Pharyngula

Posted by: vanharris | November 5, 2009 12:29 PM

How about printing off the following verse & posting it in your local church? I've hit a few, including a cathedral, where i left it on the biggest bible on the biggest lectern, & on the notice board. Now that's atheistic fundamentalism! Even though it doesn't include killing anyone.

TRUE RELIGION

The Christian’s Jehovah is God Almighty,
a cantankerous sod, vain and flighty
and, insofar as I’m able to tell,
the Christian, often, is as well.

He’s confused with doctrines hard to see,
that three is one, yet one is three,
of heavenly father, son, and holy ghost,
when surely a mother is needed most?
If god’s omniscient, omnipotent, just and beneficent,
then how come evil is so god-damned prevalent?

The Jew’s Yahweh is a wrathful old jerk,
setting strict rules on when to work,
how to dress, and what to eat and sip,
and giving baby boys the snip.
Myths of Bronze Age, goat herding, nomads
metaphorically get ‘em, by the gonads.

The Moslem’s Allah is a fierce great djinn,
Submission’s the name of his religion.
Apostasy’s treated just like a crime;
they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line.
The religion of peace is what they call it,
with warfare & terror, they zealously enforce it.

Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain,
Wiccan, Taoist, and the Born-Again,
those of each and every religion,
all are mired in superstition.

Please feel free to improve on this, & get it out there where it will hit the superstitious goobers hardest.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 12:30 PM

I love Dan Dennett to pieces, too, but I also love Dawkins; does that make me an accommodationist?

the Richard Dawkins website has an online store, where you can buy his books and a scarlet A pin and t-shirts.

At least Prof. Dawkins's site sells goods that actually exist. I can put on a t-shirt and wear it outside, which is quite a lot more useful than anything the Xian fundies have for sale.

Posted by: Kevin Anthoney | November 5, 2009 12:32 PM

Wouldn't a "fundamentalist atheist" be someone who thinks God literally doesn't exist, as opposed to all those atheists who think that God doesn't exist in a more figurative sense?

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 5, 2009 12:36 PM

We've seen it time and time again: A "fundamentalist atheist" is one who talks about atheism. Out loud.

In other words, meekness and restraint gets you nowhere.

Posted by: Tom | November 5, 2009 12:41 PM

I have a link for donations on my Down syndrome site to help keep it up and running. I guess that makes me the same as Pat Robertson.

Posted by: MissNorris | November 5, 2009 12:46 PM

Why is everyone hatin' on Dawkins?Earlier this week,the Archbishop of Cologne,Kardinal Meisner,likened the worldviews of Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer to Nazi-ideology...But then,old Meisner won't let a month pass by without comparing someone to Hitler or the Nazis,he's Godwin's Godbag...These people have an understanding of Dawkins et al and what they/we are about that's so shallow,a flea couldn't drown in it.

Posted by: Science Avenger | November 5, 2009 12:49 PM

[Frank Schaeffer] thinks [most of the New Atheists are] just like the Christian fundamentalists

Few positions more surely identify someone as either intellectually dishonest, or simply an idiot. It's right up there with Darwin => Hitler, and "atheists can't be moral". There are times for respectful disagreement, and times for ridicule, and this is an example of the latter.

So Frank Schaeffer, and anyone who would defend this nonsense, take your anti-atheist bigotry, your lies and your delusions, god or otherwise, and shove them up your least convenient orafice.

Posted by: Patrick Julius | November 5, 2009 12:57 PM

Recently our local CFI chapter hosted a political scientist who opened with the claim that the "New Atheists" are really "New Dogmatists". He eventually backed down from this, but it made me really angry that he'd even propose it. (Also, why did the CFI choose to host this guy?)

Really, it seems like people who make these criticisms think that the continuum of rationality versus fundamentalism loops back around, so that if you become rational enough, before you know it you're a fundamentalist. Evidently we're so gay that we're straight, so young that we're old.

There actually is one (nontrivial; we're all human, etc.) thing we have in common with fundamentalists: We believe there is a fact of the matter, a truth to be had about gods, religions, and supernatural beings.

Many religious moderates don't seem to think so; they act as if statements like "Jesus was born of a virgin" aren't statements of fact, but statements of cultural identity or something similar. This is, needless to say, really weird.

I remember a panel I was on at Rochester College in which there were three of these such people---two of them full-blown moral relativists, one of whom actually seemed to suggest that the world was actually flat when people thought it was. It ended up mostly me and the fundamentalists against the fuzzy-headed relativists, which was an interesting dynamic.

Posted by: Geds | November 5, 2009 12:58 PM

I left a comment on Schaeffer's blog after he put up an entry crowing about his Alternet post and the evul New Atheists. It's, uh, it's the first one. Under Geds...

However, here it be:

First off, you misspelled weird...

But that's not my beef. For a brief moment you were in danger of becoming my second-favorite Christian (or Christian-ish) blogger, right behind Fred Clark, aka the Slacktivist. That danger is far, far gone.

The reason you get such negative reactions when you claim that the New Atheists are exactly the same as fundamentalist Christians is because they aren't and it's incredibly insulting to everyone involved. Every time you bring up that claim someone tells you you're wrong about it, so you just bring the claim up again, using the last argument against it as proof that you are right without actually bothering to look at the arguments made against it. So I assume you'll simply use this as ever more ammunition in your bunker, even though I myself make no claim towards being in league with the New Atheists.

The main point in which the larger atheist movement (assuming there even is one) differs from fundamentalist Christianity is that there is no atheist dogma. Beyond the fact that atheists don't believe in god there doesn't have to be a single other point of agreement. We all tend to agree that the scientific method and skeptical response to evidence-less claims are a good thing, but beyond, "I don't believe there is a god," there is nothing any atheist has to agree upon with any other atheist.

In fact, most atheists disagree with each other on any number of points. I like PZ Myers but I think he can be juvenile and pedantic at times. But I still like reading his blog and occasionally engaging in discussions and arguments when I have time. I think that Hitchens went way too far with his thesis that religion always poisons everything in god is not Great while still making a strong case that religion isn't the benign force for good that its proponents wish to think it is.

Dawkins, meanwhile, has never struck me as anything other than a gentleman in debate. He has a flair for the dramatic turn of phrase, but in interviews and debates he is witty, polite, and quite skilled at the diplomatic biting of his tongue. And to refer to his fans as "deluded (not terribly bright) followers" as you did in your alternet article is an insult to them and they're quite right to take you to task for it.

Of course you also hit Dawkins for his merchandising savvy. I find that ironic, coming from the person who finds a way to mention his new book within the first two paragraphs of pretty much everything he writes. That, for the record, is why I got tired of your blog. I can handle the endless New Atheist baiting. It's the fact that your incredibly useful observations about the Evangelical movement in America were replaced wholesale by calls of, "Buy my book! Buy my book!" that got old...

So to answer PZ's question...um, apparently Dawkins has to stop selling things, but Schaeffer's allowed to schill for his book all the time. Because, y'know, Schaeffer's right. Oh, and he's allowed to (ever so humbly) put in an aside that he helped his dad build the Religious Right but now he's ever so ashamed every single time he mentions the Religious Right.

Humility. Not the man's strong suit...

Posted by: Ray Moscow | November 5, 2009 1:03 PM

I've suffered through many of Schaeffer's daddy's books and a few of Frankie's as well. He's got no room to criticise anyone over selling books.

At least Dawkins' books are interesting, fun, and accurate.

As to Dawkins being supposedly rude or arrogant: I don't recall him claiming to speak for God or claiming to know that certain people (such as us) are going to hell. Frankie and his daddy (now dead) have.

Posted by: Tangent | November 5, 2009 1:13 PM

After reading his book, I am almost certain Mr. Schaeffer is a closet atheist. Whether he's ready to admit it or not, I'm not so sure.

Also note he is most mad at the behavior of the person who represents what he dislikes most about himself.

Posted by: eruvande | November 5, 2009 1:21 PM

Mr Schaeffer's book claims that he is making up for helping make abortion the single-issue-vote that it often is for fundnuts...by supporting crisis pregnancy centers instead, which are run by fundnuts to lie to and shame women. So he could bite me right from the get-go.

Posted by: wriggles | November 5, 2009 1:25 PM

He thinks they're just like the Christian fundamentalists, and he should know, since his father was one of the most fanatical evangelicals around, and he was part of that radical Christianity himself.

It might be that the more knowledge of religion that you have, the more you recognise it in others.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 5, 2009 1:33 PM

Damn atheists don't believe Dubya's Daddy that they're not real US citizens.

Give up such fantasies, and the rest will be fine.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Armand Tanzarian | November 5, 2009 1:35 PM

Unfortunately this anti-atheist "you are just like the fundies you knock" attitude is prevalent amongst agnostics and other middle-of-the-roaders. I've been called an extremist a few times, once by my own sister (after I came out).

It boils down to this: Why not live and let live? True, except we live in a world filled with religion-based atrocities, and the ridiculousness of the idea of God, and the idea that religion does more good than harm is the reason why some of us left religion and God altogether. And we're not ashamed to say WHY we left faith and became atheists. Unfortunately those same reasons offend millions of people in ways they've never been challenged before, and hence they call us the extremists.

It's a pity, because Schaffer is a leading force in exposing the stupidity that is the American megachurch establishment. I guess we're all entitled to our own views I guess.

Posted by: kopd | November 5, 2009 1:43 PM

The "fundamental" thing about atheism is not being a theist. You're a fundamental atheist or you're not an atheist. As somebody said on another thread, if that's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, then so is "He's not even from Scotland."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 1:46 PM

I see Lyin' Lion is off his meds again. No "new world order", or deity except in his delusional mind. No evidence whatsoever for his inane, insane, and incomprehensible blatherings. Just insanity at its most comedic.

Posted by: llewelly | November 5, 2009 1:50 PM

Lion IRC | November 5, 2009 1:34 PM:

Atheism says ..."New World Order Job Vacancy - Gods need not apply"

Wait.

What?

I thought we were servants of Cthulhu?

Posted by: Eric Thomson | November 5, 2009 1:54 PM

That's a strong accusation. I wonder what these points of commonality are?

Basically being arrogant know-it-alls. At least that's been my experience interacting with both kooky Christians as well as people in the skeptic/atheist groups I used to be involved in.

Posted by: DEstlund | November 5, 2009 2:00 PM

No wonder I found his book Crazy for God to be so incredibly boring that I just sort of quit reading it. It seems he hasn't taken so terribly much of it back. He's still a conservative Christian, and while he argues that he's no longer a frothing loony, statements like this suggest otherwise.

Posted by: Word Slinger | November 5, 2009 2:03 PM

It's hard not to be paranoid.

The interview of Lynn Margulis by Suzan Mazur has disappeared from the Scoop archives and is nowhere to be found.

If you missed it, here's the crucial part:

""Francisco Ayala is presenting at the "evolutionary mechanisms session" in Rome. He was trained in Catholicism, Spanish-style, as a Dominican. We were in California at a meeting with Whiteheadian philosopher John Cobb. At that meeting Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism's now dead.

The components of evolution (I don’t think any scientist disagrees) that exist because there's so much data for them are: (1) the tendency for exponential growth of all populations -- that is growth beyond a finite world; and (2) since the environment can’t sustain them, there’s an elimination process of natural selection.

The point of contention in science is here: (3) Where does novelty that’s heritable come from? What is the source of evolutionary innovation? Especially positive inherited innovation, where does it come from?

It is here that the neo-Darwinist knee-jerk reaction kicks in. "By random mutations that accumulate so much that you have a new lineage." This final contention, their mistake in my view, is really the basis of nearly all our disagreement.

Everybody agrees: Heritable variation exists, it can be measured. Everybody agrees, as Darwin said, it’s heritable variation "that’s important to us" because variation is inherited. Everyone agrees "descent with modification" can be demonstrated. And furthermore, because of molecular biology, everybody agrees that all life on Earth today is related through common ancestry, as Darwin showed.

Everybody agrees with ultimate common ancestry of Earth's life, because the DNA, RNA messenger, transfer RNA, membrane-bounded cell constituents (lipids, the phospholipids) that we share – they’re all virtually identical in all life today, it's all one single lineage. So that part of Darwinism – that we’re all related by common ancestry –no scientist disagrees with.

The real disagreement about what the neo-Darwinists tout, for which there's very little evidence, if any, is that random mutations accumulate and when they accumulate enough, new species originate. The source of purposeful inherited novelty in evolution, the underlying reason the new species appear, is not random mutation rather it is symbiogenesis, the acquisition of foreign genomes.

When (Stanley)Salthe says we haven't seen that, he’s talking about new species. He’s not saying we haven’t seen natural selection, he's saying we haven't seen natural selection produce new species, this particular aspect of neo-Darwinism." - Lynn Margulis

Now write 1000 times: darwinism is dead...darwinism is dead...darwinism is dead.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 2:12 PM

Word Slinger@41

A buh zuh vweeble?

Wow. That argument is... special.

Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 2:23 PM

Falyne, FCD Actually, I have both seen and made the argument that atheism can lead to a greater sense of morality and ethics, as ones ethical judgment is not clouded by the obligations of religious thought.

I agree completely.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 2:27 PM

Now write 1000 times: darwinism is dead...darwinism is dead...darwinism is dead.

Now write 1000 times: I am not a biologist...I am not a biologist...I am not a biologist.

Posted by: Geds | November 5, 2009 2:34 PM

Now write 1000 times: darwinism is dead...darwinism is dead...darwinism is dead.

Now write 1000 times: I will not leave incoherent posts any more...I will not leave incoherent posts any more...I will not leave incoherent posts any more...

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 2:36 PM

Re-reading it, I'm not sure Word Slinger agreed with the quoted argument. The first few words indicated they didn't, and that last bit, while unclear, could be sarcastic...

Newfie: Oh, sure, no one's arguing that atheists are necessarily more ethical than the religious. Is religion a barrier to legitimate morality, however, that atheism removes? I would say yes.

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 2:42 PM

Whoa. That's a strong accusation. I wonder what these points of commonality are?

Jesus H. Christ, PZ. Just look at your blog for the following commonalities:

1.) Both have leaders with unquestioned authority.

2.) Both judge criticism superficially based on predetermined suppositions of source.

3.) Both have overly alllegiant, sycophantic followers that heap praise on authority figures and never offer criticism(how many times do you see commenters NOT agreeing wholeheartedly with what you say?).

4.) Both view any criticism, however innocuous, as a threat to their ideology.

5.) Both attempt to promote their side not by highlighting benefits of accepting their worldview but by solely highlighting the negatives of conflicting ones.

6.) Both reject a balanced critical analysis of conflicting topics in lieu of hasty, predetermined assumptions.

And I'm pretty confident that follow-up comments to me will only reinforce points 1-6....

Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2009 2:47 PM

We've seen it time and time again: A "fundamentalist atheist" is one who talks about atheism. Out loud.

I thought that makes us "uppity".

I thought we were servants of Cthulhu?

I sure as heck am -- I want to be eaten first.

(OT: For all Lovecraft devotees, I highly recommend the new H. P. Lovecraft Literary Podcast.)

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 2:53 PM

And I'm pretty confident that follow-up comments to me will only reinforce points 1-6....

Naah, you don't get to type shit, then demand that we take you seriously.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 2:56 PM

Dildo has never had a cogent point, or shown actual hard evidence, and proves it again with his insipid and delusional points. Good work Dildo.

Posted by: geoff | November 5, 2009 2:58 PM

Only a creationist could be impressed with the circularity of declaring that any criticism of your argument is evidence that your position is correct.

A great deal of non-creationist theists and New Agey atheists and post modernists use the same argument.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 5, 2009 3:05 PM

Only a creationist could be impressed with the circularity of declaring that any criticism of your argument is evidence that your position is correct.

If only that was relegated to the creationists. A great deal of non-creationist theists and New Agey atheists and post modernists use the same argument.

PZ didn't say that only creationists use that tactic... what he said, in a more succinct and sarcastic way, was that the circularity of argument is something that would only be truly appreciated by people who also are impressed with the circular reasoning of most creationist arguments.

Posted by: mk | November 5, 2009 3:08 PM

1.) Both have leaders with unquestioned authority.
--Dawkins is leading who? Where? He actually has no authority over anyone.

2.) Both judge criticism superficially based on predetermined suppositions of source.
--Completely wrong.

3.) Both have overly alllegiant, sycophantic followers that heap praise on authority figures and never offer criticism(how many times do you see commenters NOT agreeing wholeheartedly with what you say?).
--You're already repeating yourself!

4.) Both view any criticism, however innocuous, as a threat to their ideology.
--Did you ever see Dawkins response to Neal Degrasse Tyson? I don't think you have.

5.) Both attempt to promote their side not by highlighting benefits of accepting their worldview but by solely highlighting the negatives of conflicting ones.
--You clearly have never read Dawkins.

6.) Both reject a balanced critical analysis of conflicting topics in lieu of hasty, predetermined assumptions.
--Repeating yourself again. And again... wrong.

And I'm pretty confident that follow-up comments to me will only reinforce points 1-6....
--Wow.. what a moron.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 5, 2009 3:10 PM

Bilbo -

It's the very fact that you actually believe your points to be accurate that makes you so much different from us.

And cutely insisting preemptively that obviously forthcoming arguments against your position will only prove to strengthen it is about as low and slimy a debate tactic as one can use. Which is why it's so often employed by those who know their arguments are inherently weak.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 5, 2009 3:15 PM

5.) Both attempt to promote their side not by highlighting benefits of accepting their worldview but by solely highlighting the negatives of conflicting ones.

OTOH, the reason people have to highlight the bad effects of religion in the world is because some faitheists and even some religious people claim that religion can work as a sort of Noble Lie, when that is factually incorrect. No atheist makes the claim that atheism would make a good Noble Lie.

IOW, Bilbo, your list fails.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 5, 2009 3:17 PM

It's the very fact that you actually believe your points to be accurate that makes you so much different from us.

Actually, it's his use of the word 'balanced'. He might as well have the word 'moron' tattooed on his forehead, though the unsupported tripe in #53 comes close enough.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 3:23 PM

1.) Both have leaders with unquestioned authority.

HOW DARE YOU LOOK UPON THE FACES OF THE ALMIGHTY HORSEMEN! REPENT, HEATHEN!

2.) Both judge criticism superficially based on predetermined suppositions of source.

Well, you obviously didn't get enough hugs from your mommy when you were little, so why should we listen to you?

3.) Both have overly alllegiant, sycophantic followers that heap praise on authority figures and never offer criticism(how many times do you see commenters NOT agreeing wholeheartedly with what you say?).

It's not my fault the Almighty PZ is never wrong! At least he doesn't spell words with three Ls in a row!

4.) Both view any criticism, however innocuous, as a threat to their ideology.

You're hurting the case of The Great Church of Atheism by saying things like that! Now read Chapters 4-10 of The God Delusion and summarize each paragraph before you go home for the night!

5.) Both attempt to promote their side not by highlighting benefits of accepting their worldview but by solely highlighting the negatives of conflicting ones.

And since you're clearly so miserable and humorless, how can you blame us?

6.) Both reject a balanced critical analysis of conflicting topics in lieu of hasty, predetermined assumptions.

You desperately need to get laid. I knew it all along.

And I'm pretty confident that follow-up comments to me will only reinforce points 1-6....

Awww, look, everyone; the accommodationist concern troll is insulating his frothings from criticism at the outset! Isn't it cute?! Fortunately, we're not going to let that hold us back.

Posted by: Noadi | November 5, 2009 3:24 PM

Well then, call me Pope Noadi and show your devotion to all things cephalopods by visiting my shop.

By this logic I should be able to get tax exemption just like all those churches. Woohoo!!!

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 5, 2009 3:28 PM

I don't really see anything here that reflects poorly on Dawkins

Isn't it obvious? He's an atheist, and he's--I can hardly bear to say it--unashamed of it.

I really don't think there's much more that needs be said.

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 3:30 PM

1.) Both have leaders with unquestioned authority.

That's why everyone unquestioningly accepted Richard Dawkins presenting the AAI's "Richard Dawkins Award" to Bill Maher. Or not.

Or PZ making fun of a schizophrenic Christian lady.

Or PZ talking about Mooney 'fellating' a strawman.

Or PZ potentially jumping the gun on a snake with an apparent limb. Even Jerry Coyne called him out on that.

Or PZ making a debatable conclusion from the writings of the LA Fitness Gym Shooter.

So what. He's not perfect, neither are we, and there are far more things that we all tend to agree on, rather than not.

Posted by: toth | November 5, 2009 3:30 PM

Jesus H. Christ, PZ. Just look at your blog for the following commonalities: 1.) Both have leaders with unquestioned authority.

Really? Who? Shit, why didn't anyone tell me?!?! I might have been disobeying my Dear Leader all this time and didn't even know it!!

2.) Both judge criticism superficially based on predetermined suppositions of source.

I have no idea what you're on about here.

3.) Both have overly alllegiant, sycophantic followers that heap praise on authority figures and never offer criticism(how many times do you see commenters NOT agreeing wholeheartedly with what you say?).

Wow, so I guess that means Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, etc. are not these authority figures you mention, since you don't even have to look beyond this blog to find criticism of them. Now I'm even more curious who my leaders are.

4.) Both view any criticism, however innocuous, as a threat to their ideology.

What ideology do atheists have?

5.) Both attempt to promote their side not by highlighting benefits of accepting their worldview but by solely highlighting the negatives of conflicting ones.

Right, we never point out that a life free of superstition is a freeing experience and will lead to a generally better life. If that's what you mean, then, well, how do you expect us to just "highlight the benefits" of atheism without "highlighting the negatives" of theism, given that atheism is exactly the lack of theism?

6.) Both reject a balanced critical analysis of conflicting topics in lieu of hasty, predetermined assumptions.

What critical analysis do we reject? Come on, just one example.

And I'm pretty confident that follow-up comments to me will only reinforce points 1-6....

"I'm right, you're wrong, and if you disagree with me, that proves it! Nyah nyah!"

What are you, 6?

Posted by: H.H. | November 5, 2009 3:32 PM

bilbo, so atheists denying that they are like fundamentalists is proof that they are exactly like fundamentalists? That's some catch you have there, that Catch-22.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 3:32 PM

Dude, this ain't a movement, it's a piranha tank. We'd gladly fight amongst ourselves, if you weren't distracting us by throwing the blood-soaked carcasses of idiotic comments in here.

If you're seeing "brothers in faith" around here, you need glasses. Or a brain transplant.

Posted by: Matt H. | November 5, 2009 3:34 PM

I disagree with PZ all the time. We usually agree on religion, but on politics we're rather different. I think he has a rather tiresome and naive look on some things. However, on science I'm inclined to take what he says at face value - not absolute truth, because I always want to see evidence, but I'll assume what he says is correct unless I see otherwise. That's because he's spent his entire life in biology and has qualifications I simply cannot match.

Bilbo, next time maybe you should stop looking in the thesaurus for long words to try to impress us with, and actually come up with some rational arguments, not straw-man assertions.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 3:38 PM

Steven@88:

That's a good damn point.

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 3:40 PM

Didn't take long for the tribalism to get whipped up, did it?

1. You made idiotic statements. Everyone therefore tells you it's idiotic. That's not tribalism.

2. You jumped into the middle of a group of commenters, took a giant shit, thumbed your nose indsicriminately at effectively anyone who happens to agree with the post...and expected what out of that? Do you understand what a troll is?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 3:41 PM

Dude, this ain't a movement, it's a piranha tank. We'd gladly fight amongst ourselves, if you weren't distracting us by throwing the blood-soaked carcasses of idiotic comments in here.

Right on! Yet another way in which atheists are like cats; toss some fresh salmon in the ring, and suddenly we all agree on something! (And now I really want some fresh salmon ngiri.)

I'd tell bilbo to go find a new hobby, except that he seems to be enjoying this a little too much. So I'll just keep pointing and laughing.

Posted by: JRD | November 5, 2009 3:44 PM

I think Schaeffer is correct in one respect, but in a good way. While disagreeing with them strongly about the answer to the question, I respect the fact that fundamentalists take their beliefs seriously enough to draw lines and defend them. However daft fundamentalist Christianity may be, it's still more intellectually consistent than the mushy "liberal" theism that expresses such vapid sentiments as "God is love," "All the parts of the Bible that can be proven empirically incorrect are just metaphor expressing God's relation to humanity," etc. The fundies may not listen to reason, but at least they--along with the New Atheists-- agree that the question of God's existence is important and that the God at issue for purposes of that question is the entity whose characteristics are defined in the the Judeo-Christian-Muslim holy texts, not some Spinozan abstraction.

Posted by: toth | November 5, 2009 3:44 PM

Didn't take long for the tribalism to get whipped up, did it? (That's another parallel, if you're keeping track). Circle the wagons, my brothers in new atheist faith! Someone has criticized us, and we must join forces to mount an opposition against the infidel!

You can't poke a bear with a stick and then act all shocked when it attacks. You know as well as we do that your intent was not rational discussion. You were consciously trying to stir us up. And then you feign indignation when we get stirred up. You're a dishonest fucktard.

If you doubt me, check the number of responses to me talking about "us."

You make statements about a group of people and then are shocked when members of that group refer to the group as "we"? Where were you when you were supposed to be learning English?

Aren't many of those same people talking about how there's no 'movement' here? *facedesk*

First of all, I don't think many people here would deny that there is a "movement" happening, in that atheists are speaking up about their atheism more often (but not in the sense that there's an organized group of atheists trying to push a certain agenda). A sort of decentralized movement.

What I think was trying to escape from your head (and who can blame it?) is the idea that atheists tend to say that "atheism" is not, in itself anything--it's the lack of a specific belief, nothing more. But that doesn't mean we can't be referred to as a group, any more than people who don't have the hobby of collection stamps can't be referred to as a group.

As with religion, it doesn't take much to stir the sycophantic sheep. More proof that the new atheism is made up of little more than born-again fundamentalists, stripped of god yet pursuing the same old bigotry under a new banner.

I don't think you know what "bigotry" means.

Posted by: mk | November 5, 2009 3:47 PM

--toth...

I don't think "bilbo" knows what a lot of the words he uses mean!

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 3:52 PM

well, I'm not sure "agreeing" is the right word here: 3 cats, 1 steak

*gasp* Blasphemer! All TRUE cats love fish above all other proteins! You are a false atheist, with your videos of cats nomming on cow-flesh!

It's salmon-cats versus steak-cats, everyone! Pick a side before the Deep Rift swallows you up! Who's with me?!

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 4:01 PM

Keep 'em coming, young disciples of bigotry. Let the hatred flow through you! Defend your beloved prophet, PZ, for all your worth! Keep pretending that my comments directed at PZ were really about you....exemplifying your total subservience to an ideology by equating yourself with its vocal leader. Bow before him! Hypocrisy is your lifeblood, bigotry is your weapon, total allegiance to a following is your basic want!

Sounds kind of like religion, doesn't it?

Posted by: kopd | November 5, 2009 4:02 PM

Not very bright there, the real cause isn't atheists. It is xians themselves.

True, true. It's a bit like sitting in a sinking boat and blaming the water instead of the hole.

Posted by: toth | November 5, 2009 4:05 PM

@Bilbo: Bad troll is bad.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 4:06 PM

Hypocrisy is your lifeblood, bigotry is your weapon, total allegiance to a following is your basic want!

If you really enjoy getting whipped this much, I can give you the name of a dungeon mistress who'll do it as much as you want, for a modest hourly fee.

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 4:09 PM

What's the matter, guys? Can't take a little ribbing? Don't you make fun of theists when they get all upset when you make fun of them?

Don't take it if you can't dish it out...

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 4:11 PM

Wait for it, wait for it..........see if they catch it....

Posted by: BeamStalk | November 5, 2009 4:13 PM

Shorter bilbo:

*fapfapfapfapfapfapfap*

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 5, 2009 4:15 PM

Keep pretending that my comments directed at PZ were really about you....exemplifying your total subservience to an ideology by equating yourself with its vocal leader.

Because the following slur is clearly about PZ and Dawkins, and not his blog readership:

allegiant, sycophantic followers that heap praise on authority figures and never offer criticism(how many times do you see commenters NOT agreeing wholeheartedly with what you say?)

Are you actually developmentally delayed? Like the victim of some sort or chromosomal disorder? Or was it the result of some grievous head trauma? (You know the *facedesk* is a figure of speech, right?) Because I'd feel really bad for you if it turned out your cognitive impairment was due to some factor beyond your control rather than plain ol' fashioned idiocy due to laziness.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 5, 2009 4:17 PM

Keep pretending that my comments directed at PZ were really about you....

You really aren't very bright, are you? I know you may be used to lying to people then relying on their inability to remember things to claim you never said something... but... um... when you write something on a blog it remains there for reference unless intentionally deleted... you do know this, right puddin?

So... let;s go back and look at that comment of yours...

3.) Both have overly alllegiant, sycophantic followers that heap praise on authority figures and never offer criticism

GASP!!! Why Bilbo, you filthy, stupid, liar! That is clearly about "us"! So either you are a liar or your head is in fact filled with birdseed.

Wait... that really doesn't need to be an "either / or" proposition, does it?

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 4:18 PM

So, little Dildo Bugger came in with a pile of baseless assertions and outright lies, arrogantly declared that any response to his idiocy proves him right, had several commenters clearly demonstrate that he was totally wrong on every count, then threw down a canned whine and declared victory, not even pretending to address the responses that proved him a lying sack of shit.

Wow, phantomreader. You must need to relax. Take a deep breath. Fondle yourself while reading a copy of Sam Harris, if need be. Do whatever is necessary to calm down.

Baiting is so easy with you new atheists: poke them a little with a verbal stick, and watch them circle the wagons and feel deeply and personally threatened by a few silly pejoratives. I love it. Quick-triggered anger could easily be ascribed to fundamentalism as well, you know. Either that, or prepubescent middle school boys. Both characterizations seem to be appropriate.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 5, 2009 4:19 PM

What's the matter, guys? Can't take a little ribbing? Don't you make fun of theists when they get all upset when you make fun of them?

Don't take it if you can't dish it out...

Oh, you're ribbing us? I thought you were only referring to PZ and Dawkins.

See, Bilbo, that's the problem with lying: it gets too hard to keep all the threads straight. You might find a little honesty makes you look like less of an idiot.

But you just keep telling yourself you're striking an ironic blow against the atheist hegemony, if that's what helps you sleep at night.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 5, 2009 4:24 PM

Oh, so Dildobot 0.1 is now capable of copy-pasting bits of comments! I'm guessing comprehension is still a few dozen upgrades in the future.

Dildobot, you posted lies, people called you out on it, and you haven't even shown any interest in that fact, much less an apology or attempt to defend your bullshit. I guess honesty isn't in your programming specs.

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 4:26 PM

Simply amazing! 70 comments later the flame-fest continues! Keep them coming! Let's push the number up to a couple hundred or so!

200 more "fucking Dildo"s, "sack of shit"s, and "weenie"s will make New Atheism look like the wonderfully mature, levelheaded group of rationalists it proclaims itself to be!

See how easy this is?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 4:30 PM

Pffft. Mature and levelheaded is overrated. Loud and foul-mouthed is way more fun.

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 4:31 PM

Let the hatred flow through you!

You aren't good enough to channel Emperor Palpatine. Jar-Jar Binks would be far more appropriate.

Baiting is so easy with you new atheists: poke them a little with a verbal stick, and watch them circle the wagons and feel deeply and personally threatened by a few silly pejoratives. I love it.

I don't think you get it, Bilbo. We're using you as a training dummy for when a more intelligent interlocutor comes along. You're not a threat, you're just practice.

Posted by: mk | November 5, 2009 4:32 PM

Bilbo...

Don't forget "moron".

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 5, 2009 4:35 PM

bilbo... in all seriousness... aren't you even the slightest bit ashamed that you've had to reduce yourself to claiming you were only "baiting us" simply because your initial arguments were so easily shown to be wrong and completely ripped apart? So now you think you've won some sort of victory by pointing at the frenzy your own stupidity generated?

Come on... I know somewhere down deep you must know how stupid you look... how utterly desperate and defeated you come across by so blatantly abandoning even the slightest attempt at actual debate in favor of boorish, sophomoric "see how I've baited them into being angry" tactics?

You're fooling no-one and you're just embarrassing yourself. I'd almost feel bad about it if it wasn't so obvious and you weren't so gleeful in your stupidity. As it is, I will just continue to enjoy the thrashing...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 4:44 PM

Yawn, is Bilbo the insipid and boring mental dildo still here? Talk about brain dead. Its been months and still not a cogent statement backed by real evidence.

Posted by: Sastra | November 5, 2009 4:49 PM

bilbo #111 wrote:

What's the matter, guys? Can't take a little ribbing? Don't you make fun of theists when they get all upset when you make fun of them?
Don't take it if you can't dish it out...

People have responded to you in kind, and have also pointed out where they think you're wrong. I'm curious -- what would be your idea of the comments section of Pharyngula "taking a little ribbing?" What do you think should have happened, if we were not to look like angry fundamentalists?

I'm trying to think of a series of comments which would have shown you we were --- what -- good sports? Taking it. "Way to go. bilbo!" Or maybe "ah, a very thought provoking post -- perhaps I am too much of a syncophant. I will try to curb my enthusiasm." "Yes, indeed. We needed that."

If we're being ribbed, maybe we ought to giggle in appreciation? (and how do you know that we aren't?)

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | November 5, 2009 4:54 PM

bilbo #76

As with religion, it doesn't take much to stir the sycophantic sheep.

No no. No no no. A sycophantic sheep is Gordon Brownose, the Ilk are more like unto a group of disparate yet similar predators. A prowl of cats, mayhap ?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 5, 2009 4:56 PM

Not only is bilbo a dumbass anti-Noo-Atheist troll, but he made me post this:

That is so random.

Posted by: arensb | November 5, 2009 5:00 PM

Schaeffer writes:

The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists.

I almost snorted coffee at the word "led". I think anyone who's tried to organize an atheist group can attest to the fact that trying to lead atheists is like pushing on a rope.

Posted by: Steven Sullivan | November 5, 2009 5:01 PM

Is there any reason NOT to disemvowel the fapping troll 'bilbo' at this point?

Just wondering.

Posted by: mk | November 5, 2009 5:03 PM

Sven...

That was EVIL!!!

Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | November 5, 2009 5:04 PM

And you're tuna !

Posted by: MikeM | November 5, 2009 5:05 PM

Can we just shorten this up to three words?

"Bilbo's Six Points."

"Bilbo's Six Fallacies."

Something like that. If nothing else, it'd make this thread a lot easier to read.

Posted by: Sir Craig | November 5, 2009 5:06 PM

What's the matter, guys? Can't take a little ribbing? Don't you make fun of theists when they get all upset when you make fun of them?

Don't take it if you can't dish it out...

Yes, Bilbo, I caught it. This is about as sorry an attempt at humor as it gets. I get the impression you find great mirth in going up the "down" escalator in a mall and somehow feel superior when people curse you.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 5:12 PM

Sven, I was able to resist linking to that. How come you succumbed to that?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 5, 2009 5:23 PM

I am weak, mean and evil.

Posted by: kopd | November 5, 2009 5:31 PM

I must be a sadist or something. From the Nimoy video I followed a link or two and ended up listening to Shatner do something that was supposed to resemble singing. There's your proof that there's no god.

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 5, 2009 5:38 PM

I would rather drink a gallon of paraffin, then urinate on a fire, than even try to absorb, or give a second thought, to any of the stupid bilbo attempts to pass off as wit or sarcasm.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 5, 2009 5:38 PM

Posted by: CJO | November 5, 2009 4:55 PM There are metaphors in the Bible that express God's relationship to (ancient) humanity, and the Bible is not a history book. Acknowledging these facts is less intellectually consistent than pretending that the Biblical authors were interested in recounting historical facts or than torturing the texts into an apologetics framework that just happens to uphold extant power relationships and affirm the fundamentalists' own repressive and authoritarian ideology? Really?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 5:45 PM

-200 more "fucking Dildo"s, "sack of shit"s, and "weenie"s will make New Atheism look like the wonderfully mature, levelheaded group of rationalists it proclaims itself to be!-

We only have to be more rational than the religious. A child of 8 who has never bothered to pick up a bible could do that. What can I say, we are aiming too low in my opinion.

Yawn. You guys really need to learn to ignore people deliberately getting your goat. We are running out of goats.

and Bilbo, i'm a third generation atheist, not some christian whos lost god. I've never even read the bible i'm that hardcore. I wouldn't give that slimy little religion a second of my time.
Converting those millions over to atheism though. Thats the fun...and it's soooo easy. It's not like you have anything to defend yourselves with.

Posted by: bilbo | November 5, 2009 5:53 PM

We only have to be more rational than the religious

Interesting statement, Richard. "Fuck morality! Fuck decency! Fuck maturity! We're rational, dammit! I can do or say whatever the FUCK I want without consequences because I'm rational!"

I'd be verrrrry careful going down that road. It only leads to one terrible place: being thrown in jail for a violent crime because someone wasn't being "rational" enough for you.

but yes, you're right. People need to calm down. I'm only taunting to piss them off.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 5, 2009 5:56 PM

A list which may or may not have any relevance to anything in particular:

Insipidity   A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.

Slagging   Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently "X is bad", even in threads that aren't about X, then you're simply slagging, not discussing.

Stupidity   Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.

Trolling   Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.

Wanking   Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.

Posted by: The MadPanda | November 5, 2009 6:00 PM

(Opens mouth to rebut string of hobbitish blather)

(counts number of other people already at the task, for whatever reason)

(divides 845 by the party size)

(shrugs)

Not even worth the effort to pull blade from scabbard, frankly.

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 5, 2009 6:05 PM

@Marcus B. | November 5, 2009 5:38 PM #164 :

I'm glad someone finally gets it. Good on you, Marcus. The person being "baited" by a troll is not at fault for simply trying to argue against someone who is spreading false information. For two decades now the Internet population has gotten that wrong and blamed the victim when a troll comes by and starts lying like crazy. There are entirely too many internet forums where the moderation rules get it ethically backward such that being a liar is protected speech while calling someone a liar is verboten. And they wonder why they keep getting trolls with troll-friendly moderation rules like that. Its one of the reasons I no longer want to participate in the Richard Dawkins forums on his website. It's overrun by people like Bilbo here because when a troll baits someone into calling him a liar (i.e. telling the truth about the troll), the mods react by protecting the troll and punishing the one who called the troll a liar. Many of the comments above by intelligent people giving Bilbo the honest lambasting he deserved for his dishonesty would have been punished had this thread occurred in most other places on the internet. PZ seems to have his head screwed on better in regards to this issue. (Actually, I think things would be different over in the Richard Dawkins forums too if Richard himself had time to do the moderating rather than it being done by a bevy of volunteers following scripted rules they have to enforce even if they don't like them. Richard himself doesn't shy back from calling out people for being liars in his public speaking, but when people do the same thing in the forums on his site they get in trouble for it and if they persist in doing it they get booted.)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 6:24 PM

People need to calm down. I'm only taunting to piss them off.

Posted by: kamaka | November 5, 2009 6:26 PM

S.G. @ 174

Schaeffer's complaint is the same kind of stupid derision that a lot of Christians use with terms like "militant atheist". All it amounts to is this: If you're an atheist then the only way to be a "decent" atheist in their minds is to SHUT UP and don't say anything about it or say anything critical about religious belief.

Yah, and "atheism is a religion", "fundamentalist atheist", "blind followers" and all the rest. Besides the obvious projection, I wonder if they don't get so damned defensive because they know their position is so weak.

Or perhaps it's frustration the smiting doesn't come when we say religion is all bullshit.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 5, 2009 6:35 PM

I feel kind of sorry for children like Bilbo, I really do. When he grows up, I hope he finds a good dominatrix to fill his powerful desire to be spanked.

Posted by: ckitching | November 5, 2009 6:37 PM

People need to calm down. I'm only taunting to piss them off.

I'm pretty sure that the number one rule of trolling is to never admit that you're trolling.

Posted by: Zetetic | November 5, 2009 6:43 PM

So bilbo...Have you stopped molesting children and small animals yet?

Just curious.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 6:49 PM

Ah, Bilbo, we are still waiting for a shred of evidence that you are anything intelligent, cogent, or worth listening to. But then, that requires you to state "I believe this, and this is the evidence to back me up". Oh, yes, you are religious, which means evidence is irrelevant to you. So, right now, you are only good for mocking.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 6:50 PM

Poor widdle bilbo; you, as a admitted shit stirrer, are in no position to criticize an other person.

FUCK YOU!

Posted by: Little Boots | November 5, 2009 6:55 PM

There actually are atheist fundamentalists: Randians, Stalinists, Maoists, a thousand sub groups of subgroups of the above. It's not like pronouncing the magic words "I don't believe in God" turns you automatically into a fully rational, deeply intellectual skeptic immersed in all the sciences.

But I'm having a hard time picturing a Dawkinsite. What do you do (after coming up with a better name than Dawkinsite)? What happens at a massive Dawkinsite rally? Who is burned in effigy? Do you have to start every sentence with As the wise Richard Dawkins has taught us...? Sorry, Frank, it's just not working for me.

Admittedly, it's easier to picture a Hitchensite. Staying constantly drunk as way to honor the Prophet. In that sense, I might be an acolyte.

Posted by: 1984 | November 5, 2009 7:10 PM

Life After Death: The View From The Edge
Dinesh D'Souza
Posted: November 5, 2009 04:10 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dinesh-dsouza/life-after-death-the-view_b_347412.html

Have fun..

Posted by: 1984 | November 5, 2009 7:19 PM

Well, a summary is not exactly the same thing as an article written by Dinesh himself. And you can comment there as well.

Posted by: Random organism 006943-0 | November 5, 2009 7:20 PM

http://heyitsjustablogman.blogspot.com/2009/09/most-anti-christian-hate-monger-ever.html

Posted by: A. Noyd | November 5, 2009 7:31 PM

Sastra (#154)

There's not one of us here but wouldn't be tickled pink to hear Dawkins turn to us and say "oh, my error -- I was wrong. Thanks for the correction."

I loved reading the endnotes for the 30th anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene where Dawkins talks so enthusiastically about the things he discussed in the original edition that we now know are wrong.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 5, 2009 8:08 PM

People need to calm down. I'm only taunting to piss them off.

Wow ... just ... Wow.

The disconnect that must occur to be able pair those sentences together is beyond my ability to describe it.

Posted by: Snoof | November 5, 2009 8:16 PM

Psst. Bilbo. On fora/blogs with anti-trolling rules, you're not meant to actually admit to trolling.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 8:23 PM

I think Bilbo just couldn't stay away on his own, being of a weak theist mind, so he had to be plonked so he could stay away.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | November 5, 2009 8:42 PM

Someone pass me another beer

It's your turn to get up and get some from the reefer. While you're at it, make me a sandwich.

Posted by: bcoppola | November 5, 2009 9:24 PM

Martin Luther King was a civil rights fundamentalist.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin et al were representative democracy fundamentalists.

Lech Walesa was a freedom fundamentalist.

...hey, this is FUN!

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 9:46 PM

Bilbo was simply too dumb and obvious a troll to bear. He's gone now.

Next.

Posted by: MrFire | November 5, 2009 9:57 PM

Oops...sorry to make Lech W. prematurely posthumous.

Not necessarily...perhaps he's just become a freedom accommodationist since ;)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 10:12 PM

It's your turn to get up and get some from the reefer. While you're at it, make me a sandwich.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 5, 2009 10:18 PM

Sorry about the double post. No idea of how it happened.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 10:33 PM

Nerd, e-mail me at janphar at yahoo.

Posted by: Greg Myers | November 5, 2009 10:46 PM

Many atheists are confidant that they know and interact with the real world - that they are aware of the basic forces and principles that drive the actions they see around them. Fundamentalists, too, are certain that they understand what the world is like, and what drives the activity they see around them.

What is different between the two (besides the content of their belief) is how they arrive at their knowing. Steeped in a cultural inheritance of decades of postmodern relativism, fundamentalists deny that they have to accept the authority of evidence or proof as provided by science or reason (or even other co-religionists). For them, proof is how they feel and evidences are the anecdotes they come up with to validate their experience.

This despite the fact that these same religious fundamentalists accept as much of the scientific worldview as they cannot deny. So while Martin Luther, father of the Reformation and respected biblical scholar, told his followers that they must reject the heretical notion that the earth circles the sun because the bible teaches otherwise, modern fundamentalists simply pretend the bible teaches no such thing - not because the bible has changed, but because they know better. Evolution is rejected, then, not because it is unsupported by evidence, but because it is too complicated to easily grasp, and so can be denied without effort.

On the one hand, some religious folks (like Karen Armstrong) accept most everything science has to offer, and view religion as a way of providing context and meaning to the world science describes. They offer religion as an alternate way of knowing - but it of course no such thing - as they themselves affirm, it is a story - a meta-narrative. Is it true? Given that much of it is based on faulty premises and bad information, no, it is not true, even if sometimes it can be helpful, and sometimes tragically damaging.

Fundamentalists claim to have received accurate information about the world via revelation, and the fact that this information seems to be wrong (when viewed through the lens of scientific analysis and discovery) is simply ignored because, by definition, religious beliefs trump any other way of knowing.

This despite the fact that religions disagree on the fundamental nature, purpose and direction of the the world, and even within religions, various sects disagree, sometimes violently, and often so seriously as to break communion with one another. There is no unified religious vision or understanding of the world - there are instead countless competing, contradictory explanations, all ultimately resting on claims of revelation - that these "revelations" reveal neither accurate glimpses of the natural world nor self-consistent accounts of the divine suggest an alternative explanation.

In the meantime, politicians, Madison Avenue, religious leaders - all want to convince us that science is not an accurate way of knowing about the world - so they can deny that global warming is a problem, that smoking kills, or that the latest pharmaceutical is no more effective (though more expensive) than an older drug or different treatment. Many people live in a middle world - not trusting religion, but no longer viewing science as a reliable route to information about the world.

So confidence as to the nature of the world is a trait that some atheists and fundamentalists share. From the perspective of those who deny that we can know truth, or who hold that truth is a non-binding personal narrative, this certitude is indeed a shared trait.

Posted by: Caine | November 5, 2009 10:58 PM

Nerd of Redhead @ # 222:

Or by just being not quiet, we are considered militant.

It's really just that. Simply stating "I'm an atheist" is enough to get the evil eyes going in your direction, along with theists attempting to shout you in to place.

Posted by: Geds | November 5, 2009 11:34 PM

Wowbagger @224: and I'm sure I've never heard it used to describe anything other than marijuana before.

Totally puts a different spin on the movie Reefer Madness, don't it?

Posted by: kopd | November 5, 2009 11:45 PM

I live in the US and I've never heard "reefer" used to refer to a refrigerated truck. But I looked it up and that is true. Sample sets make a difference, once again. :-)

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 5, 2009 11:52 PM

Can a person be a fundamentalist rationalist...as in, I won't accept belief in any proposition that can't be evaluated by observation and reason? Or is it a complete oxymoron? At least for me, the proposition that the world is real and that I can learn about it through observation and reason only is not something that I question.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 5, 2009 11:55 PM

Evolution is rejected, then, not because it is unsupported by evidence, but because it is too complicated to easily grasp, and so can be denied without effort.

While I think I agree with most of what you wrote, I want to quibble about this particular bit.

I don't think that complexity of the theory, in and of itself, drives people away from evolution.

As a counterexample, the heliocentric model of the solar system itself derives from some very complicated mathematics and astronomy; it may be simple to state that the Earth goes around the Sun, but the supporting evidence of planetary motions and the geometry of parallax is not easily explained, demonstrated or grasped.

To some extent, this results in a failure of many to learn and retain the basics of the theory. Indeed, a recent survey found that many Americans do indeed seem to be under the impression that the Sun goes around the Earth!

But there is not the same sort of visceral emotional rejection of heliocentrism. I think most people, if challenged, would be willing to accept that science does demonstrate that the Earth goes around the Sun.

But the problem that fundamentalists have with evolution is that it is perceived as denying divine involvement with the origins of the world and the human race, not its complexity.

Their theology is currently flexible enough for most to accept a created Earth that revolves around the Sun; an all-powerful God is not entirely incompatible with this. Heliocentrism can be reconciled with Genesis, and that's what they care about.

Evolution cannot be so easily reconciled, and so must be rejected.

Posted by: Geds | November 6, 2009 12:01 AM

In N. America, or at least the US, it also refers to a refrigerated truck/lorry.

Dammit! Now you've managed to get one of the most supremely annoying songs in history stuck in my head.

It was the dark of the moon
On the sixth of June
In a Kenworth hauling logs
Cab-over Pete with a reefer on
And a Jimmy hauling hogs...
C.W. McCall, "Convoy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYS0Epyyu3k

Posted by: co | November 6, 2009 12:14 AM

Hey, Geds,

I have many fond memories of C.W. crooning from a 45 (rpm, that is) in my grandfather's office, and then listening to interminable tapes in high school as we drove over passes (Wolf Creek, no less) in Colorado. Plus, my father lives in Walsenburg (where they all make love like a buffalo herd).

Posted by: Geds | November 6, 2009 12:17 AM

I have many fond memories of C.W. crooning from a 45

I mostly have memories of my mother (who cannot sing to save her life) breaking in to song at the slightest mention of anything that could involve a C.W. McCall lyric. Although when I read "reefer" in reference to a truck the very first thing that popped in to my head was "cab-over Pete with a reefer on." And I didn't have to look the lyrics up. That simply amused me.

Posted by: truth machine | November 6, 2009 12:27 AM

And then you have this on your own blog:
http://heyitsjustablogman.blogspot.com/2009/08/change.html
Way to go!

If you replace "Jewish", "Muslim", "Blacks", and "Homosexuals" with "Evangelical", that's what Schaeffer actually says. It looks like this 'random organism' cretin thought this was a good chance to spread some hate.

It's ok because he's Catholic.

Posted by: Geds | November 6, 2009 12:33 AM

Islander @236: WTF? Is that your blog? If so, you're a lying bigot.

Those quotes are all snippets of things Schaeffer has said about the Evangelical movement.

As a former fundie myself I agree with him on a lot of things that he's said. There are dangerous thoughts that go unchecked and a community that largely wants to ignore 2000 years of social and historical progress because they cling desperately to an ancient book. Many of the people in the Evangelical subculture really don't seem to possess (or at least be able to find) their critical thinking skills.

So some of the critiques he offers are valid. But, yeah, it's delivered with an awful lot of hate and over the top histrionics. Again, I can understand this. When I left the church I was angry and had nothing much nice to say about it, either. I was willing to apply any number of evil motives to people I'd recently called my friends. I've tended to describe it as being like a really bad break up. You've got this thing that you love and that takes up all your time and suddenly all it does is piss you off and you just want to hurt it.

The thing is, you're generally supposed to move past that. I have to a large extent. Sometimes I still get mad and I totally overreact to attempted proselytization. There are still some people I don't want to talk to (to be fair, a few of them are people I didn't much like before. One of them simply uses Christianity to disguise his own bigotry. And a couple have declared that I wasn't a real Christian and we were never actually friends in order to make sure they don't have to actually engage me as a human being who made an informed decision). But I've also made my peace with Evangelical Christianity as a whole. I'm actually prone to defend it from people who go totally insane in their attacks.

You know, like Frank Schaeffer...

He's still mad. He's still fighting the fights. And with his attacks against the New Atheists he's basically showing that he simply wants to stay made at someone. It's actually kind of sad.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 6, 2009 1:30 AM

I'll note again that Luther's rejection of heliocentrism was based on the bible.

Yes, but not (I think) on Genesis itself. But I think we agree that the reason was perceived conflict with the bible -- not the complexity of the theory. Yes?

Modern cosmology, atmospheric science and geology are also impossible to reconcile with Genesis - but this causes fundamentalists no problem, because it can't be denied, and so is simply not at issue.

Atmospheric science, OK, but Young Earth Creationism has enormous problems with modern cosmology and geology. We had some YECs arguing against naturalistic "presuppositions" about cosmology and geology, and over in another thread, a (real) geologist is trying to figure out what YEC geologists are trying to do in redefining geology to fit the bible.

There are some pictures from the visit to the creation museum where the YECs illustrate what they perceive the problem to be, let me dig a bit...

Ah, this illustrates the YEC notions of cosmology.

Post-modernism has made it possible for even educated people to be intellectually fulfilled fundamentalists.

Alas.

Posted by: TheVirginian | November 6, 2009 1:50 AM

Wowbagger, OM:

I don't know when/where "reefer" was used for marijuana, but in the 1931 (date??) movie "International House," with W.C. Fields and many others out of vaudeville, one guest spot was by Cab Callaway and his band doing a song called "Reefer Man," about someone on marijuana. So the term was in use in the U.S. by the early 1930s, which means it's probably slang from the early 20th century, at least, maybe even much older.

Posted by: vanharris | November 6, 2009 4:34 AM

Midnight Rambler, "...she went off the deep end into psychoceramics a long time ago..."

That might need some elucidation for the benefit of non-British-English speakers. I presume it means, in British English, that she went 'potty' a long time ago. Which means she went foolish or crazy.

Too bad. As a non-biologist, i had thought that she'd been reported to have made some strange claims, but i can't remember what they were.

Posted by: vanharris | November 6, 2009 6:55 AM

Aquaria, Yeah, of course. 'Crackpot' has good North American pedigree. I guess i've not heard 'crackpot' for a long time, well, not since the last time PZ used it. And it is usually applied to the religious, not to scientists, hmmmmm.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | November 6, 2009 7:11 AM

Little Boots | November 5, 2009 6:55 PM

Yes, but they aren't fundementalist atheists - anymore than Pat Robertson was a fundementalist theist.

They are fundementalist Randians, Stalinists, Maoists etc...

Just like Pat Robertson was a fundementalist Christian.

Fundementalism requires some fundemental beliefs - and all atheism has is a fundemental disbelief.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 6, 2009 7:41 AM

Two words that get bandied about, but have (IMHO) ambiguous meaning are "fundamentalist" and "liberal". There is no reason to argue necessarily over definitions, but I wonder what people here mean when they use these words. If this is a topic that has been broached elsewhere, I apologize...I have been reading the blog for sometime, but have only recently been paying attention to the comments.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 6, 2009 9:02 AM

Bilbo is a frequently comments over at Mooney and Kirshenbaum's blog.

He is considered an intellectual over there.

Posted by: John Sullivan | November 6, 2009 9:38 AM

PZ: Thanks for helping me build my vocabulary. Today's word was "anchorite."

Posted by: llewelly | November 6, 2009 9:41 AM

Fundamentalism is unshakable adherence to a fixed set of beliefs. For a fundamentalist, there is a source text, a revelation which perfectly describes the true nature of the world. All else that they experience must be interpreted in a way that does not contradict the source text. It is the foundation upon which their entire worldview is built. Fundamentalists are often accused of postmodernism. But the fundamentalist is not a pure postmodernist; to them, postmodernism is only a tool, a means to an end. It is judiciously applied to those things which contradict the fundamental text of their worldview. It is never applied to that source text.

Liberals, as agents of Satan, seek to destroy the validity of the fundamentalist world view.

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 6, 2009 9:53 AM

Atheists -- no, not even the so-called New Atheists -- do not argue the same way. They don't quote from the Book of Science or from Dawkins or PZ as an authority which needs to be accepted on faith, case closed.

Sorry Sastra, I can't agree with that statement. Rational atheists fit in that mold. There are plenty of irrational atheists - Raelians, Scientologists and more.

Posted by: heddle | November 6, 2009 10:14 AM

Frankie is a good example of regression to the mean. The father was brilliant. The son--mediocre.

Posted by: SantaCruzOM | November 6, 2009 10:34 AM

This thread probably isn't the appropriate place for the following short narrative, but I need to outgas a bit so here it goes. Earlier this week a friend from highschool posted on his facebook page a brief note about the plight of a friend of his. It seems that this friend, a single- mother with very little money (and no spousal or child support), was in process of moving to a new residence and could not afford to turn the electricity on. My facebook friend, who I haven't really seen in 20 years, asked if 10 people would be willing to send him $10 each to help this person in need. I felt compelled to offer my support. I sent the $10. In a follow-up post, my friend noted that he had received money from 6 people and the $60 plus some extra that he was giving was enough to cover the power deposit. He went on to say that god is good for providing for his flock and praise god and so on and so on. Some of his friends responded with similar praise for god, who to my knowledge didn't send $10. I found the whole thing a bit ridiculous. First, this friend of mine is a diehard follower. Furthermore, all of his friends are too. Yet, of all these uber-moral god followers, only 5 were willing to send a paultry $10 to help this poor woman? So much for kindness and charity in the face of adversity huh? Secondly, I find it remarkably funny that unbeknownst to them, one of the donations came from an atheist. I suspect it would rock their small-minded perspective of what it means to be a non-believer. I can only imagine that they view atheists as devil-worshipping evil-doers with no sense of moral or ethical grounding. I'm tempted to respond to these posts asking how much god actually chipped in and why he didn't just cover the whole damned thing given that he's master of the universe and all. It's such blithering nonsense. Good people tried to help another less-fortunate person for no other reason than to demonstrate their sense of humanity and in response, some jackass has to jump in and attribute the event to the flowing-robed skyrider. Wackos.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 6, 2009 11:07 AM

-I suspect it would rock their small-minded perspective of what it means to be a non-believer.-

Nope...they do this :

If any of you have read my previous blog, you know that atheists and I aren't on the best of terms. Atheists didn't like what I wrote about, which is fine, because I didn't care too much for for their beliefs either.

Anyway, one of the atheists who really couldn't stand the stuff I used to write about, decided yesterday that they were going to send me $300 to help with my expenses while we don't have a regular vehicle. Can you beleive that?! And I don't ask that question because I can't believe an atheist would do something nice, because I wouldnt expect anyone to do something like that.

I know that you'll probably want to know who it was that gave me the money, but the person wishes to stay anonymous, and I'm sure we all can respect that.

I just want to close this short post by saying how truly amazing our God can be. My wife and I were in need of help, God knew it, and God provided. I'm so thankful that God placed this extreme act of kindness into the heart of an atheist who doesn't know me personally, and doesn't like what I believe in. And I'm thankful to the anonymous atheist that they chose to act on this urge, and provide great help to my family.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 6, 2009 11:21 AM

My wife and I were in need of help, God knew it, and God provided. I'm so thankful that God placed this extreme act of kindness into the heart of an atheist who doesn't know me personally, and doesn't like what I believe in. And I'm thankful to the anonymous atheist that they chose to act on this urge, and provide great help to my family.

Well, at least this writer acknowledged the atheist reader's generosity, if only up to a certain extent.

And do you ever notice how, when people do good stuff, it's God's doing, but when people do malicious/destructive shit, it's just people being bad? (And sometimes it's Satan.) Why is it that God is responsible for people doing good, but somehow human beings are able to do evil totally on their own?

Posted by: AdrianT | November 6, 2009 11:53 AM

Frank Schaeffer has done sterling work in exposing and denouncing the Christian Evangelical right. I certainly wish more Christians made the same journey he has.

This makes it an even greater pity that Mr Schaeffer has to make such a silly attack on Dawkins. It is pointless and petty, and frankly intolerant. I wish the moderate Christians could just get over the fact that others see no need to believe in magic and celestial toothfairies.

He, and the rest of us have to focus on defeating the common enemy - fundamentalists who want to turn the USA and elsewhere into a theocracy. What is the most a 'militant' atheist will do? Writing a critical book and desecrating a cracker are not in the same league as campaigns to criminalise homosexuality, or bombs on trains.

Posted by: llewelly | November 6, 2009 12:02 PM

Richard Eis | November 6, 2009 11:07 AM:

My wife and I were in need of help, God knew it, and God provided. I'm so thankful that God placed this extreme act of kindness into the heart of an atheist who doesn't know me personally, and doesn't like what I believe in. And I'm thankful to the anonymous atheist that they chose to act on this urge, and provide great help to my family.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 6, 2009 12:15 PM

Richard Eis, there is a reason why atheists do not like what you are saying. An atheist does you an act of kindness and you give the credit elsewhere. Do you have any idea how demeaning that is, how insulting that is?

Posted by: Segue | November 6, 2009 12:16 PM

Historically, fundamentalism was an ecumenical Christian movement in North America premised upon certain (alleged) essential truths all Christians shared (most prominently the authority of the Scriptures, the virgin birth, the physical resurrection and the atoning work of Christ, and the second coming) and reflected by a series of tracts called The Fundamentals. Strictly speaking, then, there can be no atheist fundamentalists (or Islamic fundamentalists, either).

Over time, the idea developed in general terms to denote strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles. In the words of the American Heritage Dictionary, fundamentalism is "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

In my view, all fundamentalisms share a very narrow epistemology. Christian fundamentalism is based upon the idea that the Bible + common sense = readily ascertainable truth. "Fundamatheism" is a similarly narrow epistemology whereby science + reason = readily ascertainable truth. In each case, the emphasis is on the readily ascertainable part, with the (capital-T) Truth so obvious that those who disagree aren't just in error, they're evil or damned or irrational or delusional or mentally ill or or or, demonstrating a base-level arrogance. The fundy mindset isn't at all humble and rejects the idea that being wrong (at least as to the overall outline of things -- there can be tremendous disagreement over details) is much more than a remote, largely theoretical possibility -- like the difference between 6.9 and 7 on a 7-point scale. Moreover and most (a-hem) fundamentally, those who disagree are necessarily inferior.

Posted by: Geds | November 6, 2009 12:28 PM

Nake Bunny @276: I'm sure Richard Eis pasted something he found posted elsewhere. A link would be nice, though.

Agreed. As I recall, Richard Eis is on record as being an atheist from a long line of atheists 'round these here parts.

My assumption upon reading the comment was that he posted something that someone said in response to his generosity. I could, of be wrong about that. He could easily have found it on the intertubes somewhere.

Posted by: Sanction | November 6, 2009 12:32 PM

Richard Eis did indeed copy something... from T. Estes.

I'd like to add to my comment above.

Nice job, Eis, for copying without attribution. Twit.

Estes, you continue to be a water-logged fuckhat. Fry yourself.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 6, 2009 12:49 PM

"Fundamatheism" is a similarly narrow epistemology whereby science + reason = readily ascertainable truth.

Sounds good to me!

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 6, 2009 1:02 PM

Richard, to avoid friendly-fire in the future, enclose quotations with these tags:

<blockquote>Your quoted text here!</blockquote>

Links are made using <a href="http://www.superamazinglink.com">Linky!</a>

Good think God put it into my heart to help out. Thanks, God, but next time maybe you could do the typing so I don't have to waste my time hunting around for the HTML entities for < and >, you lazy fuck.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 6, 2009 1:36 PM

Richard Eis did indeed copy something... from T. Estes.

Never mind about the link, then. -_-

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 2:31 PM

Frankly, your line is the easy way out. Reading the Bible as nothing more than a fantastic, deeply flawed, and tendentious history book, projecting the worship of a literary character called Yahweh onto an ancient people, some of whom invented the character in question and so quite clearly did not worship it, is not, in my view, intellectually honest.

Want to know what taking the easy way out is? It's the practice of implying that everyone who does not come to the same conclusion you did must not have looked at the situation as thoroughly and as sophisticatedly as you did, which you and so many other accommodationists keep doing in your rhetoric.

When you set it up so that agreement with your conclusion is a prerequisite for you considering your opponent in debate to be serious and honest, then you're not being serious and honest yourself - you're just being an ass.

Posted by: Fran Barlow | November 6, 2009 2:44 PM

Interestingly, there's some troll bait at The Guardian mentioning PZ Myers with prejudice making the claim that Dawkins is an embarrassment to moderate atheist written by someone called "Ruse".

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 3:14 PM

Posted by: Little Boots | November 5, 2009 6:55 PM

There actually are atheist fundamentalists: Randians, Stalinists, Maoists, a thousand sub groups of subgroups of the above. It's not like pronouncing the magic words "I don't believe in God" turns you automatically into a fully rational, deeply intellectual skeptic immersed in all the sciences.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 3:29 PM

Posted by: Brownian, OM Author Profile Page | November 6, 2009 1:02 PM

Richard, to avoid friendly-fire in the future, enclose quotations with these tags:

<blockquote>Your quoted text here!</blockquote>

Posted by: CJO | November 6, 2009 5:26 PM

Want to know what taking the easy way out is? It's the practice of implying that everyone who does not come to the same conclusion you did must not have looked at the situation as thoroughly and as sophisticatedly as you did, which you and so many other accommodationists keep doing in your rhetoric.

The more I read this, the more I realize what fallacious crap you're spouting. Even if I was implying this (and who can really be fairly accused of implying anything about "everyone"?), it carries no force in the discussion except as an ad hominem. One could be absolutely correct about a matter while implying all kinds of falsehoods about the sophistication of one's interlocutor's approach to that matter. If I'm wrong about why someone holds a given position, that has nothing to do with whether I am in fact correct that the position is untenable.

It's an argument: it automatically assumes up front that some opposed argument or position is wrong. If it begins a discussion, great. Then we can get into the reasons why others have arrived at the positions they hold, and matters of who believes what why. But it's hardly a strong way to present a point of view to say, "sure you know all about this subject, and I can't think of any possible way you haven't already considered every angle already, and I'm sure you'll turn out to be right in the end, but..."

Add in the well-poisoning bullshit accusation of accomodationism, and all your vitriol really boils down to is an attempt to intimidate me into shutting up. Well, fuck you. No. Argue in good faith for your "dishonest propaganda" line, and I'll argue right back, or, if you make a good case, I may concede the point. But I'm not going to just meekly go away because some asshat called me an accomodationist at PZ's joint.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 6, 2009 6:06 PM

-That was superb usage of the phrase "no homo"! -

It is a most necessary flourish to any good double entendre or piece of misconstrue and I have yet to tire of it's usage.

I never used blockquotes before. Pure laziness. Sorry.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 6, 2009 6:24 PM

Anyway, one of the atheists who really couldn't stand the stuff I used to write about, decided yesterday that they were going to send me $300 to help with my expenses while we don't have a regular vehicle. Can you beleive that?! And I don't ask that question because I can't believe an atheist would do something nice, because I wouldnt expect anyone to do something like that.

I know that you'll probably want to know who it was that gave me the money, but the person wishes to stay anonymous, and I'm sure we all can respect that.

I just want to close this short post by saying how truly amazing our God can be. My wife and I were in need of help, God knew it, and God provided. I'm so thankful that God placed this extreme act of kindness into the heart of an atheist who doesn't know me personally, and doesn't like what I believe in. And I'm thankful to the anonymous atheist that they chose to act on this urge, and provide great help to my family.

Posted by: CJO | November 6, 2009 6:51 PM

Now, if you think that both of these sets of individuals belonging to the same ethnic group somehow means they are meant to think in lockstep with each other and therefore there is some sort of schizophrenic contradiction in proposing that they don't, then you're just being a bigot.

And I'm still boggling at this abjectly stupid attempt at a smear by way of an utter non seqitur. Who brought up ethnic groups? I'm talking about a shared literary tradition. In fact, to the extent that there was propagandistic intent behind the texts of the Bible, one of them was specifically to prop up a ficticious ethnic identity where an actual one did not exist.

And in my mind, though it certainly doesn't rise to the level of bigotry, there is a prejudicial aspect to the contention that we must either consider these texts propaganda that everyone was too stupid to see through or an incoherent yarn that everybody was too stupid to see was not actual history. What was it, in your view, that prevented ancient people from being able to recognize a story for what it was?

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 6:57 PM

Add in the well-poisoning bullshit accusation of accomodationism, and all your vitriol really boils down to is an attempt to intimidate me into shutting up. Well, fuck you. No.

Argue in good faith for your "dishonest propaganda" line, and I'll argue right back, or, if you make a good case, I may concede the point. But I'm not going to just meekly go away because some asshat called me an accomodationist at PZ's joint.

You made a lot of points but there's no sense in bothering to address them if you're the sort of person who will just throw shit at me when logically backed into a corner. Read your post again and recognize that you had no provocation for descending to this level. If I don't see any evidence that you realize it was wrong to do that, then why should I continue with you if I expect more of the same.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 6, 2009 7:14 PM

Posted by: CJO | November 6, 2009 6:51 PM

Now, if you think that both of these sets of individuals belonging to the same ethnic group somehow means they are meant to think in lockstep with each other and therefore there is some sort of schizophrenic contradiction in proposing that they don't, then you're just being a bigot.

And I'm still boggling at this abjectly stupid attempt at a smear by way of an utter non seqitur.

CJO, IT was right here in your own words, right from the post you made that I was responding to when I wrote that, quoted right in my post so you can't claim I was being obtuse about what I was responding to. Here it is again:

projecting the worship of a literary character called Yahweh onto an ancient people, some of whom invented the character in question and so quite clearly did not worship it, is not, in my view, intellectually honest.

Now, are you going to admit that what you said was an invalid point or keep on insulting me instead of addressing it? Which is it? I don't think you are a bigot. I was hoping that by pointing out the bigotry that you probably don't even realize existed in your argument that you would drop it.

And in my mind, though it certainly doesn't rise to the level of bigotry, there is a prejudicial aspect to the contention that we must either consider these texts propaganda that everyone was too stupid to see through or an incoherent yarn that everybody was too stupid to see was not actual history. What was it, in your view, that prevented ancient people from being able to recognize a story for what it was?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 7, 2009 5:49 AM

Does laziness also prevent you from writing "Cited from T. Estes' blog" (or wherever)?

Nope. Did laziness prevent you from reading my post at #286 correctly?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 7, 2009 1:31 PM

The argument has wandered somewhat far afield, but I have to say that I'm with CJO on this one. The history of the texts that created the Bible is tremendously complex. Steven's take that it is largely propagandist is just too general. Given a scholarly approach, there is actually good historical information in these texts, even if it not in the history that the authors intended to set down (for those of them who did intend a historical meaning). Portions of the text are clearly intended to be metaphorical, some are clearly propaganda, others an attempt to harmonize history with theology. Its a mash of meanings, and many authors and redactors had their hands on it.

Is it accomodationist for an atheist to try to understand the underpinnings of belief, or to recognize the cultural significance of any sacred text?

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 9, 2009 7:34 PM

Damn blockquote bug. The quotes in the post above are all screwed up - the scienceblogs blockquote bug struck again. (if you try to blockquote a section containing a paragraph break - it sometimes breaks you out of blockquotes at that point and messes up all the attributions in the post.)