Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 11, 2010 12:42 PM

and I will continue to get more adds from your blog friends on facebook.

Is it possible that Andrew is related to Kw*k?

And yes if Andrew wants to ask the questions here, I promise to be nice.

Posted by: Mak | June 11, 2010 12:43 PM

Dictatorship? Well, you already have the facial hair. Now you just need a military uniform, a stupid hat, and a bunch of random medals.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 11, 2010 12:47 PM

I think that the people who went and looked up Mr. Rosenberg's FB information, yearbook stuff, and the like were pretty stupid and cruel, and I'd have admired PZ for taking that stuff off the blog. On the other hand, if you play in the deep end of the pool, you might get attacked by sharks. Happens all the time, and this is why I'm cautious about where and how I express myself online. Scathing letters to the editor? Sure. Entitled whiny emails to famous bloggers with a reputation for hammering the silly? Not so much.

Plus Mr. R gave us all a chance to explore, in nauseating detail, the merits of ebooks versus carbon-sink cellulose-based books, and then to relish a good case of disemvoweling.

Posted by: a.human.ape | June 11, 2010 12:50 PM

"My real question was on the topic of Creationism, rather than religeon."

As if magical creationism is not a religious belief.

I noticed he misspelled religion more than once. Stupid, illiterate, and god-soaked beyond hope. Typical Christian.

Posted by: alysonmiers | June 11, 2010 12:53 PM

Andrew Rosenberg seems to think that he is entitled to PZ's time. He seems to think he is unique on the Interwebs for emailing PZ about his knowledge base and demanding that Prof. Myers engage him in (pointless, circular) debate about the origins of the universe.

Breaking news to Andrew: you are not the first person, and you won't be the last, to demand that Prof. Myers be your teacher. He does not owe you his time. PZ owes you two things, and they are "jack" and "shit." Your privilege is showing.

Posted by: pseudostratified | June 11, 2010 12:55 PM

PZ, I had no idea you had this many past-students. How many classes do you teach proffesor?

At least Andy is consistent. Consistent in misrepresenting his true intentions about why he contacted PZ in the first place. Consistent in his whiny tone. Consistent in his inability to use spell simple words.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 11, 2010 12:58 PM

I made a simple reference that I was raised as a Lutheran and practiced Christianity.

You're a liar. Here's what you said:
"I have the belief that if God exists, then Christianity makes the most sense for me to follow."

For all we know, some supernatural being (who does not need to be created itself. That is the whole point of calling it supernatural)

You're a moron: "supernatural" does not mean "does not need to be created itself". Angels and demons are both, supposedly, supernatural created beings.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | June 11, 2010 1:05 PM

Dear Andrew,

The bottom line is that PZ is a busy guy who owes you nothing. Although, you might be reassured to hear that he is routinely rude and abrasive; even to people who have posted regularly on his blog or that he might know quite well. It's nothing personal, merely the darwinian environment that PZ has created and encouraged on Pharyngula. It's a dog eat dog world:-)

So you never really had a chance, plus lets face it, you did have that whole attitude thing going on as well as a number of glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in your various communications.

My advice: If you REALLY want answers to your questions, you may want to try another blog. The troll detectors of the regular posters here operate on hair triggers and you seem to have lit up every light on the board.

Posted by: Ewan R | June 11, 2010 1:07 PM

It's a dog squid eat dog world

Fix!

Posted by: evilinkblot | June 11, 2010 1:09 PM

Andrew can't be intellectually honest from one email to the next, can't keep straight what he says so lies about it, can't take it when he tried to bait THE "greatest satirist and critic of intelligent design and creationism in general that I could find on the internet" and got smacked down........

What is it with this kid...........

Posted by: Sal Bro | June 11, 2010 1:10 PM

Ugh, why waste more words on this guy? There were plenty of useful comments in the last thread, replete with explanations and questions that he failed to read, understand, and/or address. His latest email makes it obvious that he didn't learn a damn thing and that he's just trolling for the lulz.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 11, 2010 1:14 PM

Quoth PZ: "I recommend you learn some more student-like qualities if you are sincere about wanting to learn. As it is, you come across as a demanding brat with an unwarranted sense of entitlement."

He's living in the very brief window between being the biggest fish in a very small pond (class valedictorian) and the period where he learns that the real world (and college) is a much bigger pond with much bigger fish than him.

Posted by: Endor | June 11, 2010 1:16 PM

"As it is, you come across as a demanding brat with an unwarranted sense of entitlement."

Everyone surprised by his behavior, his egregious display of privilege and huge entitlement complex, raise your hand.

Anyone . . .?

Posted by: Holbach | June 11, 2010 1:17 PM

Andrew can believe in any nonsense his mind is perceptible to, whether it be in a non-existent god, ghosts, the easter bunny and company, esp or whatever an unformed or uninformed mind is prone to accept. It all comes down to that these things do not exist, and it is incumbent to a working mind to sort out the fact from fiction, clear the crap from your mind and get on with living a sane and rational life. I had no problem; what the hell is his?

Posted by: islandstrust | June 11, 2010 1:18 PM

past-student minions

Oh, how I wish that were true.

Apparently P-Zed is some sort of liberal proFFesor Rasputin, blindly followed by acolytes/students.

Hands up--how many of you have taken a class with Dr. Myers?

Posted by: lynxreign | June 11, 2010 1:19 PM

I posted this on the other thread, but it was pretty far down in the comments. Starts with a Bang a blog right here on Science Blogs, has a great explanation of the beginning of the universe and where matter comes from and why it didn't all annihilate at the beginning. He has links to all the posts in the series at the beginning of the post at the link I've provided here. It is a great series.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | June 11, 2010 1:22 PM

I second the nomination of "Atom" as a must-read book. Anything by Krauss, actually, but Atom is particularly good. After him, Victor Stenger.

Did you know that our sun is a fourth-generation star? And that without the previous three generations of stars that eventually gave rise to our solar system, things would be very different around here?

Fourth generation...wow...

14 billion years of the universe existing in an ever-expanding space now 47 billion light years across. 3.7 billion years of life on this planet. 200,000 years (or thereabouts) of homo sapiens sapiens. 18 years of this "Rosenberg". And he thinks all of this was put in place for HIM?

Meh...the enormous egotistical arrogance of the theist is something I'll never get over.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 11, 2010 1:23 PM

Andrew,

PZ mentions you are having problems registering. Yeah, the registration system can be a pain.

If you'd like to converse via email, my email address is:

tee oh en why at paperdove.com. If you are honest and sincere, and not looking for a chance to proselytize (I've had enough of that in my lifetime), I'd be happy to help.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | June 11, 2010 1:25 PM

I alternate between being amused and being annoyed by the hand-waving that is "It's supernatural!" If they're going to use that, they need to not only properly define it, but explain why "supernatural" means not having any need to be created, how "supernatural" works, how it means something doesn't have to be created, what mechanism allows the "supernatural" to avoid any known physicals, chemistry, and biology.

The only other thing that annoys me this much is "you have to have faith!" Because, there's nothing more important to an omniscient, omnipotent being that people believing it exists with no evidence.

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 11, 2010 1:25 PM

Former students? I've checked all three of my degrees, none are from the University of Minnesota. To be fair, though, I don't actually remember my biology professor. Dr. Myers, did you ever teach at a small college in central Florida? No? OK, not a former student then.

To Andrew, you are either being entirely dishonest about seeking information and are instead trying to engage Dr. Myers in a debate, hoping to trip him up with some tidbit about physics that you've picked up and expect him not to know, or you really want to learn about evolution, cosmology, the origin of the Universe, etc. If the latter is the case, then if you really want enough information to break through the creationism that you've had implanted, then no email or blog post from Dr. Myers is going to help, you simply need to read the books. That's why you'be been accused of being lazy. No email response will replace doing the work, taking the classes, or at least reading the books.

Also, why is everyone so hung up on where matter came from? I'm pretty weak on the physics of all this, but best I can figure, there's always been the same energy and matter. Why should the laws of thermodynamics cease to function prior to some certain date in the ancient past? Don't sweat the Big Bang, it's a transfer of existing energy, resulting in an expanding universe, but all the stuff already existed in some form or another. Now the real physicists may tell me I'm dead wrong about this, or naive and not getting it quite right, but if you feel the need to reject the notion of a big bang creating something from nothing, isn't it just as likely that the material of the Universe has simply always existed as it is that a creator existed first and made the Universe? Why should there have been a creator? Who created the creator? Was he always there? Then why couldn't the Universe have always been there instead?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 11, 2010 1:27 PM

oy.

ok, since I'm not sleepy yet, let's do this step by step:

I see that I have become somewhat of a celebrity amongst your endless supply of past-student minions on your forums. Its hard for me to reply to such a massive amount of information that was thrown back at me in the last 24 hours, but I will do my best.

then why are you replying in e-mail to PZ, where we can't talk to you? you could have written that very same essay in the comment section, instead of adding a layer of protection to yourself and just sending it to PZ.

First of all, you replied by asking me why I came to you with questions if I was "so intelligent" myself. I simply put my high school accomplishments down, not as a way to brag, but to try and show you that I was someone with the mental capacity to listen to your replies--not just another Fundamentalist Christian saying that you are the devil himself. That is unintelligent and was not my motive at all.

academic accomplishment itself is no indication of anything; especially at the high-school level (I myself am a high-school dropout, but am still better educated than you about... probably pretty much everything except Lutheran Theology), but even a PhD doesn't protect from stupidity and Fundamentalism.

I came to you, PZ Myers, because of your reputation as the greatest satirist and critic of intelligent design and creationism in general that I could find on the internet. Do you really blame me for asking a college proffesor, who is supposedly one of the greatest atheists (by seeing the amount of time you put into proclaiming yourself one), simple questions about our existience?

why are you asking "the greatest satirist" and "the greatest atheist" (which are both ridiculous and silly titles, but hey, whatever floats your boat) questions about advanced physics? Don't lie about them being "simple questions"; they're not. The science of beginnings (life, universe, whatever) is fairly advanced and complex as a matter of fact; and PZ did direct you to resources far better suited to answer your questions.

I know I am 18, will probably look back at myself in 50 years and think "how naive was I," but to reply with such a harsh, public response to someone who asked simple questions just further shows what kind of person you really are.

yup, a busy one with a tight schedule and a dayjob.

and again with the "simple questions" lie; maybe you should look up the term JAQing off, because you're coming dangerously close to doing just that.

You didn't bother to listen to my questions, but simply came back with yet another witty response to boost your own self esteem. One of your big criticisms was that I am young. Really? Thats the best you have got? So now if someone is not your age they are not allowed to ponder the universe or ask questions? Thats a great argument, especially coming from someone whose proffesion is to promote learning amongst people my age.

do you ask restaurant employees to serve you in their free time, too? Unless you're paying and are in one of PZ's classes, you're not entitled to be taught by him.

But even so, he did respond to you: he told you that what you're asking is outside his expertise, and gave you pointers as to where you could learn the answers to your questions. why are you still here, whining at us, instead of reading the books and blogs suggested to you?

I truly am not trying to insult you proffesor. And spelling mistakes aside, I had genuine questions for someone of your expertise.

no you didn't. you asked a biologist questions about physics and chemistry.

You also asked me why must you believe in my Christian God.

your reading comprehension is horrible. That was an answer to your question why PZ is an atheist: because that's the default, without evidence for a god, christian or otherwise

Did I once bring up Jesus, the bible, or my God? No. I made a simple reference that I was raised as a Lutheran and practiced Christianity. My real question was on the topic of Creationism, rather than religeon.I was not trying to convert you--that is clearly not possible. I just wanted some answers to my questions. Creationism, which is my topic, is completely different than religeon.

yes, your topic wasn't religion, it was physics and chemistry; go ask a physicist or a chemist, or go read the literatrure that was suggested to you. Also, you were the one who brought up that you thought atheism was irrational; therefore, the only sensible way to answer you (that's what you wanted, right? answers?) was to point out that religion is not only more irrational, but also less parsimonious; if you wanted to talk only and specifically about creationism, you needn't have brought up atheism; you could have even e-mailed a Christian, like Francis Collins or Ken Miller, with your questions. You're the one who brought religion into this, so don't complain about it now.

Religeon promotes a specific belief set or God. I was asking about a general creator sometime in the universe's existence.

are you conflating religion with your religion? are you aware that there's religions that have no gods, have multiples, have goddesses, etc.? Religion is not "a specific belief set or God". and there's no such thing as a "general creator" without religion. Even deism is a religion.

Which I still have no answer for.

that's because you asked a biologist, when you should have asked a physicist and/or a chemist. why are you still here, talking to a biologist? go ask a physicist or chemist, or read the suggested literature. Don't be so lazy and condescending.

To think that the great PZ Myers, critic of creationism, finally receives a legitimate question from a genuine person and the only answer he can give is "Uhh. I'm sorry. I study Biology and Zebra Fish. I cannot help you so go talk to so-and-so or read this or that book."

you asked a biologist questions about physics and chemistry. That's like asking your car mechanic to do a medical check on you. It's dishonest to claim that you've asked relevant and legitimate questions and received no answers, since the only legitimate answer to misdirected questions is "not my specialty, but here's some resources for you that will be better able to answer your questions." You are either lying, or ignorant of how this science thing works. An expert in one field doesn't magically become an expert in all of them.

I'm sorry proffesor, but that is lame. If you claim to be a godless critic of creationism, then for the love of standing up for what you believe in please at least give me an intelligent response.

you have received an intelligent response, you just don't like it. Religion, and therefore creationism (because creationism is an inherently religious idea) is not parsimonious and doesn't have any evidence for it; that's all the reason necessary to disbelieve it, until the evidence shows up. Your specific questions, which went further than this basic point, have nothing to do with refuting creationism; one doesn't need to answer them to legitimately discard creationism as an unneeded, scientifically not supported explanation for anything. However, PZ was nice enough to point you to resources where you could learn the answers to your questions. But from this e-mail it has become evident that you don't really want the answers; if you did, you'd be reading that literature right now.

Don't pass it on to the next guy because you don't know.

you don't know how science works. That's precisely what a honest scientist should do.

If thats the case, and your Biology cannot disprove a creator, then it is not right of you to call yourself a critic of creationism.

like I said, your reading comprehension is atrocious. The burden of proof is on you to provide the evidence that creationism is a valid explanation for the world. Nothing and nobody needs to disprove it until such evidence is forthcoming. Maybe you should also learn about the concept of the Null Hypothesis, which in this case is "no creator"; unless you can show the null hypothesis invalid/insufficient to explain existing evidence, we cannot just randomly start accepting it. science doesn't work that way.

Maybe you don't agree with intelligent design, but that is different than Creationism.

no it isn't. Same old shit, new can.

For all we know, some supernatural being (who does not need to be created itself. That is the whole point of calling it supernatural)could have created matter and energy and just completely walked away, no intelligent design at all.

there's no evidence for supernatural beings. assuming one is unscientific and unparsimonious, and must be rejected by a honest scientist.

Also, you are ignorant of the terms you're using. "intelligent design" and "creationism" mean things completely different from the way you're using them. creationism is the belief in a christian-god-guided development of the universe; while "intelligent design" is the same thing but pretending you aren't talking about the christian god. What you are referring to is a weak form of deism; not that it matters much, since it's all unevidenced and unparsimonious.

That is the whole the point of my questions. I don't know and I wanted a response.

why the bloody fuck were you expecting answers about astrophysics etc. from a biologist? He answered the atheist-specific questions of parsimony and burden-of-proof. just because you don't like the answers, doesn't mean those weren't perfectly adequate answers.

Instead I was publicly put on display using the typcial tactics that you use to make your army of atheists laugh. You could have just sent me a private email saying "I don't know Andrew. I really don't have time for this." But you didn't.

maybe if you didn't insult him and condescend to him for no fucking reason, while still insisting on having your questions answered, you wouldn't have had your e-mail published. Besides, it resulted in you getting answers. You just didn't like them.

And on the notion that you provided of chemicals assembling themselves randomly all the time in space, that still does not provide the answer to where matter itself came from. If things assemble themselves randomly, is not that supernatural in itself? Where are the building blocks of matter coming from?

astrophysics and particle physics; not biology; again. go ask a physicist; again. go read a book about physics, for fucks sake.

I am sorry. I should really stop asking you questions. Because I know I will not receive any answer.

that's because you're purposefully, it seems, asking them of the wrong person. there's physicists on the internet; there's astronomers on the internet. why aren't you asking Phil Plait, who's an astronomer and specializes in answering astronomy questions? or are you going to pester him about the details of mutation rates and natural selection insread?

You will continue to hide behind your aura of rudeness and bad jokes, and I will continue to get more adds from your blog friends on facebook. I guess I will learn from this experience. Seeing how you finished our conversation by threatening to yell at me should you ever come to Racine, I now know that I cannot expect civil answers from you.

you're an idiot with no sense of humor. you were the one who complained about PZ being too softspoken. Can't you make up your mind, dammit!?

For I will only be blessed with more outbursts and obnoxious threats from your bullying, childish attitude (you are how many years my senior? 40?). Should you ever come to my town, I would be happy to go out for lunch and discuss our beliefs in a modern, civil way.

tonetrolling is teh lame. also, why do you think you're entitled to a one-on-one with PZ? if he ever comes to Racine (or to the university you'll hopefully be attending soon), you'll have to contend with sharing him with a bunch of godless skeptics at a bar near you.

I will now go back to my day and not waste another moment of my time viewing this pointless blog. I doubt you even have the pride to post this email on your blog again and I hope that in the future you exhibit more "teacher like" qualities towards someone asking you a question (opposed to the dictatorship you run online). Good luck this year at Morris.

it's adorable when idiots post "i bet this comment/post/e-mail won't show up". Self-matryring via imagined censorship is fucking pathetic.

also, I guess I totally could have saved myself the effort of writing this post :-p

Posted by: lettuce.pickles | June 11, 2010 1:30 PM

I have to say, I've emailed PZ on a topic removed from this blog (which i why I emailed him) and he never once mentioned or took an issue with my misspellings.

Of course, I was trying to help, though I think the help wasn't needed, (the software was fine on final release.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 11, 2010 1:33 PM

He does kind of make you look like a childish asshole.

Only if you want it to look that way.

Posted by: evilinkblot | June 11, 2010 1:34 PM

"To think that the great PZ Myers, critic of creationism, finally receives a legitimate question from a genuine person"

---I think this quote from the email has been far overlooked.......

Congratulations Critic Myers, you finally have been asked a legitimate question

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | June 11, 2010 1:36 PM

It's kinda endearing that he so wants PeeZed to be his teacher. I guess the poor guy couldn't make the cut for UM-Morris.

Posted by: sasqwatch | June 11, 2010 1:37 PM

From His Most Entitled: ..."Do you really blame me for asking a college proffesor, who is supposedly one of the greatest atheists (by seeing the amount of time you put into proclaiming yourself one)

Backhanded sarcastic jab much, Andrew?

..."to reply with such a harsh, public response to someone who asked simple questions just further shows what kind of person you really are. You didn't bother to listen to my questions, but simply came back with yet another witty response to boost your own self esteem."

Presume much, Andrew? Already following up a couple of condescending missives with another one -- one which misrepresents PZ's motives?

..."I truly am not trying to insult you proffesor."

Oh come on... aren't you? Maybe not. Maybe you just go around insulting people all the time without trying. Some people are like that.

"I was not trying to convert you--that is clearly not possible."

How subtle. A jab at being closed-minded, I believe. Andrew... PZ (and others) say it again and again. Produce the evidence, you'll make some converts, me included. It has to be, like, real stuff though. Quoting scripture is not evidence, for example.

..."To think that the great PZ Myers..."

There's that condescending sarcasm again... boy, you're so subtle.

..."'so go talk to so-and-so or read this or that book.'"

Sounds like pretty good advice to me. You read books -- LOTS of them -- for this kind of stuff. What's so hard to understand?

..."Don't pass it on to the next guy because you don't know."

More condescension. You get older, Andrew, you eventually realize what little time we all have. It's not a question of "not knowing"... it's a matter of explaining reality 101 to someone demonstrably intellectually lazy. It's a fool's errand.

I guess I will learn from this experience.

You haven't learned anything so far, apparently. My guess is that it will take many more similar experiences to get through that thick head of yours, if that ever happens.

..."not waste another moment of my time viewing this pointless blog."

Yup. Learned nothing. Absolutely nothing so far. This place is a treasure trove of people that can address these kinds of questions. Too bad.

Posted by: Ewan R | June 11, 2010 1:38 PM

He does kind of make you look like a childish asshole.

Is this a setup for a catholic priest joke?

Posted by: Holbach | June 11, 2010 1:41 PM

coughlanbrianm @ 38

I was also indoctrinated as a child in insane religion, and was his age when it all clicked that this was all senseless bullshit, and by reading and questioning in many fields and opinions, I was able to leave the child behind and develop as a sane adult with a rational and questioning mind. It has to start developing somewhere and sometime, and if you ignore the opportunity to unshackle your mind from that stultifying crap, why then, it is your own volition and choice to remain a mindless vegetable and forever be a religious dolt.
I could recommend him to Jacques Monod's excellent statement of it all, but I am afraid his mind would not accept such a blatant reality.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 11, 2010 1:42 PM

"To think that the great PZ Myers, critic of creationism, finally receives a legitimate question from a genuine person"

---I think this quote from the email has been far overlooked.......

Congratulations Critic Myers, you finally have been asked a legitimate question

more importantly, if he's the first genuine person asking him a question, then what the fuck are we? spambots? sockpuppets? skynet?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 11, 2010 1:45 PM

Andrew Rosenburg, if you come here...

Not all of us are raving at the thought of your questions. I don't have the qualifications you're looking for but why are you looking for science to dis prove God? That's just not how it works.

Your argument that you don't understand how something could happen isn't a good one. And your tone is preemptively hostile. Are you intimidated by PZ and hoping no one will notice?

I really do suggest you come back here to the blogs and post your questions.

For one thing you have such a range of questions that one specialist in one field probably can't cover them.

I doubt you'll read this, but plenty of people on here are patient enough to talk to you, and plenty of them aren't mocking you so please now YOU don't run and hide :P

See how annoying it is when people say that!?

Posted by: Chris Smyr | June 11, 2010 1:46 PM

Its hard for me to reply to such a massive amount of information that was thrown back at me in the last 24 hours, but I will do my best.

and then he didn't really respond to anything...

Do you really blame me for asking a college proffesor, who is supposedly one of the greatest atheists (by seeing the amount of time you put into proclaiming yourself one), simple questions about our existience?

Yes. I'd encourage Andrew to ask other college professors similarly lame questions with not-so-subtle undertones that he is intending to help them learn a thing or two, and see the responses he gets or doesn't get.

If thats the case, and your Biology cannot disprove a creator, then it is not right of you to call yourself a critic of creationism.

It's cute how he calls it "your Biology", PZ. More evidence that he's either an android or an idiot.

I doubt you even have the pride to post this email on your blog again

Someone is whining for more attention. Were he not to get a response, he would of course take the gesture as "proof" that he had won the "argument".

and I hope that in the future you exhibit more "teacher like" qualities towards someone asking you a question (opposed to the dictatorship you run online).

You know absolutely nothing about what it means to be a teacher, then, you silly boy. If you were my student and were showing me the same arrogance you've shown PZ, I'd give you a couple books and push you on your way. Being a teacher means giving students what they need to learn, not giving in to the demands of a pushy student who wants to put the teacher's level of understanding on par with his own. Arguments such as the ones you are trying to peddle here do not often lead to any real learning. Focused studies with the help of coursework and books (like the ones PZ recommended) are more effective.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 1:50 PM

Andrew:

I also thank you for your response. It was polite and I will be researching the books and videos you have given me. That is all I ever wanted.

I have to wonder why he didn't write a respectful, short e-mail in the first place, simply requesting a guide to materials on certain subjects. Andrew can't seem to help being the standard goddidit idjit.

Oh, and another note on all of us being PZ's former students - not only was I in Southern California, but PZ and I were born in the same year. Not much teacher/student possibility there.

Posted by: Anri | June 11, 2010 1:51 PM

I just wanted some answers to my questions. Creationism, which is my topic, is completely different than religeon. Religeon promotes a specific belief set or God. I was asking about a general creator sometime in the universe's existence. Which I still have no answer for.

Would it be too much to ask Mr. Rosenberg to tell us about the five most common non-theistic creationist systems of belief he has encountered? Ah, heck, let's make it easy, just the top three.

(For the record, I can think of one such belief - one that could even potentially have experiments of an indirect nature applied to it.)

Or maybe to clearly define 'supernatural'. He seem to put a lot of import into this word - how does he define it? To have any usefulness, such a definition would have to be distinct from 'natural' and 'nonexistent'.

Perhaps he should just attempt to answer the following question:
Why must the universe have had a creator?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 11, 2010 1:56 PM

Surely, Andrew, you recall from your biology class the cell membrane, which is a phospholipid bilayer.

I believe what Andrew is referring to is the philosophical bilayer.

Posted by: Teshi | June 11, 2010 2:01 PM

Dear Andrew,

To think that the great PZ Myers, critic of creationism, finally receives a legitimate question from a genuine person and the only answer he can give is "Uhh. I'm sorry. I study Biology and Zebra Fish. I cannot help you so go talk to so-and-so or read this or that book."

Any good teacher worth his or her salt would rather a student of your age and apparent ability, do his or her own learning before asking very broad questions. Saying, "I don't know, but here's some resources to get you started," is a sign of humbleness rather than arrogance.

"Tell me about the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life on Earth" is a broad request. A very broad request. It is one that takes many years of study to understand, depending on your existing knowledge, but if you really want to know, it is within your power to learn.

I've been where you are. My science education in high school was very poor and I didn't take much science in university. But I've been doing my homework-- on my own time, using my library cards and my Googling ability-- to fill in the gaps. I would bet you that a good number of people who frequent this blog are people who are self-taught in what they know. They did not approach the biggest cheese they could find and ask them the most general questions they could.

Prof. Myers did what he should have done, which is give you directions for beginning your study. If you wish to have the time of a professor, the college that you attend in September will hopefully have Biology and Physics courses that begin to answer these questions. Your professor will have office hours where you can visit him or her and ask directed and focused questions based on the reading you have been doing.

If you wish to talk to debate atheists who are used to talking to entry-level learners, please visit a forum like www.rationalskepticism.org's science areas. Just by reading you will learn quite a lot and get some good ideas for increasing your study.

Best of luck in your scientific journey.

Posted by: Teshi | June 11, 2010 2:04 PM

Oh blast, double post. Sorry!

Posted by: gr8hands | June 11, 2010 2:11 PM

zeromh, it is important to point out spelling errors of simple words after someone brags about being valedictorian, highly intelligent, etc. Much like you would respond to someone applying for a job as a copy editor with a resume that brags "great attention to dettail."

Posted by: sandiseattle | June 11, 2010 2:11 PM

@48: actually surprized this doesn't get said more often. (Can you say "filter."?)

Posted by: Gus Snarp | June 11, 2010 2:15 PM

@ #78, That's good funny. I end up zoning out on log screeds like Andrew's, so I totally missed that. "Atheism is ignorant of the universe around us, but I'm a Christian who is totally ignorant of the universe around me, so could you explain it, ignorant atheist?"

Posted by: Victor | June 11, 2010 2:23 PM

It is strange that so many people can comment so easily on this blog, but Andrew can't. I've seen the same behavior from religious trolls on forums I've modded. Yet another evasion tactic.

I think we all learned long ago that when some little dweeb shells out questions that answers are the last thing in the world they want. Giving them the tools to find the answers does usually get rid of them. I got into an email debate with a Christian history professor once, and he did politely ask first if he could ask me a series of questions. I said I would, but only if he had a question that hadn't already been answered before he was born. Apparently he didn't since that ended the conversation.

Posted by: legistech | June 11, 2010 2:25 PM

PZ was rude.

I only hope he was rude enough. I hope he continues to be rude enough so that some theists get the idea that their beliefs really have no special privilege. I hope he continues to be rude enough that, when his "rudeness" is pointed out, I can continue to point to the fact that Christians continued claim that atheists are incapable of morality, love, charity, emotion, any reason for living life, and are deserving of eternal torment (sometimes, that the Xian will be delighted to see delivered) is far more rude.

opposed to the dictatorship you run online

Andrew is an idiot who assumes this blog is like the church. I vehemently disagreed with PZ and many other members of this blog only two days ago, and while I'm not the most frequent commenter I don't feel like a complete outsider either.

Posted by: sandiseattle | June 11, 2010 2:27 PM

Victor
@ 83: no, not necessarily seed/ScienceBlogs does have a history of major FUBAR mode in the comments system. (Probably more often than they want to admit.)

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 2:34 PM

Side topic on misspelled words: Ok, I get it, spelling errors look bad. But is it really necessary to point them out every time someone sends you a letter?

When the person makes a point to tell you how intelligent they think they are and that they are valedictorian, then yes it is necessary. Same goes for anybody who brings up their IQ or Mensa memberships unless specifically requested to do so. Maybe even then. Especially if they brag about having a three-digit IQ.

Posted by: Marco | June 11, 2010 2:35 PM

Andrew is an illiterate cretin with delusions of eloquence.

He won't fool too many people until he brings his illiterate ass in gear and does at the very least some serious work not to sound like a complete idiot, in more ways than one (spelling-wise and logic-wise).

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 2:39 PM

izzm:

Ignore or ridicule them by all means, but tell them not to write again? Isn't that asking a bit much?

Why is that a "bit much"? You're really reaching here, just so you can indulge in some Tone Trolling&trade and that's pretty obvious.

I've gotten repeated unwarranted e-mails from people at times and have, in the end, explained my lack of interest and requested they cease e-mailing me, as from that point on, continued e-mails will hit the virtual circular file. And I don't get hundreds of cranky e-mails per day, as Prof. Myers does.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 11, 2010 2:42 PM

humanizzm:

If I publicly state an opinion, I have no right to expect my critics to stay silent.

Does PZ state anywhere that he expects that? Anywhere? So what is your point, exactly?

Ignore or ridicule them by all means, but tell them not to write again? Isn't that asking a bit much?

Well, I think you're incorrectly assuming PZ's statement to be a demand. I think it's meant as a firm suggestion... In other words, "don't bother writing to me anymore kid... you're wasting your time."

Posted by: SteveM | June 11, 2010 2:45 PM

Andrew, maybe I'm just old fashioned but I still believe it is important to show respect in some situations. Such as when "cold calling" an authority to ask for help. In writing, showing respect is proofreading and verifying your spelling and grammar. Saying "please" and "thank you" and not including insults such as "to me, [your] atheism is just ignorance of the universe". Not only is it insulting it is contradictory, if you think he is ignorant of the universe then why are you asking him where the universe comes from? The only reason would be if you're trying to set a trap.
Spelling and grammar in a letter are the equivalent of a jacket and tie to a job interview; even if it is not the "dress code" of the job, it shows respect for the interviewer's time and consideration.
If you want a respectful answer, pose a respectful question and that means spend a little time and consideration crafting your questions. Spelling and grammatical errors and clear indications that spent neither and deserve just as little.
As much as "tone" is disparaged around here, I do not think it is considered never important, and cold calling an authority is one of the situations where I, for one, think it is.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | June 11, 2010 2:46 PM

Caine @ 67 wrote:

Oh, and another note on all of us being PZ's former students - not only was I in Southern California, but PZ and I were born in the same year. Not much teacher/student possibility there.

The location bit works, but to be fair, there's always the possibility of mature students.

Posted by: gettingfree | June 11, 2010 2:49 PM

After reading Andy's new email, I now think he is not being genuine. I think he is a troll / POE.

A graduate of a Lutheran high school misspelling "religeon" has to be intentional IMO.

Posted by: Shala | June 11, 2010 2:55 PM

A graduate of a Lutheran high school misspelling "religeon" has to be intentional IMO.

I'm actually guessing he's not. He's probably the kind of person who says "u" and doesn't bother spellchecking anything.

What he could be full of shit about is his valedictorian education.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 2:58 PM

you [Myers] are not entitled not to be asked or not to be insulted. It was your choice to become a controversial public figure, and it is your choice to continue writing this blog... the hatemail is simply part of that, becuase that is what free speech means: If I publicly state an opinion, I have no right to expect my critics to stay silent.

Your point being? PZ seems pretty well accustomed to the mail that he gets. But certainly he "has the right" (as you love to say) to voice his frustration with it from time to time (you know, free speech and all that).

Just as these nutbags have no right to demand an answer, you have no right to demand that they stop writing to you. That's the annoying thing about free speech: it goes both ways.
Ignore or ridicule them by all means, but tell them not to write again? Isn't that asking a bit much?

Yes, he does have the right to demand they stop (though he did not, he merely suggested an alternate avenue for communicating his ideas and questions, namely the comment thread). Free speech does not mean a guaranteed audience, as sqlrob pointed out. PZ is not telling Andy that he can never voice his opinion again. PZ is not censoring him. He is requesting Andy direct his stupidity elsewhere. Andy's free speech right is not being violated here at all.

Shit, if this is how you feel about PZ suggesting Andy stop emailing him, I'd love to hear what you think about restraining orders or call blockers.

Posted by: timpanogos.wordpress.com | June 11, 2010 3:00 PM

Great idea on the part of antievolution.org to promote such scrutiny, and wonderful of you to promote it here.

I stole the idea, and discovered that Africa Fighting Malaria doesn't appear to do much to fight malaria, either.

Check out your own favored bete grise at that Find 990 site.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/90YiMPoR0s6DJYBAw4ryeePG4vqJUxYZ#3421a | June 11, 2010 3:02 PM

First, PZ, that was a nice response despite thrice having been written to in that tone.

As for the rest of you--it's like watching a pod of killer whales tossing a baby seal about. It's bit frightening to watch, but natural and therefore kind of entertaining (in a disembowling-baby-seals sort of way).

~wjs

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 3:05 PM

@58: What is your argument exactly? That Andrew doesn't know that he's a bad speller, or that he doesn't know that it's important to spell correctly in a serious letter?

Religious people are kinda sad, but a religious person who can't spell religion is pathetic.

How is this anything other than you being mean? Are rheumatic people who can't spell "rheumatism" pathetic?

Posted by: SteveM | June 11, 2010 3:09 PM

**looks sympathetically in Rev. BDC's direction**

A single misspelling can be forgiven as a typo, repeatedly writing "proffesor" and "religeon" etc. indicates a complete disregard of spelling.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 11, 2010 3:10 PM

zeromh #111

Huh...

I was certain your concern had been noted...

Posted by: caleb.fennell | June 11, 2010 3:14 PM

@ Jadehawk, OM

creationism is the belief in a christian-god-guided development of the universe;

I'll respectfully remind you that there are more creationist woo ideas than just the xian variety.

Aside from the judeo-christo-islamic mythology, let's remember that the hindus and deists subscribe as well!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 3:15 PM

zeromh @ 58:

For three arrogant, entitlement-minded e-mails now, Andrew Rosenberg continues to refer to his high level of intelligence. Every one of his e-mails has been riddled with misspellings. He has written of an ambition to possibly be a lawyer. He's not going to be a very good lawyer if he can't spell.

For all his intelligence, he doesn't have enough, apparently, to seek out a browser a/o e-mail program with a spellchecker. Even for the windows-impaired, there are standalone spell-check programs available for download. I'm afraid this does place Andrew in the pathetic class, although, I'm more inclined to put him in the twit class.

If you're going to go on and on about your intelligence and it turns out you can't spell, can't use a spellchecker or manage to use a dictionary (which are easily available in tree and digital versions), you're going to get called on it.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 11, 2010 3:17 PM

A single misspelling can be forgiven as a typo, repeatedly writing "proffesor" and "religeon" etc. indicates a complete disregard of spelling.

not so much disregard, as complete ignorance. I bet he was in that segment of school kids when they were trying to encourage writing by never teaching kids how to spell, but rather just teaching them to write as much as possible about anything at all. I think the theory was that writing a lot would fix the spelling problem by itself; and I daresay the internet thoroughly refuted that claim :-p

Posted by: SteveM | June 11, 2010 3:20 PM

dammit... my "playful sarcasm" tag is clearly not working...

assuming you are referring to me, I wasn't unaware of the "playful" tag. Just wanted to expand on my earlier comments about the importance of spelling. I guess my "just quoting as a jumping off point" tag was a little faint.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 11, 2010 3:20 PM

I'll respectfully remind you that there are more creationist woo ideas than just the xian variety.

Aside from the judeo-christo-islamic mythology, let's remember that the hindus and deists subscribe as well!

capital C Creationism is a very specific idea, and it's Abrahamic. Maybe I shouldn't have relied on Andy's spelling for figuring out what he meant, though.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 11, 2010 3:22 PM

I think the theory was that writing a lot would fix the spelling problem by itself; and I daresay the internet thoroughly refuted that claim :-p

Wut R U talking about? You prolly can't sp3!! gud URself.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 3:26 PM

Cypress @ 120:

Now if I can only learn how to properly use HTML tags…sigh.

Look underneath the comment box for some helpful html hints. Also, if you use Firefox, you can get a nifty text formatting toolbar.

Posted by: Will E. | June 11, 2010 3:26 PM

I recommend you learn some more student-like qualities if you are sincere about wanting to learn. As it is, you come across as a demanding brat with an unwarranted sense of entitlement.

I don't think Mr. Rosenberg realizes just how disingenuous he sounds. The old "I'm just asking questions" trope is a real douche move. He doesn't sound sincere at all and that's what's so grating.

Posted by: Robert H | June 11, 2010 3:29 PM

Repeatedly attempting to form relations with people who ask them to stop begins to approach the definition of stalking. PZ has no responsibility to acknowledge, let alone comment on, any unsolicited private communication he receives. Once Andrew is able to log in he can comment (and I hope he does, at least if he does so in a spirit of open inquiry) all he wants here, which is as close as most of us (need to) get to PZ. Expecting anything else is, as has been repeatedly pointed out, either ignorance, naiveté, arrogance, or a total lack of manners.

I for one am willing to believe that he is sincere (it costs me nothing to do so) and wish him luck. If he is then he is in for an incredibly exciting journey of discovery. If not then he gets to sleep in his own Procrustean Bed.

Posted by: aduzik.myopenid.com | June 11, 2010 3:31 PM

If Mr. Rosenberg really was his class's valedictorian then I weep for the state of education in this country. If that's the best his school can produced, then we're all in serious trouble.

I say he's a dishonest troll of the first order. That, and he can't spell. Religeon? Proffesor? Really?

Posted by: caleb.fennell | June 11, 2010 3:35 PM

@Jadehawk, OM #125

Indeed, I left out my "but within the context of Mr. Rosenberg's letter..." disclaimer.

In the hopes that Mr. Rosenburg learns something from this discussion, I thought it best to broaden the term - especially given his Lutheran background, but generalist baiting questions.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 11, 2010 3:37 PM

The old "I'm just asking questions" trope is a real douche move.

It's also one of the oldest and most telegraphed moves in the book, right behind pretending to turn your back on somebody before whipping around with a right cross to their jaw.

He's still young; he'll take a few good ones to the kisser before he learns some subtlety.

Posted by: Loki | June 11, 2010 3:39 PM

When I started my first real job while also attending college, I tool a problem to my boss. We had probably discussed something similar before, but knew she would have the right answer. I asked the question, and she looked at me and said, "What have you done so far?" I never asked a question in a business setting again without being ready to answer what I had done up to that point to find an answer on my own.

Why do people think they don't have to put forth any effort and the answer will be handed them because they demand it? Andrew's question was no less an appeal to authority than asking his priest for an answer on something. It allows him to get an answer without having to think about it and he will have learned nothing. He is in for a very rude awakening if he goes to a decent college...

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2010 3:45 PM

Andrew is yet another creotard who can't learn because he imagines himself smarter than those who might give him a clue. (Award him a Dunning-Kruger forthwith.)

Every nutter's credo is: "science can't explain it (to me); therefore, my woo is true!"

There's a hypocrisy in every religiotard, because the religiotard wouldn't stand for this nuttiness in some other religiotard (a Scientologist, for example)even though EVERY superstitious person could use an identical non-argument to support whatever magical notions they feel special for believing.(Shouldn't Andrew be querying Mooney at his accommodationist site since he wants to have his magical beliefs "respected" while being catered to as if he was more than a superstitious self-important Bozo? If Andrew believes in demons and witches and exorcisms will Mooney respect that too? How do you determine which magical beliefs to respect and which ones are dangerous?)

Andrew may even be a YEC-- I suspected it yesterday when he mentioned "micro-evolution". (I think creationists think this term sounds sciencey, but I've only heard creotards use it.) Andrew is clearly very indoctrinated and so scientifically ignorant that his questions are on par with a flat-earther asking "How far is it to the end of the earth?" in an attempt to convince himself that: "science has no answer, therefore, the earth IS flat." His questions are too stupid and smarmy to be answered: "Well, Mr. Scientist, if the earth is really spinning, then howz come I don't feel it-- I get motion sickness real easily, so I should know!" Come on, who is supposed to take the time to answer such idiocy? And this is the Valedictorian of a religious school?! It sure speaks poorly of religious education.

Moreover, Andrew's blather is supposedly the BEST the creotards have (it must be, or we wouldn't hear it over and over and over from similarly self-important types.) I am also sick of creotards confusing the origin of the universe with the origin of the species. Does every creotard confuse the two? And why would they think real scientists owe them any audience at all?

I also think it's telling that Andrew tried to shame PZ into answering; no doubt, this is how his religious leaders got them to believe the "god-went-poof" creation story. (What else is there to do when there is no actual evidence for what you believe?)

It's like the religious don't even know how to KNOW. Creationists are rarely even capable of dialogue on evolution which is why I find them much more fun to talk ABOUT than attempt to talk TO. How can you talk sense with someone who thinks that BELIEF in a certain magic story is the the key to "happily ever after"? (with the corollary belief that doubt leads to eternal damnation.) How do you deprogram someone with such cultish thought?

So, do those who thought we were "too hard" on Andrew yesterday, still think so? He didn't even read the responses and his shield of ignorance and arrogance makes him impenetrable anyhow. Besides, science isn't really for people who feel "saved" for believing in magic, is it?

Andrew is an example of Mooney's legacy in my opinion. I think Andrew is clear proof that coddling superstitious nonsense leads to willful and purposeful ignorance (coupled with astounding arrogance). Why isn't Andrew asking his creotardian questions of Mooney --the great communicator of science?

Since Andrew inflicted himself on this forum, I think it's fitting that we use him to keep our coats sniny.

Posted by: caleb.fennell | June 11, 2010 3:47 PM

@ nigelTheBold #142

Hah!

On a fishing boat, one of the three common grades of baiters (those who handle their little fish in hope of attracting a bigger fish).

When I first started this job, I was just an Apprentice, but after long years of conscientious study and hard work, I made it to Journeyman. Now I'm studying hard and trying to work my way up to MasterBaiter!

source: Urban Dictionary

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 3:50 PM

Caine @ 119: Continues to refer to his high level of intelligence?? Did you re-read Andrew's letters before writing that? What he wrote was "I graduated valedictorian of my class, and so I thoughtI would like to contact another intelligent individual, such as yourself, who has conflicting viewpoints from me," and the reason he wrote it was "to try and show you that I was someone with the mental capacity to listen to your replies--not just another Fundamentalist Christian saying that you are the devil himself."

No where does he tout his intelligence being particularly high, and he only brought up the intelligence topic twice, the second time being to explain why he did it the first time.

Let me be clear - I'm not defending Andrew's inability to spell. In a serious letter like his allegedly is, he should have been more careful. I just feel like pointing out his misspellings multiple times when there are more substantive issues to deal with is a bit... petty.

Also, since we're all scientifically-minded here, do any of the people talking about the correlation between intelligence (however you define it) and spelling ability have any sources to back it up? Is there any evidence that being able to spell well amounts to anything more than having a good memory?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 11, 2010 3:53 PM

@142

Homeschooled kids don't do the whole class rank thing, or even grades for the most part (well, most do grades, but they aren't taken all that seriously when it comes to college applications). Colleges look harder at standardized testing, essays, recommendations, and coursework content (reading lists, etc.) and homeschool kids do fine with college admissions.

Also, most homeschooled kids know how to proofread and have better social skills than Mr. Rosenberg. Seriously.

Posted by: Qwerty | June 11, 2010 4:03 PM

Don't know if Andrew watched it but I watched the Lawrence Krauss video. Thanks for posting it PZ.

I wonder if Andrew has watched it as Krauss states "scientists love mysteries." And goes on to say "...that picture is different than the sterile aspect of religion where the excitement is apparently knowing everything although clearly knowing nothing."

And later, he says "forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today."

Somehow I have the feeling Andrew hasn't watched it but I hope he does.

Posted by: charley | June 11, 2010 4:05 PM

As it is, you come across as a demanding brat with an unwarranted sense of entitlement.

As a father of 19, 17 & 14 year boys, I agree with this assessment. I hope his near future includes professors or other mentors to adjust his attitude.

Posted by: Rincewind'smuse | June 11, 2010 4:10 PM

The important thing to remember Andy, is you're asking questions that have in some cases complex multidisciplinary answers with the air of wanting it NOW in 200 characters or less.I started with the questions you're asking, younger than your age and 37 years later,studying , READING( PZ's best clue to you was the reading list), and thinking between the day-to-day requirements of living/working I'm at answers I'm comfortable with now but by no means am I done with the subject.I will have to content myself with the fact that I'll never have (among other things) the physics down( and I like physics).

If thats the case, and your Biology cannot disprove a creator, then it is not right of you to call yourself a critic of creationism.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because the existence of god is unfalsifiable, you cannot falsify the basic tenets of creationism and therefore critique creationism in accordance with what we do know about science.

Posted by: SteveM | June 11, 2010 4:13 PM

I wonder if Andrew has watched it as Krauss states "scientists love mysteries."

Good point, and illustrates the irony of claiming that science "takes the mystery out of the world". To me it is religion that takes aay the mystery since it asserts a definite answer to every question. Even the "I don't know"'s of religion come out as "It's God's will [so don't question it]"
Science on the other hand sees a "mystery" as a challenge to be investigated and understood. The answers to one "mystery" usually generates twice as many "mysteries" to study. Science, not religion, loves mystery.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 11, 2010 4:14 PM

. . . the people on this forum probably have enough academic qualifications and street smarts to run a university, if in fact they all lived in one place and weren't spread around the world.

Oh! Oh! I get to teach intro to computer architecture, programming 101, fencing, and history of film.

Kthxbai.

Posted by: mikee | June 11, 2010 4:19 PM

Andrew, if you are still reading here are a few questions to get you started thinking about religion. They are questions that made me switch, at about your age, from being a catholic to being an atheist.
1) How do I know my god is the right one, and not the jews, muslims etc? What evidence is there?
2) If god is all knowing, shouldn't he be able to pick out the "good" people at birth and send them straight to heaven?
3) If life on earth is some sort of entry test for heaven, how come some people have a more difficult test than others?
4)If a lesbian spends her life helping other people, and a christian is cruel for most of his life, but repents just before dying who would be more worthy of heaven?
5) Is the idea that a god created the universe more likely than the universe "just happened"? Because if you start with a god you are stuck with the question, who created him/her?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 11, 2010 4:24 PM

Is there any evidence that being able to spell well amounts to anything more than having a good memory?

Yes, there is. I suggest you get off your Tone Horse and go look for it. In order to be able to spell well, you also need to understand language, etymology and all that.

I would say it's actually that you need to be able to understand your limitations. You need to know whether you're a good speller, and if you're not, you need to work on becoming one. If you're dyslexic or for some other reason can't become a reasonable speller, then you need to engage the services of a good proofreader.

Accurate self-assessment, Mr. R, is an important skill.

Posted by: mikee | June 11, 2010 4:26 PM

It's interesting that you think this hasn't been addressed before.

Actually I've never seen it adequately addressed before, just dismissed out of hand. So humour me if you will, is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position? Or more likely to harden them to their position.

Posted by: Generic_Human | June 11, 2010 4:27 PM

Andrew is the typical Christian asshole who demands immediate answers, trash talks when he doesn't get one, and then plays the wounded puppy when people give him a dose of his own medicine.

Hey Andrew, this is a blog, not Yahoo Answers.

I am willing to bet that Andrew will not read anything recommended. I've recommended countless books to people like Andrew, and when I see them a few months later, they "never got around to it." An issue that was so pressing that they were berating me endlessly suddenly isn't as important when they have to do some work. They prefer willful ignorance, because then they don't have to change their thinking, but can say that they demanded answers, but no one was willing to answer them.

Posted by: Robert H | June 11, 2010 4:31 PM

In most studies I am familiar with there is a low correlation between spelling and intelligence; of the main elementary school subjects performance in spelling is the lowest predictor of overall verbal IQ.

That said, Andrew had people repeatedly correct him on his spelling of "professor" and "religion" and yet he persisted in misspelling those words, which indicates potential indifference, ignorance, perceptual issues, or contempt

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 4:35 PM

So humour me if you will,

I don't really have patience for tone trolls, but I'll give you 60 seconds of my day.

is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position?

I don't know if likely is the right word, but yes anecdotal evidence exists and has been given.

Or more likely to harden them to their position.

Actually, there is evidence that he is already pretty hardened against science and that this was not an honest attempt to get information so responding politely would not have had any less chance of hardening his disposition than attacking would.

That took me more than 60 seconds. Now I'm annoyed at myself.

Posted by: mikee | June 11, 2010 4:46 PM

@ KOPD #171

anecdotal evidence exists and has been given.

Seriously, you refer to anecdotal "evidence" on a science blog?
In my experience anecdotal evidence shows the opposite of what you believe, but then that is the nature of anecdotes.

Posted by: Roger | June 11, 2010 4:48 PM

Oh, fuck off, zeromh.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 11, 2010 4:54 PM

mikee #165

So humour me if you will, is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position? Or more likely to harden them to their position.

Do you honestly think you're the first tone troll to ask this question?

As has already been explained, there's anecdotal evidence which suggests that some people have changed their opinions when told they're fucking idiots to believe bullshit.

Anyway, your concern is noted.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 11, 2010 4:58 PM

mikee #176

Apparently being called a troll, is a way of saying "you disagree with my argument, but I fear you have a valid point so I'm just going to dismiss you as a troll"

No, asshole, in your case being called a troll means you're presenting an argument which has been discussed many, many, many times before and has been rejected by consensus each fucking time.

Posted by: SteveM | June 11, 2010 5:02 PM

Is there any evidence that being able to spell well amounts to anything more than having a good memory?

No there isn't, and I agree it is not important to be able to spell well. What is important is to check it and correct it before sending it out to someone who you claim to respect and expect to receive respect from.

Posted by: Ted Zissou | June 11, 2010 5:07 PM

I will now go back to my day and not waste another moment of my time viewing this pointless blog.

I have trouble believing this. At the very least he'll lurk long enough to read PZ's reply and some comments.

Posted by: mikee | June 11, 2010 5:09 PM

@Tis Himself,OM #179

So far my argument against sustained abuse of people such as Andrew, has been justified by anecdote and justified by consensus (though how you worked that out, I don't know). I have yet to see some actual evidence provided.

And this assumption that if something has been covered before it need not be discussed again might be fine for all of those here who have been here for a while, but not much use for relative neebies. Or is that what people prefer, just the old guard making comments.

Posted by: Robert H | June 11, 2010 5:13 PM

Marco @178

Where's the evidence that CreationBoy has any interest or willingness to engage in "genuine thinking"?

Think of it as a testable hypothesis. If he's insincere, assuming we ever hear of/from him again, then he has painted a pretty target on himself and he will be duly Pharyngulated. If, on the other hand, he demonstrates an effort to mediate his position then the hypothesis is, at least for that instance, validated.

Posted by: sasqwatch | June 11, 2010 5:16 PM

second both the great Krauss talk -- and Victor Stenger's "Comprehensible Cosmos".

And I'm just now starting on Steven Weinberg's "Facing Up", which should be interesting. It's made of paper. ...used to be owned by a library. ...a place with lots of books in it, typically.

Andrew: both these books deal (in part) with the notion of cosmological "fine-tuning" -- the kind of view espoused by John Polkinghorne. The fine-tuning argument also fails when one gets a better handle on how and why we know what we think we know (as scientists or informed laypeople).

The Stenger book is particularly priceless, as the Appendix offers a brief compendium of the known physical laws of the universe and what concepts they are ultimately based on. A lifetime of study and perspective has been condensed into a very short number of non-technical pages, and from there one can branch off into the technicalities involving the nature of reality. But it takes quite a lot of work to wrap your head around many of the physical concepts.

It can be fun work, though. I don't believe training the brain to think rationally has hurt anybody yet. I could be wrong.

Posted by: Roger | June 11, 2010 5:17 PM

So...mikee. Just logging on and, after reading the post, just scrolling down without reading comment the first and then bleating about how MEEEAN all the big bad athiestic minions of PZ are is peachy-dandy, hunky dory?

Listen up and stop being so fucking disingenuous. zeromh--and you--rolled in here making comments about how AWFUL everyone is for telling young master Rosenberg to get a fucking grip; mind you, people have over and over and OVER again written decent arguments about why he's a poncy git and why PZ was rude, but well within his rights to tell Mr. R. to get stuffed. And if either of you have been around this blog long enough, you know that this isn't tea time with Her Royal Majesty, the Queen of England.

So take your concern, and your whinging about "the old guard" and shove it up your pisshole.

Posted by: gr8hands | June 11, 2010 5:27 PM

mikee @#185 wrote:

And this assumption that if something has been covered before it need not be discussed again might be fine for all of those here who have been here for a while, but not much use for relative neebies. Or is that what people prefer, just the old guard making comments.

Just like we chided Andrew for not looking through old threads, we're going to chide you for not looking through old threads.

If you have questions about whether something has been covered in this blog before, it is up to you to do the searching. Unless you're just a lazy jerk.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 11, 2010 5:35 PM

Spelling is about the last thing on my list when I consider how intelligent or knowledgeable someone is.

I wouldn't call it snobbery, but I agree, tone concern and spelling concern are 2 sides of the same coin, really.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | June 11, 2010 5:37 PM

Religious people are kinda sad, but a religious person who can't spell religion is pathetic.

How is this anything other than you being mean? Are rheumatic people who can't spell "rheumatism" pathetic?

Accusations of being mean aside, I wonder if it's just a matter of having never typed the word "religious" before. At a Lutheran high school, how often that word come up? It's implicit in the whole process. That doesn't explain, as others have pointed out, how it escaped the default settings of nearly every email client and web browser that would be in use by privileged young white males in Wisconsin. But I can't help but recall a boss I used to have whose emails frequently contained "alot". My hypothesis (never tested) was that the spell checker in Outlook complained about it long before I arrived and she vetoed the stupid computer (this was at Microsoft, BTW) and clicked "Ignore forever."

Maybe Andy did the same thing when he was 14 with "religeous." And "proffesor." And "beggining." And "existience." ROFLCOPTER

Posted by: gr8hands | June 11, 2010 5:39 PM

skeptifem, reality fail. My guess is that your biology professor would not have passed if she'd turned in all assignments, reports and her thesis chock full of spelling errors. It is a sign of sloppiness and lack of attention to detail.

I know too many people with dyslexia/dysgraphia who use spellcheck or proofreaders to overcome their real condition to believe in this current day there is an excuse for poor spelling in your native language, when you graduated top in your class. Particularly when you've been called out on it publicly.

You'd think Andrew would have a sense of personal pride, and not want to be subjected to such criticism after having had it pointed out in such snarky terms.

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

Oh, mikee, one more thing. By doing a little search of prior threads, you can find instances where people post that it was the harsh language from someone they respected that finally shook them out of their religiosity and onto the path of atheistic enlightment. It's like the straw that broke the camel's back.

Posted by: Marco | June 11, 2010 5:41 PM

# 192 (skeptifem):

Wow, the fucking snobbery that exists here.

That in itself is a rather snobbish and condescending statement to be making, given that it presumptuously assumes agreement, coming as it does unsupported by convincing examples of the alleged "snobbery".

Spelling is about the last thing on my list when I consider how intelligent or knowledgeable someone is.

I can understand if people misspell because they are dyslexic. In that case, it is both unfair and mean-spirited to hold it against them. Do you have reliable knowledge that CreationBoy is beset by this affliction? It seems far more plausible to me that, as many others here observed as well, he is lazy, ignorant and arguably none too bright, though he seems to have a high opinion of himself.

O my, how snobbish of me to say that, of course.

Posted by: sudomabinusri | June 11, 2010 5:43 PM

My partner also teaches at a small liberal arts college, and she's currently dealing with "Andrew" 6 or 7 years hence. Student turns in his thesis three days before the end of the quarter; it's littered with spelling and grammatical errors, missing citations, and "illustrations" that are inscrutable, never mind what passes for an argument. He's supposed to be graduating today, and he's leaving on vacation next week, so he expects this mess to be read and *signed off on* before he leaves, so he doesn't have to worry about it any more.

Maybe Andrew's kick-in-the-pants from PZ now will save someone else having to do it in the future.

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 5:49 PM

gr8hands @ 188: I'm surprised that you see so many of Andrew's remarks as bragging, because I didn't take them that way myself. For example, I take his comment on him viewing atheists as ignorant as simple honesty regarding his position. He really doesn't understand how the universe can be explained without God, and as such he sees atheists as being in denial - a logical conclusion, given his premises. I actually appreciate that kind of honesty, as long as it isn't given maliciously. Also as an example I would use your last quote, which to me indicates that Andrew wasn't pleased with PZ's response, but I can't see it as making any comment as to Andrew's own intelligence.

However, at this point I can see how some people may have interpreted Andrew's letters differently than I did. Thank you for explaining your position.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | June 11, 2010 5:53 PM

There is no good evidence that hard core creationist can be argued out of their stupidity.
Or reasoned out of it. No coincidence, it was Martin Luther, the founder of the denomination Andy proudly belongs too, called reason the whore of the devil.
Which is why I prefer just to have a good laugh at his expense.
May you be touched by His noodly apprendages.
RAmen

Posted by: CJO | June 11, 2010 5:54 PM

Teachers let them write "freely" to encourage their creativity, so that they'll like to write.

It's like putting three-year-old Mozart at a piano, telling him to write a concerto, then praising whatever nonsense he bangs out.

No, that's not the idea. The teachers at my son's school use the approach and the idea is to decouple writing instruction from spelling instruction. Which makes sense; the two are separate skills, and if a kid feels constrained in his writing because s/he's not very good at spelling yet, s/he's not going to get the most out of practicing putting words together. They still teach spelling, and even correct the encouraged "free" spelling after the fact. "Praising" and "not censuring" are not synonymous.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 5:57 PM

articulett @204

Oh, but that's anecdotal! This is supposed to be a science blog! :-p

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | June 11, 2010 6:02 PM

If he's asking about creationism, then why is he asking physics questions?

From my experience, rather than trying to understand evolution on its own terms creationists project their own beliefs onto it. Creationism deals with the origin of life, the origin of the universe and diversity of life, thus evolution must as well. Even after you tell that the big bang is a seperate theory and that evolution doesn't try to answer how life started they still have trouble understanding that.

Also, since creationists have a prophet with a holy text so must scientists. Therefore, scientist view Darwin as a prophet and The Origins of Species as their holy book. Many creationists end up missing the fact that science is about a process, not prophets. There are many bright scientists who contribute much to our understanding, but even they don't get everything right. No one is science views Darwin as a prophet or would say that he was right on everything. I actually think it's more impressive that a mere mortal by being really clever was able to make a little sesne of the world than a person who blindly followed God's wishes and was rewarded for doing so.

Posted by: sudomabinusri | June 11, 2010 6:06 PM

swearing indicates either a lack of self control or vocabulary

Yeah, fuck that shit.

Sometimes, swearing is the best way to make a point.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | June 11, 2010 6:07 PM

Feynman on spelling:

If the professors of English will complain to me that the students who come to the universities, after all those years of study, still cannot spell 'friend', I say to them that something's the matter with the way you spell 'friend'.

The unique vagueries of English orthography are the cause of spelling bees*. This is an unknown phenomenon among people with sensible ideas about the relationship between orthography and phonetics.

*Gah. I always have hated these.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 6:11 PM

Mikee, you're really getting old. It's not about abusing people to get them to agree with you. It's a couple of things. First is that ridiculous ideas, by definition, deserve ridicule. And second, being ridiculed for holding ridiculous ideas will often force one to re-examine those ideas. Even your first example supports that. Due to a classmates ridicule you strove to prove them wrong. Well, when it comes to religious nonsense, a lot of people end up giving up religion after they educate themselves in order to prove their detractors wrong.

Does it work for everybody? No, probably not. But it does work. It worked for a lot of us here, so we are speaking from experience. As for the cuddly-wuddly method, well Mooney's got that one covered so there's no need for us to bother. If you want to keep clutching your pearls, go over there to the Intersection blog and do it there. You'll fit right in. But if you're going to stick around here you're inviting to either move on to another argument, shut the fuck up, or get killfiled.

Posted by: mikee | June 11, 2010 6:11 PM

Sal Bro I

Thank you for the links. Food for thought.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 11, 2010 6:15 PM

No, that's not the idea. The teachers at my son's school use the approach and the idea is to decouple writing instruction from spelling instruction. Which makes sense

Maybe that's true of your child's school. It wasn't true in our case. When I was discussing this with my son's teacher, more than spelling was my problem with her teaching of writing. She was also dismissing capitalization and punctuation, as if they were minor issues.

I had a very, very serious problem with all of that, and it was the entire school's basic approach for the early grades when I took my complaints to the principal.

They and the other "teachers" said the same thing. Teaching writing that way encourages them to write, because "so many of them hate it."

Posted by: stuv.myopenid.com | June 11, 2010 6:19 PM

Okay, so I'll just throw in my anecdote from first year Latin class:

- "WHY DID I GET AN F?!"
- "Well, mark down 1 for this spelling error, also, this here is not a sentence, oh, here's another spelling error, and well, that's enough to get you to F territory."
- "BUT I TRANSLATED IT RIGHT! THOSE ARE JUST LITTLE ERRORS!"
- "See the top of the test, right there? It says 'Translate Into Dutch'. What you wrote is not Dutch. Fix your Dutch. Now go away, I need to go sneak a smoke in the hallway."

Oh yes, 'twas old-school indeed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 6:22 PM

Others will be completely turned off by the way you're saying it, or the fact that your ideas clash so fundamentally with theirs, and they will not listen to you.

Yawn, we don't care idjit concern fuckwitted troll. If they aren't learning (like you), we aren't teaching, and it's not worth our effort to try. Most of us have day jobs. One day you may mature and see our point.

Posted by: NitricAcid | June 11, 2010 6:32 PM

Dr. Wolford #90- actually, if you remove a partition between a box of nitrogen and a box of oxygen, what you will get is a mixture. Nitrogen and oxygen do not react at room temperature or under ordinary pressures, even in the presence of a catalyst (with the possible exception of whatever biological catalysts nitrogen-fixing organisms use). The air I'm breathing at the moment is roughly an 80/20 mix of nitrogen and oxygen, and I'd have died long ago if there was an appreciable quantity of NO2 in it.

Now, if you repeated the analogy with nitrogen monoxide and oxygen, then it would have worked.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 6:41 PM

Slowly step away from the keyboard. Walk away from the computer.

Please follow your own advise. You're wasting electrons.

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2010 6:47 PM

Another bully post. Fantastic.

Slowly step away from the keyboard. Walk away from the computer

Lucidish thinks this is a bully post. S/he doesn't like bully posts.

Perhaps you'll be much more comfortable at the Intersection, Lucidish. There are many people just like you there.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 11, 2010 6:51 PM

Being gentle in your
with such people will win you more battles than being strident

Bullshit. Atheists are more prominent now since they stopped being "gentle" and ass-kissing the religiotards. When we started speaking up and calling bullshit, we started being talked about and having our ideas getting more visibilitty than we have for twenty years.

I'll take that any day over singing fucking Kumbaya with them while they backstab us and tell the most outrageous lies about us.

Or to put it another way, "teaching" is not the same as "telling." If you're going to teach, you have to present information in a way that is going to help the student, not just put it all out there and say "if you're smart you'll get it and if not too bad."s

Huge fucking strawman, dipshit. Nobody said what you claimed, and you know it, else you're as stupid as you appear.

What PZ did say was that he didn't know 90% of what the guy wanted to know because it wasn't his field, but, hey, maybe these books will help.

When the issue of learning what this place was about came up, what was meant was that if you go on a site without bothering to figure out what it was about, then you have only yourself to blame if get roasted like the stupid mini-marshmallow you are, especially if that site prefers a more muscular style of debate. Can't stand the harshness of the climate here? Tits or GTFO.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 11, 2010 6:58 PM

Jesus--I promise I'm going to the Apple store tomorrow. I can't stand this flaked out trackpad and keyboard anymore. If I breathe on it, it moves the cursor to a random spot and acts like I've held down the control or command key

Posted by: Elf Eye | June 11, 2010 7:03 PM

No one is judging Mr. Rosenberg's intelligence on the basis of his spelling. Certainly I would never be tempted to judge his intelligence on that basis. My daughter has dyslexia. She is a terrible speller. She is also highly intelligent. However, being highly intelligent, she knows that correcting one's spelling, grammar, and punctuation is part of the communication process. She understands that should she fail to correct her drafting errors, her audience may conclude that she is careless and/or lazy and/or disrespectful of her readers. None of these is a quality likely to win over her audience. In short, a writer's ethos does matter, as Aristotle pointed out long ago in his Rhetoric, and the trouble one takes in presenting oneself helps establish that ethos. If Mr. Rosenberg walks away from this conversation with the awareness that one is expected to communicate with care and thoughtfulness, then he will have benefited from the drubbing that has been collectively administered.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | June 11, 2010 7:08 PM

If we discount the YECs, who deny the existence of anything further than ~5K light years from Terra (ie, most of the known universe/heavens/creation), Creationism is not necessarily a religious belief, but it is an alternative theory to the steady-state model of the universe. As a scientist, I cannot say for certain what happened before the physical constants kicked in, and anyone who pretends they do know is indulging in belief, and in this sense, Atheism is a religion. Agnosticism is the only rational (ie, non-religious) stance.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 11, 2010 7:15 PM

@ 212,

Given that anecdotes are valid currency here

Yeah, the Italian Lira of Pharyngula.

Being gentle in your arguments with such people will win you more battles than being strident.

Negative.As the experience with the intersection has clearly demonstrated, religious people love it when atheists are nice and tolerant, because then their dogma doesn't get challenged and they can keep their warm and fuzzies, while all the while having this awesome "dialogue".
In short, being accomodationg and nice to theists makes theists happy, and convinces or (de-)converts noone.
Being loud and strident might scare a few away from having a "dialogue" in the gentile courtyard, but fuck that shit anyway.And some will listen.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | June 11, 2010 7:16 PM

Al B. Quirky,

As a scientist, I ....

BWAHAHAHAHA

Thanks for the laugh.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 7:24 PM

Creationism is not necessarily a religious belief,

What imaginary world do you live in idjit fuckwit? It is religious, as it is based on a mythical holy book. Wrong again. What a loser.

As a scientist,

If you are a real scientist, I am a werewolf. You know nothing of science and how it is carried out. Otherwise, you wouldn't be sooooo stooopid on scientific matters. Still the classic loser.

Atheism is a religion.

Still showing your idiocy oh, ace of fuckwits. Show the deity, holy book, church, tithes, and other idiocies of organized religion. Or, maybe just once in your life abject loser, show some real intelligence and shut the fuck up.

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2010 7:27 PM

Timothy,

as far as I can tell "supernatural" = "magic"

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 11, 2010 7:36 PM

Feynmaniac (#213)

Even after you tell that the big bang is a seperate theory and that evolution doesn't try to answer how life started they still have trouble understanding that.

I got into it with a random moron the other day over the theory of evolution. It was soon obvious that he didn't understand either what a theory is in the context of science or what the theory of evolution seeks to explain. I ended up asking him five times if he could accept that, whether true or not, evolution isn't meant to explain the origins of the universe or the origins of life. He was so intent on dismissing evolution for its failures in these areas that he couldn't even bring himself to accept the actual definition of the theory of evolution.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

zeromh (#232)

I was disagreeing with the assertion that being strident is always the best way of converting people.

So you were disagreeing with an assertion that no one made? Fascinating.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Timothy (#242)

Does anyone here know what "supernatural" is supposed to mean to these people?

Yes, it means: "You can't talk about this because I say so."

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2010 7:56 PM

Yes, it means: "You can't talk about this because I say so."

Exactly. And who are you to question god? How do you expect that you can understand him!

*giggles*

Btw, I've seen many a creationist conflate the origin of the species with the origin of the universe and argue that straw man despite repeated corrections, --so I guess this is the best argument they have left at this point. What's sad, is that to the faith-addled mind, this apparently sounds like a winning argument. I refer to it as "the-science-can't-explain-it; therefore-my-woo-is-true" argument. It's kind of an all-purpose rationalization of any woo. If a scientist doesn't answer the creationist straw man to the creationists satisfaction, they win points in their head-game, I guess. They can tell themselves they considered the scientific question, and found that their woo made more sense (to them). In this way they don't have to examine the irrationality of the beliefs they feel saved for believing. (They will also tell themselves that atheism is another faith so that they can dismiss it along with all those other crazy beliefs they don't buy instead of understanding that atheism is a lack-of-faith.)

It's quite difficult to answer questions about evolution when a creotard only has a creotardian understanding of what it even is while they imagine they know more than the very people who could ameliorate their ignorance. I think people of faith have to force themselves to remain incurious on some level, so that they can keep the faith. This causes them to ask inane questions that aren't really designed to be answered.

Posted by: ngong | June 11, 2010 7:59 PM

Of 933 words, "I" was used 44 times, "me" 8. Yecchhh.

Posted by: Guy Incognito | June 11, 2010 8:00 PM

...anyone who pretends they do know is indulging in belief, and in this sense, Atheism is a religion.

Lack of belief! LACK. OF. BELIEF.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 8:06 PM

ou, I and others have tried the polite approach (well most of the time) and don't appear to have convinced anyone of the merits of our position.

You have no position. You are just tone trolls. If you want to convince us, quit making arguments, and present real evidence that you position actually works. Compared to the null hypothesis that a two part method of a loud get your attention or in your face group (us), and a quieter group to aid the change once the attention is grabbed, is very effective. Used very successfully by people of color and the GLBT community.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | June 11, 2010 8:10 PM

@articulett
Black Holes were a theoretical possibility, so we went looking for them and found some. If we had not found any, would it be unreasonable to believe that Black Holes were still probable? If so, would you apply the same logic to the SETI?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 8:15 PM

I see ABQ is babbling to himself. Maybe if he stopped imbibing whatever it is he is taking. Must be a potent loser drug. It sure isn't helping his intelligence.

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2010 8:19 PM

Zeromh,
you came here and pretty much told everyone that they should be "nice like you", but no one saw your "passive aggressive" approach or straw man about us thinking there is only one approach as particularly nice.

And your fake apology is like Andrew's fake apology. Smarmy.

I guess you just can't see how transparent you are. You aren't really more civil than the people you imagine you are being more civil than. You are not a person I'd go to for advice on communicating science or anything else with others.

If you are going to inflict your opinions on people, be prepared to have them inflict their opinions of you on you. You chastized the blog responders as a group. I feel like I'm part of the group and responded in kind. I prefer those you criticize over people like you.

I mean, I think you're nice enough-- just not really cut out for this forum. You want to give advice, but you seem extremely reluctant to take any.

Posted by: articulett | June 11, 2010 8:27 PM

Al B Quirky,
I'm not sure what your question is in reference too. Black holes? SETI is looking for material beings or material evidence of such-- not magical... er ... supernatural beings. I have no idea what you are really asking or what you are trying to imply with your question or why would you care about my opinion on the subject or why you think it's relevant to this blog post.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 11, 2010 8:36 PM

Andrew needs to learn that when one communicates as if one is an aggrandizing self-important condescending git, one will be treated as such. Whether he meant to come off that way or not is irrelevant; he has now been given a real-world example of "here's how you will be treated if you communicate with others in the way you just did". Hopefully it is a lesson learned.

Is there any evidence that being able to spell well amounts to anything more than having a good memory?

On the internet, being able to spell well indicates that one has taken the time to check and be sure that the information is being conveyed in the correct form. It's just common courtesy, especially in an email that one has plenty of time to proofread (as opposed to a hastily-penned blog comment in the heat of argument, say). Not doing so sends a clear message that although Andrew wants PZ to spend a huge amount of time giving him a personal tutoring session in Evolution, Life, and Everything, he can't be arsed to spend the minute or two paying attention to the little red squiggly lines under half his words before hitting "send" on his email. That's just rude.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 8:43 PM

in fact I would say you have evidence for the opposite conclusion considering how polite I've been in response to people who feel that curse words = arguments.

Curse words per se aren't arguments. But they add to the concept that we aren't taking bullshit lying down, and will get in your face with our arguments. If you don't like cursing, go elsewhere like the PearlClutcher™ you are. But evidence works wonders here, not politeness or unsound arguments like you present. Time to either grow a spine, present real evidence (not opinion) or head for the intersection where Pharyngula is to be trashed. You will be welcomed there. Your choice cricket.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 11, 2010 8:51 PM

I was taught this when I was young and didn't think about it until one day it occurred to me that sometimes the perfect word IS a swear.

For more reasons than one!
Study shows swearing reduces pain.

Posted by: Perspexo | June 11, 2010 8:53 PM

@ Kirk
Well if you think its more important to highlight the undisputed transcendent beauty of a cephalopod than point out the ignorant presumption of privilege that characterized Andy's post?
Feel free I guess.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 11, 2010 8:58 PM

zeromh #270

No, what you did was first call my assertion about your argument a staw man - which, technically, it was. But when someone makes an honest mistake about what someone else was saying, there's no need to hand out the labels of logical fallacies when it was just a mistake.

No, asshole, it was not a mistake. You said, in post #232:

I was disagreeing with the assertion that being strident is always the best way of converting people.

Nobody made that assertion. Nobody believes being strident is always the best way to convert people and, therefore, nobody said so. You were being given the benefit of the doubt by having your claim labeled a strawman. If we had wanted to, we could have just as easily, and possibly more correctly, called it a lie.

Posted by: Perspexo | June 11, 2010 9:05 PM

@ Al B Quirky
Seriously? If you want to frame the argument like that then of course atheism can't disprove OE creationism.
Instead atheism makes the much more reasonable request that an extraordinary claim, such as a supernatural creator of the universe, requires evidence. We don't have to prove creationism is a crock of shit, creationist have to offer any proof of their position.

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 9:07 PM

'Tis himself,

The mistake was thinking that someone was making that assertion. You know, just like Rorschach and KOPD made mistakes about what I was asserting? Are you going to call them assholes too, since we all did the exact same thing?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 11, 2010 9:18 PM

zeromh,

You made an assertion. It was shown to be incorrect. So you whined "you're being mean to little old me because I said something that wasn't true." Well wah fucking wah. Someone pointing out that you made a strawman argument aka LIED is not being mean to you, they're telling you that you were wrong. If you don't like being corrected then check your facts before you make sweeping claims.

I don't see you having a happy time at Pharyngula. Your skin is way too thin to survive here.

Posted by: Kirk | June 11, 2010 9:22 PM

@Perspexo #275

I'm not sure what I think. And I'm also not sure how to apply the word important to the decision to post to one rather than the other of two articles, one on beauty and one on stupidity (or presumption of privelege, as you describe it).

But it's interesting to me that when PZ posts a photograph of something that's beautiful, there seems to be not much to say. For my part, all I can say is, that's beautiful, which is redundant, so I can understand why people don't say much regarding beauty.

And then there's Andrew, who seems to generate a lot of discussion.

It's just an interesting asymmetry to me. I think it says more about us than about Andrew, or beauty.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 11, 2010 9:30 PM

zeromh (#270)

But when someone makes an honest mistake about what someone else was saying, there's no need to hand out the labels of logical fallacies when it was just a mistake.

Do you think that fallacies are not fallacies unless they're done intentionally? That's rather odd. And wrong.

Of course, you apparently don't believe it was just a mistake, because then you went on give as the reason for me making a staw man that I have the need to stand on a moral high ground - even if I do not deserve it - and therefore I will lie about what others have said to make myself feel better.

Articulett never said you appear to be doing it on purpose. There are other possible explanations; we might suppose your mistake was caused by a desire to come off as morally superior. However, the reason your "apology" comes across as fake because you chose to apologize for "agreeing with [articulett/Pharyngula commenters]" instead of for the mistake itself.

I would say you have evidence for the opposite conclusion considering how polite I've been in response to people who feel that curse words = arguments.

And here you make the error again. Who is saying curse words = arguments? Who is even implying it? Nobody. And telling people they're arguing something they're not is the opposite of polite.

What you did, was jump in my shit over nothing.

That "nothing" was created by you imagining people saying something they weren't and then getting snippy when called on it. Again, I suggest you apologize for your mistake instead of whining about how the resulting bad feelings are everyone's fault but your own.

I don't have to convince myself that the other debaters are assholes in order to have a discussion here. But apparently, you do.

You made my irony meter go kaboom.

(#272)

Sure, where did I chastise people?

From #222: "Everyone making the argument that there are people who have seen the light thanks to a PZ-like tone is ignoring the fact that there may also be people whose minds don't work that way."

Unless you're just exhibiting your terrible reading comprehension for shits and giggles here, you are also condemning the imaginary commenters who would ignore this fact.

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 9:34 PM

Nerd of Redhead,

Right, we were discussing the benefits of using one tone over another, and you responded with - not an argument - but curses, ad hominems, and unsupported assertions. There was no follow up with "real logic," and even if there had been, what the hell did I do to deserve your vitriol? State an opinion? Question the connection between intelligence and spelling ability?

So maybe I'm wrong. You feel the need to respond to everyone who is wrong on the internet? And you have to spew epithets at them... because you can't conrol yourself? There really is no other reason. You're not accomplishing anything.

Posted by: Perspexo | June 11, 2010 9:41 PM

@ Kirk 285
There's a lot of threads here that generate relatively few comments and yes sometimes it seems like we do focus unnecessarily on the negative but given the nature of the links PZ posts here is that surprising?
I do appreciate the magnificence of the cephalopod but when you see the links to stories of Bill Donahue's idiocy or the truly mind blowing sense of entitlement displayed by Andrew, I find it personally more engaging to debate those issues than find a new way of saying "that squids awesome".

Posted by: southwest23 | June 11, 2010 9:57 PM

Man, I already had this debate about the origin of the universe this week, over at Hemant's blog! Do we really have to go over it again? ;)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 9:59 PM

even if there had been, what the hell did I do to deserve your vitriol? State an opinion?

The opinion may not have been for you, but you are included, being a PearlClutcher™ Troll. Either stop trolling by shutting the fuck up, or present real evidence to back up inane opinions you have. If you can't do either, you are an idjit fuckwit like ABQ (who appears to be on real idjit roll at the moment), incapable of rational discourse.

Here's a question. If you know you won't change our opinions, why can't you shut the fuck up? Losers keep talking when nobody is listening...

Posted by: Perspexo | June 11, 2010 10:10 PM

@ Kirk
From my pov its the inclination, I could try and wax eloquent to express how humbled I feel when I think about the evolutionary history that lead to humanity, the evolutionary history that lead to that glorious squid, the fact that my sense of aesthetics leads me to appreciate the tentacled one as beautiful. I could try and express my added delight of how science has added to my appreciation by allowing me to understand it on a deeper level of zoological knowledge but ultimately its easier to rip on some religiotards.

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | June 11, 2010 10:16 PM

I'm skipping 1/3 or 1/2 of the responses to this thread (depending on how long it take me to write this) which I don't generally do, but something has come to mind that I haven't seen here or in the prior thread.

Our friend Andrew claims to be interested in answers to his questions and at the outset states in vague terms his general position and then proceeds do pose his questions to the "ignorant athiest [sic]".

Andrew dear boy, pray tell, why didn't you pose these questions, albeit framed somewhat differently, to those who are responsible for having shaped your views to this point? That is to say, instead of randomly accosting an avowed atheist biologist with a question like where did matter come from? Why didn't you ask your parents, or your physics teacher (I'm assuming here you got an A in physics being Valedictorian and all) or your pastor or your sunday school teacher or any of the number of people whom you no doubt come in contact with consistently why did matter have to be created, couldn't it have just always been there?

I am reluctant to speculate as to what the answer to that question might be. But what the hell, we are all grownups here are we not? After all having survived your first 18 years with little or no particular difficulty you have taken it upon yourself to "question" the "great P.Z. Myers." But I strongly suspect that you didn't have the courage to question any of those people directly responsible for your extremely parochial, simplistic and painfully ignorant opinions of things, about the depth and breadth of which you appear to have no clue.

One other thing, I used the term boy here deliberately because in my view that is what you are. Still a child. I hope you will outgrow your childishness, not only is it unbecoming in a biologically adult human, but it endangers others for whom you might by the purest accident have some responsibility in the future. In other words, grown up.

If you want to really think about things, start with what immediately surrounds you, there is plenty more, but if you skip over that, you are on a fools errand.

Just in case you don't understand what I am getting at here I will try to put it as bluntly as possible. If you don't question yourself, and your own assumptions about everything, then you effectively haven't earned the right to question anyone else who disagrees with you.

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 10:33 PM

'Tis himself @ 283: You are being willfully obtuse. In order for something to be a lie, the person has to have known that it was not the truth. I misunderstood what people were saying and thought that they were saying that stridence was always best. So I made an argument against that. Articulett's comment made me go back and see that no one had actually said that. Like I said, my mistake. But apparently everyone here is so jaded by the internet or god knows what, that you can't imagine I didn't just make this whole thing up. Articulett went so far as to claim that I (subconsciously?) make stuff up so I can feel better about myself. That is a serious insult, and apparently the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt is completely foreign to you people.

I don't see you having a happy time at Pharyngula. Your skin is way too thin to survive here.

I'll worry about that myself, thanks. And if "thin" means being bothered by people flinging epithets around for no reason, then I'm fine with being thin.

A. Noyd @ 287:

Do you think that fallacies are not fallacies unless they're done intentionally?

Nope. That's why I said that yes, it was a straw man in my response. But hey, you're technically making a staw man right now. Is everyone going to jump in A. Noyd's shit now, too? Maybe he has some unconscious desires to feel morally superior to others? Or does that only apply to people you don't like, such as myself?

However, the reason your "apology" comes across as fake because you chose to apologize for "agreeing with [articulett/Pharyngula commenters]" instead of for the mistake itself.

The "my mistake" part was real. The "I apologize" part was sarcastic - the point being that I really shouldn't have to apologize for making an honest mistake like that. You may not agree, but I at least hold everyone to the same standard that I hold myself to. Three people have claimed that I have made assertions I haven't made now, and I don't need an apology for it because it shouldn't be a big deal. Like I said, it happens. You people are completely unable to give a sympathetic reading to anything somebody writes.

Who is saying curse words = arguments? Who is even implying it?

The people who make replies that contain zero arguments, but do contain curse words, name-calling, etc? #175 and 227 being some blatant examples.

That "nothing" was created by you imagining people saying something they weren't

Happens all the time.

and then getting snippy when called on it.

..and then getting snippy when people who don't even know me invoke Freudian defense mechanisms to explain my behavior instead of the more common explanation that I made a fucking mistake. Why is that such a big deal to you people? It's not like I ripped somebody a new one based on an argument they never made. I wrote a reply to no one in particular, civilly stating an opinion that differed with an argument I thought some people were making, and for that I get crucified. Seriously, explain to me why that's such an egregious sin and I'll apologize.

From #222: "Everyone making the argument that there are people who have seen the light thanks to a PZ-like tone is ignoring the fact that there may also be people whose minds don't work that way."

Unless you're just exhibiting your terrible reading comprehension for shits and giggles here, you are also condemning the imaginary commenters who would ignore this fact.

Imaginary? See Articulett @ 204.

Your "belief" that our "tone" makes the delusional more deluded is not supported by the evidence. You are the one who is being lazy in not reading all those who claim that PZ or Dawkins or other "strident new atheists" played a major role in lessening their magical thinking while furthering their scientific thinking in the process.

This is not "the evidence." This is half of the evidence - the half that you can obtain by conducting a biased search, in which you only look in places where you're likely to find people who have been converted by a strident tone. Articulett is ignoring that there is more to the evidence, that there is a group of people whose minds are less receptive to PZ's manner of conversion.

And saying so is hardly a condemnation, nor is it even chastisement. It's just civilly pointing out a fact. I suppose if I'd said something more like "You fucking retards. That's confirmation bias - there can still be plenty of people whose minds don't work that way", it would have been better received.

KOPD @ 288

I made the mistake of thinking you were both smart enough and honest enough to argue against positions actually being held. Not the same kind of mistake you made.

And in doing so you erected a straw man, attributing to me a claim I was not making. Just like I did.

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 10:54 PM

Whoa, I don't think you're addressing all the issues, Redhead.

First of all, by your own lack of explanation, your comment #227 was nothing more than you being mad at someone for being wrong on the Internet, and having to say something about it in the only petulant way you know how. You're just an angry person who shouts at those he/she disagrees with. You did *not* follow that up with any real logic, and I did not quotemine you in any way.

You criticize others for not presenting evidence, when you present little other than ad hominems and fancy trademarked™ name-calling, yourself. And this is at people who have done nothing more than state their opinion or ask questions of others. I may not have all the answers but at least I'm contributing to a discussion - you're just banging away at your keyboard unable to control your anger. And you talk about whether others are capable of rational discourse?? Like I said before, I don't like it when people pull the Freudian mechanism card, but... projection much?

Very few of my comments here have expressed my "inane" opinions - most of them have been me defending my right to give them, or explaining what I meant when I said what. But here's the thing you have to be okay with: people are going to have opinions that you don't like! Deal with it. You don't have to comment on them if you don't want to. Of course, that would involve controlling your knee-jerk anger just a little bit.

You're right, Red. Losers do keep talking when nobody is listening. I'll be sure to not talk to you anymore.

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 11:06 PM

If he believes atheism is just ignorance about how the universe came to be, then why is he asking a famed atheist how the world came to be and demanding an explanation? It is then not a "genuine question" but another form of "gotcha"; another "If you're so smart then explain this, ha!"

He's asking PZ because everyone seems to think that PZ has some answers! Regardless of whether he's an expert in cosmology or biology, PZ is convinced of his atheism, and many of us are convinced that he knows what he's talking about. Andrew has noticed that, so even though he doesn't understand atheism, he's saying to himself "well if anyone has the answers, it's this guy!" Nevermind that he may be wrong about that fact. The point is, it seems like a very reasonable course to take, given Andrew's assumptions.

Posted by: Kemist | June 11, 2010 11:11 PM

I see that I have become somewhat of a celebrity amongst your endless supply of past-student minions on your forums.

Uhm, that would be difficult as I am a canadian chemistry graduate. But I would have loved to take a class with Pr. Myers.

Its hard for me to reply to such a massive amount of information that was thrown back at me in the last 24 hours

You don't have to reply - that's impossible. You have to study. Science is hard work. And anyway, didn't you just have honest questions? Trying to frame a debate as "honest questions" is disingenuous at best.

One of your big criticisms was that I am young.

uhm, no. I remember reading him calling you whiny and condescending with an overblown sense of entitlement - that is a pretty big criticism. And I have the regret to tell you that is how it reads to me too, and a lot of others here.

And spelling mistakes aside,

Do something about your spelling - it's really, really annoying. If I received your cv written like that, it would go straight to the "garbage" file for sheer sloppiness. And please note that this is coming from somebody whose mother tongue is not english.

To think that the great PZ Myers, critic of creationism, finally receives a legitimate question from a genuine person and the only answer he can give is "Uhh. I'm sorry. I study Biology and Zebra Fish. I cannot help you so go talk to so-and-so or read this or that book."

I don't know if you are being facetious here, and I certainly hope so, because if you are not, then you are abysmally ignorant and I wonder what you were taught in high school - where I come from, even in the worst possible public school, you at least get a vague idea that chemistry, physics and biology are widely different disciplines. And at 18 I already had organic chemistry, physics and calculus classes under my belt.

It's as if your idea of a scientist is that of a not-too-bright ten-year-old who reads only comics. I'm starting to think the "valedictorian" wouldn't stand a chance of even getting a passing grade in a lowly public canadian high school.

If things assemble themselves randomly, is not that supernatural in itself

uhm, no. In fact, I spent an awful lot of time watching stuff assemble itself - it's called chemistry, and there are perfectly good, natural explanations for it. Except it cannot be explained in 200 words. Science has to be studied - there are certain parts you just can't understand without a primer that I'm guessing you just don't have.

But the reading PZ gave you can help - if you dare. If you're curious, persistent and smart enough. If you're not simply looking for a trophy - a "debate" you might pretend to have "won" against PZ to give yourself prestige amongst your christian friends.

I am sorry. I should really stop asking you questions. Because I know I will not receive any answer.

You have received answers - you're just too lazy (or scared ?) to read them. We're sorry, but science cannot be explained in five-letter words written in crayon. You have to work. Did you not say that you were a smart person ? Prove it then. Do your homework. You might even get to learn cool stuff and meet nice new people while you do so. You never know.

After this, if this was truly honest curiosity - which I doubt - you can come back with your questions - I am a chemist and there are probably a couple physicists here. Together, we can answer a few of your questions - your own questions, not those you copied down from creationist litterature or that were spoonfed to you by your pastor.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 11:23 PM

zeromh, here's a suggestion, and it's a polite one, given your Pearl Clutching&trade ways: shut the fuck up. You have dug yourself a veritable pit - you have not addressed substance, instead focusing on tone; you have accused us all of asserting things which were not said; you continue on with your idiocy, vapidity, Pearl Clutching&trade, Tone Trolling&trade, and insistence that you are absolutely fucking right with zero to back that up. So please, please, shut the fuck up. You're reaching the point of boring people to death with the same fucking crap we've heard a hundred times before. You are bringing absolutely nothing new to the table here.

Posted by: Jbags | June 11, 2010 11:29 PM

going by the comments here, I'd have to assume "OM" in the name just just means "entitled to be significantly unpleasant to strangers".

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 11:35 PM

Jbags:

going by the comments here, I'd have to assume "OM" in the name just just means "entitled to be significantly unpleasant to strangers".

You're certainly welcome to think that, Jbags, however, just for your info, I said the same things before I had an OM, which I've only had for a matter of days. A fucking troll is a troll, whether Tone or otherwise.

As for yourself, I don't see you making comments of any substance whatsoever on a variety of threads. The few times I've read you, it's generally a comment like the one I quoted - content and substance free, whiny, with no particular interest. Feel free to try harder. When you comment regularly and you deal with the same fucking types and same fucking arguments, which tend be almost word for word the same, hundreds upon hundreds of times, you can start complaining, eh?

Posted by: Jbags | June 11, 2010 11:36 PM

I'm well aware of what a Molly is. Neither was I trying to be funny. Thanks vindicating my post.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 11, 2010 11:38 PM

Regardless of whether he's an expert in cosmology or biology, PZ is convinced of his atheism, and many of us are convinced that he knows what he's talking about.

The problem is conflating biology or cosmology with a philosophical position. The only God that is destroyed with science is a God of the gaps, making God merely a substitute for human ignorance. God is what we call a phenomenon or series of phenomena we can't explain. In the case of cosmology, the origins of the universe. There's plenty we don't know about how it happened, but interjecting God in there is the equivalent of saying "I don't know".

This is where an understanding of what atheism is and the reason for being an atheist are is vital to any discussion. Don't get the concept and you're left making silly arguments that show up the unjustified philosophical presuppositions. This is why I try to compare atheism to non-astrology, to show that the negative position isn't a worldview in itself. The only positive claim is the negation of another position. I'm not going to be an agnostic about astrology, the premises are unjustified. But does that mean I know everything about everything remotely to do with planetary motion from our vantage point? Of course not! It doesn't stop the premises of astrology from being fatally flawed.

Same goes for the notion of God. Not being able to explain everything doesn't mean the concept of God is not fatally flawed. Missing socks from a clothes dryer might not be able to be explained, but that doesn't mean that a sock goblin took them! It's not even meaningful to talk about sock goblins until they can be quantified, unless you want to define sock goblins as the process of socks going missing - in that case you're explaining nothing at all!

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 11:40 PM

I'm well aware of what a Molly is. Neither was I trying to be funny. Thanks vindicating my post.

So you were just being pointless, then. You seem to have a habit of that.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 11, 2010 11:45 PM

Shala:

why the fuck there are so many concern trolls in these two threads?

Shala, I don't know if you were around for the whole Mooney/Kirshenbaum mess or the resultant uprising of The Intersection Vapour Crew, but a group of people, notably accommodationists, have had a vested interest in scolding PZ and the rest of us for our nastiness. Once The Intersection got done with it's epic castigation of all things Pharyngula, some of the idiots formed You're not helping, which I won't link to because I don't have the link, and I'm not going to bother searching. It's an awful pit of pathetic.

In this instance, it's a case of using the old chestnut "what about the chiiiildren!" because Andrew is an 18 year old, and they insist that if PZ and the rest of us were nice, Andrew wouldn't be such an arrogant, goddidit twit. We'd be able to turn him around in a second if we were nice!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 11, 2010 11:49 PM

We'd be able to turn him around in a second if we were nice!

What delusional fools. After 18 years of brainwashing, poor Andrew needs a stiff jolt to his brain which we can provide. It might actually shake loose an original thought, which is a start.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 11, 2010 11:54 PM

I would think that someone who is spending so many comments discussing tone would understand the rudeness of Andrew's tone.

No, see Andrew wasn't rude because Andrew's not a strident atheist. For Andrew to be rude he would have to actually use profane language. For a strident atheist to be rude, they just have to not kiss the theist's ass. For Andrew to be militant he'd have to carry a gun. For the atheist to be militant, he only has to speak out. So you see, Andrew is a fine upstanding Christian youth, while PZ is a low-down dirty atheist and should be ashamed for not treating Andrew like the special snowflake that he is. PZ, you're hurting the cause!! <pearl-clutch />

Posted by: Weed Monkey | June 11, 2010 11:58 PM

I, a newcomer to this particular corner of the Intertoobs, decided to stay exactly because of PZ and the regulars' direct and snarky writing style. It's both entertaining and often educational. (Hoping I'll be able to learn from my betters by hanging around here.)

Anyhoo, if Andrew was serious with his questions he's being a lazy twit. If not, an arrogant punk. Either way a chastisement is justly deserved.

Posted by: Jonathan Figdor | June 12, 2010 12:02 AM

Love the "Jewish Zombie" line. Zing!

Posted by: Katrina, radicales féministes athées | June 12, 2010 12:07 AM

Comment by zeromh blocked. [unkill] ​[show comment]

Ah, much better now.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 12, 2010 12:10 AM

If somebody shows up on this blog and asks questions in a reasonable, non-provocative way, he or she will get reasonable, non-provocative answers. We have some very smart, highly educated people here. PZ is not the only PhD here nor is he the only professor. There's folks with degrees and experience in biology, chemistry, physics, paleontology, anthropology, sociology, and economics, to name but a few fields. Plus many of us have SIWOTI syndrome.

However, and this is a major however, we do not suffer fools gladly. We are rude to fools. Foolish behavior involves willful ignorance, proselytizing, and tone trolling. Enter at your own risk.

Posted by: zeromh | June 12, 2010 12:11 AM

'Tis himself,

You weren't right when you lied about folks here claiming "being strident is always the best way of converting people."

Nope, that's why I said so when Articulett first mentioned it way back in #256. But that apparently makes me the unreasonable one around here, meanwhile people like you who keep repeating the same falsehood are on everybody's good side.

::shrug:: I'm done fighting with you.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 12:13 AM

Shala:

Caine? Bullying?

Oh my. Am I really? Considering I don't have near the amount of post zero has in this thread? And I'm the bully? Right. Apparently, I didn't get anywhere shutting zero up. So much for bullying. Well, you can't do much with idiots.

I'll join you on the laughing couch, Shala. Be warned though, I am such a bitch, you wouldn't believe.

Oh, and zero: Comment by zeromh blocked. [unkill] ​[show comment]

Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2010 12:13 AM

re 328:

I asked the teacher what the purpose of copying drawings out of the textbook was. "It seems like busywork," I said.

The difference is [drumroll] tone. Did you walk up to your teacher and say "Copying these drawings is just busy work and a sign of poor teaching skills, why do you assign it to us?" This is what Andrew did in his first email.

Now, if you see something wrong with the way I asked the question, I don't think we're going to agree about Andrew.

No, I don't see anything wrong with how you asked the question and I think we will still disagree about Andrew.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 12, 2010 12:15 AM

::shrug:: I'm done fighting with you.

A wise decision on your part, asswipe. It about the only wise or intelligent thing you've done here.

Posted by: Shala | June 12, 2010 12:19 AM

There's a wealth of education to be had here, however, it does come with a caveat: don't say stupid shit.

Even when someone does say something stupid I find people are pretty lenient so long as the person owns up to the fact they said something stupid. All too often the creationists won't take any responsibility though. It's kind of sad.

::shrug:: I'm done fighting with you.

(prepare for an awful Bioshock-inspired speech)

Hello, I am Shala, and I am here to ask you a question.

Is a man not entitled to the anger of his reply?

No, says the man in Washington, it belongs to the right.

No, says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to God!

No, says the man in the Intersection. It belongs to no one!

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

PHARYNGULA!

Where the atheist would not fear the censor, where the angry would not be bound by petty formalities. And, with the anger of your replies, Pharyngula can become your haven as well.

Posted by: zeromh | June 12, 2010 12:21 AM

Janine @ 334:

In other words, your situation and Andrew's are very different.

In certain ways, yeah. But I still don't see Andrew's line about his view of atheists as rude. Besides, my original point on this matter was: "the amount of rudeness in PZ's response was out of proportion to Andrew's transgressions." I stick by that, and that's all I've said about PZ's response, aside from my complaint about the spelling issue.

Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2010 12:22 AM

Some of the most brilliant people I have known were absolutely atrocious spellers, so get over it, y'all.

completely missing the point

Posted by: Shala | June 12, 2010 12:23 AM

You cannot persuade someone by ridiculing him personally, it simply does not work.

HURRRRRRR

DURRRRRRRR

HURRRRRRRRRRRR

Why do i even bother

i am going to move the Coffee Table of Futility next to our Laughing Couch, I could probably roll around on it a bit myself.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 12, 2010 12:25 AM

zeromh (#301)

But apparently everyone here is so jaded by the internet or god knows what, that you can't imagine I didn't just make this whole thing up.

Whether it was an accident or not, you did just make it up. Or did magical little fairies implant the idea into your brain and compel your fingers to type it out?

Articulett went so far as to claim that I (subconsciously?) make stuff up so I can feel better about myself. That is a serious insult, and apparently the idea of giving the benefit of the doubt is completely foreign to you people.

But you were (and still are!) making stuff up. Articulett said you "appear to be imagining that people are saying something they didn't say so that you can imagine yourself on some moral high ground." She never said you actually are doing that, only that you appear to be doing so. However, even if she was making a genuine accusation regarding your motives, you have no grounds to complain when you do it back at her: "I don't have to convince myself that the other debaters are assholes in order to have a discussion here. But apparently, you do." Or to Nerd: "You feel the need to respond to everyone who is wrong on the internet? And you have to spew epithets at them... because you can't conrol yourself? There really is no other reason." Apparently, refraining from "serious insult" and giving the benefit of the doubt is what everyone owes you, but not what you owe everyone else.

But hey, you're technically making a staw man right now.

Then you don't know what a strawman is. I was asking you if that's what you meant and saying if that's what you think, it would be both odd and wrong. Granted my tone was sarcastic, but it wasn't insincere. If you agree that accidental fallacies are still fallacies, then you need some explanation for why you think it's somehow bad form of articulett to call your fallacy what it is.

The "I apologize" part was sarcastic - the point being that I really shouldn't have to apologize for making an honest mistake like that.

Then maybe you shouldn't set yourself up as a spokesperson for civility if you can't manage a minimum of it. It's generally considered polite to apologize for being a dumbass, even if it was accidental. Regulars here manage it all the time.

You may not agree, but I at least hold everyone to the same standard that I hold myself to.

The hell you do. You hold us to much higher standards. Paragraph two above has sufficient evidence of that.

The people who make replies that contain zero arguments, but do contain curse words, name-calling, etc? #175 and 227 being some blatant examples.

Your examples do not support your claim. You are simply assuming that the curse words in 175 and 227 were intended as arguments. Also, the second sentence of 227, which doesn't contain or depend on any cuss words, is an argument.

Why is that such a big deal to you people?

It's not. Your superior tone, your inability to take responsibility for how you come off to others, and your hypocrisy are obnoxious, though, and I'm merely one among a few attempting to point that out. If you don't want it to be remarked on, then feel free to shut the fuck up and go away.

I wrote a reply to no one in particular, civilly stating an opinion that differed with an argument I thought some people were making, and for that I get crucified. Seriously, explain to me why that's such an egregious sin and I'll apologize.

Exaggerate much? You're getting "crucified" for being an oblivious, unapologetic, whiny, illogical, hypocritical, holier-than-thou shitstain who doesn't understand civility has nothing to do with refraining from using curse words. All of those attributes are worthy of contempt here on Pharyngula. And I've already told you twice that you'd do well to apologize for your mistake. Intead, you seem to want to dig yourself halfway to China with both feet crammed in your mouth. Whatever you like, but you'll rightly get no respect for it.

Imaginary? See Articulett @ 204.

Nowhere in 204 does articulett deny or ignore the existence of people for whom "a PZ-like tone" doesn't work.

This is not "the evidence." This is half of the evidence -

Pointing out people who are deconverted by "a strident tone" is sufficient evidence to overturn the claim that a strident tone "makes the delusional more deluded." Clearly, any examples to the contrary shows that this claim is false. Since no one was making the claim that only a strident tone works, there's no reason to consider those for whom such a tone doesn't work.

Articulett is ignoring that there is more to the evidence, that there is a group of people whose minds are less receptive to PZ's manner of conversion.

No, she's not. They are simply irrelevant to the point she was making, so it's stupid to expect her to go out of her way to mention them. However, since she's not claiming a PZ-like tone is the only thing that works, she's not ignoring such people exist.

And saying so is hardly a condemnation, nor is it even chastisement.

I believe you made a mistake in what you thought people were saying, but I do not believe that you weren't chastising them for what you thought they were saying. In fact, you're still trying to say articulett is doing something wrong in not mentioning those who don't respond to rudeness.

(#303)

you present little other than ad hominems

Oh, and you don't understand what an ad hominem is, either. If I say you're an idiot because you're wrong, that's not an ad hominem. If I say you're wrong because you're an idiot, then that is. Show me, by quotation, where anyone has said anything like the former.

(#328)

I guess the key for me is that Andrew was (in his first letter) being honest about his understanding

Are you completely incapable of understanding the point, made several times now, that the problem with Andrew is his second letter? That we don't care if he is genuine in his first because he shows he's a spoiled brat in the second (and now third)? Yes, some people, myself included, doubt the sincerity of his first as well, but it's irrelevant. What got him strung up is the second. Fuck, you're thicker than a frozen taffy.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 12, 2010 12:28 AM

Sure, zeromh, Andrew's line about atheist is ignorance about the world was meant to be an invitation to discussion.

Say, why don't you send an e-mail to a random professor about a subject that person has not studied, toss in some insults. And then you can explain how it was like taking a class.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 12, 2010 12:29 AM

You cannot persuade someone by ridiculing him personally, it simply does not work.

Actually, there hasn't been a whole lot of personal ridicule. There's been ridiculing of his arguments, and of his methods.

You have to work one science at a time, building bridges to other sciences that together will enable someone to understand that you do not NEED a god to create the stuff we see around us. I usually start with Geology, since that is what I know most about, and examples are just lying all around on the ground.

Yeah, but he didn't start off with silly delugionist blathering (which is a good thing, don't get me wrong), but with fundamental cosmology (of all things). And sneering at atheists, a bit. And a whole lot of entitlement.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 12, 2010 12:32 AM

Besides, my original point on this matter was: "the amount of rudeness in PZ's response was out of proportion to Andrew's transgressions." I stick by that, and that's all I've said about PZ's response, aside from my complaint about the spelling issue.

As you've been told many times, asswipe, your concern is noted and rejected. Now do yourself a favor and STFU. You don't have to whine about PZ's tone and you don't have to whine about anyone else's tone, that's becuase you and your buddy mikee's tone trolling are not making either of you any points.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 12, 2010 12:36 AM

Also, zeromh, anyone who goes out of their way to show off intelligent better have good spelling. And I have little sympathy for anyone who show off constant misspellings. This comes from someone who is an atrocious speller. But I have enough sense to use spellcheck and check, if I have any questions, dictionary.com.

Gee, it would have been nice if my college English professor did not use a red pen to correct every misspelling in my essays. That professor was just being mean to me.

Posted by: RossM | June 12, 2010 12:54 AM

I suppose Mr Rosenberg's next step will be to ask the Pope to explain why Catholoicism is a better choice than Lutheranism.

Posted by: SteveM | June 12, 2010 12:59 AM

re 328:

He explained how drawing this stuff for ourselves solidified it in our memory in a way just looking at it did not.

And it is for a similar reason that I advocate the value of good spelling. Not so much for the ability to spell, but for the exercise of proofreading one's work to check spelling. The process gives one a chance to also reconsider one's arguments, ensure the clarity of the prose, etc. Good spelling is like using primer when painting, it is extra work but ensures a good final finish even though it is invisible when done properly; painfully obvious and amateurish when omitted.

And then there is the whole respect thing also.

Posted by: ronsullivan | June 12, 2010 1:12 AM

Carlie@273: Study shows swearing reduces pain.

Carlie! Thank you! Now I have something concrete to point to when I tell people how I used to teach kids to swear, back when I was a pediatric nurse.

Isn't it funny how often tone trolls start right off with such snotty, condescending tones and seem to think that because they don't say "fuck" they're being civil?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 1:17 AM

Ron:

Isn't it funny how often tone trolls start right off with such snotty, condescending tones and seem to think that because they don't say "fuck" they're being civil?

They just don't know how to be fucking civil. It's beyond them. Fuckers.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 1:29 AM

articulett:

I can't tell what zeromh'a point is except that he thinks he's civil and that no one has addressed his arguments (what arguments?).

That's it in a nutshell, Articulett. You have always been a cogent, clear poster here. Zero's just whinging the same old Tone Troll&trade complaint: "You're mean and you swear!" "Icky!"

It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

I seem to be on a Shakespeare jag. These things happen.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 12, 2010 1:41 AM

I don't know or care what educates people like Andrew. I've often seen creationists get tailor made answers to their insincere queries from people who get paid to teach --only to repeat the same question over and over again as if it was never addressed.

Moreover that happens on here all the time. So many commenters here have spent the time delicately answering creationist questions, making sure to explain what as being asked. Despite the clarity and acuity of such responses, the creationist has asked the same question again declaring the answers wrong, offered some pop psychology as to why people are denying the reality of Creation, and declared victory.

It's incredibly infuriating, but what it does is highlight the real issue. Those who argue creation aren't looking for a scientific debate, it's a debate over the existence of God and the ethical / existential implications of the question. Creation is but the vehicle by which they can push their own religious agenda, whether or not the idea stacks up scientifically is irrelevant to the discussion - not that they could evaluate it anyway (see: Dunning Kruger effect)

Posted by: mikee | June 12, 2010 2:04 AM

@ zeromh

I think you are butting your head against a brick wall. Tone is not up for debate in this forum. Everyone seems quite happy with their approach to people such as Andrew, and no matter what you say that's not going to change.
Perhaps your time would be better spent addressing Andrew's comments in your own way, and leaving others to their preferred method (or dare I say tone).
That way people such as Andrew will not only see that atheists are not all the same, but perhaps if we are lucky (so I'm an optimist) someones message will resonate with him, and he will learn from it.

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 2:26 AM

Zeromh, I think you are the only one who imagined I was saying that a PZ-like tone works for everyone and/or that mollycoddling doesn't ever work.

Asshole mikee said:

So humour me if you will, is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position? Or more likely to harden them to their position.

And I responded to his asshole query. I did not say that strident atheism is the ONLY way in that response, but you HEARD that, and so that is what you argued against. Hence, you argument was a STRAW MAN. You argued against a position that I don't hold... nor does anyone here. It's dishonest. It's my opinion that you did it so that you could pretend your position was some moral highground. Mike seems to believe that stridency makes the delusional more deluded despite having no evidence (not even anecdotal) that this is so. If it makes you feel better, mikee is clearly a bigger asshole than you, but you're both pretty ass-holish compared to all the other posters here from my perspective... maybe even as ass-holish as Andrew. Perhaps you feel a need to defend him because you are like him?

Anyhow, this is why you guys are seen as tone trolls and assholes. You want to tsk tsk others and then claim you are getting crucified when it comes back. Like Andrew, you want the freedom to dish out insults and respond rudely, but when others do the same you start clutching your pearls and telling everyone how civil you are.

To me, you aren't civil-- you're smarmy, passive aggressive faitheists. I'm even starting to suspect you are creationists. You certainly don't seem like the honest people I know nor the posters I'm fond of.

Face it, no one here shares your elevated view of yourself. Try the Intersection.

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 2:32 AM

*giggles*-- when we criticize zeromh, it's "crucifixion", when he criticizes everyone else, it doesn't even rise to the level of "chastisement".

(He's got to be a creationist... the semantic silliness is a sign.)

Zeromh, it actually is an insult to say "atheism is ignorant" (it's also grammatically incorrect.) Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It is no more or less "ignorant" than a lack of belief in demons or a lack of belief in magic. The fact that you don't find this statement of Andrew's insulting (as well as embarrassingly silly) while calling the responses towards you "crucifixion" shows just how biased and disingenous you are. We get it, faitheist.

Posted by: Jennifer | June 12, 2010 2:53 AM

wow, fun and games today.
For Robert H., and his juvenile students at risk, I agree. I had a course in
women studies that had us reading some literature that we were told we going to try to dismiss as poorly written and not following the rules. The prof was right, we all became snobby little elitist critics looking at how she told her story instead of what she had to say. Good lesson to learn.
There is of course a great deal of difference between someone who is struggling to the best of their ability to communicate a difficult experience or concept, and someone who, from his TONE only wants to start a discussion much like the one modeled in the CHICKtype cartoon strip. I suspect those of you who said Andrew was just trying for a "gotcha" are correct.

And please, zemorh, just stop. No more. You have said what you needed to get across several times. More than several. I value 'niceness' and politeness too, and all that you have succeeded in convincing me of is that I should get over it.

can I change my tag to nonprocreatingmermaid?

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 2:55 AM

zeromh, my response to mikee was in #194. You went wrong in imagining I said something other than what was written and responding to that imaginary thing that I never said.

In post 222 you said:

Everyone making the argument that there are people who have seen the light thanks to a PZ-like tone is ignoring the fact that there may also be people whose minds don't work that way.

This is a straw man because NO-ONE made that argument. You went on to lecture us all regarding an argument that NO-ONE made!

And, instead of apologizing, you got sarcastic and increasingly obnoxious when it was pointed out.. and you got increasingly defensive you increasingly misrepresented what people said.

Before that you were just a concern troll and mikee was the only asshole (btw, I don't think mikee is anyone I'd want as an atheist spokesperson though he seems to have appointed himself as the "civil atheist". I think he's smarmy).

Your opinion that Andrew was just being honest when he said "atheism is ignorant" was a dipshit opinion. The statement has to real meaning, you see. Atheism can't be "ignorant" anymore than not believing in magic can be ignorant. And it's people who appeal to magical explanations that are ignorant of the scientific explanations. Creationism is ignorant. Moreover (as explained by others), you don't call people ignorant and then pretend to want answers to questions from them. Why would you seek answers from someone you find ignorant? Why would Andrew seek a prominent ignorant atheist to answer his vague creotardian queries? Unless he's dishonest. And why would YOU find that honest??

So you started as a concern troll, moved to dipshit, and then surpassed mikee in the asshole department. That's my opinion, of course, and I believe I've presented the evidence for that opinion in a manner than anyone can understand.

Notice, I hadn't responded to you and mikee before that, though I agree with other peoples' assessment that you were concern trolling.

Mikee is right. If you and mikee think you have a way with creotards, then use your words to express your message to them. Don't tell others how to act... especially when there is no evidence that your mollycoddling approach leads to any creationist furthering their understanding of the questions Andrew supposedly wants the answer to.

Posted by: Jennifer | June 12, 2010 2:59 AM

er, zeromh.

Posted by: mikee | June 12, 2010 3:08 AM

@Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls

Just to be clear, I acknowledge it is pointless to comment on tone on this blog and will refrain from further such comments.
There you go, one less troll for you to defend :-)

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 3:13 AM

No one is stopping you from using any tone you choose-- just quit telling others that they should be more like you. Different strokes work on different folks, right zeromh?

I don't think the tone trolls are as civil as they think they are nor are they as good at changing thinking as THEY think they are. If tone is your big concern, then Pharyngula is not your blog --though there are plenty here with a tone that the "tone sensitive" ought not take offense at. But those with a gentle tone that others like are NOT the ones telling others to be more like them! (See: Sastra OM).

You can tell yourself whatever comforting stories you want about why people on Pharyngula don't think you are as wonderful as you imagine you are, but it might serve you better just to go to a place where people like your type. I don't think anyone really is into "tone trolls" around here.

Once you've said your opinion, that we're mean or you think we should be nicer or that Andrew is honest or that stridency makes the delusional more deluded --shut up. You stated your opinion, quit trying to force it on others. It's not a debate and it's not a discussion point. It's YOUR opinion. That's it. And if you want us to respect your opinion then try modeling that respect when we share our opinion in kind.

We understand that you think you are nice and that we are mean and that we harm some cause while you further it. We don't agree. You are free to find people who do.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 12, 2010 3:29 AM

What I always find annoying about conversations on tone is that they seldom reflect the reality of being involved in such discussions. From my perspective, I try to keep on topic and go into as little of a personal attack. I want to debate the points. Yet there's one of either two inevitable paths. The first path is the descent into futility, where ideas are starting to get repeated ad nauseum. The second path is the avoidance of substance, where the desire to debate the issues is avoided to complain about all those who don't communicate in the "right" tone.

The conversation on tone requires two things: 1. the assumption that people can separate their arguments from their emotions (and on emotive issues this is next to impossible); 2. that both people in the conversation have a similar idea of what counts as civil. If those two criteria aren't met then there's no hope of civility.

I understand the OUGHT, that we ought to treat each other with respect. That arguments should be impersonal (even if reason does stem from desire) and one should be able to have a fruitful discussion without causing offence. Unfortunately the IS doesn't reflect the OUGHT. It's a nice aspiration to desire to, but not one which can be fairly reflected in anything but "in an ideal world".

It's easy to create an ideal to aspire to, it's a lot harder to make it realistically possible to aspire to. An OUGHT that doesn't reflect a possible IS is quite simply absurd.

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 3:34 AM

And then you call it an asshole query! It was a perfectly reasonable question! This... ugh, this is ridiculous. I'm done..

This should have been in blockquotes above #390. It was zeromh's quote. I want to give credit where credit is due. :-p

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 3:41 AM

@Caine.

That's what happens when you're an apologist for a rape apologist.

That isn't what I was doing. It's your perception of what I was doing, and unfortunately PZ's. I can state categorically that you are both wrong about that because I know what my intent was at the time and you don't. However, I made a hash of communicating my intent and that's my bad.

Water under the bridge now.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 3:53 AM

Yeah. How DOES one killfile?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 4:10 AM

coughlan:

Yeah. How DOES one killfile?

I know how. Pity I don't feel like passing on the info to you, isn't it. Don't perceive that as a slight though, it isn't. Really.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 12, 2010 4:50 AM

(reminder) note to self, and for any others even more naive than my good self about Pharynphules: they're not atheists at all, they're Animists.

When are you going to stop acting like an idiot? Or is it not an act?

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 5:53 AM

@Caine

It seems you prefer to be an apologist here and that is a pity.

As noted that was not my intent nor what I did, so I have nothing to apologise for on that score. I obviously made a hash of explaining myself, but part of that has to do with the charged atmosphere when discussing something so emotive on a blog that encourages such "robust" debate. Things have certainly become even harsher since I last posted with any frequency.

Now. You can either take that at face value, or you can continue to insist that you have a clearer idea of what I intended than I do.

Or we could just killfile each other.

Posted by: kristian.herner | June 12, 2010 7:51 AM

I think PZ and many others are being unnecessarily aggressive. When I walk past a barking chihuahua on the street, I don't stop to kick it and stomp on it. Andrew is only 18, he has all the finesse, tact and overconfidence you see in most 18 year olds. It is possible that Andrew could be a new Evid3nc3 as well.

Andrew, if you are reading this, go watch Evid3nc3's youtube series "Why I am no longer a Christian" - He started his journey where you are now.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 7:55 AM

coughlan:

As noted that was not my intent nor what I did, so I have nothing to apologise for on that score.

This is why you lost the respect of many, not just myself. Your intent aside, you refused to consider anyone but yourself and your single-minded intent, just as you're doing now. The fact you think you have nothing to apologize for speaks volumes. I have no need to killfile you, you aren't worth attention in the first place. Once again, that's a pity because I used to read you with interest and consideration. I did, at one point have respect for you.

Well, your loss. By the way, I included the link for those who weren't involved in the thread, so if they read this and are somewhat baffled, they can judge your intent for themselves.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 8:06 AM

kristian.herner:

When I walk past a barking chihuahua on the street, I don't stop to kick it and stomp on it.

Would it be the same if the barking chihuahua was chasing you, then chomped onto your ankle? PZ was not walking down the street and then suddenly decided to kick a passing 18 year old creationist from Wisconsin. You aren't exactly stellar with analogies.

Andrew is only 18, he has all the finesse, tact and overconfidence you see in most 18 year olds.

Andrew is an arrogant twit. I wasn't nearly the asshole at 18 that Andrew has gone out of his way to prove he is - if you're going to chase down a prominent professional, think you can chomp on his ankle and scream "win!" you'll most likely get a lesson. That's what happened.

Posted by: JeffreyD | June 12, 2010 8:19 AM

Use your spell check and try a simple dictionary! Among other errors, you wrote "I see that I have become somewhat of a celebrity..." What you meant to say is that you had become somewhat of a source of amusement.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 12, 2010 8:35 AM

Fuck. Fuck and again, Fuck.

It took me almost an hour to catch up with this thread, and I spent most of it having to wade through the fucking morass of yet another debate about harshness and tone.

And in so doing, the Very Concerned People ^TM (hereafter to be referred to as VCPs) managed to completely fucking derail an otherwise decent topic, while in the process offering not a goddam thing of value to the discussion. As fucking usual.

You fucking VCPs are the inflamed appendix of rational discussion: your presence is toxic and you serve no recognizable purpose, but you will not be ignored and left unchecked, will kill a discussion.

Just fuck right off, the whole lot of you...

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 12, 2010 8:47 AM

Brian, here is the moniker you have earned, Brian, Defender Of Rape Apologists. Wear it with pride, you fucking well earned it.

Almost makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 9:03 AM

What it makes me wonder is why you and other VCPs think your arguments about tone haven't been heard, addressed, and thoughtfully dismissed a hundred times or more.

Gee. I don't know. Could it be the tone? Yes that's it! It's the tone!

I haven't posted regularly for quite some time, so I can see that the pharyngulite eco system has become much more hostile than it used to be. If you've been embedded in it you may be missing the wood for the trees. We are clearly into a self perpetuating cycle; those that want to moderate the tone are driven out, those that up the anti are kept in. On this thread alone two perfectly sensible atheists/agnostics we're driven off the premises for tone trolling.

Now is that a bad thing? Maybe, maybe not. It's certainly an interesting bit of online anthropology, in fact I'm pretty certain there is a thesis in it for someone who can survive the natives. C'mon you have to admit there is a bit of a tribal vibe here?

Could this be a subject for the never ending thread?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2010 9:06 AM

I don't killfile. Part of the reason I come here is for the crazies.

Jesus H fucking Christ

Look at all the worn out pearls scattered all over the floor here.

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | June 12, 2010 9:12 AM

This pompous little youth actually gives a fascinating insight into what is arguably the major flaw in the brains of creationists: inattentiveness. They either do not read responses or else they read them with bias-based selectivity. They are dishonest; most of all with themselves.

A young person with a healthy, normal mind would have undoubtedly been a little miffed by the (justifiably) dismissive tone of PZ's initial response but they would also have had the sense to recognise that it contained some telling criticisms and useful suggestions; most notably to go away and make the effort to read a book or two. They would, at least inwardly, have felt chastened. But creationists seems to lack the capacity for this. They seem as impervious to embarrassment as they are to reason and argument.

Mr Rosenberg, if you're reading this, I'd suggest that now is the time in which you need to shut up and go do some reading. PZ mentioned the first rule of holes; seriously, do consider that. Should you feel, in spite of this suggestion, that you need to continue attempting to tussle with PZ then here's another piece of reading you might want to consider. Don't worry - it isn't hard to understand, although its implications for you, personally, may be.

Posted by: MosesZD | June 12, 2010 9:17 AM

Posted by: zeromh | June 11, 2010 1:12 PM

I'm going to have to agree with Andrew that the amount of rudeness in PZ's response was out of proportion to Andrew's transgressions.

Side topic on misspelled words: Ok, I get it, spelling errors look bad. But is it really necessary to point them out every time someone sends you a letter?

Valedictorian. Remember that? I do and it wasn't a "casual" reference because, frankly, he brought it up. He was saying I AM SMART AND EDUCATED and I demand you PROVE my fairy tale is not true "Mr. Smarty-pants Science Guy."

Yet he can't spell or even use a spell-checker. What does that tell you?

Because what it tells me the guy is a poser and trying to put a notch on his "creationist gun." Or, perhaps, is trying to be a martyr. Or is, perhaps, a liar or just run-of-the-mill low-hanging-fruit. Or is just another brain-dead creationist who can't handle reality.

Now, here is the deal, just so your small mind can grasp: IF YOU CLAIM INTELLENGENCE and EDUCATION, FUCKING SHOW IT! At least follow some reasonable rules of grammar and spelling.

It's like morons calling people MORANS for their political views. If you can't spell the word... Don't use it! And DO NOT EXPECT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 12, 2010 9:30 AM

Could this be a subject for the never ending thread?

Been there, done that, the tone troll idjits lost (they are usually losers to begin with). Also BORING.

Posted by: EvolutionSkeptic | June 12, 2010 9:45 AM

Heh ... my friend who often lurks here sent me a link to this thread, saying I was remembered fondly by some posters. That's cool. I didn't think I was all that memorable, but I appreciate you guys bringing me up again.

To fill you in, yes, I did as several of you suggested. I went to the library and picked up "Why Evolution is True" and "The Greatest Show on Earth." I've been busy with classes and work, but I've been able to work my way through WEiT and am looking forward to start on Dr. Dawkins' book within the next week or so (yes, I can be a bit of a slow reader, between all I've got to read).

Having read WEiT, I imagine many of you will be glad to know my moniker may be a bit misleading now. I think my hangups about evolution were common misconceptions about the mechanics behind the process. I didn't really understand the basics and had probably been mislead a bit by some people around me. What I took away from Dr. Coyne's book is that evolution is an elegant but somewhat simple process, in the sense that it's really just mutations, genetics and traits being "selected" for through reproduction. If a trait is favorable toward the individual and species surviving in its particular environment, that trait will allow the individual to live longer, reproduce more and pass the genes for the trait on to its offspring. That process continues over a long period of time until, eventually, enough individuals within the population share the trait (and other traits) to be classified as a new species. Some posters said before that "macroevolution" is basically just a long series of "microevolution," which I think makes sense to me now.

It's all really cool, actually. I probably should have come back and thanked you guys for pointing me in the right direction, but I've just been sort of caught up with other stuff. I know I've got a TON of learning to do, but I feel like I've gotten a lot out of Dr. Coyne. Who has read his other book "Speciation"? I liked his style and was wondering if I'd like that one as well.

Now, for the bad news for some of you ... I am still a Christian. I do still believe in God and go to church, etc. I don't know it to be true and don't expect any of you to adopt the belief, but it's where I am right now. I do want to learn all I can, though, and I think I'm actually willing to accept the conclusion that God doesn't exist if that's where I reach with my study.

Oh, and I don't get this Andrew guy. I never would have even thought of demanding Dr. Myers answer every question I have. I'm the one who lacks education. It's my responsibility to make the effort. Andrew seems rather passive-aggressive to me, and that's pretty irritating. Take it from a fellow Christian and (former) skeptic, Andrew ... Teh Googelz is your friend, as is the library. Make the effort to educate yourself and then maybe come to Dr. Myers and those at this forum for specific questions as you have them. Don't demand an answer. Hope for one, and attempt to learn it for yourself in the meantime. If you read this, you should really check out Dr. Coyne's book. It's excellent and will give you a much deeper appreciation for how we got here.

Thank again, guys. I'll try to check back in here in case anybody's wondering anything else about me. I'm flattered you all remembered me after several months. Have a great weekend.

Evolution(Non)Skeptic

Posted by: MosesZD | June 12, 2010 9:52 AM

Posted by: humanizzm | June 11, 2010 2:29 PM

Mr Myers, you are perfectly right in saying that those nuts writing to you are not entitled to an answer. But by the same token you are not entitled not to be asked or not to be insulted. It was your choice to become a controversial public figure, and it is your choice to continue writing this blog... the hatemail is simply part of that, becuase that is what free speech means: If I publicly state an opinion, I have no right to expect my critics to stay silent.

Just as these nutbags have no right to demand an answer, you have no right to demand that they stop writing to you. That's the annoying thing about free speech: it goes both ways.

Ignore or ridicule them by all means, but tell them not to write again? Isn't that asking a bit much?

You're not very clever. In fact, PZ Myers does have the right to ask idiots to not write him. And, he has the right to get a fucking restraining order to enforce it.

And, off topic, get a fucking spell checker. When you're telling people "what is right," be fucking right. Otherwise you just look stupid and sanctimonious, like poor little Andrew.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 12, 2010 9:53 AM

Is this true in every case? Have you never come across "tone trolling" and thought : "hang on this has merit", but then declined to comment for fear of being labelled a "tone troll"?

If I thought a tone troll had a legitimate point then I'd comment on it. In fact, I have, several times.

The problem with tone trolls is their incessant whining about "you guys are rude and use naughty words, you'll scare away the goddists." We usually tell them "your concern is noted" and otherwise ignore them at first. If a tone troll continues to tone troll, then we get rude, crude and obnoxious at them. If they stop tone trolling then we stop arguing with them on that subject.

There's a regular commenter here, Sastra OM, who is kind, gentle and patient with goddists. She's also highly intelligent (I wish I were that smart) and an extremely competent debater. She's a well respected regular and most of us read her comments with delight and awe. Unfortunately her soft-tempered exchanges generally have exactly the same reaction from goddists as other peoples' in-your-face wrangles, i.e., dismissal and disdain. We don't tell her not to be genial with goddists because she doesn't tell us not to be harsh.

Posted by: Escherichia coli | June 12, 2010 10:02 AM

For those looking how to killfile:

http://caulfield.info/emmet/2008/11/installing-killfile-in-firefox.html
(yay look at what I googled! :)

And hopefully now the comments section will look better to me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 12, 2010 10:05 AM

Maybe it warrants another airing?

Not using your inane rationale. Which will change nobodies minds. We see what works empirically. We see what happens if we are nice to godbots/creobots. They settle in and preach to us ad nauseum, just like concern trolls are doing at the moment. So, you tell us how to avoid having them settling in and preaching at us ad nauseum first, here on this thread. Then, and only then, will you have a point.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 10:11 AM

The problem with tone trolls is their incessant whining about "you guys are rude and use naughty words, you'll scare away the goddists." We usually tell them "your concern is noted" and otherwise ignore them at first. If a tone troll continues to tone troll, then we get rude, crude and obnoxious at them. If they stop tone trolling then we stop arguing with them on that subject.

That seems fair enough to me, and I've participated in it myself. I'm more ... ahem ... concerned about actual fellow travellers who haven't acclimatised to conditions and simply never get an opportunity to do so.

The tone tends to get acid very, very quickly for those exhibiting any troll tendencies and it quickly becomes the scene with the killer whales and the baby seal. From this remove it seems to me that the hyper sensitivity to trolls scoops up and eviscerates a few fairly innocent types each day.

I mean call Gandhi a fucking wank faced moron retard sheep shagging god botting rapist, and he'll become a troll.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | June 12, 2010 10:12 AM

It's a funny thing...

My personal suspicion is: if folk calling out religious bullshit were stupid enough actually to listen to tha' Vapours Brigade and start 'toning it down' in the fashion they request* (frequently from, I might mention, a pitch I don't even find especially unreasonable or confrontational, oddly enough), freethought as a general movement would lose enormously. And needlessly so.

There's a host of reasons I suspect this. Among them: a sharp rejoinder is frequently simply more memorable than a waffling glop of rhetorical mud; the Vapours Brigade's preferred modes of communication are actually kinda implicitly insulting to certain more alert folks' intelligence, and people do notice and do resent this; and any time a too-full-of-'imself poseur is holding forth in hilariously silly fashion in the manner of the young gentleman whose correspondence started this thread--and by extension today's standard vapid bleating from a certain corner on the subject of tone--there's about six and a half billion people in the world all wishing someone would wipe the smarmy self-satisfied grin off the little wank's face, and they're actually incredibly grateful when someone does, whether or not they actually mention this...

But see, I don't generally contribute this opinion beyond a light mention here and there because I don't want to oversell it. Because the truth is, obviously, these are mostly guesses and intuitions, salted with some experience, yes, but hardly final in any form. I can't know any one of these principles holds, exactly. I merely suspect. Tho' frequently, I'd add, with some pretty good reasons.

I started this missive with 'It's a funny thing'. And here's the funny thing: watching, it is incredibly clear to me the real problem with the tone patrol is they continually fail to attach the same reasonable caveats and responsible assessments of what they do and do not know to their own (I suspect rather too briefly considered, but I digress) thoughts on this matter. It's so rarely 'Hey, y'know, there are other ways to do this that I think I could make work, y'know; does anyone mind if I try that too...' It's 'don't you do what you're doing... It can't work...'

And soooo, on the basis that it would create an amusingly irrational parity in this, I think I'm going to spend the next few days trolling annoyingly polite folk's fora and insisting they be ruder...

That's right, ye mangy losers. I'm gonna have to insist you call people fucking idiots, to their faces, too, right along with me. Right now. All the time. To the exclusion of all other approaches. 'Cos this danged diplomacy of yours could never work on anyone...

(Heads off to Phil Plait's place...)

(*/Notwithstanding that eventually, this would require them to say nothing whatsoever. Since there's always some nutter somewhere who thinks any given phrase is over the top. News flash: when I call the Abrahamic deity and others an 'invisible sky fairy', trust me, I have much choicer phrases, available, too. And I will break 'em out--if only to give you a little apparently badly needed perspective on where the window actually is--if you continue with this inane bleating of yours. As you were.)

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 10:20 AM

@Nerd.

We see what happens if we are nice to godbots/creobots. They settle in and preach to us ad nauseum, just like concern trolls are doing at the moment.

I'm not concerned about them. Well not especially. It's other atheists. As well as the general observation that there has to be a sweet spot as regards tone and to wonder : "Are we in it? Close to it? A million miles from it?".

Posted by: AnthonyK | June 12, 2010 10:23 AM

Oh and tone trolls - there's a blog just for you: it's called you're not helping. It complains incessantly about tone, this blog, PZ personally, and even this post!

You'll love it: personally I find it smug, pompous, masturbatory (in a bad way) and dull - but I suggest you go there to complain.
Because here, we just don't fucking care.

Posted by: AnthonyK | June 12, 2010 10:26 AM

Are we in it?

Yes.

Posted by: pistoreyu | June 12, 2010 10:45 AM

Evolution(Non)Skeptic, may I say that your posts were delightful? I also want to learn about so many things and it's refreshing to read your approach.
AnthonyK, that website is hilariously stupid! Your description seems very accurate.

Posted by: FossilFishy | June 12, 2010 10:57 AM

Surely someone has said this already, but I don't have time to read the whole thread. Why the fuck do these tone trolls think that there's only one right way?

...there has to be a sweet spot as regards tone...

No there fucking doesn't. You're presuming that there's some kind of uniformity of response to tone and that's an unmitigated cocktail of horse piss, flop sweat, squid ink and bananas, garnished with a strand of fallen pearls. Nobody in their right mind would swallow that.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 12, 2010 11:25 AM

There are a steady stream of people, like minded atheist types, appearing on pharyngula who comment, get savaged, and leave never to return. Isn't that a pity?

There are also some who comment, get totally savaged, even get threatened with the BanHammer&trade , and stick around to comment more and say actually interesting things. I've even observed this with one troll who seemed to post only on one issue (the a-word) and then actually apologized (looked sincere to me), and has hung around to participate in other threads with actual insightful postings that don't involve that one issue of concern. I'm a lot more willing to tolerate someone whom I may disagree with on Issue A if they are also participating in discussions on Issues B-Z and I don't disagree with their opinions on all the other issues.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 11:40 AM

@FossilFishy

No there fucking doesn't. You're presuming that there's some kind of uniformity of response to tone

Not specifically, but generally. Tone runs on a continuum, somewhere along which you get the best bang for your buck. For example threats of violence would be a red line, even on pharyngula, disparaging remarks about someones children would surely also meet with disapproval. This would be a generally accepted limit to the discourse unacceptable under any circumstances. This suggests there is an ideal range of tone.

If they'd provide some actual evidence that our way doesn't work then maybe we'll change tactics. But they don't.

On this thread two atheists/agnostics weighed in on behalf of Andrew and were filleted because of it. Now they will never post here again (it seems), and we cannot add their distinctivness to our own. To coin a phrase.

Of course that is rather anecdotal, but it isn't the first time this has happened and I imagine there are hundreds of people who have something to contribute that simply tune out because of the reception they get. I'm sure most of the posters here can think of examples.

Over on the Dawkins site they've introduced moderation, but that seems a poor solution too. I'm not sure what if anything can or should be done to improve tone on pharyngula, but I do think a good old re-airing of the subject could be useful. Maybe invite some of the people from "you're not helping" onto the never ending thread to (re)make their case? The issue does seem to pop up on a lot of threads.

Now I'm off to charge some windmills.

Posted by: attorney | June 12, 2010 11:52 AM

While I of course agree with the conclusions of most of the posters here, I have to say one thing that I hope Andrew (and others) will take to heart. Andrew, if you're reading this, I beg you to listen to me. I am not going to insult you, for a very simple reason:

I used to BE you.

I was raised as a fundamentalist christian in Indiana. Think "Jesus Camp." As an 18-year-old who had done well academically, I probably blew the minds (and not in a good way) of educated people by saying some of the same things you are saying. I am now 43, having become educated myself, and thus having learned real science and real life and having (for about 13 years now) gotten completely away from religion.

For those who were not steeped in religion, let me explain (from my view) why it is so difficult to pry people away from those beliefs when they reach adulthood having grown up in them. Inside the mind of an 18-year-old me, or an Andrew Rosenberg, those beliefs function as the fundamental building blocks of knowledge (i.e., the worldview is "Religion AND . . ."), not because those beliefs function well or have any evidence supporting them, but because they are what the person has been told his entire life by all the adults around him.

From the day of my birth, the same people who told me that cars stop at the red lights and that if I stick a stamp on a letter and drop it in the mailbox it will get to the person I addressed it to ALSO told me that Jesus was the son of god who rose from the dead and will return to send the sinners to hell and take the believers to heaven. (And, as we were truly fundamentalist, I was never taught the Santa Clause or Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy myths, so I had no examples of things I was taught that later were revealed by these people to be intentional lies.)

These people knew the facts about EVERYTHING, as far as my childhood mind could discern, and they obviously cared about me and wanted me to be happy, so why would they lie about that one thing? There is simply no way for a child, surrounded by people who universally follow these beliefs, even to have a clue that he SHOULD distinguish between what the knowledgeable people tell him about religion and what they tell him about the rest of the world. Even worse, unlike the things they tell him about the world, there is no feedback mechanism in experience (inside the religious community) that will reveal to the child that the religious teaching is wrong.

If I were told by everyone that a letter without a stamp would be delivered anyway, I would learn that was wrong when I tried it and got my letter returned. But there's no way to test the religious beliefs that can prove them wrong.

I know, science can demonstrate that many of the precepts are physically impossible, but these children are taught from Day One that they are "miracles," and their very impossibility is what makes them so special and important. In fact, the impossibility is inculcated in the child's mind as PROOF of the overall concept. Jesus was the son of god and PROVED it by walking on water, healing the sick and raising people (including himself) from the dead.

When that child reaches adulthood having been steeped in such things and never having had real contact with anyone who didn't at least pretend to believe this stuff, religion becomes solidified as reality in the mind, and becomes nearly impossible to dislodge.

It's hard to posit a real-world parallel to communicate to people raised without this type of religious influence how pervasive and hard-to-abandon these beliefs are. I could say, "Imagine you reached college and found out the multiplication tables were false," but, again, that couldn't really happen because, if an entire community taught its children fake multiplication tables, the world itself would show those tables were fake because they would not work. That doesn’t happen with religion. I went to church, read the bible, was baptized, was saved from my sins, had the holy spirit dwelling in me and was destined to go the heaven. All of it false, but none of it contradicted by day-to-day experience.

(Andrew, in your case the ingrained status of the teaching you have received is revealed by your statement that “if there is a god, christianity makes the most sense for me to follow.” There is absolutely no logical connection between the existence of a god (if true) and the pursuit of christianity in particular, and the leap from one to the other is supported only by the beliefs you have been taught. Ask yourself how the existence of god “sensibly” leads to the conclusion of christianity. To someone without that indoctrination, the leap of logic is as great as if you said “If today is Tuesday, it makes sense that I am a jackrabbit.” Literally.)

In any event, people raised as I was and as Andrew apparently has been reach adulthood, perhaps move away from the community to go to college, and are confronted with a world of people who, to varying degrees, dismiss this fundamental FACT (as we know it) as nonsense. A young adult, who has been told this FACT by everyone he has ever trusted, people who have been right about everything else, people who love him, is now being told by strangers that the FACT is not true.

In my case, this situation made me argue all the harder for the religious view. I couldn't believe such educated and apparently intelligent people could be so wrong about this one fundamental thing. (See how the roles get reversed here?) The one thing I never did along the way was really ask myself if the religion was TRUE. My mind simply had not been equipped to ask that question. Again, it would be like a normal person asking himself if 7x7 is really 49 (except, again, without the ability to prove it). It literally never OCCURRED to me that what I had been told about religion COULD be wrong. This is what "indoctrination" means. This is part of the explanation behind the statistic cited (I believe) by Daniel Dennett in "Breaking The Spell," that fewer than 1 in 100 of all people who reach age 18 in a fundamentalist religion ever abandon it.

Fortunately, if you get out of that community and live in the real world long enough, the falseness of what you have been taught clangs against the reality of the world often enough that, if you TRULY are seeking to understand the world, eventually the religion crumbles. That was my experience.

It took seven years of college (four in seminary) and three of my five years of grad school before the facade fell away. When it did, it happened literally in one evening. For me, it was March 17, 1999. The struggle to reconcile all my knowledge and experience of the real world with my religious "beliefs" became too great, and my mind suddenly grasped that everything was easily reconciled if I abandoned the one FACT that was contradicted by EVERYTHING else. And, in retrospect, the falseness of it seemed so OBVIOUS, I had trouble accepting that it took me 13 years on my own to get there. It’s like those “find the boy with the wagon in this picture” puzzles in Highlights magazine. No matter how long you have to search, once you see the boy and the wagon, it becomes impossible NOT to see them, and you wonder why you couldn’t see them all along.

I often think that my life would have been so much better if, along the way, I had encountered one rational adult who would have explained to me that what I had been taught all my life simply wasn't true. (To be fair, I may have encountered many people who tried, but dismissed them as simply wrong. Young people are notoriously hard-headed, and I was the captain of that particular team. Ignorance and raw intelligence are a dangerous mix.)

Andrew, I would love to be that adult for you. However, that is improbable for a couple of reasons. First, you don't know me and therefore probably are unwilling to trust me to contradict what your loved ones have told you all these years. Second, it may be that no one can "tell" you this and have it take root. (As with me, someone would have had to reach you when you were 8 or 10, or even younger, rather than now.) As I did, you may have to live through years of experience before the cumulative weight of real-world knowledge pushes you to the inevitable conclusion.

To that end, let me make three suggestions that may speed up the process for you.

First: Move to another state, preferably on one of the coasts, for college, and go to a secular school, one without any official religious influences whatsoever. I hate to say it, but having gone to school in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan when I was young, and finally seeing the light after moving to Los Angeles led me to believe that getting out of the Midwest is essential to this process. I went back to the Midwest post-religion for law school, and found the religious environment, even in a secular school in downtown Chicago, to be less than conducive to rational life.

Second: Study something real. Classes in which feelings and beliefs are treated as knowledge (e.g., the social "sciences" other than economics, etc.) will do less to make you confront your beliefs about the world with indisputable feedback. Classes in math, engineering or the hard sciences will get your mind into proper working order as far as evaluating the truth and reality of propositions. (I have three degrees in political science, so I speak from experience here.) In addition, these types of classes will expose you to people who will challenge you to justify your beliefs about virtually anything you discuss.

Third: Make friends, real friends, who are not religious. Especially when you move far from home, as I have suggested, it is tempting to seek comfort in the familiar, to go to church and get involved and make your friends there. I am not suggesting you don't go to church (although that would be a humongous leap forward in the process), but IN ADDITION, make at least three real friends who have NO religion in their lives. Spend time with them, talk with them, LISTEN to them. Not just about religion, but about everything. Don't just take their word for anything (never do that with anyone) but pay attention to how integrated their worldviews are.

Andrew, I hope you get there much faster than I did. In reality, I am 43 going on about 25 because so many of my years were simply wasted. I look back and see how a huge chunk of my life (and perhaps the BEST chunk) were stolen from me by those people who claimed to care about me.

You seem like a genuinely earnest person. For all that the posters here seem to think you are self-obsessed and have a sense of entitlement, I can say, having taught college for seven years, that these are very typical qualities in people your age, again because of how they have been raised, and I don't hold them against you. You'll outgrow all of that. The real world and real education tend to humble people, while religion that claims to hand you all the answers on a silver platter tends to make people arrogant and condescending. Both sides of that equation worked that way for me.

As I said, I used to BE you, and I have great confidence that you will get there. If what I have written here gets you (or anyone else) there even one day sooner, it will have been worth it to me.

Posted by: Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls | June 12, 2010 11:55 AM

Just because one is an atheist means nothing. We have had several atheists here who were complete jerks and ended up in the dungeon....
We are a diverse group, which makes it interesting. There is always someone who can help you with almost any subject.

I don't disagree with that and of course some atheists are going to be jerks. They are after all people, and many, many people are jerks. I'm merely suggesting that the position of the bar separating the sheep from the goats may need adjustment from time to time. Or at least someone should take a closer look at its current placement.

Perhaps I'm raving and the whole system is organically self correcting.

Gotta get back to those windmills!

Posted by: dutchdoc | June 12, 2010 12:03 PM

You will continue to hide behind your aura of rudeness and bad jokes

PZ makes bad jokes? Where? Must have missed them, so far.

Posted by: Shala | June 12, 2010 12:08 PM

PZ makes bad jokes?

That Moo-ham-ed one made me cringe.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | June 12, 2010 12:40 PM

@attorney - Please please please start hanging around here regularly. Please. That was a truly great post.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | June 12, 2010 1:03 PM

Now, for the bad news for some of you ... I am still a Christian. I do still believe in God and go to church, etc. I don't know it to be true and don't expect any of you to adopt the belief, but it's where I am right now.

That's awesome, evolutionskeptic. Good to hear you've been enjoying and learning from your reading. Believe it or not, no one actually expects every commenter here to drop any and all religious beliefs. Being open to examining them is all anyone could honestly ask for.

Speaking of honestly, I'm going to quote JackC's and Jadehawk's comments about you:

We were almost absurdly nice to him. Of course, he came here honestly.

no idea, but I wish he'd come back. People like him are absurdly rare, and fun to talk to. I'd love to know how his reading went.

This is why Pharyngula is such a hostile place for most. People like you, evolutionskeptic, are rare. We get so many fucking smug pricks like Andrew who start of with a backhanded insult to biology, atheism, or science, or those think they're being sneaky when they say "I'm just asking a question" that we know damn well they've no interest in really having answered. We're not stupid, and frankly we're damn tired of giving smug morons the benefit of the doubt on the off chance that deep down they're really honest people but only accidentally acting like douchebags.

We're suspicious of 'nice', because that's all the creationists and science denialists have (when they even have 'nice'). We're more interested in 'science' and 'reality', and unless 'nice' comes packaged along with those, it can go hang.

Posted by: Enkidu | June 12, 2010 1:36 PM

Speaking up for Andrew, I gotta tell you all that he doesn't think he's being dishonest. He thinks he's being open-minded and fair.

Of course, he's had the open-mindedness beaten out of him in Sunday school. He simply cannot sidestep his religious beliefs long enough to see what the world looks to those without them any more than I can sidestep color binocular vision long enough to see what the world looks like to a dolphin via echolocation.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | June 12, 2010 2:00 PM

DAMMIT! DAMMIT DAMMIT DAMMIT! I meant to put Thursday there, but looking at the line to make sure I properly aped it confused me! Dammit >:|

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 12, 2010 2:39 PM

zeromh (#372)

Misunderstanding and prevaricating are not the same. People keep accusing me of the latter.

You still don't get it. Even if you were mistaken in doing so, you made up what you thought people were saying. In the real world, making stuff up doesn't depend on one's intention. The idea that people were ignoring those for whom rudeness doesn't work did not come from nowhere; it came from you imagining it.

There was no doubt to give the benefit of. I misunderstood someone the exact same way THREE other people have misunderstood me in this thread, and Articulett ascribes subconscious needs to be morally superior to me, only? I'll say it again - misunderstandings in arguments are common, and I'm not the only one who did it. And Nerd clearly cannot control himself when it comes to arguing against people he disagrees with on the internet.

So, from your point of view, your accusations are justified, and that makes them okay. But because you're certain that you've done nothing wrong, articulett's guess at your motivations is insulting. Your bias and total lack of self-awareness is not an excuse for doing to us what you say is wrong for us to do to you. Also, who cares if three other people (arguably) made the same initial misunderstanding? You're the one who stuck around to make a further ass of yourself, crying about being called a tone troll, and that's what's led to you getting an extra special smacking down.

Look at how he wrote several replies to me/about me above after I already said I was done with him. He can't stop!

And look how here you are still talking about him. Holy double standards, Batman.

You did not include the "if" part. I thought that you asking me a question and then continuing as if I had already answered was expressing the same thing as making a statement. I take it back.

The "if" was implied. Maybe if you reigned in your persecution complex, your reading comprehension would improve.

From how I've seen it used, "straw man" carries a very strong connotation of "you are purposely doing something evil to derail my argument," and therefore I would not use it to describe a simple mistake. I see/saw Articulett's wording as stating that I was deliberately doing something evil to his/her argument.

Well, you're wrong about the connotation. Maybe if you'd given her the benefit of the doubt...

Yes, well I've pointed out three people who did not in this thread.

What are you, six? Other people making a mistake does not excuse you from having made it. You fucked up, so you should apologize. This isn't difficult.

Like I said, there was no doubt to give them the benefit of. And specifically regarding the admission of committing straw men fallacies, I have held everyone (including myself) to the same standard, to a T. I do not need people to say "I'm sorry" for honest mistakes.

First, speculating about your motives is not strawmanning. You have yet to make a case for anyone making a strawman of your arguments. Second, of course, from your perspective you deserved the benefit of the doubt because you think you're an angel, but from ours, you're only confirming your boorish, oblivious sanctimonious wankery. Why on earth should we all adopt your blinkered view of yourself? You say you don't need people to apologize for mere mistakes. Sorry, but you don't get to appoint yourself arbiter of the comparitive iniquity between being rude by accident and being rude on purpose.

I did not mean that people literally think a curse word is an argument. But they do draft replies with insults instead of substance, which means they're interested in just shouting at people who are wrong on the internet. Such people don't deserve politness, but I was (for the most part) not rude to them, which was my original point.

Then you should have made clear from the start you weren't being literal or you shouldn't have made the accusation. Not everyone is required to respond to flagrant stupidity with polite arguments. And the hell you weren't rude to people. By the standards of this blog, you were rude from the start, though I know you don't see it because you think only your standards matter.

Ok... in your estimation, where did I go wrong? At what point did I first do something wrong in this thread?

Let's see, in 26 you expressed your opinion that PZ is wrong without making any argument to support it and then complained about picking on Andrew's spelling as though it's something PZ does to every letter, ignoring the context of the criticism. So from the start, you set yourself up as a scold who knows better than everyone else but doesn't have to prove it. I'd say that's where you went wrong. Later, in 147, you called the spelling thing "petty" based on your misunderstanding of the point people were making and tried dragging the issue into the realm of whether intelligence and spelling ability correlate, again missing the point. And then in 174 you went completely off your rocker.

Mikee made the argument that tone can make the delusional more deluded. Articulett took an unrepresentative sample of people as evidence to argue, "Your "belief" that our "tone" makes the delusional more deluded is not supported by the evidence."

Articulett was arguing the tone here "might even work on young Master Rosenberg" based on the fact that there are people for whom this tone works. If you said cats don't purr when rubbed the wrong way, and I presented you with a cat who purrs when you pet her backwards, my purring cat would be sufficient evidence against your claim. Same principle here. Sorry you're too stupid or stubborn to understand the logic.

Therefore, mikee is wrong. If mikee is wrong, then Articulett is denying the existence of people for whom a PZ-like tone is detrimental. Again, Articulett is free to revise that, but that is the most sensible interpretation of what he/she said.

If mikee is wrong, then mikee is wrong. Nothing about articulett denying the existence of people logically follows from that since mikee being wrong doesn't depend on there being no people for whom the tone here doesn't work. In fact, articulett, as quoted above, already acknowledged that the tone here might not work on Andrew.

Yeah, a blanket claim that mikee never made.

From 165: "So humour me if you will, is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position? Or more likely to harden them to their position."

Disagreeing with people, especially politely, isn't chastising them.

Make up your mind. Either it's fine to ignore people from whom the tone here doesn't work (though no one was doing that) or it's not. If you're telling us it's not while under the impression we were doing so, then you meant to chastise us. It doesn't matter how polite you think you were in "disagreeing" if your intended message is "you shouldn't do that."

If you're calling people names, you're not listening

Why? Because you say so? Your a priori decision to the contrary, here in Grown Up Land, we're fully capable of listening to someone and calling him or her names at the same time.

you've already decided that you're right, because calling someone an idiot implies - as you said - that you already know they are wrong. I'm not interested in a shouting match, which is why I have ignored many people here, and only blatantly attacked them when I wanted it to be clear that I was no longer debating with them (see my last response to Red).

Or perhaps when we call people idiots it's because we've concluded based on what they're saying that they are, in fact, idiots. It doesn't mean we won't change our minds. If you could get over your certainty that your preferred method of argumentation is the correct one, maybe you'd realize that the culture of debate on Pharyngula is different. Here, calling names and using swear words and being rude and blunt and abrasive are all part and parcel of the debate process. You're free to dislike the culture, but don't go telling us to behave like you. If you don't like it, go away.

All of those adjectives are true only if you're correct. Since the very topic we're discussing is "whether you're correct or not," it's wrong of you to call me those things - unless we've come to the shouting match portion of our show, in which case, I'll check out (although I really would like you to answer my question above).

That's not what we're "discussing"--I guess I should add "delusional" to the list. I'm here telling you how things are; your agreement is not required for all those adjectives to be accurate. If you like, go ahead and dismiss my characterization of you without argument by labeling it part of a "shouting match," but that only proves my point.

Can you read? SteveM asked me specifically about the "ignorant" comment in the first letter.

I understand that you were replying to SteveM about the rudeness in the first letter. But as part of that you said: "I guess the key for me is that Andrew was (in his first letter) being honest about his understanding - whether that be of the arguments OR of atheists - and just putting that out there for someone to answer to." You don't just get to take his first letter out of the context provided by the second just because your "no malice" hypothesis is strengthened by ignoring it. The "key" for everyone else is the tone of both letters (and now the third) together.

And sorry if I'm not up on the substantive debate that's going on here - I've kind of been busy dealing with trolls like Redhead.

So if someone's calling you names, that prevents you from engaging with people offering you substantive arguments because... why? Is it beyond you to simply ignore the name-calling? Funny, the rest of us manage it just fine. If you can't keep up, don't blame everyone else for your weakness.

(#378)

I was in the middle of writing a detailed response to Articulett, but if you're the kind of person who doesn't find it at all immature to actually call mikee "asshole mikee" in your comment, then forget it.

And this is a prime example of pearl clutching. You're using something irrelevant to dismiss what articulett says. Grow the fuck up.

This... ugh, this is ridiculous. I'm done.

Yes, you are ridiculous. And if you really are done, good. You should have figured that out ages ago.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 12, 2010 2:45 PM

postoreyu (#410)

I could thank many commenters, but this time I'll choose A. Noyd. It's wonderful to read you!

*blushes*

~*~*~*~*~*~

Celtic_Evolution (#414)

What we will not abide is some other asshole discarding the points because they were not made with the method preferred by themselves.

Just thought this could use repeating.

Posted by: Robert H | June 12, 2010 2:59 PM

Attorney @453, et al up-thread
Thank you for a clear example of tone without troll.

Posted by: rolan.le.gargeac | June 12, 2010 3:26 PM

Ol'Greg #108

How do you not bother spellchecking anything these days anyway? All of my email accounts, and even my internet browser spellchecks.

So strange.

Er, if you're bouncing between languages spellcheckers get old very very fast ! Although, this is probably not the case 'ere.

Olive oil.

Posted by: mikee | June 12, 2010 3:31 PM

@Brian, Defender of Tone Trolls

I thought your comment about evolution of blogs was interesting, with those that find the environment too harsh, leaving. There is however another possible response - that of adaptation.
If someone sustains multiple venomous attacks, rather than disappear, they might instead adapt to the environment, including snide comments in their arguments, punctuating ideas with profanity, and decide that their anecdotes trump those of others.
The great irony of adapting to a blog in this way, is that if your argument has been for more civility online, you have now become what you originally opposed.
F#ck, they got me. :-)

Posted by: rolan.le.gargeac | June 12, 2010 4:46 PM

'Tis Himself, OM #286

OK, explain how mermaids reproduce. Gotcha!

I'm not the one making claims about mermaids, you are. Show us how mermaids can't reproduce.

First catch your mermaid Fishing Mermaids

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 12, 2010 5:14 PM

And wtf is up with ABQ and the mermaid stuff?

Either bad hallucinogens, or he Starfarted™.

Posted by: ronsullivan | June 12, 2010 6:17 PM

Here, I'll simplify it for some of you.

How Not to Be a Tone Troll:

Lead by example.

Posted by: rolan.le.gargeac | June 12, 2010 6:31 PM

zeromh #378

Oh jesus christ. You people are absolutely unbelievable.

An almost perfect synopsis of the entire thread. Just a slight correction, 'without beliefs' instead of 'unbelievable'.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 12, 2010 7:09 PM

Wouldn't work, they'd have to stop complaining and complaining is all they're interested in.

QFT.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 7:53 PM

Tigger_the_Wing, the Tone discussion has broken out before, too many times to count at this point. It's never once gone any differently that what happened in this thread.

The only interest of the Tone Troll Brigade is to scold; they have never once displayed the slightest inclination to ignore other people's approaches and engage in their own. When people here aren't properly chastised by the scolding, they quickly reach very strident tones of their own, generally saying much more offensive and insulting things than any of those who indulge in swearing.

Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing | June 12, 2010 8:34 PM

Thanks, Caine! I'll drop it (should have dropped it before, sorry; but I was having too much fun).

I am afraid I have trouble believing that Andrew made much effort to sign in; there are so many different possibilities. I have a local sign-in plus a Yahoo! ID that I can use here.

I believe exactly what most here believe; he was out to bait PZ, pure and simple, or he wouldn't have boasted about not reading the blog (thus indicating that he thinks his time is much more valuable than PZ's time).

Will Andrew be rational in the future, or not? Who knows. He has an awful lot of growing up to do and, on current form, it will take many, many years.

He needs to realise that he doesn't have the answers already despite what he has been told all his life; and he needs to read the actual research, and not the heavily edited and distorted versions put out by the creationists. Tall order.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | June 12, 2010 8:52 PM

This is why Pharyngula is such a hostile place for most. People like you, evolutionskeptic, are rare. We get so many fucking smug pricks like Andrew who start of with a backhanded insult to biology, atheism, or science, or those think they're being sneaky when they say "I'm just asking a question" that we know damn well they've no interest in really having answered. We're not stupid, and frankly we're damn tired of giving smug morons the benefit of the doubt on the off chance that deep down they're really honest people but only accidentally acting like douchebags.

This too!

It might be the nature of Pharyngula that draws the kind of people we see on here, or maybe those are simply the people who are vocal about it enough to argue it. Indeed, Pharyngula isn't the only place I've seen it and have yet not seen a counter example. But regardless of why, it is the nature of the beast.

Many a time I've posted a long rebuttal to creationist claims, even going so far as to research answers. And in response, the same bad logic and complete misrepresentations that existed before the question was asked. It might be that I'm misinformed (largely self-taught so there's a real possibility), but from what I can gather the problem is that those who come on here to argue do so in bad faith.

Whatever their motivation, their debating tactic on here is clear. Present a "gotcha" argument by which the whole edifice of theoretical frameworks will come crashing down. To give a couple of examples: facilis and John Knight.

facilis was obsessed with the notion that the absolute laws of logic needed an absolute laws of logic lawgiver. If you couldn't account for the laws of logic, then your worldview failed. Hundreds of posts of back and forth between him and a group of us brought forth three points worth noting. First, his position that this proved the Christian God was merely the contradictory nature of any other alternative. Second, any attempts to show his position as being illogical were met with "how can you call it illogical when you can't account for the laws of logic?" so his circular argument couldn't be touched. And thirdly he was forced to admit that 2+2=32789148632147894789213.123421 if God intended. So much for it being absolute! At that point, what can you do but ridicule?

John Knight had a solution to David Hume's problem of induction. A good god wouldn't change things on us. So because science relied on induction, that it worked was proof of a celestial mechanic keeping the universe from decaying. Any response to the contrary was met with the question "what about the problem of induction?" Again John Knight was one who took the position that his worldview won out over all others, and he had that "gotcha" to show the superiority of his view.

Now there are plenty like this who have graced Pharyngula with their presence, some who have left one or two posts, some who have argued for a few days, some who had to eventually be banned to prevent further inanity. But one thing I've noticed that few ever come here to argue in good faith.

So many times I've seen people complain about tone and lack of substance as a means of avoiding those who do respond in detail. Several posts refuting them and one calling them a moron and they focus straight on the moron. But in the absence of a moron comment, I don't think that things would be better. It gives them an out where they can act indignant instead of just failing to respond.

Earlier this thread I mentioned the problem I have with those complaining about tone because they don't reflect the reality of the argument. I understand the argument on tone, I think it's a nice aspiration and something to keep in mind. But at the same time, the OUGHT is so far removed from reality that it's a wonder that people can argue with while keeping a straight face.

I can't remember where I read this, or who said it, but I think it's appropriate. "Be the change you want to see in the world". While I don't agree with many of Peter Singer's positions, I can admire him because he just doesn't preach his OUGHT, he lives it! If anyone has a problem with how things go down here, get involved in the conversation and show that your way works. I'm frankly tired of reading the same condescending attitudes towards people here about tone when they aren't contributing to the conversation.

Chris Mooney et al. can preach all they want about building bridges but it doesn't do anything more than a happy feel-good pat on the back that they are above it all. Yes they are above it all, because they aren't the ones getting their hands dirty.

So please to all those wannabe concern trolls, please please please get off your high horse and come down to experience what it's like on the ground. Understand why it is the argument is this way, and if you think you can improve it, show how it's done. I can't stress that enough, just preaching how horrible and rude this place and the people who post here are does nothing but give off a "holier than thou" attitude!

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 8:57 PM

(excuse my double post please)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 9:14 PM

Kel, OM:

John Knight had a solution to David Hume's problem of induction. A good god wouldn't change things on us. So because science relied on induction, that it worked was proof of a celestial mechanic keeping the universe from decaying.

Really? Glad I missed that one. And here I am, wrestling with trying to grok The Theory of Everything, alternate theories and quantum mechanics. The whole god concept irritates me because it dumbs things down to serious idiocy. Everything gets distilled into a list of rules and everyone has a different interpretation of said rules.

articulett:

I liked the post that pointed out that it was stars that died so we could be born. Stars are where all the heavier elements formed including the carbon that is the basis for all life on this planet. Isn't that more awesome than the Jesus story?

It's more awesome to me, by far. However, those stars didn't do it personally, just because they loved us to the point of being willing to torture us for eternity if we slip up. So, it doesn't score on the awesome scale with theists, as we don't get to play center stage in the story.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 12, 2010 9:19 PM

Mikee,

When I copied Gr8hand's list (you did notice that I didn't come up with it, I was quoting someone else) I did a bit of editing, dropping several comments about experimentation because they weren't really germane to the point I was making. I considered dropping the "anecdote is not evidence" from the list but realized it would be hypocritical for me to do so.

When I said there was anecdotal evidence to support my claim that your tone trolling criticisms were bullshit I meant my evidence didn't come from the peer-reviewed literature. Perhaps I should have said there was anecdotal data which argued against your bullshit. You had asked the following question in #165:

So humour me if you will, is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position? Or more likely to harden them to their position.

My response to your question was "Yes, there is informal evidence to support our contention that being confrontational can have positive results."

I trust this has cleared up any questions you might have about whether or not your bullshit was worthy of rejection.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | June 12, 2010 9:51 PM

I've never really understood the tone argument - at least in terms of atheism at least. If someone has doubts about the existence of gods, then I cannot begin to understand how that doubt is going to be affected in any way whatsoever by seeing atheists called theists offensive terms on an internet blog.

Person in doubt: "Hmm, I'm not sure I believe in God; there's no evidence and the more I think about the Jesus story the more I realise it's illogical nonsense painted to seem like a kindly act from what really is a genocidal monster and which fails to explain anything about the world. Perhaps I'll go to that Pharyngula site I've heard people talk about."
PZ Myers: "I'm sick of idiot religiotards asking me stupid questions. Shut the fuck up and try thinking for yourselves."
Person in doubt: "Wow, what a mean thing to say; atheists are awful people. That totally reverses all the doubts I had about God's existence and the vapidity of the Christian explanation for why life is the way it is. Praise Jesus; I'm going back to church!"

Doesn't seem quite right to me somehow.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 12, 2010 10:01 PM

Tigger_the_Wing:

Tone Troll: You are all meeeeean.

It's much worse than that: we're mean and we swear. Tsk.

Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing | June 12, 2010 10:34 PM

Caine @ #503:

And now I'm one of the swear-word users, too.

See, you lot are a corruptive influence!

Wowbagger @#501:

Exactly.

Perhaps the VCPs are hoping that 'nice' blogs will have the following effect:

Creo-Troll arrives at Pharyngula, prepared for a fight. Finds little old ladies knitting and being very polite and kind. Creo-Troll thinks "Whoa, these atheists are much nicer than believers! I want to be an atheist too!"

Sorry, excuse me whilst I politely vomit…

'Atheism' and 'Belief' aren't rival clubs trying to poach one another's members! They are opposite world views; i.e. rational/irrational. The only way to revert to the atheism that is natural at birth is to actively reject the nonsense with which we have been indoctrinated throughout childhood (and beyond, for many of us). That takes thinking, not feeling. Many people, like I did, require a good mental jolt to start thinking. Gentle accomodationism merely allows us to continue to indulge ourselves with our comforting fantasies.

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 10:53 PM

Mikee, your FIRST post on this thread (154) had commentary scolding the entire group of posters so far (despite excellent posts) and this passive-aggressive whine:

No doubt a few people will dismiss me as a "tone" or "concern troll". How ironic that would be on a science blog, to dismiss someone without debating their point, which is: which do you think would better serve Andrew? Pointing out that his approach was rude and aggressive but providing him with some resources to read. Or a sustained attack on his personality, intelligence, punctuated with various derogatory terms?

You insulted the group, presented a false dichotomy, demanded that people debate your "point" (kind of like Andrew), and asked a smarmy question that wasn't designed to be answered-- but rather designed to assert you preferred approach as "better" without having to provide evidence for such. Moreover, you mischaracterized the others posts here as if plenty of people hadn't responded with far more gentility than Andrew deserved-- even though you hadn't even responded to Andrew yet!. By the way, it isn't "ironic" to dismiss the fake points of a concern troll, so I can only guess this statement was a manipulation to try to get others to discuss your predetermined conclusion that we are all doing it wrong. This is not unlike Andrew's smarmy manipulations to provoke a response from those who'd normally ignore the dweeb.

And why should we CARE what would "better serve Andrew"? Your goals are not my goals. I find him about as sincere in his inquiries as I find you. Why would you think you know what "better serves Andrew" anyhow? Are you an expert in getting creotards to get a clue? Evidence?

You then made a nice post to Andrew (#161), but you couldn't let your passive aggressive nutty questioning go. Here's your gem that started much of the brouhaha (should you actually be interested in learning to communicate more successfully in the future.)

Actually I've never seen it adequately addressed before, just dismissed out of hand. So humour me if you will, is there any evidence that sustained attacks are likely to educate someone to your position? Or more likely to harden them to their position.

Well, you must not be much of a reader of Pharyngula then, because tone is repeatedly addressed; you can always count on a tone troll like you derailing the conversation with demands that we debate you and then crying no fair when you are put in your place. Again, you mischaracterize the other side, present a false dichotomy, and ask insincere questions that you don't want the answer to. You characterized all other posts as "a sustained attack"; did you even read them? You clearly are saying: "The group's collective "tone" hardens creotards to their position; do it my way" while pretending to be asking sincere questions. (And why are we supposed to care if the deluded become more delusional because of thin skin, anyhow? Are you going to become even more of a tone troll because we were mean to you?)

The real question is why you made these two posts at all? Did you really believe they'd further discussion or change the tone? I don't think you did. I think you just wanted to assert that you had a morally superior way of doing things. I'd say that puts your smarmy questions, manipulations, and argument fallacies on par with Andrews and so you got the treatment you deserved.

Like Andrew and zeromh, you imagined that we haven't seen these smarmy approaches to dialogue all the time. You thought you could hide behind the idea that you were just asking questions or trying to have a discussion. But you failed. As did Andrew. As does everyone who pulls this shit on Pharyngula. You put the group down and the group responded by putting you where you belong.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | June 12, 2010 11:01 PM

Maybe it's because - as far as I'm concerned - there's no relationship between 'nice' and 'correct'. All the politeness in the world isn't going to change wrong to right; likewise, all the swear words in the dictionary doesn't make the person using them wrong if what they say is true.

It's just another indication that there are far too many people who choose style over substance.

Posted by: articulett | June 12, 2010 11:55 PM

I'm a person who thinks the Andrews of the world DO understand that are arguing in bad faith. They do understand they are insincere. They don't ask questions like a person who really wants to understand something. They are pretending to ask questions as a way of preaching their opinion at someone-- moreover, they can't stand to be ignored; they have a desperate need for others to say, "good point" no matter how lame their "point" is. So they get pushy and manipulative.

Most of us understood early on that Andrew was peeved because PZ Myers doesn't believe in Andrew's invisible friend and says so on a public forum. In essence, Andrew was saying to PZ "Science can't prove my god doesn't exist and science doesn't know where matter came from, therefore it's rational to believe in god, you mean old scientist-- leave my Jesus alone!"

Moreover, Andrew said clear lies like, "I don't mean to insult you" which he clearly DID mean to do and did so repeatedly. I suppose one can conjecture that Andrew wasn't aware that he was dishonest or "arguing in bad faith", but I'd say the his own words show otherwise. I know religiotards are good at lying to themselves, but I can't convince myself that Andrew believed he was "just asking questions" nor that he really wanted the answers to anything. He wanted to be able to say: "Mr. atheist scientist can't answer my questions... I stumped him!; therefore, Jesus."

I think the Andrews of the world want to hide behind the notion that they "just want answers to their questions", but that is lie-- and they KNOW it. People who really want answers, don't pose such inane question amid such inane chatter. Can anyone say what question Andrew really wanted answered by PZ?

I rest my case.

Posted by: Darreth | June 13, 2010 10:24 AM

Creationists and their ilk are consistent in one important fact: they don't have a good command of written English. I see it all the time on forums such as this one. Typos are one thing. Consistent misspellings are another thing altogether.

They are, as a group, grossly under-educated. In many cases (perhaps most), they are proud of their lack of education. The fact that they're religious and under-educated and proud of it, tells me what I need to know about them.

Sadly, this boy could easily be elected to a political position because of his anti-science attitudes. Then he would be able to spread his ignorance to a far broader audience.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 13, 2010 10:44 AM

Of course what Andrew says is nonsense. Was it really worth all this?

Yes. PZ receives way too much e-mail like that. He has shown to the world that he will not be harassed with such inane questions. Mr. Rosenberg just pressed his idiocy and became the example.

Your concern is noted and rejected.

Posted by: Clive | June 13, 2010 12:00 PM

Really. It might be 'dishonest' if nobody knew what I was referring to. Who exactly am I trying to fool?

Sure, there is some discussion above not directed at this kid. And I am well aware how annoying kids can be.

But this is comment 517, not on the first thread about him. I'm glad you're proud of yourselves and feel you've demonstrated to yourselves how clever you are. And don't get more wrong. You are clever. It takes real *education* to show a high school kid doesn't know the difference between biology and physics. Well done.

I was starting to really like this site. But I think many of you need to get out more.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 13, 2010 12:13 PM

I was starting to really like this site. But I think many of you need to get out more.

No concern troll, you need to look in the mirror before posting. Just like all concern trolls.

First of all, you don't decide the content on this blog. Your name isn't on the masthead. Which literally gives you three choices. First, start your own competing blog. Second, accept how this blog is run, and how the regulars post. Stop trying to change things. Third, since you are a self appointed arbiter of taste, you can and will be soundly ignored, and told to fuck off. Your concern is noted and rejected. So, go start your own blog. And we don't need your patronage at this blog. PZ does quite well. You are superfluous.

Second, you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are. You have a delusional attitude that you are superior to us, but all we see are delusions of adequacy. We know our limitations. Evidently you don't.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | June 13, 2010 12:21 PM

You didn't have to respond to me, now, did you?

Yes, until the concern trolling and vain attempts to make us ashamed cease. When will that happen Cricket?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 13, 2010 12:26 PM

But this is comment 517, not on the first thread about him. I'm glad you're proud of yourselves and feel you've demonstrated to yourselves how clever you are. And don't get more wrong. You are clever. It takes real *education* to show a high school kid doesn't know the difference between biology and physics. Well done.

So you lie, too.

The fact is, moron, that Andrew asked extremely open-ended questions that are not easily answered -- as PZ noted in his first post. The fact is that it is not easy to answer such questions, and you're not only stupid but a dishonest jerk to pretend that all anyone did is point out that he doesn't know the difference between biology and physics.

There were a number of posts referring to epistemological questions, references to abiogenesis sources, and a whole lot of discussions about how to deal with these people bringing in their derivative questions. Of course a lot of repetition occurred, but a lot of intelligent back-and-forth happened as well.

You, by contrast, added nothing but dishonesty and idiocy.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | June 13, 2010 12:40 PM

Really. It might be 'dishonest' if nobody knew what I was referring to. Who exactly am I trying to fool?

Let me spell it out for you. This issue of this person's challenge covers two posts and over 1100 comments. You implied that all of it was attacking this fool. If you just even skimmed over the comments, you would have known that it was not the case.

Instead, you offered an ill formed opinion and got called on it. It is not because you have an opinion. It is because you were off base. And, yes, I do think that this is enough to call you dishonest. And even agree with Glen Davidson that you have moved on into idiocy.

If you are going to hurl charges, know what you are talking about. It just might add meaning to your charges.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 13, 2010 12:55 PM

This venom is all very, very strange.

Venom? You're being brushed off.

The extraordinary response to me (literally, 'fuck off') is not pretty, though.

Again, not extraordinary. Not at all, which you know since you have read here for awhile (as you say). You're assuming a lot more attention and emotion than you're getting.

Posted by: AnthonyK | June 13, 2010 1:01 PM

Clive - you should know what response you're going to get if you complain about tone on a long thread largely devoted to this (apparently) vexing topic.
And now you're upset, just like Andrew.
Never mind, it's only the internet.
But now I'm a little sad myself.
Sometimes, just sometimes, being a smug, abusive, arrogant atheist really gets me down.
*sigh*

Posted by: mikee | June 13, 2010 1:35 PM

I realise that some of the people the following message is for have probably kill filed me by now but I want to apologise for my behaviour on this blog.
My first comment on here was provocative and insulted the whole group. I then proceeded to try and reason my way out of it, while still peppering my comments with snide remarks. I behaved like a complete idiot.
I'm also sorry it took me such a long time to realise this. Once the insults started flying my ego kicked in, and I gave me selective amnesia regarding my first post.
I'm not sure why I wrote such an inflammatory first comment. Overinflated ego or perhaps the pearls were so tightly clutched no blood was getting to my brain.
I could just leave this blog, but I feel I still have much to learn from you all. So instead I will go back to lurking, and not comment until I can contribute productively to the conversation.

Posted by: A. Noyd | June 13, 2010 2:21 PM

Clive (#526)

You know nothing about me! (And I can already hear the responses to that!)

You mean the response where we quite reasonably point out that you're the one responsible for letting us know who you are? And if the only face you present to us is actually your gaping asshole, we've no obligation to treat you like anything else?

The extraordinary response to me (literally, 'fuck off') is not pretty, though.

Ahahahaha!! Trolls being told to fuck off is the opposite of extraordinary on Pharyngula.

~*~*~*~*~*~

mikee (#531)

I could just leave this blog, but I feel I still have much to learn from you all. So instead I will go back to lurking, and not comment until I can contribute productively to the conversation.

Well, in that case, I'm glad you're not just leaving. If you do feel like commenting, I'm sure some of us will remember your apology and point it out to anyone who gives you trouble.

Posted by: Shala | June 13, 2010 2:34 PM

For you, the day when I graced your letter on my blog was the most important day in your life.

But for me, it was Tuesday.

i think someone just won the thread

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | June 13, 2010 3:32 PM

Trolls being told to fuck off is the opposite of extraordinary on Pharyngula.

... true dat.

Beyond this, I've this odd suspicion 'Clive' being told to fuck off in general isn't really so extraordinary either.

(/And seriously, if it is, there's something very wrong with this world.)

Posted by: articulett | June 13, 2010 4:27 PM

Complaint Form for Clive

Posted by: bastion of sass | June 13, 2010 5:59 PM

Of course what Andrew says is nonsense. Was it really worth all this?

Yes! Despite the boring, repetitious posts about tone, the comments are the typical entertaining, thought-provoking, instructive, and delightful Pharyngula read.

Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing | June 13, 2010 6:51 PM

Clive @#514 and others, it (unsurprisingly, to me) annoys people when an exchange of words is described as real-world physical assaults. There is no comparison. It is as silly as getting as upset over a game of chess as one would over real war.

Many of us here, sadly, have been the victims of real-life assaults. By describing an exchange of emails and blog posts as a bashing you are behaving as if you are insensitive and stupid.

I would hope you are neither in real life.

Whatever I read on the screen simply doesn't threaten me the way real life arguments do and even those are not usually accompanied by the possibility of assault and thus are harmless.

Posted by: articulett | June 13, 2010 8:09 PM

I don't understand the hyperbole regarding our reaction to Andrew either, Tigger. The kid clearly wanted the attention and "dared" PZ to post his 3rd letter.

I doubt he's read much anyhow; his spelling and naivete' indicate that he's not much of a reader. Besides, he's a Valedictorian; I think he can figure out how to turn off the computer if he wants to make all the bad atheists go away. Really, what are these tone trolls afraid of?

All in all, I think Andrew got a wealth of information that he probably can't use due to his indoctrination. But others can. I sure enjoyed this thread.

(And I have to add that I was pretty impressed with mikee's apology!)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | June 13, 2010 8:27 PM

mikee, your apology is accepted. Go and sin no more.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | June 13, 2010 10:26 PM

@Mikee
I've been in your shoes. It's hard not to get emotionally invested in your opinions. It took a lot of moxie to post what you did in #531, so I'm glad you're not just leaving.

Posted by: Joe Bloe | June 14, 2010 3:37 AM

Fifty years from now Andrew will still be putting money in the collection plate.

He'll be thinking he's buying a seat in heaven and the pastor will be thinking, "This is the easiest job in the world."

Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing | June 14, 2010 7:27 PM

Hey, mikee - I'm still reading! :-)

That was a really good post @ #552 (I can hardly believe that the e-book trolling and the tone trolling helped to push the number of replies on the two threads to 1162 and counting…)

As for Andrew learning anything, first of all he will have to learn some humility.

It is only by admitting to ourselves that we don't have all the answers that we can even start asking ourselves what the questions are.

The more I find out, the more I discover there is to learn. It makes me sad to know that I can never, ever, know everything there is to know, so I made the choice to paddle in the edges of many seas of learning rather than dive deeply into just one. I admire and envy those who had the chance to gain familiarity with a subject and thus make a real contribution to the sum of human knowledge.

It is so easy to go through modern city life unaware of the colossal number of different species of life on this planet and thus have a very simple idea of evolution that of course makes no sense.

It is easy to imagine a god creating life forms individually when your only knowledge of them is a collection of books for children, all of which list the same twelve kinds.

When you find out that:
humans have discovered fossilised remains of only a tiny percentage of all the different dinosaurs but that we still know about over 700 different species; there aren't simply 'ants, spiders and beetles' but 8,000 ant species, 40,000 spider species and 350,000 beetle species; 'octopus, cuttlefish and squid' aren't three species but over 780; the word 'fish' describes over fifteen thousand species and scientists find two new ones per week; there are 100,000 species of tree, 12,000 species of moss and uncounted millions of algal species (no one knows how many)

then, and only then, does the idea of evolution start to make sense.

And if you really want to have your mind blown away from the idea that humans are somehow special to god, read this.

Sample quotes:

So how many prokaryotes share the planet with us? According to William Whitman, a microbiologist at University of Georgia, the number is 5 x 10³⁰
This is a big number by any standard. If you had that many pennies, Whitman and colleagues David Coleman and William Wiebe calculated, they would make a stack a trillion light years long.

Indeed, prokaryotic diversity may be immeasurable: Scandinavian researchers found at least 4,000 species of bacteria growing in a single gram of soil.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 15, 2010 3:13 AM

mikee:

Ain't science grand.

It is, it really is. There's so much awesome, and it's fun to discover, read, learn, talk about it. Win win all around.