Pharyngula

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | February 25, 2010 1:19 PM

Meh...

Not nearly as good as the gay marriage argument flow chart a few weeks ago.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | February 25, 2010 1:37 PM

Christian rock?

Don't fundies listen to Christian music worth listening to, such as Handel or Bach?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | February 25, 2010 1:55 PM

Looks like Milkman Dan.

Posted by: AC | February 25, 2010 2:26 PM

While this is slightly amusing, it seems to me that it's a bit meanspirited and obnoxious to imply ALL believers (including, obviously, many people close to many of us) behave this way.

Perhaps if it was funnier I would be willing to cut it more slack.

Posted by: Royce Bitzer | February 25, 2010 3:05 PM

Regarding the "Smile of Duplicity," here's a relevant quote from Francis Collins:

.... Evolutionary arguments, which ultimately depend on reproductive fitness as the overarching goal, may explain some parts of this human urge toward moral behavior, especially if self-sacrificing altruistic acts are done on behalf of relatives or those from whom one might expect some future reciprocal benefit. But all evolutionary models lead to the requirement for reflexive hostility to outside groups, and we humans do not seem to have gotten that memo...."

--Introduction, Belief : Readings on the Reason for Faith, by Francis S. Collins

Really, Dr. Collins?

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded | February 25, 2010 3:44 PM

Abdul @4

No, they don't listen to Handel or Bach. Too elitist, doncha know.

Posted by: AC | February 25, 2010 4:16 PM

Sqlrob @11

People (some to most) are logically inconsistent in many of the things they do. Of course religion is too. And there's plenty of believers who don't demean women, love torture and suffering representations, block out all evidence, etc.

What that diagram is describing is Ken Ham and his ilk (as opposed to my aunt and uncle, or my deceased grandmother, for example). I'll go out on a limb and say most believers are not like him.

Posted by: CunningLingus | February 25, 2010 4:56 PM

AC @ 14

What that diagram is describing is Ken Ham and his ilk (as opposed to my aunt and uncle, or my deceased grandmother, for example). I'll go out on a limb and say most believers are not like him.

I'll go out on a limb also, and say most believers (including your aunt, uncle and deceased grandmother) ARE exactly like him.

This going out on limbs is a doddle huh.

Posted by: AC | February 25, 2010 5:27 PM

CunningLingus @16

Considering how much the fundies LOVE to lump together atheists, and say things like "ALL atheists believe x" or whatnot, I'll beg to differ. Believers are as diverse in their processes of thought, tolerance, openness, etc., as non-believers. In my opinion, of course.

Posted by: CunningLingus | February 25, 2010 6:14 PM

AC @ 16

Considering that ALL believers certainly do have something in common, such as a belief in a sky fairy, of whatever ilk, no matter how diluted or weak, it's still irrational and utterly without a shred of evidence.

Simply saying "well those others aren't True Christians" makes not a jot of difference, they believe in some god, and by doing so give the cretins like Ken Ham a small amount of credibility.

As for lumping atheists together, so what, we all do have something in common, disbelief, so they're quite accurate on that part.

I'm getting good at going out on these limb thingies.

Posted by: John S. Wilkins | February 25, 2010 6:49 PM

Ack! Not another frigging evolutionary psychology massive modularity hypothesis!

Posted by: Aquaria | February 25, 2010 8:51 PM

You know what, AC? When your aunt and uncle, and all the so-called "moderate" and "sensible" believers stand in overwhelming numbers against the retards among them, when they stand up in overwhelming numbers and condemn those among them who express bigotry towards atheists and other non-Christians, when in overwhelming numbers they stop trying to tell me what I can do with my own body and in the privacy of my own bedroom, when in large numbers they stop trying to force their fairy tale delusion into every corner of American life--

Then you can whine about whether or not these are reflective of believers.

Until then, fuck off with the whining. Have some fucking courage and whine at them for a change, instead of expecting us to keep respecting people who can't be bothered to respect anyone, not even themselves.

Posted by: Exocrat | February 25, 2010 10:16 PM

"Smile of Duplicity," I like that a lot. I've been grasping for a way to describe that false look of serenity so many Christians adopt for their pub photos and glamour shots.

Posted by: shonny | February 26, 2010 4:27 AM

Posted by: Disturbingly Openminded Author Profile Page | February 25, 2010 3:44 PM
Abdul @4
No, they don't listen to Handel or Bach. Too elitist, doncha know.

Too complex and sophisticated, more like it. Especially Jay Seb.
It's like they would have to apply some thought and understanding, for which they are ill equipped.

Posted by: echidna | February 26, 2010 5:48 AM

AC,

The powerful part of the poster, for me, is the cognitive dissonance of holding a torture implement as a symbol of love. It is similar to the idea of muslim women being empowered by the burka.

The Smile reminds me of only some religious folk, others can be quite mean-spirited.

What bits specifically, other than the perhaps superfluous headgear and music are you objecting to with regard to ordinary Christians? Do you live in a place where religion is basically tea and biccies, without much of the invisible friend?

Posted by: mattheath | February 26, 2010 6:13 AM

In partial defence of Christian rock (and Christian popular music more generally), part of the reason it is so bad is that the definition seems to be "Popular music with explicitly Christian lyrics which is bad. There's been plenty of very good popular music made with a Christian message: by Bob Dylan, Nick Cave, Belle & Sebastian, Marvin Gaye, Rufus Wainwright, Johnny Cash... It's just that no one (apparently including Christian-music people) calls this "Christian rock/pop/contemporary music". Possibly it's because (what with being artists with imagination) they don't stay on message, but I like to think they are being specifically excluded for not being bad.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | February 26, 2010 2:55 PM

In reaction to AC's comments, I have to say that looking at it from the outside, I can see even my own, close family is a lot like this.

I love my family tremendously, but it is stunning how they can in a single statement provide such duplicity and meanness towards an entire group of people, while still occupying a smile on their lips.

Case in point, my father came to my apartment last week (he had some research he had to do at the National Archives.) The night before he came, I saw a 'Facebook Fan Group' titled "1-million people for gay marriage." I joined it and thought nothing of it.

The second night of his visit, he chose to ask me about it, "What was that all about?" To which I answered that there was nothing at all I saw wrong about allowing gay marriage. I told him the example I've seen a few times here - a married, homosexual couple traveling across state lines may find their marriage unrecognized and be unable to visit each other in the hospital if one got injured.

His response was shocking, I couldn't even formulate a proper rebuttal I was stunned. "Well, they're just doing it so that they can force churches to marry them." I did mention that Catholic churches are allowed to not marry Protestants, but he went further with "well, in (I think he said North Carolina), a gay man sued a church for not letting him take communion. They're going to make it illegal to preach the bible."

After that, I think I just wolfed down my dinner and washed my dish to just get out of the argument. I couldn't believe my father, who I'd always thought to be smart and kind, could say such... crap.

Posted by: paulmurray | March 1, 2010 8:42 PM

The "armour of faith" in Ephesians predates this list, and it's every bit as cynical.

"Spiritual warfare", of course, is code for "winning verbal arguments". The goal is to score hits without oneself being hit. The christians love a debate - it's impossible to fact check during them, so it all comes down to who comes across as more sincere.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2d8Q7b5rgdWlzF067pfy6atCHg--#c854e | March 2, 2010 2:23 AM

Good, except that fooling yourself (or being fooled by some "authority") is what's easy, while learning not to do that is what's hard--and what science is substantially set up to do.

Funny how most on this comment track demonstrate how naive this is. Scientists are just as prone to fooling themselves as everyone else. Which is precisely why peer review exists. And being fooled by someone's authority is one of the major shortcomings of said process. Once you have a certain name, the chance that you can get away with bullsh1t publications increases exponentially.

The fact that most people here consider US extremist Christians and the fanatics elsewhere who make it into US media is a pretty good sign that it takes just as much ignorance of the world outside to make comments such as they abound here as to be a fanatical "Believer" - which suggests to me it's more of a hallmark of fanaticism of any kind, religious or not.

Posted by: beelzebuddha | March 2, 2010 9:11 AM

Most xians are indoctrinated at a young age. It's similar to how children see Santa Claus... just no one ever tells xians that their bearded one isn't real. In fact, they do the opposite -- they reinforce the lie whenever they can. And, of course, xians don't really want to question -- it means they might not get their presents of eternal life and gold-paved streets after they die. Who doesn't want eternal life?

It's abhorrent and diabolical - they use fear of death and the unknown as tools to convert and keep converts. It's even worse that they offer children no alternatives -- it's a form of child abuse, if you ask me.