…and this is a 
Stay tuned for frolicsome hijinks and high hilarity. We have stirred up some kooks. Here are 3 in ascending order of lunacy.
That climate fraud, Anthony Watts, has noticed Pepsigate. He's got a unique spin on it: the reason some Sciencebloggers were very upset at the inclusion of an unlabeled infomercial as a blog had nothing to do with the ethics of keeping advertising separate from content — it's because we don't like Pepsi. Then he goes off on a riff about how we're hypocrites because we probably eat Doritos and drink Mountain Dew.
Wait. That's not funny. That's just stupid.
This one is a little better. Crackpot right-wing physics goon Lubos Motl has also noticed Pepsigate, and of course he has his own distinct explanation. It's because we're all left wing socialist pinko commie stooges producing "stinky communist garbage".
These "thinkers" make Leonid Brezhnev look like Milton Friedman in comparison. The list includes the self-described "Godless ejaculating liberal" Paul Z. Myers, the top climatic Wikipedia censor and U.K. Green Party apparatchik William M. Connolley whose Stoat is "taking science by the throat" (his words!), Tim Lambert with his Deltoid, and many others whose names remain actively unknown to us - thank God. (I follow dozens of blogs but none of the SB blogs is anywhere in my bookmarks.)
Got that? Stoat and Deltoid are my comrades. Don't ever visit them. I repeat: Stoat and Deltoid. Together, we are the troika of evil.
One last tidbit, and this is really funny.
Your humble correspondent was offered to join the scienceblogs.com platform in 2006 and I had nothing substantial against it. The purely technical considerations such as the stability of the URLs and traffic and the control over the design - and independence in general - decided I would say no.
I remember that! Motl was considered, and his name was floated to the blogger community here, and after we all got done laughing, the consensus was that no, we'd rather not have Crazy Lubos in our company. And the fact that he wanted full control over his design…Lubos Motl is infamous for his tasteless and eyeball-busting scrambled layouts.
Last example of conservative conniptions, and this one is my favorite. I have been targeted by Conservapædia for their Article of the Week. Yay me!
My crimes are numerous and severe: cracker abuse, gate-crashing movie premieres, mocking creationists, riding a triceratops, and being "intellectually slothful". The most grievous crime, though, the one that deserved to be pulled out and highlighted with a figure, was this one.
I've been very naughty.
By the way, years ago there were several Conservapædia fanatics who did spam the site rather fiercely, trying to jam up conversations and presumably direct more traffic to their silly site. I had to add "conservapedia" to the list of filtered words here. If you want to comment on this, you can't link to Conservapædia, and you can't mention them by their preferred spelling either. You can use that effete European ligature, though: just write it out Conservapædia. Drives 'em nuts.
All of this is very annoying. I'm an atheist; how can Voltaire's prayer be working out so well for me? ("I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it.")
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 23, 2010 10:03 PM
They missed out on what a dick you are.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 23, 2010 10:07 PM
No, they didn't. They're trying to tear me down, and that's one of my best features.
Posted by: naddyfive
|
July 23, 2010 10:14 PM
I love it when religionists and conservatives whip out the "Stalin was an atheist!" argument, as if this statement renders moot every criticism of religious institutions that atheists make.
These types really seem to make a lot of logical leaps. For example, when an atheist says "God is not the grounds of morality, and religious affiliation does not guarantee moral behavior in humans", the retort is inevitably "but, but Stalin was an atheist! there were evil atheist regimes, too!" This is a tu quoque fallacy, first of all, but even worse, they misunderstand the point entirely. Atheists are not claiming that no atheist could ever do something immoral, or even despicable, it's that these grand, historically hegemonic religious institutions are full of unaddressed oppression and based on heirarchies of authority. Even to this day. And we need to raise our voices in opposition to them. Just as we'd raise our voices in opposition to the horrors inherent in Stalinism. Even though no one could ever persuasively argue that atheism is "hegemonic" now or ever has been in any culture.
Guh, I'm sure you've all thought of this a million times, but it drives me nuts trying to argue with people who make incessant illogical leaps.
Posted by: samilobster
|
July 23, 2010 10:16 PM
I always find the Stalin one silly. Do they honestly think an atheist who claimed to 'follow a higher power' than Stalin would have done any better than the priests?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 23, 2010 10:19 PM
Has anyone explained to Conservapædia that PZ isn't a historian?
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2010 10:20 PM
Luboš, not Lubos, mr Meyers.
The guy's a nut, but at least get his name right before we start making fun of it.
Last I saw of him, he rejected all of climate science because there was no 5σ-effects. I assume that the good Luboš have never partaken of modern medicine and its paltry 95% confidence intervals.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
July 23, 2010 10:20 PM
PZ:
Wait, what?
Conservatives are accusing you of being intellectually lazy??
I just snarfed my rum & Coke all over my keyboard. I think I'll send the repair bill to Conservapædumbasses.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 23, 2010 10:21 PM
IIRC, a number of the bloggers who were most upset -- and even maybe some of the ones who left -- admitted right up front that they had an affinity for Doritos and Mountain Dew (or what have you).
But you know, expecting an AGW denier to actually read... that's probably unrealistic.
Posted by: raven
|
July 23, 2010 10:23 PM
Conservapedia has yet to offer any scholarly works period. And they never will.
They could start by the near genocides of the Amerindians and Australian abos and the theft of 3 continents by European xians.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 23, 2010 10:26 PM
I read Deltoid quite a bit (though he hasn't had anything new up for over a week now) - I am going to start reading Stoat just so I can be a part of the troika. Or is that TriFecta (fekta? Whatever. I don't play horses.)
JC
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
July 23, 2010 10:26 PM
Wouldn't it be great to live in a world where people are shunned for idiocy instead of heresy?
I'd absolutely love it if we didn't have to give morons like the Conservapedos the time of day.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 23, 2010 10:26 PM
Though I admit I am fringing on New True Scotsman when making this argument, I think that secular totalitarianism is an oxymoron. Well, okay, it depends on the definition of the word "secular". But in any case, replacing the idea that God is infallible and worthy of unending deference with the idea that some dictatorial dickwad is infallible and worth of unending deference... not really what we're clamoring for, people.
Posted by: Yubal
|
July 23, 2010 10:28 PM
Wait. Wasn't the consumption of any PepsiCo product outlawed to true believers™ because of their financial support of the homosexual agenda? The same way they are doing it with home depot these days?
Oerks. Hypocrites .
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 23, 2010 10:30 PM
[meta]
Raven, I note that (at least here in Oz) the term 'abo' is equivalent to 'nigger' in the USA.
'Aborigines' or 'indigenous Australians' don't have such racist connotations.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2010 10:30 PM
If Arschfly can be a microbiologist, PeeZed can be a historian.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 23, 2010 10:32 PM
Put simply, atheism is a descriptive term for (roughly) someone who lack a positive belief in gods. This is important, because descriptive ≠ prescriptive.
In other words, when the people who people who cite Stalin as an example of atheism leading to atrocities can demonstrate exactly how, atheists committing such acts can justify their actions - i.e. that we all defer to a document or creed or dogma that provides instruction on how atheists ought to act - then they can make that comparison and not look like complete morons for doing so.
Otherwise the claim is about as rational as the one that he did what he did because he had a moustache.
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 23, 2010 10:33 PM
Wow, PZ! Obloquy from Conservapædia is a high honor indeed. My warm congratulations! Aschlafly's site has few peers among wrong-headed websites for its unintentional hilarity. It proved with side-splitting logic that President Obama is a Muslim, so I'm certain Aschlafly and his minions are prepared to prove that you are a sign of the imminent Apocalypse (for which they can hardly wait, making little practice jumps into the air in preparation for the Rapture).
Posted by: haakon.thunestvedt
|
July 23, 2010 10:34 PM
Admit it PZ! You Know Trofim Lysenko was right! Glorious socialistic biology will save the foodsupply of the worldm again! ;)
Posted by: Shala
|
July 23, 2010 10:34 PM
Then he goes off on a riff about how we're hypocrites because we probably eat Doritos and drink Mountain Dew.
Oh heavens, no! We're monsters but we're not monsters.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 23, 2010 10:37 PM
Lubošchen doesn't like particle physicists either.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 23, 2010 10:38 PM
The Pol Pot thing: If us brown people had listen your white God, it wouldn't have happen right? Because that's exactly what I get from people who try to use Pol Pot as an argument against atheist.
Oh the other hand:
[Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in "New Order"]
Hey look Aschlafy, a Christian!
Posted by: atomjack
|
July 23, 2010 10:40 PM
They are ALL hypocrites. Silly me, behind the times on the GLBT front! I'll have to go get some wood ;) from Big Orange tomorrow to help support the cause. I'm hetero, but I don't see any reason to discriminate. After all, someday there's going to be a hate group against people who think fire is beautiful. Then, how will I grilles my dinners?!?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 23, 2010 10:41 PM
[meta]
Thanks, Sili, for that link @20.
I've learnt a new term, too! (Barn)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 23, 2010 10:44 PM
Wasn't Pol Pot some form of believer?
Not that I give a flying dutchman.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 23, 2010 10:46 PM
PZ: It's one thing to merely point and deride, but another entirely when you take other people's criticisms to heart, using them to strengthen your body of work.
So the next time you're authoring a technical article on feedback mechanisms in networks of gene promotion and inhibition in cephalopods, see if you can't work a reference to genocidal tendencies of 20th century despots into the discussion.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 23, 2010 10:46 PM
Not all of us !
Mountain Dew is the best soda ever made
:P
And, hey Conserblapedia, Mao, Stalin, Pol, and what, no Hitler ? Now come on, wtf is wrong with you ? If you make this retarded argument, at least go all the way !!
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 23, 2010 10:49 PM
Yes he believe that genocide would work and returning the agricultural glory. See, it's not what he didn't believe (he killed plenty of people who didn't believe in a god), but what he did believe. Also one of his generals converted to Christianity. Why? Because it allowed him to live in peace as a murderer.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 23, 2010 10:50 PM
My favourite part of the ConservaPOEdia article on PZ:
PZ's picture has features in that "essay" (which is really just a short list).
Posted by: Mattminton
|
July 23, 2010 10:54 PM
"PZ Myers commented, while listening to Michael Behe lecture on Intelligent design, that "In science, we scream a lot." According to Evolution News, he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory."
Contents"
I love it. It seems like a line from something parodying conservative tripe, but it's real. What's not to love?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 23, 2010 10:54 PM
"Essay: Gallery of liberal pantywaists"
Wait...so are we cowards who shy away from conflict in a simpery wimpy fashion or are we genocidal war mongering murderers?
Ferengi or Klingon. We can't be both!
Posted by: KIN
|
July 23, 2010 10:57 PM
"Lubos Motl is infamous for his tasteless and eyeball-busting scrambled layouts."
After checking his site I can safely say thats no joke.
Posted by: MonkeyBoy
|
July 23, 2010 11:00 PM
Wait, I thought the reason we didn't like Pepsi is that it is carbonated with CO2 which is a greenhouse gas, which means that every time you open a Pepsi you release gas and cause global warming.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
July 23, 2010 11:02 PM
"stability of the URLs"
can't quite figure out that one...
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 23, 2010 11:04 PM
So are the conservapedia guys going to come up with some kind of explanation for crimes of the "murderous christians", from Ivan the terrible (Stalin's favorite) to Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet, Robert Mugabe, or Radovan Karadzic?
I like what Dawkins says. We are going to count the bad guys on both sides to see which side will prevail.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 23, 2010 11:08 PM
Has anyone else noticed "Lubos Motl" is an anagram of "bolus molt" ? I'm still trying to figure out the significance of this, though.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 23, 2010 11:09 PM
Sorry, I meant Conservapædia guys.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 23, 2010 11:11 PM
I dunno, I think Richard Dawkins finishes first:
I'll also note that the person chiefly responsible for both the PZ article (and "Essay:Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?") was banned from Pharyngula.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 23, 2010 11:27 PM
Honestly, Conservapædia looks exactly like a Poe site (and I would take it for one if I didn't know better).
For example, some articles:
Posted by: Nentuaby
|
July 23, 2010 11:32 PM
@«bønez_brigade»:
"the stability of the URLs" is an actual technical concern. The basic idea is, if I put a link on another page today (or worse, print it in a magazine article) today, will people still be able to access what it points at later, perhaps years later?
There are various design decisions that go into it, most of which are *very* dryly technical. To make it short, this article would ideally be "pharyngula/2010/07/shakin_the_nuts" or something similar; something that uniquely, permanently identifies the *article* rather than the *page*. It's actually "pharyngula/2010/07/shakin_the_nuts.php".
That's about a 6 out of 10- it avoids a lot of mistakes that could cause the article's URL to naturally change as it gets older, but it makes one big one. Including a file extension specific to one server technology (the .PHP) means that this URL will get screwy if later on they move to a non-PHP publishing system. Best practice is to either use .HTML or leave the extension off altogether.
Posted by: Nineveh
|
July 23, 2010 11:32 PM
You know, it's beginning to occur to me, that less and less people are actually Republicans anymore, and instead are becoming hilarious caricatures of Republicans.
Posted by: Rixaeton
|
July 23, 2010 11:32 PM
Update at the Watts up... site
Another demonstrably false claim from a denialist with delusions of grandeur. Why am I not surprised?
Posted by: bad Jim
|
July 23, 2010 11:36 PM
This is what puzzles me:
"Active ignorance" would actually explain a lot, but does he simply mean that some of the bloggers use pseudonyms?
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
July 23, 2010 11:39 PM
Looks like Watts corrected himself... kinda. His update now reads:
I don't understand what's so hard about spelling PZ's name right.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 23, 2010 11:44 PM
Conservapedia is like the little kid who gets his hands on a xerox and starts handing out his own newspaper to family members. I'm shocked their readership manages to extend beyond "mittens the cat"
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
July 23, 2010 11:47 PM
the guy is nuts. he says that pepsi is a responsible company. yes, responsible along with all the other soft drink companies in creating generations of fat, diabetic, rotten toothed human beings...and by the way, in Appalachia, soft drink consumption, especially mountain dew is responsible for the above mentioned health concerns in epidemic numbers.
Posted by: pieroforno
|
July 23, 2010 11:48 PM
Effete European ligature? I resent that. The fact that American troglodites don't like Greek diphthongs does not make "ae" effete. Enciclopaedia for the win! (not Conservapaedia, of course, but for wholly different reasons).
Plus, in Latin there were no ligatures: "ae" was just an "a" followed by an "e". Whoever thought of joining them in a single character was... well, there is no insult strong enough to convey my contempt. GlennBeckian, maybe.
Posted by: bad Jim
|
July 23, 2010 11:52 PM
Piernoforno, ligatures happen pretty automatically in handwriting, and in times past when marble or parchment were scarce commodities they were practically mandatory.
Posted by: Sioux Laris
|
July 23, 2010 11:56 PM
This is classic "Black Knight" stuff!
What are they threatening to do - bleed on you and then call it a draw?
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
July 24, 2010 12:01 AM
'Shakin' the nuts' - I thought that it must be a euphemism like 'liftin' your luggage' and that your piece must be about what those gay priests in Rome get up to, to the annoyance of Ratzi (see today's Guardian), but, no... but these nuts are just as good.
Posted by: articulett
|
July 24, 2010 12:12 AM
I don't think you've written any scholarly works pointing out that all murderous regimes have been non-Scientologists... apparently, you don't want to admit that Scientology saves lives.
Come to think of it, most (if not all) murderous regimes have been lead by men...
It looks like there's an overlooked genetic component that may trump the invisible beings people do and don't believe in when it comes to heinous crimes. Why aren't you listing scholarly works on this alarming information, PZ!?
Posted by: prosfilaes
|
July 24, 2010 12:19 AM
Every time I look at Conservapædia, it stuns me. It's one thing to write an encyclopedia from a distinct heavy bias, like pretty much all of them have been, but act like an encyclopedist, someone who believes they're writing neutral factual truth, not some who writes "Discover what Wikipedia, the public school systems, and the liberal media don't want you to know about the abortion issue" (to grab a random quote) on the front cover.
A real conservative encyclopedia would ignore PZ Myers altogether, or treat him as a minor biologist who runs a small radical blog speaking on issues outside his academic competence; Conservapædia, of course, gives up any hope of looking like that real encyclopedia by demanding why he hasn't written works on Stalin.
Posted by: Zach
|
July 24, 2010 12:23 AM
Lubos claims "none of the SB blogs is anywhere in my bookmarks" but I bet he has a few secretly hidden away in a dark corner of his hard drive, just waiting for a moment when he is alone and no one is watching...
Posted by: Bribase
|
July 24, 2010 12:25 AM
They got one thing right PZ
Your ejaculate is both godless and liberal.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/fmNe0g4K3PT3lo9YncSRaNWDN9YFBAzHCg--#a1b6c
|
July 24, 2010 12:27 AM
A real conservative encyclopedia would ignore PZ Myers altogether, or treat him as a minor biologist who runs a small radical blog speaking on issues outside his academic competence; Conservapædia, of course, gives up any hope of looking like that real encyclopedia by demanding why he hasn't written works on Stalin.
Hell, I'm waiting for them to claim that PZ is Stalin, or at least his love child.
Posted by: dwoodsnz
|
July 24, 2010 12:31 AM
@sasqwatch, "Lubos Motl" is also an anagram of "Bloom Slut", and "Slob Moult". I'm not sure what this means either...
Posted by: bad Jim
|
July 24, 2010 12:37 AM
This is also fun:
Does he not know what a stoat is?
Posted by: dnbarabash
|
July 24, 2010 12:44 AM
Anyone up to play a rousing round of Conservatroll?
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 24, 2010 1:04 AM
PZ:
Deltoid approaches climate science denialism similarly to the way you approach evolution denialism, except for the fact that Tim Lambert (the blogger), never argues with the global warming version of accommodationists; he even writes semi-approvingly about their work. However - he relies almost entirely on tactics they disapprove of.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 24, 2010 1:21 AM
Stoat is written my William M. Connolley, one of 3 men who bet Joe Romm that "At no time between now and the end of the year 2020 will the minimum total Arctic Sea ice extent be less than 10% of the 1979-2000 average minimum annual Arctic Sea ice extent ..". Of all the bloggers that accept the evidence that global warmings is real, caused by humans, and dangerous, Connolley and Annan (one of the other 3 men who bet against Romm) take the most conservative view with respect to how dangerous global warming is, and how rapidly it is likely to advance. (Essentially, the sane part of the debate over global warming is bounded by Connolley and Annan on the one side, and James Hansen on the other.)
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 24, 2010 1:23 AM
What children.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 24, 2010 1:28 AM
Feynmaniac, Chimerical Toad Superhero | July 23, 2010:
Must be all that bacon.
Posted by: staggerlee
|
July 24, 2010 1:29 AM
Holy crap PZ!!!!! i think you may have inadvertantly (sp? I am sure i did as i am very very drunk) convinced me that god does exist with this very prayer: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." Becaue the Gud LAWD (!) hath answered it!! Praise be unto him....or her....or some gender we have yet to discover.
Posted by: Diane G.
|
July 24, 2010 1:35 AM
Mountain Dew is not responsible, consumption of Mountain Dew is responsible. By your reasoning, we should bring back Prohibition.
Posted by: joeldg
|
July 24, 2010 1:40 AM
Nice PZ...
Funny enough on my way from Miami to Edmonton, I found myself stranded at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport last week and slept to the drone of floor buffers being dragged around on rubber skids.. A good friend suggested I ask you for a couch, far too late..
anyway, one of my heroes at this point you are.
Cheers
Posted by: otrame
|
July 24, 2010 1:42 AM
Conservasillier was really good for a laugh for a while. I read the talk page for the front page every week or so for the lols, but within about 5 months Schafly and his 3 or 4 non-sock-puppets* had run out anyone who dared suggest that maybe-- maybe-- there might be a liberal out there who wasn't a well-trained minion of Satan and it all got mind-blistering boring.
I sometimes think that poor little Andy's problem is that his mom spent too much time out giving speeches telling other women to give up their careers and stay home and take care of their kids. All he really wants is some attention. Read his comments and his open letters to biologists and you will see what I mean.
*I used to think that making sock puppets was the most pathetic thing out there, but in this case, the fact that they aren't sock puppets is just so sad.
Posted by: theGobi
|
July 24, 2010 2:04 AM
@John morales #14
The racist connotations of the term 'abo' have been pointed out to Raven in a previous thread.
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 24, 2010 2:59 AM
Conservapædians forgot Hitler. Tsk tsk.
Posted by: Arachobia
|
July 24, 2010 3:14 AM
I remember I had a philosophy lecturer who was found of insisting that 'atheist regimes' like Stalin and those listed above had killed at least as many people as the Inquisition and the Crusades.
The thing is, even if that's true, its not just regimes of religions that kill people. All the conversions of heathens, witch-burnings and stonings of transgressors of doctrine are caused by religion to. Even if we can be blamed for 'regimes' on our side, but religions have killed countless individuals throughout history without having a particular fanatical leader or phase of history.
Posted by: David N
|
July 24, 2010 3:18 AM
I'm a bit surprised that you haven't had a response from Motl yet - he's usually quick enough to leap onto physics blogs which he has idealogical differences with (Sabine Hossenfelder (sp?) had a good list of his insults somewhere at Backreaction, I think (not sure exactly where)).
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 24, 2010 3:20 AM
@Andyo: Conservapudlians didn't forget Hitler, they ARE Hitler!
Posted by: albatros183
|
July 24, 2010 3:38 AM
Comrade! really "apparatchik" what English speaking person knows this term? I can see he has been one of those not caught in the recent Russian spy scandal since he is obviously a sleeper agent for the KGB but it has now been so long that the conditioning is giving out.
What is he saying? that steel workers are mostly Nobel prize winners or that Nobel prize winners are steel workers, or leaders of country's are...
no I am confused now
Brezhnev was many things but stupid was not one of them and if... no I am still confused.
On to other points "Godless ejaculating liberal" if you don't ejaculate how will you create a pantheon didn't Zeus teach you anything?
Again I must protest the interaction with people who are obviously brain damaged (I know I am also guilty of if but I hate myself for it)
Just makes me think of the "PSA" jpg I saw earlier today
Jesus facepalm: he forgives you ... but still
Posted by: charlystone
|
July 24, 2010 4:13 AM
If I believed in collective guilt, I would be ashamed of belonging to the same nation as Luboš Motl. But alas, crackpots are everywhere.
Now its 10:00 am here in CZ and I expect he notices this blog post any moment. I am curious when the allegations of bolshevism, communism and outright insults of PZ and commenters start. It is Motls usual respose to any critique, even slightest. He consideres himself to be beyond doubt and criticism and never ever acknowlidges when he is proven wrong.
Posted by: Glenn G
|
July 24, 2010 4:31 AM
"These "thinkers" make Leonid Brezhnev look like Milton Friedman in comparison."
I already saw Brezhnev on the same level as Friedman. Both were idealists that clung to their ideologies no matter how much harm they did to their fellow humans.
Posted by: David N
|
July 24, 2010 4:33 AM
Motl is probably still sulking after [parting company with|being ejected from] Harvard a few years ago.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 4:51 AM
IngNot AFAIK, but he was educated "at the École Miche, a Catholic school in Phnom Penh" [quotes are from wikipedia]. Stalin was educated at a Russian Orthodox seminary. Fidel Castro "spent many years in private Catholic boarding schools, finishing high school at El Colegio de Belén, a Jesuit school in Havana in 1945". Robert Mugabe was educated at a Catholic Mission school. Interesting, eh?
To be fair: Lenin was baptised into the Russian Orthodox Church, but his parents were members of the progressive intelligentsia; all his siblings but one became revolutionaries. Mao attended Chinese state schools about which I know nothing. Ho Chi-minh's father was a Confucian scholar, despite which he received a French education at a lycée in Hue, but this would not be religiously run I think.
Posted by: PsyGremlin
|
July 24, 2010 4:51 AM
I see the author of that scurrilous piece is none other than user:Conservative, aka Ken DeMyer, aka the same Peter Moore who tried to linkspam his precious articles on here. I'm guess the monomaniac is still butt-hurt about that.
Still, don't feel too bad, at least he hasn't accused you of lacking machismo, which is an affliction from which Senor Dawkins suffers according to Ken.
Posted by: chaseacross
|
July 24, 2010 5:00 AM
Shame on PZ for not writing anything substantial on the history of communist dictatorships during the 20th century. I checked JSTOR and PZ hasn't had a single article published in any reputable journal of history. I double-checked his credentials, and you'll all be very shocked to discover that PZ did not attain so much as a bachelor's degree in history. His claims of historical acumen are as false as his preposterous downy beard (almost certainly swiped from the face of a God-fearing Christian).
You are a liar, PZ Myers! Your frauditude is overwhelming.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 5:22 AM
Despite my #75, I think the "Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were atheists" jibe is often poorly dealt with, even here. Of course, it is no argument against the truth of atheism, but it is possible to hold the view that atheism is true but that it would be disastrous if this became generally accepted.
The common response that "Their crimes were not motivated by atheism" is true, but not the whole truth: their crimes were motivated by a belief system in which atheism was an important component - Marxism or more specifically, Marxism-Leninism. As Marxist regimes, theirs were regimes where atheism was hegemonic, although AFAIK only Hoxha's Albania went as far as attempting to suppress religion altogether. Again, responses to the jibe sometimes include the claim that Marxism or more specifically Stalinism is a religion - but this really is a No True Scotsman argument. Certainly, it has features in common with religion, but that should alert us to the fact that atheism can enter dangerous ideological "compounds" with other beliefs - Ayn Rand being another example: if the role of God as final authority in a theist belief system is not abolished, but occupied by an individual, the "nation", the Party, or even some abstraction such as "reason" or "freedom", the result can be as unpleasant as any theocracy.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 24, 2010 5:29 AM
The Conservapudlians are going to experience schadenfrauditude.
Posted by: grudgedk
|
July 24, 2010 5:47 AM
These "thinkers" make Leonid Brezhnev look like Milton Friedman in comparison.How does that even make sense? How can you possibly compare Leonid Breznev and Milton Friedman? One was the leader of the Soviet Union, the other a Nobel Prize laureate in economics. What's he trying to say? PZ makes politicians look like economists? I don't get it. Yes. Particularly since that makes no sense at all either. All of those mentioned are communists. The assumption that all communists are Atheists is incorrect. At least they've finally figured out the Hitler was a Catholic tho'.Has anyone explained to Conservapædia that PZ isn't a historian?I don't think you can explain anything to them. The stupidity of conservatives is a powerful force of nature. Start with a weaker force. Like gravity. Once you can fly by sheer force of will, maybe, just maybe you can make a dent in conservative stupidity.
Before that, they have to make a convincing argument for why the person who reinstated the Russian Orthodox church, gets to qualify as an atheist.The only truly atheist thing Stalin did, was stop the rampage of that Catholic madman Adolf Hitler. For some reason people tend to forget that.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 5:57 AM
- grudgegkA fine example of the kind of thing I was talking about. Stalin, although seminary-educated, was a declared atheist, and there is no reason to doubt his word in this case. He reinstated the Russian Orthodox church because he needed all the support he could get in the face of Hitler's invasion.
Posted by: Roestigraben
|
July 24, 2010 6:14 AM
Psy #76,
He did! He made PZ the new poster boy for his seminal work on anti-machismo, the "gallery of liberal pantywaists".
Posted by: Kirk
|
July 24, 2010 6:31 AM
At least they made a positive statement about your health. Man in his fifties, plumbing and brain still working. Good for you.
Posted by: Muskiet
|
July 24, 2010 6:38 AM
Oh! Is THAT what "Say hello to…PepsiCo??!? WTF?" means?
I'm glad Lubos makes that clear:
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 24, 2010 6:41 AM
Well, & the only other blog to strike was Greg laden's. I'm not so good at forcing.
Both watt's and Motl's blog entries were most notable for their inaccuracy-- they got everything wrong.
Posted by: kieran
|
July 24, 2010 6:55 AM
You want me to read a blog by a rower, that is just low! Viva la Kayak!
Posted by: Liberal
|
July 24, 2010 6:56 AM
*gasp* I see Ben Stein's face on SB... wtf
Posted by: LewisX
|
July 24, 2010 6:59 AM
Wow, Motl is a raving paranoid lunatic of the first order:
So where's my portion of the loot then?
Posted by: LewisX
|
July 24, 2010 7:03 AM
Oops - should have linked to the quote in #88.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 24, 2010 7:12 AM
It may seem notable to you, but for them, that is normal. Try using either's name for a search keyword on almost any reliable climate science blog.Posted by: Rixaeton
|
July 24, 2010 7:34 AM
Heh, just finished watching a documentary about Stalin. Turns out that his first job was a meterologist. Hmm... a posting by PZ combining Anthony Watts and Stalin; Stalin was a mass-murderer, and a meterologist, and Anthony Watts is a meterologist...
Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: dgerard
|
July 24, 2010 7:41 AM
Now, now. Lubos Motl is not a "crackpot". He's a raging asshole, but he's an accomplished physicist and writer of standard textbooks. He knows his stuff. It's just that no sane human wants to talk to him. Hey, it worked for Newton!
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 24, 2010 7:42 AM
When the Conservaprats start whistling the 'Hitler's and Stalin's atheism led to atrocities' tune, they need to be reminded that religion could only get its claws dug in around the globe on the roads paved with the same set of atrocities. And that's ignoring the religious background of both whackos.
Actually, maybe we shouldn't ignore it. A psychological profile of those two could probably be built into a decent case that the kind of mental and physical torment that people go through in Catholic schooling leads to the kind of mindset that thinks that humans are worthless scum that can be murdered at will to reach an ideological goalpost. One should also mention to the Conservapredators the waiting rooms full of people seeking mental counselling because of their religious school upbringing? Two of history's biggest murderers may well have been set down that path by a kind of mental tics created by abusive nuns and priests.
Christopher Hitchens covered this angle in his 'God Is Not Great.' People using Hitler and Stalin as examples of why atheism is evil put on blinders. They ignore the more realistic explanation that religion and political extremism (which Hitchens argues is pretty much a religion) are more likely to cause violent insanity than a non-belief in deities.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
July 24, 2010 8:02 AM
KG #78
Believe in god or not - you can still be despicable. We agree - and to your last sentence - a big YUP!
But I think you had a overall point to which I disagree. If I am densely misinterpreting forgive me and correct.
I read you suggesting a belief in a god's higher laws (via a religion and usually the beneficent are flagship) may deter bad behavior. I say of course for individuals. But same said for any popularized code of living (secular or religious) that resonates with our biological proclivities to cooperate, be social, empathize, nurture, and protect. To me it isn't the belief in higher power but the rather the re-enforcing party-line and system of rewards and punishments. If the party-line is peace and love - well you'll find a lot of peace of love in the people.
And this brings me to my main feeling: when RWA leaders have a rallying point to fire-up RWA people under their banner and then conjure up apathy or hopelessness or cynicism or fear in the majority to allow the RWA minority too in essence be seem the majority there is trouble in River City. You saw/see this in USA and you saw/see this throughout the World and History.
Anything (religious or secular) that controls the dialog and acts to put RWA leaders and make RWAs the virtual majority spells TROUBLE.
My feeling.
Posted by: D
|
July 24, 2010 8:04 AM
@ KG 75
I tend to think any authoritarian system is going to tend towards violence against its enemies, be they ideological, political or convenient. If atheism is a part of the system, that will inform its over all ideology, however, it is incidental to the authoritarianism. Religions on the other hand are inherently authoritarian. Modern exception perhaps exist, but they are rare and I think the product of the general decline in power of religion.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson
|
July 24, 2010 8:06 AM
Aw, gee, you get all the fun.
Posted by: D
|
July 24, 2010 8:16 AM
That was in response to post 78, not 75.
Posted by: co
|
July 24, 2010 8:24 AM
I love their (that is, Concernedapoaedia's) "Question Evolution" campaign coverage, right below PZ's entry:
I love it because it'll simply reveal which students/classmates are going to have hard times in their reality-based classes.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 24, 2010 8:25 AM
Just as an aside, Mountain Dew® is a PepsiCo brand.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
July 24, 2010 8:56 AM
What is there to say about the "atheist mass murderers"? I'll tell you what.
They were fucking insane disgusting douchebags that happened to be atheist. Crazy happens in every sector.
DONE.
Posted by: tonysidaway
|
July 24, 2010 9:04 AM
William M. Connolley, in his incarnation as a Wikipedian, has already attracted the attention of Canadian "environmentalist" global warming denial nut Lawrence Solomon, who has devoted at least one full length column in the National Post to the sins he imagines Connolley to be guilty of. A cursory analysis revealed that Solomon's fact-checking skills are par for the course among climate denialists.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 24, 2010 9:06 AM
I read the Watts thread for all of 30-seconds. I want $10 for pain and suffering... The concentrated stupidity is beyond belief...
From what I read, they don't understand capitialism. They don't understand global warming. They live in a world of strawmen waiting to be flamed down.
Posted by: Van Buren
|
July 24, 2010 9:12 AM
Hmmm. Wonder what would happen if they wore"Question Theology" shirts to church.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 24, 2010 9:19 AM
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
July 24, 2010 9:23 AM
Does "Shakin' the Nuts" have anything to do with tea bagging? Or the Tea Baggers?
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 24, 2010 9:26 AM
Pol Pot -- Was born and raised a Catholic. Went to catholic school.
Joseph Stalin -- Born and raised a Russian Orthodox Catholic (like my grandfather). Went to a RO Catholic school.
Adolf Hitler -- Born and raised a Catholic. Remained a Catholic all of his life. Was not, I believe, ever excommunicated. Did, in fact, profess his Christianity through-out his life.
Each one of these men was born and raised a Christian. Each one of these men were born and raised inside either a Christian or a religious-mixed country.
None of them were born in an atheist country, schooled as a secular child or trained to be atheists. Rather, each and every one was given a full religion-centric education until they became adults.
They were all, btw, Catholics (Rome or Russian Orthodox) by early religious upbringing. Only Hitler remained a Catholic.
Since most people establish the basics of their moral foundations (or lack thereof) as young people... I should not, if I were a Christian, throw that particular stone.
And yet they do. The proud results of their failed religious system that does not, on its face, prevent people from growing up to be right, fucking bastards.
So, anytime Conservadelusion wants an article on the subject, I'm more than fucking happy to mix in developmental psychology, religion and the troika of Stalin, Pot & Hitler... Just give me a call, you fucking wankers. I'll answer you.
Posted by: woozalia
|
July 24, 2010 9:34 AM
Seems only fair, since they do much the same for RationalWiki.Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 24, 2010 9:43 AM
Dawkins is wrong to not point out that both Stalin and Pol Pot were trained in religious schools (catholics) until they were young adults (within their societies).
And since people establish their moral foundations as youth, and generally on tweak it as adults, I fully assign their lack of morality to their upbringing -- Catholic. They are Catholic failures to install a proper moral code, not atheist failures. There was no atheist training in their lives.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 9:50 AM
No, I wasn't suggesting that (or the contrary) - just arguing that common responses to the "Stalin was an atheist" jibe are inadequate, because his atheism was not incidental to his crimes. We agree that it is dogmatic, authoritarian belief-systems that lead to extreme oppression. When responding to "Stalin was an atheist", anti-authoritarian atheists should make clear that we abhor such systems whether atheist, religious or neither.
Posted by: raven
|
July 24, 2010 9:56 AM
The RCC said a mass on Hitler's birthday up until the end. They said a mass for the dead for him after he died.
The only Nazi leader who was excommunicated was Joseph Goebbels. His big crime was marrying a divorced Protestant.
The RCC ignored the mass murder of millions but went bonkers over someone marrying a divorced Protestant. What was that about religion being the basis of morality and producing a sophisticated theology again?
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 10:07 AM
ConcernedJoe,
On whether religion is intrinsically authoritarian, I think that depends on how widely you interpret the term. You hint, I think, at the existence of modern "cafeteria spirituality", where it's seriously uncool, man, to tell anyone else what to believe (as long as you believe in woo of some kind!). There's also Taoism, which at least as interpreted by Joseph Needham in his Science and Civilisation in China (no, I haven't read the whole thing), was strongly anti-authoritarian, and had strong naturalistic aspects.
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 10:07 AM
Motl was considered, and his name was floated to the blogger community here, and after we all got done laughing, the consensus was that no, we'd rather not have Crazy Lubos in our company.
I found the post rather amusing, and the whole "gate" rather ridiculous, but in a funny way. I have no strong opinions on who's "right" in this conversation, so I'll just take your word that Pepsi Co having a science blog in a ring of science blogs is bad, even though it is quite transparent.
But after I read that quote I italicized, it blew my mind. For there are only two choices here. Either what you are implying is the true story and you really had a censorship ability back in 2006, and I find that stunningly dangerous and innapropriate, nevermind lambasting about it; or you are just "exagerating" and you really could not censor his arrival at ScienceBlogs.
I do not enjoy these two choices at all, mr PZ. So please tell me where I went wrong in my assessment (after you are done with the snarky remarks at my intelligence as you usually do).
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 24, 2010 10:12 AM
". Either what you are implying is the true story and you really had a censorship ability back in 2006, and I find that stunningly dangerous and inappropriate,"
Not letting people in your club is not censorship.
The AACPA is not censoring the KKK by refusing Dragons membership.
Posted by: Butch Pansy
|
July 24, 2010 10:21 AM
"making little practice jumps into the air in preparation for the Rapture" -Zeno
For the win!
Posted by: Larry
|
July 24, 2010 10:22 AM
And not only that, he still hasn't yet explained how fucking magnets work!
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 24, 2010 10:23 AM
Lol. I liar for Jesus? Or a liar for the sake of propaganda?
Stalin killed because he wanted power. And to maintain power. And it had nothing to do with atheism.
Marxism itself has nothing to do with atheism. Jesus was a Marxist. The writings of Engle and Marx derived from both economic writings and the writings of the religious, specifically the early Christian Church which was structured as a COMMUNIST enclave.
Marxism, in fact, borrows heavily from the bible vis the early structure of the Christian Church. It is not, per se, atheist.
Marxisms three main components are:
This is true. We see it today in our country as the rich play the poor and middle-class against each other in some fucking zero-sum hate-fest.
This is also true. That's why labor laws had to be made. This why minimum wages had to be made. This is why we have an estate tax. This is why we're supposed to break-up monopolies and oligopolies. This is why we have songs about selling one's soul to the Company Store...
I know modern Americans don't really understand our own history. But it was a pretty fucking brutal, inhumane place under the old Laissez-Faire system loved by the Lib-nuts.
That's where Marx got it completely wrong. So fundamentally wrong that it's ludicrous. Marx argued for State Owned Monopolies. All monopolies, PRIVATE OR STATE, fail. Oligopolies can, in some instances be good (auto manufacturing), but in others they're pretty screwed up (OPEC Cartel).
No where in there is atheism required. Since it is not required, it is ignored. Just like Christianity is ignored. Neither atheism or Christianity have anything to do with the application of Marxism.
To sum up: Atheism is neither necessary or required to explain Marxism or its failure. To do so is to engage in Cold War hyperbole.
Rather, fundamental economics shows us why Marxism failed -- monopolistic lack of competition. Something you also get with unregulated capitalism.
Posted by: raven
|
July 24, 2010 10:27 AM
You are an idiot troll. Sorry about not being snarky but you aren't worth the effort.
Not letting someone run a blog on Scienceblogs isn't censorship. Scienceblogs isn't the entire internet. PepsiCo still has a zillion venues to get its messages out. Motl is still being an obnoxious kook ranting and raving somewhere.
People have a right to say whatever they want. They don't have a right to say it wherever they want, especially on someone else's private property.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 10:27 AM
Happy to help with both. In your usual halfwitted way, you have read into the post something that is not there: that Sb management consulted the bloggers does not mean the latter had a veto. In any case, why would it be a problem if they had? Being able to blog on Scienceblogs is not part of the right of free expression, and there is no reason to prefer Sb management deciding who shall do so, over the existing bloggers doing so.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 10:39 AM
Quote from Motl
Luis Diaz, you misread the quote. It is from Motl, who declined the SB offer. Much to the relief of folks like PZ. Who doesn't have that much power with SB.Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 24, 2010 10:40 AM
Anthony Flew. Steve Beren. Kirk Cameron. Francis Collins. Eugene D. Genovese. Peter Hitchens. CS Lewis.
Should we doubt their words, too? They were all atheists. Does that one-time declaration ever leave?
And if it does not, then should we posit that Kirk Cameron, for example, has seen the money-making potential of the sheep and is just, like any sociopath, exploiting people for their emotional beliefs? I would not be surprised. My life experience (as a former CPA heavily involved in the whole 'Christian industry') tells me very many in that field are, in fact, not Christian. Just money-making sociopaths exploiting religion.
But lets assume it was, as you said, a matter of convenience.
Who cares? Stalin was raised a Christian and went to Christian schools during the most important formative years of his life. Yet he was about an immoral ass as you can possible get...
And it wasn't because he went to atheist school. Nor was it about Marxism which does not need atheism to explain it. In fact, many many Marxists are Christians, Buddhists, whatever. Because Marxism, though partially derived from Christianity, is as economic concept, not a religious concept.
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 10:40 AM
This is the problem. Who said that PZ is the warden of the "club"? Or that he should be. He seems to treat this club as his own. I don't like it. You do, I don't like you either.
Oh look another control freak chastising me to dare criticizing the big leader. Perhaps I missed the part where SB is PZ Myers and pals property.
Imagine, if you are even capable, the following scneario. There's this small company. Some employees are very important to this company. The boss thinks about hiring someone else. Some of these employees don't like the chap, so they "amuse" themselves and "Laugh it out loud" to the prospect of this hiring, and of course they won't accept it, and of course he won't be hired.
If you really do not see an issue here, I'm not surprised.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 24, 2010 10:44 AM
you're deluded
Also, the employee/boss analogy is weak.
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 10:48 AM
I did not misread *that* quote, but perhaps I misread *this* quote:
The implication is that the so-called "blogger community" had a veto power, something that Lubos flatly denies to be the case. Now either PZ is exagerating his charming abilities, or he isn't. The two quotes are incompatible to each other.
Even if PZ is not exagerating, I find it a rather unhealthy system.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 10:52 AM
If you see any issue here other than the rational bloggers don't want be associated with a loon, you are a paranoid delusional fool. The bloggers don't control management, but wise management will listen. And it sounds like Motl, from the quote in PZ's post, declined anyway for his own reasons (lack of control). Where is your problem?Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 10:53 AM
Perhaps you have a better one. Apparently, even PZ sees it this way, with the "Strike" maneuver and all.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
July 24, 2010 10:53 AM
Luis, where's this veto you speak of?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 10:56 AM
Still bad analogy. And still means nothing if Motl declined SB's offer for his own reasons. What part of that don't you understand?Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 24, 2010 10:57 AM
I pointed out the limitations of the labor/management trope in this case in the original 'on strike' thread. And I don't need a better analogy because I understand the real situation well enough.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/KcHdXS83uenKxZ01bRjuS33Mb0fC_VLM7a8-#d6904
|
July 24, 2010 10:59 AM
Dias,
I don't see a claim or implication of veto power in the statement, at all. It's what you want to see, so that's what you see.
There was a consensus they didn't want a nutsack like Motl in their midst. Period.
Motl claims he turned down an invite, if we are to believe him.
There's nothing incompatible there.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 11:01 AM
MosesZD,
Tosh:
"Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first still far from being communism; indeed, it is still mostly an abstraction."
- Karl Marx, Private Property and Communism 1844. Moreover, all states where the government has been professedly Marxist have promoted atheism as part of their ideology.
Don't. Be. Silly. Jesus, if he lived at all, did so 1800 years before Marxism was formulated. We know effectively nothing about his real opinions, assuming he lived, but the Jesus of the gospels does not appear to be a dialectical and historical materialist.
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 11:02 AM
My last got truncated. It should conclude:
Marx disagrees with you, as does Stalin.
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 11:04 AM
You're telling me that he isn't parading his and his pals power to decide who is or isn't kosher in this particular ring.
Because that's all my "paranoia" is down to. Basic stuff. And I don't appreciate it. Basic stuff too.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/KcHdXS83uenKxZ01bRjuS33Mb0fC_VLM7a8-#d6904
|
July 24, 2010 11:07 AM
Dias
Exactly, except you do not appear to be very adept at listening.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
July 24, 2010 11:09 AM
Luis:
Ah yes. You've obviously never hired anyone.
I have, many times. Here's the thing: You have got to hire someone that will work well with your team. "Team building" may be odious corporate speak, but it's one of the truthful ones.
There is nothing wrong with rejecting someone who will not fit in.
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 11:11 AM
Ok then.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 11:13 AM
Your paranoia is seeing things that aren't there. Nothing basic here except your inability to read and listen. Motl turned down the SB offer because he didn't get control of the back end of the blog, not because of what the blogger thought. What is your real problem? It seems to be seeing shadows where no exist.Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 24, 2010 11:19 AM
@ Moses, 106
Hitler was never a professed atheist. The communists on the other hand were affiliated with political movements that prescribed atheism over theism.
I have to quibble with your characterization here, because if you can only be an atheist if you've never been trained into a religious mindset, then I don't make the cut.
People often kill for their convictions, no matter what those convictions are. To me the flaw in noting the atheism of Stalin and Pol Pot is that atheism is a non-conviction. It seems far more likely to me that they were telling themselves that the killing was necessary for the glory of the proletarian (or some such) than the non-glory of something they don't believe in.
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 11:30 AM
What's funny between your "let's bury the troll" behavior is that in order to do it, you guys contradict each others. Very amusing.
Nerd is simply missing the point, saying that the bloggers didn't have any power (strawman), while ODS is saying that this is simply a fact of corporate life, thus it should be the same thing in a science blog ring. Cause science blog rings work better if they are run like corporations, dontcha know?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 24, 2010 11:34 AM
Different people will have different interpretations. What's so amusing about that?
Posted by: Luis Dias
|
July 24, 2010 11:43 AM
It's amusing when it becomes more important to lambast someone than to make sense.
Posted by: woozalia
|
July 24, 2010 11:43 AM
Just a nitpick -- I'd say it is arguably censorship within ScienceBlogs, but it's debatable whether there's anything wrong with that.By much the same token, I describe as "censorship" Conpedia's spam-filtering of the word "Rationalwiki", and their admins' swift removal of any RW-related comment that manages to get in past the automatic filter. It's only wrong, however, because Conpedia claims to be trustworthy and unbiased.
Genuine spam filtering, however, can only be called censorship if spam can be considered speech; I would argue that it is not.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 11:45 AM
They don't. And you still miss the point that Motl turned down the blog for his own reasons. Keep up the paranoia speak by ignoring truths that negate your paranoia.Have you ever hired someone, or been part of the hiring process? I have. And believe me, my opinion is worthless compared to my bosses, who do the actual hiring. But, my opinion can influence them a little.News for you clueless paranoid, SB is a corporation, with a corporate structure. Still with the strawmen. I had better buy more shares in Strawmen Inc., division of Acme Corp....Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
July 24, 2010 11:47 AM
Luis:
Well, at least you're admitting you're a troll.
I'll break my points down for you:
1) Your analogy was crap. You would have known it was crap if you actually had any experience as a supervisor. But competence evidently isn't your strong suit.
2) ScienceBlogs exists to make money (hence the advertising). Which means that you do have to consider who is working for you when you offer them a blog on this platform. If your readership leaves in disgust, you are going to lose money. The other bloggers were rightly amused/upset when someone who would damage their credibility (and that of ScienceBlogs in general) was offered a platform.
But, what do I know? Obviously I'm just some corporate shill.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 24, 2010 11:48 AM
We're not one monolithic group.
Sheesh, if it's not that we're an echo chamber or that we are experiencing "deep rifts" then it's that disagree with someone for different reasons (as if that's a bad thing).
Posted by: gadow
|
July 24, 2010 12:08 PM
Conservapædia? Ah, yes: the home of the Conservative Bible Project, where the Eternal and Unalterable Word of God is not considered conservative enough so it is being rewritten to be even more unalterably holy and true.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 24, 2010 12:13 PM
Luis, are you really having a fit over whether a blogger was not let onto Scienceblogs because of a democratic process including the other Sciencebloggers?*
* IF that was indeed the case
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 24, 2010 12:24 PM
Come now, PZ. Our crimes are far more extensive:-
1) Lets not forget baby-eating (I like mine with some nice extra-mature cheddar) for starters.
2) Then there is the fact that some atheists are lesbian/gay/transexual/bisexual (oh the humanity!) and those of us who are not LGBT ourselves for the most part treat LGBT people with respect. Indeed, we see them as equal in every respect (won't someone think of the children!), which pretty much proves that we are all a bunch of moral degenerates right there. Oh and, of course, it means that god hates us, and so we are responsible for all natural disasters.
3) Our depravity does not stop there either. We believe that women should be treated as fully equal members of society, deserving of respect and full equality before the law. We have the gall to suggest that no woman should ever be considered the property of any man, or of patriarchal society at large (shock, horror!). Worse still, we unambiguously and in all circumstances condemn rape and rape culture. What is more, it is not just lady atheists who take this stand; male atheists also support this position when they should be telling the women to get back to the bedroom/kitchen/maternity ward, thus proving themselves traitors to their gender!
All the above are high crimes to the fundies, and if the law wasn't so oppressive of the poor christians (I mean, stopping them imprisoning/torturing/murdering people who deny their god? For shame...), then they would even now be building up the pyres to give us our just desserts. The above list of offences is, of course, truncated. I could go on, but there may be impressionable people present and I wouldn't want to corrupt the innocent with my wanton, doubtless hell-bound decadence...
Posted by: KennyG
|
July 24, 2010 12:51 PM
This may have already been said, but I'm too lazy to read the comments.
Regarding the Conservapaedia pic: why would a biologist produce scholarly works about Stalin and Mao?
Posted by: arensb
|
July 24, 2010 1:03 PM
Just thought I'd mention that while "troika" works if you mean "trio" or "triad" (or, for that matter, "sled drawn by three horses"), if you meant to say "trinity", then the better word is "troitsa".
Posted by: circleh
|
July 24, 2010 1:08 PM
Becky Transsexual, who you banned some time ago, is now whining about you on Anthony Watts' blog.
I saw that battle Becky started. It was stupid. I would have banned her too. End of story!
Posted by: circleh
|
July 24, 2010 1:15 PM
Oh, Becky as a blog of her own here, if anyone wants to look. She attacked P Z there too.
http://beckytranssexual.wordpress.com/
Posted by: dgerard
|
July 24, 2010 1:18 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Luboš_Motl - the RW article on Dr Motl, just created.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 24, 2010 1:25 PM
Pfft, doesn't she know that the proper blog the banned go to to do that is The Intersection?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 1:25 PM
A blog by BeckyTransexual? I'll pass. Nothing cogent here, nothing cogent there...
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 24, 2010 1:29 PM
1) Lets not forget baby-eating (I like mine with some nice extra-mature cheddar) for starters.
Folks, if you wait until they're babies, you've waited too long. Fetuses are where it's at.
Posted by: jre
|
July 24, 2010 1:51 PM
Not really. Luboš is happy to run off the rails of standard physics any time it suits his politics. For example, he enthusiastically embraced Steven Goddard's wackaloon idea that the greenhouse effect on Venus is purely gravitational. This is crackpottery. Period.Note, for those who don't want to look it up: It's "Lubo ampersand pound 353 semicolon"
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
July 24, 2010 1:58 PM
KG 111
Whether all religions are authoritarian or not is immaterial (I think you agree - so not said in argument). The issue is some are - and when they are they are tools (along with the religion of corporatism) RWA leaders can use to leverage their influence and power. And more importantly whether under a atheist or a theist doctrine regimes that exists by leveraging overall RWA zeal tend toward the more deleterious for people in general.
The USA best not ignore this. We are dangerously close to being turned upside down - where the inmates run the asylum so to speak.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
July 24, 2010 2:08 PM
Dishonest attempt to understate your own evil! The word is crackercide!Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 24, 2010 2:11 PM
Well, Wowbagger, if a policeman were to stop you and start writing you a ticket, and you asked him "Why should you [prescriptive] give me a ticket? and he said I should [prescriptive] give you a ticket because the light was red [descriptive}--if you then said: "But officer, descriptive doesn't equal prescriptive"--or, as you've put this sort of argument in the past: "In and of itself, 'the light was red' has no prescriptive implications," what then might the officer reasonably do? I think he might continue writing the ticket; he might say: "You're the moron," or he might strike you with his billyclub. If he had a taste for logical disputes, however, he might say this: 'A statement of fact such as "the light is red," like millions of other statements of fact, can be readily and non-fallaciously used as a premise in a prescriptive argument. To accomplish this trick, we do have to combine the descriptive premise with at least one prescriptive one, but there's no logical objection to our doing so. E.g. Traffic safety is a good thing (prescriptive). Traffic laws and traffic lights are created in furtherance of traffic safety (descriptive). A given traffic light is green, red, or yellow (descriptive). You should (indeed, must) stop when the light is red (prescriptive). I should (and must) ticket you if you fail to stop. Often the full complement of premises isn't stated; but an argument that doesn't state all its premises isn't thereby fallacious."
Note also that the factual premise we're emphasizing here is necessary to the copper's argument; if the light was in fact green or yellow, he should not be ticketing you.
Note further that it's perfectly correct to say that the officer ticketed you because the light was red. It's correct because we simply do not have to state all the premises for our action every time we justify that action.
Note further that it is not anywhere near as rational to say that the cop ticketed you because of his mustache.
(I'd also add that you've improperly brought in an evidentiary hurdle that simply doesn't exist--namely that to prove that Stalin and other communists did what they did because of atheism, one must show "that we [atheists] all defer to a document or creed or dogma that provides instruction on how atheists ought to act." There's no need in the copper's case for us to prove that there's some document or dogma that all policemen everywhere must defer to. There may be countries where a red light means "go," or where the penalty for running a red light is something other than a ticket.)
Atheism (i.e. "there is no god," or "there probably is no god") winds up as a premise (and a necessary one) in prescriptive arguments every bit as readily as "the light was red." E.g. God doesn't exist (descriptive premise). Truth (or accuracy) is something one should adhere to (prescriptive premise). Prescriptive conclusion: I should be an atheist, you should be an atheist, you should not espouse theism, you should oppose theism, everyone else should be atheists, and so on.
Or take this somewhat more complex example:
It doesn't state all its premises; and it contains an additional descriptive premise ("[There is] no objective enforcement of a benign morality on us,"), but the premise of atheism ("there are no gods") is plainly necessary if more than one of ts conclusions are to follow(e.g. "we ought to reject out of hand any claims to morality based on theocratic morality as false" and "we should not aspire to build a just society on lies."). If we then say that P.Z. Myers rejects theism as a basis for a just society because he's an atheist, nobody regards that as a fallacious statement. Nor does anybody think it in the least degree rational to say that "he rejects theism as a basis of a just society becaue of his beard."
Confronted by Lenin and his followers, who were quite explicit when formulating their policies on religion that one of their goals was the furthering of atheism, it would only make sense to say that they were not acting "because of atheism" if you could provide evidence that they were either lying or self-deceived regarding their stated motives. In all the discussions that I've seen on this board, no one has yet presented any such evidence.
(For evidence of explicit promotion of atheism by communist regimes, see:
Or this, from the Albanian Constitution of 1976: "The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.[Article 37]")
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 24, 2010 2:22 PM
His bodyguard insists he said mass every night during the Great Patriotic War.But I doubt I'll be able to find the interview in the tubes.
Posted by: Anri
|
July 24, 2010 2:35 PM
This, KG, yes indeedy.
It seems to me that he best response to the "Well, Stalin was an atheist!" bit is to say:
"Yes. Totalitarian dictatorships are bad no matter who runs them. We honestly do believe that bowing down to a single, uncheckable, omnipotent leader is a bad thing. That's one reason why we think atheism is good."
- - -
As a couple of other posters have pointed out, you might be reading that into the quote, but that's not what the quote said. You might be having some trouble getting the point being made, so I'll spell it out for you.
What happened is that a group of people, calling themselves ScienceBlogs, and (presumably) valuing the associations with that group name, reviewed the output of someone who was being considered for carrying that name as well. They looked over the kinds of things he said in the past, made the not-altogether-crazy assumption that he would continue in the same vein, and decided, as a group (hence 'consensus') that they didn't want the SB name linked with his output.
That's not censorship.
That's you approaching a company about a product you're interested in having marketed, and having them say "Hmm, your product kills baby seals and causes cancer of the genitals. Nah, we'd just as soon not put our brand name on that. Try PepsiCo, down the street."
Really?
You'd be comfortable with anyone associating themselves with your name, or that of your organization, and posting publicly?
Might wanna think that over a bit first.
Honestly, do so. Imagine, you're the member of an organized blog group, well-known and well-regarded. You would feel obligated to vote in any and all comers?
Really? NAMBLA? The NAAWP? The Goonswarm? The boys from /b/?
You really need to learn the difference between censorship, and mere lack of advocacy.
Posted by: grudgedk
|
July 24, 2010 2:36 PM
Except that actions speak louder than words. Many people claim atheism. But atheism is not about what you say, it's about what you believe and what you do. It is as absurd to claim that "Stalin was not a Chrisitan" for reestablishing the ROC, as it is to claim that "William J. Simmons was not a racist" for reestablishing the KKK. Obviously. Because as we all know the Soviet Union was very pro-Nazi Germany, and of course Hitler was widely known for his tolerant attitude towards communism. Unfortunately your claim is easily falsifiable as the ROC wasn't re-established until after the battle of Stalingrad. This means that by the time the ROC was re-established, The Red Army was already chasing the routed Axis forces back across the steppes, and racing towards Berlin, allowing the British and American forces a shot at landing at Normandy.Additionally, Stalin worked to expand the influence of the ROC after the war. Why would he do that? The man who shortly before the war instigated "The Great Purge" practically crippling The Red Army, because of questionable loyalty, gave away power to the ROC for nothing in return. This man wasn't a Christian? Please.
Posted by: D
|
July 24, 2010 2:37 PM
Aaron Baker, your lengthy exposition is deeply flawed. You are trying to conflate a premise with a conclusion. Atheism, as a premise, leads no where alone. With other things, it can lead nearly anywhere. Anyone can commit atrocities in the name of anything. That has no bearing on whether that anything causes or leads to anyone commit atrocities. For the latter to be the case, the anything has to proscribe such or set up a system that leads to it.
Posted by: Colin S. Miller
|
July 24, 2010 2:41 PM
I notice that Conservæpedia don't have an article on Joseph Kony, therefor they support his Xianity-inspired actions.
Posted by: Dae
|
July 24, 2010 2:42 PM
Curious about Motl's "tasteless and eyeball-busting scrambled layouts," I clicked the link and read the article on his page. It's definitely worth a visit if you can handle the visual pain - the comments are truly wonderful comedy. More than half of them are by Motl himself, and about half of his text is him being condescendingly nasty to the commenters who criticized his article. They also, naturally, don't address the issues that the commenters brought up.
Just one of the gems.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 24, 2010 3:00 PM
D wrote:
D, I think I went to great pains to make clear I was not saying that atheism, alone, leads to a prescriptive conclusion. Alone, it clearly does not. However, the combination of atheism with other premises, including at least one prescriptive premise, does assuredly lead to prescriptive conclusions. (This latter statement is not a conflation of premises with conclusions--it's just a correct (and, I think, banally obvious) statement about a kind of argument (one that includes descriptive AND prescriptive premises) that people make all the time.)
(If, as a matter of usage, you prefer to say that atheism leads nowhere, but the combination of atheism with other premises does, I don't object, but I don't see how that affects anything of substance here.)
I would further agree that, in theory at least, anyone can commit atrocities in the name of anything. Hitler, a devout vegetarian, could have murdered people in the name of vegetarianism, if he'd wanted to. But as a matter of historical fact, people have committed atrocities in the name of some propositions, and not of others. Atheism, unfortunately, has been one of the former kind of propositions. This fact (e.g. the provision from the Albanian Constitution above was intended and construed as a ban on all religious practices, and people were certainly jailed and worse for violating it) doesn't stop being a fact because it's unwelcome.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 24, 2010 3:02 PM
Italic fail above; sorry
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 24, 2010 3:22 PM
circleh @150
Yeah, Becky's been trying to troll my blog for the last week. Like the parody troll, Becky is, her supposed "contrition" has absolutely no presence on the web, Becky's still trying to troll everyone involved in that thread and hir conduct on the thread itself was pretty pathetic deliberate trolling the whole way through.
I prefer to think of hir in past terms, as an annoying faux-trans-parody-troll jackass who is best left forgotten.
Posted by: D
|
July 24, 2010 3:23 PM
Alright, my mistake. Though I am now at a loss at what you were trying to get at with your post. You start in what seemed a counter to Wowbagger's statement, but by your clarification, your post is simply a tangent to it stating a logical truism?
Posted by: KG
|
July 24, 2010 3:25 PM
- grudgedkYou make yourself look a complete idiot with nonsense like this and rightly, no Christian you try such bullshit on is going to take you seriously for a moment. The reason Stalin re-established the Russian Orthodox Church is abundantly clear: he needed its support. Here's wikipedia:
"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.
Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938. During World War II, the Church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization, after the NKVD had recruited the new metropolitan, the first after the revolution, as a secret agent. Thousands of parishes were reactivated until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time."
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 24, 2010 3:25 PM
grudgedk wrote:
I don't know what you mean exactly by "re-established," but the Soviet authorities relaxed their hostility to the Russian Orthodox Church well before Stalingrad.
See, e.g. from Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won:
The battle of Stalingrad didn't start till July of '42 and didn't end till February of '43.
Btw, there was much brutal slogging after Stalingrad (Kursk, for the biggest, but not the sole, example). It's a long time before one should speak of chasing the routed Germans across the steppes.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 24, 2010 3:25 PM
Motl's updates to his blogpost are an even bigger mass of crazy.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
July 24, 2010 3:34 PM
Defintitely:
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 24, 2010 3:37 PM
What I'm trying to show is that certain arguments and assertions (which I think in other contexts are uncontroversial) become the objects of a rhetorical scorched-earth campaign when I make them here, with regard to atheism. Evidently, my argument as applied to atheism strikes many people here as anything but obviously true. Thus the lengthy argumentation (some will say "logic-chopping") of the earlier post.
Posted by: cayborduin
|
July 24, 2010 4:49 PM
Doesn't Watts know it's Fritos and Mountain Dew? Code Monkey
Posted by: Doodle Bean
|
July 24, 2010 5:39 PM
Conservapædia has yet to offer any scholarly works concerning the murderous religious regimes of the Inquisition, the Conquest of the Americas, the Holy Roman Empire, the Czars of Russia, the Armenian Genocide and Israel oppression of Arabs, amongst others.
Posted by: Moshe Reuveni
|
July 24, 2010 6:22 PM
I was annoyed to discover Conservapedia is using a PZ Myers photo from my Flickr page on their PZ Myers page. Taken during the GAC at Melbourne a few months ago, the photo - like all the rest of my photos - is under a Creative Commons license, so they're not infringing rights.
One solution would be for me to pull the photo off, but I'd hate to resort to that because of Conservapedia. So far I posted a comment on the photo saying what I think of them.
Any advice would be appreciated!
Posted by: JacobCH
|
July 24, 2010 6:25 PM
I have to admit I've paid no attention at all to conservapædia until now but this Schlafly guy's name sounds familiar. Is he the same guy that badgered Lenski for his "raw data"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 6:37 PM
Same fool, who is a guinea (21S) short of a pound (20S).Posted by: ljdursi
|
July 24, 2010 6:39 PM
@dgerard (#92)
Disagree; he's totally a crackpot. Read any of his blog posts on climate, or politics, or..
It's not at all uncommon for crackpots to have one narrow area of competence. He was a decent string theorist for a while (for whatever the hell that's worth) - fine. But he is 100% crackpot.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 24, 2010 6:41 PM
Not only that, but his mother is...
*cue spooky music
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY
Posted by: Teddydeedodu
|
July 24, 2010 9:28 PM
Nerd of Redhead @180
"It's not at all uncommon for crackpots to have one narrow area of competence. He was a decent string theorist for a while (for whatever the hell that's worth) - fine. But he is 100% crackpot."
Yeah, Motl kinda reminds me of a more sociopathic- egocentric-self-serving version of a sociopathic-egocentric-self-serving Sheldon (Big Bang Theory). The only difference is that there is not just one North Korean nerd genius to tell him that he is just a douchebag but a whole slew of them from all around the world.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 24, 2010 9:45 PM
ljdursi did post #180, not me. Never mind that I agree with the observation, having briefly looked in on Motl's blog. But proper credit should be given.Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 24, 2010 10:02 PM
Conservapædia; Julius Cæsar; anæmia; hæmorrhage; septicæmia . . . .
And with a change in one letter, you get fœtid and fœtor.
It works! It works! You can be effetely European all day long!
Posted by: tonysidaway
|
July 24, 2010 10:47 PM
I thought it interesting that Dr Motl said he doesn't bookmark any scienceblogs blog and he has only heard of this one, Tim Lambert's Deltoid, and Dr Connolley's Stoat.
I happen to subscribe to a number of blogs where he has posted often enough to be a well known character with a known behavioral history. And sure enough, a Google search shows that in the past twelve months alone he has not only browsed but commented on the following Sb blogs: Stoat, Island of Doubt, Tomorrow's Table, and Uncertain Principles. Some of those comments are from less than two weeks ago.
So while Dr Motl may be quite truthfully telling us he doesn't actually bookmark any Sb blog, he clearly does not only read but actively converse on several of them up to the very recent past.
Posted by: circleh
|
July 24, 2010 11:11 PM
Why should anyone give a damn whether Stalin was religious or atheist? The facts are that he was a tyrant and a MASS MURDERER and that's all any logical person should care about!
Dale Husband
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 25, 2010 12:19 AM
Do you watch that show because you're a masochist, or is TVTropes being honest in comparing the show's nerdiness to Colbert Report or Robot chicken? From what I saw, uninformed of this, it was nearly intolerable; It was the majority sniping at the minority, the strong picking on the weak; A major failure of comedy, and just plain disgusting on its own.
I'll grant that it's possible that it's a hidden love letter to nerds, but I certainly didn't feel acknowledged as anything but a social oddity that must be marginalized and denigrated.
Posted by: dtmeister
|
July 25, 2010 1:22 AM
Motl singing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZxPTRfztsE
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 25, 2010 6:42 AM
Heh. I clicked on PZ's post's link to Watts and read the OP and comments.
One would never guess it's an AGW denialist site! :)
The lunacy level there was quite sufficient, I shan't be clicking on the succeeding links.
--
Still, makes me appreciate the perspective of first-time visitors here.
One would never guess this is an atheist, liberal scientific site.
Posted by: El Bastardo
|
July 25, 2010 10:15 AM
Dag you to heck. Got sucked in and wasted 20 minutes of my life (and probably sacrificed a few I.Q. points) to that CONservabloggia. Sheesh, the pure BS dripping form every article is astounding. Is it jsut me or do they make calims, and the links to the citations are just circular links around their site? No actual citations at all, anywhere.
Then again, who needs proof when you have faith.
Posted by: P_Smith
|
July 25, 2010 12:51 PM
There are three truths the rabidly religious don't want to admit:
(1) Religion and morality have nothing to do with each other.
(2) Every atrocity throughout history was committed by groups that claimed absolute certainty.
Regarding 1, when you point out pedophile priests, terrorists like James Kopp, Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder or the Ku Klux Klowns, the religious will lie and say, "They're not true christians!"
Regarding 2, while it is true that the Soviet Union, PR China and North Korea (plus a few others) were communist states that were officially atheist and committed atrocities, there are a dozen examples of religious-based states for which the same could be said.
Here's the third point: religion is an ideology, nothing more, in the absence of proof for any "gods". There is no difference between the most hardline Marxist/Leninist dogma and that of any religion. If anyone tells you otherwise, ask them why North Korea talks of the Kim Il Sung as a "god".
If the godbots were to tell and admit the truth, their attacks on atheists and scientific study would collapse under the weight of their own hypocrisy.
.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 25, 2010 10:54 PM
Luis Dias:
"This is the problem. Who said that PZ is the warden of the "club"? Or that he should be. He seems to treat this club as his own. I don't like it. You do, I don't like you either."
I have never fucking talked to you before or have any idea who you are. Correction. I HAD no idea who you were. Now I got a good idea that you're a jerk. Also who the fuck is taking about PZ. I said that if Science Blogs turned him down it wouldn't be censorship. Turning him down and banning him from commenting would be censorship.
That said, the guy is a fucking nut.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
July 26, 2010 10:23 AM
Wow! Watts, Motl and Schlafly--a trifecta of odious little turds. If one is known by the enemies one keeps, you're doing very well.
Posted by: toth
|
July 26, 2010 10:58 AM
Essay of the day: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?
It has to be read to be believed.
Posted by: darth_borehd
|
July 26, 2010 4:03 PM
Pol Pot was Buddhist, and an extremist fundamentalist one at that. He justified the actions of his regime by using his Buddhist ideals. He was not atheist, unless you claim all Buddhists are atheist, which is a silly argument.
Stalin claimed to follow Communist ideals, but reinstated the Catholic church and said he believed in ghosts. Even without that, his so-called non-belief had nothing to do with his actions. His adherence to Communism did.
Mao embraced Communism which also includes the rejection of religion. Again, his actions were motivated by Communism, not his non-belief in Gods.
Posted by: undularbore
|
July 28, 2010 1:40 PM
Haven't read any of the thread but wanted to say: PZ, I love that prayer, may I use it too? :-D
I'm still giggling.