PZ is a Gentleman and a Scholar

PZ is an ornery sumbitch who disagrees with me on many points. Nevertheless, and perhaps because of this, I admire and respect him, and like him for many reasons, not least being that he doesn't let his disagreement with me stand in the way of friendship or reciprocal respect. He even links to me occasionally, thus accounting for my continued readership. Paul drove 1000 miles to visit me when I was in Toronto. That alone is enough for me to back up everything you say here.

Even if he is an angry atheist... ;-)

I wouldn't say that I'm bashing PZ... I'm bashing back.

I know you think it's bashing, but I'm calling a spade a spade. I know you all think he should get away with his constant swaggering insults to all kinds of people, lumping them unfairly with others, but the some of us don't think that.

It makes me sad that he can get away with being such an asshole all the time, but one little return asshole gets one round criticism. Is it his popularity that gets him such a pass?

-Rob

I'm having a lot of trouble walking in your shoes on this one Rob. What I've been trying to do is to dream up which of my close-held values or beliefs would get me as worked up should some blogger choose to bash them. or me for holding them. My problem is this. For things that I hold dear for reasons that are personal, as you seem to hold your religion, it doesn't matter who bashes them. The reason being that I either a) understand not everyone values the things I value or b) think said person is an idiot (of the generic, non rant-generating variety) and move on.

I just don't see where you are personally being "bashed".....

Gee, Rob, maybe it has something to do with the fact that many people with a rational approach to life - and not just to science - agree with PZ.

But of course, being sick and tired of the theists' special pleading means we must be "dittoheads", right?

While making excuses for evidence-free claims makes theists independent thinkers, I suppose.

Yeah, I know, I'm an asshole too.

I still don't see why you are angry at him. Lots of people use meanie pants rhetoric towards people with polar opposite worldviews.

Plus, religion is a fairly huge umbrella term. There is probably no statement you can make about religion that will actually be true (unless it's a tautology), so keep that in mind when you see people criticize religion.

I'm with Taylor. I don't see why you (Rob) are so angry with PZ. It's time to chill out (and apologize)!

Wilkins shows that it is possible to get along with folks who disagree with your viewpoints.

People are bashing PZ? Well, that just sucks. I like his blog too, and often visit him after I'm done visiting you.

I liked reading your account of meeting PZ and his family IRL. They sound like fine people! It's a little like Panda: he has such a bad rep around JobFo, and there are many posters that really, really hate him, but if they knew him as a person, and knew his full backstory, they'd probably come to like and respect him like you and I do.

I said on PZ's blog once that I don't understand religious people who take atheists and atheism so personally. No one believes in God to piss off the atheists, I'm sure, so I doubt most atheists are doing it solely to piss off believers. Who cares. Faith, or lack thereof, is a personal matter IMHO.

Aureola Nominee, FCD: "Gee, Rob, maybe it has something to do with the fact that many people with a rational approach to life - and not just to science - agree with PZ."

When PZ goes beyond saying that theism is wrong and starts painting them as rubes, that's not "a rational approach to life." Nor is calling Chris Ho-Stuart a "do-nothing" for not sharing such an approach. I'm sure that Myers is a nice person in real life, but that doesn't excuse him from making a habit of being a bastard online. (Not that I have entirely succeeded in not being a bastard myself, but I try not to make it a habit.)

I don't see why anyone should have to apologize. This is the internet after all. Everyone communicates with less inhibition and self-censorship in saying what's on their mind, and things online should be read with that in mind.

Rob, you should lighten up. PZ derides religion often but in many posts he also makes it clear that Christianity is a very large tent encompassing the wholly deluded to the genuinely affable whom he welcomes as neighbors. You need to take his posting on religion with a big grain of salt and smile at the same time. He's not a fire breathing dragon consumed with hate like Coulter at all. He's got a sense of humor and has the wits to write with genuine insight on biology and many other topics, including religion, especially when it injects itself into areas where it doesn't belong. And I say that as a life long atheist who's wide family includes bible thumpers and Unitarians.

spot the difference:

1) There is/are no God(s), and therefore religious believers are either ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies.

2) PZ Myers is an assholish blowhard and a jerk.

spot the difference:

Or, is it like this?

1) My area is religious! Religious believers are either ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies.

2) PZ uses degrading rhetoric and goes out of his way at any opportunity to insult religious people, so he's an asshole and a jerk.

I am glad to hear of PZ's kindness, and envious of your relationship with him. Mostly, though, I think that this is the sort of thing to which people should point when we atheists are accused of only looking out for ourselves. Your story here is of a deeply moral person who also denies any supernatural motivation behind those morals. Those who claim that one need necessarily believe in some mythical stories and bargains in order to display generosity overlook the fact that some people are just genuinely nice, and do good things because they care about people.

Sorry, PZ, your true nature does sometimes come through. I can see, though, that there are a few posting here already who seem to want to keep the baby-eating devil-worshipping monster image alive, so you need not worry too much.

"When PZ goes beyond saying that theism is wrong and starts painting them as rubes, that's not 'a rational approach to life.'"

He doesn't need to paint for all I can see. All too often, people from the pope (protestants don't go to a "real" church)to Phelps (God hates fags) do a fine job of completing that portrait all on their own.

From the perspective of this moderate to liberal Christian, PZ can get my blood boiling, but he also tweaks my funnybone like no other science blogger. Besides, a lot of what he says needed to be said. Humor and a sense of proportion is advised. For gosh sakes Pharyngula is a blog on the internet, not a presidential executive freakin' order. As much as it would disappoint him, PZ doesn't scare the likes of me. Religious nuts, especially in places of power, do.

I won't deny that PZ sometimes really annoys me, always finding faults in EVERYTHING, and I often disagree with the extent that he uses personal attacks, but I still respect and admire him.

I still have a slab of smoked salmon left over from my trip to Seattle, so I'm putting off the baby-eating for a while.

Hey, there's an idea...instead of praying for me, do you think we could get the Christians to appease the monster by feeding him seafood?

As one of PZ's students, I think he has great respect for people and remarkable concern for his students. Although I have to admit, the Pharyngula PZ is much different than the reticent Genetics Lab PZ.....(Sorry to blow your cover :-)

Being PC with PZ.

Personally I visit Pharyngula daily and very much appreciate most everything that PZ states on his blog! Hoping that as he frustrates people enough to think for themselves some will awake from their dream state allowing more people to appreciate his wanderings.

If his thoughts make you angry and you don't know why, you have an exciting mystery to solve. Anyone can respond with an insult but it takes a wise person to rationally defend why they think the way they do. It is our moral duty to understand the reasons and repercussions that encompass our beliefs.

Think till it hurts!

J.J.Ramsey:

maybe you wish to revisit your words, in light of the fact that PZ's definitions go well beyond "rubes". He gave four categories, stating that he was surrounded by people belonging to (one or more of) those four categories. Not all of those categories could be summarized as "rubes".

Plus, I fail to see where such a description would be irrational. It might be wrong (and I don't think it is, except for trace amounts of accomplished sophists who barely register on the God-O-Meter), but definitely not irrational.

I wouldn't say that I'm bashing PZ... I'm bashing back.

I know you think it's bashing, but I'm calling a spade a spade. I know you all think he should get away with his constant swaggering insults to all kinds of people, lumping them unfairly with others, but the some of us don't think that.

It makes me sad that he can get away with being such an asshole all the time, but one little return asshole gets one round criticism. Is it his popularity that gets him such a pass?

If you can't tell the difference between attacking an idea or group of ideas as opposed to attacking a person directly you truly are clueless.

Well, yeah, former PZ student. The job of the faculty in the class isn't just to fill your heads with information -- it's to give the students a chance to shine, too. The blog is just my place to radiate incandescently in a way that would be oppressive in a classroom.

Although you'd probably agree that my exams don't exactly get people excited. Everyone thinks my exams are, well...mean.

Reading Pharyngula regularly has really made me do some deep thinking about the negative effects that religion has on society. I've gone from being totally apathetic about religion to actually worrying about how religion is poisoning our culture. I know I need to be doing something. I'm not sure what that something is. I'm definitely supportive of the new atheists but must admit I'm still in the closet so to speak.

RE #18

Right on! I could not have said it better myself. "Think till it hurts"...one of my favorite lines.

When atheists get together in groups once a week to listen to someone state with authority that all religious people are inherently immoral, that they will suffer the worst imaginable torture for all eternity and DESERVE it, that this is an absolute truth and if you don't believe it you will JOIN the religious in this eternal torment... and when the society is so full of such intolerant atheists that the religious have to hide their beliefs, that no politician can posibly be elected to represent the people without at least paying lip service to the idea that the religious are immoral, etc... you know where I'm going with this...

When THAT is the world you live in, then maybe you can complain that the mean old atheists aren't being fair.

Until then, if PZ goes around characterizing every religious person as an idiot (which I don't believe he does), then boo effing hoo for you.

The religious RUN the damned country and most of the world.
You're going to get all whiny because someone stands up and says its bullshit?

Re: #21 PZ - You have the radiance of 10,000 suns!

To be accepted fully is one of the greatest gifts, especially at a time when one is not feeling good about oneself. What an inspiring story about your friendship with PZ. Thanks so much for sharing it.

Wow, I would not trust that PZ Meyars. He eats raw squid for breakfast, and milquetoast atheists for a bedtime snack! :P

Thanks for sticking up for our leader!

sirs,

let it be said that dr. myers does engage in impolitic discourse. does anyone dispute such an assertion? nevertheless, it says much of a man that he would lend aid and comfort to a lady in distress, so let us say "bravo!" to such chivalric generosity. man is a creature of much subtly and nuance, and far be it from me to pass judgment on the soul of a man.

yours truly,
c.v. snicker

PZ has an emotion called passion. If some blowhard has the same passion for religion they are rarely called a zealot. True, I don't always agree with him (hell sometimes as a English teaching dude I don't even understand him) but I feel this passion and respect him for it. The crux is that you can only be insulted if you let yourself be. Remember, the polite rarely have anything of importance to say.
This kindness proves beyond any reasonable doubt that morality needs no religion. It also proves that PZ is, as I suspected, a big giant fuzzy teddy bear (or squid if you prefer PZ).

It is great to hear that PZ and his family are kind and generous to other scientists when they need help even though they are godless atheists! It is shocking to see how theists think they are the only ones with morals and only the church goers help others! I guess we do not remember that the main foundation of religion like Buddhism (BTW which is an atheistic religion) is helping others. I grew up with an atheist mother who is always helping others and perhaps has much stronger moral values than any other theist Hindus/Muslim/Christian around her.

I haven't been reading Rob's comments on PZ, so I can't judge whether he's gone over the top. But I do get irritated at PZ's attitude towards religion, even though I'm an atheist too. But I think the response should be to discuss the issues, not the person. It's good to be reminded that the people we disagree with are usually good, decent human beings.

OK, I'll let you folks get back to the vitriolic bashing of each other. Remember, it's not a good thread until you've accused 3 moderates of trolling.

Bob

WHAT!?!
Such a big disappoint to learn that PZ is a gentleman, rather than a ravening multi-tentacled monster.

It's refreshing to read something positive about PZ, rather than yet another attack on one of PZ's attackers. (Although there's a place for such things, and sometimes I write them myself.)
It's heart-warming to read a story like this, although I
I don't care to see you in the dire straits you're so often - having been depressed for much of my own life. Thank you for posting this, GS.

GrrlScientist, I must say that it was a very atheist thing to do by PZ and his family. And I trust you feel better now.

You know it's funny, even though I think PZ, based on what I read of him, is something of an asshole, I would be surprised if he weren't the kind of person who would commit such acts of kindness. Really, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't be a great guy to have a beer with - presumably a very good beer with. I imagine that given his political views, if religion wasn't part of the discussion, we'd get along famously. Hell, we'd probably get along well, even if religion did come up.

Given the right topic, I can get even more angry, use even stronger rhetoric, than PZ uses, when discussing religionists. No question whether I'm an asshole or not, under the circumstances.

...Remember, the polite rarely have anything of importance to say.....Posted by: Chaoswes

The polite not being listened to is very different from not having anything important to say (I suspect from what others have written that Dr Myers is a very polite person). In todays world only the strident are heard over the general bellowing of the herd.

PZ is very strident and at times rather generalising in his rhetoric is because that is how to get a hearing.
The fact that he is amongst the most popular bloggers shows that it works and the reaction to him shows that he is very effective. It also helps that he is an excellent writer and knows which bits to poke.

Have a look at his science posts and the love of his subject shines through; his writings about the religious/religions I sometimes read just to see some interesting prose. Though on some things I disagree with what he writes the same can be said for the other blogs I read.

Aureola Nominee, FCD: "maybe you wish to revisit your words, in light of the fact that PZ's definitions go well beyond "rubes". He gave four categories, stating that he was surrounded by people belonging to (one or more of) those four categories."

One or more of? Ok, then. Someone who is ignorant, deluded, and foolish can easily be said to be a rube. And what Rob Knop complained about is only the latest from the guy who wrote, "Thanks, Dr Ken [Miller]! I know what side you're on, now ... it's you and the creationists, best friends 4ever! Did they promise to let you strike the match at the atheist-burning?" and caricatured theists as "pious twits" and "little old ladies who faint at the sight of monkeys." Myers has been going batshit about religion for a while, and it goes beyond a sober or even a passionate but accurate appraisment of the faults of theists.

There is a reason that Ed Brayton has called PZ a liar. I don't agree with that assessment, since I think that Myers actually believes what he is saying, but when it comes to religion, PZ is on iffy terms with the facts.

Rob Knop has been posting to the internet for decades and demonstrating what an asshole he is for the entire time.

As for all you people complaining about PZ's attitude towards religion -- it's the same attitude that any rational person would take toward astrologers, UFO nuts, people who believe in bad luck, etc. etc. if they had the sort of position and power in the world that the religious do. PZ is intellectually honest; you people are NOT.

Might this whole furore simply be down to two sets of people having a different sense of humour? Or rather, two sets of people's online personas having different senses of humour?

Myers' comments about Miller and theists in general are clearly intentionally over-the-top caricatures of the situation. Now, you might view such a sarcastic sense of humour as utterly puerile; fine, critcize it as such. Don't confuse this with Myers actually believing that the religious are all deluded fools, or that Miller is a crytpo-falangist of some kind. Sounding like an arsehole (due to one's sense of humour) and being an arsehole are two rather different things.

Second, however much of a twit PZ may seem to you, and however unfair his rhetoric may appear, this doesn't justify busting out your own puerile rhetoric, eye for eye and tooth for tooth.

Well, I for one DO quite seriously maintain that the religious are deluded fools. (I'm not smiling as I type that.) And I have as much right to hold that opinion as you to do harbor delusions. Deal with it.

Hey GrrlScientist -- good post. There's a hell of a lot of ego out there in the science community, and sometimes, well sometimes our dear colleagues' sensibilities get lost in the debate. Thanks for pointing out that good people can disagree.

Ramsey,

I would be careful in quoting Brayton as calling someone a liar. Brayton has a track record of lying about what PZ and Dawkins say.

PZ's combination of holy wrath, self-irony (pirates, squids, and, well, holy wrath), and an environment rich in creationists and just about lacking in European-style Christians is apparently bound to produce misunderstandings.

i'll say one more thing that i forgot to mention in the main entry; PZ allows me and others like me to be "polite atheists". without PZ making a point of being "an angry atheist" online, well, i and others like me would have to step forward and take on the job ourselves. honestly, PZ does not breathe fire in real life about other people's religious beliefs -- he does challenge them if the topic comes up, but so do i, and so do others whom i know. but nevertheless, PZ still treats religious people with humanity and respect in real life.

Or as the religious say, "hate the sin, not the sinner." ;)

but when it comes to religion, PZ is on iffy terms with the facts.

I read this type of crap from time to time about various people. What facts exactly is he iffy with? Is there any evidence that proveshim incorrect?

Weak.

J.J. Ramsey wrote:

And what Rob Knop complained about is only the latest from the guy who wrote, "Thanks, Dr Ken [Miller]! I know what side you're on, now ... it's you and the creationists, best friends 4ever! Did they promise to let you strike the match at the atheist-burning?"

Perhaps you would like to quote a little bit more of that post, to show what the context was? Oh dear! Doing so would invalidate you rant! Poor little Jayjay!

For the people who would like to know, good ol' Ken had blamed the atheists for pushing people into creationism with their rhetoric, rather than the creationists for their propaganda, and PZ took exception to this ridiculous claim.

Steve LaBonne - I never said that you didn't have the right to hold such a view. For the record, I'm apparently failing to exercise my right to harbour (religious) delusions, being as I am an atheist. And no, I don't think that PZ is an arse or that his sense of humour is puerile. Quite the opposite; my comments were addressed to those that might hold such a view.

'Deluded fools' was a poor way for me to phrase what I meant. It can either mean 'the religious are deluded in regards to their religion' which PZ probably would agree with, or 'all of the religious are generally credulous thickos that are easily deluded in general' which I doubt that he would agree with.

If I could add on to post #43, not only has this believer been treated with respect as a person, but I have been on occasion actively assisted in modest ways by Dr. Myers. Haven't bunked with him or shared a breakfast of fried babies yet, yunnerstand, but still.....:)

Besides, one of the best ways to show respect to another human being is to treat them like an adult who is able to hear strong criticism.

J.J. Ramsey:

"being on iffy terms with the facts" seems to me a pretty good summary of theistic belief.

Yes, indeed Aureola!

In order to get rants like Rob's, I think religious critics of PZ may be experiencing a fair amount of cognitive dissonance, especially if they are scientists or individuals who highly value science. The cognitive dissonance between valuing a rational worldview and buying into superstitious beliefs with which they have been indoctrinated must be huge for some people. I actually felt a little sorry for Rob for a brief moment (yes, very brief). I wonder why some folks are willing to give up superstitions when pointed out, while others continue to defend their superstitions indefinitely.

No.
PZ's a jerk.
You ever have class with him? No you didn't.
He loves making you out to look like a fool. Yeah, real class act. Grown adult belittling students, bravo.

Tessa,
It's a shame you don't know how religious beliefs develop in a person. Because your caricature makes you look more foolish than your intended target.

Uh past student you are not helping your cause.

It's a shame you don't know how religious beliefs develop in a person. Because your caricature makes you look more foolish than your intended target.

Really then please do tell how religious beliefs develop in a person for it seems the overwhelming(99%) retain the EXACT same religion or sect as that of their parents. Nah couldn't be indoctrination.

He loves making you out to look like a fool.

It's unlikely that required any significant effort in your case.

What a moving post.

As for "bashing a blogger", it should be remembered that this is a science blog, and therefore the science is the important thing. If you spot factual error(s) in ANYone's science post(s), point out the errors. It doesn't matter whether a person deserves the name(s) they're called, but whether the science they're esposuing is valid. I'm sure a person would trust the objectivity of Professor Myers' scientific material infinitely more than he would, e.g. Mike Behe's. The science is the important stuff. Not the childish, tit-for-tat that wastes blogspace...

My only contact with Myers has been through his response to my attempts to communicate my evolutionary views on his blog Pharyngula.

My first such attempt was greeted with
"Your stench has preceded you," followed by instant bannishment. Much later a second attempt resulted in disemvoweling of my comment followed again with the same tactic. He permits me to comment but they never appear in the form I sent them, and typically not at all.

I regards P.Z. Myers as a demonstration of my PEH, a congenital, "prescribed," "dyed-in-the-wool," "born that way" atheist, who, like his hero Richard Dawkins, is unable to recognize what others of us can see so clearly, namely that -

"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

Myers' arrogance has no limits as he describes himself so accurately as a "godless liberal" and spends an inordinate amount of time attacking anyone who must take exception to his blind adherence to the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, an evolution guided by randomness and natural selection. Natural selection has always been entirely anti-evolutionary, serving only to preserve the status quo just as William Bateson, Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse and Reginald C. Punnett all recognized long ago.

Furthermore he is an intellectual coward as proved by his failure to respond to the challenges that my friend Martin and I presented on the very thread he so arrogantly introduced on the neutral forum "One Blog A Day," a thread which produced a total of nearly 1000 comments without a word from either Myers or his alter ego Richard Dawkins.

His tactics on Pharyngula are the same as those practiced by
Wesley Elsberry on Panda's Thumb especially on Elsberry's inner sanctum, "our forum," "After The Bar Closes."

Forums and blogs that must denigrate, insult and finally ban their critics will never earn my respect. At present I am able to present my convictions on only one major forum, ISCID's "brainstorms" where they would never tolerate the tactics employed by such blogs as "Pharyngula," "Dawkins Fan Club," "EvC," "After The Bar Closes," "ARN," "Uncommon Descent" and God only knows how many other venues where I have been summarily banned or treated with utter contempt, typically by anonymous cowards.

Every forum that I have ever entered was with the expectation that I would be given the respect due to a published scientist with a new hypothesis of organic evolution. With very few exceptions I have been greeted with insult, denigration, personal vilification, disemvowelment (a Myers specialty), isolation and finally bannishment. Naturally I have responded in accord with the old saw - "When in Rome do as the Romans do."

If anyone is interested in civilized communication with me, I recomend either of my two currently active threads at "brainstorms" forum. They are "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" and "An Evolutionary Manifesto." I must warn all that the management there will not tolerate the tactics employed at those blogs I have listed above.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

For those who don't know about Davison, he's a fairly legendary net.kook.

""born that way" atheist"

We are all atheists at birth, and indeed for much of our childhood. If we do not allow children to vote then they clearly are not in a position to decide if they believe in god or not.

As for the rest of your post, given that you have been banned or removed from so many forums I would suggest the problem lies with you. Just to provide some evidence of how deluded you are, Welsley Elsbury and PZ Myers do not see eye to eye on religion at all.

John A. Davison, if you found a blog devoted to the proposition that Christians believe that if you worship donkeys on sticks you'll find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, you'd probably ignore it, too. Especially if, every time you tried to say something about actual Christian beliefs or history, they said, "But what about the donkeys?" or "Where's your pot of gold, then?" That's what your version of evolution amounts to. I guess you'd be a coward not to engage monomaniacs like that in extended conversation.

It actually doesn't surprise me that PZ and his family were kind and generous to you.

I've always suspected that he's like one of those folks who are even tempered until they get behind the wheel of a car and start swearing at everyone their way. Only in his case, it's the anonymity of cyberspace instead of the privacy of a car that allows him to 'let out the beast'.

But that doesn't change the fact that on his blog, he is snide, vicious, rude, condescending and spiteful. You just don't see it because you've never been on the receiving end of it.

And the pathetic part of it all is, he doesn't need to be. He's a wonderful writer. A couple of times, now I've been impressed by an article in Seed, looked back at the by-line and seen that it's P.Z. Myers.

And I've thought, "Wow, that's the Pharyngula guy? Why isn't he like this on his blog?"

All the Christian bashing may drive up the hit count, but it doesn't make the blog any better.

... a thread which produced a total of nearly 1000 comments without a word from either Myers or his alter ego Richard Dawkins.

Yes, yes, you read that right folks ... when PZ slips into a phone booth or a closet for a moment, watch out, because, like Clark Kent changing into Superman, PZ is changing into Richard Dawkins!!

Myers, Dawkins, Elsberry and Dembski are all deathly afraid of me because if they acknowledge my existence they will have to accept all my sources as well, all leaders in their fields, not one a Darwinian worshipper of the Great God Chance, not one a religious fanatic either. Blogczars that must delete, denigrate or ban their critics are insecure cowards by definition.

I have no more respect for the Bible-banging "Fundies" than I do for the chance-happy "Darwimps." A pox on both their houses!

I see that some of the clientele here are no different than those endemic to the blogs I identified in my previous comment, just the usual herd of infulfilled, unpublished, intellectually disadvantaged, sociopathic toadies that every low class blog attracts in such gloriously revealing numbers.

I take it then that I will not hear from Steve LaBonne, Matt Penfold and Monado, whoever that is, at "brainstorms," a decent venue where the likes of them are not tolerated. As for others you are welcome unless you also must compulsively dislose your inability to be civil. It sure didn't take long.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Only in his case, it's the anonymity of cyberspace instead of the privacy of a car that allows him to 'let out the beast'.

Yeah he's really anonymous you goof. He only uses his real name, location and place of work.

But that doesn't change the fact that on his blog, he is snide, vicious, rude, condescending and spiteful. You just don't see it because you've never been on the receiving end of it.

Have you? Do you read him? He tells it as he sees it. Refute his arguments and that'll be it. Instead you whine. Why is it all the opponents of Dawkins or PZ always seem to be the biggest babies? Simply answer the mans arguments and stop having such paper thin skin.

The most funny thing about the One blog a day devoted to PZ were "knowledgeable evolutionists" who PZ sent there. They saw in prolonged legs of Australian toads "evolution in action". Another expert from Pharyngula conceived brand new conception of color perception green = white - red. I reccomend that all check it. Darwinism is really a funny science. Did you read the latest article from PZ master Dawkins in the New York Times? John Davison made a good point about it in ISCID. It is not Behe but Dawkins is who gives it up. His arguments about random mutation in dog's populations are unbelievable. He should try to domesticate lizards - I would like to see those random mutation there, hehe.

I have come to the conclusion that the reason why so many moderate theists, and their appeasers like Brayton, hate PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens et al is down to jealousy.

People are stating to listen to them. Google "Richard Dawkins" compared to "Ed Brayton", or "PZ Myers" compared to "Rob Knopp" and see what you get by way of hits. If PZ, Dawkins et al are such a divisive force that they get listened to so much ? The answer is they have a something to say about the problem of religion, and those of us who are sick of religion being treated with respect are listening.

So I say to those moderate theists, and their appeasers, quit your bitching. Come up with a better message. If the message is good enough people will listen. Write a book that sells as well as "The God Delusion" or "God is Not Great". But until you do, quit whining.

Mr. Davidson, "kook" is the normal, and reasonable, conclusion people come to for someone who:

1. Comes onto a scientific site promising a new theory that will blow people away

2. Instead proposes a conjecture, which is dismissed by specialists knowledgeable in the relevant field(s)

3. Insists on that conjecture

4. Repeats steps 2 and 3 above a few times

5. Devolves to name-calling when people refuse to accept his idea

6. Repeats the above steps on other blogs.

Aureola Nominee, FCD: "'being on iffy terms with the facts' seems to me a pretty good summary of theistic belief."

True enough. There is, however, a big difference between someone who believes some false things--which most humans do, unfortunately, for a whole host of reasons--and being an idiot. Furthermore, theists being on iffy terms with some facts (but not others) hardly excuses atheists for doing likewise.

valhar2000: "For the people who would like to know, good ol' Ken had blamed the atheists for pushing people into creationism with their rhetoric, rather than the creationists for their propaganda, and PZ took exception to this ridiculous claim."

And PZ made a ridiculous implication in response. Actually, there was no indication that Miller wasn't blaming the creationists for their misdeeds as well, so your summary of Ken Miller isn't even accurate.

Physis: "'Deluded fools' was a poor way for me to phrase what I meant. It can either mean 'the religious are deluded in regards to their religion' which PZ probably would agree with, or 'all of the religious are generally credulous thickos that are easily deluded in general' which I doubt that he would agree with."

I doubt that he would admit to believing the latter. A lesson I picked up from reading the more liberal and atheistic biblioblogs is that one can better judge someone's views based on what they say indirectly, which is often less guarded, rather than what they say directly. I've seen Myers occasionally say he doesn't believe theists are stupid, but when he writes posts like the one that got Knop ranting, his prejudices become clear.

Matt Penfold: "I would be careful in quoting Brayton as calling someone a liar. Brayton has a track record of lying about what PZ and Dawkins say."

The last time I saw Brayton calls Myers a liar was when Dawkins promoted signed a particularly badly done anti-religion petition, which Dawkins shortly repudiated himself, and it was Myers who kept getting Brayton's position wrong.

Ramsey,

You missed when Brayton accused Dawkins of lying about why he asked a TV film crew to stop filming. Brayton claimed it was becuase Dawkin's could not answer the question, although Brayton later reversed his opinion.

You also missed it when Brayton accused Dawkin's of claiming that the religious were all idiots or mentally ill (deluded). Brayton admits he has not read "The God Delusion" but that has not stopped him making up what he thinks it says. In the book Dawkins' is very clear about how he uses the term deluded, and it is not in the context Brayton claims it be.

J.J Ramsey - Sorry, but unless you have some form of telepathy (and if so, parapychologosts across the globe would love to hear from you) being able to 'judge someone's views based on what they say indirectly' sounds a hell of a lot like your gut feeling (that Mr Myers' is 'bad to the core') to me. You get the impression, from what PZ writes, that he thinks the religious are all presciptively retarded or somesuch. Fine, you think that. Don't, however, pass such unchecked nonsense, riddled as it is by confirmation bias, as some kind of sensible argument. Leave your gut feelings where they belong - in your gut.

The whole reason that I stated 'PZ would probably say' is that, even basing my opinions upon what he actually writes, I can't be fully certain what the gentleman in question would say. And if my ground is shaky, you can bet your bottom dollar that your 'judgements' are positively spasming.

Matt Penfold: "You missed when Brayton accused Dawkins of lying about why he asked a TV film crew to stop filming. Brayton claimed it was becuase Dawkin's could not answer the question, although Brayton later reversed his opinion.

"You also missed it when Brayton accused Dawkin's of claiming that the religious were all idiots or mentally ill (deluded). Brayton admits he has not read 'The God Delusion' but that has not stopped him making up what he thinks it says. In the book Dawkins' is very clear about how he uses the term deluded, and it is not in the context Brayton claims it be."

Post a link, please. Obviously, too many links trigger the moderation filters, but try to provide actual evidence.

Physis: "J.J Ramsey - Sorry, but unless you have some form of telepathy (and if so, parapychologosts across the globe would love to hear from you) being able to 'judge someone's views based on what they say indirectly' sounds a hell of a lot like your gut feeling (that Mr Myers' is 'bad to the core') to me."

What I mean is that I give far more credence to things like his remarks on Ken Miller, or his caricature of more moderate atheists as "mewling softly" at "pious twits," then at protestations that he doesn't think theists are idiots.

To past student:

I have had classes with PZ and he was my adviser during my four undergraduate years..... and I can't think of any instance when he was being a jerk. He really enjoys teaching developmental biology and evolution and I've learned an exceptional amount. Yeah, the tests can be quite difficult but I managed A's and B's. Thanks PZ

Former PZ Student

Dawkins and Myers both suffer from the same congenital malaise. They are both predestined, "prescribed" atheists and there is not a thing that can be done for either of them or for the legions of their faithful followers. I strongly recommed William Wright's "Born That Way" for documentation.

I am content to be the last man standing after the "Fundies" led by Bill Dembski and the "Darwimps" led by the Myers/Dawkins dynamic duo get through butchering one another. I wouldn't give you a nickel for either faction.

I love it so!

"The main souce of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God,... Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

J.J. Ramsey:

you still fail to provide evidence for your claim, I notice. PZ Myers is "on iffy terms with the facts" because... you and Rob Knop say so?

Because he hasn't got a PhD in Fairy Studies yet dismisses fairy tales as lacking evidence, and therefore people who believe in fairies as deluded?

Because he states (very accurately) that religion (qua religion) is among the best way to justify otherwise unjustifiable acts?

Theists love to point out that "we are all irrational, from time to time and about something"; what they fail to note, however, is that some people do not glorify such irrationality but attempt to correct it, in themselves as much as in others.

truth machine is always in my head posting my thoughts.

"Yeah he's really anonymous you goof.
He only uses his real name, location and
place of work."

You've got the dictionary definition down pat, GH, but have missed the point entirely. The Internet allows conversation between strangers to take place without being face-to-face.

Somehow, for some people, this medium gives them social license to act in a way they would never act in real life.
(Are you telling me you've never noticed this, you "goof"? Is that the way you act in public? I strongly doubt it.)

PZ is a case in point. When Mike Adams, a conservative Christian columnist, was scheduled to speak at PZ's college, PZ roared loudly on his blog about how he was going to rip Adams a new asshole.

Come the day of the actual lecture, PZ was as quiet as a mouse. Face-to-face he couldn't sustain the level of bile that he regularly spews at his victims over the internet.

"You just don't see it because you've never been on the receiving end of it."

"Have you? Do you read him? He tells it as he sees it. Refute his arguments and that'll be it. Instead you whine.

You don't actually have to be personally subjected to bullying to be revolted by it. At least I don't. Nor do most people. You seem to be implying that you enjoy watching it. What does that say about you?

I wouldn't attempt "refuting his arguments", because I don't really disagree with them, being an atheist myself. My objections are more along the lines of how he treats other people. I have no idea why you have such trouble seeing this.

There, Hedwig. You're wasting your time with these blog carnivals. Just get yourself involved in a religion/atheism dispute involving PZ. Lots of readers and commenters! JAD is the icing on the cake.

I love it so!

Bob

I have a lot of sympathy for Rob's position based on how PZ writes about religion using rhetoric from the school of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. That irritates me as an atheist, as a Buddhist, and as a person with a graduate degree in science. http://trinifar.wordpress.com/2007/04/21/saving-pharyngula/

andy.s - "Come the day of the actual lecture, PZ was as quiet as a mouse. Face-to-face he couldn't sustain the level of bile that he regularly spews at his victims over the internet."

Because, perhaps, it was a joke? Or, like J.J. Ramsey, do you view jokes as a window to the soul, and give them more credence than what is said po-faced?

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."

"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.

AMEN

"A past evolution is undeniable, present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Aureola Nominee, FCD: "you still fail to provide evidence for your claim, I notice. PZ Myers is 'on iffy terms with the facts' because... you and Rob Knop say so?"

Nope. I've already pointed above to his caricature of moderate atheists and to his distortions of what Brayton said about Dawkins and the petition.

It is not true that we are all atheists at birth. The studies on separated identical twins clearly indicate a heritable component acting to determine ones "innate" convictions about a Creator. I recommend William Wright's "Born That Way" for the documentation. Dawkins and Myers are rabid ultra-atheists, helpless victims of their "prescribed" destinies. We are all victims in a completely determined universe. There is no better proof of it than the composition of internet forums and blogs. The participants naturally gravitate to the sources that fit their predispositions.

Everything we really know about the origin and subsequent history of life pleads in favor of a determined, internally directed and planned scenario. This true for both ontogeny and phylogeny.

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrrable."
John A. Davison

John,

Bouchard's studies do not show that anyone is "religious at birth". They only show a genetic tendency to become (or not become) religious later in life. Babies have no conception of religion. Nor does a genetic tendency to hold religious beliefs establish that "religion" itself is innate; for that, you would have to raise someone in an environment where they were not exposed to religion, and see if they reinvented it for themselves. The correlation could simply show, for instance, that there is a genetic tendency to conform to existing social norms, or a greater tendency to credulity, or something of that sort.

Ambitwistor,

I expect that humans are predisposed toward religion etc. We're hardwired to look for patterns (cf. pareidolia) and find meaning in things. In our lives, we need answers to certain questions: where did we come from, why are we here, what's right and wrong, etc. Most people tend to analogize: human-made objects all have human makers, so the world must have a maker. Then they invent a maker (Odin, Zeus, the Sun, or what have you). You know it's only the modern era that has afforded us reasonable explanations for the universe apart from "[deity] did it."

Now, none of this means religion is right or wrong, but I do think people are predisposed to think in religious or religious-like terms.

The day that any PZ-basher can write anything even remotely as moving as posts like The proper reverence due those who have gone before, I will be willing to listen to their complains about his tone. Until then, I think they should focus on their own style.

Ambitwister, whoever that is.

The fact remains that when separated and reared under drastically different conditions, the predispositions of monozygotic twins dominate. EVERY trait that Bouchard and his group examined showed heritable effects much to their own surprise. That is what makes those studies so very significant. The battle between Nature and Nurture has been won hands down by Nature. Get used to it. We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others.

Like Einstein, I and my sources have all been determinists with neither a religious fanatic nor a chance-worshipping Darwinian in the lot. There is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian scheme that ever had anything to do with evolution beyond the elaboration of subspecies and intraspecific varieties, none of which are now or ever were incipient species. Furthermore, creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past and, like ontogeny, was always emergent and autoregulated with little reference to the environment.

AS for P.Z. Myers, he is the second biggest bully in all of cyberdom, right behind David Springer of Uncommon Descent. I have no respect for either of them and neither should anyone else.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Aw, jeez. It's Davidson again.

In before five hundred posts.

PZ Myeres is a wonderfull guy. Especially impressive is the fact that you can visit him with a parrot (maybe a cephalophod would be more fit). Of course the parrot should be a darwinist and no way creationist. PZ Myeres will not like it if parrot starts to cry "do not forget ban at Pharyngula all your adversaries!".

I would like to ask a guy who wrote the article about when PZ writes his atheistic "random ejaculation". We can see that PZ publish them like an automata every two hours unless he sleeps.

Here is a puzzle for the supporters of natural selection to ponder. At what point in the creation of life did the Creator hand over the reins of creation to Nature, that which had up to that point been created?

Alternatively, are there still some who believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble itself into a living, evolving system?

I have never been able to get anyone to answer these two questions. Is anyone here up to the task?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

For what it is worth, here are my answers. To the first question -

NEVER!

To the second question -

Yes indeed. They are atheist Darwinians like P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000548&p…

Message July 18, 14:04

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

For the record, on July 21, 2007 I received a threatening email from "Ed" retpm@comcast.net If anyone recognizes this address, please inform me. Thank you.