Pharyngula

Posted by: IaMoL | October 28, 2009 10:08 AM

I know a couple of people who swear that demons are real. Nothing will convince them how illogical the idea is in modern context. (in Mercedes McCambridge rasp) "The stupid - it burns!"

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 28, 2009 10:09 AM

They conceptualize a universe that's stacked against us. They're operating at the cognitive level of children who see monsters under the bed. I say it all the time - they shouldn't be treated as adults. Allowing them to vote and hold public office has gotten us into the (probably irreparable) mess in which we now find ourselves.

Posted by: Elaine | October 28, 2009 10:10 AM

This explains everything! I know quite a few Wiccans/Pagans, and last year at a Wiccan friend's Halloween party, I met a Witch who was offended by my Sarah Palin costume and impersonation, because she loved Palin. Now I know why: She was possessed by demons. It's the only possible explanation.

Posted by: Mark | October 28, 2009 10:11 AM

Jehovah is a total loser. He created Man, who turned on him. But even before that he created all these spirits, who also turned on him. Indeed, his finest spiritual creation (Satan) became his most feared foe.

Jehovah is a total loser. Why do Christians worship him.

Posted by: Tim O | October 28, 2009 10:12 AM

I think my dog is possessed by a demon. He learned how to open the garbage by stepping on the foot pedal; then he prances through the living room, trailing garbage all the way. He's mocking me. Very demonic!

Posted by: Rorschach | October 28, 2009 10:15 AM

What's the problem with you people?
Have you never watched "Buffy the vampire slayer" ? Of course demons are real !!

Posted by: Elaine | October 28, 2009 10:19 AM

A Wiccan for Palin? Seriously? Doesn't she know Palin burns her kind?

I wondered the same thing. But you see, I've just learned that demons make Wiccans worship evil spirits, so it's not that out of line that she'd worship an evil spirit like Palin. See? It all makes sense.

Posted by: JackC | October 28, 2009 10:20 AM

cron.d
vxconfig.d
sysevent.d
syslogd

...

Yes. In fact, daemons are VERY real. Who questions it? They must not be real computer people. Give them a quarter. Tell them to buy a REAL computer.

JC

Posted by: Tulse | October 28, 2009 10:20 AM

So not only does Yahweh permit evil to exist, possibly for reasons relating to free will, but he keeps around a host of beings with the sole purpose of driving people to commit evil acts.

Yep, I don't know why that doesn't make the AIG folks' heads explode. Honestly, what kind of theology can you have that on the one hand claims an all-loving god who to prevent people from experiencing eternal torture had himself killed, and on the other hand claims that very same god sends malevolent entities into the world to condemn them to eternal torture? What the hell kind of system is that? It makes even less sense than the usual religious drivel.

Posted by: Humanistic Jones | October 28, 2009 10:24 AM

Asher is a false deity promoted by demons? Her divorce from Yahweh must have been horrible if his friends are spreading those kinds of rumors.

Posted by: Elaine | October 28, 2009 10:25 AM

@13

Actually, I have to answer your question twice, Jeff, because the real explanation is funnier/sadder than the demon answer: She liked Palin because Palin is a woman. As a fervent screaming feminist, I'm completely freaked out by this attitude. How is it helping us to support a woman who is anti-women's rights?

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 28, 2009 10:26 AM

Dammit! Those AIG bastards have overtaken my blog again, in a Google search for "cuttlefish". I can take being below XKCD, but AIG is unacceptable, especially since their main point is that cuttlefish were created as a tasty snack for humans. (Particularly amusing since they are without fins and scales, and are thus unclean as per the Old Testament.)

I must be upset--they've got me writing in prose!

Posted by: Gilipollas Caraculo | October 28, 2009 10:26 AM

Demons are real. UNIX couldn't run without them.

Demon/daemon? You say po-tah-toe, I say toe-may-toe

Posted by: Hank Fox | October 28, 2009 10:31 AM

That phrase "the Scriptures" is the brain-destroying shriek of the fingernails of 2,000 years of believers on all the blackboards of all the honest teachers in all the world in all of history.

Posted by: Sastra | October 28, 2009 10:37 AM

Cuttlefish, OM #25 wrote:

Dammit! Those AIG bastards have overtaken my blog again, in a Google search for "cuttlefish". I can take being below XKCD, but AIG is unacceptable, especially since their main point is that cuttlefish were created as a tasty snack for humans.

No! The cuttlefish is supposed to be the Christian's worst nightmare!

What can they be thinki ... oh. Right.

Posted by: Demha | October 28, 2009 10:39 AM

Of course demons are real. How else can you justify the existence of god? Using mathematical notation, you need to understand that demons = evil out to get humankind, therefore god = necessary to save humans. Also because god = omnipotent and god = too busy to help humans whenever necessary, jesus = son of god who was sent for their salvation. Also god = creator who created satan, and satan = evil, who somehow got all these awesome powers and satan = creator who created demons. Therefore, satan = god. Further, god -0 = satan, satan - 0 = god. So to conclude then, god - satan = 0. i.e., the absence of either one results in the survival of the other, so for human happiness, both must be removed. QED.

Posted by: Jim Linville | October 28, 2009 10:40 AM

Demons are just leprechauns who have run out of whiskey.

Posted by: Dan506 | October 28, 2009 10:41 AM

My girlfriend believes in demons. I laughed about this, but as evidence she told me of her friend who was in the basement and felt funny then something kept turning the light on and off.

The crazy part? The light switch itself was moving*!!!!!!!

I laughed and laughed about demons using their immense evil powers to flick light switches in a scary fashion. She wasn't impressed.

*This was her way of explaining that it simply couldn't be natural power flickering or any such. I think her friend is simply bonkers and was looking for attention.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 28, 2009 10:44 AM

Dammit! Those AIG bastards have overtaken my blog again, in a Google search for "cuttlefish". I can take being below XKCD, but AIG is unacceptable, especially since their main point is that cuttlefish were created as a tasty snack for humans. (Particularly amusing since they are without fins and scales, and are thus unclean as per the Old Testament.)      I must be upset--they've got me writing in prose!

It's obvious that AIG is a particularly powerful demon.

Cuttlefish, it will probably take a few weeks to work, but you may be able to up your ranking by putting more images on your site that are named cuttlefish, cuttlefish1, cuttlefish2, cuttlefish_more, etc. Or, just rename all the images currently on your site so that "cuttlefish" is first in the name. Make sure all the images on your site also have alternate text attached, "cuttlefish_image" for example. Each image name, and alternate text field, must vary, even if only by one number or letter, if you want to get maximum search engine results.

Posted by: alopiasmag | October 28, 2009 10:53 AM

Wow... You want a demon? I'll show you one. Usually in January if I'm not mistaken you can SEE LUCIFER IN THE SKY!!!

Yes Lucifer = latin for Light-Bringer and "Eosphoros" in Greek. It is also the name for VENUS right before sun rise (hence the name light-bringer).

If you see venus at night it is called "HESPEROS".

I can't wait to see Lucifer again, it's just amazing.

Bring on the Demons!

Posted by: Michelle R | October 28, 2009 10:55 AM

When looking at some of these kooks, I agree. Demons exist.

Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 10:58 AM

Only four more days to ....The War on Halloween.

Looks like this year will be another weak effort. Rather disappointing, fundies are so cute when they try to think. I've yet to see many foaming at the mouth and mistaking make believe for reality.

Looks like they are onto Obama is the antichrist and the Rapture is imminent these days. Another loser since The Apocalypse is always wrong.

Posted by: RHBourdeau | October 28, 2009 11:03 AM

Why is it that everything that the christian god creates gets so fucked up? He's like the CEO of our very large corporations in the US. He talks a good talk, but in he's way over his head. At what point do you fire the guy and start a search for someone more competent?

Posted by: ColonelFazackerly | October 28, 2009 11:09 AM

At least AiG are being consistent with their scripture on this. I dislike it even more when xians go all metaphorical on you. It is so much cleaner to be able to disagree with obvious rubbish like this than with metaphorical rubbish.

Posted by: kopd | October 28, 2009 11:12 AM

or a host of lesser manmade deities

As opposed to their "greater" manmade deity?

Posted by: waldteufel | October 28, 2009 11:15 AM

Immediately following their blathering about demons on the AiG website, there is a whine about children leaving the church.

They are too stupid to understand that eventually children discover that they have been lied to by their credulous and ignorant parents. The children begin to see their pastors as the predatory leaches that they are, and then those children naturally get away from the church as fast as they can.

What could be more obvious?

Posted by: fauxrs | October 28, 2009 11:18 AM

Carl Sagan wrote a book called "The Demon haunted World" so there must be demons right?

not!

Posted by: Sili | October 28, 2009 11:23 AM

Hmmm - so if daemons are capable of evil, does that mean they too have free will? Or did Yahoowa create them wholly evil?

If they do have free will, what's to stop them from accepting Jesus Christ as their saviour? And if they can do that, isn't it downright evil to drive them away violently, rather than witness to them?

Posted by: CrosshairJack | October 28, 2009 11:23 AM

They forgot to mention the FSM!

Posted by: Standard Curve | October 28, 2009 11:25 AM

Funny, Lucifer is Venus seen before sunrise, also called the "morning star", but there is also reference to Jesus being the Morning Star. You would think that with all the bible studies that Christians are always having they would realize that Jesus is Venus, who is also Lucifer. (So does that make him a Goddess, or a transgendered deity?)

I don't know why I am still puzzled by the fact that religious people don't need their beliefs to be self-consistent, even when they aren't consistent with reality.

Wikipedia should consolidate the religion and mythology sections on this page into one section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star

Posted by: Standard curve | October 28, 2009 11:30 AM

Stewart, if you knew more about brain chemistry, you wouldn't need to believe in demons.

Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 11:33 AM

Ken Ham/AIG:

Demons promote primitive religions, magic, superstition, and worship of evil spirits.

Like fundie Death Cult xianity? You can't get much more primitive than that.

Then wait a few years until they start trying to burn people as witches. There's some serious crazy brewing in those places. It's really only a matter of time before they start pumping out wacked-out bombers and assassins, like the pro-fetus / anti-people

Could be but I doubt it. There is serious crazy with the fundies no doubt. But Americans are too fat and lazy and apathetic to get too far into suicide bombings and plane hijackings. They'd rather sit at home and watch TV. If they did, you can wave bye bye to their cults in the USA. Americans also have a really low tolerance for terrorism. Going in for mindless, pointless violence is usually counterproductive.

Posted by: Evan | October 28, 2009 11:38 AM

Zeus and Jupiter (greek:Zeus pater, latin:Iupiter, sanskrit: Dyaus pitar) are the etymological origins of their own Deus pater or God the father... which goes back even further to the Indo-European root "dyeu-" which originally meant to shine.

But ya, that's probably all made up by Satan too.

Posted by: JenV | October 28, 2009 11:40 AM

deliver this message
to the one i love the most
i've lost all my money
to a 300 pound ghost
squeaky was a sad child
the product of neglect
got stoned by a jellyfish
demanding her respect

demons are real
they are standing still
demons are real
they are standing still

--Guided by Voices

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | October 28, 2009 11:41 AM

Is belief in demons really all that crazier than belief in God? Just because it's nastier?

Posted by: druidbros | October 28, 2009 11:42 AM

Fundamentalists are to the reasonable people like Cirque du Soleil is to people who walk for exercise. The mental gymnastics boggle the reasonable mind.

Posted by: druidbros | October 28, 2009 11:48 AM

Which brings me to a revisionist thought, may we now refer to them as funda(non)mentalists ?

Posted by: gaspodog | October 28, 2009 11:49 AM

@JackC

A whole quarter? Curse that damnable inflation. Used to be a Nickel for a new computer (sonny) last I checked.

I blame it on demons.

Christians and their demons remind me of a Red Dwarf quote:

"Oh god, aliens? Your explanation for anything slightly peculiar is aliens, isn't it? You lose your keys - it's aliens. A picture falls off the wall - it's aliens. That time we used up a whole bog-roll in a day - you thought that was aliens as well. " - Lister

Though isn't blaming it on demons just a loonie way of saying "A bigger boy did it and ran away"?

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | October 28, 2009 11:51 AM

If demons aren't real, then who publishes World Net Daily?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 28, 2009 11:54 AM

Jehovah is a total loser. He created Man, who turned on him. But even before that he created all these spirits, who also turned on him. Indeed, his finest spiritual creation (Satan) became his most feared foe.

All things considered, I'm not surprised. He sounds terribly incompetent, with tendencies to micro-management, empire-building, and a little guy complex. Having worked under such types, I can tell you first-hand that they're the death of efficiency and workplace morale, and cause competent, caring employees to jump ship faster than you can eat an apple. To be fair, he probably has no idea that he's such a schlub. Probably thinks he's doing a great job. I blame the Peter Principle for his advancement to a position he's totally unsuited for.

Where exactly does "free will" enter the equation if entities created by god are the cause of unbelief?

Pshaw, jshiv. Most of the religious don't know what that term means anyways. It's just something that God gave us to be exercised only in the free worship of him but instead is the root of all evil. Like sex, apparently.

Anyway, I'm familiar with most of the fallen angels that Christians are actually referring to when they mention demons, but there's a new one they're always invoking that I never encountered in my Catholic upbringing. Can any of the biblical scholars here tell me whence came the demon they call "Thuhlibralmaedia"?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 11:56 AM

As a former alcoholic, I guarantee you that demons are real.

It's not called the 'demon drink' for nothing. There is more than just brain chemistry going on.

I praise the Almighty for his deliverance from that decade of evil that I had at the hands of alcohol and for being able to stay sober for the past 12 years.

You're right Stewart. Demons are also responsible for those urges you have late at night, by yourself.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 28, 2009 11:58 AM

Matt Penfold - Unfortunately, yours is the sort of cheap and nasty comment that does its author no favours.

Do you see fellow human beings as people or electrochemical machines?

I was merely noting that if your blog is any indication of your cognitive abilities, your alcoholism clearly took its toll on your brain.

Cognitive impairment is a common result of alcohol abuse.

Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | October 28, 2009 11:58 AM

...a host of lesser manmade deities.

Man, Ra would be pissed to see his name on that list. If Jack O'Neil (not to be confused with Jack O'Neill) hadn't taken him out with a nuke, I mean.

However, this gem gave me pause:

Demons promote primitive religions, magic, superstition, and worship of evil spirits.

Demons promote superstition and magic - like turning water into wine? like turning a cracker into flesh? loaves and fishes? walking on water?

I think AiG owes me the cost of one new Irony Meter(tm), because that line broke mine.

Posted by: WhiteCross | October 28, 2009 12:03 PM

What struck me most about this aig article is that it is all present tense. Stop and think about that for a moment. These people believe not that the accounts of the bible were literal truth 2,000 years ago, but that it's actually happening *now*. They see daemons. Now.

Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 12:04 PM

Matt Penfold - Unfortunately, yours is the sort of cheap and nasty comment that does its author no favours.

Do you see fellow human beings as people or electrochemical machines?

So, you got rid of the demon of alcoholism. Great. Now you need to get rid of the demons of toxic religion and hate if you can. Many people have done so. Between 1 and 2 million people toss xianity in the USA every year.

Humans BTW are both people and organic computers. This is basic knowledge. Why do you think alcohol or drugs effect your cognitive functions? We knew why decades ago, neurotransmitters, receptors and brain cells.

Posted by: Carlie | October 28, 2009 12:06 PM

AIG is unacceptable, especially since their main point is that cuttlefish were created as a tasty snack for humans.

So cuttlefish are the bananas of the sea?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 12:09 PM

Only four more days to ....The War on Halloween.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 28, 2009 12:10 PM

Do you see fellow human beings as people or electrochemical machines?

I'll take "Begging the Question" for $500, Alex.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | October 28, 2009 12:10 PM

Humans BTW are both people and organic computers. This is basic knowledge. Why do you think alcohol or drugs effect your cognitive functions? We knew why decades ago, neurotransmitters, receptors and brain cells.

I know. It's like they see dualism as a valid option, when the evidence is absolutely on the side of the mind as a process of the brain. Every time I get sober, I recognize this.

But no. There are still people who cling to the fantasy that there is something greater that imposes our mind onto our brain.

I'm actually not surprised to see a potential correlation between those who believe in souls and those who believe in demons. If there's a "good" thing (your soul) imposing itself on your brain, then it's easy to imagine there are other external entities that do the same. Only instead of renting pornos, they try to get you to have intercourse with members of the same sex to whom you're not married, simply so they can get their perverted voyeuristic rocks off.

Damn demons. Leave me alone!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 28, 2009 12:13 PM

It's like they see dualism as a valid option, when the evidence is absolutely on the side of the mind as a process of the brain.

Who was it who said the mind is what the brain does ? I can recall reading that a while ago and it struck me as being a rather pithy way of putting it, but I cannot recall what I reading or who the author attributed it to.

Posted by: The Pint | October 28, 2009 12:17 PM

@ kopd #35 "The fall of man, the fallen angels...
Why do so many of God's creations turn to shit? Ikea has a better track record than God."

*chokes on coffee*

I'm so stealing that for my email status. Although I'm not sure if that's a fair comparison - everything I've ever built from Ikea has stayed rock solid for years. God can't possibly hope to match the easy-to-do-it-yourself construction standards set by those handy Swedes. Now if we were talking about college furniture made completely out of milk cartons and cinder blocks...

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | October 28, 2009 12:20 PM

Looks like I have to explain what I meant by this:

"Do you see fellow human beings as people or electrochemical machines?"

Obviously we are the latter as well. What I wanted to know from Mr Penfold was if he thinks that is *all* human beings are.

Posted by: SimonG | October 28, 2009 12:21 PM

How about some of the dieties they didn't mention, like Shiva, say? It seems obvious that the multitude of Hindu dieties are just a mob of demons.
Was Mohammed demonically inspired? Or Buddha? Surely they must have been if AiG is to claim any consistency. But there's no mention at all of them in that wonderful article.
Could it be that it's just safer to have a go at a bunch of dead religions - and the wierd but fairly harmless neo-pagans - rather than the billions of Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists?

What a bunch of wimps.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 28, 2009 12:22 PM

Stewart Cowan @ 101,

If you believe that it has taken billions of years for mankind to reach this peak of evolution, then religion must be playing an important part, seeing as every culture has one

Please google "non sequitur" .

So, what PZ Myers is doing, is inciting people to attack a vital trait of human survival major cause of death, illness and misery.

Fixed that for you.

Modern people, lacking a spiritual dimension, are forgetting what it is to be human.

90% of americans believe in god, what's your point again?

Posted by: Valdyr | October 28, 2009 12:23 PM

Oh, Stewie. If you actually look at the statistics, crime rates have been going DOWN in developed countries for the past 15-20 years, not up... even in countries like Sweden, who, by your logic, should be nationwide orgies of fire and rape owing to their extremely low religiosity. Meanwhile, all the countries with the highest crime rates, all the places you stand a good chance of being burglarized and shot to death in, or contracting a horrible disease... well, look at that. They're uniformly very religious, in some fashion or another. The religiosity of a country tends to be correlated inversely with the strength of its economy, the health of its citizens, and its positions on social justice and human rights issues. We should be seeing the opposite, if you're right. (You are not.)

Religion is not a "vital trait of human survival", it's the misfiring of neurological processes that DID have survival value for our early ancestors.

Your arguments, they are made of fallacies and pure fail. Please try again.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 28, 2009 12:24 PM

Perhaps this is why people seem to be turning into animals

Humans are already animals, and we have been (or more accurately our ancestors have been) for the last 600 million years.

Posted by: Zach | October 28, 2009 12:25 PM

Does AiG expound on the distinction(s) between "primitive" religions and presumably "sophisticated" ones?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 28, 2009 12:27 PM

By the way; have you thought about this...?

More deeply than you ever will, Stewart. Count on it.

If you believe that it has taken billions of years for mankind to reach this peak of evolution

What? There's a peak? Bzzt. Wrong.

then religion must be playing an important part, seeing as every culture has one.

So are a lot of things. When's the last time you knapped an adze out of a core of flint, Stewart?

Religion and spirituality are things that distinguish us from any other species.

Maybe. Maybe not. Does a dog have the Buddha nature? How would you be able to distinguish a spiritual cat from an atheist one? And anyways, so what?

So, what PZ Myers is doing, is inciting people to attack a vital trait of human survival.

Actually, language, tool-using, and culture are the vital traits. Religion and 'spirituality' are simply components of culture.

Perhaps this is why people seem to be turning into animals.

"Ooh, those darn kids today!"

Modern people, lacking a spiritual dimension, are forgetting what it is to be human.

Ah, the mythical past, when people were religious and therefore people. Unfortunately, this mythical past exists nowhere in history, but instead only in the minds of people like Stewart.

Posted by: chebghobbi | October 28, 2009 12:31 PM

Stewart Cowan (above) has a highly amusing blog for anyone interested in checking it out. I especially like how he destroys Dawkins and his arguments by attacking people who are not Dawkins and arguments that Dawkins has not put forward.

On another note, if Jesus was sacrificed in order to absolve us of our sins, the implication is that God had to do so, otherwise we'd all end up in Hell. If Hell is the default destination for an immortal soul, does that not mean that Satan is in fact more powerful than God?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 28, 2009 12:32 PM

Hey Stewart. So is the "demon in the bottle" the alcohol itself? Am I getting "demonized" when I rub my hands with alcohol? Or is the demon independent of alcohol? Does it swim in alcohol? Does it get drunk? Or is demon shorthand for the liquor industry as so many religious people thought during the Prohibition?
It's amusing to see people
going to such lenghts to explain away their own irresponsible behavior.
PS: I see myself and my fellow human beings as a species of African apes.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 28, 2009 12:33 PM

nigelTheBold,

What is it to be human? I mean, other than enjoying this brief time we have, and helping those we love also enjoy their brief time? What is it to be human, other than to leave the world better off than it would've been without our personal existence?

Kick. Ass.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Lynna, OM | October 28, 2009 12:36 PM

Jadehawk @94: Regarding the war on Halloween, I see a mild version of that every year when the mormon kiddies are encouraged to choose costumes of a "positive" nature, like ballerinas, doctors, etc. No demons allowed. However, this year, some mormons are going all out in the anti-Halloween campaign. This info comes from ex-mormons who still have kin in the cult.

...a local conference scheduled at the same time as Halloween. And, it encourages members to CANCEL Halloween plans, and sit in church to watch conference talks. My brother was floored. He has not been a mormon since he quit going to church in his teens (about 12 years ago). But they are still trying to get him active, just in time to *go to MORE meetings*. You know what the difference is between trick-or-treaters and the mormon church? If you are polite to trick-or-treaters, there's no trick and you never see them again.

Another ploy is to give out religious tracts that can be put in the kiddies' bags in lieu of candy. (Talk about begging for your yard to be toilet-papered!). I don't hand out anything. I hide out in black-out mode, otherwise the sheer number of mormon kiddies begging for candy drives me crazy. It's like a marathon -- a marathon made even more fucking bizarre by the van-loads of kids trucked into the neighborhood, which is known for its mormon-safeness and, therefore, a prime candy-getting target.

On New Year's Eve, the mormons frequently sponsor meetings for "the youth", where young people get to watch LDS videos, make personal commitments to serve the church, and are encouraged to prostitute their integrity as missionaries.

In a further blasphemy against true Americanism, they sometimes schedule Priesthood meetings to coincide with the Super Bowl. That's got to anger the gods. Actually, I've only heard of this happening once. The "Priests" probably complained, and men do have some clout.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 28, 2009 12:38 PM

It's amusing to see people going to such lenghts to explain away their own irresponsible behavior.

That is unfair. Alcoholism is a real illness with devastating consequence to the sufferer, physically, psychologically and socially. If Stewart Cowan was an alcoholic he deserves our sympathy. However, since he has rejected organic brain damage, a common result of alcoholism, as an explanation for his xenophobic and homophobic attitudes he deserves no sympathy in respect of those.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 28, 2009 12:41 PM

Matt Penfold,

I would have been less were it not for the cake.

"Well, we've run out of cake! . . . Didn't know there was going to be such a rush."

Thanks for the Izzard reminder. That routine always gives me a chuckle. :) Also, thanks for your kind words. I prefer to think of myself still on that road: like evolution, it's not something that has an end point (much less a "peak").

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 28, 2009 12:43 PM

Are they?

Yes.

The correlation is strong. There is a very clear trend that shows a correlation between how religious a country is and how well it scores on measures of social equality, general crime, hate crime, educational achievement etc. All the kind of measures that basically indicate how civilised a country is. Whenever these are measures countries with high levels of religious belief tend to score poorly on the other measures.

Posted by: kopd | October 28, 2009 12:44 PM

Perhaps this is why people seem to be turning into animals.

We are animals. Even your Bible says so (Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 to name one spot). How would you define "animals" that doesn't include humans (without resorting to a tautology)? Sheesh.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 28, 2009 12:47 PM

a) I was a believer before my alcoholism.

You have my sympathy. Being hit by a double whammy like that must have been hard.

b) Again, aversion to homosexuality has served humanity well. Either you believe in the Theory of Evolution or you don't.

Served humanity well ? Are you being serious ? How does it serve humanity well to treat up to 10% of people with the As intolerance directed at gay people over the centuries ?

As for either believing in theory of evolution, it would be better to say you either accept the overwhelming evidence in support of the theory or you reject reality.

Posted by: Stewart Cowan | October 28, 2009 12:48 PM

Knockgoats,

You won’t find any racism on my blog. Being a Creationist, I know that we are ONE race: the human race, and are all related to each other.

Remember, it was the ‘enlightened’ atheists who shot Australian Aborigines so they would have a specimen of this ‘missing link’ for their museums.

As this thread is turning into a mindless attack on me, I'll be bidding you farewell.

Posted by: nigelTheBold | October 28, 2009 12:49 PM

Again, aversion to homosexuality has served humanity well.

Again with the unsupported assertions! Did you attend Unsupported Assertions University? What did you major in, Unsupported Assertions?

Posted by: Insightful Ape | October 28, 2009 12:52 PM

Matt, Stewart is claiming alcoholism is caused by demons. That is precisely what the catholic church used to say about epilepsy. Except that epileptics have no control over their codindition. Alcoholics do, to some extent. Blaming it on demons is not just inaccurate-I do think it is irresponsible.
Incidentally are those demon making you a xenophobe too, Stewart? It seems you need a good exorcism. If it works we can recommend it for the whole BNP.

Posted by: Valdyr | October 28, 2009 12:52 PM

Oh, don't you guys understand? He CAN'T be racist if he says he isn't. Following this, if you think that saying people should be killed for allowing non-whites to immigrate into your country is -racist-, well... you're just imagining things, honestly.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 12:54 PM

Remember, it was the ‘enlightened’ atheists who shot Australian Aborigines so they would have a specimen of this ‘missing link’ for their museums.

Yes, there have never been racism demonstrated by Christians or Creationists. (waits for a discussion on Haggis and Tartan)

As this thread is turning into a repeated mindless attack on blatherings by me, I'll be bidding you farewell.

fixed

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | October 28, 2009 12:58 PM

There is nothing 'rational' about denying your own soul.

And I notice you have absolutely no response to my refutations of your silly "religion is a necessary and good thing because of evolution" attempt at an argument.

Again, aversion to homosexuality has served humanity well. Either you believe in the Theory of Evolution or you don't.

also, "aversion to homosexuality" is a recent and localized phenomenon. not all cultures have it, and not all cultures in the past had it, and certainly on the scale of human evolution macho cultures are very recent.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 28, 2009 12:59 PM

It's always fun to read idjits like Stewart, who provides nothing cogent to any argument. Stewart, in order to be cogent, you need to start with physical evidence for your imaginary deity. If you can't prove that, your logic goes downhill in a big hurry into delusions, as it is based upon fallacy. Just like all godbots.

Posted by: MikeM | October 28, 2009 1:00 PM

Sad to say, this does not surprise me in the least. I mean, this is right there in the Bible, right? So it's gotta be true.

I read in a kids Christian "science" magazine a few years ago that God is made of nothing. A kid asked a question, "What is God made of?", and the answer was, "Nothing! If God was made of something, that'd imply that someone or something made God. Since we know that's not true, that means God is made of Nothing!".

People believe weird shit. I think you can come up with any odd thought you want, and someone, somewhere will say, "Oh! I get it!".

I had my H1N1 shot yesterday, and these two dummies were saying, "Don't get it! It has mercury in it!". When I got back to the office, I looked it up, and single-dose H1N1 vaccine contains NO Thimerosal. On the other hand, these two dummies were covered with tattoos, and the off-hand remark I read was that tattoo ink may contain mercury.

I don't think they'd care if I told them that. If I pointed them documents to show they're wrong, they'd tell me I was an idiot.

There's just no straightening out some people.

Posted by: Thrillhouse | October 28, 2009 1:07 PM

David B,

I had one of my sleep paralysis episodes just a few days ago. Along with being unable to move, I felt like I was floating and saw a shadowy figure running around outside my bedroom doorway. The worst part was that I knew nothing was really out there and that I wasn't hovering, but I couldn't totally shake the feeling. The rest of the day, the hairs would stand up on the back of my neck when I went by that doorway. I could understand how someone in a similar situation would be willing to believe he or she was being attacked by demons, aliens, ghosts, or some such nonsense if that person already believed in such things. Ironically, it was one of those "Is such and such mythical thing real?" shows on the Discovery channel that introduced me to sleep paralysis. Before that I thought I was just having extra weird dreams.

Anyway, it sounds like God needs to stop making creatures with the capacity to turn against him. It never ends well. AiG would have to sell off the museum to fund all of the replacement Irony Meters they owe people who read that post.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 28, 2009 1:09 PM

Oh, fuck. Just followed Stewie's link.

I see what everybody's saying. So, Stewart's nothing more than your garden-variety no-longer-drinking-and-somehow-pissed-at-women-and-coloureds-over-it alcoholic sanctimonious retard.

Boring. I had a few of those in my family. Did you beat your wife and kids too, Stewie? If so, we may be related.

If they're lucky, eventually they'll fall off the wagon and drunkenly pick a fight with the wrong person at a party who will lay them the fuck out. That'll de-asshole the prick faster than any 12 step program.

You won’t find any racism on my blog. Being a Creationist, I know that we are ONE race: the human race, and are all related to each other.

From shitface's blog:

You are traitors; social engineering criminals using immigration to wipe out British culture and sovereignty.

Ah. We're one people, all-related, but non-Brits suck.

As this thread is turning into a mindless attack on me, I'll be bidding you farewell.

What? Get the fuck back here, coward!

Figures. It's always the most spineless who call for other people to execute other people.

Ball-less fuckbrain.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 28, 2009 1:19 PM

Stewart Cowan,

There is nothing 'rational' about denying your own soul.

Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

I see no evidence for the existence of a soul. The conditions I might have previously described as attributed to the presence of a soul are explained (and explainable) in terms of biochemical processes in the organism that is my being. My psychology enables me to make meaning of experiences and thoughts and feelings, but even my psychology is rooted in the biochemical processes in the organism that is my being. My psychology is also influenced by environmental factors, including interactions with other biochemical systems (animals of all kinds, including humans).

Based on the evidence, while it's possible there actually is a soul that just hasn't shown up under scrutiny yet, the probability of it, given the evidence we do have, is small and growing smaller. Given that, the rational approach in my psychology is not to believe in the existence of the soul. Perhaps that's denial of the soul, in your experience.

In which case, you and I have different definitions of what rational is. I try to base my understanding of rationality in evidence, logical thinking, paying attention to my psychology and influential environmental factors, meaning-making as a human exercise, and so forth.

I don't imagine I'd be able to convince you that, rather than denying my "soul," I'm expressing a lack of belief in a soul based on the evidence, while remaining willing to reconsider should evidence arise (it hasn't, incidentally, but I'm open to the possibility that understanding can change in light of new evidence). I also acknowledge that, given the probability, there's probably not any significant difference in saying "possible-but-not-even-remotely-probable" and "non-existent."

In which case, I still think I'm being rational, and the insistence that I'm not being rational based on denial of a soul is not a convincing argument that I'm not being rational. I have been corrected on this blog numerous times, including just last week. I'm not seeing the evidence from your argument that I'm acting irrationally, however.

Brownian, OM,

Guys, let's not knock the man for kicking a habit which was unhealthy and destrictive for him, regardless of how we feel about what we think he's replaced it with.

That's what I was trying to get at. It's sad that, as Knockgoats pointed out based on Cowan's website, Cowan's got other issues, too.

Stewart Cowan, given your website content, I recommend searching back through the Pharyngula post Rapping About Genes located here. There's much fruitful discussion there, as well as recommended readings, and so forth, to get started on.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | October 28, 2009 1:24 PM

Where is the evidence that creationists in modern times teach racism?

Posted by: bobxxxx | October 28, 2009 1:31 PM

I've never seen an poll about it, but I would bet about half of Idiot America believes in demons. Answers in Genesis is batshit crazy, but they represent the average American.

Posted by: Peter | October 28, 2009 1:32 PM

It must be "hell" beleiving this crap.

Posted by: kopd | October 28, 2009 1:47 PM

I must have missed something. Where was the claim that creationists teach racism? All I remember was a claim that creationists can't be racist, and then some refutations of that claim.

Posted by: JennyAnyDots | October 28, 2009 1:49 PM

Jadehawk, # 146

On the scale of human evolution, many things are recent, but if you want to suggest that "aversion to homosexuality" is a follow on from a macho society then the Spartans might have disagreed! Which means I find it even more amusing when people like Stewart try to argue that tolerance of homosexuality is part of modern political correctness.

Oh, and I really can't be bothered to read Stewart's blog to see if this is actually confirmed there, but based on what I've seen here, I'd predict he probably gets most of his view of the modern world from the Daily Mail (as do my uncle and aunt, much to my shame). For the non-Brits here, the "editorial stance" bit here gives you a bit of a clue where you can expect Stewart to stand on issues - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail - general focus on hating being told what to do by foreigners in Europe, hating foreigners coming over here and doing or not doing something, sending back foreign-born but now legally British citizens, and a general view that women want to read a special lightweight section of a newspaper that suggests they should all be living in the 50s, staying home with their children and doing what they're told.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | October 28, 2009 1:54 PM

Sorry if I got confused about the creationist/racist issue, but it's certainly the case that creationists taught racism in earlier (yet post Darwinian) times.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp33401

Posted by: Desert Son | October 28, 2009 1:57 PM

Stewart Cowan,

In case you're still reading:

As this thread is turning into a mindless attack on me,

Again, the evidence suggests the attack on you is mindful, not mindless. It has a purpose (education and clarification in opposition to ignorance), direction (you, and the irrationality you have posted), method (calls for evidence, logical explication), and invocation of different modes of discourse (a variety of tonal approaches).

Just because people are responding to something you posted and doing so counter to your own opinion does not mean the effort is mindless.

I'll be bidding you farewell.

Hmmm. We'll see.

There's still time, Stewart, to look more closely. When you ask questions of the world, you must also ask questions of yourself; deny it as they so often do, those who believe in gods are as much of the universe as those of us who do not believe in gods. Start reading.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: kopd | October 28, 2009 2:02 PM

The author of CreationTheory.org (don't let the name fool you, it's an anti-ID site) proposed a guess at the source of the white supremacy type of racism that began in Europe and festered in America. I'm not sure if he got it from another source or if he spun it himself, but it made sense. It basically had to do with the Age of Exploration and that it was essentially a useful rule of thumb that non-white people they encountered were also non-Christian and thus beneath them. And so it became institutionalized as a source of unity. Obviously it doesn't explain everything, but it's interesting to think about (for as long as you can stomach thinking about racism).

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 28, 2009 2:06 PM

Stewart Cowan, reality-denying nutcase:

There is nothing 'rational' about denying your own soul.

And yet, denying all science and all statistics ever collected, babbling creationist bullshit without even considering learning the first thing about biology, tossing out some of the most absurdly and blatantly wrong strawmen of evolution ever hallucinated, and lying through your teeth in the name of a god that said NOT to bear false witness, THAT is perfectly rational to you?

Are you sure you're not drunk while writing this? You're just totally batshit fucking insane, Stewie. You don't have the slightest idea what the hell you're talking about, and you'd rather die than learn anything. In short, typical creationist.

Posted by: AC Skeptic | October 28, 2009 2:21 PM

I grew up believing that demons were real and they were literally lurking around every corner, waiting for an opportunity to lure me into evil, and these thoughts made my childhood and adolescence a very tormented and fearful time. Another one of the beautiful gifts of God and religion.

This was my wife's experience as well. Even while we were still believers we decided we would not emphasize or even mention demons to our children. But if your involved in the church the topic will come up.

I was still teaching Sunday School during and even for a short time after I stopped believing in my faith. Most of what is taught to the children is decent and worthwhile, even while being rapped in a particular mythology. But sometimes . . . . one week we were talking about what we were scared of. The moral of the story was that you didn't need to be afraid because Jesus was always with you. Being somewhat practical, I also focused on analyzing and putting into perspective their fears. For instance, one kid said they were afraid of spiders, so I discussed how we need not really fear Spiders as (at least here in the US) nearly all of them are harmless to humans. Several other children talked about being afraid of monsters and I of course strongly asserted that they need not fear monsters because monsters don't exist. Indeed, we specifically focused on the fact that there were no monsters in their bedroom. And then we come to the home schooled kid. He tells me he is afraid of demons. They kids were instructed to draw out their fears so he holds up his particular rendition of a fairly scary demon. Of course, I want to tell the kid that demon is just another name for monster and that they don't exist either, but at this time out of respect for the church and the parents who were not aware of my changing beliefs and were entrusting to me the education of their children, I was keeping the party line. So instead I told the kid that demons have much better things to do then hang around little children and he will never see or experience a demon in his life. Oh no, he disagreed. There was a demon in his own house, indeed, he saw it! At this point, I am severely annoyed, because all the other kids are hearing this and getting scared as shit. I mumbled out my earlier statement, and then quickly changed the subject.

Posted by: SEF | October 28, 2009 2:47 PM

Re some posts earlier in the thread on the correlation between religion and crime:

more child abuse among populations which are more religious and less well educated (those latter things are also notably correlated).

NB most/all of the stuff about proportions of various religious and non-religious factions in the general population vs the prison population suffers from the fatal flaws of: (a) not being based on exactly the same questionnaire (it matters a great deal precisely what you ask people!); (b) lumping separate groups together in different ways (eg it's not fair to claim the non-responders or even the "non-religious" are atheists, since they might merely be unaffiliated "spiritual" believers in gods!); and (c) not being conducted at anywhere near the same time (even if in the same country).

Posted by: SEF | October 28, 2009 2:59 PM

Another link on how religion correlates with crime and immorality - specifically murder, suicide, abortion and teen pregnancy (the latter things being generally regarded as a bad idea even among those who aren't rabidly religious and who don't have a no-sex-before-marriage hang-up - because people should be better educated into taking more precautions and planning their lives better!).

Posted by: pdferguson | October 28, 2009 3:11 PM

... manmade deities.

What other kind is there?

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | October 28, 2009 3:12 PM

But (temporarily pretending they're real at all) are they really members of human society?

Of course. Who do you think represents you in your nation's legislature? Humans?

Would real humans act like your legislators do?

(Notice this holds true for most legislators, regardless of country...)

Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 3:26 PM

I grew up believing that demons were real and they were literally lurking around every corner,

My mainstream protestant sect never once mentioned demons. AFAIK, they don't believe in demons or demonic possession.

Sort of gives you a clue about how real demons are. If you don't believe in them, they don't exist.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 3:38 PM

Do you see fellow human beings as people or electrochemical machines?

You really should learn something about neurology. It's a fascinating subject in both its simplicity and its complexity (which are, at the same time, both greater than you imagine).

Google is your friend…

religion must be playing an important part, seeing as every culture has one.

That's because the original purpose of religion is to explain the world. Why does it rain? Why do bad things happen to good people? Every religion asserts to have an answer to this kind of question. If you haven't developped science yet, religion seems like an obvious option.

Religion and spirituality are things that distinguish us from any other species.

Chimpanzees threaten the rain when it refuses to stop.

(Always these utter morons who blithely make arguments about every other species of animal when they don't know anything about more than three! This incredibly widespread stupidity is getting on my nerves.)

I wrote 'THIS peak of evolution'.

There is no such thing as a peak of evolution.

How would you even measure whether evolution is going up or down? People tried for decades and just kept failing. It can't be done. "Up" or "down" can't even be defined.

aversion to homosexuality has served humanity well. Either you believe in the Theory of Evolution or you don't.

See that paragraph in parentheses up there?

You act as if homosexuality only occurred in humans. That's wrong. It occurs in every single vertebrate species that has been observed for long enough, and so does bisexuality.

Further, you act as if everyone were homo- or at least bisexual. Speak for yourself. Unlike you, I'm heterosexual – I'm not capable of finding a man sexy. Forbidding homosexuality to me is like forbidding flying by arm-waving for me. Sexual orientation is something you're born with. It can't be changed later, and to some degree it's heritable (male homosexuality is known to run in families). Don't believe me? Go read. Again, Google is your friend.

Finally, if you believe in a scientific theory, you're doing science wrong… all you can really do in science is accept it for the moment as the simplest explanation that has been found so far for the observations that have been made so far, and to drop it immediately as soon as a better explanation is found (a simpler one for the same observations, or one for more observations, or both).

Yes, science is a very negative enterprise. :-)

You won’t find any racism on my blog. Being a Creationist, I know that we are ONE race: the human race, and are all related to each other.

That you don't use the word doesn't mean you're not a racist. That should be obvious.

As this thread is turning into a mindless attack on me, I'll be bidding you farewell.

Shaker's Law: the more loudly one insists one will leave an Internet discussion, the sooner one will be back.

if you want to suggest that "aversion to homosexuality" is a follow on from a macho society then the Spartans might have disagreed!

Not just the Spartans. Achilles ♥ Patroclus for starters.

Posted by: raven | October 28, 2009 3:43 PM

The Scriptures provide many details about demons. They are spirit beings created by God and responsible to God (Colossians 1:16). They are creatures limited in space, time, and powers.

This is silly. Demons were created by god and answer to him? So god is a malevolent idiot? It isn't like we have enough problems that we create all by ourselves.

AIG:

Demons promote primitive religions, magic, superstition, and worship of evil spirits. They are the dynamic behind idolatry and their devotees, whether worshipers of the gods Marduk, Asher, Zeus, Jupiter, Apollo, Ra, Diana, Aphrodite, or a host of lesser manmade deities.

AIG wimped out here. I'm sure the believe demons "promote science and are the dynamic behind evolutionary biology, paleontology, the Hubble Space Telescope and atheism." They probably thought people would laugh at them more than the usual.

Posted by: Desert Son | October 28, 2009 3:51 PM

Matt Penfold,

Actually I had forgotten about Izzard. It really really was about the cake.

Excellent! That's even funnier!

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Flounder99 | October 28, 2009 4:05 PM

I see what everybody's saying. So, Stewart's nothing more than your garden-variety no-longer-drinking-and-somehow-pissed-at-women-and-coloureds-over-it alcoholic sanctimonious retard.

Posted by: Sparks | October 28, 2009 4:09 PM

Marduk totally rocks!

Posted by: DaveL | October 28, 2009 4:25 PM

I, for one, would certainly count Tequila as an evil spirit. However, the only example of an unclean spirit that comes to mind is that crazy home brew from Newfoundland I was offered once.

Posted by: pdferguson | October 28, 2009 4:27 PM

Stewart Cowan blathered:

If you believe that it has taken billions of years for mankind to reach this peak of evolution, then religion must be playing an important part, seeing as every culture has one.

That still isn't evidence that any of the countless gods people have worshipped are anything but a construct of human imagination. And quite frankly, religion may play an important part in the eventual extinction of the human race as well. Nuclear weapons and religious certitude are a frightening, dangerous mix...

Religion and spirituality are things that distinguish us from any other species.

Yeah, that and raspberry Jello shots. But I guess you'd know all about those...

Perhaps this is why people seem to be turning into animals. Modern people, lacking a spiritual dimension, are forgetting what it is to be human.

That's just your brain on religion, little fella. Honest.

We haven't forgotten anything, rather we have learned we don't need imaginary father figures or their self-appointed mouthpieces telling us how to live our lives.

Religion is about power and control, nothing more. That power and control helped you break free of your alcohol addiction, it may even have saved your life. Good for you. Of course, it did that by substituting a different addiction in its place, with all the attendant drawbacks that entails. And unfortunately, one of the main drawbacks is a strong impulse to demonize (there's that word again) those who aren't religious.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 4:50 PM

Perhaps this is why people seem to be turning into animals. Modern people, lacking a spiritual dimension, are forgetting what it is to be human.

Why is it we must pretend otherwise? What's wrong with being an animal? To me it feels like you can't reconcile the human condition with being an animal, which just makes it seem like you have a really low opinion as to what it means to be an animal. We don't need some Übermensch in order to define us...

Posted by: DominEditrix | October 28, 2009 5:03 PM

I believe totally in demons. How else can one explain Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly or the Pope? ['Don't touch it; it's Evil!']

The Hallowe'en-is-a-pagan-holiday-fraught-with-danger* is amusing - many years ago, my first mother-in-law sent me a book on how to be a good Jewish wife. ['I know you aren't converting,dear, but...'] It advised Good Jewish Mothers not to allow their Good Jewish Children to celebrate Hallowe-en, as it was "a Christian holiday".

* Of course, it [Samhain] is, and most fraught with danger if one lets the children too close to the bonfire. Demonic possession, not so much.

Posted by: Carlie | October 28, 2009 5:43 PM

It advised Good Jewish Mothers not to allow their Good Jewish Children to celebrate Hallowe-en, as it was "a Christian holiday".

"No dear, you can't dress up and get loads of free candy, because only the Christian children get to do that".

Yeah, that's really going to inspire kids to embrace Judaism.

Posted by: Strangest brew | October 28, 2009 5:51 PM

"Demons promote primitive religions, magic, superstition, and worship of evil spirits. They are the dynamic behind idolatry and their devotees, whether worshipers of the gods Marduk, Asher, Zeus, Jupiter, Apollo, Ra, Diana, Aphrodite, or a host of lesser manmade deities."

Wot! still?

So these wackjobs are convinced that folks are still worshipping Marduk, Asher, Zeus, Jupiter, Apollo, Ra, Diana, Aphrodite, and if they are worshipped do they get tax exemption for being a religion?, as AIG claim they are?
Are these religions gaining popularity or something?.....eating into the donation pot?

'or a host of lesser manmade deities.'

Ahh! now then seems that AIG are admitting that deities can be man made.
And as PZ rightly pointed out...still they are blind.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 28, 2009 6:02 PM

Well, I have a friend who apparently worships Thor.

Thor in disguise as Dawson, the body shop mechanic played by Vincent D'Onofrio in Adventures in Babysitting? I believe I similarly worshipped Elisabeth Shue about the time that film came out.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | October 28, 2009 6:05 PM

Thor in disguise as Dawson, the body shop mechanic played by Vincent D'Onofrio in Adventures in Babysitting? I believe I similarly worshipped Elisabeth Shue about the time that film came out.

D'Onofrio is a good looking man, but should really avoid being blonde.

And don't fuck with the babysitter!

Posted by: Anonym | October 28, 2009 6:39 PM

Curious how most of America has chivvied 'Halloween' ('hallow' : sacred; 'een' : e'en = evening, or eve) from the hallowed or 'sacred eve' of 'All Saints Day' (Nov 1) into such a demonstrable fascination with and celebration of demons. However absurd either side may be, I suggest the fascination is because demons are a lot 'kickier' than the more somber 'saints' crap; and, it gives the little ones an opportunity to be innocently and acceptably 'bad' (trick or treat).

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 28, 2009 6:51 PM

Well, I have a friend who apparently worships Thor. Actually, I think she just likes being different.

Be careful, a lot of those Thor worshipers are White Supremacists in a not so great disguise.

Posted by: Strangest brew | October 28, 2009 7:01 PM

This is just priceless...

The xian contention that Hitler ans Stalin were atheists and therefore culpable in the carnage...is well known and well documented...

But it turns out it was not their fault...it did not make a difference if they were atheist or deist because ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-402602/Hitler-Stalin-possessed-Devil-says-Vatican-exorcist.html

That is very neat...they managed to blow up one of their own contentions...brainy little barks are they not?

#209

"Well, I have a friend who apparently worships Thor. Actually, I think she just likes being different."

I think my wife worships Thor...when in the throws of passion she eventually screams..."I'm Thor...I'm Thor"

And I am well pleased... job done! ;-)

Leaving now...quietly...with me coat!

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | October 28, 2009 7:17 PM

"You are the biggest victim here."

Brother Wowbagger is right, Pilty. Behind the derision you are pretty universally pitied. And as we all know, pity is a form of contempt...

Posted by: CJO | October 28, 2009 7:26 PM

Aw, fer fook's sake. I'm sure I'll regret it, but.

The idea of memes is an open question. You can dismiss it as "pernicious garbage" without argument, and I'll be informed of your opinion on the matter and nothing else.

Consider, then, in the spirit of open inquiry (ha), that it might be the case that human culture creates an environment in which a selective process can occur by which certain "concepts, ideas, fads, trends, fashions, crazes etc" outcompete certain others for "brain space" and instantiation in the real world of objects, audible melodies, jokes as told, etc. Is that really so far fetched? Cultural "space" is surely just as limiting in its way for ideas just as any terrestrial environment has a carrying capacity for the organisms that occupy its niches. And then consider that a "meme's eye view" even if it is a theoretical fiction, just might have explanatory power, in some cases, by elucidating the "free-floating rationale" for why this idea took off just when it did, or why this craze was all the rage for years, when this other one popped up and died out in months, and etc.

Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2009 7:31 PM

Leaving aside religious piffle about literal demons, I do think a couple of people touched on an interesting point above. To what extent can any of us ever be said to be truly "responsible" for our choices?

We are all, at least to some extent, the product of our genes, our environment and our experiences. No one makes moral decisions in a vacuum. And, in general, people who deviate from social norms of behaviour do so because of various factors outside their control. A high proportion of imprisoned criminals, for instance, are suffering either from mental illness or drug addiction, or both. Many abusers of children were themselves abused in childhood. In a sense, most people are prisoners of their own minds and their own circumstances. Perhaps, taking this view to its logical conclusion, one could interpret human behaviour as entirely deterministic: arguing that we never really "choose" to do anything, that free will is an illusion and that moral culpability is meaningless.

This is just idle speculation; I'm not actually advocating this viewpoint (not least because it undermines not only my own philosophy, but the broader tradition of Enlightenment liberal political thought as a whole). But it's an interesting topic to discuss (much more interesting, at least, than pointless speculation about the existence of angels and demons).

Posted by: Holydust | October 28, 2009 7:39 PM

Um, David Marjanović: I agree with everything you said, except I don't believe that homosexuality (or bisexuality) is something you are born with. Far from it. I was a straight female, mostly neutral to the gays other than fearing for their immortal souls because the Bible told me they were in danger, til I fell in love with my best friend at 16. At that point, I realized that if God would let THAT happen, maybe other things weren't as they seemed, either. I've basically been bisexual ever since, but I definitely had never been attracted to other girls even in an innocent or casual way previous to that event.

I would argue that many feel a strong pull in one direction or another from a very early age, but to just flat-out say it's something you're always born with is not something I would agree with in every single case. Just saying.

Posted by: Ham M'Bongo. | October 28, 2009 7:44 PM

Look you guys. You're completely missing the point. All that evilution stuff comes from demons. Science in fact is satanic......seriously.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 28, 2009 7:54 PM

We are all, at least to some extent, the product of our genes, our environment and our experiences. No one makes moral decisions in a vacuum. And, in general, people who deviate from social norms of behaviour do so because of various factors outside their control. A high proportion of imprisoned criminals, for instance, are suffering either from mental illness or drug addiction, or both. Many abusers of children were themselves abused in childhood. In a sense, most people are prisoners of their own minds and their own circumstances. Perhaps, taking this view to its logical conclusion, one could interpret human behaviour as entirely deterministic: arguing that we never really "choose" to do anything, that free will is an illusion and that moral culpability is meaningless.

Of course the views seem irreconcilable. But I don't think it owuld be wise to take away all culpibility. If I were to come and punch you in the balls, would you think it equal that a young child did so? Or someone with a mental illness? What about a machine? Someone who was injected with a mind-altering substance? An inaminate object that happened to be swept up by some natural force of nature?

People are born with a capacity to understand right and wrong, to take on new ideas and reason through decisions. I can project into the future potential consequences for actions, what are the likely outcomes for myself, for others, etc. This to me gives a base for which there can be accountability, that ability to emphathise with others and understand consequences for actions means that there's accountability. Moral culpability is not meaningless in a determinst view of the mind.

Posted by: ctgopks | October 28, 2009 11:25 PM

They sow false followers of Christ in the world (Matthew 13:37-42).

Posted by: Ancient Brit | October 28, 2009 11:29 PM

Not being a biblical scholar I had to go and look up the references. Right from the start there were cracks in the analysis. Here's what Colossians 1:16 actually says:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

I see nothing about demons or spirits in that. In fact, I don't see a thing about any creatures whatsoever - all the references are to administrative entities. Should I be attacked by a vicious throne in the near future, I'll know I was wrong...

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | October 28, 2009 11:36 PM

There is a missing "dress". Try to find it.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 29, 2009 12:39 AM

JMk2 wrote:

"The bible predicts an increase in communication in the latter days".

An increase in communication, eh?

So, one could suppose the latter days started with the creation of modern postal systems.

Or, perhaps with the building of telegraph systems? (Curse you, Samuel Morse!)

No? Then, surely the beginning of the end started with the growth of telephone systems! (All your fault, Ma Bell!)

Or could it have begun with the establishment of radio networks?

Well, from the era when TV was cutting-edge communication technology, TV has been pegged as the source of widespread evil. So surely, the final days began with the advent of the TV age. And the countdown to Armageddon sped up, I'm sure, with the birth of cable TV, with its XXX-rated pay-per-views (not that I would know anything about those!), the adult channels, and Comedy Central, not to mention HBO and that Jesus-attacking Curb Your Enthusiasm!

Posted by: Stefftastic | October 29, 2009 3:56 AM

Good to know I'm not a foe of Satan, then.

Posted by: JMk2 | October 29, 2009 4:23 AM

Bastion of Sass wrote:

An increase in communication, eh?

It now sounds to me like a line from "The Life of Brian" - must watch that again. :-)

Perhaps it was "an increase in knowledge" instead? I haven't the faintest idea what bible verse might have been referred to.

Posted by: SEF | October 29, 2009 5:43 AM

@ bastion of sass #233:

I now realize I could have gone as a demon. After all, they're mentioned in The Bible.

You could also have gone as a leviathan, a behemoth, an unclean animal from the ark, an insect with the wrong number of legs, a demon-possessed man, one of the supposedly resurrected dead, a very small part of a frog plague or, with enough toys stuck to you, even as quite a significant part of a plague of frogs ...

You clearly weren't trying anywhere near hard enough subvert the intent of those priests and nuns.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 29, 2009 6:01 AM

"The bible predicts an increase in communication in the latter days". - JMk2

Yup. Things started to go downhill as paper spread from China via the Islamic world to Europe; and moveable-type printing was clearly the beginning of the end.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 29, 2009 10:36 AM

The psychopathic, theocratic, hopelessly delusional Hoax:

Exactly what "readily available information" makes belief in demons untenable in this particular time period?

The total lack of even the slightest speck of evidence that any demon actually exists or ever has existed. The fact that the demon-based explanations for real-world phenomena never actually WORKED, and we now have better ones, supported by acutal facts. Belief in demons is wholly unsupported by reality, as well as being completely useless.

Of course you wouldn't know about that, since the very idea of evidence is against your religion. That's how your cult could spend money ripped off from the poor to buy eighteen separate supposed foreskins of christ, without the sheep batting an eye at being told their lord and savior was a freak with over a dozen penises. Gullibility is a feature, not a bug. It's the only way people will buy the horseshit the church is selling.

Posted by: Lee | October 29, 2009 11:43 AM

"They cause false teachers of depraved minds to oppose the truth and appeal to carnal and selfish impulses"

OH NO!
the Christians are demons!

Posted by: Lynna | October 29, 2009 12:33 PM

Bastion of Sass @237

One lunch time, Sister Holy Certitude came by as some of us fourth grade girls were coloring in our lovely ballerina coloring books. She took one look, decided that the pictures of ballerinas wearing tutus were scandalous and indecent, confiscated them, and forbade us from ever owning such trashy filth again.

Posted by: Carlie | October 29, 2009 2:04 PM

Here's another article from the Christian Broadcasting Network about the evils of Halloween and the demons therein, being publicized by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Here's a quote from the article:

"For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference."

If demons are that stupid, why do we have anything to worry about?

Posted by: Thunderbird5 | October 29, 2009 2:49 PM

The news that there so many adults believing in this insanity is profoundly depressing. But the discussions and discourse in response - here on this thread (as in so many others here) - cheers me up no end.

I'm off down the pub. The God of Chips ordains it.

Posted by: BMS | October 29, 2009 3:06 PM

We just named our new kitten Lucy. Short for Lucifer / Lucyfur.

She fetches - paper balls, catnip toys, bottle caps.

I think she's possessed.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 29, 2009 3:18 PM

I wonder what Demon bacon tastes like?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 29, 2009 3:28 PM

I wonder what Demon bacon tastes like?

Posted by: BMS | October 29, 2009 3:50 PM

I wonder what Demon bacon tastes like?

Babies, of course. Fat, juicy babies.

Posted by: DaveL | October 29, 2009 3:57 PM

Moreover (speaking from the Roman Catholic perspective) once one has identified the problem, there are prescribed solutions -- sacraments, sacramentals and rituals that don't work.

Fixed.

Posted by: bastion of sass | October 29, 2009 4:37 PM

Carlie wrote:

"For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.
I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference."

Of course! *smacking my forehead with the palm of my right hand*

This explains why I not only can't resist the temptation to eat the Halloween candy myself before the Trick-and-Treaters arrive, but also why the Halloween candy I've eaten causes me to gain twice as much weight as I believe it should.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | October 29, 2009 4:54 PM

I wonder what Demon bacon tastes like?

Like deviled ham, only fatty.

Posted by: Rick R | October 29, 2009 5:19 PM

"They're a small, but tortuous taste of what hell will be like."

I feel exactly the same way about onions.

"Satan's apples".

Posted by: SEF | October 29, 2009 6:32 PM

Still working on posting too, this time. So I guess there must have been an unseen error previously - or ScienceBlogs is randomly messing with stuff!

Posted by: Stardrake | October 29, 2009 10:03 PM

Carlie @254: Looks like CBN realized just how stupid the article looked--clicking the link gets a 404 Not Found, and it doesn't turn up with a site search for "Halloween+candy"

I didn't look too deep--it all felt so slimy.....

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 29, 2009 10:40 PM

The first time I experienced sleep paralysis, the figure I saw was my housemate. It's happened twice more, but each time I didn't imagine anyone in the room with me. So no demons for me...

Posted by: Snoof | October 30, 2009 2:11 AM

We just named our new kitten Lucy. Short for Lucifer / Lucyfur.

She fetches - paper balls, catnip toys, bottle caps.

I think she's possessed.

Posted by: kalibhakta | October 30, 2009 11:13 AM

sorry, that should be "google the string 'daniels danger halloween.'"

I don't know that googling string would be all that productive.

Posted by: Samantha Vimes | October 31, 2009 7:23 AM

When I have sleep paralysis, I just dream my husband is saying something weird. He's only had it once, I think, and likewise reacted by asking me if what he thought had happened was real once he was fully awake (something mildly odd, like thinking I'd moved from a part of the room I hadn't been in, or that I'd been trying to call out to him when I was sitting quietly reading)
I learned a certain amount of control or my dreams in my teens, which may be why the half-state of dream paralysis has never taken me to the weird concepts like alien abduction that I've heard other people dream of. In fact, once I found out what had happened after the first time, I'm pretty much like "Huh, I feel my pillow and the sheets. But the room layout is odd. Must be sleep paralysis. I wonder what hallucination may occur. Whoopsie, waking up now all the way; I shouldn't have been so analytical."

Posted by: Piltdown Man | November 6, 2009 6:51 PM

Sastra @ 225:

Absent Catholic doctrine, would there be any reason for a researcher in psychology -- or in any science -- to postulate demons in order to explain anything?

I guess it depends on how much credence you give reports by priests of possessed individuals exhibiting telekinetic powers and speaking in languages they did not know.

I still see problems with people telling themselves that their bad behavior was really caused by another person (and a spirit at that!) I think it would be very easy to slip into fatalism ... There are built-in excuses for relapses, and an easy way to shift blame.

Perhaps a delinquent teenager could claim his criminal activities were "caused" by peer pressure?

... If someone believes that their behavior is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and this is diagnosed by a physician, they're likely to take medication.

They're also more likely to excuse their behaviour.

raven @ 263:

We gave up on the demon theory of mental illness a century ago.

Demons aren't a "theory" to explain mental illness or anything else. People have experienced demonic activity -- including paranormal phenomena -- it's as simple as that.

Exorcisms don't do or cure anything because demons don't exist. Mental illness is known to be mostly a product of faulty brain chemistry and is often treatable.

Exorcisms have indeed cured victims of demonic possession. (And no-one is saying that all mental illness is caused by demonic activity.)

Anri @ 253:

My brotehr-in-law has mental issue ... When on his medication, he's coherent, if odd, and can regulate his life decently. When off of them, he's a crazy-talk machine that doesn't eat right.
Maybe the medicine is supressing the demon?

Maybe it's just suppressing him?

More to the point, why limit it to mental illness? Why not diabetes? Don't fiddle with all that silly insulin, just have a service to klobber the Sugar Demon! Don't treat pneumonia or appendicitis, just pray, pray, pray!

I wouldn't assume a physical ailment was caused by demonic attack any more than I would assume mental illness is. If it were accompanied by telekinesis, the ability to speak unknown languages and an aversion to holy water, I would consider myself justified in suspecting it ...

Knockgoats @ 247:

everything we know about mentality indicates its complete reliance on a physical substrate.

From infidels.org:

Broadly understood, reductionist materialism maintains that everything is strictly physical; more narrowly, it maintains that the mind (at least) is purely physical. Nonreductive materialism also allows the existence of nonphysical properties that inhere in, or emerge from, a physical substrate. Consequently, it is sometimes called emergent materialism or property dualism. In the broad sense, nonreductive materialism holds that everything is physical or at least dependent upon the physical; and in the narrower sense it holds that the mind can have both physical and nonphysical aspects even though it must be instantiated in a physical system like the brain.

So are you a reductionist materialist or a nonreductive materialist?

Walton @ 224:

We are all, at least to some extent, the product of our genes, our environment and our experiences. No one makes moral decisions in a vacuum. And, in general, people who deviate from social norms of behaviour do so because of various factors outside their control. A high proportion of imprisoned criminals, for instance, are suffering either from mental illness or drug addiction, or both. Many abusers of children were themselves abused in childhood. In a sense, most people are prisoners of their own minds and their own circumstances. Perhaps, taking this view to its logical conclusion, one could interpret human behaviour as entirely deterministic: arguing that we never really "choose" to do anything, that free will is an illusion and that moral culpability is meaningless.
This is just idle speculation; I'm not actually advocating this viewpoint (not least because it undermines not only my own philosophy, but the broader tradition of Enlightenment liberal political thought as a whole).

Kel @ 230:

Why not take it to the next step? That we are beings that ultimately have our decision-making process decided by blind forces acting in the brain. It's more than just contingency, we cannot break away from the laws of physics!
Of course the views seem irreconcilable. But I don't think it owuld be wise to take away all culpibility. If I were to come and punch you in the balls, would you think it equal that a young child did so? Or someone with a mental illness? What about a machine? Someone who was injected with a mind-altering substance? An inaminate object that happened to be swept up by some natural force of nature?
People are born with a capacity to understand right and wrong, to take on new ideas and reason through decisions. I can project into the future potential consequences for actions, what are the likely outcomes for myself, for others, etc. This to me gives a base for which there can be accountability, that ability to emphathise with others and understand consequences for actions means that there's accountability. Moral culpability is not meaningless in a determinst view of the mind.

You're still trying to square the circle.

Piltdown Man: If you really believe that there is "no inherent moral rightness or justice to our universe", on what grounds do you condemn the alleged wrongs and injustices committed in the name of traditional values?

Walton: This is an is-ought confusion, though I appreciate that my wording was ambiguous. I am not a moral relativist, in the sense that the term is usually understood; I believe that human reason can produce objective moral principles, and that some standards are objectively right while others are objectively wrong. This doesn't mean that moral rules have to be dictated by some sort of divine command or supernatural force. Rather, all it means is that we, human beings, develop, through our own rational capabilities, certain general principles which allow us to live together and share limited resources with a minimum of suffering and violence. We can legitimately disagree among ourselves about what these principles are - but that doesn't mean they don't have objective force.

Piltdown Man: Objective force in the sense that certain principles can be seen and shown in practice to "allow us to live together and share limited resources with a minimum of suffering and violence", whereas other principles do not? And that "disagreement" is a demonstrably erroneous denial of those objectively true facts?
Perhaps. But what "objective force" does your basic presupposition have that sharing resources and minimizing suffering and violence are a self-evident good? There are some quite influential thinkers who would dispute that, or at any rate would dispute that it should be universally applied. Not only that, they would dispute it on eminently reasonable, or at least rational, grounds.

Walton: That is to say, we need to avoid confusing the two senses of "natural", where we talk about "natural law" or "natural morality" or "natural justice". We don't mean "natural" in the sense of an observable scientific phenomenon, external to the human mind, in the way that laws of physics are "natural". Rather, we mean it in a normative sense; we mean that common human reason, empathy and practical reasonableness* sometimes militate in favour of, or against, a particular course of action. So when the religious accuse atheists and agnostics of being necessarily morally relativist, they tend to overlook this fine distinction.

However, what I was observing - based on a considerable amount of empirical evidence - is that the universe doesn't have any natural, innate moral order; that is to say (as I noted earlier), bad things happen to good people, and vice versa, all the time. Natural disasters, epidemics, and so on do not discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving. This doesn't mean that the concepts of "deserving" and "undeserving" are objectively meaningless; morality is a product of human reason, and it can and should play an important part in our lives and in the way we interact with one another. Our moral principles need to be objectively, rationally justified; a moral principle which is so justified is superior to one which is not. We can see, then, that we derive true objective morality not from divine commands or supernatural forces, but from our own rational abilities.

Piltdown Man: There's something I find difficult to grasp about all this.

On the one hand you invoke the is/ought distinction to argue that objective human morality cannot and need not be derived from the natural world, which is itself morally neutral ("natural disasters, epidemics, and so on").

Yet on the other hand, by denying a spiritual component to human experience ("some sort of divine command or supernatural force"), you are erasing any definitive qualitative difference between humanity and the natural world -- the natural world which you have already defined as pitilessly amoral.

But if human beings are a part of nature and no more, then they and all their thought-processes are very much "an observable scientific phenomenon, external to the human mind, in the way that laws of physics are "natural"". How could they be anything else when there is nothing else?

And since the "observable scientific phenomenon" that is nature gives us no grounds for believing in any kind of morality, why should humanity be any different?

Also:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/building_an_argument_on_emotio.php#comment-1540953