Jen McCreight is participating in that masochistic exercise in prolonged blogging called Blogathon, all to raise money for charity. Take a look, donate if you can, at least give her a little sympathy.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
The worst of madmen is a saint run mad
[Alexander Pope]
Recent Posts
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
- More bad science in the literature
- An open letter to the Indiana legislature
- One Carnival of Evolution, coming right up
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- The Tim Channel on Our illness is their profit
- 'Tis Himself, OM on More bad science in the literature
- mackhitch on Our illness is their profit
- Nerd of Redhead, OM on More bad science in the literature
- David Marjanović on More bad science in the literature
- bpruitt570 on Our illness is their profit
- Seti on Our illness is their profit
- Quack on Our illness is their profit
- https://me.yahoo.com/a/PEzPIDl5yZq_ophitb7kJOTDwIEO#3c0e4 on Our illness is their profit
- Tumara Baap on Our illness is their profit
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« “Implicit consent”—women can be stripped if they're dancing at a bar | Main | Australians are learning what it means to have creationists in the classroom »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Blogging for the SSA
Category: Weblogs
Posted on: July 31, 2010 2:10 PM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/144650
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 31, 2010 2:47 PM
Why should we have sympathy with her, when she refuses to give us secular studs?
Posted by: godlessons.com
|
July 31, 2010 3:53 PM
I couldn't imagine posting something every half hour. I would run out of things to talk about rather quickly.
Posted by: Tom S. Fox
|
July 31, 2010 4:18 PM
Don’t knock masochists.
Posted by: blf
|
July 31, 2010 5:14 PM
Talk about running out of things to talk about, the fear of running out of things to talk about, talking about running out of things to talk about, trying to not talk about talking about running of things to talk about, and, of course, bacon. And MUSHROOMS!
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 31, 2010 6:20 PM
I've never understood that mindset, where people will donate to a charity if some third party does something, but not otherwise.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 31, 2010 7:29 PM
#5
It's called "Stupidity". It's a pretty common condition for homosapien.
Posted by: dvizard
|
July 31, 2010 11:03 PM
#5: THIS
Posted by: j-brisby
|
August 1, 2010 12:01 AM
I'd rather write it than read it.
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 3:43 AM
Look at this folks:
International Burn-A-Koran Day!
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/07/29/florida.burn.quran.day/?hpt=C2#fbid=glj3FV1ZnNL
Are you going to join in this type of thing as a follow-up to International let's draw Mohammed Day?
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
August 1, 2010 3:57 AM
#9
Because book burning and making fun of violent idiots are exactly the same thing amirite?
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 1, 2010 4:04 AM
Shplane, Buster is a self-professed Catholic.
Need I say more?
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
August 1, 2010 4:34 AM
#11
I am SHOCKED AND AWED!
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 4:47 AM
Because book burning and making fun of violent idiots are exactly the same thing amirite?
Well, maybe you could tell me why they aren't both simply acts of free expression and what the moral/ethical or principled distinction between the two is.
(By the way, I think that Rick Sanchez guy from CNN is completely unable to come up with a good reason if you listen to him so I thought the free thinkers might help me out because I'm not a fan of book burning but can't think of how it differs from any other act of free expression).
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
August 1, 2010 5:12 AM
Buster:
With that, I'm tempted to call you Bustedbrain. You really don't know the difference?
Yes, burning books, papers, music, etc., is a form of expression, however, it's a weak and loathsome one. People who would rather burn a book than dare open the cover and read it are those who refuse to engage their brain in refutation of said material; they are afraid of being tainted; infected with thought which possibly runs contrary to what they've been taught or know. People who burn and destroy are afraid. Fear runs their lives and often times, the engine which fuels that fear is religion and religious belief. You can't have people *thinking* - for FFS, they might start to question!
As for people burning the Quoran? It's exactly what I said - idiots fueled by the authoritarianism of their religion screeching in fear and burning that which is not approved of; there isn't even a token attempt to understand what they're condemning so viciously. It really isn't a huge step from burning books to burning people. Religions have been pretty big on that sort of thing in the past, catholics were quite fond of burning 'heretics'. To be fair, they were also quite fond of torture and they did employ a variety of methods when it came to killing.
From your link:
Well, there we go, you Bustedbrain, trolling dimwit. See, fear. And religion. Way to spread that xian love.
Then we get to this bit:
Some people, in spite of being religious, aren't afraid to think. That's a good thing.
Kneejerk, violent idiots who are afraid to use their own brain (because god doesn't like that, you know) deserve mockery. Every now and then, such mockery can get through and cause someone to think. Obviously, that person isn't you.
By the way, most of the atheists I know have more than one copy (read: version) of the bible on their bookshelves, along with the Quoran and other religious works. We aren't into ignorant fear mongering and reactionary burning. That's religious territory.
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 5:45 AM
Oh well, I have a copy of the Koran, too.
I'm not saying that I endorse this. I just said I am against book-burning (please re-read my comments). I am just saying would you endorse this if, for example, some atheist group had a "Burn your spare copy of the Koran Day" or a "Burn your spare copy of the Bible Day"?
Anyway, I asked why one form of free expression is inherently bad and that doesn't apply if it is a spare copy. It isn't destructive because we can still read the book.
Your response it strange because first of all you say:
And then you say:
I think it is an ABSOLUTELY HUGE step which makes me worry somewhat about your moral compass.
Forget about the ad hominem attacks on the religious. I am asking what the atheists are doing to show there is an important distinction between burning books and drawing mohammed. I didn't see anything that you said. Instead you just seemed to assume that only the religious are interested in burning other religious books.
What about atheists who did the same?
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 5:56 AM
Anyway, I hate to go on about it because it is off-topic so I wondered if MR Myers could make a post as I do think it really is a tricky dilemma. Obviously we can't make an argument on grounds of offensiveness as that Rick Sanchez guy tried to do. And we can't make an argument on grounds of what is written because we all throw away books from time to time and there is no harm in throwing out a spare copy of anything. We can't say, with a straight fact, that burning books is almost no different from burning people unless we are content to look pompous and fatuous to others.
I think we could have a "There's nothing sacred day". In which a copy of a "sacred text" is burnt. One day it can be the Bible, the next day the Koran or the Torah or the Upanishads, the Bagavad Gita. Then we can move on to Karl Marx's Das Kapital, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugges, Kropotkin's anarchist scribblings, Stephen Hawkiing's Brief History of Time, Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, Adolf Hitler's meine kampf etc... etc... and as a by-product we can watch which group goes the most mental about it.
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 1, 2010 6:44 AM
[OT]
Buster:
Look, I'm an atheist, not a groupie. I don't endorse stuff because some group of people does; I endorse stuff I think is worth endorsing.
You're still under the impression there's some sort of "atheist dogmata". Nope.
What about them? I neither speak for them, nor do they speak for me.
Well, you would, wouldn't you? You're so brainwashed into accepting ideas of morality from others' perceived authority, you don't realise you're a free agent in that regard.
I don't know what Caine's reasoning was, but I suspect she was speaking of intolerant ideologues, based on historical evidence.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning.
Look at who has done that sort of stuff: religious and political ideologues. Maybe some atheists participated, but it was not their atheism that motivated them, but their ideology.
You want to have one, go for it.
--
Look, it's bloody obvious you made that suggestion because it was in accordance with your warped and illusory expectation that it would seem like a good idea to atheists.
You were dead wrong.
And you're derailing the thread, which is about giving to charity, not about considering book-burnings. Ferchrissakes.
Posted by: Moggie
|
August 1, 2010 6:44 AM
#15:
I would not (and I'd be surprised by any atheist group which did this). My atheism flows from free-thinking, and book-burning, as a symbolic act, seems the very antithesis of that: the message it sends is "you should not read this book!" Some books are harmful, but they should be countered with critique, not banning.
Why does the "spareness" of the book have anything to do with it? You say "we all throw away books from time to time": really? I've certainly never thrown a book in the trash, and I would think less of anyone who did. When I no longer want a book, I give it away, so that someone else can read it, perhaps someone without enough money to buy the books they want. Destroying books is a selfish act.
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 6:58 AM
"Look, it's bloody obvious you made that suggestion because it was in accordance with your warped and illusory expectation that it would seem like a good idea to atheists."
Well you all drew Mohammed when you were commanded to. Why not brun a book?
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 7:02 AM
When I no longer want a book, I give it away, so that someone else can read it, perhaps someone without enough money to buy the books they want. Destroying books is a selfish act.
No it isn't. Some books are simply out of date or wrong. If its a really old sports almanac or an astrology book for the year 1982 then how useful is it? The same goes for full-up puzzle books.
Or what about a whole bunch of Holocaust denial books. If you didn't want them do you not think them worth burning or do you think it would be more moral and less selfish to send them all to a new library in Cambodia?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2010 7:14 AM
Nah, we prefer to mock threadjacking idjit loser theists like your irrelevant and barely thinking self.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
August 1, 2010 7:16 AM
Buster, why don't you explain to us why you believe your bible, and not the Koran, is the 'true' collection of the words of a god?
Posted by: j-brisby
|
August 1, 2010 7:30 AM
I'm tempted to take this deal.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
August 1, 2010 7:32 AM
Ooops, sorry, wrong link
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
August 1, 2010 8:30 AM
Ah, it looks like brave Buster ran away - again. Pretty pissant lot these Catholics; no wonder there are Protestants.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
August 1, 2010 8:32 AM
#19
There is a difference between a command and a suggestion. You should try to learn it.
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 8:46 AM
Buster, why don't you explain to us why you believe your bible, and not the Koran, is the 'true' collection of the words of a god?
Well who said I do? I think there's lots of rubbish in the Bible but I think I prefer the Bible to the Koran. Have you tried reading the Koran? It's painful.
There is a difference between a command and a suggestion. You should try to learn it.
There's a difference between sarcasm and wit but I'm not a cruel man so I won't expect you to understand.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
August 1, 2010 8:57 AM
Buster wrote:
Preference ≠ validity.
And you've already revealed to us that you're member of the Holy Roman church, dumbass. If you don't believe the bible has something that the Koran doesn't then you've missed a fairly significant chunk of your church's teachings.
Then again, you've already demonstrated how ignorant you are of other things; why should you know your own cult any better? After all, Christianity doesn't require knowledge or understanding, only unquestioning obedience and obsequious deference to authority.
Are you sure that's what you meant to write? Perhaps you should try again, but read for comprehension before you hit the 'submit' button.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
August 1, 2010 9:24 AM
Have you tried reading the Bible? It's painful.
hahaohwow.jpg (Quick question: Can one insert images into posts here? If so, how?)
Posted by: Moggie
|
August 1, 2010 9:30 AM
#20:
You're not much of a reader, are you? Take a browse around a second-hand bookstore sometime. Many books which you would regard as obsolete would be gold-dust to some readers. I have several old textbooks from early in the history of my field; they're sometimes hilarious, and provide an interesting insight into the field's development. That old almanac might be pounced on by a sports fan, out of nostalgia for the glory days of their team.
If I had books which presented the Holocaust denialist viewpoint, and they had not turned me into a denialist, wouldn't it be incredibly arrogant for me to decide that nobody else could be trusted to read them with the same judgment? Take a look at the reviews of denialist books on Amazon: you'll find refutations by people who have read the books. And if someone wants to read a denialist book, in order to better understand that mindset, isn't it better for their money to go to a charity store or second-hand bookstore, rather than the loathsome author?
I know that this is hard for you to understand, since you're used to believing things just because a guy in church uniform tells you to. You may even be old enough to remember your church's Index Librorum Prohibitorum. But not everyone approaches knowledge in such a blinkered way.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2010 9:31 AM
Frowned upon due to increase in thread size, which causes old computers to slow down to a snails pace. Put in a link. Either use the tag below the submit button, or a separate line with: +http://url (remove the +).Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 10:00 AM
If you read the modern one which is really limp and boring. You must read the King James Version. Smashing lit!
Posted by: Buster
|
August 1, 2010 10:06 AM
Preference ≠ validity.
I was already lectured on this on another thread. Validity refers to internal logical consistency of an argument, while soundness refers to internal logical consistency in which the premises are true.
Now, preference is still perfectly acceptable in the absence of perfect knowledge. The truth in the case of God is obscure. While you can say that there is far more likelihood that YOU are correct, you cannot prove it. I was also lectured on the fact that a priori arguments only refer to internal consistency too so you have no a priori proof of the non-existence of God.
So, what do we believe? God, or no God. Christian God or Muslim God? Well, in the absence of certainty I'll pick the God of Jesus as he sounds better than the others.
Posted by: Yaolz88
|
August 1, 2010 10:23 AM
Thank you very much for this article!
For a long time I have done exactly what you warn against. This article was a slap in the face - but a needed one.
That being said, what is the value of an intuitive explanation? Is it to give a lay person an "ah-ha" moment? Is it good to have SOME understanding, even if it is "vague and mush?"
Posted by: David Utidjian
|
August 1, 2010 10:28 AM
I have a monthly PayPal contribution to the SSA since August 2007. I think that was around the time that I first saw PZ mention the SSA. It is only $10/month... but they have been receiving it regularly for 36 months.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 1, 2010 10:40 AM
Just as ignorant and violent as the other versions. Yahweh is a capricious amoral gangster that makes any criminal gang leader look like a paragon of virtue.Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
August 1, 2010 12:51 PM
You can, but it's generally frowned upon.I guess I've grown more relaxed in my bibliophilia over the years, so I'm not too upset about the occasional bookburning. As always, they have to buy the things before setting them alight.
And then I recall the only Heine I know (outside of topology): Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.
Posted by: blf
|
August 1, 2010 2:11 PM
Citations, please. Actually, Buster can start by saying just who the you is referring to. He/she/it/they can then go eat some magic zombie flesh crackers, just like the
priestschild rapists command he/she/it/they to do, and feck off.Posted by: dogofman
|
August 1, 2010 4:57 PM
What kind of newthink is this?
I thought catholics were supposed to read the bible in latin! Has that changed during last century or so?
/the dog from Sinope.
Posted by: KG
|
August 1, 2010 5:38 PM
- BusterYou're clearly either insane or evil - no-one else could possibly think the Christian god - that (fortunately, entirely imaginary) pathologically jealous, megalomaniacal, genocidal, lying, sadistic psychopath is better than no god at all.