Pharyngula

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 21, 2011 4:28 PM

I want to see his radio empire dismantled and the people who promoted his lies disgraced and ashamed.

It won't happen.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 4:34 PM

I want to see Harold Camping prosecuted for bilking people out of their money, for destroying lives and families. I want to see his radio empire dismantled and the people who promoted his lies disgraced and ashamed.

That's the very least of what should happen to him. Pity it won't happen. Christianity, still wallowing in blood all this time later...it's a travesty.

Posted by: nelc | May 21, 2011 4:39 PM

At a panel at a science fiction convention I went to a few years ago, the panel members were asked about new crimes for the 21st Century, and one of them mentioned 'emotional assault by cult'. This kind of thing always makes me think of that.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 21, 2011 4:41 PM

Holy shit. If he was running a normal business he would be looking at lawsuits in these situations, but instead he can hide behind religion.
Those poor people.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 4:43 PM

Religion poisons the mind.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 4:45 PM

I want to see Harold Camping prosecuted for bilking people out of their money, for destroying lives and families. I want to see his radio empire dismantled and the people who promoted his lies disgraced and ashamed.

I don't. At least, not to the extent the government or legal system gets involved.

The people who were 'bilked' out of their money were deliberately buying into something that they knew was something no reasonable, scientific, person-of-and-in-the-world would buy into. The whole point was to be one of the special elite who doesn't rely on rational secular evidence: I don't see how consumer protection laws can apply to that. Camping readily admitted that his views made no sense unless you had faith. They were accepted not despite that, but because of that.

So I'd like to see this incident used to disgrace and shame the entire concept of faith itself, socially, rationally, and culturally. Instead, most believers will just marginalize these people as using faith "the wrong way." As if there is a right way to use it.

Posted by: Mary Luce | May 21, 2011 4:48 PM

I am a Christian, and I am appalled at Camping and the idiocy that he has fostered. I am appalled at the hatred that those who call themselves Christians regularly spew at those who are not like themselves. It sickens me to see such hatred, intolerance, and stupidity. Please know that not all of us are like this. I may be in the minority, but love, tolerance and caring for others is the basis of the Christianity I follow. All of their paranoia aside, the biggest threat against Christianity is coming from the hate mongering ultra-conservative fundamentalist "Christians", not from any atheist or humanist.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 21, 2011 4:52 PM

With that logic, erictfbat, there should be no such thing as criminal fraud.

Of course. There's no excuse, it's just that the government stays out because we don't want it trampling religious rights. Otherwise, really, what religion would be safe from prosecution for fraud?

Does that in fact sound good? Perhaps, except that it's at least as likely that atheists would end up being prosecuted for fraud. Idiotically, of course, but according to the "truths" of some musty old claptrap.

Glen Davidson

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | May 21, 2011 4:55 PM

I want to see Harold Camping prosecuted for bilking people out of their money, for destroying lives and families. I want to see his radio empire dismantled and the people who promoted his lies disgraced and ashamed.

From a practical perspective, it would be very hard to convict him of fraud: the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Camping didn't believe his own claims. Without the ability to read minds, I can't see any obvious way of establishing this in court. It's not always easy in practice to distinguish between a charlatan and someone who is genuinely deluded.

Besides, I'm not sure what the point would be in prosecuting him... being 89, he'll probably be dead in a few years. Hopefully his radio station will now go out of business, though I wouldn't bet on it. (I imagine he'll come up with some kind of excuse; after all, this isn't the first time he's been wrong.)

Posted by: sillytric | May 21, 2011 4:57 PM

@ erictfbat #7

Actually, stupid would be more of a reason that Camping would be prosecutable. A lack of judgment is often seen as a reason that a contract could be deemed invalid (you cannot sign a contract with someone of impaired judgment or who is a minor, as they have been deemed unable to fully comprehend the consequences).

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 5:00 PM

Ah. Sorry Walton, I guess that means I'll see you in hell.

Anyway, while the people who believed him are to blame for their own stupidity, it's still Camping who took advantage of that, who used their religion as a tool to fleece them. If I don't lock my bike, I'm still not the one who steals it.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 21, 2011 5:01 PM

The Sailor, Jules and Walton appear to be doing fine. Can't speak for Brownian.

Posted by: AKron | May 21, 2011 5:05 PM

There's a very smart, educated AP teacher and regular blogger in our local newspaper today (right now, hint) that says Camping is all wrong. He says so because the Bible tells us we won't know when the rapture will occur. Then he goes on to say he thinks every time someone makes an end time prediction God changes the time! OK Mr. E!

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 5:06 PM

Mary Luce, the problem is that the strong base of loving, tolerating Christians seems to be what makes the excesses like Camping possible. And the extremists sure get more airtime. Sitting here, across the big pond, that's all we hear. Camping. Hinn. Falwell. And so on and so on.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 5:09 PM

Walton #18 wrote:

From a practical perspective, it would be very hard to convict him of fraud: the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Camping didn't believe his own claims.

From a legal perspective, would that matter in this case? I thought that fraud had to involve a knowing or even unknowing deception -- and what are the standards for deception in a framework where the standards are admittedly and clearly "faith"-based? The consumers had accepted, upfront, that there were -- and should not be -- any worldly facts, studies, or evidence sufficient to make the claim a reasonable, reliable claim by legal standards.

I don't think the legal system can therefore get involved in this, even if Camping believed none of it. The consumers seem to have waived their natural rights, in favor of supernatural privileges. Which they received. They got to show their faith in God -- to themselves, others, and "God."

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 21, 2011 5:10 PM

Brownian? Tries incantation for an Edmondonite
*Gretsky, Tikkenan, Kurri, Coffey, Messier, Fuhr, Sather, Moon.*

Posted by: AKron | May 21, 2011 5:11 PM

@PZ Myers #28 - Oh man quit it, you're making my pop come out my nose! I love it!

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 21, 2011 5:15 PM

I don't think anyone is "to blame for their own stupidity", ever.

Bullshit. You've been on this strawman-hunt for a while, and I don't see the point.

Some stupidity can be diminished by learning new things. It's not all a result of the "stupid" being exploited by others. When people decide not to learn or decide that learning itself is against their own interests, they can be blamed for their own stupidity. Not all of their stupidity, of course, but that part which would've been under their control had they valued learning.

Posted by: Dan L. | May 21, 2011 5:17 PM

Anyway, while the people who believed him are to blame for their own stupidity

Yes, in the same sense that naive people who lost their homes and credit to sub-prime lending hucksters are to blame for their own misfortunes.

Posted by: Moggie | May 21, 2011 5:24 PM

Jadehawk:

the point of "rapture hilarity" is to make it as obvious and clear as possible to as wide an audience as possible that the rapture is ridiculous. At least that's how I feel about it: ridicule is a vaccine against such ideas, and if/when we reach a large enough percentage of people, we'll have herd immunity

You're right, of course. I just have hilarity fatigue, since the supply of idiots is endless.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 5:24 PM

Walton #23 wrote:

If I were to leave my credit cards and PIN details lying around on a park bench, you might well call me stupid; but this doesn't mean you wouldn't be prosecuted for theft if you emptied my bank account and went on the run. People do foolish things sometimes, but this doesn't mean the law allows you to exploit their foolishness for your pecuniary gain.

I agree that the issue isn't stupidity or carelessness. But I think Camping is (correctly) outside the law here because of the nature of the contract.

If you were to give your credit card and PIN details to someone who convinced you that God would be pleased with you if you renounce your wealth, would that someone be guilty of fraud -- even if there is no God, and the 'thief' a well-known atheist and con artist?

I'm not sure. What were you 'buying?' A sense of humility and satisfaction in God's favor. Which feeling you had at the moment of the transaction: you had no rational expectation that God's existence was proven to a reasonable standard, or ever would be.

If you lose your sense of satisfaction later, when you think it through a little more, that sort of buyers remorse may grant no legal right to get your money back when no money-back guarantee was offered. God may still be pleased for all you know. Faith needs no evidence. The agreement was that you would exercise faith. I don't think the real or implied contract was violated.

Posted by: stiknine | May 21, 2011 5:27 PM

100% in agreement with you PZ. Also if there are families that have abused their children with this drivel should be prosecuted as well.

Posted by: Newfie | May 21, 2011 5:28 PM

been almost an hour here, and even my facebook statuses didn't get a nod.. I must have too many rational friends.

Newfie 5:50PM
Well, that was odd. Some Arab looking dude just knocked on my door, babbled some shit in Aramaic, and motioned that I should follow him.... don't worry, I told him to fuck off, and I slammed the door in his face. One of these days, I swear, I'ma go knock somebody's door and try to convert them to atheism, just for shits and giggles.

Newfie 6:00PM
Guys, I know you want to break ground and get a good start to the new hospital, but major blasting on a Saturday evening at supper time? Jaysus, b'y.. give it a rest, it's the May Two Four weekend for cryin' out loud! I'm trying to enjoy my beer without the house shaking, eh? feckin' idjits

Posted by: stiknine | May 21, 2011 5:33 PM

Atheist from Utah here. I'll let you all know if any mormons are raptured. I'm sure they wont cause mormons are not real christians, right?

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 5:37 PM

Would it be appropriate to quote Reve?

Als God zich opnieuw in Levende Stof gevangen geeft, zal hij als ezel terugkeren, hoogstens in staat een paar lettergrepen te formuleren, miskend en verguisd en geranseld, maar ik zal hem begrijpen en meteen met hem naar bed gaan, maar ik doe zwachtels om zijn hoefjes, dat ik niet te veel schrammen krijg als hij spartelt bij het klaarkomen.

If God imprisons himself in Living Matter again, he will return as a donkey, only capable of uttering a couple of syllables at the most, unappreciated, reviled and beaten, but I will understand him and bed him immediately, but I will put bandages on his hooves, so that I won't get too many scratches if he flounders when coming.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2011 5:41 PM

I make no representation as to the law of California, which may be different.

well, I don't know what the specific laws in general that would apply, but I recall CA has pretty strict "lemon" laws applying to the sale of high price items like cars, such that if it's clear the item has significant problems on purchase, by law you can immediately get a full refund from the seller, or else sue them in court for fraud.

So, by that, I am thinking at some point the Supreme Court of CA decided that there must be some inherent communication of quality attached to the selling of autos, so then, if there's that, I would expect there to be pretty easy ways of suing for fraud for other things as well.

just speculating though.

Posted by: Agent Smith | May 21, 2011 5:47 PM

Whoops, no apocalypse.

I'd like whoever interviews Camping to grill him on exactly what he plans to do to help the people and families left destitute thanks to believing his prediction. They shouldn't let him get away with numinous shit like "he'll pray for them" - either he promises real help or he gets to squirm, fully exposed.

Who knows, it might even prick the old bastard's conscience into doing something useful. But I'll not, as they say, delay exhalation.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 21, 2011 5:52 PM

You know what burns my tits? Camping is free to go ahead and fleece the gullible, he can incite fear and violence, but we're seen as immoral.

Fuck. That.

Posted by: Mary Luce | May 21, 2011 5:56 PM

I tried to post, so sorry if this is a dupilicate!
I do not claim to be a great person, nor do I want a pat on the back. I have read posts questioning why a liberal Christian does not speak up, but when we do, we get accused of complicity with genocide in Uganda. You are wrong about that. I am no base of support for hatemongers because of my beliefs. I speak out against them louder than ever.

I do not know what will happen in the end of times. Modern Christianity has everything garbled. They twist metaphor into literal truth. I do not believe anyone will burn. I do not believe in hell, except for what we make for ourselves here out of ignorance.

Please do not make the mistake of hating or judging someone only on the basis of them being a Christian. Christians can be decent caring human beings. I am sorry you only hear about the assholes.

I do dislike Camping because he is damaging people's lives. The fact that his drivel is wrong is secondary. I despise all haters who use the mantle of Chrsitianity because of the hurt and damage they cause.

I do not expect any sympathy on this site on this topic, but I still will continue reading. I agree with you all in more ways than I disagree.

Posted by: enlightend | May 21, 2011 5:58 PM

#7 I have to disagree, even intelligent people, when indoctrinated from birth to believe crazy ass shit, like the rapture business, can take desperate measures like that, when they fully believe that, what they have been taught and told, is the way the world works.

To us it seems desperate, but if you wholly believe the world will end and this is a valid way to move on, what your doing is, however flawed, logical.

Also, by your thinking, if you buy a gun, and put it in the hands of a child or a mentally ill person, is it their fault if they hurt themselves or someone else with it?

Indoctrination pushers like Camping are exactly the ones at fault in this situation, they profit from it, they don't believe it themselves, they are the scum of the earth, murderers by proxy and extreme cowards.

I'm willing to put money on it that, if prosecuted and it seems he will be convicted, a guy like Camping will commit suicide in 5 seconds flat.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 6:00 PM

Audley Fucking Darkheart (ODS)

You know what burns my tits?

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 6:03 PM

Mary Luce #60 wrote:

I do not know what will happen in the end of times. Modern Christianity has everything garbled. They twist metaphor into literal truth. I do not believe anyone will burn. I do not believe in hell, except for what we make for ourselves here out of ignorance.

If God does not exist, if Jesus did not die for our sins, and if the stories in the Bible are only valuable for what they reveal about our history and ourselves -- then are the parts you admire most about Christianity, still good? Do they still work?

I suspect you are a humanist, and that you value Christianity only to the extent that it follows humanism. It is metaphor all the way down ... to the human ground of this world.

I agree with you all in more ways than I disagree.

Quite possibly. And you may even agree with us in more ways than you realize.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 21, 2011 6:05 PM

Nice, another innocent wanker for jezus.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 6:06 PM

Mary Luce:

I do not know what will happen in the end of times. Modern Christianity has everything garbled. They twist metaphor into literal truth. I do not believe anyone will burn. I do not believe in hell, except for what we make for ourselves here out of ignorance.

There won't be any "end of times", not in a religious sense, anyway. Modern christianity hangs by the same doctrinal threads as the "old" christianity, Mary. The core of beliefs remains the same, your protests notwithstanding.

I understand your desire to distance yourself here, but you're still a part of the problem and will remain a part of the problem as long as you cling to the tenets of christianity.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins | May 21, 2011 6:09 PM

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/05/21/1673899/cash-registers-singing-over-end.html

News reports such as the above say that Camping's 'Family Radio' organisation has raised $100 million in donations over the past 7 years, and owns 66 radio stations. It is described as a 'non-profit'. Would somebody familiar with American tax law confirm that this means it pays no taxes?

Even if PZ is right that it won't happen that his radio empire is dismantled, the very least that should happen to Camping as a result of this disgraceful episode is that he should lose his tax-free status. And might we hope that this would serve as a precedent for removing the general presumption that any organisation that calls itself a religion or a church should automatically be free of tax? At a stroke, that would go a long way towards removing the stranglehold that religion has on American life.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 6:11 PM

Sorry, I should've given a link to what the Pft knows about Reve.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 6:12 PM

enlightend #62 wrote:

I'm willing to put money on it that, if prosecuted and it seems he will be convicted, a guy like Camping will commit suicide in 5 seconds flat.

I'd put money against that. A guy like Camping probably sees himself as a genuine prophet, and if jailed would then see himself as a persecuted martyr. He would gain more respect from followers, feel more self-respect, behind bars.

Don't underestimate the dangers of faith. Feynman once said that the first rule of science was not to fool yourself -- "and we are the easiest people to fool." The opposite of that is faith: "Trust God completely -- and you are not God." It's a license to remove self-doubt when it comes to God. I daresay Camping is fooling himself very, very well. Force of habit.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 21, 2011 6:16 PM

I've been waiting for 15 bloody minutes and there's been no rapture. I demand my 15 minutes back!

Posted by: Florian | May 21, 2011 6:17 PM

The video is dated March 22 so perhaps we can't really blame Harold for this.

Posted by: GordonOKC | May 21, 2011 6:18 PM

Those who wasted their money on this scam will at least be able to deduct this from their taxes. How about those of us who make contributions to combat this type of nonsense?

Posted by: another | May 21, 2011 6:19 PM

Camping is disgraceful. But at least he was willing to make a falsifiable prediction. That prediction is now falsified. Much more disgraceful are all the other theists since they lack the courage to even make a falsifiable prediction.

To all those who trot out the meme "Only the Father knows the day and hour", I say go show your respect to Harold Camping. As bad as he is, he's better than you.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 6:21 PM

Ichthyic #75 wrote:

again, related to this, in CA you cannot legally sign away your rights, under any circumstances...

Do you not have the right to decide to emulate Jesus, and give away all your worldly goods, however you see fit?

If the person is of otherwise sound mind, I don't think my example fits your description. The contract and promise dealt with exchanging money for only the sensation that one is therefore being obedient to God's will. Nothing else. If the sense was there at the exchange, I think the contract was fulfilled.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 6:24 PM

Mmmm... what was that about religion exacerbating mental illness again?

Remember some these people believed they were damned.

This is why I've felt increasingly reluctant to join in the general rapture hilarity.

This.

Preying on the weak, the gullible, the sick, the dying, wherever there's a dollar to be made and bit of adulation to be savored: that's where you'll find a religious fuck.

Posted by: Sastra | May 21, 2011 6:30 PM

Ichthyic #87 wrote:

you also have the right to claim you made a mistake, and demand it all back.
that's what it means when I say you cannot sign away your rights.

Umm .. I'm not sure we all have the legal right to void a fulfilled contract because we've changed our minds and now think we made a mistake. That sounds a little too general.

Posted by: SQB (fuck death) | May 21, 2011 6:35 PM

Volcano Grímsvötn just started erupting. Is my watch ahead?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 21, 2011 6:36 PM

@82 I believe tax deductable donations can be made to FFRF. I'm a member, and find them to be a very worthy atheist group.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 21, 2011 6:40 PM

'Tis,

I've been waiting for 15 bloody minutes and there's been no rapture. I demand my 15 minutes back!

You and me both. But I gotta admit, it has been a spectacular night to sit outside with a beer.

Posted by: Utakata | May 21, 2011 6:45 PM

Well, Richard at 72 has signed in at 6:09 pm...which if that bing my time zone would put him 5 hours ahead of us. So I guess Great Britain is still around. :)

Mary Luce, I used to be exactly like you at one time, until I found I could no longer morally and ethically support my religion and it's claims. Or excuse any person's claims and/or actions who practise it. As well as being a science buff, the evidence of supporting it is extremely flimsy to non-existent at best. Perhaps in time, you'll come to these revelations yourself. I'm not saying it will be easy, but you'll be a better person for it.

Posted by: John Morales | May 21, 2011 6:52 PM

Walton:

I don't find the concept of "blame" (or "fault", or "punishment") to be useful, coherent or meaningful in general.

You recently asked asserted: "Had it not been for Professor Myers posting the screenshot, it's very likely that the kid's FB post would have been long forgotten (and likely deleted) in a couple of years' time. As it is, it's archived permanently on a high-traffic and publicly-searchable blog - and this could easily come back to bite him in a few years. It is Professor Myers, not the kid, who is responsible for that."

No concept of "blame", "fault" or "punishment" exhibited there, no siree!

Posted by: Harbo | May 21, 2011 6:56 PM

The relative silence from the "reasonable" xians is entirely equivalent to the silence of "reasonable" islam in the face of extremism.
As soon as they question the irrationality of an "extremist" view they know they have a problem, because if they start to remove those ideas that are extreme(irrational?) ...............
Then where do you stop?...
At PZM's door of course!

Ficus Rules!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 21, 2011 7:01 PM

6:01 pm local (CDT) time. No imminent rain, and the previous drizzle is out over Lake Michigan, and about half-way to the hand state. Just poured a fresh tankard of grog, and am about to go out and attack the weeds in the back jungle. Call for back-up if I don't post within an hour....

Posted by: becominginvisible | May 21, 2011 7:03 PM

(rats)

here

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 21, 2011 7:10 PM

@104 - Pullets will be in the air.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | May 21, 2011 7:11 PM

Patricia:

Oh sure, just like you heathens that have survived the apockylips to sit around drinking beer while the rest of us are in mortal danger.

Sorry, Patricia. There's a pint of Saison Dupont on its way through the 'tubes for you!

Caine,

It's pretty quiet around here, of course, that's normal.

I think I'd be worried if it was quiet around here-- but there's plenty of people milling about, enjoying the fabulous weather. :)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | May 21, 2011 7:16 PM

It's 6:02, and I'm still here, SQB. Turns out I wasn't a closeted holy person. *cheers*

Mary Luce, I am seconding what Sastra said to you.

I'll add that it may make you feel uncomfortable to think that you are a good person simply because you are a good person, that it was either luck or work or both that got you there, and you may find it easier to believe that you care about people because something divine has instilled it in you. Because if something divine could place that in you, it could place it in anyone. If it was something that you controlled yourself, you may lose control of it. And if it was luck, then there's nothing that says that other people will have it. It destroys the prospect of universal redemption.

But if you accept that there is no divinity playing into the behavior of humans, you are better able to understand humans themselves because you do not automatically misattribute their actions. This approach gives you tactics that are far more effective in addressing morality, ethics, and some of the even more enjoyable things such as love and friendship.

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | May 21, 2011 7:22 PM

I'm a regular listener to Camping's retarded drivel. It's a really twisted kind of pleasure to listen to The Most Boring Human on Earth play D&D with the book of Jeremiah. IIRC, the rapture starts with an earthquake in CA at 18:00 local time. We actually have another 1:30 to go.

Last call for repentance! You don't have to go to heaven, but you can't stay here!

Posted by: RemembersABeach | May 21, 2011 7:26 PM

Apparently 6pm central time was not the appointed hour for the Rapture, it was the appointed time for the Rupture. I'm off to the clinic to get my ear checked out.

Posted by: Darreth | May 21, 2011 7:33 PM

You are correct, PZ. Harold's radio empire won't be dismantled and his followers will do precisely what Teatards, Republicans and other delusional people do when faced with reality: they will DOUBLE-DOWN IN THEIR RHETORIC.

You will now hear that the followers are MORE THAN EVER sure that the rapture is a comin'!

Posted by: MagistraMarla | May 21, 2011 7:36 PM

Just a pleasant note for the day...
We finally got called by the Gallup Poll!!!
My DH had lots of fun answering the questions about religious beliefs -
What religion do you identify with? None.
How many times in the past year have you been to church? None.
Are you depressed? No
Are you satisfied with your life? Yes
Do you have decent health car? Yes
Do you approve of our current POTUS? Yes

Considering that we are in the over 50 crowd, that probably skewed their numbers a bit!

Posted by: sandiseattle | May 21, 2011 7:37 PM

Mary Luce,

don't know how long you lurked here befor commenting, but I'll give you this: you're whispering in a room for shouting.
How you were treated here is ABSOLUTELY typical.
They don't want to hear your side, except to laugh at you. This isn't a place to argue for Christianity (or any theism of any type). Go play on the swings, let them have the sandbox.

Posted by: JakeJarmel | May 21, 2011 7:39 PM

It's the response from the rest of Christianity that bothers me: "Oh, no, he's not really a Christian. Look here in the Bible, 'The day of the lord will come like a thief in the night." Seems to me the church has been hiding behind that verse a long time. Whoever put that "thief in the night" thing in the bible must have been pretty shrewd. It puts their whole claim that Jesus will return beyond testability. At least Camping, assuming he actually believed what he said he did, was willing to put his cards on the table.

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 21, 2011 7:48 PM

Hmmmmm...

I don't have time to read the whole thread now, but I searched for "false" and didn't find an occurrence of "false prophet(s)". Therefore, I assume that it hasn't yet been pointed out what Deuteronomy says:

18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Obstinate heathen that I am, I'm against the death penalty, but I appreciate irony all the same...

Whoever put that "thief in the night" thing in the bible must have been pretty shrewd. It puts their whole claim that Jesus will return beyond testability.

It would, if the "this generation shall not pass" thing weren't in there, too.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | May 21, 2011 7:49 PM

@ Harbo The alleged silence of moderate Muslims on Muslim extremism is exaggerated (especially here in North America). They do speak out but they don't often get press coverage.

@ Walton and others interested in the legal remedies

in English law [which is likely similar to CA law in this regard], to establish fraud by false representation (s. 2 of the Fraud Act 2006), you'd have to establish that he dishonestly made a representation which was untrue or misleading, and that he knew that it was, or might be, untrue or misleading; and that he intended to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or expose another to a risk of loss.

[emph. mine]

This, I think is the crux (no pun intended) of the matter. A case could be made that he must have known that it might be untrue or misleading. Especially since his last prediction failed to come true.

Somebody have the relevant CA statute handy?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | May 21, 2011 7:50 PM

sandiseattle, you are extremely dishonest. Luckily, it appears Mary Luce can read, so your attempted bullshitting can be seen for what it is.

Even PZ's response, while certainly not gentle, actually took it for granted that Mary is the good person she says she is. He just told her that it wasn't because of god, it was because of her. Frankly, that's actually a fucking compliment, and it's something she needs to hear.

People around here don't like liars, sandiseattle. That's why you always get the shit treatment.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 21, 2011 7:56 PM

It's this kind of thing that takes all the fun out of the rapture. It's just no fun to joke about it now.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 21, 2011 8:05 PM

Less than an hour to go...when does the spooky music start?

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | May 21, 2011 8:10 PM

Christians can be decent caring human beings. I am sorry you only hear about the assholes.

Human beings can be decent, caring human beings; and they can also be assholes. Sometimes, the same individual is involved, depending on the circumstances. This is true of human beings everywhere, regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, national origin...and it's nothing to do with these 'definitions'; it's to do with the individual person.
-
ImaginesABeach, I hope your ear's okay. I had an eardrum rupture, once, as a result of the single fastest-acting and most splendiferous sinus allergy attack of my entire life. No fun was had by me, at all. Take care of yourself!
-

They don't want to hear your side, except to laugh at you.

Funny, sandiseattle, I didn't notice the laughter. Pointing out of cognitive dissonance, yes; deploring of the undesirable side-effects thereof, yes; laughter, no.
-

Posted by: mick.long | May 21, 2011 8:11 PM

Can Camping actually be prosecuted, at least for the money he's diddled out of people?

This slimy bastard should be sitting in a dock somewhere, not on a pile of stolen millions!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 8:21 PM

I may be in the minority, but love, tolerance and caring for others* is the basis of the atheism I practice. *And bacon, and science.

I love this.

Beautiful Minnie, beautiful.

Posted by: raven | May 21, 2011 8:27 PM

sandiS:

They don't want to hear your side, except to laugh at you.

Sigh. You never get it. We were on Mary's at one time. Most of us are ex-xians. We know. We not only heard "your side" for decades, we repeated it.

I had the same reaction as Mary when I first ran into the fundies. My god, these evil creeps are going to destroy the religion. Which they are but that isn't my problem any longer. I took a good hard look at xianity and decided it was all just mythology, fiction.

This isn't a place to argue for Christianity (or any theism of any type).

Probably not. It is a No Religions site with a strong component of Anti-Religion populated by mostly former victims,/s> believers. It's not our fault religion is an enemy of modern civilization, normal people, and baggage being dragged behind our society.

Go play on the swings, let them have the sandbox.

Whatever. Nothing would make us happier than theists and xians leaving us, science, and our society the hell alone and staying under their rocks. The fundies created the Gnu Atheists. They won't do that though.

Right now, wherever the minions of death cult xianity have gained power, they are trying to head on back to the Dark Ages. Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Texas, Tennessee, Florida etc.. Hardly a day goes by without another piece of hate legislation being passed by the Tea Party cultists. Anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-nonwhite, anti-poor people, anti-working people, anti-children, anti-moderate xians, anti-other religions.

They could save a lot of time by just being anti-human and be done with it.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 8:30 PM

Mary Luce, don't know how long you lurked here befor commenting, but I'll give you this: you're whispering in a room for shouting. How you were treated here is ABSOLUTELY typical. They don't want to hear your side, except to laugh at you. This isn't a place to argue for Christianity (or any theism of any type). Go play on the swings, let them have the sandbox.

This is bullshit. Look, I haven't replied to Mary Luce because I don't know what to say. I can sympathize, but my mother was/is/seems similar in some ways and I never knew what to say to her some times either on that issue. It's hard for a lot of people to reconcile their sense of morality with the religion they see the most significant aspects of that morality in.

It doesn't follow that they are horrible and cruel, but it is difficult also to hear them when others use the same words to justify horror.

This problem is real, and it isn't just about people being mean or nice.

I feel bad for the place Mary Luce seems to be in, and I have issues with what gets called good and bad behavior in people anyway.

So I've kept my mouth shut. I'll take her up if she posts again on the things I think are wrong which I think I can take on. IMO that *is* respectful.

Posted by: Ryd | May 21, 2011 8:32 PM

If one shouts "fire" in a cinema it is not free speech, it is a crime pure and simple and prosecutable. It is stupid to shout such and will cause injury whether or not the rest of the crowd is stupid.

Mr. Camping seems to fall under exactly this type of legal case now that harm has occurred at his say so. Send in the swat teams.

Ryd

Posted by: Moewicus | May 21, 2011 8:33 PM

I know it's a little late for a relevant response, but:

erictfbat #7 said: So prosecuting him is no different, really, than arresting someone for theft for playing the "I got your nose!" game with a two-year-old.

That is a false analogy, since this involves actual harm and thus a more appropriate analogy would be arresting someone for telling a small child that rabid lions really, really like having their tails pulled. "Small children are just stupid" is not a relevant response nor is it exculpatory for the deceptive adult in this scenario. Not that I think the people who believe this apocalyptic nonsense are outright stupid: it's simply a bad analogy.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2011 8:35 PM

It's just no fun to joke about it now.

don't submit to the guilt!

Rise above it; that is the power given to you by not having to placate the religious!

IT IS FUNNY.

PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT CAMPING WAS RIGHT DESERVE TO BE MOCKED AND RIDICULED.

how else will we ever be able to marginalize, and finally, eliminate this nutty behavior that is not only self-destructive, but has direct negative impacts on others as well?

Posted by: sansd8ty | May 21, 2011 8:41 PM

I was thinking that, aside from lunatics like the woman who tried to kill her kids, Camping is actually a great vehicle for believers to jump ship. Unlike most chickenshit religious leaders, Camping is actually willing to make wild claims and provide evidence such as this rapture.

However I remembered I'm talking about believers here and there is no end to their believing in this nonsense so they'll rationalize to themselves that Camping was just too extreme and migrate to some other lethargic leader who would never make a claim that can unequivocably be proven wrong.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 21, 2011 8:41 PM

On the fraud discussion, it seems that when you sell a product and take money for it, then fail to deliver upon the agreed time, that most corporations and private businesses have to refund the payment owing to the failure to deliver.

Of course, these are the rules we have for when substantial promises are made about real world objects. Money, goods, services.

But if religion is involved, all the rules go out the window because who's going to prosecute? Who's going to enter that thicket and do the right thing? And how do you prove beyond the braying of loud idiots that something unseen isn't behind the screen of quantum.

Of course, we're fixing that, slowly, in America to make all contracts like that of religion, a caveat emptor for all purchases and no real guarantee on behalf of the powerful who would never be subjected to fraud or theft laws intended to keep the little people in line...

While I worry each month about how I will pay next month's rent and as I frantically look for jobs, I sometimes look at these obvious vile scams and I wonder how much all traces of humanity are really worth?

And what's sick is that these people are not desperate confidence con-men hoping to make enough on the street corner to eat tonight. They are men of obsequious luxury and every possible privilege who already make millions simply lying for a few hours every week.

And they trade and sell human lives with seeming infinite recklessness.

One has to wonder what complex network of cognitive dissonance and self-serving lies they tell to themselves each night just to be able to sleep soundly.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2011 8:44 PM

"When does the scary music start"

well, I dunno about scary, but how about Bach's Tocata and Fugue?

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2825266/glass_harp_toccata_fugue_in_d_minor_bach_bwv_565/

surprise!

I bet you thought that was going to be done in grand pipe organ style?

:)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 8:45 PM

Mary Luce:

Love. Love others. All others. Not just others like myself. Even those with whom I disagree.

That's nice, Mary. I mean that, it really is nice. However, I suspect that's more you than it is in any way your christianity. Christianity isn't about love, it never has been.

In a different thread, someone brought up Luke 14:26:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Where's the love? One problem a lot of people here have with theists is that they are rarely familiar with their own holy book. If you pick and choose bits you like and disregard the rest, then you aren't actually a christian.

You come across more to me as someone who would be comfortable as a Unitarian, picking bits and pieces of philosophy from all over as guidelines for a good life.

As for the so-called Good Book, perhaps spending a few days at Skeptic's Annotated would be eye-opening.

Posted by: John Morales | May 21, 2011 8:47 PM

Mary:

Love. Love others. All others.

Any human capable of this feat should be considered insane.

It's pernicious: At best, it promotes victim mentality; at worst, putative aspirants to this ideology use it to justify imposing rules on others. Mostly, though, you mob use it to try to emotionally blackmail people.

Bah.

Posted by: evilDoug | May 21, 2011 8:48 PM

NoRh @34

"Edmontonian".

"Edmondonite" is a kind of glowing rock that takes away their superpowers if they venture south of Leduc.

Posted by: teliria | May 21, 2011 8:50 PM

I have come to believe that the skeptics are going about this the wrong way. Instead of telling the believers that the rapture did not happen, we should be claiming (loudly) that it DID.

Which means that the christians who were left behind (ie: ALL of them) have been doing 'it' all wrong and they need to change their approach.

Then we remind them that the rapture is supposed to signify the end of the church age and the beginning of the time that god speaks to us directly.

Which means they need to stop going to church and to stop pushing their religion on others. God was pretty clear that he would deal with each of us on his own terms now, so they need to be careful not to interfere.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 8:51 PM

Camping is actually a great vehicle for believers to jump ship

Not really, as this is hardly Camping's first rapture prediction.

Go read the Rapture Ready forum sometime - these people have been waiting, they jump on every little thing as a sign that it's gonna happen soon! It will! Really, really!

There are a lot of people out there who will waste their lives waiting for Jesus to come riding along and rescue them, despite the fact that the bible makes it very clear that the rapture was supposed to take place a very, very long time ago.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | May 21, 2011 8:57 PM

From disappointed Rapture fascists in Idaho I am hearing that the non-arrival of the Rapture is God's way of teaching them humility.

One more lesson from God.

God didn't like the prideful manner in which some people promoted the Rapture like a World Wrestling event.

I'm still partial to the theory that Jesus tried to hover in the blue skies over the United States in order to supervise the Rapture, but he was sucked into the jet engine of the plane PZ was on earlier.

No supervisor, therefore Rapture postponed until God knocks up another virgin, Jesus version 2.0 grows up, Jesus II is crucified, etc.

Posted by: John Morales | May 21, 2011 8:59 PM

teliria:

Instead of telling the believers that the rapture did not happen, we should be claiming (loudly) that it DID.

So, you think such a volte-face is the right strategy.

Your accommodationism is noted.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 21, 2011 9:02 PM

I have come to believe that the skeptics are going about this the wrong way. Instead of telling the believers that the rapture did not happen, we should be claiming (loudly) that it DID.

Yeah, skeptics really love lying to people.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 21, 2011 9:04 PM

There are a lot of people out there who will waste their lives waiting for Jesus to come riding along and rescue them, despite the fact that the bible makes it very clear that the rapture was supposed to take place a very, very long time ago.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 9:12 PM

Jadehawk:

I vaguely remember once one of them quoted one of the "this generation shall not pass before we're all raptured" passages and insisted it applied to them not the persons the speaker was addressing waaaaay back when that piece was written

That's the thing, they'll twist their own holy book to bits in order to make it say what they want, so the whole rapture business, it will never die.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | May 21, 2011 9:13 PM

Addendum to self @167

Which makes me wonder why so many feel the need to blame something else for when they do good.

"Oh, me, my no, that wasn't me, that was the spirit of Jesus Christ urging me to do that, you should really thank him for the rescue from that burning building, that aid on an important civil rights struggle, etc..."

But then they don't need that to do bad.

Oh sure, when caught, it can default to Satan and certainly they would say others doing bad is Satan and so on, but by the banality of evil, few even realize they needed an excuse.

Discrimination, rape, slavery, bullying, oppression, driving to suicide, corporate fraud, aiding cons, not speaking up for someone else, disowning a child for disobeying "the rules".

Such casual evils, never considered. It's just "how things have always been", "well I never thought about it before", "it's just how it is", and "we don't ask questions in this household".

Whatever the pastor says, whatever the majority says, whatever your neighbors think.

And that says something about a lot of us, that we find the conformity and illusion of safety of doing wrong and think we need to blame an invisible friend just to occasionally exercise that tired muscle of empathy and bravery.

And it's not very flattering.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 9:19 PM

Patricia:

Whoopee! Still here.

Yep, me too and it's now 8:18 pm as I write this. Pity a bunch of fools aren't missing, though.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 21, 2011 9:20 PM

Anyway, according to the bible, the 'rapture' did happen, or it was scheduled to happen and something went wrong.

Yep. There wasn't a god to do the rapturing.

Are you following this Mary Luce? This "love love love love" schtick is nice and all (a bit weird) but it's not a religion. It's fucking insulting to me and other atheists, along with anyone else having any other metaphysical belief, to claim otherwise.

Posted by: Drew | May 21, 2011 9:21 PM

Hey all, I got raptured. It's strange because I never bought into the whole religion nonsense but it's probably because of my special family connections.

Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen | May 21, 2011 9:22 PM

I'm still partial to the theory that Jesus tried to hover in the blue skies over the United States in order to supervise the Rapture, but he was sucked into the jet engine of the plane PZ was on earlier.

Or someone hijacked Jesus mid-flight and flew him into the Chrysler building.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | May 21, 2011 9:31 PM

Camping won't face any serious recriminations (though I do hope that everyone's mocking laughter hurts him like a thousand knives) partly because he's fucking 89 years old. If he were to keel over today, it wouldn't be at all surprising, though it would sure add some fuel to the narrative. Hell, if he were to commit suicide, it wouldn't be surprising.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 9:31 PM

It's fucking insulting to me and other atheists, along with anyone else having any other metaphysical belief, to claim otherwise.

Yeah, this I don't get. But Christian love is more loving?

If not, what sets it apart?

My Buddhist friends say they are all loving. But they are not Christian.

Love.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 21, 2011 9:33 PM

This reminds me of something....

God revealed to me two things about the timing of the rapture. God specifically told me 2007 was the year, because I was only going to have from 3 to 3 1/2 years to spread the message after my book was published

Shelby Corbitt, 2007rapture.com

When you go to 2007rapture.com you get: "The domain 2007rapture.com may be for sale. Click here for details."

Posted by: Aetre | May 21, 2011 9:33 PM

I'm betting the news tomorrow will be pretty much: "God has spared us because he has seen our faith." Then he will quote Bible verses that say things like, "If there's even one person in the city who loves God, the city will be spared." And then all will be hunky dory.

...Not sure if a new date will come out, but I wouldn't be surprised. Only thing one can pretty much count on is that there will be absolutely no admission whatsoever of mistake or wrongness on his part, of any kind. The best one can hope for is that his failure will be an example to more reasonable minds of the follies in predicting supernatural (and therefore nonexistent) stuff.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 9:36 PM

Algernon:

But Christian love is more loving?

Yeah, it's the whole agape business.

Posted by: Lyn M: Just Lyn M. | May 21, 2011 9:39 PM

I noticed the conversation about lemon laws and fraud. I think what may be happening is people talking about lemon laws are conflating that with criminal law.

Lemon laws provide a straight forward way to get a refund if, in a civil contract, there is some large defect in the product sold. These laws grant a remedy that avoids all kinds of twists in formal contract law. These laws are for consumer protection, that is for people in a transaction not between two companies, but between one company the vendor, and another party, the typical consumer purchaser. There is no need to prove fraud, just that the person has changed his or her mind usually within a short time such as 48 hours, OR that the product is not fit for the use it was sold for (it’s a lemon).

Fraud in contract law provides a remedy where someone was misleading or reckless about the representations made concerning the contract. This is a civil remedy and need only be proved on the balance of probability (51% is good enough). The remedy is a repayment, usually, to the person who was mislead. Sometimes monetary penalties are built in, but not always.

Fraud in the criminal sense must meet a set of conditions, such as those set out by Walton. (for starters, intent or reckless disregard for the truth, plus some additional acts such as collecting money). That definition of fraud is common to most Commonwealth countries. There is likely a uniform code of criminal definitions in the US that is very close to this and is adopted by most states. Proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and the penalty usually is a massive fine and/or jail time. A conviction does not result in giving money back to the victims. It goes to the state in one form or another.

The one word, fraud, could refer to any of these, so people are getting confused among them. I usually say criminal fraud if discussing such things to avoid the confusion.

/long-winded explanation of legal terms

Posted by: teawithbertrand | May 21, 2011 9:43 PM

I did some shopping today, and three different cashiers made jokes to me along the lines of "enjoy your purchase before the world ends". The feeling I got was that they actually needed to reassure themselves that nothing was about to happen. About an hour ago (EDT) the elderly woman at the supermarket confided in me "I'm glad we're all still here!" She looked relieved,as if a weight had been lifted from her shoulders. My only repsponse was "of course we are," but I felt like she had turned to me in the middle of Star Wars and said "I know it's only a movie."

My point is that while only the kookiest kooks bought into Camping's nonsense, he made a lot of religious (but more skeptical) people a little nervous today. These are the people whom I'd like to see learn from this experience - the ones for whom there is still hope. The more they see religious claims exposed as the horse shit that they are, the more their skepticism will grow. If it weren't for the suicides and other assorted mayhem, I'd say let's do this every weekend.

Posted by: jazzhands | May 21, 2011 9:51 PM

#190: Buddhism and all that jazz. Do you hold your "buddhist friends"' beliefs in the same contempt as you do christians' and muslims' and jews' and etc's? Just because beuddhists are all "lalala, we love you all and everything is peace" doesn't mean they aren't as ridiculous as all the others.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2011 9:52 PM

Lemon laws provide a straight forward way to get a refund if, in a civil contract, there is some large defect in the product sold.

comparison to Camping:

check.

These laws are for consumer protection

check.

There is no need to prove fraud, just that the person has changed his or her mind usually within a short time such as 48 hours, OR that the product is not fit for the use it was sold for (it’s a lemon).

check.

sure sounds like CA lemon law statutes might apply to money given to Camping's radio network company, to "spread the word" about the coming "apocalypse"

I do hope there will be a LONG line of idiots, er, I mean, disgruntled customers, wanting a refund.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 21, 2011 9:58 PM

I wouldn't worry about Brownian. He's doing whatever there is to do in Edmonton on a Saturday night. He's probably sitting in the park watching the grass die.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 10:03 PM

That being said, my point is that whenever some one asserts that the nature of their love invalidates all other love... they are being abusive.

Actually, I think this holds true no matter what the motivation for saying this maybe.

Posted by: Mary Luce | May 21, 2011 10:07 PM

Are you following this Mary Luce? This "love love love love" schtick is nice and all (a bit weird) but it's not a religion. It's fucking insulting to me and other atheists, along with anyone else having any other metaphysical belief, to claim otherwise.

I'm not trying to insult you or anyone. Maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am not saying I'm special because of my love. I'm not saying Christians are special because of love. Of course non-Christians can love just as much as I can. I'm sure many do a better job than I do. I'm not saying love is my religion. I was saying what I believe sets apart Christians like myself from those who call themselves Christians but spout hate, intolerance and bigotry. That's all. I believe we should aspire to love others. They hate others who are not lock step with them.

Posted by: sandiseattle | May 21, 2011 10:09 PM

cosmic
I have had some good conversations here.
and realize, no amount of your (collective) affirmation that i "lied" will make it a truth.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 10:11 PM

Well... you're my dog aren't you?

Posted by: CJO | May 21, 2011 10:18 PM

I wish I knew ancient Greek so I could better understand the meaning of the texts as I am not so naive as to think the translations we have are not tarnished by politics.

Don't worry about the translations. Good modern translations of the NT give a good sense of the literal Koine, and a good annotated NRSV like the Oxford Study Bible has discursIve footnotes that deal with questions and ambiguities. The issues that aren't so easily resolved have to do with the Greek texts themselves, which we only know from manuscripts from the 3rd century and later. Any serious corruptions of the original texts that comprise the NT took place in the early transmission of them in Greek and that paper trail is all but lost.

Gehenna and "the worm does not die" are not likely candidates for interpolation, though. If you want to revere the theology espoused in the gospels, you're pretty much stuck with some eschatology and the concomitant divine punishment for sinners and unbelievers. It's how Jewish sectarian apocalyptic fulmination was done.

Hell

Posted by: sqlrob | May 21, 2011 10:21 PM

They don't want to hear your side, except to laugh at you. This isn't a place to argue for Christianity (or any theism of any type).

Bullshit. We WANT you to argue. Just support your arguments and don't use ones that have been demolished (especially ones that have been demolished for years or millenia). You try to bullshit us, damn straight we'll laugh.

You just want to make assertions, not make an argument. You want to be patted on the back for having an invisible friend. Show you're not delusional Sandi, go ahead. You have yet to show any basis in reality.

Posted by: CJO | May 21, 2011 10:23 PM

Ha.

Funny artifact of iPad commenting there: "Hell"

On the road In beautiful Rapture-free Santa Cruz. No actual computer so that'll be all from me

Gnight all. I'll be lurking

Posted by: DLC | May 21, 2011 10:25 PM

Camping's business empire should be dismantled and he himself thrown in jail. For those of you who have said "but he's only preying on the stupid", I ask : Since when does the law only protect the clever or the wise ? The law is there to protect the weak from the strong, and this includes the weak of mind as well. Have a care, you too may one day find yourself wondering "how did I fall for that bullshit?" after the fact.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 10:30 PM

Sandi:

no amount of your (collective) affirmation that i "lied" will make it a truth.

No need. Your lies are all on record here, Sandi, along with all your backpedaling. You keep forgetting that for some reason.

Posted by: sandiseattle | May 21, 2011 10:38 PM

sqlrob:
not even gonna try. The atheist definition of delusion is, I have learned (here and elsewhere) any belief in any deity. I've read a good deal of the atheist argument and don't see any hope that you will do anything but believe I am freed of my "delusion" unless I say I no longer believe. I do believe that there had to be something more than the mindless mechanism of natural selection, but I readily admit I don't know what that may be.
(Don't expect a timely response "tonight". My time on the net is up for a while, gotta pay the bills.)

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | May 21, 2011 10:44 PM

Camping won't face any serious recriminations (though I do hope that everyone's mocking laughter hurts him like a thousand knives) partly because he's fucking 89 years old.

When did Camping first announce his 2012 prediction?

Cause one can't help but wonder, after his last prediction flamed out spectacularly in the 1990s, whether or not he picked this one on the expectation that he could reap the bling for a few years, but wouldn't be around anymore to eat the flak on the actual date.

Posted by: Matrim | May 21, 2011 10:44 PM

Then he goes on to say he thinks every time someone makes an end time prediction God changes the time!

Sweet, I predict that the world will end every moment ever. There, we're safe.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | May 21, 2011 10:47 PM

Here's my prediction on the time of the Rapture:

It's already happened. We're already in the Tribulation, right now, what with all the international strife, and economic instability, and wars, and suffering, and whatnot.

The specific date is uncertain, because the total number of true, holy Christians raptured away was so small that it passed completely without notice. Our only chance of finding it, is to comb back through all the missing persons notices.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 10:53 PM

amphiox:

because the total number of true, holy Christians raptured away was so small that it passed completely without notice.

Well, no. The whole thing doesn't matter, because according to the bible, the rapture happened long ago, and it's meaningless, because only the 144,000 are getting in with god, and those were all Jewish male virgins, who will spend eternity on their knees, singing god's praises.

I don't know why anyone would want anything to do with the whole mess if it were true.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 21, 2011 10:55 PM

Walton @ # 18: ... the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Camping didn't believe his own claims. Without the ability to read minds, I can't see any obvious way of establishing this in court.

Has he or the corporation(s) he controls signed any contract obligating him to take a specific action, including making or receiving any payments, after 5/21/2011?

If he has, he either did not expect his predictions to occur, which makes them fraudulent; or made them with the intention to absquatulate from their conditions, which makes him fraudulent.

Sastra @ # 32: The consumers seem to have waived their natural rights, in favor of supernatural privileges.

Without language written and signed to that effect, why should this presumption stand? Has any legislature voted or court ruled to such effect?

^{Fine print: IANAL.}

Posted by: Williwaw | May 21, 2011 10:57 PM

Through the miracle of affirmative action, I was one of the relatively few atheists to be raptured today at 6:05 PM (local time).

Yes, Virginia, there is broadband in Heaven.

I have to say that the view is lovely up Here. I have yet to try the food.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 10:58 PM

Googlemess:

Let people believe as they see fit - stop the petty, sarcastic drama over personal opinion.

So...people dying is just drama? How, um, loving of you.

There's been a fair amount of discussion here about the different types of christian, but you seem to have taken no notice of them.

Now, why aren't you off yelling at those particular christians who hold nasty, hateful, condemning beliefs and who take joy in instilling fear into to others, to the point that people die?

Couldn't be that you don't want to take on the icky christians, could it? Much easier to drive by and yell at the mean atheists, right?

Posted by: Legion | May 21, 2011 10:59 PM

I'm late to the party, but Merry Armageddon to everyone!

Posted by: Joe Bloe | May 21, 2011 11:02 PM

Mary Luce #14

love, tolerance and caring for others is the basis of the Christianity I follow

That's not the Christianity Jesus taught. Jesus was real arsehole and in Mark 16:16 (KJV) he said it was a clear case of Believe Or Be Damned.

Not much room for Christian "love and tolerance" in that statement, eh?

Posted by: Phil65 | May 21, 2011 11:05 PM

Sorry, but I'm just about out of sympathy for victims of con artists like this. Maybe it's a lifetime of seeing the same thing happen over and over again. Televangelists and faith healers are repeatedly exposed as lechers and fakes, and their careers soldier on. Why? The same loyal fucking audience that will never abandon them, that's why.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 11:08 PM

"Read for comprehension" I think is the phrase around here.

Write for clarity wouldn't be a bad corollary though.

I did not ask if you held them in contempt, but their beliefs. My question, if you read it again, was "do you accept the beliefs of your buddhist friends more readily than you do those of your friends who are christians, jews, muslims, etc?".

Your point? Did I say something that indicates that I do, or are you failing at reading comprehension?

For me, the answer is simple: if you believe with certainty in any kind of unprovable idea, then - while you may be my BFF - anything you claim as truth I will first run through an internal algorithm which will remove your proven bias.

Ok. What do you want, a cookie or something?

I have listened to far too many bullshit stories, which at their end were so obviously just self-strengthening mis-rememberances, to take any more chances with these fucking fools.

So... like I said. What about this has anything to do with having friends who happen to think their love comes from one religion or another?

If you haven't figured it out yet, I don't really think religion motivates love...

Posted by: Miki Z | May 21, 2011 11:10 PM

Googlemess@233:

So you've recanted from here? Because your "press release" is all about how Christianity is a lie...

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/nIuv1xcolIf0H1PE09I0ciElL6rp#7d67c | May 21, 2011 11:13 PM

Mary, I would encourage you to keep reading and studying. Earlier it was mentioned to read Skeptics Annotated and that's a great website. I would also recommend that you read up on ancient history, especially around "Biblical times" but read and study as much "other" sources besides the bible as you can and the truth about Christianity and religions in general will hopefully become clearer to you over time.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 21, 2011 11:15 PM

stop the petty, sarcastic drama over personal opinion.

I see SandiSeattle is being an idjit again. Must be too much "coffee"...

I see Mary Luce gets treated like a couple of the OM's. No problem.

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | May 21, 2011 11:20 PM

The atheist definition of delusion is, I have learned (here and elsewhere) any belief in any deity

Not in principle, but it sure does save time. Frees me up to do useful stuff like argue against leprechauns and unicorns and Australians. :)

Tell you what -- give us a reason why belief in any deity rises above delusional, and we'll talk. Until then: NINJA STAR!

Mary Luce:
You seem like a nice (lady?). I haven't jumped in on you because others talk more good than me. Also I'm kind of a prick, and I didn't want you to get the wrong idea that this place is just full of meanies.
No snarkiness for you. I just really hope you can transcend your comfort zone and percieve the connection between the nice, modern Christianity you follow and the entirely godless humanism which dragged your church kicking and screaming into civilized company.
The difference between absolutely faithful Christians like Fred Phelps and tolerable humans like yourself is the extent to which you (Mary) ignore and blow off your faith. You and the bigots share a major premise: the Divinity of Christ. Where you differ (I hope you don't think God hates fags) is in cases where YOU are less Christian than they.

Don't get me wrong; it's totally to your credit that you're not breathing fire and brimstone. We appreciate it. But can you acknowledge that they believe substantially what you believe, and the difference is not that you're a more faithful Christian, but that the Enlightenment had more of an effect on you than it did on Johnny Bumpkin's Snake Handlers?

Oh yeah -- Algernon:
I work for a bunch of reeeeeaaaalllllllllyyyyyy Jesusy people and I know just the "I was a rapist murder-bot before I got saved" routine you're describing. It's why my love for you transcends this mere forum and must needs blot out every other human contact you have. . . also I need a couple hundred bucks. Cool?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 11:25 PM

Yahoomess @ 252:

I would also recommend that you read up on ancient history, especially around "Biblical times"

If all the regulars start recommending reading for Mary Luce, this thread is going to expand rapidly!

Some good reading on the score you suggest, I'd recommend Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 11:28 PM

I work for a bunch of reeeeeaaaalllllllllyyyyyy Jesusy people and I know just the "I was a rapist murder-bot before I got saved" routine you're describing. It's why my love for you transcends this mere forum and must needs blot out every other human contact you have. . . also I need a couple hundred bucks. Cool?

Bleh... yeah, that exactly. Or worse yet they start trying to get you to come to their church meetings. The thing is if you do you're hosed, and if you don't... you know that people you work with actually think you are Satan destroying all creation and will feel they are saving you by doing whatever they're motivated to do to stamp out Satan. It's... sincerely scary.

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | May 21, 2011 11:29 PM

@Mary Luce

Studying Greek (or Hebrew for that matter) wouldn't get you very far. The texts that ended up in your bible were orally transmitted for decades before they got written down in the first place. The people who created them, the people who passed on the stories, and the men who wrote them were all politically motivated. So were those who chose which texts to collect together and canonize several centuries later. And those who copied them for centuries after that. The original followers of Jesus* were politically motivated, as surely as was Jesus himself (he was a Jewish preacher in an occupied territory, remember). There never was a "pure, untainted Christianity". That is a myth.

Does it matter to you if Christianity is true, or do you not care because it suits you to adopt the label (however you pick and choose your beliefs)? I don't mean to sound snarky, I'm honestly curious.

If you are interested in examining the truth, what you should do is look into the history of your religion and the development of Christian theology. You might be surprised.

*As an historian, I follow the generally accepted theory that a man named Jesus did exist who preached in Jerusalem around about 30 CE, had a small group of followers who considered him to be the Messiah expected by some Jewish adherents, and fell afoul of authorities. The rest is legend, similar to the legends surrounding dozens of similar wonderworkers of the time. There is a minority of historians who, citing no independent corroboration outside of the gospel accounts (including the source gospels, i.e. Q, and noncanonical gospels) hold that Jesus didn't exist at all.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 21, 2011 11:32 PM

Sandi:

The atheist definition of delusion is, I have learned (here and elsewhere) any belief in any deity.

Lying again, I see. That's a fearsome habit you have of lying, Sandi. That, coupled with your extremely poor comprehension abilities are what leaves you wallowing in your notions of what is so, what is right.

Watching you glom onto a thread like this, for the sole purpose of turning a theist away, it just brings to light once more what a nasty person you are, Sandi.

Try and remember this thread, because it's one more where you've been caught lying. It won't be long before you pop up again, denying you lie.

Posted by: Ava, OrnithologistofDoom | May 21, 2011 11:38 PM

Caine #199 and previous too: Holy shit, can't you stand admitting that Mary L might be OK? Do you realize what your bitter sniping says about you?
BTW, she never claimed that she was a good person only b/c she's a Xian. You and some others came up with that fake argument. I really like this site, but the hate is amazing.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 21, 2011 11:40 PM

I really like this site, but the hate is amazing.

yeah, it's so amazing it's unrecognizable!

blow.

Posted by: John Morales | May 21, 2011 11:43 PM

Any one who watched the ending of The Mist will appreciate the sort of fear that it takes to make one do what the person highlighted in this post did.

Only difference was, the protagonist in the movie was not delusional since the fear was justified.

Posted by: Jorge López Montoya | May 21, 2011 11:46 PM

I live in colombia, A country where the vast majority of the population is christian and I can tell you most of the people were unaware of this ridiculous prophecy, those who found out about it through the news were simply joking about it, this certainly reaches new levels of stupidity. As for camping, well I don't know that much about law but really don't see it happening, I think the ones who should make him pay are the ones who fell for his bullshit, If I had believed in what he said only to find out It was a complete load of crap I would be very pissed off right now. The one thing that we gain out of all this is that it shows how irrational and stupid faith is

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 21, 2011 11:50 PM

Ava #273

Your concern is noted.

Posted by: teawithbertrand | May 21, 2011 11:54 PM

@Kel #267

My favorite piece of video to come out of this thing (and i can no longer find the link) was from yesterday in Times Square. One of Camping's Campers was doing his rant and rave when a woman confronted him with. "Of course Jesus is coming back - but not tomorrow!" Much more believable, isn't it?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 21, 2011 11:56 PM

If only my mind was as good at keeping up with Tis on the subject of economics (my next course, FWIW) as it is on the subject of tone trolling!

Posted by: No One | May 22, 2011 12:02 AM

stop the petty, sarcastic drama over personal opinion.

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all.

I don't know what country you come from. I take this pledge seriously. But every time I pledge allegiance to my country I am required to utter the words "under god". Making me a liar and a hypocrite. Actually I leave those two words out. Am I in violation of my oath then?

I pledge allegiance to my country, not your god (our your personal opinion).

Get it asshole?

Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie | May 22, 2011 12:05 AM

@ Ava

Please provide evidence of one instance where Caine was uncivil* toward Mary.

* not that anyone being uncivil calls for anything more that a bit of pearl clutching if you're so inclined.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 12:17 AM

Hint: the less complaint about language and tone and the more focus on the points and issues, the more CIVIL the debate becomes. True whether the language and tone actually change, or not. What will change, is what you notice.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 22, 2011 12:19 AM

Algernon:
But Christian love is more loving?
Yeah, it's the whole agape business.

Agape has transformed into it's current meaning, because the sheer mendacity of Christianity being about love leaves one's mouth agape.

Mary Luce #14: That was brave. You won't get any tolerance around here. But I know you're sincere, and I also know that some religious people are good people. Now I'll go put on my asbestos suit . . .

Passive aggressive liar.

She got plenty of tolerance here.

You won't get any because you're a manipulative fuckface.

Fuck off.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 22, 2011 12:22 AM

and realize, no amount of your (collective) affirmation that i "lied" will make it a truth.

You lied in this thread, you stupid fuckface.

Fuck off, you liar.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 22, 2011 12:25 AM

Ava:

I'm into debate, but CIVIL debate.

Who gives a fuck about the tone?

Posted by: Randomfactor | May 22, 2011 12:27 AM

I don't think Camping deserves prosecution.

The Biblical answer calls for stoning, IIRC...

Posted by: Sastra | May 22, 2011 12:29 AM

By the way, I watched the video again. There's no mention of the mother who cut the throats of her children and self being a follower of Camping. In fact, even more curious, there's no mention of religion or Armageddon either. She was afraid that the earthquake and wars meant "the end of the world." Technically, that could be a secular paranoia.

How old is this news story?

I wonder how strong the religious connection actually is. I think the station would have mentioned if Harold Camping was involved, because they like to play up 'extremists' which make mainstream religion seem reasonable. But they may not be so quick to mention fear of a less specific Bible End Times prophesy, because that does not make mainstream religion seem reasonable. After all, Revelations is sacred text.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 22, 2011 12:29 AM

I'm into debate, but CIVIL debate.

Liar.

How many times do I have to post this?

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

--Martin Luther King, Jr. on how false civility is worse than outright hate.

Fuck off, all you whiners about "civility" based on lies and bullshit and your sniveling willingness to kiss the asses of bigots and the powerful in the name of "civility."

That's not civility--that's craven servility.

Fuck you. You're the problem. Not the solution.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 12:35 AM

And look what's happened, someone brings up civility and we're distracted by debating the merits of civility instead of the beliefs in question. Fuck civility, I'm with nigelTheBold. Bring intelligent debate - justify the beliefs and show them to be reasonable. That's all that matters, not the tone but the content.

Tone is a tool of persuasion, not a tool of epistemology.

Posted by: Sauceress | May 22, 2011 12:41 AM

While Harold Camping sits safe with his millions…

The first thing the gullible should ask is.."Why would a True Believer (TM) still be in possession of money or material assets?

Surely Harold Camping had already disposed of all his worldy possessions?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 12:41 AM

Kel, well, the last post of mine which had to do with Mary Luce's views on things brought up certain books which might be good to read. My suggestions were Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos. Who else is good on biblical and christian history?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 12:46 AM

Who else is good on biblical and christian history?

Posted by: scidog | May 22, 2011 12:49 AM

if you want Camping to feel some heat point out how much he is taking out of the tax payers pocket,like the right does on issues it hates.how many will show up for welfare because they gave it all away and now want a home,food so on.you bust your butt and a end timer get his grocery's free.maybe medical care for the psych problems he has now,more pills please so i can kick back on downers and watch TV,i'm too sick to work.hit the pocket book and not religion,hitting the bible makes you a bad guy no matter how nuts this all is.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | May 22, 2011 12:49 AM

Interestingly enough, The Devil and Daniel Webster is playing on Turner Classic Movies right now and the world is still turning.

What a wonderful world.

Posted by: terryg | May 22, 2011 12:57 AM

Jadehawk #27

the point of "rapture hilarity" is to make it as obvious and clear as possible to as wide an audience as possible that the rapture is ridiculous. At least that's how I feel about it: ridicule is a vaccine against such ideas, and if/when we reach a large enough percentage of people, we'll have herd immunity

absolutely! Furthremore:

the point of drawing mohammed is to make it as obvious and clear as possible to as wide an audience as possible that demanding censorship/punishment/death for drawing mohammed is ridiculous. At least that's how I feel about it: ridicule is a vaccine against such ideas, and if/when we reach a large enough percentage of people, we'll have herd immunity

Just saying.....

[and FWIW Jadehawk, your argument among others (Walton, QED, despite most of hir arguments Strange Gods, et al) was instrumental in persuading me that DMD (specifically the facebook monstrosity, but any others that have been hijacked for xenophobia) is unsupportable. Not that I would have anyway, out of a combination of sloth, ineptitude and loathing for facebook]

I could argue that, as religiots in NZ are only about 1/3 or so of the population, Jadehawks argument about power structures should prevent me from ridiculing the rapture.

That would however be a false argument, due both to the christianity embedded within our governmental structure, and the significant governmental support for christianity. While that remains the power inbalance argument cannot favour christians irrespective of their numbers.

:)

Posted by: Kseniya | May 22, 2011 12:58 AM

Patricia?! I thought you'd retired from this site. Hiya!

I have trouble believing that anybody takes this Rapture nonsense seriously. I, like my old friend Thomas Jefferson, consider them "merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy of explanation than the incoherences of our nightly dreams."

Meanwhile, Cicely wrote:

[W]e aren't claiming that there are no good religious people. In fact, to the contrary; it's just that we are pointing out that religious people don't have a monopoly on 'good', despite what some religious people think.

Continuing with the Jeffersonian theme, Cicely's comment reminds me of one of my favorite passages from TJ's writings:

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 1:02 AM

Aquaria:

They've gone out of their fucking way to say that they think she is a good person regardless of her beliefs

Yes, even evil me! (@158):

That's nice, Mary. I mean that, it really is nice. However, I suspect that's more you than it is in any way your christianity.*

*Talking about Mary's love for others.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 22, 2011 1:06 AM

The Tomtompiper:

Don't you guys have the equivalent of the Advertising Standards Agency, and the Trade Descriptions Act? Surely this buffoon could be prosecuted under this type of legislation?

Profitable, profitable lies.

Sure, we mock him. But he's fucking protected. After all, if we were to make him responsible for his words, we'd have to hold all folks responsible whom presume to speak for God, wouldn't we?

And we sure couldn't have that.

Not at all.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | May 22, 2011 1:13 AM

#206 'Tis
I'm in Edmonton on a Saturday night!
I'm drinking a glass of wine!
and watching the News!
What's yer point?

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 22, 2011 1:21 AM

I'm betting the news tomorrow will be pretty much: "God has spared us because he has seen our faith."

How has God spared them? From being raptured? I thought they expected and wanted to be raptured.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 22, 2011 1:27 AM

After all, Revelations is sacred text.

Nit: Revelation, singular. The expanded title is Book of Revelation of St. John the Divine.

Yes, the entire mushroom dream was a single "revelation".

"Apocalypse" is Greek for "Revelation" (and is in the singular in that original language as well).

For whatever that's worth.

Bible trivia tidbit for the day.

Posted by: bastion of sass | May 22, 2011 1:40 AM

One of the big problems I see in saying that "love" is what sets some Christians apart from others is that the Christian God doesn't seem to define "love" the way most humanists do.

The Christian God's "love" is more like that of an abusive lover or parent, "I'm subjecting you to this terrible suffering because I'm the boss, and I know best what's good for you. You'll thank me for this later."

How can a truly loving god allow the kinds of suffering and evil that exist in a world that he created, and with full knowledge of what the future held for the flawed creatures he created?

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | May 22, 2011 1:43 AM

Owlmirror,

Somehow that bit of redress is comforting. Gives cred to the fact that the people who are talking about all this crazy shit can't even keep track of the crazy shit they are talking about even though it is not in any sense dynamic.

Where does that leave all of us who profess and strive to obtain a materialistic evidence based world view?

I am not qualified to discurse upon the subject but it seems to me that it might be worth while to try to discern an evolutionarily plausible strategy for reason to persist over delusion. However, I am a meare rock jock and can't even contemplate how to go about investigating whether or not reason is a viable evolutionary strategy. It would sure be interesting to see someone tackle that.

My pedestrian point of view is that all this rapture hysteria is mixed up with envying the consumately good sex none of these stunted intellects have ever experienced. Just a guess.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 1:49 AM

bastion of sass:

The Christian God's "love" is more like that of an abusive lover or parent, "I'm subjecting you to this terrible suffering because I'm the boss, and I know best what's good for you. You'll thank me for this later."

How can a truly loving god allow the kinds of suffering and evil that exist in a world that he created, and with full knowledge of what the future held for the flawed creatures he created?

That's all a serious problem if you face it head on. The problem is that christians, no matter what flavour, all have ways to work around said problems, and it doesn't matter if they don't make much sense.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 22, 2011 1:53 AM

I have to admit, it's incidents like this that make me feel more certain that Jesus was a charismatic preacher of some sort rather than a myth. I mean, it's so easy for one guy to present himself as confident in his own righteousness, and convince a bunch of followers that he knows more about what's going to happen than everyone else does; that the current religious system is corrupt and filled with those ignorant of the truths that he -- the charismatic leader -- knows, and can reveal.

It's a weird quirk of human psychology that having a devastating blow happen to a religious or social movement doesn't always destroy the movement. A leader dies, or has an important prophecy fail, and the followers come up with self-justification to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

"God heard our prayers, and showed mercy" or "We misunderstood God's word; the fault is ours, not God's" or "The death was meant to happen; now the leader is in heaven with God, and will continue to lead us from heaven". Or whatever. People are good at coming up with excuses that resolve cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | May 22, 2011 2:00 AM

Well, the earthquakes are almost 5 hours overdue here in Seattle, and we've got a nice fault going right through downtown just to make it easy for YHWH—that's our "neck vein" if Allah wants to give it a try. (Yeah, I know: All. One. Guy.)

I think this whole episode may have a favorable aftermath. Sure there have been all sorts of Porklips Predictions™ before now, but they were fringe phenomena—even Camping's 1994 prophecy. But as the religious Right has become more and more extreme, the numbers buying into this one have cut into the meaty part of the demographic. A lot of just ordinary nasty Talibangelical asswipes have seriously identified themselves with this prediction. A lot of reasonable people are going to remember this.

This isn't the only thing. They have made a lot of things articles of faith that can be definitively disproven. Global Warming denialism has become a shibboleth with them. A few years of environmental disaster, which unfortunately are coming, and people will start looking at them and saying: "Hmmm...according to you, this couldn't be happening! Care to expalain what God's up to now?"

My point is, nothing's going to happen that will make them look good, and plenty is certain to happen that will make them look bad. We just have to keep reminding people what their predictions were....

Posted by: raven | May 22, 2011 2:02 AM

Mew Testament scholars generally agree that most of the NT is ficition. They disagree on how much of it is fiction and how they react to it. Some become Nones, others become Deists or Universalists or mystics.

There are lots of good scholars.

Robert Price, Bishop John Shelby Spong, Crossan, Ehrman, Mack, Barrie Wilson, Marcus Borg, Wells, Pagels, Harpur, and I'm sure dozens of others I can't remember right now.

Any reasonably sized public library will have a good assortment of viewpoints. That is where I get mine, mostly.

It has been so long and there was so little evidence that it is all but impossible to know who or what jesus was. That is why this debate has gone on for 2,000 years, not enough data to settle many points.

My best guess is he was a charismatic Jewish Apocalyptic prophet with a small but devoted following who ended up crucified. And he has been a sockpuppet with millions of human hands up his rear end ever since.

Posted by: amivins | May 22, 2011 2:09 AM

Having now read the entire discussion, one endlessly repeated conundrum seems worth mentioning, today of all days.

Here's a community of people dedicated to understanding the world through rational means: accepting evidence, thinking past assumptions, seeing the world as it really is. Every time a theist dares to rear his or her head on the comments (and before you read any further: STOP, take a breath, and try very hard to keep reading without marshaling your arguments, because that's precisely what many of you are now doing), a good half of the regulars seem to wade right into debate, brandishing logic and reason and history and sociology and anger and understanding and contempt and commiseration and and and...

I hope you see the paradox, because it's a beautiful example of precisely the point so many of you make: that human beings are understandable, predictable and utterly human without any need at all for a supreme being to grant them that humanity. You yourselves, when challenged by something you hate and fear (and yes, there's good reason for both emotions) respond precisely as illogically, irrationally and ineffectively as any bible-beater. You argue. You attack. You try to show the unenlightened the extent of their ignorance, and every single one of you who is intelligent enough to form a coherent proposition must know, through experience, research or both, that such an approach is almost certain to have precisely the opposite effect than that which you appear to intend.

Think for a moment. If you're truly arguing to effect a change of opinion, you are almost certain to fail due to the natural, human, dig-in-the-heels response to being challenged. You know this. You've seen it. Yet you continue. If not, why do you argue? For what rational purpose?

I would posit that you do so because you are human beings; that because even the most intelligent human beings, when challenged, react like human beings; that the fight-or-flight firing of your amygdalae clouds your ability to think and behave completely rationally; and that in the end, all you truly accomplish by your argument is the comfort you find in the release of those stresses and perhaps a kind of group bonding. Sound familiar? It should.

We're none of us that far, really, from selling all our worldly possessions and jumping on the nearest clearly-marked bus to nirvana. Sobering thought.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2011 2:13 AM

What a wonderful world.

...I think to myself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF_lcj4npPM

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2011 2:19 AM

respond precisely as illogically, irrationally and ineffectively as any bible-beater.

oops, fail.

must know, through experience, research or both, that such an approach is almost certain to have precisely the opposite effect than that which you appear to intend.

double fail. that's not actually what the research shows, I can cite some papers for you, if you like.

If you're truly arguing to effect a change of opinion

triple fail.

sometimes mocking a subject isn't meant to change the opinion of the subject, but of the actual target audience.

think about it.

I would posit that you do so because you are human beings; that because even the most intelligent human beings, when challenged, react like human beings...that the fight-or-flight firing of your amygdalae clouds your ability to think and behave completely rationally;

and.. epic fail.

so sorry.

Posted by: Nemo | May 22, 2011 2:24 AM

amivins, I don't agree with your premise. First of all, yes, sometimes people can be argued out of irrational positions. I've seen it. I've done it. I've been it. Even when the immediate reaction is rejection, it can work in the longer term. Second, for every commenter, there are numerous lurkers. And for every hardened dogmatist, there may be a few undecideds following the arguments.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | May 22, 2011 2:49 AM

amivins, I'm not really expecting to convince any of these visiting yahoos. I give it a good honest try, though, because it does sometimes work, and I am honest and sincere in my life. Given that I only know the other person through their typing here, and all I can give back is also via text, it'd be silly to expect much.

Honestly, some days I am just yelling at the sumbitches all the stuff I wish I could have yelled at other idiots in my life, idiots that should have listened and been convinced. But those days are few and my writing is still sincere on those days.

Mostly, though, I write to help me think (the thought in the preceding paragraph I had never put into words before). And I read to help me learn--some of the writing here just amazes me (tonight I got a marvelous lesson on cellular workings from David M.)--so sometimes I write to share what I know with others, which isn't always the yahoo on the spit. And other times I risk an idea of mine, just to see if it gets toasted or toasted.

Your pop psych just got toasted, by the way--the burnt-to-a-crisp type of toasted, not the "¡Salud!" kind of toasted. (And see, I just made up that "toasted" business and learned a new word.) Salut!

Posted by: Charlie N | May 22, 2011 2:55 AM

I'm not actually sure this is related directly to Camping. This story is two months old, and, at least in the news I can find, the woman makes no statements pertaining to it being the May 21st prediction that prompted her actions. That being said, she's a horrific nut, and it still speaks powerfully to the negative effects religious fanaticism has on people.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 22, 2011 3:04 AM

And, uh, Jesus Bar-abbas? "Jesus son of the father?" Right, we had a Jesus son of the Father and a Jesus son of God right next to one another, in a land where "Abba" was a devotional name for God.

Hm. Was it, though? Or was it at all common?

The NT presents it as being sufficiently rare/unusual as to be somewhat shocking.

There are maybe a few refs in the Qumran fragments.

Hm.

Posted by: brnnn | May 22, 2011 3:08 AM

#294 asked about the date of the news story of the mother trying to kill her children and herself. The video clearly shows that the story was from KTLA5. I searched their website several times and I can't find that story there. I live in California and as you can imagine there are tons of stories about Camping and Doomsday, but I have found no mention of this particular horror story. I have also scanned Google News…nothing. I have searched the web…nothing. If someone can provide a link to this story (other that the YouTube piece from MisterDocterE), that would be interesting to see.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2011 3:13 AM

your google fu is teh fail.

took me 5 seconds:

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/end-times-hysteria-watch-lyn-benedetto-tries-to-kill-her-daughters-to-save-them-from-the-tribulation/

Posted by: Gorogh | May 22, 2011 3:29 AM

Did not read many comments at all, but at first thought, I'm rather with erictfbat here that there can't be too much blame on Camping regarding the outcomes of his predictions. I am not sure (and currently, too tired to research it) in how far he made people believe they'd also have to spend money on him, but as far as simply believing him goes, this can hardly be called fraud. Complementary to his right of free speech is their right to free belief (as long as it does not infring upon others' freedom, such as their kids), of course. Regarding these ethically rather irrelevant statements, we cannot force people to shut up because some gullibles believe them (unless we can actually prove they are doing it precisely because they want to exploit those poor people). If he had been encouraging other people to break to law or endanger other people (or themselves), then it'd be worth considering to put him on trial.

I do not have the brain capacity right now to think this through thoroughly, it's a first-glance opinion.

On another note, I am waiting for defensive statements such as "the rapture DID actually happen, but the infidels are not to realize this, so images of the people of faith still remain; actually, we are all watching you from Heaven already". Would be a final departure from reality, I guess.

Posted by: gjnave | May 22, 2011 3:36 AM

Ok come on and get real... Religion gets held just as accountable for wrongs they do as anyone else - off the top of my head Jim Bakker comes to mind.

If there is culpability, Camping and Family Radio will go down.

Sidenote: Seems Camping didnt touch a dime - its Family Radio that is looking suspicious
http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/May-21-End-of-the-World-cnnm-66185956.html

Posted by: gjnave | May 22, 2011 3:38 AM

oops.. didnt mean the "get real" part - bit too adversarial sounding. My bad...

Posted by: csreid | May 22, 2011 3:46 AM

Re: amivins, #336

Freshman psychology students are boring.

Re: Mary Luce:
Stick around! The water's warm, and the Man-Eating-PharynguSquid™ only eat teh stoopid.

@Nerd Of Redhead, #254:

I see Mary Luce gets treated like a couple of the OM's. No problem.

This cracks me up, for some reason. I picture you shouting all the evils of the world, and then shouting "BUT IT'S A SUNNY DAY, AND THAT'S PRETTY OK."

Or maybe I should go to sleep now >.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/hF.wJFlpnI_XEjIlh7qnwDffiQs-#6b2f8 | May 22, 2011 3:51 AM

this is not much different than muslims who get convinced by clerics that, even though suicide, killing fellow muslims, killing non-combatants (i.e. women, children, the elderly) during a war each will get you sent straight to hell, ..... blowing one's self up in such a way as to kill as many fellow muslims in (for example) a market (( mostly women and children)) is going to get you sent to heaven.

It only makes sense if you have faith in the creep that's lying to you.

Posted by: coughlanbrianm | May 22, 2011 3:56 AM

Hi Guys!

I set this up yesterday : http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=189601081087666&id=189508354430272#!/pages/Sue-Harold-Camping-for-Fraud/189508354430272

Myself and a friend are getting together this morning to polish it up. Feel free to "like" and promote it.

This is horrific, but as I sit here I can hear my daughter in the other room laughing her head off at comments about camping and the rapture on tumblr (whatever the heck THAT is); the internet is innoculating this generation against religion. That is the upside of train wrecks like this.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2011 3:57 AM

The website yet remains.

their IT guy got raptured.

Posted by: Kobra | May 22, 2011 4:04 AM

Absolutely despicable. Camping should have to answer for this.

Not like legally or with blood or anything. Just verbally acknowledge the harm that his bullshit has caused and plan to set things right with his victims.

Yes, victims.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 4:19 AM

Agreed, but consider the idea that there may have been more than one person who became the "historical" Jesus and then got the pagan myths grafted onto him.

I'll add one more thing - I don't think it actually matters to have a definitive answer. It's not like if the Jesus myth is untenable then we have reason to believe that Jesus was God-incarnate and performed miracles including dying as an atonement for our sins. Rather I think there's one question that matters: how much is the biblical Jesus justified historically? Because it doesn't matter whether there was a cult leader, or several cult leaders, or a man turned to legend, or a myth. The only claims that matter are claims directly related to the doctrines of Christianity. Can the biblical claims of Jesus stand up to history? If not, why does it matter whether or not Jesus is legend or mythology? People aren't arguing over the beginnings of Christianity - they're arguing over the existence of God.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 4:40 AM

If not, why does it matter whether or not Jesus is legend or mythology?

I take it that's a rhetorical question.

Posted by: Gorogh | May 22, 2011 4:44 AM

In other words, lies are not against the law, only if they benefit you in a rather direct way (for examply monetarily).

Posted by: PenguinFactory | May 22, 2011 4:52 AM

I was afraid stuff like this would happen : (

If Camping had any sense of decency he'd give back all the money he stole from people.

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 22, 2011 5:01 AM

@375:

Hold it. The very first review of that book says he couldn't possibly be a Zealot because he and his kind were allowed right into the temple while Zealots had to enter in literally cloak and dagger. I thought the Jesus = Zealot hypothesis had been debunked ages ago.

Posted by: John Morales | May 22, 2011 5:12 AM

pallabbasu, um, there's this convention where the adjective natural is used when it's not anthropogenic.

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 22, 2011 5:23 AM

@381

I would suspect he was an independent, someone who came to similar conclusions on his own and formed a small band. He seemed less, er...zealous than the zealots. And I don't know how much of this is Platonic tackings-on, but he seemed rather more otherworldly than them too.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 22, 2011 5:28 AM

@ 336,

Every time a theist dares to rear his or her head on the comments (and before you read any further: STOP, take a breath, and try very hard to keep reading without marshaling your arguments, because that's precisely what many of you are now doing), a good half of the regulars seem to wade right into debate, brandishing logic and reason and history and sociology and anger and understanding and contempt and commiseration and and and...

What is the point of this concerned effluvium ? It's the comments section of a blog, and you fake surprise that people actually, emmm, comment ?

You yourselves, when challenged by something you hate and fear (and yes, there's good reason for both emotions) respond precisely as illogically, irrationally and ineffectively as any bible-beater

[Citation needed]
You seem to be confusing the fact that people here at times react and respond emotionally to bullshit, with the illogical, irrational, reality-ignoring cognitive dissonance of many theists.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 5:51 AM

The stakes are far too high.

It's the reason that, instead of sneering at Craig et. al like most do here, I gave myself a two-plus-year crash course on philosophy and theology at the graduate level.

I'm not advocating ignorance here, on the contrary I think it's important to understand the topic at hand. But when it comes to cases like religion, I think understanding science and philosophy and history are much more valuable than reading a single word on theology - just like to study astrology it's better to have an understanding of astrophysics and psychology than anything related to what the ascension of Venus means for those born under Gemini.

Posted by: KG | May 22, 2011 5:54 AM

I finally asked myself though: "Do I doubt that Siddhartha Gautama existed?" I had to answer no. "Do I doubt that Zarathusthra existed?" I had to answer no on that, too, even though we can't nail down his dates within 600 years. - The Very Rev. Battleaxe of Knowledge

But you should doubt those things. The oldest Buddhist manuscripts date from about half a millennium after the supposed lifetime of Siddhartha Gautama, and as you say, even Zoroaster's lifetime is pretty free-floating. In TGD, Richard Dawkins discusses the case of the New Hebridean messiah, John Frum, whose actual existence is uncertain even though, if he lived at all, it was within living memory!

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | May 22, 2011 6:04 AM

KG @ 388:

I don't think we're disagreeing. I guess I was using a stronger sense of "doubt" than you were. I wouldn't bet any money on the existence of either Siddhartha or Zarathusthra. I meant I have no really reasoned position that they didn't exist. Did Confucius exist? More than likely. Lao-tse? Less likely. I'd put both of them somewhere between Confucius and Lao-tse...about like Imhotep.

Posted by: Gorogh | May 22, 2011 6:25 AM

@Ichtyic #377, I assumed we were talking about this special case, not about frauds in general. I do comprehend what a con artist can do, and I do not think myself naive in regard to "extortion" along these lines.

The way the current issue came to me - again, I have not researched it, therefore I am thankful for you to tell me some details - was just by noting that, "oh, someone made a prediction the rapture's coming and some people actually believe him". From that notion alone I concluded it's not a bad thing per se - not worse than proponents of a political party making their followers believe in certain values, for example. If he a) systematically got money from people's gullibility and b) did it by lying (intentionally telling falsehoods), then I agree with PZ (and you) that it's fraud. If either a) or b) wasn't the case, he can predict as long as he wants, IMHO.

Posted by: latsot | May 22, 2011 7:02 AM

I just want to see Camping apologise. I want him to admit that he was wrong and was never actually privy to special magical information. I want him to say sorry for frightening people and I want him to refund the credulous idiots who gave him the money to publicise himself. I'm sure they'd spend the refund on something equally stupid, but it would be a worthwhile and human gesture. It would be the very least expected from any other self-absorbed scaremonger.

Posted by: Uglyhip | May 22, 2011 8:42 AM

crowepps @ 349:

The last national movement that approached the attention this one received was Millerism in the 1840's, and when the Great Disappointment left them still waiting to be "taken up", the general public reaction was hostility, scorn and ridicule to the point where one of their churches was burned and they were mocked in the streets by children.

Of course, the church-burners would mostly themselves have been church-goers (as opposed to, say, atheists). All it takes is the ugly notion of "heresy", spoken or internalized, to justify something like that. Not to mention that a number of the scorners may actually have gotten their hopes up for the End Times.

Miller's line of reasoning was actually pretty straightforward, unlike Camping's connect-the-Bible-dots. You just had to make the "day = year" assumption regarding some bit in the book of Daniel mentioning 2300 days before the apocalypse, then estimate what time that countdown began. I have a feeling that, if Christian evangelicals still exist then, the years 2301 and 2337 will see some major end-times frenzies (you just have to add Daniel's 2300 to the supposed years of Jesus's birth and his death).

Of course, like John of Patmos, and Jesus's ghostwriters, and every apocalyptic prophet today, Daniels almost certainly thought that Armageddon would happen really soon (so his days were actual days, adding up to under 7 years). Ain't that always the way?

Posted by: eviltwit | May 22, 2011 9:45 AM

#5 said: "This is why I've felt increasingly reluctant to join in the general rapture hilarity."
---------------
The thing is, if I didn't laugh, I'd cry. Of course things like this would result - surprised if there weren't more than what we're hearing about. These people are dangerous, and Camping is a deplorable man. But, he's going to go untouched, because the kind of irrational (at best) people who believed the Rapture was happening on Saturday aren't going to be dissuaded, discouraged or deterred by the fact that it didn't. Wonder how those families who gave up all their earthly belonging are faring now. I have a hard time feeling bad for them. Believing in the End Times stuff involves being just fine with practically everyone on the planet dying but a select few. I don't trust these people with our planet. I really dislike having to share it with them.

I WISH someone WOULD come take them away, so they could leave us in peace!

Posted by: eviltwit | May 22, 2011 9:55 AM

From the article about the suicide:

Despite his previous failed prediction, Mr Camping was convinced that yesterday the world, as we know it, would change.

“We know without any shadow of a doubt it is going to happen,” he told the US Christian station Family Radio.
-----------
*sigh* They're just never going to stop, are they.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 22, 2011 10:42 AM

“We know without any shadow of a doubt it is going to happen,” he told the US Christian station Family Radio.

Wow. Not even a shadow of a doubt, even after being wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME over the past two millenia? Ah, the arrogace of blind delusion!

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | May 22, 2011 11:37 AM

The logical conclusion is ...

God wondered by on his rapture rounds...had a look see at his creation....sniffed the flatulent bullshite emanating from every corner of xian religion and declined to enact 'rapture' on the basis that...

there was no fucker worthy enough!

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | May 22, 2011 11:46 AM

Kol:

"Lack Of Judgement Day" has a rather nice ring to it.

It does indeed.

Posted by: Joe Bloe | May 22, 2011 1:49 PM

The mainstream Christians are nowhere near as gullible as Harold Camping's followers. The mainstream Christians have much more sensible beliefs:

* Mary was a virgin
* Lazarus rose from the dead
* Blindness can be healed with spit.
* Illness is caused by demons
* Water changes into wine
* Wine changes into blood
* Bread changes into raw meat
* Dead people climbed out of the graves and walked around Jerusalem
* Jesus walked on water
* Jesus was resurrected
* Jesus ascended into heaven in front of witnesses
* Paul was not a con-man
* Peter paid his taxes with money a fish gave to him
* A disciple cut off a man's ear and Jesus restored it.
* 5,000 people fed with 2 loaves and fishes.
* Aaron turned a stick into a snake
* Moses hit a rock and water gushed out
* Jonah spent three days in a fish
* Methusalah lived for nearly a thousand years
* Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were thrown into a furnace and came out alive.
* Manna fell from heaven

[ Dickheads ! ]

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 22, 2011 2:23 PM

You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.

God is never wrong. And you know this because the bible says so. And how do you know the bible is never wrong. We because God says so in the bible dummy.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 22, 2011 2:27 PM

@353 - Thank you.
:)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 22, 2011 2:46 PM

You literally said logic = illogic. WTF??

Perhaps they practice "logick" instead. Then logic would be illogickal just as magic tricks are non magickal.

Posted by: brnnn | May 22, 2011 3:02 PM

@ Ichthyic #352: Thanks. Good to have the story confirmed before passing it on believers. You are the Google-fu master. So be it.

Posted by: Kagehi | May 22, 2011 4:57 PM

From a practical perspective, it would be very hard to convict him of fraud: the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Camping didn't believe his own claims.

Wrongful death, or some variation on that would be more likely. The problem with fraud in this case is that you would have to be very very careful, and get him to admit, on some level, that he knew that he might be wrong, or was wrong, and, more to the point, that all the money he has collected was intended for something other than what he claimed. A good place to start might be getting him to admit that, had earthquakes swept the world, with enough devastation to kill as many people as he claim where going to die in them, there wouldn't be anything left of the financial institutions, so keeping 72 pennies, never mind $72 million would be completely worthless to have. One could argue that, at the very least, he was a complete idiot for thinking that that money could help *anyone* left behind, and that if he wasn't just being bloody stupid by thinking it was, he had to have an ulterior motive for collecting it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2011 5:06 PM

the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Camping didn't believe his own claims.

are you kidding?

that's actually the easy part.

Five bucks says he hadn't cancelled all of his utilities for his house, or maybe had a trip planned (flight, bus, train booked) somewhere after the 21st.

No, the hard part would actually be getting a "true believer" to actually even WANT to file suit against him to begin with!

sure, they could pursue this in criminal vs civil court, but that would be extremely unlikely in CA.

...and I doubt any lawyer would bother unless it bordered on a class-action civil suit.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 22, 2011 5:15 PM

I wonder how many people destroyed their lives and their kids lives for Camping's 1994 prediction?

Did any of them file suit?

I'm betting they didn't.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 22, 2011 5:26 PM

We're not done with Camping yet. He says in one of the numerous video clips out today, that the earth doesn't end in a fireball until October 21st. He knows this because he used all of the scientific data available including something really 'sciency-sounding' potassium argon dating .

Odd that never came up in bible study.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 5:29 PM

The folks at RR have a 22 page thread about what a terrible person (and false prophet) Camping is, setting a date!

They advertise their own radio, which is based completely on Matthew 24:36-44, the whole "thief in the night business". They, like most christians, happily ignore the whole "this generation shall not pass" business, but if confronted with it, pull the magick card of "this generation! This one!"

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 22, 2011 5:33 PM

Nope.

I might understand what potassium argon dating is if you write it in crayon, other wise I'll just go on assuming it's a couple of greek gods on a fling.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 22, 2011 5:41 PM

you wouldn't be the first to think a career in theology is a wasted one.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 5:43 PM

Ichthyic:

See? Jesus was referring to THIS generation, says so right there in B&W!

I know, I know! It's the same impeccable logic they use when they magick away the mystery of America not being mentioned in the bible...

Posted by: thehumanmichael | May 22, 2011 6:03 PM

i'm actually surprised YOU didn't mention this one back in March, PZ. it seems most of the news outlets aren't fact checking, though, so it's an honest mistake. unreasonable faith did
post it in march, and still made the mistake of posting it again today. womp womp.

Posted by: CJO | May 22, 2011 9:22 PM

Owlmirror:

I have to admit, it's incidents like this that make me feel more certain that Jesus was a charismatic preacher of some sort rather than a myth. I mean, it's so easy for one guy to present himself as confident in his own righteousness, and convince a bunch of followers that he knows more about what's going to happen than everyone else does; that the current religious system is corrupt and filled with those ignorant of the truths that he -- the charismatic leader -- knows, and can reveal.

But that's just an assertion that some demythologized minimal core of the Synoptic narrative is plausible enough, on its face. The case for a mythical Jesus doesn't begin by disputing that basic plausibility, but by noting, first of all, that such a demythologized narrative is an inference made in part precisely to emphasize plausibility, and, second, that the earliest forms of the tradition (the 1st century epistolatory literature) do not show any interest in any such earthly, charismatic figure, but in a cosmic figure of salvation and redemption.

Posted by: OzSkeptic | May 22, 2011 9:48 PM

PZ

You have linked this to Harold Camping's end of the world predictions. The video clip was posted back in March, it doesn't mention Camping and the comment about "Tribulation" seems to have added by the original poster DoctoroE.
Do you have any evidence this is really about Harold Camping?

OzSkeptic

Posted by: Ava, OrnithologistofDoom | May 22, 2011 10:52 PM

My oh my oh my! You know who you are. Name-calling, flames, and distortions of what I said don't bother me because I'm here for the reasonable comments. Ta ta!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 22, 2011 10:56 PM

Yawn, tones trolls are so boring, insipid, and never say anything cogent. But then, that requires more than pearl clutching. An idea and evidence, and a mind to lay it out properly. Pearls get in the way of that.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | May 22, 2011 11:02 PM

My oh my oh my! You know who you are. Name-calling, flames, and distortions of what I said don't bother me because I'm here for the reasonable comments.

No you're not. You haven't responded to any of them. Instead, you just whine about tone and recede.

This is no one's fault but your own.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 11:10 PM

My oh my oh my!

Uh huh. Are you going to grow a brain, Ava, and figure out it was you who was wrong?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Now, as you have nothing better to do than clutch your pearls, go away - you're boring.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 22, 2011 11:35 PM

Kel:

lest the complaint is a distraction for the lack of actual capacity to have a real conversation on the topic.

That's the problem in a nutshell, Kel. Ava jumped me for a one line comment @ 199, which was a comment on the state of christianity in the U.S., but Ava took it for a "bitter, sniping" comment on a theist who showed up here. She has no argument to make, just complaints about tone, what she perceives to be non-acceptance of theists and how we're all unnecessarily nasty when niceness would do the job.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 23, 2011 12:04 AM

AJ:

For they have achieved the state of tone nirvana, see? And in this state they know but one single thing. It is a harmonious chord that doth suffuse through their whole being.

:falls over laughing: Okay, Tone Nirvana™ must forever be a meme.

For this is the mantra: 'Please do not call bullshit bullshit so directly. It harshes my transcendent mellow. And will make bad juju happen. I feel it in the yellow.'

:wipes a tear away: Beautiful, man, beautiful.

Posted by: CJO | May 23, 2011 12:27 AM

But without any of the miracles and other mystical stuff, is what you're left with really enough for any sort of meaningful philosophy?

If you already buy into concepts like the Kingdom of God and eternal life, maybe. And if you're willing to accept that the original ancient audiences (and, by implication, the authors) understood the significance of those concepts in fundamentally different ways that may not even be intelligible to us.

Even then you have to pick and choose from the pronouncements and the parables and the Sermons in Matthew and Luke and the completely different mystical discourses in John, and recognize that a lot of the earlier material looks like it was free-floating, available for use by the various authors who used the same sayings in different contexts and divergent ways, and that the later embellishments look obviously born out of authorial invention and apologetic motives. To my mind, if there was a historical Jesus, and if some kernel of his teachings actually survives in the literary texts we have, he was a failed apocalyptic prophet whose message contained nothing that couldn't already be found either in the Biblical prophets or in the broadly humanist Greek ethical traditions, comprising in the Greco-Roman era Stoicism and Epicurianism (and Platonist and Pythagorean mysicism, and Cynicism, and so on). What is both coherent and still meaningful to modern rationalist concerns in the New Testament wasn't new when the texts were written anyway.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 23, 2011 12:59 AM

@Pigeon

People keep saying that...as if Camping hadn't flooded the world with his message months ago.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 1:06 AM

People keep saying that...as if Camping hadn't flooded the world with his message months ago.

actually, that would be YEARS he's been doing this, since before 1990.

he just keeps changing the dates is all.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 23, 2011 1:09 AM

Although my local paper had this delightful quote

"I was skeptical, sure, but I put that aside because I believe in God"

Not to mention tale of people spending all their money, one of a woman who had who two dogs euthanized, and one of two idiots who not only spent all their money but have a one year old.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 23, 2011 1:17 AM

paulmurray:

What a shame that Harold Camping's followers don't have the courage to act on the beliefs they like to think they hold.

Oh, a lot of them did act. A lot of people no longer have a house, a bank account or a vehicle.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | May 23, 2011 1:31 AM

I've been mentioning my idea that the Rapture happened in 70 AD. It fulfills Jesus' word about "some now standing here", and spares the raptured ones the horror of the Romans sacking Jerusalem, and covers the lack of notice of the disappearances by the aforesaid sacking of Jerusalem. Plus it gets the last 1941 years as the Tribulation, which explains a lot.

Now, however, I wish to add a twist.

The books that mention the rapture-type stuff were likely written after the Siege. Thousands of Christian Israelites died in the war, some quite likely disappeared altogether--dead in a pile or carried off as slaves.

The Rapture "prophecy" was written after the Siege to make it look like a fulfilled prophecy, and to provide a more palatable reason for the disappearances. The "fact" that 70 AD was the date the Rapture had already happened got lost in the confusion.

I'm going to work on that, I just wanted to get it down in text and out here while the Rapture topic is relevant.

Posted by: crowepps | May 23, 2011 2:03 AM

Quibble -- while the Bible has lots and lots of verse about the coming Apocalypse which would happen 'soon' and for which everyone is still waiting 2,000 years later, there isn't anything in there AT ALL about a 'Rapture'. The modern concept of a 'Rapture' was invented by an English spiritual con-man named John Nelson Darby in the 1830's. This heresy is unsupported by scripture, apparently based on the ravings of someone 'possessed by the spirit', and never popular anywhere much except the United States, but an absolutely SURE FIRE way of parting the guillible from their cash, over and over and over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Darby

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 2:06 AM

I feel really awful for all the kids whose parents believed this crap.

Camping has 6 living children, 28 grandkids, and 38 great grandkids.

not a single one of them believed him.

There are stories all over the US of families busted up because the parents bought into this bullshit and the kids didn't.

I do feel sorry for the kids.

...but I want to fucking STRANGLE the parents.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 2:29 AM

It's nice when kids are rational and skeptical, but that's hardly ever the case.

it doesn't even matter.

all that matters is it is the parent's responsibility, in each case.

...and they fucked it up beyond recognition.

Living in NZ, this was nothing but a blip on the radar; NOBODY here took him seriously, and the media coverage of this "story" barely made the back page of the weekend edition, as a 3 paragraph mockery.

It appears in the states, however, this insidious crap was much more pervasive. MUCH more.

I'm so fucking glad I left.

Posted by: consciousness razor | May 23, 2011 2:44 AM

It appears in the states, however, this insidious crap was much more pervasive. MUCH more.

I'm so fucking glad I left.

We excel at insidious crap. You could paste this quote every time the US is mentioned, and it probably wouldn't be far off the mark.

Posted by: StevoR | May 23, 2011 4:39 AM

@45. MinnieTheFinn, Fan of Modern, Sinful Dancing | May 21, 2011 5:25 PM

"Well, here's the explanation for the non-rapture."

Classic! Thanks for that. I'm forwarding this on via facebook & posting a link to it on the BA blog thread on this non-event too. (Where I post as Messier Tidy Upper, FWIW.) Hope that's okay with you, apologies and please let me know if not.

Posted by: rygold | May 23, 2011 6:37 AM

I'm not sure actually - I despise Camping and his ilk but, I don't think he can be held liable for other people's stupidity. You can't legislate for people irrational behavior, mainly because we are talking about the human race here. And lawyers already have enough work.

Posted by: llewelly | May 23, 2011 7:03 AM

Menyambal, Son of Sambal | May 23, 2011 1:31 AM:

I've been mentioning my idea that the Rapture happened in 70 AD.

I forget what it is called, but there is actually a school of thought in biblical criticism which argues that the rapture, the tribulation, and so forth, were written after the First Jewish-Roman War (of which the 70 AD siege of Jerusalem was merely a small part), in an effort to present the appearance that the early Christians had prophesied those horrible events.

Posted by: llewelly | May 23, 2011 7:23 AM

rygold | May 23, 2011 6:37 AM:

I'm not sure actually - I despise Camping and his ilk but, I don't think he can be held liable for other people's stupidity.

The brain is a deterministic machine. Given the right message, it will be deceived, and predictably so; such is the function of the advertising industry.

Camping went to great effort, using all his experience as a preacher, to spread his wrong headed message.

Blaming Camping's victims for believing his message is no different than blaming people who die of the flu for having weak immune systems. It is a strategy that has "worked for you" (so far), since the other people who died following the same strategy are not around to talk about it. But as a policy, it fails.

It carries with it the implied assumption that it is not possible to change people's minds. The assumption that skepticism is not something that can be taught. That the teaching efforts of people like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins are futile efforts. (Funny your comment appeared just after Aquaria's.)

Arguing that people should not work to rid the world of the destructive ideas spread by Camping and his sort is no different than arguing that doctors should not work to eliminate smallpox, polio, or malaria.

It is an argument that congratulates survivors for having survived, ridicules victims for having suffered, and excuses the inactive for doing nothing.

Posted by: rygold | May 23, 2011 7:37 AM

@475
"You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension;
it's his responsibility for taking advantage of their gullibility that's being mooted, not whether he caused them to be gullible."

People who are gullible are taken advantage of. Absolutely. It's an unfortunate fact of life. It doesn't make it criminal though. If I walk into a shop and end up spending way more money than I have or can afford due to a good salesman does that mean that I can sue? It's about taking responsibility for your actions. And people who have spent their life savings based on his word, well it was their choice. No one held a gun to their head. People should be responsible for their own actions not someone elses. What he did was morally reprehensible but not illegal.

Posted by: rygold | May 23, 2011 7:56 AM

No fraud is what wall street does by actively pushing financial deals which they know are rotten. That's fraud. In order for Camping to have committed fraud you would have to prove that he doesn't believe in what he preaches. That would be a tough ask in a court of law.

Posted by: John Morales | May 23, 2011 8:12 AM

Um, rygold, you're still spectacularly missing the point.

Let me quote you again, with emphasis: "I don't think he can be held liable for other people's stupidity".

--

People who are gullible are taken advantage of. Absolutely. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

And so doing is never illegal? :)

Posted by: ttch | May 23, 2011 8:28 AM

The one way for this event to have meaning is for its victims to insist that the history of failed prophecies--and the resulting personal disasters--be taught in every school in the land.

But if history is a guide, almost all the victims here will double-down on their faith.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | May 23, 2011 8:30 AM

@Stanton

I'd say that it's clearly fraud if the street preacher then used the money to buy blow. It's no less fraud but it's easier to demonstrate.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | May 23, 2011 8:42 AM

... Okay, Tone Nirvana™ must forever be a meme.

(Bows...) I would be so honoured.

... also in good lines for the day, the CBC's The Current's customary opening bit o' satire ended today with:

'There there, Mr. Camping. It's not the end of the world.'

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 23, 2011 12:27 PM

Harold Camping 'flabbergasted'; rapture a no-show

"It has been a really tough weekend," said Harold Camping

"I'm looking for answers," Camping said, adding that meant frequent prayer and consultations with friends.

"But now I have nothing else to say," he said, closing the door to his home. "I'll be back to work Monday and will say more then."

'There there, Mr. Camping. It's not the end of the world.'

HAHA!

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 23, 2011 12:38 PM

Anyone wanna start a pool....

Harold Camping to Speak Monday on Failed Prediction

Possible responses:
- God spared us.
- I'm gonna redo my calculations.
- It was a symbolic Rapture.
- Man, do I look like an idiot.
- I give up on religion (extremely unlikely).

Posted by: blf | May 23, 2011 12:59 PM

Ramping's website has been revamped as if nothing at all had been predicted.

Incompetently. Some of the old links still work, such as ANOTHER INFALLIBLE PROOF THAT GOD GIVES THAT ASSURES THE RAPTURE WILL OCCUR MAY 21, 2011 (his shouting).

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | May 23, 2011 1:24 PM

#493 @ Owlmirror

And getting the message out was what he did in fact do, yes?

Agreed but the 'message' he actually got out also included the important proviso that HE ENDORSED the fact of a rapture on that day and date.
He... in fact formulated the day and date, it was HIS message being disseminated.
He was the prime instigator, to him falls the accolade of responsibility.

Surely that scuppers any 'fair comment' defense he might launch on his behalf?

Dude is bang to rights methinks!...but every snake has a retreat path plotted

#494 @ Feynmaniac, Fuckin' Chimerical Toad Superhero

Anyone wanna start a pool...

I think you nailed it with the first and a smidgen of the second example...

- God spared us - I'm gonna redo my calculations

I wager a bacon buttie that 'dog' was testing response and reaction arrangements of the faithful to his Rapture fandango, a dry run kind of exercise...

And that now that is out the way a slight recalculation will be all that is required which will be submitted in due course cos there was a possible glitch in carrying a ten or an odd X^2 forward earlier on in the equation manipulation....damned tricksy these Armageddon calcs!

Might gush a little about which calender was relevant...but do not fear a realignment is forthcoming.

The end of the world has been delayed a tad...but the godless and unworthy will die, that needs no calculus integration cos it is fucking obvious!

The faithful will get their revenge on the strident ones...never fear they will have the last laugh!
Camping is playing the room, the dice are loaded and he ain't afraid to use them, he is just waiting till the rapture war chest coffers overflow once more!

Posted by: unrapturedme | May 23, 2011 2:17 PM

:O
This is really all just madness...i can't even imagine what goes on in the minds of people who would take a boxcutter to their own child's throat. I mean what was she trying to accomplish?Taking things from the bible literally is one thing..but acting on it? Is this what is known as a Jesus freak? I think im flabergasted.

I felt unsettled over all this rapture business going on (and its still not over as far as i can see.) Im an artist and i ended up incoroprating it into my art on my website. Why can't humanity cope by learning to do constructive things as opposed to destructive. We would all be better off if there were more artists and less freaking lunatics (i know they're not always mutually exclusive....) but killing some canvases with bad art is better than killing kids. IMHO.
http://www.unraptured.me

Posted by: blf | May 23, 2011 2:35 PM

Which site? Family Radio and We Can Know both still have the May 21 banner across the top for me.

Make sure you reload and aren't pulling it out of a cache. Also, the familyradio.com site is still very flaky. (No idea about the other site, of which I was not aware.)

Posted by: alligatie | May 23, 2011 2:51 PM

Why do you feel bad for these people? It's a way of natural selection to get rid of the stupid. I wish more christian lunatics would've killed themselves.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 23, 2011 3:00 PM

@alligatie:

I feel bad for these people cause I'm human, and because this fraud has bilked people out of their life savings, some of whom even sold their homes, quit their jobs, and sold their assets. What are those people going to do now? With no money, no home, no job.

Way to be an asshole.

Posted by: alligatie | May 23, 2011 3:40 PM

As I said, natural selection is natural selection. If I'm the next to make a foolish action, I deserve it and I'm going to pay for it.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 23, 2011 4:24 PM

alligatie:

It's a way of natural selection

That's not natural selection, sugarbrain. Don't talk about things you don't understand.

Feel free to take your particular brand of idiocy out of here, you get a decaying porcupine as a consolation prize. Be sure to pound it, hard.

Posted by: Nightjar | May 23, 2011 4:46 PM

Why do you feel bad for these people? It's a way of natural selection to get rid of the stupid. I wish more christian lunatics would've killed themselves.

I'm only against those who take their children with them. Morons.

Interesting. If you really believed the absurdity you just spewed (that this is just "a way of natural selection to get rid of the stupid" and that somehow it would be OK not to care in that case), you wouldn't have felt the need to add the bit about their children. Because, well, getting rid of their offspring would be natural selection too! And according to you, we shouldn't care about that, right? So why do you care? Hm?

Is it because you're not completely devoid of empathy after all, but just very stupid indeed?

Posted by: BillG | May 23, 2011 5:38 PM

Humans created God out of weakness and fear. When will we smarten up and realize religion is a crutch for the weak. More wars have been caused in the name of religion. Religion has killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined. Get rid of the crutch.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 23, 2011 5:46 PM

Shorter me: Evolution by natural selection is not a prescription.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 6:05 PM

That doesn't strike me as something that can easily be narrowed down to something inheritable, if it even could be.

sorry, but that sounds remarkably like an argument from ignorance to me.

have you looked?

there are a lot of studies in this area.

I don't mean to be overly critical, but there does seem to be a knee-jerk rejection of ANYTHING that even hints at genetic components of behavior around here.

I feel almost a need to keep pointing out that there actually is a long history of studies in this field, both in humans and animals, both correlative and even ones that have tracked down very specific genes involved in behavior.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 6:13 PM

I'm surprised they didn't quarantine you immediately upon learning your origin.

they kinda did actually!

it took me over a year to finally convince them to give a damn work permit!

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | May 23, 2011 6:23 PM

that might not actually be so accurate.

I do recall seeing several twin studies suggestive of a heritable component to extreme religious behavior.

I don't mean to be overly critical, but there does seem to be a knee-jerk rejection of ANYTHING that even hints at genetic components of behavior around here.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | May 23, 2011 6:38 PM

A Bad Idea:

alligatie sounds suspiciously like a religious plant

Sounded like Slanted Science to me. (A dungeon inhabitant who doesn't like staying in the dungeon).

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 6:53 PM

This is why formation of the Pharyngula Commune™ could be a speciation event. (Yes, I know I probably used that expression wrong. It's a joke. And IANAB.)

I find no fault of linguistics or logic there.

:)

hard to isolate the population for long enough though.

have to take over some serious gated community somewhere...

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 7:00 PM

that's why twin studies are considered correlative.

the point is, there's significance.

and THAT is suggestive of there being an underlying heritable component to the behavior.

what's more, this isn't the only study showing the same thing.

If you can think of a better way to do it, apply for a grant!

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 7:09 PM

I'm leery of getting into the whole evopsych controversy thing.

It's unfortunate that there even IS such "controversy" surrounding what should be an issue of pure science.

I know it can be boring, but genetics IS the heart and soul of evolution after all.

I myself don't feel as acquainted with the subject as I should be, and I've taken many courses, and many seminars on population and evolutionary genetics.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlGPCV93W4d3PEtCF3uGL-SeL4Rgf0eRfk | May 23, 2011 8:57 PM

Being wrong has never been a crime. Nor is Camping responsible for the people who committed suicide over this, or the ones who spent all their money. And he doesn't seem to have been a con man.
It's called religious freedom, and people are free to have beliefs you consider ridiculous, and act on them.
The May 21 "rapture" is actually more innocuous than religions in general, because they made a very definite and falsifiable claim. The damage is at least limited, because the claim was falsified. Unlike most religious claims, which are grand and vague, not falsifiable and regularly claim people's whole lives.
Would that more religious claims were this specific and falsifiable. It's delightful to see a religion come right down to earth, come out of hiding like this. And the people going - oops, we were wrong and we were so sure! It just points out that you can be sure in your heart of something, like the other religious claims - totally convinced. And wrong.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 23, 2011 9:52 PM

Shorter Camping: Oh wait, I meant October.

You know that story about the boy who cried wolf? Well, that kid was right once, so he'll have something on Camping.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2011 9:57 PM

It's called religious freedom, and people are free to have beliefs you consider ridiculous, and act on them.

right.

so, then, we can have your kids to roast in our communal atheist BBQ?

No?

that would be illegal, you say?

but, I HAVE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, DAMNIT!!!

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | May 23, 2011 10:12 PM

FWIW (very, very little), Camping always maintained the rapture with announcing earthquakes would happen last weekend, but the actual final judgement of whatever was left would happen in october.

He seems to have changed his tune:

Originally Camping had said that the when May 21 came around, there would be massive earthquakes and believers would be raptured. The ones who were left would suffer great calamities until October 21.

He reasserted that date.

"It won't be a five-month terrible difficulty...that we have learned," said Camping. Instead, he says, the world will end quickly on Oct. 21 without any build up.

Also, he was never wrong:

"On May 21 this last weekend...God again brought Judgment on the world...We didn't feel any difference," he says, "but we know that God brought Judgment" on the world. "The whole world is under Judgment."

The preacher said not only was he correct this time, but correct in the past as well.

"Actually there are four days that are very crucial at this point in time. We have talked about all four of these days in the past and we are not making any changes in these four days except for in the emphasis...The first part the end of the world began on May 21, 1988," he asserted.

Camping continues going over dates he deems important in church history. The next year he points out is 1994, which is the year he had previously predicted would bring the world's end.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 24, 2011 12:03 AM

"It won't be a five-month terrible difficulty...that we have learned," said Camping. Instead, he says, the world will end quickly on Oct. 21 without any build up.

I gasp corrected.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | May 24, 2011 7:19 AM

From the BBC article KG linked to in "D'oh! We should have known!" thread:

Asked if he had any advice to offer those who had given away their material wealth in the belief the world was about to end, Mr Camping said they would cope.

"We just had a great recession. There's lots of people who lost their jobs, lots of people who lost their houses... and somehow they all survived," he said.

"We're not in the business of giving any financial advice," he added.

Posted by: Moggie | May 24, 2011 8:02 AM

Aww, and the rapture crowd were so looking forward to those five months! Look at the popularity of the Left Behind books. The end of the world loses a lot of its appeal if you don't get to watch the people you hate experience it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 24, 2011 9:18 AM

Apologies if someone else linked to this and I missed it, but Camping claims he was off by five months. And, meanwhile, end-of-the-world apocalypsists are still batting absolute zero.

Well we know at least one thing for sure about Camping

He's a world class attention whore.

Posted by: Paula Kirby | May 24, 2011 10:59 AM

This from the latest BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13516796):

Asked if he had any advice to offer those who had given away their material wealth in the belief the world was about to end, Mr Camping said they would cope.

"We just had a great recession. There's lots of people who lost their jobs, lots of people who lost their houses... and somehow they all survived," he said.

"We're not in the business of giving any financial advice," he added.

"We're in the business of telling people maybe there is someone you can talk to, and that's God."

In other words: 'Yes, it's true that some people have left themselves destitute because they believed my crap, but hey, lots of people are destitute! They'll manage! Besides: God'll help them.'

It's not often I am genuinely stuck for words, but this man's dishonesty, arrogance and callousness are really something else.

Posted by: Ava, OrnithologistofDoom | May 26, 2011 11:49 PM

Sastra #283: "Hint: the less complaint about language and tone and the more focus on the points and issues, the more CIVIL the debate becomes. True whether the language and tone actually change, or not. What will change, is what you notice."

I think that is a dodge. Civility is not avoiding the issues and is not, as someone else here said, dishonesty. Some people here fly off the handle rather quickly; in a discussion, rudeness and insults are not productive. I can voice strong disagreement without insulting anyone. It IS possible, and it is NOT avoiding real, even difficult issues.

"Change yourself."
No. What a presumptuous statement.

Aquara:" Passive aggressive liar.
She got plenty of tolerance here.
You won't get any because you're a manipulative fuckface.
Fuck off."
Go fuck yourself sideways. Mary Luce's initial post was immediately followed by the response: "Bullshit!" Other repeatedly told her she can't possibly believe what she professes to believe, and claimed that she said only Xians can love, etc. It's all there in black and white, go back and read. Is that tolerance on the planet you inhabit?

True, some commenters were reasonable with Mary Luce. Several others were not. Then the latter piled onto anyone friendly to her.

When I came to Scienceblogs I hoped for intelligent, mature discussion. I often find it and often laugh my butt off. But not when there's even a whiff of spirituality. I get you're atheists here. So am I. I'm impressed by many of the commentators at Pharyngula. And quite disappointed at the shoot-from-the-lip nastiness of others.

Posted by: Owlmirror | May 26, 2011 11:59 PM

"Change yourself."

No. What a presumptuous statement.

If it's presumptuous for Sastra to suggest it to you, why isn't it presumptuous for you to do it to everyone else?

That's what all your comments boil down to, right? That Pharyngula commenters should change themselves?

Maybe you should re-read what Sastra wrote.