Like rats deserting a sinking ship…atheism is in trouble. We've lost a beloved leading light of atheism, a highbrow master of humanist ethical conduct, a highly principled representative of secularism. One of our own has converted to Christianity. Oh, how shall we bear it? The Christians will be trumpeting this news ecstatically.
Alas. Larry Darby, holocaust denier, racist sleazebag, and opportunistic maggot, has embraced Jesus.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This is embarrassing. The Atheist Law Center, which I had never heard of before but from its website looks like it is mostly supporting the right stuff (OK, except for the weird calendar reform business), was founded by a guy named Larry Darby, who has since resigned. He is now running for attorney…
The other day, I mentioned an atheist named Larry Darby who happened to be an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier. I was perturbed because this clown was coming far too close to my neck of the woods for comfort, and the stench of his vileness offended me. Because Darby is an atheist, not surprisingly…
Some of you may remember a few months back my post about Larry Darby, former head of the Atheist Law Center who is now running for attorney general in Alabama. Eugene Volokh and I both wrote posts outing Darby as the total nutball that he is after a series of bizarre posts he made to the…
Why would a pro-science op-ed give credence to the words of William Dembski?
William Dembski (one of the leading lights of the US intelligent-design lobby) put it like this in an email to Dawkins: "I know that you personally don't believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful…
Here's where the article got me
The widely accepted number of deaths in the Holocaust is 6 million.
The widely accepted number? Is there another "accepted" number? Isn't this like saying that it is widely accepted that there were 13 original colonies?
Jesus Christ!
The accepted number is 12MM. He's fixated on the Jewish portion.
And Jesus is making a valiant effort to keep his lunch down.
In an interview Jesus said, "I paid 6 bucks for that burrito. And I think he made my skin rot."
I've heard between ten and eleven million, but it seems likely that the number estimated by drawing on records will be somewhat smaller than the actual value. Twelve million sounds plausible.
Alas, lots of people are fixated on the Jewish portion. It pays to remember that the Holocaust was not about the deaths of six million Jews, but of twelve million people.
DiscordianStooge - counting numbers in the millions is obviously harder than counting on your hand. I mean, tell me (quick!) to the nearest million how many died in the great leap forward or the Vietnam War or something. Wikipedia gives a range of 5-7 million, and it seems intuitive that it's hard to pin it down much more than that. This in itself is rather a horrible thought
PZ, you disappoint me. For one outspoken person to have defected does not mean that all of a sudden athiesm is in trouble.
Most things are cyclical. The sharemarket, resource prices, republicans and democrats, and so is the battle between athiesm and theism.
O.k., so we took a step back today, but the cycle will turn and athiesm will come back stronger than ever.
Willing to bet the house on that one :)
I meant 5-7 million for the number of Jewish deaths of course.
The author of the site linked to seems to have a few screws loose as well.
It's a system in which stupid people are more likely to vote for an unknown person whose name appears first on the ballot. How, exactly, is that not flawed?
At least he will have plenty of company now.
Caledonian: It's not the system that's flawed, (though of course there are things that could be improved) it's the lack of informed participation, on the part of the constituents, that's flawed.
Ok I'm playing catch up who is being referenced here?
1. We've lost a beloved leading light of atheism - Flew?
2.a highbrow master of humanist ethical conduct? -
3.a highly principled representative of secularism- RA? He hasn't gone anywhere yet.
Help me fill in the holes please.
People are the system in a participatory democracy. In this case the biggest flaw in the system is the stupid people -- democracy can't stand up long with a bunch of stupid and/or ignorant people. The Jefferson quote, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." is apropos here.
Well, I hear that in elections in some places, the candidate order is printed randomly on each ballot so that no one can expect to get a disproportionate amount of votes simply by being the first one on the ballot. So there's a patch on the problem anyway.
Uber, it's called sarcasm. Larry Darby is a racist scumbag who called himself an atheist, and has now found Jesus.
Ahhhh, I reread it and now get it.
:-) I was driving all day please forgive hehe.
I thought the overall death toll was rather higher -- 6M Jews, plus another 12M assorted others (Gypsies, Catholics, trade unionists, gays, and whoever else happened to be vulnerable).
The "official" body count on the Holocaust is topping 12M now? My recollection (from 20 years of so back) was: 6M Jews, 4M others. Of course, the stats are sensitive to:
1) The difficulty inherent in sifting out hard data from the chaotic debris of WW2.
2) How do you decide which people got killed by the Holocaust, and which just...got killed?
(Slightly tangentially: I happen to recently re-read the first half of Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning, the account of his prison camp experience. I think that book was probably my first acquaintance with the Holocaust as history, when I was about 13yo.)
When exactly did the voters stop being part of the system?
Criminy, the idiots are coming out of the woodwork...
When they stopped participating, dumbass.
Hm. How is your glass house doing, these days?
Oh, please... Darby "found Jesus" like Geraldo found "Al Capone's secret vault." It's a stunt - most likely a political one considering his recent loss at the polls.
It's interesting to note that Darby formulated his beliefs about the Holocaust and his racism while still an atheist. Oh, wait. Maybe he wasn't a "true atheist," right?
In this case the biggest flaw in the system is the stupid people -- democracy can't stand up long with a bunch of stupid and/or ignorant people.
You would expect countries that have compulsory voting to be more flawed, in terms of democracy, as everyone is forced to register an opinion, whether they care about the outcome or not. But it doesn't happpen like that, and it's not because of voter information campaigns. People work with the practical reality they have, no matter their ideological preference. If the system promotes a particular outcome, well, that's what you're going to get.
Jason, yes he formulated those beliefs when he was an atheist, but they aren't directly related to his atheism. As we've examined, part of his conversion is that it allows him to justify his beliefs easier.
Jason is like a mole that sticks his head up once in awhile and begs to be whacked.
Oh my gosh what an astute observation. He claimed atheism and was in fact a holocaust denier and apparently a rascist. Hmmm atheism = rascism? atheism = holocaust denial? Or are you attempting the 'broad stroke' attack on atheism you so often complain about?
Of course no religious minded person would ever be rascist so it must be true. All rascists are atheists. I think the KKK missed that in the fairly religious 'writings'. How could we have missed that angle. Thank you Jason for making it all clear. Now all those of religious persuasions who thought blacks where, well, not special have some company.
Holocaust denial is essentially the same thought process as thinking ID makes sense. Imbeciles and irrationality all around regardless of ones superstitous viewpoint.
Built out of glorious steel-transparant aluminum alloys, thank you very much. The real problem is the birdbrains who keep flying into them.
I came here in search of a good source of scientific news to refer to my friends as it was featured in nature. I've gotta admit, I seeing this crap it's going to take a lot to change my mind about this place. Angry athiesism is as much of a religion as Catholisicm. A true scientist can only be an agnostic or slightly to either side. Honestly I think you should read up on Lemaître as you could learn a lot from him.
Ugh, I hit post instead of preview.... Yes, I know I misspelled atheism and Catholicism.
And no true Scotsman...
Oh, please spare us the "atheists are religious too" argumemt. It's nonsense, and only makes you look stupid.
There is plenty of science here at Pharyngula, but as the Nature article made clear, it's not the only issue debated here.
PZ-
Having known Larry personally for several years, although he was a pleasant enough fellow, calling him a "beloved light of atheism, a highbrow master of humanist ethical conduct, a highly principled representative of secularism" is just too far over the top.
Forming the ALC was probably the most significant thing he's accomplished, but then any fool with $20 can register their corporation with the state. Many have.
I only hope that this lead-in was intended with the highest degree of sarcasm.
Thanks.
-Z
Oh, it was. Trust me.
Anyone else confused by how many people have read the first paragraph of the post as sincere? Particularly the "atheism is in trouble", and "We've lost a beloved leading light of atheism, a highbrow master of humanist ethical conduct, a highly principled representative of secularism," portions? No offense meant to anyone who did take it seriously, but I thought the subsequent paragraph made PZ's sarcasm clear.
Then again, maybe THEY are being sarcastic too... in which case, it obviously went over my head ;)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/07/nice-day-for-nazis.html
this looks like an effective way to deal with these kooks.
Have a party so loud and laugh at them. It difuses the anger they try to produce.
Sounds kinda fun too. It's like teasing a blog troll. Rather than engage... just laugh.
The man is a scumbag. . . Humaniform rat-beings change their convictions as needed. . . Film at 11.
Atheism is not a religion any more than health is a kind of disease, etc. Can we please move on and hear more about cephalopods?
"Oh, please spare us the "atheists are religious too" argument. It's nonsense, and only makes you look stupid."
Look I'm not religious, but I'd really like to know how any scientist can honestly say he knows something doesn't exist.
"There is plenty of science here at Pharyngula,"
Well I came here to learn and what do I see on the front page?
2 worthless articles on that fool ann coulter. And by worthless I mean even though they were about an babbling idiot they still displayed no content.
4 articles making jokes about religion including one titled:
-What's the difference between a pope and a frill-necked lizard?
I guess I just expected something more from a blog listed in nature. Whatever, you guys have fun I just don't think this behavior represents the scientific community very well.
Actually, as Sergey Romanov informed me, 6 million non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust is an overestimate, but many more than 6 million non-Jews died in the war, but, as Deborah Lipstadt puts it, not as part of the Holocaust
"It's interesting to note that Darby formulated his beliefs about the Holocaust and his racism while still an atheist. Oh, wait. Maybe he wasn't a "true atheist," right?"
Posted by: Jason
Jason, the point is that, when his beliefs became widely known, the atheists dropped him.
*yawn*. Except for the dogma and the belief in supernatural entities.
Do they have to wear kilts too? (In case you're as ignorant and stupid as you appear, that was a reference to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.)
You're poorly read as well. There are all kinds of things you don't believe in for which there is no evidence: invisible pink unicorns, blue fairies, china teapot in orbit, etc. Why does Yahweh get "special rights" in this regard?
Come back when you've educated yourself. You can start with Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? by Bertrand Russell.
The scientist will say that there is no evidence in support of the existence of said thing, and thus the scientist doesn't believe in it.
That is not religious, and it's different from Agnostism, since Agnostics usually state that they don't know if God exists. Atheists says there is no evidence for the existence, hence they don't believe.
As quork explained, that's how we evaluate most things.
Admittedly the posts have been light on science the last couple of days (I presume it's because PZ is busy with other stuff), however given the fact that Pharyngula is the top ranking science blog, and PZ is often called the Godfather of Science blogging, it would seem that your position is a minority position.
Maybe if you made clear what kind of content you are looking for, we could help you? Or maybe you could use the search function, that not only searches Pharyngula, but also all the other Scienceblogs?
"You're poorly read as well."
lol, nice ad hominem attack. It fits the general theme of this blog well. Just curious, how many letters do you have behind your name?
"There are all kinds of things you don't believe in for which there is no evidence: invisible pink unicorns, blue fairies, china teapot in orbit, etc. Why does Yahweh get "special rights" in this regard?"
I don't really have time for this but there is a lot of truth (and a lot of fiction) in the bible. Like I said before religion is not my cup of tea but I've spent a considerable amount of time in the bible belt and seen it do a lot of good for a lot of people. Nothing brings out charity in people like religion does. I think that alone should give it some "special rights". The fact that we
-simply can't prove anything doesn't exist in the entire universe
-a monsignor in the Catholic church discovered the big bang and didn't think it conflicted with Catholicism should also give it some "special rights"
-Your own Bertrand Russell was heavily influenced by "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Exodus 23:2)
-liberals should be TOLERANT of other cultures
should give it some more "special rights". The real target isn't religion, its BLIND religion. You can eliminate god and people will create a new cause just like they did in Nazi germany. That was very real and very blind "godless" religion.
I really don't have time for this but I HOPE you can get my point.
While I am not inclined to slap you around like some people here, I have to agree to some degree with what people have said here Wacki. The point you miss, by complaining about "how" these things are titled, is that they are for the most part stories about people attacking science and scientific ways for thinking. Your argument seems to be the same one scientists have, unfortunately, been using for the last century and a half, that one should simply ignore the stupidity around them and just do the science. The problem with that stance is simply this, it doesn't work, since our enemies are not going to, "ignore the science around them and just do religion". No, they are going to try to shove nonsense like ID in everyplace to promote their extreme versions of of anti-science religion, raise loons like Coulter up on pedistals as bastions of the "right path", and do their damndest to make sure they elect more clueless morons like Bush, whose idea of science probrably has more in common with the Sci-Fi channel's "Ghost Hunters" than actual science. In other words, idiots going around acting like idiots and screaming "Wow!", every time their camera glitches or one of their EM detectors finds wiring in a wall some place, which no one remembers is there.
And more to the point. Your main claim is, "it doesn't make sense to discount X, if you can't test it." The only problem with that is "everything" that defines X in this case is a "tangible" real world phenomena that people claim happen. If something can and does have an effect on the real world, then it can be tested, since it them falls, by definition, within the realm of the real world. The irony being that some of these clowns *have* tested things, like prayer for healing people in hospitals, and had either no observable result, results only when someone "knew" they where being prayed for (which makes no damn sense unless its a placebo effect) or even "negative" results, where the number of people dying was higher among those being prayed for. They have tested for "God", within the same bounds that we test for things like nutrinos, which are also only detectible by the "predicted effects" they should have if they exist. The difference is, every test they or we come up with for God ***fails***, while we have found a whole hell of a lot of nutrinos.
So, why would a sane person, confronted with such failed tests, take the wishy washy position that, "Well, it still might be true, so I am not going to call anyone a fool for believing it."? Its a ridiculous position to take and no more sane than claiming that there must be giant angels of demons dragging things together in deep space, because its as "reasonable" an explanation as cosmic string or dark matter. Both of which at least conform to mathematical rules and observed phenomena. God, spirits, angels, demons and souls conform to "no" observed phenomena, or at least no phenomena that is not *solely* internal to the person supposedly witnessing them and we also have more likely explanations for that, which can, have and are being tested, ranging from side effects of everything from the extreme of left temporal lobe epilepsy, scitzophernia and even head trauma, to the much simpler fact that our brains are designed to make shit up when we don't understand something, and what we make up is invariably based on what we learned perviously (including the idea that God might be doing it). None of which the believers want to admit could be causing any of it.
Claiming, "You can't disprove it, so it might be real.", is pointless and meaningless. It can be applied to "anything", as long as it doesn't presume to effect the real world in some way. The problem for God is, everyone insists he "does" have tangable effects on the world, but there is no evidence that he so much as nudges an occational grain of sand, let alone doing any of the ridiculous stuff people claim he is doing all the time. So, explain to all of us just how he is any more likely in the real world than waking up tomorrow to find Bugs Bunny on the end of my bed saying, "What's up doc?"
Oh, and as for the Bible.. I have found "truths" in most of the literally hundreds of Fantasy and Sci-Fi novels I own and some TV shows and movies like Star Trek have a *way* better track of making prophetic predictions about what technologies we might have or what events might transpire than the Bible ever has. And that's presuming you are even reading enough versions of it, enough history about it or enough religious and historical texts from other places to realize that its social "truths" are sometimes completely wrong, if never the less currently widely excepted, completely ignored when people "do" recognize some of them as wrong, more or less universal when they do make some sort of sense and don't need to arise out of religion or because God told people about them.
And as for charity. The same call for that by religion often comes with very specific pre-conditions, even to the point of some groups refusing to help people during the psunami "unless" they first converted. Nor is it a selfless act, as charity is supposed to be. Most of those people would, if asked, have the same response they give to atheists when describing a world without a God. They would not only keep their money, they would happilly tell you that without God they would find no moral reason to not simply steal yours. Don't believe me? Take a look around a bit, I am sure some post on here, or its comments had examples of idiots saying precisely this. Religions promote charity because the "religion" says people should be charitable and God likes that. Without those two factors, a large portion of the charitable people you talk about wouldn't give a dime, because they have no "real" moral compass at all, beyond, "God wants me to do it."
This is even more obvious in cases of charity that are completely fake, where people funnel millions into some nut that claims God wants to them to give and less then 10% of that money ever gets to the people that need it. People still give, because the only "morals" they have are derived from what the nut tells them they are achieving, tells them God wants them to do and tells them they should be thinking.
Sheep was a good word to use for these sorts of people. Especially since most of them never look past the moment they open their pocket books to give, at the long term goals. Its all short term. Don't cure drug addicts, just given them food, a place to sleep and preech at them. Net result, maybe 5% of them stop using, but nation wide you have 25% *more* than you did the month before. Once the money changes hands and they "think" they have done something good, what happens after for most of them is someone else's problem. And then there are the assholes that will give 50% of their income to a shelter for abused women, but turn around and insist that ones that are unwed mothers or on drugs be "thrown out". Such people only help those they think the can convert or are already "part" of the whole religious system. Just like the clowns that keep sending me emails about how, "if I am a good Christian", they, being fellow Christians will help me erase my debts. WTF? Is the rest of the planet somehow undeserving of help?
As James Madison said, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servality in the laity; in both, bigotry, and persecution."
I see nothing today that implies, when looking at the whole of the institution of religion, that this is not still the case, even if one can find, within the bounds of single examples, cases where this isn't true. Such instances are the exception proving the greater reality and stand only so long as you do not present something that sufficiently offends those that seem to be the exception. Offend them and most will prove as bigotted and prone to persecution as all the rest, with very few exceptions.
Many people on here "started out" in the world where this sort of bigotry was common and most have probably read the Bible and other texts "far" more completely than you have. To them, your claims of either the Bible's moral code or the grand ideals of the religious are pure nonsense. All their religion gives them is carefully selected bits of text that justify what ever bigotry, injustice and self superiority they apply to those they deem beneath them.
Nothing brings out charity in people like religion does.
The only way 'charity' inspired by desire for heaven/fear of hell is distinct from taxation is that you are exchanging real punishment/reward for an imagined one. The psychology in the case of the believer are equivalent. If people are really doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, religion makes zero difference.
*******************
"If people are really doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, religion makes zero difference."
*******************
I couldn't disagree more. I'm not religious but I grew up in a religious household just like your friend Bertrand Russell. Religion def brings people together.
Kagehi:
*******************
"No, they are going to try to shove nonsense like ID in everyplace to promote their extreme versions of of anti-science religion"
*******************
Well, even the Vatican newspapers say that's wrong.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm
Also, I grew up going to church every Sunday (trust me I hated it) and I've never met anyone that didn't believe in evolution. I've seen them on TV but not in real life. Of course I grew up in middle-upper class roman catholic neighborhoods so that might be a factor. I'm not really going to extrapolate more as I really shouldn't even be making this reply due to time reasons.
*******************
"Your argument seems to be the same one scientists have, unfortunately, been using for the last century and a half, that one should simply ignore the stupidity around them and just do the science. The problem with that stance is simply this, it doesn't work, since our enemies are not going to, "ignore the science around them and just do religion"."
*******************
Preemptive strike? hrm............ you are starting to sound like some neo con president I know.
*******************
"The point you miss, by complaining about "how" these things are titled,"
*******************
What you miss is that I complained that the posts/articles were of little or no content. It seems like this is a breeding ground of hate not knowledge. I read all of those posts and learned NOTHING. I will admit that the replies to the posts were of some value. I was simply saying that the #1 science blog listed by nature should be of some educational value.
ugh...... alright boys. I'm 99% sure I'm done here. Thanks for the convo. Interesting debate for sure.
So...does lack of religion drive people apart? Are atheists lonely and isolated?
Religion does not bring people together. It sets up artificial barriers to push them apart, and form tribal clumps.
Extra points off for mentioning 'ad hominem' in the same paragraph you commit one. Apparently you're a hypocrite as well.
Failure to address the question, weak excuse. Are you agnostic towards invisible pink unicorns, or are you atheistic towards them?
Are you agnostic towards leprechauns, or are you ataheistic towards them?
Blue fairies?
China teapot in orbit?
Sure, like the part about bats being a type of bird, and insects having four legs. It's a long book, I'm not surprised that some truth accidentally slipped in somewhere. Go preach somewhere else.
Thank you PZ for following up with another installment on the Smalkowski case.
The old 'Nazis were atheists' falsehood. My but you're ignorant. What sort of 'special rights' does Christianity earn for the Inquisition? The Crusades?
The point I've seen is that you are poorly informed, but out of generosity choose to share your ignorance with the world; and you prefer to change the subject when you cannot or will not answer questions. Is that the point you were trying to make?
So what? So do race hatred, terrorism, homophobia, jingoism, and the New York Yankees.
If you want to make a point, at least try to make one that it isn't completely vapid.
The fact that you can't find any content in the #1 science blog in the world is your problem, not everyone else's. And I don't know why you think we should give your apparent conceit that hating on evil people is some kind of unforgivable character flaw any serious consideration whatsoever.
What the hell does this mean? special rights?
I guess the Methodists should be overwhelmed with special rights then.
How vapid.
Bachalon:
Hey, someone astute enough to understand my point. Congratulations. Yes, those beliefs of his aren't directly related to his atheism, just as such beliefs aren't directly related to Christianity, either. You've proven yourself smarter and wiser than the rest of the average religion-bashers on this blog.
Well, that was short-lived, wasn't it? Welcome back to square one.
Barry:
Interesting. Funny how us theists don't get away with such things when someone on our side does or says something stupid. Ah, well. Expecting religion-bashers to be consistent and apply the standards to which they hold theists to themselves is an exercise in futility. Yep. When Hitler claimed he was a Christian, well, that's all that matters. When he started behaving completely antithetically to Christian beliefs, he was still acting as a Christian and we're stuck with him (according to religion-bashers anyway - like these idiots). We don't get to "drop him," right?
Hitler wasn't behaving antithetically to Christian beliefs; his ideas about Germany and its place in the world and relation with other groups are strikingly similar to what the Old Testament says about the establishment of the Israelite Kingdom.
More the next time you open your fool mouth.
Jason:
Well, the then-Pope (Pius XII) seemed to think he was acting like a good Christian. The Catholic and Protestant churches and political parties were more than willing to keep on supporting him, no matter how many Jews, gays, liberals or communists he killed.
I think many people here would have a more charitable view of Christianity if Christians had "dropped" Hitler. Personally, I think it's a little late to start doing so now.
wacki: How can a scientist say he knows something doesn't exist? She does so by showing how its purported properties are inconsistent with our background knowledge, for one. (Only if you think - wrongly - that science is mere fact gathering - would one think that background information is irrelevant.) For example, we can say with confidence that we know that homeopathic "remedies" won't have any non-placebo effect, whence it is correct to say there's no such thing as a homeopathic remedy.
If a hundred million Germans had "dropped" Hitler when he started to get too wacky, the history of the 20th century would have been quite different.
Also, could you explain how Hitler's quest for genocide was antithetical to Christian beliefs? In a way that does not contradict the Old Testament, where God punished his people for not being thorough enough in their commission of genocide?
I think people often miss the most important point about Hitler and Christianity. It's not whether Hitler was himself a Real Christian (TM), but whether his followers were more or less typical Christians. They were.
Hitler wouldn't be interesting if he'd just been a lone loon on a soapbox. The interesting fact is that millions of perfectly normal Christians were quite ready for his evil crap, and he could use them to kill millions of Jews, gays, commies, etc.
Perhaps most of these people weren't Real Christians (TM), but if not, most weren't Real Nazis (TM), either. They were just normal Christians, normal people, and people are gullible and incredibly dangerous in large numbers.
Unfortunately, Christianity doesn't fix that, as many people would expect; it's a piss-poor guide to moral behavior. That's why the Holocaust was so shocking and terrifying. Few people thought that one of the most advanced, civilized and Christian societies in the world could descend into such systematic barbarism. Christianity didn't help much, and hurt quite a bit.
A late friend of mine barely survived the Holocaust because some "Good Christians" in Poland decided to hide him from the Nazis so that they could use him as a slave on their farm. (If he didn't accept the life of a half-starved field slave, sleeping in the barn and being worked to death slowly, they'd turn him over to the Nazis, who'd kill him much faster.) Then he was turned over to the Nazis by "Better Christians" who didn't approve of such arrangements; they took it upon themselves to conduct Jew hunts, and eventually found him and turned him over. They didn't much like occupying Nazis, but at least the Nazis knew what to do with Christ-killers---at least they were Christian, and stood up for the superiority of Christianity.
Hitler's success was largely due to millions of Christians more or less like that who either supported him or didn't actively oppose him because at least he was a "Christian" fighting the unChristian enemies---Jews, commie atheists, homos or whatever. Millions of Christians bought in, at least a little bit---turning blind eyes, going along to get along, etc.
Sure, religion "brings people together"---it provides a bogus framework for us/them distinctions for people to rally around and oppress each other. It muddies the philosophical waters, so that essentially anything can be excused, somehow, and any motivation for resistance to evil can be substantially undercut.
(Of course, people can find other bogosities to rally around, such as Marxism-Leninism, and do the same general kind of damage. From this, some people argue that Stalin or Pol Pot was even worse than Hitler, so Religion must be Good. Yikes. Surely we can learn a more subtle lesson than that, i.e., that there's something profoundly wrong with both.)
*******************
"Your argument seems to be the same one scientists have, unfortunately, been using for the last century and a half, that one should simply ignore the stupidity around them and just do the science. The problem with that stance is simply this, it doesn't work, since our enemies are not going to, "ignore the science around them and just do religion"."
*******************
Preemptive strike? hrm............ you are starting to sound like some neo con president I know.
Preemptive?!? Maybe I should have been clearer. In the past two centuries, longer if you go back to people like Galileo, "religion" has been systematically attacking the people and their ideas that contradict religious dogma. Scientist have, until fairly recently, taken the stance that they can ignore the loud mouth idiots in the world, because its not worth wasting their time and effort to challenge every idiotic thing they come up with. Science tended to progress **despite** these kinds of people. Since even before Bush got elected though, in the last maybe 20 years, the anti-science crowd has gained power and influence they didn't previously have, and they have been using it, along with mass media and other tools that scientist are incompetent at, to systematically attack anything and everything that isn't precieved as *useful* to them, but is percieved as somehow dangerous or anti-religious. Now you have the gall to claim that we are launching a "preemptive" strike against the army of barbarian and madmen that now have the scientific community virtually sieged from every side?
So, at what point isn't it preemptive? When they breach the walls and successfully get ID into school, when they change the constitution to include definitions for marriage and "adjust" the establishment clause to exclude those that don't respect mythology, when one of my nieces is dying from cervical cancer because some asshole didn't want to prescribe an injection that he thought might, "promote sexual activities be getting rid of one of the dangers", or should we wait until **THIS** happens:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/just_another_salem.php
Only someone gets killed and thrown into a ditch or sent to jail. At what point are we "allowed" to fight back with the truth, in the face of idiots trying to break down the doors and walls?
The very idea of comparing the rightious indignation, anger and agressive defense of truth, in the face of endless lies, "preemptive" at this point is nothing short of the same kind of idiocy that some people espoused in WWII, when suggesting the US shouldn't "ever" get involved in some over sea war and appose the Nazis. No, I take that back, this is *worse*. Its happing in our own @#$#$#@ country.
You want to keep your head up our backside, fine. Don't even try to suggest that the rest of us would, or should, appreciate the view it gives you.
That should be "head up 'your' backside". BTW, just so you don't get confused.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/07/faith_and_reaso.html
Faith versus reason.
Criticism in not the same a persecution.
No one in this country is perscuting christians.
Being mocked and asked to defend your beliefs is not it.
Jason: was Luther acting "anti-thetically to Christianity" when he penned "On the Jews and Their Lies"? Have Christians "dropped him" as a result? As somone else already said, whether Hitler was a Real Christian or not (by definitions of Christian not chosen to assume the desired conclusion) is almost irrelevant to the Holocaust: Hitler was able to tap into a deep vein of European anti-semitism, which had been nurtured and encouraged by most of the churches for centuries.
To forestall your expected paranoid whinging: I do not "blame" all Christianity for Hitler, Luther, Torquemada or any other nasty one might mention (how could I? I was a Christian for many years). Nor do I claim that religion uniquely or universally makes people bad. Some it does, some it probably makes better. In general, the fundamentalist form undoubtedly encourages tribalism, which makes one kinder to members of the "in" group, but cruel to outsiders. Truly charitable behaviour to non-believers, in which it is not a concious part of a proselytization strategy, is rare.