Pharyngula

Posted by: Ben Goren | July 11, 2010 6:07 PM

You know, it occurs to me. A trivial way to keep the god-botherers out would be to require a membership oath that is as horrendously blasphemous as the Pharyngulite Horde can think of.

Anybody care to offer one to get us started?

Posted by: Bing | July 11, 2010 6:11 PM

I apologize. He has tenure. Apparently "Am a pustule on the ass of the academy" is worth more than I originally thought.

HJ

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | July 11, 2010 6:12 PM

Wait. He's a professor?!!

When I saw those quotes elsethread, I just skimmed over them assuming it was a petulant student.

Jesus Fuck!

Posted by: manthd | July 11, 2010 6:19 PM

I just read the ruling for this. Alito's dissent makes Scalia look honest and humble (yikes!). And that's even before you start asking "So, when did you get all fired up for the First Amendment when it was used to protected people other than Christian straights?" On the other hand, I've never seen Ginsberg give somebody such a thrashing.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 6:23 PM

I saw it as a grand opportunity to point out what scumbags these people would be

This was my position. Let them play their hand.

By the way I never thought for a second this *wouuldn't* happen. Missed the thread on it. People please, don't be so naive.

What I do think though is that this kind of insanity has to keep to itself to fester.

So please, let them join. Embrace them. And go on learning how to work around them, while they're right there.

And eventually they'll just be the piss in the stream they always feared they were.

Posted by: manthd | July 11, 2010 6:25 PM

Anyone wanna lay bets on how quick this prof is to claim "It was satire!" when he gets called on suggesting damaging this own academic institution?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | July 11, 2010 6:27 PM

I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

This is just so funny. I doubt that most of the atheist members of these groups are Chris Mooney style accommodationists and will just allow the godbots to take over.

I feel confident in predicting that if Mike Adams does engage in this, there will be scores of great stories to amuse our humorless asses.

Posted by: jewbacca.rex | July 11, 2010 6:33 PM

By the way, if any Christians or Muslims want to join the UMM Freethinkers, they'd be welcome.

See? No one cares about the Jews. (Cf.)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 6:34 PM

Apparently there are other groups he can't stand: 'Feminists Say the Darndest Things: A Politically Incorrect Professor Confronts "Womyn" on Campus' Mike Adams (Author)

Keep it classy, Professor Adams. But honestly...

I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

Why is academia so prone to these people. I seek power... I seek power... KWIM?

Like cops I guess and therapists. Some assholes find their way in for all the wrong reasons. But why don't they get called out more?

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | July 11, 2010 6:37 PM

Strictly speaking religions do have a legal right to discriminate against unbelievers, just not a presumptive right to a university's student activity money.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 11, 2010 6:42 PM

I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

Oh, you can just bathe in the xian love here. Hahaha, what a maroon. Still, it's seriously annoying that if this was a declared plan by atheists, the screams of outrage would be heard all over.

Silly xians, I expect they have no idea of what they are in for.

Posted by: spiderxray | July 11, 2010 6:45 PM

Check out this guy's faculty page http://www.uncwil.edu/soccrm/Adams.html under Professional Associations he has

National Association of Scholars
National Rifle Association

The NRA is a professional org for criminology profs?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 6:50 PM

Strictly speaking religions do have a legal right to discriminate against unbelievers

I missed where that was a point of any discussion here.

just not a presumptive right to a university's student activity money.

thanks for repeating the gist of the court decision.

Posted by: Tulse | July 11, 2010 6:50 PM

The NRA is a professional org for criminology profs?

There are all sorts of jokes there, but I find it more disturbing than funny.

Posted by: Twannnnng | July 11, 2010 6:53 PM

Call me naive, but I read the original article (here), and it rather looks like satire to me. Why? Well the title for a start - "An Immodest Proposal". Ring any bells?

Then there's the last sentence:

After we get rid of the heathens we’ll turn our weapon on the gays, the blacks, and the feminists. We might even go after the Italians, too.

Am I missing something, or are we not in danger of making fools of ourselves in rushing to froth self-righteously over the latest Fundie Outrage when in fact it's nothing of the sort?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 6:55 PM

if you read the article, it is clearly satire.

I've read his previous "work".

clearly satire?

not clear, and poor satire if so.

Posted by: Ewan R | July 11, 2010 6:57 PM

Hopefully all "good Christian" students on campuses across America (and beyond) will join skeptic/athiest groups in droves.

I can't think of a better way to kill the shambling behemoth that is "educated" Christianity.

How many deconversions before the idea is retracted I wonder?

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | July 11, 2010 7:00 PM

Ichthyic:

Oh aren't we clever tonight. :P

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | July 11, 2010 7:01 PM

I did not say that they should actually be made to do it, just give them the impression that it is a requirement. This impressioin that could be reinforced by a couple of willing gay people who are prepared to 'french' in public in return for the undeniable pleasure of watching fundies squirm...

On the other hand, if this is your own nefarious scheme to personally get some nooky from impressionable young college students, by all means, go for it and good luck! (You’ll need lots and lots and lots of luck, I’m sure, but I’ll still wish it for you.)

To be honest, this would be more to my taste if the impressionable college students were female, but I do not think there is sufficient luck in all the universe to acheive such an end...

:-(

Posted by: Kirk | July 11, 2010 7:05 PM

I think the best thing to do is to turn the tables on this guy, as the writer of the blog PZ refers to recommends (or asks us to):

I plan to write to UNC-Wilmington to bring this column to their attention and to ask if they sanction these kinds of statements from their professors about their own students. Here's contact info for the dean of Adams' school. Anyone else want to join me in writing a polite letter?

Adams wrote what he wrote to appeal to fundamentalists. But his daily rent evidently gets paid by a check from a secular university. That university ought to get some patient reminders about what the job of a secular university is.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 7:07 PM

I harshed you buzz, didn't I? So sorry.

*plonk*

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 11, 2010 7:13 PM

Starting up a campus Bible study group based on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible wouldn't be a bad idea. Holding such sessions might even be a good way to shake Mike Adam's Christ warriors free of their god delusions when they begin invading atheist clubs.

And it should be stressed, too, that it was gay Christians who sued to get into the Christ warrior club, not atheists. Good luck invading a gay club that is already packed with believers—I'm not sure you will be effective in making it very different than it already is. Although, I do wonder if Mike Adams is afraid of sending his Christ warriors to gay campus groups for fear of them catching Teh Ghey.

Posted by: Spock | July 11, 2010 7:15 PM

Let them come. Most of the people in the group I attend are ex-Christians who figured out it can't stand up to the claims. They know more about the Bible and how it was made now than they ever learned in church. What will the godly mal-factors do when their members start defecting?

Posted by: pteryxx | July 11, 2010 7:18 PM

...

I have a question in response to Ol'Greg @9, whose views I respect:

What I do think though is that this kind of insanity has to keep to itself to fester.

So please, let them join. Embrace them. And go on learning how to work around them, while they're right there.

And eventually they'll just be the piss in the stream they always feared they were.

For the last couple of weeks, I've been frequenting the "Woman Problem" threads, where we've discussed (and often demonstrated) the need to provide places for women's voices to be heard, since they're silenced systematically and often as the default. Isn't Prof. Adams's suggestion functionally an attempt to silence atheist groups? Why would welcoming an intolerant majority be useful in this case, but not in the case of sexism?

Posted by: Jonathan C. Murphy | July 11, 2010 7:30 PM

I'd like to make the small suggestion that this clown's middle initial remain part of his posted name if he's blogged about again, since there are professors at southeastern universities named Mike Adams who are demonstrably not-bad professors. Now I can get back to pointing and laughing at the clown.

Posted by: tonysidaway | July 11, 2010 7:34 PM

What is it with you and nutty professors from the Carolinas? First Peter Nyikos, now this Adams fellow...

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | July 11, 2010 7:34 PM

Kirk>
I attended UNCW for undergrad and masters... the university is small enough that you may as well email the chancellor directly ( Rosemary DePaolo, although her email isn't listed), or Cathy Barlow, who is the provost. I'm sending something similar to Barlow, with the caveat that I'm not donating a red cent to the university while Adams is employed there.

drsmurph> Interesting, I had a number of friends and acquaintances who had Adams as a professor, and the writing, whether or not it was intended to be satire, fits right in with the views professed in lecture and the ream of toilet paper he calls a book.

Posted by: Pyrrhonic | July 11, 2010 7:36 PM

As an undergraduate I was an active member of the SUNY Oswego chapter of the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG)--some of you might be familiar with PIRGS from your own campuses. Our statewide board was composed entirely of students, and two students from each member campus were elected every year to represent the campus on the board. PIRGS have a history of hostile opposition, and the year I ran, one of our more vocal antagonists (a democrat no less) decided to run for the board.

Instead of trying to get him kicked off the ballot, or doing anything underhanded, we allowed the democratic process to run its course. I and my PIRG friend won handily, and our opponent was left to yell and scream at us in the student newspaper.

He was still allowed to participate in everything we did, and even share his views, but he never bothered.

Most people just don't have the energy to sabotage the internal workings of a legitimate student organization. However, the debate should be allowed to continue both within and without the organization.

During the campaign, our opponent's really awful rants about the organization gave us a lot of opportunity to clarify the goals and structure of NYPIRG and the campus chapters. In the end, we won our funding and had a productive campus debate.

A few years later, the chapter's leadership had slumped, and it lost funding. As far as I know, they still haven't won it back. That's just how these things go. It's sad to see they lost, but in both instances, the process decided, and not the machinations of one dissenter.

Unlike these religious groups, we never discriminated. We cooperated with many people who disagreed with us, and had to suffer through chapter meetings with people who didn't like what we were doing. It's just how open debate works. It was often frustrating, but we tried to lead by example.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 7:36 PM

Adams's suggestion functionally an attempt to silence atheist groups? Why would welcoming an intolerant majority be useful in this case, but not in the case of sexism?

Yes it is. Quite blatantly. But the provisions only state that they can not be kicked out for being Christian. Not that they can't be kicked out for the same things anyone can, for disruptive unruly behavior etc.

Which means they'll have to be exposed to the groups and they'll have to behave.

Posted by: SteveM | July 11, 2010 7:48 PM

re 44:

I harshed you buzz, didn't I? So sorry.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "harshed your mellow" IIRC

Posted by: tonysidaway | July 11, 2010 7:51 PM

Having read the entire piece by Adams, it's obviously a swiftian satire. I say "obviously", but perhaps Dr. Adams' previous output had failed to prime some readers to expect any degree of subtlety.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 7:54 PM

That is to say I think it is satire to some extent. He uses a lot of humor.

But he also makes this argument in the article I quoted

"A limited number of scholarships are available for transgender individuals. The Adam Foundation’s support will defray the registration fee for 14 members of the local transgender community. But I think we should do more because I like to impose my morals on others in the name of diversity. Specifically, I think we should offer free four-year tuition waivers to students willing to mutilate their genitals. I know studying can sometimes be a sacrifice. But genital mutilation – now that’s a real sacrifice!"

Yes, humor. But there's a lot of sincerity in there.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 7:57 PM

Instead, I think those particular comments might be poor attempts at levity.

Ah... humor. Like in Cabaret when they say "She doesn't look Jewish at all" about the guy in the gorilla suit.

Ha Ha Ha Ha.... ha.

Posted by: hermetically sealed | July 11, 2010 8:08 PM

"I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident."

I imagine SAINT Cyril of Alexandria said something along the same lines. Idiot.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlrxwvIYVFveTluy_X6iNqdcTo3SO-4jJQ | July 11, 2010 8:11 PM

Unfortunately, this guy is the real deal. He whines every year about how he and his conservative ideals are discriminated against by the Ivory Tower politics of UNC-W. He whined when he was passed over for tenure, just like Faux News whines about Christianist oppression by secular society.

I'll be sure to make sure if he goes along with his plan, the UNCW freethinkers will respond in kind by joining any Xtian group that Dr Adams is involved with :)

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | July 11, 2010 8:24 PM

pteryxx @51

For the last couple of weeks, I've been frequenting the "Woman Problem" threads, where we've discussed (and often demonstrated) the need to provide places for women's voices to be heard, since they're silenced systematically and often as the default. Isn't Prof. Adams's suggestion functionally an attempt to silence atheist groups? Why would welcoming an intolerant majority be useful in this case, but not in the case of sexism?

First answer, yes, it's par for the course and frankly every minority group organization in existence already has long since gotten used to some right-wing turd angry about "diversity" or "liberals" or "godless demons" trying to real life troll the organization. It's one of the "joys" of being a minority group.

And that's why the second question has a complex answer. Yes, it effects it...in depressing membership. People who don't want to show up just having the same old fights over and over again, etc... It's why women's participation in atheism is not absent, but rather simply depressed.

And that's why he's doomed to failure.

Oh sure, the trolls will succeed in depressing membership (though I'm not sure how much they'll depress membership considering they are actively targeting Southern schools and areas where anyone joining a public atheist organization will already be receiving regular much worse harassment).

But they won't destroy the organizations and the attacking hordes will suffer casualties just as some of the hordes of young ones ginned up to attack gay groups, feminist groups, and minority racial groups end up losing some members who realize just what they are and that these "evil others" actually have good points.

So yeah, the woman problem is a problem because we're losing a lot of people unnecessarily owing to women feeling they have to make the same fight over and over again.

However an openly and deliberately sexist atheist would have an impossible time trying to eliminate women in atheism because there would always be at least one to stand her ground and not give a fuck and willing to read the bastard the riot act over their sexism to them and anyone surrounding him.

He may escape unscathed, successfully reducing some women, but some men will have become more feminist-friendly by witnessing the exchange.

Long-term, he will find himself in a losing battle. Same with Mike Adams.

Posted by: mothra | July 11, 2010 8:31 PM

@33
It is satire with encouragement to like-minded idiots. It is satire as was Sara Palin's web page with cross-hairs over congressmen. It is satire like, Will someone please do something about 'x' because 'x' is really bad. The world would be so much better without 'x' and 'x' will be at 'y' at time 'z.'

As for xian cultists following though with the Adams idea, I can only say: 'You will be assimilated.'

Posted by: quantheory | July 11, 2010 8:35 PM

"The next time your little girl runs into a drag queen in a public restroom."

Yes, because that happens all the time and it's imminently noticeable it's a huge deal and there's wailingandgnashingofteeth and THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

That reminds me, there's an anti-transsexual, anti-anti-discrimination law website called endahurtskids.com. The question they ask at the top of the page is "Do you want men dressed as women teaching your kids?"

To which I had to say "Hell yes!" Someone with those kinds of life experiences probably has something interesting to say, right?

Posted by: scooterKPFT | July 11, 2010 8:55 PM

That's hysterical, can you imagine Christard Warriors trying to infiltrate atheist groups?

Infiltrating religious groups is easy, you repeat what they say. Infiltrating atheist groups means you have to improvise, very tough for anyone whose brain is infected with a god virus.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | July 11, 2010 9:04 PM

@ Ichthyic,

Yes, the notion does have a certain . . . intoxicating allure to it.

Posted by: Becca the Over Socialized | July 11, 2010 9:23 PM

"The next time your little girl runs into a drag queen in a public restroom."

given that ladies' restrooms have stalls with doors, I don't think it's an issue.

And I like to think that Daughter would deal with the situation with aplomb, and would probably not bat an eye.

On the other hand, Daughter has been going to AnthroCon since she was 13, and there's a high percentage of GLBT folks there, so it's probably already happened.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 9:38 PM

OOOOOHHHHH!

I think I get his joke now. It's still not funny to me, but at least it doesn't just seem weird now.

What was hanging me up was that Swift style satire would only work if he was suggesting something he thinks the audience would find unthinkable or perverse. His intended audience, which sure as shit isn't me.

I had to think about it for a little while and now I get it (I think).

It *is* supposed to be satire.Christians would never do such a thing. He's playing off of the poor tolerant Christians who are now being infiltrated by infidels.

His whole spiel seems to be about anti-tolerance anyway and it fits in.

It's satire because what he's trying to point out is how eeeeevil homosexuals trying to join a good honest Christian group and corrupt them is something Christians would never do. And we know that these homosexuals, atheists, women... and whatnot are actually out there trying to destroy society by fucking with the position of white male Christians (probably of the right denomination).

Other people probably picked up on that right away. My whole perception of reality is so different from his that I was seriously confused.
Kind of like interpreting the ranting of some one experiencing a psychotic break, you have to understand it's coming from *their* world.

Ok, well I feel better at least :/

Posted by: bob.apthorpe | July 11, 2010 9:43 PM

What a precious soul, this Mike Adams character. Newsflash: no atheist group is likely to want or need a 'loyalty' oath for the simple reason that it is perfectly legal to discriminate against douchebags and assholes.

If Adams wants to raise an army of Campus Douchebags for Jesus, let him. Then again, considering the Christianist douchebaggery that led directly to the Supreme Court case, he shouldn't have any problem finding such an army, though countless others have been at this much longer than him; I can't see why they'd let him play general.

Ah well, let Adams march around his yard with a colander on his head, addressing his imaginary douchebag army. If that's what makes him happy, let him be. He'll get tired eventually and head back in the house; no need to pay him any mind.

Posted by: JamesR | July 11, 2010 9:46 PM

An oath? why not open with an atheist prayer. You know like;
Oh God You Are So Big. Followed by 30-60 seconds of extreme laughing. Sort of Zen like. Be creative You'll think of something.

Adams fails at satire he should stay with criminology. Although there is no proof that he is even any good at that.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 11, 2010 9:58 PM

Most of his writings are SATIRE

Satire? You fuckwits can't even post on a blog without YELLING!

Sam Kinison was funny when he YELLED.

You're just sad.

Sad little cowards who are afraid of your own shadows.

BOO!

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 10:08 PM

Read his other stuff, and laugh at yourself.

strange.

I've read his other stuff.

I only ended up laughing at Adams.

Posted by: oschaefer | July 11, 2010 10:28 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't satire usually an exaggeration of the follies of the side you're opposing, taking them to extremes as to make them look ridiculous? I think when your satirical target reads your writing and goes, "Yeah? Okay... so?" what you've written is called failed satire. (That's the official literary term, I swears it!)

It could perhaps be self-satire, but then to what purpose? To have his Christian audience read it and say, "Ha ha. That's funny because we're really not that bad." Is that it?

The link to A Modest Proposal is pretty much non-existent here, aside from the title. This is more akin to getting drunk and saying, "Man, we should go put a bag of flaming dog shit on that guys porch!" Then laughing because you kinda, probably, maybe wouldn't do it. Right then. At that moment.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 10:38 PM

I don't think it really works as satire. I mean I believe it's *supposed* to be.

The satire is supposed to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.

It's just that it's really incoherent and only points out the hypocrisy of the left if you already drank the kool-aid.

So it kind of just falls apart.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 11, 2010 10:39 PM

what you've written is called failed satire

I rather think that's what Adams should have titled his book as.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 11, 2010 10:49 PM

Ogvorbis: It's kind of like some one who confuses the difference between scatalogical humor and just flinging their poo on passers-by.

Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi | July 11, 2010 10:59 PM

Clever oratory and debate, along with logic and facts usually win for themselves. When some shitwit needs to resort to subterfuge and juvenile antics, he's already lost the battle. I see his plan lasting three and a half minutes on any campus, followed by whatever fines and censure those academies are empowered with.

Reality's a bitch, Adams. Maybe that's why you hide in the Land Of Dairy Queen with your imaginary friends droning folks songs about Jebus and dreading the truthiness of any sincere debate.

AND

@Ol'Greg:

Who flung dung?

Posted by: nu1986 | July 11, 2010 11:11 PM

Our friends at Sadly, No! have long had fun with Professor Mike. If you have some time to read and laugh, have fun!
http://www.sadlyno.com/index.php?s=mike+adams

Posted by: Zoot Capri | July 11, 2010 11:34 PM

This "professor" is such an angry, obnoxious guy, he is a freaking PR nightmare, I can just imagine UNC is just dying to get rid of this moron. He will probably somehow go over/cross the line in some way and hopefully crash and burn. He will eventually just go too far in his rantings. Like all those other weirdo freaky white guy christian nut jobs.

Posted by: llewelly | July 11, 2010 11:38 PM

Mike Adams:

I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

Thank you, Mike. Back when atheists predicted some Christians would do this, Christians apologists on this and other atheists sites claimed "no, no, no, good moral Christians wouldn't do that! Only bad, evil, no-good atheists would." I'm glad we have Mike Adams around to prove those people wrong.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | July 12, 2010 12:19 AM

I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

^Religion defined.

(/But somethin' tells me would-be dictator-for-life Mikey Da Simple has seen a few too many Chuck Norris movies for his own good. Y'know... thanks to cliche-ridden screenwriting, every arch-villain he's ever seen always announces his plans for world domination upfront. So now he's just assuming this is how it's done.)

Posted by: DLC | July 12, 2010 12:43 AM

Is there a Rule 34 for "Christian Zealots disrupting Atheist meetings" ?
And if so, can I get a copy ?
and if not, what're we waiting for ?

Posted by: cody.cameron | July 12, 2010 1:21 AM

This is great! It's just like those morons who said atheism would be dead in two generations cause atheists have such a low birthrate. Little do they know that rationality trumps blind faith. They don't understand that we have considered their arguments, and have concluded them to be vacuous.

It's the same reason they keep using arguments from personal revelation, cause they don't realize we've already unfolded those arguments and realized them to be completely meaningless.

Posted by: Rick L. | July 12, 2010 1:54 AM

If you check his later column, you will find that Dr Adams does believe he was writing satire. He also believes it's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition. And that it's funny to mention that you just did that. And ... oh, never mind.

Posted by: OurSally | July 12, 2010 2:47 AM

>stuffing themselves with dildoes while wearing wetsuits

!

?

I missed something, right? Somebody give me a link to this story before I die of curiosity.

Posted by: oschaefer | July 12, 2010 3:10 AM

@OurSally

Why, oh why, did I just go and look that up? Sometimes you just didn't want to know...

Posted by: MadScientist | July 12, 2010 3:14 AM

Personally I'd welcome all the godbots and accept the challenge to show them what a goddamned pack of lies religion is. I'd probably start out by playing "It ain't necessarily so" at the start of every meeting. I may then follow up with a prayer for the demise of all gods.

Posted by: Carl | July 12, 2010 4:12 AM

It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Mike Adams is a complete tosser and an ignoramus but this essay is simply poor satire.

Posted by: grudgedk | July 12, 2010 6:02 AM

I plan to use my young fundamentalist Christian warriors to undermine the mission of every group that disagrees with me on the existence of God.

Why is this Eric Robert Rudolph wannabe not in an asylum? Student misconduct is usually the kind of thing that'll get you kicked out of College. I mean for a Fundamentalist Christian Warrior, it's probably not a huge loss, but a member of the faculty endorsing and encouraging this kind of disruptive behaviour should probably be grounds for termination.

But why would Christians want to join an atheist group? You don't see clansmen lining up to join the NAACP, or Nazis joining the Simon Wiesenthal Center?

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 12, 2010 6:23 AM

Might well be just poorly realised satire...but from a deep rooted wish that it was not!

Thing is his 'suggestion' if not intent...is doomed to abject humiliation anyway.

What fired up xian god bot would want 'Atheist club' on their college resume?
Apart from the fact that xians hunt in packs, they would not relish being outnumbered in a social situation, they do not do cogent 'argument of their position viz a viz a sky fairy'...simples!
They do not have to explain their selves in friendly surroundings but 'Atheist club'...now there is a beach head to far!

There is the problem, they are outmanoeuvred on intellectuality and have a constraint on improving that personal faculty.
Xians do not read the literature.

They are compromised to begin with and are not likely to be able to hold their own under scrutiny, not an xian alive would want their 'belief' scrutinized full stop.
Maybe because it is skin deep although they night profess otherwise.

There would be more converts of theist bunnies to the atheist pile then the other way around.
And not a few I would hazard!

Backfire.....much?

Most xian clones would have never met an atheist before, and only surmise character on the xian propaganda memes!...it might be interesting!

I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.

Ahh!..the classic xian wet dream!
And Pavlov clarion call to the retarded!

Satire or no...there is a grain or two of real longing there, in spades!

'Bring in on 'bubba..let us see your smitin' weapon'

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 12, 2010 6:28 AM

Adams' point is that the SCOTUS ruling would allow people to do exactly what he describes; infiltrate a group they disagree with in order to destroy it from within.

So... people are allowed to be jerks? This is news? He has to keep his Christian organizations pure because if there isn't a loyalty oath, people might come in and do, well, what exactly?
If someone joins a group and then starts trying to sow dissent etc., usually they'll be ostracized and/or told they in particular aren't welcome any more because they are disruptive. This ruling doesn't say "if a person is an ass, you have to let them stay and run roughshod over your group". Although I guess he thinks it does?

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 12, 2010 6:55 AM

#135

I think the underlying attempt is just simple disruption and a certain amount of espionage on atheist activity...forewarned is fore armed etc!

If someone joins a group and then starts trying to sow dissent etc., usually they'll be ostracised and/or told they in particular aren't welcome any more because they are disruptive.

I would assume that is the point and a few juicy xian persecution law cases might raise the profile somewhat!

'He/she was discriminated against for jeebus lubbing', make great headlines, apparently.

Of course the goal is to shut the atheist clubs down, that is the holy grail and what better then to disrupt to a level where they manage to get up everyone's nostrils to a point when that lawyer has to be employed...probably paid for out of some xian pot of gold for such contingencies to fight the good fight.

College authorities get peeved clubs are disbanded, simple quid pro quo and a result for jeebus!

Although by the same token and apart from the smell there would seem to be nothing, short of a weak stomach, to allow atheist infiltration of jeebus creche!
Anything they can do an atheist can do far better!

But xians are cowards in the main, I doubt if 'chuckles Adams' will have any takers!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | July 12, 2010 7:12 AM

I am fairly sure an incompetent lawyer...e.g. 'Hamilton' (in the Freshwater debacle)... would be able to file or cobble together some fantastical waste of court time, it seems xians do not engage in court cases to actually win, just show the world how persecuted they are!

An hour or less of court time is worth a zillion years in heaven apparently irrespective of outcome.
And is good for a few free lunches down at the local xian bizzaro world cafe!

Posted by: KingUber | July 12, 2010 7:28 AM

Christians and Muslims are free to join, but not those nasty Jews!

Haha, you know I'm just joking with you

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 12, 2010 8:01 AM

Adam's satire fails the same reason Beck and Limbaugh fails. It's hard to tell his joke from his serious face (perhaps someone could send them a video of Doctor Who where the Master explains how to tell the difference). They say such insane spitefilled shit all the time that some people are not going to get the memo that THIS slightly more insane spitefilled shit is intended as humor.

Posted by: Endor | July 12, 2010 9:08 AM

#144 - of course. That's the sum and total of faith - a self-serving, self-worshiping agenda for personal gain and glory.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 12, 2010 9:42 AM

Jokes on you lefties... Adams has tenure

Most of his writings are SATIRE

He likes fooling and annoying lefties.

Jesus Nipple-twisting Christ, what is wrong with left-handed people, and why the fuck does Adams feel he has to annoy them? "Oh, look, guitars are made for right handed people. I can play it just fine. Poor southpaw! Now open this can of creamed corn with this can-opener."

And damn! does his SATIRE suck. He's all like, "Heh-heh, I'm one funny mother . . . Shut your mouth! Hey, I'm just talkin' 'bout Mike Adams!"

And I'm all like, "..."

It's not satire if it's written as if he means to say, "Ha-ha, only serious." Satire is taking a point to an extreme. He does not do so. What he proposes is not extreme, nor does it possess comic potential.

Further, his writing is poor, lacking in style and imagination. If he wanted to try his hand at actual satire, he might've set it up as if the Supreme Court ruled that sports teams must accept members of the opposing teams, or that armies must accept soldiers from the other warring nation. He could've done it as if it were Armageddon, with the Christians all like, "Hah-hah! I'm part of your army now, Satan. *Pew*pew*pew*!"

Now that has comic potential.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | July 12, 2010 9:55 AM

Satire or no, the religibots don't get the main points of the issue.

First, a freethinker's group would welcome anyone into their ranks, including a committed religibot, because it gives them someone to argue with. Freethinkers are great at arguing. But, sadly, most freethinker meetings nibble around the edges; because everyone there thinks -- well -- freely.

But place a TRUE adversary in the mix and I'd pay admission, as long as the popcorn was fresh. Although my prediction would be that the religibots would get laughed at and ridiculed into submission.

Now, if you turn it around, religibots don't want "thinkers" of any stripe in their midst. They want the comfort of hearing the exact same message in the exact same way using the exact same 52 Bible verses over and over and over again. Putting a freethinker in their midst would make baby Jesus wet his diaper.

More importantly, however, there's nothing that this ruling does to prevent religibot groups from maintaining a presence on campus -- they just can't use public funding to maintain the purity of their echo chamber.

That's not a subtle nuance to the ruling -- that's the essence of the ruling.

Also, there's nothing in the ruling that says that a group must allow a disruptive presence to continue. "OK Fred. We've heard all about how Star Trek: The Next Generation is vastly superior to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. You want to stick to the discussion, which isn't Star Trek?"

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | July 12, 2010 10:11 AM

My freethinkers group had a die-hard conservative Christian and his campus minister as members. They kept discussion lively and always had a Bible around to make sure context was available for any quotations that came up.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/JE7uNPoTvspspnlA..HdVW5QT7d.gw--#4f271 | July 12, 2010 10:41 AM

"Disagrees with me" This is typical theist philosophy and not much different from the Islamic "convert or die" idea.

As always, freedom of speech and thought is not permitted in the theist world view. These hypocrites are the greatest danger to humanity of all time.

Posted by: Not Guilty | July 12, 2010 11:34 AM

I really love it when adults go around stomping their feet, having temper tantrums that my friend's 5 year-old doesn't get away with. It's kinda funny on a 5 year-old; it is far less amusing on adults.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 12, 2010 11:41 AM

You know what I think? His satire is more like projection.

If that's projection, it's like sitting through a screening of Battlefield Earth. Over. And. Over.

Posted by: bernarda | July 12, 2010 12:31 PM

"Debating" a Mohammedan is even more impossible than debating a Xian. All you get is the prophet this and the prophet that, and Allof this and Allof that. That is both before and after you have explained to them that neither Mohammed or Allah existed.

Far worse than Xians citing scripture and they tend to get violent about it. So have some hefty doorman present.

A good reference is from American Atheists, "An Atheist's Guide to Mohammedanism".

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | July 12, 2010 12:40 PM

"Do you seriously think I'd reveal my masterstroke to you if you had even the slightest chance of affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago."~Ozymandias showing villains everywhere how it's done.

Ozymandias annoys me. He's the filthiest rich person on the face of the planet, in a country that worships money, credited with super super intelligence, and he can't come up with a better plan than an incredibly expensive false flag operation?

Posted by: Kirk | July 12, 2010 1:04 PM

@heddle #154

I don't agree with your comparison.

In the example you gave was PZ recommending that freedom of expression be disrupted?

If Adams really was the author of the on-line article in question, then he should be disciplined by his employer because of the nature of what his employer is, and what his role is as a university professor. He is recommending that freedom of speech be disrupted, not in some theoretical context, but explicitly where he works as a university professor paid for by state taxes, student tuition, and indirectly, probably by federal taxes as well.

I think it is reasonable to do something so that people like him experience real consequences for such statements.

He doesn't have unlimited freedom of speech when he takes a position against freedom of speech in his role as a university professor.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | July 12, 2010 1:24 PM

@heddle 154
Do you think there is never a reason to call for the ousting of a university professor? Why you believe they need to be fired matters.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2010 1:51 PM

He doesn't have unlimited freedom of speech when he takes a position against freedom of speech in his role as a university professor.

Oh really?

Why?

Posted by: CJO | July 12, 2010 2:18 PM

Well, if he actually did the things he threatened to do, there would be grounds for ousting him.

Even still, I don't think so. There would be grounds for ostracizing him, as you say in the original post, and there could well be grounds for civil legal action calling on him to cease his disruptive activities. There are cantankerous, crazy, and just plain unpleasant academics on nearly every college and university faculty. They usually end up marginalized and powerless to do the harm they would like because they have no political allies among their peers.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 12, 2010 2:23 PM

I never thought I'd agree with heddle on anything, but yeah... I don't see how writing poor satire and having obnoxious political views would be grounds for him to lose his job in and of themselves.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 12, 2010 2:29 PM

I have been held in contempt by professors, though usually the history and philosophy types...not the scientists, simply for NOT being an atheist.

...where?

Because that's not how it is here, but then again "here" is Texas. Even my physics prof described himself as deeply religious randomly for no reason one day in class.

Posted by: randall morrison | July 12, 2010 2:42 PM

No one said you hunted them down and slaughtered them.

But you do hold them in contempt, as you have amply demonstrated.

That's OK, though, PZ. Your great contributions to science and peer reviewed publications have made up for it. LOL!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2010 2:48 PM

But you do hold them in contempt, as you have amply demonstrated.

In contempt here? Sure.

But I'd like for you to demonstrate he has done so when teaching.

That's OK, though, PZ. Your great contributions to science and peer reviewed publications have made up for it. LOL!

And your great contributions to non-sequiturs is noted.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 12, 2010 2:50 PM

Maybe it's your breath. Or your hygiene. Or your hair-trigger sense of persecution.

Or because he's a fuckin' half-witted jerk.

Exhibit A:

That's OK, though, PZ. Your great contributions to science and peer reviewed publications have made up for it. LOL!

I don't think it's your being a Christian, luv. I suspect it's your arrogant prickishness. In my experience, atheists tend to treat people they way those people present themselves. If you are a prick, you get treated like a prick.

But that's OK. Your great contributions to . . . well, whatever it is you contribute to, more than make up for it. LOL!

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 12, 2010 3:32 PM

I have been held in contempt by professors, though usually the history and philosophy types...not the scientists, simply for NOT being an atheist.

So you say.

Your comments here and in other threads suggest another, more parsimonious explanation for why you've been held in contempt by your professors.

Posted by: keytothehighway | July 12, 2010 4:03 PM

Gotta love Adams writing over the last few years.
Stories of liberals attacking and harassing and always backing down once things get to the cops or courts.

Even better to enjoy: the accounts of massive incompetence and reverse discrimination in the management of the university.

He's the only conservative, or at least the only noisy conservative in a mess of liberals and simply reporting their activities and double standards is a fun read.

He does have a hard time getting a raise, as you might imagine. A while back he was denied a raise for failing to attend formal professorial social events.

an especially troubling column: http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/04/12/the_truth_about_diversity/page/1

Posted by: Ewan R | July 12, 2010 4:15 PM

I've been a member of the atheist gang in academia for a long time, and we've never hunted down and slaughtered Christians for fun.

If it isn't fun you really should just stop doing it. Take a stand against peer pressure.

Posted by: raven | July 12, 2010 4:28 PM

randall Morrison making stuff up:

What's this "collegiality" bull?

I have been held in contempt by professors, though usually the history and philosophy types...not the scientists, simply for NOT being an atheist.

Doubt it very much. Most of the times, the professors are doing well to remember a few students names much less their religion or lack of. And at school, who in the hell cares? We have better things to do. Like going to work to....work.

randall morrison making more stuff up:

Kenneth Miller wasn't kidding when he said in "Finding Darwin's God" that atheism is endemic in academic life.

It doesn't look like you've even seen a university from a distance much less been to one. According to surveys, roughly half of all scientists are believers of some sort, same for humanities proffessors. The general population is around 76%. Not all that much difference really. And this is tossing atheists, agnostics, apathetics, and deists into the "nonbeliever category. It would be far more true to state the real fact. Xians are endemic to the US university system. This isn't too surprising inasmuch as the USA has 76% of the population as xians and the university reflects the demography of the overall country.

Morrison is just playing to wingnut fundie persecution card. And lying. Help, we are being persecuted. We only make up 76% of the population and atheists are walking around and breathing.

I suspect thought that Morrison does get a lot of contempt from anyone intelligent and educated. It isn't because he is a xian per se. It is because he is a stupid, bigoted liar.

PS Randall M. Contempt from people for being a christofascist moron? Big deal. We scientists get death threats from fundie cultists on a routine basis. It seems to be their third sacrament.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 12, 2010 4:33 PM

Stories of liberals attacking and harassing and always backing down once things get to the cops or courts.

So there is no paper trail or record, other than hearsay. How conveeenient.

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | July 12, 2010 5:01 PM

The only thing that Adams (and limbaugh, coulter, etc.) understands about satire is that it is a word that excuses him from responsibility when he voices his most sadistic fantasies. None of this supposed "satire" resembles the work of actual, well-respected satirists in any way. I think the reason might be that satire requires empathy, or at least the basic understanding of the other side of the issue, to be funny and that's something these dullards clearly lack.

People need to start calling these creeps out on their shitty satire and come back at them when they try to use the word to brush aside their racism/homophobia/xenophobia/etc. It pisses me off to no end that these morons have found such an effective get-out-of-jail-free card.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 12, 2010 5:35 PM

He's the only conservative, or at least the only noisy conservative in a mess of liberals and simply reporting their activities and double standards is a fun read.

So he resents minorities because his life experience has taught him that being a minority is hard?

Gotta love that word... privilege.

OH NOOOOOEEEEES my gawd given right to having my butt kissed despite my mediocrity. Don't take it from me!

Posted by: keytothehighway | July 12, 2010 5:46 PM

You libs have sure made your case ! How do I join up ? Then I can call names and change the subject with the rest of you.

Seriously now, how did Myers get so easily suckered in his originating post?

I get this feed as an aggregation of science blogs but unfortunately 9 out of 10 posts are the same old liberal rants. Nothing to do with science.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 12, 2010 6:46 PM

I get this feed as an aggregation of science blogs but unfortunately 9 out of 10 posts are the same old liberal rants. Nothing to do with science.

if you actually cared about science, why are you bothering to log in and post your screed on a non-science post?

hypocrite much?

Posted by: Kirk | July 12, 2010 7:16 PM

@CJO #166

I disagree. I don't consider what he is writing satire, and he is making his comments relative to his position as a professor at a public university. He does not have unlimited freedom of speech in that position.

Here is part of his post, modified by me with strikethroughs and replacing atheist with homosexual.

I can’t stand atheists homosexuals. And I plan to do something about them. ... So, when I get back to the secular university in August, I plan to round up the students I know who are most hostile to atheism homosexuals. Then I’m going to get them to help me find atheist homosexual-haters willing to join atheist homosexual student groups across the South.

I agree that it is unrealistic to expect him to be fired. But the administration of his university should have his comments brought to their attention, and there should be sanctions imposed on him. There should be consequences for somebody in his position making the comments he made.

If he had made his comments relative to homosexuals, or African Americans, or women, or Hispanics, there would be very loud calls from many individuals and groups for him to be fired.

Posted by: CJO | July 12, 2010 7:34 PM

He does not have unlimited freedom of speech in that position.

But he really does. I hate what he is saying, and I would hate what he would be saying in your suggested example even more, but he has the right to say it. And if tenured faculty were able to be fired for saying unpopular things, they could be fired for all manner of failure to toe various party lines, and that is the essence of illiberalism. Combat speech with opposed and more persuasive speech, not with censure, or firing, or any other form of top-down administrative heavy-handedness. That way madness lies.

Posted by: SteveM | July 12, 2010 7:48 PM

re 207:
And if tenured faculty were able to be fired for saying unpopular things,...

..wouldn't it defeat the whole purpose of tenure to begin with?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 12, 2010 8:37 PM

Plus that would be direct harassment of students. Tenure doesn't mean you can violate actual laws governing interpersonal conduct and expect not to get fired.

Posted by: CJO | July 12, 2010 8:50 PM

Yes, the issue of academic freedom is surely a fraught one. Any such system of privilege is going to be abused by a small minority, but the alternative is worse. In the case of a blatant and sincere use of derogatory language such as racial slurs in the classroom, I would hope that a whole cascade of events would fall out of such an incident, and the upshot of all of it would be essentially a professor with no students and no friends in the faculty and nobody sympathetic in the administration. If your job is teaching and nobody will take your classes, you can be dismissed because you're simply not able to do your job. But that's a much more objective determination than would be possible to make on the basis of written opinions, no matter how pernicious.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 12, 2010 10:32 PM

"Can he stand in front of a classroom and say, "I can't stand niggers"?"

Isn't this basically all Adams really does?

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 12:35 AM

Oh, wait...I do get to check out books from the library for a whole semester at a time. That's kind of cool.

*grumbles remembering being an undergrad and hating on the grad students and profs who would check out a needed reference for the entire semester*

...

*smiles recalling being able to do that as a grad student and prof myself*

now?

I just download everything.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 13, 2010 2:24 AM

What's this "collegiality" bull?

I have been held in contempt by professors, though usually the history and philosophy types...not the scientists, simply for NOT being an atheist.

Tom?
Tom Johnson?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 13, 2010 4:46 AM

The hypothesis that all right wingers are assholes remains unfalsified.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | July 13, 2010 8:25 AM

Caine - I see randall hasn't come back to defend his statement. Typical Liar for Jesus.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ipObIAt_i8j6bSRWKn_f7GhdKfJlmq2pNAI-#35954 | July 13, 2010 2:52 PM

Time for all clubs who follow Roberts' Rules to become familiar with the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes.
(note: this does not apply to clubs who use the Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures.)

Posted by: Aratina Cage | July 13, 2010 4:35 PM

I realized that it takes more faith to believe absolutely that there is nothing godlike out there.
-#226

Big no-no! One does not need to be stubbornly absolutist about the nonexistence of gods to be an atheist; all one needs is no reason to doubt the nonexistence of gods. Your job as a pseudo-atheist/Heretical Christian is to give us a reason to doubt that gods do not exist.

Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not mean to slip in the word "absolutely", you'll still have to explain how you rationalize this thought. For example, does it take more faith to believe that there is a gigantic disembodied mind out there or that there isn't one? In my opinion, it takes no faith at all to believe there is no gigantic disembodied mind, so how can zero faith be greater than any other amount of faith?

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 13, 2010 4:57 PM

Even if there were the smallest true objective proof of God's existence, it would threaten the whole basis of Free Will.

How'd you figure that? If we knew for sure whether God exists and what it wants from us, we would still be able to choose whether to comply with these requirements or not. Heck, your Bible has many characters who knew God and knew what he wanted from them, and chose to disobey (Adam and Eve come to mind, as well as Jonah). Going by your logic, a political candidate that fully discloses their agenda and track record somehow diminishes the voters' right to freely choose whom to vote for. Obviously, that is not true - full information is necessary to allow a person to truly choose, rather than make blind guesses.

God wants us to have faith in something unprovable.

Why? Surely it realizes how wide open to abuse such a concept is. It gives cart blanche to every foolish, cruel, harmful belief imaginable.

For a great many of us, that faith is focused on God, but he doesn't really care what the focus of your faith is, just have it in something beyond the very small scope of yourself. Believe in something you can't prove.

In other words, God doesn't care what absurdity you believe in, as long as your believe in some absurdity? How is that a good thing? Also, how do you know what your unprovable god wants?

I imagine there are a few out there that are just as freaky in the "prove it or it doesn't exist" camp.

But you do probably belong to the "prove it or it doesn't exist" camp. You probably apply this standard to every unlikely claim you hear. You just choose to make an exemption for your god from the usual standard of evidence, while the rest of us do not.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 5:26 PM

I am what I like to call a Heretical Christian. I used to be one of those Godless heathens, but I realized that it takes more faith to believe absolutely that there is nothing godlike out there.

you are what we like to call a lying sack of shit.

Statement of Conversion

Really, the agnostics maintain the only defensible position.

fallacy of the middle ground.

...

seriously, you need to take a class in both logic and ethics.

now get down off your fucking soapbox.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 13, 2010 5:29 PM

By your definition I'm agnostic. But agnostic and seeing no reason to extend credulity = atheist doesn't it? I don't like making assumptions so why would not knowing for certain make me suddenly think "there must be a God then, and furthermore this specific God... right here."

The rest... eh, the thing is once you make up God you can attribute anything you want to it.

I should know. I enjoyed chaos magic and religions where you pretty much *do* make up whatever you want.

That's fun.

Lot's of things are fun though.

Even if there were the smallest true objective proof of God's existence, it would threaten the whole basis of Free Will.

I tend not to think about Free Will much. Some free will I guess is built into the system, but I don't know if free will works when I start to think about it too much.

I mean we act on what appears available based on what mechanisms we have for assessing that. I'm not sure how free that is, but then again it's not like it's all been hard wired to execute in one exact way either.

Nevertheless God/Not God doesn't enter into my thoughts much about it. Oh, unless you mean free will in the Catholic sense, which I don't know or care much about. Catholics believe lots of stuff I find weird.

*note not all atheists have the same religious backgrounds or have spent a lot of time studying religion every single available religion from every single culture.

I'm not spiritual. I'm not a seeker. I just want people to stop trying to force me to pay lip service to their political, social, and ideological agendas in the name of their God's will. And really there are too many Gods and too many wills for this to make sense anyway.

Anybody, no matter what their beliefs are, that is intolerant of other's subjective choices, and this goes for atheists who belittle those who do believe in God, are small brained wipers of other people's bottoms.

Yep. And as soon as religion is seen as an aesthetic preference I'll develop some respect for it. Until then it will have to justify its continued attempt to control and dominate people.

Posted by: SteveM | July 13, 2010 5:43 PM

Even if there were the smallest true objective proof of God's existence, it would threaten the whole basis of Free Will.

No, you are confused. It would threaten Faith. God gave us free will so that we could freely choose to believe in Him or not. That is faith. That is what makes faith valuable. If there were any proof of God's existence, one can not (rationally) choose whether to believe or not. So you have it backwards, "free will" threatens the concept that there can be any proof of God's existence.

Posted by: Dania | July 13, 2010 6:43 PM

As far as "absolutely" goes, I think that is entailed within the word atheist--that an atheist does believe in the total non-existence of any god-like being. If you admit the possibility (which the word doubt does include) of a god-like being you have crossed the border into agnosticism.

Sigh. Please, someone bring yahoomess and Strigoi together on the same thread so we don't have to explain the same thing twice....

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | July 13, 2010 6:51 PM

What about the faith that your spouse won't cheat on you

Such a faith can only be maintained if the spouse at least appears to justify it, as opposed to your god, who, according to you, plays hide-and-go-seek and pretends not to be out of sheer principle.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 7:04 PM

I could provide reasons why I myself have come to believe in God, though I would rather not here since it would take a great deal of time and words.

IOW, you don't really have any, because you're lying about the whole thing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 13, 2010 7:08 PM

Yawn, no conclusive physical evidence for an imaginary deity. What a loser Yahoomess is...

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 7:14 PM

In point of fact, xians claim god is everywhere, doing everything, writing kludgy books, sending his kid down to be killed, drowning everyone in a Flood, answering prayers etc.. This is the whole core of most xianity.

*recalls Dave Lucket's imitation of Miller's "quantum god" hypothesis yesterday*

uh huh.

I can't even imagine what gap they will stuff it into next.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 7:20 PM

If I'm comparing proportions, he's chi-square like a mother.

when is he like a linear regression analysis?

I sense a new joke in the making...

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 13, 2010 7:23 PM

Yahoomess:

why don't you believe in God? Is it because there is no empirical evidence?

Yes. There's not only no evidence for gods, but the trappings are silly, contradictory nasty nonsense. The bible, for example, is a primer on how to be a sadistic sociopath.

What other things don't you believe in for lack of proof?

Unicorns. Fairies. Pixies. Santa Claus. Ghosts. The Loch Ness monster. Leprechauns. Get the idea yet? This could turn into the never ending list.

And, perhaps most importantly, if some sort of evidence were found, would you become a believer?

If Jesus, Odin, Tiamat, Mithras, Isis and Osiris showed up on my doorstep, I'd invite them all in for a drink and happily admit they *exist*. I wouldn't believe in them any more than I'd worship them. As Esme Weatherwax says, "'That's no call to go around believing in them. It only encourage's 'em.'"

I'll leave you with with this, from Marcus Aurelius:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout
you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are
gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you
will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your
loved ones. I am not afraid."

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | July 13, 2010 7:26 PM

C'mon, Ichthyic. That was out of line. Do I detect some residual anger?

Posted by: SteveM | July 13, 2010 7:34 PM

re 252:

Aurelius says of unjust gods that one should not want to worship them. That is different than saying you might do so in order to bribe them into not being unjust at you.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 13, 2010 7:48 PM

Paul, I think it's from The Meditations. To you and SteveM, yes, I know there are 'outs' or 'holes' in the Aurelius quote; he lived in a time of gods and most of his writings which dealt with gods are similar. He was willing to concede they may actually exist, but not willing to concede much past that.

I've found the quote handy to toss to theists, because in quite a few cases, it's made them think.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 7:59 PM

you really think someone who starts off with such an obvious fallacy is worth taking the time to debate?

I used to be one of those Godless heathens, but I realized that it takes more faith to believe absolutely that there is nothing godlike out there.

really?

*shakes head*

whatever.

I've NEVER seen anyone start off with that fallacy that was worth debating.

that's from years of my own experience, your mileage may vary, I guess.

Posted by: Ichthyic | July 13, 2010 8:24 PM

#254: #251 was supposed to be a joke in response to #247.

I thought it might be, but I had to admit to not understanding it, hence why i just put the question mark.

*blush*

out of line.

I get it now.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | July 13, 2010 11:51 PM

I did think, however naively, that I might be able to help the Heretical Christian, who was all sorts of wrong about atheism, think more critically.

That person showed no signs of being willing to be honest.

I don't care about debate that much really, so far as logic and all that stuff. But I do think some one who won't make themselves vulnerable enough to talk about their beliefs as a personal experience while trying to defend or extol those beliefs is too insecure to investigate them honestly.

And there's so little point to having that kind of conversation.

Posted by: Kirk | July 14, 2010 9:03 PM

I've been losing sleep the last few nights over both Adams' online opinion article, and some of the discussion about it here. So even though the thread is dead, and a believer arrived and moved the discussion elsewhere, I want to record a few thoughts because my opinion on this topic has evolved as the discussion here has taken place.

I didn't like writing the first sentence of my post at #208, but I did it to force the issue regarding unlimited freedom of speech by tenured professors. And I'm glad that by post #210 there was at least some agreement that tenure does not mean somebody has unlimited freedom of speech.

What is tenure? In the legalistic, contractual sense, it is whatever it is defined to be in the contracts and policies of any particular institution. I have been told that in the city of New York, there are high school teachers who have tenure. This is a kind of legalistic tenure.

In the context of this thread, my understanding of the concept of tenure is that it is to recognize professors at universities who have established a sustained track record of quality research in their fields. Such professors are granted tenure so that they can take risks in doing future research that might not yield fruit, or might step on toes. They can take those risks without exposing themselves to financial risk. This is a good agreement between society and researchers: the researchers are given more license than they had before, and society might be rewarded by breakthroughs in research.

Tenure is not intended to give immunity to bigots. In #216 MAJeff wrote "The man is vile bigot." I agree; that is the word I would use to describe him.

So let's take my unpleasant example in #208 and back it off by removing the racial slur. I am using the first sentence of Adams' article and replacing only the object of the sentence. Can he stand in front of a classroom and say "I can't stand women" or "I can't stand African Americans" or "I can't stand atheists"?

In the first two cases I think most of US society would say no, he can't do that. He would be subject to some kind of discipline. In the third case I would say no, he can't do that. In the third case the amount of agreement in US society would be less than in the first two cases. But in general, he can't use that kind of speech in a classroom and walk away without some kind of negative feedback, either from his administration, or his students, or society.

But he didn't say "I can't stand atheists" in a classroom, did he? He wrote it online. Is he still a university professor in that case? It is clear in his online article that he is associating his statements with his position as a professor at a publicly funded university. Has he crossed the limits of his freedom of speech in this case? It's obviously less clear than if he were in front of his classroom.

In my original posts I was criticizing Adams for his comments regarding disruption of free speech. But I think there is more than that going on here. I think Adams has violated separation of church and state. He is a public employee, and he is openly saying that he "can't stand atheists", who are presumably some of the students in his classrooms, and that he will seek out "atheist-haters" to disrupt atheist organizations.

Imagine you are a criminology major who also happens to be the outspoken president of the student freethinker society at that university. Would she be wrong in concluding that she would not be treated fairly in Adams' classroom? I contend that her concerns would be valid.

I imagine that FFRF is already aware of this case. But I'm going to follow up with them, because I'd be interested in knowing the opinion of their lawyers. In this article, I think Adams has put himself on the weak end of the continuum of hate speech. Most atheists and non-atheists don't see it that way, but I think it's because they simply accept that kind of speech. As Josh said in a post a long time ago, they are complicit in their own oppression. It looks to me to be a weak case legally, and probably not worth acting on. But there is potential there.

Regarding heddle's comment at #154, it is only superficially accurate. His statement is essentially "Donahue was outraged by PZ Myers, and called for him to be fired, therefore anyone who is outraged by the comments of a professor and calls for him to be fired is just like Donahue."

Donahue can write the UMM administration and call for PZ to be fired, or disciplined, for making comments which are essentially something like, "The communion wafer is just a cracker. It has no magical properties." And those administrators then have to make choices. They can ignore the whole thing and hope it goes away, or they can side with Donahue, and take some kind of action against PZ, and become laughing-stocks. Or they can distance themselves from the whole thing and say "The comments of Professor Myers are purely his own, and do not reflect the views of UMM", and become laughing-stocks in a slightly less obvious way. Or they could go the other way and make a statement such as "UMM agrees with Professor Myers that the communion wafer is just a cracker and has no magical properties, and we resent these intrusions on the advances of reason and science."

I'm hoping that people besides me wrote to UNCW. I'm not expecting the administration of UNCW to fire Adams. But I do think that they are now made more aware of the choices they are faced with. It's a good thing for atheists to stand up for atheism. It's a good thing if anybody stands up for atheism. It's a good thing if atheists point out to administrators that they are employing a bigot. It's a good thing if the UNCW administration is made aware that they stand to lose students, and potential funding if the federal government finds them in violation of separation of church and state, and potential contributions from alumni (as InfuriatedSciTeacher indicated in #57), if they choose to take no action regarding Adams.

Again, they don't have to fire him. One simple thing they could do would be to make a statement such as "We have reviewed the article written by Mr. Adams, and find it offensive. These views do not represent the values of UNCW, etc, etc." That would satisfy me, because it would be an official statement isolating him from his employer. It would be a statement saying that this kind of speech is wrong, and not accepted in our society.