…and this is a 
I have mixed feelings about this: a first-edition copy of Darwin's Origin of Species has been discovered, which is, of course, great — I do wish I had the pocket change to drop £60,000 to buy it for myself.
The weird part is that it was found in the guest bathroom of an old house in Oxford. Apparently, someone thought the Origin was perfect light, occasional reading for visitors attending to certain private physiological functions, which is nice, if a little trivializing. It's a bit odd, though, that they put the book there and no one seems to have bothered to notice it for 150 years. I am really curious to know what other books were on that toilet shelf — I'm imagining guests ducking into the bathroom for a few minutes of managing the necessaries, scanning the shelf for a little light reading to pass the time, and skipping over the rare and valuable antique Darwin volume to read…what? A couple of scrolls of the lost plays of Aeschylus, the handwritten manuscript copy of Shakespeare's Hamlet, and a copy of the Arzhang, the mysterious holy book of the Manicheans? Or was it a yellowed copy of the Daily Mall, a couple of dog-eared editions of the Readers' Digest, and last week's TV Guide? This must have been a very curious and neglected bookshelf!
Comments
Posted by: Zeno | November 22, 2009 8:37 PM
On the back of the tank in my upstairs bathroom I have a collection of rubble from the first set of commandments received by Moses (the set he smashed). Still haven't gotten around to reassembling them to see if Yahweh changed his mind between Ten Commandments 1.0 and Ten Commandments 2.0.
Posted by: Beaker | November 22, 2009 8:44 PM
Zeno, surely that would be creating information out of nothing? Dumbski would have a fit.
Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 22, 2009 8:44 PM
Dawkins much not be happy.
A new rival for his copy.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 22, 2009 8:44 PM
Every so often one hears about some very valuable book or artwork that's been languishing in an attic or stuck behind the collected works of Dashiell Hammett in an overstuffed bookcase. This appears to be one of those happenings.
Posted by: Kane148
|
November 22, 2009 8:44 PM
That might have been when he replaced the commandments about child abuse and rape with the ones about honoring the Sabbath and not having idols, since those were more pressing matters, on second thought...
Posted by: 386sx | November 22, 2009 8:45 PM
Ah yes, ol' reliable Reader's Digest. They used to have a science section. (Until the fundies took over I guess.)
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 22, 2009 8:50 PM
Poor old Darwin wasn't a very healthy specimen was he? I wonder what made him vomit so much.
Maybe he would have benefited from the Melbourne Mind Body and Spirit Festival just held last weekend in .au
http://www.mbsfestival.com.au/index.htm
Yoga, Meditation, Aroma therapy, Crystals - awaken your SPIRIT.
Quick – before the New Atheists ban such indoctrination.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Anon | November 22, 2009 8:50 PM
I just hope it was not put there for the same reason the old Sears & Roebuck catalog was.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
November 22, 2009 8:50 PM
Maybe in 150 years, someone will find PZ Myers' book in my bathroom. Hopefully not being gripped in my paws.
Posted by: boygenius | November 22, 2009 8:51 PM
On the other hand, the loo is the perfect place for Banana man's edition.
Posted by: Abstruseoddity
|
November 22, 2009 8:55 PM
What about all the humidity from the shower? Poor book.
Posted by: Anon | November 22, 2009 8:55 PM
Ah, yes, Lyin'. The Mind, Body, and Wallet festival, as Podblack called it when she did her podcast from there. Great way to find new ways to fleece the flock.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 22, 2009 8:57 PM
Naw, I rather use that to make a piñata. On the other hand the Bible is a good book to keep in the restroom in case you forgot stock on toilet paper, and you can get them for free, too, from indoctrinating evangelicals like lyin’ up there.
Posted by: Biology Blogger | November 22, 2009 8:57 PM
PZ,
You can't possibly believe the bathroom story. It was for attention. When I first read the headline quickly, I thought somebody relieved himself on the banana man's works.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 22, 2009 9:00 PM
Sounds like you. Darwin didn't live in Oxford. So you are even more stoopid as normal.That sounds like something you godbots would go for. No physical evidence requried. Absolutely no rationality present. Including no evidence for your deity, or that your babble isn't fiction. Just the same old Lyin' Lion. Ignorant, stoopid, and irrelevant. A waste of bandwidth that needs to be plonked, unless, of course, the godbot sees rationality, and develops an IQ in the double digits, and leaves on his own.Posted by: Xenithrys | November 22, 2009 9:01 PM
That's exactly how I read the Origin, a page or two every day. It was also a great way to read The Ancestor's Tale, which is far and away my favorite Dawkins book. I can recommend it as a way to read a book in easy steps; and if by ill chance you're in there longer than you'd hoped, well it's not time wasted.
Posted by: AnneH | November 22, 2009 9:01 PM
A retiring teacher gave me a copy of Darwin's 'The Voyage of the Beagle' that had been left in their classroom. (It was of no particular value, outside of the knowledge contained within.)
Darwin is not light reading. 'Beagle' is one of the most information-dense books I've ever read. It took me a year to read it, because I would read a section a couple of times, then take several days to process what I had read. It was also a very rewarding and mind-opening book - Darwin was curious about EVERYTHING - not just animals and plants, but geographical formations, fossils, and indigenous people and their cultures - he encountered on his voyage. What a mind he had!
So I, too, find it funny that 'Origin' was found in an old guest bathroom. Perhaps the house had once been inhabited by Oxford dons.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 22, 2009 9:02 PM
... shocking discoveries:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 'Cept Seth. 'Cos he mah homey.
2. No shellfish. Also, thou shalt not eat of the flesh of the pig. Or of the ostrich, or of the emu. Also, no peanut brittle. Because I'm a jerk, and arbitrary and cruel rules amuse me. Also no ketchup on eggs. 'Cos that's just weird. And no mayo on hot dogs. Same reason.
3. Don't mix cotton 'n wool in yer shirts. Nor, for that matter, should you wear vertical stripes on yer blouse, horizontal on your pants. Because, my chosen people, that's just jejune.
4. Also, ixnay on the olyesterpay.
5. Please floss daily...
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 22, 2009 9:11 PM
Hi Nerd of Redhead,
Are you saying that I inferred Darwin lived in Oxford?
Of course he may have visited a guest house in Oxford. Get a map and look at England. Measure how far from Oxford to Kent.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 22, 2009 9:14 PM
I want it. Unfortunately, I don't have a spare 60,000 pounds laying around. Damn.
In my bathroom you can find rare 2006 editions of Newsweek and Backpacker. Very valuable. I'd be willing to sell any of them for the modest sum of $.02 plus shipping and handling.
Posted by: Rixaeton | November 22, 2009 9:15 PM
Reading Origin is a good way to spend bathroom time. Especially for impressionable teenagers, as other publications for bathroom reading may not get past the "parental guidance" filter.
BTW: On Mind Body Spirit functions: I have thought that setting up an Atheists and/or Freethinkers booth would be a nice idea.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 22, 2009 9:19 PM
There is a 1st edition of Origin for sale on Ebay right now for about $50,000.
If they want £60,000 for that one, it'd better be autographed or in mint condition or something extra special cool, because they've priced it wrong.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 22, 2009 9:21 PM
Uncle Charlie's Bathroom Reader: The Evolved Edition?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 22, 2009 9:21 PM
How about you measure how far it is for you to stop posting here. Until you provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity and mythical babble, you have nothing cogent to say whatsoever, and you known it. You are the skunk without a working scent gland sphincter. You smell up everything including yourself.Posted by: Steven Dunlap | November 22, 2009 9:24 PM
A little silly trivia:
There actually is a "lost" play by Shakespeare. It's called caravaggio and was based on Don Quixote. Now if someone finds that in a bathroom somewhere we're talking real money.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 22, 2009 9:25 PM
Lion Whosits:
Please to stop getting lame all over the blog.
(Signed,) The Anti-Lame Block Committee.
Fun fact: the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's evil plan to take over the world (evilly) is well underway, and we are on schedule--final release date for World Domination 1.0* should be in early Q2 2010--please check the developers' website, follow our exciting progress, yadda yadda... However, we have, at this juncture, no particular plans to censor silly New Agey woo fairs... Just to mock them cruelly and endlessly, as usual...
However, carriers of egregious/contagious lame will be required to register, to report regularly to their lame rehab officer, and to wear a large 'L' on their foreheads until they can demonstrate they can pass an open comment thread without infecting it with tedious, braindead wankery. Think of it as a public health measure.
(/*World Domination 1.0 is an open-source project and our supporting foundation is an equal opportunity employer. You should have received your license with your introductory package. If not, please write the Free Subterfuge Foundation, at 51-1/2 Franklin Street...)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 22, 2009 9:35 PM
For those of you following at home, the Evil Atheist Conspiracy is fully accredited with the Evil League of Evil.
Posted by: Nop | November 22, 2009 9:53 PM
My own bathroom contains a copy of the Necronomicon of the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred.
The last fellow who forget to wash his hands went mad.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 22, 2009 9:58 PM
It was one hell of an accreditation process, too... Hiring the singing cowboys, having to write all the messages to the standards body in rhyming triplets. Man:
('Bad Horse we have a question / Regarding Wednesday's call / Can you please send us an answer / Or the work will stall / Our evil ultimatums / Do we have to sing them all?'...)
(/But so worth it. No one does really evil evil like the ELE.)
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
November 22, 2009 9:59 PM
I've long considered the WC to be The Reading Room.
Posted by: Monsignory Henry Clay | November 22, 2009 10:14 PM
I actually prefer heavy reading in the bathroom. In the time required to complete my business I'm only able to read a certain amount. I tend to absorb that information better than if I were reading for a long time. So my understanding of the text is actually improved.
Posted by: Efogoto | November 22, 2009 10:15 PM
@25: The play's title was actually "Cardenio". Caravaggio was a painter. :-)
Posted by: Paul | November 22, 2009 10:16 PM
I suspect the man of the household had been prohibited from making any lengthy visits to the bathroom he shared with his wife, and so had to leave his preferred daily reading material in the guest bathroom instead.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 22, 2009 10:28 PM
OK, lyin' irk is getting annoying -- he may be finding himself in the dungeon in the next day or two if he can't stop being such an obnoxious twit.
Posted by: mikecbraun
|
November 22, 2009 10:29 PM
Assuming that it wasn't the reason I was there in the first place, I would have absolutely shit myself to see such a book. If I was there to shit, I would have done it with double the force upon seeing such a book.
Posted by: george.w | November 22, 2009 10:30 PM
Darwin may have had Chagas' disease, which can cause pain, fatigue, nausea and vomiting among other problems. I'm pretty sure aroma therapy and such wouldn't do diddly for Chagas'.
Posted by: mikecbraun
|
November 22, 2009 10:35 PM
My bathroom has played host to Darwin in the past, as well as Mayr, Dawkins, Gould, and others. Right now, I'm keeping Matt Friedman's fantastic paper on Amphistium and Heteronectes in there, as I just finished writing about his findings, and I like it. It classes up the joint.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 22, 2009 10:39 PM
and I'm not even curious...
Posted by: PaulR | November 22, 2009 10:48 PM
I can't help but wonder- this meeting of the toilet and scientific literature- if Kent Hovind is transcribing his latest opus on toilet paper.
Posted by: John | November 22, 2009 10:49 PM
Off topic - can anyone recommend a book that examines the resurrection of Jesus from a historic/scientific point of view? I hear a lot about the resurrection from friends and relatives; I'd like to read a book that presents the other side of things.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 22, 2009 10:53 PM
Wha'll be. I just realized that there are no books in my bathroom. There are books in the rest of the house.
At a glance I have copies of The Essential Plato, Bulfinch's Mythology, Tom Swift and his Aerial Warship, Bill O'reilly's No Spin Zone, Bertrand Russell's Power, van Vogt's Voyage of the Space Beagle, volume two of H. G. Well's Outline of History, Lindley's Uncertainty, Fussell's BAD, or the Dumbing of America, a 1962 edition of Fred Hoyle's textbook, Astronomy and Gary Larson's There's a Hair in my Dirt. Among others.
But none of them in the can, man. There really isn't all that much time to read in there and I like to take larger bites when I open a book. Then again, maybe I'm just a regular guy who finds bookmarks convenient.
With the exception of Larson, of course.
Posted by: chgo_liz | November 22, 2009 10:58 PM
That was funny, John. But go home now.
Posted by: bcoppola
|
November 22, 2009 10:58 PM
As any fan of the Seinfeld show knows, any book that was used in the can is worthless!
Posted by: Mr T | November 22, 2009 11:03 PM
John #40: to give a quick reference, the wiki page for the Historicity of Jesus seems to have a fairly good list of references. Note that there's doubt whether he even existed, much less said or did anything attributed to him the bible.
From a scientific point of view, a resurrection has never been observed. So, that sort of puts a damper on things.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 11:06 PM
Speaking of this book, tomorrow being the 150th anniversary of its publication means that tomorrow I'm going to start reading it for the first time. Got some companion material to help me along the way, to put it into perspective as to where the theory currently stands today.
I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
November 22, 2009 11:11 PM
this isnt nearly as impressive when the last remaining copy of a c64 game that was never released was found in a briefcase stuffed behind a radiator...... and the disks worked..
Solar Jetman
Posted by: Aquaria | November 22, 2009 11:26 PM
OK, lyin' irk is getting annoying -- he may be finding himself in the dungeon in the next day or two if he can't stop being such an obnoxious twit.
Best news I've had all day.
Down with the Tardcat!
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 22, 2009 11:28 PM
About time!Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 22, 2009 11:37 PM
The idiot has already claim that we unfairly persecute him and his ilk by blocking him in a form of censorship. So it should be no to us that he'll complain once his next sets of absurdities results in his ban.
So before he has a chance to do so, I will say that there are plenty of Christian and right-winged posters here. They get to stick around because they are not nearly as smug, obtuse, and tiresome as you, lyin' irk.
Posted by: Tim Harris | November 22, 2009 11:48 PM
Yes, Cardenio, not Carravaggio. Aromatherapy, homeopathy, crystal therapy, yes, by all means dismiss those, but it betrays a rather silly and, if I may say so, unscientific closed-mindedness to lump things like yoga and certain kinds of meditation in with those manifestations of New Age sentimentality.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | November 23, 2009 12:00 AM
Don't forget we're talking about an English bathroom. It was probably the driest room in the house!
Aussie here ;)
Doesn't take a whole book to say "No reason to think it ever happened", does it?
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 12:10 AM
When I was reading Origin, I took it to the bathroom. (But as a whole, I did most of my reading of it on buses and trains.)
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 12:16 AM
Please watch this.Posted by: Snoof | November 23, 2009 12:19 AM
Depends on what you mean by yoga. As an exercise and stretching routine? Sure, why not?On the other hand, the various claims of unscrupulous and/or deluded practitioners of woo that claim that yoga will give you superpowers (mind-reading, levitation, immortality) should be placed _precisely_ in the same basket as those who claim, for example, that the motion of Jupiter influences stock markets - the basket Testable Predictions Which Have Been Tested And Failed.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 23, 2009 12:21 AM
Without any consideration of personal feelings, though there are many that will give such leanings important consideration when making judgment on someone like little ol' lion, I find myself coming down on his side, and not in favor of his censure.
I have observed the reaction of many frequent posters to his prattling and assumed authority. I agree with them that he is ill-informed if not plain numb-nuts dumb. What I don't agree with is the banning of someone who is not only endlessly entertaining but endlessly instructive. His intransigence and his superstitious point of view are full of insights into the mind of woo that just might prove to be valuable in the never ending struggle.
People learn to deal with one another not by ostracism but by paying attention; having some intimacy. A powerful resource in the service of secular humanism is knowing how not to go about being human.
Lion is a font of knowledge that I think we should avail ourselves of.
Welcome, Lion IRC. Please come back soon.
*we got nuthin' to lose . . . *
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 12:24 AM
Fixed.
And I never understood why people read in bathrooms at all.
Posted by: wiley | November 23, 2009 12:32 AM
60,000 pounds? That's expensive butt-wipes!
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 23, 2009 12:39 AM
You're right! That's why we'll just use the Bible instead. You can get those for free!
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 23, 2009 12:45 AM
"60,000 pounds? That's expensive butt-wipes!", says the buttwipe.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 23, 2009 12:46 AM
It takes your mind of things and relaxes you. :)
Posted by: Mr T | November 23, 2009 12:57 AM
"the death of Dumbledore"???
OMG! WTF? Now you have spoiled it all for me. Life has no more meaning. There is no such thing as morality. O, woe is me. That sucks, and stuff, and so on, etc.
Posted by: Tim Harris | November 23, 2009 1:18 AM
Thanks for the snappy response, Snoof. I should have thought it was clear to anyone with half a mind that I was not endorsing ridiculous claims about yoga. Still, I am glad to see that you are able to understand the distinction between a certain practice and the claims that are made about that practice. I suggest that you should keep this distinction in mind for future reference, particularly when you talk about things you have no experience of.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 23, 2009 1:25 AM
Joke: Long form. Pare it down to the basics when you retell it.
A guy is a stingy asshole all his life except for his last three years. He somehow gets a softened outlook and decides to become charitable. Accordingly, he gives one dollar to the Christmas bell ringer down at the mall each of the last three years of his life. (history does not record his age)
Upon his death he finds himself at the fabled gates facing St. Peter. Pete says his name is not in the book. The guy tells how he was an asshole for all but the last three years of his life and how wonderful it felt to be charitable at the most holy time of year. Pete pauses, presses a finger to his ear and appears to listen for a few seconds. He says, "Wait here."
Pete approaches the throne and the voice that emanates from there says, "Do I know you?" Pete says, "Yes. I was here just the other day." With a pale flicker the light makes a sound like, "Oh. Yeah. How ya doin?"
Pete goes on to describe the testimony of the guy who was a shithead for most all of his life but got a case of conscience in his last three years. He stopped cussing his neighbors and gave a dollar to the bell ringer for three years. Until he showed up here, that is.
The light on the throne dims, almost imperceptably, then brightens wanly, transparently, if it brightens at all. Pete feels the incipient tendrils of a migraine headache. Marshaling his strength he asks the predictable question, "What'll we do with him?"
As a significant part of eternity passes, not that you or I would notice due to a clever manipulation of time with respect to the actual and the subjective passage of time as recorded by historians yet to be born, the light on the throne replied in this fashion, according to Pete.
[Pete said} His countenance was unlike the dark or light that I had been accustomed to. It was always as if I knew what he would say by the quality of the light falling from him. But today I just couldn't say. He had a sort of grin, not a nasty one by any means, but a grin that I have so often associated with, well, mischief.
If you would have asked me at the time if I thought that he could act mischievously I would have been aghast at your suggestion. His reply was unexpected and, ultimately, the cause of my fall from grace and my presence once again among you all.
Forgive me, but this is what he said concerning the late but earnest philanthropist. He said, "Tell you what Pete. Cut him a check for three bucks and tell him to go to hell."
*hey, bro. you seen pete? i swear he was just here!*
Posted by: BrightIncite.com | November 23, 2009 1:27 AM
The reason the original On the Origin was used as bathroom reading is that before the second edition, each chapter opened with a "Darwin's Top 10 List". My favorite one was in the opening of Chapter 3, "Top 10 ways to avoid awkward dinner conversations if you happen to be the father of modern biology and your wife is a fundamentalist Christian."
Posted by: Thriftybat | November 23, 2009 1:28 AM
Tim Harris @50:
It's quite telling that it's not the people here criticising the range of woo attending that particular event that lumped them all together. By choosing to be associated with that brand of brain-dead wankery (thanks, AJ Milne), the proponents of yoga and certain forms of meditation invite the comparison.
Also, what Snoof said at 54. There's no evidence that yoga conveys any additional benefits beyond the well-documented positive effects of gentle exercise. And if by "certain forms of meditation" you mean things like transcendental meditation, then, again, there's no well-founded report of benefits beyond those that you find associated with any restful activity. If that's not oxymoronic.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 1:31 AM
Well Tim, I suggest you keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there for who one particular technique or brand of woo has somehow worked in the past, so if a particular style or form of Yoga has done that for you, good for you.We get this "not real Yoga/Chiro/WooXYZ" argument a lot here.
But for future reference, personal anecdotes are not evidence.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 23, 2009 1:56 AM
I do yoga on the advice of my physician. He said it was non-strenuous exercise which I could do even with an arthritic hip. He was right, too. The levitation takes all the weight off my hip.
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 23, 2009 2:02 AM
If he could have stayed alive for a further 120 years in order to attend, I suspect there would have been a great many other things that he would have benefited from much more than WooFest 2009.
Wait -- I thought you were a good Christian fellow? What are you doing promoting psychic powers and healing magicks? That stuff's a no-no in most sects, isn't it?
This smacks a bit of the "your woo is silly, but my woo is sensible" attitude.
Yoga includes physical exercise, which is clearly known to do some good, and meditation can help relax and calm the mind.
But yoga isn't just exercise... it's a whole family of philosophies, including concepts of reincarnation, dharma, rituals, etc. And the yoga postures aren't primarily derived from the benefits of physical exercise, but from more mystical origins.
Likewise, meditation has heavily religious origins; most practices retain their mystical trappings, and even insist those trappings are the reason for the meditation.
You're essentially saying, "you shouldn't lump what's really just some nice exercise and relaxation in with all that New Age crap -- just ignore all that talk of shakras and mantras and life energy and stuff, you know, the fundamentals..."
Just how clear did you think you were being?
How do we know which bits you meant? Or, if we think a given claim is ridiculous, then you didn't mean that bit?
Posted by: Tim Harris | November 23, 2009 2:14 AM
I am well aware, Rorschach, that personal anecdotes do not constitute scientific evidence. I do not recall offering one, so I think your concern is misplaced. Yoga is a form of exercise, and as such it can have beneficial effects, which, as another commentator remarks, are 'well-documented' (and like any form of exercise it can also have harmful ones, if one is not careful). As to the mystical claims advanced for it, I, like many others, have no time for them. The simple point I was making is that it is important to distinguish between a thing and the claims that are made about it. But perhaps you don't agree.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 2:25 AM
Ah, but is he an annoying obnoxious twit all on his own, or are you puppet-mastering him into being an annoying obnoxious twit just by calling him an annoying obnoxious twit?
Who knows?
Mua-hahahahahahahaha-haaaa....
Posted by: Mr T | November 23, 2009 2:25 AM
No, Lion's religion is "THEISM". (They're all the same, in case you didn't know.) He believes in Zeus, Thor, Poseiden, Pan, Baal, Quetzalcoatl, Cthulhu, FSM, IPU, leprechauns, fairies, underpants gnomes, sock gremlins, etc.If it's magical and interacts with nature, Lion believes in it.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 23, 2009 3:32 AM
Shorter Tim Harris,
"I have something to prove but I'm not sure what."
Oh wait, here it is,
Tim, have you spent even 5 minutes reading comments on this blog? Seriously.
Posted by: Blake | November 23, 2009 4:07 AM
£60,000?? lol, gross, you can keep it. It probably has dried splashback all over it.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 5:03 AM
Hi George W,
Don't you feel a little sorry for Darwin?
Not only the blood disease thingy but also the things he must have thought about which we will never know. All the things he would have loved to say but couldnt because free speech was limited.
Who was the biologist who was giving a speech in honor of Darwins 200 anniversary and called out to the back of the auditorium... "Hi Charlie, there you are - come on in"
If only Charles Darwin was allowed to speak his mind without all the howling monkeys screeching at him. I wish he had been more fearless!
Lion (IRC)
PS - Mr T - I have serious theological differences with wicca, hinduism, zen buddhism etc. But compared to atheism, these other religions may as well be identical to Christianity.
Posted by: Monkey | November 23, 2009 5:13 AM
Darwin not worthy of a bathroom stall?!? Why, I had the Origin in my bathroom and it instigated - during a party of grad students - the debate of debates between myself and a christian apologist.
It was an impromptu smack down of a xtian in a public setting...the party kinda subsided and watched us in combat until he said that he "could no longer talk to me he was so offended" that I was not giving religion authority. That, and I drew a line of similarity between Jesus and Koresh of Waco fame. He didnt like that one at all, but had no - absolutley no - rebuttle. Just said "this conversation is over".
I went back to my beer, and politely put Darwin back on the throne for the next combatant.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 23, 2009 5:16 AM
Oh, but fortunately, with my patented Charlie Channeler Keychain (made from Charlesite, natch), available at the Melbourne Mind 'n Moolah Meet for a mere fourteen payments of $25.95 (and if you act now, we'll throw in this free Mayr Monetizing Magnet, offer void where laughed off by common sense), we can talk to Charlie from Beyooond the Graaaaave!...
... and ooooh... I'm getting a message right noooowwww (makes spooky fingers)... Charlie... Charliiiiie... what would you tell the woooorld of the liiiiving?
... oh. Really?
M'kay.
Right. So the message is just: 'Tell the lamer with the persecution complex of astronomical proportions to STFU. Again. Please. The cloud o' lame can now be smelled even unto the afterlife.'
(/Hey, I'm just the humble conduit... There's no need to thank me... But that'll be fifty bucks. The first reading is not free.)
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 5:19 AM
Monkey @ 75,
Will people please stop abusing and hurting and twisting the poor old rebuttal, this is the second time in a few days now.
*not usually part of the spelling police but that's just too much*
:P
Posted by: Tim Harris | November 23, 2009 5:45 AM
Yes, I have been reading the comments on this blog, many of which I am in complete agreement with, though I am less fond of the easy jeering and ready resort to undergraduate mantras about the nature of evidence. I was not trying to prove anything, but simply to point to what seems to me to be an all-too-parochially-Western ready and arrogant dismissal of certain things that is the mirror-image of the all-too-parochially-Western ready and usually uncomprehending acceptance of the same things. There is such a thing as looking critically at something and trying to determine what is of value in it and what is not; but this practice seems to be lost on some of the commenters here. I suggest that people who have trouble with Asian ways of thinking (I have lived in Asia for more than half my life) should read the excellent works of the American anthropologist J. Stephen Lansing on the traditional irrigation system in Bali which was, yes, founded in religion, but which created an extremely effective order that was built from the bottom up, through relations between one small locality and the next, to encompass the whole of Bali, and built up in such a way that until Lansing went in, nobody was aware of the totality of the system and how it actually functioned; nobody saw it whole: it is a system that should be of great interest to those who, like myself, profess an admiration for Darwin's theory. This Balinese order was very nearly destroyed, at great cost to the Balinese people, during the 'Green Revolution' by Indonesian bureaucrats and their scientific advisers (mostly Western trained or Western agronomists), who regarded the Balinese system as necessarily primitive, superstitious and therefore not worthy of respect; and a top-down system was imposed with disastrous results. One should not allow one's distaste or dubiety for the provenance of something to blind oneself to its virtues, assuming it has some, in just the same way that one shouldn't allow a sentimental belief in the 'spiritual' to blind one to the vices of something. Grow up.
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 23, 2009 5:50 AM
They certainly all have one thing in common:
In the absence of any actual evidence upon which to make truth claims, all of them are perfectly happy to just make stuff up and declare it to be Truth.
And, surprise surprise, they all reach different conclusions. Isn't that strange.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 5:59 AM
Tim "grow up" Harris,
Enlighten us Tim, what are those mysterious asian ways of thinking?
Not founded in religion, but built around water temples and controlled by priests.What's your point?
Posted by: Tim Harris | November 23, 2009 6:25 AM
If, Rorschach, my point is not clear enough for a person of your intellectual capacities, then I am very sorry. The only thing I can suggest is that instead of indulging in the game of seeing how many points you can score in comments sections on people's blogs you should simply be willing to do a little work for yourself and read Lansing for yourself, and perhaps a few other anthropologists and psychologists as well.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 6:30 AM
Ah, the "I dont know how to make my point so please go and read the works of XYZ to see what I mean" gambit.
Boring.Next.
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 23, 2009 6:36 AM
Then you're probably not going to like this reply much...
And what process do you suggest using to determine what is of value and what is not? I only know of one reliable method, and that's to do some research and find some evidence.
OK, that's a heck of a bald statement.
but there was already objective evidence (damnit, there's that word again) that the Balinese irrigation system worked, in that... they had a working irrigation system.
You can't point to yoga as a whole an say, because it might be good exercise, it's a solid philosophical worldview grounded in reality.
You can't even take the yoga postures as a whole and say it's all good exercise. Because it's not grounded in a study of human physiology, it's based on ancient mystical thinking. Over hundreds of years, I'm sure most of it has been filtered down to good exercise, but at least some of it is probably just "odd poses to put your body into", and as long as you accept the framework in which it is presented, you can't tell the difference.
This problem is most clear in "traditional medicine". There are probably a great many herbal remedies that have active medicinal properties, but there are many more which have absolutely none. For every willow-bark there's a ground-up-tiger-penis, and the traditional frameworks give them all equal respect. The only way to tell which claims are valid is with research and... evidence.
And you can't make such a claim for the whole field of traditional medicine, or one regional system; each and every claim has to be tested individually, because there's no underlying scientific basis to it all; it's just done that way through tradition.
So no, we can't dismiss every claim of yoga, or every claim of transcendental meditation, out of hand. There's probably some good stuff in some - or even most - of it. But for the most part, we can dismiss the framework upon which they are based as valid ways of understanding the real world, because the are at best largely arbitrary, or at worst completely divorced from reality.
And how do you reach that assumption?
Don't make me say it again...
Nice.
But in the end, I do believe that's kind of the point.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | November 23, 2009 7:21 AM
Lion IRC--
most people who are not fundamentalist monotheists realize whatever our beliefs may have in common with other people's beliefs, we are better off in a secular society and see atheists as allies against theocrats.
I'd rather listen to jokes about Sky Fairies than be executed for heresy.
In fact, I don't think any metaphysical ideas I have need matter to anyone but me.
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 7:22 AM
So yoga made some irrigation systems in Bali? Is that what happened? (I kinda lost track here.)
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 7:28 AM
Wasn't there an ancient culture who worshiped human sacrifice and built amazing irrigation systems too? And another culture who worshiped cat people and built the most amazing pyramids in the history of mankind? Don't knock human sacrifice and cat people, people!!
Posted by: masksoferis.wordpress.com
|
November 23, 2009 7:28 AM
Origin of Species found in a bathroom?
Must have been there for surprise attacks on creationists.
Like this:
(beleaguered evolutionist) "Er, there are no transitional fossils, you say? This is a fascinating debate indeed, but may I duck to the bathroom for just a moment?"
(moustache-twirling creationist) "Why, duck and cow all you want, you ape-man! The irreducible complexity of my arguments is not affected by your reason! Mouhaha-ha!"
(evolutionist returns from the bathroom, brandishing the Origin) "A-ha! Behold this and despair, foul fiend! Darwin beam!"
(creationist, struck by the ancient (Victorian) power-ray of science) "What? How can such a thing be? I was certain you were... unarmed... no! I am meehltiing..."
(triumphant evolutionist) "Remember this, villain: your Gish Gallop Strike Force Zero is no match for the power of friendship and of Darwin, the first of the Light Science Rangers!"
(creationist) "Urgle... gurgle... ufff. I have finished in the second place."
Naturally, the battle will resume/repeat itself in the next episode.
Posted by: Thriftybat | November 23, 2009 7:43 AM
I think it's a bit of a leap to go from "the claims made by proponents of yoga and certain kinds of meditation are far-fetched at best or shown to be untrue by objective evidence at worst" to "people who say that [kind of thing] have trouble with Asian ways of thinking".
Developing stories about reality that are not based on any solid evidential basis is not a peculiarly Asian trait, and that is the way of thinking with which people here have so much trouble. I don't know what you message you were hoping to communicate with this "you just don't get Asian thinking" gambit, but it certainly didn't help your case.
Also - and yeah, this is an undergraduate mantra - correlation does not equal causation. That a working irrigation system is associated with religious order probably says more about the political and economic clout of religious organisations than it does about religion as a source of expertise for the implementation of civil engineering projects.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 23, 2009 7:53 AM
AJ Milne and Nop: Got me giggling. Thank you for this...my monday morning is coming along nicely.
(Also was reading my Digital Cuttlefish vol. last evening...giggly)
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 23, 2009 7:57 AM
Not founded in religion, but built around water temples and controlled by priests.What's your point? - Rorschach
Rorschach,
Tim Harris explicitly said it was (in fact, is, AFAIK) founded in religion. Lansing is certainly worth reading, although I believe some of his conclusions have been questioned (you know, as happens in science). Go to google scholar and search for 'Bali "water temples"'.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 23, 2009 8:13 AM
Monkey @ 75,
"He didnt like that one at all, but had no - absolutley no - rebuttle"
Will people please stop abusing and hurting and twisting the poor old rebuttal, this is the second time in a few days now. - Rorschach
Hey, you can certainly buttle - that's what a butler does - so I guess to rebuttle is to do what a butler does, again!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 8:33 AM
not surprising really based upon the latest research:
average American fast-food diet: nothing really digestible, zero roughage, stuff in-little out but weight gained- average ablution, 5 mins
average American organic-vegetarian diet: no putrifying flesh, tons of fiber- average ablution less than 5 mins but several times/day (plus balancing greenhouse gas emissions for more frequent trips to the store to buy toilet paper)
average Brit diet: stodge, stodge, and more stodge- average ablution 20 mins for females, 45 mins+ for males (so wading through the chapter by chapter is entirely possible)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 8:37 AM
not surprising really based upon the latest research:
average American fast-food diet: nothing really digestible, zero roughage, stuff in-little out but weight gained- average ablution, 5 mins
average American organic-vegetarian diet: no putrifying flesh, tons of fiber- average ablution less than 5 mins but several times/day (plus balancing greenhouse gas emissions for more frequent trips to the store to buy toilet paper)
average Brit diet: stodge, stodge, and more stodge- average ablution 20 mins for females, 45 mins+ for males (so wading through the Origin chapter by chapter is entirely possible)
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
November 23, 2009 9:26 AM
Rant on....
Typical of a certain percentage of society where appearance trumps details.
Having hard backed books for the bog denizens to peruse while ahem!...buzy...seems to be a ploy to gain sophistication in toiletry services.
Seems a sociological statement on the 'ladder' to wherever, 'we do not have the ubiquitous tatty Nat Geo's or the obligatory 'Hello' magazine with crossword completed five years before on a earlier visit to relief by some other victim! this is not a Docs surgery or Dentist waiting room, we are a cut above the hoi palloi!, we have actual books in the karzi'
Which is all well and fair enough if that dings ya bell, but one does assume that a choice of reading material was first scanned before its new bibliotheca position was decided.
Just goes to show some folk have more money, pretentious attitude and ignorance then either common sense or knowledge.
Now that is sad for sure and tis enough to engender a right royal roiling and a churning in the lower abdomen!
Kindda does call into question the point of the book...seems some folks are not that evolved after all.
End Rant!
Posted by: Ewan R | November 23, 2009 10:26 AM
I do most of my best reading in the bathroom.
Apparently Crohn's has a silver lining.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 23, 2009 10:41 AM
I find Lion IRC's teeeedious lunacy far more entertaining than the discussion about the nature of Balinese irrigation. Seriously? I find a lot of trivial shit engaging to read about, but this is so goddamned tangential as to be stultifying.
Anyway, I beg no dungeon for Lion IRC (humble noob as I am).
Posted by: littlejohn | November 23, 2009 10:53 AM
Lion:
Maybe I'm an idiot (OK, I AM an idiot) but I'm taking you seriously.
First of all, please learn the difference between "infer" and "imply." The writer implies, only the reader can infer.
Second, why the obsession with Darwin's chronically poor health? Unlike the overwhelming majority of Victorian Europeans, he had traveled extensively throughout the tropics. He could have encountered any of a huge variety of diseases there that his British doctors wouldn't have recognized.
Or, given his famous shyness, he may have developed a pathological discomfort at leaving home. It's called agoraphobia, and it's not unusual.
At any rate, it's like speculating about what killed King Tut. We can't really know.
Are you being sarcastic, or do you actually feel bad that the guy spent the second half of his life a near invalid? Just asking.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 11:06 AM
Are you saying that there is another "spirit" indwelling that is not the "Holy Ghost"? Surely that is counter-intuitive to your scriptures where the fallacy of charisma is that preachers who are seen to be charismatic and enthuse the multitude actually may not be talking through the "Spirit"... (χάρισμα = spirit)
and are you saying that inside your head or next to you someone told you about the Darwin-Oxford connection that you inferred from that conversation or are you implying something else?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 23, 2009 12:45 PM
Hey PZ, that'd be an awesome thread: "post what books are on the toilet tank in your reading room right now" :D
John writes:
Off topic - can anyone recommend a book that examines the resurrection of Jesus from a historic/scientific point of view?
I'd start with this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Humanure-Handbook-Guide-Composting-Manure/dp/0964425890
Posted by: Mike Wagner
|
November 23, 2009 1:19 PM
Thankfully, after extensive testing, researchers reached the conclusion that Larry David had never urinated the book.
Scientists and rationalists were relieved.
Jesus, on the other hand, was pissed.
Thank you, thank you. I'm here all week :P
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 23, 2009 3:49 PM
Sorry, no cry-babies in science. People concerned by the 'tone' of others wont last long around here. Take you for example, you write in a sardonic, condescending prose, insulting the intelligence of people like Rorschach who dared to engage you, yet I'm the first person who has even mentioned your tone. I can only assume that the rest of the commenters quietly decided that you are a verbose tool and got on with their day. This is as it should be. If you don't enjoy having your views challenged, you're reading the wrong blog.
Oh, and if you see a call for evidence as some 'undergraduate mantra', then we've discovered at least half of your problem.
So which subjective, 'eastern', mystical method your you suggest for determining the truth value of something? I'm fond of science but if you've got a better method, I'm all ears.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 6:28 PM
Hi Littlejohn,
Not to put too fine a point on it but I asked Nerd of Redhead whether he was accusing me (#15) of inferring something from what I had read.
“Are you saying that I inferred Darwin lived in Oxford? “ (#19) – from what I had read in PZ Myers post.
I infer NOTHING about Darwin’s place of residence from anything I read in PZ Myers post. That’s why I did NOT imply or insinuate that Darwin lived in Oxford.
I have no idea why Nerd of Redhead wanted to comment about where Darwin lived so until/unless he responds, I am leaving it in the non-sequitur trash can.
I don’t find myself obsessed with Darwin’s health so I can’t answer your first question. However YOU want to take it up a notch and call it “chronically poor health” coupled with exposure to “…a huge variety of diseases…” and “pathological discomfort” caused by shyness – proceed. Nobody is going to stand in the way of people arguing and trying to establish their “Who Knows More About Darwin” credentials on a science blog.
To answer your second question, I find sarcasm about the suffering of a human being disgraceful. I know you may have seen that sort of behaviour on here many times but not from me.
Hi Samantha Vimes,
Sorry. Can you please repeat? Your transmission keeps breaking up. All I got was;
“Most people who……....realize…….we are better off….rather listen to….heresy…matter to anyone but me.”
Hi Kagato,
(#79) I have heard other people assert that theists “make up beliefs without evidence”. But isn’t that the same as saying theists make up beliefs about God without any CAUSE.
It may not be persuasive evidence to you but people have a reason for thinking they experienced divinity. Something CAUSED them to think they experienced divinity. They DETECTED something. If I tell you I saw a ghost and you say I don’t believe you – what you mean is …”I don’t believe it was a ghost you saw.”
For me to PROVE what I saw was “a ghost” is an entirely different proposition than for me to PROVE that I actually DID see something I thought was a ghost.
By all means, let’s argue over what constitutes satisfactory PROOF about ghosts but the only way I could think I saw a ghost is if something CAUSED me to think that.
Unless, of course, we want to sit around all day calling other people deliberate malicious liars, morons, fools, twits, etc. (YAWN.)
Lion (IRC)
PS - PZ Myers I have heard your betters say it doesn't matter whether it's convenient or annoying or makes you feel good or helps you sleep at night or you think the person saying it is a twit - it only matters if it is true.
At least I wont get banned for foul-mouthed misogyny or racism or homophobia. (Or patronizing sexism towards female atheists.)
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 23, 2009 6:40 PM
Lion (IRC) thinks,
How do you explain your comparison of a female atheist to the Nazis, then? That was one of your very first comments here. Did you forget it? Let me remind you of it.Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 23, 2009 7:17 PM
Oh, come now. Don't be silly.
I mean: all day? Hardly. There's eating, sleeping (starts counting on fingers), sex, work...
... and then there's reminding liars, morons, fools, and twits what their religion has made them. Priorities people.
... somewhat more seriously (but not very), I am amused to see that 'deliberate, malicious' in that spot in the latest wall o' crazy, specifically...
'Cos actually, I and a lot of others I happen to know 'round here generally assume it's a lot more complicated than that with many of the religious--there is that whole complex of fooling yourself first, generally--a slow, involved process of internalizing what social pressures force upon you. Many of the lies you repeat, sure, you know they're lies, in a sense, and ultimately. But you'll be prepped for and will prep yourself for that lie by burying that beneath decades of denial, first (oh... and speaking of, this claim of 'experiencing' this mysterious 'something' is likewise BS, I do not regret to inform you, in the context--nothing so exotic is required in the complex web of pressures faith communities weave around those they are slowly and insidiously digesting. Where you are told, day after day after day, that such experiences are commonplace parts of your religion, forcefed a cosmology that would make that unsurprising, told effectively--implicitly, explicitly or both--that this is really what you're supposed to report feeling eventually, any glitch in the brain (or even, I'd expect, none at all) will serve as trigger or excuse... It is this or remain eternally an outsider in a social group that quietly makes this a de facto badge of membership).
But then we have 'Lion'. Who, hey, being, in all probability, a very deliberate liar, at least in some of his dealings here (Oh, my, no, i would never crow exultantly and cheerfully at the misery of Charles Darwin... I'm like soooo sympathetic, honest... And oh, let's toss in 'deliberate, malicious' right there to try to better sell this cracked notion that deception in such matters as 'faith' is somehow farfetched, when exactly the converse is true), has probably heard that epithet applied his way a few times, by now, I'd expect... And with very good reason.
So, minor edit to the forgoing: we do want to spend time (outside noted vital biological and economic functions, anyway) calling Lion a deliberate, malicious liar, sure...
(/'Cos hey, everyone needs a hobby.)
Posted by: Copernicus | November 23, 2009 8:03 PM
hmmm, Lion, you seem to spend most of your time playing word games as though to obfuscate your inability to address questions of your faith that would require a little more substance than feigned empathy or repetitive dogma...
Maggie Moo at #98, wrote:
I seemed to miss your answer or is it that before the term charisma came to mean a "divine gift" (in koine Greek) that in fact it pre-existed as meaning "filled with a spirit" in archaic Greek, i.e. some 945 years before the earliest texts of the New Testament, and so you mis-spoke? Which "spirit" were you talking about here?
Posted by: Ecnomiohyla | November 23, 2009 8:44 PM
answer the man, Lion!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 8:52 PM
Ecno, it's taken him 7½ hours not to, so I wouldn't hold your glossopharyngeal breath
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 8:52 PM
No, you will be banned for misogyny and homophobia. Being fouled mouthed about it is irrelevant. But you unable to provide evidence the deity you keep yapping stooopidly about is foul-mouthed to us. Get the picture? Put up or shut up. Welcome to an evidence based blog, where if you can't back up your opinion, it isn't worth the effort to type it, and you insult us without that evidence.Posted by: Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 8:55 PM
Hi Aratina Cage,
“Agree with us or remain silent.” Nothing ambiguous about that. All political wisdom comes from the barrel of a gun? Yes sir! Of course it does. Anybody disagree?
Look Joe, they all agree with you. See how everybody remained silent.
Not ONE SINGLE person here has refuted that… “Agree with us or remain silent” is in lock step with fascist/nazi methodology.
Even now, you raise the matter again and yet you won’t even lift a finger to support Janine by saying something to dispose of my equivalence like…
Nazis supported free speech (unlike Janine?)
Nazis never tried to silence their opponents (unlike Janine)
Unlike the nazis, Janine would never intimidate someone into agreement.
I’m still waiting and I’m not surprised that I am still waiting.
Lion (IRC)
Hi Copernicus,
Did Maggie Moo ask you to restate her question which I didn’t really understand the first time? (Not allowing other atheists to speak for themselves? - tsk tsk)
Perhaps you thought Maggie was a timid female atheist who needed someone to intercede so that “more atheist woman can be heard”.
It wasn’t actually a question I could even answer anyway.
If you want to know what the organizers of the Mind Body and Spirit festival meant by THEIR use on THEIR website of THEIR expression "awaken your SPIRIT"
go and ask them.
As for me, I love discussing my thoughts about the human soul and the Holy Spirit – thanks for inviting me to do so on this blog.
Please let me know what God/Soul topic you think I am reluctant to address. I can’t promise the ability to answer to YOUR satisfaction but I can promise there is no obfuscation or questions I wish you hadn’t asked.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 9:01 PM
Not as long as we have been waiting for your physical evidence for your deity. So, you have nothing until you show the evidence first.Until you show physical evidence for both concepts they don't exist, and you shouldn't talk about them. Doing so, show you have no intelligence, no honor, no truthfulness, and no integrity.Why haven't you shown conclusive physical evidence, evidence that will pass scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural origin. Otherwise, you have nothing cogent to say.Posted by: Ecnomiohyla | November 23, 2009 9:03 PM
very good Maggie, but I hope you realise that although glossopharyngeal breathing is called "frog breathing" it is not the nasopharyngeal technique I and my family actually use
But I commend your wit, LOL!
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 23, 2009 9:12 PM
Lion IRC wrote:
You're reluctant to address why you think there is such a thing as a god or a soul - i.e. by providing any kind of evidence or argument based on reason - will that do? Because, as it is, your position is nothing more than 'I believe in them because I want to believe in them'.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 23, 2009 9:14 PM
Wow Nerd (#108), you sure called it! Lion didn't waste much time jumping right back into attacking a female atheist.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 9:20 PM
Lion - Janine is so far over your little pointed head that you have no understanding of what she is saying.
You are a moron. Believing in the sky fairy is idiocy with no evidence what so ever.
As a dog returneth to it's vomit, so doeth a fool to his folly.
Fool.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 9:21 PM
How fucking patronising can you be Lion? Everyone here has a right to re-state, re-demand answers and evidence from those who pretend to know WTF they're talking about but obviously are no better than a pork chop in a synagogue!
Calling me a "timid female atheist" speaks more to the machinations of your own mind rather than any reflection on Copernicus- you assume I am female, you assume that because you don't answer my question after 7½ hours that I am "timid", and you assume that I am an atheist, none of which is actually in evidence.
The whole point, you misogynist, misogalaxic, misogrammatist is that Copernicus got it, took it a stage further, and left you flapping... and to cap it all off, you now wish to condemn "THEIR use on THEIR website of THEIR expression" after you just finished trying to use it as your own support for a really stupid dig at Darwin?
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 23, 2009 9:29 PM
And yet, you don't seem to be denying that the claims they then make are indeed just made up!
I'll be generous and not use the Gumby on the rest of your post, but that was a howler.
(Hmm. I just noticed you didn't say "that isn't the same as", but said "isn't that the same as", which slightly changes the meaning. Still, it's either a typo of word order or of punctuation, as it's a statement not a question. I'll leave my reply as originally written. If treated as a question, the answer is simply "NO".)
Your emphasis is wrong -- they experienced SOMETHING.
Experiencing a moment of "profound awareness of your place in the universe", for example (an experience which can also be pharmacologically triggered, as I understand it) does not directly lead to knowledge of the existence, nature or capabilities of any specific divine being.
Having a "spiritual moment" (and yes, I'm deliberately using that essentially meaningless word here) does not imply the existence of a triune Christian god and validate the entire body of biblical literature, as many people apparently decide it does. That's not a leap of logic, that's a leap of pure creativity.
And yet when people say "I saw a ghost" they generally don't mean "I thought I saw something, it looked vaguely like a person, and I can't come up with a rational explanation for what it was".
They usually mean "I saw a ghost, as in the spirit of a (sometimes specific) deceased person". And often it comes with additional elaborations, such as "the spirit is trapped here because of some unresolved trauma" or "this area must be a strong focal point for psychic energy" or any number of other creative ideas that have been invented out of whole cloth, because there is no objective basis for any of the claims.
The problem is not when people say "I experienced something" or "I saw something". It's when they say "I experienced something, therefore all this other stuff I (or someone else) invented is therefore true".
And this happens all the time.
Going back to that first quote, "theists make up beliefs without evidence" (which you didn't directly dispute) --
if their beliefs aren't based on, or backed up by evidence, they can't know that they are true. Yet universally, they act as if they do.
Of course it matters if it is true. That's what we're saying.
It is the theists, and the new-agers, and the homeopaths, and other believers of woo who seem to think the truth -- real, objective truth -- doesn't matter.
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 9:30 PM
For those who don't know, google will tell you the meaning of misogalaxic. Or you could learn Latin.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 23, 2009 9:31 PM
Classic, Maggie!
What a fool he is...
Proverbs 14:7, 17:12, 22:10, 22:15, and 26:4-5, "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, Lest he be wise in his own eyes"
By the way, fool, Maggie Moo is named after an icecream which was named after a cow- misogalaxic!
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 23, 2009 9:33 PM
... for those of you just joining us, we now rejoin the following exciting storyline:
Janine of the Many Monikers--dressed in tall, shiny, leather boots and a very chic black uniform with flashy red armbands--leapt upon Lion of the Many Delusional Psychoses, pulled her SS-issued Luger, held it to his trembling, terrified temple, and screamed: 'You pathetic, Christian scum! You will be silent now or you will DIE! We are the Atheist Reich, you insolent fool! None who oppose us shall live!!'*
.. erm... or, told him, rather, in a blog forum, to quit his obviously dissembling silly trollish whinging about calling Hannity a twit since he clearly hadn't a single leg to stand on in defending the outright BS said demagogue is spreading, and was just trying to weasel around that increasingly obvious fact by droning on and on and on and on and on tediously and inanely about how mean everyone is for calling Hannity a twit...
... but anyway, point is, Janine's a Nazi, see?
(... see also, 'Erm... Got nothin'... Can't answer those questions... Hell, barely get what those even mean... So... Ummm... Guess I'll go with the Nazi thing again...')
(*/Well, that's what Lion saw, apparently, anyway... My expectation is he can tell you vividly this was exactly how it happened... Much as he can tell you vividly how he once felt a powerful, profound, compelling presence, and fell trembling to his knees in the presence of the Most High... And this may or may not just have been the dom sex worker he'd just hired for the night. We're still working that bit out.)
Posted by: ironflange | November 23, 2009 9:38 PM
There's a lively discussion about this on cbc.ca. It didn't take long for the usual kooks to appear, and they're not faring well.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2009/11/22/darwin-book-rare-washroom.html
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 9:44 PM
llewelly #117
actually it's Greek from from misos (μῖσος, "hatred") and galakti (γάλακτι - milk)
Copernicus got it with the icecream reference.
Niclaus:
Seems you are once again quite right, what a prat/pratt!
Posted by: Ecnomiohyla | November 23, 2009 10:14 PM
Digging yourself a deeper hole Lion (oh wait, is that peridotite I hear?)
I am sure that Copernicus and Maggie Moo have no problem at all with a mere "timid" hylid reiterating their point: you claim a belief upon material you don't even know? How do they know more about your so-called "spirit" than you? How are they able to effectively use the same language that virtually all of the scriptural references to "spirit" were originally written in, but you can't? Or is it that only the 10th edition of the new interpretative cross-translated international version is the true word? You know, the one you left on the sistern of your own toilet... how is it that you were unable to refer to the real evidence as supplied ancient literature to argue about charisma, or the "holy of holies" and how the veil that was torn (New Testament, you know, the one written in koine Greek) allowed the message of Galatians 5 to be used in support? Have you actually read the book? Or is it that you too, like virtually every other Christian, missed the very first "commandment" (in Genesis 2, I think) and now feel guilty? How does one expiate one's guilt- get another rebellious Palestinian to do it for you, or write about someone who could have possibly been the kind of person who would do it for you had the opportunity arisen?
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 10:24 PM
Hi Maggie Moo,
Me? condemn someone who believes that humans are spiritual beings - nope! Never. I agree with them.
Taking on the New Agers - that's your job.
Perhaps a few anti-wiccan billboards? What about a Dawkins style campaign against the Rastafarians?
I hear the spiritual tree huggers, dolphin/whale savers and friends of the earth in general just "love" being set straight by atheists.
When you're done with them you can move on to the indigenous cultures. Take away those native American totems. Tell those Australian aborigines their SPIRITUAL connection to the land is no different to flying spaghetti monsters. Tell them you won’t accept anything less than scientific physical evidence or SPIRITS. (Don’t worry – it’s not like their land rights depend upon it) Fly Calypso! I sing to your SPIRIT
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Copernicus | November 23, 2009 10:27 PM
You are more than welcome to forge ahead, Ecnomiohyla. As Maggie Moo already stated, everyone is indeed entitled to re-state, re-demand, and reiterate until clarity (i.e. the lack of obfuscation) is achieved and evidence is presented.
To that end:
"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
The word used here for "dress" is the Strong's Hebrew reference 05647, `abad meaning "worship", i.e. as our nasopharyngeal colleague has stated, the "first commandment"!
(you probably still ask for maguro when you go for sushi!)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 10:34 PM
What?! WTF are you talking about?
You really are a fool, you missed the ENTIRE point! And again, your characterizations of whoever you think you are describing reflect your own bigotry, pretense, and misanthropic thinking- the paragon of hypocrisy!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 10:38 PM
Lyin' Lion, still speaking nonsense. And still no evidence for your deity. You are a sick delusional man, believing in imaginary things. We atheists are rational, and most of us need evidence for something. You offer us nothing but idiocy.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 23, 2009 10:41 PM
Cowardly Lion IRC, lying again. He's asked straight out questions yet he avoids them in favour of random inane blather.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 23, 2009 10:43 PM
Ha ha ha! Lion, you are through the peridotite already!
You are making the classic error in believing that folks who can quote the literature you supposedly should know but obviously don't, as well as they can research on the mtDNA sequence implications for the taxonomy and plumage evolution of terns or kleptothermy in sea kraits, give credance to your misguided beliefs- they are simply well-read and know what the fuck they are talking about, do you?
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 23, 2009 10:49 PM
Shorter 'Lion'... 'Still got nothin', still a pathological liar... so here's another pack of big, fat, juicy whoppers about totalitarian atheists forcibly removing religious symbols, in an absurdly transparent effort to start another flamefest and distract people from the hilariously inane poverty of my own position...'
(/But speakin' of new world tribal religions, this bit does come to mind...)
... Oh, and all, I strongly doubt he can exactly be said to miss the point in most of these. He's just dancing a merry little jig purposely to avoid the (infinitely many) points he knows he cannot answer.
Comes with the territory. It's a sort of defense mechanism, tho' a really rather sad one. He's in way over his head, and ultimately knows he made an incredibly poor showing here, even probably knows who starkly he is revealing through every continued comment how utterly vacuous his position has always been... But if he keeps commenting, keeps drawing out a little anger, at least he gets that satisfaction, gets to imagine he somehow held the high ground, if only because hey, someone got mad. And never mind the rest were laughing at him, many more pitying, and the ones who got mad only did (reasonably enough, really) because he pretty much just took a dump on the carpet in the desperate hope someone would give him that satisfaction.
... and that's what he'll use keep his delusions alive for another day. Just as he figures any absurd wiggle will do in argumentation in the threads, any absurd rationalization will serve to keep alive the delusions he so jealously protects. 'They got mad, therefore they were wrong' may not get real far anywhere outside the echo chamber of his skull, but it'll do just fine there.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 23, 2009 10:55 PM
On the incompetence of Lion IRC: as I've noted before, any fence-sitter who's currently wondering why they should believe will read Lion IRC's pathetic drivel and start thinking about why someone who claims to be able to argue for Christianity cannot provide any kind of coherent rationalisation for it.
He's doing our work for us!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 10:58 PM
classic reference to the folklore/myth/legend structure of ancient literature, Ecnomiohyla!
and how is it that many of the biblical stories, as evidenced by both archaeological and linguistic research, were already related in ancient Sumerian texts, some 5,000 years before the very first collection of Old Testament/Tanakh canon?
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 11:11 PM
good one, Mr. Milne...
BTW, how's the snow? Skiable yet?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 23, 2009 11:15 PM
Considering that Lion IRC's poor understanding of Christianity has, in the past, led him to claim that all religions are - deep down - Christianity (including those that are, by definition, mutually exclusive and incompatible), I'd imagine that he'd claim that these ancient civilizations were Christians who just had the messages passed onto them before the events in question occurred.
In Lion IRC's tiny mind, Christianity frees you from the bothersome restraints of logic and intellectual honesty.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 23, 2009 11:20 PM
Sadly, not even close, on this coast, yet. It's a really late start. The Rockies are apparently having a banner November, but I won't be out there until January (bit before the Olympics, at Whistler/Blackcomb)...
Meanwhile, Mont Ste-Anne's summit is still this very, very sad shade of yelowy-brown, and Tremblant does have some white up there... but just under the snow guns, so far... They'd been saying they were going to open on the 26th a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure just what the point's going to be at this point if they do.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 11:37 PM
Hi Wowbagger,
What is the straight out question in #128?
What is the ENTIRE point referred to in #125
Have a look at #122 and see if you can condense it into a simple question.
I see lots of factoids about getting dropped into posts like confetti and I'm sure somebody out there must find them impressive.
But I dont know if I am being challenged to a debate about koine greek? Alexander the Great? bible concordances? New Age spiritualism?
Look at #115. I actually had to go back and repeat my position slowly (#123)
You can keep on asking for conclusive physical evidence which proves something to your satisfaction. I tried to do this with Kagato at #102.
Let me show an example "simple" question I have trouble answering.
…So Lion, since you are so untruthful and clearly know nothing about the bible or exegesis or etymology and are afraid to respond to tough questions from highly moral atheists who, by the way, don’t need God to behave morally and who only insult people when they feel like it, why are you so obviously condemning New Age Spiritualism and why does it take you 7 hours to reply when you probably want to talk about nazis instead because you had a thingy with Janine who, in case you didn’t know, is much smarter than you and even if you do answer this question, which you probably wont or cant because you didn’t finish high school and are only obsessed with Charles Darwin’s health, I am going to vote for you to get banned by PZ Myers who is the greatest biologist I ever met and runs a wonderful blog which is more that I can say for you lyn lion irksome retard moron (PS that’s a compliment) but you’re too dumb to recognize sarcasm because you are so full of yourself and think the only reason people have dialogue with you in here is because………..um where was I?
Oh well never mind, you know very well what I mean or maybe you’re too gutless to admit you’re wrong just like all the other typical fundy extremist God botherers who wont leave us atheists alone even though we don’t need God to be moral but since you are so untruthful - return to start of question.
How about I admit that I don’t have the mental agility of most pharyngulites?
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 11:42 PM
Lyin' Lion, you have no mental agility, honor, truthfulness, integrity, and just plain common sense. You have presented no conclusive physical evidence to back up your delusional claims, and you can't shut the fuck up, like a person who values honor, truthfulness, and integrity. After all, the only person who, when challenged to put up or shut, and can't do either, is nothing but a con man. You sir, are an irrational unintelligible con man.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 11:54 PM
Don't worry about it Copernicus, AJ and I are already onto ego bumps, mashed potatoes, and pillows, but then again they might be "lots of factoids about getting dropped into posts like confetti"!
IRC-some comes to mind...
BTW, that article on sea snake kleptothermy was actually quite interesting
Posted by: llewelly | November 23, 2009 11:54 PM
Lion IRC | November 23, 2009 11:37 PM:
That's ok. You make up for it with an ethical agility unmatched by any pharyngulite.
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 23, 2009 11:56 PM
OK. How about you start by explaining what the fuck that means?
You "agree" with "them"?
Which "them" would that be?
What are you "agreeing" with, exactly?
Go on. Define "spirituality" in a way that doesn't exclude any of the above or mainstream religions, doesn't result in unresolvable contradictions, yet still actually means a damn thing.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 24, 2009 12:03 AM
All the questions can be answered if you simply provide an adequate justification for your belief in your god and your adherence to your religion. If you can do that then all the questions about Koine Greek will be rendered irrelevant.
How about you admit you don't have the mental agility of the average beetroot? That'd be far more accurate.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 24, 2009 12:10 AM
Shorter 'Lion': 'Mebbe if I ramble on in stream-of-consciousness incoherent crazy and imply flagrantly dishonestly that really was the question one single person asked and that there haven't been perfectly clear ones posed, and none-too-subtly work in my ongoing whine about the tone yet again, I can drag this out for yet another comment, and somehow spur my flagging imagination far enough that I can yet avoid facing my own pathetic inadequacy here for a little longer still... I mean, who knows, mebbe there's someone in the world who hasn't noticed I got less than nothin', here... I can picture that... It could happen... It could... It really could...'
... and no, kiddo. It can't, and there ain't. But keep on reachin' for that dream.
As to 'mental agility', I dunno... Do gauchely silly and incredibly obvious rhetorical soft-shoe routines count for anything, there?
(Rereads thread...)
Okay, so these ones don't, anyway.
(And not so much 'soft shoe routine' as 'staggering, drunken, sideways tumble into nearby river', but hey... I was trying to be charitable.)
So... Anyway... Moving on, then. Confetti, huh? Hrm.
Can you ski on confetti?
(/If so, fuck, bring it, I guess. It'll have to do.)
Posted by: Ecnomiohyla | November 24, 2009 12:16 AM
Copernicus at #128:
Lion at #135:
I believe the "straight out question" is do you know "what the the fuck [you] are talking about?" But in the asking, the answer is already known by all...
and
Actually I found them extremely interesting...
Bridge, E. S., A. W. Jones, and A. J. Baker. 2005. A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35:459-469.
Brischoux,F., X. Bonnet, and R. Shine. 2009. Kleptothermy: an additional category of thermoregulation, anda possible example in sea kraits ( Laticauda laticaudata, Serpentes)Biology Letters 5, 729-731.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 24, 2009 12:29 AM
Oh my, AJ Milne! You have just blown my cover! I am Ilsa, She Wolf Of The SS
When it comes to Lion, just keep in mind that demands a lower standard for himself than what most give to each other. He wants us to give credence to to myths, hearsay and circumstantial evidence. As it stands, he demonstrates the end results of lower standards.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 24, 2009 12:34 AM
You don't need to know Greek you idiot! You started the whole thing when you referred to the "spirit", but if you are a Christian and supposedly filled with the "Spirit" yet one has charisma which linguistically means there is another spirit, how can you rationalise having two or more in there? Isn't the whole point of being "filled with the Spirit" and having the "fruits of the Spirit" that you are an empty vessel? If there is already a spirit in there, you're not empty, are you?
And Ecnomiohyla's reference to the tabernacle should clue you in on the difference between how priests used to operate and what the significance of the torn curtains are supposed to signify... duh!
And so Copernicus' point is that we seem to be easily conversant, including literary, linguistic, and archaeological evidence, with what you profess to be your guide, yet you have no clue.
But the problem is, you're not an "empty vessel", you're just empty-headed.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 24, 2009 12:38 AM
Man, I thought I knew you from somewhere...
(/It was Paris... 1940... You wore grey... That other Ilse wore blue...)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 24, 2009 12:40 AM
Oh my, Janine the Ineffable!
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 24, 2009 12:40 AM
But the problem is, you're not an "empty vessel", you're just empty-headed.
All the better. How else can he keep repeating his "Yay! Jesus!" mantra. If he could actually think and be willing to act on his thoughts, he would get bored with his inane game rather quickly. According to Britomart, this person has been doing this for well over a decade.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 12:43 AM
How do you like my new moniker. Or is this just too tasteless?
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 24, 2009 12:46 AM
That's what I don't understand - there's no intellectual, rational defence for Christianity; adhering to it is almost completely bereft of logic once you actually think critically about it.
Why do Christians like Lion IRC bother trying to justify what they believe? Why not just shrug their shoulders, go 'meh' and say they 'just believe'? It works for the vast majority of the delusional fools; many self-identifying Christians I know haven't thought about it any more than answering 'yes' to the question 'are you a Christian?'.
Asking them why just results in a puzzled expression. It's kind of sad in that they've never bothered to think it through, but it's a lot more honest than the ridiculous sophistry we see here.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 24, 2009 12:47 AM
I honestly can't tell. I'm laughing too hard. Almost too hard to type this.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:01 AM
I honestly can't tell. I'm laughing too hard.
I guess that is
the excusethe answer I need.Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 24, 2009 1:21 AM
... this makes me an enabler or something really evil, doesn't it? I just know it does.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 24, 2009 1:25 AM
Hi Kagato,
Spirit means non-matter.
Nerd of Redhead wants to measure it with a ruler or a set of scales or a hardness tester.
I say (as do the types you refer to in #139 as that song by The Police)) that we are spirits in the material world. Descartes. Ghost in the machine. Mind over matter.
Dont make me do the gravity/apple/soul/freewill thing again.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Maggie Moo - nothing personal but I can't hang around 7 hours just to give you instant responses. Over and out.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:28 AM
AJ, you inspired me to do this. Methinks you were evil
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 1:31 AM
Wow. Where is the rest of me.
Me thinks you were evil long before you first commented on this blog.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 24, 2009 1:36 AM
Over and out? Please. Make it so.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 1:48 AM
And there was much rejoicing !
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 24, 2009 1:53 AM
Oh, no... I am just a non-material spirit thingy* whose intentions are good...
(*/And fortunately for so many of us, those are notoriously difficult to bring to book.)
Posted by: llewelly | November 24, 2009 2:34 AM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 :
hm... Seems familiar, somehow ...
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 2:53 AM
AJ Milne, I do not think you are a non-material spirit thinky. I think you are an animal.
I think that was Cait in the video. It was hard to tell. But here is something from when she was still with The Pogues.
Lion! Kiss my ass!
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 2:59 AM
Jebus, Janine !
He already has a complex about you, and the xtian subbie in him would love that, dont tempt him...:-)
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | November 24, 2009 3:18 AM
Rorschach, you do know what Pogue Mahone means. I was merely translating.
(I have to be honest, the only reason I know this is because I loved the band. There is a restaurant in Chicago, near the corner of Van Buren and Wells that goes by that name. I am too easily amused.)
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 3:21 AM
Well, I do now lol....Maybe I should date more Irish chicks ;)
Posted by: Kagato
|
November 24, 2009 5:23 AM
EPIC FAIL
The last part of my request was kind of important. It's easy to come up with a "definition" for spirituality that's vapid and vacuous -- though I have to admit, you've set the gold standard there.
"Spirit means non-matter"? How informative!
That includes electromagnetism then I assume? Gravity's a good one too. How about heat? I never knew physics was so spiritual!
Rainbows!
If I squeeze my eyes real tight I see spots; are those pixies?
Or, you know, anything else that would help distinguish "it" (whatever the hell "it" is you think you're talking about) from a product of your imagination. So far, that's impossible.
God is love, god is warm hugs. I can see the music. Aggle flabble klabble.
You're using words, but you're not saying a damn thing.
If you honestly hold a sincere view about the "hidden nature of the world", step back and think, and actually attempt a definition of what you mean. These empty platitudes are as bereft of meaning as everything else you've written so far.
oh, please do, I'm sure it will be simply delightful.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 24, 2009 5:57 AM
Surely there'll be at least two at the AGC...
Posted by: Rorschach | November 24, 2009 6:03 AM
.I have to admit I had 2 irish Residents lately,tall red gorgeous things, i drove them home a couple of times, but I'm entirely lacking the killer instinct lol....
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
November 24, 2009 6:42 AM
Yeah, despite the fact I play a brash type on the internet I don't find 'putting moves on' all that easy. I'm just hoping that our notoriety here precedes us, and the work is already done!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 24, 2009 6:49 AM
ummm, did you know there is a difference between "7 hours" and "instant"?
(anyway, while in fact information was requested of you 24 hours ago, both Ecnomiohyla and Copernicus responded, with references, within minutes)
typically ignorant- bad radio usage- over means "over to you [to say something]" yet out means you're terminating the conversation although you just invited the other to respond
Posted by: OurSally | November 24, 2009 7:30 AM
Off topic - can anyone recommend a book that examines the resurrection of Jesus from a historic/scientific point of view?
Robert Graves and Joshua Podro: The Nazarene Gospel Restored
Robert Graves the poet was also a hot classics scholar. Comparing the four gospel books, he objected to the differences and decided to have another look at all the original documents and deduce his own version the true story from them. This is what he came up with. It was very controversial in its day.
The really interesting part is trying to get hold of a copy, since the book did not go down very well at the time. I borrowed it from the Cambridge UL. Otherwise it costs a bomb.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2009 7:43 AM
Until you show evidence for the spirit, it doesn't exist. Welcome to science, where Cowardly Lyin' Lions are shown to be ignorant fools through their inability to provide evidence. Or even address the issue.Posted by: Copernicus | November 24, 2009 7:46 AM
Maggie Moo | November 23, 2009 11:06 AM
Lion IRC | November 24, 2009 1:25 AM
I believe it actually took you 14 hours and 19 minutes to come up with that pearl and your best answer totally denies any Trinitarian or modalist views on "the Spirit", and by example, properly relegates the "fruit of the spirit" to some pleonasmic rhetoric thats less than 2,000 years old*...
Like Maggie said, you're about as useful to your fellow Christians as a porkchop in a synagogue!
*Aland, K. and B. Aland. 1989. Der Text des Neuen Testaments. Einführung in die wissenschaftlichen Ausgaben sowie in Theorie und Praxis der modernen Textkritik. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 24, 2009 8:33 AM
Pastafarianism is a benign parody of your kind of malignant monotheism, and 'spiritual' is a term so vague as to be practically meaningless. And those Australian aborigines, as far as they still operate a preliterate gatherer culture in a harsh country with a hugely variable climate and very large chunks of more or less uniform landscape - not one of which provides all the necessities of human life, and some of which are uninhabitable most of the time - make use of epic mnemonics to know how to be in the right places at the right times, and what to expect there. And keep track of who's related to whom (in a precise, formal way that very roughly approximates genetics). That's what the Christian missionaries have been stripping away from them for a couple of hundred years: not some magical 'spirituality', but the (culturally) evolved ability to survive on their own fucking land. And their children.
What harm could atheists do to them that your lot haven't done already? You are as completely clueless on this topic as any other, lyin'.
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
November 24, 2009 9:38 AM
'Kay. Now that's a neat bit of video-reference/theobullshit-mocking double entendre that positively calls for applause.
(/Also, what are they writing about me on the bathroom wall in there, anyway?)
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 24, 2009 10:37 AM
Lion the Maniac growled,
That makes me wonder, was the fruit of the Garden of Eden always considered an apple, or was it only an apple after the story about the apple falling on Newton's head had become well known?Anyway, I can't remember how the apple fits into your comment history, Lion IRC, but I do know that you made one of the craziest arguments for freewill, eVAH: A rock is made of matter and has no freewill, so all matter has as much freewill as a rock and in that respect a rock held down by gravity cannot be raised willfully by anything else made solely of matter, so a person who freely and willfully reaches down to pick up a rock must be more than matter, therefore humans
(and animal companions that fetch inanimate material objects)have souls that enable them to have freewill, free Willy, and upset the applecart.
And I say you haven't the foggiest idea about the material world. Nor have you thought past the ghost in the ghost in the machine or the mind in mind over matter enough to ask, "What causes the ghost to squirm?" or "How does the mind operate?" It's the same trick Christians use with their god when they tell us, "Something couldn't have come from nothing, so God had to create it", without the slightest bat of an eye at the thought that, by that logic, something had to create God then, too.Over... (oops, I forgot you were out).
Posted by: Copernicus | November 24, 2009 11:05 AM
Roger, Aratina... from what I understand, some of the earliest rabbis suggested the fruit was: a citron (Citrus medica), a lemon-like fruit which in Hebrew is etrog, a pun on ragag, "desire"; a fig, because the next verse mentions sewing together fig leaves to make loincloths; grapes, which later cause trouble for Noah (wine and the Exxon Valdez coincidental perhaps); wheat, khitah in Hebrew and thus a pun on khet, "sin" (although a bit of a stretch seeing as it doesn't grow on trees); or carob (Ceratonia siliqua), because in Hebrew its name puns on the word for "destruction."
The apple is a peculiarly European interpolation, a fruit that does not grow well in the climate of northern Mesopotamia (the headwaters of the Euphrates and the Tigris) but interestingly the Latin for apple, malus also puns with the meaning of "evil"... it is entirely possible that it could also have been a pomegranate but in the original Hebrew all it says is "fruit".
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
November 24, 2009 11:40 AM
Hot damn. If only Hazelwood had been Muslim (or Mormon).Posted by: John | November 24, 2009 12:51 PM
OurSally, Marcus and Mr. T, thanks for the suggestions. I appreciate it.
Posted by: Jim | November 25, 2009 11:29 AM
Maybe the owners thought the title of the book was "Origin of Feces". Groan...
(Did anyone beat me to this lame joke? I'm not going to read through the comments to find out)
Posted by: speedweasel
|
November 26, 2009 5:19 PM
'Find in Page' is your friend. Hit F3 and type something.
Posted by: baju
|
February 1, 2010 11:49 AM
People learn to deal with one another not by ostracism but by paying attention