Pharyngula

Posted by: Shala | July 2, 2010 6:30 PM

God is not great. But his followers are worse.

ouch

nice one

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 2, 2010 6:31 PM

I hate George Berkin and I hate his ass-face. He's bastard people.

Posted by: Alverant | July 2, 2010 6:36 PM

So if God is trying to strike Hitchens down with cancer, what about the loyal christians who also have cancer? Shouldn't a perfect God be a bit more consistent?

Posted by: Shala | July 2, 2010 6:42 PM

(Ignoring that fact that I can't "hate" what doesn't exist)

I can. I hate fictional characters all the time, and YVHV has to be one of the most villainous entities to have ever been written.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 2, 2010 6:43 PM

I read that nasty example of xianity this morning. Made me want to spit. Mr. Berkin and his ilk take such pride in being contemptuous, ugly beings.

Posted by: lomifeh | July 2, 2010 6:45 PM

Yeah it's stuff like this that makes me cringe to be from NJ as well. His reasoning is like an abuse victims rationalization for the abuse. "He did it because he loved me and I was being bad."

Sickens me.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 2, 2010 6:49 PM

"But his followers are worse."

Only by virtue of God not existing. Keep in mind some of the horrors attributed to God in that book about him.

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 2, 2010 6:53 PM

And the funny part though is that it means Jesus is a fanfic.

:-D :-D :-D

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 2, 2010 7:00 PM

Another exercise in tortured logic from an idiot Christian.

Really, there's just no way you can engage with this stratospheric level of stupidity. While I can't say their arguments are any more compelling, I'm still not as irritated by those gobdots who just claim they've got no idea why their god does what he does.

Posted by: John Sven | July 2, 2010 7:03 PM

Second, your god is clearly a dick, and so are you. I don't see why you're worshipping him, except that dicks seem to like other dicks an awful lot. Fortunately, your god is entirely imaginary, so I can't get pissed off at him, but you are supposedly a civilized and rational human being, so I do get to regard you with deserved contempt.

VS.

Gary Johnston: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Posted by: Kirk | July 2, 2010 7:09 PM

I just spent (maybe spent badly) a few moments of my life reading and being aggravated by the Berkin post. He makes professional fuckheads look like rank ameteurs.

In the second paragraph he introduced this:

It seems against common sense to say this, but might I suggest that this turn of events shows that God is kind even to those who spend their lives fighting against him.

He got the part preceding the comma right.

Posted by: Larry | July 2, 2010 7:13 PM

#5

So if God is trying to strike Hitchens down with cancer, what about the loyal christians who also have cancer? Shouldn't a perfect God be a bit more consistent?

god is responsible for launching those arrows. Where they come down is someone else's department.

Posted by: Shala | July 2, 2010 7:15 PM

"Jerk of the day" or "Ghoul of the day"?

That's an insult to ghouls. Undead are too great to be defiled by silly xian monsters.

Posted by: James R. Palmer II | July 2, 2010 7:22 PM

Salman Rushdie had a diffrent take wishing that Hitchens 'God is not Great' title is one word too long.
I can't wait till Hitchens comes back and stomps down all of these motherfuckers!

Posted by: a.f.diplotti | July 2, 2010 7:29 PM

People like Berkin act like Smithers to their god's Mr. Burns. Sometimes I like to call them "godsmithers".

Posted by: ERV | July 2, 2010 7:31 PM

I think its fun how Christians can write hateful articles like this, and The Usual Suspects say nothing. But PZ (or any of us) use a naughty-but-accurate word in a critique, and they scream bloody murder. Hell, Dawkins doesnt even use 'naughty words' and they still bitch about how 'uncivil' he is.

Fuck Berkin sideways with a rusty knife. And whatever else you have handy.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 2, 2010 7:33 PM

Fuck Berkin sideways with a rusty knifeLeica rangefinder. And whatever else you have handy.

Sheeeesh. What kinda Pharyngulista are you?

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 2, 2010 7:36 PM

So if God is trying to strike Hitchens down with cancer, what about the loyal christians who also have cancer? Shouldn't a perfect God be a bit more consistent?

Those people obviously weren't Real Christians™.

Posted by: Andrew Hall | July 2, 2010 7:38 PM

This God is a dick.

He "allowed":

Hitchens to have cancer,
the Haiti earthquake,
the Deep Water Horizon oil geyser,
the collapse of the Mayan civilization...

He is one busy guy.

http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | July 2, 2010 7:41 PM

If George Berkin worked for Hallmark Cards...

So I heard, today—you’re dying; God has blessed you with a cancer
In the past, a certain-death-by-torture sentence.
So I send congratulations! “Why?” you ask; well, here’s my answer:
Now there’s time and motivation for repentance!

Since the hand of God has touched you, with His doom-inflicting fingers
Your esophageal cancer is sublime!
And I wish for you the type of death that lingers, lingers, lingers,
With the merciful benevolence of time!

You have time to turn to Jesus, and to thank your carcinoma
If you’ll listen to Our Lord Almighty’s voice
Just repent to God, your savior, just before you lapse to coma,
Cos Jehovah gave you time to make your choice

If you choose to shun the chance to make a godly new beginning
And you tell yourself it’s really just as well
Then you’re reaping what you’ve sown, and since you spent your life a-sinning
Then I hope you like eternity in Hell!

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-george-berkin-worked-for-hallmark.html

Posted by: Shala | July 2, 2010 7:42 PM

Cuttlefish is the actual, real God manifest in our Interwebs.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/mRScUX8BpMDq7N9Qz.N4yaVO3hyisFustmGm2d0-#931f1 | July 2, 2010 7:43 PM

People like Berkin are the best evidence we have that religion is human-made bullshit. What a tool.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 2, 2010 7:43 PM

This made me giggle:

As with many atheists, Hitchens’ non-belief got its start in childhood, when he heard a religious person say something that, even to a child, came across as dumb. With Hitchens’s mentor, it was something about the color of the sky and human eyeballs.

For me, there’s something inane about an adult beginning to base their adult worldview on something wacko recalled from childhood.

Posted by: toffeecime | July 2, 2010 7:44 PM

They really are delighting in all of this (and by "delighting in" I mean "popping hard-ons over"). They act like this is their big chance to be nice, and do the right thing, by praying, and offering up heartfelt advice, and so on. Behind that facade is a morbid fascination with and relishing of death.
They want Hitchens to feel pain, they want him to be nauseous, they want him to be fearful, they want him to become depressed, they want him to maybe have a fall and receive a nasty concussion--they want all of that and more. More misery, more suffering, all so his persona can be smashed to bits, and then molded into a self-hating, fearful, credulous, simpering fool. It's disgusting, but it's also laughable, because they really underestimate the intellect and strength of those they pretend to pity.
This is a time for moderates to show their ugliest traits, their death-loving, reason-hating, bitter cores. At least with extremists, most people realize how hateful and vile they are; the moderates put on a friendly face, and tone it down when convenient, while the bile builds up in their chests.

Posted by: DLC | July 2, 2010 7:46 PM

Berkin rhymes with merkin.
Where's Cuttlefish when you need a poet ?

Posted by: ted.gault | July 2, 2010 7:54 PM

I'm guessing some folks have prayed for Hitchens to GET cancer, and not for "redemptive" purposes, either.

Posted by: lautrec85 | July 2, 2010 8:00 PM

"this turn of events shows that God is kind even to those who spend their lives fighting against him."

Cancer is a kind present from god. When he puts it in you, he's being kind.

Yeah, definitely that sounds like the kind of thing which that evil, psychopathic god of the bible would do.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | July 2, 2010 8:05 PM

From Berkin's drivel:

"The aged Don Corleone, the godfather, is playing in the garden with his grandchild. ... Suddenly, he keels over, and the frolicking toddler is unaware that the grandfather has just died."

I haven't seen any of the Godfather movies (I know, I know). Thanks for the spoiler alert, asshole. Fucking Christians.

Posted by: rippingrich | July 2, 2010 8:09 PM

Isn't this the same reason guys give when they pop their old ladies in the mouth.

Makes about a much sense then too.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 2, 2010 8:14 PM

Wait... so cancer, according to Berkin, is a gift from his god?

Soooo... logically, Berkin is the kind of guy who could dunk someone in a potent carcinogen and then argue it was an act of Christian love.

Must be a great guy to have mixing your drinks.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | July 2, 2010 8:19 PM

--DLC@#49:

Ten ahead of you. That's where.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | July 2, 2010 8:24 PM

God is not great. But his followers are worse.

a violently sexist, racist tirade Mel Gibson is alleged to have directed at Oksana Grigorieva, the estranged mother of his young child.

According to Radar, Gibson can be heard calling Grigorieva a "cunt", a "bitch" and a "whore", making threats ("I am going to come and burn the fucking house down ... but you will blow me first") and telling her: "You look like a fucking pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of niggers, it will be your fault."

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | July 2, 2010 8:26 PM

Maybe the experience of sitting in a chair while the chemo is pumped into his system will have Hitchens contemplating general life and death issues enough that he'll reverse his unrelenting support (which was still ongoing last I read) for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Of course I don't think the cancer is a message from an imaginary sky fairy, and I certainly don't think he deserves it, but some of the shit I've heard Hitchens say about Iraq does kind of make me wish he would at least stub his toe.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | July 2, 2010 8:32 PM

I feel the divine love...
It is unmistakable.
It is thanks to the likes of Berkin and ayatollah khomeini that I am an atheist.
Thanks, guys! I might be stuck with bronze age dogma for life, otherwise.
Come to think of it, they have done me a great favor, although it was unintentional

Posted by: ctenotrish | July 2, 2010 8:46 PM

Ahhhhh. That was a *satisfying* post. Well said, PZ.

Posted by: parnell44 | July 2, 2010 8:48 PM

I posted this on Berkin's blog post:
You, George Berkin, are aptly named as "Jerk of the Day" by Pharyngula. You have no business addressing yourself to Mr. Hitchens. especially in the manner and tone of your post. Mr. Hitchens is down but not out. Further, he is not addle-brained as you and the rest of your believers are. When you have proof there is a god, come back (the burden is on you, as you are aware). Until then, shut your gob, especially regarding your betters!

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2010 8:57 PM

I sincerely hope that if and when George Jerkin comes down with a fatal disease or get's very old, he makes it known publicly.

So we can condescend publicly about his condition and his imaginary monstrous friend.

Hey George, where is your god now?

I thought faith healing like it says in the bible works?

Too bad you won't be in heaven or even hell. You will just be dead. And so on.

Probably no such luck. If anything like a just and wise god exists, George Jerkin will be hit by lightning on a clear blue day.

Of course if a just and wise god existed we would know it by now. It would have vacuumed up all those weird fundies and sent them to their own heaven where they could hunt witches, hang apostates, stone each other to death for minor infractions, be ruled by Bush, Cheney, and Nixon and get one TV channel with Fox News 24/7. No such luck.

Posted by: Hirnlego | July 2, 2010 9:08 PM

“I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” - Einstein

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 2, 2010 9:11 PM

leodad0899 @ 74;

This slashfic DOES exist!!!

I have a feeling that the old internet rule "if it exists, there is porn for it" may once again hold true in this case...

Posted by: Miranda Celeste Hale | July 2, 2010 9:21 PM

@31- Abbie, your comment is pure, unadulterated WIN!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 2, 2010 9:25 PM

Michael Kingsford Gray, please, don't fucking embed images, just use links! Christ, the thread is now hanging, waiting on 'antitheist.info'. Sorry to yell, but that sort of crap really slows down the thread for some us.

Posted by: Holbach | July 2, 2010 9:34 PM

Their god is nothing, but its followers are something else.

Posted by: Marella | July 2, 2010 9:46 PM

I feel I should point out that 'berk' is a somewhat old fashioned Australian slang term for 'moron', clearly god thought carefully before he named him!

usage; "What a berk!"

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlMUOlFSrmVJyp9RuUEGzj32ou-hBraMAo | July 2, 2010 9:55 PM

PS anyone know how to sign in with a nym rather than the googlemess?

Posted by: toomanytribbles | July 2, 2010 10:21 PM

i saw this.. and the second thing i thought (the first being, 'what a pathetic incarnation of pascal's wager') is that i should send this to pz myers for comment.

'God is not great. But his followers are worse.'

you did not disappoint.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 2, 2010 10:36 PM

God let Mr. Hitchens get cancer so that he could repent?? What kind of asshat god does this guy worship??

The kind of god who regularly tortures and kills children to get parents to lead better lives; who wipes out entire communities to punish the gays; and who kills people to teach other people how much he loves them (or something like that.)

Posted by: Travis | July 2, 2010 11:00 PM

Akira MacKenzie #6,
I am always amazed by the stupidity of many fundies but at the same time strangely not surprised. Your story shows a group of ignorant and stupid relatives, they have no idea what the real world is like (the authorities will be watching you, what a joke, to actually believe that shows such a disconnect with the real world). I am sure some of the people with positions of power in their hierarchy know what real life is like even if they want something else but the average fundie seems so woefully stupid sometimes, a total lack of thought about their beliefs.

I would love to hear the chorus of believers who have so often told me that jackasses like Berkin are wrong but so rarely are they willing to step up and actually publically criticize one of their own. Maybe in private, I get told about their reservations, their problems when it is brought up, but not in public.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 2, 2010 11:09 PM

When I found out I had breast cancer, I did not suddenly reject reason and start believing in an invisible sky guy who had a mysterious plan for me that included cancer.

The only faith I had was in the expertise of my doctors.

I was really, really provoked when friends and relatives kept assuring me that they were "praying for me."

I let my husband and kids know that if I were in the hospital and a chaplin (or anyone else who wanted to comfort me with prayer or good news about god) ever attempted to enter my room while they were there, they needed to push that person back into the hallway (and yell blasphemous remarks as they did so), because if they didn't, I'd be forced to crawl out of my bed, and beat the god-shill with my bedpan.

I also made clear that I want no prayer, hymns and any other god-mentioning at my funeral, but I also noted that the funeral was for them, not for me, because I would be--you know--dead, so wouldn't know and wouldn't care what happened at the funeral. Still I hope that they would tell funny stories about me and drink a lot of margaritas. And I believe that that's more likely to happen than mass and recitation of the rosary, given that I have raised two godless children and am married to the most apathetic protestant ever.

It looks like I'm going to be fine, and my doctors tell me I am unlikely to die of breast cancer (which only leaves everything else I can possibly die from.)

And while all my friends are patting themselves on the back that their "prayers were answered" and god cured me, I only praise my doctors and the other health care providers who used their skills and knowledge to obtain a good result for me.

Posted by: Donald Oats | July 2, 2010 11:24 PM

Berkin's puerile nonsense is the most tortured illogical piece of drivel I have had the misfortune to sight.
Forgiving the denigration of a man embarking upon rounds of chemo and surgery, just how does the remaining "logic" work? Berkin is tacitly claiming that he knows whether (the Xian) god (for which the absence of any credible evidence, in places where there should be plenty, strongly supports the argument that gods...are...not...real!) decided to do this, or to do that, in relation to Christopher Hitchen's current illness. Did God text him the plan? Or mind-meld with him? Scrawl a message in the (sorry, in one of the many such texts called the) bible, 2000-3000 years ago, ready for him to distil the hidden meaning? Or is he a sad example of Xian ethical principles, morals that apparently involve an expectation (and presumably desire to see "God's will" manifest as) the very real torture and suffering of humans - or not - for some logically, rationally, physically unknowable purpose? Streuth!!

Perhaps Berkin's name is an example of nominative determinism, for his fine example of being an A-grade berk in penning his article speaks volumes for it.

Posted by: Vixen Strangely | July 2, 2010 11:34 PM

I think George Berkin has done a marvelous thing for Hitchens already--he has positively labored to be an example of how religion poisons everything. What could have been an expression of empathy for another person's welfare of the kind anyone might naturally feel, being oneself mortal, his religious viewpoint skewed to something not merely past common sense, but what should be past common decency.

It ultimately isn't compassion that motivates this garbage, but a shit-eating desire to see someone converted to his point of view, not by persuasion and logic, but by fear: the old "timor mortis". He thinks, if we want to call it that, that Pascal's wager is sweetened when one feels the Reaper at one's back. It's not an expression of "Will he see the light?" but rather--"If things get dark enough, who wouldn't drop to their knees?"

There's no respect, courage, compassion, or what he calls common sense in such a sentiment.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 2, 2010 11:43 PM

Vixen Strangely:

There's no respect, courage, compassion, or what he calls common sense in such a sentiment.

QFT. And that was a beautiful post.

Posted by: raven | July 2, 2010 11:57 PM

Don't even get into the whole moral quagmire of doctors with this viewpoint, and patients who don't believe.

You have a point.

A xian nurse once worked in a public health clinic that gave HIV tests back when HIV was a death sentence.

She would tell many HIV- patients that they were HIV+. When they came back for retesting and treatment, she would say "April fools" now aren't you sorry to be gay or injecting drugs and god has a plan for you or something. The rational only makes sense to someone brain damaged by religion.

Trouble was, some people didn't come back. They wandered around for years thinking AIDS and death were around the corner, avoiding getting romantically involved with other people, and/or got on the less than pleasant drugs available at the time.

Eventually, some of those were retested. They were negative. Not sure of the outcome but there were most likely some big payouts.

One of the commonest of xian lies is that they are moral and ethical. When I see a business claiming to be xian, they aren't on my list unless they are the only one for 50 miles.

Posted by: Travis | July 3, 2010 12:02 AM

Wow, raven, just, wow...

I am almost speechless. My first thought was how many of those people went out and killed themseleves, either quickly or slowly, how many ruined lives there were. Did she not think of that? What a monster.

Posted by: R. Johnston | July 3, 2010 12:12 AM

Meh. Inebriated warmongering racist right-wing lunatics aren't exactly good skeptics or worthy of sympathy, even if they proclaim themselves atheists. I'll save my outrage for when a better person than Hitchens is the subjects of stupidity, and my outrage will be tapped soon enough.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 3, 2010 12:20 AM

A xian nurse once worked in a public health clinic that gave HIV tests back when HIV was a death sentence.

She would tell many HIV- patients that they were HIV+. When they came back for retesting and treatment, she would say "April fools" now aren't you sorry to be gay or injecting drugs and god has a plan for you or something.

Yep, when stories like this come out all I can think of is how comforting religion is to people. Can't you just think of the comfort the nurse you worked with felt with her beliefs? You're a horrible person for criticising her religion! ;)

Posted by: raven | July 3, 2010 12:30 AM

I am almost speechless. My first thought was how many of those people went out and killed themseleves, either quickly or slowly, how many ruined lives there were.

The girl (yeah, a girl who injected drugs a few times) I heard it from was quite young and actually in declining health from the stress and the not so great HIV drugs that were available at the time. She thought about suicide often.

This was a long time ago, 1990's. AZT had come out but protease inhibitors hadn't yet. This incident became public but I haven't been able to find it with a search engine. It has to be there somewhere but most likely is buried way deep in the archives.

Posted by: bastion of sass | July 3, 2010 12:34 AM

The world would be a poorer place if you were to die, so I'm glad you won't be doing that just now.

At least we both hope not. Heh.

I thought as I left the doctors after getting the good news that I was unlikely to die of breast cancer, "Now, wouldn't it be an ironic twist of fate if I got hit by a truck and killed in the parking lot as I walked to my car?"

Several months ago, there was an episode of the TV series Bones in which a young man gets a cell phone call letting him know that he is cancer-free after years of treatment--only to die seconds later in an earthquake (in Washington DC, no less.) And, I thought, "Well, there you go."

Carpe Diem.

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | July 3, 2010 12:42 AM

So that's how Christians show compassion.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 3, 2010 1:00 AM

R.Johnston:

Meh. Inebriated warmongering racist right-wing lunatics aren't exactly good skeptics or worthy of sympathy, even if they proclaim themselves atheists. I'll save my outrage for when a better person than Hitchens is the subjects of stupidity, and my outrage will be tapped soon enough.

Quite the display of compassion there. Colour me silly, but I'd have compassion for, oh say, Ray Comfort if he was diagnosed with cancer and looking at a very difficult time ahead, not just for himself, but those who loved him.

It's amazing, actually, that you managed to rouse yourself enough to complain that others did and do have compassion for Christopher Hitchens. After all, as he isn't "worthy" of sympathy, why bother to rouse yourself to complain? What a sad, pathetic person you are. I wish you luck when something bad strikes you, R. Johnston. You'll need it. Without it, I can't imagine anyone bothering to have sympathy for you. Not that you'd need or want it, of course, being the tough idiot and all.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 3, 2010 1:07 AM

So Birkin's god gave Hitchens cancer to make him repent and come to Jebus. That's terrorism. Birkin's god is a terrorist and Birkin is a terrorist enabler.

Posted by: bullofthewoods | July 3, 2010 1:12 AM

Christianity is religion of love like islam is the religion of peace.Fear, shame, and guilt is the product of all they espouse.

Posted by: jack.rawlinson | July 3, 2010 2:33 AM

I just recently finished arguing with some Christian cretin who was fervently denying my suggestion that Christianity is, at least in part, a child of fear (the other parents being stupidity and ignorance - hey, it's a parental trinity!) Of course, people like Berkin here just prove me right. They admit that fear (or pain, or other sorts of distress) is an excellent way to "encourage" belief in their absurd celestial comforter, and they are simply too fucking dense to understand that such "conversions" are meaningless anyway because "I am scared therefore God exists" is not an argument.

Hitch has copped a bad one here - oesophagal cancer does not have a good survival rate at all - but as we know, cancer treatments are getting better all the time and Hitch is a tough, bloody-minded old sod. I won't be writing him off for a while yet, and if he does go under I would bet a large sum of money that there'll be no phoney "conversion" from him.

Posted by: Jezebel | July 3, 2010 2:48 AM

God is not great. But his followers are worse.

Followers are almost always worse than that which they follow...

Posted by: attorney | July 3, 2010 3:08 AM

I love his comment that "People do tend to wait until they are in big trouble (foxholes) or until the last minute (cancer wards) before they get serious about spiritual, end-of-life, matters."

Well, duh. During the rest of their lives, people have incentive to live in reality. At the end, when they know they are very probably going to die soon, they have NOTHING TO LOSE. During real life, committing to a religious fantasy has costs--you have to give up real life. But when you're going to die anyway, why not hedge your bet? If you're wrong, you've lost nothing (other than credibility among your rational friends).

Notice that most of the people who swear to give up their wicked ways if god saves them from the foxhole or the cancer do not follow through (at least not permanently) if they actually survive. Now THERE is a cliche for you!

Posted by: Rorschach | July 3, 2010 3:49 AM

Maybe the experience of sitting in a chair while the chemo is pumped into his system will have Hitchens contemplating general life and death issues enough that he'll reverse his unrelenting support (which was still ongoing last I read) for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Common human decency.You don't have it.
Asshole.

As to Jerkin, these examples of christian love always have me somewhat speechless.
Essentially, what Abbie said.

Posted by: herr doktor bimler | July 3, 2010 3:56 AM

No-one seems to have quoted James Boswell's account of his unsuccessful attempt to obtain a last-minute conversion from David Hume on the latter's deathbed. Evidently ghouls like Berkin are not a recent phenomenon. As they say, read the whole thing.

I had a strong curiosity to be satisfied if he persisted in disbelieving a future state even when he had death before his eyes. I was persuaded from what he now said, and from his manner of saying it, that he did persist. I asked him if it was not possible that there might be a future state. He answered it was possible that a piece of coal put upon the fire would not burn; and he added that it was a most unreasonable fancy that we should exist forever. ... I asked him if the thought of annihilation never gave him any uneasiness. He said not the least; no more than the thought that he had not been, as Lucretius observes. “Well,” said I, “Mr. Hume, I hope to triumph over you when I meet you in a future state; and remember you are not to pretend that you was joking with all this infidelity.” “No, no,” said he. “But I shall have been so long there before you come that it will be nothing new.” In this style of good humour and levity did I conduct the conversation. ... the truth is that Mr. Hume’s pleasantry was such that there was no solemnity in the scene; and death for the time did not seem dismal. It surprised me to find him talking of different matters with a tranquility of mind and a clearness of head, which few men possess at any time….

Posted by: spam.away.666 | July 3, 2010 4:32 AM

I just found Berkin's theme song! Maybe just the chorus. But still.

nsfw naughty words

Posted by: I H Spedding | July 3, 2010 5:06 AM

I would ask my uncle, who is now in the probably unbreakable grip of metastatic cancer, and his wife - both Christians - what they think of this despicable nonsense but I think I already know the answer. It would probably include the contraction of this man's name, already mentioned in previous comments, to 'berk', which is a contraction of 'Berkley Hunt' which is Cockney rhyming slang for a certain four-letter profanity.

Posted by: KG | July 3, 2010 5:29 AM

In 1978 my mother, who was dying of ALS (Lou Gehrigs Disease), was told by her minister that God was only testing her. If she could get both my brother and I to receive Jesus into our hearts, God would cure her. If not, fail.

Sheesh. How dreadful for you, and your brother and mother. That minister is a monster of evil, and probably doesn't even know it.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 3, 2010 7:08 AM

What utterly baffles me about Jerkin is the massive blindspot he has for the tens-of-thousands of very devoutly religious people who are currently undergoing cancer treatment. Nothing ever enlightens these cretins to the mere fact that ailments strike everyone, as if by completely random coincidence! How about that? Just as if there were no intervening magical wand waver up above. I wonder why such a coincidence would happen that way? Hmmm...

Reminds me of the cretinists who argue about the perfection in human design and completely ignore birth defects and genetic disorders. Ray Charles had less of a blind spot than these religious twits. (What? Too soon?)

AND
@PS9 #126, There's a lot of mental gymnastics a person has to go through to remain completely free of schadenfreude when something happens to someone you have been at odds with. Milking that sentiment online and gloating over someone stricken with cancer, though, is pretty fucking disgusting. I wouldn't wish Jerkin to get cancer as a suitable punishment, as much as he might deserve it. Maybe a tropical intestinal parasite that makes him bleed rectally for a month may be just the ticket. Uh-oh...schadenfreude.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 3, 2010 7:16 AM

That comment by the 'Berk' just about demonstrates the true face of xianity today.

All pretence gone...This IS Christianity after 2000 years.

Nasty, sly, bigoted, pompous and pouring bile into every pontification from the woo soaked morons.
I hope his sheeple, whom presumably nod sagely and pray as directed by this poor excuse for a man, are proud of themselves, and this parsimonious hate filled cretin.

What an utterly vile bunch of imbecilic putrid effluent.
When you think they cannot scrape the barrel any lower...they manage to do just that.
Then demand 'respect' for their insanity.

They do not deserve life let alone respect.
Every xian in the nation should bow their addled heads and feel shame and remorse.
Not just the fundies but ALL of them.
But they are to busy pleasuring one and other with lurid stories of atheism and jeebus porn.

Total wastes of space, every single one of them.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2010 7:20 AM

""his followers are worse"

Funny. Your fellow Atheist presenter at the Melbourne conference appears to prefer the previous (Christian) PM to the current Atheist model:"

This is perhaps the dumbest thing you've ever said. You're throwing out say 1 billion other data points and putting in favor the two that you like. Talk about creaming the data. May God bless you.

Posted by: jeremynel1981 | July 3, 2010 7:26 AM

Bravo, PZ, bravo

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | July 3, 2010 7:29 AM

@Kel
Of course, silly me. Nothing stopping Atheists preferring Christian politicians over Atheist politicians. And, heck; nothing stopping a Muslim woman from being a co-presenter at the GAC, neither.

Posted by: shonny | July 3, 2010 7:35 AM

This might explain the imbecile's comment:

berk, burk [bɜːk]
n
Brit slang a stupid person; fool
[shortened from Berkeley or Berkshire Hunt rhyming slang for cunt]

So berkin' is just one who keeps on being a berk?

Posted by: MosesZD | July 3, 2010 7:39 AM

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | July 3, 2010 7:14 AM

"his followers are worse"

Funny. Your fellow Atheist presenter at the Melbourne conference appears to prefer the previous (Christian) PM to the current Atheist model:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/why-i-quit-the-labor-party/story-e6frg8h6-1225886243738

Reading comprehension, not your strong suit is it? I mean, you're as bad as the fuck-wits that read the declaration about RELIGIOUS MINORITIES NOT GETTING SPECIAL COURTS THAT PANDER TO THER RELIGION and took off on Affimitive Action...

This article was only about politics and political views. It had NOTHING to do with religion, save as a bit of padding to show the author wasn't bigoted and could stand someone even if there were things about them that were different in what is probably a significant area in the author's life.

Which, btw, is a healthy adult mentality. It's only crazy people who think everyone should be like them.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 3, 2010 7:42 AM

Al B. Quirky #147

Of course, silly me. Nothing stopping Atheists preferring Christian politicians over Atheist politicians.

Apparently your thinking processes are weak to non-existent. Normal people look at a politician and consider how that person stands on various topics before deciding whether or not to support the politician. Apparently this concept is too difficult for you to understand.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2010 7:46 AM

Ok Al's derailing for the sake of getting an erection. Ignoring him and moving on...

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 3, 2010 7:53 AM

Tis Himself wrote:

Apparently your thinking processes are weak to non-existent

Indeed. Almost every one of ABQ's posts is evidence that he is, in fact, an ignorant, inane pissant of epic proportions.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | July 3, 2010 8:01 AM

Hit a raw nerve, have I Pharynghouls? Here's a line for you: "Its Christianity we hate, not the Christian politicians".
..snigger..

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 3, 2010 8:11 AM

Hit a raw nerve, have I Pharynghouls?

Such delusions of grandeur - so typical of a pissant of your diminutive stature.

Posted by: blf | July 3, 2010 8:21 AM

(My emboldening.)

Hit a raw nerve, have I Pharynghouls?

Eh? Is this purely a distraction from Pee Zed's point, or do you actually have a reason for calling other commentators here ghouls? Assuming it's not an attempt at distraction, could you please elucidate your point: Why are you calling the other commentators here ghouls?

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2010 8:29 AM

"Why are you calling the other commentators here ghouls?"

It's a case of the Troll/pot calling the ghoul/kettle black/Drow

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 3, 2010 8:37 AM

The poem I posted in 136 is my first attempt at poetry in like four years. I hope it wasn't too Vogonic.

The scansion was off, one of the rhymes was forced, and you forgot to capitalize the word beginning the third line. Other than that, it was okay.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 3, 2010 8:40 AM

Hit a raw nerve, have I Pharynghouls?

Why is it that when someone writes something particularly stupid and others tell him it's particularly stupid, the writer claims to have "hit a raw nerve"? I suspect it's projection.

Posted by: carole | July 3, 2010 8:55 AM

Thank you for writing this, PZ.
Get well soon Mr Hitch.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_MJgGG0WvoGYGxyZs9DKHg0hZQH0pw2lXsiG8lw-#ffb0d | July 3, 2010 8:59 AM

I had a "kind Christian" tell me, after hearing of my mother's breast cancer, that maybe God had given her cancer as a test to lead ME "back to the fold" of Christianity.

My mom herself was told by another "kind Christian" that she should "thank" God for her cancer, because "God doesn't give us tests that we can't handle." And many years ago, a priest told my mom, at her own mother's funeral (she died very young of cancer), that she should be "happy that God chose [her mom], of all His people, to suffer like His son."

What is wrong with these people? I would NEVER believe in something I thought would do this stuff.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | July 3, 2010 9:03 AM

@Sastra

Don't even get into the whole moral quagmire of doctors with this viewpoint, and patients who don't believe.

My otolaryngologist is a graduate of Loma Linda School of Medicine - which is affiliated with the 7th Day Adventist Church, which STILL actually and truly believes in a 6000-year-old universe and all the rest.

I trust him with cleaning the wax out of my ears. He's gentle and competent.

Under NO circumstance would I let him know I'm an atheist. Just in case the curette "slips".

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 3, 2010 9:15 AM

Why do these people's brains seem to miss the completely unsubtle disconnect between the expressions 'loving god' and 'causing suffering and death in the hope of increasing his followers'?

Posted by: hyperdeath | July 3, 2010 9:40 AM

Hit a raw nerve, have I Pharynghouls?

Why is it that when someone writes something particularly stupid and others tell him it's particularly stupid, the writer claims to have "hit a raw nerve"? I suspect it's projection.

I've been wondering about that one myself. It is particularly common amongst believers of quack medicine, astrology, and other similar superstitions, when confronted with skepticism. A typical exchange will start with a skeptic saying something that a believer doesn't like, followed by the believer accusing the skeptic of being a closed-minded spite-filled emotionally-deficient social-inadequate. Any response will inevitably be countered with "looks like I've hit a raw nerve".

In my opinion, the phrase is used when a skeptic fails to stick to the script that a believer expects them to follow. It's far easier to argue against a narrow stereotype, and the "touched a nerve" gambit is an attempt to push the skeptic back into that stereotype.

Al B. Quirky lacks the intelligence to win an argument against a real person, but he may just win (or imagine himself to have won) against a caricature.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKoZZW1bfPWwVICBRt8fSLiYWHHSiKVGk | July 3, 2010 9:53 AM

It is particularly common amongst believers of quack medicine, astrology, and other similar superstitions, when confronted with skepticism.

It's related to the "What are you afraid of" gambit. When a purveyor of science gets angry that a pseudoscientist is wasting the scientist's time or energy fending him off, the quack interprets that anger as meaning that he's really on to something - the "raw nerve," etc.

The real reason for the anger is having to waste valuable time on stupidity, but the woo-master never perceives it correctly. Creationists are very susceptible to this one.

On topic, Berkin's idiocy and ghoulish ill-manners are so obvious that anything I can add on the subject is superfluous.

Posted by: Kobra | July 3, 2010 10:18 AM

@167: I've never heard of the word scansion before. If I knew how to actually write poetry, it might help. XD

Posted by: unbound | July 3, 2010 10:21 AM

Well, at least the xtians are consistent. If someone they don't like get a disease like cancer or hit with some disaster, it is because god is displeased with them. If one of their own gets hit in the same fashion, it is merely god working in mysterious ways.

As always, god conveniently works towards the goals of the individual xtian.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2010 10:42 AM

"My mom herself was told by another "kind Christian" that she should "thank" God for her cancer, because "God doesn't give us tests that we can't handle." "

Remember, if you get PTSD from being raped it's your own fault since you can handle it!

Posted by: kc5tty | July 3, 2010 11:06 AM

merkin berkin is jerkin his gherkin

Love Hitchens. Expresses his disdain for woo so very elegantly. I read "God Is Not Great" over and over again.

Get well Hitch, we need you.

Choke on a merkin, berkin.... you little gherkin.

steve

Posted by: Wayfarer | July 3, 2010 11:32 AM

I find it curious how christians look at death as a bad thing.A goal of being a christian is to be saved and recieve everlasting life in heaven.To do this one must die in this existence.I would think to a christian that living in this materalistic existence is merely a way station on the way to a better place.The outlook that death is a bad thing,a punishment is rather illogical from the point of an outsider.

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2010 1:12 PM

If someone they don't like get a disease like cancer or hit with some disaster, it is because god is displeased with them. If one of their own gets hit in the same fashion, it is merely god working in mysterious ways.

Or testing their faith. To (possibly mis)quote Dan Savage, "Why is it that when something bad happens to me [a gay atheist libertine] it's God's punishment, when something bad happens to you [a believer] it's God's pop quiz?"

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 3, 2010 1:43 PM

"Or testing their faith. To (possibly mis)quote Dan Savage, "Why is it that when something bad happens to me [a gay atheist libertine] it's God's punishment, when something bad happens to you [a believer] it's God's pop quiz?""

Oddly the joke answer "because you touch yourself at night" might actually work here

Posted by: mikel.i.hensley | July 3, 2010 2:18 PM

Wow. And the critics of the prominent atheist writers accuse them of being hateful? Even if I did not entirely approve of Hitchen's ode to Jerry Falwell, that was nothing compared to this bile.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 3, 2010 2:38 PM

"Anyway, who's Jerk of the Day? Berko or Quirko?"

It's a new day now. Quirky can have it.

Posted by: Phulium od Elim | July 3, 2010 2:49 PM

Death bed conversions are interesting phenomena. We know for certain that the only way to eternal reward is be accepting Jesus into your hear. We also know that the instant after death is too late. (God wants heaven to be stimulating and dead people are boring so only live people are allowed in. Thus you must find Jesus while alive.)

This brings up the interesting idea that if one instant of faith at death can save you, can one instant of doubt condemn you? If on your deathbed, after a lifetime of faith, you have a moment of doubt are you then condemned to spend eternity in hell?

Common sense and campassion will of course say yes. After all, if you're allowed to stray after having faith, what's the incentive to keep faith? Others may argue that Jesus had doubt on the cross and he rules heaven. However some figure he spent the three days before the resurrection in Hell whoopin' ass.

Thus the conclussion is obvious. If you die in doubt you spend a bit of time in hell but you eventually get your eternal reward. So the question is, why does God in his eternal love for us, have this strange arrangement?

Well, seems to me that God wants us to play the field. I'd advice Hitchens in the time he has left to spent a bit of time worshipping Kali, Thor, and Aphrodite and get those oats out of his system. Then to claim his eternal reward, he should let Jesus into his heart. He can do this in private in his closet if he doesn't want anyone to see. Then he can go the rest of his life preaching his nihilism without losing any faith. On his deathbed, he can make a grand performance cursing God to the end. He'll have to spend a bit a time in hell for that showmanship but the side trip to Elysian fields might perk up his tour. (A bit like a vacation that's over-all nice even though it includes a bad night in Cardiff.)

I hope he finds this advice usefull. I'll continue to pray for him and at night with the door closed I'll sacrifice a chicken to Zorethustra.

Posted by: woozy | July 3, 2010 3:05 PM

He's a right-wing asshole, ... The message seems to be 'if you agree with me on this one issue--and this one issue only--then you're ok in my book.' Isn't that how most fundamentalists think?

Well, yes and no. It depends on how one agrees on the one issue. Much as I admire Dawkin's and PZ's common sense rational reasoning, I find Hitchen's culteral and literary reasoning to be a refreshing approach that is under represented. In particular, these days with so many theists and apologists responde to rational arguments with "well, you know; religion offers so much and is so important for other reasons that somehow we can ignore reason in our arguments for faith," it's very encouraging to hear someone like Hitchens point out, that !NO! culturally and literary christianity is poisonous, shallow, and childish.

I'm not sure I agree-- Christianity as myth has some value (not as much as Helenistic or other mythologies but some value)-- but it sure is nice to hear it now and then.

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2010 3:26 PM

Re deathbed confessions in general, even if they happen how do we know they're sincere? If I were dying and a close relative came to me and implored me to accept Jesus, I might well say ok just to comfort him or her and maybe to shut him/her up about it already. So...if Darwin had converted on his deathbed (and I know of no convincing evidence that he did), how do we know it wasn't just to humor his surviving relatives?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/NxE_lE0Lh_9JksaAqRedu6R7Vg--#bf6f6 | July 3, 2010 3:36 PM

@129: "Common human decency.You don't have it."

Wow, you extrapolated quite a lot coming to that conclusion from the one sentence you quoted.

Posted by: j-brisby | July 3, 2010 3:40 PM

#202, it's entirely possible that PZ would be as prominent a voice as Hitchens if he'd ever write a book about atheism.

Posted by: BoxNDox | July 3, 2010 5:06 PM

Hitchens is many things, but "right wing" sure as hell isn't one of them. He is in fact an avowed Marxist. However, his main political hot button is totalitarianism and the oppression that inevitably accompanies it, which he adamantly opposes, to the point of openly advocating military intervention to depose such regimes.

AFAIK he has been completely consistent in this view. For example, he strongly supported intervention in Bosnia - which certainly wasn't a right-wing cause.

His position on Iraq is simply that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who needed to be removed. And he has criticized the United States' subsequent actions during the occupation.

The place where Hitchens and I part company is that while I share his belief that such regimes are evil and the world would be a better place without them, I don't have his faith (and faith is pretty much what it is) that removing them will necessarily lead to something better. I find our inability to take useful action to help the people living in these hellish situations appalling and morally repugnant, but it's a reality I'm forced to accept. The fact that Hitchens refuses to accept it is something I both fault and kind of admire.

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to hear Hitchens speak at Pitzer College. He's a stunningly good speaker - videos somehow don't capture just how good he really is.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | July 3, 2010 5:35 PM

@#172
The connection is as follows: PZ, in the 1st paragraph of this post, fails to differentiate between Christianity, and Christians like George Berkin. Why does he despise Christianity? Not because of anything Christ said, apparently.
Philip Adams has no such problem, and prefers the previous Christian PM over the current Atheist PM (about whom PZ posted ad nauseam in glowing positive terms, but dropped her when she came out and bashed the gays), so much so that he has resigned from the Labor party, although there appears to be little or no political difference between Rudd and Gillard.
Sorry for derailing the thread, but its interesting that we've established that when it comes to the crunch, Atheists prefer Christian politicians to Atheist politicians.

Posted by: palefury | July 3, 2010 5:47 PM

This reminds me of a conversation i had with a seventh day adventist when i was 16. She told me that my dad had had died of cancer (he was diagnosed when i was 7 weeks old, and after 14 years of remission and relapses and chemo- and radiotherapy until he finally succumed to the disease after 14 years leading to his painful drawn out death) because god wanted to bring my mother, sister and i closer to god. Fortunately like my father i am an atheist and a rational human being and i understand that cancer is the result of a collection of somatic cell mutations that gives these transformed cells a growth advantage resulting in a tumor, and that these cells continue to mutate allowing the evolution of resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, which ultimately resulted in my father's death. Meaning that i understand that there is nothing malicious about cancer it is simply a random result of chance, and not the result of some sort of malcious divine intervention which in some twisted manner should somehow lead me to my souls salvation.

However, this did make me question as to why this seventh day adventist should worship such a diety as one that would knowingly induce cancer in my father, an atheist yes, but a good person, with a great sense of humor, a good family man greatly missed by not just his wife and daughters but also all who knew him well. This seventh day adventist would go to church every saturday (seventh day adventists recognise the sabbath as saturday) and pray to a god that they believed would knowingly induce pain and suffering just so that people would pay attention to him.

I for one would not wish cancer on even my worse enemy (not that i have enemies, but even if i did) let alone "my own children." And if i did i would not expect anyone to thank me for it.

I think this kind of comment from a theist really just points out what kind of hateful, spiteful people they are. Which may explain why they worship such a fickle hateful imaginary god. This also serves to emphasise why religion can be dangerous, allowing its followers to believe that they are somehow justified in wishing harm to others simply because they disagree with their beliefs.

I think Mr Berkin needs to take a long hard look at himself and ask why it is that he is so smug and gleeful over the news that someone, who only has conflicting beliefs to his own, should become ill with such a disease as cancer.

My thoughts are with Dr Hitchens and his family. Chemotherapy can be a grueling experience and a person undergoing it should be surrounded by people who love and support them, and certainly does not need comments such as these from people like Mr Berkin.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 3, 2010 6:32 PM

So when Al Franken was elected, that was an admission by Christians that cultural judaism was better?

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 3, 2010 6:37 PM

ABQ:

Sorry for derailing the thread,

Shut up.

but its interesting that we've established that when it comes to the crunch, Atheists prefer Christian politicians to Atheist politicians.

"We" have established no such thing. Are you really that stupid?

Rational people prefer public servants whose views and actions they agree with. We don't all live in your peculiar tribalist world, where everyone's professed membership in a club is more important than their actions.

Posted by: palefury | July 3, 2010 7:03 PM

@ Raven,

i know this, you know this. Why don't they know this?

Do any of these people ever sit down and think about what they are actually saying? I guess some do and get out of there, but plenty don't and continue to spread this kind of hateful ingnorant BS.

This event happened to me many years ago now. Needless to say that it only served to strengthen my opinions on the whole issue.

I now work in cancer research and work every day to better understand the processes that lead to the development and progression of cancer, and in turn work on developing new strategies to treat it.

Hopefully my work will one day contribute to cancer treatment that will help to treat or even cure people with this collection of horrible deseases, regardless of their beliefs.

Posted by: Cygnus Tygger | July 3, 2010 7:35 PM

Hit a raw nerve, have I Pharynghouls?

I am reminded of the Cynthia Heimmel advice to never ask "Was *what* as good for me as it was for you?"

Did Al B. Quirko say something? Was it anti-atheist? Did it have anything to do with his comment about someone preferring a theist's politics to an atheist?

Surely it wasn't that comment in and of itself, was it.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | July 3, 2010 8:09 PM

Just a reminder: if you could reason with ABQ, he probably wouldn't be a Christian, would he?

Posted by: Dianne | July 3, 2010 9:52 PM

If Bokononism isn't sufficiently exotic for you, there's always Slag-Blah.Panel 6 looks like a Cat's Cradle reference too, which would make sense since, of course, Bokononism is one of the tenets of Slag-Blah.

Posted by: raven | July 3, 2010 10:30 PM

People do tend to wait until they are in big trouble (foxholes) or until the last minute (cancer wards) before they get serious about spiritual, end-of-life, matters.

Not at all. Who waits until the last minute, end-of-life are....priests and a motley assortment of self appointed missionaries. They are hoping scared, desperate, pain wracked, and sad people will be easy pickings for their brain eating religion.

These people are ghouls hovering around the future dead and waiting. Berkin is just eying Hitchens as a future prospective meal of braaiinnnssss.

Posted by: JackC | July 4, 2010 12:18 AM

@Kel

There's no damn cat.

There's no damn cradle.

JC

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 4, 2010 1:09 AM

So Al agrees that Al Franken proves that Christians prefer Judaism to Christianity.

Glad we settled that.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 4, 2010 1:43 AM

Perhaps once you've graduated the second semester of Sunday School

Now that was funny!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | July 4, 2010 2:45 AM

ABQ, you're a fucking imbecile.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 4, 2010 2:47 AM

ABQ, you're a fucking imbecile.

whew

charitable

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | July 4, 2010 4:07 AM

@melior
imaginary persons did not write the bible; herein lies an existential problem..

Posted by: Philip Legge | July 4, 2010 4:30 AM

Reading comprehension fail from the troll: perhaps he’s auditioning for the next “Jerk of the Day”?

Posted by: Rorschach | July 4, 2010 4:44 AM

who wrote the Bible?

Well, we have a pretty good idea who wrote the OT, for example.Couple priests, one from Judah one from Israel, couple scribes, and the whole thing was cobbled together from the 4 sources and edited by Ezra after the return from exile.
It's public knowledge mate.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 4, 2010 5:03 AM

Should be more precise : 245 applies to the Pentateuch, not the whole OT.

Posted by: blf | July 4, 2010 5:33 AM

There cannot possibly have been an Adam. Evolution does never develops very first individual of a species. What you get is population drift: Genetic &tc changes to a collection of individuals (a population) such that, after time and multiple generations, they cannot be considered to be the same species as their great-great-…-great ancestors.

Posted by: blf | July 4, 2010 5:39 AM

Evolution does never develops very first individual of a species. Gah! I Ingerlish speakens gret. Make that: Evolution never develops the very first individual of a species.

Posted by: Al B. Quirky | July 4, 2010 6:10 AM

@Feynmaniac
OK then smarty-pants, name just one author of the 66 books that are collectively known as THE BIBLE that you believe actually existed, and was not a descendent of a man named Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David etc, etc., or do you believe the Israelites made up there own whole entire history and genealogy for 1500+ years you demented fuckwit.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 4, 2010 6:17 AM

or do you believe the Israelites made up there own whole entire history and genealogy for 1500+ years you demented fuckwit.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 4, 2010 6:22 AM

Perhaps, Quirky, this documentary on how archaeology (including textual analysis) matches with historical accounts might be of interest to you. Then if you have time, here's a documentary on authorship.

There you go, nearly 4 hours of documentary dedicated to the topic at hand. If I were condescending to you instead of treating you like an adult I wouldn't be trying to give you as much information as possible...

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | July 4, 2010 6:31 AM

or do you believe the Israelites made up there[sic] own whole entire history and genealogy for 1500+ years

Do you believe the Greeks made up the events in the Iliad? The Bible is an odd blend historical fact and mythology (mostly the latter). The Bible's history and genealogy can't be entirely accurate since it's inconsistent with itself. At times contradictory genealogies are given. Stories are often repeated with different details. The Bible is also inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. There is no historical evidence for a large number of Jewish slaves in Egypt as outlined in the Bible for example.

Seriously, go read a book. I'm done wasting my time on you. Moron.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 4, 2010 6:34 AM

@253: Ezra. And yes, very large portions of any ancient people's "history" are made up. For example, medieval England had a foundation myth in which a group of Trojans led by Brutus had orginally colonised the British Isles. This never happened. Why do you find that surprising?

Now go read some actual recent work in biblical archeology instead of asking dumb questions. Shoo.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 4, 2010 7:07 AM

Jesus, though quoted extensively in the NT, is not attributed with being the author of any of the books of the bible, and neither is Adam, who, according to Richard Dawkins (The Greatest Show on Earth) did not exist. If that's true, then none of his descendants could have existed, including Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc. If dickheads like Dawkins make dickhead claims about the non-existence of an entire race

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2010 7:12 AM

Not because of anything Christ said, apparently.

Your zombie deity said a lot of awful, horrifying things, dipshit. He was a petty, deranged asshole.

Sort of like, well, you.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2010 7:23 AM

Jesus, though quoted extensively in the NT, is not attributed with being the author of any of the books of the bible, and neither is Adam, who, according to Richard Dawkins (The Greatest Show on Earth) did not exist. If that's true, then none of his descendants could have existed, including Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc. If dickheads like Dawkins make dickhead claims about the non-existence of an entire race

This is up there with Barb's no external energy heart as the dumbest thing ever said on Pharyngula. Even worse than the Leica.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 4, 2010 7:51 AM

Maybe PZ is saving it for his book. :D

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKoZZW1bfPWwVICBRt8fSLiYWHHSiKVGk | July 4, 2010 8:25 AM

If they were so good at memorising, how come no-one seemed to remember when the books were authored and by who?

How about not even remembering the NAME of the Pharaoh of the Exodus? You know, the Exodus - arguably the most important thing that ever happened to them as a people?

Calling him just "Pharaoh" is a huge red flag that the story is a legendary account cobbled together later. They couldn't pin it down in historical memory, which is why the Egyptian leader is anonymous. Later parts of the Bible mention the Pharaohs Shishak and Neco, but the Pharaoh Moses strove with doesn't even have a name?

Quirky is an ignorant joke.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | July 4, 2010 8:40 AM

Ah! I see Al B. Moron gets into the spirit of the 4th of July by exploding a stupidity starburst...or starfart at least.

Guys, Al is a troll. His sole purpose is to derail meaningful discussion. Don't feed the troll and he will disappear up his own sorry, solipsistic puckered asshole.

There probably is somebody named "Adam" in the geneology of some author of at least one of the 66 books that Constantine allowed into the Bibble. However, said Adam most probably never lived in a place called Eden, must assuredly didn't talk to snakes and never was expelled from said Eden by angels weilding fiery swords. There, Al, happy? Now run along and play with firecrackers. Try holding an M-80 in your hand until just before it blows up. That's a fun game! Run along and let the adults talk.

Posted by: Travis | July 4, 2010 9:07 AM

Being compared with Barb, ouch. That is not something you want to happen.

But Al really does seem to be the troll type, I think ignoring him is the way to go. But I will not fault anyone for replying because I know all to well the urge to do that.

Posted by: Rob in Memphis | July 4, 2010 10:55 AM

@Hirnlego (#270)

Thanks for posting the link to Berkin's second comment. If he wrote that in the hope of seeming less like a fucking loon, he failed miserably.

Posted by: Lowell | July 4, 2010 1:18 PM

Thanks #270 for linking to Berkin's response. It's even dumber than the original.

After whining about tone (Atheists are mean! Therefore, Jesus!), he goes on to deny that he said god gave Hitchens cancer. That wouldn't be very "loving," after all. No, he just "allowed" it to happen. Simple!

Then there's the required "Hitchens hates God" crap. *barf*

He follows it up with this gem:

God knows that if Hitchens, or any rebel against God, continues to reject God until they physically die, God will give that rebel their wish, after they die. That is, God will in turn reject the rebel, and banish the rebel from his presence. Only this time, it’s forever.

Has Berkin seriously never heard of Pascal's Wager? It's like he thinks he's saying something profound and intelligent. If only those confused atheists could understand it!

We understand it Berkin! We're just not persuaded! Do you understand the difference?

Posted by: wasseals | July 4, 2010 3:17 PM

Surely, the aptly named Berkin must be in the running for official creep of the year with this article! It must have taxed his tiny brain to full capacity to contrive such a warped fantasy, but he has left out many details. Cancer... there's a lot of it about.

Are all those who die peacefully of old age heading to hell? What about true believers with cancer, what did they do wrong? Is all medical intervention contrary to god's plan?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | July 4, 2010 6:17 PM

After whining about tone (Atheists are mean! Therefore, Jesus!), he goes on to deny that he said god gave Hitchens cancer. That wouldn't be very "loving," after all. No, he just "allowed" it to happen. Simple!

If a trolley is out of control on a track and set to hit someone and you have the power to divert it to another track and save that person's life, not acting is a very wicked act. A God who gave someone cancer and a God who failed to prevent someone from getting cancer is an evil God either way - unless of course God couldn't act to prevent it in which case why call it God?

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | July 5, 2010 9:22 AM

You didn't hear atheists rubbing their hands in glee when scum like Tony Snow or Jerry Falwell keeled over.

You can't have been listening very well - we had posters here announce their intent to celebrate when Falwell died. (I don't recall any thread about Snow, and, indeed, have no idea who he was.)

And, for the record, I do think it's ghoulish to gush at the death of a ghoul.

Posted by: Lowell | July 5, 2010 5:37 PM

Berkin continues digging:

If someone assumes (as atheists do) that this life is all there is, that once you’re dead, you’re dead, then of course it does not make sense that God would intervene to allow some unpleasantness before the end of physical life.

This moron can't even keep his own fairy tales straight. "Intervene to allow"? WTF does that even mean?

He must be trying to extend his reign from Jerk of the Day to Jerk of the Week.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 6, 2010 8:20 PM

Title of the thread: Jerk of the Day. And ABQ shows up to try to claim the prize, like the idjit he is, and almost succeeds.

Posted by: milko.de.varona | July 8, 2010 1:18 PM

Just found out about Hitchens condition, what a shame, he's a brilliant man.

I think a lifetime of drinking and smoking are more to blame for his cancer than > but christians are so insane they believe stories made up by themselves.

Here's to a speedy and complete recovery Mr. Hitchens

Posted by: ravenkatie | July 10, 2010 2:25 AM

Generalizations like this are really not fair or accurate. Yes, this guy is definitely a jerk and an idiot. But the Christians I know are not like this at all. I'm not a believer, but many of my wonderful in-laws are, and I can guarantee if I told anyone about Mr. Hitchens, they would just say "I'll send a prayer for him that he recovers" and that would be it. None of my Christian in-laws force their beliefs on anyone nor judge Mr. Hitchens or any other atheist for their lack of religion. (I am agnostic and have been fully accepted by them all.) If this idiot you mentioned is really representative of most Christians, then I don't blame you one bit for despising them but I am saddened you haven't met the much more reasonable ones that I know.