This is getting ridiculous. Now I'm accused of "trying to drive a wedge between those who are against evolution" … because I think belief in angels and demons is absurd.
Damn. Just because someone accepts evolution doesn't automatically make them a good guy, and if they're praising evolution and at the same time babbling about demons causing appendicitis or angels warding off curses, they aren't on my side in the cause of increasing rationality.
I'm beginning to wonder if there is some psychological transference going on here. People who think that merely believing in Jesus grants them redemption must also think that believing in evolution is a magic charm that grants them exemption from criticism of any nonsense they might hold. It doesn't work that way. There is no get-out-of-criticism-free card.
- Log in to post comments
Isn't it time to stop calling the people we've previously referred to as "framing advocates" what they really are: Big Tenters?
There is no get-out-of-criticism-free card.
I am a strong believer in evolution and I think people who believe in demons are silly. But I do believe in get-out-of-criticism-free cards.
And now you're driving a wedge between us. :(
That's right.
And you can't drive a wedge between supporters of universal health care by starting a post about the evils of Nazi eugenics. Let's focussed. Skinheads have a voice in health policy debate, too! Shame on you, PZ!
Isn't it time to stop calling the people we've previously referred to as "framing advocates" what they really are: Big Tenters?
Please. This is a family blog.
It hurts their feelings when you say angels and the lord jesus are equally absurd.
It's funny that they think there's a difference.
Yes, first you attack angels as "unscientific." And then it's going to be demon possession. And ESP. And then Vitalism. And Healing Energy. Where does one draw the line between religion and pseudoscience? Where does the supernatural end and the paranormal begin? Let's all figure out where we take something seriously and analyze, and where we nod, smile, and "respect."
Dembski was clearly arguing that scientists were unfairly ignoring the existence of angels. And he's right. Ruling out the existence of angels because they're "religious" is wrong. Ruling them out because of the poor nature of the evidence for their existence, the excellent evidence in favor of alternative naturalist explanations for belief in them against their existence, and the subsequent application of Occam's principle of parsimony -- well, that's just fine.
It's funny that they think there's a difference.
Jesus has a beard but no wings. I think that's the key to telling them apart.
I have no idea what the ground rules are for posting on Panda's Thumb, which is the only issue I can imagine, but of course these idea are absurd. It doesn't hurt to point out that a lot of real-life Christianity involves all sorts of bizarre supernaturalist crap, not just a nice abstract, metaphysical deity sitting outside of space and time while occasionally sending us messages to love one another.
Great White Wonder, check out this picture of Bat Jesus:
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/210500/210615dIkh_w.jpg
There is no get-out-of-criticism-free card.
I thought that was what "but it's my religion!" was for...
PZ wrote: "People who think that merely believing in Jesus grants them redemption must also think that believing in evolution is a magic charm that grants them exemption from criticism of any nonsense they might hold. It doesn't work that way."
WHAT?!! Why have I been lighting all those candles in front of my Charles Darwin shrine all these years? And do you mean to tell me I've been sticking pins in my William Jennings Bryan doll for nothing?
"Where does the supernatural end and the paranormal begin? "
Different name, same thing.
So who or what do these religious people think created their imaginary demons and their boss, Satan? Either way, their god is at the root of all problems.
Religion is a philosophy of mental laziness and personal dishonesty.
"trying to drive a wedge between those who are against evolution"
Did you mean FOR evolution?
Dembski was clearly arguing that scientists were unfairly ignoring the existence of angels. And he's right.
Only in the most misleading way, because it assumes that there is convincing evidence for supernatural/paranormal/magic phenomena. For instance I doubt many people believe that just because a location, person or artifact is mentioned in the bible, it's religious and therefore doesn't exist.
But as science progresses, methodological naturalism has produced wonders and insights and technologies beyond our wildest dreams, while evidence for the religious, supernatural and mystic proves increasingly elusive, and better explained by natural phenomenon. I think it's fair to say that we should be at the point where the burden is on religion to justify it's foundations, not on science to justify it's own.
Dembski was clearly arguing that scientists were unfairly ignoring the existence of angels. And he's right.
remove the "unfairly", and THEN you are correct.
now if only everyone would just ignore Dembski himself.
Where does the supernatural end and the paranormal begin?
I believe that Pascal Boyuer (anthropologist) would say there is no dividing line.
The supernatural ends, and the paranormal begins, at the border of reality.
The supernatural stuff is all on the 'unreal' side of the border, and the paranormal is on the 'hypothetically possible" side.
Wow... I guess you must have touched a nerve or something. I might have expected one or two hostile responses, but I must say I was a little surprised at the volume of negative comments.
I guess you'll have to be careful in future to avoid pointing out the absurdity of absurd beliefs, otherwise you'll have more people wagging their fingers and telling you to "tone down the hatred".
The supernatural stuff is all on the 'unreal' side of the border, and the paranormal is on the 'hypothetically possible" side.
Right. How mush more "hypothetically possible" are ghosts over angels?
I lecture on the progression of angels in my Art History class. They go from being messengers to stand-ins for the praetorian guard . If you ever go to Ravenna (highly recommended day trip from Venice) visit Sant' Apollinare Nuovo and you'll see what I mean.
PZ isn't criticising demonology per se. He's criticising the quackery that demonology is.
Just like ID, these Christian demonologists have no tangible research program and instead rely on denialism, dogma and irrational belief to drive their already weak position (in light of perfectly acceptable naturalistic explanation).
They deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. What they are doing just isn't science. It's not even X-files level.
I don't get it. I'll admit that anything in the "supernatural" realm is hypothetically possible, but I choose not to accept any of it as true in the absence of evidence for it. What am I missing?
You better not go mocking the leprechaunists either.
Sheesh. They believe in angels. Screw 'em. If you still have an imaginary friend into adulthood, then there's something wrong with you. Why softpedal it? Besides, the modern-day greeting card angels have about as much to do with the Bible as Seinfeld does with Shakespeare.
From the first comment (Jedidiah somebody or another):
If? IF!?
I'll take selective recall for $500, Alex.
ahemm...Bill Maher...ahem
Well, for scale, I counted seven people clearly getting the vapours over the post, some fifteen unambiguously telling them to pull themselves together. At least one of the pallid and flustered I recognized as one of the usual suspects. Can't say this shocks me much. Yes, yes, I know, it's a post about people who believe in magical invisible beings with wings (specifically, in fact, an IDC luminary--assuming 'IDC luminary' isn't a contradiction in terms--who believes in magical invisible beings with wings). Yes, in the 21st century. Yes, and there are actually people who will actually argue you shouldn't go 'offending' such people by pointing out to them they are, in fact, starkers...
So no, no shock. Same crowd as always, I'd expect. Didn't recognize all of them, but then, my list is a bit of out date...
'Course, it's a funny thing how it got so out of date. I mean, I haven't been 'round the Thumb of late. Partly because all that incessant whinging was putting me off...
Guess that makes that lot all wedgeriffic or somethin', doesn't it? I mean, they drove me away. Mostly just by being sorta nauseating. Bastards.
Oh. Dear. I said 'bastards', didn't I? In mixed company.
Merciful heavens. Who's got the smelling salts. Have any of them fainted?
Seriously, in honesty, I was probably never much of a potential ally anyway. I don't get to Kansas much, or to a lot of school board meetings anywhere.
But geez, still, at least I know that, and just commenting as yer basic faceless and weightless internet commenter, I can't quite believe that lot. Quite the presumption, that. Hem hem hem... Your attention please... I feel this post is inappropriate. It offends my tender sensibilities...
Right. Noted. Now go away. I just ate.
Ha!
Bat Jesus? That's ridiculous. Jesus was teh raptor...
http://sweetraptorjesus2.ytmnd.com/
PZ shouldn't persecute these people.
I'm reminded of what a wise person once said.
First they came for the people who heard voices telling them to kill, and I said nothing,
Then they came for the people who believed they could fly, and I said nothing.
Then they came for the people who thought they were Napoleon and I said nothing.
Then they came for the people who believed in leprechauns, and I said nothing.
Then they came for the people who believed in demons, and I said nothing.
Then they came for the people who believed in angels, and nobody spoke up for me.
The accommodationists there went off half-cocked because of the way PZ formatted his post. The anti-sprite stuff was all they saw because they wouldn't come see the rest of it here where the relevance became clear.
The quote PZ gives here makes little sense by itself because it was an awkward sentence to start with. He stands accused of making it difficult for accommodationists to woo anti-evolutionists into joining the forces of science and light.
It's all part of that conspiracy to deceive the religious into believing that evolution is not a threat to their beliefs and the attendance rolls of their churches.
It was obvious to Darwin and he expended a lot of effort preparing for the reaction he expected. It was very obvious to his detractors in 1859 and it is obvious to them today.
It is passing strange that the PT types who consider themselves to be rational cannot accept that everyone, including Christians, really does know that belief in evolution requires careful adjustments and re-interpretations of popular Christianity. That or radical retreats to Spinoza's god or all the way to atheism.
The horse is out of the barn. It knows it and so does everyone else. Why should atheists have to be censored so the horse won't hear them speak about it?
Well put Dr. Myers. All ideas on the table of public discourse deserve criticism. The ones that survive the process are the strongest ideas, and most likely to have new ideas spring from their... loins? I encourage people to disagree with me, it can only strengthens my convictions, or show me where I'm wrong. People who fear criticism are people who fear their beliefs might be wrong.
This is really central to science, if you ask me. And nobody did.
I have yet to see it proven that there is something other than a physical universe. Period. Thus, I automatically reject the notion of a "spirit world." Miyazaki movies are fun and all, but at the end of the movie, you go back to the real world. There aren't witches; there aren't demons; there aren't Angels (or angels).
Why to superstitionists do this? They know who we are; we reject the notion of spirits. So they get hissy when we talk about it? Goofy.
You got accused of hating, PZ. But you weren't.
Just remember, over 50% of our population is willing to be suckered in by any number of things, and when you challenge it, they think you're nuts. I've heard many times, "Wow, God must have been protecting you."
Where was God or his angels (I'm sorry, Angels) on Sept 14 in Sacramento when one of the thugs involved in a home invasion decided to murder a 7 month old who was strapped in his car seat? Why hasn't one of these Angels caused the thug's car to not start when he was waiting for the light to change with a cop behind him? Where are these Angels in Iraq, who have failed so miserably there? Would Angels allow Karl Rove or Clarence Thomas, or Florida 2000?
What an idiotic belief system. Superstition. What's even worse is whey they say their belief system is more valid than that guy's over there; he's just into Buddhism. Ooo. Icky.
What's fascinating to me is that one of the most rational, scientific countries out there (Japan) has a popular film-maker like Miyazaki. Why? Because they accept that all these spirit stories are all in fun.
Of course, Christianity ain't fun. Maybe that's why it's more "grown up." Blech.
Rant over. I'll shut up now.
Go directly to Criticism. Do not pass D'oh! Do not collect 200 dullards.
holly mackerel I tried to read the panda's thumb but I did not have the energy tonight to get wound up again. devils and angles? I have found a way to look at "them" that puts them into some kind of perspective.
they are a psychological projection, completely human and have not physical existence in reality
or they are some kind of being with an existence and an evolutionary history like all other life forms a space alien an extraterrestrial creature completely conjecture
as for the other forms in human mythology including christian mythology it is just that and in that way are of the first. type the second type (if we ever find one) we will find many things that may be familiar but may have even more trouble with our own religious believers who have are proving every day to be dangerous controlling people who are often violent in the lengths they will go to protect and expand their believes.
I could be going too far without enough evidence, but it seems that these people have little care for PT itself, instead they rather prefer only to keep it as a scientific safe haven website that kerps from pointing out glaring flaws in religon. Your post was little more than a critique of an old idea that we have no evidence of. Yet as it had religious ties, it's apparently off limits to be spoken about? Do these commenters actually want to keep the Panda's Thumb, of all sites, from commenting on nonsense and giving religion in the process that special deference that it's recieved since antiquity? I have to say I'm astounded and more than a little dismayed at the submissive tone that such so called supporters of the scientific method have to it's conclutions, when contradicted by arbitrary religious ideals.
Have these people no shame? No melodrama intended. I really mean that. How much compartmentalization must one traffic in to hold such views?
Oh, bane of the internet forum, thy name is typo...
RE:Steven Carr "I said nothing..."
Well, it was probably wise you said nothing, because you would have been taken away with the second lot.
There is absolutely no difference between believing you can fly and believing in real angels. It's delusional. When they start coming for crazy people, hide.
PZ isn't persecuting anyone, he is criticizing them.
You can't get upset by standing in the middle of a highway, that says "no pedestrians" and start complaining that all the cars and trucks are trying to hit you and that might hurt a little.
I've just read the PT entry and comments.
I think the critics there basically consider that PT posts should be patently focused on evolution.
I presume (though the point was relevant) that PZ eschewed framing his post ;)
Let's see ...
You already have one of the most read blogs on the internet ...
The Panda's Thumb is a joint enterprise with a number of people, some of whom I know don't share your atheism ...
You certainly can't believe that your little exercise in ridicule remotely qualifies as science ...
So, why exactly did you feel the need to put your personal rant up on PT as well as here?
From the About the Panda's Thumb
John Pieret you have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the Panda's Thumb.
I thought PZ's post was funny when I read it here on Pharyngula. On PT, I had two reservations;
1.) PZ's personal (non) beliefs aren't really what Panda's Thumb is about.
2.) A number of people were turned off and didn't read the whole post, so they didn't get that Dembski is really preaching far right fundie Christianity. That's an important point, because ID has been trying to position itself in the public view as a moderate position between two extremes. That point got pretty much glossed over.
So, personally, I think it would have been better had PZ edited to PT post to leave out his own reaction and focus on the facts.
@Steven Carr #28
I would seriously question the wiseness of the person that said that ;)
Also, merely telling someone who holds ridiculous beliefs that they, in fact, hold ridiculous beliefs can't really be counted as persecution, and I doubt that PZ's genetically engineered cephalopod death squads will be ready for a few years yet (until the grant comes through, at least).
Angels do not exist. I know because a gnome on a toadstool told me so.
In any case the religious right may be hanging themselves in the long run:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/10/mixing_religion_and_politics_…
It's amazing how the concept of "hatred" has become synonymous with "disagreement". Now many people don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
PZ: What sort of mileage do you get with your Wedge?
Did it come with a good warranty?
R'ligion an' scies don' mis.
Paranormal things are those outside our normal experience, but possible. Science studies paranormal things all the time, it just doesn't tend to use the term - not least because people claiming all kinds of stupid stuff use the term constantly.
Supernatural things are impossible - not necessarily because of the phenomena themselves, but because they're 'supernatural', which is a category incompatible with existence.
Oh, bane of the internet forum, thy name is typo...
Random trivia: The patron demon of typos is Titivillus.
I cannot help but wonder if PZ had criticised those who think alien abductions really happen if the response would have be as critical. Somehow I doubt it, which would suggest that those commentators critisizing PZ think that religion in general, and Christianity in particular, are somehow different. I note however that none were able to articulate why it should be treated differently.
do you mean to tell me I've been sticking pins in my William Jennings Bryan doll for nothing?
No, it worked. He's dead. Good job.
I find it's funny that PT posts a bit about his anti-angel screed.
Concern trolls there get offended by a post that was on PZ's blog.
PZ points to the "concern" and mocks it...
AND THEN GETS SHIT FOR IT?
Your concern is so heart warming.
Can I puke on your flip flops now?
I once asked Michael Shermer, the editor of Skeptic magazine, what was the difference between the "supernatural" and the "paranormal?" Although he wrote several books on the 'borderlands of science and religion,' to my surprise he seemed a bit surprised by the question. He thought a bit and said "probably no difference."
I think he's right -- the dividing line doesn't seem to be in the nature of the claim, or whether its testable, or whether its open to being ruled on by science, but on how mainstream the belief is. And if you look at statistics on how many people believe in ghosts and ESP, it's all pretty mainstream. It's just that there's a generally tendency to think that the "paranormal" are those things that you, personally, think it's okay for science to critique when the predictions prove worthless, and the "supernatural" are those things which you don't think it's okay for science to critique when predictions prove worthless. The lines moves from person to person.
As anyone who has dealt with dowsers, astrologers, energy healers, and psychics will agree, these people really, really want it all to be true. They base their entire world view on the reality of these things, and believe that these phenomena point to something "higher" than the ordinary material, physical, natural realm. If angels are religious, then vitalism is spiritual.
The label of 'paranormal' isn't just reserved for things which are "outside our experience, but possible." String theory and multiverse theories are outside our experience, possible, and might not even be testable or knowable -- yet they don't get labeled 'paranormal.' Why not?
Look at how the word is actually applied. Like the supernatural, the paranormal is distinguished from the weird-but-not-paranormal by how it reassures us of our significance. The attributes of human minds are somehow fundamental structures in the universe. Values and meaning are top-down skyhooks. String Theory + Love = paranormal. Quantum theory + Consciousness = paranormal.
Or supernatural. Same damn thing.
I think the people on Panda's Thumb who are upset that PZ is so insensitive as to attack a religious belief in angels forget that the exact same arguments and whines are used against them for attacking a religious belief in Creationism. The lines keep moving according to the speaker's special sensitivities, not some clear criteria.
I have so-called "liberal" friends who think ID should be included in science classes out of "respect" for "other ways of knowing." They don't believe in it, but calling Young Earth Creationism loony -- or even "wrong" -- is so insensitive. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want. Science is testing to see what works for you. People's religious beliefs should be respected. Science should be broadened to include all of reality which impacts us, and creationism matters to people. Mean, rude, exclusionary evolutionists over on PT, making fun of people's deeply held religious beliefs ... sniff
Isn't it valuable to know that the "leading lights" of Intelligent Design endorse religion at every opportunity? Isn't it important to note how often they admit that their aims are explicitly religious? Would anyone get upset if a post at the Panda's Thumb pointed out what Michael Behe said in Time or on The Colbert Report, namely that ID is God's way of fighting back?
It is not possible to simultaneously have Faith in Jesus as the Lord and Savior and the Good Acts he conducts on this Earth, and to believe in this aimless and random Evolution concept.
So on this much we agree. Those who proclaim faith in both Evolution and in Jesus are misguided liars and cannot be trusted.
No, I don't agree at all. Theistic evolutionists are not liars, and they're not untrustworthy. They are compartmentalizing, and are being somewhat inconsistent. They can be trusted to the extent that they agree to compartmentalize and be only somewhat inconsistent. They draw arbitrary lines, but in cautious and sensible places. Ok.
That doesn't mean that it can't be pointed out that they're compartmentalizing and being somewhat inconsistent. It's only polite to treat them as respected colleagues in error, and not pander to them as children who need to be humored. They're cautious and sensible, but not everyone of faith is. Those lines are, by nature, arbitrary.
Sastra, the Rev. Paul T. Hipple is a Man of God, a soldier of the cloth, and one of the leading lights of the Dominionist movement. Why, just recently, spent 30 days ministering unto the fallen of the Sumter County jail--a facility which he selflessly entered of his own volition (details at the link). I would not so readily question his theological findings.
Thank you for your kind, comforting words, Brother or Sister AJ Milne. I don't suppose you are looking to join a Church Youth Group?
Now let me see if I understand this political correctness, Brother or Sister Sastra:
When a young child has stolen forbidden fruit from the cookie jar, and lies to his pappy or mommy about it, he is not lying, just "compartmentalizing".
I suppose we can all get along, but we'll need a new commandment for that one:
11. Though Shalt Not Compartmentalize.
This debate touches on a comment made by Ed Brayton a week or so ago which I am surprised no one else has picked up on. Maybe they did are are just fed up with correcting the man's poor thinking.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/09/is_ed_no_longer_an_appeaser…
"It isn't that I don't think it's diplomatic to call belief in God a delusion; it's that I honestly don't think it's delusional to believe in God."
Now there does seem to be a bit of confusion over what Ed is saying here as he is not clear by what he means by delusional. If we take it that he is using the word in the context that Dawkins uses it, then what he is saying is that he thinks that there is evidence to support the existence of god. In "The God Delusion" Dawkins makes it very clear that he used deluded to mean believing in something for which there is no evidence. It must follow if Ed is using the word in same context he thinks that there is evidence. There does exist another possibility. Ed is on record as stating he has not, and will not read "The God Delusion". Is is possible then that Ed is using the term deluded in another context. Of course if he is then he is being dishonest.
I am really not sure where Ed is coming from when he said that, but I am sure it is yet another sign of his descent into lunacy.
What I wonder is how the angels evolved. Did g0ddd create little one-celled angels out of Spiritual Matter? Is there an Angelic Ecosystem in Heaven, with angel flowers, angel bees, angel cephalopods and angel primates of various kinds? Are there angel retroviruses? Did the angel/demon split evolve early or late? Are there intermediate forms between angels and demons? Are there massive numbers of extinct angelic beings, or are all the ancestors immortal, hence still around clogging up the niches?
I'd really like to know.
Everytime god masturbates...
an angel is born.
I seems to me we have reached an interesting time in human history.
We are now arguing about whether mythology is real or not. might be the first time that has happened at least to this degree. we have killed over which mythology is "best" but never are any myths true before.
Angles daemons gods ghosts spirits immortal souls life after death supper natural paranormal "magic" it is all myth. it would appear the myth dies hard.
"all of your belief is myth while mine is the word of god"
just how is that proved?
@#46:
I lol'd.
It strikes me that there are three groups in this debate.
First we have PZ and others (including me) who think that claims that Angels interact in the universe are part of what science can study and that science has found nothing to support claims they do.
Second we have those who claim that we cannot tell the difference between Angels interacting and natural phenomena. In which case we are forced to ask why bother invoking the Angel concept at all.
Third we have those who think Angels interact with the universe and have an effect on people but this is not within the purview of science. It strikes me this group is doubly inflicted. Not only do they think Angels exist they also have no idea of how science works. Some, like Heddle, even claim to be scientists!
Revrend Paul you FEIND! You maek a commandment like God makes you false god! Only satan (I do not capitilize the demons name) would do that. Or try to do taht because he could not, only God can. So are you satan? No don't answer because its like I think you would actually tell the truth because if you are you know the Truth but can't or wont tell it. But you are here on this site so you probably are. The others (yes you) here are all WRONG and do not know so mabey they are not as bad but you say you are Revernd so you know that you are the dEVIL.
Tsk, tsk, Angels do exist! I've seen them!
How many arguments about angels can people have on the head of a pin?
The thing that really bothers me is that this "demonology" is an affront to both science and anthropology. We know about the myth structure that the bible was written in. It's an interesting myth structure from a historical perspective, at least when viewed in context of Akkadian, Hittite, Achimaenid, and Greek myth structure. The problem is, Christians have so thoroughly altered the myth structure from both the Hebrew and the Greco-Roman myth sources, and any worthwhile signal (that is, information on how the ancients viewed the world, not how the world actually is) has been completely corrupted. So not only is this Evangelical insistence on angels and demons destructive to the scientific endeavor, but also destructive to our understanding of our ancient literary and historical past.
eeew! Wouldn't He produce an Infinite Ejaculate?
I could do that, but the vast majority of people are morons who couldn't use language rigorously if their lives depended on it.
Needless to say, I'm not a descriptivist.
What the words *actually* mean are approximately what I said they were: one describes things outside our everyday experience, the other describes things outside our reality.
And non-warlock players..
..What?
eeew! Wouldn't He produce an Infinite Ejaculate?
No, that would be the Immaculate Ejaculate.
Sorry. Someone had to say it.
Rumor has it that the ocean was created from Enki's infinite ejaculate.
Kseniya @#33: Why would I want to collect dullards? Let alone 200 of them?
Sastra #6, "Where does the supernatural end and the paranormal begin?"
That's GOT to be on the short-list of the all-time dumbest questions ever. There should be an award to recognize such exceptional stupidity.
Sastra #52 says, "The label of 'paranormal' isn't just reserved for things which are "outside our experience, but possible." String theory and multiverse theories are outside our experience, possible, and might not even be testable or knowable -- yet they don't get labeled 'paranormal.' Why not?"
Why? Because THEORY ISN'T "outside of our experience." You are confounding formal speculation (which lives WITHIN our experience) with the realm of actuality - that "thing" we typically REFER to as "nature" - whether our conceptual models address or accurately describe nature or not.
But no amount of ignorance can justify the idea of the existence of a reality apart from nature, like that implied by the words "PARAnormal" and "SUPERnatural".
Sastra also says, "People's religious beliefs should be respected."
Sure. Its always been proper and polite to respect the right of people to believe anything they wish.
BUT, when those RELIGIOUS beliefs compel believers to disrespect and otherwise discriminate against anybody else for not accepting their way of thinking, or when those RELIGIOUS beliefs promote an atmosphere of social exclusion and seriously imposes its will on the lives of those who RESPECTFULLY decline to join the herd, attacking RELIGIOUS belief on those particular grounds AND on the general philosophical ground that addresses the foundation of irrationality upon which such belief rests IS perfectly justified.
Its interesting that the RELIGIOUS beliefs that monopolizes the principle of "The Golden Rule" most often break it.
What, I'm locked out now as if I were a troll or something?
Aristophanes, you heathen. Clearly, Reverend Paul is doing the LORD's work. Why, you must be a demon yourself to so impugn the reputation of such a fine, upstanding American, dedicated only to the furthering of the Founding Fathers' vision: a Godly, Christian shining city on the hill, systematically eradicating non-American speaking infidels.
Don't try to deny it. I mean, dude, I can't help but notice your name.
Aristophanes? Where's that at? Man, that's so NOT American. Get thee behind me, 'feind'!
This kind of post turns your entire blog into troll material. Yes, you have great insights in biology, evolution, and the anti-ID crusade, and yes, this is the appropriate place to post your own feelings against religion/Christianity/et.al. But calling people names is classic troll behavior- trying to preempt the appelation before it's applied more accurately.
holly mackerel I tried to read the panda's thumb but I did not have the energy tonight to get wound up again. devils and angles? I have found a way to look at "them" that puts them into some kind of perspective.
they are a psychological projection, completely human and have not physical existence in reality
or they are some kind of being with an existence and an evolutionary history like all other life forms a space alien an extraterrestrial creature completely conjecture
as for the other forms in human mythology including christian mythology it is just that and in that way are of the first. type the second type (if we ever find one) we will find many things that may be familiar but may have even more trouble with our own religious believers who have are proving every day to be dangerous controlling people who are often violent in the lengths they will go to protect and expand their believes.
I seems to me we have reached an interesting time in human history.
We are now arguing about whether mythology is real or not. might be the first time that has happened at least to this degree. we have killed over which mythology is "best" but never are any myths true before.
Angles daemons gods ghosts spirits immortal souls life after death supper natural paranormal "magic" it is all myth. it would appear the myth dies hard.
"all of your belief is myth while mine is the word of god"
just how is that proved?