Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 29, 2010 12:30 PM

Honesty about where the evidence leads (not least to the idea that the Bible was written by self-interested holy men like Mohler) is a malignancy.

Thank you for showing why everyone intelligent should (and most do) reject your bizarre forms of dishonesty, Mohler.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 29, 2010 12:35 PM

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

And if we really were made in God's image it's quite certain that God only respects the latter, not his unthinking, groveling dependents.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 12:36 PM

Nice essay PZ. Been a couple of weeks, and this hits the Sunday spot.

I see coach olsen still hasn't got his thinking cap on. A problem of the religious, they take that thinking cap off to attend services, and forget to put it back on once they are done. Quoting a fuzzy thinking Xian Apologist is just meaningless drivel, just like the words are. Physical evidence, not arguments by authority (*snicker*), is how the atheist world operates. Too bad reality has a liberal/atheist bias.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 29, 2010 12:47 PM

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

I wish I could just quote some statement, meaningless to anyone who doesn't already agree and independent of any verifiable reality at people. It just looks so hard...

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2010 12:49 PM

Well, give Michael Dowd credit for reminding us where the rejection of biblical Christianity inevitably leads.

The majority of xians have already "rejected biblical xianity" long ago. The RCC, mainline Protestants and so on. Michael Down had nothing to do with it.

It resulted in modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization and US leadership in the world.

The fundies are just social evils, baggage being dragged along by our society for the ride and holding us back.

Posted by: cag | August 29, 2010 12:54 PM

I've been to two weddings this year, and there were no superstitious utterings at either. Both were performed in neutral settings. This from the godless west coast of Canada.

Mohler's drivel reminds me why christians are so determined to go to any medical length to avoid "promotion". Illness is not a godly trait, so someone ill will surely be judged harshly in the imaginary realm.

Posted by: M31 | August 29, 2010 12:57 PM

The faithists are betting a considerable proportion of their lives on a proposition for which there is no evidence.

My version of Pascal's wager goes like this: Given that there are an infinite number of things for which there is no evidence, it's a pretty poor bet to spend anything on one of them.

So we get lives free of creepy bronze age morality, and they get resentment and victimhood. Oh, and they're 'part of something larger than themselves'. (and made up, oops)

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 29, 2010 1:05 PM

As an atheist, telling me that I'll lose schools of theology is no deterrence at all — he might as well tell me that practicing regular bathing will cause me to lose the comforting company of lice.

As someone struggling to rid my house of fleas and who has recently (mostly) rid myself (although not my bookshelves) of the last remnants of theology, I can confirm that theology is just as uncomfortably itchy and insidious as an infestation of vermin. Unfortunately, I suspect it's also as much a part of the natural world as fleas. Those memes are easy to transmit and just as difficult to eradicate as fleas.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2010 1:08 PM

You see that open-faced resentment that the Other doesn't suffer some price for not going through the ritual and the costs the ritual and Norms in general have on the individual in a lot of angles, not just religion (though many are centralized around religion.

What I mean, is that there is this sort of recognition that following the Norms simply because "that's what you do" often has costs, such as lost weekends, lowered possibility, stifling and unfulfilling lives, lowered empathy, etc...

And there is often a desire to punish those who dare "get away" with rejecting these cages they built for themselves without paying a "price". This idea of inventing a "price" for the transgressors becomes central almost to all conservatism. Their enemies: "heretics", liberals, minority groups must pay for not subscribing to the dominant Norms or the "proper religion" and a price must be invented.

And this price must be invented because there is also a recognition that contrary to what they tell themselves about nasty punishments waiting any who transgress (social backlash, the threat of Hell), people who chain themselves with less garbage often seem happier, healthier, and less stressed out. There is a recognition that being true to yourself and reality might actually be a better, more fulfilling way to live your life.

But to justify the cowardice in differing to herd logic, they need to invent "the price".

This can come in simply reiterating the truthism and trying to shove it in the face of the Other, such as simply maintaining as loud as possible that "oh, you wait when Judgment Day comes" or "You aren't really happy and if you are it's because you are a demon come to tempt my children".

More often this comes in inventing or strengthening social costs. This can be subtle like needling the unbelievers with petty annoyances. This can be discriminatory by supporting bigotry or actively campaigning to either prevent rights to the "Other" group or actively take them away. This can be petty, such as the wingnut habit of opposing anything liberals support simply because liberals support it or because they view a group they despise or want to punish may benefit also in some way.

And it can be downright deadly such as the many instances of violent terrorism, creating such a hostile environment that young members of the Other group see suicide as their only option, random attacks, creating a culture of fear and hate where the Other group has to be careful about "outing themselves".

But all these things, whether its merely wingnut rage about a minority group or liberals or religious outrage at different religions, interpretations of the same religion, or atheist, is fixated on that idea of "Price".

Because if there isn't a "Price", then why do they live lives of quiet desperation? Why do they chain their possibilities in boxes so narrow that no one could fit into them perfectly naturally? Why do they hamper their empathy, their ability to love their children unconditionally, their sunk costs in supporting political actions that directly harm others? And why did they waste so much of their life on obvious lies, the principle of sunk costs urging them to adopt any justification that will make it pay off.

So, there needs to be a "Price", to justify it, to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay. Maybe a lie like a mantra, so often, more an open discrimination, bigotry, and desire to eliminate from the world.

And they resent it when they invent a perfectly good "Price" for the Other and we ruin it by chipping away at its petty evil, fighting for equality, fairness, justice, and reality.

And it's what we must do until those who would invent or perpetuate "Prices" are too small to enforce them to anyone anymore.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 29, 2010 1:10 PM

I've been to two weddings this year, and there were no superstitious utterings at either. Both were performed in neutral settings. This from the godless west coast of Canada.

Sadly these days it seem to be more funerals than weddings for me.

I did go to a wonderful one, if funeral's can be so described, that was officiated by a retired Anglican vicar (female). What was wonderful is that god did not come into it much. The deceased was an atheist, as was his immediate family. We did have a hymn, but it was a tune the deceased love (although not religious they liked hymn singing, and especially singing carols). There was also one prayer put into appease some distant relatives.

I talked to the vicar afterwards, and expressed my surprise at the lack of religious content given her vocation. She explained to me that 1) she wanted something to keep her occupied now she was retired, 2) she had experience at performing ceremonies (true, she was good), and 3) everyone is entitled to a decent send-off for their loved ones and that if she could help do that she was pleased to do so. She said it was entirely up to the family how much religion should be in the service and that it was their wishes that mattered.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 29, 2010 1:11 PM

Kaleberg5, as someone who has received pleasure from both music and masturbation, I submit that music and masturbation has done me more good then spirituality.

Posted by: Free Thinker | August 29, 2010 1:13 PM

"Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc." Richard Dawkins

Posted by: Finch | August 29, 2010 1:14 PM

@22: I second the motion.

Posted by: Tulse | August 29, 2010 1:16 PM

What about this mysterious biblical price? If he means giving up the Bible wholesale, no — I've got a couple of copies on my bookshelves, and I'd even say that it's an indispensible work of literature in Western history, so it should continue to be taught and considered, just as we do the Gilgamesh and Thucydides and Herodotus.

Obligatory quote-mine:

"Immediately after his near-fatal heart surgery, formerly virulent atheist PZ Meyers had a different sort of change of heart. He now says he actually owns a Holy Bible, calls it "indispensible", and says it should be taught in schools..."

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2010 1:22 PM

wikipedia SBC

Trends
Data from church sources and independent surveys indicate that since 1990 membership of SBC churches has declined as a proportion of the American population.[59] Historically, the Convention grew throughout its history until 2007 when membership decreased by a net figure of nearly 40,000 members.[60] Total membership of about 16.2 million was flat over the same period, falling by 38,482, or 0.2 percent.

An important indicator for the health of the denomination is new baptisms which have decreased every year for seven of the last eight years, and as of 2008 have reached their lowest levels since 1987.[61]

According to the SBC, the Southern Baptists are declining. If Mohler had a brain, he might think about where being a drag on our society and trying to pretend mythology is real, is taking his cult.

Some projections have the SBC being cut in half in a few decades.

Posted by: Elf Sternberg | August 29, 2010 1:25 PM

Mohler has a thing for evolution, since he has another article entitled "Prettifying Darwin" up this Sunday, in which he talks about how any accommodation with evolutionary biology, any concession at all-- to deep time, natural selection, descent with modification, the emergence of complexity-- is a disaster for the faithful.

Scientific American has an article entitled "Faking It," in which social scientists performed a series of clever experiments, giving batches of people authentic designer sunglasses. They had the brand name on them, but half the participants were told the glasses were cheap knockoffs, not the real thing. The participants were then given different tasks: some were asked to play accumulation games that enabled cheating, others simple tasks that permitted cheating, and a third group asked to answer a survey about their peers' truthfulness and trustworthiness. The result was striking: while 30% of those who believed their glasses were real cheated, and believed that others would cheat and were generally untrustworthy, 70% of those who believed their glasses were counterfeit cheated and rated their peers as likely to cheat.

That's a pretty huge spread. The authors concluded: "Wearing counterfeit goods not only fails to bolster our ego and self-image the way we hope, it actually undermines our internal sense of authenticity. 'Faking it' makes us feel like phonies and cheaters on the inside, and this alienated, counterfeit 'self' leads to cheating and cynicism in the real world."

Mohler is fighting a losing battle: the more we push at the boundaries of knowledge and show that deep time, emergence, and so on are not only valid but have necessary explanatory power, the less authentic Mohler's shallow Christianity becomes. Every time doctor's save a life with drugs derived from following descent, or cancer cures derived from understanding the evolutionary underpinnings of metastasis, Christians who mouth the YEC line know they're being phony, and that phoniness corrodes the very soul they're trying so hard to save.

Like anti-choice women who get abortions, those left are hollow creatures, alienated from their fellow human beings, with a narcissist's view of his world. Mohler, showing his concern for his creed over Michael Dowd's well-being, reveals himself to be among them.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 29, 2010 1:32 PM

Aw come on Janine, what do you really think?

Posted by: gotchaye | August 29, 2010 1:34 PM

To sorta play devil's advocate here, I think we'd all agree that Christopher Hitchens would be losing something by converting to Christianity on his deathbed (I think the man himself does a good job of explaining what that would be). We do want to say that there's something wrong with believing something which, while very comforting, just isn't justified or true.

There are theists who think much the same thing, except they think that it's atheism which is ridiculous and comforting. I disagree with them, but it does seem to me that often they're talking about values I can understand when they talk about why it's better to be a theist (because it's true). Calling this loss "biblical and theological" is confusing, but I could see someone describing it this way.

I'm not going to argue that it isn't repulsive to say that someone's views on religion are more important than their terminal cancer, but I think the views can properly be seen as important.

Posted by: UXO | August 29, 2010 1:38 PM

@coach olson: I won't defend PZ - he's more than capable of doing that himself. But fuck you. You can't parachute in here, drop a sanctimonious quite, then rely on our intrinsic humanity not to get called on it. And no, Lewis was not a genius, and appeal to authority is not valid argument.

We aren't "nice" atheists here. We're sick of your shit and we call you on it. Now fuckoff.

Posted by: j-brisby | August 29, 2010 1:49 PM

The price of atheism? Well, 'The God Delusion' set me back 42 bucks Canadian...

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2010 1:53 PM

coach olson-

Thank you for the tone argument @34, it's precisely as welcome and apt as tone arguments have always been, especially with relation to minority groups. Hopefully any future recognition of your own privileged position will in no way hamper your ability to put your full intellectual resources in coming up with future tone arguments worthy of your intellectual caliber.

With regards to your point @1, it's a quote. Indeed, I must caution you that quotes aren't really anything more or less than just quotes. What someone said is what someone said. It can feed literary tropes and it may seem to serve as either illumination or perhaps even as a point itself, but this is not the same as any manner of evidence, argumentation, or the like. This is why books that quote passages often add their own stuff, either their own fictional works or their own arguments based around such works.

For instance you yourself seem to have an implicit argument in your particular quote, first A) that God exists and thus can react to our declarations of humanity and be somehow related to the world we live in and B) that CS Lewis possessing great skills in the rhetorical arts and being, per your parlance @34, "a genius", somehow means that his open religiosity must have some credence and his quotes, much like Scripture, some argumentative quality.

Sadly, CS Lewis and the Bible are mere collections of rthetoric and Scriptural arguments and those built off Scriptural arguments are not arguments in the slightest and betray a complete sociopathic disregard for reality. Quoting them as if it was the same as constructing an argument and worse, treating them as if they somehow proved a point beyond the fact that you possess the ability to read and remember passages you have read, betrays a deep failure of cognition.

More to the point, it is quite tied to a problem of religious indoctrination, where quoting Scripture and obedience were the only two qualities desired of in children at the age of your raising and as such, your stunted mental capabilities struggle with the real world, unable to do anything else but appeal to textual authorities and recite things you have memorized, sacrificing your humanity for the ability to recite.

Try living instead, dear coach. There is a world to explore, realms of knowledge to acquire, life to live, outside the dingy walls of read and recite. Critical thought, individualism, a true experience of letting yourself be who you are deep inside rather than trying to shackle your possibilities to iron-bound rules handed down by petty authoritarians.

There are no chains other than the ones you've forged against your own chest.

Good day, sir, and hopefully this advice will do you a good turn.

But rest assured, I don't need you to take it. My life will be unaffected one way or the other. Merely, I believe such a life will do you a good turn if you are in the space to accept it. Anyways, good luck.

Posted by: ereador | August 29, 2010 1:55 PM

What cost, indeed. PZ, I think your sense that the fundie types seem to display some degree of envy is right on the money -- literally*, in a lot of cases. Even though some, like this jackass Mohler, try to cover it with the "reasoned theology" stance, they are clearly pissed off to see one of the dreaded atheists facing death in public with no mind to their ludicrous threats, but with courage and with humor, no less.

*The costs, at the very least financial, of a life of devotion and obeisance are not pains I'd wish on anyone. Challenge everything.

Posted by: lagerbaer | August 29, 2010 1:56 PM

Regarding the resentment towards us baggage-free atheists: When you find yourself in Germany, go to a traffic light. When it's red but there's no approaching car, just walk over the road and watch out for the hateful glances this daring act will cause a good part of the other pedestrians to shoot at you. Some elderly people might even turn their heads and shout something along the lines of "Are you colorblind or what?".

Although you did nothing that was completely wrong, and something that did no harm to anyone, you did not play by the rules. Even worse, you made them look like idiots with their sheepish waiting for a green traffic light when what they should wait for is that there are no cars approaching.

(Not sure if this happens in other countries as well. In the ones I've been to, people have a "think for yourself"-attitude when it comes to crossing the street)

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 1:57 PM

Methinks CoachOlsen is doubting himself. Why else would he attempt to defend that which should not be defended? A deity needs no help from mere mortals being omnipotent and omnipresenent--if it truly existed.

Posted by: duckphup | August 29, 2010 2:01 PM

Surely, those 'costs' have to do with giving-up 'Judeo-Christian values'.

I realize that's sort of vague, since it seems that even Christians aren't able to tell us what those 'values' actually are. When asked, they usually suffer a brief moment of discombobulation, then a hesitation during which they start making things up (they apparently think that everybody knows what they are, even if they-themselves don't), and lead-off with things like morality... freedom of religion... freedom of speech... etc.

After I reached my threshold of endurance on hearing such crap, I finally became resigned to the idea that if they couldn't define 'Judeo-Christian values', they it was my job to do it for them, by default. Judging from the reactions that I've elicited so-far (from Christ-cult God-bots), I think I've got it... and it fits in very well with Mohler's concerns:

Judeo-Christian values: Gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, lies, deceit, sophistry, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling, malignant stupidity.

Posted by: melior | August 29, 2010 2:09 PM

There are two kinds of people: those who say things out loud to an imaginary friend, and everyone else.

Posted by: Randomfactor | August 29, 2010 2:15 PM

Anyways call C.S. Lewis an idiot--

I won't go that far, but I certainly think his apologetics are incredibly (and surprisingly, given his reputation and frequent citation) weak.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | August 29, 2010 2:25 PM

...and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

God is like Burger King?

Great post...especially apt as I have spent this Sunday morning playing with my kid and going out for a leisurely breakfast with fam&friends. We beat the church crowd to the buffet by like 45 minutes. How do I bear such a cost week after week?

Also, the Chronic(what?)cles of Narnia was a lot more fun when I was a kid. I know that CS Lewis was a Christian apologist, but I mean c'mon-- he was mainly a writer of children's books, and not even great ones at that. Judy Blume, I guess, is a genius too? I mean Superfudge was da bomb.

Posted by: great.american.satan | August 29, 2010 2:31 PM

Fuckin' CS Lewis... Yuck. I was in rural Kansass for my brother's wedding and watching late night xtian programming (the only programming without cable), and there was this smilin' jokey catholic priest in black and white, delivering what started out as a feelgood sermon. Somehow, by the end of his quotations of The Screwtape Letters, he had a very hateful and disturbing look in his eyes. Can't recall the substance of the speech though. It was supposed to be for adolescents but it felt like war propaganda.

I watched the Chronic*what?*les of Narnia, and pretty much cracked up when I was reminded Yes, this movie has Santa Claus in it. And they introduced him with the same cinematography as the first appearance of the ring-wraiths in LOTR. CS Lewis. Genius!

-

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 29, 2010 2:33 PM

Cerberus, I left my faith behind when I realized it made no sense for an all powerful being to have a bunch of sycophants praising him and reflecting in his glory for all eternity.

I also think that some of gnostic though springs from this realization. This deity is just too insane and blood thirsty. But the gnostics did not want to give up on the idea of a creator.

Posted by: M31 | August 29, 2010 2:39 PM

ophelia.benson @ #54

Yes Yes Yes on Herodotus! He is careful to say that he is recording things people say, not that he necessarily believes them.

Of course, he loves stories of transgression and the comeuppance that happens thereafter, but don't we all?

My favorite Herodotus moment of all time was when his story of giant, gold-digging ants ("bigger than a fox, not so big as a dog") of northern India, which was used as evidence of his stupidity, actually turned out to be true.

Well, except for the mistranslation of 'marmot' into 'ant'.

Posted by: melior | August 29, 2010 2:41 PM

Yesterday I was trying to help a Muslim friend of mine figure out why "coveting" was considered a sin by Catholics. She maintained that if you acknowledge out loud your desire for your friend's possessions by telling her how nice they are, then that shouldn't count as a sin.

I had to explain that the whole point of the charade was for you to feel guilty, which motivates you to attend confession, thus hopefully leading to feelings of relief from guilt, resulting in a thankful financial contribution to the church.

She knew I was an ex-Catholic, but it was when I helpfully clarified that pretty much every puzzling feature of modern religion could be understood by similarly following the trail to the pocketbook that she began to suspect I was a skeptic.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 29, 2010 2:45 PM

I imagine that there are two kinds of people: those who I imagine say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom I imagine God says, "All right, then, have it your way," so, take that for what it's worth.

C. S. Lewis, edited by someone who knows the difference between make-believe and reality.

That's what you meant to type, right coach olson? Or did Lewis possess a magical CB that allows him to listen in on God when he's talking to other people?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 29, 2010 2:51 PM

How many posts before the troll gives us the "Gandalf-liar, lunatic or wizard" schtick?

Posted by: MS | August 29, 2010 2:56 PM

I get so tired of C.S. Lewis. He wasn't exactly orthodox by current evangelical/fundy standards, but they cite him incessantly. I think it's because he's one of the few people who can even remotely be considered an intellectual (an Oxford don, no less) who is even close to being on their side.

As I've related before, when I was a budding young skeptic in high school, several people, including my parents and my pastor suggested I read Lewis. I did. Except for The Screwtape Letters, which I enjoyed for the snark, I just didn't see what the big deal was. I found myself constantly wondering "Is this really the best they've got?"

He didn't make a single argument that a reasonably smart (if I do say so myself) teenager couldn't demolish. The writing wasn't horrible, by any means, but neither was it all that special. And yet you could just tell that everyone thought that as soon as I read him, I would see the error of my ways and re-convert to the faith of my fathers, dazzled by his brilliance and unanswerable logic. Didn't happen.

Not really relevant I guess, but is there a more boring series of children's books than The Narnia Chronicles? I can't figure out for the life of me why they're so popular. (Ecumenically I don't like Philip Pullman much, either.)

Posted by: hznfrst | August 29, 2010 2:58 PM

Coach Olson is channeling a Burger King commercial I wrote once, which for some inexplicable reason was never used. Their slogan used to be (and maybe still is) "Have It Your Way" - well, how about a version for Christ the King restaurants: "Have It Your Way, As Long As It's OUR Way!"

Posted by: Warthog | August 29, 2010 3:01 PM

I've been trying to track down a quote I heard on the radio recently. One of the second or third century Christian Fathers said that if the Bible was found to conflict seriously with science, we would have to reinterpret the Bible, as our understanding of it must have been fallacious.

I have been a Christian all my life, and have never felt there was any conflict between science and faith. Most historical Christians would have been astounded to hear that people seriously thought Genesis was more than a symbolic explanation of the relationship between God and His Creation. This kind of biblical literalism is a fairly recent phenomenon. Even Bishop Ussher, a patron of the sciences, would probably have abandoned his famous timeline if he had lived to see the progression of scientific understanding of God's creation.

OK, I'm done. You can start taunting me now. I'm just here to say that not all religionists think as a bloc. Your assumptions about me and how I vote and think are probably wrong.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 29, 2010 3:04 PM

We know all that, Warthog. The only thing we'll mock you for is for playing the martyr, going all "Go on, then. Feed me to the lions, I'm brave!"

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 29, 2010 3:11 PM

Hey Stushie, welcome back. And I see you brought a sockpuppet with you, how nice.

Would you like to come in for a nice hot cup of STFU, and some GTFO biscuits?

Posted by: Randomfactor | August 29, 2010 3:16 PM

I've been trying to track down a quote I heard on the radio recently. One of the second or third century Christian Fathers said that if the Bible was found to conflict seriously with science, we would have to reinterpret the Bible, as our understanding of it must have been fallacious.

Augustine, I believe:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/augustine.htm

Posted by: Randomfactor | August 29, 2010 3:21 PM

As for the cost involved in atheism, we don't get to sit quietly and absorb in our Sunday services, we're actually expected to contribute original content.

At least we can do so while sitting at home in our underwear and scratch as necessary.

Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 29, 2010 3:29 PM

I wonder if some of the resentment of some Christians towards atheists is that they feel the burden of a price they must pay — the tedious church services they attend, the offerings, the time wasted, the absurdity of the whole phenomenon — and atheists are escaping all that with no apparent loss of anything.

I don't wonder about that. I am certain of it.

I've written in other comments about how, in the military, I was frequently "offered" the opportunity to attend religious service on Sunday or perform some highly unpleasant task such as standing at attention in full dress uniform outside a church, or cleaning a latrine, or whatever.

I resisted this of course, and asked why, as an atheist, I should be subjected to punishment for not attending religious service. I don't remember the exact answer from the padre, but it went something like this:

"It would not be fair for a person to just say they don't believe in God and get a morning off while their peers have to go to church."

That's right, the damn priest considered his own services to be so unpleasant that it would be unfair NOT to punish someone who didn't attend them or something similar.

I've heard the same sentiment expressed by religious people more than once as well. They resent that atheists can sleep in during the churching hours. They detest that atheists don't have some man in a dress making their lives miserable. And although I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure it pisses them off that atheists don't have to be afraid of Hell.

hardcore god whallopers know they're talking shit, that's why they're so defensive about it.

Posted by: sandiseattle | August 29, 2010 3:34 PM

IMHO the 'price' of atheism is your confusion when you enter the afterlife, whatever form it may take. IMHO

Posted by: abb3w | August 29, 2010 3:38 PM

Warthog: I've been trying to track down a quote I heard on the radio recently. One of the second or third century Christian Fathers said that if the Bible was found to conflict seriously with science, we would have to reinterpret the Bible, as our understanding of it must have been fallacious.

Probably Saint Augustine of Hippo; particularly, De Genesi ad Litteram (Book I, section xix).

Wikiquote has that part in translation along with the original Latin - which is useful for sounding impressive.

(The full text of the book in the original Latin can be found here.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | August 29, 2010 3:43 PM

Dowd has cancer, a disease which could cause him pain, suffering, and death, and Mohler considers that less a matter of concern than that he doesn't accept Baptist doctrine.

Mohler could be a card-carrying villain.

Warning: that's a link to TV Tropes. If you click on that link, neither I nor PZ nor ScienceBlogs LLC nor Seed Media Group are in any way, shape or form responsible for the rest of your day, let alone your night.

Posted by: KG | August 29, 2010 3:47 PM

Anyways call C.S. Lewis an idiot-- he said it. Of course Lewis was brilliant,even an atheist knows that.

Nope. He was an idiot; and you're just an idiot quoting a better-known idiot. Anyone who could come up with that fuckwitted "trilemma"* nonsense has established their idiocy beyond all question.

*Just in case anyone hasn't come across it, Lewis claimed Jesus must be "liar, lunatic or lord", because of the claims made for him (and attributed to him) in the NT. There are at least three obvious alternatives (this is not mine, but I can't recall the source): "mistaken, misreported, or mythical". Myself, I think "misreported" is most likely: as a believing Jew (and if he existed at all, he was certainly that), Jesus would never have claimed divine status.

Posted by: sandiseattle | August 29, 2010 3:52 PM

Thumbs up to you Nerd, you have an opinion too!

As for "not well thought out." OMG ROTFLMAO

But of course one hallmark of atheism is the fallacy that anyone who believes in God/s is incapable of thinking. Its little bits of stupidity like that that make all of you so comic.

Posted by: pasadena beggar | August 29, 2010 3:52 PM

@61
yeah, I meant it as snark.

My favorite thing about Pharyngula is that no one accommodates idiots here. I've accommodated lunatics and godbothers my whole life--the prevailing paradigm, as you know, is that you have to put up with religious knuckleheads because the alternative is that you're uncivilized. A whole lot of us put up with a huge amount of crap, just because we didn't know it ISN'T being a dick if you call them idiots.

Posted by: David Evans | August 29, 2010 4:01 PM

Coach Olson: what Lewis actually wrote was

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"

which is rather more elegant than your version. And makes sense if you accept his premises, but is no sort of argument for accepting them.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | August 29, 2010 4:01 PM

sandiseattle @94

No, we believe that some defenders of the faith have artificially limited critical thinking skills and thus an impaired thought and often prone to making bad arguments, bizarre assumptions, and Dunning-Kruger leaps of stupidity.

Such as... I don't know, thinking atheists believe that theists are mindless zombies incapable of basic level cognition.

Also regarding your "confusion" thing.

Atheists believe in reality.

Thus, they wouldn't be "confused" if they encountered an "afterlife", they would seek to dissect it, understand it, comprehend it and add it to their scope of knowledge.

You are the one who takes things only superficially, believing in fairy tales, who if presented with a world so wholly hidden from any contact point with reality would simply bound into it without seeking to comprehend on any deep level.

In short, the afterlife doesn't exist and if it did, it would be wasted on you.

P.S. Any "deity" worth bowing and praying to wouldn't give a flying fuck if anyone bowed or prayed to it. It would instead want us to use our own life, own consciousness doing right by our fellow humans, building something there rather than dreaming of "pie in the sky when you die".

Not that it changes the sheer unlikelihood of any God existing, but it's worth noting that even if you were right, a God worth supporting, a God one shouldn't spend every moment of your being fighting to the death, is one one should treat like it doesn't exist. One which would want us to treat it like it didn't exist.

Posted by: Rincewind'smuse | August 29, 2010 4:14 PM

Anyways call C.S. Lewis an idiot-- he said it.

Posted by: Warthog | August 29, 2010 4:16 PM

Because I know who C. S. Lewis is, I know what you (and he) probably mean by this quote. However, the quote itself doesn't really say anything.

For example, let's say I have cancer. 1) I could say, "Thy will be done, God!" or 2) I could say, "I'm going to beat this cancer!" at which point God would apparently say, "Have it your way."

Or I could say, "Lord, support me in this time of trial and grant me the strength to bear up under my treatment in defeating this cancer," which will probably be just as effective as your saying "I'm going to beat this cancer!" We must work for what we pray for.

In any case, Coach Olson should have known better than to make a post like that in a place like this. OK, OK, I know...

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | August 29, 2010 4:20 PM

The cost of theism is to spend one's life in the psychological position of a child, with the deity and His/Her stand-in, clergy, both assuming a parental role of comforting, cajoling, urging, rule-making, judging, and punishing.

It's a way to remain dependent and secondary in one's own life story.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2010 4:21 PM

sandiseattle #94

But of course one hallmark of atheism is the fallacy that anyone who believes in God/s is incapable of thinking.

Since most atheists became atheists through thought and logic, we recognize the value of thinking. We realize many goddists would become atheists if only they did think about their beliefs. St. Paul encouraged not thinking:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:20-21 (NIV)

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8 (NIV)

Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20-21 (NIV)

Posted by: sandiseattle | August 29, 2010 4:28 PM

Cerberus, i'm certain you've been around here long enough to know that the general opinion of this crowd is that RELIGION=STUPIDITY and that any one who believes is a drooly, zero-thot, fundy incapable of anything other than duckspeak.

That being said, I will re-iterate here, I do think. Far more than some who comment here.
It really does amaze me how little some who proclaim atheism will give any respect to someone having an opinion that differs significantly from there own.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 4:30 PM

Yawn, an idjit theist like SandiSeattle will never get it. That requires a fully functioning non-delusional brain Sandi. And anyone who believes in something for which there is no solid evidence for, such as an imaginary deity, is already handicapped by having a delusional brain.

'Tis is on a roll lately. Must not be sailing, and is in the mood for snark.

Posted by: F | August 29, 2010 4:36 PM

I think Lewis had it right, intentionally or not.

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done,"

Your average unthinking follower

and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

Those who constantly claim to know the mind of God and the correct interpretation of the Bible. Like Mohler.

Posted by: blf | August 29, 2010 4:38 PM

as far as I know, Ussher's concern was to establish a universal historical timeline by crossreferencing the bible with various other ancient records …

I concur.

Fixin[g] a date for creation was just a sideeffect.

Maybe. As the Pfft! of all Knowledge puts it:

Ussher's specific choice of starting year may have been influenced by the then-widely-held belief that the Earth's potential duration was 6,000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

and:

Faced with inconsistent texts of the Torah, each with a different number of years between Flood and Creation, Ussher chose the Masoretic version. Partly his reasons were sound scholarly ones - the Masoretic text claims an unbroken history of careful transcription stretching back centuries - but his choice was confirmed for him because it placed Creation exactly four thousand years before 4 BC, the generally accepted date for the birth of Christ; moreover, he calculated, Solomon’s temple was completed in the year 3000 from creation, so that there were exactly 1000 years from the temple to Christ, who was the fulfilment of the Temple.

It seems more like he had in mind a specific date for creation, and found it easy (possibly for very sound reasons, based on what was available to him) to make the creation date happen when he intended it to.

Posted by: HughWillRidmee | August 29, 2010 4:40 PM

"That being said, I will re-iterate here, I do think. Far more than some who comment here."

It's(!) not about quantity - it's about quality. I know people who could think for days about whether Santa Claus comes down the chimney feet first or head first without ever understanding the fundemental silliness of their position.

Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | August 29, 2010 4:51 PM

I understand that the Jewish faith was and is very much a contract between God and his people. Hence words translated as covenant and testament and so on.

The idea rolls over into Christianity. The deal is you honour God and follow his rules and He looks after you in life (and guarantees some form of existence after death).

To someone honouring a contract, people who appear to get all the benefits without fulfilling their side of the contract are welshers and free-loaders.

Daft buggers. It's just a bronze age protection racket.

Posted by: Rincewind'smuse | August 29, 2010 4:53 PM

OK, I'm done. You can start taunting me now. I'm just here to say that not all religionists think as a bloc. Your assumptions about me and how I vote and think are probably wrong.

Posted by: vanharris | August 29, 2010 4:54 PM

sandiseattle, thinking is not sufficient in itself. Being an armchair philosopher or theologian only gets you so far, unless you go about acquiring sufficient understanding.

You need to work with a broad understanding of the accumulated sum of human knowledge, principally science, but also philosophy, psychology, history, religion, etc.

This ought to be sufficient to make you an atheist. However, there are people who still seem to turn a blind eye to the evidence, in favour of their preconceptions.

Posted by: KG | August 29, 2010 4:58 PM

I have been a Christian all my life, and have never felt there was any conflict between science and faith. - Warthog

Well, you've been wrong all your life: science is the antithesis of faith.

Stushie, sandiseattle,

Can you really do no better than these stupid, empty threats? Do you think they could possibly convince anyone who doesn't already believe them? What do you think you are achieving? Admittedly, you are irritating people, so I can only surmise that that's your aim.

Posted by: KG | August 29, 2010 5:04 PM

the general opinion of this crowd is that RELIGION=STUPIDITY and that any one who believes is a drooly, zero-thot, fundy incapable of anything other than duckspeak.- sandiseattle

You're a liar. Of course, this is the general opinion of you, but there are two self-proclaimed Christians, Leigh Williams and Scott Hatfield, who have been awarded the OM by vote of the commenters. Moreover we are all well aware of eminent scientists who are believers. We may well think their beliefs stupid, but that's different from thinking that they are stupid.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 29, 2010 5:09 PM

Cerberus @ 100:
"Atheists believe in reality.
Thus, they wouldn't be "confused" if they encountered an "afterlife", they would seek to dissect it, understand it, comprehend it and add it to their scope of knowledge."

-The brilliant Philip José Farmer wrote about the idea: "Traitor to the Living"
http://www.amazon.com/Traitor-Living-Philip-Jose-Farmer/dp/0812523970/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283115992&sr=1-1

Posted by: KG | August 29, 2010 5:10 PM

but acquiesced with "thy will be done," as we all must, whether we acknowledge God or not. - warthog

What utter crap. It's not even logically possible for someone who does not believe in a specific god to acquiesce to the will of that god, even if it were real.

Posted by: JediBear | August 29, 2010 5:14 PM

On the subject of Lewis, while it's true that few here will agree with him or find his arguments convincing, he was certainly a person of academic and literary note, a genius at least in the sense of his impact on culture.

While we might not consider Christian Apologetics a wholly worthy field of human endeavour, his works in it are both thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 5:17 PM

a genius at least in the sense of his impact on culture.

then Hitler was a genius.

so was Pol Pot.

so was George Bush.

yeah, somehow I'm not willing to accept your definition of "genius" there, genius.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 29, 2010 5:20 PM

More on Philip José Farmer, and adapting to strange circumstances: "A Barnstormer in Oz" has the protagonist entering the parallel reality of Oz, an environment to which he quicky adapts: "A Barnstormer In Oz"
http://www.amazon.com/Barnstormer-Oz-Philip-Jos%C3%A9-Farmer/dp/0425062740/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283116738&sr=8-1

...and the environment of Oz is exactly as credible as any religious description of an afterlife I have ever read.

And don´t make me link to that afterlife abomination for the religious; "Riverworld" with its completely secular existence.

Posted by: vanharris | August 29, 2010 5:25 PM

hyperdeath @ 131,

Whilst the afterlife is extremely improbable, it is more probable (by many orders of magnitude) than the afterlife theories of any particular religion being substantially correct.

It depends upon what you mean by an afterlife. It couldn't possibly be anything involving human personality, emotion, or memory, because we know that these reside in the brain. When that rots, there can't possibly be human personality, emotion, or memory.

Of course, if you factor in magic, it does become possible, because the god-thing could make a 'spirit' version of the physical brain, & download memories, etc. to reconstitute person-hood in 'spirit' form. Considering how life has evolved, & how religion has evolved, this scenario is clearly pure religious phantasy. Anyone who promotes this magical thinking is an idiot or illogical.

Posted by: Lyra | August 29, 2010 5:30 PM

So why pray? Your arguments seems to boil down to Que sera, sera, and I don't see what role praying plays. Surely even without prayer your god knows what you want, right, because of omniscience and all that? So to an outsider, it really looks like your god wants you to beg, and even then may still screw you over. What kind of abusive relationship is that?

Ultimately, the problem is that your proposed state of the world looks exactly like the world would without a god -- stuff happens, and asking a god for it not to produces outcome indistinguishable from chance. I hope you can see why atheists would find this state of affairs less than convincing.

Using the cancer analogy I've been poking at, let's say I get cancer and I decide to prayer.

"Dear God, please support me and grant me strength in this hour of need. Help me survive this terrible disease. Or, if it that is not your will, then please don't support me, don't grant me strength, and cause me to die from this terrible disease. Amen."

If you aren't trying to convince God to do something that he otherwise would not have done (He gave you cancer to kill you, you prayed, God changed his mind) then why did you just pray? If you think it was always God's will that he support you, give you strength, and help you survive, then you don't need to ask him to do that. After all, he was going to do it anyway. However, if it was his will that you die and you want his will to be done (you don't want to survive if that is against God's will), then why are asking him to help you at all? After all, you don't want something that is against his will.

It doesn't make sense to me. If the will of humans is completely unimportant and the will of God is all important, then you don't pray asking for things because what you want doesn't matter. Unless, of course, than you think it is God's will that you ask for what you want and that then he pay no attention to it at all. Which would be weird.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | August 29, 2010 5:44 PM

those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

I just assumed that those people were religious whackos. What other category of raving assholes would God be talking to? Not to me, certainly, 'cause I'm not listening.

But reading the comments and thinking a bit convinces me that Coach O was trying to scoff at the godless. So typical of Christians, to say something rudely idiotic.

Posted by: Ambrosia | August 29, 2010 5:51 PM

Well, tell me, if we are wrong about an afterlife, and death is the end of all things, what does it matter whether or not I spend my life believing that I will go to Heaven when I die?

Exactly. Think of all those Sunday morning tennis/golf games you've missed. All that time wasted listening to tedious church services.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | August 29, 2010 5:54 PM

sandiseattle #94

Please stop being so tedious.

Had you started from mentioning a sense of empathy with your fellow-beings, leading from that possibly to some sort of idea of spirituality, etcetera. you would have had the courtesy of debate. As it is, you jumped straight into your mouth with both feet by speaking of somethingof which you have no evidence.

Advance some sort of argument or don't bother the grown-ups.

Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com | August 29, 2010 5:55 PM

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

C. S. Lewis

And, really, if I could consider God as a real being, I'd make everything I can to be part of the second group, you know, not the ones who get down on their knees and mutter, but the ones who fight and struggle and obtain the right to live their life as they please, without the nosy interferings of a deity.

Posted by: randydudek | August 29, 2010 5:59 PM

Here is the harm in your Pascal's Wager.

Pick one. Then die.

 Azali
 Anglicanism
 Assyrian Church of the East
 Eastern Orthodox Church
 Oriental Orthodox Church
 Roman Catholic Church
: Protestantism
 Bible Student movement
 Christian Universalism
 Latter Day Saint movement
 Nontrinitarianism
 Swedenborgianism
 Unitarianism
 The Creativity Movement
 Ebionites
 Cerdonians
 Marcionism (not entirely Gnostic)
 Colorbasians
 Simonians
 Borborites
 Cainites
 Carpocratians
 Ophites
 Hermeticism
 Cathars
 Bogomils
 Paulicianism
 Tondrakians
 Mandaeanism
 Manichaeism
 Bagnolians
 Sethians
 Basilidians
 Thomasines
 Valentinians
 Bardesanites
 Ash'ari
 Kalam
 Maturidi
 Murji'ah
 Mu'tazili
 Ibadi (Only surviving sect)
 Azraqi
 Harūriyya
 Sufri
 Ismailism
 Mustaali / Bohra
 Nizari
 Jafari
 Twelvers
 Alawites
 Alevi / Bektashi
 Zaidiyyah
 Bektashi
 Chishti
 Mevlevi
 Naqshbandi
 Tariqah
 Quadiriyyah
 Suhrawardiyya
 Tijani
 Universal Sufism
 Hanafi
 Berailvi
 Deobandi
 Hanbali
 Maliki
 Shafi'i
 Ahl-e Haqq (Yarsan)
 Ahmadiyya
 Druze
 Moorish Science Temple of America
 Nation of Islam
 United Submitters International
 Zikri
 Orthodox Judaism
 Haredi Judaism
 Hasidic Judaism
 Modern Orthodox Judaism
 Conservative Judaism
 Masorti
 Conservadox Judaism
 Union for Traditional Judaism
 Reform Judaism
 Progressive Judaism
 Liberal Judaism
 Alternative Judaism
 Humanistic Judaism (not always identified as a religion)
 Jewish Renewal
 Reconstructionist Judaism
 Essenes
 Pharisees (ancestor of Rabbinic Judaism)
 Sadducees (possible ancestor of Karaite Judaism)
 Zealots
 Sicarii
 Ebionites
 Elkasites
 Nazarenes
 Sabbateans
 Frankists
 Mandaeism
 Sabians
 Sabians of Harran
 Mandaean Nasaraean Sabeans
 Nikaya schools (which have historically been called Hinayana in the West)
 Theravada
 Sri Lankan Amarapura Nikaya
 Sri Lankan Siam Nikaya
 Sri Lankan Ramañña Nikaya
 Bangladeshi Sangharaj Nikaya
 Bangladeshi Mahasthabir Nikaya
 Burmese Thudhamma Nikaya
 Vipassana tradition of Mahasi Sayadaw and disciples
 Burmese Shwekyin Nikaya
 Burmese Dvaya Nikaya
 Thai Maha Nikaya
 Dhammakaya Movement
 Thai Thammayut Nikaya
 Thai Forest Tradition
 Tradition of Ajahn Chah
 Mahayana
 Humanistic Buddhism
 Madhyamaka
 Prāsangika
 Svatantrika
 Sanlun (Three Treatise school)
 Sanron
 Maha-Madhyamaka (Jonangpa)
 Nichiren
 Nichiren Shū
 Nichiren Shōshū
 Nipponzan Myōhōji
 Soka Gakkai
 Pure Land
 Jodo Shu
 Jodo Shinshu
 Tathagatagarbha
 Daśabhūmikā (absorbed into Huayan)
 Huayan school (Avataṃsaka)
 Hwaeom
 Kegon
 Tiantai
 Tendai
 Cheontae
 Yogācāra
 Cittamatra in Tibet
 Wei-Shi (Consciousness-only school) or Faxiang (Dharma-character school)
 Beopsang
 Hossō
 Chan / Zen / Seon / Thien
 Caodong
 Sōtō
 Keizan line
 Jakuen line
 Giin line
 Linji
 Rinzai
 Ōbaku
 Fuke Zen
 Won Buddhism: Korean Reformed Buddhism
 Kwan Um School of Zen
 Sanbo Kyodan
 Vajrayana
 Shingon Buddhism
 Tibetan Buddhism
 Bön
 Gelukpa
 Kagyupa
 Dagpo Kagyu
 Karma Kagyu
 Barom Kagyu
 Tsalpa Kagyu
 Phagdru Kagyu
 Drikung Kagyu
 Drukpa Kagyu
 Shangpa Kagyu
 Nyingmapa
 Sakyapa
 Jonangpa
 New Buddhist movements
 Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph)[1]
 Diamond Way
 Friends of the Western Buddhist Order
 New Kadampa Tradition[2]
 Share International
 True Buddha School
 Vipassana movement
 Lingayatism
 Shaivism
 Shaktism
 Tantrism
 Ananda Marga[3]
 Smartism
 Vaishnavism
 Gaudiya Vaishnavism
 ISKCON (Hare Krishna)[4]
 Hindu reform movements
 Arya Samaj[5]
 Brahmo Samaj
 Hinduism in Indonesia
 Nyaya
 Purva mimamsa
 Samkhya
 Vaisheshika
 Vedanta (Uttara Mimamsa)
 Advaita Vedanta
 Integral Yoga
 Vishishtadvaita
 Dvaita Vedanta
 Yoga
 Ashtanga Yoga
 Bhakti Yoga
 Hatha yoga
 Siddha Yoga
 Surat Shabd Yoga
 Tantric Yoga
 Sahaja Yoga
 Shvetambara
 Khalsa
 Nihang
 Namdhari or Kuka Sikhs
 Sahajdhari Sikh
 Ravidasi
 Bábism
 Bahá'í Faith
 Mandaeism
 Manichaeism
 Mazdakism
 Yazdânism
 Alevi
 Yarsani
 Yazidi
 Zoroastrianism
 Zurvanism
 Neo-Confucianism
 New Confucianism
 Caodaism
 Chinese folk religion
 Chondogyo
 Falun Gong
 Hoa Hao
 I-Kuan Tao
 Jeung San Do
 Legalism
 Mohism
 Oomoto
 Seicho-No-Ie
 Tenrikyo
 Batuque
 Candomblé
 Dahomey mythology
 Haitian mythology
 Kumina
 Macumba
 Mami Wata
 Obeah
 Oyotunji
 Quimbanda
 Santería (Lukumi)
 Umbanda[6]
 Vodou
 Akan mythology
 Ashanti mythology (Ghana)
 Dahomey (Fon) mythology
 Efik mythology (Nigeria, Cameroon)
 Igbo mythology (Nigeria, Cameroon)
 Isoko mythology (Nigeria)
 Yoruba mythology (Nigeria, Benin)
 Bushongo mythology (Congo)
 Bambuti (Pygmy) mythology (Congo)
 Lugbara mythology (Congo)
 Akamba mythology (East Kenya)
 Dinka mythology (Sudan)
 Lotuko mythology (Sudan)
 Masai mythology (Kenya, Tanzania)
 Khoikhoi mythology
 Lozi mythology (Zambia)
 Tumbuka mythology (Malawi)
 Zulu mythology (South Africa)
 Abenaki mythology
 Anishinaabe
 Aztec mythology
 Blackfoot mythology
 Cherokee mythology
 Chickasaw mythology
 Choctaw mythology
 Creek mythology
 Crow mythology
 Ghost Dance
 Guarani mythology
 Haida mythology
 Ho-Chunk mythology (aka: Winnebago)
 Hopi mythology
 Inca mythology
 Indian Shaker Church
 Inuit mythology
 Iroquois mythology
 Keetoowah Nighthawk Society
 Kuksu
 Kwakiutl mythology
 Lakota mythology
 Leni Lenape mythology
 Longhouse religion
 Mapuche mythology
 Maya mythology
 Midewiwin
 Miwok
 Native American Church
 Navajo mythology
 Nootka mythology
 Ohlone mythology
 Olmec mythology
 Pomo mythology
 Pawnee mythology
 Salish mythology
 Selk'nam religion
 Seneca mythology
 Southeastern Ceremonial Complex
 Sun Dance
 Tsimshian mythology
 Urarina
 Ute mythology
 Wyandot religion
 Zuni mythology
 Bön
 Chinese mythology
 Japanese mythology
 Koshinto
 Siberian Shamanism
 Tengriism
 Estonian mythology
 Eskimo religion
 Finnish mythology and Finnish paganism
 Hungarian folk religion
 Sami religion (including the Noaidi)
 Tadibya
 Australian Aboriginal mythology
 Austronesian beliefs
 Balinese mythology
 Javanese beliefs
 Melanesian mythology
 Micronesian mythology
 Modekngei
 Nauruan indigenous religion
 Philippine mythology
 Anito
 Gabâ
 Kulam
 Polynesian mythology
 Hawaiian mythology
 Maori mythology
 Maori religion
 Rapa Nui mythology
 Moai
 Tangata manu
 John Frum
 Johnson cult
 Prince Philip Movement
 Vailala Madness
 Ancient Egyptian religion
 Ancient Semitic religions
 Mesopotamian mythology
 Arabian mythology (pre-Islamic)
 Babylonian and Assyrian religion
 Babylonian mythology
 Chaldean mythology
 Canaanite mythology
 Canaanite religion
 Hittite mythology
 Persian mythology
 Sumerian mythology
 Proto-Indo-Iranian religion
 Historical Vedic religion
 Zoroastrianism
 Baltic polytheism
 Celtic polytheism
 Brythonic mythology
 Gaelic mythology
 Germanic polytheism
 Anglo-Saxon religion
 Continental Germanic religion
 Norse religion
 Greek polytheism
 Finnish polytheism
 Hungarian polytheism
 Roman polytheism
 Slavic polytheism
 Mystery religions
 Eleusinian Mysteries
 Mithraism
 Orphism
 Pythagoreanism
 Gallo-Roman religion
 Neoshamanism
 Reiki
 Anthroposophy
 Christian mysticism
 Esoteric Christianity
 Hindu mysticism
 Tantra
 Vaastu Shastra
 Martinism
 Meher Baba[7]
 Rosicrucian
 Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis[8]
 Ancient Order of the Rosicrucians
 Rosicrucian Fellowship
 Sufism
 Theosophy
 Ceremonial magic
 Enochian magic
 Goetic magic
 Chaos magick
 Hoodoo (Rootwork)
 New Orleans Voodoo
 Kulam – Filipino witchcraft
 National Socialism and Occultism
 Pow-wow
 Seiðr – Norse sorcery
 Thelema
 Witchcraft
 Demonolatry
 Luciferianism
 Satanism
 Church of Satan
 Setianism
 Freemasonry
 The Creativity Movement
 Church of World Messianity
 Konkokyo
 Oomoto
 PL Kyodan
 Seicho-No-Ie
 Tenrikyo

Posted by: Franklin Percival | August 29, 2010 6:02 PM

Randomfactor #82

Deeply impressed by your psychic powers, but please tell me how you knew about the scratching?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 29, 2010 6:12 PM

Sacrilege School
Tis Himself A+
Tulse A+

carry on.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 29, 2010 6:15 PM

Posted by: sandiseattle| August 29, 2010 3:52 PM

Thumbs up to you Nerd, you have an opinion too!

As for "not well thought out." OMG ROTFLMAO

But of course one hallmark of atheism is the fallacy that anyone who believes in God/s is incapable of thinking. Its little bits of stupidity like that that make all of you so comic.

Yet again, sandiseattle demonstrates the reason why he gets roundly mocked on this blog. It is not because religious people are not capable of thinking and reason. It is because most religious people, when having to choose between evidence (The results of thinking and reasoning.) and their own baseless beliefs, will abandon their own reasoning. And afterward make the argument that faith is superior to knowledge.

But please keep dropping their little treasures from Cloudcuckooland. They can be rather amusing.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 6:20 PM

But please keep dropping their little treasures from Cloudcuckooland. They can be rather amusing.

...and serve as endless examples in support of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Posted by: opposablethumbstoo | August 29, 2010 6:23 PM

randydudek @ #152

Do any of them have really good music and dancing and parties? Then when I die and it turns out there is no afterlife, at least I'll have had some good times in the meanwhile.

It seems odd that anyone seriously proposing the old wager nowadays doesn't stop to think that it begs the question - which one.

Posted by: opposablethumbstoo | August 29, 2010 6:25 PM

randydudek @ #152

Do any of them have really good music and dancing and parties? Then when I die and it turns out there is no afterlife, at least I'll have had some good times in the meanwhile.

Your list says it all: it seems odd that anyone seriously proposing the old wager nowadays doesn't stop to think that it begs the question - which one!

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 29, 2010 6:31 PM

Mine is the Family Devotional Holy Bible 1952. It was my grandmothers. 1952 seems to be a banner year for babbles. Pfft!

Posted by: opposablethumbstoo | August 29, 2010 6:34 PM

aagh, sorry for the double post - computer glitch

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 6:36 PM

Nerd, you were also a Methodist?

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 29, 2010 6:43 PM

Sign... I was a teen age lay member. Got to sit in on the meetings and raise and lower the candles from the ceiling for Easter and Christmas services.

I left because I did not feel anything enter my heart. If I felt nothing different about myself, why should I stick around. Decades later, it seems that some people might have called it a crisis of faith.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 29, 2010 6:46 PM

Nerd: I was the most incompetent altar boy on the planet.

In what way?

'snicker'

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 7:01 PM

but one of the possible translations is that sleeping with another man is a kind of adultery

which of course should be punished by death.

One of the problems with the Bible

yes, just one of them. Of many hundreds. Not the least of which is who wrote which texts when.

Patricia, my main Bible is the New American Revised Standard, which is very big and because of my arthritis I have trouble waving it at people.

strange, you seem to be trying so hard to do it anyway.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 7:03 PM

New American Revised Standard

ah, yes, the one that still contains:

37Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white stripes in them, exposing the white which was in the rods.

38He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink.

39So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

yes, so much better.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 7:05 PM

Someone needs to read The End Of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos.

or even watch him instead:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569440864215926514#

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | August 29, 2010 7:09 PM

They got fined for foul language, bawdiness, and drunken behavior on the Sabbath.

Yipes! I am afraid I would have no money left. I would have to make my living from being bawdy. And charge double on the Sabbath.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 29, 2010 7:16 PM

Warthog - My holy babble is one of those giant five pounders too. Sorry for your lack of skill in throwing the babble at people. I can do it and twirl at the same time.

Janine - I have Avalos' book...still haven't finished it, but I got the jest of it. Bible study is over, it's only continuing for the good of the industry.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 7:23 PM

One of the women had a land grant signed by William of Orange.

My maternal grandfather's side of the family alleged came as three brothers from Brittany in the late 1600's, and I saw early 1700's death dates in the family cemetery when we buried by maternal grandfather and grandmother. My paternal grandfather was born in Michigan in the late 1870's. I suspect they came from the Pennsylvania Deutch area based on the way my surname is misspelled.

Posted by: DesertHedgehog | August 29, 2010 7:28 PM

@185.

Much better. Tahnk you.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 7:34 PM

But in your defense, you have had a busy and eventful year.

Posted by: Matt G | August 29, 2010 7:39 PM

Right, so anyone who gets cancer is a heretic? And those who call themselves Christians and get cancer either aren't really Christians, or aren't Christian enough? Got it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 7:42 PM

I think that is an understatement.

hmm.

Your score is 548

how high does it have to get before spontaneous combustion becomes a possibility?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 7:47 PM

It's really just a question of which has the better balance in the end. Many trot out the bloody past / present of Christianity, where believers killed each other over religious beliefs. However there have been many cases throughout history where religious beliefs have motivated people to contribute to humanitarian efforts, disaster relief and the like.

what you fail to see is this entirely proves our point:

religion has no absolute moral lessons for us, and can be applied as a vague ethical stimulator in ANY direction.

this is why we promote the idea of rationality instead of religious ideology.

Communist China chose a more atheistic set of governing beliefs to organizes themselves around. Are they better off, or more enlightened for it?

or, as is in fact the case, is it entirely irrelevant?

man, your argument isn't even worth the time to take apart.

Posted by: Frank b | August 29, 2010 7:50 PM

Hey RandyDudek @105 Where is the Pastafarians and the Klingon Mythology, and the Klingon Orthodox Church and the Followers of Noggin. I think the Quakers would prefer to be grouped with the non-Protestants on this one.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 29, 2010 7:54 PM

Ag - Yes, having homosexuals parading down the streets would be ever so much worse than the good christian brotherhoods of Neo-nazis and KKK. Which side of the stoopid truck did you fall off of?

The rest of your idiotic excuse for religion vs atheism is one we've heard so often the edges are worn smooth. Try harder.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 8:02 PM

Atheists generally don't want to have to live their lives according to Biblical standards,

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | August 29, 2010 8:18 PM

Atheists generally don't want to have to live their lives according to Biblical standards,

I should fucking hope not.

Posted by: Warthog | August 29, 2010 8:22 PM

Raping virgins?? Holy shit! We can DO that???

Posted by: raven | August 29, 2010 8:28 PM

agonistes the brain damaged troll:

Atheists generally don't want to have to live their lives according to Biblical standards, and conservative Christians don't want to have homosexuals kissing in public and parading down the streets.

wikipedia biblical standards capital offenses:

Sacrificing to gods other than YHWH[2][3]
Passing children through the fire to/as [MLK]. The triconsonantal root MLK has traditionally been translated as if it were the name of an otherwise unattested deity - Moloch - but may just describe a type of sacrifice. It is generally thought that this refers to a form of Human sacrifice similar to that of which the Phoenicians (particularly in Carthage) have historically been widely accused[4]
Worshiping Baal Peor[5]
False prophecy[6][7][8]
Necromancy, according to the masoretic text; specifically those who are masters over ghosts (Hebrew: Ba'al ob) and those who gain information from the dead (Hebrew: Yidde'oni).[9] The Septuagint instead condemns gastromancy (Greek: eggastrimuthos), and enchantment (Greek: epaoidos).[10]
According to the masoretic text, practitioners of kashaph[11] - incanting maleficium. According to the Septuagint version of the same passages, pharmakeia[12] - poisoners. Historically this passage has been translated into English using vague terminology, condemning witchcraft in general.[13]
Blasphemy[14]
Sabbath breaking[15][16][17]
A foreigner (outsider) who gets close to the tabernacle[18]

[edit] Sexual practices
Rape by a man of a betrothed woman in the countryside[19]
Being either participant in consensual sexual activity, in which a betrothed woman consensually loses her virginity to a man[20]
Loss of virginity by a woman prior to marriage, to someone other than her husband while falsely representing herself as a virgin[21]
Adultery with a married woman.[22]
Marrying your wife's mother[23]
Certain forms of incest, namely if it involves the father's wife or a daughter-in-law.[24] Other forms of incest receive lesser punishment; sexual activity with a sister/stepsister is given excommunication for a punishment;[25]; if it involves a brother's wife or an uncle's wife it is just cursed[26] and sexual activity with an aunt that is a blood relation is merely criticized.[27]
Prostitution by the daughter of a priest[28]
Certain activities with a male (Hebrew: zakhar) involving what the masoretic text literally terms lay layings woman (Hebrew: tishkav mishkvei ishah),[29][30] and the Septuagint literally terms beds [verb] the woman's/wife's bed (Greek: koimethese koiten gynaikos);[31][32] the gender of the target of the command is commonly understood to be male, but not explicitly stated. The correct translation and interpretation of this passage, and its implications for Homosexuality in Judaism and Homosexuality in Christianity, are controversial. Translations into English are wide-ranging.[33][34]
Bestiality[35][36]

[edit] Miscellaneous
Murder, believed by Jews to apply to believing non-Jews, or (Noachides) as well[37][38][39][40]
Striking a parent[41]
Cursing a parent[42][43]
A son who persists in disobeying his parents[44]
Kidnapping[45][46]
Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring[47]
Contempt of court[48]
False witness to a capital crime[49]

Agonistes shows astounding ignorance. Biblical standards includes the death penalty for a huge number of offenses that aren't considered crimes today. Blasphemy, adultery, disobedient children, heresy, apostasy, witch craft, false prophecy (good bye to most xian leaders), worshipping any god but yahweh, sabbath breaking, and on and on, dozens of offenses.

Some xians, the fundies Dominionists really want to bring this back. It is estimated that under "biblical standards", 297 million Americans would be executed.

Reading the bible is a good way to become an atheist. It is a kludgy book of fairy tales, genocide, and irrelevant obsolete morality that anyone who practiced it today would be doing multiple life sentences in prison.

But agonistes might be off the hook here. Didn't see astounding stupidity on the list.

Posted by: ckitching | August 29, 2010 8:41 PM

Some on the margins of society didn't do so well under Christianity, but I don't imagine do so well, under a Godless system of government either.

Atheists generally don't want to have to live their lives according to Biblical standards, and conservative Christians don't want to have homosexuals kissing in public and parading down the streets.

Or is this more of the "atheists hate Christianity because they don't want to be moral" nonsense?

In Canada, the conservative Christians probably resent the taxes they pay to support medical care for I.V. drug users and promiscuous people with HIV, in the same way that atheists resent the Government giving public funds to support faith based social programs, and giving tax exemption to Churches.

Posted by: Warthog | August 29, 2010 8:48 PM

you can be sentenced to death with for wearing a polyester and cotton shirt?

According to Jews, the problem is with mixing wool and linen, and nobody knows why. I didn't think you could be killed for that one.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 8:57 PM

I didn't think you could be killed for that one.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 9:08 PM

later in that thread, there is this comment:

On the face of it, shatnez makes no sense. But, parsed by rabbis, it does (or can).

just so.

some of us here will understand the implications of that, some, obviously, won't.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2010 9:31 PM

Try selling your kids as sex slaves as it says to do in Exodus and see what happens.

what if I sell embryos for stem cell research?

:P

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2010 9:54 PM

Back then they didn't have synthetic fibers made from oil or cotton

Cotton isn't synthetic and has been grown in India and Egypt since prehistoric times.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 29, 2010 10:24 PM

Warthog - Stop and read your bible. This one knows why. Thou shalt not bring confusion into the world.

Thats from memory from over 30 years ago when I won yet another Medal for biblical knowledge. Check and see if I am right.

No one knows why...*snort*

Posted by: Rorschach | August 29, 2010 10:53 PM

Way upthread someone said....

When you find yourself in Germany, go to a traffic light. When it's red but there's no approaching car, just walk over the road and watch out for the hateful glances this daring act will cause a good part of the other pedestrians to shoot at you. Some elderly people might even turn their heads and shout something along the lines of "Are you colorblind or what?".

Somehow in my 34 years spent living in Germany, I must have been to the wrong traffic lights.And I don't really think that walking out into traffic when it's red in front of children who are supposed to learn safe behaviour is a great example of non-conformity.

As to the Bible, Avalos was mentioned(but that is one very thick and very expensive book), but just reading Friedman's "Who wrote the Bible" should cure anyone of any delusions about its authenticity as word of god.

Posted by: agonistes | August 29, 2010 11:26 PM

Well, at least a few honest replies amidst the "you're stupid" dross. I'm certainly not ignorant of all the "stone this guy, stone that guy" passages in the Bible. Bring it on. If a society decides that people with tattoo's need to be locked up, so be it.

It's one system of organization. It's not like atheism is any different than Christianity in the "sect" department, they apply their "canon" of rational thought and come up with various ideas of how people should behave. It's not like all the atheists agree on foreign policy, or moral conduct, or matters of law.

Ckit... I think you mean "equating" not "equivocating" and I am. It doesn't really matter what stripe of Christianity you want to criticize for advocating stoning heretics or whatever, I'm just saying that one set of standards, being sorta mainline wishy washy Christian, or hardcore Old Testament literal Christians, or Atheist Neo-cons, or Atheist Liberals, has no real leg to stand on when they criticize each other. There is no moral absolute, so any system is morally neutral, unless defined relative to a given society. So if we all want to stone people that are different, or use an ox on the Sabbath, fine. If it's six shekels and a marriage for rape, so be it. If you cut off a woman's hand for grasping the privates of a man her husband is fighting, wonderful.

There's simply nothing objectively better about atheism, because post-morally speaking, there is nothing objectively better. It all just grasping for resources, and serving the interests of the group you belong to.

Atheists want a better world for atheists, and so attack the big opponent, organized religion.

How noble.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2010 11:34 PM

How noble.

Posted by: BoogyMan | August 29, 2010 11:58 PM

Biblical standards includes the death penalty for a huge number of offenses that aren't considered crimes today.

Then there is serious jail time for doing things that are endorsed by the bible such as enslaving people, selling them, stoning people, burning witches.

Atheists can even put up a Christmas tree without worrying about pissing off God:

Jeremiah 10
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.

4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.

Posted by: Lyra | August 30, 2010 12:06 AM

@agonistes

Atheists do not need to be moral relativists, and they most certainly can believe in moral absolutes. I like to compare atheist morality to how everyone else views airplanes. Airplanes would never exist if it wasn't for humans, and if humans disappeared there would be no airplanes (only hunks of metal). Furthermore, there isn't some kind of magic airplane manual floating around out there that will tell us how to build perfect airplanes. You won't find airplane blueprints engraved on the moon, in tealeaves, or with tarot cards. However, that doesn't mean we all need to be airplane relativists. If you tie some cardboard to a rock and tried to convince me to jump off a cliff while sitting on it, I'd call the cops. It wouldn't matter how much you insisted that your creation was an airplane equal to the Boeing 747. When push came to shove, you would be wrong.

It's the same thing with morality. We atheists say that you won't find moral standards engraved on the moon, in tealeaves, with tarot cards, or any such thing. But that doesn't mean we have to declare all moral standards are equal. Some are better than others. If you disagree, then you might find yourself jumping off a cliff with only a rock and some cardboard.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 30, 2010 12:15 AM

Mohler's reasons for bemoaning the "theological costs" should be obvious. He's afraid evolution threatens the religious industrial complex, of which his little playschool is a part, and that it will go the way of the buggy whip industry. This is about employment; he knows he has no marketable skills outside religion, and is afraid if he loses his supply of ignorant young home schooled students, he may have to actually work for a living.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 30, 2010 12:32 AM

A+ Ichthyic!

Not the exact scene I was thinking of...but certainly the character I ment to project. I'm amazed. *grin*

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 30, 2010 12:53 AM

Why John Phillips I believe *smirk* you've touched on the very reason. YOU are the huckleberry.

Posted by: Felix | August 30, 2010 1:20 AM

I think much of what evangelicals and other proselytizers fear is the loss of a lregitimization to live out their twisted passive aggressive tendencies and desires to meddle in other people's lives. They have no business looking into other people's sex lives - but they must save people. They're still thoughtful enough to understand that they need a reason to want to control the Holy Uterus; not that this thought takes any effort. So they need theology to tell them about these reasons. It's possible to mangle someone's psyche so completely during childhood and adolescence that he/she will be inapable of dealing with other people, in a normal way, rationally and emotionally, for decades. In evangelical families (and any other cultish environments) and youth groups, the desire to meddle and bother people is nourished from a very early age. Once it's ingrained, they might never realize they're not behaving in a decent, reasonable way.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | August 30, 2010 1:24 AM

agonitses, we don't have to, all most of the atheists I know do is apply the golden rule. As for anything else, as long as the people involved are consenting adults who cause no harm to others then no harm no foul and it is none of my business.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | August 30, 2010 1:40 AM

Posted by: Patricia, OM Author Profile Page | August 30, 2010 12:53 AM [kill]​[hide comment]

Why John Phillips I believe *smirk* you've touched on the very reason. YOU are the huckleberry.

Why thank you. Though unfortunately for them, it hasn't worked too well *big smirk*. For even though I was a xian lite until my first teen year, even gave a reading in the big Independent chapel on Easter Sunday when I was twelve (the Good Samaritan), since then this not so new gnu atheist has managed to drag quite a few xian lite and heavy to the puppy kicking, baby barbecuing side of life.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 30, 2010 1:59 AM

Good night you saucy darlings!

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2010 2:20 AM

Do you guys not feel up to it?

your question was inane. your premise was inane.

It was already explained why.

you're just too oblivious to bother with anymore.

bye.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | August 30, 2010 2:31 AM

@agonisingly dense, as others have said, we don't have to because the closest thing we have to absolute morality, as I said back in #242 and others have reiterated since, is the golden rule allied with what consenting adults want to do as long as it causes no harm to others is nobodies business but their own.

But, if xians were being true to their babble and its so called absolute morality then we would still have xian sanctioned slaves, killing of children for back chat to their parents, rape would still be OK as long as a fine was paid to the father and the rapist married her etc. etc., need I go on. So stick your xian inspired absolute morality where the sun don't shine, sideways.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 30, 2010 2:39 AM

AgonyIdiot:

And Caine, if it's not difficult at all do it. I didn't ask for how you live your life... I asked you to "present and defend a basis for moral absolutes within an atheistic paradigm."

It isn't difficult, whether you like it or not, and I did explain it. Atheism is not a religion. Your premise is pure, distilled idiocy and why that is has been explained to you, over and over and over and over. What it boils down to is that you [generic usage] don't need a PsychoDaddy in the sky to know right from wrong. By golly, you can even figure out where to stand!

I don't have time to waste on idiots such as yourself. You're interested in trolling and waiting to deliver your pre-flounce line. Been there, done that, seen that too many times. Have fun, Cupcake, talking to yourself. You're a waste of time.

Ta, Akiniče šiča tajuška.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 30, 2010 3:05 AM

conversations about "absolute morality" are just pointlessly idiotic.

Firstly, there is no such thing as absolute morality; no religious institution, no matter how calcified, has managed to maintain exactly the same morals throughout its history. as societies change, so does the "god-given absolute moral standard". its unchangeability is a myth. all moralities are society-based, merely the rate of change is slower when a whole dogma needs to be altered for it.
Secondly, a sense of morality is a natural consequence of humans having evolved as a social species; an uncooperative, unempathetic and mutually destructive group of social animals would die out rather quickly in the wild. What precisely this sense reacts to has always been society-dependent, of course, regardless of whether it's a religious society or not. But unless the culture is more like a cult, and brainwashes its members, a basic sense of "do no harm" underpins all human moralities; it's here that religious moralities often become a problem, since brainwashing is what they do by definition, when they decouple morality from actual human well-being, and turn it into extraneous rules to be followed.

Ergo, there's no argument here: all moralities are social moralities, and they are all rooted in a cooperative animal instinct, more or less. Religious moralities are not exempt from this, nor is the lack of them somehow depriving humans of a sense of good/bad.

Posted by: shonny | August 30, 2010 3:32 AM

#10 Posted by: raven Author Profile Page | August 29, 2010 12:49 PM

It resulted in modern Hi Tech 21st century civilization and US leadership in the world.

Going in ass first is hardly called 'leadership'!
A lot of the misery in today's world is 'compliments of USA' and capitalistic greed.
And evangelical xianity.

Posted by: Malcolm | August 30, 2010 3:40 AM

agonistes,
Given that you don't get your morals from the bible, and unless you are a true sociopath, you don't, where do you get yours from?

Religion isn't a source of morality. It is an excuse for not having any.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 30, 2010 3:56 AM

Usagichan:

Ploughing through the earlier posts, I get the impression that AgonyToRead is actually angling for an admission that all morality comes down to self-interest, although I'm not quite sure how he/she comes to it from the original topic.

Well, morality in most cases does come down to a type of self-interest. It's more down to group/society interest. How that could possibly bolster AgonyIdiot's wannabe sense of superiority, I don't know. The morality handed down by religious organizations through the years is a prime example of self-interest. The desire for power and control is the primary fuel of religions. They want to be immoral beasts while controlling how others live their lives. The catholic machine is an excellent example of that particular working.

Of course the general principals of humanism don't conform to its particular flavour of misanthropy, so it wants to label us hypocrites.

Serious truth. Humanism focuses on all humans having basic rights, not which group needs to be hated on, "'cause, ya know, it's against god and I know this 'cause god said so. God feels the very same way I do about these people and this issue."

Both painfully bad prose and inane.

Yes and yes.

Posted by: KG | August 30, 2010 6:14 AM

agonistes,

Your basic error is in thinking that the only alternatives are belief in moral absolutes, and complete moral relativism - all moral judgements being arbitrary. (You also claim, without any justification whatever, that abandonment of moral absolutism implies that all moral statements are disguised self-interest - an empirical claim which does not stand up to even the most casual examination.)

Your main claim is false: what moral standards we adopt (if any) is not arbitrary, because it has consequences for others, and it is in terms of their consequences that those who do not believe in moral absolutes judge different moral codes. Moral codes can be criticised on the basis of logical inconsistency, on the basis that they do not help us deal with specific moral dilemmas, and on the basis that they have unintended consequences which are undesirable as far as those adopting them are concerned. Thus, moral judgements can be rationally discussed and criticised by people who do not believe in moral absolutes. Indeed, such people do this all the time, and you have put forward no argument to show that what they are doing is irrational.

Of course you will say "But caring about the consequences for others is no better than not doing so, because there are no moral absolutes." Wrong: it's better for those others. It's quite true that if a moral nihilist, such as you present yourself as being, does not accept that the preferences and interests of others matter, I cannot logically oblige them to do so. But I don't need to in order to strive for the adoption of the moral judgements I want to see adopted, because I do care about others. There is nothing irrational about doing so, provided you avoid the elementary error of identifying rationality with selfishness.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 30, 2010 7:23 AM

"present and defend a basis for moral absolutes within an atheistic paradigm.

Posted by: Zabinatrix | August 30, 2010 7:56 AM

Agonistes:

Atheists want a better world for atheists, and so attack the big opponent, organized religion. How noble.

How condescending.

Seriously, do you think that all of the "strident" atheists just want a better world for atheists? I want a better world for everyone!

I want the Pope to stop spreading lies and misinformation about condoms to Catholics in poor and aids-stricken parts of the world. I want the Catholic church to stop protecting those who rape Catholic children.

I want a world where Muslim women in strongly Muslim countries can live lives as strong, confident individuals without the fear of being executed for that audacity. I want a world where Christian faith healers are called out on their bullshit, so that we don't have more cases where young Christian children die because their parents prayed instead of taking them to the hospital.

I wish for a world where homosexual people who are also religious don't feel outcast from their community because of bronze-age views on sexuality (and yes, of course not all homosexuals are atheists, whatever you might have implied earlier). I know at least one non-straight person who is fighting bouts of real depression because her Catholic church, Catholic friends and Catholic family look down on people with her sexual orientation - and because of them she fears divine punishment for the way she was born.

And so on. So, I want to spread my view of a rational world, where people aren't killed, abused or depressed because of old superstitions. I want this because I believe that it would be of benefit to everyone, regardless of religion or lack of it.

Moral absolutes must be absolute by definition. Which is why theistic religions make the claim, because they pin their moral code on a supposedly immutable God. Atheists can't do this, and so have to settle for "we all kinda decided it should be this way, at this place, at this time." How does a society that is in constant flux make a claim to moral absolutes?

As others have said, your question is inane. Seriously - no group has any moral absolutes, no matter what they say.

You said yourself that you are "certainly not ignorant of all the 'stone this guy, stone that guy' passages in the Bible." - so how could you possibly believe a Christian organization saying that they have an absolute moral compass from the Bible?

Christian groups used to defend slavery and burn witches. Christians used to defend death penalty for various lesser, moral "crimes". Many Christians used to defend a view that said that women are worth much less than men, that people of some races are worth less (just look at the "lovely" Christian book "The Negro - a Beast"), et cetera. Some Christians still do, but most don't.

Everyone moves with the times. No matter if they claim that they have an "absolute morality" or not - we all have a morality based on current culture.

The only difference is that established religions seem to move a bit slower. In a time where striving for equality between men and women is a given in many countries, there are churches in those same countries that deny that women should be allowed to speak in front of men. And in a time where we've moved past classifying homosexuality as a mental illness, there are still churches offering "adjustment treatments" for sexual orientation, and so on...

So some religious institutions may be a bit slowed down by their claims of an absolute moral authority, but look over the time span of a few hundred years and you know that they trust absolute morality as much as atheists do. They all move with the times and change their view on their "absolute" morality.

Posted by: grudgedk | August 30, 2010 8:11 AM

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."

What is one life in the affairs of a theocracy?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327 | August 30, 2010 8:59 AM

I like meaningless quotes such as the one Coach Olson dropped on us.
What you do, see, is treat them like fortune cookies. When you read them, add "in bed."
Give us some more, Coach!
The only way to improve this would be if someone could figure a way to turn quotes into a drinking game. I'm counting on you.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 30, 2010 10:29 AM

Posted by: JediBear Author Profile Page | August 29, 2010 5:14 PM

On the subject of Lewis, while it's true that few here will agree with him or find his arguments convincing, he was certainly a person of academic and literary note, a genius at least in the sense of his impact on culture.

While we might not consider Christian Apologetics a wholly worthy field of human endeavour, his works in it are both thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Having read them, I found them neither thoughtful nor thought-provoking.

"Genius" describes intelligence and/or creativity, not impact on culture. Being influential does not make one a genius.

Posted by: AJS | August 30, 2010 10:54 AM

There are no moral absolutes.

Occasionally, you might have to do something which ordinarily would be considered reprehensible, in order to prevent something even worse from happening.

The more contrived the situation would have to be in order to justify a given action, though, the closer it is to a moral absolute.

Posted by: raven | August 30, 2010 11:20 AM

agonistes brain damaged lying troll:

Atheists want a better world for atheists, and so attack the big opponent, organized religion.
How noble.

No. We attack some religion because it is evil and a social ill that holds our society back. Toxic religion can destroy societies and we don't want the USA to become the next North American Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iran.

There is no such thing as "organized religion". There are hundreds of religions. There are 38,000 xian sects. The religions and sects often hate each other and used to fight wars among themselves until society got tired of it and took their armies away.

Setting up a deformed strawman is the least of agonistes' problems. Long walls of text that are barely above gibberish really say, loudly,....CRAZY KOOK TROLL.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 30, 2010 12:02 PM

AgonyIdiot wants the 10 commandments of atheism, and he/she wants them now!

You called ?

10 Atheist Commandments

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 30, 2010 1:13 PM

The only 'Price' I paid for becoming an atheist was:

I now am much less ignorant in the ways of science, nature, and reality. I understand the truth behind the world and I do not find myself lamenting the fact it wasn't made by god, but in fact find it to be so much more amazing that nothing made the universe, it just happened that way! Seriously, the universe is beautiful, and the fact it was created by explosions and chaos and destruction fucking rocks!

I listen to all viewpoints before making a decision. I don't take a side until I understand everything I'm arguing. If I don't understand something, I read and understand it. I used to be pro-life, I'm pro-choice now because it was explained to me exactly where my arguments were failing and was given the information I needed to understand.

I'm happy with who I am now. I'm a bisexual and I have gender dissonance. I like being who I am and I don't have to shove her into a closet because my religion says I have to be a straight male. It's confusing, but I don't have to pretend that everything is okay and can take the first steps towards rectifying my problems.

I'm more confident. I don't fret every time I have a perverse thought and tell myself how horrible a person I am. I'm dating now, and if I get the urge to have sex with the guy, I'm not going to regret it because I'm not married to him. I feel happier, smarter, and more personable now.

The only bad thing that I've got to pay is the fact that my family may not accept everything. My family may deny me because I'm an atheist, or bisexual, or have gender issues, or dating a guy. But know what? I don't care! It'll be heart breaking, for sure, I'll be sad for weeks, but if my family refuses to love me for being me, fuck 'em. Family is far separated from blood anyway. People here on Pharyngula are my family. My friends are family.

So, do I regret becoming an atheist. I mean, that's a high cost I paid...

No, I think I'll be able to live with it.

Posted by: Tulse | August 30, 2010 2:10 PM

2) Hypothesis. "Now, does this appear anywhere else in nature? If it's something only humans do there may be something truly perverse and damaging about it."

How about, alternately: "Does this negatively affect anyone other than the consenting adults? Then stay the hell out of their business!"

Posted by: Michael Dowd | August 30, 2010 2:31 PM

PZ, thanks for the post. Contrary to your characterization of me, however, if you read my response to Mohler:

BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY IS BANKRUPT

You'll find that I hardly endorse "a fuzzy spirituality that is mostly science" (or indeed any spirituality at all). I don't need to "bite the bullet, man," I'm already there.

Pretty much the only time I even use the word "spirituality" any more is when I'm speaking to people for whom the term is not only meaningful, but central to their worldview. And as always (as with every other religious term I use when speaking to religious people), I always define it in a purely naturalistic way. In this case, as "right relationship with reality, evidentially understood."

#5 hermetically sealed (and others who may care about this): My last CT scan and blood test in June showed no sign of cancer (since my chemo and surgery last winter), so I'm hopeful. And yes, I would most certainly agree with you: thanks to science! I had a blood test a few days ago and will learn this week if this is still the case.

#13 Finch: Not only do I not endorse the supernatural, I actively reject the very notion. See the link above, especially the short section titled "Supernatural Is Unnatural Is Uninspiring."

#65 Prichert: I'm most definitely not saying that "it's okay to accept evolution and still be a Christian." What I AM saying, as evidenced by my response to Mohler above, is that "When you accept evolution, it will radically transform your faith - from a magical, mythical, superstitious one to one grounded in humanity's best collective intelligence: science."

FYI...a new offshoot of The NYTimes, iNewp, also published my response to Mohler. Here's the link to the final installment installment, just posted today, which includes links to the earlier ones as well.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 30, 2010 3:31 PM

@azumahazuki/Michael Dowd:

And our founding fathers were likely deists.

Posted by: amphiox | August 30, 2010 3:42 PM

The basis for human morals in an atheistic society is finding out as much as we can about human nature and combining that knowledge with the intent to maximize personal freedom and collective well-being.

It's probably more accurate to say "humanistic" rather than "atheistic". Atheism doesn't actually have anything to do with ethics or morality - it's just the rejection of belief in gods in the absence of evidence.

Posted by: Michael Dowd | August 30, 2010 6:15 PM

@285: azumahazuki, I completely agree with your comment in #283. Couldn't have said it better myself.

However, as to your silly notion that in order to call myself "Christian" in any form I have to "believe in the major tenets of the faith", you jest, yes? Are you simply unaware of the ten of millions of liberal, progressive, and even secular Christians that are naturalists - even where they might value some of the mythic language of their tradition, as metaphor?

I have NO otherworldly religious beliefs. Not one.

I am not a deist, nor a theist, nor an atheist. I'm an emergentist, a neo-humanist - a religious naturalist. The concepts of theism and atheism (deism too) came into use long before we had an evidential understanding of how the world, in fact, came into being, and before we learned that the Universe itself is creative.

Given what we now know about big history, the 14-billion-year epic of evolution, the theist-atheist dichotomy no longer makes sense. Both presuppose a trivial, unnatural God and a Cosmos that is not itself divinely creative. Deism too fails here.

Reality is my God (my primary allegiance) and integrity is my religion. By this, I mean that what is real (as evidentially known) is my ultimate commitment and being in right relationship with reality, and assisting humanity in this process, is my calling and deepest inspiration.

Posted by: Tulse | August 30, 2010 6:22 PM

before we learned that the Universe itself is creative

Huh?

Reality is my God (my primary allegiance) and integrity is my religion.

And pompously pretentious is your prose. Seriously?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2010 6:29 PM

a religious naturalist.

have you ever checked out:

naturalism.org

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2010 6:34 PM

oh, wait, what am I saying?

I'm responding to Michael Dowd, as if he wasn't aware of naturalism.org.

splutter.

Dowd is a religion unto himself.

for those unaware, he's been the subject of posts here before:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/thank_god_for_evolution.php

Posted by: btthegeek | August 30, 2010 6:58 PM

Mr. Dowd, I am offically awed. " 'God' is a mythic name for Reality in all its sublime fullness" (pdf version, page 5). To be perfectly honest, I have never in all of my thirty-seven years heard so much bullshit packed into so few words. Let's see if I can be so vacuous and yet so verbose.

Zeus is a mythic name for Lightning in all its sublime fullness.

Aphrodite is a mythic name for Love in all its sublime fullness.

Pan is a mythic name for Lust in all its sublime fullness.

Hercules is a mythic name for Strength in all its sublime fullness.

Poseidon is a mythic name for the Ocean in all its sublime fullness.

Narcissus is a mythic name for narcissism in all its sublime fullness.

(Name) is a mythic name for (quality, emotion, attribute) in all its sublime fullness.

See the pattern here?

Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing | August 30, 2010 7:18 PM

Michael Dowd @ #290:

Given what we now know about big history, the 14-billion-year epic of evolution, the theist-atheist dichotomy no longer makes sense. Both presuppose a trivial, unnatural God and a Cosmos that is not itself divinely creative.

No, a theist presupposes 'a trivial, unnatural God'; an a-theist presupposes no such thing and (given the continued absence of evidence for such a thing) leaves the hypothesis out of their thinking.

Just as an a-leprechaunist, a-fairyist, a-unicornist and a-cosmic-teapotist has no need to consider their disbelief in those things in order to study the universe.

There is no need to attribute thought to the universe, or worship it, either.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 30, 2010 7:24 PM

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM Author Profile Page | August 30, 2010 7:17 PM

btthegeek

Pan is a mythic name for Lust in all its sublime fullness.

Aaw, Pan always gets a bad rap. He was a god of many things, shepherds, music, woods, mountain wilds, fields, groves, glens, Spring and fertility. He was even the god of theatrical criticism!

That's only a bad rap if you think there's something wrong with lust. I happen to be a big fan.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 30, 2010 7:27 PM

Blockquote fail on my part.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 30, 2010 7:33 PM

truthspeaker:

That's only a bad rap if you think there's something wrong with lust. I happen to be a big fan.

Oh, I'm a big fan of lust myself. Pan was a heavy lifter among the gods, though.

Posted by: agonistes | August 30, 2010 9:24 PM

Wow, so full of vim and vigor. For the few of you that managed to respond without name calling, thanks for the replies.

In regards to those that say there there is/are nor moral absolutes, you'll see I agree. I said as much in post #226 I believe, "There is no moral absolute..." mid post. With religious sorts, they generally apply the idea that "God commands it, so it's right" so all that slaying and stoning and genocide was morally praiseworthy, because it was divinely commanded. This may be reprehensible to the non-believer, but it's not logically inconsistent. Certainly it is only true if God exists, but still logical.

For Atheists, as most of you have finally admitted, you only have relative morality.
Which is why for things like capital punishment and any other moral issue, it's about societal consensus. In Texas capital punishment is morally permissible, in Canada it is not. There are a number of arguments on both sides of the issue, but really if a state or a country decides "murder 1 = hanging" then so be it.

So if a country wants to ban a behavior (say homosexuality) because the society as a whole finds it repulsive, they aren't less moral than a free society, because sexual freedom isn't morally better than sexual repression in any concrete way.
The only way it's morally better is relative to the criticizing society.

As far as the group survival tactics of being generally good, in evolution, it's descriptive, not prescriptive. Ya it works, and a clever person will take advantage of it, using the herds genetically written in code to get away with whatever he can. If everyone were to do this, things would go south. But they don't and so the individual strong clever scumbags make out pretty well.

Morality is nothing more then how we chose to order our society by upholding one set of behaviors up as virtuous, and another set as villainous. Harvey Milk, Joseph Stalin, both had a vision for society. Both tried to make changes that suited themselves and their subgroup. No moral heroes, just self-serving evolutionary groupings struggling for resources and power.

No group is better or worse than the other, because there is no better or worse. Atheists want to make the world an Atheist utopia, Christians want to make it a Christian utopia, and Muslims, a Muslim utopia.

What a surprise.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 30, 2010 11:31 PM

truthspeaker:

And of course, lust is the prime motivator for music and theater, so it would make sense that Pan would be a patron of those.

Very true. I'm surprised he had time for all those nymphs. ;P

Posted by: agonistes | August 31, 2010 7:09 AM

"We have functional morality."

Ok... this does not suggest that it is not also relative. Function speaks to whether it works or not. If it works, it's functional. It can still be functional and relative, and is. If Group X holds murder to be wrong, because having people getting murdered left and right doesn't make for a workable society, then it has a functional morality, that is relative to beliefs and needs of said society. They aren't suggesting their is some God, or Platonic form of morality floating around somewhere that they took hold of, but rather that it's a position that was generated within the society. Not true for all time in all places. Relative.

"...what societies work better for the people that inhabit them, and what things do those societies have in common?"

"Work better" is pretty subjective. Better by what standards? GDP? Health Care? Crime? Life span of average citizen? I'd suggest that while many societies have commonalities, they also have many differences. The U.S. is based on individual freedoms, Japan is based on societal harmony. Both have functional societies in my opinion. There are some societies that follow a Chief, some that follow a Shaman, some that democratically elect a President, and some that are Monarchies seem to be doing ok, such as Saudi Arabia.

Not that I think that everyone doing ok is a particularly amazing goal to shoot for, I don't think a society needs to be focused on caring for all citizens. That's sort of an individuals job.

As to whether or not all people are equally valuable and suffer etc...

I'm sure people suffer. There are tens of thousands of them a scant few miles from me living on Vancouver's Downtown East Side. Some poverty advocates tried to raise awareness of them during the recent Olympic festivities. They get about a million dollars a day of tax money to keep them alive, on welfare and social programs. I wouldn't suggest they are as valuable on a basic level. I mean, what do they contribute? If a big old Canadian winter rolled in and froze half of them, would society suffer in a measurable way?

If half the MD's died in Vancouver, perhaps it would have a more profound impact. So, no I don't accept that the suffering and death of some groups is as important as say me, or my group.

In regards to the impossibility of self-serving societies cooperating, that's nonsense. They cooperate because it's more beneficial to their group than not cooperating. This of course is the basis for Minority governments, who cooperate for just as long as it serves their parties interests.

To Ich - Of course I've touched a nerve, that's why there is a bunch of posts swearing at me, or changing my name to agonizing or agon-idiot or some such thing. Who would bother, if not bothered?
Not that it particularly matters to me, it's kind of funny to come in here for the first time, and have one or two decent replies, amidst a bunch of name calling. It's kind of like casually strolling into a home for crippled armchair philosophers who feel safe orbiting around one fairly interesting thinker (PZ) and have the masses of chair-bound half-man atheists wheel around ineffectually trying to surround the carefree stroller that dares to enter their sanctum, hoping they can beat some rigidity into their flaccid penises long enough to intellectually gang rape the intruder.

But all analogies limp along...

Thanks again to all the decent responders though.

~Ag.

Posted by: Anri | August 31, 2010 8:01 AM

Ok... this does not suggest that it is not also relative. Function speaks to whether it works or not. If it works, it's functional. It can still be functional and relative, and is. If Group X holds murder to be wrong, because having people getting murdered left and right doesn't make for a workable society, then it has a functional morality, that is relative to beliefs and needs of said society. They aren't suggesting their is some God, or Platonic form of morality floating around somewhere that they took hold of, but rather that it's a position that was generated within the society. Not true for all time in all places. Relative.

And if you'll read the entire post, I didn't say it wasn't relative. I said it was beyond 'merely relative' which is what you insist on repeating.
If you honestly can't tell the difference between the quality of life in a society where murder is condoned, and one in which it is not, then you're, quite frankly, too stupid to live.

Is this the case?
Let us read further...

"Work better" is pretty subjective. Better by what standards? GDP? Health Care? Crime? Life span of average citizen? I'd suggest that while many societies have commonalities, they also have many differences. The U.S. is based on individual freedoms, Japan is based on societal harmony. Both have functional societies in my opinion. There are some societies that follow a Chief, some that follow a Shaman, some that democratically elect a President, and some that are Monarchies seem to be doing ok, such as Saudi Arabia.

Once again, of course it is subjective.
Would you say that Japan and the US have equal indicators of societal health? Feel free to use whatever characteristic you'd care to.
Do you believe that you would be unable to tell, or would consider it unimportant, about the general quality of life between the societies you describe?
The answer below...

Not that I think that everyone doing ok is a particularly amazing goal to shoot for, I don't think a society needs to be focused on caring for all citizens. That's sort of an individuals job.

So, you are saying that the welfare of the individual is not the concern of society? You're making the argument that society should be structured without concern for the people living in it (or next to it?)

If you honestly believe this, then I understand why what I'm saying is not registering with you.

If you don't honestly believe it, please stop arguing as if you do.

As to whether or not all people are equally valuable and suffer etc...

I'm sure people suffer. There are tens of thousands of them a scant few miles from me living on Vancouver's Downtown East Side. Some poverty advocates tried to raise awareness of them during the recent Olympic festivities. They get about a million dollars a day of tax money to keep them alive, on welfare and social programs. I wouldn't suggest they are as valuable on a basic level. I mean, what do they contribute? If a big old Canadian winter rolled in and froze half of them, would society suffer in a measurable way?

That completely depends on whether or not you see their suffering to be equivalent to yours or not (in other words, if you consider them to be real people or just things that move and make noise) and if you consider it society's job to make people's lives better.
Since you claim to believe that the purpose of civilization is something other than improving the lives of humans (I'm not sure what else it is, but I'm sure you have some idea - please share!) then the answer is no:
To you, a society in which people freeze to death needlessly and one in which society protects against that are functionally equivalent. You may view this as morality if you choose. Check to see if you believe it if you ever find yourself crippled and freezing.

If half the MD's died in Vancouver, perhaps it would have a more profound impact. So, no I don't accept that the suffering and death of some groups is as important as say me, or my group.

Fair enough.
You honestly believe that things that do not effect you badly are not bad.
If you are emotionally immature enough to utterly lack empathy then functional morality will not make any sense to you.

In regards to the impossibility of self-serving societies cooperating, that's nonsense. They cooperate because it's more beneficial to their group than not cooperating. This of course is the basis for Minority governments, who cooperate for just as long as it serves their parties interests.

And, once again, do societies in which groups refuse to cooperate beyond their own narrow self-interest, and obstruct all other progress (as being wasteful of resources they themselves could be using) tend to be healthy?
I'm asking you to apply your own concepts of what makes a healthy society.

To Ich - Of course I've touched a nerve, that's why there is a bunch of posts swearing at me, or changing my name to agonizing or agon-idiot or some such thing. Who would bother, if not bothered?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway:
So, your point is that people who engage in insult and name-calling are intellectually feeble and not worth listening to, right?
Good, let's keep that in mind...

Not that it particularly matters to me, it's kind of funny to come in here for the first time, and have one or two decent replies, amidst a bunch of name calling. It's kind of like casually strolling into a home for crippled armchair philosophers who feel safe orbiting around one fairly interesting thinker (PZ) and have the masses of chair-bound half-man atheists wheel around ineffectually trying to surround the carefree stroller that dares to enter their sanctum, hoping they can beat some rigidity into their flaccid penises long enough to intellectually gang rape the intruder.

Hmm.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 31, 2010 10:43 AM

"if there is indeed a God, because I assume that he sets all the rules in the universe, and so there is an external something to pin morality on."

That doesn't get you beyond the Eurythpro dilemma though. Are those moral rules good because God says so, or does God say so because they're good?

I still think that the morality that we strive to create through consensus, flawed though it may be, is still better and nobler than fobbing morality off onto an external authority like a god, even if we knew a god existed and was willing to take on the burden of policing humans. The fact that so-called god-given morality is always so well in line with the prejudices of the people who hold it is just further evidence of this.

Posted by: Anri | August 31, 2010 1:31 PM

No, not necessarily feeble and not worth listening to as people, maybe they've been eloquent and thoughtful at other times in other comments. I just sort of expected a decent majority of comments to be of the opposing argument variety, instead of the "fuckwit" or "idjit" or what have you comments. Sure it's the internet, so you expect a certain amount of pure, unfiltered, nigh-thoughtless visceral reactionaries, however I sort of just figured this particular blog would have more of the former that the latter. For the most part PZ sets out pretty reasoned arguments, as opposed to emotional rants. I assumed his entourage might conduct themselves similarly.

The analogy was to suggest that all the name calling isn't particularly troubling, just sort of sad. Of course, the reasonable comments that sought to engage were appreciated. Sometimes it just felt like the wheat got lost in the chaff.
Or the flaccid rollers.

I'm sorry - I'm still missing your point here, apparently.
Are you saying that none of the insults, including yours, were worth listening to?
Or that all of the insults, including yours, were worth listening to?
Or that other's people insults were not worth listeing to, but yours were?

Moving on. - snip -

Ok, got it, you don't think human life is worth living - maybe your own, and maybe just other people's. In that case, I'm sorry I wasted both of our time. To me, the assumption that life is precious, and therefore worthwhile, lies at the base of humanistic morality. Since you do not find it so, you won't accept humanistic morality.

That being the case, it looks like we're done on that topic.

Posted by: agonistes | August 31, 2010 7:41 PM

"To me, the assumption that life is precious, and therefore worthwhile, lies at the base of humanistic morality."

Precisely. In much the same way that the assumed existence of God lies at the basis of Theistic morality.

Both are unprovable assumptions, and therefore seem to carry little weight. "We're human and therefore have moral status" seems as good as "Dolphins have moral status because they're dolphins" Why does thinking or feeling or organizing connect to any inherent moral status? It's just one step back from "We are valuable because we're white," It's an assumption.

I guess my point is that Humanistic morality is based on unprovable assumptions in the same way theistic morality is. It's not superior. You still have to accept the presuppositions for it to make any sense, and I see no compelling reason to chose humanist presuppositions over any other. Other than perhaps an egoist based decision, and as a reasonable affluent, educated, heterosexual white male between the ages of 18 and 55, a sort of wishy washy theistic conservative culture has done alright by me. If I was born a crippled bi-sexual minority, I might seek after a different system. But I did ok in the lottery of birth circumstances and got born me. Huzzah.

And why is it so "tone trollish" of me to ask a forum for atheists to defend atheist morality? You certainly ask Theists to defend their beliefs and assumptions. I didn't come in here calling you all a bunch of mo-fo's or anything, yet I get name calling and the like.

The cripple analogy was simply to illustrate how I perceived the name calling. I just wondered why they bothered, and found it comical. The point was indeed to suggest that any sort of name calling, mine included, was sort of counterproductive. Although posts, or elements of posts that contained something other that name calling were welcome. I just obviously touched a nerve for some people, and was responding to Ich.

To Nerd - Perhaps you're using a non-standard definition of empathy. I was operating under the assumption that empathy meant "identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives." I think I displayed that I can identify and understand, I just don't hold myself responsible to assist. That's not lacking empathy, that's lacking compassion.

If I did lack empathy it wouldn't be for religious reasons, as I'm not religious. I don't know why people are assuming I'm a Theist because I'm discussing some theistic ideas. I'm just following the non-belief in God to it's logical conclusion as I see it, vis a vis morality.

Rey Fox - as for Eurythpro, theists have come at it from a number of angles, I find the "It's holy because God says so" side to be most satisfying. Which is why all the genocide, warfare and such seem to be logically consistent. I never said that Theism was altogether airtight and without problems, just that one system was as good as another, because none have real inherent value.

Regards,

~Ag.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 31, 2010 8:03 PM

That's not lacking empathy, that's lacking compassion.

Yawn, what a sophist theist loser. Can't even blockquote correctly, showing a distinct lack of intelligence. Still nothing cogent to say, or a meaningful point. After, how hard is it to say "this is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up".

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 31, 2010 8:07 PM

So by that rationale, if I discuss women's issues, people should assume I'm a woman?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 31, 2010 8:10 PM

So by that rationale, if I discuss women's issues, people should assume I'm a woman?

how do you know we aren't all theists instead, just pretending to be atheists so we can draw losers like yourself in here to...

wait, what what is you were trying to do again?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 31, 2010 8:46 PM

agonistes #320

And why is it so "tone trollish" of me to ask a forum for atheists to defend atheist morality? You certainly ask Theists to defend their beliefs and assumptions. I didn't come in here calling you all a bunch of mo-fo's or anything, yet I get name calling and the like.

If you had actually read most of the comments you're whining about, you'd have noticed that instead of "You're wrong, you idiot" the responses to your sophistry were "you're wrong because of A, you idiot." It's only when you start repeating yourself, as you have, that we skip the heavy lifting and just call you an idiot.

Whining about tone is the best way to get called an asshole, stupid, etc. there is. We're not too forgiving with tone trolls.

Posted by: echidna | August 31, 2010 9:11 PM

agony-to-read:

So I guess my basic position is all this talk about morality from atheists is nonsensical in a Godless world.

Morality does not depend on religion. Humans (like a number of other species) survive better in cooperative groups. Morality is codified cooperation.

Now go away. You are incredibly, boringly, long-winded.

Posted by: Anri | August 31, 2010 9:27 PM

*sigh* ok, still here, I suppose...

Precisely. In much the same way that the assumed existence of God lies at the basis of Theistic morality.

True! Except for that whole irritating 'actually exists' business.
You gather evidence for god, and I'll gather evidence for other people valuing their lives, and we'll see who gets more evidence faster.

But, remember, folks, they're just the same.

Both are unprovable assumptions, and therefore seem to carry little weight. "We're human and therefore have moral status" seems as good as "Dolphins have moral status because they're dolphins" Why does thinking or feeling or organizing connect to any inherent moral status? It's just one step back from "We are valuable because we're white," It's an assumption.

If you do not value your life, that's fine, quit living and stop taking resources from other people.
If you value your life, but feel you are inherently superior to other people, then avoid morality and live by the sword.
If both of these sounds like bad ideas to you, explain.

Some people think suffering is bad and should be minimized. Presumably you either believe that suffering is not bad, or that bad things shouldn't be minimized, yes?

I guess my point is that Humanistic morality is based on unprovable assumptions in the same way theistic morality is. It's not superior. You still have to accept the presuppositions for it to make any sense, and I see no compelling reason to chose humanist presuppositions over any other.

The presumption that, as you are still alive, and remaining alive takes effort, you value your life.
Again, unless, you assume your complete superiority to others (feel free to demonstrate it if you do, of course), you must presume that they are like you, and value their lives, and that this value is not trivial.
So, which is it?

Other than perhaps an egoist based decision, and as a reasonable affluent, educated, heterosexual white male between the ages of 18 and 55, a sort of wishy washy theistic conservative culture has done alright by me. If I was born a crippled bi-sexual minority, I might seek after a different system. But I did ok in the lottery of birth circumstances and got born me. Huzzah.

Unless, of course, you don't value your life.

And why is it so "tone trollish" of me to ask a forum for atheists to defend atheist morality? You certainly ask Theists to defend their beliefs and assumptions. I didn't come in here calling you all a bunch of mo-fo's or anything, yet I get name calling and the like.

I didn't accuse anyone of that. I merely asked if your insults were superior to the other insults tossed around.
And if not, why should you bother with what you clearly believe to be spurious thoughts such as insults?

The cripple analogy was simply to illustrate how I perceived the name calling. I just wondered why they bothered, and found it comical. The point was indeed to suggest that any sort of name calling, mine included, was sort of counterproductive. Although posts, or elements of posts that contained something other that name calling were welcome. I just obviously touched a nerve for some people, and was responding to Ich.

So, to summarize: "Well, I mean I know, of course that name calling is silly, I was just demonstrating that for other people, not actually doing it myself I'm far above that, you see.
But boy, I sure pissed off some of you lesser beings with my clever taunts!"
Gotcha.

And by the way, a pretty good definition of empathy is feeling what other people feel because they are feeling it. Feeling pain because others are in pain is empathy. So, either you enjoy pain, or you move to lessen their pain.
That's what empathetic people do.
If you see others' pain, and are not moved to help, that's not actually empathy, it's just awareness.

Posted by: echidna | August 31, 2010 9:46 PM

He's also nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.

I agree. There is a very low incisiveness/vocabulary ratio that you get sometimes from college-educated people who haven't got the hang of critical thinking.

Posted by: echidna | August 31, 2010 9:57 PM

I hope not, as that would just lower his credibility completely into the toilet.

That would turn him from a waste of time to a completely obnoxious troll of a waste of time.

Posted by: Michael Dowd | September 5, 2010 8:45 PM

I apologize for responding so late. I've been offline for much of the last week.

Caine @295: Not sure why you have such venom toward me. Yes, reality, as evidentially known, is my primary allegiance and integrity, which I understand as living in right relationship to reality, is my religion. And yes, I am emergentist, a neo-humanist, and a religious naturalist. Look up the wiki pages on them and that's what I believe and hold as a true and accurate characterization of my worldview.

Ichthyic @296, yes I am quite aware of naturalism.org Go there yourself and click on "Spirituality" on the top bar menu. You'll see a list of my closest friends and colleagues. We share the same worldview.

Sadly I must admit that you mostly correct when you say "Dowd is a religion unto himself." Even though I've spoken to hundreds of thousands of people and my book has sold relatively well, no major (or even minor) religious body has yet taken the ball and run with it. My influence is still rather minor - with individuals and individual churches, but institutions mostly ignore my attempts to naturalize (de-supernaturalize) religion.

btthegeek @298, your sarcasm notwithstanding: Of course Zeus, Aphrodite, Pan, Hercules, Poseidon, and Narcissus are personifications of some aspect of Nature, or Nature as a whole! Is this news to you? All gods and goddesses are mythic projections. Yes, I see the pattern here. Do you?

Tigger @300: I don't attribute thought to the universe, nor do I worship it. There may be no evidence for God, as you correctly note, but there's a mountain of evidence that human beings have instinctually personified reality down through the ages, and not been conscious that that's what their brains were doing. We share the same naturalist worldview, I assure you. And yes, I know you don't respect my approach. But I'd be willing to bet my approach would be effective with some of your religious family members and friends, if you have any.

truthspeaker @301: you've heard of "secular Jews", right? There's ten times as many secular Christians (i.e, Christian in name and tradition but who lack supernatural beliefs). The mainline Christian denominations and Roman Catholic church are full of them.

Caine @310, Given how much you seem to dislike me, you could probably care less, but for years I called myself "a secular Christo-pagan." I attended pagan gatherings and enjoyed the rituals, but took none of it literally. My poly Pan-centric writings of 15 years ago can still be found online (under my pen name at the time, Michael Aluna): Panfidelity and the Birth of the Aluna Clan.