…and this is a 
Already, deranged Discovery Institute shill David Klinghoffer is blaming the hostage-taking nut James Lee's actions on Darwinism.
Witness the recent examples of Holocaust Memorial Museum shooter James von Brunn, Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris, Jokela High School shooter Pekka Eric Auvinen. Historical figures who drew inspiration, if indirectly, from Darwinian theory include Charles Manson, Mao Tse-tung, Joseph Stalin, Josef Mengele, and of course Adolf Hitler. I've written about this many times before and received much abuse for it, not least when I took up the theme on the Huffington Post. (An editor advised me they will not let me do that again.)
Yes, Lee was apparently an atheist, and he attributed the need for his actions to a badly mangled version of Darwinism (although, really, a strict Darwinian fanatic probably wouldn't rush to commit a violent act that could only end with him dead or incarcerated, and also wouldn't be ranting about ending reproduction for his own species. I'd expect a truly fervent Darwinian to be avoiding risks and expending a great deal of effort in courtship, or at least frantically making lots of donations to the local sperm or ovum bank.) Yes, we can make lists of atheists or people who have fulminated superficially about Darwin who have done evil crimes. So? We can also make lists of Christians who have committed evil.
But let us be clear about a few things about godless Darwinians:
They don't make claims that believing in Darwin will make you a good person.
They don't make claims that taking courses in Darwinism will clear up your mental health issues.
Certified Darwinian counselors do not have free parking privileges so they can rush to the sick and dying to soothe them with a little doctrine in population genetics.
There is no Darwinist creed that justifies and encourages slaughtering creationists.
There are no Darwinist elites laying down fatwas against Discovery Channel executives, not even for Ghost Lab or Bear Grylls.
They do not seek salvation in the mixed bag of pop sci programming on a cable television station. Jamie and Adam are not our prophets, even if Mythbusters is pretty good, mostly.
There is no grassroots collection of Darwinist supporters lurking in the remote urban wilderness who would have sheltered James Lee while he was on the lam.
There was no supportive mob of god-hatin' Darwin lovers converging on the Discovery Building to chant in support of James Lee.
There will be no surly academic Darwinists who will grumble "no comment" at reporters while gathering with the faithful to praise their heroic martyr, James Lee, in the privacy of their communes and revival meetings.
They all pretty much think James Lee was a mentally ill doofus who got everything wrong — at best a subject of pity.
There will be no conspiracy theories that James Lee was a good man set up by the Christian majority.
They will not be telling each other that James Lee will receive his reward for his righteous actions in Darwinist Paradise.
If he'd lived, James Lee would not have been given free legal help by the Society for the Study of Evolution, nor would they have hidden his crimes and helped him relocate to another regional chapter, which would not have been told about his violent proclivities.
There will be no secretive James Lee Society set up to work for reduced fertility and angrier television documentaries in his name.
No one will be writing generous op-eds in which James Lee is praised as a misguided figure with his heart in the right place, in the bosom of scientific thinking.
James von Brunn, Eric Harris, Pekka Eric Auvinen, and not even Manson, Mao, Stalin, Mengele, or Hitler are praised in any biology textbooks. James Lee will not, either.
An occasional lone nut spouting idiosyncratic visions of Darwinism does not change the fact that we have the scientific evidence on our side.
James Lee does not have a constituency, nor does he have any representatives working for his goals in congress.
James Lee did not increase his inclusive fitness.
I'm sorry, Mr Krazypants Klinghoffer, but there's basically no way anyone can argue that James Lee was representative of any significant subgroup of evolutionary biologists, fans of Darwin, or freethinkers; he's a sad, lonely outlier whose weird collection of confused ideas were a product of his isolation and mental illness, not any substantial strand of evolutionary theory.
Oh, and Hitler did not derive his ideas from Darwin: his primary intellectual antecedent would have been Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who detested anything to do with that Darwin fellow's theory. You've had this explained to you often enough, that Hitler was if anything nominally Catholic, bizarrely pagan, and his ideas had nothing to do with science or with atheism, but you don't care, I know. Is it any surprise that you're considered too obtuse even for the Huffington Post?
Comments
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2010 10:48 PM
Trying direct honesty with that group of professional liars and bullshitters? I think they have their fingers in their ears, yelling LALALALALALALALALALA at the top of their voices while they run away out of earshot. They can't handle the truth.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 1, 2010 10:50 PM
But see, we don't denounce the mangy criminal in the name of God, and condemn him to eternal hellfire. So the mere fact that science is not prescriptive, while Xianity's various profanities (like hellfire, and righteous hatred of theistic and of atheistic evolutionists) are indeed prescriptive to the hilt, matters not at all.
IOW, the fact that Lee couldn't possibly get evolution right if he thought it was prescriptive is dismissed because, as we all know, evolution is simply the spawn of the devil.
And for that reason, we need theocracy and witch-hunts once again, just as God's word commands.
BTW, Crowther wrote some filth about it as well.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 1, 2010 10:53 PM
Or actually, it's Crowther pointing to some tripe that Chapman wrote. They're all equally exchangeable theocrats anyway.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 1, 2010 10:54 PM
We couldn't possibly blame it on mental imbalance and lack of education now could we? Where would that leave all the zombie lovers?
Posted by: chaseacross
|
September 1, 2010 10:56 PM
He definitely doesn't represent Darwinists or even most environmentalists. If you read his website, he's firmly in the anarcho-primitivist camp, sharing smores o' stupid with asshats like Quinn, Jensen, Zerzan, Churchill, and of course Ted Kaczynski. I'm not at all surprised the God Squad is trying to pin this on Darwin and his latter-day acolytes, even though Malthus is mentioned more prominently in this nutter's website. What, no attempt to pin this on the discredited Paul Ehrlich?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 10:57 PM
James Lee did not increase his inclusive fitness.
[silly]
hmm, given American fascination with criminals, I'm not so sure.
I could easily envision Lee groupies seeking to find out if he had a brother or sister.
IIRC, even Dalmer has a lot of groupies, yes?
It's possible his inclusive fitness might have indeed been raised.
[/silly]
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 11:00 PM
btw, this is now front page news at the Discotute:
http://www.discoverynews.org/
by guess who?
Bruce Chapman.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
September 1, 2010 11:01 PM
Oh, but don't you see PZ? They need these poisoning the well/godwin tactics. How can they survive without? It's not like any of their claims have any base in reality and science.
Oh, but look at what is in the random quote bar:
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe
|
September 1, 2010 11:04 PM
I'd sure like to see the word "Darwinism" go away. Do objects fall to Earth because of "Newtonism"?
PZ, why not adopt a policy of at least always putting "Darwinism" in quotation marks?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 11:05 PM
What's really pathetic about Klinghoffer and those like him is that they rush to use such a situation to point a shaking finger and scream "shame!" rather than express sadness over what mental illness can do to a person.
Not one sign of sympathy; not a smidgen of empathy; not an iota of sadness over a wasted life. Shame on Klinghoffer.
Posted by: vekbot
|
September 1, 2010 11:12 PM
@#9
I agree completely. Maybe it's because I reject religions because of the logical fallacies they contain. I accept science based off the logical conclusions it contains. I did not replace one with the other.
Evolution is not my religion and Darwin is not my god. I am an atheist who accepts evolution by natural selection. Darwin could be removed from every text book out there and I'd still accept evolution. In actual practice, Darwin is quite irrelevant to biology.
And, no, I don't celebrate Darwin Day. I'm not even sure which month it is since it doesn't matter.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 1, 2010 11:17 PM
Oh, fucking hell.
Also, what Caine said. Would be nice if they noticed that body they were slinging around as a cudgel actually belonged to a person.
Posted by: andydig
|
September 1, 2010 11:23 PM
Sadly, it was totally inevitable that the right-wingers were going to blame "Darwinism" for the entire thing. There is nothing anybody can do to convince these people otherwise. They are so full of mindless self-righteous hate for anybody that disagrees with them that they will do anything to discredit them, no matter how dishonest and indefensible.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 1, 2010 11:28 PM
Nor does lack of faith, as per James Lee, but then we never said that lack of faith did prove anything.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: jeffery.g.davis
|
September 1, 2010 11:28 PM
Why these people are never pushing credit on Darwin for the millions of GOOD things that are derived from natural selection is beyond me. Do we blame J.D. Salinger for John Lennon's death? Of course not, there is nothing like that in the book, it wasn't his fault a psycho misinterpreted it.
Posted by: Ed S
|
September 1, 2010 11:29 PM
This particular misguided soul is dead. At least no one else perished with him. So the DI will blame his craziness on a belief in Darwin.
On what philosophy do they attribute the motivations of those in the past who tortured and burned thousands of "heretics", or in modern times have shot doctors through kitchen windows in front of their families, raped hundreds (maybe thousands) of children, etc... The "humans", a term used loosely, at the DI are showing their true colors. They are simply beneath contempt.
Posted by: GordonOKC
|
September 1, 2010 11:33 PM
P. Z you are correct. "It didn't take long" I would say it was faster than Jebus can drop a handfull of M & M's.
Posted by: rturpin
|
September 1, 2010 11:36 PM
There is a correct sense in which the actions of every deranged and deluded individual can be blamed on Darwinism, to wit, it is precisely our evolutionary history that results in the spectrum of phonotypes that we are, saints and sinner, geniuses and lunatics, ideologues and pragmatists. Darwinian evolution is responsible for criminal behavior in exactly the same sense that general relativity is responsible for asteroids impacting the earth and quantum mechanics is responsible for radioacitivty.
Posted by: capnjammer
|
September 1, 2010 11:39 PM
The problem with some atheists is that they are created out of spite rather than intelligent thought, rationalization, measured discourse on difficult existential questions... A lot of atheists come about the same way as a lot of Satanists: they have something bad happen to them in church, or a religious leader fails them, or they are locked up in their little Them world of fairy tales for so long that they pop when they enter the outside world. They are products of oppression and repression.
I'm an atheist that used to be a Baptist preacher, missionary, and evangelist. I had some bad experiences in the church, but I tried to equate it with bad religionists and a bad religion rather than a bad god. Then, after I studied more to find out about the real God, I realized there simply could not be one. I didn't want to leave religion, I wanted to hold on to it with all my strength, but I simply could not do so.
People who used to know me still accuse me of hating God, but it's just not so: I hate religion, because it is a major underlying (and often readily apparent) force behind all the world's sorrows, past, present, and yet to come. But I don't hate God. How could I? He isn't real. That would be like hating Sauron or Gargamel or the butler on every episode of Scooby Doo.
But some atheists, and I'm sure the late Mr. Lee was among them, are atheists BECAUSE they hate God.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
September 1, 2010 11:39 PM
Caine @ #10, +1.
Leave it to a godless heathen to talk about humanity and empathy and other yuckey stuff.
Where's a good christian to point fingers when you neeed them?
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
September 1, 2010 11:44 PM
They hate the idea of god because they hate, thus the underlying problem. But then they aren't real atheists unless they can figure figure a way to hate something they really think doesn't exist.Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 1, 2010 11:45 PM
As usual, their profound interest in science and in following the evidence comes through loud and clear. David's just concerned that evolution doesn't answer the relevant questions about how taxonomy is practiced, and the fact that P. falciparum simply had to be designed (by The DesignerTM).
Yes, this will all go to showing how criticisms of evolution are based on a concern for doing good science at Scopes IV (or whatever the count is supposed to be by now).
Your theocracy's showing, IDiot-boys.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: TheRatKing
|
September 1, 2010 11:45 PM
Oh I dunno.. I'd rather like a fatwa dropped on that idiot Grylls... but I'm no elite.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
September 1, 2010 11:54 PM
I would have thought the first thing a 'Darwin fanatic' would have done was rush off and read the fricken book!
Sheesh...
Posted by: Calaban
|
September 1, 2010 11:55 PM
Sadly I read that the police shot him.
Too bad he couldn't get the help he needed.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
September 1, 2010 11:55 PM
It works this way. When someone goes raving mad, they either rant about God --- or they don't.
If they rant about God, it is not relevant to their actions; they are simply poor souls, pushed to the edge of despair by the troubles of this fallen world.
If they don't rant about God, it's because they are godless. And being godless is the reason why they went crazy.
I like tidy dichotomies.
Posted by: david.cabrera.88
|
September 1, 2010 11:57 PM
Does this also forbids intelectual slaugther?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 11:59 PM
Not surprising in the slightest. Though I'm a little disappointed that capitalism and Christianity didn't get the same treatment because of the gunman's mention of Malthus. If you're going to be clutch at straws, at least be an equal-opportunity straw-clutcher...
But I suppose I should keep reminding myself that this is a pure cultural battle over an idea that people feel threatened by. This is just crazily idiotic, vapid propaganda aimed at the ignoramus. Well done Discovery Institute, you show just why so many people hold religious belief in contempt!
Posted by: James F
|
September 2, 2010 12:00 AM
First nearly early peer-reviewed biology journal, now The Huffington Post. The DI can't get no respect.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
September 2, 2010 12:00 AM
This is my favorite part:
Emphasis is so mine, because that "if indirectly" can be stretched out to mean absolutely anything. Hitler clearly didn't give a damn about Darwin? Well...well, the influence was just indirect! Same thing with everyone I want to blame on the nasty godless scientism! It's all Darwin's fault because I say so and you can't prove I'm wrong, so there!
Posted by: hockeybobs
|
September 2, 2010 12:04 AM
So, a raving lunatic at the Discovery Institute (I know, I'm repeating myself there) is already trying to blame Charles Darwin for the shooting at the Discovery Channel HQ; let there be no confusing the two entities with Discovery in their names... the latter acknowledges science and reality, and the former utterly rejects it.
Typical.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
September 2, 2010 12:09 AM
Damn! As much as I hate to admit it and as well as folding as gracefully as possible in the face of reality all I really have to say is that it really is that easy to be that crazy.
Speaking as an ex xtian, not a wiser one, mind, the ability of some people to be so far from grasping the simplest truths and principles exhibited to us daily is the saddest of all things.
I can think of nothing sadder than someone who gives up themselves for an unknown quantity. Unless it is lots of them forming a group that celebrates their deformity.
And then there is poor Mr. Lee who has, if early reports are accurate, died for nothing.
As sad is that the lesson of his life will be prostituted and twisted beyond reckoning in its retelling as a prop for right wing fear and loathing.
Gee, if they only knew how much we actually love them! Sadder still.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 2, 2010 12:34 AM
Goddammit. This:
. . caused me to lose a mouthful of wine, for which I'm sorely tempted to dun you.
Then to rub salt in the wound, Ichthyic's number 6 caused a repetition of same, resulting in fully one half glass of wine (I take big swigs) wasted.
You gents wanna split the bill? Srsly, I lol'ed, and lol'ed again.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 2, 2010 12:35 AM
Lee is reminiscent of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. You get someone that has some awareness of dangers of overpopulation and environmental bed-shitting, coupled with a schizophrenic personality, and the end result is some misanthrope that thinks that they can single-handedly save the world from humanity.
It doesn't say much about the state of where Lee's ability to come to terms with the situation were when his motivating catalyst was a children's book, and a few pages in particular. I'm guessing major OCD, lack of access to decent mental health and probably not enough people close enough to have noticed the deterioration in grasp of reality.
Not surprising that the Jeebus-people are getting all wet from the schadenfreude (because Jeebus was actually a German-Jew who loved the misfortune of others). Pat Robertson probably came when he saw the headlines, and is absolutely vibrating until he can get on TV to ooze his unctuous reptilian smirk about the horrible godlessness creating terror in the streets of Jeebusland.
This is definitely one of those times (if he hadn't been shot) we could have yelled 'YOU'RE NOT HELPING!!!'
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 2, 2010 12:41 AM
Atheists are not "created." Nothing is "created."
Taking all of these together from your meandering post:
. . . I have to say I doubt you. I suspect that you've either not thought out your argument very well (or that you're not very good at expressing it), or you're lying.
Which is it?
Posted by: sws5
|
September 2, 2010 12:44 AM
Of course, David Klinghoffer conveniently forgets the Virginia Tech shooter, who was a Christian and compared his impending death to Jesus' martyrdom. No one pretends he was anything but a deluded kid with problems, but to use Klinghoffer's logic, he must've done what he did because of Christianity.
Posted by: potomac9499
|
September 2, 2010 12:44 AM
As somebody who actually knew James Lee I can attest that he was a seriously disturbed man. I had many arguments with him, and told him on multiple occasions that he was at best seriously misguided, and more likely mentally ill and in need of serious help.
His views ranged from the odd (he viewed the United States as a religion) to the absurd (eating chicken is the same or worse then the holocaust). And while he did accept that evolution is a fact, he stated many times that it was his belief that evolution made a mistake with mankind (showing that while he accepted the fact of evolution he did not really understand it very well).
But none of that has ANYTHING to do with his recent actions. These actions were based solely on his misunderstanding of the views of Malthus and Quinn and his serious mental illness.
Posted by: Finch
|
September 2, 2010 12:46 AM
"They all pretty much think James Lee was a mentally ill doofus"
Pretty much sums him up.
Also, I second Dr. I. Needtob Athe in comment #9. "Darwinism" is a disrespectful moniker originally used by creationists to try and make scientists sound dogmatic, and I'm sick of it. Charles Darwin was a smart guy who came up with the concept, and the scientific community confirmed and revised the concept into it's modern form, and he deserves some credit, but we could just as easily call genetics "Mendelism," mechanics "Newtonism," General Relativity "Einstenism," and chemical kinetics, in the most difficult to pronounce installment, "Arrheniusism."
The Discovery Institute deserves scorn and derision for their lack of anything remotely resembling academic integrity.
Posted by: BrianX
|
September 2, 2010 12:46 AM
Predictable. For people who can't tell the difference between Sunni, Shi'a, and Sufi, this is... par for the course.
Offtopic: My humble little food blog has been invaded by D____ M____. Does anyone know how to fumigate a Blogger account for insane Nostradumbasses?
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
September 2, 2010 12:50 AM
Oh, my. Thanks for that. Makes you wonder how many of these crazed episodes can be linked to the misguided de-funding of mental illness facilities in favor of the euphemistically named "community care" paradigm; really just an excuse to de-fund mental health facilities and put ill people back on the streets.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 2, 2010 12:52 AM
Josh:
I'd put my nickel on lying. No one decides on atheism because they hate a god. If someone hates a god, they still believe in that god.
Posted by: somewhereingreece
|
September 2, 2010 1:01 AM
I bet Klinghoffer blames Darwinism every time he cuts himself shaving.
And the list of the things that Darwinists don't do is one of the funniest things I have read in while. My favorite was the one about parking space.
Posted by: the_leander
|
September 2, 2010 1:04 AM
Arr-hen-you-si-sm ?
Sounds like something you'd read about in a geography class.
Posted by: chrstphrgthr
|
September 2, 2010 1:09 AM
That was the most damning, listed take-down of religions and their adherent's sub-childish amorality I've ever seen.
Sadly all they have to do is ignore it, as they happen to be an ultra-majority in our theocracy-in-democracy's-clothing social atmosphere.
Posted by: raven
|
September 2, 2010 1:14 AM
The xians have had a lot of mass murderers themselves. A few are listed below. At least James Lee didn't kill anyone.
Any list of xian psychos committing mass murder is going to be very long and rather gruesome. This is a start anyway. Anyone who wants, cut and paste it, add to it whatever. Call it a xian mass murder wiki. And oh yeah, Jonestown.
Posted by: Nick
|
September 2, 2010 1:20 AM
Do the learned folk at Discovery Institute mention why their God allowed one of his children to go through the pain and suffering of mental illness?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 2, 2010 1:25 AM
You forgot: Most 'Darwinists' pay taxes.
Posted by: Nick
|
September 2, 2010 1:26 AM
Tomás de Torquemada had a pretty good run.
Posted by: Commissar Claw
|
September 2, 2010 1:38 AM
Today, while eating lunch at my desk I opened CNN's website. Of course the "Discovery Gunman" was the top story. At first I thought the gunman had taken hostage's at the Discovery Institute. I actually said to myself "Holy crap, has DaveScot finally taken his revenge!?"
I was somewhat disappointed to learn it was the Discovery Channel.
Posted by: percyprune
|
September 2, 2010 1:48 AM
Capnjammer, that's a very confused post. It does not make sense to me.
I don't think 'a lot of Atheists' come about in the fashion you outline. (That comment about Satanism is very odd and I doubt it reflects most atheists' experience.)
Maybe there are some self-declared atheists at the far end of the spectrum who had a severe allergic reaction against the church and scripture, but I doubt they have a fully-formed coherent position on atheism. It seems to me that they are lapsed godly full of rage who could easily fall back into religion. They might claim to be atheist but they might not be rational.
Posted by: Deluded Creodont
|
September 2, 2010 1:48 AM
They probably say that the pain and suffering was caused by his rejection of God.
Posted by: SonicScrewdriver
|
September 2, 2010 2:05 AM
Eh, we all knew some jerk (A LOT of jerks.) was going to write this. So.... Boooring! Their hypocrisy is so blatant that even members of their own flock should be able to spot it.
Also, I defy Mr. Klinghoffer, and his spiritual and intellectual kin, to compare this one 'atheist' fellow, tragically misguided certainly, but ultimately physically harming no one, to theists killing people in the name of their god every. single. day.
Posted by: Bruce Godfrey
|
September 2, 2010 2:17 AM
While not directly on point, Hitler mandated the "Gott mit Uns" on the belt buckles of the Waffen SS.
As for Stalin, his cult of personality very clearly intended to set himself as a god in a mock version of the religion he studied at seminary, replete with scriptures, shrines, icons, excommunications, inquisitions and murders of heretics and infidel - grafting the worst historical excesses in an orgy of self-deification. Mao did much the same, aping religions rather than surpassing them.
Posted by: capnjammer
|
September 2, 2010 2:54 AM
OK, this is interesting. I didn't suppose I'd find any opposition from my statement, but now it's being suggested that I'm a liar. How very curious.
First, yes, some things are created. I created a post on this site, and so did you. It seems as though you may be one of the type of people I'm talking about: so angry about god that you can't even acknowledge that some things are, in fact, created. And yes, SOME atheists are created, just like most Christians are created by means of evangelism. Don't argue semantics, if you don't like my use of the word created I'll just say "come about by means of," but I really see no reason to do so.
As for meandering... yeah, I see a clear introduction, a personal example, the point, and a clinching statement.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you, but it seems as though we're saying the same thing. I'm not talking about real atheists. When I was a preacher, I came across people on a daily basis, all over the country, who were opposed to religion because of some bad experience. Satanists (at least LaVeyan Satanists), in much the same way, don't really choose to worship Satan, they instead join the COS because it is antithetical to Christianity, it is a parody mocking something they hate.
The point of my post was that some people just claim to be atheists because they hate religion, not because they have done their homework and made a conscious, informed decision that the evidence against any kind of Supreme Being is just plain nil. That is the type of "atheist" that would do something like this.
My argument is clearly thought out and stated, and here it is clearly stated again. I suspect instead that I have fallen in with the wrong company. I supposed, as a long time fan of the Pharyngulator that I would find likeminded people here, not accusations like all my old Christian friends have passed on me for choosing logic over fairy tales. What even do you suggest that I am lying about?
Posted by: Tom
|
September 2, 2010 3:00 AM
I'm sure a Darwinist would have pointed out that the Discovery Channels output was governed by money and as such not subject to the normal Darwinian requirements for survival - such as quality and sufficient variety to actually evolve.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
September 2, 2010 3:17 AM
capnjammer #54
I think the problem is twofold - You made an assertion that makes no sense i.e. that some atheists hate god. As you said of yourself, an atheist cannot hate god because there is nothing to hate. Your post also (unintentionally?) seemed to conflate atheism with Satanism.
From your second post I think that you are saying that there is a group of people that use the label atheist, that are in fact not atheist but anti-Goddists - people that believe in but have a pathological antipathy to the concept of God (possible, but I would like to see some evidence before simply accepting this is the case - I haven't come across anyone like that).
Secondly, without offering any evidence you assert that the unfortunate Mr Lee was this type of 'atheist' (again possible but no evidence to back this up). There seems to be indications that he was mentally ill, but I think your assertion goes beyond what can be reasonably inferred.
Posted by: Nick
|
September 2, 2010 3:29 AM
Deluded Creodont @ 51
Yeh, that would be the loving God we are supposed to embrace?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 2, 2010 3:33 AM
capnjammer:
If you're going to talk about a specific person, let alone drag out the J'accuse, have the manners to address that person by name. Not only is that bad manners, it's annoying as all fuck that I have to scroll back trying to find who you're talking about. Ečhá. Let me make a guess here. You've identified as a former Baptist, a minister, yeah? Theists tend to use the word create in a very specific way, and it's not the way an artist would use it. Most people wouldn't say "look, I created a blog!" They'd say "I started a blog." Most people would not say "I created this post!" because that sounds asinine. Most people would say "I wrote this post". And so on.
Wrong. Atheists aren't created. People who end up describing themselves as atheist generally have arrived at that point after considerable thought, to say the least. Anyone can declare "I'm an atheist" and not mean it. That person is not an atheist. I can tell people I come from Tau Ceti, but that doesn't make it so. The majority of christians aren't created, either. It's simply the default for a majority of people. They're raised that way and I take it procreation wasn't your point.
You were before. Be careful, backpedaling at that rate of speed is dangerous.
Hahahahaha. Oh my. When you were a preacher, you were delusional. Baptists are especially good at believing shit from 20 miles away. Now I'm getting a very strong whiff of bullshit in the air and I'll call you on it. I do think you're a liar. The only people I know this bloody dedicated to lying are liars for Jesus. The things which make you go hmmmmmmm. You're one of 'em.
The point of your posts (earlier and this one) was no such thing. All you actually needed to say was you thought this was someone who was claiming to be an atheist but wasn't one. That's clear and concise. We all know there are people who claim things which aren't true, including being atheist or theist.
No, cupcake. A mentally ill person did this. Are you claiming that "mentally ill" is a type of "atheist"? Be careful, you'll clonk yourself on the head with such clumsy arguments. If this person had claimed to being doing all these things because Jesus said so, the atheists here would still point first to his mental illness, which is the important factor.
You didn't do that. Instead, you wanted to talk about angry with god atheists. Silly.
No, your argument was not clearly thought out and it has a suspicious scent about it. A scent we smell often in these here parts.
"Fallen in with the wrong company"? Please.
Capn, you don't have the ring of truth about you. You don't seem to be actually reading any of the posts about your earlier statements, either. I made one point, which I'll reiterate:
Someone who claims to hate a god (or be angry with) is someone who still believes in a god. I'd think with all the ferocious logic you've put into your journey toward atheism would make that obvious. So obvious, that you wouldn't really need to show up here out of the blue and start talking about atheists who are all angry about god.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 3:51 AM
That that be the Reverend Thomas Malthus. Whose main conclusion and motivation was an opposition to all forms of welfare.
I'm actually more concerned about the repercussions of this tragic incident for environmentalism than for evolutionary science. The former has much richer and more powerful enemies, even in the USA, let alone globally; and while Lee had absolutely no connection with evolutionary science, he does fit in with the looney misanthropo-primitivist gobshites such as Kaczynsky. Moreover, his attitudes to population find echoes even among commenters on this blog. Whenever environmental problems and resource scarcities are discussed, you can be absolutely sure "Population is the real problem" will be confidently stated, usually accompanied by complete ignorance of the facts of global demography (often including statements that current growth is "exponential"), claims that the issue is "never discussed", and very often, covert racism.
Yes, even the current level of global population is almost certainly unsustainable in the long-term. Yes, a faster decrease in the rate of population growth toward and past zero is extremely desirable. But it is not true that nothing is being done, it is not true that current growth is exponential, it is not true that halting or even reversing growth would solve problems such as anthropogenic climate change or resource depletion.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 4:03 AM
Incidentally, Lee did not even make the Radio 4 news this morning in the UK. Crowded out by a denial of sexual (non-criminal) allegations against a senior UK politician few of you outside the UK will recall, if you ever heard of him in the first place.
Posted by: DLC
|
September 2, 2010 4:09 AM
Klinghoffer (paraphrased) "See! Darwinism Leads to Evil!
Klinghoffer:
Yes, Mr Kllinghoffer, you've written the same bald-faced lies many times before, and you've been called on it. Even to the point where the usually woo-friendly and not-too-truth-oriented Huffington Post will have no more of your nonsense.
You see, Mr Klinghoffer, you are in fact a liar.
A damn, bald-faced unapologetic liar.
You know full well that you're lying, and you continue to do so anyway.
And then you have the supreme gall to lament publicly that you've been excoriated for it!?
I'd be shocked and amazed, except really,you disco-tute crowd have worn out your capacity to do either.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 2, 2010 4:20 AM
Bruce Godfrey #53
This is incorrwect. When the German army was established in 1871 Gott mit uns was inscribed on their belt buckles, a practice continued until the end of World War II. World War I army (Heer) belt buckle. The SS, both Waffen and Totenkopfverbände, had Meine Ehre heißt Treue (My honor is loyalty) on their belt buckles.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 2, 2010 4:25 AM
Mein Gott! "incorrwect" is incorrect.
SS belt buckle
Posted by: capnjammer
|
September 2, 2010 4:35 AM
This is entirely for poster #58:
Okay, again, I find it odd that I was apprehended in this matter over a bit of faulty semantics and something I said which made sense to me but not to those who were not aware of what I was addressing. From the start, I have been concerned with false atheists, the kind like this Mr. Lee must have been. I wasn't inferring he did this because of "bad atheism," I was simply trying to state that his use of the term "atheist" for himself was a misnomer. I have seen this misnomer used with a ridiculous amount of frequency. That was my entire point. If it was not clear to you, I apologize.
Maybe the use of the word "create" is an odd one, but not misused here. If I had been referring to the act of his creation as a person, I could understand the concern. However, certain things do, in fact, create certain states within people, one of which could be a state of belief, such as claiming to be an atheist because you are fed up with religion and not because you have actively decided that it would be a better and more logical way to live one's life. I am not wrong: I have seen people calling themselves atheists (is that better?) created by these very means. Most of my friends from Christian high school, for example. Christianity's effect on his life created in one of my friends a desire to commit suicide.
No. I was not ever once speaking of real atheists. If a person calls themselves an atheist, who am I to go out of my way to say "some NOT REAL atheists are created that way?" If I should have said that from the start so you could follow it more easily, I apologize for my oversight. You are, however, correct in that it may have been construed that way because I didn't clarify. I just reread my original post, and I do apologize. I thought it would be understood that a person calling themselves an atheist and a person who really is an atheist could be described using the same word.
I'm not sure what you are in opposition to on my point about being a preacher and hearing different people tell me they hated Christianity and so had chosen to become atheists. What in the hell are you arguing that for, calling me delusional? As a preacher, it was part of my job to say "Well, why did you choose to become an atheist?" I don't think I was imagining the answers "because there are so many hypocrites in the church," "because God is evil," "because the church is corrupt..." Just like I would run across people professing Satanism for the very same reason. Anton LaVey, in the introduction of the Satanic Bible, gives this very reason for his creation of the Church of Satan. I know I was delusional when I was religious, but this is certainly not one of those instances.
I was not implying, again, I don't think ever once, that he DID this thing because he was an atheist, whether that be an angry-with-god atheist or otherwise. The entire point I was trying to make... the ENTIRE point, was that he was falsely calling himself an atheist. Let me rephrase my entire original post like this: He most likely only called himself an atheist because he was angry with God or religion, not because he REALLY was an atheist." I said this to dispute the claim that he did this because he was an atheist, by trying to explain that he was not ever really a "true" atheist. He didn't come to a logical decision that there must be no God, he simply chose to dislike religion and side himself with what he considered the opposite team.
My argument was, in fact, a good one. It appears that I simply left out a key quantifier (that of being an atheist "in name only," although I believe I explained the opposing state of being an atheist with rational beliefs and ideas in the very first paragraph), which has led to a ridiculous argument in which I have been accused of a lie... and I still have not been informed of what I am supposedly lying about. Thinking about it now, I can only imagine you must mean that I'm lying about being an atheist at all. Firstly, I cannot possibly understand what goal a christian would have in coming and making a statement like I did. Even if we were going with the misrepresented version of my argument, "he did this because he is an atheist that hates god as opposed to an atheist that has reasoned and rational beliefs," I fail to see how that would benefit a Christian viewpoint.
Yes, I do believe I've fallen in with the wrong company. My preferred company are the lot that work together to reason and discuss, to try to make things better rather than looking for the smallest error or confusion in something that a fellow has said and attempting to rip them apart for it and expose them as frauds when they are not. I have lost every friend I ever had because I made a reasoned choice to side with freedom of thought, freedom of speech, intelligent discourse, rational thought and decision, education over mythology, and knowledge over faith. I have been accused of a great many things, been cast out by my family, been forgotten by those who once followed me, and was at one time homeless because the people I was staying with were told I was a sorcerer. So, I hope you understand my anger, and appreciate that I have given every attempt to speak with grace. Please, read my original post in light of this one and tell me you understand what I was trying to say before I was thrown to the dogs.
I answered your final point in my very first post, in a sentence which you clearly read because you quoted the first half to use against me: "That would be like hating Sauron or Gargamel or the butler on every episode of Scooby Doo."
Does that not prove I was talking about atheists who are atheists in name only?
As a final recourse, please, at your leisure, read my most recent blog post at http://capnjammer.wordpress.com/ . Admittedly, it is from today, but went up well before I posted my first post here. I showed up "out of the blue" here today because I want to make a difference. I want to absolve myself of the sins of ruining people's lives by bringing them into a religion that makes them squander away this brief, wonderful, and ONLY life we have. I wanted to follow the example of Hitchens and Dawkins and make my voice heard among yours and theirs. If after reading this and perusing my blog you are not convinced, then I swear I will never show my virtual face here again.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 4:51 AM
capnjammer, blogwhore
tl;dr
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
September 2, 2010 4:53 AM
I am given to believe that Hitler also credited his strange ideas of eugenics all the way to the Spartans.
Who were, of course, extremely theistic.
Posted by: clausentum
|
September 2, 2010 4:54 AM
KG #59
That's extremely weasely: you're trying to spin it to create the impression that population is not in the long term the single most important factor in the equation.
And population denialism has been widespread in the past: I remember an influential American academic welcoming further population growth long after it was clear where we are heading , and have heard UN officials deny its role.
Even now, it's more important to you as opportunity to indulge in some posturing than to engage in a rational debate.
Posted by: mick.long
|
September 2, 2010 4:54 AM
Darwin is responsible for mentally ill terrorists now. Someone needs to go back in time and let him know. It might look like this.
Time Traveller: Hey Dr D. What up?
Charles: Are you speaking to me sir?
Time Traveller: Yeah dude, you can't publish.
Charles: What is a "dude" and why not?
Time Traveller: Man, if you publish that theory a crazy guy will take over a TV station and threaten to kill people.
Charles: A "TV Station", speak plainly man!
Time Travellar: It's a place that sends moving pictures about guys catching fish in choppy seas...
Charles: *flees*
Time Traveller: ...wait, hey! Dr D. Wait up!
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 2, 2010 5:09 AM
clausentum @67:
So you claim (and a strong accusation it is), but I don't see it justified.
Those factors are consumption-based, and it's quite possible for growth to cease or decline and consumption to increase as populations seek first-world levels of consumerism.
Also, population growth is itself an effect, and one very strongly affected by socioeconomic factors — paradoxically, giving more to those who have the least would likely be rather beneficial.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
September 2, 2010 5:13 AM
Says the man who thinks he talks directly to god. And suppressing the truth? Oh my poor irony meter.
No wait, there is a difference. I think religion IS capable of driving someone insane.
Posted by: Hirnlego
|
September 2, 2010 5:20 AM
I don't understand why these people even care. They praise the inventor of everything and not just the good stuff but also harmful, often deadly diseases, earthquakes, tsunamis etc...And their god doesn't interfere in stopping things like wars and when it chooses to like through Jesus, who supposedly was here an earth he healed some people, and my thinking is that why not use this health-system for everyone on earth? Should be an easy thing to do with daddy being the biggest boss of all. The God factory, if real, produces a lot of defective products.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 2, 2010 5:30 AM
Takes Blogwhoring to a new level.
PZ, why "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" ? Aren't the -isms creationist language ?
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 2, 2010 5:36 AM
It seems evident that Lee's actions, for all his attempts (and now the disingenuous attempts of others) to link them to environmentalism and 'Darwinism', were primarily motivated by a most unfortunate mental condition.
I am no psychiatrist, but he seems to exhibit paranoia at the very least and could well have suffered from a particularly acute schitzophrenic personality disorder. Once you add poor education into the mix, the likelihood of a tragedy such as this one increases exponentially. This event came about because of yet another failure of mental health care provision, not because of atheism or any other ideology espoused by Lee.
Of course, the fundies and rightwing talking heads would derive little satisfaction from putting foward a properly researched and accurate account of these events in the context of the inadequacies of education and mental healthcare in modern Western societies. Such an overdose of journalistic integrity would probably hospitalise them. They would far rarther seize on the poor, delusional man's words in a desperate search to find something, anything, to use as a club against 'ebil libruls and athiests'.
These days, the US political Right and the facts hardly seem to be on speaking terms anymore.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 2, 2010 5:37 AM
Mick Long, most excellent!
Posted by: andydig
|
September 2, 2010 5:38 AM
the Right has not been on speaking terms with the facts for a very long time, if they ever were.
Posted by: Matt Keefe
|
September 2, 2010 5:41 AM
I've got to take issue with just one tiny part of this post:
Actually, there probably will. I don't think anyone will be doing it from an evolutionary or Darwinian standpoint, nor will anyone writing them actually be possessed of much understanding of science, but there are plenty of environmentalists, of the New Agier kind, who, I wager, will be glad to point to James Lee as evidence of the urgent need for action, even while uttering the same kind of caveated condemnations we'd expect from religious figures were the shoe to be on the other foot.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 2, 2010 5:59 AM
capnjammer @ 64;
A couple of points.
Perhaps your terminology is the problem. In your post @ 19;
This is problematic because atheist means, loosely, without god, thus an accurately self-described atheist can never 'hate' god, because they do not believe that god exists.
You yourself observed this point @ 19;
To an individual to whom the term 'atheist' is properly applied, god is just another fictional character. One can dislike fictional characters. One can feel that they are poorly conceived or written, but one cannot hate them in the way the term is used by theists.
No one is trying to claim that atheism automatically creates a good or even rationalist person by default, but it is best to avoid muddying the waters by creating an unecessary distinction between 'true' atheists and 'god-hating' atheists. The later are not properly termed atheists. Perhaps a better term would be 'hostile believers', like hostile witnesses in a court room.
Also @ 64 you say;
I don't want to come across as pedantic*, but I would like to point out that most atheists do not recognise the concept of 'sin' per se at all. An action may be immoral or socially harmful, but it can only be a 'sin' if it goes against the supposed injunction of a deity. Since atheists tend to be unconvinced by the arguments for deity, the idea of 'sin' has little sway. This is further reinforced because many atheists have been endlessly accused of 'sinful' actions for no better reason than their atheism, or in the case of homosexual atheists because of their sexuality and their atheism. As a result, we are leery of accepting any concept of a 'secular sin', and not only because such a phrase is an oxymoron.
* I know, too late.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 2, 2010 6:02 AM
The best part is that Máo did not accept any theory of evolution. All he knew of evolution was a strawman which he correctly recognized as deeply ridiculous.
Then they're not atheists, but misotheists.
No. That's the most common use today, but historically the word was used to distinguish Darwin's theory of evolution from Lamarck's.
"Is called", rather. "My honor's name is 'loyalty'".
Genius!
That's deliberate. He's trying to put it in their terms.
Posted by: rejistania
|
September 2, 2010 6:04 AM
That's a shame though!
(just kidding!!!)
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 6:33 AM
@Gregory Greenwood:
Pulling this part out. As a former Christian myself, I understand where capnjammer's coming from, while I don't believe in sinning or gods, the language still supports the ideas. Instead of sinning against a deity, you've 'sinned' against your own convictions.
I've got a 'sin' that I want absolution from, but I know I'll never get the chance. I made a lesbian girl I used to know cry, because I told her she was going to hell. I was heartless and mean, and told her that her sexuality was evil and she was hellbound.
Posted by: capnjammer
|
September 2, 2010 6:39 AM
@Gregory #77: Thank you for your reasoned response and for not accusing me of falsely representing myself. I understand how the initial problem began now, and I apologize for it. I supposed, wrongly, that someone calling themselves an atheist is enough to warrant others calling them an atheist, regardless of the level of veracity of that statement.
As for the concept of using the word "sin," I found it ironic and that was why I used it. Christianity, at least some forms of it, claims that everything people do without God is a sin, a moral wrong. I simply wanted to point out that I believe my only "sins" have been those performed under the service of the concept of God.
I also apologize for the length of my last post, or my blogwhoring as some have called it, and before I begin to wax too long again, I want to say one thing: I am a bit embarrassed, looking back now, for what seemed to be a shameless plug of my new blog. I only wanted the original poster whom I was speaking to to go read it because today's post was a summary of my de-conversion from Christianity, and I had already by that time become aware that my post had gone rather long.
Posted by: clausentum
|
September 2, 2010 6:52 AM
John Morale s@69
My admittedly modest knowledge of economics is challenged by that statement, unless you're not talking about overall growth and consumption.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 6:55 AM
I'm not spinning anything - just telling the truth, which I see you don't like: it would not solve these problems. Currently, most population growth is among the poorest communities, who use comparatively little in the way of resources and produce comparatively little in the way of pollution. Global population growth is projected to fall to zero around mid-century; global resource use growth is not.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 7:00 AM
He's talking about population growth, you idiot.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 2, 2010 7:03 AM
David Marjanović @ 78;
That's the term I was looking for. Why it did not occur to me to simply look it up, I do not know.
I would say I need more caffeine, but I don't drink coffee or tea, so that excuse doesn't really work for me.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
September 2, 2010 7:27 AM
How about massively mitigate? Even poor people (unless your talking cave dwellers) are using fossil fuels. Look at the state of China. Also every person not born doesn't have descendents.
Even if you reduce consumption of the "rich", population growth will continue to grow until it again becomes a problem. In fact it could easily be argued that we are currently in overshoot now, never mind the future.
I should also point out that a lot of business areas have been created, expanded, warped to accomodate population growth. The farming industry being the most obvious. Which then lead to the problems we have today.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 8:02 AM
Richard Eis,
Here's part of my original comment, #59:
Clear enough?
However, it's not clear even that halting population growth alone will massively mitigate anything. Capitalism demands continual economic growth, and halting population growth will not change that - we either have to get rid of capitalism, or completely delink economic growth from the growth of resource use and pollution - which has not been shown to be possible.
China makes my case very well. Here is a graph of population growth rate in China. As you see, it has fallen enormously since its peak, and is now just over 0.5%. In 2009, its greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to have grown by 9%, to take one example - there are similar trends in use of various scarce resources.
Again, much of that "warping" has been to supply the growing per capita consumption of meat and dairy - notably in China, which is now importing vast quantities of soya from Brazil and elsewhere as animal feed.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 2, 2010 8:10 AM
Are there any creationists who don't hate or despise their fellow man? Are there any who don't twist the universe to fit their preconceptions and biases? What execreble nonsense will come from the outhouse called the Discovery Institute and its fellow travellers in the war against knowledge and common sense?
Posted by: clausentum
|
September 2, 2010 8:10 AM
KG - there is no single solution to these problems, and you are spinning that fact to try to make it appear that population is irrelevant to them.
We'll do you the honour of not going into your motives.
Posted by: mikka
|
September 2, 2010 8:18 AM
I think he is a perfect candidate for a Darwin Award. He got himself out of the gene pool didn't he?
Posted by: adcam303
|
September 2, 2010 8:19 AM
Ignorance and pseudo-science are my Siberia
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
September 2, 2010 8:29 AM
capnjammer @81.
I think the main problem is that Pharyngula regulars have seen here over and over again attempts to infiltrate and phish for lost souls.
Because apparently an atheist is such a 'lost soul', and as such is a fine notch on the righteous bedpost and is readily traded in for kudos & 'street cred' with full adoration by peers in our heroes church group.
They do not stop trying, evangelism is nothing if not persistent.
There is probably an attempt every couple of months, we are as it 'appens overdue a visit from an emissary of the god squad...bless 'em!
But I am sure they gaze with envious eyes at the prize they lust after...an atheist 'soul' is indeed a treasure beyond compare.
Guaranteed back stage pass in glory!
One of the main assumptions jeebus lusters masquerade under is the 'hatred for god' catechism.
And the second plank of assumption is 'something happened either in the religious environment or in a church that turned a xian into an atheist.'
The final plank in the assumptive argumentum armament that seems endemic is the 'Satanist' arguments because these folk are 'angry at christ/god/church/religion/life'
Put all that together and the theist terms of 'Creation' and 'Sin' are the toppings that thrill.
I would imagine that 'One Man's Journey from Faith to Reason' is not the easiest path to travel especially for someone that was so deep in the morass of theism.
I have no real reason to question your story and therefore do not.
Shaking the dust off the lexicon from a past life is not that straightforward either.
I expect you will in time, if you want to!
As for the point of this thread...
Mr Lee was not an atheist he was mentally ill.
Just the same as the supposed xians that go on gun or bomb rampages, they are not xians per se they are mentally ill.
The difference seems to be that atheism was not an important driving aspect in Mr Lee psyche, it was his environmentalist agenda that was his guiding principle whereas in the majority of so called xian perps it seems that their claim to righteousness in their acts is the xian faith they purport to support, in fact it is their driving force, it does not of course mean that they are not equally mentally ill, just that their insanity favours belief in god as a raft to cling to in choppy mental seas.
It is a continuing embarrassment to the faithful, hence the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy is their usual defence over and beyond the simply mental insanity plea.
It is an instinctive defence to their own delusions.
They would rather demonic possession and atheist influence tempting a believer in a society full of Darwinian overtones rather then an xian just going fucking bat shit loopy, cos that means that god would turn his omniscient back on one of their own.
They get the point but for a very wrong reason...so no surprise there then.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
September 2, 2010 8:34 AM
Someone who worships Japanese soup?Posted by: garymcdowell
|
September 2, 2010 8:44 AM
I'll not hear any disparaging remarks made against Bear Grylls!
Posted by: Snikkers
|
September 2, 2010 8:59 AM
Can someone create a .doc listing all the religious people who have done crazy things in the name of their religion. Then when this subject comes up again and again we can just pull out a copy with 'What's your point?' printed at the bottom of the list.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 9:04 AM
@Snikkers:
That list'd be about four hundred pages long! Assuming 12 point font, single space, double column.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 2, 2010 9:06 AM
Of course an atheist can hate God; it's just another sort of cognitive dissonance and/or doublethink, exactly like we find in every single religious believer one way or another.
Can a person believe that the book of Genesis is literally true? Of course not, because it contradicts itself. Ergo, there are no Biblical literalists.
Likewise, no one could possibly believe in the trinity, nor in a Hell occupying the same universe as an omnimax God. Yet people somehow manage all that at once, and more. (Would you believe in the existence of something as absurd as religion if you weren't already aware of it?)
In the same way, a person might: Hate God for not existing, love God for not existing, say "I hate God so I'm going to join that atheist team", redefine God as "religious institutions", or as "the (apparent) cruelties of nature", and think "I hate God", etc. (A number of people have said that Terry Eagleton and Karen Armstrong believe so little in God that they're closet atheists.)
The most coherent variant I can imagine is this: God exists and is all-powerful and all-knowing, but apparently chooses to do absolutely nothing. Therefore, I hate him, but since I believe he might as well not exist, I'm also an atheist.
Of course, I have no way of knowing whether any of that applies to the psychology of this Lee guy; it probably doesn't.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 2, 2010 9:11 AM
I think both statements are wrong. both people fit into those descriptive categories.
If the Right was honest they'd be bitching about Quinn and given the history of Quinn's fans, they have a case about anti-american liberal nutism.
Posted by: clausentum
|
September 2, 2010 9:17 AM
..oh, in an open, non-proprietary format, please!Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 2, 2010 9:20 AM
Wallace called it Darwinism. He may have even coined the term.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 2, 2010 9:25 AM
clausentum, KG, Richard Eis;
I think that, while there are differences of opinion about whether it is straight global overpopulation or per capita resource consumption that is the gravest problem facing the planet*, we can agree that uncontrolled population growth will cause difficulties both environmentally and in terms of population crashes due to famines, epidemic disease, resource warfare (that may then fuel existing ethnic tensions into a longer term conflict) and related issues.
Unfortunately, our options to avoid this scenario are limited. Greater education, improvements in the status of women and recognition of their right to bodily autonomy, along with more universal access to contraception are all of vital importance. However, all these things will face opposition from entrenched cultural attitudes, not to mention the interference of the Roman Catholic Church; the global paedophile ring that just keeps on giving, and other religions.
If, as is not entirely unlikely, it proves impossible to convince significant portions of the world's poorer and less well educated inhabitants in all countries of the importance of family planning, then we are at something of an impasse. Inaction could result in a future catastrophy, but, beyond education and advocacy, there is little more that can be done before we risk straying into the territory of forced sterilisation and even eugenics, and those are horrors that should never be revisited by anyone.
We are currently fighting a true battle of 'hearts and minds' about this and any number of other social issues in the face of constant religious opposition, and it is a battle that we, and the world, can ill afford to lose.
*I think that the two are not entirely indivisiable. It is a combination of ongoing global population growth with increasing lifestyle aspirations and the resultant greater emphasis of resource intensive industry and the like that seems to be the greatest threat to sustainable global civilisation. Of course we want a better standard of life for all (only a sociopath would not), but we need a new paradigm for how to acheive that standard of life if we are to avoid destroying the environment and setting our own species up for disaster in the process. Sadly, dealing seriously with these issues never seems to be high on the agenda of the rich and powerful, as any number of failed climate change and world poverty conferences (not to mention the almost complete absence of any conferences seriously dealing with the problems of global overpopulation and the non-sustainablility of contemporary economic models) can attest.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 2, 2010 9:26 AM
Um we do call that NEWTONian physics.
A better example would be "does the wheel turn based on Oog of the Deer Clanism?"
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 2, 2010 9:29 AM
Doh! Proof reading-fail. In my last post the sentence;
"I think that the two are not entirely indivisiable."
Should read;
"I think the two are not entirely seperate issues."
Apologies.
Posted by: Dewkeeper
|
September 2, 2010 9:32 AM
I usually get to maintain a comfortable distance from this crap, but as someone who lives nearby and who has a classmate who was at Jokela when the incident happened, I'd like to give these people a hearty fuck you.
Posted by: otrame
|
September 2, 2010 9:34 AM
You know, though I find myself scowling at every church I drive by, it would never occur to me to blame Christianity for the ravings of a violent mentally ill person, no matter how much he raved about Jesus. Most Christians are decent, sane people (deluded, but not delusional) and so are most atheists. Nothing to see here. I am glad there was only one death and I am sorry they couldn't get him without killing him.
The poor man was right about the need to get serious about population reduction. Fortunately, women who have choices often choose to have a kid or two and no more. As women across the world gain more control of their lives and their bodies the population will drop.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 2, 2010 9:37 AM
That's one of the more frustrating Christian tropes out there and it fails when subject to any rational consideration. So I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.
It's essentially saying Athiests really believe in God, but are just theistic equivalent of teenage rebels. Which gets us to the conclusion that you're not an atheist if you hate God because you are, at some level, acknowledging existence.
"Athiests" that are "angry at God" are more properly classified as angry theists. This is not to say you can't be angry at religion. Or you can't be angry at the God-Myth concept that hijacks civilizations. But you can't be angry at something you say exists but doesn't exist only because you're angry at it.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 2, 2010 9:41 AM
Christ. Get a dictionary. Learn what the word means:
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
And stop falling for idiotic Christian myth-making regarding atheism. That's one of the oldest tropes out there.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 2, 2010 9:47 AM
I hate god as much as I hate any other fictional villain.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 2, 2010 9:51 AM
For those baffled about why I used Darwinism and Darwinist, consider the tone. I am mocking the whole logic of the DI.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 9:52 AM
@Ing:
My sister really hated Skeletor.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 2, 2010 9:53 AM
My nickel is on he probably hasn't gotten rid of all the old Christian tropes with which he was programmed. Because that one is a classic.
So I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and trying not to be too mean seeing as I came from a similar background, though different faith. I can attest it's taken me decades to weed out all the bullshit that was in my head.
Most of which, btw, was weeded out due to direct confrontation in Usenet, Keshernet, Fidonet and, later, the Internet. (Yeah, I'm old.) Two of them being seriously into the "denialism" spectrum.
This is also why I go ballistic on DBAD people and apologists. Their imagination of what it takes is narrow and smugly self-serving. It takes all kinds, they should do what they want, but leave the rippers alone. Because lots of us need rippers -- direct or indirect.
And for the smug shits, like Mooney, to sit on their thrones and castigate people who have done more to advance rational thought than they will ever do in their lives... Damn, they piss me off...
But I digress..
Posted by: SonicScrewdriver
|
September 2, 2010 9:53 AM
Thanks for making me look like a giggling psycho in class, Gravi.
On a separate note, I think I've finally found a religion I can 'swallow.' *Ba-dump-tish*
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 2, 2010 9:56 AM
You said they hated God, not Christianity. Those are two separate things. One exists, the other does not.
And they did not become "atheists" if they continued their belief in the existence of god. They became ANGRY THEISTS.
Posted by: scott.anthony.robson
|
September 2, 2010 9:56 AM
I'm a Darwinist, and I hereby declare a Fatwa against Bear Grylls.
Actually I take that back. There is no point. He has three children. He is already a successful Darwinian entity. His death will be for naught.
Posted by: Kome
|
September 2, 2010 10:07 AM
Let's also not forget about Martin Luther's significant influence on Hitler's ideology. Not exactly sure how Luther would've felt about Darwinian evolution, but considering a great deal of his life was spent toying with some of the more audacious aspects of religious fervency, we can at least draw another strong connection between religious influence and Hitler's heinous crimes against humanity.
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
September 2, 2010 10:09 AM
I think your making the mistake of people not wanting to talk about the population problem with denialism.
Its a "third rail" in environmentalism, how do you talk about it? The closest you can come is suggesting birth control, anything beyond birth control is simply out of the question. So yeah, most people who actually wish to get anything done will avoid the topic.
The simple fact is no one is willing to "go first" when it comes to reducing the population. Hell most people (including myself) don't care enough about the rest of you to even forbear spreading my genes. Its not that we don't see the train coming. they just don't see how they can stop it.
Posted by: defides
|
September 2, 2010 10:22 AM
What, technically, is actually involved in 'believing in Darwin'? Is there any doubt as to his existence?
Posted by: Big Boppa
|
September 2, 2010 10:29 AM
So THAT explains my behavior during my mis-spent youth in the '60s and '70s. And I much prefer the label fervent Darwinian to horndog.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 10:36 AM
@defides:
How does one believe in evolution? I don't 'believe' in math, or astronomy, or gravity.
Posted by: mandikayeottaway
|
September 2, 2010 10:41 AM
You all have a point - obviously his atheism or Darwinism had nothing to do with what he did yesterday.
But how many of you would turn the tables and rail against religion had the man been a Creationist?
It's tit for tat, it seems.
Regardless of religion or belief system - the *only* thing at fault here is the choice made by one individual.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 2, 2010 10:46 AM
Capn Jammer,
This is not the Discworld. Out here in reality, where the world is not on the back of a turtle, atheists are those who do not believe in any gods.
I'm sure there are also anti-theists. If someone convinced me of the existence of the sort of creator that many theists posit, an omnipotent deity who came up with things like Tay-Sachs Disease, I would probably be an anti-theist: such an entity deserves no worship. But it's no more real than a hypothetical fish-tailed spirit of the Bronx River.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 10:55 AM
@mandikay:
I think I would have called him crazy either way. There's no double standard with this man, he was insane. If he was a Creationist loon, I would have the same problem with him as I do now.
Posted by: mandikayeottaway
|
September 2, 2010 11:09 AM
@Kev:
Right, but the point of the post was to rail at the Christians who are pointing fingers at atheism. My intent was just to point out that, had the tables been turned, fingers would just as quickly be pointing at religion.
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
September 2, 2010 11:18 AM
Of course, the FOX Noise clowns are also trying to paint him as a deranged liberal. Um, since when do liberals yammer away about the alleged dangers of "anchor babies"? "Anchor babies" are a conservative fear fetish, folks.
Posted by: Forbidden
|
September 2, 2010 11:31 AM
I think it's important to note that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. also believed in Gravity. Clearly, the only answer is to reject the theory of gravity.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 11:35 AM
No: it's simply not true that it's not talked about! This assertion is only made, in my experience, by people who are ignorant both about the basic facts of global demography, and about what is being discussed and done. Nor is there any need to go "beyond birth control". It is known that there is considerable unmet demand for contraception and abortion, it is known that educating girls and improving the status of women will raise this demand further, and it is known that there are powerful forces pushing the birth rate down irrespective of what we do - most notably, urbanisation.
There are population denialists, who fall into three camps:
1) Religious: primarily the Catholic Church, but also some Protestant fundies, Mormons, Muslims etc., who aim to outbreed everyone else.
2) Nationalists in various places, also aiming to outbreed rival groups.
3) Cornucopians - mostly right-wing economists, but including a few daft Marxists, who claim that there are no practical limits to what we can extract from the environment or what pollution it can absorb.
All of these must indeed be combated, but the way to do that is not through ignorant claims that population growth is currently "exponential", that "nothing is being done" or "no-one will talk about it", or that halting population growth will, on its own, solve or even greatly mitigate our environmental problems.
Posted by: raven
|
September 2, 2010 11:46 AM
We/I already did that. See message #45 above.
And yeah, it is tit for tat. But they started it. Creationists are so predictable and we all knew 10 seconds after Lee was identified as an atheist that it was coming.
And sure it is a trivial game, pin the blame on the donkey. But the stakes are high. The DI is a xian Dominionist front that openly seeks to destroy science, the US secular democracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.
They want nothing more than a New Dark Age with them in charge. And the DI is absolutely amoral and immoral. No lie is too stupid or evil for them to repeat a thousand times.
Several DI apparatchniks have written books are articles blaming the Holocaust on Darwin and scientists. Hitler and his millions of willing followers were Catholics and Lutherans and their inspiration was Martin Luther, a notorious antisemite who wrote a book detailing the Final Solution and the bible, the magic book they claim to idolize, also filled with antisemitism.
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 2, 2010 12:00 PM
If the guy's creationist sympathies were as incidental to his motivations for shooting someone as James Lee's atheist convictions were (apparently) incidental to his motivations for shooting someone, then none should, and I predict that not many would.
If you intend to bring up someone like George Tiller, however, than that would be one hell of a false equivalence.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 12:01 PM
completely delink economic growth from the growth of resource use and pollution - which has not been shown to be possible.
??
has anyone ever even tried?
and what ABOUT capitalism? why is IT such a sacred cow?
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 12:09 PM
@mandikay:
I don't think you're right at all, I'm sorry.
If the tables had been turned, and James Lee was a Creationist whackjob, I wouldn't think anyone here would be saying "he did this because of god. It's all religion's fault that he was a psycho." (or so I would hope.)
This has nothing to do with his scientific beliefs or his atheism. The guy was nuts. He could be nuts and an atheist, nuts and a Scientologist, nuts and a Muslim, nuts and a Pastafarian, and it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
The dude was nuts!
His scientific and atheistic state is being paraded as the cause of his desires, but it's not. On the same level we have the crazies in raven's post #45 (who I also would call crazies if they were atheists.)
A crazy is a crazy, regardless of what that crazy believes in religion or science.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 12:15 PM
Actually, it is pretty unlikely. There are very few countries where the birth rate has not dropped very considerably in the last few decades. In Japan and most of Europe, it is now well below replacement level - and it's at about replacement level in the USA, where population growth is now due to immigration. It's true there are a few countries where rates are still very high, mostly in the Middle East and Africa, but even there, they are falling. Catholics in much of the world simply ignore the Church's teachings, and fundie groups are incapable of hanging on to their children. Sure, the pressure needs to be kept up to make contraception and abortion available on demand, and to educate girls and improve the status of women - but notice that all these things are worth doing for other reasons, quite apart from population concerns.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 12:16 PM
has anyone ever even tried?
actually, now that I think about it, isn't betting on loans and the very idea of junk bonds basically economic growth without connection to resource utilization?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 2, 2010 12:25 PM
Honestly, if he'd been a creationist and drew upon his creationist beliefs to justify his actions, I'd say religion would have shared some of the blame.
Why it's not tit-for-tat is that religion actively impels its adherents to do things (convert others, kill infidels, feed the poor, eat fish on Fridays, etc.) Religion is prescriptive. So when and adherent does something in the name of their religion (convert others, kill infidels, feed the poor, eat fish on Fridays, etc.) we can say with some honesty that that their religion shares some of the blame.
Neither atheism nor any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory does that. They're descriptive, not prescriptive. (Due to brain damage or whatever, members of the Discovery Institute seem incapable of understanding this.) If you think some scientific fact justifies this or any other action, you're wrong.
Of course, science can suggest certain courses of action, but that's only in the pursuit of some goal we've determined through some other means. For instance, a scientific understanding of medicine, physiology, and pathology can tell us how we can best lengthen human lifespans, but science doesn't tell us that lengthening human lifespans is a desirable thing to do.
So, they're not comparable in that way.
Posted by: KG
|
September 2, 2010 12:33 PM
Ichthyic,
When I was in Copenhagen last year, at the pre-COP15 scientific conference, some Danish government minister was boasting that they had managed a decade or so economic growth without increasing GHG emissions - but whether this was really deliberate, or just the result of an economically-motivated switch from coal to gas (which made a big difference in the UK), I don't know. Nor does it say anything about resource use generally.
So probably the answer is "no". The thing is, seriously making such an attempt would already be a huge departure from capitalism as it has been practised - so huge that what resulted might not be capitalism in any real sense. As you know, I'm a socialist - and a major reason is that I think anything much like present-day capitalism will lead to environmental catastrophe within a century.
As for the junk bonds and stuff, I'm currently reading Giovanni Arrighi's The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of our Times, which argues (among other things) that capitalism has shifted periodically from investment in production and trade to investment in finance, and that this has always in the past presaged a period of economic and geopolitical chaos. According to him, the current shift began back in the 1970s. He wrote the book in 1994, but it does not seem to have dated much, except that he underestimated the role of China with respect to the rest of east Asia. The crash of 2008 fits his thesis well - if he's right, it marks the end of US "hegemony" - that is, the period in which the US was not just the strongest state (as it still is), but was the key integrative factor in the capitalist world-system.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
September 2, 2010 12:41 PM
alysonmiers @ 30 - I also noticed that "if indirectly."
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
September 2, 2010 12:45 PM
From Klinghoffer's article:
Yes, because we all know that religion doesn't attract crazy, don't we? (facepalmheaddeskfacepalmheaddeskfacepalmheaddeskfacepalmheaddesk - unconscious)
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 12:58 PM
The crash of 2008 fits his thesis well - if he's right, it marks the end of US "hegemony" - that is, the period in which the US was not just the strongest state (as it still is), but was the key integrative factor in the capitalist world-system.
being in a different world where I can now see direct consequences, this agrees with what I am seeing.
I have to say, though, this shift sure has had some negative impacts on my career path.
*sigh*
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 2, 2010 1:01 PM
Actually, that's just bullshit.
What we'd do if a creationist used his creationism as an excuse is to mention it, while pointing out that the guy was a loon, which was the real reason for it. We don't do tit-for-tat, we just point out creationist loons to demonstrate that Klinghoffer & ilk are extremely stupid, extremely dishonest, or more likely, both.
Generally, the media and we don't make a big deal about the religion or lack (or acceptance of evolution) of it among mass murderers, etc., because it's generally not relevant to what drives these kooks. It just has something to with how the craziness manifests itself.
Religion being the only thing the IDiots care about, of course a mention of Darwin and a general lack of religion matters to them. That's partly because they know nothing of actual causes.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 2, 2010 1:13 PM
Yes, I'd treat the guy the same as I'd treat a creationist nut. They have the same problem THEY BOTH TOOK A FICTION BOOK TOO SERIOUSLY.
One got marching orders from Jesus, the other Monsieur Mullah
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 2, 2010 1:17 PM
Okay, if the theory of evolution attracts the crazy, wicked, or both out in disproportionate numbers than, say religion, then it must be true that a great many self-proclaimed religious people who've visited horrors upon the world were not crazy, wicked, or both.
And if we cannot excuse their horrible behaviour on insanity, wickedness, or both, then to what reason do we ascribe their behaviour? Well, if he's sane and not wicked, we can simply ask him and ostensibly arrive at his reasons. And since many a presumably sane, non-wicked man (remember: the evil loons are disproportionately attracted to Darwinism, not religion) has done evil in the name of his religion, to where do we point fingers but his religion?
So Darwinists do evil because they're crazy and/or evil, but the religious do evil because they're religious.
I can live with Klinghoffer's thesis if he can.
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 2, 2010 1:46 PM
Is this the Is-Ought fallacy? I think it ought to be.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 2, 2010 1:48 PM
One should always remember that loons like David are the ones who keep making evolution somehow "special".
True, in some ways it is. First, it was the last major part of the world that remained a "gap" into which God wouuld be fit. And, although evolution isn't obviously worse science for all religions than, say, classical mechanics is, it is worse for the Abrahamic religions.
That, however, is why people like David keep harping about "Darwinism," and why we pay inordinate amounts of attention to theocrats like him trying to take over the schools, science, and the rest of society.
The fact is that it is difficult to see how "Darwinism" fit into Lee's rant at all, except that he especially didn't like the loons on the other side (but didn't appear to like any humans much). Oh, there was the slight connection of Darwin to Malthus, but clearly Mathusian processes were his real concern.
As far as I can tell, Lee brought up Darwin mainly because idiots like David keep denying good science, and it was convenient for him to rant at the ranters. David didn't cause him, but he likely did contribute to Lee's focus on irrational morons of his type.
I recognize that this is a trivial matter in the real world, but it's self-fulfilling prophecy in the IDiots' world, the only kind of which they are capable.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 1:57 PM
So Darwinists do evil because they're crazy and/or evil, but the religious do evil because they're religious.
damn, I really like you.
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 2, 2010 2:19 PM
Then it is.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 2, 2010 2:33 PM
MosesZD #107:
I agree that it's a common, idiotic, and condescending generalization of atheists. I meant only to raise the possibility that one or two individual humans might be considered simultaneously atheist and misotheist, just as a person might be reasonably labeled as both "Biblical literalist" and "openly homosexual". People's brains are really good at illogic.
For many people, their religious upbringing has been so intense that the idea of God's nonexistence isn't even a conceivable option, yet they come to recognize that our Universe is exactly as it would be without a god. So they come to call themselves atheists, yet truly believe in a lazy/wicked God who sleeps on the job in this life, yet roasts people in Hell, or some combination thereof.
It seems quite reasonable to say "but if they think some actual God has actual attributes, they're not atheists!", but my argument is that by the same standard, there are no Christians. Either you believe that there is one god, or you believe that there are three. Make up your mind!
Given that, maybe all Christians are believers-in-belief! Likewise, I imagine that one or two atheists are actually believers-in-unbelief, and/or unbelievers-in-belief, or whatever.
Posted by: feralboy12
|
September 2, 2010 2:58 PM
Given that they're now sticking us with responsibility for Charles Manson, it seems necessary to point out, repeatedly, the religious nature of some crazies--or they'll forget.
Charles Manson convinced his followers he was Jesus, and developed a fantasy built around Revelation and the Beatles' White Album.
And now, apparently, he's an atheist.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 2, 2010 3:58 PM
It is. I try to describe fallacies or philosophical issues rather than use their formal names because the latter seem to really excite theists, and I'm pretty sure that's some sort of sin.
Back at ya, Ichthyic.
Posted by: Darreth
|
September 2, 2010 5:05 PM
A lone gunman.
A mentally ill one.
Lee did not kill anyone.
His manifesto contains the same nonsense that Ted Kazynski's (sp?) manifesto contained, but HE killed plenty of people.
Anyone who equates this mentally ill gunman with evolution or Darwinism has a political agenda ONLY.
Posted by: Steve
|
September 2, 2010 6:55 PM
Hitler's ideas, as others have already pointed out above, go back to Martin Luther. Check out Hector Avalos' essay on the roots of the Holocaust in the recent book "The Christian Delusion."
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
September 2, 2010 8:19 PM
Brownian #140, that final line alone demands another OM, or at the very least, the addition of heaps of extra tentacles to the one you already have.
If we're very lucky, Klinghoffer will read it and I will be able to hear his head explode all the way over on this side of the pond.
Posted by: raven
|
September 2, 2010 8:57 PM
They go back a lot further than that. Luther got his ultimately from the bible, NT.
The NT is laced with antisemitism and jesus has some uncomplimentary things to say about the jews. Plus they killed god. Antisemites can and will quote the bible.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate
|
September 2, 2010 9:14 PM
Actually, this goes a long way to a conclusion I'd reached long ago: mental stability is a matter of biology, not ideology. It's just that insanity usually gets mistaken for divinity in religious circles. Not so much in skeptical rectangles.Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 2, 2010 9:43 PM
Capnjammer, I understood your first post just fine.
There is a tendency towards the pendantic here.
Posted by: goldfinch
|
September 2, 2010 9:46 PM
I meant pedantic. Not pendantic. The pedants will love my error!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 2, 2010 9:46 PM
Plus they killed god.
the ultimate martyr story.
Posted by: toddcaton
|
September 3, 2010 3:01 AM
Hmm. Ok:
My purpose here, of course, isn't to suggest that religion drives people mad or anything like that, but merely to point out, as I've done in the past, the strange attraction religious theory exerts on some people who are crazy, or wicked, or both. This is a truth that's suppressed again and again, yet it remains true.
Posted by: mandikayeottaway
|
September 3, 2010 4:22 PM
@Kev
I agree with you that a crazy is a crazy. That was never the disagreement!
Posted by: Bruce Godfrey
|
September 4, 2010 10:39 AM
I thank those who corrected my error ay #53, my confusion of Wehrmacht gear with SS and other units'. It cannot be denied that "Gott mit uns" buckles were produced by, and worn by, agents of the Third Reich en masse consistent with regulation.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 4, 2010 10:49 AM
@152
If you ever dealt with someone affected by a real cult (robes and all that) you would know how bullshit that is.
Posted by: Mike Mixer
|
September 5, 2010 9:07 PM
This Klinghoffer fella, he any relation to the Klinghoffer from the Achille Lauro hijacking