…and this is a 
I hate to break the news to him, but he's just so Johnny Snow. I've grated against ol' Wayne a few times before to mock his awful polls, and now I think he has finally snapped, babbling out incoherent mush about how atheists are just like believers, only worse…and he really doesn't like me. I don't think. Hard to tell with mixed messages like this one.
Just as James Dobson and other evangelists cultivate audiences in order to spread their beliefs, so do atheist evangelizers. The bigs are Britons Christopher Hitchens, who is battling cancer, and Richard Dawkins, who turns 70 in March. Myers, who grabbed attention by vandalizing sacred religious property, is a young and energetic American evangelist on track to become the James Dobson of atheism.
Excellent whiplash there — my eyebrows were pressing up against my hairline with that "young and energetic" remark, but then I had to do a major eyeroll at the comparison to Dobson. He's giving my face quite a workout.
Anyway, yeah, he's got another terrible little online poll, and it's already going the wrong way for him. I think he's got a reputation as the noisy little freak of Colorado Springs, so people all over already gawk at his train-wreck editorials. Here is this week's, which really out to be answered with data, not opinion polling:
Per capita, do athiests provide as much charity as members of traditional religions?
Yes, atheists are at least as charitable as members of traditional religions 68%
No, atheists are less charitable than members of traditional religions 16%
I don't know 5%
I don't care 10%
According to the statistics, religious people do donate more time and money to charity, but it's also complicated: atheists aren't organized and even when they are, typically aren't associating as community service organizations. It's like asking who gives more, TV repairmen or members of Habitat for Humanity? It's biasing the sample of TV repairmen (or atheists) by selecting from a more diverse pool, while Habitat for Humanity (or many religions) are preselected to contain more volunteers. Then of course there's also the confusion of needing only one godless Bill Gates to skew the data.
I like to skew it another way, and say that giving for religious purposes shouldn't really count, any more than flushing money down a toilet should count as charitable outreach. Instead, let's only consider productive charities, like hospitals.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 4, 2010 8:51 PM
It's pretty sloppy to write "athiests" even once in an official publication--although I realize he might not be responsible for it.
The idea that the amount of money given to charity by atheists has anything to do with the claims of the article is ludicrous. Sure, if atheists don't give as much money, I guess it must be true that there are atheist evangelists.
Get a grip, guy.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 4, 2010 8:51 PM
PZ, your link to Hemat's blog returns:
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 4, 2010 8:52 PM
James Dobson *SNORT* that's a goddamned insult if I ever saw one. Off with his head!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 4, 2010 8:55 PM
PZ, your link to Hemat's blog returns:
Posted by: Nineveh
|
September 4, 2010 8:55 PM
I don't understand how they count "atheists". We're not a group. There's no "belief system" to rally around or central "place" we meet to "not worship" every week.
And for that matter, even if a psychopathic mass murder massacred in the name of "refusing the existence of god" or however else one does "something" in the "name of atheism", who gives a shit. We'd still look at him and think "shithead", and call for his arrest and trial and whatever. There is no "atheistic belief system" to have to defend.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 4, 2010 8:57 PM
Sorry about the double post.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
September 4, 2010 9:00 PM
♪ With his squid ray PZ stop the world ♪
Posted by: squealpiggy
|
September 4, 2010 9:01 PM
What I like about the poll is that "Atheists give less than Christians" is neck and neck at 14% with "I don't know" + "I don't care".
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 4, 2010 9:01 PM
And what the hell with "... who turns 70 in March"? What does that have to do with Dawkins' atheism?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 4, 2010 9:06 PM
Yep - I don't want to see any numbers about "charitable giving" of religious people that doesn't have the money used for church overhead and proselytizing removed first. Paying the pastor's salary isn't charitable giving, nor is paying for the youth group to go hand out Chick tracts to people on the beach at spring break.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
September 4, 2010 9:06 PM
Habitat for Humanity...fine example. A work friend of mine asked me to do some volunteer work building her house. Why sure, I said.
The day I showed up to work, the very first thing they asked me was "What church are you affiliated with?"
I was all like "Huh, what? Why would you ask me such a thing?" I had no idea, but I caught on quick, what with the prayin' sessions over lunch.
It was all very presupposional that I was "house building for jebus".
Umm, no, I was house building for my friend's delightful kids.
The "house blessing" was particularly insulting to a flaming atheist...something along the lines of "everyone who helped build this house did so in jebus's name."
In the interest of social nicety, I let the insult go by, but I so wanted to call prayin' man out.
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 4, 2010 9:07 PM
re #4: page is back.
I see he also includes a cute little defense against pharyngulation 'bots by adding a capcha to vote.
Posted by: refugefromreality
|
September 4, 2010 9:10 PM
Personally, I voted "I don't care" in that poll. Since when is charitable giving a competition?
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 4, 2010 9:15 PM
re #9:
Okay, guess I'm a little slow today, the reference to Dawkins turning 70 is in contrast to PZ being the "young firebrand" of the atheist movement. Which I find really insulting to Dawkins who appears to have far more energy at 70 than a lot of people in their 20's.
Posted by: ChrisV
|
September 4, 2010 9:21 PM
@10 -Nor should money donated and used to pay for pedo-fines, pedo-lawsuits and pedo-hushups.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
September 4, 2010 9:22 PM
I love it how this poll is about something that isn't even a matter of opinion.
Posted by: Zeno
|
September 4, 2010 9:23 PM
In the absence of any personal morality, I felt empowered to claim I believed that atheists are more generous than religious people (although I know that religionists may, in fact, be quicker to open their purses). That just how evil I am.
Funny thing about evil atheists. Our absence in the prison population suggests we don't actually commit much evil. (Or ... we're very, very good at not getting caught!)
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 4, 2010 9:31 PM
Posted by: ggwizz
|
September 4, 2010 9:31 PM
Most of the "charity" given by the religious goes to the seat license for the weekly gospel singing and to hear somebody rant about how evil atheists are.
Posted by: Uncephalized
|
September 4, 2010 9:31 PM
Isn't ANY donation to a church, no matter what it is used for, considered a "charitable donation" as far as the government is concerned? So the church leans on you to donate 10% of your earnings to its operation, and then that extorted money gets piled on top of whatever the churchies might give to real, direct charity. Of course the numbers come out higher!
Also, I wonder if there is any difference between believers and non-believers in number of hours spent/items donated that do not have a monetary price tag attached, and if so, which way this discrepancy leans. It could easily be that non-believers simply tend to donate more of their time/possessions, and believers more of their money. Who knows?
Posted by: LeeLeeOne
|
September 4, 2010 9:32 PM
Kamaka: I have experienced the same. My donations have been flagged. My donations of goods and money are clearly from me, an atheist aka non-theist, and automatically I am suspect. It's just sad. So I have taken to donating to my local shelter with instructions to donate do whomever or whatever, with no strings attached. This tactic has been successful. Again, it's just sad. I have to bypass the direct route but eventually those in need become recipients; of those indeed.
Posted by: maggotpunk
|
September 4, 2010 9:32 PM
That Doug Ittner, who wrote that article is absolutely brilliant. He's also one sexy motherfucker.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
September 4, 2010 9:32 PM
Thinking rationally does have it's advantages.
Posted by: ggwizz
|
September 4, 2010 9:46 PM
Per capita, do athiests provide as much charity as members of traditional religions? Yes, atheists are at least as charitable as members of traditional religions 77%
No, atheists are less charitable than members of traditional religions 11%
I don't know 4%
I don't care 9%
Total Votes: 1082
Posted by: WayneLaugesen
|
September 4, 2010 9:50 PM
Dr. Myers, I DO like you. I think you are great. If I didn't like you, I wouldn't pay so much attention to your rising fame. I really did not like your Eucharistic desecration stunt a few years ago (I thought it was juvenile and mean), but I do like you, your blog and your chutzpah. This isn't personal. And you're right, the poll with this editorial is stupid. But you have to admit, organized atheism has many of the trappings of religion. -- Wayne
Posted by: Kamaka
|
September 4, 2010 9:56 PM
Only in your imagination, Wayne.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 4, 2010 10:00 PM
A few choice extracts from this moron's site include;
He acts as if atheism is a unitary movement that requires a 'defence' if some crackpot breaks the law in its name. He also misidentifies Lee's goal as promoting 'atheist televangelism', when for the most part Lee's manifesto was concerned with environmentalist issues.
Once again, Laugesen gets it wrong. PZ never claimed that religion was a mental illness equivilent to, say, paranoid schizophrenia. He merely pointed out that there are times when the religious behave in a fashion where their disconnect from reality bears similarities to that of sufferers of mental illnesses. PZ most categorically did not claim that becoming an atheist would magically cure a preexisting psychological condition.
This Laugesen moron cannot even quote mine properly. It is sad really, to see these traditional practices of religious apologia dying out so. When I was a lad, we had proper apologists, and the trolls always left one's teeth sharp and one's coat sniny....
/memory lane.
This one is a real peach. He claims we atheists 'push' our beliefs. He forgets that atheists share only one* universal belief common to all of us, and that is a belief in a negative. No atheist believes in a supernatural godhead. Beyond that, we are a pretty heterogenous bunch.
He goes on to claim that we 'preach', forgetting that reasoned, evidenced argument has nothing in common with preaching. We aren't the ones who attempt to dupe others with promises of eternal life post-mortem in some kind of celestial disney land/playboy mansion (depending upon the preferred flavour of woo).
Then there is the crack about 'terror'. One clearly disturbed individual threatens the staff at the Discovery Channel, while ranting mostly about his (rather scary) vision of environmentalism and periodically blurting out 'Darwin!'. No one other than the gunman is harmed. From this, the tower of intellect that is Laugesen manages to determine that atheists are terrorists, and that some monolithic atheist conspiracy is prepared to use preaching or terroristic violence (whichever is the best fit to the situation, one supposes) to 'evangelise' godlessness. Apparently. so far as Laugesen is concerned, saying "I will not confer belief on your god without evidence" Is exactly the same as strapping on a bomb vest and running off to blow up a few innocent people.
Also, atheism is not a 'faith' in any kind of unfalsifiable philosophy. Atheism simply demands evidence for the theist claims of godhead, and reminds theists that they cannot claim authority from an entity whose existence they cannot prove.
Isn't this list incomplete? Wouldn't we also need an irrational and anti-intellectual hostility toward science? And a grotesquely irresponsible attitude toward contraception? And a repulsive tendency toward misogyny, homophobia and racism? How about a long and bloody history of brutal sectarian violence? And, lest we forget, a propensity for raping children? Not to mention obscene wealth and disproportionate political influence? And an intimate relationship with the political Right?
It apperas that we do indeed have far to go before we can reach the... er, 'exalted' heights of religion, but I for one will not be 'getting on it' anytime soon...
* Ok, two if you count the consensus that babies make good eating.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
September 4, 2010 10:00 PM
So it looks like PZ is expected to take up the mantle of leadership of militant atheists everywhere, being the "young and energetic American evangelist on track to become the James Dobson of atheism." Best get on it, Dr. Myers. Your minions fervently await your fire and brimstone teachings against even tolerance of religion. /sarcasm
(Although, I feel compelled to point out: James Dobson, Ted Haggard, and fish-wrap daily paper aside, Colorado Springs is a nice place to live.)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 4, 2010 10:02 PM
No priests.No holy book.
No churches.
No hymnals.
No tithes.
No rituals.
No sacraments.
No deity.
And this relates to religion how???
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
September 4, 2010 10:05 PM
Someones' delusional thinking is showing. That plus more than a little projection.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlLfWIt8RBPF9zt3DpUKxuDKDBXRkX9NmQ
|
September 4, 2010 10:06 PM
Wait this guy thinks Myer's is young?!
Posted by: ExitB
|
September 4, 2010 10:17 PM
I sort of remember a guy who would come to the house and swap out vacuum tubes from the TV. I haven't seen him for awhile. Extinct?
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
September 4, 2010 10:18 PM
@29: "And this relates to religion how???"
As far as I can tell, it's because an atheist who happened to have a psychotic break-down did something violent for his beliefs/ideals, like xians who kill abortion doctors. Which, of course makes atheism and organized religion exactly the same. Although I could be misreading Wayne--I couldn't force myself to read his editorial; skimming it was bad enough.
Posted by: Bo Gardiner
|
September 4, 2010 10:19 PM
I'm so, so tired of this ludicrously flawed logic that notes the lack of atheist charities and volunteerism.
"Atheist" is about what we don't believe in. Instead, we have a variety of secular issues that we support through secular institutions. I'm an atheist and humanist, so as a humanist, I volunteer and donate in particular to environmental causes. This flows directly from my humanism, which was necessitated by atheism. I feel no need to find an atheist environmental group to support, for heaven's sake. My humanism leads me to give to the Red Cross, a secular charity, to women's organizations. Again, why go out and find atheist versions of these? Silly.
But the number one secular institution I actively engage in and support is good governance, which should be doing most of the work that these charities are doing. So many of them are made up of rightwingers making sure that the government can't run broad, consistent, effective programs, then they step in with their little haphazard charities and want credit.
Somehow we need to communicate this principle to the broader public more clearly.
Posted by: No One
|
September 4, 2010 10:21 PM
But you have to admit, organized atheism has many of the trappings of religion. -- Wayne
Like what? Hats?
Ok... Seriously... I understand... You can't win with reason, logic and evidence. So you insult us by the worst of all names..."Religious".
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 4, 2010 10:21 PM
#31 - Just what do you mean by that remark, whippersnapper? NO spankings for you, and your bar tab is canceled.
That'll learn ya. *flounces off*
Posted by: H.H.
|
September 4, 2010 10:24 PM
I love how he refers to the free communion wafers that were being given away as "sacred religious property." Makes it sound like you desecrated a church or something. If the cracker was anybody's "property" by the time you threw it in the trash, it was your own. What a dishonest asshole.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
September 4, 2010 10:27 PM
What G. Greenwood said.
Read my comment @ 11 above.
At no time did I break out a copy of "The god Delusion" over lunch, saying "The prophet Richard Dawkins, in his wisdom, says there is no gawd. We can be glad HE says we are self-realised beings who need no supernatural agency to act correctly."
Nope, I didn't do that even once. The religionists, on the other hand, played their "we need gawd to be good" bullshit card every day I was there.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 4, 2010 10:28 PM
Well, except for the religion part. Which is kind of the significant part, dontyathink?
Posted by: Zeno
|
September 4, 2010 10:30 PM
PZ is younger than I am. By definition, that makes him young.
(I just look younger than PZ.)
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 10:35 PM
Until this, I would have guessed Wayne Laugesen was a living, breathing human, but it appears he's only a chatbot with an incredibly tiny database of meaningless stock phrases.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if the development of a Defender of Religion that can pass the Turing Test is only a few years away. Amazing what science can do!
Posted by: No One
|
September 4, 2010 10:35 PM
I'm trying to come up with a suitable counter insult for being called "religious". And I admit defeat. Nothing comes close. You win Wayne...
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
September 4, 2010 10:39 PM
I would add that organized atheism also lacks organization.
Posted by: Donald Oats
|
September 4, 2010 10:42 PM
I read the article and it sucked 30 seconds from my life that could have been dedicated towards something more productive...
Some people regularly portray atheism as some kind of religion, which in the article in question, is intended to achieve three out of the four things I've identified below. Congratulations on the article's writer for also achieving the fourth item overwhelmingly. The four items are:
i) The religious tack applied to atheists is a clear case of rhetorical projection upon a particular group - atheists, with the purpose of saying that "you are no better than us as you are religious too, ergo your criticisms of us must be equally applicable to yourselves".
ii) It reflects a general lack of appreciation for what religion is, and is not.
iii) It is an example of "equivocation", which is the use of one meaning of a word, followed by using one or more alternative meanings of the word, and in this way shifting the goalposts of the argument. iv) It is an example of insensible debate concerning atheists, as obviously atheists have it right :-) (that is a joke speaking to truth, okay all you evangelists out there?).
Posted by: co
|
September 4, 2010 10:43 PM
ExitB, #32:
No, he's just evolved into a cable installer.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 4, 2010 10:45 PM
Chairs. Organized atheism, like many religions, has chairs.
Disorganized atheism, of course, never seems to have enough chairs. These adherents may feel less "trapped" because they can move around more, but really it's just less convenient.
Organized atheism is also reportedly working on co-opting religion's pancake breakfast. Soon it will be difficult to tell which is which, what with all the trappings being so similar and all.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 4, 2010 10:51 PM
Umm... actually, there's a bit of a problem, there...
You can probably see this coming... but... umm... see... my lab was working on this, and we noticed a problem with the experimental design, thing is...
The problem showed up when we were working up the protocol to recognize the two critical criteria we had to consider. And I guess a diagram probably gets to the point quickest, here...
So, in clearest Venn:
*** *** ***** ***** ******* ******* ******* ******* ***** ***** *** ***Domain on the left: criteria indicating system is a 'defender of religion'...
Domain on the right: criteria indicating system is effectively indistinguishable from organic intelligence--as opposed to, say, a trivially obviously preprogrammed system regurgitating semi-lifelike spam--as per the Turing Test.
I'm assuming everyone now can see the problem, yes?
(/Note: we also did one with 'defender of religion' and 'trivially obviously preprogrammed system regurgitating semi-lifelike spam'... But it's just one dot.)
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 4, 2010 10:53 PM
#31
#36 I'd like to flounce off with POM but my hip is pretty stiff today and my bunions are acting up so maybe I could just hobble off with my walker. But the arthuritis in my hands makes it hard to grip.Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 10:53 PM
Let's be fair to defenderofreligionchatbotwaynelaugesen1.0. For instance, both religion and organised atheism are made of of people, so that's one thing. And, uh, both 'religion' and 'organised atheism' contain the letters R, E, I, G, O, and N, so there are some more trappings they share.
Posted by: Airtime
|
September 4, 2010 10:53 PM
One of the greatest insults that they can come up with to hurl at atheists is to say that we're like them.
Very astute of them. If that were true it would sting a bit.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
September 4, 2010 10:53 PM
Candles! We have to get some candles and some incense...and robes. With symbols emblazoned upon them. And we need a building with a tall point, and a generous parking lot. Organized atheism will be truly rich in pageantry once we acquire these trappings!
Posted by: hideki.adam
|
September 4, 2010 10:58 PM
HH @ 37
If it's property and they believe they're right about the transubstantiation, doesn't that mean they're claiming to own Jesus anyway?
And they accuse /us/ of arrogance!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 4, 2010 11:02 PM
Stop it, people! My youth and vigor are the only things Old Man Laugesen got right in his whole rant.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
September 4, 2010 11:08 PM
PZMeyers...I would say that you have many of the trappings of youth and vigor.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 4, 2010 11:11 PM
Charity is but one measure of morality.
Not that theists should be crowing, if by charity tolerance is implied.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 4, 2010 11:13 PM
So, which is meaner: to threaten a kid who takes a cracker given to him, or to put a rusty nail through a cracker?
Seriously. Context, people! Why is everyone so ready to remember the cracker stunt itself, but so quick to forget the context?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 11:14 PM
Hmm. I see the problem, AJ. I guess it's just one of those things that the laws of the universe have decreed can never happen, like FTL travel, or faitheist integrity.
But your Venn diagram suggests something else to me.
On opposing ends of the spectrum of belief, you have religious fundamentalists and organised atheists. And those in the middle who are neither of these things claim both groups share many of the same trappings. So, now we have organised atheists and religious fundamentalists in one camp, and those who are not in another. But those in the other camp, religious moderates, faitheists, and agnostics also share some of the same trappings: none are actually convicted enough in their belief systems to act as if they believe what they claim to believe. For instance, moderate Christians would most certainly not eschew a doctor's care in favour of prayer when suffering a heart attack even though they're exhorted to by the very man they claim to believe is God. Faitheists claim truth itself doesn't matter, so long as one isn't made even slightest bit intellectually uncomfortable. Similarly agnostics...well, agnostics are still waiting for Dorothy to skip along with a Scarecrow and a Tin Man and take them to the Wiz's place. So moderates, faitheists, and agnostics share some of the same trappings. Now, religious moderates and religious fundamentalists share some very obvious trappings, as do atheists and agnostics. So, if atheists are just like fundamentalists, and moderates are just like faitheists who are just like agnostics, and fundamentalists are just like moderates, and agnostics are just like atheists, then everybody's the same! Q.E.D.!
(And, since I've just added a full paragraph of vapid inanity to teh intertubz, I guess I'm just like a faitheist, too.)
defenderofreligionchatbotwaynelaugesen1.0, please let your programmers know they're free to add my wisdom to your database of stock inanities, so long as they agree to give you full, pouty lips when they finally program you with a graphical interface. Consider it an indulgence.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 11:20 PM
Isn't that exactly how faith is supposed to work?
Posted by: Dust.....spy
|
September 4, 2010 11:20 PM
It doesn't matter if it could be proven that religionists give more to charities than non-religious.
Religion would still be not true.
As long as tithing is considered 'giving' the religious may have the giving *edge*. Forced giving; nothing to shout about.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
September 4, 2010 11:21 PM
Just a peep! Sorry! Charity - quite a bit of Christian charity is not in the end charity, since it goes towards proselytising and comes with strings attached for its recipients... And one thinks of that money-spinner for the Catholic church that I recall reading about: getting the faithful to contribute large amounts for the mounting of missions to the Inuit, missions that did not in fact require all that much money to run and were also a favourite dumping ground for paedophiles who could happily get on with their perversion activities and ruining people's lives. Perversion + Profit! What's not to like - if you're a prince of the church, or even, perhaps,like Mr Laugesen, a creator of mawkish videos involving babies crawling about in nuns' outfits and playing with large balls to jolly little Jesus tunes. Jerry Coyne has one of those videos up on his blog. If you want to ruin your day, no, your week or your month...
And that editorial is beneath contempt.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 4, 2010 11:22 PM
Well, if you were to take a bunch of atheists, put them in ill-fitting, out-of-style suits, grease their hair back, force them to kneel between rows of intensely uncomfortable benches as if they were waiting for the executioner to come up behind them and put a bullet through the back of their skulls, sing out-of-key songs that make little or no sense while accompanied by a wheezing Hammond organ played by the least-talented organist in the bunch, and then announced lunch would be fried bologna sandwiches with Miracle Whip and American cheese slices, they would look just like a typical American Christian Sunday service.
At least, until the group broke up for beer.
Posted by: surlyedition
|
September 4, 2010 11:24 PM
I'm godless, and I work at a human services non-profit.
I even spent a year serving with Americorps.
Don't talk to me about who's more charitable. Giving to your church doesn't count as "charity."
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 4, 2010 11:25 PM
I read that as "...so those two are practically on their way out".Didn't think it was very nice.
Only when seen through religiously tinted eyes, Wayne.
Posted by: billygutter01
|
September 4, 2010 11:27 PM
Every smug quip I could muster has been usurped by the quick witted and fast typing monsters upthread.
Damn your collective eyes!
*mutters vows of vengeance*
Posted by: WayneLaugesen
|
September 4, 2010 11:32 PM
Re: "Old Man Laugesen"
Hey, I'm not exactly redwood Myers.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 4, 2010 11:33 PM
Kiyaroru @48 - Take my arm sir and we'll flounce off together. No high kicks though, I'm persnickity about showing my pantelettes.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 4, 2010 11:33 PM
Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, my superpower is the ability to construct long rambling paragraph-encompassing sentences laced with off-beat, whimsical, and essentially pointless (though possibly humorous) details in an effort to drive the reader to diagram my sentences in the hope of extracting any possible, and perhaps accidental, meaning.
That, and an incredible capacity for excellent beer.
Posted by: billygutter01
|
September 4, 2010 11:35 PM
@#65
You men dense? Or wooden?
Yaaay I got one. (Imagine Janine from Ghostbusters)
Now I can go to be happy.
:-)
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 4, 2010 11:36 PM
Hey now, some of these things are not like the others. Let's not be hasty...
I mean, last I heard, there might be loopholes allowing FTL... only real problem being that the Joules we'd need might exceed the total of what's available in the entire universe by several times...
... so sure, FTL is a hard problem...
But then, there's the problem of getting Mooney to admit he was actually wrong about somethin'...
On balance, if it's between those, sign me up for the FTL thing.
(/Hell, what's a few universes.)
Posted by: billygutter01
|
September 4, 2010 11:38 PM
Crap. That should read, "..go to bed happy"
Spelling errors make Morpheus cranky.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 11:40 PM
I suppose defenderofreligionchatbotwaynelaugesen1.0 could add 'execute heretics for blasphemy' and 'burn witches' to its database of things the religious probably do more of than atheists.
Wow, with all this data I'm adding, in almost no time defenderofreligionchatbotwaynelaugesen1.0 is going to have the conversational power of a Furby (albeit one kept in its box at the warehouse until its batteries run down and its circuits degrade, but a Furby nonetheless.)
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 4, 2010 11:46 PM
It seems the chatbot found your comment too ambiguous to parse, PZ. Try using simpler words or commands.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
September 4, 2010 11:47 PM
Since Mr Laugerson, having been caught out, seems to be contributing his mites (pseudo-jocularities advertising his harmlessness, and suggesting that, no, he really wasn't being quite so nasty), I do want to point out to him, in case there is a misunderstanding on his part, that in my earlier comment I was merely remarking on the unspeakable nature of the videos of babies he makes, and wasn't suggesting for one moment that he gets up to unspeakable activities with people below the age of sexual consent, even those dressed in nuns' habits. (Which reminds me of the awful joke about the laundryman my father used to tell: he would knock on the monstery door and ask if the monks had any dirty habits.)
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 4, 2010 11:55 PM
I'm still trying to figure out what this "organized atheism" is that he speaks of. It must meet down the hall from where the aphilatelists meet to not collect stamps.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 4, 2010 11:57 PM
Well, to be fair, most of us that hang out here on the Pharyngula forum do so because of our common bond of atheism.
And everyone knows that online forums are just like religion.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 5, 2010 12:05 AM
nTB:
Amen.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 5, 2010 12:07 AM
And ridiculing and teasing faitheists like defenderofreligionchatbotwaynelaugesen1.0 in the manner we do here is just like executing heretics. Worse, probably: why, I'll bet the last thing Servetus thought as the flames seared the skin off his body was something like, "Well, at least they're not being juvenile and mean."
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 5, 2010 12:11 AM
Hey, I'm not exactly redwood Myers.
This is true.
You could only aspire to be as smart as a redwood.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 5, 2010 12:13 AM
Hey, we don't set people on fire anymore. It's so much more fun to insert oxidized cutlery into orifices, sideways and hypothetically.
Well, that and the sarcasm. And the mockery. And the pointing and laughing.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 5, 2010 12:17 AM
@67 - NigeltheBold - That sort of flagrant gluttony will get you a ticket straight to hell.
Silly atheists, our common bond of atheism is drunken twirling and animal farm camping in Enumclaw, Washington.
Posted by: No One
|
September 5, 2010 12:18 AM
Well, to be fair, most of us that hang out here on the Pharyngula forum do so because of our common bond of atheism./i>
Bullshit...
It's one of the few places that hasn't banned me.
Thats all... Common bond my hairy ass...
Posted by: theskepticalscribe
|
September 5, 2010 12:21 AM
Even if religious people gave more than atheists, the atheists do not scare people with threats of hell and such. You cannot put a price on that.
You mentioned Bill Gates. I heard he alone has contributed more money than all religious people combined. End of discussion.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 5, 2010 12:27 AM
I'm surprised you have been sent to The Hague to answer for your crimes against humanity, PZ.
Hell, I'm at a loss as to why YHWH himself hasn't reigned fire and brimstone down upon Morris for your sin. Surely if he was moved to get involved for the crime of threatening same-sex gang rape, you'd think he'd have no tolerance for juvenile meanness.
(Come to think of it, that's one for the theologians: Given the supposed events of Genesis 19, why do American prisons still exist?)
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 5, 2010 12:27 AM
Dammit! I am devout in reading the memos. NO ONE alerted me to the burning ban. What am I supposed to do with that half done baby out on the spit?
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 5, 2010 12:33 AM
Show and tell much?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 5, 2010 12:38 AM
NigeltheBold - Have you been en-Mollified yet? If not, then your #61 is all you need to qualify. That is the most dead-accurate screaming funny depiction of American Christianity I've read in years.
Posted by: Uptheroad
|
September 5, 2010 12:49 AM
Got to give Wayne credit for actually responding here and to his own editorials.
But come on, this editorial was way off track, imaginary. He practically made things up and certainly made up cause and effects that are wrong and downright strange. Even people commenting on the Gazette's website were saying how crazy this one was. And that's both sides of the issue saying Wayne was making it up.
But have to go, need to go read up on what our Atheist leaders are saying we must do. Have to follow the Atheist party line, right? Can't be thinking for ourselves, because we are just like a religion you know (Thanks Wayne!). We just have to follow whatever PZ, Christopher and Richard say. Should I print out PZ's blog and carry it with me everywhere I go? And knock on peoples door to show then PZ's revelations? Should town councils have readings from PZ's blog before meetings? What should I do when the Christopher/Richard Atheists come around? The are heretics for not believing in PZ. We are the true Atheist!
Please PZ...Tell me what to do!
Posted by: Diane G.
|
September 5, 2010 12:52 AM
"Monstery"--good one.
***
Personally, I'd love to be as young as PZ. And/or as senile as Dawkins.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 5, 2010 12:57 AM
Really? And I thought I had it rough as a Canadian Catholic.
Again, they willingly eat fried bologna, Miracle Whip and American cheese sandwiches?! And they say atheists are the ones with no reason to live.
Haven't you got a slow cooker?
Posted by: Aunt Benjy
|
September 5, 2010 12:58 AM
I'm not sure where *anyone* gets their purported numbers for donations to charity.
My money is as good as anyone's, and no-one has asked me to sign their declaration of jebus-freakdom.
I make loans via Kiva, and donate to Unicef, and try to stay religiously neutral (which can be difficult on Kiva...) but the only person who knew about it up till now is my tax accountant.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 5, 2010 1:03 AM
Jesus H. Christ Tomatoes, Brownian, do you have to do that to a guy when he's taking a swig?
When do I get my Ghey Secks with you?
Posted by: Bo Gardiner
|
September 5, 2010 1:23 AM
And secular humanist Ted Turner singlehandedly created the UN Population Fund with a billion-dollar donation. That one act probably reduced more suffering, past, present, and future combined, than all religious charities combined.
Heh.
Posted by: Tim Harris
|
September 5, 2010 1:26 AM
Yes, Diane G, I am glad you liked it (I have to admit it was a typing error, but I also liked it when I noticed it); and there are still plenty of monsteries about! And some of the more individual - as opposed to collective - kind, like Wayne L, make videos filled with littler ones: sort of modern monstrances filled with quaint and mawkish relics. Not that people like Wayne L listen seriously to remonstrants like us.I think he prefers his babies, and nuns' habits.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
September 5, 2010 1:36 AM
Now jest a damned minute, you fried bologna fans can just suck it. We true Amerikans stand by fried Spam & cheese. So get stuffed.
No. I don't put my half done baby into a slow cooker. Really Brownian have you never heard of Le Creuset?
Posted by: wanderinweeta
|
September 5, 2010 1:38 AM
Re donations to charity; what about "... when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: that thine alms may be in secret"? (Matt. 6:3,4 KJV)
Seems that the only true Christians are the atheists.
Posted by: No One
|
September 5, 2010 2:00 AM
I was traumatized in pre-school, when I brought in a dead skunk. So no, I'm not good at show and tell. Thanks for dredging up bad associations. It'll set back my therapy six months. That and being called "religious" by Wayne-o.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 5, 2010 2:01 AM
Hello...boorish atheist here. Up until about three years ago I did all my baby cooking on an overheated Trans Am engine block. I still like to stuff an opened can of PBR in the body cavity though. The meat practically falls off the bone, they get so tender. We used to joke that you knew it was done when you could stick a straw in the fontanel and suck the whole thing down like a milkshake.
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 5, 2010 2:16 AM
Yep. Babies are a great brain food.
Posted by: Icaria
|
September 5, 2010 2:38 AM
I've volunteered at an Anglican charity but it seemed to be religious (and charitable) in name only: people donated stuff, we fixed it up, then the 'charity' sold the items, or gave them to refugees/immigrants (which they received gov't subsidies for, anyway).
Posted by: percyprune
|
September 5, 2010 4:08 AM
Well, this is clearly a complex matter. So let's look at some numbers:
In the US it seems that the most charitable givers are the poorest. This 1991 survey rated the poorest households at 5.5% and the richest at 2.9%. Interesting, that.
http://bible.org/illustration/charitable-giving-capita
The most generous nation on Earth in terms of government aid is the United States at $28.67 bn, but only in absolute terms. When measured as a percentage of national income, it is waaaay down the list compared to relatively godless nations such as Sweden (where I currently live). The comparisons are 0.2% to 1.12%.
Also humanitarian donations as a percentage of national income for the US lags behind secular nations like Sweden by 0.03% to 0.12%. Though admittedly fundamentalist Saudi Arabia tops the list.
If you measure donations per citizen, the US sits in 9th place at $14 per citizen, a quarter of that of Sweden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries
However, when charitable giving is measured as a percentage of GDP the US sits top of the list at 1.67% compared with the nearest contenders, the UK and Canada, that are less than half this value.
So what can we conclude?
The most deserving people, the poor, give most.
Secular countries perform quite well when giving official overseas aid and in per capita donations.
However, America's very status as wealthiest nation tends to put it on top with regards to absolute spending and comparisons with GDP.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
September 5, 2010 4:47 AM
I have one.
www.kiva.org
The atheist group is top of the league table for groups. About a million bucks ahead of the christians.
www.twigg.co
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
September 5, 2010 5:13 AM
Oh also if you REALLY want to give to a developing world scientist :
linkhttp://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/williamkamkwamba/photos.html
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
September 5, 2010 5:16 AM
oh damn ... I've been doing this business with the links wrong.
http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/williamkamkwamba/photos.html
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
September 5, 2010 5:32 AM
What trappings of religion does atheism have?
No chants, no sermons, no hymnbooks, no kneeling-kissing rings-going to confession. No funny hats (unless maybe Cthulu headgear is counted). No tithing, no threats of damnation. No fancy titles, no magic underwear.
What atheism organizations do is offer a place for the like-minded to meet and talk, which doesn't seem like a "trapping". If it is, you could say librarian conferences have the trappings of religion.
Posted by: Giford
|
September 5, 2010 6:02 AM
Hey, maybe this guy is being smarter than you think here. This poll has a real answer, right? And that is that - even after deducting donations to religious charaties - theists give more per capita.
So an appearance on Pharyngula, coupled with a massive load of *demonstrably wrong* votes - how's that going to look? Atheists are close-minded, biased and plain wrong.
My advice - vote accurately (thiests give more). Then get out there and donate some money to change this.
(I may get some heat for this post. :) )
Gif
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
September 5, 2010 6:19 AM
The trouble with counting donations to religious charities is that there are different kinds of "religious charities", some of which do real humanitarian work and some of which don't.
There are charities which provide humanitarian aid and just happen to be motivated by a religious ethos. Even as an atheist, I have no problem with donating to those. And there are plenty of churches who send money to disaster relief appeals, run soup kitchens, etc.
But then there are also religious "charities" whose primary mission is religious evangelism: they may provide some humanitarian aid, but only as an inducement to get people to listen to their message. Humanitarian aid that comes with ideological strings attached isn't charity: it's bribery, and I wouldn't consider it a real charitable donation. Not to mention when religious organisations get involved in political bullshit, such as with the Catholic and Mormon churches spending members' contributions on campaigning for Proposition 8. Unfortunately, since contributions to churches and evangelism drives are considered "charitable donations" for tax purposes in most jurisdictions, it's probably impossible to separate out the figures.
But in any case, I'd also point out that the entire question is irrelevant to the validity of the atheist position. Atheism isn't a religion, and atheists don't claim that being an atheist magically makes you a better person. Rather, atheism is simply an acknowledgement of the plain fact that there's no evidence for the existence of a literal, personal god. Even if Christians were demonstrably more moral than atheists, that wouldn't have any bearing on the question of whether the supernatural claims of Christianity are true or false. It's simply a distraction, and an attempt to obfuscate the point.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 5, 2010 6:24 AM
[Citation needed]
(By the way, to say that theists give more per unit of population is somewhat nonsensical)
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 5, 2010 6:26 AM
Since Laugesen claims that atheism is just like religion, I will attempt to channel a religious response to the post by Josh, Official SpokesGay, HKFG @ 91....
*ahem*
religious/
"How dare you invoke teh name of our Lard and Saviour so? Making a humerous remark that references a two thousand year old carpenter and part time reliogious snake oil salesman (that invkes the unholy tomato, no less. Most godless of friut, apple of satan!) who is oddly absent from the historical records of the period is the worst possible thing that you can do. Way worse than a priest raping a child. You are oppressing me! Stop oppressing me, you mean, dickish athiest!" *sob*
*Gasp* "You're teh ghey!? And you would incite others to teh ghey? How can you be so heartless as to confront me with the fact of your existance? You remind me of that time when that buff young man 'carried my luggage', but all I did was 'share the gospel' with him, honestly. Anyway, I am better now, just like Ted Haggard..."
*pray away teh ghey, pray away teh ghey*
"I mean, children could be on teh intertoobes, and we all know that if a child comes to suspect that it is possible for a person to experience romantic love for another person of the same gender as themselves, then that child will mutate into a hideous, subhuman and, worst of all, ghey monster! Won't someone think of teh poor, poor children!?"
*clutches pearls*
/religious
Ok, lets see then...
Places a ludicrous level of significance upon the supposed life and deeds of a 'messiah' from two millennia ago, when the very existence of this man has not been proven, let alone his magic powers. Check
Claims that any tendency to raise doubts over the accuracy of the biblical account of the aforementioned individual, and especially any mockery of the fetishisation of this figure, amounts to 'oppression', even though nothing has been doen to restrict the freedom of religion of Christians. Check
Casual and reactionary homophobia that treats the very existence of openly gay people as an affront. Check
Claims that homosexuals are attempting to 'convert' or 'incite' heterosexuals to homosexuality. Implied belief that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, rather than the way a person happens to be born. Check
Repressed homosexual tendencies that births homophobic statements as overcompensation. Check
Attempts to depict homosexuality as inherently harmful to society, and in particular children, so that they can mask their bigotry behind an alleged desire to champion the supposed interests of children, even though there is zero evidence to indicate that an environment that is accepting of homosexuality is in any way to harmful to children. Check
Yes, that pretty much seems to cover it.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
September 5, 2010 6:41 AM
That's an oblique reference to the triceratops-riding episode, isn't it ?
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
September 5, 2010 6:49 AM
Nope. This is just wrong. I can give at least one example where theists and atheists are self selected into groups; in that context the atheists are giving about 65% more.
The measurement is performed on actual real money given.
join http://www.kiva.org it's a brilliant charity.
One tiny caveat. The per capita giving is about 29% higher for the christians which ... oh shit. Do I have to be honest about this?
Atheists join http://www.kiva.org and start giving!
This week in Global Governance - http://www.twigg.co
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 5, 2010 6:53 AM
Were you channeling Loudon Wainwright III?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 5, 2010 7:04 AM
Gregory Greenwood #108
You forgot one sign of religiousness in America:
Hold a tax-free status while pushing a right-wing political stance. Check
Posted by: Kurt1
|
September 5, 2010 8:11 AM
What exactly is a shock-scientist? To put it in the words of google: Did you mean: Trauma-therapist? Anyways, thats not PZ´s field at all.
I always find myself laughing, when I think about how these nuts never understand, how atheism is no alternative religion, but the alternative to religions.
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
September 5, 2010 8:33 AM
That poll needs checkboxes instead of radiobuttons, because I don't know and I don't care (something something underwear -- how does that rhyme go? I forgot).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 5, 2010 8:38 AM
My guess is the Great Desecration
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 5, 2010 8:48 AM
The religious saying they're so generous and give more makes me think of those stats which show that the numbers who say they attend church weekly is greater than what the churches out there could actually hold.
IOW, don't believe it for a minute.
Posted by: cuco3
|
September 5, 2010 8:52 AM
I'm not going to claim to be the most charitable person around, but at least when I make a donation it's because I hope it'll do some good and not simply as part of some points-scoring exercise.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 5, 2010 8:52 AM
Damn. I've been doin' it wrong.
My wife will be relieved I no longer have do the drunken twirling of animals.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 5, 2010 9:02 AM
Rev BDC #115
The woosh you hear, etc.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
September 5, 2010 9:19 AM
Josh, Official SpokesGay, HKFG, #86:
Now you have me blushing like a schoolgirl. Or a schoolboy approached by schoolgirl.
Thank you.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 5, 2010 9:21 AM
@co#45: You have no proof! Where is the missing link - the half cable installer/half vacuum tube swapper - the cable tube swaptaller?
Posted by: irenedelse
|
September 5, 2010 9:28 AM
Ah, a rebuttal of atheism that rides on silly things like internet polls... Wait to FAIL, Mr Laugesen.
Plus, he doesn't seem aware of such secular chrities as the RDF's Non-Believers Giving Aid, or the Foundation Beyond Belief.
Posted by: James F
|
September 5, 2010 9:28 AM
"OK. Dude. You're not my nemesis."
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 5, 2010 10:05 AM
'Tis Himself, OM @ 112;
You are right. No list of religious kookery could be complete without this little gem. If they are not fellating the Right, they are not True Christians(TM).
Any other suggestions from the Pharyngulite Horde?
Posted by: Archaeopteryx
|
September 5, 2010 10:09 AM
Money donated to a church is not "charity." It's protection money to keep one out of Hell, paid to a racket that knows how to take advantage of the weak-minded.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
September 5, 2010 10:34 AM
Does anyone think that that bugfuck insane asshole John Hague does anything to help anyone, other than himself to his 2nd plate of chicken fried steak?
Give me a break. Have any of you ever been to a restaurant and seen that fat fuck eat?
It will put you off food for a month. He doesn't care about the starving. He's too busy seeing how many plates of mashed potatoes with gravy he can stuff in his ugly fat face.
Posted by: mmelliott01
|
September 5, 2010 10:49 AM
Josh@86: Too right! It's also a great description of what I imagine Hell would be like if it were real.
Posted by: Acronym Jim
|
September 5, 2010 10:49 AM
Wait, Bill Gates is a TV repairman? Does he do it to relax?
Posted by: bcoppola
|
September 5, 2010 10:54 AM
I joined a local atheist Meetup group looking for organized atheism where I could take the sacraments of debauchery and barbequed baby in a suitably ritualistic manner. But meetings are held at a Logan's roadhouse and while the ribs and beer are OK it's not quite what I was looking for. C'mon, guys. What's it take to get in on the real good stuff? When do I get initiated into the Rational Mysteries? Take my First Unholy Communion?
Posted by: Moggie
|
September 5, 2010 11:03 AM
#82:
I guess that just about makes up for that damn animated paperclip.
It's amusing that the religious are keen to promote a statistic which, at best, shows that religion can be useful. Likewise, telling a child that Santa keeps a list of who is naughty can improve their behaviour, but I don't see anyone claiming that this shows that Santa really exists.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 5, 2010 11:15 AM
@130
no what makes up for the paper clip is the leaked memo from Gates titled "CLIPPY *MUST* DIE"
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 5, 2010 11:18 AM
Hey, Wayne, how did you like the actions of the pious churchgoers is physically assaulting a student who tried to take the host cracker back to his seat? Don't you think THEY were juvenile and mean?
What's worse, breaking a cracker or attacking a human being?
PZ's demo of cracker, Koran, and God-Delusion assault was making a point about the value of common THINGS vs. PEOPLE.
If you don't get it, perhaps your moral sense is not as developed as you think it is. In which case, stop trying to edify the rest of us. We're way ahead of you.
Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas
|
September 5, 2010 11:19 AM
I thought Professor Myers' Official NemesisTM was Ben Stein.
Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com
|
September 5, 2010 11:21 AM
As has been stated a few times, giving to your own church is as charitable as donating money to restore the clubhouse at your favorite golf course.
Another point to take is older people tend to be more religious than younger people, and younger people will naturally tend to be less charitable in terms of absolute dollars donated, as they are still trying to establish themselves.
I'd take figures of relative charity more seriously if they looked at a atheists/christian giving within a specific demographic or at least tried to normalize things in terms of percentage of income.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 5, 2010 11:22 AM
He also blighted the world with colorized classic movies and Captain Planet....let's call that one a draw if not a net harm.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 5, 2010 11:27 AM
Gregory, may I quote you on my blog?
Do you have an online ID that you'd like linked to your quote?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 5, 2010 11:36 AM
yeah, that's what i get for commenting without reading everything.
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 5, 2010 12:14 PM
If you read Laugesen's essay, the real "trapping of religion" he's accusing atheism of is aggressive proselytizing. Telling people that their faith is wrong is violence. It's an attack. Since neither side (God exists vs. God doesn't exist) can be rationally proven, the only way to get people from one side to the other is to force them against their will. Scream at them. Shoot them. Line them up and bully them. Weaken their resistance so that they will give in just to avoid the pain. Take them hostage and force them to renounce their faith. That's what atheists are trying to do.
This seems like an odd line to take, if you think your faith is a "reasoned faith," one based on good, solid evidence which can persuade a reasonable person. Surely, it is permissable to make rational attacks on an idea which can defend itself. It is only those people of faith who insist that their faith is an arbitrary "choice" which must perforce go against the evidence who view all criticism as horribly unfair, like picking on the handicapped or infirm. Such a flabby faith is incapable of being defended. A robust idea ought to stand up to anything.
But shutting up the opposition is a very shrewd tactic if you want to pretend your religious beliefs are well-founded, but secretly fear they're not. Exaggerate how much your critics bully people of faith, so that your reasonable religious conclusions now merit the tender, delicate, special consideration given to the weak and victimized. Draw parallels between a madman throwing bombs and a professor writing on a blog, all part of the sliding continuum which is atheism.
I'm not sure if Laugesen is a dishonest knave, or if he really does see such an equivalence and conspiracy. Does he think that portraying religion's critics as raging loons will convince people to not consider the criticism? Does he think he needs to do this, for faith is so fragile?
Posted by: Hilary Mark Nelson
|
September 5, 2010 12:38 PM
As I skimmed Laugesen's article, I was amused to see that he misquoted P.Z., saying he'd called Michael Ruse a "clueless godshite," not "gobshite."
Wikipedia gives this etymology for gobshite: "gob + shite (i.e. mouth + excrement)"
"Godshite" doesn't seem to be a recognized word, but I like Laugesen's inadvertent neologism. I think it deserves to be popularized.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 5, 2010 1:05 PM
WayneLaugesen:
Hey, I'm not exactly redwood Myers.
What a great, little comment. Very amusing.
Never mind that your last comment was ripped to shreds in twenty different ways, clearly showing how wrong you are. Let's just ignore that, make a joke and hope it'll all go away.
For god's sake, don't post a coherent response, addressing the points made against you. After all, you might end up making such an ass of yourself that we'll all lose our last, little glimmer of hope that you might have something relevant to contribute.
Oops, I guess I'm being "militant" now, using such classic terrorist tactics as harsh language.
Posted by: llewelly
|
September 5, 2010 2:38 PM
refugefromreality | September 4, 2010 9:10 PM:
The idea that atheists are uncharitable bastards incapable of doing good things for others is a favorite hobby horse of many religious people.
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 5, 2010 2:42 PM
Odd that if Christians are so charitable, they're also far less likely to support government programs intended to help the poor.
But never mind that. I just want to share a small memory from my days going to church as a boy. We always had two plates going around the room when collection time came around; the first was money for the church, the second was for the Cause of the Week, usually some missionary group or another. Without fail, the first plate ended up with far more money.
Posted by: Celeste
|
September 5, 2010 2:54 PM
I didn't think it was possible to admire you any more than I already do, PZ, but then you went and dropped a Joss Whedon reference like "just so Johnny Snow".
I'm not worthy!
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
September 6, 2010 3:41 AM
Re Triceratops vs cracker :
I know. But I went for the funniest option.