Pharyngula

Posted by: sdej | November 11, 2009 2:57 PM

As an atheist serving in Iraq and surrounded by evangelicals, I'm pretty sure it's the sword one.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 11, 2009 3:03 PM

According to candidate Obama, the Sermon on the Mount "is so radical that our own Defense Department wouldn't survive it". I am paraphrasing of course.
But seriously, wouldn't it be nice if some people had a clue of the Non-establishment clause...

Posted by: Kim Hosey (AZ Writer) | November 11, 2009 3:06 PM

sdej: Holy cow. Extra props to you, for multiple reasons.

Posted by: drteeb | November 11, 2009 3:10 PM

Regarding the sword vs peace comment, today's Billy Graham My Answer column addressed that same question.

http://atheistsanswer.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/bring-a-sword-or-peace/

Posted by: Gid Retatrdent | November 11, 2009 3:13 PM

My 14 year old daughter was aked to write a short "Ezra Pound" type poem about any issues in school. This is what she wrote.

As I sit here in my school.
Wondering if I look a fool
My religion for so long
Has been the judge for right or wrong.
You must see the god I see
You’re not American unless you think like me.
Praying in private is just absurd
Everyone around must hear gods word
This is our country and we believe.
Don’t worship our god, then you can leave.
The 10 commandments we live by
Work on the Sabbath and you must die,
The bible is the truth for all
Disagree and you will fall
They teach us Darwin’s words are true
But I’m not a monkey’s cousin, are you?
Science and knowledge will not save man
Only the ways of words of Jesus can.
Separation of church and state
We religionists really hate.
I’m tired of following man made rules
Time for me to be home schooled.

Posted by: The Pint | November 11, 2009 3:15 PM

I made the mistake of reading the comments on the original local news article that's linked to the article in PZ's post. Again, a plethora of "this country was founded on Christian principles and it should be taught in our schools!" bleating and whining about how their freedom to pray is being taken away. No, you're free to pray to whatever invisible superbeing you damn well please, but you don't have the right to impose that need to pray on others & disregard their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in a PUBLIC school. Also, it seems that no one cares that a "nondenominational prayer" is still PRAYER - and I suspect that by "nondenominational" they still mean Christian. I can't imagine that a "nondenominational" prayer that starts off with "Praise Allah" instead of "Praise God" would go over very well...

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 3:27 PM

Excuse me, what happened to the first amendment again?

Posted by: daveau | November 11, 2009 3:30 PM

"military based on Christian-based principles"

Aside from the meeting of the Department of Redundancy Department, if God existed, we wouldn't need a military in the first place. He could just decide who was wrong and smite 'em.

Posted by: Texan Expat in Finland | November 11, 2009 3:38 PM

"...a military based on Christian-based principles..."

That was certainly helpful in Gitmo.

Posted by: natural cynic | November 11, 2009 3:40 PM

Do you think that he means Matthew 6:6 - "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Ostentation is a Christian principle?

Posted by: Mystyk | November 11, 2009 3:44 PM

Another atheist in service here, with prior service in Iraq and Kuwait for OIF.

This kind of historical revisionism has always bothered me, but it's so pervasive overall that I doubt it will ever go away unless this country completely folds.

Posted by: Zifnab | November 11, 2009 3:46 PM

:-p Something about atheists and foxholes.

I can't really express shock at the military being a hotbed of religious fervor. It takes a certain kind of blinded mentality to pick up a gun, march off to a foreign country, kill or be killed, and keep your sanity.

That's got to do scary things to a human's worldview. How many troops come back every year with PTSD, after all?

Posted by: JJR | November 11, 2009 3:49 PM

Never been a fan of the AL; even though they awarded me a medal when I was an NRJOTC cadet.

part of their problem stems from their own ideology:

"...It is Americanism: Under our own
American philosophy of government,
this withdrawal of human rights is
impossible. If God gave us rights,
only the Creator of those rights can
take them away. No State, for reasons
of its own, can take your liberty,
your property or any other right.
They are God-given and our government
recognizes this fact.

The American Legion, realizes the
fact that in order to protect this ideal
of government the American people
must never forget God, the source of
their rights. An informed and vigilant
populace, who believe that their Creator
endowed them with their individual
rights, can never be sold on
totalitarianism under any guise.

It is the aim and objective of this American
Legion program to bring God
to the foreground in American life,
not only the religious life, but the
social, economic and political life as
well. God is an essential part of real
Americanism. Without God, there is
no Americanism."

Oh, dear. I doubt they would've awarded me that medal if I was a more OUTSPOKEN teenage atheist... ;-)

Posted by: ursa major | November 11, 2009 3:54 PM

Slightly OT:

A few days ago I spotted a Jeebus Fish with "police" inside the fish. Most of the possible meanings worry me and for the same reasons as a christinsane military.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 11, 2009 3:58 PM

I vote for the "god told me to murder, pillage, and rape" type of christian military. There are obviously too many of Selle's sort still in the military as we can see by the attempts to force people in occupied territories to convert and even video recordings of commanding officers instructing their troops on how to go about with their christian mission.

Posted by: Walton | November 11, 2009 4:00 PM

Over here in the UK, it always frustrates me that all the public Remembrance Day (the British equivalent of Veterans' Day) services tend to be strongly religious (and usually specifically Anglican) in character. While I support the troops, and would like to do something to commemorate the sacrifice of those who died for our freedom, I'm not really happy participating in a Christian church service and mouthing religious platitudes that I don't actually believe. So while I always wear the poppy and observe the two minutes' silence, I also think it would be nice if there were some more secular/inclusive observances for Remembrance Day, so that those of us who aren't religious can also pay our respects (and so that the sacrifices of non-religious servicemen and women can also be commemorated).

Posted by: Alan Clark | November 11, 2009 4:02 PM

How would a military based on the principle of the sixth commandment work?

Posted by: Asclepias | November 11, 2009 4:09 PM

Clearly our history teachers are not doing a very good job emphasizing what the Founding Fathers were and what they were not.

Posted by: andyinsdca | November 11, 2009 4:14 PM

It's bigotry like this that keeps me out of the AL.

Posted by: hje | November 11, 2009 4:18 PM

Military based on Christian-based principles? Such as:

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

Of course there are "pragmatists" like Bill "Loofah" O'Reilly:

"'We can't kill all the Muslims... So we wanna win as many hearts and minds as we can."

Posted by: Jarred C. | November 11, 2009 4:22 PM

I guess I was lucky when I served (Iraq vet). I was stationed out of Germany, and the only religious talk I ever heard was during off-hours in private conversations.

My unit consisted of a majority of christians, one muslim, one jew, two wiccans, and a few agnostics. I'm uncertain if there were any atheists (I did not become one until after I got out).

Even my 1st Sergeant was a christian preacher, but he never mentioned an ounce of religious talk while in uniform. My unit's general philosophy was, "I don't care what color you are, we're all green; what you believe, we're all Americans; or where you're from, we all serve the same country."

Every religious conversation I was engaged in was never about conversion, but about learning and exploration. We respected each others beliefs.

From the sounds of the American Legion spokesperson, I was lucky to be in my unit. I guess our attitudes were just a little bit different, serving in a combat unit. Especially one stationed in a foreign country.

Posted by: Dave | November 11, 2009 4:25 PM

"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports.—In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion.—Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure.—reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

George Washinton, Farewell Address, 1796

http://www.bartleby.com/43/24.html

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 11, 2009 4:35 PM

Zifnab #23

It takes a certain kind of blinded mentality to pick up a gun, march off to a foreign country, kill or be killed, and keep your sanity.

I can't speak for other veterans but on my behalf, fuck you very much.

Posted by: MrFire | November 11, 2009 4:50 PM

Dave @43:

Come on, spell it out for us - whatchya trying to say?

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 11, 2009 4:52 PM

It would be great if one or more of the atheist groups stepped in with an equivalent scholarship.

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 11, 2009 5:03 PM

PZ, thanks for pointing to this.

Everybody else: Please consider going to the Star Tribune site and commenting on the article! Most commenters so far are pretty pissed off that the school would disallow prayer at the ceremony. Because, you know, that is what the veterans were fighting for and all.

(I won't mention that the VFW is for vets who were more likely in combat in foreign wars, and the Am. Legion is for the other vets. So most of them were not really fighting in a war. Or at least that's how it was back when my war-hero father was the president of the local VFW)

Posted by: jaynie | November 11, 2009 5:08 PM

My daughter enrolled in the AFROTC her first year at the U of M. One of the first things she brought home were all these christian notes & pamphlets. She was told that christianity was an integral part of the military so she immediately joined up a bible study group and went to church.

Once she realized that the Campus Crusade for Christ was a scary, whacko cult, she didn't want anything to do with it. No more bible groups, no more church, no more ROTC.

Posted by: Bob Thomas | November 11, 2009 5:14 PM

Thanks to all the Vets for their service. Let's make sure to point out clearly that most aren't pricks about religion. I work at a VA hospital and while a lot of Vets are Christian, most aren't in your face about it.

Posted by: Brian | November 11, 2009 5:18 PM

The quote isn't necessarily redundant. "We have a military based on principles that are in turn based on Christianity."

Posted by: kopd | November 11, 2009 5:23 PM

The quote isn't necessarily redundant. "We have a military based on principles that are in turn based on Christianity."

Making them a copy of a copy, with a noticeable amount of transcription error.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 11, 2009 5:33 PM

Well silly me. Here I was thinking the US Army, and its predecessor, The Continental Army was based on the idea that King George III expeditionary forces shouldn't go unopposed in suppressing those American rebels.

But yeah. It makes more sense that it was created by edict of God, to protect America from those godless British.

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

@Peter G
Except maybe Jainism. ;-)

Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | November 11, 2009 5:47 PM

My Dad used to say to me that anyone who claims that there are no atheists in combat zones has probably never been in a combat zone. "There are lots of them, and half of them weren't atheists until they got there."

(I'm a veteran too, but I've never been in combat so I couldn't say.)

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 11, 2009 5:52 PM

I must correct my ending in #62. Paragraph 26 of Washington's Farewell Address begins to make the case for education after he sufficiently panders to the religious. Paragraphs 26, 27, and 28 kind of run together and culminate with a call for a highly educated populace. It really is quite sad that such obviously disingenuous religious pandering as Washington expressed in his speech continues to this day and equally sad that dog-bots happily lap it up.

Posted by: Demonhype | November 11, 2009 5:54 PM

Sorry to have to do this, but I second Zifnab. Though I don't speak for him, I'm going to throw in my line...

I'm tired of even the slightest criticism-or even perceived criticism--of the military being reacted to with the same hysteria that is usually reserved for fundie creationists hearing any evolution arguments. And, of course, the charming claim that the only people who are allowed to have an opinion without having served are the ones who think it's all good and noble and wonderful. I find it amazing that people who claim to be fighting to defend freedom--and are otherwise pretty rational--get so very irrationally and hatefully tribal at even the slightest perception of the mildest criticism. The one thing in 2003 that I felt could get me fired faster than atheism is not going along with the pro-military program. And I still feel that way.

I personally consider the very existence of all military force to be inherently unethical and the very concept of the military makes me physically ill--stomach turning and everything. I won't vote out their basic benefits--for the same reason I think that someone who gets hurt on any job deserves workman's comp--but I don't consider them heroes. There, that is my actual opinion, and there's something to take your mind off of Zifnab's actually very mild criticism. Let the caterwauling begin, but I won't stick around to hear it, considering my previous experiences on this subject. I seriously doubt any commenters will even get to this point, much less comprehend anything I've said, before they launch their knee-jerk reactions. And I've got too much to get done today to get bogged down in a name-calling match.

I don't understand the reaction either. If you really think you served to protect freedoms in this country, you should be happy to see someone feeling free to disagree with you about such a subject and should be able to engage them without all the fundy-worthy anger and hatred--that is, after all, the essence of the freedom you claim to be defending. Kind of like a parent who teaches his kid to be a critical and analytical thinker would be hypocritical if the kid one day used those abilities to argue with dear old dad. If dad's not a hypocrite, dad should be glad to see his kid feeling free and confident enough to argue with him and feel his hard work has not been in vain.

I don't expect the world to agree with me on the military issue, but I've had more rational debates with fundies over almost everything than over this subject. Even on atheist sites, which is disappointing to me. I've gotten tired of trying to discuss anything with people who use only ad hominems and superpatriotism in their defense. Not to mention the words "support the troops" so often translating into "support the war, right or wrong".

Of course, on another note, it's nauseating how the AL will try to take advantage of the hysterically insistent hero-worship of veteran's day to punch a steaming load of government-sponsored preaching and revisionist history down the country's throat. The know that where veterans are concerned, the majority of this country sees argument as a bigger no-no than atheism, and they figure they can use that atmosphere to get their way. Using the emotional clout of some ex-soldier with no legs as a battering ram against the bill of rights--that's disgusting. Especially since some of those ex-soldiers actually regard the BoR as something...you know...important. Relevant. The reason for the season...you get the idea.

Although I can't imagine why anyone, much less an atheist, would want to serve, I do feel sorry for those atheists who choose to serve and have to put up with this kind of imposition all the time. What with this and those stupid vet hospitals where they're getting screwed if they won't pray and are being diagnosed with "spiritual problems" as if that is a genuine medical condition--fuck that. You broke them, you have a responsibility to them, and you don't get to force them to waive their freedoms--you know, the ones they are purportedly fighting to protect?--in order to get medical attention for shit that happened to them by following your orders in the first place.

And I feel sorry for those poor bastards getting fucked over who genuinely believed they'd be doing some good in the world. Despite my own feelings about the military, I can at least realize that some people served because they actually had good (read: non-authoritarian, non-crusade) intentions. That doesn't make me regard them as any more heroic--after all, fundies genuinely believe they are saving you from hell--but it does at least keep me from getting too cynical or regarding every military individual as being individually unethical.

I do have to admit I am glad that there are some atheists in there trying to keep it from being an armed fundigelical Crusade Brigade. Sure, I think generic militarism is unethical, but these guys are at least helping to prevent ours from becoming inevitably evil. If the idea didn't literally turn my stomach, I might have enlisted just for that purpose--to keep what kernel of value in the military from being swallowed up in a wave of Christofacism. Though it's probably a lost cause, let's hope not. I like to root for the underdog, so that at least is a cause I can give some support!

Posted by: Lowell | November 11, 2009 6:07 PM

Timothy Vogel @ 70,

I'm pretty sure that Gid Retatrdent's daughter was being sarcastic (really sarcastic!) in her poem. References to "religionists" and such?

I think she was just poking fun. But I'm an optimist!

Posted by: Chris Tucker | November 11, 2009 6:14 PM

Timothy Vogel @ #70:

WHOOSH!

That "message" of that poem really went right over your head, didn't it?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 6:23 PM

strangest brew, that poem was dripping with sarcasm in case you haven't noticed.

poe'd by a 14-year-old's class assignment ;-)

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2009 6:24 PM

Ostentation is a Christian principle?

CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH!!!

I'm sure the couple of people here who have already said they serve/served appreciate your deep, wise assertion.

You're talking about a country where studying at a university is not a right, but a good that has a steep price, so people join the army to get their education for free.

You're talking about a country where not having a job is a serious catastrophe, so people join the army to be out of the workforce market.

Only then come the people who actually want to join the army. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out more or less all of them fit Zifnab's description.

the sacrifice of those who died for our freedom

Has anyone since WWII died for your freedom?

Posted by: Tom | November 11, 2009 6:29 PM

As a Unitarian Universalist atheist and a veteran of the USMC from 2003 to 2007, I have to say that the military surely is Christian-based. If you don't fit their mold, be you Jewish, Atheist, Unitarian, or just some other form of "other" you are a second-class citizen. The military likes to push anything and everything Christian onto everyone, and if you don't fit the mold, too bad. It's unfortunate that the attitude continues to the Legion.

Posted by: Jeff | November 11, 2009 6:45 PM

As a soldier myself, Mr. Selle can kindly shut up. I have served in Iraq as he served in Vietnam, and I don't believe in any sort of supernatural beings. From my perspective, there isn't anyone trying to convert us to any Christian religion, even if there are perhaps too much in the way prayer from chaplains.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 11, 2009 7:01 PM

Hi PZ Myers,
Dropping a bit scripture verse into your posts?
Oh be still my beating heart! What a temptation. You sure know how to pull peoples chains.
Can you please grant this thread a one-off amnesty on dueling verses (god-botting) so that the theists can fire at will and post with immunity from prosecution for war crimes and misdemeanors? Go on, give us a firing range. Open season. Target practice. Just one thread where we can discuss what the bible says. It would be a great way to get to the bottom of why some veterans think prayer is important.
Lets see if Jesus really did come to bring a sword and what kind of sword and why that sword is too heavy to be carried by people trying to take it our of His hands.
Gimme that sword Jesus - you're not using it right.
Lion (IRC)
PS - You know that "one minute’s silence" memorial thingy? Do you think Mr Dawkins would regard that as being far too spiritual? Some people actually do pray during that.

Posted by: Utakata | November 11, 2009 7:10 PM

I never quite understood the military thinking for those who serve in the name of their country by taking another's life makes them a "heroe." If I took another's life, even if I declared to be doing it for my country...I would be branded a criminal and go to jail.

And then I am told I am not to raise that point by military types, politicians, the media, et al. But did they not claim they are taking another's life in protection of my freedoms? Precisely what freedom are we talking about when I'm told it's "unpatriotic"?

Not only do I think the world would be better without religion...but with also without flags.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 11, 2009 7:13 PM

Lion, Christian-inanity has had nearly two whole millennia to submit evidence for a god, and what have we got for it? Nothing.

Also, if you are selfishly praying to a deity for favors during a solemn moment of silence and not reflecting on the people or the cause being honored, you are a fool.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 7:17 PM

Lets see if Jebus really did come to bring a sword and what kind of sword and why that sword is too heavy to be carried by people trying to

Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 11, 2009 7:20 PM

In general, America has rejected Christian/Biblical military principles, for instance the unmitigated slaughter of whole towns and villages for the sins of the few. I refer to My Lai. Another problem is adherence to the Geneva Conventions (except for short excursions during the recent reign of President Jebus). Mr. Vietnam medic must have missed these.

Posted by: kamaka | November 11, 2009 7:32 PM

Just one thread where we can discuss what the bible says.

Ummm, yeah, sure. Leviticus would be a good starting point, it's such a great example of the inerrancy of god's word.

Bible porn? Perhaps you would prefer to start with bible porn?

Posted by: Michelle R | November 11, 2009 7:35 PM

Let's start with the Song of Solomon. It's my favorite part. :P

Posted by: Mark | November 11, 2009 7:40 PM

As a 20-year veteran (I retired in 2003) and an atheist, I always thought that I was doing my part to maintain a republic founded on the Enlightenment values of reason and empiricism evinced by Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Franklin. I have become increasingly concerned that my country, for which some have made far greater sacrifices than I, is headed down a road that leads to a fascistic Christian Theocracy. Factor in the fact that many in the military would welcome such a state, and the result is truly horrifying.

I do not make a big deal of my veteran status, though the Veteran’s Administration did pay the costs for me to finish my undergrad degree, for which I am very grateful – and I did take advantage of the 25% off on my bagel order today. Seriously though, the story PZ points to is why I will have nothing to do with the American Legion or the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) as they are explicitly theistic and have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the contribution of non-believers to the defense of the United States.

Anyone interested in the plight of freethinkers and skeptics in today’s military are encouraged to visit the website of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (http://www.maaf.info/) and that of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org/).

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 11, 2009 7:44 PM

Sastra, here it is.

I await PZ Myers' invitation for theists to use his website as a forum to submit their evidence for God (the evidence you find unpersuasive.)

I wonder what he'd like to do. Lion IRC usually misses my posts, I think. But I'd be happy to discuss with him, if he wants.

There is a reason why I never became a teacher, I do not have the patience that you have.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 7:47 PM

PS - Please dont confuse ignorance with irrelevance by bringing the constitution into it. Otherwise we might get sidetracked into a discussion about atheists who sign historical documents with the word Creator in it.

also, you're confusing "atheist" and "deist"

You wanna see "deep rifts"? Check out the trench warfare which goes on between Christian denominations over the meaning of those verses.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 11, 2009 7:55 PM

Mr Hitchens admitted in an interview once that he did not know what the commandment about taking the Lords name in vain actually meant. Of course that didn’t stop him from making "enlightened" pronouncements on the matter.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 7:58 PM

Check out the trench warfare which goes on between Christian denominations

ne good way for atheists to demonstrate their vast store of bible knowledge would be to show that they are capable of discussing it.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 11, 2009 8:09 PM

Demonhype #69

I'm tired of even the slightest criticism-or even perceived criticism--of the military being reacted to with the same hysteria that is usually reserved for fundie creationists hearing any evolution arguments.

I was not reacting to Zifnab's comment in #23 as a criticism of the military that needed to be replied to with hysteria. I was reacting to a general assertion that, as a veteran, I must be mentally blind, insane, or both.

And, of course, the charming claim that the only people who are allowed to have an opinion without having served are the ones who think it's all good and noble and wonderful.

Unfortunately, all too many criticisms of the people who served in the military are along the lines of "you're a stupid, immoral killer who followed orders blindly and raped babies before you ate them raw."

I was never in combat. I've mentioned before that I was an engineering type in a nuclear submarine. Much of my military service was spent performing maintenance on valves. Ships have thousands of valves. I got to the point where I could disassemble, clean, pack, and reassemble an inch-and-a-half globe valve correctly while half asleep. If I had spend six years doing that as a civilian at an electrical generating plant then I'm sure you'd have no objection to my experience. But because I did it while wearing a uniform and being poorly paid, I make you nauseous.

I personally consider the very existence of all military force to be inherently unethical and the very concept of the military makes me physically ill--stomach turning and everything.

If that's how you feel then that's how you feel. I doubt there's anything I can say that will change your mind. Especially when you say things like:

I seriously doubt any commenters will even get to this point, much less comprehend anything I've said, before they launch their knee-jerk reactions. And I've got too much to get done today to get bogged down in a name-calling match.

You might be careful about accusing others of knee jerk reactions when your own knee is threatening to hit your chin.

Posted by: H.H. | November 11, 2009 8:11 PM

PS - Please dont confuse ignorance with irrelevance by bringing the constitution into it. Otherwise we might get sidetracked into a discussion about atheists who sign historical documents with the word Creator in it.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 8:17 PM

H.H. wrote (to Lion IRC):

Try actually reading it some time and maybe you won't come off as so "confused."

If Cowardly Lion IRC was capable of reading (for deep comprehension and subsquent thought) anything I doubt he'd be here posting the inane drivel that he does. But he knows that thinking makes baby Jesus cry, so he doesn't bother.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 11, 2009 8:31 PM

Hi Sastra,
I note your posts - thanks. I hope I haven't missed a specific question for which you would like a response. Even if I can’t answer a specific question I will certainly acknowledge same in the thread where it is asked.
I miss some peoples’ questions because Lyn'irk or Lie-On or Line-Jerk or Loin Cloth, etc etc etc dont always show up on my infra red nick perception goggles. A pity really because with SOME of the attempted insults I have to try really really hard not to laugh. I’d hate to miss one. Some are quite original. 9/10
I am just making a suggestion to PZ Myers that every once and a while he might offer a god-botting amnesty in a given thread. (Not every one Janine - relax!) Not a completely rule free thread. Some of your rules I agree with 100% and people being sent to the dungeon for being “foul-mouthed”, misogynists, racists, insincerity, proxy abuse, spammers, homophobia (whats to fear anyway?) - perfectly legitimate rules. I acknowledge the right of the blog owner to make the rules. If God was a blogger He wou.............. (almost)
I'm not paranoid about going in the killfile if I accidentally going one bridge too far but a once a month single day or single thread godbotting amnesty would be fabulous “noblesse oblige”. A novelty. A chance for atheists who believe in free speech to say – look how we allocate on-air time for people who want to debate bible verses. Go on PZ Myers!
I promise I will see it as a sign of fearless strength – not weakening. You have nothing to lose.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 8:35 PM

I am just making a suggestion to PZ Myers that every once and a while he might offer a god-botting amnesty in a given thread.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 11, 2009 8:44 PM

people being sent to the dungeon for being “foul-mouthed”

No, dipshit, you can fucking use whatever shitty language you want and you won't be banned. If you go to the Dungeon section you'll see what offenses will get someone banned. Being "foul mouthed" isn't one of them. If you got your fucking head out of your fucking ass you would know that.

Posted by: eandh99 | November 11, 2009 8:47 PM

What struck me, here in Canada, was that the school ceremonies were strictly secular, though they did involve the participation of veterans. The Cenotaph service itself, 11 am today, is indeed a Christian-only event, with prayers and hymns and a brief chat from (this year) an Anglican minister. But it's attended by representatives of the whole community, from Scouts and Guides to local, provincial and federal government reps, firefighters and Coast Guard and RCMP, the Rotary club and the Shriners. What I don't know is if anyone's ever tried to change that, if there's any popular will to do that here in my small town. Loads of people there who never darken a church door, but seem to want to hear Amazing Grace and Abide with Me.

Posted by: Mack | November 11, 2009 8:48 PM

My father works for the VA, and every year on Memorial Day and again on Veteran's Day, he attends ceremonies. A few years ago, my mother and I went with him to a ceremony at a VFW hall. A few people spoke, Dad said a few words, and then they let a military chaplain close with a prayer.
Now, my family is atheist. My parents both are, and they raised their kids that way. But my mother was raised catholic, so she's always maintained we should be tolerant of people, and their need of ritual. So, during the prayer, we should stand silently, head bowed respectfully, and think about England.
Boy, that didn't last long. I couldn't maintain any semblance of respect. I have never heard such a racist, homophobic rant couched in religious terms in my life. This cretin went on for at least 7 minutes about the eroding morals and family values in this country, and how the the vets fought for this country, so they should decide what direction it went in, and, well, it went downhill rapidly from there. Lots of thinly veiled references to gay marriage, and other "evils".
Afterward, many of the vets, and families, were up shaking the chaplain's hand, congratulating him. Many were talking about his long involvement in that particular VFW hall.
I was horrified. Certainly, anyone who wasn't a fundamentalist wouldn't have been welcome at that VFW, since this chaplain was apparently one of their main spokesmen.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 11, 2009 9:00 PM

A good number of years ago I went to the VFW hall* to see about joining. I didn't hear a lot of godbotting but conservatism was alive and well at that place. I decided not to join.

*I'm eligible to join the VFW since I received the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal because of a long stay in the Barents Sea. The in-joke was that we were no longer part of the US Atlantic Fleet but had been assigned to the Red Banner Northern Fleet headquartered in Murmansk.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 9:01 PM

Cowardly Lying Lion doesn't have any argument to present but instead pretends he can't post what he wants here because if he does, PZ will ban him for 'godbotting' - despite a) having access to the dungeon and its definitions, and b) having had what this is (i.e. it isn't what he says it is) pointed out to him on numerous occasions.

I think that counts as insipidity, doesn't it? And that - unlike the other behaviours he's lied about - is a banning offence. The sooner the better, I say. He adds nothing and forces those without the benefit of a killfile to spend time and effort scrolling past his drivel.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 9:09 PM

Cowardly Lying Lion doesn't have any argument to present

Posted by: John Harshman | November 11, 2009 9:16 PM

@70:

As for science, she apparently was sleeping in that class, too; technically, we're not monkeys we are anthropoids, we are not cousins to the monkeys, more like their improved former neighbors, since monkeys went their way and anthropoids went "our" way more than (arguably) 55 million years ago!

Might I hijack this thread in favor of my personal obsession?

Yes, we are monkeys. Yes, we're even monkeys technically. Monkeys are a paraphyletic group in which apes are embedded. Apes are a paraphyletic group in which humans are embedded. That makes us both apes and monkeys.

By the way, anthropoids include monkeys, apes, and humans. So it's not clear to me who you think went their own way 55 million years ago. That would appear to be around the time that monkeys (including us) separated from lemurs.

OK, now go back to arguing about whether we should have an army.

Posted by: rufustfirefly | November 11, 2009 9:25 PM

Demonhype #69:

I have no problem with anyone "criticizing the military". It would be wonderful if there were no war, or even less war. When do you think that will happen? Would you ever take up arms? If the people who would love to have a fascist theocracy managed to start a civil war, what would you do? What if they managed a fairly bloodless coup and they began rounding up their enemies? Homosexuals, atheists, feminists, Muslims, all the rest? Resist and fight? Go under ground? Become a quisling? Flee to Canada or some other country? Seriously, I'm curious. Would you ever fight? Thank you.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 11, 2009 9:26 PM

The Lyin' Lurch lies yet again. If being "foul-mouthed" was a bannable offense, I would have been out of here, long ago. You can probably count on one hand how many posts I've made that don't include some rough language.

If you want someone to blame for it, blame the US Air Force. They gave me the world's finest training in no-holds-barred cussing.

But that doesn't matter. Being "foul-mouthed" isn't what gets you banned, since I'm still here, fucker. PZ clearly posts his rules. Too bad you're too fucking stupid to find the relevant link. I'm not giving it to you. I'm not here to hold your hand. I don't want your dipshit cooties.

So fuck off.

Posted by: DisGRUNTled | November 11, 2009 9:29 PM

Another Atheist vet checkin' in. I always hated the mandatory prayers while out in the field. The option given to me by the company gunny was you will go to the church service and pray or you will police call everyone else's trash while they pray. I also looked around to see if there were any other non believers around in my company. Unfortunately for me there were not or at the very least they went along with the flow.

In Iraq I had Iraqi's coming up to me asking me about my religion and when I told them I didn't have one they attempted to convert me..... TO CHRISTIANITY...

My 1st Sgt who came to us half way through the deployment also happened to be from my hometown so he'd always put himself in my truck. I don't remember how the conversation came up but he found out I was an Atheist. He spent the rest of the deployment trying to convert me. To make it even better he was a Young Earth Creationist to boot.

I hated that deployment, I originally thought it was because I was involuntarily recalled back into service, but the more I look back on it I think it was because of the non stop attempts to convert me by my 1st Sgt.

Semper Fi

Posted by: Cujo359 | November 11, 2009 9:41 PM

B.T. Murtagh @ 65

The way I've heard it put is that there may not be atheists in the foxholes, but quite a few climb out of them.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 9:45 PM

I have no problem with anyone "criticizing the military". It would be wonderful if there were no war, or even less war. When do you think that will happen? Would you ever take up arms? If the people who would love to have a fascist theocracy managed to start a civil war, what would you do? What if they managed a fairly bloodless coup and they began rounding up their enemies? Homosexuals, atheists, feminists, Muslims, all the rest? Resist and fight? Go under ground? Become a quisling? Flee to Canada or some other country? Seriously, I'm curious. Would you ever fight? Thank you.

a national military with a set-up like the pre-Iraq set-up of the National Guard would be fully sufficient to deal with the above.

Posted by: ProudMonkey | November 11, 2009 9:50 PM

I am surprised by how often sarcasm (etc.) is mis-interpreted on this list. (Timothy Vogel: Wow! How wrong can you get it?!?) Gid Retatrdent's daughter's poem? Stark, scathing, sarcastic... I wish I was as sharp as she when I was 14! My own daughter is now 7; I hope she is as aware/expressive as Retatrdent Jr.

Posted by: rufustfirefly | November 11, 2009 9:58 PM

Jadehawk #139: Okay, that could be. Would the Guard be able to handle another country that was an aggressor? Could the Guard have handled Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany? Could Canada's "National Guard" handle a theocratic Christian States of America, bent on converting everyone or destroying them if they don't?

Posted by: Neil | November 11, 2009 10:02 PM

I guess it's a pretty inappropriate day, but what the hell. I'm jumping on with zinfab and demonhype. I just don't get it.

I understand the incredibly strong impulse to protect one's family and tribe. I understand how through fear, religious and/or patriotic fervor, xenophobia, or prejudice these feelings can be used to lead people down almost any road, no matter how dark. But I will never understand the impulse to act on these feelings the way I have seen others act, especially without extreme provocation.

My family is full of vets-WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. I know and love these people. My father and my two grandfathers (Vietnam and WWII) are the only ones in my family that I've never heard brag about their service or even talk about it much. They never once linked their service to honor, courage, or heroism while talking to others. They are also the only ones who never started fights, never implied that some people are only good for killing, and occasionally voted for progressive causes. They are the only ones of the vets in my family who could handle a good political or religious debate without turning red and yelling.

Most of my veteran cousins and uncles however, never seem to get enough blood. Several of them are now employed in law enforcement/prison guarding, most are rabid republicans, and seem to be sure that all of America's problems stem from either Mexicans, Muslims, or liberals. Some have even expressed the desire, on more than one occasion, to kill the "troublemakers", whoever they are. They have no problem with brutality and violence as legitimate political tools. They have no problem with bombing villages or mistreating criminals, or shooting whoever they are ordered to shoot. The only domestic abuse in my family also happens to come from this group of the family. Surprise, I know.

Of course, these are the "real patriots" of my family. The ones who get all pissy if you ever even suggest that the American military is anything other than the most moral, selfless, heroic force the world has ever known. Sadly, they seem to be more representative of America than the more reasonable, modest members.

I know enough not to generalize this to all soldiers. A few of the best, most honest people I've known were veterans, and even the worst of them have many redeeming qualities, like all of us. But I can't help but notice general patterns in my experience, especially when they are so stark in contrast.

In today's America, doubting the virtue of the military is as forbidden as it can be in a free society. Even though our soldiers are now volunteers, pursuing goals of purely economic interest that mainly benefit a tiny elite, the false patriotism flows like a river of blood. As a peace loving, life loving human, all I can hope is that some good accidentally gets done along the way. There is no protest that will stop our terror machine. We will continue to rain down hell and death on anyone who dares oppose us, whether they are a threat or not, no different than any other power-mad regime driven by fear and jingoism. We are so enamored of our strength and superiority that we will continue to treat the rest of humanity like a plaything, an animal to be tortured for amusement and killed on a whim.

The only thing for which I give thanks to veterans is for defending America and our freedoms, when that actually happens. But economic interests seem to heavily outweigh principles and concepts like freedom or peace these days. As far as I can make out, the last veterans who did very much to defend America and it's freedom, not the business interests of some Americans, died quite a while back.

If you are in the service now, I hope you make it out ok. I do not hate you, and I know that you may very well be building a school in a Muslim country-hopefully females will be allowed to attend, unless we just hand it back to fanatics to destroy. Or maybe you're doing a technical job that keeps our infrastructure running smoothly. Or maybe you're manning a radar station, vigilant for enemies. I hope so. I know that there is also a good chance that you will soon be involved, directly or indirectly, in the death of another human being that never harmed one American.

One of my good friend's brothers joined up for our latest middle eastern adventure. He always seemed so normal to me. Just a regular guy, quite mild-mannered. After about two years of service, he sent one of his regular emails. It contained pictures of him next to the helicopter in which he served as a gunner. He had a huge smile on his face, and the email explained how much he liked his job. He talked about how much fun it was operating the gun from above the targets, how it was just like the video games he enjoyed, but a million times the rush. He talked a bit about clearing out an area of insurgents, dropping one victim after another and how cool it was. He was well liked in his unit and good at his "job." So yeah, like zinfab, I do have to wonder about his mind, his morality, and I really do hope that someday, his actions would be considered abnormal. Pity that they are not abnormal now.

I will never understand it, I will never be grateful for it, and I will never thank him for it. Nobody is trying to take over America, no matter what sick fantasies the military cheerleaders like to spin. My home, my family and my freedom are not at risk, and wouldn't be at risk even if our army was 1/5 the size. There are no American invasions except the ones we force onto others . I thank veterans for their diligence, and that is all. The rest, you brought on yourselves 100 percent, and it was never necessary except in your own minds. As far as bloated American patriotism, expanding America's sphere of influence, dying for billionaires and the rest of it goes, I don't owe any of you a god damned thing.

Posted by: rufustfirefly | November 11, 2009 10:11 PM

@144: Pacifism can work in the right place. I don't think it would have worked in Cambodia or Germany, someplace like that. The kid in Tienanmen Square? One of the bravest things I've ever seen. The scenes from Gandhi where they just kept walking up to the soldiers and being beat down? Damn brave. One worked, eventually; one not so much.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 11, 2009 10:17 PM

Hi Sastra,
I am interested in discussing atheism. If that requires discussing the bible and the existence of God all the better. What I see a lot of in here so far is people who want to attack God/religion based on what is IN the bible (#93, #105, #116, etc) but a firm – “no Lion you cannot post bible verses here to prove anything – at all – period – now shut up!”
I understand many wont accept certain things in the bible as historically accurate or verifiable or true accounts. But if someone says character of the bible God is “XYZ” they are basing THEIR claim ON the bible. Isnt it even just a LITTLE bit disingenuous to do that and then refuse to consider other parts of the bible which may clarify or disprove the original assertion?
Lion (IRC)
PS – Patricia – I know atheist chat rooms, blogs, conventions etc are not for the feint hearted (which I am not) but I was taken aback by you calling me an f/wit so soon after I gave you my condolences on the loss of your partner. I can only assume the low threshold of patience is part of the grieving process or that you have made a very rapid return to life as normal.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 10:26 PM

If that requires discussing the bible and the existence of God all the better.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 11, 2009 10:27 PM

Sastra,
I say the definition of God is eternal Supreme Being, uncaused, able to do anything, Creator of all that is seen and unseen by divine fiat.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 10:28 PM

Cowardly Lying Lion wrote:

I am interested in discussing atheism.

No, you're not - liar. You aren't interested in discussing anything; you just post inane nonsense without attempting to present your argument for holding the beliefs you hold.

If that requires discussing the bible and the existence of God all the better.

Then give it a shot for once rather than being a lying coward. If you can give us reasons why we should believe what's in the bible, and evidence/argument for the existence of your god then knock yourself out - just remember that you have to be able to back any claim up. Unsupportable assertions will see you stomped mercilessly.

Patricia – I know atheist chat rooms, blogs, conventions etc are not for the feint hearted (which I am not) but I was taken aback by you calling me an f/wit so soon after I gave you my condolences on the loss of your partner.

How does Patricia's tragic loss stop you from being a fuckwit? Why should she refrain from identifying you as a fuckwit when all the data available to her gives her no choice but to do so?

Funny how you can't grasp the concept of intellectual honesty, isn't it?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 10:30 PM

I say the definition of God is eternal Supreme Being, uncaused, able to do anything, Creator of all that is seen and unseen by divine fiat.

Posted by: bad Jim | November 11, 2009 10:34 PM

Neil #145, Kurt Vonnegut once commented that the only militaristic vets he knew were the ones who had never been in combat. I wonder how your family's experience accords with this.

I'm surprised that so many commenters are surprised that the American Legion and the VFW are right-wing outfits. They were positively loathsome throughout the Cold War.

Posted by: Narc | November 11, 2009 10:36 PM

I say the definition of God is eternal Supreme Being, uncaused, able to do anything, Creator of all that is seen and unseen by divine fiat.

Oh, a monotheist. Thor and Odin are here and would like to have a word with you. I hope you brought hammer-resistant underwear.

Posted by: ded | November 11, 2009 10:38 PM

Lion IRC ,

Don't waste your time on here. Nobody on this site is interested in a civil discussion. People like to play the role.... (angry atheist). Based on the type of responses/insults I usually see on here, the average age/mentality is somewhere in the 16-21 year old range. I peek in from time to time to see what the ol' angry atheists are screaming about. Entertaining stuff.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 11, 2009 10:38 PM

Hi Patricia,
Unlike you I wish no harm to any human being.
I find hatred and fear go together all too often.
I dont hate anyone and I dont fear you.
I have the armour of God. Give it your best shot.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: JHS | November 11, 2009 10:39 PM

The attitude embodied by Mr. Selle is shared by far, far, far too many I fear, particularly within the military, judging from the stuff that has come out over the last 8 years or so. This attitude amounts to, "Sure, freedom of religionblahblahblah We Are a Christian Nation! Christian! CHRISTIAN! WOO! *airhorn* Fuck yeah!"

You are *NOT* upholding or representing the "freedom of religion" when you only embrace the "religion," and not the "freedom."

I and thousands of others have said it before...but where what would Mr. Selle say if a Muslim veterans group wanted to say a prayer before they gave out a scholarship? Where does he stand on markers that reflect the beliefs of Muslim, Hindu, Jain, Wiccan, or (scary!) atheist fallen soldiers? Even if he bit his tongue and professed to accept the former three, I imagine the Wiccan one would give him pause, and the atheist one would send him into a frothing, spitting rage. That's been the reaction to such monuments so far, after all, from good god-fearin', "The is a Christian Nation!" types for years. They're not fighting for "our freedoms," or the Constitution, and certainly not for "freedom of religion." Judging from Mr. Selle, soldiers and military leaders of his bent are fighting for the freedom to accept Jesus or STFU and die. They're not fighting for America. They're fighting for the twisted Christianist caliphate in the minds.

The video that made the rounds during the No on 1 campaign in Maine summed up what I think it means to fight for America (which, I freely admit, I have not, and I salute and thank those who have selflessly and for nonideological reasons). The gist of the elderly veteran's statement was, "I fought in WWII for freedom, and that means freedom for everyone." In that context it meant freedom for gay and straight American alike, but the meaning is the same when applied broadly...if you're not fighting for America -- for all of us, black white, gay, straight, Christian, atheist, Rastafarian, whatever -- you're only fighting for yourself. There's no honor in that.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 10:43 PM

I have the armour of God. Give it your best shot.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 10:45 PM

Could Canada's "National Guard" handle a theocratic Christian States of America, bent on converting everyone or destroying them if they don't?

I find the latter to be a far more sensible solution, because the former will just result in an endless progression of ever more powerful potential enemies.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 10:49 PM

I wonder how much you actually know about the history of the crusades. As with a lot of things dealing with Christianity, I'll bet not much.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 11, 2009 10:54 PM

Unlike you I wish no harm to any human being.

Ban this fucker! Ban this fucker now!

Posted by: bad Jim | November 11, 2009 11:00 PM

So many insipid arguments for the existence of a god are rooted in the classical Greeks' incomprehension and horror of infinity, unable

To see a World in a Grain of Sand, And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.

Perhaps it was because so few of them could carry out simple arithmetic, due perhaps to their cumbersome use of letters for numerals (666 as an anagram for Caesar Nero, for example).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 11:03 PM

Cowardly Lyin' Lion has at least made a claim. Now comes the fun part, where without his babble, he must provide evidence for his deity, in whatever final form he decides on. I bet a tankard of three day old grog he keeps using a presupposition argument, even though all presuppositional arguments are false.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 11, 2009 11:06 PM

PZ, if you're reading this please consider binning this dickhead.

Agreed. The best part of Cowardly Lying Lion IRC definitely ran down his daddy's leg.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 11, 2009 11:08 PM

Hi PZ Myers,
Glad to hear my reply to Sastra passed the god-botting test.
Sorry if my comment to Patricia didnt. However, in my defense I would have to draw your attention to the fact that she drew first blood, so to speak, with her assumption that souls exist and that her magical powers were strong enough to suck etc etc."
I know a way we could test whether the armour works - whether God made it and blessed it or not.
Let Patricia and me do a little experiment.
Good night.
Lion (IRC)
PS - You'll probably call the armour of God a placebo right?

Posted by: Casey | November 11, 2009 11:12 PM

Lion, I'm going to assume you are a Christian. What is the reason to believe in Yahweh and not Allah? Why not Krishna? In other words, do you have a reason for believing Christianity is true when other religions are not, and, if so, what is/are your reason(s)?

Posted by: Sastra | November 11, 2009 11:13 PM

Janine the Ineffable OM #186 wrote:

Sastra, that insufferable fool said the Patricia wants to hurt people while he does not. He meant it.

I think that's because he took Patricia's post at #154 quite literally.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 11, 2009 11:14 PM

Lion, please just fuck off. You are an amazingly self righteous, self important and boring twit.

Your arguments are so lame it's embarrassing.

armor of god,

good grief

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 11, 2009 11:16 PM

PS - You'll probably call the armour of God a placebo right?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 11, 2009 11:17 PM

Sorry if my comment to Patricia didnt. However, in my defense...blah, blah, blah, fucking blah.

How much slime does your skin exude in a twenty four hour period?

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 11, 2009 11:20 PM

Just for the commenters who don't play D&D, the Armour of God gives +6 protection against Information Rays, Tinctures of Reason, and can act as an Apotheosis Chrysalis for level 10 Paladins, or level 6 Clerics. However, it is susceptible to spells like Appearance of Buffoonery, and the Incantation of Morloch, which paints the victim in an embarassing light. Unfortunately, the Armour of God is also susceptible to attacks using all weapons, real or imaginary.

I just launched a wicked Psychometabolic Suffusion of Wisdom at L-IRC. Damn! Deflected by the armor!

For those with D&D chops, note that this isn't the same as the Libby Armour of God.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 11, 2009 11:22 PM

Sastra - I ment to kick the Lying Lion in the teeth. That isn't especially your way, but it is mine. ;)

Posted by: Sastra | November 11, 2009 11:27 PM

Lion IRC #178 wrote:

Sastra asked me a question.
I answered.
So far so good.

Yes. And then a followup question (or series of questions) at #164. Thanks.

Lion IRC #187 wrote:

Good night.

Uh oh.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 11, 2009 11:27 PM

Hey, folks, look--we're getting to see real Christian humility in action!

Oh, wait, it's just your everyday Christian spewing a word salad pretending to be an apology. What's new?

Posted by: Richard from Red Deer | November 11, 2009 11:30 PM

Lion IRC writes

"I know a way we could test whether the armour works - whether God made it and blessed it or not.

It is easy to be brave from a distance.

"PS - You'll probably call the armour of God a placebo right?"

Not at all. The placebo effect is a real phenomena. There is no such evidence with god.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | November 11, 2009 11:31 PM

...Creator of all that is seen and unseen by divine fiat.

God drives small Italian car?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 11, 2009 11:39 PM

However, that is a different question from that posed by rufustfirefly @ 131 and I think that many cannot un-conflate the two.

It was only after that that war was mentioned. And a wartime army* is (or should be) something temporarily huge enough to do the job of winning, but then be pared back to absolute minimum. A huge standing army begs to be used as an invasion force, forces others to scale up their armies, and can become EXTREMELY dangerous in the wrong hands, as every military coup in history has aptly demonstrated. OTOH, a well trained semi-civilian force cannot be used for any of those purposes.

*And this of course doesn't even touch on the fact that war should only ever be a last resort. Even WWII was nothing but a massive diplomacy fail. And I'm not talking about Chamberlain, but rather about the fact that the European** half of that war would have never happened if post WWI politics hadn't been so punitive and antagonistic. Some countries, especially France, have learned that lesson and have changed their tactics from vengeful punishment to reconciliation, reconstruction and reaching out in friendship; and as a result, for the first time since the two entities came into being, a war between Germany and France has become unthinkable. OTOH, other countries, especially the U.S., have not only forgotten that lesson, but are stubbornly refusing to relearn it; nationbuilding has become a dirty word, and reaching out in reconciliation is interpreted as appearing weak to the enemy. With that attitude, there WILL be more wars until the U.S. falls or until they finally stop ignoring history's lessons.

**I don't know shit about pre-WWII politics in and around Japan, so I don't know the dynamics that led to their participation in the war.

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 11, 2009 11:42 PM

jimmyraybob wrote:

In general, America has rejected Christian/Biblical military principles, for instance the unmitigated slaughter of whole towns and villages for the sins of the few.

Quite. You'd never find Yahweh punishing many for the sins of a few, or aiding and abetting his chosen people in the unmitigated slaughter of whole towns and villages.

Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | November 11, 2009 11:54 PM

I am not very nice. I'm one of the most black hearted foulest bitches ever to haunt the internet.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable | November 11, 2009 11:56 PM

Casey, this will give you some idea of the illogical nature of the arguments our e coli of everlasting love would spew out.

Posted by: bad Jim | November 11, 2009 11:59 PM

Thank you, MadScientist. I suspected as much, but my father and grandfather, both veterans, were never in combat (nor particularly hawkish), and neither were most of my Vietnam-era cohort, so I never heard a proximate opinion on that claim.

mgshamster #208, thanks both for your service and your comment, and congratulations on your progress and your attitude.

Posted by: kopd | November 12, 2009 12:10 AM

@ Danny Stevens

Excellent point. It seems the only principles that most (can't even say all) Christians have in common are indistinguishable from any other religious or non-religious group. They can't even agree on a definition of "Christian."

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 12, 2009 12:25 AM

Hi Casey -I was actually saying goodnight to PZ Myers. I wont be going to bed for another 6 - 7 hours.
Sastra asked me - a monotheist about my definition of God.
It is true that there are many (millions?) of other perceptions of divinity. But I would suggest to atheists (like those at godfinder.org) that they take care when emphasising this fact. It seems counter-intuitive to start a case against theism by pointing out how universally it is practiced. Argument ad populum? Yep. Well spotted.
1 persons experience of divinity is an anecdote. 1000 accounts = raw data.

Hi Aratina Cage - I dont need to frame MR Hitchens as anything. If YOU think he did "not make enlightened pronouncements" about it I will let you have the last word.

Hi Richard from Red Deer - The placebo effect is real! Mind over matter! Power of prayer/meditation! Sounds really eerie. Sends shivers down my spine. Preach it Bro!

Hi Sastra - I dont doubt your bona fides in asking questions. Did I mention I am grateful for the chance to answer? I think a being which created something has free will, volition - a “mind” and choice/values/desires/intent seem to be concomitant. If God was just another name for something different which we already have names for I would say someone should take away our naming priveledges. I did say I thought God could do anything so that answers your question could God exist and choose not to create anything and could God evolve within or transcendent to nature if God wanted to – yes.
Of course there are many differences between various theists. 4 blind men feeling an elephant might all describe a different creature. Islam and Christianity have serious differences but when you put them side by side and compare them to atheism – they may as well be identical religions.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | November 12, 2009 12:31 AM

Islam and Christianity have serious differences but when you put them side by side and compare them to atheism – they may as well be identical religions.

I'd so love you te feed that bullshit face to face with an Islamic fundamentalist. You'd need your fucking "Armour of God" then I tell you.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 1:19 AM

Lion IRC,

It seems counter-intuitive to start a case against theism by pointing out how universally it is practiced.

Not only counter-intuitive but fallacious.

1 persons experience of divinity is an anecdote. 1000 accounts = raw data.

It's raw data of some experience, but not evidence of God. Well, not anymore than millions of people having a dream that they are back in high school and didn't study for a test is evidence for time travel.

4 blind men feeling an elephant might all describe a different creature

A better analogy is each royal subject describing the emperor's new clothes differently.

Posted by: DemetriusOfPharos | November 12, 2009 1:24 AM

@ Antiochus Epiphanes
Aww, dammit, you beat me to the attributes joke.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 12, 2009 1:30 AM

Timothy Vogel #70

As for science, she apparently was sleeping in that class, too; technically, we're not monkeys we are anthropoids, we are not cousins to the monkeys, more like their improved former neighbors, since monkeys went their way and anthropoids went "our" way more than (arguably) 55 million years ago!

Anthropoids include monkeys. The taxonomic group you're looking for is hominoids, the apes and us. We are indeed cousins to the monkeys (monkeys, of course being a paraphyletic group). New World monkeys, platyrrhines, branched from the catarrhines, Old World monkeys, apes, and humans, only 40 million years ago. Catarrhines split into cercopithecoids, Old World Monkeys, and hominoids, apes and humans, about 25 million years ago. Hominoids split into hylobatids, gibbons and siamangs, and hominids, great apes and humans, about 18-15 million years ago.

55 million years ago there weren't any anthropoids. Hell, there were barely any primates and all existing primates were strepsirrhines like lemurs and lorises today. If you're going to criticize someone's understanding of human evolution, maybe you should learn about it.

BTW No one talks about "improved" relatives anymore. The idea of evolutionary grades went out years ago.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 12, 2009 1:38 AM

oops, John Harshman corrected that little piece already...sorry for the redundancy.

Posted by: Mack | November 12, 2009 1:50 AM

The Armor of God is going to be available in Diablo 3, along with the Helm of Misinformation, the Earrings of Deafness and the Neckplate of Confusion.
And it's not counterintuitive to point out the fallibility of theism by pointing out how universally it's practiced, because the point there is that literally millions of people each have their own interpretation of divinity. If there really is a large man lurking about in the clouds in a robe and winged sandals, or even a large noodley creature, wouldn't it be in his/her/its best interests to give people a better idea of what they're supposed to be worshiping?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 1:56 AM

Hi, Lion IRC!

Hi Aratina Cage - I dont need to frame MR Hitchens as anything. If YOU think he did "not make enlightened pronouncements" about it I will let you have the last word.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 12, 2009 2:04 AM

A few days ago I spotted a Jeebus Fish with "police" inside the fish. Most of the possible meanings worry me and for the same reasons as a christinsane military.

I think you may have seen a reference to a fairly obscure comic/cartoon. I'm pretty sure that it's tongue-in-cheek, much like the ones that say "N'chips" or "Gefilte" inside.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 2:20 AM

Armor of God Pajamas!!!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 2:34 AM

"One morning I once shot an elephant in my Armor of God pajamas. How it got into my Armor of God pajamas I'll never know."

}8[/

(that's suppose to be a Groucho Marx emoticon)

Posted by: Islander | November 12, 2009 2:52 AM

The Hitchens interview Lion posted was hilarious! I'm going to use some of those answers the next time someone tries to play the 10 commandments game with me.

Interviewer: Have you ever lusted?

Hitchens: All the time.

Interviewer: So you've committed adultery, then, sir?

Hitchens: None of your fucking business.

Interviewer: Well, how do you think you're doing with the test so far?

Hitchens: Who gives a shit?

Posted by: sdej | November 12, 2009 2:58 AM

I'd so love you te feed that bullshit face to face with an Islamic fundamentalist. You'd need your fucking "Armour of God" then I tell you.

Since I work in a military hospital in Baghdad, I've seen how much good the "Armor of God" does when confronted with fundamentalism. I'll stick with my IOTV, thank you very much.

I appreciate all of the thanks from the various posters and have no problem with most of the criticisms that have been directed against the military in general. However, for folks like Zifnab, please try to avoid tarring all of us who serve with the same brush. You don't know why I'm here and you don't know what it is that I do here.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 3:14 AM

I have the armour of God. Give it your best shot.

Like Lion IRC to bring medieval equipment to a gunfight.

Well, Lyin', I have the rocket launcher of reason!!!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Buffy214.jpg
_ _ _

Judge: You're a fool. No weapon forged can stop me.
Buffy: That was then.

Xander hands her the weapon from the box, and she raises the anti-tank rocket launcher to her shoulder.

Buffy: This is now.

She powers it on. Angel and Drusilla leap over the stair railing.

Judge: What's that do?
_ _ _

/brain fried from too much information (theory)

Posted by: Utakata | November 12, 2009 3:26 AM

@ Lion IRC

"I have the armour of God. Give it your best shot."

I have the armour of reason. Care to establish your claim?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 3:39 AM

Islam and Christianity have serious differences but when you put them side by side and compare them to atheism

Best description I ever heard of the Abrahamic religions:

"Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament is the sequel. The Qu'ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There's still Jesus, but he's not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn't shown up yet.

Jews like the first movie but ignored the sequels, Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third movie doesn't count, Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much they startred writing fanfiction that doesn't fit with ANY of the series canon."

http://cdn.imageonto.com/pictures/1251633343-GyddD.png

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/ketzerischst#c2189 | November 12, 2009 4:10 AM

after serving 22 years on active duty (still in), i emphatically say that we need to fight these bigots in the military just as hard-if not harder-as we need to fight them in the civilian world. they spread irrationality like a disease.

Posted by: John Morales | November 12, 2009 4:13 AM

Hey, this is fun!

Harness of Hypocrisy.

Posted by: magistramorous | November 12, 2009 4:29 AM

It's worse than that where I work. Not only do they pray at company meetings (whatever happened to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?), they also bought a creation science museum. Furthermore, they considered me guilty of creating a hostile work environment when I emailed people about a Darwin exhibit and, additionally, implied that I was guilty of "ideological solicitation" and of being unprofessional. I do admit to having gotten a little carried away and broken company policy in using company resources to spread the message, but I don't believe that my message had the effect of creating a hostile environment and I certainly don't believe that evolution is an ideology! I've pretty much squandered whatever free speech I had, though, so I won't be doing much more evangelizing for science at that place for a while and, even then, I have to be extra careful not to break company policy again.

I could still write letters to the editor, however, protest at the museum, and appear at college campuses in the area, all of which I plan on doing in the near future, especially with the sesquicentennial of Darwin's groundbreaking book coming up. Wish me luck.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 12, 2009 5:01 AM

The speculum of sophistry?

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | November 12, 2009 5:18 AM

Bad news for any Midianites, then :(

Posted by: kiki | November 12, 2009 5:22 AM

I know people have already done the redundancy thing, but what if a military base was based on Christian-based principles? Or if the most fundamental, essential personnel on the base - the 'base' of the base, if you will - were based on the same basis?

Of course, we all know that 'Christian-based principles' are basically pretty base.

On a side note, if you had a pathology related to large, multi-building compounds, you'd have a complex complex. If it was related to particularly complicated and sprawling examples of such sites, it would be a complex complex complex. If it was a particularly deep-seated and intractable pathology, it would be a complex complex complex complex. But you could always go and have it treated at the complex complex complex complex complex. Of course, you might develop a pathology about that place too...

Posted by: Skunk Ape | November 12, 2009 5:38 AM

Obviously the military is based on christian principles. Just the other day I was yelled at for sitting down during a prayer at a graduation ceremony for one of the ridiculous amounts of classes the army has. So when my First Sergeant asked me why I did that, I explained that I was an atheist and it was my little protest in support of the separation of church and state. He then asked me "So, how can you be an atheist and be in the military?"
"Simple, First Sergeant, I'm an American..."
Well anyway, I have 28 days until I am no longer serving in the military. After six years, three of which were spent working directly under an evangelical christian (who happens to be a young earth creationist), I'm glad to be getting out.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 5:56 AM

We don't have the luxury of taking a year or more to spin up a large enough Army to engage in combat. - Paul Weaver

The prospect of a large-scale attack on the USA is remote. If it could not launch a war in less than a year, the USA would not have military bases around the world, or get involved in wars that are completely unnecessary from the point of view of defence, but serve the interests of what that well-known commie Dwight D. Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex", and more generally of big business. The vast amounts of money saved would enable the budget to be balanced, and more.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 6:07 AM

I remember catching a bit of one of those "follow the army around" documentaries on training.

I watched a practice attempt at taking over an enemy base. One of the "enemy" surrendered, but instead of being taken prisoner was shot dead by one of the "good" guys. I think it was kinda from overexcitement. The guy was told basically that that was wrong and should not do it again. It wasn't really much of a dressing down to say he just killed an unarmed man.
A little later one of the team forgot to say "yes SIR" or somesuch. He was bollocked for almost a full 2 minutes, full on insults and shouting in his face over this terrible misdemenour.

One of the other team had trained in psychology previously. He was told by his superior in front of everyone including the cameras to give an evaluation of how mentally great and tough said superior was.

The bits I saw of this program left me cold. What is funny is how much it reminded me of religion.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 6:35 AM

It seems counter-intuitive to start a case against theism by pointing out how universally(inconsistently) it is practiced.

Actually it shows that millions of people are doing it wrong (in fact no-one may be doing it right). Unless Lion is proposing that you can worship "the creator" any way you like. But then remind me why that would make Jesus special or necessary then.

Posted by: tsig0 | November 12, 2009 6:40 AM

The Jock Strap of Stupidity

The Boots of Buggery

The Panties of Penance

The Spectacles of Superstition

Ok I'll save some for the rest.

Posted by: Islander | November 12, 2009 6:47 AM

The condom of imbecility

Posted by: Walton | November 12, 2009 7:03 AM

Jadehawk et al., regarding the discussion above concerning defence policy (a major area of interest for me):

What kind of military the US (or any other nation) needs really depends on your political and moral view as to what a national military should be used for. If you are an isolationist, and believe that the military should be used exclusively to defend one's own borders against foreign incursions, then the US military is far bigger than it needs to be, and international force-projection capabilities are unnecessary.

However, from a moral perspective, I don't share that view. While I'm not advocating Iraq-style spontaneous intervention, I would point out that there are several instances in which US, UK and NATO peacekeeping forces have done vital work in stabilising war-torn regions - multinational forces in Yugoslavia, for instance, and the British intervention in Sierra Leone in the 1990s. And while military intervention inevitably causes damage, the human cost of non-intervention can be far higher; we did not intervene to prevent the Rwandan genocide, for instance, and men, women and children were murdered in vast numbers as a result. The failure of the Iraq venture should not blind us to the fact that military intervention is sometimes the morally correct thing to do. And therefore, I think we should maintain the capacity to intervene militarily.

Regarding the draft: I object to conscription, categorically, on moral grounds. While I support and admire the military, and I applaud those who choose to serve, I do not think that a nation-state has a right to force its subjects into its service (whether military or civilian) against their will. Ultimately, most of us do not choose our nationalities but receive them by the accident of birth; patriotism, therefore, should be a voluntary choice and not a compulsory obligation. A nation-state has no a priori right to impose obligations on its unwilling subjects; while it is necessary for states to impose some obligations (such as paying taxes), I would argue that if a government seeks to impose an unreasonable obligation, its subjects are morally entitled to refuse or evade it. Governments certainly do not have any moral right to compel their subjects to fight and die for a cause which they may not support. The draft, therefore, is morally unconscionable in all circumstances. I would also point out that conscript militaries are next-to-useless in modern warfare; in theatres such as Afghanistan, it is essential to have highly-trained, motivated professional soldiers capable of operating in challenging terrain.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 7:22 AM

-The Spectacles of Superstition-

I assume they come with a rose-like tint?

Posted by: Ray Moscow | November 12, 2009 7:31 AM

Having a Christianity-based military is no problem at all as long as Christianity ignores most of what the Jesus of the gospels supposedly taught.

Which has been no problem for them at all since Constantine's reign.

Who would Jesus bomb?

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 12, 2009 7:37 AM

That Lion person should practice random acts of intelligence and senseless acts of self-control.

Also the testicle cups of false bravado

Posted by: strangest brew | November 12, 2009 7:50 AM

#283

"Who would Jesus bomb?"

Commies
Muslims
teh gehs
other xian based cults...them's 'especial'
other world religions in no particular order
atheists
liberals
Socialists
Scientists
All Evilutionists
Obama
teh gheys
Mexicans
Chinese
Native Americans
Dawkins
Hitchens
Dannet
PZed
Most here...but not flatulent pussycat!
Me
oh! and lets not forget ...teh gheys!

And a few others!

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 8:18 AM

-I would point out that there are several instances in which US, UK and NATO peacekeeping forces have done vital work in stabilising war-torn regions -

Does that make them a "force for good in the world" then?

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | November 12, 2009 8:44 AM

#109 H.H.
Yes, it was the DoI, not the Constitution that used the word "Creator". Most people don't understand or distinguish between the two. (Heck, I've seen fundies who believe that Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution! Like, how long does it take you to read a the original document? 15 minutes?)
The Constitution is the legal basis for the role and functions of the government. The DoI was, for all purposes, a "press release" that declared to Britain and the rest of the world, the intentions of the colonies to break away from Britain, and their reasons for doing so.
I suspect (being no historian) that Creator was used in the DoI to counteract the claim, made in every nation and as far back as recorded history, that rulers are appointed by God(s) to rule. Grievances against kingly abuse of power could be swept away by saying "Ah, but the King represents God on Earth and has the right to do as he sees fit. Off with your head!"
The FF were using the prevailing political meme of their time and deliberately (and radically) denying the 'Divine Right of Kings' when they said that the "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". All men, not just kings and nobles.

If the FF were Godboting Christians, why didn't they use this golden opportunity when writing a founding document of a country to clearly declare "We are a nation founded by God and governed by His Son, Jesus"? Many other nations are this explicit in their constitutional documents. Because, as much as it sticks in the craw of theocrats, they DIDN'T actually want to create a Christian nation.

(Sorry if this has been said higher up - running out the door and only had time to read half the thread!)

Posted by: Notagod | November 12, 2009 9:40 AM

The christian, Lion IRC, must have gone to seek the power of Äkräs, the protector of turnips.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 12, 2009 10:01 AM

Lion IRC - It seems counter-intuitive to start a case against theism by pointing out how universally it is practiced.

At some point in history it was probably considered counter-intuitive to start a case against slavery given how universally it was practiced. It seems to be working out fairly well though.

Lion IRC - 1 persons experience of divinity is an anecdote. 1000 accounts = raw data.

But really, doesn't this also cover ghosts and bigfoot and UFOs and fairies? Did I miss something? Were you making a funny?

Posted by: Casey | November 12, 2009 10:09 AM

Hi Lion,

If I'd known you were still on, I would have stayed up. Alas, I went to bed. If you're still around, though - I find the near-universality of religion not to be a good argument in support of atheism so much as an argument against any one religion being right. Most devout people I've known say they know their religion is the right one because they've had a deeply personal experience that tells them so. But then people in a totally different religion have had the same experience which leads them to conclude theirs is the right one. To me, they cancel each other out in terms of whether or not either religion has any claim on truth. And certain other people have deeply emotional/spiritual experiences associated with things like art, music and nature. I think the prevalence of religion really just says something about human nature, emotion, and then culture (culture plays a role in whether a person ascribes her feelings to divinity/religion, and if so, which
religion.)

For instance, your claim to have the "armour of God." How do you know I don't have the armour of God? I'm being serious. It has somethign to do with the nature of God. Positing that there is one, God could be a deity that is seriously pissed with all the time people waste on worship and praying (which I don't do) and wants people to go vegetarian and help animals (which I do). And that's it - that's all God wants. In that case, I'd have the armour of God more than you, I'd say. My point is that the nature of "God" matters. When there's no way of discerning what the nature of "God" is, people do end up just believing what they're told or what they want to believe. I think it's much better to say "I don't know," and to base my actions on reducing human/animal suffering and increasing human/animal happiness. Why involve "God" since there's no way of knowing whether he/she/it exists or what he/she/it wants?

This is all to concede the point that there is one God. If there were multiple gods, which plenty of people have believed throughout history, it would be even more complicated.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 10:20 AM

To 'Tis Himself' and all the rest of you Vietnam war loving American fucking retards, FUCK THE TROOPS. I hope this day after veterans day they are all disemboweled, blown to smithereens, vaporized into their dissociated retard atoms, burnt to a crispy crackly crunch, and their scientifically retard families suffer greatly from the economic woes that the pathetic glorification of YOUR FAIL wars has caused.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Don't worry, your idiotic military lifestyle and your vile glorification of battle is coming to an end real soon now.

Patriotic Americans don't glorify war, they resist and dissent, and refuse to participate in your inane shit.

Go fuck yourself 'tis himself'. You aren't an American, you are a pathetic piece of human shit.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 10:34 AM

retard families suffer greatly from the economic woes that the pathetic glorification of YOUR FAIL wars has caused.

Nothing to do with the banks and market then?

Don't you just love people that know exactly whats wrong with the world. And how it's always one single thing, but they never give a good way that the matter can be fixed. They just know that it's time to rant and rave about their pet hate. It's almost religious.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 10:48 AM

Actually the armies of this world do nothing for me, neither am i american.

Debt is when you owe to someone else.

Military debt and meteorites have little in common. I suggest treatment with an acredited psychologist.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 10:52 AM

Military debt and meteorites have little in common.

Yeah, like bacteria and humans have little in common.

What a shallow petty thinker you are.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 11:00 AM

-Yeah, like bacteria and humans have little in common.-

Then perhaps you can enlighten me. There are a million minor ways of connecting two disparate things. You will have to be more specific.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 12, 2009 11:08 AM

How 'bout the Thumbscrews of Inspiration?

In Lion IRC's case they would be tightened by the Torque Wrench of Self Defense in a spiraling whirl of feedback that can only be interrupted by removing the Balaclava of Blindness.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 12, 2009 11:17 AM

Wow, Tommy Lee. In your case the Thumbscrews of Inspiration seem to be self actuating.

Add my name to your list of ignorant, hate filled, snot slinging, baby eating supporters of those who choose to serve.

Could I give one of your screws a half turn or so? I'd do it slowly . . .

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 11:24 AM

Add my name to your list of ignorant, hate filled, snot slinging, baby eating supporters of those who choose to serve.

Then serve me you subserviant fuck. I'll look for your name on some future black wall glorifying another of your failed wars, and the unpayable debt and tragedy they have wrought.

Your horribly expensive murderous and unproductive failed wars that you will no doubt glorify at some future Harley Davidson rallies with the rest of your fat balding retarded buddies.

Your children will no doubt be indoctrinated on the video game so that they too can get their names added to the wall.

War is almost, but not quite, as good as football, no?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 11:31 AM

Thomas Don't forget to play our "Armour of God" game while you're here. Otherwise we will all be terribly disappointed.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 11:37 AM

I have thought.

Deep. Really deep. And profound. I am so moved.

Only dull repetition of unimportant matters hidden in obfuscation.

I guess you missed it then. Let me give you some hints.

Seven billion humans. One planetary surface. A real big universe with real physical forces and real particles.

Now think integrated planetary biosphere. Universal biology.

But you don't care. You've got yours. And if you don't have it, rather than making do with what you have, you'll take it. By force. Like I said, if you can't see the really deep shit you are in, then I can't help you. In fact, I won't.

It's so entertaining watching you flail around unaware.

And besides, I don't post here for your benefit.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 11:49 AM

The Helmet of Hypocrisy? The Gauntlets of Godbotting?

Posted by: John Daugherty | November 12, 2009 11:53 AM

#159 "I'm surprised that so many commenters are surprised that the American Legion and the VFW are right-wing outfits. They were positively loathsome throughout the Cold War."

People seem to have forgotten about the VFW involvement in incidences like the Peekskill Riots.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 12, 2009 12:00 PM

"God, The Army, Your Unit, Your Fellow Soldiers, and Your Family"

...Am I the only one who thinks this should be spun around backwards? I am always appalled to see they put God above your family.

Posted by: John Harshman | November 12, 2009 12:02 PM

Knockgoats:

Is there an "official" taxonomy above genus level?

None, either above or below. At most, there are rules (the ICZN) about what names are or are not permissible, and what names take priority over others when referring to particular groups. Beyond that, taxonomy is a matter of personal taste. (Though the underlying tree isn't, of course. And that's what really matters.)

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 12, 2009 12:19 PM

I'm thinking Thomas Lee is pissed he can't get into NASA. Unsurprising if you read his moronic web page, although he offers a kind of Cosmos Declaration of Independance, i think he's also trying to build his own University and has a strange fixation with lasers .. heh

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them together, and then to assume that among the powers of the cosmos, which the laws of nature have delivered to them, a decent respect for the opinions of humanity requires that they should declare those causes and reasons which impel them to this separation.

Posted by: Qwerty | November 12, 2009 12:25 PM

From a Greg Laden post:

(I won't mention that the VFW is for vets who were more likely in combat in foreign wars, and the Am. Legion is for the other vets. So most of them were not really fighting in a war. Or at least that's how it was back when my war-hero father was the president of the local VFW)

This is incorrect as any veteran who received a medal for service in a foreign country may join the VFW. He/she do not have to be combantants. And naval personnel may also join if they contact the VFW and meet certain requirements.

I served in the Navy and was a cook at a naval hospital outside of Da Nang which makes me eligible as I received a medal for this service in a foreign country. I did not fire a weapon of any kind nor faced any combat situation during my 50 weeeks in Vietnam. (Hey, I got there a week late and they let me leave a week early.)

For the American Legion, anyone who served during war time (within specified dates which are listed at their website)
may join. So, again, there are a mixture of combantants and non-combantants in the American Legion as well as the VFW.

Most veterans groups (there are several more) are founded as fraternal groups and work to help either veterans receive their benefits or they may (as the Bloomington group) help in the local communities.

Posted by: Sven | November 12, 2009 12:42 PM

As an atheist, I am a member of both the American Legion and the VFW and am getting ready for my second tour to Iraq, my third overall. I have no problem with their religious aspects, but in a secular setting, it isn't the most appropriate thing to do.

On a side, the old adage "there are no atheists in fox holes" is provably wrong as I have taken direct and indirect fire on many occasions and did not once pray to anybody's god. I certainly thought about my significant other, family, and friends, but no god or supernatural thing ever crossed my mind.

Posted by: Mr T | November 12, 2009 12:51 PM

Elifritz: Your long, incoherent rants cause others (if not also yourself) to waste time on their computers, thereby burning hydrocarbons, as well as sapping and impurifying our precious bodily fluids. I suggest you crawl back to your cave before us retards spend more energy telling you why you're incredibly presumptuous and annoying.

Posted by: Woman | November 12, 2009 1:15 PM

@ Sven...

Really? Blowing up things is what allows us to hold and express our dissenting opinions?
I thought it was the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!
How silly of me!

Posted by: Fielder | November 12, 2009 1:21 PM

@Sven

Since you've been to War College, how about running the logistics for us on how any other country or alliance on the face of the Earth would be able invade the United States and bring down our way of life. Feel free to list the staging points, and explain why a US military half the size would be unable to disrupt and stop them.

By "way of life", I assume you mean consume 25% of the world's resources with 5% of the world's population.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 1:27 PM

this jackass has to come along an ruin it. Very well.

Awe, did I ruin your little game of politically correct?

you are simply not a patriotic American because you are a complete fucking moron, and I'm afraid the two are mutually exclusive.

Can you quantify that for me in SI units of morons?

Do you even know what an SI unit is?

Posted by: snurp | November 12, 2009 1:28 PM

The accumulated filth of all our wars and murder will foam up around our wastes and all we corporate whores and military-industrial complex politicians will look up and shout "Save us! No, seriously, Thomas, explain your simple plan to save the world. It'd be really nice if you'd deign to help out. We're dying out here!" ...And he'll whisper, "No."

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 1:45 PM

Your blowing things up in little metal cylinders in the direction of Iraqis has no bearing on my freedoms. - Paul

Well, except insofar as a nice foreign war always makes a good excuse for restricting them!

The fact that Thomas Lee Elifritz is a fruitcake does not mean that the hypertrophied US military is a good thing, or that those who volunteer to serve in it have done something praiseworthy.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 1:52 PM

Thomas, you are on a "science" blog collection. Half the people on this site are scientists. Trust me, you can play around here to your hearts content and never have to discuss what you don't like.

You also haven't played "Armour of God" yet. Shame on you.

Sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes it just happens. Sometimes fuckwit presidents get into power because of religious nutcases and decides war would be great for the poll ratings.
Our satellite system was pretty much designed for use in war as far as I remember. Along with quite a few other things, atomic energy for one. Please don't rant about how atomic energy is bad or evil please. It's a double edged sword as are most things.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 12, 2009 2:03 PM

Is it just me or does Thomas' webpage just show as an index of items. I mean it's far better than the flashing, colourful wonderment that we are used to, but still...

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 12, 2009 2:16 PM

re: Paul Weaver @ #268:

And I'd hardly call us "bloated" - if anything, we're too small.

re: Walton @ #279

as has been already hinted at, the "good" that the U.S. military does in the world is far outweighed by the bad that it does in the same way that all its hospitals and orphanages cannot make up for the evil that the RCC spreads.

As far as international engagement is concerned, I have two things to say. For one, wars don't magically and unexpectedly break out without warning. A war is always a failure of diplomacy, but international diplomacy is rarely or never used until a conflict already breaks out. A bit of pre-emptive diplomacy would go a long way to preventing wars and to preventing the circumstances in which they flare up. Two, the track record of organizations like the Peace Corps is worlds better than that of any military. Better yet are organizations that simply support the work of locally existing efforts instead of ones that presume to impose themselves on the poor, clueless "savages". The "white man's burden" is a racist lie.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 2:27 PM

So a question now that I've caught up: how are you defining industrialization and how do you perceive your future scientific establishment proceeding without it?

I define industrialization as the excess of population of humans beyond the commonly agreed upon sustainable level.

It's easy to measure - atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. You burn carbon to sustain a large population by modern agricultural techniques, industrialized agriculture, the green revolution, call it what you will. Military industrialization is merely a parasite of that endeavor.

A huge blood sucking parasite, but a parasite nevertheless, although the host already has been zombified with all its brains sucked out long ago by religion and media propaganda.

Now, clearly sustainability is determined by solar irradiance and tillable surface area. Solar irradiance is more than adequate to power hundreds of human civilizations, so that's not a problem, the problem is energy conversion and of course, tillable surface area. So how do you solve these problems? You implement a rational educational policy to create scientists to do the necessary physics and engineering, and you create soil, by sequestering carbon, by growing trees and composting leaves, or some other preferably natural technique short of the industrial processes now demanded by seven billion human beings that now live on a planet that can support a billion or two.

I live in the land of plenty, so by experience I have determined that deciduous leaf composting and suitable superinsulated (polystyrene foam and concrete or rock or whatever you want) earth bermed or earth sheltered construction techniques, low power electronics and solar hot water can bring your carbon usage almost to zero, and with abundant worm castings all you need is a clearing in the trees to produce crops. So the solution depends on motive power for agriculture and electricity for solar cell and concentrator fabrication factories. With a billion humans on the planet and all of archived knowledge at your disposal, the need for a massive scientific establishment is not necessary, I expect it will become more of a hobby.

So the problem really reduces to reducing population (education and latex - problem solved) and then doing the necessary physics and engineering of low cost low mass easily fabricated solar energy conversion devices, concrete or rock fabrication technologies, plastic foam insulation and then reducing atmospheric carbon concentration to a level of 300 to 320 ppm by sequestration into carbon products. I can think of many. Cellulose. Trees. Wood. Tree leaf compost. Limestone. Cement (with sequestered output). Plastics (buried into the soil as insulation where they belong, not in landfills and the ocean), etc.

Industrialization doesn't have to cease, it just has to be controlled, you know, the evil socialism thing. Carbon is everywhere, and carbon, like wood, is too valuable to burn.

The militarization problem is entirely separate from this, but clearly better education could solve this problem. In lieu of that you have no choice but to compete with greater nations than yours, in space, and on the surface of Earth.

America, as it stands now, will lose handily.

You want religious and militant zombies? They're easy as hell to create, just start with babies and in twenty years you go them by the billions. You want critically thinking individualists and productive members of society? Easy too.

You want rugged individualists? Easy. Reduce population.

Your choice. But to deny the problem of the religious nature of national militancy (of the US or otherwise) is only going to make your problems much much worse. An atheist soldier is on oxymoron in my opinion, as the comments here demonstrate.

That's the topic of this thread as I recall. Clearly I have outlined the basic relationships of my general hypothesis.

Take it or leave it, I care not. I'm only trying to help, because judging some of the comments here, you sure need it.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 12, 2009 2:45 PM

By the by...Tommy seems a jolly chap!

Well... "jolly" would be one way of putting it!

When I click on his name now I get a directory rather than a homepage, but the website he used to link to back when I "knew" him on a couple of (now defunct) space policy discussion fora was Time-Cube-class crazy. Something about colors and harmonics, IIRC. As near as I can tell (but I confess, it's hard to get very near to a sensible understanding of his position), he thinks that essentially any human activity whatsoever that doesn't involve launching LOX-hydrogen fueled rockets is morally reprehensible.

What any of that has to do with anything PZ ever posts here, I cannot see. The strange thing is that if it were possible to distill his ramblings down to some collection of rational positions, I half suspect I'd agree with most of them. Go figure, eh?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 12, 2009 3:16 PM

The strange thing is that if it were possible to distill his ramblings down to some collection of rational positions, I half suspect I'd agree with most of them. Go figure, eh?

Funny, Bill, I was just having a similar train of thought. Just goes to show the extent to which disparate, opposing ideas can be wrestled into seeming congruity inside a single human mind. Why, I've done it myself.

*gone figuring*

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 3:48 PM

I mean, the totality of all the scientists and technicians involved with NASA (over 18,000 people) just don't seem capable of equaling or surpassing the *amazing* Thomas Lee Elifritz. Wow!

Oh great. Another idiotic American Ares I supporter.

Did the koolaide taste good? Couldn't you smell the shit?

Here is something that OTHERS might find useful :

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Not you, though, you've got the Ares I to get you to 'Mars'.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 12, 2009 4:29 PM

Thomas Lee Elifritz, please tell your physician that your prescription needs upping, as you're still having the delusions.

I am always amused by the sad, lonely wretches who act as though their misunderstanding of some science websites has somehow increased their intelligence, discernment, wisdom, etc. Their "revelations" of "ground-breaking" (or earth-shattering, whatever) new harmonics/principles/whatever always show a laughable lack of understanding about the subjects they purport astounding "expertise" in.

Of course, I don't suggest they be allowed to handle sharp instruments . . .

Really, you just need to get laid. With another human. An alive, adult, sapient, conscious, consenting, uncoerced human. That would solve your little problem.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 12, 2009 4:41 PM

I take it that Lion Irk hasn't made a reappearance to prove to us that not only does god exist but is his favorite pet god (accept no substitutes).

Posted by: Paul | November 12, 2009 5:16 PM

Debate is healthy, and some people do learn and grow.

We'll believe that when you leave Libertarianism behind. The only growing you've appeared to do is drop magical thinking that originates with a deity. Other magical thinking stays in place.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 12, 2009 5:25 PM

We'll believe that when you leave Libertarianism behind. The only growing you've appeared to do is drop magical thinking that originates with a deity. Other magical thinking stays in place.

Give him 2-5 more years, and he'll let go of that silliness altogether ;-)

Posted by: WRMartin | November 12, 2009 6:11 PM

Thomas,
Please for the love of whatever you hold dear, take your medication. I am not a doctor and this should not be taken as medical advice but you might want to seriously consider taking 2 or 3 doses all at once - probably with a light meal - and go lie down somewhere dark and quiet until the demons or whatever have taken over your brain leave.

Now, back to Armor of God, the Home Game...
Flogger of fuckwittery
or
Gag of God-botting
or
Urethral Sound of Sophistry

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 12, 2009 6:20 PM

The game:

The Presupposed Penis
The Mouth of Manure

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 6:39 PM

Walton has pretty much turned into a LINO.

Not even that. On a recent thread he wrote that he wasn't a libertarian anymore. I guess the 'I'm a libertarian who believes the gov't should have a strong military, provide aid to the less fortunate, funding for education, measures for pollution control......' sounded a little silly.

Also,

The tight whities of ignorance
The bra of spiritual support

Posted by: Walton | November 12, 2009 6:49 PM

Jadehawk,

Walton has pretty much turned into a LINO.

Well, I'd say "Gladstonian/classical liberal" is perhaps a better label for me than "libertarian". The epithet "libertarian" encompasses the views of many ideological wingnuts with no connection to reality, such as Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand; and orthodox libertarian theory, as I've said elsewhere, tends to be too focused on state coercion and ignores the reality of social and economic coercion. But that isn't really relevant to this thread, so I will refrain from expanding on it further.

He still is massively ignorant

Ignorant about what? I am admittedly completely ignorant of those many complex fields in which I have no training or interest (say, brain surgery or particle physics), but the same is true of most people outside those fields, so I doubt that's what you meant.

I will also be the first to admit that I have very limited life-experience, haven't seen much of the world, and have little or no actual personal experience of most of the matters I discuss. My knowledge of reality is largely academic, not practical. I'm quite young, have led a fairly sheltered life, can't afford to travel extensively, and have never yet held a proper full-time job. But all these things are likely to change with time; and am I the only person here who discusses things of which I have no direct experience?

Posted by: Walton | November 12, 2009 6:55 PM

Fair enough, that was a bit harsh. But I'm a bit wary of "in name only" types, as they tend to shelter the wingnuts (sometimes actively, e.g. Walton and that Monckton fellow).

The fact that I've met Viscount Monckton hardly constitutes "sheltering" him (unless you think I ought to have poured food all over his shirt as a protest against his views, or something). While he is a very clever man, he has a distinctly tenuous connection to reality, and is an enthusiastic adherent of various conspiracy theories which I find distinctly implausible. (I can't really elaborate without revealing details of a private conversation, which would be unethical.) In any case, this isn't a thread about Viscount Monckton, and is veering a little off-topic.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 12, 2009 7:03 PM

but one step at a time

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 12, 2009 7:12 PM

In any case, this isn't a thread about Viscount Monckton, and is veering a little off-topic.

It is, so starting making funny names for the pieces of the Armour of God. Like,

The Pauldron of Pomposity
The Visor of Shortsightedness

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 7:24 PM

Lion IRC's suit of armor is almost completed! He'll be so happy when he gets back.

The Girdle of Inept Bleating

Psst. Nobody tell Lion that he might as well don the Fig Leaf of Modesty instead of his armor. It will have about the same amount of protection — if not more. Shhhhhh.....

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 12, 2009 7:31 PM

AC, you say something? Nah, must be the wind...

Posted by: bonze | November 12, 2009 7:43 PM

Hum, thread derailment at #363, leading to intellectual trainwreck.

Libertarian: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Having said that, frankly, I agree with them on a lot of things. On the drug issue, they tend to oppose state involvement in the drug war, which they correctly regard as a form of coercion and deprivation of liberty. You may be surprised to know that some years ago, before there were any independent left journals, I used to write mainly for the Cato Institute journal.

Guess who? C'mon, no fair looking it up!

Posted by: Anti-Theist | November 12, 2009 7:46 PM

This lady is a disgusting POS.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 12, 2009 7:48 PM

Hi Sastra – I think we agree that there are millions of people who have percieved divinity. Not perfect perception, not 20/20 vision, not empirically measured SI unit data but perception sufficient to form the basis of a ….”there must be something” religion. The only circle we would keep going around would be an entirely ancilliary one to - theism versus atheism.
Theism versus atheism is a vastly different debate to catholic versus protestant. Scripture is essential for the latter but we can have the former without it.
You asked me is it possible in theory for God not to exist and I have gotten myself into very hot water with fellow theists for saying – yes it is possible for God to will Himself non-existent. If God could not do that He would be found to have a limitation. Nothing would change my mind that God can do whatever He wants – it’s in His job description. It’s a definitional thing. If God had a Creator or had limitations I would worship the bigger stronger God. Lots of gods all fighting it out? I would worship the winner. That’s the beginning of Monothesm logic. Finally, divine fiat basically means might = right. When Hitchens asks “quo warranto” God could settle the matter with an arm wrestling contest. There are many reasons I worship/love/fear/revere/obey God. One of those reasons is because He is entitled.

Hi Casey – I don’t accept your premise that there is “no way of knowing whether God exists. That’s why logical positivism declined. Its too boring. I think many humans have experienced divinity with sufficient effect to qualify as a means of knowing. If you think there is any connection between God and the afterlife (as I do) one sure “way of knowing” would be to die. Nothing prevents us from doing that. Of course it could be argued that’s not much use if my knowledge can’t be shared with you. Have a look around you at the atheists who wont accept the testimony of someone who experienced/detected divinity. Moreover, there are people who wont believe the testimony of Someone who Died and Came back 3 days later. Strangely, a lot of (factual) people throughout history have themselves been willing to die/martyr themselves rather than disbelieve Jesus’ resurrection.

Hi Tis Himself – Way to go with that clear thinking! Of course the reason I was MIA for 15 hours was because of God. I slept really well.

Hi Britomart – Wanna see what PZ Myers says about people who drop posts trying to get people to stop posting? Terminal hypocrisy?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/we_have_a_military_based_on_ch.php#comment-2067608

Hi Anri – Yes you are late reporting for duty. You deserve a court marshal. So does your drill sergeant. One very legitimate use of bible verses to PROVE something would be if the debate was about whether people like Dawkins are correctly describing the BIBLICAL attributes of God. I understand the bible verses are not accepted by some people as evidence/proof THAT God exists – BUT ……………… I get asked questions about (my understanding of) God. I say God is described in the bible as “xyz” and my opponent legitimately may want to use a different bible verse to challenge me. As I understand the god-botting rule it is intended to restrict people from saying God exists because …Chapter/Verse. Now, you stand corrected (in public) for your (scientific???) “prediction” that “we will not hear anything from Lion along these lines”
Now I must also ask you to show me the questions you have asked me that you feel remain unanswered. I assure you I would love to answer any direct questions you ask.
If you asked them in a thread which I have not subsequently looked at, post them here and I will reply with acknowledgment that I missed the question.
I’m sorry I don’t routinely re-visit every thread to see if someone has asked me a later question. I am also sorry if I miss a question meant for me but overlooked because my (correct) nick isn’t in the opening salutation. I may miss a rhetorical question directed to…”that moron loser scubbag lyn’jirk. I might also miss one along the lines of…”yeah Britomart I wanna ask him that too”. I will (if permitted) remain a regular visitor to pharyngula and naturally you will be able to bring questions which have been missed to my attention whenever you see me. If anyone feels ignored or handicapped by the time lag I visit undernet chat rooms such as #scripture #atheism #apologetics and #bible 3 or 4 times a week or I would be happy to answer emails if your question is THAT big a deal.
Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 12, 2009 7:53 PM

God is described in the bible

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 8:02 PM

You asked me is it possible in theory for God not to exist and I have gotten myself into very hot water with fellow theists for saying – yes it is possible for God to will Himself non-existent. -Lion IRC

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 12, 2009 8:10 PM

I've discovered Thomas's problem

I define industrialization as the excess of population of humans beyond the commonly agreed upon sustainable level.

He doesn't actually know what the words he uses mean. Now it all makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Nebula99 | November 12, 2009 8:17 PM

You know, I'm going to stick my neck way the heck out and agree with Lion here, on a condition. IF he wants to have an evidence-based debate on the existence of God, AND IF quoting the Bible would be useful in that (I don't immediately see how) he should be able to. It's only Godbotting if the Bible is the only source of evidence for your arguments. On the other hand, if Lyin' wants to Godbot, then he still can--but he should and will be banned for it.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 12, 2009 8:17 PM

"God is described in the bible" as any number of unlikeable and contrary personalities. For a primer on this claim see Jack Miles' "God: A Biography".

The Support Hose of Anthropocentrism

Posted by: Feynmaniacc | November 12, 2009 8:26 PM

Lyin' JIRC,

You asked me is it possible in theory for God not to exist and I have gotten myself into very hot water with fellow theists for saying – yes it is possible for God to will Himself non-existent. If God could not do that He would be found to have a limitation. Nothing would change my mind that God can do whatever He wants – it’s in His job description. It’s a definitional thing. If God had a Creator or had limitations I would worship the bigger stronger God. Lots of gods all fighting it out? I would worship the winner. That’s the beginning of Monothesm logic.

***facepalm***

Posted by: Mr T | November 12, 2009 8:33 PM

The Boot Straps of Levitating Shamelessness

Posted by: Casey | November 12, 2009 8:41 PM

Lion - you zeroed in on my statement that there was no way to know whether god exists, which is fine, I guess. But what makes your religion the right one? I repeat: why Yahweh and not Allah? Why Yahweh and not Krishna?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 12, 2009 8:44 PM

As we wait for the next bit of sophistry from Lyin' Irk, how about:

The Sandals of Sanctimony

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 12, 2009 8:52 PM

There is much evidence of Gods existence – some is in the bible. -Lion

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 12, 2009 8:54 PM

He doesn't actually know what the words he uses mean.

I guess you must have missed the request for my 'definition'.

Perhaps you should wiki 'absolutism'. You could also try to wiki historical world population. But I guess you are just too comfortable in your own little world of 'absolute truth'.

Good luck with the soon to be nine billion people on Earth. Also, please don't come crying to me when shit hits the fan.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 12, 2009 9:02 PM

The Prosthesis of Pious Charity, worn by those who lost or were born without a naturally charitable quality.

The Duster of Damned Decent Dogma, useful for self justification when other apologetics are failing.

Oh, On Topic: No, our military is not based upon Christian-based principles. It is based upon battle tested methods for killing the enemy or making him run away; his choice.

Posted by: Sastra | November 12, 2009 9:15 PM

Lion IRC #389 wrote:

You asked me is it possible in theory for God not to exist and I have gotten myself into very hot water with fellow theists for saying – yes it is possible for God to will Himself non-existent.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood the question. I wasn't asking if God could hypothetically will itself into non-existence. I was asking a different question.

Is it possible that God does not exist, after all? In other words, might you be wrong?

And, if that were the case, then what would have to happen, for you to realize that?

But if the answer is 'no,' it is not possible that you could be wrong on this issue -- then are you claiming a divine infallibility?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 12, 2009 9:16 PM

*Grabs popcorn and grog, and awaits the response.*

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 12, 2009 9:29 PM

There is much evidence of Gods the Greek Pantheon's existence – some is in the bible The Odyssey and The Iliad.

How is this statement any different from yours? If it is no different, why do you not worship Zeus?

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 12, 2009 9:32 PM

Casey,
My religion is theism. Yours is atheism.
Atheism doesn’t have an anti-Christian division and an anti-Hindu division and an anti-Islam division does it?
I would argue that God's existence transcends human argument about "what God is like". If a human looks up and says look - Moon = God or Sun = God that doesn’t change what God actually is. How we perceive God is much less relevant than whether we perceive God.
But in order that you don’t think I am deliberately evading the question the reason I am a Christian theist is because I have not found anything superior.
You ask why Jehovah and not Ganesh, Thor, Loki etc. but that is no less quibbling than asking me why Protestant and not Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, LDS, SDA,
And if I was Catholic, you just could keep on drilling down straining at gnats in some attempt to prove what? Why statues in church? Why rosary beads? I find it rather irrelevant that some show reverence to God by covering their head in church and others wouldn’t dream of not taking their hat off in church. We can have the Protestant versus Catholic debate some day but I wouldn’t worry about choice of religion until you decide that rejecting atheism is actually a valid option.
Lion (IRC)
PS - Allah is the arabic word for God. There is only one Monotheistic God. If you want to haggle about the "name" of God we are going to need a blog spot which is a bit more lenient about posting Old/New Testament verses.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 9:39 PM

How we perceive God is much less relevant than whether we perceive God.

Belief in belief.

It's absurd.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 12, 2009 9:42 PM

I would argue that God's existence transcends human argument about "what God is like".

To say that something exists means that that thing has properties--it interacts with the natural universe. Without specifying what the properties of god are, "god" is a meaningless concept. Its not even worth discussing the existence of such a thing (or non-thing)...yet here we are again...

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 12, 2009 9:46 PM

Lion IRC wrote:

If a human looks up and says look - Moon = God or Sun = God that doesn’t change what God actually is.

But that implies that you know what your god is and that it isn't the sun or the moon. How did you come by this knowledge? How did you test/research this hypothesis before arriving at your conlcusion?

Most importantly, how would you know if you were wrong?

We can have the Protestant versus Catholic debate some day but I wouldn’t worry about choice of religion until you decide that rejecting atheism is actually a valid option.

You haven't been paying attention, have you ? 'Rejecting' atheism is a perfectly valid option, and every atheist I've ever encountered has expressed pretty much exactly the same attitude to it as I do - as soon as we're presented with valid evidence and/or a compelling argument for the existence of a god (or gods) then we'll believe that god (or those gods) exist.

We're atheists because we see no reason to believe in gods; much like we're aunicornists, aleprechuanists, aminotaurists and afaerieists. However, you show me a unicorn, a leprechaun, a minotaur or a faerie and I'll quite happily change that in an instant.

Can you match that? Can you describe exactly what it would take for you to change your mind and admit that your god doesn't exist?

Posted by: co | November 12, 2009 9:59 PM

Also, please don't come crying to me when shit hits the fan.

I find it interesting that *anyone* would even consider that.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 12, 2009 10:06 PM

He asked the second guy who answered - God likes creating and watching things grow in His Garden.

Which implies that the second guy has knowledge regarding this god's motivations - how does he come by this knowledge? How does he know that alternative theories (creator god is evil, creator god doesn't care, creator god buggered off after creating and so forth) aren't correct?

Postulating that there is a god who created the universe is one thing; assuming that this god has any specific qualities or exhibits certain behaviours needs to be supported in some manner by evidence or argument.

What is your evidence/argument for believing this of your god, even if we consent to allow you assert that he exists?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself OM | November 12, 2009 10:20 PM

Occam said he preferred the simplicity of the "God done it" explanation

While "God done it" can be expressed in three words, the concept is actually extremely complex. Describe God. Which God? Is it God or gods? How did it get done? What's the evidence that God done it? Can this evidence be falsified? How can we show the explanation isn't given because of ignorance or personal incredulity?

No, Lyin' Irk, your boy Occam is extremely simplistic if he ignores these questions and many more like them.

Posted by: Mr T | November 12, 2009 10:24 PM

Don't say "Hi" to me, dipshit. You're supposed to be busy worshiping. Apparently it's okay if we just go around making shit up, so yep, it's totally legit: I'm now your designated deity. Some policies will be changing in the next several billion years, so you'd better keep on the lookout for that.

Although you know I exist, there is one thing at which the former deity excelled, and which I will uphold: I will not answer your questions, especially meaningless ones like "WHY". This is what Dennett calls a "deepity".

Why not?
Why would there be a who?
A "who" is not an answer to a "why" question, and we can't know "what" this "who" did, or if it exists. Waste your own time with vacuous nonsense, not mine. Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Posted by: Non Edible Nacho | November 12, 2009 10:42 PM

To paraphrase Bill Hicks: "I don't want any godless people hanging around me while I'm killing kids".

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | November 12, 2009 11:16 PM

You asked me is it possible in theory for God not to exist and I have gotten myself into very hot water with fellow theists for saying – yes it is possible for God to will Himself non-existent. If God could not do that He would be found to have a limitation.

But unfortunately for you, Lyin', it is not possible for 'God' to will himself into existence in the first place. The ontological 'proof' and all that sort of thinking should have been flushed away a thousand years ago.

If God had a Creator or had limitations I would worship the bigger stronger God. Lots of gods all fighting it out? I would worship the winner. That’s the beginning of Monothesm logic.

OK, I won't be bothering to read your trash any more. You are just insane and proud of it. Compared to you, at least that Eliftritz chap is concerned about things that actually exist (despite manifesting neurological effects of a rabies-like virus). That's such an absurd admission that maybe it's all been a Poe exercise for you... hang on, didn't Smoggy go quiet about the same time you turned up? Has anyone ever seen them together?

if Lyin' wants to Godbot, then he still can--but he should and will be banned for it.

This reminds me a lot of what I was thinking when Bush and Cheney were so mad keen to torture a bunch of folks. If it's so important and might even save some lives, go ahead and fucking do it BUT every person involved in ordering and carrying it out needs to be tried and convicted for it. Shit, they could even pull out the Presidential pardons after that, but fucking with the law (and being allowed to get away with it by 300 million citizens) is despicable.

I would argue that God's non-existence transcends obviates human argument about "what God is like"

I submit that a Unified Theory of Everything which does NOT include WHY HOW is more complicated than one which does include a WHY not actually a theory at all.

Posted by: Satan | November 12, 2009 11:57 PM

If God had a Creator or had limitations I would worship the bigger stronger God. Lots of gods all fighting it out? I would worship the winner. That’s the beginning of Monothesm logic. Finally, divine fiat basically means might = right.

My dear child. My dear dear child.

You have no idea how happy it makes Me to see you freely confess that you have no interest whatsoever in morality, ethics, goodness, kindness, compassion, agape, or any of that weak nonsense that your co-religionists so often natter on about, and that all you care about is power, and nothing else.

Since I am obviously more powerful than God, I will gladly accept your freely confessed worship of power.

Posted by: windy | November 13, 2009 2:10 AM

Now cutting back in our overseas commitments would ease things to some extent, but so long as we engage in trade world wide we will need to provide security for our shipping, and that means providing security for foreign flag hulls because so much of our trade is carried on them.

Do you actually believe that the US Navy is currently single-handedly responsible for protecting all major shipping lanes around the world? How fucking stupid are you? Or is this another of your alternate histories?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable | November 13, 2009 2:40 AM

Bleh... The pop tart of pomposity is just an other silver fox with better language.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 13, 2009 3:02 AM

Yeah, but Silver Fox was BORING. This guy's a hoot. I mean, "Armour of God" and "it is possible for God to will Himself non-existent"?!

Posted by: Zarquon | November 13, 2009 4:09 AM

The corset of coprolalia
The singlet of stupidity
The bustle of hedgerows

Posted by: RayvenAlandria | November 13, 2009 4:16 AM

My husband is in the Navy. My son recently left the Air Force. We are atheists. This story infuriates me to no end. I'm so angry I cannot even think of a witty reply, I just wish I could kick someone's self-righteous, overly-religious, prejudice ass. I suspect that the percentage of athiests to fairy-tale believers is higher in uniform than it is in the general population and I wish the evangelical assholes among us would stfu! Our military is not *Christian* and idiots like these people show incredible disrespect not only to the people they are trying to violate but to every non-christian who serves this country. Fuckwads.

Posted by: John Morales | November 13, 2009 5:14 AM

[meta]

In the fullness of time, a godbot bleated:

PS - You'll probably call the armour of God a placebo right?

And thus the Armor Of God The Home Game was played — for Pharyngula did know of the Armor Of God, worn by those godbots who visit, yea, and know even of its metaphorical accoutrement, stimulatory items and all kind of miscellany, even unto the cursed items.

.oOo.

Behold!

Armor Of God

1. belt of sophistry
2. breastplate of arrogance
3. shield of obliviousness
4. helmet of amentia
5. sword of inanity
6. Helm of Misinformation
7. Earrings of Deafness
8. Neckplate of Confusion
9. greaves of intellectual dishonesty
10. codpiece of willful ignorance
11. buttplug of credulity
12. cockring of piety
13. Cape of Incessant Dullness
14. nippleclamps of douchebaggery
15. anal beads of condescension
16. Harness of Hypocrisy
17. Headband of Migranes
18. trousers of tithing
19. Armor of God → Armour of Arrogance
20. speculum of sophistry
21. Power Pasties of Pomposity
22. Ghost Dance Shirt
23. Jock Strap of Stupidity
24. Flogger of fuckwittery
25. Gag of God-botting
26. Urethral Sound of Sophistry
27. Boots of Buggery
28. Panties of Penance
29. Baptized Baby-Skin Bible
30. Goal-Post Changing Gauntlets
31. Spectacles of Superstition (rose-like tint)
32. testicle cups of false bravado
33. Mangy Mane of Mendaciousness
34. Thumbscrews of Inspiration (needs Torque Wrench of Self Defense)
35. Balaclava of Blindness
36. jackboots of Jesus
37. Helmet of Hypocrisy
38. Gauntlets of Godbotting
39. The Presupposed Penis
40. The Mouth of Manure
41. pessary of perpetual punishment
42. tight whities of ignorance
43. bra of spiritual support
44. Thong of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
45. The Pants That Be
46. Fig Leaf of Modesty
47. Pauldron of Pomposity
48. Visor of Shortsightedness
49. Limp Wand of Trifle Mongering
50. Girdle of Inept Bleating
51. Pantaloons of Vacant Profundity
52. Untied Shoelaces of Self-Refutation
53. Gimp Mask of Gullibility
54. Pantyhose of Waffle Piddling
55. Gusset of God Gushing
56. Panty of Prudery
57. Waistcoat of Wackery
58. T-shirt of Tepidry
59. Socks of Sophistry
60. The Shoes of Shittiness
61. Knee Pads of Unreasonable Supplication and Surrender
62. Safety Goggles of Enlightenment Reflection
63. The Jock Strap of Uncontrollable Fear of Someone Else's Genitalia Being Abused
64. Support Hose of Anthropocentrism
65. Boot Straps of Levitating Shamelessness
66. Sandals of Sanctimony
67. Cuffs of Cupidity
68. Baldric of Banality
69. Hairsplitting Hatband
70. Shoe Inserts of the Clod Hopper
71. Heel Lifts of the Short Sighted
72. Prosthesis of Pious Charity
73. Duster of Damned Decent Dogma
74. corset of coprolalia
75. singlet of stupidity
76. bustle of hedgerows

--

(In chronological order; may be incomplete)

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 5:34 AM

The belittling belt of unbaptized babies.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 5:45 AM

Ah yes, and the Poncho of Pederastic Pedophilia

Posted by: frozen_midwest | November 13, 2009 5:59 AM

The chainmail of credulous reasoning

The vibrator of venality

The greaves of wrath

Posted by: windy | November 13, 2009 6:04 AM

The Wetsuit of Wickedness

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 13, 2009 6:33 AM

The thing is, even with ALL the accessories, and lets be realistic here, there could be many more, we only need one thing to defeat them all ... a rational mind!

Posted by: Ray Moscow | November 13, 2009 7:22 AM

Jebus: Do not resist an evil person.

Christian military: No problem -- we'll attack the innocent instead.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 7:47 AM

We need:
The skeptical shield of sarcasm
The big pointy stick of science.
Also the robe of ridicule.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 8:05 AM

-Presumably, the more you acquire power, the holier you become.
By this definition, the assumption of power regardless of motive or use leads to righteousness - interesting.-

Doesn't matter to christians. Morality comes from God (most powerful), regardless of the death toll it is good. How could it be any other way? It's like the trinity, even when he's bad, he's good just like even when he's Jesus he's um...not.

I'm also not really sure how Satan could be "more" evil (from my limited human knowing about pain and suffering aspect) than the god they already worship. I mean he might be evil, but he doesn't actually pretend to be good while doing it.

Posted by: Sean | November 13, 2009 8:16 AM

For what it's worth...

A 14 year Navy veteran here. I am currently working for Special Operations Command Europe. (A joint command with all 4 services)

My boss happens to be a Green Beret who is a major league Catholic. Like, takes pilgramages to "holy" spots to view relics, goes to mass twice a week style Catholic.

He also happens to be the most professional, intelligent, thoughtful and tactically proficient officer I've ever met, and would have never known about his Catholicism had I not gone to his home for a social event, looked around his den, and started asking him questions.

Perhaps I'm lucky, or the rare exception, but throughout my career I've met many guys who have suprised me by showing up at the Gym with "Born Again" t-shirts and what not, but who have been able to keep their viewpoints to themselves. In rare situations when things went wrong, the guys who were "serious" xtians with whom I served might have said a prayer to themselves, but as far as I could see used our training and procedures just like I did...

Keep in mind the American Legion is NOT the military. It's a collection of veterans. Mostly veterans from a generation or two ago. The IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America) is much more representative of todays military.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 13, 2009 1:29 PM

Lion IRC, you are confused about what "evidence" means.

Just a reminder:

Allegations are not evidence.
Hearsay is not evidence.
Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.
Personal revelation is not evidence.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
Rumors are not evidence.
Wild speculation is not evidence.
Wishful thinking is not evidence.
Illogical conclusions are not evidence.
Disproved statements are not evidence.
Logical fallacies are not evidence.
Poorly designed/executed experiments are not evidence.
Experiments with inconclusive results are not evidence.
Experiments that are not and cannot be duplicated by others are not evidence.
Dreams are not evidence.
Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence.
Experiments whose methodology is not open for scrutiny are not evidence.
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence.
Information that is only knowable by a privileged few is not evidence.
Information that cannot be falsified is not evidence.
Information that cannot be verified is not evidence.
Information that is ambiguous is not evidence.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 3:10 PM

I like that list. I would also say:

Piles of bad evidence do not equal small amounts of good evidence.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 13, 2009 3:34 PM

Richard Eis, thank you! I would only correct your statement thus:

Piles of bad evidence shit do not not equal small amounts of good evidence.

However, your original statement is utterly correct.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 13, 2009 3:43 PM

Lion IRC wrote:

Hi Wowbagger - Sorry for not asking permission to assert that God exists.

Stop dodging the question. If a god exists, how do you come by any knowledge of what he is or isn't, as you've done upthread? How do you know this knowledge is accurate? How would you know if you were wrong?

Posted by: Mr T | November 13, 2009 4:24 PM

Lion:

I say that I am a created "thing/being" because I am certain that I (along with other things in the universe) have not always existed - therefore I assert the existence of a Creator If someone proved to me that the earth has always existed I would accept that it had no Creator.

Just try to imagine the entire (observable) universe... I know, it's so unimaginably enormous and ancient that I can't do it either. Anyway, start by getting as close as possible to imagining it as you can. What could possibly support the idea that some "being" created everything? Seriously ask yourself that question, and you'll find there is absolutely nothing there to support it. There's no logical necessity for it, nor a single shred of evidence, just nothing. And this being is supposed to be "perfect"??

Furthermore, what could possibly make it even remotely believable that, if there were such a being, it intervened on this tiny planet a couple thousand years ago to inspire the kind of ignorant, hate-filled literature one finds in the Bible? The creator couldn't or wouldn't educate humanity about anything more important? Why would a perfect creator being create an "afterlife"? Couldn't this life have been perfect instead? What about all that BS about omni- this and perfect that?

You simply want to pretend you have some source of absolute power, and some way to know absolutely what is right and wrong. Well, sorry, but you don't. Now grow up and start thinking for a change.

Posted by: Mr T | November 13, 2009 4:47 PM

For lack of a better name (as far as I know, but surely there already is one), I'd put it something like this.

Lucifer's Law: Without evidence for the existence of a god or gods, it is impossible to determine any substantive difference between satanism and monotheism.

Posted by: gr8hands | November 13, 2009 5:26 PM

Sorry, trying to do too many things at one time. We're revolving as well as rotating, but can't feel it.

Then there are those who "feel" weightless inside a plane (like when filming 'Apollo 13'), but clearly they are not, and are merely falling.

Again, can't trust the feelings. Especially when they are not reinforced by the facts. When someone says "I feel the presence of god" No, they don't.

Posted by: Satan | November 13, 2009 8:23 PM

satan (#144) I saw you in a scholarly "who knows the bible better" debate with Jesus in Matthew 4:1-11
Wow you were good the way you quoted those OT verses. Unfortunately, Jesus was better and you got pwned.

Please. Jesus was a candy-ass.

Note also that Jesus is dead and I am not.

I say evil is the opposite of Gods will.

So since God wills that I exist and do what I will, I am not evil and my actions are not evil.

The bible says God cannot lie - specifically it is Gods will not to lie.

The bible says that God does lie, so it must be God's will to lie.

I believe the devil is less intelligent than anyone who chooses God.

Since I do God's will, I have indeed "chosen" God, so I am smarter than you.

I most certainly do believe in human rights

You believe that "might makes right", so clearly, the only human right that you believe in is the right to have power over others.

Posted by: God | November 13, 2009 8:48 PM

I think I see what You did there...

Posted by: Satan | November 13, 2009 8:56 PM

I think I see what You did there...

Any objections?

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 9:18 PM

God, does it give you pleasure that a shit stain on the panties of life like Lion desires to burrow his nose up your ass?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 13, 2009 11:48 PM

To say that because one thing was created - the Creator Universe must have also been created is the ne plus ultra of logical fallacies.

Posted by: Satan | November 14, 2009 12:29 AM

How far back into infinite regression do we have to go before we lose track and say..."where was I?..oh yeah! I remember...who made ME?"

Your parents. Do you hate them, as Jesus commanded?

Heaps of people (WHO ACCEPT GODS AUTHORITY) have haggled with God. Thats not putting God to the test.

Actually, that is exactly what "putting God to the test" means, at least in the context of the verse that Jesus cited.

That verse was Deuteronomy 6:16, which was in turn referencing Exodus 17:1-7. If you turn to that chapter, you will see what is recorded.

Now, the Israelites did indeed accept God's authority, but they were thirsty, and wondered if God had abandoned them. They did not deny God's authority, but tested to see if God was in fact with them -- just as Gideon did.

satan haggles with God too. (See the 1st 4 paragraphs of Job). Why would satan defer to Gods power by haggling for something from God?

Who deferred to God's power? As I pointed out, I am lazy and seek amusement. We made a bet. God, too weak to oppose Me, gave in and accepted the bet.

Human rights only exist because God says humans are equal.

Saying that humans are "equal" does not grant them rights. After all, animals are all equally animals, and have no rights. And humans are far less than animals to both Myself and to God.

No human has "the right" to take another life.

You yourself said that the only might made right; that the only thing that you worshiped was power, and nothing else. Why are you now contradicting yourself?

Human rights can be summed up in doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. That would be true even if Jesus DIDNT say it.

Again you contradict yourself. Might makes right, not any appeal to the effects of actions on others, remember?

I believe the only delusion satan cares about is making people think there is no God/satan.

Why would you believe something so manifestly false and stupid?

Posted by: Rorschach | November 14, 2009 1:00 AM

Thirst proves the existence of water

Let me try :

A hardon proves the existence of hot women(or men).

A hangover proves the existence of Aspirine.

This is fun !

Posted by: llewelly | November 14, 2009 2:16 AM

Hi Richard Eis - you're right. I cannot imagine what would happen if God ceased to exist.

Posted by: Mack | November 14, 2009 5:20 AM

Thirst proves the existence of water

So, if I'm walking through the desert, and I'm REALLY FUCKING THIRSTY, water will just magically appear before me? Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
Thirst proves that biological imperatives exist.
We know water exists because we can see it, feel it, taste it, play water polo in it, and drown morons by telling them that, you know, if they aren't thirsty, then clearly, the water doesn't exist.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 14, 2009 6:48 AM

Can you imagine a world where god ***NEVER*** existed?

Yes.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 14, 2009 7:36 AM

It's 6:30am, I just finished my work, and I'm not tired yet, so I'll be nice and explain this "what caused the universe" silliness to the kitten.

Your argument that your God caused the universe rests on the following steps:

1)Everything natural (as opposed to supernatural) needs a cause
2)The supernatural exists
3)The supernatural doesn't need a cause
4)The supernatural is your version of God
5)Your God is the cause of the universe

that's five assumptions, one of them incorrect*, four of them completely unsubstantiated by evidence.

-------------------------

now, here's another argument and its steps:

1)Some things in the natural world come into existence without a cause
2)The universe exists
3)The universe might have developed from something that came into existence without a cause

now, this is three assumptions, the first two are established with evidence, and only the third is an unsubstantiated claim.

-------------------------

that makes one false and four unsubstantiated claims for you, and one unsubstantiated claim for me. parsimony dictates that I should go with the explanation with that accounts for available data and has the fewest unsubstantiated premises, so I'm gonna have to stick with mine.

unless you can fix the error in yours, and remove (or show solid evidence for) at least three of your unsubstantiated claims, my argument automatically wins against yours EVERY TIME.

=====================

*Virtual Particles for example don't have a cause

Posted by: Satan | November 14, 2009 2:38 PM

I would like to apologize to you all for Lion.

No need. He has free will, does he not?

Note that he uses his free will to clearly and repeatedly take God's name in vain. "Armour of God", indeed!

Besides, he has provided amusement by inspiring the meme of the components of the "Armour of God". To which I would add:

- The Shackles of Submission.
- The Neck Ring of Stubbornness
- The Blinders of Confirmation Bias
- The Blindfold of Contradiction
- The Chains of Cognitive Dissonance
- The Beer Helmet of Blithering
- The Rabbit's Foot of Superstition
- The Ear Muffs of Willful Ignorance
- The Mouth Guard of Muddleheaded Mumbled Insipidity
- The Boxing Gloves of Bad Logic

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 14, 2009 3:21 PM

I hate to break it to you, but the American military has been led by Christians since, oh, let me see... yes. The beginning of our country. You're more than a few centuries too late to whine about it now.

If you think that that's what is being "whined" about, you either did not read or did not understand the original post.

Which was it, I wonder?

Peace, y'all.

Irony noted.

Posted by: Anri | November 14, 2009 10:15 PM

Lion Sez:

Hi Anri - Human rights only exist because God says humans are equal.

So, when I asked you if humans had any inherent rights, the answer is 'no' - we only have rights because they were granted by an outside agency.

No human has "the right" to take another life.

I'm sorry - is that you saying that, Lion, or the bible saying that? I'm assuming the former, given that the bible has, as I recall, plenty of situations in which it not only allowable but mandatory that someone be killed.

Are you saying that if someone was orderd to kill another human by god, that would be wrong?

Ask a biologist if humans have more rights than bacteria?

Well, I don't know any personally (biologists, I mean, not bacteria) - what has that got to do with anything anyway?

Human rights can be summed up in doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. That would be true even if Jesus DIDNT say it.

So if, for example, someone were to come to you with some sort of crazy story about god killing people - lots of people, in fact almost every man, woman and (to further the point) child on the planet, that person would just be loony, right?
No such story could exist, surely.
Because having your loved ones slaughtered isn't something we'd wish on ourselves, and therefore, according to you, it would be violating our rights.

Right?

Can't help but notice you took a pass on responding to the whole can god do evil? follow up.
That's okay, maybe you just missed it.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 15, 2009 6:54 PM

It looks like we gave Lion the idea….
I just want to say, sorry we gave him the idea to come here…..
We would love to see folk who visit here come on in and say hello, anytime….
“our topic for the day on Undernets #atheism….
SPAM DETECTED. THINKING ON BEHALF OF OTHERS DETECTED.
QUICK BRITOMART THERE ARE OTHER ATHEISTS WHO DONT KNOW HOW INFLUENTIAL YOU (THINK YOU) ARE.
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=99515

Anri
“can God do evil?”
If you ask can God do evil you must explain what you mean by evil.
I say evil is the opposite of Gods will.
Asked / Answered. (#474)
Over and out.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 4:23 AM

Thank you, Richard Eis: The person who invents the hammer doesn't take credit for building the house.

Snagged, if you don't mind, as our topic for the day on Undernets #atheism.

Feel free. Lion is one in a long line of "interesting" people who have come here. They are good practice. We have also deprogrammed a few (well, started the deprogramming, obviously if they didn't do the rest themselves it would be brainwashing).

Posted by: Satan | November 16, 2009 3:11 PM

SPAM DETECTED. THINKING ON BEHALF OF OTHERS DETECTED. QUICK BRITOMART THERE ARE OTHER ATHEISTS WHO DONT KNOW HOW INFLUENTIAL YOU (THINK YOU) ARE.

Caps lock detected. Insipidity detected. Idiocy detected. Logic failure detected. Punctuation failure detected.

I say evil is the opposite of Gods will.

You're contradicting yourself again. But you obviously don't care about that, do you?

Posted by: Malcolm | November 19, 2009 5:44 AM

Lion (IRC) PS - Nerd Of Redhead. Evidence of God #1 Thirst proves the existence of water. Religion = thirst. God = Water.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 20, 2009 11:47 AM

gr8hands, I just thought you should know it is good to have you here. On my path to atheism, finding out little things like that which you point out about the Bible (#522) was like uncovering a conspiracy among Christianity to intentionally misread the Bible. I still get a kick out of it but in more of a Nelson "Ha-ha" sort of way.

Posted by: Mark | November 21, 2009 8:31 AM

Atheist here who served in the USMC during the Cold War. 30 years ago when I was in the Corps, the fundamentalists regularly went thru our barracks, recruiting the youngsters (the druggies, the losers, the lost, the dazed and confused, etc.) into their cult lifestyle. I lost a friend to them. He returned one evening after being brainwashed in one of their sessions, and was all aglow in Jesus's word.

This sort of thing has been going on for so long in the military, that some of them have risen to the highest ranks. The military is indeed made up of some pretty ardent evangelicals now.

I don't know what it was like before I was in, but it seems to me that it's far far worse with respect to religious nonsense. After all, there are regular reports of generals talking about the War in Iraq and Afghanistan as if this were a true mission from their god.