Critics of the godless have a powerful weapon at their disposal: prayer. I know I dread the possibility that some clever opponent might counter my arguments by dropping to their knees and mumbling at an imaginary friend.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Forgive me, readers, but Madeline Bunting has raised up her tiny, fragile pin-head again, and I must address her non-arguments once more. Well, not her non-arguments, actually, but the same tedious non-arguments the fans of superstition constantly trundle out. She was at some strange conference…
A few months ago, I wrote about my "issues" with the Dawkins/Dennett anti-religion campaign, which concluded:
Dawkins and Dennett simply cannot understand the impulse to cling to an antiquated belief system not grounded in fact. (They seem incapable of recognizing that religion, despite its myriad…
I've been holding off on commenting about the anti-religion campaign being spearheaded by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett for a number of reasons. But I find myself growing increasingly frustrated with it and I finally feel compelled to put in my two cents.
Initially I hesitated to speak out…
I've largely been ignoring their stupid lately. But the sheer idiocy of a ID "mathematician" Granville Sewell takes the cake for this truly idiotic straw-man argument.
It starts with an interesting question though:
I speculated on what would happen if we constructed a gigantic computer model…
Scary, funny, and strange.
I don't think they are too well organized. After all, they are trying to organize teenagers...
I tried to join, to start my own Christian Battle Plan. But the same thing happened as when I tried to join the discussion list at Uncommon Descent. Nothing.
Their defenses appear to be impenetrable. Or, their software sucks.
Gads...when I did my "Paint the Moon" project five years ago, at least I *knew* that it was a lyrical fantasy art project designed simply to get people to share a dream. These loons actually think that super-coordinated, concentrated prayer is going to make the Blasphemy Challenge go 'poof'.
Yeesh.
Jim D
Can someone summarize what's going on in the article? PZ's description is a bit vague, and the article is blocked here at work as "personal pages or profanity". Considering Dailykos is blocked as extreme politics, I'm beginning to wonder about our network admin being a loony.
If you really believe that prayer is efficacious, would you waste your effort on a silly internet thing, or would you ask your god for help with things like poverty, war, and disease? The least I would ask for would be a lottery win (I know, buying tickets might be a better strategy).
BattleCry:
Oh what to do!? Should we educate our youth to think more critically, so that they may be less easily deceived by such charlatans? Nah, 'tis far better to seduce and enslave them with religion instead! Duh!
Summary: Apparently a group which is appalled by the blasphemy challenge, of which you may have heard, is organizing as many people as possible to pray against it at the same time. If that link does not work perhaps this one, linked directly to the site will work.
Bowerbird:
There's an organised pray-in on Friday for all the people taking the Blasphemer's Challenge, to make sure that they don't become Satanists.
Because, clearly, "not believing in the supernatural" is the same as "worshipping Satan".
TheBowerBird, maybe this link will work for you. PZ's link goes to Brian Flemming's site where he says something similar to what PZ says and links to here:
http://living-in-grace.blogspot.com/2007/01/all-parents-urgent-need-for…
Some folks are trying hatch a plot (commit a farce?) to pray for the "lost" folks en masse for the hours between noon and 1:00pm "your local time," as a response to the blasphemy challenge.
You know, it would be kinda funny if the Blasphemy Challenge folks took down their videos briefly on Friday, then put them back up an hour or so later, just to mess with the heads of these people.
The dork side of the farce.
(disclaimer: not my idea; don't quote me for it)
I'm sorta struck by how many of the responses to this call for spiritual battle are sarcastic, negative and dismissive. There doesn't seem to be much indication that a big pray-in is a popular idea. Maybe everyone really knows just how pointless it is... (just hoping).
Thanks for the sum/links everyone. Looks like I need to record a little video for the challenge this afternoon in order annoy those folks a bit more : ) I love it how the "Living in Grace" site uses warlike language to describe what they are doing... "This is a battle!" Just don't call it a crusade.
Teh Funny, isn't it?
"pray for the "lost" folks en masse for the hours between noon and 1:00pm "your local time,""
Shouldn't they be using Greenwich Mean Time to get the biggest bang for their god-bothering? Sidereal time? The theological implications o'erwhelm me.
So their response to the blasphemy videos is an act of sorcery?
Not particularly impressive.
Prayer no jutsu?
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks you shouldn't be able to claim 'training in spiritual battle' until you've demonstrated an ability to make your enemies' heads explode with raw spirit...
Nah, their response is to talk about prayer, because it's more talked about than done. (I wish they would stop talking about it, then!)
Why do they care what other people do? Because it's an opportunity to show off how pious they are. They're supposed to go into a closet to pray, not build websites and wring their class rings, hoping for an "Oprah" gig.
And maybe this is a way to hook up with other Christian guys/gals. (I had to attend those Christian youth conventions and I know what goes on. Believe me.)
Don't laugh, you reality-based heathens (or pagans). Just remember that in 1985 the new-agers joined together in the "harmonic convergence" and just 4 years later the USSR disappeared. How do you explain that? :)
Shouldn't they be using Greenwich Mean Time to get the biggest bang for their god-bothering?
They probably considered it, but realized that their people would get confused by the whole Daylight Savings Time issue.
The blogger has gone though:
Removal of a kidney
6+ mis-carriages
2 c-sections
Hysterectomy
Kidney Failure and Dialysis
I feel bad for her, I admire her optimism and her determination to get better, but I don't understand what she gets out of believing in God. Good things happen, bad things happen and, for her, it's all part of God's plan. Without God, the good and bad things would still happen. Nothing would change. So get rid of him. He's excess baggage.
Just thought of something funny some geek with less of a life could try for a YouTube video: Have someone start off with a Blasphemy Challenge and get interrupted by a guy with a Naruto-style ninja headband (with a cross instead of a hidden village symbol), and go through a bunch of prayer hand signs to some actiony music. The Blasphemer gives him a funny look and continues the video.
So get rid of him. He's excess baggage.
Yeah! Throw the bum out!
God needs to get a real job!
Audience: "Woot! Woot! Throw him out!"
Now there's an Oprah show I'd watch.
Shouldn't they be using Greenwich Mean Time to get the biggest bang for their god-bothering?
No. See, by having everyone pray in their local time zone, you create a massive "prayer wave" sweeping across the planet from east to west. As this prayer wave moves across time zones, each successive wave peak adds its "prayermentum" to the next. When it hits the International Date Line, enough excess energy has been accumulated to send prayer flares hurtling off through space to the throne of God. This is required to offset the background praydiation with which God is normally bombarded. Note that it takes the accumulated prayermentum of the entire Eurasian landmass simply to cross the Atlantic, but America -- the Godliest place on Earth -- generates sufficient prayer energy to carry the signal across the Pacific.
It should be noted that the wave propagation of prayer is another technological marvel we owe to the Islamic World -- they've been using a similar technique for centuries. However, there are some important differences: Muslims eschew imprecatory prayers, so it's primararily for show. They haven't harnessed the awesome power of prayer. Also, by focusing their prayers on Mecca, a large amount of prayer energy is lost underground in the Middle East, where it is converted to petroleum reserves or burned off in the form of political violence.
Lots of excellent coments over at the Living In Grace blog. I added my own, with a little blasphemy tossed in.
HP, that is the best thing I have read all week.
HP - You ignorant Heretic! No, you have it all wrong! The Proper Prayer Wave, will go from west to east, NOT east to west! That way the prayermentum will mysticaly align with George W. Bush, Pat Roberson, Jerry Falwell and all the other "right-thinking" members of Gods Own Party.
BTW, if you do not recant your blasphemy, be prepared to have the Prayermentum wash you away with another God-Powered Tidal Wave.
HP, you've opened my eyes! I've always wondered why Muslims face Mecca (or, in space, the angels circling in orbit above it) while praying.
But since Christians pray in any old direction, or in a ring around the dinner table, doesn't most of the praying cancel itself out due to destructive interference?
I would echo Steve Watson, go over to "Living in Grace", and get your blasphemy in firts - I did ....
Apikoros, only Muslim prayers are unidirectional, because they prostrate themselves in order to take advantage of ground-level effects. Christian prayers are directed primarily upward in a cardioid pattern through the judicious use of hand placement. Prayer waves are propagated primarily through the ionosphere.
Here's a fun fact: You may have noticed that Indian Standard Time is at GMT+5:30 -- a half-hour displacement. This was established when it was discovered that Hindu interference caused a 50% decrease in prayer-wave amplitude over the subcontinent.
I don't understand the concept of having masses of people all praying at the same time. I for one can't stand it when even two people try to talk to me at the same time. When my kids do that, I have to tell them, "One at a time please!" They should have all the godders sign up for one minute time slots in which they can pray. Otherwise, they'll just be one big screaming mob and their non-existent deity won't be able to make out what they're saying. Even if they're all supposed to say the same prayer, I just don't see them getting perfectly in synch with each other.
Of course, they might end up doing a "row row row your boat" kind of thing, where one group starts out, and the next group joins in, then the next group, and so on. That would be kinda nice.
group one: Dear god we pray, dear god we pay. Drive all the satanists away. We ask....
group two: Dear god we pr.....
director: Group two, you came in too late!
group two: No, we came in when you told us to!
director: Now we've gotta start ALL OVER AGAIN!
Everyone should check out the comments from this prayer battle. I don't know if God is going to smite the blasphemers, but the attempt has brought out a very creative group with great eloquent and witty comments. Wonderful lunchtime entertainment!
http://living-in-grace.blogspot.com/2007/01/all-parents-urgent-need-for…
Kristine wrote:
--And maybe this is a way to hook up with other Christian guys/gals. (I had to attend those Christian youth conventions and I know what goes on. Believe me.)--
Oh, too true. When I was involved in Xian groups as a young teen, hooking up was *definitely* on the agenda. It was the main agenda. Wait, was there any other agenda? I forget now.
If only Sisyphus had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal saviour, he could have prayed that effin' boulder up the mountain in no time, and it would have stayed there!
Martin
Oh, too true. When I was involved in Xian groups as a young teen, hooking up was *definitely* on the agenda. It was the main agenda. Wait, was there any other agenda? I forget now.
Or when the D.A.R.E. folks had get-togethers at the local college during the summer, most of them spent their free time getting drunk.
BowerBird
I'm beginning to wonder about our network admin being a loony.
I suspect that your admin is just lazy, and uses "off-the-shelf" filtering. At least some of the filters are heavily entangled with conservative Xians. All of them suck sewage from the bottom of the tank for blocking sites for no apparent reason. Visit peacefire.org for some hilarious details (of course, Peacefire is blocked by all self-respecting filters....)
The only way to stop this horrible plan of attack is to confuse them! The next people to make a blasphemy video need to be more subtle about it. Say something like:
"I deny that I deny that I deny that I deny the denial of the holy spirit."
Their brains will all consecutively explode before they can figure out that you are indeed denying the holy spirit.
Dangit, now the living-in-grace blogspot is gone.
Just when I was looking for entertainment.
My hope for the world is that people start being more rational. Not getting lost in the foggy, boggy swamp of superstitious beliefs would be a great place to start.
By the way, totally off-topic, but did anyone else hear about the ideas behind GM's new concept car, the Volt? What a great idea! Now THAT is rational thinking. If they could combine this idea with time-of-day based electric meters on homes, we could DRASTICALLY reduce our energy consumption.
And I bet no one even prayed for the Volt. Go figure.
Well apparently you all caused the prayer waves to implode on themselves with all your negative satanist energy because now the site doesn't show up. But I did get te Battle Cry link. It also talked about Teen Mania which is another conservative christian teen movement, I even used to go to them when I was a teenager. Looking back on it I remember when there was one video presentation where a guy asked "random" teens on the street what they thought about jesus and one punk rocker kid (with a mohawk no less) said he was "an overglorified deadman on a stick." The place eruped in anger with teens shouting at the video screen. Looking back on that I'm given cause to laugh and at the same time, worry.
Sorry all, I may be part of the reason that the Living in grace blog isn't available anymore. I posted a very blasphemous comment, and then I pointed out to the blogger that since she had provided the venue for me to air my anti-religious views, she was an accomplice in my so-called "crime", and her non-existent god would hate her and send her to hell for letting me say such nasty things about him on her blog. About 20 minutes later, the blog was gone.
Of course, I may just be a victim of thinking that correlation=causation, (something I usually try to avoid). After all, mine wasn't the only blasphemous comment there.
Damn, that blog was good entertainment too!
It is possible, just possible, that the woman who operated the blog never expected when she woke up this morning to read such a deluge of blasphemy, and shut down her blog with hurt feelings.
What she gets out of it is the belief - the assurance and reassurance - that it's all for some point, that her sufferings will earn her something wonderful sometime somewhere. It's not excess baggage, it's a promise that all the crap means a fabulous pony - after she's dead. A lot of people need that.
I like this quote from Brookmyre's Not the End of the World:
Most people don't want to go backstage. They want the illusion - so much they refuse to hear you when you point out how much bigger the world is than the stage...
The blog still exists; it's just that one post which is gone.
So I gather that her faith, such as it is, was not strong enough to withstand one wee (written) set of disagreements? How sad. Poor little hurt feelings. Perhaps she should grow a backbone instead of leaning on her Sky Fairy.
Alternately, she was afraid we were going to show up and burn a cross...er, ah...what do athiests and agnostics burn on your lawn when they're unhappy with you and has this ever happened ANYWHERE?
I tend to find that a long-suffering look is sufficient without the need to resort to combusting things, but perhaps others have better ideas?
Morph
Don't laugh, you reality-based heathens (or pagans). Just remember that in 1985 the new-agers joined together in the "harmonic convergence" and just 4 years later the USSR disappeared. How do you explain that? :)
And look at how Morrison managed to save "The Invisibles". Perhaps mass prayer will work, although Morrison's way is more fun...
What timing!
Why do you think there's no evidence of God intervening in human affairs? Millennia of mass prayers have driven God into a state of irreversible catatonia.
what if there's a bunch of satanists praying just as hard against them?
prayer combustion?
Prayer Thunderdome! Two religion enter! One religion leave!
... Still no word back from prayer central. They apparently do not want me to be a soldier of christ...
Made me think of the bumper sticker I saw once: "I'm Pro-Life and I Pray". Naturally, my reaction was, "Well I kill babies and my prayer cancels yours out!"
The blog still exists; it's just that one post which is gone.
....and comment moderation has been enabled ;-).
I feel a bit sorry for her -- medically she's been through a lot, and no doubt her faith gives her comfort and strength. Staying sane and happy in adversity is no small thing, and it would be inhumane of me to mock whatever psychological games people have to play with themselves to maintain it -- as long as they realize that it is their form of self-therapy. But when they start insisting that I must practice the same thing, or submit to laws that in some way emerge from the same system of make-believe, then I think they lose the right to expect that kind of forbearance from me.
Blake Stacey writes,
"It is possible, just possible, that the woman who operated the blog never expected when she woke up this morning to read such a deluge of blasphemy, and shut down her blog with hurt feelings."
Absolutely right, Blake. I read some of the comments posted to her blog before she took that post down. I have to wonder why many of the people who posted there care so much about her blog. What does it hurt you if people pray to a God you don't believe exists? Let it go. Who cares?
And why you felt the need to be school yard bullies about it on her blog is beyond me. All you did was reinforce the stereotype that Christians have about you. If you are going to be bullies, fine. Be bullies. But next time you complain that Christians stereotype you as mean, think of that woman's experience with atheists. Maybe that's her only experience with atheists. What kind of people does she think atheists are?
Ditto what Squeaky said via Blake Stacey's comment. I didn't get a chance to read the comments before it was shut down, but reading her blog and seeing what people admitted to writing on it, I have to ask, "What was your point?" Maybe it's not my style to go around posting on religious people's blogs (I argue with people I know or who want to argue)but even if I did, I wouldn't tell her her "non-existent god is going to send to her hell..." There are people with feelings behind these blogs, and she seems to be going through a hard time, no less. Perhaps before assaulting a blog with comments, some consideration should be made; is this how atheists want to be perceived? If not, keep the joking here, at the very least. Now, people like Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, et al. - I consider them fair game.
Made me think of the bumper sticker I saw once: "I'm Pro-Life and I Pray". Naturally, my reaction was, "Well I kill babies and my prayer cancels yours out!"
I've got a better one. "I'm a baby and I cry, pee, poop, drool, cough at 2 AM--and that's before the coming rebellion."
I'm going to disagree with the people who deplore the comments on her site. She opened up her position to public discussion, and that means differing opinions will be expressed. She should give the axe to disruptive or purely abusive comments, sure, but claiming that she has been unfairly oppressed is too much.
I get creationists popping up here and in my email all the time — are they "bullies", too? Is it OK for the religious to pester scientists and atheists on their blogs because, after all, they don't have feelings and never go through hard times? There is a real double standard in place, an unwarranted special pleading for religion.
I have ZERO sympathy for that woman's feelings about religion. If she wants to sit home quietly and pray, I won't disturb her. When she goes public and uses her religion as an excuse to complain about other people's beliefs, she has to expect others to do likewise about her.
Observer Done Said:
Agreed. There are also people with feelings behind those YouTube videos, but she did disagree with them. She disagreed enough to ask her god to yank their little chains back into line.
That is unbelievably insulting. I don't perceive that it requires too much beyond an insult in return. She's certainly unable to listen to reasonable argument and I doubt that she was shocked enough to reconsider her position. She might have been, however.
Much as PZ The Wise said above, if you can't stand the heat, don't blog. A meme is a terrible thing to waste.
Tolerance is grand. My tolerance ceases the instant you step on my toes, however.
Morph
PZ, I sincerely apologize for every nasty thing any Christian has ever said to you. I don't blame you for being miffed that Christians constantly e-mail you about creationism or whatever. You ask "are they bullies, too?" Some, yes. It is one thing to respectfully present your opinion, but many of the messages I read on that women's site were unecessarily degrading and rude. If that's the kind of e-mails you get from Christians, then yes, that is bullying, too. I abhor that behavior no matter who it comes from, and I'm surprised and disappointed that you don't as well.
If you want people to think that atheists are not the mean-spirited people that many Christians stereotype them as, then don't act like a mean-spirited person. And if you don't want to do that, fine. That's your choice. But quit complaining about how mischaracterized atheists are if you are not willing to show people how wrong they are.
That women's blog may be public and up for the whole world to see and use. The library is public and open for the whole world to see and use, too. But if someone scribbled grafitti on the building, very few people would consider that enlightened behavior.
Morph,
If someone steps on your toe, turn to him the other toe.
I'm beginning to see that with the internet comes the loss of civility. This is a very sad development in human history. And we wonder why we can't stop war and injustice. We can't even be respectful to perfect strangers.
Squeaky Squeaked:
I don't think anyone said that she was "unfairly oppressed." And sure, people have the right to respond and ought to, but the unnecessarily rude and degrading comments, which Squeaky and Blake spoke of, just make whoever made them look like stupid high school bullies. That's all. I feel the same way about a lot of comments on Daily KOS - I'm cringe at some of my fellow liberals' comments.
Satan is not a Scientist. But, per the descriptions in the literature, he has a tremendous database of pragmatic Psychology. Although not a Mathematician, he seems interested in the number 666. Although not a Chemist, he seems interested in the element Sulfur. Satan is not a Scientist, but he does remind me of some Department Chairmen and Deans I have suffered under.
Some of the comments over there went, well, beyond my comfort level into deliberate crudity which IMO is immature, and in any case irrelevant to the central point about the existence of God, and the right to deny such. But only some.
Re Squeaky's comment about grafitti on the library: not applicable. Grafitti on the walls is vandalism, whereas an open comment space on a blog is explicitly intended for public reaction. Moderation is legitimate, as is toasting certain comments or posters -- but no one is entitled to an a priori immunity to negative feedback on a controversial subject. Not PZ, not me, not you - and not the LiG blogger.
She wanted to prevent people from saying insulting things about her religion (albeit For Their Own Good, of course). To my mind, the only difference between that and an imam with a fatwa is that her method can do direct harm.
Morpheus Morphed:
"...so he can step on that as well. I could manage this if people were able to practice as they preach. Universally they are not. Myself included."
'Tis a good point, to be sure. However, to say that we should abandon doing good because no one else will do good is very defeatist. What if we assumed doing good would bring out good in others? Seems to me that we have some good examples of this in history--non-violence was at the heart of MLK and Ghandi's movements, and they seemed to actually succeed. By persisting in non-violence, they showed the violent offenders for the brutes they are. Treat others the way you wish to be treated whether they deserve it or not (unless, of course, you are a masochist).
As for the person at Living in Grace:
"At best she's asking for a complete technical failure to get rid of all those people's videos--which they had every right to make. At worst, she's asking for a personality rewrite for all those people and that's akin to mental eugenics. Not to mention brainwashing."
It may be a public blog, but you have to realize who she directed those comments to. To other Christians, not to atheists. It wasn't her intent to offend you or anyone who disagrees with her.
And if you find her attitude threatening, I would have to ask why. If she really is asking God for "a complete technical failure to get rid of all those people's videos", or asking "for a personality rewrite" why does that worry you? She may very well be praying for those things, but if you don't believe in God, what does it matter what she asks of him, if you truly don't believe he exists to answer her?
Asking people to pray is completely different from asking people to send viruses through their computers or to kidnap those who made the videos. That is a threat, but that wasn't what she was asking.
I don't remember everything that she said, but I don't recall her using abusive language in her post. And if she did, then she is no better than a bully, either. There is a difference between expressing your opinion and insulting someone. Some responses showed respectful disagreement, while others were blatant and unecessary insults. The former responses showed very well that we humans are capable of expressing disagreement without insulting the person we disagree with. The former responses are responses that encourage open dialogue. The latter responses shut down dialogue.
Squeaky comes back with the tired old 'what did us poor ickle christians ever do to the uppity, shrill atheist? [/pout]', and the 'well, I'll pray for you' crap.
As for Observer's concern-trolling 'well, those Dailykossacks are just shrill lefties' bs, I'll just be nice and respond with a "Jail the Deciderer in Chief for war crimes" for good measure.
I might add, as well, to MorpheusPA, that the universal failure of adherence to 'preached practices' was a pivotal recognition in my young deconversion.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's omnipotence for you.
Squeaky, why do you equate "Christian" with "cre_ti_nist" and "Religious Wrong"? That's quite an insult to, for example, hundreds of millions of Europeans.
Concern trolling? WTH? I don't think you read very carefully, Stogoe. A pity. Try again.
And btw, my friend is a DailyKOS/YearlyKOS organizer and he knows my thoughts on DK. There are people who make great comments, and then some who sound like high schoolers (the commenters) no different than annoying right-wingers. Unfortunately, there's too much muck to wade through.
Stogoe: "Squeaky comes back with the tired old 'what did us poor ickle christians ever do to the uppity, shrill atheist? [/pout]', and the 'well, I'll pray for you' crap."
I reread my post, and nowhere do I say those words or even imply that attitude. I don't understand why any call for reasoned and respectful dialogue on this blog gets shot down. It may be that I have been wrongly assuming atheism=humanism. Philosophical blunder. My bad.
David Marganovic,
"Squeaky, why do you equate "Christian" with "cre_ti_nist" and "Religious Wrong"? That's quite an insult to, for example, hundreds of millions of Europeans."
Of course, you are correct. It is false that all creationists are Christians, and it is false that all Christians are creationists. I mis-wrote.
Observer: I just saw what seemed to be you tut tutting about the loud left - particularly that you cringe at what the kossacks say. I read it quickly, so it seemed to be just another compulsive centrist complaining about the dirty fucking internet hippies.
Squeaky: I'm sorry I'm not deferential enough to the 'massah religionists' for your tastes. Forgive me if I'm reticent to give to the hatebags the courtesy they've never given me.
As for atheism=humanism, you're right, they're not equal. I try hard to be a humanist, personally, but you might want to ask Caledonian about his views. He thinks we're meat. Delicious talking meat. But that's him (or rather, my lame attempt at reproducing his views).
Stogoe Wisely Said:
Quite. Now that the true colors are radiantly obvious, I need not answer. I never cared for seeing red or green with envy anyway.
Very much mine too. Hypocrisy gets my proverbial goat. By twelve I was definitely a non-organized-religion believer and flipped into Seeker mode. Secular Humanism filled the gap very well.
Not in the slightest but perhaps she's making the mistake of thinking that one either leads to or requires the other? And we are delicious talking meat, I'm sure. Within limits. Although basically a pacifist, a direct threat of harm means that physical retaliation is allowable.
I'd make a bad Quaker or Mennonite. Not that I care, although we have plenty of Mennonites and Quakers 'round these parts. Nice people. Too passive for my taste.
Morphine...er, Morpheus
Morpher:
"Quite. Now that the true colors are radiantly obvious, I need not answer. I never cared for seeing red or green with envy anyway."
Please explain what about me you have assumed. I don't see how a call for respectful dialogue should lead you to the hurried conclusion that Stogoe reached.
I think the reason I have thought atheism=humanism was that the first person I ever knew pretty well who was an atheist was also a humanist. Actually, he was an agnostic, so I suppose I made a double error--atheism doesn't equal agnosticism. Nor does agnosticism=humanism...
If we are to take Jesus' comments to turn the other cheek literally, one could argue that Jesus was a humanist....an interesting thesis, since my humanist friend was often dismissed by other Christians around me (not me, by the way) as being a (sneering voice) humanist.
The Squeakster Wrote:
Unnecessary; the red is getting stronger already. cf. above, the call for respectful dialog weighed 'gainst the fact that the response was to dialog that was not respectful. Discussion already complete barring new points.
Lord M "Proud To Be The 13th Letter of the Alphabet"
What dialog? The woman at Living in Grace's post? I don't really see what was disrespectful--too bad we can't go back and look at it. What I consider disrespectful is abusive language, and I don't remember any of that coming from her end.
What is it you think I'm defending? I'm not defending her position, other than she has the right to say what she wants on her blog (probably never expecting atheists would ever even venture into her little corner of Net space.) All I said was that the rude, abusive comments on her blog were entirely unwarranted and unecessary. Do people have the right to write what they want on her blog? Sure they do. But sometimes it comes down to treating people with DECENCY. The same decency you would want people to treat you with. And I would make the same exact point if I saw a Christian treating an atheist in the way this woman was treated.
Read her blog. Here's a woman who has clearly gone through a lot. Clearly she's a pretty gentle person. And then she gets treated that way by bullish, unthinking individuals who value being right more than they value the dignity of others. As a popular bumper sticker puts it "Mean People Suck." And I don't care if that mean person is an atheist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. No one who claims to be a nice person should ever treat another person in that way, nor should they stand by while others treat a person that way and do or say nothing.
So she offended you with her comments. Did it occur to you to explain to her why her stance is offensive to you? Or did you just write her off--oh, she won't understand anyway, so I might as well tell her that her father was a hamster and her mother smelled of elderberries.
It strikes me that people on both sides of this issue would rather point fingers and say "they started it" than they would open up their minds and listen to the perspectives from others. You sell yourself and others way too short when you take that route. Maybe that agnostic humanist friend of mine instilled too much of that nasty humanistic hope in humanity into me. Good for him, and me.
I mistyped: ...her method can do direct harm.
Damn. Make that: "...can do no direct harm".
Squeaky repititititiously said:
Redder again. I confess to idle curiously as to how long you're going to continue to repeat the same point, exactly...or is it that you feel the need for the Last Word? If so, reply identically one more time and I'll allow you the honor of it.
M
I suppose I am repetitititive because you don't bother to address my point. So I'll try this approach and ask some specific questions:
What did the woman say that truly warranted the abusive response she got?
If I understand you, her world view offends you. If this is correct, I then ask:
Is it possible to express disagreement with another person without resorting to abusive language?
DIVERSE VISUAL CYCLE PROTEINS ..
۞ This entry (CRALBP) defines the C-terminal of various retinaldehyde/retinal-binding proteins that may be functional components of the visual cycle. And has separate rac-specific and rho-specific guanine nucleotide exchange factor domains for the transport of secretory proteins from the golgi complex and alpha-tocopherol transfer protein of 13 anti-peptide polyclonal antibodies, the synthetic peptides leading to disruption of retinal vitamin-A metabolism by a G4763A nucleotide substitution for non-syndromic autosomal recessive retinitis pigmentosa (arRP).
This entry defines the N-terminal and has separate rac-specific and rho-specific guanine nucleotide exchange factor domains with anti-peptide polyclonal antibodies, the synthetic peptides leading to disruption of the 316-residue spacers + three major tryptic fragments positively regulated by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) multidomain protein Trio binds the LAR and vitamin-E that promote the ۞exchange of GDP for GTP. The C-terminal PSK domain is adjacent to an Ig-like domain. Near the N terminus, Trio has four spectrin-like repeats, lamellipodia produced were filled with ribs of filamentous actin isoforms of P-CIP10 Kalirin establishing the morphological phenotypic diversity between C and N-terminals, generated through use of different 5'- and 3'-ends. And terminates with a PDZ-binding motif encodes a putative Ser/Thr protein kinase antisera specific for different COOH termini demonstrates that the COOH-terminal region of Rab11-FIP2. Eps15 homology domain (EHD) 1 upon EHD1 knockdown enables membrane recycling by controlling the exit of internalized molecules from the endocytic recycling compartment (ERC) en route to the plasma membrane and delivering Rab11-FIP2 in mediating suppressed internalization of epidermal growth factor receptors and co-precipitates on the transferrin subsequent sorting of receptors. Where there was clear colocalization before shuffling the N-terminal domain of EHD1implicating the N-terminal domain, generated through use of different 5'- and 3'-ends implied by two-hybrid analysis may play coordinated roles in regulating plasma membrane recycling not significantly altered in HeLa cells uncharacterized as wild type DNA the 3' is always G (the 5' either G or C) as homologous (HeLa) the fraction of HeLa 3q13.31 16194 cell lysate. Divided into two distinct regions by single crystal x-ray diffraction.The N-terminal globular head and the C-terminal, and activities HeLa T cells, N-terminal-5' tails and tailess linear grouth kinetics, fraction of HeLa 3q13.31 from the nuclear fraction of HeLa 3q13.31 ۞ 16194 cell lysate. The site of the break on chromosome 3 is at 3p14.2 the discontinuity validated (human chromosome 3) and a human SNP view ambiguity page for reverants.
The dork side of the farce.
(disclaimer: not my idea; don't quote me for it)
Tsk, tsk, tsk. That's omnipotence for you.
Squeaky, why do you equate "Christian" with "cre_ti_nist" and "Religious Wrong"? That's quite an insult to, for example, hundreds of millions of Europeans.