashed shortly thereafter, it's highly unlikely that you would be able to recover the text. Unless you did something intelligent and write the text in a another application, where you could cut and paste to create a new blog comment.
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 10:52 PM
Kristopher - Go back up the thread, Janine & I both left you questions re: Luke 14:26 which I quoted for you.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 10:52 PM
Robin thanks for the google page. 8 out of 10 articles state a maybe for eclipse computation. So far a big MAYBE.
In fact Robin I think it can be scientifically shown that the Aborigines of Australia are the only group that had the true and only proper belief in the supernatural. Much more true to life than that silly fantasy you have been spinning all day.
Posted by: bastion of sass, mad malcontent menace | September 8, 2009 10:53 PM
Kristofer Layon
Oh, now I understand why you're not an atheist. You haven't actually read the Bible.
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 10:54 PM
MikeTheInfidel @535
Timecube? That is this Robin guy?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 8, 2009 10:55 PM
Dear Mr Edgar;
You're nuts. Go away now. You're almost certainly going to be banned in the near future, anyway, since I always feel a little regretful when I see the mentally ill getting stomped on.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 10:55 PM
The Moon is actually receding from Earth, and its apparent size getting smaller, so yeah, I'd call that a coincidence.
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/8720-why-sun-moon-appear-same-size.html
Anyway, an eclipse doesn't look like an eye at all. Have you ever looked at an eye before? The pupil does not take up the entire iris. If the eclipse was meant to look like an eye, then the Moon should have a much smaller apparent size relative to the sun.
The only time an eye has a pupil that large is when the person is on a huge dose of tryptamines.
Honestly, Robin, go find something better to do with your time. If your god does exist, surely it prefers that you feed hungry people rather than harass churchgoers. Relax and let go of your hate.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 10:56 PM
Picky, picky, picky. And like kamaka said, who said I was recruiting anybody? But, all right. If you want to join the Lesbyterians, I'll pass your name on to my sistas at The Company Committee. Don't know if they're going to be willing to part with any power tools, but it never hurts to ask. I'll have an Official Statement for you when the decision is made. We have a lot of impressionable young people to groom this week, so don't wait up.
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 10:56 PM
:Sven DiMilo, Obtuse Blockhead and Asshole said -
"Indeed, as with Galileo, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. Sorry I haven't been following along here, but have we identified the shadowy villains that are sworn to keep news of the religious symbolism of solar eclipses a closely guarded secret known only to a few adepts?"
I have not made that claim Sven but "fundamentalist atheist" Unitarians have certainly tried hard to discredit me in various ways not the least of them being characterizing me as seriously mentally ill (standard practice for "fundie" atheists as per some of the comments here), falsely and maliciously labeling my religious activities as a "cult", and misrepresenting what I am actually saying in order to set up a straw man they can knock down.
As far as it goes there are various reasons why most of the existing religions may not be too keen on acknowledging the validity of this revelation or indeed *any* revelation that they are not the "dispensers" of.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Enlightenment | September 8, 2009 10:58 PM
kamaka: No, not really. His ranting about how his groundbreaking scientific discoveries were being suppressed definitely seemed familiar to me, though.
No, the Time Cube guy is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. Robin here is just undiagnosed.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 8, 2009 11:00 PM
How can a one man practitioner of a religious idea be considered a cult? A wacko yes, but a cult no.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Antipodean Snarker | September 8, 2009 11:04 PM
Have you considered that they might be correct and that you are mentally ill? I mean, when the regular deluded religious folks consider your ranting to be the sort of batshit insanity they wouldn't touch with a ten-foot clown pole that's probably a good sign that it's time to get your head examined.
Posted by: Sastra, Hand Grenade of Reasoned Discussion | September 8, 2009 11:08 PM
Robin Edgar #533 wrote:
Your getting a "distinct impression" that you've been chosen by God to remind people that the sun might, under some circumstances, look a little bit like a distorted eye in the sky is just not the sort of thing which ought to convince skeptics that God is Really There. It's pretty thin gruel. You've apparently got a God which works through vague hints and faint resemblances, now and in the past.
If I were you, I wouldn't be crowing in triumph, and sneering at doubters. Even if, for the sake of argument, your revelation was real, it reveals a pretty poor God. The heroes of the scenario are still the skeptics.
Posted by: IaMoL | September 8, 2009 11:09 PM
Robin:
Yep, if the shoe fits...Posted by: MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Enlightenment | September 8, 2009 11:09 PM
They're not even really the regular deluded religious folks. They're damned UNITARIANS, the people who give lectures about homeopathy and ayurvedic medicine in their church services.
When KOOKS think you're kooky, it's time for a psych eval.
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 11:11 PM
JoshS, Official SpokesGay @ 544
WTF is wrong with you. You are absolutely not to be divulging this nefarious plot. Be smooth, spokesgay... y'know "just because your parents don't tell you about their homosexual leanings..."
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 11:13 PM
Robin, what you have experienced is a temporary state of salience dysregulation, a neurochemical function of your own brain. It's cool, it's interesting, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you are crazy. But you need to understand it for what it is. It's not a message from the deity. It is a natural -- though uncommon -- brain state, which you are arguably lucky to have experienced.
Now, please stop harassing people. Go make of your life something useful and generous, a testament to the best that humans can aspire to. You'll be happier. We'll all be happier.
Posted by: bastion of sass, mad malcontent menace | September 8, 2009 11:18 PM
JoshS, Official SpokesGay
Not I. *looking very innocent*
Although recruiting straight women to enlist in The Lesbians surely has to be a pretty easy job once the straights find out that gay sex is "almost like pure heroin."
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 11:26 PM
ROFL! Who knew I'd need a straight person to remind me how to be an insidious gay. Shoot, I think you just saved my job. . . don't tell The Company about my gaffe. . .
Ahem, that's Lesbyterians, missy. Good point about the addictive qualities of teh ghey sex, though. I was looking for something stronger than free Indigo Girls singles. Was wondering why that wasn't working out for me. . . Mebbe try power tools, too. You seem to like that sort of thing. . .
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 11:28 PM
Although recruiting straight women to enlist in The Lesbians surely has to be a pretty easy job once the straights find out that gay sex is "almost like pure heroin."
Ha ha, this is very funny.
To the author of the linked post, I ask: Project Much?
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 11:32 PM
That ain't the half of it. I'd sure like to know where these closet Christian freaks have been getting their homo love. I mean, sometimes it's great, yeah, but I've had some sex that was just like pure baking soda. Or pure whole wheat flower. Maybe I need to steal their black book.
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 8, 2009 11:38 PM
I want to use this Thread to out myself as an ex-Atheist and born-again Pantheist.
Yeah, that's right. I was born and raised Catholic in a tiny European village [97% catholic, 3% Heretics, protestants for that matter :) ] freed myself from that bull in my teens and became godless.
However, over the years, I noticed an inner desire for an occasional spiritual (mystical??, ceremonial ?? .... whatever) practice (experience ??, can't really tell) or let's say organized day-dreams. I was analyzing these emotions and could rule out a catholic - relapse, but began to read a lot about Buddhism and Paganism. However, buddhist are culturally to distant from me to help me shape and organize my spiritual needs and neo-pagans are just nuts. (At least every single one I met in my life-time).
After several years of struggling I decided to trust my feelings, and the strongest quasi-religious emotions I ever had were watching the twinkles of the rising sun over the glaciers in the Alps on a clear, fresh morning, the singing of the birds in spring and the dance of the northern lights in the Finnish winter nights (Lappland is awsome!!).
I do not believe in a personal god, and I never will. There are a plenty of reasons and thoughts I have that made me choose a pantheistic worldview and I do not want to bore you with them. All I want to say that my new believe helped me with other struggles in my life (e.g. to win my personal life-long war against tobacco addiction) and I just feel happy and all right with it.
For those who do not see the point in any kind of spiritual practice/opinion, I would just like to give my most favorite analogy on that matter. Spirituality is like Sex! Everybody has personal preferences and I will certainly never understand why people need to have their asses whipped by people in full-body shiny leather suits in order to have a pleasureful satisfaction, but that is non of my business anyways, right? Just do whatever turns you on, but do not put it on the people who are not into your likings.
That is by the way also my major criticism on PZ's blog, he's too much of an opinionator concerning personal religious questions, from my point of view. In my opinion, only society needs to be secularized and spirituality more personalized.
Posted by: Feynmaniac, Pirate Wallace the Sword Test Dummy | September 8, 2009 11:42 PM
Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal
Note: this obvious satire from The Onion was actually cited as proof by Fred Phelps that gays were recruiting.
(Wait, I think I used the wrong name generator....)
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 11:43 PM
JoshS - If you think you are going to get a power tool away from a lesbian I invite you to try and take away a compressor and an air chisel.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 8, 2009 11:45 PM
Society will not be secularized until personal spirituality is perfectly acceptable to mock, like wearing a mullet.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 8, 2009 11:47 PM
Oh cripes on a cracker, the eclipse guy again? Point and laugh.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 8, 2009 11:48 PM
A Frighteningly Delusional Individual wrote @ #545:
What revelation? That an eclipse bears a vague resemblance to a fucking eye?
I'm sure the world's religions are absolutely desperate to claim your profound revelation as their own.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 11:49 PM
Please help me to understand. You say you don't believe in a personal god, but that you're a "born again pantheist." What does this mean, specifically? Does it mean you believe in a whole panoply of gods? If so, which? If so, on what evidence? You say you "choose" a pantheistic worldview, but I'm curious what that means. Are you saying that you're making a deliberate choice to "believe" in something you know you don't have evidence for?
I think you're taking something personally that you shouldn't. I think you'll find PZ (and many of us) mock the religious when they parade their superstitions around in public, and make claims about what their deity wants that affect public policy decisions. If all these people were quiet and retiring, if their religion were merely personal, I doubt any of us would comment on it the way we do. Surely you see that?
Also, your criticism is rather strange, considering you're bringing your personal religious views out into a public forum, clearly wanting others to read about them, and then claiming you're miffed that people comment on them. You can't have it both ways - if it's truly personal, why are you talking about it here? You're certainly entitled to, but it's odd to take offense at what you claim to be an unseemly interest in people's personal beliefs when you've gone out of your way to make your personal beliefs public.
Whatever floats your boat. Can I have your leftover cigarettes please? I'll pay postage.
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 8, 2009 11:51 PM
# 561
Interesting postulate. Anything behind that statement or is it nihilistic dogmatism? Just gimme' all necessary premises and I will probably be able to deduce it myself later on.
Posted by: Sastra, Hand Grenade of Reasoned Discussion | September 8, 2009 11:51 PM
Yubal #558 wrote:
From what I can tell, you're not actually (or necessarily) an "ex-atheist" -- you're what's sometimes called a 'scientific pantheist.' You've chosen to see nature as sacred, and are using your new attitude and approach as a form of personal therapy.
PZ Myers once said that he'd like to see religion become something like knitting (or masturbating) -- a hobby done as a form of personal enjoyment, with no serious claims made about special dimensions of reality, and ways of knowing. It sounds like this is where you've taken religion.
If so, don't assume we're hostile.
Posted by: AJ Milne | September 8, 2009 11:52 PM
I believe you've an excellent point there. Far as I grasp, the standard terms in use are more:
1 person: wacko.
2-4,000 persons: cult.
4,001+ persons: religion.
...so, actually, Cap'n Placard here might have one valid complaint, I guess. Insofar as someone's nomenclature dopes seem to be off a notch or so...
Yo left...
Yo left...
Yo left right left...
(Shoutout over continuing chorus of 'Yo left' &c...)
Well I dunno but I been told
(Repeat)
Suppressin' prophets don't get old
(Repeat)
Sure he's got the word from Gawd
(Repeat)
We'll make sure he's jes' called odd
(Repeat)
...
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 11:53 PM
Patricia, that ignunt slut, wrote:
Girl, I know that's right! Fortunately, my sapphic sisters are generous with lending (plus they get shits and giggles out of trying to teach the gay boy to use them). But I know - these gals sleep with one eye open and a power drill tucked under the pillow.
Posted by: kamaka, brainless twit | September 8, 2009 11:55 PM
an apt description of xtianity.
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 8, 2009 11:56 PM
Hey! HEY!! Knitting and masturbating are two separate hobbies.
Not in my mohair dammit!
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 8, 2009 11:59 PM
Wowbagger,
You should consult a dictionary for a definition of the term 'fundamentalist'. . . You'll find that the *general* definition can be used about *any* rigidly held belief including Atheist beliefs. Beliefs like God is a delusion ergo people who claim experiences of God are mentally ill etc. etc.
:Er, no. There is no such thing as 'standard' or 'basic' (or even 'fundamental') about beliefs, yours or anyone else's.
ROTFLMU*UO! You *really* should look those words up in a dictionary Wowbagger, perhaps especially fundamental and its derivative words.
:If there was then there would be only one Abrahmaic religion, with no sects. Your interpretations differ from those of other Christians and other Abrahamics - not the least because you appear to be a batshit loon of some description.
I am not talking about interpretations Wowbagger I am taking about very basic *lowest common denominator* fundamental beliefs shared by the world's monotheistic religions. Beliefs like God actually exists, God created the Universe and the Earth, God is omniscient, God is omnipresent, etc. etc.
:Claim whatever you want. Claim that on All Fool's Day you can turn into a duck who can play Beethoven's Ninth on a Gibson Les Paul; it's precisely as valid as your claims about your god - since you can't substantiate either claim with any actual evidence.
How do you know that Wowbagger? Do please present *your* evidence supporting that assertion. . . I have all the evidence I need for myself in terms of the experience itself but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence supporting my claimed revelation not the least of them being that the totally eclipsed sun very distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an eye. So much so in fact that a professional astronomer observing a total solar eclipse in the 1980s was moved to express these words -
"It is the eye of God. A perfectly black disk, ringed with bright spiky streamers that stretch out in all directions."
Looks to me like Jack Zirkjer saw and more importantly *perceived* the "perfectly black disk" *pupil* of the moon ringed with the iris mimicking "bright spiky streamers that stretch out in all directions" of the sun's corona.
::I figure that it is only a matter of some decades before you find out for yourself, and P. Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins & Co. discover to their chagrin, that I am far from insane and that my beliefs about God are by no means "nuts".
:Pascal's Wager?
Close enough.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously. God either exists or does not exist. If God does exist (and I am personally convinced that God does exist as a result of a very rational analysis of what I have actually experienced) and there is some form of afterlife in which you retain the ability to process information you will come to realize that I am not insane.
:I guess the scum at the bottom of the barrel you were scraping from is deeper than I thought.
Not really, I am just using pure logic aka *reason*.
:It's has less to do with what we want to believe, and more to do with whether or not we understand the wacky things our brains will allow us to believe if we don't exercise critical thinking. It's called pareidolia - look it up.
I have exercised plenty of critical thinking in analyzing my revelatory religious experience and the information that it conveyed. Judging from the plethora of stunningly ignorant and/or just plain stupid comments made by "less than bright" Brights here your own ability to engage in serious critical thinking is rather questionable. . .
:Why do you assume that, even if it is 'observable cosmic symbolism' that the eye isn't Odin's?
My research indicates that the total solar eclipse "Eye of God" probably was Odin's eye. . . and probably Zeus's and very likely even Ahura Mazda's eye etc. etc. etc. I think I said that I was a *monotheist* these and other gods are simply earlier interpretations and constructs of an anthropomorphized God based on the beliefs of their era. One God, different interpretations.
:Or the eye of a completely different god who is the one true god but not the Christian god?
As I said. I am a monotheist, so to me "the Christian god" is just another interpretation of god based on certain beliefs. Surely you know the parable of the blind-folded wise men describing an elephant. . . The Christian god, Jewish god, Muslim god are all the same One God there are simply different beliefs about that same God.
:What analysis allows you to make the leap from 'eye in the sky' to 'the eye in the sky is they eye of my god and not anyone else's'?
I just said God. Period. Because I believe there is really only one Supreme Being. There may be "lesser gods" but I have no direct personal experience of them. I am talking about the Creator of the Universe.
::Tell me that I am insane and that my monotheistic religious beliefs are nuts in a hundred years or so. . .
:Are you stupid or just bad at maths?
I am not superb at maths but I am not *that* bad at maths. . . I am far from stupid. The people who are looking really stoo-oo-oopid right now are the "less than bright" Brights who have repeatedly put their feet in their mouths here for all to see. . . In fact if you had used a little bit of critical thinking to try to figure out what I was getting at, something I had already hinted at, you wouldn't have asked that stupid question. . .
:In a hundred years we'll all be dead.
Correct. And if there is an afterlife in which you retain the ability to think and process information you will be feeling just a tad stupid won't you?
:But if there are still people who have rejected reason and denied critical thinking enough to believe the nonsense you believe I have no doubt there'll be people like the posters here who will be telling them they are nuts.
The people who have repeatedly rejected reason and denied critical thinking in this comment thread are the atheists. Not me. The proof is in the stunningly stupid and quite irrational things that atheists are now on public record as saying here. . .
::Feel free to trample on them or even me.
:Like we need an invitation.
Oh I know you and your friends here don't need an invitation. You are like pigs to the slaughter. . . Figuratively speaking of course.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 8, 2009 11:59 PM
Are you sure you don't wanna come up and see my . . . likings sometime?
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | September 9, 2009 12:01 AM
Robin I SAW GOD'S EYE IN THE SKY Edgar:
What part of PZ's official STFU or you're going to get banned was unclear to you?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Enlightenment | September 9, 2009 12:03 AM
Not if the god that exists only blesses atheists, which is just as likely as any other idiotic concept you mush-brained ninnies can conceive of.Posted by: Yubal
|
September 9, 2009 12:10 AM
@ folks who responded to my post
I need to mass-murder numerous E.coli cultures and run a couple of SDS-PAGE, so it will take some time until you get an appropriate response :)
Posted by: godyoudieandaredead | September 9, 2009 12:15 AM
And if there is an afterlife in which you retain the ability to think and process information you will be feeling just a tad stupid won't you?
And if not, you won't know, will you?
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 12:16 AM
Wow, this Robin Edgar is a real specimen, and exhibits unmistakable signs of psychosis (paranoid megalomania, but IANAP). Lucky Robin is a nobody, those types have historically caused much harm when they had influence.
NonStampCollector's term (refer #272) is much more descriptive. :)
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 9, 2009 12:18 AM
:Have you considered that they might be correct and that you are mentally ill? I mean, when the regular deluded religious folks consider your ranting to be the sort of batshit insanity they wouldn't touch with a ten-foot clown pole that's probably a good sign that it's time to get your head examined.
It has been examined several times and, as someone else pointed out, I have never been *diagnosed* with any serious mental illness, especially one of a delusional nature like psychosis or schizophrenia etc. Au contraire, as a result of Rev. Ray Drennan's contemptuously dismissal of my revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" (several years after the experience itself BTW) I felt obliged to go and get my head checked to prove that I was by no means psychotic or otherwise seriously mentally ill. I passed with flying colors and was even described as "perfectly sane" by the qualified psychiatrist who examined me twice over a two month period. I informally know several mental health professionals and none of them have suggested that I am mentally ill. When I asked a Jungian psychotherapist who I had met a few times if she thought I was psychotic she replied by saying -
"You are not psychotic but you are a shit disturber."
I took that informal "diagnosis" as a compliment.
I live and work in an environment where I interact with a lot of diverse people. If I was mentally ill you could be pretty sure that at least some of those people would be saying so but, to date, none have. Not one. It has been over well over a decade since my revelatory experienced and the only people who try to "diagnose" me with a mental illness of one kind or another are people who have never met me in person and who have some kind of vested interest in writing me off as a mentally ill person. Even they are comparatively few expect when I venture into internet forums where angels can't be bothered to tread. Not that I actually believe in angels. OTOH I cannot say they don't exist either. Kind of like those fairies at the bottom of the garden that Richard Dawkins once acknowledged *might* actually exist. . .
Posted by: Robin Edgar | September 9, 2009 12:30 AM
P.Z. old boy,
No need to feel a little regretful when you see the mentally ill getting stomped on, unless of course you are talking about your obviously psychophants getting stomped on. I am not mentally ill in any serious way. Certainly not psychotic, or schizophrenic, or any of those other serious delusional mental illnesses that "fundamentalist atheists" who can't wrap their minds around the possibility that what I am saying might actually be true like to "diagnose" me with. You can call me "nuts" if you want but you are in no position to determine that I am mentally ill. As a *scientist* you ought to know that. What happened to your own critical thinking P. Z.? You seem no better than your igno*rant*ly blathering psychophants when it comes to critical thinking about what I have said here. Why don't you sleep on it and get back to me in the morning?
May I presume that you want to ban me because my comments expose the ignorance and idiocy of a good number of psychophants' comments here?
Sweet dreams P. Z.
Posted by: truebutnotuseful | September 9, 2009 12:32 AM
The Seer of the All-Seeing Eye wrote @ #571:
Fixed that for you, Robin.
(And please, do yourself a favor and see a doctor before you harm yourself or someone else.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 12:56 AM
Robin 'wackaloon' Edgar wrote:
So, all monotheists believe that exactly the same god exists and operates in the same manner? Do they all agree god created the universe in exactly the same manner, using exactly the same materials and in exactly the same timeframe? Do they all agree that god is omniscient and omnipresent?
Care to back that up with some evidence? Because all I need is one example of one member of one monotheistic religion that thinks even slightly differently on any one of those and you've been demonstrated to be wrong.
Posted by: Dan W | September 9, 2009 1:03 AM
It seems I've missed several entertaining and pathetic trolls here. Oh well, the start of this semester's kept me busy.
Relating to the PZ's original post, I would say that humans may have an innate instinct to make shit up to explain what we lack the knowledge to understand, and to agree with shit other people made up to explain things they lack the knowledge to understand, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Many things come naturally to human beings, but our brains have developed (well, some us have, can't say much for the trolls on this blog) to the point where we can think rationally and choose not to act on what may have originally been instinctual behavior.
Of course, I'm not sure that belief in an imaginary deity is "natural", but even if it turns out that it is, that doesn't make it good, and I can think of many "unnatural" things that have made things better for humanity. The wheel, writing, air conditioning, means of mass communication like these here intertubes...
Posted by: bastion of sass, Sister Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy | September 9, 2009 1:21 AM
Patricia, Ignorant Slut, wrote:
Depends on your kink, I would think.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel, Machine Gun of Enlightenment | September 9, 2009 1:28 AM
Robin:
If it takes a psychiatrist TWO visits to tell you that you're sane, you're probably not.
Posted by: bastion of sass, Sister Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy | September 9, 2009 1:36 AM
kamaka, brainless twit wrote:
To be clear, and fair: the author of the linked comment, MAJeff, OM, is one of Pharyngula's very bestest gays. If you want to fuss about the the spilling of the beans that gay sex is "too powerful to resist", direct it to the fundie MAJeff was quoting, Paul Cameron.
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 9, 2009 1:43 AM
Bastion - I must disagree, knitting deals with far more sharper pointy things than most masturbaters would find comfortable. (Smoggy & Floyd Rubber don't count)
And then there's the lube factor. Anyone steps near my stash with goop and I'll scratch their eyes out.
Wait. I have an air chisel...*evil smirk*
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut, OM | September 9, 2009 1:51 AM
Kamaka, Brainless Twit - MAJeff, OM is one of Pharyngula's bestest foodies so lay off him with the beans, or he might just sauce you.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake, self-proclaimed Amalekite scoffer | September 9, 2009 2:28 AM
I merely wanted to state that the Bible can't even agree with itself on the point of
which is an idea that is often contradicted by the Old Testament, and used the opportunity to flash a fancy addition to my username.
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 9, 2009 2:28 AM
JoshS wrote:
Hm...no. Not quite. It is the other way around actually. In Polytheism, gods usually represent a certain character or an attribute e.g Poseidon is god of the sea and fishery. On the other hand, this introduces a personality as a god and this is something I can not believe. For me, the sea can be sacred by itself. In its overwhelming sea-being in all the different ways sea is, calm warm and nice for bathing, raging and tossing in a destructive storm etc. When you've ever been standing in front of a mountain chain in its titanic, cruel, timeless beauty and had a shivering going right through your spine you understand exactly what I mean when I say "It is sacred". There are things, events, persons and emotions out there which put us back our (or on another formerly unknown) right scale. Just human. Part of the big show, a mere glimpse in eternity but also gifted with so much potency. That makes yourself feel aware of the general context you are in and it is totally appropriate for me to call the context I see everything in to have a higher purpose. A deeper meaning, a generalized picture that one can choose to admire. Or not. You can call it god, too, if you want to, but to me it doesn't make any difference and most people would get it wrong anyways.
I hope that was clear.
Well, the world is freaking beautiful, you know?
www.youtube.com/homeproject
As I said before, I was following the drive of my emotions until I came across the concept of Pantheism and suddenly realized that this was actually how I was already thinking most of the time.
If they were quiet and retiring you had nothing to comment on !?
I think it is an enrichment of this topic and I wanted people to read it. Maybe I have some of an exhibitionist in me? Not really, but you can consider to accept that as an explanation if you will, or have a private look on your own reasons to write on this blog.
I do not try to make people pantheist here, please I have no idea how to make someone believe the way I do. I can convince you (with my lab note book) that my findings on this particular pathway give a pretty good idea how this stuff works but that is an OT.
Btw:
Nobody likes getting mocked on a regular basis, does that really have to be? OK, I know the very special people you were talking here about with their very special need for very simple sentences that can easily consume more tolerance in 5 min. than a dozen drunken Irishmen on a funeral, but yeah, there are also others who can be be reasoned with which are hard to distinguish from the first ones. Is often an first-encounter experience that sets up the frontiers in the upcoming war.
I never stockpiled cigarettes. Did you had a free truckload of cancer-sticks in mind? LoL :)
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 2:33 AM
Far from making remote diagnoses over the internet, however you should consider that one of the hallmarks of schizophrenia is in fact total, utter, complete lack of insight.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 2:37 AM
Robin 'whackjob' Edgar's litany of loonery:
Really? Then please cite the dictionary that gives a definition that specifies its applicability to atheism. Also, cite a definition of atheism that includes a specific reference to comments about those who claim experience of gods.
On that note, though - please define the 'fundamentals' of atheism - along with the texts in which these fundamentals are cited, and evidence that atheists agree to accede to these fundamentals.
Er, because you've presented no evidence. A picture of something that looks like an eye? That's not evidence of anything beyond 'things in the sky can line up and look like an eye'.
Er, please explain - in detail - how 'That thing looks like an eye; my god must exist' is either logic or reason.
You don't know what critical thinking is, do you?
But there are people who believe in monotheistics gods that aren't the Christian god. The Jews qand the Muslims don't believe in the same god at all, despite what you claim - the Christian god includes Jesus as a part of itself; the Jewish god isn't.
So, with that in mind, why are you right about them all being 'different interpretations' and they wrong about their god being unique and separate? Can you demonstrate why they're wrong?
But that isn't what everyone believes. So, someone who believes in a different god from you can claim that the eye is of their god and not yours, and that they aren't the same thing at all. Why are you right and they wrong?
What is your evidence that there is an afterlife? Did the magic eye in the sky tell you one exists?
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 9, 2009 3:12 AM
Sastra,
Therapy is Yes/No. It can be therapeutic in certain situation to have supernatural opinions, but there is also more to it. Maybe a general attitude of respect and joyfulness or something? No idea. Really.
Further, I would never again consider myself to be an Atheist and I give you following example. Messianic Jews would never consider themselves to be Christians, they think of themselves as Jews. Funny wise, both Christians and Jews consider them to be Christians. Pantheists have a similar situation. First of all, they are traditionally considered to be Atheist by the official church(es) (goes back to the 16th century, at least) and also by contemporary Atheists, on the other hand they get often thrown in one pot with the pagans (see JoshS's first question to me above), although most pantheist are probably somewhere in between or something else.
Heheeh...! The sex analogy again. I like it. Masturbating, too, yes, but honestly, most of us like it better to do it with someone else? Let;s play it a little bit through. If Atheism is Masturbation, then Pantheism is getting a hand-job while being blindfolded, Buddhism is either Abstinence or excessive Masturbation till starvation, and the book religions are mass orgies that exclude gay people?
Hahaha! We come in peace :D
Peace Sister
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 3:19 AM
Oh, I get it now ! And creationism is buttfucking with a strap-on banana ?
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 3:52 AM
Hm. Best as I can tell, pantheism = everything is sacred.
Kinda dilutes the meaning of 'sacred' to a homeopathic degree. A bit like saying "everything is special".
I prefer PZ's "nothing is sacred" — boils down to the same thing, without the woo.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 3:59 AM
If you want to believe that it is just a totally meaningless random chance "coincidence" that the Earth's sun and moon have virtually identical apparent sizes and it is just another amazing "coincidence" that the totally eclipsed sun so distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of a gigantic "Eye in the Sky" aka "Eye of God" that's fine by me. I am very confident that the day will eventually come when you realize that you chose to wallow in ignorance rather than deal with the reality that this readily observable cosmic symbolism is the product of Intelligent Design and that it sends a clear message regarding God's divine omniscience to those with eyes to see. - Robin Edgar
LOL! (And I only use that abbreviation when it's really true.) I know it's not generally good form to laugh at looneys, but when they insist on parading their lunacy in front of me, I just can't help it.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 4:36 AM
Dear Brother Robin Edgar,
Praise Jesus, God and the Holy Level for you brave witness on this hellish blog. I'm sorry I wasn't here to support you as you suffered the slings and arrows of atheist mockery, but all credit to you, you handled them like an old pro (i.e. you put it all out there for everyone to see, then bent over and let them shaft you mercilessly, and then you came right back for more).
You're certainly a valuable testament to what Christianity is all about at its most basic level, and I've no doubt that many fence-sitting faithful will have been moved to decide for or against a relationship with God on the basis that he has you at the whirling center of His Divine Plan.
If I might employ an appropriate super hero analogy, you're a bit like God's faithful sidekick, aren't you? Think of yourself as Robin to God's Batman. Sure you look a bit silly in your cape, red panties and tights, and you're a bit over-eager, and you're slightly too camp to be a 'Real Man' (TM), but when the going gets tough you're in there 'zapping' and 'powing' right next to the Big Guy.
So more power to you. You may be, as I am, a simplistic, black and white believer in the unbelievable, but at least we're not sufferers from religious masturbation like those pantheists, who think there's a little slick of divine ejaculate coating every second thing, like a nasty stain that won't come off no matter how hard you scrub.
If I were an atheist, I'd be hard-pressed to decide whether it would be worse living inside your monochrome skull or Yubal's private Technicolor cranium-fantasyland.
Yours in Christian Love
Brother Smoggy
Posted by: Christophe Thill | September 9, 2009 4:46 AM
Cue The Alan Parson Project...
Do you know that wonderful novel by Philip K. Dick, The Eye in the Sky? There's actually a giant eye in it. But...
SPOILER
... it's all happening in the mind of an old crazy guy who is a religious fanatic.
It's not any ordinary person who has the privilege to live in a Philip K. Dick novel. Although I'm not sure I should call this a privilege, after all.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 5:04 AM
@ Wowbagger #581:
Eg the writers of the Bible(!), who wrote bits in which god explicitly wasn't there (ie not omnipresent), didn't know what was going on (ie not omniscient) and couldn't do some stuff (ie not omnipotent). Though, on the latter, there's an awful lot more examples which can't be distinguished from god being evil and unwilling to do good things or to be effective and efficient at stuff.
Posted by: Rick R | September 9, 2009 5:08 AM
Sastra @474- "I'm too mean to be a UU."
*Swoon*
If you can't say anything nice, come sit by me.
Posted by: Rick R | September 9, 2009 5:10 AM
Oops, make that #477....
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 5:13 AM
Knockgoats @ 243:
How very dare you. If my intention had been to quotemine I would hardly have provided a prompt citation that placed the quotation solidly in context.
While Darwin's may be a penetrating scientific intellect, elements of this moral philosophy seem problematical.
Darwin admits that a man without God is left to follow his "impulses"; however if he considers carefully, he will naturally come to see the "social instincts" are the ones to follow and so act "for the good of others".
But if it were that simple, if it is to be expected that human reason will lead men to live together peacefully, why do so many people seem to feel reason recommends a more aggressive approach to life?
It's no good appealing to "the verdict of all the wisest men" as Darwin does. Supposing we can agree who these wise men are, what if there is no consensus among them as to what constitutes reasonable behaviour? What if Machiavelli and Nietzsche disagree with Plato and Aristotle on this point? Who adjudicates between opposing wisdom?
And even if it were possible to somehow definitively demonstrate the rational superiority of what Darwin calls the "social instincts", what guarantee do we have that unaided human reason will prevail over our baser passions?
Darwin acknowledges that a man may freely decide to flout the consensus of his fellows, but assures us that he will act according to his "innermost guide", a nebulous "conscience" which Darwin does not define ...
It's hard to escape the impression that Darwin's view of morality is typically that of a stolid, philistine, complacent Victorian English bien pensant. Too much water has flowed under the bridge since then for such bland simple-mindedness to be tenable today. From the vantage point of the 21st century, Newman's seems a more prophetic voice:
Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 5:27 AM
There's no guarantee - but it's still better than lying to ourselves about the existence of a logically impossible god - particularly when history* shows us adherence to the worship of that god has brought us centuries of the exploitation and tyranny of the church, the encouragement of the rape of children by priests, and the failure to prevent millions of unneccessary deaths by fighting tooth-and-nail against live-saving contraception.
All the poetry in the world won't change that.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 5:36 AM
Eye in the sky, then you die.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 5:45 AM
Re the mental defectiveness of Kristofer Layon (eg poor reading comprehension and intellectual dishonesty):
Like many intentional atheists1, rather than accidental atheists2, I have read the bible in its entirety in one version - and much of it in various other versions too. So I recognised the referenced passages given in #408 without having to look them up.
The spectacular failure of Kristofer Layon (in #492) to similarly recognise them, even without the "from the Gospel of Matthew" clue which he evidently missed, suggests strongly that he's typical of religionists: viz relatively stupid, disgustingly ignorant of the material he claims to espouse and dishonest about that (to himself and to others). Either he has not read much of any non-Sunday-school3 version of the bible at all; or he didn't have his brain properly switched on (to read, comprehend, inwardly digest, critically analyse, compare and contrast etc) at the time.
For anyone who hasn't seen these useful links yet:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm (especially the "Realize that Jesus was a jerk" section)
1 ie those people who are atheists because they know a lot about both religion and reality - and religion just doesn't measure up.
2 ie the people of low personal quality who merely had the good luck to be born into a relatively secular environment. NB most low quality people become theists because, on being exposed to theism, they are unable to think their way out of its wet paper bag. It requires intelligence and education (and morals and intellectual honesty) to recognise the defectiveness of religion. So some people achieve the necessary combined threshold later than others, while many more never do.
3 ie colouring in pictures of Noah's Ark and the sermon on the mount etc and listening to highly selective platitudes from the previous generation of dishonest cult members doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 5:59 AM
SEF wrote:
Woo-hoo! I consider that a shout-out.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 6:12 AM
@ Kristofer Layon:
As has been repeatedly pointed out to you and largely ignored by you: in your various posts you are clearly trying to pretend "Christian" is synonymous with "nice". You are wrong in your attempted equivocation. The two terms are not synonymous.
Christian people are not necessarily nice people (and arguably, depending on where boundaries are drawn, relatively few Christians are nice).
Nice people are not necessarily Christian people - and this time one can state with certainty that the majority are not Christian.
There were nice people around long before Christianity was invented. They did not suddenly, magically and retrospectively (in most cases long after their deaths!) become "Christian". (Mormon attempts to that effect notwithstanding.)
Any Christian people who do happen to be nice people are nice despite their Christianity and not because of it.
To be a Christian, in any meaningful sense of the term, you really do have to believe in some subset or other (ie depending on one's precise cult/sect) of the relevant supernatural rubbish. If you don't then you aren't. Whether or not you're a nice person is a completely separate issue.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 6:13 AM
Pilty,
Truncating the quotation was bearing false witness, by misrepresenting Darwin's views. You're still distorting his views, by ignoring the final sentence above:
"His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbiation he will then not recieve; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience."
I'm not particularly interested in debating how far Darwin was right or wrong with you: he is not, as you seem to think, some sort of authority on moral questions to whom atheists must defer, and I've made my own rather different views clear enough, often enough. The truly monstrous record of evil accumulated by the RCC shows clearly enough the consequences of your "Do what the Church tells you" approach to morality.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 6:22 AM
@ Wowbagger #605:
Are you sure you're claiming to be of low personal quality but from a relatively secular background (and hence only an atheist by default)? It's entirely possible (and even probable) to be of high personal quality from a secular background - and hence still be an intentional rather than an accidental atheist.
But, hey, if you think the other hat fits you better ...
Posted by: Rick R | September 9, 2009 6:29 AM
Just for Pilty-
http://s.ffmovies.ign.com/filmforce/video/ring_qt_480.mov
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 6:44 AM
Yubal,
The wearing of the mullet was once a sacrament in my culture. The watching of the football, and the drinking of beer from cans, still are sacred. These latter practices still cannot be publicly mocked.
It's acceptable to point out a businessman in an ugly, mismatched or ill-fitting suit, and have a laugh at his expense. But if we point out that a bishop is dressed like a gaudy, tasteless jackass, then we're being too disrespectful.
That's a simple measure of secularity, right there. We'll know that we have a secular society when the only defense of the bishop is "maybe he's been out of work for some time and he couldn't afford a tailor."
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 6:45 AM
I was attempting to be humorously self-deprecating.
But I'd like to think I resisted the mild influence of religion (yes, I'm from a relatively secular background) because of having 'high personal quality'; however, since I didn't experience indoctrination, I can't say for sure that that's the case - hence why I tend to hold deconverts in much higher regard because of the work they've had to do.
Still, I don't think there's a lot to be gained by demeaning those you describe as 'accidental atheists'. It shouldn't have to take tremendous effort to be free of religion - and I certainly don't feel that people who aren't intelligent deserved to be punished by being burdened with religious beliefs they aren't capable of shaking off.
I think part of our responsibility as intelligent atheists is to do our best to stop the religious from taking advantage of the credulous.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 6:55 AM
And you not only cite some of the craziest stuff that I've *never seen* in a real Bible, but you don't provide a single example accurate citation, so I can't look any of that up to reply as I have no idea from which books those alleged citations are from.
Here's a tip -- citing from the Bible uses this format: book name chapter: verse(s) - Kristofer Layon
My #408 said clearly that the citations were all to the Gospel of Matthew. Or are you using the fact that I didn't use the correct format for biblical citations as an excuse not to address their content? Here they are again, along with the text from the King James version:
# Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.
Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
# Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery.
Matthew 5:28-30
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[29] And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[30] And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
# Jesus says that most people will go to hell.
Matthew 7:13-14
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
# Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire."
Matthew 7:19
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
# "The children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 8:12
But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
# Jesus tells a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead."
Matthew 8:21-22
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
[22] But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
# Jesus sends some devils into a herd of pigs, causing them to run off a cliff and drown in the waters below.
Matthew 8:32
And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
# Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24).
Matthew 10:14-15
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
[15] Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
# Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true).
Matthew 10:21
And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
# Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
# Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other.
Matthew 10:34-36
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
[36] And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
# Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.
Matthew 11:20-24
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
[21] Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
[22] But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
[23] And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
[24] But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
# Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
Matthew 13:41-50
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
[42] And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
[43] Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
[44] Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
[45] Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
[46] Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
[47] Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
[48] Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
[49] So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
[50] And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
# Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns.
Matthew 24:37
But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
[38] For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
[39] And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
# God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder."
Matthew 24:50-51
The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
[51] And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
# Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes.
Matthew 25:41
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
# Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever.
Matthew 25:46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Mostly idle, stupid threats - but threats nonetheless. Given Jesus's cruelty, intolerance and authoritarianism, the violent record of Christianity is hardly a surprise.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 7:10 AM
@ Wowbagger #611:
Of course it would be better if religious nutters weren't allowed to indoctrinate innocent victims and carefully make sure they're kept ignorant enough never to notice. However, that isn't the world in which we currently live and the distinction is relevant when someone is (correctly - on occasion!) claiming to know a stupid atheist (NB one who's a person and not a rock or some other obvious type of atheist-by-default). The context of this thread (and others like it) made the distinction important to state.
Incidentally, this time I neglected to add the contextually important qualifier of "decent" next to "morals" in #604. Since it's quite possible for a person of bad morals to read the whole bible and yet still regard it as OK. Whereas a person of decent morals can't do so in good conscience.
I would say "of course" there too; but part of the very real problem of attempting such humour anywhere near creationist and similar low quality types is that it really won't be "of course" for them. They just don't (or won't) get it. Hence I regard it as not worth the risk and not "funny". It will just get misunderstood (genuinely or deliberately) and misquoted (eg quoted out of context). Idiocy and dishonesty are what the religious do best (when not out indulging their more murderous tendencies etc).
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 7:18 AM
It would be a breach of professional ethics for a mental health professional to bring it up informally and tell you that you're a loon.
But like I said before, what you experienced at the time of the eclipse was a temporary state of salience dysregulation. One instance, or a few rare instances of this, does not make you a nutbar.
On the other hand, it's not especially incorrect to call that instance "your psychotic experience." Perhaps there were other ways of letting you down gently without making you feel like a jackass, but what's done is done. Practice a little forgiveness, and put it behind you.
Just because you had one period of salience dysregulation does not mean you are all psychotic all the time. It's relatively common for a person to have one such episode during a lifetime, with no warnings before and no recurrences afterward.
So, since I'm confident you aren't mentally ill, I'm also confident telling you that you are a bad person. Stop harassing the church. Just leave them alone and get on with your life.
You obviously have nothing else going on to make you feel important, so you are bullying these people to boost your ego.
Find some volunteer work. Maybe you can volunteer at a homeless shelter. Just call a shelter and ask how you can help; there are usually lots of things you can do. Sometimes someone needs a ride to a job interview. It can be as simple as that.
The relevant part is that you will be doing something that will actually make you important, something that will make a difference for the better in someone else's life. Knowing that you really are important to someone will be more fulfilling than harassing churchgoers. Just try it.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 7:32 AM
If we are going to tell the insane ones that they are insane, we better get it right.
WTF does this even mean? Please?
He fell victim to the brain's tendency for pattern recognition, or maybe it's just random events coming to fruition in a brain genetically inclined to schizophrenia,who knows.But "salience dysregulation"? Cant wait for the links to the studies for this....
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 7:44 AM
Google Scholar is at your fingertips. :)
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 7:48 AM
No darling, the rules apply to everyone, not only christians, make a claim here, support it with evidence.
But you would know this of course !
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 7:55 AM
What are you talking about? Evidence that the term has meaning? Takes two seconds to google it and come up with citations. Here's the first on GS:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/1/13
From the abstract:
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 9, 2009 7:55 AM
@Rorschach: salience dysregulation
Posted by: astrounit | September 9, 2009 7:58 AM
[Pardon the following long ramble...]
Jacinta Reid #184 says, "I believe (and I don't think I am alone?) there is a survival advantage in the capacity to sustain unsubstantiated hope. Continuing to strive when it is not rational to do so is something that purely rational individuals cannot do, so the survival and proliferation of the trait to be a little irrational is logical. It is also an explanation of how so many people can believe in such weird, unverifiable woo-woo. Having an explanation for that would be a *good thing* right? If so, please, please, please either stop contemptuously spurning this useful concept, or explain to me why it is so...scientifically implausible."
So?
Which concept is more useful: "a survival advantage in the capacity to sustain unsubstantiated hope" (as you say, and an obvious ) or a survival advantage in the capacity to identify (read "confuse") a capacity for unsubstantiated hope with the googaws of irrational belief systems manufactured by the notoriously tortuous elasticity and swift tempo of cultural evolution?
Which concept is more useful: a survival advantage in the capacity of people to procure stability, support and strength in numbers with their knack of developing culturally-prescribed social bonds (whatever they may be, as long as it's a glue that works), or the capacity of people to accept and adopt whatever a culture or group says "explains" that stability and strength - as "their very own personal belief", no matter how preposterous it is?
Which concept is more useful: a survival advantage in following the crowd (co-evolved with the growth of civilization), or the advantage in ricocheting off gadfly-wise into a "mental space" that attempts something like "dispassionate objectivity".
Just to see if anything comes of it. A good pre-planned trial. See what works, what doesn't.
Does anybody imagine that the occasional emergence of heretic gadflies is not as much a product of cultural evolution as following the leader is?
As for the statement, "Continuing to strive when it is not rational to do so is something that purely rational individuals cannot do, so the survival and proliferation of the trait to be a little irrational is logical." Are you quite sure that irrationality is being selected? Can't it be that the selection for rational thinking in the real world is not as complete or effective as you imagine? Do you still think that mortal (and often tired) living beings, however "rational" they may be, are immune from circumstances beyond their immediate or personal control? Do you still think that a "striving" towards irrational thinking and behavior (as dictated by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune) constitutes a verification of a hypthetical "explanation" for why such "irrationality" is specifically selected for? Do you still imagine that the irrational impulse does not attend human beings who are, after all, scared animals first?
Can't it possibly be that "people can believe in such weird, unverifiable woo-woo" BECAUSE of an underlying condition that an evolving civilization provides in spades: fertile and well-sheltered soil that can grow just about anything weirdly woo-woo that a diversity of cultures might conjure up?
Except it isn't the slow process of natural selection. It's much more Lamarkian than that...and it's much faster, more energetic. (I was going to say it is like Darwinian evolution on steroids, but that discounts the effect of intelligent brains which do a lot of the selection and capitalize on them with on-the-spot modifications that often immediately lead to increased adaptive facility - such beneficial tweaks that would take ages to arrive at by trial and error, "natural" or not).
Human society is a rich forest of specialized interests. It contains many "species" of viewpoints (conceptual models of the world). So, what gets selected?
Cultural groups that have condensed out of the increasingly high-temperature and competitive frenzy we know as civilization had better acquire(through cultural selection, of course) a resiliency that preserves them from getting knocked apart. Lots of psychological paraphernalia has been employed to preserve stability: frightful gargoyles, invective, dogma, persecution and even the threat of death (as warning displays to outsider "others" to stay away and refrain from messing with them) together with deliciously sweet invitations that promise eternal life in paradise - have historically been entirely sufficient to protect or maintain the interests of religious groups that enjoy so much political power.
But the power they hold isn't contained in their beliefs. That's not what's "selected" (if it was, there would NOT be a zillion DIFFERENT belief-system religions infesting the world). It's simpler: the power is contained in their numbers. And their leaders take advantage of it - THEY are a strong selection force, weeding out the "bad", cultivating the "good" crop - not just on the cynical principle that "a sucker is born every minute", but on the even more cynical motivation that seeks to tap a large fraternity of like-minded suckers who collectively wield considerable power. THAT is what counts. THAT's the "survival strategy" that actually gets selected.
Don't just stare at the bark on the trees. Look at the forest. In CO-EVOLUTIONARY terms, what do you think gets selected? Does anybody still think that an elm is the way it is, in all its elm-splendor, because it somehow evolved independently of the oaks or the maples or the larches (not to mention pesky beetles and whatnot)? Does anybody still think that we are who and what we are because we never interacted with our biosphere and all the many other human and non-human creatures that inhabit it? Does anybody still think that an irrational though extremely popular cultural meme emerges BECAUSE of its content rather than through the auspices of civilization, that is, assembling coherent groups of like-minded people, pumping them out like hotcakes?
Well, YEAH. Irrational people still do and much more. They must remain true and loyal to the group FIRST - whatever the group's position. An irrational stance never needs any support OTHER than that supplied by a grouping. They've got a tremendous amount of personal and emotional investment placed in their like-minded group. Like a school of fish being molested by sharks, the parts are terrified of being separated from the whole. That's all that matters to them.
Parenthetically, which is why I always say it is vitally important to prepare a favorable "host" group for them to cleave to - my analogy of redressing the "addiction" with a good "substitute". Without that, all the clamour is nothing but watching a battle line shifting slightly from one side to another. I'd rather watch an hour hand on a clock as an example of progress.
Sure, lots of activity is generated to rationalize the irrational - it IS considered a "way of life", as prized as home and hearth, and they DO think it needs to be defended, and they are not reluctant to employ preemptive attacks to achieve what they consider their security, and a troubling proportion think it a matter of life and death, and so on.
But look out: while a given biological trait which distinguishes populations may take tens of thousand of years or more to emerge, the situation is very different in cultural terms: not a day goes by now without a vast array of modest upheavals bubbling up from the caldera of a "well-connected" society supported by a complex technical civilization that facilitates "freedom".
It's a very important criterion of scientific inquiry - almost a maxim - to be able to make clear distinctions and distinguish logically useful premises (are there any other kind?) from the chaff of arbitrary association or from the vile pit of dichotomy from which so many are thrilled to catch red herrings. Only that way can scientists (you know, "people", who have somehow ALSO "evolved" within that greater yet very same cultural environment which is thought to be ever so specially well-attuned to religious obsessions?) identify useful questions to pose to nature and to themselves on rational grounds that may reap the harvest of a sensible and meaningful answer.
Science, at least, works BECAUSE it is based on the logical and the rational. (Religion doesn't work at all on those bases). On that much we may even sustain what you might identify as "an irrational hope".
Many people HAVE gotten a pretty conclusive answer based on the appropriate distinctions: that the symptomatic expression isn't what's explicitly selected for, while the underlying condition that supports and even nurtures it clearly is.
Specific convictions or beliefs are obviously products of cultural evolution, but none of them pop fully-formed out of our minds based on ideological or theoretical considerations alone, as we often seem to think. (Although we are certainly entitled to the conceit that logic and rational thought can and does guide us to effective models of the world, by its correspondence to information supplied by natural reality).
But the cultural framework behind the flourishing of ideology and theory is also evolving, rather manically now, and the siren-song of consensus is very strong and tough to resist: we all want to believe the same things, or rather, we have a social and biological need, as living intelligent observers, to confirm whether our imaginary models of the world (Einstein's "Weltbild") correspond to those of our neighbors'.
It IS a matter of survival: without the correspondence of different viewpoints, we may none of us gain as deep and meaningful an appreciation of our environment, of reality. We shiver at the prospect of holding a solitary opinion, of being alone in what we think. It tends to suggest that we may be wrong.
You express the hope yourself: "I believe (and I don't think I am alone?)..."
I may be alone in my opinion, but I just don't think that our most-certainly evolved capacity for independent (rational) thinking is any less substantial or potentially important than the evolved tendency to mindless (irrational) groupthink.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 8:02 AM
I have indeed heard of the concept, it has been discussed for a while.
It has not been shown as yet to be more than a theory by any means, and is not part of mainstream psychiatry at all at this point in time.
Just trying to treat everyone the same here.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 8:08 AM
OK, it's early in the morning (for me), but what the hell? You asked:
If you wanted to argue the paychiatry with sgbm, that's another matter. You clearly implied something else.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 8:13 AM
Hmmmmmmmm
Please tell me what I really implied.....
I love it when you do that !
:-)
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 8:15 AM
I am not mentally ill in any serious way. - Robin Edgar
Have to agree there, Robin: you're mentally ill in a highly amusing way.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 8:19 AM
FFS, that you thought sgbm had pulled the term out of the air, andor it was psychiatrically meaningless. If you knew what it meant, why the fuck would you ask "WTF does this even mean? Please?"? If you knew there were studies of it and that it had been discussed for a while, why would you say "But 'salience dysregulation'? Cant wait for the links to the studies for this...."?
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 8:24 AM
@ Rorschach:
... does clearly (ie to anyone who isn't in some in-group of yours with prior knowledge that you don't say what you mean but instead speak in a special code) imply you either don't regard the individual words as genuine ones or don't regard the combination of them as being sensible or meaningful (to you).
An alternative interpretation could be that you were jokingly highlighting a proposed oxymoron - as with "military intelligence". However, a shared context for such a joke is not in evidence here - although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that psychobabble professionals do have such ritual jokes.
Another alternative interpretation is that you were cackhandedly trying to draw attention to the fact that the language in sgbm's post #614 was unnecessarily obscure. The point could have been made more simply (by both of you!).
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 8:24 AM
Knockgoats wrote:
Zing! Genius.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 8:29 AM
If we quote shit we better be sure its shit supported by evidence or we arent any better than the creotards we have a laugh about here all the time.
The "salience dysregulation" thing is not part of evidenced-based medicine, or even at the point of being a valid theory, at this point.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 8:31 AM
It's the sensation that Robin describes when he says "I got the distinct impression that God wanted people to be reminded about blah blah blah."
The sensation that this natural event is for the subject, or that it has some extraordinary meaning. Rather than an eclipse, sometimes completely mundane things are seem to be imbued with purpose. Elyn Saks describes a day when she was walking home from school as a teenager and the houses along the street started sending her messages, for example. Now, she has recurring symptoms, and she has to take care to stay in treatment.
But these sensations of extraordinary salience occur sometimes for individuals who experience nothing similar before or since, and that seems to be what Robin is describing.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, OB&A, OM | September 9, 2009 8:31 AM
'schach--you're pwned. Don't dig.
Posted by: Kel, OM | September 9, 2009 8:31 AM
Dude, are you sure you meant to talk in creationist-speak there?Posted by: Josh
|
September 9, 2009 8:32 AM
Always happy to receive outcrop photos. Thanks!
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 8:35 AM
It has not been shown as yet to be more than a theory - Rorshach
Like evolution, you mean? ;-)
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 8:39 AM
sgbm hadn't quoted any shit, and that's certainly debatable:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/2/101
But I don't think you're being honest about your initial comment to him, and I'm not going to continue the conversation under that circumstance.
Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 8:45 AM
Thats schizophrenia.Drug-induced or whatever,it fits the description.
Using the word "theory" in the sense of "as of yet unproven concept or idea" is not creationist speak.The fact that creationists cant figure out what "theory" means in the context of science doesnt mean noone else does.
Sven et al, please show me how and where "salience dysegulation" has been established as a valid concept in psychiatry and I shall stop digging, as you call it.
sgbm's explanation was actually pretty good @ 629.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, OB&A, OM | September 9, 2009 8:55 AM
R, I meant only that, like SC, and SEF, I read your comments as first implying that you had never heard the term, and then backfilling later claiming you had. If that's a misinterpretation, then you can blame your own choice of phrasing.
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 8:56 AM
Interesting. Searching google scholar for
gets 18 hits (all from 2009), but add and there are no hits.Posted by: Rorschach | September 9, 2009 9:00 AM
Sven,
yes, had heard it before, didnt know enough about it to confidently post, so read up on it, and then commented.
I just think the standards here should apply to everyone not only religionists.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:02 AM
Well, look, even if I thought he was schizophrenic (and I don't), I wouldn't tell the guy he's schizophrenic over the internet. What good would it do? It's not going to help him understand what's going on. He's going to interpret it as an attack upon him. And it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to interpret it that way; many people do say those kinds of things precisely as an attack.
Contrary to Rorschach's misunderstanding, I'm not making the claim that schizophrenia is caused by, or entirely summed up as, a dopamine issue. Nor am I claiming that a salience dysregulation syndrome is the best way to understand schizophrenia. Those issues are in discussion by mainstream psychiatry, like string theory is in discussion by mainstream physics. But I don't have a strong opinion either way.
Robin says he has discussed this with a psychiatrist, and I believe him. He is focused on just this one event in the past, which is insufficient to diagnose schizophrenia, or of any salience dysregulation syndrome.
But the event, not a syndrome, that he describes is literally a dysregulation of salience. And I think that's a useful way for Robin to understand it. There are known ways of deliberately reproducing such a sensation; if I knew him personally and felt I could judge his stability, I might recommend one of these methods. Not all of them are illegal. It might help him grok this as a natural, material, neurochemical event.
And it is important for him to understand that people can have these experiences without having any ongoing mental illness. It probably isn't useful for him to try to understand it as "a psychotic event." That's much too implicit of judgment about his ongoing mental state.
He seems to be fine now. If a person feels that they've received a message from God, it's not irrational to take that message seriously. I'm just asking whether he thinks God really wants him to be a shithead and go out of his harass Unitarians every weekend, or whether God might prefer that he spend that time helping people.
Regardless of what happened fifteen years ago, it's probably best for him to find a real way to feel important instead of bullying people on the street.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:13 AM
In Saks' case, it is schizophrenia. But schizophrenia is an ongoing disorder. My point is that there are occasional events like this in the lives of many people who do not fit any such diagnosis.
For instance, taking a "heroic dose" and temporarily feeling that the universe knows you and has a special secret for you is not schizophrenia.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 9:16 AM
Are you sure you're not typing something wrong the second time? I'm still getting a list of 18. Without the quotes, the first thing that comes up for me is the 2003 AJP paper.
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 9:21 AM
SC, I just retried after reading your comment.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, OOB&A, OM | September 9, 2009 9:26 AM
Nope, SC, adding minus-sign van Os with or without quotes yields zero. Removing the quotes from "salience dysregulation" yields like 2500 hits, including a 2003 AJΨ article.
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 9:26 AM
Addendum - not using phrase search matches either term; it's probably bringing up that hit (just tried it) because of Salience (neuroscience).
Obviously, I know stuff-all about this subject, but I do know how to search.
Basically, the term seems to have only one source - Jim van Os.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 9:28 AM
What's up with the silly hyphen? :)
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:36 AM
That's to subtract references to van Os.
Again, I am not claiming that van Os is correct that schizophrenia is best understood as a salience dysregulation syndrome. That's neither here nor there, as Robin has not been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Rather, the event he described can be understood as literally a temporary dysregulation of salience.
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 9:38 AM
SC, the hyphen is used to exclude search terms.
It's all explained here.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 9:43 AM
OH! The minus sign means without van Os! I get it. Didn't get the point you were trying to make.
The 2003 article seems to be what started it. I know stuff-all about sd, too, or contemporary psychiatry for that matter, but it seems debatable whether it's based on EBM or in use if it appears in these journals. In any case, that wasn't my point - it was that Rorschach appeared to be questioning the existence of the term in his initial post rather than opening a debate about its psychiatric validity. He appears to have dishonestly shifted the goalposts. If that isn't the case, he should try to write more clearly.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, OOB&A, OM | September 9, 2009 9:43 AM
I think she knew that. Hence the litle smiley.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 9:50 AM
Nope. I guess I usually just take the longer route. I do so many searches in different databases with different rules (or so it seems to me) that I haven't devoted much energy to shortcuts. But that's a good one to know, and thanks for the link, John.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 9:51 AM
Wow, man, this stuff is, like, really strong. I mean, I took, like, half a tab, and I was getting salience dysregulation!
;-)
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:55 AM
I realize it's my fault for starting us down this rabbit hole, but I think the focus on the specific phrase "salience dysregulation" is missing the forest.
Schizophrenia is about salience. Van Os is making the suggestion that it is perhaps all about salience, or primarily about salience.
Obviously, I picked up the specific phrase from him, but the controversial bit is only whether it's primarily about salience or not.
And whether or not Robin has an ongoing mental illness -- again, I think it's not unreasonable to trust him about the visit to the psychiatrist -- it is clear that he experienced an event in which he misattributed salience. I think it's fine to note that it was his brain temporarily dysregulating the feeling of salience, but the d-word is not really the important part.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo, OOB&A, OM | September 9, 2009 9:55 AM
the colors man...the colors
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:57 AM
Try two, man, and you'll become one with salience itself.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 10:05 AM
Robin, let me fix a typo here:
So, is that what God wants from you? Was that the purpose of your revelation? God's great plan for you is that you should be an petty asshole to the Unitarian Universalists in Montreal for the rest of your life?
Posted by: SC, OM | September 9, 2009 10:10 AM
Just to be clear:
Yes,
does, and many of the initial ones appear to be discussing the same basic concept (minus the "syndrome" aspect). (Of course, as we should all recognize *ahem;)*, really lame/shitty articles can appear even in respected journals, so this doesn't necessarily demonstrate anything about the validity of the concept.) In any event, sgbm has explained how he was using the term, so it's all pretty much moot.
Posted by: Kristofer Layon | September 9, 2009 10:12 AM
Knockgoats,
First, I read your earlier post too quickly -- I apologize for missing the reference to Matthew. And to those who called me stupid because of it: no, I'm not stupid, I just made a mistake. Christians are allowed to make mistakes. =)
Regarding responses to your many citations from Matthew, I'm sure you'll be disappointed that I don't want to take the time to reply to each individually. So if this means you win, then yes, you win the argument. But I do have a broad response.
I believe that in Matthew, Jesus is teaching generally about the broad "law" and nature of sin. So when he agrees with the law and, by extension, examples of consequences in the Old Testament, he's simply saying that sin has consequences. I don't have a problem with that: it seems reasonable to me. A secular interpretation of this is simply: bad actions usually have bad consequences. And yes, the Bible is full of such examples.
Then Jesus chooses to list a number of sins. Taking just one, looking lustily at a woman: well, isn't it somewhat reasonable to consider this adultery? And sure, I sin all the time --- we all do. (fortunately, I also believe in grace -- that my sins are forgiven)
When Jesus refers to hell, I'm less able to answer this. So part of the answer is: I don't know. But metaphorically, I believe that people can certainly create their own hell right here on earth through excessive and unrepentant sin. Do I think hell is a fiery, supernatural place with a devil in a red suit? No.
And do I think cutting off my own hand is a good idea just because Jesus suggests it? No. Do I really believe he wants me to do this? No. But if cutting off my hand could somehow make me a better person, would I do it? Perhaps. Is this what he meant? Maybe.
In the end, we could bicker about all kinds of things Jesus said. When I don't fully understand something in the Bible, I ask myself if there is any truth that pertains to me today? If not, then perhaps I should not bother trying to take it out of the context in which it was written and apply it to my life today. But if so, then I try to seek the truth that makes sense to me in this modern world. It may not be something literal, it may be more metaphorical.
Are atheists justified in reading parts of the Bible and thinking it's complete crap? Certainly, if that's what you believe, then don't read the Bible and try to understand its teachings. That's a legitimate response to something that likely can't help you. But just don't dismiss those of us who seek meaning and truth in it.
And sorry if I missed addressing a key point you had hoped I would refute. But if there's a valuable lesson I've learned by participating in this blog, it's twofold: 1) I have a far better understanding for, and respect for, atheism than I used to, and 2) despite my continued belief in God and my desire to discuss it, I have to accept that my participation in this blog probably won't change many minds. Quite simply, we can't change what we believe just on a whim, whether we're atheist or Christian.
All I had hoped to demonstrate was that being Christian does not require considering the Bible as infallible, nor taking it all as literal truth. Also, dissent and debate is part of Christian inquiry. So, sorry if we're not all as crazy and irrational as you like to think we were --- hopefully some of the readers of this take that as a valuable lesson, too.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 10:18 AM
Fuck you, Kristofer, you condescending shit.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 9, 2009 10:23 AM
Not I. Sin is a meaningless stock word of Christianity that has no relevance in the real world. There are always consequences for personal behavior, and those consequences can range anywhere from bad to good in many different ways (social, physical, physiological, legal, etc.). It is quite a stretch to throw all of that into one little three-letter word and attribute it to us all being bad from the start. The concept of sin is another good reason to dismiss Christianity outright at ludicrous.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 10:24 AM
No, you failed. Jebus is a fictional charcter. No evidence to the contrary. Ergo, as long as you think a fictional charater is real, you are showing delusional thoughts. Some other Xians may be more delusional than you, by thinking the babble is inerrant, but you are still delusional. Until you can acknowledge this, you can't break the bonds of fictional and become rational.Posted by: Knockgoats | September 9, 2009 10:24 AM
Taking just one, looking lustily at a woman: well, isn't it somewhat reasonable to consider this adultery? - Kristofer Layon
No. Get a grip, man.
Do I think hell is a fiery, supernatural place with a devil in a red suit? No.
But if you take the gospels seriously, that's pretty much what Jesus believed.
All I had hoped to demonstrate was that being Christian does not require considering the Bible as infallible, nor taking it all as literal truth.
Look, you smug, stupid arsehole, no-one here could possibly believe that it does. Most if not all of us know non-fundamentalist Christians personally. Nor are you the first non-fundamentalist Christian to comment here. Fortunately, those Christians I know personally, and some who have commented here, are a lot less smug and stupid than you are, so I have not gained the false impression that all Christians are like that.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 9, 2009 10:25 AM
Pardon me, "as ludicrous."
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 9, 2009 10:34 AM
Hmmm... what was it I said waaaayyyyy back at # 422.... AHHH yes... here it is...
I'm off to collect my prize from JREF! Woo-hoo! Or maybe I didn't need psychic abilities to see that one coming... I'll leave it to you to decide...
That was truly a pathetic attempt at apologetics, Kristofer... you are no different than the countless hordes of dishonest gobshites that will ignore the parts of the bible they don't like or can't reconcile but still insist that the "rest of it" is ineffable.
You have officially become boring.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | September 9, 2009 10:34 AM
Does the consequence of stoning for the sin of not yelling loudly enough while being raped seem reasonable to you?This kind of loose thinking can lead to agreement with anyone.
You consider the concept of thought crimes to be reasonable? Really? But we can look at our beliefs and check whether the label we apply to ourselves fits or not. You neglected to demonstrate how to tell the good bits from the bad bits.Stalin believed that the crime of criticizing the Party should bear the consequence of a firing squad, and I believe that crimes should have consequences, so does that mean that I agree with Stalin?
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 9, 2009 10:39 AM
Christians are allowed to make mistakes. =)
My stomach curdled just a little bit here.
All I had hoped to demonstrate was that being Christian does not require considering the Bible as infallible, nor taking it all as literal truth. Also, dissent and debate is part of Christian inquiry. So, sorry if we're not all as crazy and irrational as you like to think we were --- hopefully some of the readers of this take that as a valuable lesson, too.
As long as you make the argument that people lusting for other people is a sin and akin to adultery instead of knowing that these feelings of lust is a natural human emotion, you are arguing from a crazy and irrational viewpoint. One does not need to be a fundamentalist to be deluded. The delusion starts when one tries to conform oneself to christianity's inhumane core.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | September 9, 2009 10:41 AM
shit... I know I wrote "infallible", yet "ineffable" is what shows up in my post... damn you scienceblogs!
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 10:46 AM
@ Kristofer Layon #657:
But we're not the ones who ever thought that! It's the more extreme among your fellow idiots who think that. You're being stupid/ignorant to push that position onto atheists. Those of us in the evidence-led, reality-based community have long been well aware that the woo-soaked majority can't agree on anything - let alone which parts of which holy books to believe.
The rest of your post is just a pack of feeble excuses - of exactly the many and various sort we've come to expect from religious nutters. They don't have to be true by any objective standards and they certainly won't be the same as the set of excuses generated by another religious nutter put on the same spot as you (even if that nutter is nominally of precisely the same flavour of religion).
Posted by: Walton | September 9, 2009 10:54 AM
strange gods, my reply is waiting for you over on the Texan thread. :-)
Kristofer: I don't think any of us believe that "all Christians" are fundamentalists and Biblical literalists. I'm a former moderate Christian (now an agnostic) myself.
But really, the fact is that the supernatural elements of Christian belief - the divinity and resurrection of Christ, heaven and hell, the Holy Spirit - are not supported by any empirical evidence. Simply put, orthodox Christianity - even of the moderate sort - expects us to accept a lot of complex, arbitrary doctrines without backing them up with any evidence; and while it is possible to believe things without evidence, the problem is that there is then no reliable means of distinguishing between truth and falsehood. Yes, the Christian God might exist - but so might the invisible fairies at the bottom of your garden. Neither of these beliefs can be disproved, but neither belief is supported by any evidence; and so there's no compelling reason to accept it.
Of course, as you allude, some liberal Christians don't believe in a literal resurrection, a literal heaven or hell, or the other supernatural elements of Christian faith. (John Shelby Spong is a good example.) But the problem is that such a watered-down version of Christianity isn't really "religion" in any meaningful sense; it becomes indistinguishable from deism or agnosticism, albeit with a special aesthetic appreciation for the Judeo-Christian tradition. So that form of "Christianity" is, really, rather pointless.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM, Churnin' Urn of Burnin' Funk | September 9, 2009 11:29 AM
sgbm:
FTW!
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 9, 2009 1:15 PM
Said Kristofer:
You can seek meaning and truth in the patterns in the grains in a block of wood for all I care. Just don't expect me to take you seriously, and don't be surprised when I mock you for being batshit crazy.
How the hell can you argue that the Bible is METAPHORICALLY true? What does that even MEAN? If something is metaphor, it is a FIGURE OF SPEECH. It is not TRUE in any meaningful sense.
Posted by: CJO | September 9, 2009 1:16 PM
I believe that in Matthew, Jesus is teaching generally about the broad "law" and nature of sin. So when he agrees with the law and, by extension, examples of consequences in the Old Testament, he's simply saying that sin has consequences. I don't have a problem with that: it seems reasonable to me. A secular interpretation of this is simply: bad actions usually have bad consequences. And yes, the Bible is full of such examples.
Or maybe the Gospel of Matthew is a tract representing the views of a Jewish apocalyptic sect undergoing a split from the more mainstream Jewish faith community with which it had been associated. In short, it's written to address a very narrow set of ancient concerns in a very specific time and place. It's not just "sin" and its consequences, it's about making yourself right with the Lord in advance of the coming Kingdom of God. It's saturated with this kind of eschatology, and it was intended for an audience with a fervent desire for a cataclysmic end of the world in which the unrighteous (practically everybody) will perish horribly. That's earliest Christianity, and as presented in the gospel of Matthew it's a nasty, insular little cult with delusions of grandeur peddling childish fantasies of divine retribution.
So there's nothing there that has any relevance to your, my, or anybody's life in modern times and mining the Sunday School level synopsis of the gospels with the puzzling bits left out for the nuggets of supposed wisdom is about as guided by sense as consulting a Ouija board.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 9, 2009 1:19 PM
Oh, and if the only thing you read the Bible for is its TEACHINGS, not anything that is literally TRUE, then you've willingly accepted a whole load of sadistic baggage to go along with something you could get elsewhere.
P.S.: The fact that you find the idea of thought crime reasonable is pretty horrifying.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 1:29 PM
Try substituting "allegorically" - as per a fable or parable intended to get over a point. The book itself contains whopping great hints that that's how it's all supposed to be read. Eg the way NT Jesus can never give a straight answer to any question but always has to dive into some elaborate (and often horrific, as per OT stuff) story. It's much the same format as The Arabian Nights - stories embedded within stories (though not nested quite so deeply in their levels).
However, some of the stuff in there definitely includes textbook examples of metaphor and simile - where it's even more obvious that a particular author isn't supposed to be taken literally. Eg much of the Song Of Solomon. Not even many of the nuttiest religious nutters would regard "your lips distil nectar" as having its literal meaning.
Smart children can spot this, whereas IDiot adults still can't.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 1:37 PM
PS Having just been downstairs to check the relevant bookshelf, I find that the title on my book collection of what I casually called "The Arabian Nights" (in #673) is actually "The Thousand Nights And One Night". I don't know what the most literal translation would be of whatever the original Arabic(?) title was. Hopefully most people will have some idea to which work I'm referring though (hint: all that Sinbad and Ali Baba stuff).
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | September 9, 2009 3:21 PM
I missed this bit earlier:
Which is, of course, a lesson you can arrive at without all the ideas about supernatural eternal condemnation and torture.And SEF:
I understand that, and I agree that this is how they're meant to be read, but then we're equivocating on the meaning of 'true'. Allegorical fables aren't "true"; they're instructive. They teach things that are useful or sensible. Truth is not just a matter of usefulness or sensibility.The problem with Biblical fables is that they resemble historical legends, and many believers interpret them as actual histories because their tradition teaches them that the Bible is "true" in the non-allegorical sense - i.e., the same sense by which it is true that Barack Obama is the American president.
Posted by: SEF | September 9, 2009 4:11 PM
Some of those same people would disagree that it's true that Barack Obama is (legitimately) the American president!
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 9, 2009 6:19 PM
Steve the Junker in #273: you have captured perfectly my objection to the article PZ linked to (the actual article, not the study the article is reporting on).
I have actually run into people who put forth the argument that because all humans have a (seemingly) inherent tendency towards superstitious thinking, it is completely useless to try to teach people not to think that way.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 9, 2009 6:31 PM
We already know that. But all Christians still believe in a deity that cares about individual people, appeared in human form, was crucified, and appeared to people after his death. That is no less ridiculous than believing in a literal Noah's flood.
Posted by: truthspeaker | September 9, 2009 6:38 PM
Pointless or not, it's atheism, which we don't have a beef with.
Personally I feel the Christian Bible has about as much literary significance as a soggy potato, but then I think the same thing about "Catcher in the Rye". At that point it's just a question of literary taste with no real significance.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 6:39 PM
Janine @ 665:
"My arse is perfectly natural but I am careful to wear breeches." - Voltaire, talking sense for once.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 6:43 PM
Praise God Brother Pilty!
Do you have a pair of those Voltaire breeches? The ones with the quick release flaps both front and back for easy access and instant penetration!
Can you get me a pair?
Yours in Christian Lust
Smoggy
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 6:44 PM
Gregory Greenwood @ 294:
I would never be condescending toward those of the female persuasion, bless them.
I wasn't being at all presumptious -- the 'enlightenment' I referred to was a response to a specific question Janine had put to me. As for J.'s superficially belligerent nature, I'm sure it's nothing the love of a good man wouldn't cure.
I should jolly well hope not. That would be an infernal impudence.
For elections to have a significant impact you need an informed and committed electorate, which is just what you don't have in a modern mass democracy. Even if most people had the aptitude for political decision-making, they have neither the time nor the appetite. They have lives to live. Which is why there invariably arises an elite class of decision-makers and opinion-formers -- professional politicians, economists and media pundits who set the boundaries of public discourse within which the supposedly sovereign people are allowed to think and act. Just like your Communist or Fascist technocrats.
As Chesterton put it: "The people does not wield a Parliament which wields a Cabinet ... the Cabinet bullies a timid Parliament which bullies a bewildered people. ... If you ask why the people endure and play this game, I say they play it as they would play the official games of any despotism or aristocracy. The average Englishman puts his cross on a ballot-paper as he takes off his hat to the King -- and would take it off if there were no ballot papers. There is no democracy in the business."
If these cliques happen to have strong ideological opinions they naturally try to implement these, greasing the wheels with bread & circuses as required but certainly not deferring to the actual wishes of the people. Consider one of the most revolutionary upheavals in modern British history -- mass immigration. Whether you regard it as a boon or a calamity, its cultural impact is unanimously acknowledged to have been immense. Yet were the sovereign people ever consulted on the matter? Of course not. It was a revolution de haut en bas, with any dissenters ruthlessly marginalized amid a storm of calumny.
Or consider an equally momentous revolution -- the liberalization of laws pertaining to sexual morality and criminal justice. This had nothing to do with the will of the people and everything to do with the will of powerful unelected committees of the 'great and the good'. Or consider Britain's entry into the Common Market. The traitor Edward Heath knew full well that the EEC was destined to morph into an EU -- yet did he inform the British electorate that he was surrendering their country's sovereignty? Of course not. So much for democracy.
The minute popular opinion conflicts with elite opinion, concern for democracy takes a back seat to concern about populism and popular opinion is ignored or belittled. The government has dissolved the people and elected a new one more to their taste.
These are all examples which agitate a rightist such as myself but it could just as easily be the other way round. An authentically conservative establishment could theoretically impose its vision on a largely powerless and supine populace. Perhaps once upon a time it did. This is just how practical politics works*, but it makes a mockery of democratic shibboleths about the "people's reign". Those who can lead always will lead; the only debate is over what they should believe.
(*Natural reality can't help but reflect the hierarchical constitution of supernatural super-reality.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | September 9, 2009 6:49 PM
it took you all of... what... 10 seconds maybe? to prove yourself as a liar. either that or you're just very much unclear on the concept.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 6:50 PM
truthspeaker @ 679:
As you say, your personal literary tastes are of no real significance.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 6:51 PM
Dear Brother Pilty,
You make me so proud to be a Christian, and I want to thank you for teaching me so much about how to present my faith as arcane, archaic, small-minded and reactionary.
With the two of us witnessing for Jesus, the future of the Church seems absolutely certain. PZ Myers may not be a believer, but he's an inspired prophet.
Yours with both feet in my witnessing mouth,
Smoggy
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 6:54 PM
Forgive me, Janine. I was just trying to entertain.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 6:56 PM
Dear Pilty,
I believe in my heart ('cos God spoke to me there) that personal literary tastes are of as much real significance as personal Biblical faith.
The subjective correlative is remarkable, isn't it.
Christian Kisses
Smoggy
Posted by: Feynmaniac | September 9, 2009 6:57 PM
Pilty,
I really doubt that.....
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 6:59 PM
"Forgive me, Janine. I was just trying to entertain."
Top class grovelling, Pilty!
Now, if you can just persuade Janine to flay your faithful hide with her spiky leather flogger you'll be on your way to true enlightenment.
Yours in abasement and masochism
Smoggy
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 7:00 PM
Pilty couldn't find a clue with a GPS and a map.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 9, 2009 7:01 PM
Piltdown
ManPot:And yet you demand that the work of fiction which suits your tastes be accepted as fact and used - despite its demonstrable unsuitability - as an instruction manual for life and a justification for murdering those who disagree with you.
Posted by: Bronze Age Man | September 9, 2009 7:20 PM
Smoggy Batzrubble @ 689:
O Brother Smoggy, I have grave concerns that your understanding of Corporal Mortification is, shall we say, unorthodox. I trust you will not embark on such practices without first consulting your Spiritual Director.
Be pure.
Be vigilant.
Behave.
Posted by: John Morales | September 9, 2009 7:40 PM
Dunno about corporal mortification, but BAM and Piltdown sure engage in the intellectual kind!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 7:41 PM
Dear Brother Bronze Age Man,
Thank you for your concern. But do not fear on my behalf. When it comes to mortification, I always consult my Spiritual Director, the enlightened Brother Floyd Rubber. There is none better when it comes to creative Christian pain--he has an unerring instinct for those places where God the Creator concentrated the most nerve endings, and he knows best how to extract the fullest repentance.
He also offers a home mortification service, complete with individually blessed "purity-through-pain" aids. His matching boxed set of "Marital Mortification Supplies" is a must for every newly wedded couple. It comes complete with a free gift of a spiked penis ring for Him, and sweet matching spiked nipple rings for Her. He's also very liberal--if you are a gay couple, you can get any two of the same at no extra charge.If you want to order anything, just email: screamingnuptials@mortifiedbyfloyd
Be flogged.
Be flayed.
Be happy.
AMEN
Smoggy
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 9, 2009 7:53 PM
The Hoax Sez:
I wasn't being at all presumptious -- the 'enlightenment' I referred to was a response to a specific question Janine had put to me. As for J.'s superficially belligerent nature, I'm sure it's nothing the love of a good man wouldn't cure.
Because the only use for a woman is to be subservient to some man. That will calm her down. And if she does not, well the kindly man will keep her in line.
Though I guess I should be grateful, the Hoax wants to cure me of my dykeness by getting a good man instead of tossing me in the flames.
There are reasons why I do not engage in in the silly game of so and so would like a given sex act if only they tried it. It really is not funny at all. And this joker is serious about me find a good man.
Forgive me, Janine. I was just trying to entertain.
As has been pointed own many times, your lack humor. You are not entertaining. And fuck you and everything you stand for.
What a fucking asshole.
Posted by: Lynna | September 9, 2009 8:17 PM
Kristofer @657 wrote (amidst a much longer bit of to-and-fro on the seesaw of belief)
In reading over the comments from Kristofer, I find it's the niggling digs like this that irritate me.
I did not (virtual slap upside Kristofer's head to wake him up) change what I believe (another tap to the head) on a fucking whim! (Be seated, Kristofer. You're wobbling like bobble-headed doll, and I think you'd better take a seat before we continue.)
A whim! Good fucking god-raper-of-underage-virgins! What commenter on this blog ever gave you the idea that Belief (and all the components thereof) flit through our minds like errant breezes, changing with the weather?
No-good-lords, man! At least one trait of the commenters here must be obvious even to you. Thoughtful, and often long, research has preceded the formation of a tentative worldview for most Pharyngulites. Furthermore, they remain, most of 'em, open to change, though not on any wimpy whims!
Well, that's altogether too many exclamation points in a single post, but I'm fed up.
As an aside, Janine seems to be already enlightened, so no Pilty's need take on the task.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 9, 2009 8:31 PM
I think the Hubble Telescope is still searching for Pilty's sense of humor. It appears to really be Lost in Space...
Posted by: Carlie | September 9, 2009 8:48 PM
Oh dear, Pilty.
Here's how "insults as entertainment" works: basically, you can be one of three things. You can be the kind of person whose persona is that of semi-professional insulter (see Comrade PhysioProf), you can be the kind of person who seems meek and mild and therefore the insult is a jarring departure from the expected, or you can be a good friend of the person insulted who will know how to properly interpret said insult. If you're the kind of person who is known for making mean insults in the first place, doing it is going to look like... more of the same. And if some of those insults touch on the most personal aspects of a person's life (such as their sexual orientation), it's going to look incredibly creepy. Like bat-eating Hungarian tit creepy.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 9, 2009 8:52 PM
My reply to truthspeaker was spiteful. My comments about Janine were meant in jest but obviously caused upset.
Time for a long holiday from Pharyngula methinks.
all the best
PM
Ex lingua stulta veniunt incommoda multa
Posted by: Lynna | September 9, 2009 9:09 PM
I think I goofed up in my post @696. I should have quoted a longer bit from Kristofer, like this:
My problem is that his namby-pamby wording implies that he *did* hope to change many minds with his participation in this blog. But now that he's had to accept that the atheists here are a tougher nut to crack than he had thought, he will take one last whack at the nut with a false equivalency: "...whether we're atheist or Christian." He equates his unfounded Christian beliefs with well-founded rebuttals of his whole Belief Shtick.
And he implies that *if* we expect him to question his unfounded beliefs, that would be us expecting him to just change his Beliefs on a whim. No. No one suggested that whims were involved, except perhaps the whimsy of his having been born into a Christian community or family.
I don't care for the double-speak. Trying to be diplomatic or nice by granting the atheists a moment of equality with his own christian self... bleh. See, Kristofer says, I'm not going to change my beliefs, nor even take this discussion seriously, but I'll let you atheists off the hook for now. ("Many" of you don't have to change right away, but I'm still certain that some of you will.)
Oh, thank you so much, Kristofer, for allowing me not to change my mind based on a whim. Quite simply, facts and logic were presented to you and you responded with milquetoast.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:13 PM
Piltdown Man, why would you think that we'd find a homophobic bigot's homophobic jokes funny?
I can understand if you're just trying to be a hateful asshole as usual. But I really can't understand why you'd expect to find any rapport through comments like that.
Don't get me wrong. I don't have any sympathy for you, and I'm not trying to understand for the sake of building bridges. I'm just genuinely confused.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 9, 2009 9:14 PM
Hoax, you think what your religious fore-bearers did to people like me was righteous and justified. I have called you a moral monster numerous times. What made you think that I would be friendly towards you? What made you think that I would take that statement as a joke?
all the best
You have never gave any reason to think that you want this for me.
Posted by: strange gods before me, shotgun of love and mercy | September 9, 2009 9:25 PM
I love you, Smoggy Batzrubble. Put in a good word for me at the pearly gates, would you? I don't mortify the flesh, but I stubbed my toe the other day, and I swear it was worth at least three stations of the cross.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 9, 2009 9:40 PM
Thank you, Jadehawk.
Thank you, Smoggy Batzrubble.
Thank you, Feynmaniac.
Thank you, Nerd of Redhead.
Thank you, Wowbagger.
Thank you, John Morales.
Thank you, Lynna.
Thank you, Carlie.
Thank you, strange gods before me.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 10:03 PM
Dear Sister Janine,
You forgot to thank the academy!
Dear SGBM, I love you too, in Christ of course (and out of Christ. And even with Christ if threesomes are your thing). I will certainly put in a good word for you with the gatekeeper of paradise, and Floyd says that if that doesn't work, he'll 'kick St Peter's fucking head in!'
With friends like us you can't lose!
Yours in intercession
Smoggy
Posted by: Carlie | September 9, 2009 10:29 PM
Janine - our pleasure. Of course we know you can stand up against riffraff like that on your own, but those comments of his had a really sinister undertone.
Posted by: Ermine | September 9, 2009 11:33 PM
I really can't believe that no one has realized this. I feel.. Well, I probably feel a lot like Robin did when he had his incredibly profound experience.
Think about this description Robin keeps mentioning. A round black center, with a ring around it and rays extending away in all directions. No mention of the other rim of the iris, no white at all. Why does he think that's an eye when it much more closely resembles other parts of the anatomy?
You crazy fool, you've answered one of the greatest questions of all times, the Question of Evil! : "If there's a God, why does so much bad shit happen to everyone?" Has God turned away from his creation? Obviously the answer is 'Yes', and now we know!
Don't you understand? It's not the Eye of God that you've found man, it's the ASS! You've found God's Back Door!
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 9, 2009 11:54 PM
Dear Sister Brother Ermine,
I hate to disappoint you but God's divine arsehole wasn't missing, although it's location is in dispute. Everyone on earth agrees that one country in the world is God's pooper, but no one can agree which one.
Right now my money's on poor old Zimbabwe, but there are so many others that appear to be in the crapper, that maybe the Big Guy has taken to shitting indiscriminately.
As for the dark eye Robin Edgar believes in, in his case it's pretty clear he had his head up his own ass, which is probably why he got so excited in the first place. You've got to give him credit for flexibility, I suppose.
Yours in anal intervention
Smoggy
Posted by: Colin | September 10, 2009 12:30 AM
Carlie @#479:
Do not mock our Lord, the Porcelain God! Why, every week I kneel in worship before Him. Usually on a Sunday morning, as it happens...
Marcus B. @#392:
You talk about your lack of belief in a teapot in orbit around Mars. I believe Russell's Teapot is in orbit around the sun, between the Earth and Mars. It's not in orbit around Mars itself.
Since I can be so specific about the location of the teapot it must therefore exist. Same goes for God.
(Sorry I'm late. It's so hard to keep up!)
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 10, 2009 4:36 AM
For elections to have a significant impact you need an informed and committed electorate, which is just what you don't have in a modern mass democracy. Even if most people had the aptitude for political decision-making, they have neither the time nor the appetite. They have lives to live. Which is why there invariably arises an elite class of decision-makers and opinion-formers -- professional politicians, economists and media pundits who set the boundaries of public discourse within which the supposedly sovereign people are allowed to think and act.
There is some truth in this (even a clock stopped during the 15th century must tell the right time occasionally); but:
Just like your Communist or Fascist technocrats.
Is quite obviously false. The key advantage of even the very imperfect democracy we have is that the government can be removed by peaceful means. Very different from communist, fascist, or the Hoax's favoured theocratic dictatorships - and with the consequence that people are at much less risk of arbitrary arrest, torture and murder at state hands in democracies than in dictatorships. But of course the Hoax wants the state to have the powers of arbitrary arrest, torture and murder - so long as it's a Catholic theocratic state.
Or consider an equally momentous revolution -- the liberalization of laws pertaining to sexual morality and criminal justice. This had nothing to do with the will of the people and everything to do with the will of powerful unelected committees of the 'great and the good'. - Hoax
The liberalisation of the law and social attitudes have, of course, proceeded in parallel, each influencing the other. You just don't like it because of your primitive prejudices, Hoax. Well, tough: the majority have no intention of letting fascistic scumbags like you return us to theocratic rule.
The people does not wield a Parliament which wields a Cabinet ... the Cabinet bullies a timid Parliament which bullies a bewildered people. - Hoax quoting Chesterton
Ah, I see. That's why the governing party always wins elections. The truth is, of course, that Chesterton was exactly the same sort of fascistic scumbag as Hoax: he hated the rise of democracy and longed for the return of a Cartholic theocracy in exactly the same way.
Or consider Britain's entry into the Common Market. The traitor Edward Heath knew full well that the EEC was destined to morph into an EU -- yet did he inform the British electorate that he was surrendering their country's sovereignty? Of course not. So much for democracy. - Hoax
Hoax conveniently forgets that the UK had a referendum on remaining in the EEC, in 1975. 67.2% voted in favour, on a 64.5% turnout. There were plenty of members of the opinion-forming elites campaigning for withdrawal. So much for Hoax.
Posted by: Piltdown Man | September 10, 2009 5:52 AM
strange gods before me @ 701:
Well I'm not looking for sympathy and any bridges were burned when Myers pulled his moronic "cracker" stunt, but since you ask I'll try to clear up your confusion.
I checked out this blog at the time of 'Crackergate'. Was this "PZ Myers" a seriously militant atheist or a just a self-regarding arsehole? After reading a few threads I was a bit taken aback at the sheer lack of class exhibited by so many posters here -- the coarse frivolity, strutting self-righteousness, the evident belief that indiscriminate profanity was a mark of maturity, the middlebrow contempt for traditional culture ... all these were dispiriting. And Myers was the biggest arsehole of the lot.
I noticed how those with opposing views would occasionally visit here. For the most part they were courteous enough, but nonetheless got routinely subjected to a barrage of abuse and sexual mockery. The prevailing assumption seemed to be that if they couldn't take it, they shouldn't be here.
So I thought it would be interesting (and possibly amusing) to see how these big tough atheists would react to a Christian who didn't roll over in the dirt like a bitch dog in heat. I wasn't looking to win respect or to cause offence. At best I thought there was a slim possibility that one of these pointy-headed geeks might be jolted into something approaching self-awareness.
As it happens I've been privileged to have a fair few genuinely stimulating debates here; I wouldn't have hung around so long otherwise. But I've noticed that those posters who are quickest to dish out supposedly humorous insults and put-downs are least able to take them and collapse in sniveling self-pity & bluster when repaid in kind.
Where I've felt I've gone too far and been genuinely uncharitable, I've said sorry. I'm a sensitive soul and hate the thought of hurting anybody's feelings. But the more I think about it, the more I think my apology to Janine was unwarranted. Considering the crap she's thrown in the past, her passive-aggressive whining now rings false. Get over yourself, sister.
That's it. I'm off to find a Muslim forum.
PM
(PS - Hoax conveniently forgets that the UK had a referendum on remaining in the EEC, in 1975. 67.2% voted in favour, on a 64.5% turnout. There were plenty of members of the opinion-forming elites campaigning for withdrawal. -- Knockgoats.
Well the Press weren't among them. Of the UK's national newspapers, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express and The Sun all vigorously campaigned for a 'Yes' vote. Only The Morning Star stood against continued membership.)
Posted by: John Morales | September 10, 2009 6:03 AM
Piltdown,
Goodbye. Good riddance.
You shan't be missed, by me at least.
I expect you'll be back, however, and that you will use a different pseudonym to hide that.
Whether you will be able to hide your distinctive online mannerisms is another matter.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 10, 2009 6:10 AM
Bigot was impressed. Bigot pretends he said he was sorry (he didn't). Saying he is sorry is too much for his kind. Bigot walks off in a huff after a few hours of critical reflection.Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | September 10, 2009 7:00 AM
Dear dear dear Brother Piltdown Man,
How can you leave me to struggle alone against the atheist hordes? What will I do now that you've rolled over like a bitch dog in heat? Who will I have to practise my indiscriminate profanity upon?
Wait! I think I feel a song coming on:
---------
SO LONG
(for Pilty)
There's a mean-minded exit from the man in the pilt,
And his bowels are a-rumble too,
For up in the heavens his absurd little god
Is popping out to say "Fuck You"
[Pilty, Kwok, T.Estes]
"Fuck You", "Fuck You"
[Atheists All]
And cheerfully they tell us
To hell they will expel us
To burn for all . . .
[Pilty, Kwok, T.Estes]
"Fuck you"!
[Atheists]
. . . we do.
[Pilty, Kwok, T.Estes]
So long, farewell, repent or burn and fry!
[Janine]
I think I'd rather think and question why.
[Pilty, Kwok, T.Estes]
So long, farewell, our God will punish you!
[RBDC]
Your god's not real, so what's he gonna do?
[Pilty, Kwok, T.Estes]
So long, farewell, our Father feels our pain.
[John Morales]
If you think that you're all batshit insane!
[Pilty, Kwok, T.Estes]
So long, farewell, our children we'll pervert!
[Atheists All]
We grieve for their young minds filled up with dirt-- Goodbye!
[Silver Fox, African Genesis, Alan Clarke]
We had to go, we cannot tell a lie
[PZ Myers]
That is because my dungeon's where you sigh!
[Atheists All]
The son died once, his rising was a lie.
[Pilty]
I'm gone, for now, you really beat me bad,
so bad, so bad, so...
[Atheists All, losing the melody]
Oh fuck off and go Pilty, you poor excuse for a foreskin...
[To each other]
Thank Jeebus and the FSM. Thought he'd never go. Where's the beer and bacon?!
----------
Love from
Smoggy OM4Jesus
PS Pilty. One thing you never understood. Most of the atheists didn't care whether godbots like you stay or go, whatever point you think you are proving. They know you'll never change. The invective and ridicule is more for the benefit of the lurkers and fence sitters (do you know PZ's blog count)? Those people see how stupid you are, how weak to non-existent your arguments are, how you lie and avoid answering straight questions, and they make their decisions accordingly. Believe me, your "brave fight" here has hardly helped our Godly cause.
Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | September 10, 2009 9:50 AM
Where I've felt I've gone too far and been genuinely uncharitable, I've said sorry. I'm a sensitive soul and hate the thought of hurting anybody's feelings. But the more I think about it, the more I think my apology to Janine was unwarranted. Considering the crap she's thrown in the past, her passive-aggressive whining now rings false. Get over yourself, sister.
At least the Hoax is back to being his real asshole self rather then giving his disingenuous it was meant to be entertaining bullshit. It was quite obvious that I did not take his apology seriously. But I do like how my pointing out his abysmal nature is "passive-aggressive whining".
The reason why I would leave you questions in threads is because I knew that if you answered, you would continually confirm that you are a monster.
A "sensitive soul" does not celebrate torture and murder. Never call me "sister", Hoax. You are not family.
Fuck you and everything you stand for.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 10, 2009 10:14 AM
I notice that liar Piltdown Man is already back@712 after his flounce.
True - although of course the "No" campaign had equal time with the "Yes" on television. However, the point is that with your usual dishonesty, you pretended that the electorate had never been presented with a choice on the matter.
For that matter, you have never apologised for the lie that abortion rates are still rising after I linked to studies showing that it has fallen. You really are a pathological liar, aren't you Hoax? Just can't help it.
Posted by: Knockgoats | September 10, 2009 10:21 AM
Oops - sorry, I thought the bit of #712 I quoted was separate from Hoax's flounce. For that error, I apologise to him. If he really is gone for good, I for one will be immensely pleased - he had long ago lost any novelty value; and his pathological lying, bigotry and sadism were always thoroughly sickening.
Posted by: D | September 11, 2009 4:21 AM
@ Staples (#335):
By the stars, you're right! We do fight against nature all the time - that is, on one perspective. I prefer to adopt the perspective that we ply nature with hot and sexy pillow talk (science: the language of love!), then work with what we get out of that to build a more rockin' tomorrow. Technology is the child of that blessed union, and this makes science way sexier. Life's still hard work on this analysis, of course, but it's a fun and exciting partnership instead of a bitter, bitter enmity.
I still think we ought to have a backup, just in case we've really dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 11, 2009 5:18 PM
[Pilt has claimed that he's taking a hiatus from Pharyngula. Maybe aye and maybe nay.]
It still amazes me that in addition to the loathing and scorn that Pilt feels for all non-Catholics, he has even greater loathing and scorn for all Christians who are not Catholic, and all Catholics who are not himself.
All hail his Holi(er-than-thou)ness Pope Hoax the First, with his underpants mitre, preaching to his College of
Cardinalspigeons.My deepest condolences to the Muslims.
Posted by: BJ Catoe | September 13, 2009 3:48 PM
You say being an atheist "feels good", well while dont you post a blog in a few years and let me know if it still "feels good" while you are burning in HELL for all of eternity!!
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 13, 2009 3:55 PM
BJ, how could we know in just "a few years" whether it "still feels good" to "burn in HELL for all of eternity"?
Maybe in a few more years, we'll learn to enjoy it. I for one look forward to meeting John Stuart Mill.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 13, 2009 3:56 PM
Yes, because your Sadistic God would love to send good people to hell and watch them suffer because they weren't his mindless minion.
Also, since God is omnipotent, he could just change PZ's "heart" but instead choose not to. This proves that if your God exists, he is sadistic, vain, and an elitist and NOT worth worshiping by anyone with morals and ethics.
But I love how you show your Christian Love by stating others are going to hell. :)
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | September 13, 2009 9:23 PM
Почему вы пишете на русском языке?
What's up with people attacking the blog so often today?
Posted by: Ichthyic | September 14, 2009 9:27 PM
well while dont you post a blog in a few years and let me know if it still "feels good" while you are burning in HELL for all of eternity!!
hmm, xian concept of hell invented by catholics, what, about 1500 years ago or more?
in all that time I have yet to see anyone write a postcard from Hell describing the experience.
frankly, it's a bit of an empty threat, dontchya think?
Posted by: cindy | October 20, 2009 8:44 PM
Ignorance is bliss isn't it? As long as we turn a blind eye to what we are doing wrong then it isn't wrong is it? Claiming to be athiest is a cop out. This is exactly what the world has to come to for Yahweh to pour his spirit upon us because these are the later days and there are many who are awakening to the FACT that there is a God and only one. I for one do not believe in religion but I do believe that if you do your research, you too will be slapped in your head with the truth and I pray for this to be soon because as in the days of Noah are here and if you are not seeing the signs and wonders promised by Yeshua, then you are just being ignorant. If you can do your research and still come back to blog about being an athiest, then you have obviously remained a huge skeptic and have not at all opened your mind about what is to come and is in FACT happening now. Yeshua is the only way and if you ask Yahweh to reveal the truth you will find it staring you in the face. I will pray for you brothers and sisters that you too will wake up and stop excusing yourselves from reality and truth.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 20, 2009 8:50 PM
Sorry, no evidence that Yahweh is the only deity, or even a deity outside of delusional minds like yours. Simply no evidence.And fuck you too, which is what you are essentially telling us. Your prayers are just you mentally masturbating. They may make you feel good, but they accomplish nothing else. And they won't effect us or your imaginary deity in the slightest. Wash your hands and use mental floss afterwards.Posted by: eric Hews | December 16, 2009 6:31 PM
I will be thinking about this for awhile. Some amazing thoughts put down in this thread, on both sides of the rift.
When I was young, I spoke to God rather frequently. If he replied at all, it was usually something terse, like "Don't" or "It'll Hurt." He sounded a lot like me and this was probably because it was ME saying his lines. He was my imaginary friend.
Today when I probably need him most, he speaks only to other people. God, that is. And some of these people are dingbats while some others give a damn good speech, but I'm now too old to be following people around anymore who don't seem to know what they're doing.
That's why I gave up on following Roman Catholicism when I turned 18. I'd had enough of the guilt and it was time to learn other things about the world.
Real things. 'Now' things. Scary and wonderful things. Too much of Religion for me was about avoiding all the world has to offer because it's somehow bad or wrong or offends someone high up. I can't support things that take away my freedoms. Especially my freedom to use my own imagination to color the world anyway I want to.
My two bits, for whatever their worth these days.