So that's what I am now? The Minnesota Independent has an interview. It probably won't soothe the inflamed mob.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The big field trip to Ken Ham's amusement park is on Friday morning — we'll be meeting at 10am at the parking lot, just look for the mob.
Be ready. This is exactly what you can expect if any of the creationists engage with you.
Expect them to be smug in their ignorance, and recite the same old…
It would be nice if I could come up with a good rhyme for grade to fit this title.
One of my brothers is a biochemistry faculty at Appalachian State University (hint - he is the one with the same last name that I have). We were talking (and surprisingly agreeing) that grades were dumb. What would…
There was this young child at a Catholic pre-school who was kicked out because his or her parents were lesbians. Now people are protesting, because that's not what Jesus would do (I won't quibble over their justifications — Jesus probably would have told the mob to stone the perverted parents to…
Why do so many of our political leaders support creationism? Here's a disturbing glimpse of the way the neo-conservative elite thinks, discussing specifically Irving Kristol:
Kristol has acknowledged his intellectual debt to Strauss in a recent autobiographical essay. "What made him so…
"It won't be gross. It won't be totally tasteless, but yeah, I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power. This cracker is nothing."
Oh, it will be tasteless. But I guess you've already said you're not going to eat it.
But the question is, will it rise to the level of offense that Webster Cook gave, and involve simply not eating it and keeping it safe in a plastic baggie? Oh, the horror!
Science-heathen is the coolest title EVAH! You should add it to your resume.
You're kind of stuck, aren't you? What you wrote was obviously satirical hyperbole, but then you asked for the crackers. And no doubt they were sent.
You'll look petty if you stomp it, or smear it with something horrible. And you'll look weak if you do nothing.
Well, do something that shows it to be the meaningless wheat product that it is, but make it into art (or cartoon, maybe) of some kind. Let it be the weak insipid thing that it is, and keep your dignity.
Which, I presume, is your plan.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Check out the first comment over there, from ol' Swiftee. What a jackass.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2636111822344880682
And the truth shall set tempers ablaze...again!
Oh brother, you've fallen from grace, at least in the eyes of some catholics and the conservative catholic league? You know what they can do with their ghostly grace and concern. As far as I'm concerned, you won't lose support from rational fellow atheists who do not give a crap what religious morons pander about on these matters. I don't give a rat's ass on any concern of theirs whether it applies to insane needs or concern over our rational lives. Grace? Spare us the demented wording for your need to save our shoe soles. Morons.
No, I am not "stuck". I've been intending something along these lines for a few months now. This was actually a good opportunity for something that is already written.
A little something to snack on ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRMT7p9fyIQ
Good for you PZ. Nice way to point out the faith freaks are pitching a hissy because they're about to go down the drain.
Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that Swiftee went to "collage."
Hmm, what did PZ actually say here? Was it actually vulgar, or is the paper just a bit too sensitive?
Well ... technically isn't the IDiots who're science-heathen?
PeeZed is more of a heathen scientist.
1. Crackers are bread.
2. Bread mold is a life form.
3. PZ is a biologist.
Frankly, this is what I've been hoping for: a scientific post on the cracker-ecosystem as it develops. Of course, depending on the variety of preservatives are used, visible colonies of interesting critters may take some time to develop.
Good article. I'm looking forward to the impending cracker desecration.
BTW, shouldn't the article have said "desperate ploy" instead of "disparate ploy"?
I think this was suggested before, but use pushpins to attach it to a cross made of matchsticks?
Maybe you should have the crackers with cheese. After all, didn't Jesus say "Blessed are the cheesemakers"
Here's an idea (with apologies to Andres Serrano): "Ink Wafer." Imagine the a white, ghostly wafer submerged in a jar of squid ink. Beyoootiful.
Too tasteful?
"One of the more prominent atheist voices in America"
PZ is the MOST prominent atheist voice in America. Nobody else comes close.
I suggest burning the communion wafer and measure the heat given off with a calorimeter and compare the results with a control to determine the nutrition content of empty dogma.
ITS SCIENCE!!
-Amplexus
I suggest putting the wafer in a jam jar. With holes punched in the lid, of course, so Jesus can breathe. And a lettuce leaf.
Doesn't matter how many interviews are done, the fact that this tasteless piece of bread is being used to pummel the ignorant for useless beliefs will never stop.
What do you think PZ should do with this cracker?
My idea would be to puree it with pork, beef, dog meat, and other such religious and cultural taboo items, and then consume it in a church, then a mosque, then a synogogue, then perhaps a hindu temple. Or, perhaps put a priest's color on a dog, and have the dog eat the cracker and lap some sacrimental wine.
Sorry for the double cross posting, but I think this belongs in here:
(quoted material was written by Blake Stacey)
This is pretty much my own argument that the desecration of the host is impossible. Or more formally:
1 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that God exists
1a) God is defined as being perfect
1b) God is defined as being omnipotent
1c) God is defined as being omniscient
1d) God is defined as being benevolent (note: Catholicism apparently does not consider God to be omnibenevolent, from what I can recall on the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hell)
2 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Catholicism is true.
2a) Catholicism is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
3 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, the the Eucharist is real
3a) The ritual of the Eucharist is that a priest consecrates the wafers and wine and God transubstantiates into them.
4 ) Now, what is a priest? A priest is a man; a weak, imperfect, sinner like all men, who has been ordained by the Church, which was established by God. Thus, the priest receives any authority he has from God, ultimately.
5 ) Given that the priest receives his authority from God, and is clearly far weaker than God anyway, it cannot be the case that the priest can in any way compel God to do anything. The inferior cannot give orders to the superior, nor can the weaker compel the stronger.
6 ) Therefore, the ritual of consecration cannot be compelling God to transubstantiate, but must rather be inviting God to transubstantiate.
7 ) Any invitation can, of course, be refused, if acceding to the invitation would be improper.
8 ) It is a tenet of Catholicism that it is improper for those who do not have faith in Catholicism should not partake of the host. This includes the point that the host should be consumed immediately.
9 ) God, being omniscient, knows all things, including the hearts of humans.
10 ) Therefore, God knows who does and does not have faith in Catholicism.
11 ) God, being omniscient, knows all things, including the future and the past
12 ) Therefore, God knows exactly who will receive which wafer that is has the ritual of consecration performed over it.
13 ) God, being perfect and benevolent, would never do anything that is improper.
14 ) Therefore, since it would be improper to transubstantiate into a wafer which God knows will be received by someone who does not have faith in Catholicism, God can, and indeed, must, refuse to transubstantiate into those wafers which will be received by those who do not have faith in Catholicism.
15 ) Therefore, it is impossible to desecrate a host, since all wafers that will be taken with the intent to desecrate will not have had God transubstantiate into them, and therefore will not be hosts.
16 ) Therefore, Cook did not receive a wafer into which God had transubstantiated. God simply refused to do so, since God, being omniscient, knew of Cook's intent to not consume the host immediately.
17 ) Therefore, should someone sneak a wafer from out of a communion ceremony, and convey it to PZ Myers (atheist), God will know of the intent to begin with, and will not transubstantiate into that wafer.
18 ) Therefore, PZ Myers, according to plain and obvious theologic, will not be desecrating the host, but will instead be simply abusing a goddamn fracking cracker.
QED.
Mmm. Syllogilicious. I coulda been a theologian...
Wow. It's amazing what an organized gang of child molesting cover up artists can get worked up about...
If they're attempting to engage in polemics they should take more care to ensure that they aren't paying you a compliment.
Also, post #21 can be reduced to pure win.
We have also been informed that you are Mephistopheles with a Man Purse
PZ is like a modern day Martin Luther.
great interview, pz myers!
Per Jeph at #14, but going beyond it a bit:
Get samples of different strains of E. coli and test how they do on the crackers. Maybe Lenksi can loan you some.
Owlmirror wins the innertubes AGAIN.
Owlmirror (#23):
Excellent theologic. Truly art thou versed in the ways of the platosphere.
Whatever he does it shouldn't be a violent gesture, I.E.testing the effects of explosives on jesus crackers. I like the idea of feeding it to a dog and then letting the dog lap up wine.
Thou shall toast the face of Jesus unto it.
PZ, I hope you do something creative with your cracker desecration!
you should take all the wafers you get and create a piece of art, like kids do with macaroni. cracker art!
i think the Darwin fish would be a great subject for the cracker art.
Glen, honey, all your efforts at stage-managing this might go better if you noted that if PZ did eat the cracker, that would be sacrilege. If he snapped it in two on-mike to see whether it cracks--which I'd take as pretty much the first criterion for crackeriness--that would be sacrilege. If he dissected it, that would be sacrilege. If he licked it and stuck it on his forehead, that would be sacrilege. (Why yes, I've seen it done. By an altarboy. Evidently it's not that hard to palm he leftovers.) If he dunked it in Nutella, etc.
If he dunked it in wine, he'd be doing what the priest does right after consecrating it, but I suspect that would be sacrilege too because he's not a priest. There are some old-school types who'd class just handling it as sacrilege if you're not a priest. See how easy it is?
When my father got to be a "Eucharistic minister," the whole thing gave him the visible shakes. It was touching and at the same time outrageous to me that his emotions had been so screwed with. "Domine, non sum dignus" riiiight. I do have a clue about the depth of feeling that drives the pious in this current fuss, and a stronger sense of how artifactual, manipulated, and manipulative it is.
Plus, IIRC, the priest is or used to be pretty much obliged to handle it with thumbs and forefinger only, or was it thumb and first two fingers? When he was ordained there was some anointing and binding up with white linen of the pertinent fingers. Why yes, they do make a serious foofaraw about it, between that and the gold or at least gold-lined chalice, the "precious-metal" ciborium and paten. So much for the divine humility of the Incarnation. God comes to join the human species and this giant institution grows to separate him from as many of us as possible, except under conditions carefully controlled by a designated few. If I were still a believer I'd know whom to chide for impiety and sacrilege. I'll chide them anyway; I have accuracy on my side.
BTW: The way it worked last time I was at a Mass was that the priest, who gets a big Host while everybody else gets a little one, breaks his newly-consecrated Host in half and then breaks a bit off one half and dunks it in the wine. The creates an audible snap, so I wouldn't quibble with the crackerhood of the wafer involved.
Christopher Hitchens is now an American citizen, so I'd suggest he's the most prominent one. Not necessarily the best one, but certainly the most prominent. PZ doesn't make me grimace as much.
My vote for cracker desecration would be to eat it with a slice of beef carpaccio on a Friday during Lent. If we're going to desecrate it, might as well throw in a few more blasphemies. Also, it would be cool if a few volunteers could get excommunicated during the "ceremony" in question.
Since Jesus performed a miracle with loaves and fishes, it would be appropriate for PZ to return the favor to the fishes by crumbling it up and feeding it to the zebrafish in his lab. Maybe a consecrated host will feed more fish than a plain wafer? It all science here!
PZ is like a modern day Martin Luther. - bunnycatch3r
OK, we're used to insults and obscenities being thrown around here on Pharyngula, and PZ has a pretty thick skin, but this is just going too far!
I always figured that the call for the biscuit was only half of the joke. That is, everybody else agrees, it's just a baked good, but to the people protesting it's much more. So, clearly, for the second half of the joke, the "desecration" should be something that would only be considered such by that same group of protesters.
I was imagining a photo montage. PZ reading a Harry Potter book to the cracker. PZ dressing the cracker up some random blended textiles. PZ taking the cracker to visit a practicing witch, and then refusing to burn her. PZ eating meat on a Friday while the cracker watched. PZ doing yard work on a Sunday while the cracker looked on. And so on...
Here's an idea:
1. Take a consecrated host and two unconsecrated hosts.
2. Put Dixie cups or something similar on top of the hosts, and mix them up as if you were running a shell game. Cut away so that nobody will have a clue as to which cup has the consecrated host.
3. Select one host, and do something "sacreligious" to it, e.g. stab a knife into it, dissolve it in a glass of water and pour it down the drain, etc.
4. Ask the viewer whether you've actually committed sacrilege or not.
MORON ALERT! MORON ALERT! <*whoop, whoop, whoop!*>
From the comments section of the linked interview:
"tjswift
Posted jul 14 2008 03:51pm with -3 votes
Friends, as I say, this has nothing to do with religion or crackers....My objections are strictly related to the public subsidy of crackpots.
I've read PZ Meyers published *cough* "scientific" *cough* work. It reminded me of nothing so much as a mentally unstable 5 year old boy burning ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass.
And to date Meyer's "work" has had exactly the same impact as the 5 year olds.
That being said, I'm sure that PZ is gratified to know he's not alone in finding that sort of thing very interesting.
I wish you all joy of your amusements, but being such reasonable people, I'm sure you'll understand how some people might not care to subsidize such buffoonery."
I've looked some of this stuff up, (yes, it's made my brain hurt to do it), but I think I understand why the RCC would say #23 above doesn't work. Basically, god is working through the priest to do the change. In fact, since Jesus did the original change, the priest is (in some way I don't follow)Jesus for the duration of the ceremony. Since the priest really can't tell the difference between a changed and an unchanged cracker, you can't have selective change. (The real reason for the doctrine is that since the priest would be clueless, selective change would undermine the authority of the priesthood, which is the real purpose for the existance of the RCC.)
The ironic part of the whole mess is that there's a 95% chance the whole thing never happened in the first place. Blood and human flesh are as un-kosher as you can get. Jesus and his disciples would never have even conceived of doing this, even symbolically. It was, however, a common part of both the Dionysus cult and Mithraism, both of which pre-dated Christianity and were popular 2000 years ago. The ceremony was probably imported by Paul (who was the greatist heretic in the history of Christianity.)
#21 FTW!
Get a parrot maybe? "Polly want a Eucharist!"
'Unrepentant science heathen' strikes me as being most button-worthy. It'll prolly need to be a biggish button, tho'. Or small type.
Re the thelogic in 23, while it strikes me as sound, let us also recall that this is a deity with some... err.. quirks. We must also, therefore, account for the possibility the god may intend to be hilariously mistreated at the hands of a heathen just so the cracker can raise itself from the dead three days later... Or, possibly, there are additional exceptions to this whole omniscience/omnipotence thing--and the cracker is actually just mostly omnipotent (see also The Princess Bride, re 'mostly dead, various sources re 'a little pregnant')... As in, possibly, if PZ secures his cracker while in an iron chariot, for example, the otherwise all-knowing cracker will be unaware of his intentions and unable to stop him... Tho' I've no idea where you rent an iron chariot near Morris, and riding one into a church is decidely not subtle... so it may be moot.
Yeah, now regarding this former case, this whole bein' mocked for the sake of the world as a necessary thing to have done, I know, it seems... odd. But if we're to believe the accounts we're given, deities are weird that way.
Anyway, in that scenario, we should still rebuke these overly zealous types who are trying to prevent this necessary sacrifice to redeem all of humankind from the sin of excessive consumption of baked, starchy footstuffs. There all freakin' out, trying to cut folks' ears off, and the cracker's just sitting there thinkin': oh, c'mon, ya losers, stop standing in the way of this thing, let's get on with it... gotta get down to hell and back by Tuesday, at least... I've plans for the weekend.'
$_ =~ s/thelogic/theologic/
For a mere $29.99, you can get a degree from the Universal Life Church as a Doctor of Divinity. Post #23 easily qualifies as your dissertation.
ooo, I like the microbiological-science-project idea. Moisten the Host, and time-lapse 'er getting all colorful & fuzzy. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, mycelial cytoplasm to mycelial cytoplasm.
For the headline to be any more priceless, "heathen" needs an r. The Southern epithet of "heathern" sounds so much more enlightened.
The Minnesota Independent can't be accused of blatant bias, they're not "liberal media". Think the headline editor is a woo monger?
Stick it in between the pages of the Koran?
PZ, you're a scientist. I think you should feed the consecrated cracker to some lab rats.
OR - Feed the consecrated cracker to a parrot, but first teach the parrot to say, "Bless me father, for I have sinned" or "Polly wants a consecrated cracker!"
I do think it is amazing that so many people are going crackers over your cracker comments, but at the same time they want you to disrespect the Muslim faith.
Possible problem there: just imagine what would happen if the mould turned out to resemble Jesus!
I applaud PZ in hi-lighting these and other silly beliefs.
These type questions threaten the power structure of those who depend on the donations of the flock they fleece. To maintain their power base, religious leaders keep people worrying about their eternal sins, and continue making earthly joy and happiness of life a sin, requiring them to pray for forgiveness, and of course, pay into the chuch fund to maintain their lifestyles.
I couldn't say it better than the great Robert G. Ingersoll, Myth and Miracle., 1885,
"Happiness is the result of all that is really right and sane.
But there are many people who regard the desire to he happy as a very low and degrading ambition. These people call themselves spiritual. They pretend to care nothing for the pleasures of "sense." They hold this world, this life, in contempt. They do not want happiness in this world -- but in another. Here, happiness degrades -- there, it purifies and ennobles.
These spiritual people have been known as prophets, apostles, augurs, hermits, monks, priests, popes, bishops and parsons. They are devout and useless. They do not cultivate the soil. They produce nothing. They live on the labor of others. They are pious and parasitic. They pray for others, if the others will work for them. They claim to have been selected by the Infinite to instruct and govern mankind. They are "meek" and arrogant, "long-suffering" and revengeful.
They ever have been, now are, and always will be the enemies of liberty, of investigation and science. They are believers in the supernatural, the miraculous and the absurd. They have filled the world with hatred, bigotry and fear. In defence of their creeds they have committed every crime and practiced every cruelty."
AJ Milne (#45):
I admit it. I LOLed.
Vaal @ 17 wrote:
Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
MORON ALERT! MORON ALERT! @ 42. Is this "Swillhound" seconding "tjswift' opinions and perhaps addending his own in a manner to be dealth with here in the most invective way possible? "Swillhound", here have a "cracker", while we decide your faith and fate.
I'll buy you a bottle of something if you can drive your "hostage" into Stockholm Syndrome. And don't go half-way, man. I want to see this cracker wearing an SLA t-shirt and using an AK-47 to hold up a bank.
Yea, feed that consecrated cracker to a parrot, but first teach the parrot to say "Bill Donohue, go to hell!"
I leave for a week to go to the beach and come back to find out that the entire Catholic world is planning on burning PZ at the stake because of a cracker? Why isn't this on Fox news? Has the Catholic league seen this video: "Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church." NSFW, especially if you teach in a Catholic school.
#41
I like that idea, but how about a prayer challenge?
Take say 5 petri dishes. Swab each with a mold culture. Add 1 cracker in each. Of course no one knows which one (if any) is the "special" cracker. Let the praying commence as daily progress is recorded.
Repent PZ! Repent!
Repent before the Flying Spaghetti Monster douses you in cheap canned sauce and commits you to an eternity of mushy tasteless meatballs and stale communion crackers!
@56
Holbach, I put the "Moron Alert" at the top, then C&P'd "tjswift's" idiocy for everybody to read. Thats why I put quotation marks around the whole post I lifted. Check the link on my name to see I ain't one o' them religiotards. :)
I know PZ promised to do something sacrilicious with the jesus cracker (maple syrup, perhaps), but assuming he gets more than one, I think at least one should be plasticized and carried in his pocket at all times so that when Christians ask him about finding Jesus, he show them that he already has.
I suggest putting the wafer in a jam jar. With holes punched in the lid, of course, so Jesus can breathe. And a lettuce leaf.Posted by: arensb | July 14, 2008 4:45 PM
arensb, maybe PZ should put it behind a big rock; then wait three days to see if it disappears!
John Robie (#63):
But then he runs the risk of losing his faith in between the couch cushions.
As a fervent pastafarian and believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I still would like to know against whom I should issue the appropriate death threats for the desecration committed by millions of heathen non-believers who daily consume the body of my Lord and Savory-iour by consuming pasta and other noodles without the appropriate reverence for His flesh.
As already pointed out, ANYTHING PZ did to the wafer would be, by the Catholic Church's definition, sacrilege. He could merely waggle it around in front of a camera and these nutters would equate it to kidnapping and molestation.
PZ's got access to a biology lab. With a "consecrated" cracker, he has access to (allegedly) Jesus' flesh. Do the math. Research opportunities abound.
#63, Outstanding idea!!!!
I would like to apply for the title of Apprentice Science Heathen.
There is an underlying issue here. Unless PZ receives his cracker from a trusted source, there is no way for him to actually know that it was consecrated. So doing science on the crackers would be pointless since any experiment done would be unreliable. In fact, instead of complaining about the whole thing, Catholics should simply be sending PZ unconsecrated hosts with notes explaining how they snuck it out of mass one day. Certainly lying to PZ can't be worse than threatening to kill him which seems to be acceptable enough among the religious. The simplest way around this dilemma for PZ would be to simply attend a mass and go up during communion to get his own. Then pretend to eat it and slip it in your pocket. Priests don't ask for ID and the ritual is simple enough that even someone completely unfamiliar with it could just play along with the crowd. It's highly unlikely that the cracker will burn a hole in your shirt or that the omniscient and non-existent godhead will vaporize you.
"Unrepentant science heathen" definitely sounds like a compliment to me.
I recall that back when I was an altar boy I found a host on the radiator in the church. Apparently someone had taken one during mass and then decided that they weren't hungry and abandoned it. I returned it to the priest who look extremely annoyed but he dipped it in some wine and then ate it. I was rather surprised as I thought there would be some proper way of disposing of the host such as burning it. I mean, what would a priest do if he accidentally dropped a cup of them while walking across the stable? Or worse, what if he dropped a cup of consecrated wine?
Wolfhound @ 62 My apologies. I only read the first post by "tjswift" and not the following ones. I almost succumbed to parodied parody! Carry on!
Some Catholic is going to have to explain to me how you can "desecrate" their magic cracker. By their own logic how can anything created by their god desecrate it? Even covering it with shit. After all that's what's going to happen to the magic cracker once it passes threw their digestive system.
Christianity, only the best in iron age thinking.
Blake:
"John Robie (#63):
But then he runs the risk of losing his faith in between the couch cushions."
But think how effortless it will be to regain his faith. And a little loose change too.
shorter enraged Catholics:
please ignore those priest-buggered children in the corner.
Five-second rule?
If I understand correctly, everything that has the koran inscribed upon it becomes holy to islam and cannot be destroyed. I suggest you take the wafer and print the koran on it, then return it to the diocese. Or give it to a local mosque. Whatever.
Hihi.
tjswift is so unpopular that numbers fail to describe it!
Suggestion:
Refuse to eat it, store it prominantly, and draw a picture of mohammed on it. Stick figure preferred.
Well, PZ, since you are not planning on doing anything disgusting...: if you had 2 crackers, you could dress them up as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
#26 - windy - OK I'll bite, what's a Che whore? I thought you were a slut. Perhaps all this cracker talk has fogged up my brain and I missed something...
"It probably won't soothe the inflamed mob."
Perhaps you should send cases of Preparation H to all the Parishes...
Doctor Swifty has now resorted to childish humour, stating that You might feel free to moderate it down, to -294ish, or somewhere thereabouts.
I hope to God this idiot hasn't reproduced, or we'll have swiftly-spreading five-year-old-style politics across the world.
Whoops... didn't check my HTML properly there...
The image was claimed by Captain Birdseye to be of one of PZ's peers reviewing his work. Yeah, right. Is he part of the Disney Channel's target audience (flatulent schoolchildren between the ages of five and eight)?
More than one person on this blog has said that there is a 15 min. rule for jebus in cracker.Might be harder to desecrate a consecrated cracker if true.
Oooo! Can We Haz 'Unrepent Scienz-hethen' t-shirtz plez?!
windy - OK I'll bite, what's a Che whore? I thought you were a slut. Perhaps all this cracker talk has fogged up my brain and I missed something...
Check the link in that comment. Our new nickname from our "friend" Jolene Cassa!
Yowza! I suppose you could feed it to a dog then and really watch the fur fly.
Is that London Bridge behind you in the photo?
I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid. I understand you think. . .well. . .you just think we are stupid, period. That's it really, in a nutshell, as far as I can tell. It wouldn't be the first time an athiest thought a Christian was stupid. This happens a lot. It also wouldn't be the first time Jesus was treated badly by unbelievers. So this is really very predictable actually. Since I know I can't sound any more empty-headed to you than I already do, I'll go ahead and tell you that a lot of people are praying for you. Can you just let that roll off your shoulders like water off a duck's back please? What do you expect Christian's to do. . .praying for lost souls is our business. I'm sure I'll get some response about the Iquisition, the Crusades, or the priest scandal now. . .
PZ, for a scientist like you the answer should be fairly evident: put the cracker in a mass spectrometer and see if the molecular composition of the cracker changes after uttering hocus pocus and waving a magic wand over it. No, not THAT wand, PZ. Rebuckle your belt.
Ron, dumbass, I have already noted that. But you're busy being stupid and self-righteous.
Yeah, whatever, prattle on with your inanities. You're too stupid to recognize what the issue is.
For the unretarded, this by PZ is what concerned anyone who wants atheism not to look puerile and tasteless:
If it's satirical hyperbole, fine. Except that PZ didn't disavow or refine the statement until this refinement:
Which is why I said that it was presumably his plan to exhibit its meaningless and insipidity. I did mean to try to reinforce the later refinement, and only a tard would see that as "stage-managing".
But you're intent on attacking a strawman, so enough said.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Thanks judi, we'll take that in the spirit it was intended - smug and holier-than-thou. Pray off. I'll try get someone to sacrifice a live goat to Baal for you.
BTW, you were right about the stupid.
Au contraire, Judi. Being religious doesn't necessarily mean that you're stupid. Thank you for praying for my lost soul... I seem to have misplaced it...
PZ. As it is Darwin's 150th anniversary since he produced the origin of species, how about a cracker collage of Darwin. Perhaps you could also do a side dish of Galileo crackers :)
Who knows, maybe it will be exhibited for the Turner prize?
What a cracking idea!
Judi, Judi, Judi (said with Cary Grant flair):
Please stop with the martyrdom. And how have we "treated Jesus badly"? Non-existent, fantastical creatures can hardly be hurt by anything someone would say, much less do - they don't exist!
I'll go ahead and tell you that a lot of people are praying for you. Can you just let that roll off your shoulders like water off a duck's back please?
Whatever floats yer boat. Pray all you like, I'm sure it will be as effective as prayer has been shown to be in all other cases - that is to say, not effective at all. I'm sure you think you're doing we non-believers a kindness, but remember that somewhere in the world, a Muslim is praying for you, too, so that your soul doesn't end up spending an eternity in hell - you know, that place where a "loving God" puts non-believers?
How do you keep your head from exploding with all these contradictions?
How about some intellectual honesty for a change?
"Myers: There's a subtle difference there -- maybe an important difference. I don't favor the idea of going to somebody's home or to something they own and possess and consider very important, like a graveyard -- going to a grave and desecrating that. That's something completely different. Because what you're doing is doing harm to something unique and something that is rightfully part of somebody else -- it's somebody else's ownership. The cracker is completely different. This is something that's freely handed out."
It's not "freely handed out" and you know it. It's something that takes place at a Catholic Mass, not something being distributed or pushed on ordinary citizens in the streets. If you walked into a Catholic church wearing a sign that said you were an Atheist, you would not be given the Eucharist. There is a world of difference. Catholics protect the Eucharist as best they can. It's actually disturbing to think that Catholics should have to consider taking more extreme measures because of people who are so immature and filled with hate.
Second, nobody is demanding that you enter a Catholic church and bow down before the Eucharist. You're free to never set foot inside a Catholic church and go about your life as if the Eucharist didn't even exist.
Lastly, Catholics are not telling you to go desecrate a Koran, something that is available for purchase online or in most bookstores, not something you have to obtain from a mosque. They are drawing a comparison, not instructing you to go taunt/abuse some other religion. They are simply pointing out the fact that you'd never do it because you know the reaction by Muslims would be far more violent in nature. It's far easier to obtain. It's far easier to desecrate. Yet you would never do it because of the consequences. So why focus your energy on Catholics?
Yes, you will know them by their actions! So true, so true.
YAY! Fatwa Envy!
Kevin @#52, it already resembles Jesus as described in the Gospel of Thomas. "Split a moldy cracker and I am there."
Windy - OK, read the comments...call me Mrs. Thickey brain, what is a Che?
I'm sure I'll get some response about the Iquisition, the Crusades, or the priest scandal now. . .
Sure, I'll be glad to oblige, the main brunt of your church's hierarchy, ranging all the way up to the Pope - who had and has official authority and responsibility for the bishops and archbishops who facilitated the following - was involved or had active knowledge of a decades long scheme to hide egregious amounts of child rape by laundering offenders through every level of their organization, while officially denying and defending against all allegations either legally or through personal defamation and intimidation, until the dam broke on the story. That tends to abrogate any kind of moral authority or pleas for institutional respect that you can bring to this argument, especially in regards to a goddamn cracker and your opinions regarding its Aristotlean "substance."
Any questions?
Unrepentant science heathen
I want that on a shirt. -Eyes the magic printer paper-
That sounds like a superhero name. Any volunteers to draw up an "Unrepentant Science-Heathen" comic-book cover? I'm thinking of something based on that first Spider-Man cover with PZ swinging from a squid's tentacle and holding a Eucharist under his arm. I'd do it myself except that I can't draw worth a damn.
I hope your right PZ and the church its weakening.
They ignorance, hatred and bigotry seems to
fuel them so strongly, even today. Im scared,
i doubt of their sanity, what about your personal
security ? They are crazy, they could become
violent any moment.
Well, anyway we support you here. Go and dessecrate
the damn cracker loudly once for all!!
The priest in this piece must have been catholic.
"PZ Myers: ...
So [religious people are] worried. I think they've got reason to be worried. We're going to see an increasing weakness of the church. This is them lashing out. It's a disparate ploy to be relevant and to be important again... They're looking for somebody to take their ire out on."
Pay no attention to 2,000 years of history. Clearly the Catholics' respect for the Eucharist started only when PZ posted to a blog.
Again, how about a little honesty? It would be refreshing.
Che Guevara, didn't you know that we are all Che-worshiping commies here ;)
And here I thought we were all Stalinists.
Off to Chek my bootie.
Jim, Judi, and any other Catholics wandering by:
Please refer to my comment #23, and explain why host desecration offends you when by Catholicism's own logic, host desecration is impossible.
Judi @ 89 Holy crap, if only you knew what you sounded like to a rational mind! Let me put it this way. If you were locked in a mental institution for the delusional insane, then I would comprehend your demented statement as that of mind which has ceased to function in the rational mode, made all the more degenerated by the cancer of religion. Maybe you are not aware of the puke you are spewing forth, for after all, the insane do not know that they are insane. And religion is the most pernicious of all insanities. Now lie down; here is a cracker.
I'm loving this, PZ. During the Muhammad cartoon incident, there were a lot of right-wingers claiming Christianity never does stuff like that. You're proving them wrong. And, let's face it, while the cartoon thing was absurd and over the top, Muslims in Europe have more reasons to be peeved than wealthy white American Catholics for whom hate is just a sport. Keep up the good work.
I've been looking for an excuse to play with screen printing again. I think I'm going to have to make myself an Unrepentant Science Heathen tshirt, and throw in a cephalopod for good measure.
"I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist"
Judy, here's a little bit of why we suppose your line of thinking is a bit,...off.
Regarding your statement, fine. Great. You believe that. Wonderful. What could you do, or show, that would cause someone who just doesn't suppose the stuff you *know* to be true, to see that it is true? Why should anyone think real what you *know* to be real? Is there anything you can do to convince us? What is this christ substance in the cracker? Can we get some of it under a microscope maybe? And what precisely are the interactions with the other matter in the cracker that make the cracker somehow special?
I ask these things not in a mocking way. These are simple questions that you and your superstition are unable to answer without relying on faith or authority. Neither of which, by themselves, make anything true. If you can produce something tangible, something actual, that would be a turning point for the scoffers.
#89: "I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid."
Yeah, of course you're stupid, everyone knows that. But that's not your only problem.
Your other problem is your insanity. Jesus in a cracker? It's not possible to be more insane.
A 3rd problem you have is you don't even realize what an asshole you are when you say "a lot of people are praying for you."
D'oh!! No, dammit, I missed the commie thing. I must have been asleep or out twirling. Sheesh!
It struck me today that I am ignorant of the means by which the first members of the Christian religion who instituted the ritual of the Eucharist were able to discern whether they had succeeded in accomplishing the actual transubstantiation effect if ,being human, they are not able to detect a difference in the "substance" but only in the "accidents" of material things.
After all, one should be certain of such a thing before invoking the obedience of one's flock to partake of this ritual wouldn't you think?
Any believers out there with some insight to this situation?
If somebody said there's a magic man hiding in the clouds, and stopped right there, I would call him mildly nuts, and maybe harmless. But they never stop there. They got to invent all kinds of insane nonsense to pile on top of the magic man belief. Nothing is too impossible. Nothing is too weird to believe. That's when they become so insane they're dangerous. Out of control beliefs like the jesus cracker lead to death threats. The heaven belief leads to suicide bombers. The "Magic Man made creatures" belief leads to attacks against science and threats against biology teachers.
I've got some Serratia marcescans lying around the lab. Perhaps PeZed could culture some of jesus's blood on the consecrated host. It's worthy of a miracle in some circles.
Why do they keep mispelling "it's just a Frackin' cracker"?
#89 - Judi - Oh come on. You cannot possibly be SO demented that you believe a living, breathing adult human male can be encompassed in a cracker the size of a 50 cent piece. I also wonder why you would submit to the most amoral religion in the world? Do you enjoy being a slave and having your children in danger of being raped? God does not love you Judi. God cursed you. You are worth 15 pieces of silver and a homer & a half of barley. Hosea 3:2 believe that too? God is love, and Judi is a sucker.
I'm loving this, PZ. During the Muhammad cartoon incident, there were a lot of right-wingers claiming Christianity never does stuff like that. You're proving them wrong.
Just a little correction here. 100 people died as a result of the cartoon controversy, whereas no-one has died here. There have been no enraged crowds in the streets, and UMM buildings have not been set alight, as were several Danish embassies. No death threats have been issued by Catholic leaders.
It's appalling that they would kick up such a furore over a cracker, but this incident is nowhere near the level of the cartoon controversy yet.
"The cracker is completely different. This is something that's freely handed out." - Mr. Myers, this is a misrepresentation. Communion is only for Catholics who have been appropriately prepared for the sacrament. Just because the sacrament is given out on the HONOR system, the recipient is responsible for his own state, does not mean that it is meant for anybody or that it is valueless. It does mean that the individual who receives it bears a responsibility. You may choose to go ahead with this sacrilege, and may God have mercy on you if you do, but please do not justify it in your own mind by telling yourself that trust equals consent. You, and your accomplices in this crime, cannot escape the guilt of this act by telling this particular lie.
Catholics don't burn down buildings, cut off people's heads, fly airplanes into buildings, and whatever else Muslims enjoy doing, but Christians are more of a threat to America than Muslims. I noticed it's Christians, not Muslims, who are trying to suppress the teaching of biology. It's Christians, not Muslims, who are trying to stick their religion into our schools and governments.
Sure Michael. You asshole Catholics try to get a student expelled and a professor fired, and both receive death threats, therefore we should respect your idiotic jesus in a wafer.
"and may God have mercy on you if you do"
Go fuck yourself Michael.
Some, I'm sure, are certain PeeZee
Will do something rather cheesy--
It is, after all, a cracker, and would serve a bit of Brie--
Others think there's something missing
If there isn't any pissing
On the cracker that is Jeebus, but among them is not me.
There's no fire in my belly
To consume the Host with Jelly
Or with peanut butter, sausage, or a smoky salmon meat;
Me? Without a bit of jesting,
I'd suggest genetic testing
To confirm the Lord and Savior is predominately wheat.
#27:
If PZ can nail a cracker to a door without breaking it, I think we have something that goes beyond Martin Luther!
I noticed it's Christians, not Muslims, who are trying to suppress the teaching of biology.
Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:06 PM
That is laughable. Christians trying to suppress the teaching of biology? How ridiculous.
Cuttlefish, as always, I must offer a bow and a thank you.
Bow, Thank you
Pax Nabisco
I am one of those stupid Catholics who believes in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I understand you think we are stupid.
You sound bitter. But nobody thinks that all Catholics are stupid. The general consensus is that some parts of Catholic doctrine are good and noble, but that other parts are ill-advised or fanciful. People are concerned because some Catholics focus too much on obeying the "bad" doctrine and not enough on the "good" doctrine. That doesn't mean they're stupid; it just means that they need to think things through.
One of the fanciful parts is the belief that there exists a being (called "God") who is: (1) All-knowing. (2) All-powerful. (3) Doesn't want Dr. Myers to insult cookies. Obviously, if such a being existed, then it would be willing and able to persuade Dr. Myers to stop insulting cookies. Since this hasn't happened, it's safe to assume that no such being exists.
(One possible objection is that this being is trying to communicate with Dr. Myers, but he doesn't want to listen to it for some reason. But that's pretty silly. I'm sure that Dr. Myers doesn't want to pay taxes, and I'm equally sure that the government has convinced him that taxes exist and that he has to pay them. Surely if "God" existed, it would be more powerful than the government!)
Wasn't the whole Mohammed cartoon thing in Denmark, not the Netherlands? I'm from the Netherlands, we're not Danish. They're two different countries.
windy, a Che whore at #26 - that does have a nice ring, classy and trendy. (smile) Wear it with pride!!!!
I finally caught up on the Jolene thread. Afraid I posted rudely, but one does get tired of fools and liars.
Pax Nabisco
Wikipedia JeffreyD
One of the fanciful parts is the belief that there exists a being (called "God") who is: (1) All-knowing. (2) All-powerful. (3) Doesn't want Dr. Myers to insult cookies. Obviously, if such a being existed, then it would be willing and able to persuade Dr. Myers to stop insulting cookies. Since this hasn't happened, it's safe to assume that no such being exists.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | July 14, 2008 8:21 PM
Care to point out the fallacy here? (hint: just because God may not have done something is not proof of non-existence)
I can't figure out this desecration thing either, the logic doesn't add up:
As for what to do with a cracker, there are a couple of possibilities.
#125: "That is laughable. Christians trying to suppress the teaching of biology? How ridiculous."
What cave have you been living in, Mr. Salt? Biology = evolution. Christians are terrified of evolution and they have been trying to suppress the teaching of it for several decades.
Salt, I'm hoping your last name is Poe.
I can't figure out this desecration thing either, the logic doesn't add up:
As for what to do with a cracker, there are a couple of possibilities.
Oh prayer, Salt is really a fundament.
"Jim, Judi, and any other Catholics wandering by: Please refer to my comment #23, and explain why host desecration offends you when by Catholicism's own logic, host desecration is impossible."
I've read it and it's flawed. But it's pointless to discuss if you don't even believe in God. There's far too many errors to try to correct in this particular method of communication. But your underlying principle is that it's okay to desecrate because you don't believe in transubstantiation to begin with. So why even bother with trying to come up with some flawed concept of when transubstantiation would not take place?
The heart of the matter is that Catholics believe in transubstantiation. And now PZ is using that to agitate Catholics. You could very easily go about your daily life without trying to provoke Catholics. Why is any of this necessary???
It's childish behavior that accomplishes nothing. Well, actually, I've started to see Protestants jumping in to support Catholics and transubstantiation is something Protestants constantly debate Catholics about.
Seriously, why is this behavior necessary? When do the white hoods and torches come out?
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.
Jim asked "Why is any of this necessary???"
It's because Catholics are stupid insane assholes and they deserve to be ridiculed.
Any other questions?
#115 - Richard - What a fascinating question. I too, do not know who first instituted the ritual of the Eucharist. We have several volumes on the history of the popes in my county library, perhaps I can find that out.
8th century BC writer Hesiod does give the history of the first burnt offerings. They were done by Prometheus in honor of Zeus. Of course Zeus got fooled during the whole thing - but it pretty much shows that the catholics stole that idea too. The object of the burnt offering was to turn the ox into a form (smell & smoke) that the gods could use.
Hesiod Theogony Works and Days, translated by M. L. West, Oxford
Dammit Jim, there goes another irony meter.
Civilized human beings believe in being nice to people. Why did those catholics at UCF rile us all up with their provocative assault on anoher catholic?
Point to the flaw. Quote it. Cite it. Say what it is. Explain why it's flawed.
Try. Make the effort.
There are 18 lines in there. Which ones are wrong and why?
No. Wrong. False. My logic is absolutely flawless and impeccable, and INCLUDES GRANTING THE PREMISE THAT TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS TRUE.
#136: "It's childish behavior that accomplishes nothing."
As if there's nothing wrong with asshole Catholics going batshit crazy because one person didn't want to eat a tasteless cracker.
Anything that pisses off Catholic morons is worthwhile. The Catholics made complete fools out of themselves. For one cracker they have tried to get a student expelled, a professor fired, and the death threats are still coming in. Catholics must never be allowed to forget they are no better than Muslim terrorists.
Jim , do you subscribe to the belief that the Eucharist is the Savior in helpless cracker form?
In deference to all the Catholics saying PZ should try insulting Islam, I'd suggest instead that he go for a two-fer, and make a cracker collage of Mohammed.
Heck, maybe the cracker Prophet could be wearing a Star of David, to really round things out. (I'm sure with a bit of cleverness even more blasphemies could be packed into one piece of art.)
Sure tulse. Dress him in mixed fiber clothes while eating bacon.
Good interview PZ.
Indeed - it would be science. Specifically, finding just the right "moisturiser" and binding agent to make the cracker sufficiently pliable while still retaining its shape. For that plan, PZ might want to consult with people who routinely isolate and preserve specimens for archaeologists or in forensics or art restoration etc though, in case they already know of some suitable medium.
Jim writes in #136
"I've read it and it's flawed. But it's pointless to discuss if you don't even believe in God. There's far too many errors to try to correct in this particular method of communication. But your underlying principle is that it's okay to desecrate because you don't believe in transubstantiation to begin with. So why even bother with trying to come up with some flawed concept of when transubstantiation would not take place?"
What an utterly perfect non-answer. If you feel that there is an error present and you wish to defend it it behooves you to educate those who,in your opinion, are somehow deluded.
If you are having difficulty with that particular question perhaps you could address mine in post #115 eh?
Salt is a fundament...gawddammit True Bob, you owe me two monitor wipes and 1/2 a glass of sangria.
Well Patricia, then my work here is done.
"Civilized human beings believe in being nice to people. Why did those catholics at UCF rile us all up with their provocative assault on anoher catholic?"
When do civilized human beings abandon that belief? Ever?
What cave have you been living in, Mr. Salt? Biology = evolution. Christians are terrified of evolution and they have been trying to suppress the teaching of it for several decades.
Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 8:27 PM
Biology does not answer any question concerning god/gods/God, so why should Christians want to suppress it?
Evolution does not answer any question concerning god/gods/God, so why should Christians want to suppress it?
Now, atheism does answer any question concerning god/gods/God > does not exist.
So, using what appears to be the common logic found here at Pharyngula, and interpolating your statement within its context, biology/evolution = atheism. Why you guys continually point to that which does not answer and state that it does reminds me of someone pushing on a door clearly marked pull.
Alternatively, mummification in accordance (as closely as possible) with any of: Egyptian religious practices (as might befit Moses), South American Indian practices, celtic bog-dumping or even something along the lines of those head-shrinking types. That would be proper disposal of a body (whether honoured or sacrificial victim) by someone else's religious ideas - which of course the Catholics would have to respect since they make such a big deal of religion being respected and [sarcasm] couldn't possibly be hypocritically meaning only their own ...
I wonder if it would make a good paperweight feature - like those dandelion seed-heads or flowers.
Salt, your constipation is affecting your thinking.
There is no question regarding origins whose answer must be "god".
We aren't christers here. Maybe you can explain why christers want to suppress education.
Why should Christians want to suppress the teaching of evolution? I don't know. Because they're stupid assholes? You tell me. Why have shit-for-brains christians been trying to dumb down or eliminate the teaching of evolution for several decades?
Perhaps it's because evolution conflicts with the Bible, especially Genesis. Could that be why christian shitheads are so afraid of it?
Salt, your constipation is affecting your thinking.
There is no question regarding origins whose answer must be "god".
We aren't christers here. Maybe you can explain why christers want to suppress education.
Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM
Education about what?, BOB? Or do I get three guesses?
"No. Wrong. False. My logic is absolutely flawless and impeccable, and INCLUDES GRANTING THE PREMISE THAT TRANSUBSTANTIATION IS TRUE."
Actually it doesn't. And that's the problem. Your own comments reveal that you don't understand the concept to begin with. And for the others who also jumped in on this one, what's the point of even going down this tiresome path? If you don't believe in God, and you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and you don't believe what's written in the Bible, then there's now way I could possibly clarify this for you to your satisfaction. If I was discussing it with a Protestant who took his faith seriously, or with another Catholic who had an imperfect understanding of transubstantiation, then it might be different. But to go through the finer points with someone who is hostile and doesn't believe even the most basic concepts, then it's a total and complete waste of time. Not to mention the multitude of offshoots and diversions from each and every reader here.
The bottom line is that you don't believe in God, so you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus (some will even claim He never existed), and you don't believe what's in the Bible, and you don't believe what the Apostles handed down verbally. Getting into the finer details of transubstantiation is a total and complete waste of time. At the end of the day, Catholics believe it and this whole tirade has absolutely no purpose but to piss off Catholics.
I wonder if there's some way to do this in a manner similar to Jimmy Kimmel's "unnecessary censorship" bits? In those bits, various celebrities are shown speaking, but well chosen bits are bleeped out, pixelated, etc., giving the impression that something naughty is being said or done, but this is always 100% in the viewer's mind.
Maybe PZ could go ahead and desecrate the crap out of the cracker on video (or not?), but pixelate the proceedings, you know, so as not to offend anyone.
There is no question regarding origins whose answer must be "god".
Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM
If there were no question, then there would be no debate. Do you see people debating whether 2+2=4, Bob? On that, there is no question.
You're really dense, Mr. Salt.
You were asked, why do christians try to suppress science education. Why don't you answer the question or get lost.
#135, Salt Care to point out the fallacy here? (hint: just because God may not have done something is not proof of non-existence)
I wasn't arguing that no Gods exist, I was arguing against a specific conception of God. (Let's call it "The God that doesn't want Dr. Myers to insult cookies." I won't call it "The Catholic God" because that's an insult to the more sensible sort of Catholic.)
Can we agree that this God doesn't exist? If so, we just need to convince all the other posters and then our work here is done!
Well Salt, since you seem to be having a hard time with it, I'll type more slowly.
Why do christers want to suppress education about biology (to include evolution)?
Jim @ 136 The matter is simple. All you have to do is prove that your imaginary god exists and we will believe. Not that crap about showing me sunsets and flowers, and easter bunnies, and reports of the face of your god on a pile of feces, or dead christians draped over trees after a tornado, or birth defects, or child molesting priests. There is no god in these natural things; because you think there is does not make it so. Religion never existed before humans, and religion only came about because of humans. Does this simple reality penetrate that religion hardened skull of yours? Hand me an orange and say here is an orange. Don't show me your empty hand and say here is my god. You make think there is an imaginary god there because your religious upbringing and then your resulting demented ideas stemming from these irrational brainwashings makes you see an imaginary god there, but there is nothing there. You will go to your grave in delusion, thinking and wishing that you will go to an imaginary heaven that your now useless brain will negate. You will lie there uselessly, without a prayer, without any chance of returning to an imaginary life. It's a hard thought, but it's reality. Here, have a cracker to munch on.
You're really dense, Mr. Salt.
You were asked, why do christians try to suppress science education. Why don't you answer the question or get lost.
Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 9:10 PM
Liar! I was asked why Christians try to suppress education.
Since you lied, GET LOST dim bulb.
"At the end of the day, Catholics believe it and this whole tirade has absolutely no purpose but to piss off Catholics."
Yeah, so what? That's the point. To ridicule people who deserve to be ridiculed.
What, are you completely incapable of reading simple English words?
What part of "[...]for the sake of argument, the Eucharist is real" do you not understand?
What part of "The ritual of the Eucharist is that a priest consecrates the wafers and wine and God transubstantiates into them" is incorrect?
Well, this is true. Because it's all make-believe. Heck, it looks like even you don't believe in it. Not really, anyway.
Salt,
Browse through the archives and you'll see what's being referred to.
Here's a start: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/bad_news_from_louisiana.php
Salt, you are really slow. Are you on dial-up?
I can demonstrate 2+2=4.
Can you demonstrate god helplessly trapped in a wafer?
And as far as god, let's see some debate. So far you aren't doing it right.
Tell me, oh wise guy who has seen the light, what is god? Persuade me that the universe needs a god, or that life needs a god, or that I need a god.
I promise I'll be polite if you actually engage in a constructive manner and try to persuade.
Unlike Jim, who has quit his christer responsibility of saving souls ("a total and complete waste of time"). Bummer, too, I bet he could've gotten a prime seat to view hell from if he saved just one or two of us poor misguided, satan-deceived souls.
Salt, just answer the question.
Christians have been trying to suppress science education, especially biological evolution, for a long time now. You know this is true. Explain why. Are Christians afraid of evolution? Are they stupid? Insane? What's their problem? Please tell us.
Well Salt, since you seem to be having a hard time with it, I'll type more slowly.
Why do christers want to suppress education about biology (to include evolution)?
Posted by: True Bob | July 14, 2008 9:12 PM
Ah! Biology. Quite a specific subset of education. More precise. I mean, you could have been referring to womens studies or economics. Thank you.
Guess you missed my post # 151
Salt @ 130 Your ending statement can be interpreted as stating: Just because imaginary gods don't exist, is not proof that they don't exist. I like that! Here, have a cracker and ponder that for a while.
Gee, the last time I remember reading about a bunch of Catholic true-believers hassling a poor son of a bitch who wanted to desecrate something for science, it was when Vesalius had his life ruined for daring to dissect the sacrosanct human corpse. And that, contrary to a magic cracker, WAS a "real person."
No, Catholicism has always been pro-education. That's why they fought so hard to have the bible in contemporary languages everyone could understand and interpret for themselves, rather than a dead one only spoken by priests.
And, just in case you were thinking, that tree in the garden of Eden that god forbade A&E to eat the fruit from? Nothing to do with knowledge. Not a metaphor for 'do as we say and don't think for yourself' at all...
Salt, I really really hope you are only playing dumb. Otherwise I'd have to believe you are another proud liar for cheese.
Your post doesn't answer the question, it has a bunch of rhetorical questions in it. In fact, my discussion with you about this topic started post post 151.
christers suppress science education, and lately, specifically, evolution theory in biology. Why do they try to suppress the teaching of biology and its foundational theory of evolution?
Damn new hands. Of course I meant "liar for cheeses" @ 173.
Salt @ #169 referring to post #151, heh, doubleplusgood example of doublethink newspeak that post.
Salt, just answer the question.
Christians have been trying to suppress science education, especially biological evolution, for a long time now. You know this is true. Explain why. Are Christians afraid of evolution? Are they stupid? Insane? What's their problem? Please tell us.
Posted by: BobC | July 14, 2008 9:22 PM
Many Christians are all for the teaching of evolution. Many, including myself, see evolution as a subset of biology, biology not being only evolution.
Biology/evolution do not answer any questions concerning god/gods/God. It's when the mantra "GOD does not exist" enters that many Christians take notice. Now, many wish to attempt to show that ~matter/time/space could be without god/gods/God. Not that it is, but could be. Like betting on red or black, could be either.
To be fair to Salt, the official Catholic Church doctrine is, IIRC, that evolution is okay. It's really the US-based fundies that are so rabidly against it.
So they're okay with biological education - to an extent that is. Once it starts overlapping with sex education they have a problem.
Jim, you seem to be projecting your groups past and familiar behavior on us for some reason. Burnings are your m.o.
As to the question of why disrespect your cracker, I will say it is because you chose to act on your silly belief. As long as you kept your cracker hole shut there wasn't a problem. As soon as you decided to assault someone and threaten death to the student and PZ then that would be the reason as to why this is an issue. Keep quiet and we tolerate the cracker, get all fatwa envy on us and we call a cracker a cracker. Get it?
Furthermore, there is something else, on a similar note, that is much more important but needs to be mentioned. Those death cult christards who are expecting to see Jebus come back and snatch them away to heaven are trying to start a final conflict in the Middle East as a way to hasten the event.
This too needs to be mocked just as we mock the frackin cracker. We need you religious nuts to keep your stupid beliefs to yourselves. Quit threatening people who don't see things your way. You have freedom of religion and that should be enough for you. We have freedom from religion and we will not let go of that easily. Also, don't back the political asswipes who are trying to start yet another war so that a so-called prophecy can be fulfilled. You may be willing to bet your life on this nonsense but we (may I speak for the sane?) are not willing to go down that path with you. If you think this cracker thing is getting nasty then think twice about coaxing your savior back to earth by starting a war.
Salt, you didn't answer the question.
Why have Christians have been trying to suppress science education, especially biological evolution?
You can do it, Salt. Just answer the question.
Biology teachers don't talk about your Mr. God. They just teach biology, and evolution is the key component of biology. The Christians don't want evolution in there. Why not?
Do you think you can answer a simple question about science education without talking about your invisible friend?
FYI - the KKK are a Christian organisation. Any problems they have with Catholicism are strictly sectarian and has nothing to do with atheists or atheism.
BobC (168)
To begin... you use the term "Christians" as if it were monolithic. It is not. *Some* christians have been trying to suppress science education. Catholics are not, traditionally, part of that "some".
For the small subset (and no, it is not a "no true scotsman"--*you* were the one choosing the blanket term "Christian" instead of specifying an appropriate subset) or christians who do oppose evolution, it is quite arguably not fear at all, nor insanity, stupidity, or any other "problem" (but thank you for your concern). Rather, it is love, legitimate concern for your (and others') eternal soul, and the belief that if you continue as you are you (*you*, not themselves) will burn in hell. There can be no greater calling than to save you from that, if one sincerely believes that hell is your destiny.
I have no doubt that there are some who are happy to believe you will burn in hell. What I am concerned about is that you do not believe that there are some who are doing everything in their power to save you from this worst possible fate. If their motivation is "fear", it is not fear of evolution, but fear that you will be punished when they might have otherwise saved you. There is no "stupidity", but ignorance on two counts--theirs, which I do not need to explain to you, and yours, for your beliefs about them. There is, in my opinion, no "insanity" on either side, nor any "problem".
I am an atheist. You may or may not believe me--I don't care. I am an atheist. I was once a born-again christian. I was a skeptic then, and my skepticism was encouraged by my church (it was assumed that I would find the same evidence that convinced them that their beliefs were true). My skepticism led me to atheism, but my history is with me. I know that there are good people in the church. I know that there are thinking people in the church. I know that there is not one entity called "the church", or one monolithic group called "christians" any more than there is one monolithic group called "atheists".
So.... Maybe Salt will answer the question. I rather hope not. Whether or not Salt answers, it is a badly phrased question, full of false assumptions and glaring generalizations. I suspect it will generate more heat than light. I think the christians are wrong on this issue (to the extent that they can have one position), but not for any of the reasons you have suggested.
I have great hope for the commenters here. I believe they (we) can get beyond stereotypes and caricatures. I firmly believe the "unrepentant science heathens" to be in the right on this, and proudly wear that title... and as a proud USH, I think we can do better.
Just my 2 cents.
Salt @ 130 Your ending statement can be interpreted as stating: Just because imaginary gods don't exist, is not proof that they don't exist. I like that! Here, have a cracker and ponder that for a while.
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 9:24 PM
You have a great problem with that statement, as is assumes from the start gods don't exist. Quite fallacious.
I agree with Amplexus (way at the top of this thread). Do a scientific calorie experiment, except have a non-consecrated cracker as the control, and prove that the 'body of jesus' cracker IS just a cracker.
To be fair to Salt, the official Catholic Church doctrine is, IIRC, that evolution is okay. It's really the US-based fundies that are so rabidly against it.
So they're okay with biological education - to an extent that is. Once it starts overlapping with sex education they have a problem.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 9:40 PM
You have a valid point concerning the fundies. There are people who are unable to see anything other than in black and white. Metaphors, even poetry, for them are like tits on a bull, useless.
Slightly OT, but I'm surprised you have enough catholics over in the US at the moment to cause "problems". Caught the train into town, Sydney, this morning and it was choc-a-block full of christers singing "Hallelujah", and not the good Jeff Buckley version. The Yank "pilgrims" are the loudest chattiest - "bet you didn't expect to be spiritualised this morning" - but they're all singing. Large groups of them are prowling around town waving national flags and wearing their identical yellow and red WYD Popefest backpacks.
Yesterday a large group of Brazilians walked up and down my street singing Kumbaya or something. I don't know where they go at night.
At least they mostly come in the daylight... mostly.
Anon, I agree that not all Christians try to suppress science education. But I noticed in Louisiana the votes for a creationism bill were 94-3 and 36-0 and the governor signed the bill.
In Louisiana I would bet it's pretty darn hard to find a Christian who doesn't support the creationism bill. I'm sure they are out there somewhere, but they've been very quiet about it.
You're comments were very good, but I really have to disagree with your idea these Christians aren't stupid. A person has to go way out of his way to know nothing about science to deny the facts of evolution. Any intelligent person would spend at least a little time studying evolution. If he was too lazy to do that, he should at least suspect that hundreds of thousands of scientists just might know more about biology than preachers.
"Well, this is true. Because it's all make-believe. Heck, it looks like even you don't believe in it. Not really, anyway."
Actually, I do. Which is why I find your "logic" flawed and find it pointless to discuss it in any detail. Getting into the finer details of transubstantiation can be difficult with a Protestant (as I'm all too familiar with). But discussing it with an Atheist is a total and complete waste of time. We wouldn't even be able to get through John 6. Just because you say the word "transubstantiation" does not mean that you're starting with a proper understanding of what that means.
And again, at the end of the day, it doesn't change the basic problem we have here, that people want to behave like ignorant children and piss off Catholics. And even if you believed your "logic", that does not serve your purpose, so I'm not sure why you're all excited about it. But I'd be perfectly happy if you really did believe it was impossible and went along your merry way.
Good interview there PZ. It's amazing that in the absence of hostility that good dialogue over an otherwise controversial issue can facilitate.
BobC (186)
Thank you for your comments. In fact, I was going to complain a bit more until I re-read and saw "these christians". With the "these" modifier, I agree.
And Salt is not doing him/herself any favors since my comment.
I do believe that it is possible for a good christian to disagree with you and with science out of ignorance rather than stupidity--but I find it very hard to put Salt in that category.
Jim, you believe your jebus lives in a cracker and you call atheists ignorant?
If shithead Catholics weren't so bloody insane, they wouldn't care about the desecration of their jebus crackers. It's because they are stupid enough to take a medieval myth seriously is why they deserve to be ridiculed.
No you don't. You can't even be bothered to argue in favor of it.
No, it's because my logic is absolutely flawless that you find it pointless to discuss it at all.
So? In what way does a "proper" understanding of the "meaning" of "transubstantiation" alter my logic? Show it. Argue it. Defend what you pretend to believe in.
But if it is impossible to desecrate the host, then there isn't anything for Catholics to be pissed off about! That's the whole bloody point!
Free Dictionary -
of·fen·sive (-fnsv)
adj.
1. Disagreeable to the senses: an offensive odor.
2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront: an offensive gesture.
Being offended hurts no one. It neither physically injures or monetarily damages. It is emotional.
there isn't anything for Catholics to be pissed off about!
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:08 PM
Yet, some took offense. Why does that give you enjoyment?
The best thing PZ could do is just eat the cracker. Just eat it, dry and plain. Post it on youtube. Just look at the camera, smile, eat the cracker. Don't need to do anything like crumbling it,blending it, or smearing it with peanut butter or cheese.
Just it eat and smile. 30 seconds of video.
Next!
I see this as exactly the kind of bullshit Muslims were offended about with cartoon drawings of their stupid prophet. I admire PZ for his bravery and his courage in the face of an ugly, violent and dogmatic mob of Catholics.
Keep up the good fight PZ!!
RedEx
P.S. It's just a cracker.
Anon @ 181 I have read your statement twice, and in regard to calling yourself an atheist, I cannot believe this, mostly on the strength of what you wrote and how you phrased your comments at the beginning of the third paragraph, with "I have no doubt that there are some who are happy to believe you will burn in hell." That very beginning, and to the end of the paragraph lends me to believe that you are still a born-again christian. The very wording and turn of phrase is rent with religious overtones. You are giving credence to the religious concerns of christians to non-believers in a way that you are arguing for the concern which we will not accept and will eventually suffer the consequences. There is no ambiguity here; I interpreted it just as you phrased it and have no doubt of your underlying and still cherished beliefs. The following paragraph leads off with "I am an atheist", and you admonish us to believe it or not, you don't care. You may call yourself an atheist for a variety of reasons, but in my outright estimation you are not an atheist. I am an atheist in every thought and deed and have exhibited this with forthright honesty. To repeat, from what I read in your comments I can conclude that you are not an atheist, at least one that I can distinguish in relation to myself. Do you like crackers?
Please PZ do something science-y with the crackers. Feed them to some zebrafish, burn them and measure the calories, something alone this line.
You've declared(rightly) that science erodes faith in a real way.
I beg you please take a symbolic action to reduce this "host" to the material cracker that it truely is. The Bush administration was assembled and supported largely by the religious right. Bushfish: meet zebrafish.
http://bushfish.org/
A college friend of mine wrote an interesting blog post, perhaps inspired in part by my joining the Support PZ! Facebook group.
I'm curious the reaction here. Of course, there's going to be a vocal contingent that says that it's all ridiculousness because it's supporting veneration of a cracker (I agree), but he does make what seems to be a reasonable plea not to offend for offense's sake.
Unfortunately, the author also seems to have the same affliction that affects all theists and prevents them from being able to spell the good doctor's name. Oh well.
Jim & Salt - Piss off the catholics? Ha! There's a real sin. It's about time somebody pissed off the child molesting, woman killing, genocidal bastards. Fuck the catholics.
Want to humble an uppity woman you christian freaks? Trot out your gawd. Let's see him. He appeared to Adam, Eve & Moses. He spoke to Noah. He made the serpent speak in Eden, and Balaams Ass talk. Where is he boys? He made the world, how about he turns out the Sun for 15 seconds? Suspend gravity for a minute? He's bullshit and you're full of bullshit.
Well what gives me enjoyment is Owlmirror's insightful and pithy comments, especially #23. Worth the misery of reading through Xtian blather, to then enjoy the responses!
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
He made the world, how about he turns out the Sun for 15 seconds? Suspend gravity for a minute? He's bullshit and you're full of bullshit.
Posted by: Patricia | July 14, 2008 10:31 PM
Metaphorically, as to the sun, He does that every so often. I highly doubt you understand what I mean.
Gravity? Why would he do that? If you want gravity suspended, go into space.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:32 PM
Wow! You're good. Wish I could be like you.
Re #45,
Jim Writes
"Actually, I do. Which is why I find your "logic" flawed and find it pointless to discuss it in any detail. Getting into the finer details of transubstantiation can be difficult with a Protestant (as I'm all too familiar with). But discussing it with an Atheist is a total and complete waste of time. We wouldn't even be able to get through John 6. Just because you say the word "transubstantiation" does not mean that you're starting with a proper understanding of what that means."
How convenient that you are incapable of explaining your stance because of OUR ignorance. Exactly how are we supposed to be convinced by that which you seem both reluctant and incapable of explaining?
Way back in post #115 I posed a question for believers and It has nothing to do with the Eucharist itself but with the vesting of authority for the Eucharist.
Richard in Edmonton writes
"It struck me today that I am ignorant of the means by which the first members of the Christian religion who instituted the ritual of the Eucharist were able to discern whether they had succeeded in accomplishing the actual transubstantiation effect if ,being human, they are not able to detect a difference in the "substance" but only in the "accidents" of material things.
After all, one should be certain of such a thing before invoking the obedience of one's flock to partake of this ritual wouldn't you think?
Any believers out there with some insight to this situation?"
So Jim perhaps we can have you acquaint us with the origins of the ritual for the purpose of clarity? You do wish clarity to be arrived at do you not?
Awaiting in sincere patience for honest rebuttal.
Kel wrote:
I liked it, but I bet you'll be finding it quote-mined soon.
No, those are called "eclipses". They happen when the moon in its orbit happens to come directly between the Earth and the Sun. These are predictable natural phenomena. It's a pity that you're still so superstitious that you think a magical angry God is responsible.
Wow, Vox Day is even more morally bankrupt than I previously thought.
sorry you do not believe me, Holbach. I have no god(s). I do, however (because of my past) understand those who do believe; perhaps you do not. No problem. In about 90% of my life, I am arguing against belief, because that is what is called for. But when people claim some knowledge of believers that is, in fact, false, I have no problem correcting them. If you met me in real life, I have no doubt at all that you would be convinced; it is highly unlikely that you will, and so you are ignorant of my [lack of] beliefs. I accept this.
I eat crackers with soup. It has been over 30 years since anyone gave me a cracker and said it was the body of christ. (for the record, this church gave grape juice for blood, as they were against wine.) It has been over 25 years (conservative estimate) since I had the slightest inkling that it was anything but a cracker.
If your world view cannot handle an atheist who actually understands christians, perhaps that is your loss. But... so as not to mince words--you are quite wrong. I am indeed an atheist. I do not care one whit if you believe me; those who know me already know. I cannot prove (nor can anyone, on the interwebs) my beliefs to you, nor yours to me. And, frankly, they are irrelevant. Which, in a way, is precisely the point.
Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 10:36 PM
People around here usually try to back up their claims every so often. And I highly doubt anyone will understand a point that simply isn't supported by data of some sort. Exactly how does God - metaphorically, mind you - turn out the sun every so often? (I assume the answer will inevitably include an equivocation of some scientific phenomenon the sun undergoes, with the caveat that God made it happen, for whatever reason.) But please, feel free to explain your own statement.
Metaphorically, as to the sun, He does that every so often. -Salt
No, those are called "eclipses". They happen when the moon in its orbit happens to come directly between the Earth and the Sun. These are predictable natural phenomena. It's a pity that you're still so superstitious that you think a magical angry God is responsible.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 14, 2008 10:41 PM
LMAO! You guys are so predictable.
No, those are called "eclipses"
No shit, sherlock.
A little aside:
From what I can gather, prayers are really mental masturbation, innit??
Salt said If you want gravity suspended, go into space.
Unintentionally funny I think. The best kind.
Salt @ 182 Of course gods don't exist, and you will never prove they don't exist except in your mind. So since they exist in your mind that means they exist outside of your mind? Why is it that they don't exist in my mind? Our brains are the same evolutionary result, but with a big difference in content. You are putting in something that does not exist, and yet I am unable to do the same. How do you explain that? Fallacious?
"FYI - the KKK are a Christian organisation. Any problems they have with Catholicism are strictly sectarian and has nothing to do with atheists or atheism."
PZ's proposed behavior and the comments suggested on most of this blog aren't really much different when you get down to it. You have a group of people who consider themselves superior, hate another group of people because of something that unites that group of people, and find entertainment in provoking that group of people. The only real difference is how far you're willing to take it. Today it's childesh hate speech and threats of desecrating something they hold sacred. What do you have planned for tomorrow? How far do you let this escalate? You're feeding a mob mentality. You might as well wear the white hoods since you're cut from the same cloth.
@Salt
Wow, taking a natural (and entirely predictable) natural phenomena and attributing it to God. What a powerful entity God is...
@Jim
Okay, let's say we atheists hold this blog sacred and by posting in it you are desecrating something we hold sacred. Would you stop posting if that were the case?
Richard in Edmonton (#203) wrote:
I think it works the same way you can tell that a tinfoil hat is keeping out the CIA brain control waves. You just sort of feel it working.
Of course gods don't exist, and you will never prove they don't exist except in your mind. So since they exist in your mind that means they exist outside of your mind? Why is it that they don't exist in my mind?
You are putting in something that does not exist, and yet I am unable to do the same. How do you explain that? Fallacious?
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 10:50 PM
Fallacious? Indeed. You begin with the absolute "Of course gods don't exist". You do know what a fallacy is, don't you?
Nothing you stated proves one way or another whether god/gods/God exists or not. It's but child's play.
Thanks Norman. I cannot tell you how much of a relief it is to know I am not the only one wearing these things.
Okay, let's say we atheists hold this blog sacred
Posted by: Kel | July 14, 2008 10:57 PM
That's rich.
Jim,
You have a group of people Catholics, who consider themselves superior because of their religion, and who hate another group of people because of something that unites that group of people, like them belonging to another religion, and find entertainment in provoking killing, burning, torturing or forced-converting that group of people because they claim their god says it's okay.
Fixed it for you.
Tomorrow it'll probably be Mormonism or Scientology, or hey, maybe even Islam.
We're equal-opportunity scoffers.
That's as far as it goes. Ridicule and refutation.
Nonsense. The KKK are also Christians, as well as being racists and anti-Semites. Of course we scoff at them as well.
Hate is such a strong word, how about just aversion. And no, we don't consider ourselves superior against all catholics, just against you.
Ah, the good ol' slippery slope fallacy. So, today you rape alter boys, what do you have planned for tomorrow? How far do you let this escalate?
You guys are really off your game tonight. What is this, the second string? Or are you guys wearing an anti-banana disguise? (if that escapes you, see Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop)
Salt @ 217 You will never prove that your gods don't exist. Of course I am using the negative here as I always do in this argument to show my utter contempt for that concept. So fallacy need not apply here, or did you fail to notice and comprehend this? You will never prove this while you are still alive, and most assuredly when you are dead. I am confident that there are no gods and can never prove it. You are confident that there are gods, and likewise will never prove it. I can live without it, but you cannot live without it. Can you comprehend what I am trying to convey to you without being fallacious?
Salt, you are an idiot.
Forget I ever thought to defend you.
Well, we can only manage to be so clever the first few hundred times you people show up.
Oh yeah, that is a must-see classic.
You guys are really off your game tonight. What is this, the second string? Or are you guys wearing an anti-banana disguise? (if that escapes you, see Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop)
Posted by: Salt | July 14, 2008 11:11 PM
Ah, the good old ad hominem, mixed in with a pop culture reference in a weak attempt at condescending humor. Still no data or evidence, but then again, we weren't really expecting any.
"How convenient that you are incapable of explaining your stance because of OUR ignorance. Exactly how are we supposed to be convinced by that which you seem both reluctant and incapable of explaining?"
I did not say that I am incapable of explaining my stance. I said that it's a complex theological topic and would be a waste of time, given the fact that you neither believe in God, nor the divinity of Jesus. How could we even begin to discuss the content of John chapter 6 if you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God and view the Bible as a work of fiction??? I'm saying that the entire attempt would be a waste of time. It's difficult enough when discussing it with a Protestant who believes so much of what I believe.
Then add to that much of what St. Paul wrote in his letters. If you consider them fiction, then what's the point in my referring to them? And that's just to cover the basics.
On top of all of that, I also watched all the effort Phil(?) put into it in another thread and for what? He didn't change your mind and neither will I. The fundamental problem here is that you don't believe in God, nor the divinity of Jesus, nor anything written in the Bible, nor anything handed down by the Apostles, and on and on. If you don't believe in the existance of God, then there's no such thing as transubstantiation. If you believe in God but don't believe in the divinity, and thus authority, of Jesus, then there's no such thing as transubstantiation. If you believe in the divinity of Jesus, but don't believe in the accuracy of the Bible, then there's no such thing as transubstantiation. Catholics believe what they do because of their belief in Jesus' divinity, His inability to speak anything but Truth, and the protection of the Holy Spirit to keep the Truth handed on through Apostolic Succession. What good would it do to explain John 6, or 1 Cor. 11:27-28 if you believe it's a work of fiction? Explain to me why I should even waste my time.
Salt,
I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not we can prove that, at point in the universe, there might have been something other than human. I feel it is highly unlikely, but not impossible.
What I challenge is your justification that the 'something' is, without doubt, the god you happen to believe in (the catholic one?) - as opposed to the vast number of other gods there are to choose from.
#213: "What do you have planned for tomorrow?"
Constant ridicule of out-of-control religious insanity.
Ah, the good old ad hominem, mixed in with a pop culture reference in a weak attempt at condescending humor. Still no data or evidence, but then again, we weren't really expecting any.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 14, 2008 11:19 PM
Never thought that which is self evident needed any.
Salt, you are an idiot.
Forget I ever thought to defend you.
Posted by: Anon | July 14, 2008 11:17 PM
Thank you. I mean that.
I am confident that there are no gods and can never prove it. You are confident that there are gods, and likewise will never prove it. I can live without it, but you cannot live without it. Can you comprehend what I am trying to convey to you without being fallacious?
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 11:16 PM
Sure. Nicely stated. So why does it get your panties in such a wad?
Oh yeah, that is a must-see classic.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 14, 2008 11:17 PM
Yep.
Jim Writes
"I did not say that I am incapable of explaining my stance. I said that it's a complex theological topic and would be a waste of time, given the fact that you neither believe in God, nor the divinity of Jesus. How could we even begin to discuss the content of John chapter 6 if you don't believe Jesus is the Son of God and view the Bible as a work of fiction??? I'm saying that the entire attempt would be a waste of time. It's difficult enough when discussing it with a Protestant who believes so much of what I believe."
Well of course we should start at the beginning. Please show the evidence you have that deals with the existence of God or the divinity of Jesus. After that is accomplished we will continue it other things like Transubstantiation.
Complex? No. Circular reasoning? Yes.
Glad we agree.
Please don't. I almost fell asleep just reading you explain why you don't want to explain the unexplainable.
Jim, if your jebus was a god-man, why didn't he know anything about evolution?
Christians believe he could perform cheap disgusting magic tricks, like turning himself into a zombie, but why couldn't jebus say one intelligent thing about science? It's obvious he was as ignorant about the natural world as everyone else who lived back then.
Salt follow up to mine @ 224 I'll grant you this: it's not your fault that gods don't exist, you had nothing to do with it! But you do have something in common with most rabid religionists and that is to invent something that does not exist. Am I getting through to you? You will never win this argument with me, as not only do I have blatant reason on my side, but I am the most ardent atheist you will ever have the misfortune to counter my rationalism with your nonsensical bullshit. Sit down and rest your besopped brain, and here is a cracker to eat as you ponder it's transformation.
Speaking of insanity. w00t!
The federal court in Oz has just rejected the Popefest WYD anti-annoyance laws.
A couple of guys from the No To Pope Coalition challenged the laws in court so we are now free to wear our offensive t-shirts and hand out annoying condoms without worrying about the 5 grand penalty.
Salt,
It's was a hypothetical. And even then, honestly would you people not eat beef because the Hindus consider it a sacred animal? Honestly, it's IMPOSSIBLE to adhere to religions you aren't a part of. No matter how much you say it's offensive to Catholics, it's no more offensive to desecrate a holy cracker than it is for you to eat a holy animal of another religion.
What I challenge is your justification that the 'something' is, without doubt, the god you happen to believe in (the catholic one?) - as opposed to the vast number of other gods there are to choose from.
Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 11:22 PM
You are quite free to do so. BTW, the catholic one is no different than the Jewish or the protestant one. I am not catholic, fyi.
Kel, so by partaking of a nice big juicy sirloin I'm offending hindus? Cool. I dig on swine, do you think I would offend anyone by eating bacon too?
@BobC
lol
That's a good point though, with all these "holy men", all they would really have to do to show their worth is advance scientific knowledge well beyond the level that it was then. Maybe if Jesus had given them the knowledge of evolution, of germ theory, of modern physics and chemistry, then maybe there would be something to his omnipotence. Rather what Jesus said was nothing out of the ordinary that anyone in his time could have said. Just like every other supposed deity.
It doesn't give much credence to the idea they were magic at all.
Salt,
It's was a hypothetical. And even then, honestly would you people not eat beef because the Hindus consider it a sacred animal?
No matter how much you say it's offensive to Catholics, it's no more offensive to desecrate a holy cracker than it is for you to eat a holy animal of another religion.
Posted by: Kel | July 14, 2008 11:30 PM
Do the Hindu's consider it offensive to eat beef? Not that I am aware of. A friend recently got back from India and he said he often ate steak.
Yet they have such different temperaments. Does your god have multiple personality disorder too? Is the Islamic god also your god? And what about he other five dozen religions' god figures?
Salt, um... What? Huh? I'm not seeing any substance to your replies.
#200 - Salt - "Metaphorically, as to the Sun he does that every so often. I highly doubt you understand what I mean."
Thats right asshole, I don't understand what you mean. You dickless, sexist coward. Cute it up fool. Talk down to a woman.
Fuck you. Your gawd doesn't turn out the Sun. Idiot. Suspend gravity? Why can't he? If he made gravity, it should be his to control.
Trot him out Salt. Show me your gawd.
Not all Indians are Hindu. You are really letting your ignorance show.
Yes, some of them do. In most states of India it's illegal to slaughter cows. It's still a sacred animal and the religion tells them to treat it like their own mother.
But even with all that, IF (note the if as a hypothetical) a religion considered a particular animal holy, would you refrain from eating it?
On the subject of "substance" vs. "accidents":
When I was Catholic, it was a matter of "faith" that a tasteless melt-in-your-mouth cracker and cheap wine became the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ at a certain point in the Mass. And yes, it still looks, smells, and tastes like a cracker and cheap wine, and any test devised by man, scientific or otherwise, could not find the difference between that particular plate of crackers and chalice of cheap wine, and the crackers still in plastic or cheap wine in a bottle sitting in the sacristy ... although even thinking about doing such a test is apparently now sacrilege.
How can this be? (All you ex-Catholics, join in:) IT'S A MYSTERY!
I can only believe six impossible things before breakfast; the sheer quantity required to be Catholic beggared even my imagination, so one day I gave up Catholicism for Lent (badabing!) and never looked back.
Salt wrote:
Wow. Just...wow. Congratulations - I think you just managed to insult more so-called 'people of faith' in one fell swoop than PZ's managed in all his years of posting.
Salt I just saw a video on the internet news that the head moron in Rome is going to apologise for all the sexual abuse by those slimy fucking priests. Now isn't that just so big of him. Let me ask you this: Why doesn't he get his imaginary god (see my aim here again Salt, with negative?) to come down and apologise, as this is the gist of the whole insanity? Repeat: WHY DOESN'T HE GET HIS GOD TO COME DOWN AND APOLOGISE? This question will forever remain unanswerable, because to attempt to answer it will engender all manner of illiogical excuses, none of which will prove that gods do not exist.
"Hate is such a strong word, how about just aversion. And no, we don't consider ourselves superior against all catholics, just against you."
Aversion implies walking away; to live and let live. What I see here from PZ's comments and by many others here is to go out of your way to piss people off.
hatred: 1 a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy
Ah, the good ol' slippery slope fallacy. So, today you rape alter boys, what do you have planned for tomorrow? How far do you let this escalate?"
I think you should refer to PZ's blog about people on this site getting out of hand after he posted the two emails. I think you should read many of the comments here about ratcheting things up several notches. I'm not pulling anything out of thin air. I'm basing my comments on what I'm reading here.
What I challenge is your justification that the 'something' is, without doubt, the god you happen to believe in (the catholic one?) - as opposed to the vast number of other gods there are to choose from. Posted by: Wowbagger | July 14, 2008 11:22 PM
You are quite free to do so. BTW, the catholic one is no different than the Jewish or the protestant one. I am not catholic, fyi. - salt
Salt, um... What? Huh? I'm not seeing any substance to your replies.
Posted by: shane | July 14, 2008 11:39 PM
Damn, you are one sharp cookie, shane. Umm, Umm. Sharp as a tack.
@Frank Mitchell
This sounds like the perfect opportunity for a double-blind experiment. It would shut up all dissenters if ANY catholic could successfully demonstrate that they are able to be distinguished.
Repeat: WHY DOESN'T HE GET HIS GOD TO COME DOWN AND APOLOGISE? This question will forever remain unanswerable, because to attempt to answer it will engender all manner of illiogical excuses, none of which will prove that gods do not exist.
Posted by: Holbach | July 14, 2008 11:48 PM
And we have another sharp tack.
So tell us, Holback, who is the "head moron in Rome" going to apologize for? "slimy fucking priests" or God?
Are you really this IQ deficient?
Not when letting live gets in the way of my living.
One thing you have to learn about the internet. The comments tend to be a little melodramatic. You me one instance of organised Atheist violence that even comes close to what innumerable religious groups have done/are doing.
You know, Salt. Since your god obviously loves you and hates me, why doesn't he present himself to me, just to prove me wrong and prove you right. Better yet, why doesn't he just kill me with a lighting bolt? I'm sure that would make things easier to save the souls of prosperity.
You know, Salt. Since your god obviously loves you and hates me, why doesn't he present himself to me, just to prove me wrong and prove you right. Better yet, why doesn't he just kill me with a lighting bolt? I'm sure that would make things easier to save the souls of prosperity.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 12:03 AM
Assume for the moment that he exists. Why must he prove himself to anyone? "why doesn't he present himself to me, just to prove me wrong and prove you right". Assuming he exists, that will happen, at his good time and not yours.
I think you should nail that cracker to a cross. Get a couple of popsickle sticks, tie them together and thumb tack that sucker on there...
But you are not capable.
I offered a simple, clear, logical 18-point list that grants you God, the Roman Catholic Church, and the truth of transubstantiation, all as simple givens, and you can't tell me how it's flawed.
Given my simple logic, do you agree that it is not possible to desecrate the host at all, ever? And do you therefore agree that Catholics have no reason to be angry about the threat of said "desecration"?
If you disagree, are you capable of explaining which of the points are wrong, and why?
Is this too much to ask?
Oh that's right, the omnipotent god just couldn't be bothered for ten seconds to save my soul. But let's not forget, he loves me.
Poe's Law on Salt?
He's gotta be trolling, no one can be this dense unintentionally.
Assuming he exists, that will happen, at his good time and not yours. - Salt
Oh that's right, the omnipotent god just couldn't be bothered for ten seconds to save my soul. But let's not forget, he loves me.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 12:16 AM
Wat makes you think it is lost, assuming you have one?
I shall go no further, but assuming none are lost, why should he have any great concern about you right now?
Sorry, no chance of conversion here. And what about all the deceased atheists? The good lord couldn't spare a few seconds for them? Right, because all good people go to heaven, with good being defined as whatever morale code is active in some particular society at some particular time. Remind me again why we all have to be Christian.
Salt: Damn, you are one sharp cookie, shane. Umm, Umm. Sharp as a tack.
Bravo Salt, bravo. *golf clap*. Consider me skewered. Definitely a troll. He's running out of (non) material now though.
Poe's Law on Salt?
He's gotta be trolling, no one can be this dense unintentionally.
Posted by: MikeBok | July 15, 2008 12:19 AM
LMAO. Hey, Mike, turn your headlights on. Easier to see in the dark.
Jim @ 228 and elsewhere Your brain is one cesspit of a religious commode, and just reading your comments confirms my stance that you will never see the light of reason. You will most assuredly die in this manner, and all your insane thoughts, actions and remarks will be extinguished by the worms who have no feeling one way or the other of the condition of your brain. You will lie there slowly being devoured by those intelligently designed worms, and as you did not speak rationally while you were alive, your deranged thoughts will have no meaning when you are dead. You will be unaided by any imaginary god you have deigned to proffer to help you in your hour of need while you were alive. You will go out without a god, just as you came in. I am confident that if you devour enough crackers you may be able to stem the tide of eventual insanity with that everlasting transubstantiation to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids.
Oh, I assure you, I do.
I don't.
In other words: Everyone dies. Hah!
I love humans in the same way kids love bubble wrap.
Posted by: Salt | July 15, 2008 12:20 AM
Oh, maybe because it is a major tenet of Christian faith - and the defining principle of the doctrine of a loving, personal God - that God does, by nature, care for each and every one of his creations. That's why he should, if he exists. But I realize that such an exercise in critical thinking falls outside your range of comprehension, so you should probably stick to your "sharp as a tack" ad hominem arsenal - at least that way you can feign intelligence, however futile that may be.
I don't know why it is but I feel like James T Kirk whenever I come here -
"Khan, I'm laughing at the "superior intellect."
Nite all, it's been fun, as usual.
Getting wittier by the second, I see.
Salt @ 253 I see that went right over your religion sapped brain. Let me put this so that even you will surely grasp it. I want the head EARTHLY moron to announce to earth that he is calling his god down to apologise FOR ALL HIS CREATIONS OF FUCKING SHIT PRIESTS. Since it is the creator of all, I want the papist to make room at his side for his god to make the announcement IN PERSON of divine apology. Will this happen? And why not? Answer the fucking question! It won't happen because there is no imaginary god that directs all, whether the workings of the Universe or the sexual molestation of children by those fucking priests. That pope has as much chance in making his god appear as I have in embracing fucking religion! When are you going to get that insane crap out of your skull that you think is directing the whole shebang? Your fucking imaginary shit god does not exist. Get over it, for it will not come to your aid as it surely must now after I proved to you there is no shit god, but only that which infests your deranged brain. Let's see your god, you cracker brain!
Salt mistakes vagueness and obsfucation for profundity and wit.
Remember that abortion thread where he dropped a few non-sequiturs, laughed and declared victory, then left? Only he didn't really leave?
That was awesome!
I do so look forward to getting up in the morning and seeing that the pope has taken responsibility for the child raping. I'm just full of FAITH that the bastard will do more than PRAY for the molested.
And sure enough Jim & Salts gawd will be hovering over my house to give me eternal life and Biffons millions.
Jim you are simply an idiot.
And to BLESS everyones good night - In the immortal words of True Bob - Salt is a fundament.
At #238 Salt wrote:
BTW, the catholic [god] is no different than the Jewish or the protestant one. I am not catholic, fyi.
But yet this one god gave each of these three groups different, and often conflicting, rules that it was commanded to follow.
And within each group, he also gave the many subgroups (the different sects in Catholicism, Protestantism and Judaism) different rules.
And god told each of these subgroups that it had the right set of rules, and that it shouldn't follow the other rules.
So how can anyone really know they're following the right set of rules?
God is so darn mysterious and tricky.
"Myers: There's a subtle difference there -- maybe an important difference. I don't favor the idea of going to somebody's home or to something they own and possess and consider very important, like a graveyard -- going to a grave and desecrating that. That's something completely different. Because what you're doing is doing harm to something unique and something that is rightfully part of somebody else -- it's somebody else's ownership. The cracker is completely different. This is something that's freely handed out."
This seems like a strange or inconsistent line of argument to me. Maybe someone can clarify.
I feel like we don't approve of desecrating graves because they are something of significance to the people who visit and care about them. We don't want to hurt those people's feelings, and moreover we have a sense that we ought not to 'hurt the feelings' of the deceased, either. Of course, one can't really do that, as just about all of us would probably agree. But we consider it offensive and unacceptable to violate that norm nonetheless and would probably accuse someone who rejected the idea of being tactless at the very least if they were to object to showing graves respect.
PZ seems to be telling us that the significant difference between a magic grave and a magic cracker is that crackers aren't "unique" and that they aren't "rightfully part of somebody else". Huh? What does their uniqueness have to do with whether others' feelings are attached to them? And how has he determined a grave to rightfully belong to someone, but a sacrament bestowed by a priest upon a supplicant (deemed worthy) not to?
The argument sounds flimsy and ad hoc to me. I get the sense that everyone is letting that sort of slipperiness pass because of the sheer stupidity of "but it's just a CRACKER". Yet it's just a block of stone atop a corpse, too. I don't want to press too heavily on the grave analogy, because obviously there's a ton of cultural baggage attached to all of this stuff -- but it seems to me that we ought to be honest about our motivations here, and ought to honestly examine our arguments. Particularly when claiming the rational and moral high ground while simultaneously making a point of being offensive to people.
Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 1:29 AM
Easy - someone is buried in the grave. If you dig it up, it will have a physical body - or what's left of one - in it. No one respects graves because of who might exist within them, but rather because of who's actually down there. You find me a communion wafer that undoubtedly has someone buried inside it, then we can discuss how the two are similar. "The proper reverence due those who have gone before" does not include wafers of unleavened bread.
Good interview.
Then I read the first comment and just had to vote it down. So it went from -20 to:
Woohoo! I wrapped the counter! In the negative direction!
(Er, actually probably just tickled a bug in their software)
At #259 gdlchmst said:
Oh that's right, the omnipotent god just couldn't be bothered for ten seconds to save my soul. But let's not forget, he loves me.
Nod. Why does god have this need to be so darn mysterious and tricky?
Why can't he just have a TV show like Jesus on South Park?
Or he could have his own blog.
OK. Not everyone has cable or even connects to the internet.
But heck, what would it hurt if he just sent us a nice post card now and then? Is it the cost of postage that's stopping him?
ACtually, it occurs to me that the proper thing to do with the cracker is, first, to kill it, or at least disable it.
Since it is apparently a WereCracker, piercing it with something silver should do the trick. This should be done before the next full moon, lest Jesus regain his human form and rip your throat out with one swipe of his powerful jaws...er...something like that. He does that in the Bible, right? I think it's in John. The mistake the Romans made was usng iron spikes instead of silver.
Anyway, once disabled, seal the thing in a block of acrylic and use it as a key chain.
Steve "Until he gets out, no second coming!" James
Breakfast,
"And how has he determined a grave to rightfully belong to someone, but a sacrament bestowed by a priest upon a supplicant (deemed worthy) not to?"
The grave actually belongs (in every sense of the word) to someone else, the wafer is given to anybody who shows up. Unless you shove another attendant out of the way and steal his wafer, there's absolutely no point of comparison between the two acts. This isn't an occult method of determination.
Maybe it comes from living in Quebec for a long while, but the idea of Catholic mass as private and select, and of the Eucharist as some kind of discriminate process that has to be fooled, really doesn't jibe with reality.
Owlmirror is right. The theology isn't accorded with reality, even making every supernatural assumption believers would be making. The Host is only considered vulnerable as an excuse to crusade against the unbeliever.
brokenSoldier -- So if, say, someone dies in an accident and the body can't be recovered, it's ok to, say, pee on their gravestone and mock whoever takes umbrage at the act?
I don't think that's an honest appraisal of why we care about respecting graves.
Both the grave and the wafer are important to those for whom they are important because of the norms and ceremonies surrounding them, the symbolic significance of the more or less arbitrary object. God 'blesses the cracker' and your loved one 'cares if you visit'. The fact that there's a corpse in the grave is about as relevant as whether the colour of the cracker is close to a flesh tone or not.
Numad - Whether the theology is coherent or not is utterly beside the point of whether it's reasonable to accord the wafer ceremony respect, as I tried to show with the example of our cultural mythologies surrounding death. For this sort of brash attack on another's belief system to be credible at ALL, it can't just be you saying "Well, *I* don't believe in such foolish things!!" -- or you wouldn't have any reason to object to some mean, nihilistic individual breaking people's gravestones because she simply doesn't believe that they deserve respect. I'm saying that we already accept that it's rude and stupid to piss on things other people care about just because we don't happen to care about them -- so there had better be a good and genuine reason for pissing on this wafer.
It doesn't matter to Catholics whether the process is really select or not. It matters to them because of the role of the ceremony in their religious life. It's an affirmation of their membership and good standing in the religion that they share in public with their fellow churchgoers. It reinforces their feeling of a personal relationship with God. It doesn't take much imagination to figure why they might be annoyed by someone taking their symbol and disrespecting it. It's not "just a frackin' cracker", or PZ wouldn't have bothered calling for its desecration -- the goal is to symbolically slap Catholics in the face for having a silly belief.
Breakfast,
Your comparison was bunk and your argument has no substance beyond: "this was disrespectful to Catholic beliefs!" Which I think is something everybody agrees with.
Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 1:42 AM
Now you're being intentionally dense, I think. But either way, I'll explain the concept a little bit further. Even if someone's body may not be in the grave, the grave is for that one person, and that one person alone. Whether or not the body is in there, that site is designated as their final resting place. For that reason, a grave and a communion wafer will never be viewed as analogous, even when someone is trying to manufacture rage over the wafer's supposed mistreatment.
It's honest, all right. Graves are repsected because they are recognized as the place in which that former human now lies, physical body or not. There is a name on the headstone, and that name - the memory of that human - is what is respected. So, in light of the hair splitting, I'll rephrase the challenge. You show me a communion wafer that the burial site for a human, and then we can talk about the two in the same light. And no metaphysics or discussion of transubstantiation. The wafer has to be the actual resting place, and has to be unique - as in, they can't all be the resting place for the same person. Since that will never happen, the two will never exist in the same category.
Actually, the priest consecrates the bread and wine, and I doubt very seriously your loved ones care if you visit. My offerings of respect are not directed towards my loved one's eternal happiness (that would be silly, because they are dead); they are directed towards my respect for who they once were and my desire to keep them in my memory. I would be pissed if someone desecrated my family or friend's grave, but I wouldn't care in the least if someone stomped on a cracker that was supposed to "be" them. That sounds a bit too voodoo doll-ish for me.
Breakfast,
There is a difference between the grave and the cracker simply based on the significance of the symbology attached to them. One is made out of personal respect for a real, once-living person. The other is made out of an idiotic religious doctrine to opiate the masses. One *deserves* our respect, the other does not. Moreover, normally, there would be no need to screw with the catholics. But once they start dictating that we must respect and abide by their rules, it is high time for some much needed contumacy. Think of it as a sort of practical dialectics.
This is, of course, assuming you take the cracker as symbolic. I'm sure I don't need to waste time on the other scenario.
I'm questioning PZ's given reasons for disrespecting Catholic beliefs in particular, Numad. You echoed his argument that it's ok to make fun of Catholics but not, say, people with dead relatives, because the ceremony that Catholics care about isn't extremely selective about who can participate in it, whereas funerals are selective. What I continue to wonder is what the hell that has to do with whether or not we ought to accord Catholics normal human respect.
Another crucial fact that illuminates how the comparison of devacing a grave marker and disrespecting a wafer is bunk: the wafer itself is intended to be destroyed in the ceremony. The grave marker is intended to be permanent.
But really there are too many things that are wrong with the comparison to count.
Breakfast,
I imagine my grasp of english must be failing terribly again, because that's not something that should be read into my comments at all. Or you're just being intentionally obtuse.
*Normal* human respect dictates that we do not afford them any respect pertaining to the idiotic idea of crackers being sacred. And someone with normal human sensibilities would see no problem with what PZ suggests.
How did you infer that PZ it's okay to make fun of catholics? He's making fun of Catholic beliefs. There is a huge difference!
brokenSoldier,
Can you not see how all you are doing here is giving me some exposition about your culture's gravesite rituals?
This is the cultural baggage I was referring to which made me want to shy away from putting to much weight on the particular analogy. Graves have meanings to us because of their connection to the closure of funerals, because we feel an urge to somehow protect our loved ones' rotting corpses, because they mark a place for that person and that person alone, etc., etc. Wafers have meanings to Catholics because of the rituals and norms surrounding the wafer, in a similar manner. Obviously the two phenomena mean different things and belong in different contexts. But my point was only to demonstrate that we don't think someone's disagreement with us about the funeral ritual -- say a group just stopped caring about dead people when they died, and thought we should use all corpses for science instead of stuffing tracts of valuable land full of them -- gives them the right to be an asshole about it.
We would be mortified if such a group took it upon themselves to disprove our silly beliefs by bombing gravesites. Of course they wouldn't mind doing so and they would think our reasons for objecting were stupid. But it is profoundly narrow-minded of them to believe that *their* reasons are the only reasons in the world that could matter, and that their own rituals and practices are the only true, objective and sensible ones possible.
"We would be mortified if such a group took it upon themselves to disprove our silly beliefs by bombing [churches]. Of course they wouldn't mind doing so and they would think our reasons for objecting were stupid. But it is profoundly narrow-minded of them to believe that *their* reasons are the only reasons in the world that could matter, and that their own rituals and practices are the only true, objective and sensible ones possible."
Gee. Something doesn't work here. I wonder what it could be.
How about if they just started spraypainting whole graveyards red, or peeing all over the place, or whatever. It doesn't matter. I'm making a point about expressions of disrespect and what justifies them.
This is where you are wrong. They are not similar, at least not to a healthy mind.
One would still want to educate them so that they will donate the bodies to science. And if, like the catholics in this case, they insisted I must respect their beliefs and stuff my family members' corpses in the dirt, I have every right to protest.
How about if they just started spraypainting whole churches, or peeing all over the place, or whatever.
It does matter. Your comparison doesn't work. The Jesus Christ related equivalent to defacing a gravestone is taking someone's (or a community's) crucifix and defacing it. Very few people would think there are only kooky reasons to get mighty upset at that. I think quite a lot of people who aren't Christians would think it mighty wrong to do something like that.
And I personally understand why Catholics would take umbrage at intentional Host desecration, that doesn't mean that it's comparable with every upsetting act that qualifies as a 'lack of respect.'
Out of context (context like, say, the issuing of death threats) it only registers as rude.
I hope nobody's forced you to take communion, gdlchmst! All most Catholics want in this regard is for people not to come and fuck with their ceremony, and the significant objects associated with it.
I think it is fascinating that any people can whip up such an enduring furor over something that is physically just a cracker. It's a testament to the power of these symbolic frameworks in human life, although I've no doubt a good portion of the madness is what has been deliberately stoked by the Catholic League folks, and what is continually boiling over in these stupid culture wars to begin with.
To summarize: desecrating a wafer that was freely given to the desecrator that's not stolen is a lack of respect to a set of beliefs (but it can be taken or meant as a lack of respect to a group of people by extention) without any other factors of gravity. Every other acts Breakfast has compared it to have additional factors of gravity. Some pretty out of proportion.
In fact, desecrating a consecrated wafer freely given is just like any species of blasphemy done in the presence of the believer. It can be rude and tasteless, but comparing it to an actual crime will always be wrong.
Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 2:13 AM
No, I can't at all. All I posited was a respect for the dead in their own memory. That's hardly a facet of "my culture" that is distinct enough for you to parse which culture I actually belong to. Sorry, far too many cultures respect their dead for you to try to shoehorn me into one of them in order to make a point.
Maybe to you (and here's is where you give me a distinct insight into your cultural tendencies), but I respect graves for the singular reason I posted above. They mark the location where someone I cared for was laid to rest. The reverence is centered not around the grave, but around the memory of the person.
I know they do. You, however, were the one to equate the two originally.
Again, I disagree. Everyone has the right to be an asshole, but those rights stop where others' right begin. And desecrating the grave of someone's relative crosses that line. Desecrating a yeast-less bit of bread simply does not, no matter how much spiritual importance someone may place upon it. Desecrating a grave is against the law. Desecrating a cracker is not.
What "matters" is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the fact that you see a crime - grave desecration - as equivalent with doing something to a wafer. You can say it is in bad taste all you want, but in the end that is simply your opinion, and no one from the government or any other organization has the right to tell you that their ritual with the wafer matters so much that there are some things you just can't do with it.
And to make that last statement about foisting beliefs and reasons for those beliefs on others is hilarious, due to the fact that we are talking about a situation where Catholics are calling for legal action to be taken against someone who has merely expressed the intent of doing something to the wafer. If they truly believed in their doctrine, then PZ's actions will be dealt with by the one who is actually being offended on judgement day. If their doctrine is true, then they should leave the indignance to God - why do they continually feel the need to fight his battles for him? It is not merely because they are offended, but also because - especially for those running organizations bent on the expansion of their sect - they wish to foist their beliefs on the rest of society. And that is exactly the reason for PZ's reaction - it is the perpetual insistence on trying to make society bow to their ideaa and beliefs that causes such backlash.
Breakfast,
I've made this point in one or more of the other posts on this topic, but I'll bring it up again.
My opinion is that PZ's intent was to bring as much attention to fact that Catholics are required to believe that the host literally becomes the flesh of christ - something I (for one) wasn't previously aware of.
And, in doing, make people (Catholic or otherwise) take a serious look at just how bizarre religious beliefs can be - in the hope that maybe they might continue the analysis and come to the conclusion they don't want to hold those beliefs anymore.
Ridicule, mockery and the threat of sacrilege are just the tools he's using.
"They mark the location where someone I cared for was laid to rest. The reverence is centered not around the grave, but around the memory of the person."
So then, the funeral counterpart to the whole wafer thing would be if someone were to stand in a graveyard and hand out paper flowers to passerby while saying something about it representing this or that person who just died, and one of the passerbys intentionally ruined the flower.
No, I'm not standing up at mass and yelling, "the pope is a nazi." I'm simply taking their cracker and sitting back down without shoving the bland thing in my mouth. If they are going to assault me and have guards force me to eat it, I consider it a grave violation of my rights. The fact is, you only feel like this would be wrong because the society you grew up in keeps telling you that religion is special. Stop being so oversensitive for the christians, they get by fine without you worrying about them.
Numad: Fair enough. There's a gradation of levels of disrespect. And the disrespect PZ's trying to convey is very symbolic, barely at all material.
I'm just saying you can't underestimate the personal significance of such a symbolic object. In fact, Catholics themselves only half see the issue as symbolic in the first place; strictly speaking, they should believe that this is a piece of real material far more important than any crucifix or church.
A corpse is a good example of a symbolic object that we all accept to be extremely significant. Whether there's "good reason" or not for attaching all the moral value to one rotting piece of human meat or one flimsy piece of cracker is beside the point and almost a crazy question in the first place. We care about corpses because of our instinctual revulsions and attachments and our acculturation. Catholics care about wafers for their reasons. We would do well to keep in mind how incidental and culturally determined many (or all) of our own values are, at the least. If we were pressed we would likely have to admit it's all a bit kooky at base. It's getting to sound worryingly fascistic, the sort of talk coming out of gdlchemist -- Nobody who believes any differently from us deserves respect, and their minds should be changed or they should be mocked.
Anyway, maybe society would indeed be better off on the whole without religion; I'm honestly not sure. And maybe the only, or an important, way of bringing that about is to slowly make more and more fun of demonstrably ridiculous beliefs. But I feel like we should at least think about what we're doing as we do that, and not just ride a great, unquestioning wave of derision and moral superiority .
Wowbagger: Yes, that's the only good reason for this that I can see.
Maybe it's an unpalatable means to a noble end, that's all.
Breakfast wrote:
Anyway, maybe society would indeed be better off on the whole without religion
I think it would, as long as we remember that there's a reason why people latched onto the concept of god-based morality in the first place - because it's not necessarily obvious (as illustrated by believers who question how there can be morality without deities to reveal it to us)to everyone, and needs to be taught.
No you are not. You are saying that the cracker is as symbolically important as a grave.
Way to put words in my mouth. Please show me exactly where I said that. I think there is quite a bit of projecting going on here.
Ever occur to you that we do think about the decisions we make? The fact that you imply you are the only one doing so shows that you are projecting some major moral superiority.
Posted by: Numad | July 15, 2008 2:42 AM
That actually equates a lot better than the grave comparison - the thing being destroyed is merely a symbol or other identifier to the dead person, and not the place of rest. And it is silly to try to punish someone for intentionally debasing a flower, freely passed out among the attendees, based on the fact that it is a symbolic representation of the person, just as it is silly to call for the firing or expulsion of someone who 'disrespects' a wafer.
If the passing out of the paper flower were considered to be a central and indispensable part of the funeral, and it were believed to, I don't know, contain a part of the person's soul, and if it were to be dealt with and disposed of only in a very particular way for the service to be completed with due respect, like, say, being burned on a pyre -- then the comparison would be more apt, I think.
Breakfast:
I freely admit that demanding respect for a piece of bread is kooky. I will not, however, admit the same concerning the respect for the memories of my deceased family and friends. Maybe you see it that way, but I definitely do not.
gdlchmst:
Ever occur to you that we do think about the decisions we make? The fact that you imply you are the only one doing so shows that you are projecting some major moral superiority.
Well, I applaud whatever critical reflection does go on. But excuse me if I have trouble believing that you have all been in deep crisis over whether it is ok to be doing this thing that really gets the goat of 'religious fuckwits'. The atmosphere here is rarely charitable, you have to admit.
PS: You seem to be inordinately fixated on accusations of projection. Sounds to me like projection!
Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 3:02 AM
No, it's fine as it is. Both are representations, and both are freely handed out. The importance afforded them by those who believe in such things is immaterial when it comes to discussing rights. Regardless of doctrine, you cannot prove that there is a soul in anything - not even a human. So there is no basis for punishing anyone for the desecration of a piece of food or a flower because it is "contain a part of the person's soul." There may be basis for you, personally, to stop associating with that person, but that's where it stops.
gdl, I didn't say I condoned anything about how the people in the service or, say, the Catholic League responded.
'Fascistic' is a heavy word to swing around and probably wasn't necessary. But this is what did it for me:
*Normal* human respect dictates that we do not afford them any respect pertaining to the idiotic idea of crackers being sacred. And someone with normal human sensibilities would see no problem with what PZ suggests.
Nobody merits the descriptor 'normal' except everyone who agrees with you, apparently. And this thing valued on religious grounds deserves derision because you believe religion is "to opiate the masses". You can surely how narrow and unsympathetic a way of figuring the world this is.
Anyway. It's high time I turned in, everybody. Cheers.
A deep crisis is not necessary for critical analysis. But I did take my time before taking a position on this.
Yes, let's be charitable to the powerless christians and hope they'll be charitable back.
Cute, but one fitting accusation does not make it inordinate.
Here's a thought - what if someone is a believing Catholic when the priest hands him/her the host, but in the time between accepting it and putting it in his mouth he decides he doesn't want to be Catholic anymore?
Posted by: Breakfast | July 15, 2008 3:16 AM
I could care less about it being the "opiate of the masses." It is when religion shows its "liar to the masses" and "controller of the masses" faces that it proves why it deserves derision.
Breakfast,
I believe I was parroting your use of the phrase: "What I continue to wonder is what the hell that has to do with whether or not we ought to accord Catholics normal human respect."
Funny, I thought this "narrow and unsympathetic" worldview was the worldview of many atheists. Either you are concern trolling or you are still harboring relgion in a special little place in your heart.
brokenSoldier,
I use "opiate" as a blanket term for all sorts of niceties, "controller" and "liar" are just a few of the roles the opiate plays.
"But you are not capable. I offered a simple, clear, logical 18-point list that grants you God, the Roman Catholic Church, and the truth of transubstantiation, all as simple givens, and you can't tell me how it's flawed."
No, you've given me your definitions which allow you to draw whatever conclusions you want. This whole train goes right back to God, predestination, divine providence... There's just too much to cover and it will ultimately still boil down to the fact that you don't believe in God, Jesus, or transubstantiation anyway, so what's the point?
"Given my simple logic, do you agree that it is not possible to desecrate the host at all, ever? And do you therefore agree that Catholics have no reason to be angry about the threat of said "desecration"?
No, I do not agree. Do you agree that by my providing references to the Bible or writings by those who were taught by the Apostles (e.g. St. Ignatius of Antioch) that it would have zero impact on your beliefs? A quick and easy response would be for me to point you to the last paragraph of 1 Cor. 11. That's just for starters.
But even your second bullet:
2 ) Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Catholicism is true.
2a) Catholicism is the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Right there, there's no point in continuing if you understand what that includes. But again, you don't understand what it is you're stating there or you would not have continued with your subsequent points. Even if you now restrict that to just what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, I'd still refer you back to 1 Cor. 11 and what the Church teaches about those verses.
Like I keep saying, it's a waste of time.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 15, 2008 3:36 AM
I understood what you meant by it in your post, but I was merely pointing out how he had misunderstood your usage, somehow leading him to insist that deriding an organization for being 'merely' the opiate of the masses is both narrow and unsympathetic. How "narrow and unsympathetic" of us to advocate a world of individual liberty of thought and expression!
Posted by: Jim | July 15, 2008 3:43 AM
It most certainly is, but for the sole reason that you can't see the obvious flaw in stating your references. You state as proof for your position the writings of humans over a thousand years ago. They - just as you today - can offer no verifiable, tangible data in support of your position. The only possible argument for the definite truth of those writings in the Bible is an appeal to the supernatural - that they were "divinely inspired" - which fails to pass even a cursory logical examination.
Your constant dismissals of the requests to back up your claims, with the reason that it would somehow take too long, are ridiculous enough without the added caveat in many of them suggesting that your intellect is the only one that could grasp your explanation. That is pure comedy coming from someone who in their posts is so seemingly averse to data analysis, logic, and critical thinking.
I know what PZ is going to do with the cracker. He has teemed up with the people over at MrDeity and there will be an episode of MrDeity and the Eucharist. Tell me I am wrong.
Given my simple logic, do you agree that it is not possible to desecrate the host at all, ever?
Well, Jesus is invincible, and if he's offended by some stupid lame crap like that, then he's a spoiled rotten brat. And certainly not profoundly "wise".
So, yes it is possible to desecrate the host, but only if Jesus is a complete moron. Thanks!
Breakfast,
"If the passing out of the paper flower were considered to be a central and indispensable part of the funeral, and it were believed to, I don't know, contain a part of the person's soul, and if it were to be dealt with and disposed of only in a very particular way for the service to be completed with due respect, like, say, being burned on a pyre -- then the comparison would be more apt, I think."
It's actually less apt. The hypothetical 'part of the soul' thing invokes a belief that would make the paper flower more precious to the believer than the wafer is to a Catholic. Hence, something that would be insane to freely distribute. Unlike the host. This goes back to what I was noting in earlier comments: Catholics are not justified in behaving as though they believed that Christ can be diminished through the host.
I was actually crafting the hypothetical practice as something that would have the function of a gravestone but with the material qualities of a communion wafer; as opposed to something that has a similar supernatural qualities attributed to it than those that are attributed to the wafer. The direction of your suggested correction seems like it's telling of something, but I can't put my finger on it.
But this all feels like awful hair-splitting.
"Numad: Fair enough. There's a gradation of levels of disrespect. And the disrespect PZ's trying to convey is very symbolic, barely at all material."
Close, but I don't quite agree. Different things that have been compared are on fully distinct scales, regardless of how they share the quality of 'disrespect' to some degree.
Driving through a graveyard while intoxicated and unaware would be something that would get people angry at oneself despite the absence of disrespect meant, and PZ's hypothetical desecration of a wafer implies no more disrespect than intentionally 'blaspheming against the Holy Spirit' in front of a believer.
You point out the most intriguing thing in all of this when you mention that you didn't do anything to any cracker. You just wrote about someone doing something (barely anything) to a cracker.
A united fron against irrational thinking!
Check it out at itsafrickingcracker.tumblr.com
Then explain how those definitions are wrong.
I don't believe that the Wizard of Oz is true, but I can still discuss how many flying monkeys it might take to airlift a car, given the information in the fictional story.
Yes, I think your story is fiction, but explain to me how that matters given that I'm granting you the premises of the fiction.
What beliefs? I'm trying to argue from the basic premises as laid out.
Are you trying to say that the authority of Paul of Tarsus or St. Ignatius of Antioch trumps the authority, perfection, power, and knowledge of the Almighty God? If so, say so! Say that Paul said that God is too weak or too stupid to prevent himself from being desecrated, and on that authority, my premises are contradicted. At least that would be an argument.
So are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church does indeed teach that the Almighty, Perfect, Powerful, and All-knowing God actually is too stupid and weak to not enter a wafer about to be eaten by someone unworthy?
I may have to reconsider my argument in light of this.
The New Atheists (most people here) seem to be gifted with a mob mentality. Why do you crush the dissenters who agree with you on everything but cracker desecration? Oh, wait. I haven't found any dissenters here yet. I guess I'm the first then.
I am an atheist and a vocal critic of religion, but I think this has gone too far. Am I angry about all this? Yes. I'm quite pissed that we non-believers are constantly persecuted by the believers. However, this is some really bad PR. Can't we all just get along? Fuck those who don't accept us, but we're not making the situation any better for those who would accept us if we had better PR. I don't think this cracker desecration should go forward.
Any thoughts? We're rational minds, so let's act like rational minds and put away the ridicule.
Don Smith, FCD #276
Same thing happened to me.
The New Atheists (most people here) seem to be gifted with a mob mentality. Why do you crush the dissenters who agree with you on everything but cracker desecration? Oh, wait. I haven't found any dissenters here yet. I guess I'm the first then.
I am an atheist and a vocal critic of religion, but I think this has gone too far. Am I angry about all this? Yes. I'm quite pissed that we non-believers are constantly persecuted by the believers. However, this is some really bad PR. Can't we all just get along? Fuck those who don't accept us, but we're not making the situation any better for those who would accept us if we had better PR. I don't think this cracker desecration should go forward.
Any thoughts? We're rational minds, so let's act like rational minds and put away the ridicule.
Whoops, my connection timed out, so I refreshed a couple times. Sorry for the multiple posts!
Devil,No 326 sweettalked:
//However, this is some really bad PR. Can't we all just get along?//
Ahem,
and look where that attitude got us in the past !
Frankly mate,its not anyone's fault that most christians take any criticism or mockery of their particular belief as a declaration of war,or personal attack,or even hate.They are the ones that have to constantly adjust their dissonance meter to be able to integrate their 3000 year-old bronze age myths with the world around them,and if that makes them a lil touchy and insecure,and they react like youre trying to cut their limbs off when you say anything at all critizising their beliefs,then that is their problem,not mine.
I'm getting tired of these comparisons of dead people and dead wheat. Of course we respect corpses; they used to be humans. Wheat, we don't respect so much. Not even the Jains would get bent out of shape at the thought of a bit of wheat getting 'abused'.
My lighthearted suggestion for the cracker would be to send it to CERN. Instead of using the Large Hadron Collider for detecting the 'God particle', they could use it to try to detect Jebons! (NB: very slow link)
#33
I kind of find that an awesome idea...
clinteas:
Hmm, while not every religious person would react with such extremism, you're right. The religious do take criticism as a personal attack. What do you suggest we do then? How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?
"Your constant dismissals of the requests to back up your claims, with the reason that it would somehow take too long, are ridiculous enough without the added caveat in many of them suggesting that your intellect is the only one that could grasp your explanation. That is pure comedy coming from someone who in their posts is so seemingly averse to data analysis, logic, and critical thinking."
I never said anything about my intellect being the only one capable. I've only stated repeatedly that it's a time consuming task that will go nowhere. As I just pointed out, the second bullet alone contradicts most of the rest of it (although some is actually redundant). It's already been stated repeatedly what the Catholic Church teaches about transubstantiation, about desecration of the Eucharist, and about the unworthy reception of the Eucharist. And what does the Church base this on? The Bible and Sacred Tradition. As you point out, you don't accept those as credible. So either Owlmirror doesn't really mean what he says with bullet #2 or he doesn't understand what that includes. Beyond that, we start getting into a debate about the existance of God to begin with and debate about free will, predestination, etc., etc., etc. It becomes a rehash of the same arguments all over again. Owlmirror claims to have made an argument with Catholic dogma. This is not true. Beyond that, we're right back to the same old arguments. Again, it's a waste of time. That being said:
"It most certainly is, but for the sole reason that you can't see the obvious flaw in stating your references. You state as proof for your position the writings of humans over a thousand years ago."
Please see Owlmirror's original post. What does the second bullet even mean if you throw out the Bible and Sacred Tradition as sources? The fact that the Catholic faith is based on these two sources should come as no surprise. So this whole exercise becomes a waste of time. The Eucharist came from Jesus and it's impossible to discuss without the Bible and Sacred Tradition. What other sources do we have regarding His teachings? Josephus? The Apostles handed on their first hand account. If you don't accept that, and most Atheists don't, then why bother with the finer points of it?
Jim, is there any catholic bullshit you DON'T believe in?
Posted by: Jim | July 15, 2008 4:50 AM
...What does the second bullet even mean if you throw out the Bible and Sacred Tradition as sources? ...
Jim, owlmirror is not asking you to prove these things true. He is just trying to point out that based on the assumption that your god exists as described in the bible and in sacred tradition the idea of host-desecration is logically flawed.
Granting that god exists as you believe, where is the flaw in his logic?
There is no 'sacred tradition', that is simply an argument from authority and in this case one that doesn't exist. Your essentially saying these opinions are better than mine because and I'll cow to them.
The Eucharist certainly didnot come from Jesus who was being purely symbolic and the RCC was a late comer to their current idea. Somuch for 'sacred tradition'.
Most educated Christians don't either as it's pretty clear the writers of the gospels are unknown.
Of which you will find zero agreeement on any within Christianity and even the RCC. All of which are theological blatherings without a shred of evidential integrity. You might as well be talking Xenu and Santa.
Clinteas, Devil's Advocate sounds like a concern troll to me; some of what he's written - using the expression 'New Atheist' and going to the effort of pointing out he's an atheist - are hallmarks of the breed.
My apologies, DA, if I'm jumping the gun and that isn't the case, but that's how you're coming across. It's not the sort of thing that's well-received here.
Jim wrote:
As opposed to everything that you've achieved from the lengthy posts you've written explaining how you're avoiding Owlmirror's proposition? It'd have taken far less time for you to have an honest stab at it. At least then we could have given you points for trying.
And this is one of the more hilarious bits of this whole cracker spiel,that the transsubstantiation thingy was decreed by some committee in probably the 13th century,its not that it has always been a catholic ritual or dogma.
Even more ludicrous given its a medieval committee idea that everyone in the catholic church is still pretending its some sort of grassroots catholic holy ceremony that makes dog beam down into a cracker when the cracker has some stuff in latin mumbled over it.
At the risk of boring everyone, reading the thoughts of 'Breakfast' has lead me to think deeply about my atheism.
Last year, my father died. He was a single parent, and as such my only parent. We had issues but I loved him as most sons love their father.
His fiance' of 20 years standing is a faux christian, that is she goes to midnight masses on christmas eve and weddings/funerals etc. Because my father left no will, and because I cared for her feelings, I agreed to burial with all the religious trappings, and the responsibility of a gravesite, headstone, flowers and all the rest.
I do visit the graveside, replenish the flowers etc, but I am left wondering why? Why do I do this? I loved and respected that man, and wish he hadn't died. But he did, as is the order of things, and I had seen him at his best when he was alive. The day before he died, at the hospital, he had joked around with me and the nurses, and was more like his old self than he had been for ages. This is what I remember.
So when I look at the grave, I feel no sadness, because that body decaying down there is not my father, the father I knew walked and talked, joked and chided, rung me up with inane computer questions, bought me my first bike etc.
Because I am an Atheist, I don't believe he is in heaven, I don't think he has been saved or redeemed in any way. And I feel no sadness at the graveside, and some people can not understand why. If someone were to vandalise that grave, I would be pissed off, not because my father had been dishonoured, but because I had to spend so much time and money on it, when I thought it was unnecessary in the first place. I know most of my friends and family do not understand that position, but they are speaking with the baggage of tradition and 'doing the right thing'.
The cracker argument HAS been going on too long, and I will say only this...the idea of the wafer being christ is indoctrination and fear of not appearing to fit in with your particular chosen tribe. That is all. In the same way as I went along with my Dad's fiance' in organising a religious funeral, I agreed to bow to the wishes of others so that the status quo was upheld. So it is that some catholics are getting upset about this wafer issue. It is the right thing to do in that 'society'.
Today I will raise a glass to my Dad's memory, as his death was exactly a year ago, and remember him alive as I think I should. And I think he would have wanted that too.
Lastly, Thanks PZed for highlighting religious idiocy. It needs to be done, now more than ever.
Wowbagger:
Concern troll? What does that entail? Yes, I am an atheist. I don't consider myself part of this new movement of atheism, though, since it seems to use ridicule more than argumentation. I will admit, however, that centuries of argumentation hasn't dented their delusional beliefs.
My objection has already been stated. Here it is again:
How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?
Does raising an objection automatically make me a "concern troll?" I just want to know whether confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect have run rampant throughout the New Atheist (what other term to use?) movement.
"Are you trying to say that the authority of Paul of Tarsus or St. Ignatius of Antioch trumps the authority, perfection, power, and knowledge of the Almighty God? If so, say so! Say that Paul said that God is too weak or too stupid to prevent himself from being desecrated, and on that authority, my premises are contradicted. At least that would be an argument."
No, I'm not saying that the authority of Paul trumps that of God. Nor would I say that Jesus is too week or too stupid to prevent desecration any more than I'm saying He was too weak or too stupid to prevent being tortured and nailed to a cross.
@ Monkey's Uncle/Kenny/Dobbs/*insert fake name of your choice here*
//So when I look at the grave, I feel no sadness, because that body decaying down there is not my father, the father I knew walked and talked, joked and chided, rung me up with inane computer questions, bought me my first bike etc.
Because I am an Atheist, I don't believe he is in heaven, I don't think he has been saved or redeemed in any way. And I feel no sadness at the graveside, and some people can not understand why. If someone were to vandalise that grave, I would be pissed off, not because my father had been dishonoured, but because I had to spend so much time and money on it//
You,Sir,if youre not a fake,are one sad individual,a pathetic wanker and utterly despiccable person.
All it takes to feel compassion,sadness,joy,love,any given emotion,is to be human.I dont give a flying fuck if you are catholic,atheist,hindu or jewish,if you are human and not totally fucked in the head,you can feel emotions and show empathy.
If you cant,youre a sociopath.
Monkey's Uncle:
Following what clinteas said, you, sir, probably _are_ a fake. Being an atheist does not mean being an emotionless monster like yourself. We're all human here.
When do the white hoods and torches come out?
Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. - Jim
That'll be a few centuries after the burnings at the stake resume then.
Personal thoughts on PZ's planned cracker abuse:
I think the idea is appealing at first glance, but actually silly. I don't really get the point. If it is to prove anything, well, it won't. The fact that PZ won't get fried by a bolt of lightning, or that the wafer won't bleed, won't prove anything to believers.
They might reply:
- "Ha ha, Mr Myers, God chose to trick you, he said nothing but he marked your name, and you'll see!" (or in Dylanian terms: "Next time you see me coming, you'd better run")
- According to the now-famous "18-points theological reasoning", God wasn't in that particular wafer
- A variant: seeing that the wafer had fallen into unworthy hands, God has wisely chosen to withdraw from it
- (liberal version) God doesn't really care about this wafer and had more pressing business to attend
And I'm sure there are thousands of other possibilities.
So I'm afraid the only point is to make people angry. The fundamentalist Catholics will be enraged, that's for sure. The non-fundamentalists, ordinary Catholics will also feel hurt. They will feel this as a kind of flag-burning, that is, a declaration of hate. Of course it would be ridiculous to use the word "hate-crime", as you don't commit a crime against a piece of food, but I can almost see the idea.
Personnally I don't hate Catholics. I even married one. I didn't discuss the matter with her but I think she would feel sad about cracker abuse. The reason being that she wouldn't understand why someone would want to destroy something the symbolizes a guy (whether he really existed or not, but that's my comment) who basically had nice ideas about not behaving like a jerk towards people.
So I think PZ would better not carry on with his plans; but if he does, it'd better be something very clever. Of course, it's only my view of things, and he can say or do whatever he wants (1st-amendment protected speech, and all that sort of things). And I know he can find something clever. But the temptation to enrage people through childish humor is strong!
(Well, we'll see, anyway...)
"As opposed to everything that you've achieved from the lengthy posts you've written explaining how you're avoiding Owlmirror's proposition? It'd have taken far less time for you to have an honest stab at it. At least then we could have given you points for trying."
But look where it has gone and where it continues to go. Owlmirror started out with claims of assuming the Catholic Church is correct, and then starts backtracking on that. Where is it now? It's right where I said it would be. Everything the Catholic Church uses to explain transubstantiation has now been thrown out and it's reduced down to the existance/nature of God, predestination, free will, etc. It comes down to the same arguments but from a different starting point.
But he keeps going back to that instead of addressing my primary assertion that none of it matters anyway because he doesn't believe in transubstantiation anyway, and everyone here seems obsessed with pissing off Catholics. That's really the only issue that matters. I'm not here to try to convince anyone about my beliefs. The only reason I came here was to try to understand the motivations for desecration of the Eucharist. Devil's Advocate is right on the money and actually seems to be more representative of the Atheists I've met and talked to.
Absolutely nothing is accomplished. This is not the way that intelligent adults behave. Why not just break out the white hoods and torches?
Thank you, Christophe, for being a fellow dissenter. PZ, you had better make this pretty damn creative!
I'd place a modest bet that "Jim" is actually Greg Krehbiel, of http://crowhill.net/blog/, who came to the blog not long ago for the purpose of calling PZ an "insufferable ass". I think I recognise the particular style of pompous arrogance and refusal to back up his claims. If it's not him, they've certainly learned how to duck the issue from the same source. How about it Jim - and remember, "Thou shalt not bear false witness".
Devil's Advocate, I've just caught up on this thread.
My impression of you is that you're trolling.
However, I grant you the benefit of my doubt, so I'll answer.
It shines the light on the cockroaches. Watch them scurry.
Although I may be burned at the stake for this, Jim is right about absolutely nothing being accomplished. What does this prove?
Again, I raise my point:
How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?
I won't stop bringing it up until someone makes an honest attempt at answering it. Freethink, ye rational minds! Don't jump on the bandwagon! Is this really a rational thing to do? Sure, I'm kind of in the mood for childish immaturities, but I can't rationally find any reason to do such things. Please set emotion aside, step back, and reevaluate not only the impending cracker desecration, but also your entire methodology! (No offense intended.)
Posted by: Devil's Advocate | July 15, 2008 5:35 AM
How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?
I think what PZ was trying to do (and has done effectively, if clumsily), is point out that the catholic faith is no more rational in its belief than any other religion, and that its believers are prone to overreaction to minor offences as a result of this irrationality. I think it was a point that needed to be made.
Posted by: Jim | July 15, 2008 5:57 AM
Why not just break out the white hoods and torches?
Because that is certainly not how intelligent adults behave. Once again, are you equating abuse of a cracker (holy or not) with physical violence against people?
John Morales:
Trolling, huh? I don't think you've answered my objection sufficiently, sir. Personally, I think that reasoning and evidence are brighter lights than ridicule. I was expecting a rational response for my dissent, but I got ridicule!
"Thank you, Christophe, for being a fellow dissenter. PZ, you had better make this pretty damn creative!"
I can tell you right now that creativity won't change a darn thing. It's still just going to piss off a large group of people. No matter how "creative" he might be, Catholics will continue to view the Eucharist exactly the same as always.
I've written it a dozen times here that hatred only breeds hate.
You already know how Donohue feels about the threat. Make good on that threat and he'll make you his life's work.
And for what???
Wowbagger,No 338:
I agree.
DA,No 351 :
//Although I may be burned at the stake for this, Jim is right about absolutely nothing being accomplished. What does this prove?
Again, I raise my point:
How does ridicule and desecration of their holiest holies improve our cause or dismantle theirs?//
Burning at the stake is a catholic thing.
You are a concern troll.
Nice how in the last few days the trolls always show up in pairs,and play good atheist,bad atheist.
Its not a holiest holies unless you are a catholic,and no sect has the right to impose their particular cult's holiness onto society,if you dont believe it,read your constitution.
Metaphorically, as to the sun, He does that every so often. I highly doubt you understand what I mean.
Gravity? Why would he do that? If you want gravity suspended, go into space. - Salt
Ah, a classic "Saltation", such as many of us are familiar with. The first paragraph quoted allows Salt to think he is clever, because he has said something deliberately obscure; notice that he cannot even forbear boasting about it, as if this were something to be proud of. The second paragraph inadvertently demonstrates his ignorance; gravity is not "suspended" anywhere, Salt.
@clinteas/Devil's Advocate:
And exactly why am I an 'emotionless monster'? I don't consider myself to be 'fucked in the head' I was trying to point out that (and you both have proved my point with your invective) people put too much emphasis on things that are unimportant. I am remembering a person as they were when they were alive, not as they are now. Which draws a parallel with people who are setting too much importance on a bloody wafer for pete's sake. I guess what I'm trying to say is I think it's about time we left the mediaeval thinking behind and started to question our feelings about this subject.
If I've offended anybody who considers graves and funerals to be 'off limits' to discussion, then I apologise. But I am trying to question why we set so much store in these beliefs.
My post is real, I am a real Atheist, I may be a wanker, but I don't think I am despiccable.... I may be despicable ;-)....and I am nothing to do with Kenny. And I am not a sociopath. Well, at least not at weekends.
Perhaps you think that the post is a snipe at Atheists? Or that I am a 'monster' for not caring about a grave? Can you be more specific?
reuben:
Thank you for answering my objection in a polite, rational, and convincing manner. Indeed, humans are not just thinkers - we are also doers. David Hume was right. If PZ wants to protest, then he should protest (I am behind him), but I don't think "desecration" is the right word to use (anything is desecration to the Catholics, though). If he wants to point out that Catholicism is irrational (one of the most irrational denominations, if not the most), then he should do something that isn't just tasteless. It should be clever/creative. That's only my opinion, though.
Then he shouldn't do something that's completely tasteless.*
This little paragraph on the vatican website is quite telling :
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
So not only do they accept that if someone does not have faith he cannot apprehend that this is not the body of Christ, but you will note that in this whole article, they never ever ask themselves the question, what happens to the substance of their all powerful god if an unfaithful attempts to consume it or desecrate it ?
It's absolutely obvious that the Eucharist was always meant to be, in Christ's own words "for you", the faithful... the embodiement of faith itself. Without faith, as St Thomas noted, this just means nothing to the senses, it is really just a cracker, and there is nothing to worry about.
So, PZ is correct to say :
When it comes to this exercise ;
The crackers that he will receive will self evidently be only crackers, how can they be anything else when he has no faith ? So what are they afraid of ?
Do Catholics realize how ridiculously small their faith is if a mere biologist can destroy a piece of their all powerful God, just like that ?
The more Catholics react to this, the more pathetic and ridiculous they are, and the more they belittle their own faith.
A "science heathen" ought to mean someone lacking any science. As such, the "unrepentant science heathen"s would actually be the IDiots and other anti-science religious nutters who are proud of their ignorance, not the science-knowledgable people. :-/
Perhaps this is just another English vs American "English" thing though.
"I'd place a modest bet that "Jim" is actually Greg Krehbiel, of..."
I have no clue who Greg is and apparently PZ would be able to back that up. I saw he had a post about multiple posters being the same person.
"I think I recognise the particular style of pompous arrogance and refusal to back up his claims. If it's not him, they've certainly learned how to duck the issue from the same source."
I'm not ducking anything, nor am I arrogant. Why would anyone here even want to have a discussion on the finer details of transubstantiation if you don't believe in God? I've admitted freely, multiple times over, that it's a waste of time. It starts with a belief in God. It moves on from there to a belief in the divinity of Jesus. Then it goes to the authenticity of the Bible and Sacred Tradition. Without those, I can't possibly have any serious discussion about transubstantiation. This isn't exactly my first exchange with Atheists. I know the drill. And I know what my beliefs are based on. I actually believe the Bible is a credible source. You don't. So where do we go from there? It's like playing tic-tac-toe. Owlmirror has already stated that he doesn't believe in transubstantiation. Okay, great.. next topic.
Meanwhile, nobody is addressing the more important issue of what's accomplished by this whole stunt? You're not going to shake my faith. I don't see Atheists as a threat to my faith so much as I do a threat to society at this point. It's a HUGE step backwards in a civilized society. What's next? Are you going to throw rocks at any car with a "Jesus fish" on it? Are you going to sit outside of churches honking your horn or playing Celine Dion until everybody's ears bleed? I don't understand this need to piss people off.
Nuff said!
Thank you, George Carlin
Monkey's Uncle:
I apologize for misinterpreting your post. I agree that we place too much importance on things like death. I don't think death has to be a sad thing. In fact, it's the best time to celebrate a person's life. Yeah, a grave is just a marker. However, I do hope you feel _something_ when you visit his grave, since you _are_ thinking about him then, and you _are_ human. It doesn't have to be sadness. I might be called an "emotionless monster" for this, but I'd probably have a good laugh if I visited, say, my former biology teacher's grave. I know he'd laugh about death, too. Hey, it's the First Law of Thermodynamics! We'd make entropy jokes together.
negentropyeater:
Fascinating post. Ad hoc hypotheses are a delusional person's best friend.
Devil's Advocate, re:Trolling, huh?
Yup. Here's some of your initial comment:
I don't think you've answered my objection sufficiently, sir.
True.
It was a metaphor, and a throwaway for a troll.
So,
Situation: Catholics claim their belief is rational and that they practice forgiveness.
Incident: PZ seizes opportunity to point out the situation when an incident arises.
Result: Due to PZ's high profile, attention is taken.
Result: Catholic League issues pseudo-fatwa. cf. "fatwa envy"
Result: Events escalate. Responses are predictable.
etc.
See, the metaphorical light of attention was focused on claims of belief that go unexamined, even by practicing Catholics.
Oh yeah, re:
Just to clarify, we make jokes about BOTH the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
@ Fernando Magyar No 363:
He loves you ! He loves you,and he needs money !!
Devil's Advocate
Care to explain ?
John Morales:
All right, John. I was unnecessarily acidic. I apologize. However, the Catholic League _does_not_ speak for all practicing Catholics. It is wrong to generalize and say that other Catholics would react similarly.
negentropyeater:
Ad hoc hypotheses are so-called explanations added onto a claim to prevent said claim from being falsified. An ad hoc hypothesis is pretty much an excuse.
Goodness me !
SvenDeMilo had this all summed up beautifully when he compared the mess in here of the last few days to a Grateful Dead concert in the late 70s...
John Morales:
I introduced my main objection in the wrong fashion. Yes, I was wrong to have done so. Again, I am sorry. I generalized where I shouldn't have. I just hope that people here are thinking for themselves, rather than being caught up in the emotional nature of this situation. That is all. Is there a problem with that?
@Devil's Advocate:
Hey, s'OK...with a handle like Devil's Advocate I was expecting some argument ;-)
I do think of him, all the time...but not whilst I'm at the grave. Weird that, but anyway...
I don't think this is a win situation...if PZed DOES get a 'cracker' and 'desecrates' it then some people will be pleased, some people might find it asinine, but if he backs down he hands the argument back to the religious who will say he has 'felt the power of the lord' or some such.
I don't know where it will go from here...but I'm in there for the ride!
I just find it sad and somewhat ridiculous that this can be blown out of proportion. We in the UK are not immune from religious idiocy, there is a big row about women bishops at the moment, and one of your clergy is over here now espousing his homosexuality to jeers and heckling from the 'moral' mob...
DA, I could quibble but shan't.
Sorry.
As to the "Sizzle" thread,this is the second time that a thread wont load in a few days,and looking at the time in the US,I doubt PZ posted this at 530am,whats going on there?
Some but a few of the more rational and less indoctrinated may say 'you know what, it is just a freaking cracker' which the majority probably think anyway but are afraid to say outloud.
It's not hate to defile a cracker and if one keeps everyones superstitious beliefs behind a no comment vail,well,thats just silly. Xenu and thistopic are exactly the same.
good PZ can handle that fellow and it will simply expose Donohue as the absurd joke he and his organization is,frankly if I was a catholic I'd tell him to sit down and shut up rather than bothering PZ with this BS.
Devil's advocate,
I know what an ad hoc hypothese is, I'm asking you to explain which ones you refute and why, wasn't that clear ?
Geebus, who do you think you are ?
I am unworthy of this ad hoc handle!
Monkey's Uncle:
You're right. I now think that we have to fight. I don't think we should have to resort to dirty fighting (tasteless desecration, since _that_ doesn't prove anything), but we can still make a statement. We won't back down. I'm on the boat now, but I hope everyone can keep a free mind!
Neg,
those 2 monkeys are just trying to pull our strings mate,not worth the effort.
Might be some general tiredness on my part involved too,after a week of wafting thru more or less sane posts here LOL.
Devil's Advocate,
I stand by my earlier call of concern troll. You're wasting your time.
Jim
Well, the Catholics could've said "it's the flesh of Christ when taken by a believer, but only a cracker otherwise" and avoided this whole thing.
Instead, they grew offended and tested the True Scotsman boundary, quite contrarily to their claims that they forgive their enemies.
It exposes the hypocrisy.
negentropyeater:
My apologies. (This is the second time I've misinterpreted someone.) Correct me if I've misinterpreted yet again. I was _not_ referring to your post as having ad hoc hypotheses. Why the fuck would I do that? I was referring to excuses some/many/most (not all) religious people make when they can't explain their beliefs. Who do I think I am? I'm visiting here. Who are you?
Au contraire, clinteas. I am done with my "concern trolling." After arguing here with everyone, I've resolved my cognitive dissonance. Call me selfish for doing so. Go ahead. Nonetheless, I hope I've given people *something* to think about. So long as PZ doesn't do something absurdly tasteless, I support the cause. Just think for yourselves.
I am not pulling anyone's strings.
Clinteas,
well, it's always the problem with some people who ask what is in my opinion a good question such as Devil's Advocate :
Do they really want to try and make an effort to understand our arguments why it does, or have they already decided that it doesn't and are just going to behave as an ass ?
I agree that after about 8000 comments it does get a bit tiresome to always have to repeat the same things.
I don't see Atheists as a threat to my faith so much as I do a threat to society at this point. It's a HUGE step backwards in a civilized society. What's next? Are you going to throw rocks at any car with a "Jesus fish" on it? - Jim
1) We're a modest lot - we don't need an upper-case "A".
2) Atheists are a "threat to society"? Oh, right, that'll be why Sweden is so much more violent than the US, then?
3) Your bleatings about "What's next" have been answered several times. Are you incapable of reading, or simply dishonest?
I don't understand this need to piss people off. - Jim
Put it down to nearly two millennia of Christian - and specifically Catholic - persecution of anyone who disagrees with them. And to the continuing attacks on the rights of women, gays, and atheists. And to the lies about condoms, and the systematic cover-up of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy - planned and led by the current Pope. The aim is to persuade some ordinary, decent Catholics to think about the absurdities their religion demands they believe, and the immoral behaviour these absurdities lead to (issuing death threats over a cracker being a comparatively trivial example); and thus to weaken the Catholic Church, than which few ends can be more worthwhile.
DA, here's how I see it.
* Pharyngula is a metaphorical collective entity or a place (depending on perspective), comprised of both PZ and commenters (I'm ignoring the infrastructure, needless to say). It may not be real, but it exists.
* You've just experienced your welcome to Pharyngula. Congratulations.
Thing is, if you have an actual point, you get (mostly self-perceived) kudos. In this place, that's good enough, I reckon.
If you don't, you get hammered.
Enjoy!
Oh yeah, the other reason I (and presumably others) hang around are the posts.
Devil's Advocate:
Firstly, nobody here is a "new atheist". Secondly, I would bet that at least 70% of the people that post here regularly, many of whom are scientists, philosophers, and generally extremely intelligent people, are skilled in argumentation. The idea that atheism is simply about ridicule is naively false.
Right, now that is out of the way. Having said that, ridicule is a powerful tool that, when used correctly, is more effective in specific circumstances than a scientifically or philosophically rigorous argument. Why? Because it hits right at the heart, exposing the ridiculousness of many beliefs. Because it forces people re-evaluate just how seriously they take what is often extremely trivial in comparison to things that we would all agree are really serious.
Ridicule has been exploited in Britain for many centuries, particularly with respect to religion and politics -- two areas of life where adherents often take themselves far too seriously.
Think of it this way: by ridiculing a belief that any rational person would consider to be rather unimportant -- in the grand scheme of things, at least -- you are actually exalting the really important issues, and making it clear that, no, you cannot occupy this level of importance, you have no right to expect that a wafer, for instance, is as important as a human life. That is insulting, and it is an argument that has been put forward by a number of Catholics that have visited this site over the last few days.
We are also living in an age where many people can't quite work out whether there should even be any standards pertaining to belief. I would class myself as fairly liberal, but I don't buy the argument that it is admirable to simply leave people alone to get on with their delusions. There is an ethical issue, for a start. I am not advocating that we force anyone to do anything, but it is, in my opinion, more respectful to hold religious believers to the same standards that we expect of ourselves. Anything else is essentially patronizing them, and suggests that they shouldn't expect any better. I can not do that in good conscience, I'm afraid.
As PZ has pointed out many times before, we live in an age of relative apathy. The idea that we are likely to change minds through everyday dialogue, particularly concerning something that is so often deeply ingrained in a persons being, is hopelessly naive. Sure, there will be a certain number of people who will be responsive to that. But there will be a much larger group who, as in the past when atheists were essentially invisible in the US, will completely ignore anything that you have to say. It is well known that there are various cognitive mechanisms that 'protect' people from truly internalizing ideas that they feel uncomfortable with.
So, one of the ways to get them to think about what you have to say is to make them angry. It is much more difficult to maintain control when you are angry, for obvious reasons. I am not suggesting that the purpose is to goad people in to doing irrational things, not at all. I am suggesting that when a person is angry, they often can't help but think about what has so annoyed them. And don't think that it will necessarily make them more determined, either. Once a chain of events has been set in motion, you can be all but certain that a large percentage of people will, at some point, actually consider the point that you were trying to get across, and it can change minds.
Damian,
Well put. I've said similar things on some of the other posts (though probably not as eloquently) - I've always felt that a lot of people (not all, before anyone jumps in) who consider themselves religious are just 'going along' because they think it's what they should do; the 'default setting' if you will. They've never spent any time considering what any of it means other than the basic necessity of the 'go to church on Sundays and on religious holidays and try to do what we're told god wants us to do and we'll go to heaven when we die' kind of attitude.
They're the people that this sort of thing affects. They hear that someone is refusing to acknowledge that their beliefs are special, and they start wondering why it is they've spent all this time thinking those beliefs are special.
If PZ's deconverted just one fence-sitter than it's worth all the shit-flinging that's gone on here.
Damian:
The idea that I think that _atheism_ is merely ridicule is naively false. Please don't condescend.
Other than that, I thank you for your detailed response. It - along with everyone else's responses here - has given me a lot to think about. I just want to make it _crystal_ clear that I am not pulling anyone's strings. Also, for the third time, I apologize for my irrational, emotion-driven introduction. I guess "New Atheist" is a pejorative. I am sorry (I didn't know).
I have been apathetic about this for too long. A call to arms?
Nope.
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said, "Sacred cows make the best hamburger?"
If we "make nice" all the time and let ourselves be run over, what happens to the necessary defense of reality and truth (the real true sort of truth, not the fake "truth" of religions)?
speedwell @ 391 Good comment and well expressed. I have always preferred the direct and unpolite attitude toward the religionists, as forceful reason is the only aspect they will cringe before. We are not dealing with personal preferrences as in movies or food, but with ideas that are harmful and just plain irrational. Let them know with as much speech and writing as necessary, that they are deluded in their illogical religion and we will not stand by and permit it to devour sane society with crappy muck.
From the Dept of Rendundancy Dept
Christian is suing Lakewood Church for crippling him, and
making him more retarded
If anything, the first amendment assumes brain damage as a constitutional right.
Good luck. Poe was the mysterious missing founding Father
Tom P. at #70 said something that, when expanded upon, is the central issue for me.
PZ will not know if any wafers sent to him have been consecrated or not. We will not know if PZ is even using a wafer sent to him, or one he ordered from a supply house.
The thing is... IT DOESNT MATTER. It's still just a cracker. And no one, possibly even PZ will know! He can do whatever he wants to, on camera, and we will still not know if he did anything that anyone could object to! And THAT's THE POINT! If it looks like a cracker, smells like a cracker and crumbles like a cracker, it's a cracker.
My suggestion for PZ... take said cracker or a substitute, and ON CAMERA, subject it to lots of scientific type tests... inform us of the gluten content, the caloric content, tell us of the results of Mass Spec, HPGC, EDS, anything at all. Use a regular cracker as a control. Show us if there is any difference that must, of course, be the essence put in at the altar.
My holiest holies are my asshole and my mouth and every second rate comedian since the dawn of language has been making fun of my holiest of holies and you don't hear me threatening to kill children.
In fact, my mouth and asshole are what make Jesus the Cracker tick.
I stick Jesus in my mouth, he comes out my asshole the next day.
That's the foundation of catholicism, mouths and assholes.
Jesus does not go into my heart, then come out my ears. He does not crawl up my nose, then oxidize in my liver.
He is not melted into a spoon and taken intravenously. He goes in my mouth, and out my ass.
The old fashioned way.
So what is your point?
re #356
Metaphorically, as to the sun, He does that every so often. I highly doubt you understand what I mean.
Gravity? Why would he do that? If you want gravity suspended, go into space. - Salt
Ah, a classic "Saltation", such as many of us are familiar with. The first paragraph quoted allows Salt to think he is clever, because he has said something deliberately obscure; notice that he cannot even forbear boasting about it, as if this were something to be proud of. The second paragraph inadvertently demonstrates his ignorance; gravity is not "suspended" anywhere, Salt.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 15, 2008 6:19 AM
If one believes in a Creator God, it's his rules, his game. So any eclipse could poetically be seen as a reminder of him.
The second paragraph inadvertently demonstrates his ignorance; gravity is not "suspended" anywhere
No shit, sherlock.
If you want gravity suspended, go into space.
when one is in space, does it not have the appearance of being just so no matter the physics involved?
Are you really this slow?
As I intimated in an earlier comment, you guys are no different than the fundies you excoriate.
Catholics are free to believe whatever they want. They are free to use those beliefs, no matter how silly, to help them determine their positions on public policy. They are free to take the priest's word as gospel (sorry, couldn't resist) and base their attempts to change public laws on those words. But when they do, they MUST expect that people who disagree with them will attack those beliefs. If Catholics are going to say that abortion is immoral because their belief is that god gives life then they should expect that other beliefs related to that such as that god is inside a piece of unleavened bread will be open to assault. Catholic beliefs ARE used to effect public policy such as abortion, birth control, free distribution of condoms, sex education in public schools, and stem cell research. If Catholics are going to use their beliefs to keep gay couples from marrying or keeping gays out of the military then they have no right to call foul when their beliefs are held up to ridicule. Catholics don't care who they offend (or even kill... see blocking free condom laws during the AIDS epidemic, blocking stem cell research) so why should I care if they are offended? I will gladly mock any religion that tries to use its absurd beliefs to make life worse for the living.
This is something that's freely handed out.
Wrong, in point of fact. The cracker belongs to the priest, and the *only* people who are invited to come and get one are communicating Catholics. Everyone else (including Catholics who are not "in a state of grace") is *not invited* to have one.
You think the crackers are given out "freely"? Well then you go down to your local church and ask the priest to give you a consecrated cracker, and explain to him why you want it.
What you'll do if you got ahead with your angry-teenage-atheist cracker abuse, is swindle something belonging to someone else off them, on a false premise, something which they consider very precious and important, in order that you can use it to insult them (in their minds) as greviously as possible. Yeah, for Catholics this would be up there with grave desecration. Stupid, maybe, but that's what they think.
No-one's asking that you kneel down before the crackers and pay homage. The request is a simple and normal one: that you don't go out of your way to disrespect them. You're not invited to the cracker-party, so why not just leave them alone?
Here's an (imperfect) analogy.
McTrousers: "Hey PZ, I'm a biology student with a particular interest in zebrafish. Can I borrow a copy of Danio Rerio's book from you?"
PZM: "Sure! In fact, I've got a spare copy so you can hang on to that."
McT: "Thanks!"
Then I take it home, rip it to shreds, write "Evilution sux!! i h8 zebrafish lol!!!", all over it and then stick the pages up all over campus.
PZ: "You asshole!"
McT: "I was just performing an experiment to demonstrate that this book has no power. And anyway, you gave it to me freely!"
I don't see Atheists as a threat to my faith so much as I do a threat to society at this point. It's a HUGE step backwards in a civilized society.
This is perhaps the stupidest thing I have read recently other than the fear that gangs of angry atheists will be attacking the GOP convention. How many politicians who have lied, cheated, caused unnecessary wars, etc. have been atheists? How many muggers in the streets, killers, sex fiends, etc are atheists? In case you aren't sure I will tell you. Very, very, very few. Not that atheists are better than Christians but there are a lot more Christians and for some reason their beliefs don't stop them from acting immorally. So no, atheism is not a step backward. And since atheists don't insist that non-non-believers deserve eternal damnation, we are perhaps a bit more civilized than the typical christian who thinks that being skeptical is grounds for burning in hell for all eternity.
If he's 60, I'm the Pope. I'm not even sure if he's 50 yet and I would be money he's not as he and my wife went to Graduate School together at UO and she's not 50 and was not a "burner" getting through college as she took some time off every now and then.
Monkey's Uncle wrote:
Not the power of the Lord, but the power of the vengeful and stupid. Desecrating the cracker now wouldn't add a damn thing to the point made by PZ in his first post. He didn't have to do it to get the reaction he should have expected doing it would get him. It was Bill Donohue who drove home PZ's point and Donohue and his emailing followers are too blind to see it: getting upset over a cracker is insane and some people are that insane. But also, getting angry and taking it out on a cracker is just as useless and crazy. Unless you're going to do something funny or with some point to it, then there's no reason to abuse the cracker.
Wow, Pity Trolling. Haven't seen that in a while.
586,000 hits for Pharyngula so far this week. Maybe we should send him TWO crackers...
Sorry, we're not CHristians. We don't do hoods and torches. That's for the KKK who are a CHRISTIAN organization. You can even read it here: KKK Homepage
Spaghetti McTrousers@398
Mr. McTrousers, if the godly had restricted themselves to saying "You asshole" to Cook(and by the way, what do Americans have against that useful beast, the donkey?), Myers would never have blogged about it.
Clinteas, this has been an unusual amount of posting on one specific non-scientific topic. Take a look around and read other entries on this blog. Most of the time, the ensuing discussion will teach you a thing or two about science. Definitely worth the time.
@#398,
I doubt PZ would do anything but laugh. There would be a few hundred posts about how silly you are for thinking that tearing up a single book somehow negates the truth of the knowledge captured within. A few people would point to the (Christian) burning of the Library at Alexandria.
And then we'd be back to zebrafish and octopus.
BAllanJ wrote:
If PZ must abuse a cracker, that's the way to do it -- without any show of anger. It's the anger in the cracker abuse implies that I think is upsetting religious people. What's the point in being angry at crazy people? They aren't going to get less angry at you or think about what they believe because you're expressing anger at them.
Do something that forces them to think - not feel.
If PZ does get any crackers, maybe the best thing to do is challenge Christians to tell the real consecrated crackers from the non-consecrated ones -- if they can prove they know which are which, they get their precious crackers back.
when one is in space, does it not have the appearance of being just so [gravity is suspended] no matter the physics involved? - Salt.
No, it doesn't, Mycroft. Remind me never to get into a spaceship you're piloting.
you guys are no different than the fundies you excoriate - Salt
Incidentally, Mycroft, it's "different from".
When someone does something like, oh, making picture of the prophet in a magazine or making a chocolate Jesus or not eating the cracker according to ritual. Unless, of course, you're running with the "no True Scotsman" fallacy. Then, of course, you (by the magic of the fallacy) remove the offenders from your group of people who are civilized.
And, for the record, the Arabs have been "civilized" a damn lot longer than the Europeans.
And I certainly don't forget that my Mennonite ancestors came to America fleeing religious persecution by the Catholics and other Protestants. I certainly don't forget that a huge swath of them had to flee America because of relgious persecution for these beliefs:
During the Colonial period, Mennonites were distinguished from other Pennsylvania Germans in three ways: their opposition to the American Revolutionary War, resistance to public education and disapproval of religious revivalism. Contributions of Mennonites during this period include the idea of separation of church and state and opposition to slavery.
Or that one of my distant ancestors' brother was KILLED because of his religious beliefs, specifically the "non-violence" aspects that lead them to oppose the Revolutionary War by not fighting in it... Seriously, your "civilized" fuckers had roving death squads and drove many, many Mennonites off their land. Some ended up in Canada, and I have a TON of Canadian relatives, others in Western New York, Indiana, etc.
Here's another "civilized action." Because of our beliefs in non-violence, many Mennonites, during WWII were PUT INTO FORCED LABOR CAMPS as conscientious objectors. In a bizarre twist, they were not even provided food by the US Government, but had to rely solely on the support of their families for even the basic necessities. Our history books, when they speak of it, gloss it over. Much like the Internment of the Japanese.
So don't lecture me on "what civilized people do." Because, if history is our guide, we're not so civilized. Especially people that come from most main-stream Christian faiths who've gone from mere "disrespect" to out-right organized pogroms against my people for over 400 years.
What a horrible analogy.
Spaghetti McTrousers said:
Considering Cook is (or was at the time, I'm not sure what this episode has done to his faith) a communicating catholic this argument does not apply here. he was freely given his wafer, he did not steal it under false pretences and so it was his to do with what he would.
As to whether the Church was offended by his use of the wafer, well within the Church that is their business and if they had responded simply by banning him from Church property until he apologised and returned it, or put a similar internal church sanction on him this issue would have died then and there.
Within the church church property, church rules (so long as these rules do not breach any federal or state laws) and if you don't like it, don't go to church - I see this as similar to the rules of any other social organisation and within the organisation this is simple and fair.
The problem here is that the Cook crackergate episode was taken outside the Church - various catholics have tried to get him expelled from college and have threatened him with actual, physical harm in the world outside the church. In other words, they have taken an internal Church rule based on internal beliefs and demanded that it be enforced by external authorities.
The fact that the Catholic League then tried to get PZ, who is not Catholic and under absolutely no obligation to defer to the church on anything, fired for threatening harm to the symbol of an internal church belief merely underlines the fact that this wafer business is not about catholics just wanting to do their thing in peace. It is about a systematic attempt by the Catholic League to ensure that deference to internal church beliefs are enforced by external authorities whether or not those people choose to be members of the catholic club or not.
That is the problem that have here - so how about a deal, we leave your wafers alone and you promise to keep your internal party strictly internal from now on. OK?
My suggestion would be to collect as many crackers/hosts as are sent to you, and glue them (hot-glue gun is best) around a popsicle stick picture frame, the sort made in summer day camp. Arrange them in some cutesy design. Insert a photo of the Jesus-on-a-piece-of-Toast into the frame and proudly display on your bookshelf. After all, one good kitsch deserves another.
I am an EX-Catholic {cradle} raised Catholic, and became a New Ager also atheist-agnostic for years, before converting to being a born again Christian.
What I want to tell the atheists and others here, is do not make the mistake of thinking Catholicism represents what Christianity is all about. The RCC is not true Christianity but a false fascimile of it. I didn't know myself until I was a middle-aged adult, and until I read a Bible for myself and saw what Jesus Christ truly taught away from the smoke, mirrors, and fog of Catholic superstitions, legends, power-hungry-morally corrupt leaders, and realized God, desired that I use my human mind as given:
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
instead of shutting it down to accept the illogic of Catholic theology, I was able to move on and come into a relationship with Jesus Christ.
I want all you atheists/freethinkers and others to know...there are many Christians out there, who DO NOT support the teachings of Roman Catholicism and that the top ludicrous teaching is the idea that their priests can turn bread into "god". Many folks do not know this but Jesus Christ Himself warned against these false teachings that would come. We all know where the Catholic wafer goes in its final stage after being eaten. Jesus's words were spiritual, not about eating magic-mysterious god-wafers.
Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
The draught by the way, was the toilets of that time, in other words the SEWER.
Some of us are smart enough to know that there is no way God can be kidnapped in a ziplock baggie by a rebellious teenager and who believe the Bible when it says:
Isa: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
That nixes both the Catholic wafer and it's tabernacles.
It is alarming to see Catholics so upset at God being so "helpless" as if the creator of the Universe could be kidnapped! From a Christian angle this is pure blasphemy!
Now in America, we do have freedom of religion. Dominionists, Catholics and others who desire power and control over others, forget that Jesus Christ is about freedom not bondage. The force of law does not lead to true conversion or changed hearts: That is the Holy Spirit's doing. Some defenders of their false churches, desire, to use force of law that was never mandated by the Bible.
In the BIble the apostles ask Jesus Christ if they can call down fire, on some folks who have rejected Him, and Jesus rebukes them telling them they have the spirit of Satan.
Luk 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
Luk 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
I think everyone including Catholics should be left in peace to practice their religion even though I very admantantly disagree with it. Same for atheists who speak their minds about false idols, though I think the step of antagonizing people on purpose is not a good one, and grabbing wafers from your local RCC or doing websites to trash the wafer....[atheists and "freethinkers" wouldn't want Catholics storming local UU churches or Ethical Humanist societies so that favor should be returned] should be avoided. There are useful laws already on the books about not disrupting church services and more as to whether an item that is freely handed over can be stolen, that is stretching things. Isnt it the responsiblity of Catholic priests to know who is in good standing or not or even a member of their own churches?
To be frank it has been alarming to see the interaction here, and those who confess to be Christians {Catholic posters} using the language I've seen used here, the threats and more. This too goes against what Jesus Christ taught and it has been sad to see.
Matt 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
This is the way things are supposed to be done.
So atheists, agnostics and other "freethinkers" do not make the mistake of thinking Catholicism automatically equals Christianity. Read for YOURSELVES exactly what Jesus Christ taught, [outside of any church even evangelical ones] and check it out. Consider your own actions in terms of how you yourselves want to be treated: understand that if you truly support freedom of religion that must be supported across the board.
Thanks, just wanted to post an alternative viewpoint here on this board.
Ah for fucks sake.
Tolerance yes. Respect no.
Go dream of Jesus or something.
You're boring.
EX-CATHOLIC now Christian:
Don't worry, we are all quite aware that Christianity comes in a wide variety of different flavours.
The funny thing is that the vast majority of said flavours tend to claim that they and only they are the true church and everyone else has got it wrong to some degree or other.
I agree with all that Lilly. But I wasn't talking about Cook or the Catholic response to him. I was taking PZ up on his own actions, namely requesting people to send him crackers, and now this promise:
I'll do something that shows this cracker has no power
Lilly de Lure says:
how about a deal, we leave your wafers alone and you promise to keep your internal party strictly internal from now on. OK?
Well, speaking as Christ's vicar on earth, OK!
Jim asked in #354: "And for what???"
The goal is the complete eradication of religious insanity, and there is no religion more insane than the money making racket called the Catholic church.
Expect never ending relentless ridicule of your idiotic beliefs. Catholic morons will never be allowed to forget they are no better than Muslim terrorists.
His Holiness Pope McTrousers said:
Actions which are a direct result of the Cook affair and are infact a protest against it and against church law being enforced in areas it has no business being. Under the circumstances it is a legitimate protest against an abuse of power not the "I feel like being offensive today" gesture that PZ's critics are trying to paint it.
"I am an EX-Catholic {cradle} raised Catholic, and became a New Ager also atheist-agnostic for years, before converting to being a born again Christian. What I want to tell the atheists and others here, is do not make the mistake of thinking Catholicism represents what Christianity is all about. The RCC is not true Christianity but a false fascimile of it."
Yeah, we know there's Catholic morons and born-again Christian morons. Each group looks forward to the other group's eternal torture in hell. Both groups are assholes and batshit crazy.
Fixed that up for you.
BTW, you're seriously fucking arrogant. It's not to "piss off" Catholics, that's just a side benefit. The purpose seems to be the demonstration that the cracker is just a cracker. And the only thing that will happen is a something "bad" will happen to the cracker.
There won't be BLOOD coming out of the host (like the nuns lied). PZ won't be struck down by a vengeful god. All that'll happen is an inexpensive bit of cracker, of no universal significance, will be destroyed.
PZ - You should nail 95 wafers on the door of a Catholic church.
Lilly del Lure said:
Under the circumstances it is a legitimate protest against an abuse of power not the "I feel like being offensive today" gesture that PZ's critics are trying to paint it.
Ok, I've got it. Some Catholics acted like assholes to Cook first, so that makes it ok for PZ to promise to act like a giant asshole to all Catholics.
Just like some dipshits sending PZ death-threats by email made it ok for folks here to email them death-threats in return.
EX-CATHOLIC now Christian:
Don't worry, we are all quite aware that Christianity comes in a wide variety of different flavours.
The funny thing is that the vast majority of said flavours tend to claim that they and only they are the true church and everyone else has got it wrong to some degree or other.
Glad to hear it.
While I believe in absolute truth {truth can be known, and there is "one" truth} any church that claims to be the one true church, ISN'T. Even there scripturally, Jesus had the apostles question him about OTHERS preaching in His name, and Jesus taught "this other church" so to speak was one of them!
His Holiness Pope McTrousers
They certainly make it justified to act in such a way as to get the message that your rules and beliefs are your rules and beliefs, they are not mine or anyone elses and you have no right to force me or anyone else to defer to them (and incidently, it's still just a cracker) over to people yes.
If you regard that attitude as being as "asshole" then that's your problem, not mine or PZs.
Uhhh... Gravity isn't suspended when you're in space. It still works.
I mean, duh.
Jim the mouthbreather said:
Can you provide links to all of the comments you left on Pat Robertson's blog/website, Jerry Falwell's website, et. al.?? Do you send in letters to the editor complaining about your fellow religionists who seem to go out of their way to slander atheists at every opportunity for no other apparent reason than just to provoke?
Until you do, get the fuck off your high horse and STFU.
Pope person,
//Ok, I've got it. Some Catholics acted like assholes to Cook first, so that makes it ok for PZ to promise to act like a giant asshole to all Catholics.
Just like some dipshits sending PZ death-threats by email made it ok for folks here to email them death-threats in return.//
Doesnt take much to "act like a giant asshole to all Catholics",now does it? I guess something like" transsubstantiation was invented at a committee meeting in the 13th century" would do nicely,right?
And please feel free to post the death threats that were sent by people here in return to the ones PZ received.Oh,there werent any? Bummer,guess you were just lying then....
McPants is tedious.
Ex-Papist is new-agey and boring.
Most new agers are.
Both of you... get over it.
God belief is silly.
Your whining won't ever make us stop mocking it
or pointing out how silly it is.
EX-CATHOLIC now Christian,
Do shut up. We're not interested in inter-godbot squabbling.
Lilly said:
They certainly make it justified to act in such a way as to get the message that your rules and beliefs are your rules and beliefs, they are not mine or anyone elses and you have no right to force me or anyone else to defer to them...
I'm just wondering if there might be a more effective way of getting that message across. Maybe even a way which might persuade some moderate catholics to agree with it. Rather than counter-productively uniting every single one of them in hatred of you and everything you stand for, completely eclipsing your point with your outrageous behaviour.
I'm not sure what exactly. Maybe something involving self-control and reasonableness, and this much vaunted rationality...
Im going to bed !
Lilly de Lure,
Hello !!
Rather than counter-productively uniting every single one of them in hatred of you and everything you stand for - SMcT
If all Catholics are really united in hatred by a threat to desecrate a cracker, they are far more unpleasant and dangerous than I ever imagined - and it's probably best we should know this. I don't for a moment believe they are.
Spaghetti McTrousers said:
OK, on one side, people trying to ruin and threatening to end the lives of two people. On the other, someone threatening to harm a cracker that would have been eaten anyway. You honestly believe that the cracker threatener is the one behaving outrageously.
Moving right along . . . .
I'm talking about the proposed actual desecration of a cracker.
Which outrageous behavior is that?
It seems it's the Catholics who can't seem to control themselves.
PZ, you should keep a running count on this site of how many crackers people have sent you.
Also, I vote for Marcus's idea of printing the Koran on one, and giving it to a Mosque.
Again, I'm not talking about threatening the cracker, I'm talking about the promised actual desecration. What I'm suggesting - in case my point is unclear - is that I don't think it's a very good idea.
No, I don't think it would be as bad as the campaign to ruin Mr Cook's life, or as bad as the Spanish Inquisition, or paedophile priests, or an endless list of other Catholic crimes. But really, are those the standards you want to judge a proposed course of action by? It's a bad idea, on its own terms.
You honestly believe that the cracker [desecrater] is the one behaving outrageously.
The whole point - PZ's and mine - is that is this is exactly what millions of Catholics do think. Did you miss the start of this story, or something?
And by the way, that's a false equivalence Lilly. I've said nothing at all in defence of the people trying to wreck two people's lives. In fact, I believe I used the term "asshole" to describe them. I can go further if you want, but I didn't think it was a controversial point.
OK, on one side, people trying to ruin and threatening to end the lives of two people.
Given Dr. Myers's previous post, you can no longer claim the high ground on that front.
Both sides have wacky extremists who say stupid things. Both sides have more moderate voices.
Pointing out that there are morons who say stupid things on one side doesn't prove anything.
They're the ones making death-threats. Seriously, they're making death threats. Over their own mistake and unwillingness to offer the student they assaulted an apology for assaulting him for their barbaric and unlawful behavior. (Yes, you really can't grab and manhandle another human if they don't eat your magic cracker. It's the law.)
So, had this been MUSLIMS making death threats, or performing "honor killings" you'd not be here because YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT unless it's your special belief. Then it matters.
I make fun of people with dead relatives all the time. Like my daughter who has untold MILLIONS OF DEAD RELATIVES since the dawn of time. It's perfectly IMPOSSIBLE to not make fun of people with dead relatives if you make fun of them in any way, shape or form.
Or did you mean something different with your over-reaching and off-the-mark analogy?
What I wonder is why the hell people like you refuse to see your transgretions? How you are incapable of separating the respect most of us give "to your innate humanness" (when you're not being dense pricks) but refuse to give to your "silly ideas that are wholly fictional nonsense."
What I also wonder is why we have to give you SPECIAL respect for a narrow sub-set of your beliefs? Because that's what you're demanding. And, further, why don't you recognize the hypocrisy you demonstrate when you demand this special respect (like a bunch of petulant, spoiled children) and don't respect anyone else's beliefs in this matter.
My belief is PISS ON THE DAMN THING, IT'S JUST A FUCKING CRACKER.
These are COMPETEING BELIEFS. YOUR BELIEF IS NO MORE SPECIAL, no matter how much you whine about it, than mine. Though MINE has a hell of a lot more empirical evidence than yours.
Bravo! Bravo!! Standing ovation for Damian #387 and Wowbagger #388! Well said gents.
#439
Actually, I think PZ's point is that it is impossible to desecrate a cracker. It's a manufactured, false crime. It's just a cracker, no matter what people might believe it to be. A simple inspection of the object will determine conclusively that it's just a cracker! It would be like saying someone desecrated a marble, or a hair-pin.
No one has the right to not be offended. Just because you cherish an unsupportable idea doesn't mean anyone else has to cherish that same idea. It's your own fault for cherishing such a goofy idea so vulnerable to ridicule.
"Given Dr. Myers's previous post, you can no longer claim the high ground on that front."
There is of course the difference that PZ has told people NOT to e-mail the two people who's e-mail addresses were in the death threats he received.
Has anyone is the Catholic Church come out told people not to make death threats against Webster Cook and PZ ? Has the church official who attack Cook been removed from her post ?
That's vandalism and it is a crime. Not eating a magic cracker isn't a crime. Assaulting the person who didn't eat the magic cracker, or threatening to kill him, are crimes.
Boy, that was easy...
So what? Big deal. Millions of people believe that cows are sacred, but people still eat beef. Why should we give a damn about what you and millions of catholics believe about a cracker(when reality says that it's only a cracker)?
The whole point of this incident is that threatening violence towards a cracker is completely different to threatening violence against real people.
It doesn't matter what you, and millions of catholics believe about a cracker. PZ is perfectly *within his rights* to "desecrate" a cracker, as long as it was freely handed out to him or to someone who gave it to him, and as long as he doesn't disrupt proceedings in a church.
Feel offended? I can understand that it hurts your sentiments, but tough luck. Hopefully, this incident will cause some people to realize how silly it is to believe that a cracker is literally the flesh and blood of jesus.
Two different issues are getting muddled up.
1. Is PZ within his rights to desecrate a cracker?
2. Is it a good idea for PZ to desecrate a cracker?
The answers are 1. yes, and 2. no.
[If you don't like "desecrate", replace with "piss on", "stamp on", whatever.]
I'd be interested if anyone could point me to the online comment thread where Catholics are trading creative ideas on how best to kill Dr. Myers or Webster Cook.
-----
There are over 1 billion Catholics worldwide, dozens of million American ones. And how many have issued death threats? Perhaps a dozen. This represents a significantly smaller percentage than the percentage of Dr. Myers' readers who have engaged in similar behavior, which might explain why Dr. Myers felt it necessary to issue a corrective and the Church has not.
My main point is that neither side holds a monopoly on either stupid violent behavior or more moderate rational non-violent behavior.
-----
That there are stupid whackos among Catholics proves... that there are stupid whackos among Catholics. I don't recall where anyone ever claimed otherwise.
Part of discourse is addressing the person in front of you. AFAIK, nobody on this comment thread has threatened any violence of any kind.
#446
"...threatening violence towards a cracker ..."
You mean like masticating, re-hydrating, dissolving with acid, mixing with bile, excreting, and depositing in a toilet bowl?
Bzzzt. Yes and Yes. If Catholics can't see how absurd it is that NOT EATING A CRACKER is not worthy of death threats than by all means, MORE crackers should be "desecrated" there should be a massive wave of cracker abuse to make a point.
The point is, your cracker miracle is silly. Accept it and carry on, don't get your panties in a twist when it's mocked.
I may get slammed as a concern troll again for this, but I'm still concerned that P.Z. may be on shaky legal ground here. (Or if not, that ground could change as a result---Defense of Crackers laws could get passed as a response to this sort of thing, and maybe upheld by the courts.)
I'm not a lawyer, but nobody else here seems to be either, and I think it's worth discussing.
I think it's simplistic to dismiss PZ's request for wafers as being about something that is simply being given away free and clear.
Consider free newspapers that are "given away." They are not given away for any purpose that you want, and there's a limit on who can take how many for what reasons.
You can't, for example, grab a stack of your local campus newspaper, run it through one of those paper-log-making gadgets, and use it for firewood. That's theft.
Likewise, you can't grab a stack of your local alternative free and throw them away because you don't like the paper's politics. That's not just theft, that's a violation of the paper's first amendment right to freedom of the press. Vigilante censorship of that sort is not okay, even if it's "just some printed matter" that "they give away for free." IIRC, it's crime.
(I think the paper firelog example is the same sort of crime, even if the intent is only to get free fuel, not inhibit political speech. It does interfere with free expression, so it's a bigger deal than the paper and printing costs.)
Stealing newspapers is illegal, even if those papers are "given away freely" for a certain purpose. If I understand the issues, it doesn't matter that there's no "transaction" with an expected payment.
I don't recall the details of court decisions about this, or have citations, and I don't know if they were based on basic laws about property plus civil rights, or specific statutes about stealing newspapers.
Either way, I'm pretty sure the courts upheld the basic idea that newspapers have the right to give papers away for free, on the honor system, and be legally protected from certain abuses---people doing "the wrong thing" with their "free" newspapers.
IIRC, the courts ruled that such protection was necessary to avoid creating an unreasonable barrier to freedom of the press; it's important for low-budget operations that produce free newspapers be able to distribute them cheaply by just leaving stacks of them in various places, with no guards or anything.
I can easily imagine that the courts would take a similar position on "free" communion wafers, in service of free exercise of religion. (The Catholic church already puts more effort into "guarding" the crackers than the alternative press does into guarding stacks of paper.)
I suspect that frog was right (and I was wrong) in the earlier thread that the courts wouldn't decide this on the basis of basic property law and the first amendment; it would probably require a specific statute, and the courts would merely uphold its application with this sort of reasoning.
It's not clear to me that such a law doesn't exist, maybe a Minnesota state law, or maybe even 18 U.S. Code 247:
http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=8767737…
On a casual reading, it might seem that Section 247 doesn't apply on several counts. In particular, it talks about "religious objects" in places of worship, and only applies in "interstate commerce."
It's not clear to me what those things really mean, legally. For example, P.Z. asked people to do "what it takes" to get the crackers, arguably asking them to take them from churches under false pretenses, and send them to him. If part of the purported "crime" occurs in a church, that may be enough, and if P.Z. is asking for them across state lines, and they are shipped commercially across state lines to him, that may be enough to trigger the interstate commerce clause.
(The interstate commerce clause has often been interpreted very, very loosely by the courts, especially to allow federal civil rights laws to be applied to what would otherwise be matters left to the states.)
Before doing anything like this, I would lawyer up, and make sure I knew both the relevant state laws and the federal laws, and how the courts have interpreted them.
For the record, I'm not Catholic, and in fact am very anti-Catholicism. I just would not want to run up against the Catholic church's lawyers without my ducks in a row. (Especially given the large number of Catholics on the Supreme Court.)
I'd be happy to find out I'm wrong to be worried about this, but I'd want to see some specific laws and precedents making it clear P.Z. is off the hook.
(I also take seriously the idea that even if it is technically illegal, it's justified civil disobedience in service of a valid point. Certainly the Catholic Church has done vastly worse things, but it's not clear to me we ought to cross that line, legal or not. This may just be too far outside the Overton Window to be a win.)
I wonder what the think catholics will happen to PZ when he cracks the cracker, and breaks the spell? Will gawd rain down frogs on Morris? Turn PZ into a pillar of salt or blast him with brimstone? Has anyone heard of the pope making a statement?
"...who have engaged in similar behavior,..."
Like making death threats? I'm not sure there were any made. If there were, your point stands. However, making death threats over a cracker is not only insanity, it's probably not even legal.
Actually, while 1 is a factual question where the answer is clearly yes, 2 is based only on personal opinion. You might think the answer is no, but I think it's a pretty good idea for PZ to "desecrate" a cracker. So my answers are:
1. yes
2. yes
No one is worried but you.
"Part of discourse is addressing the person in front of you. AFAIK, nobody on this comment thread has threatened any violence of any kind."
Unlike in the Church Webster Cook attended where he was assaulted by a woman officiating at the service.
I want everyone to do what it takes to get me a car. Really. Go on, whatever it takes. If you can't get me a car, I'll settle for a plant. Any plant. Go on now. Do it. Whatever it takes. You have my permission.
Moses wrote:
That would very counter-productive. It is just a cracker, but the complaint that some Catholics, like Andrew Sullivan (who apparently takes Vox Day seriously), are making is that PZ is expressing hate and bigotry at Catholics. (Not that their aren't reasons to be angry, just that expressing it in anything but words stating why you're angry doesn't help unless you intend to intimidate.) Avoid expressing anger, or anything that could be interpreted that way.
Now that you've got their attention you want them to think, not feel. Like I said before, challenge Bill to tell consecrated from unconsecrated crackers, or as others have suggested; do scientific tests.
Patricia,
"I wonder what the think catholics will happen to PZ when he cracks the cracker, and breaks the spell? "
Gasp!!
I never thought of that!! He will break god!! Oh the humanity!
On second thought PZ, please don't break god. He loves you.
However, making death threats over a cracker is not only insanity, it's probably not even legal.
Again, what does that prove? Among the 1 billion Catholics in the world, there are nuts who engage in illegal behavior. Point granted. Now what?
The basic problem I see being made is comparing Dr. Myers to the most deranged Catholics on the Internet. If Dr. Myers wants to aim for a standard of, "better than the worst nuts on the Internet," that's his choice, but then we should give his opinions the same regard as we would a random guy on the Internet.
I tend to think professors should be held to a higher standard than nuts on the Internet.
So, you can continue to wave the bloody shirt of "Death threats! Death threats!" if it makes you feel better, but what you're doing is lowering yourselves to the level of an Internet troll.
I don't believe there's any evidence that anyone from this blog issued a death threat on the authors of either of the two emails that he publicized. He asked everyone to stop because there were too many of us emailing them directly and emailing HR, etc., not because any of us were threatening them.
So, unless you know about death threats that haven't been made public in this forum, you're setting up a false equivalence.
JohnMg,
How about assault by an an official of the Catholic church ?
Only Webster Cook was assaulted by a woman who was officiating at the service. That would kind of make the assault not only an act by her, but one by the church as well. I am not aware of the church even censoring this woman, let alone removing her from her post.
JohnMcG: Who said anything about catholics trading creative ideas on death threats to PZ and Cook, nice strawman. However, if you go to the Pharyngula home page and look for the two posts dated the past few days with 'mail' in the title you can read for yourself the e-mail threats to PZ.
As to our side, nobody has sent death threats to the two senders in the 'mail dump' post who did send threats to PZ. At worst, a few idiots on our 'side' apparently signed up one of the senders to various types of SPAM. Yep, signing someone up for SPAM definitely equates with threats of death and violence, idiot.
Is it illegal to ask your friends to each bring you a copy of the free newspaper because you want to make papier-mache? I still think you need to work on your analogies a bit more.
"Point granted. Now what?"
Ask mr. D to denounce that type of activity, if he hasn't already, and shut up. Period.
People that conduct these superstitious ceremonies should be responsible to keep track of their magic crackers. If they can't then they should not be surprised if they get "desecrated".
And remember, the only reason this all started was because of the original incident. The point is, don't expect anyone else to respect an indefensible idea just because you think it's special. The cracker is just a cracker. There is no reason to get worked up over it - you're right. So let's not.
Church officials will no longer have to violently attack anyone who refuses to eat a cracker. Now the Catholic assholes have armed police guarding their crackers, ready to shoot to kill anyone who doesn't respect their holy wafers.
Catholics continue to prove they have no moral values. Their magical crackers are more important than human life. Then they wonder why everyone laughs at them.
I skip going online for a few days and in the meantime this turns into the Cracker Blog. Jesus H. Christ.
Remember PZ's previous threat (in jest) to urinate on a Bible? That didn't raise a ruckus. It just shows how much the profile of Pharyngula has risen in the last few years.
Said Jim: (9x inclusive)
So much time wasted and so little said.
People that conduct these superstitious ceremonies should be responsible to keep track of their magic crackers. If they can't then they should not be surprised if they get "desecrated".
Now the Catholic assholes have armed police guarding their crackers, ready to shoot to kill anyone who doesn't respect their holy wafers.
Good to know I'm among the "rational" crowd.
Here's an thought -- we could live in a society where people didn't try to steal what others consider sacred. But I guess that's too much to ask.
Here's another thought - we could live in a society where a member of a church could try to share part of his faith with a non-believer without being assaulted in his place of worship, threatened with expulsion, threatened with a lawsuit, and threatened with death. That's seemingly too much to ask as well.
#469
"we could live in a society where people didn't try to steal what others consider sacred"
But that's the point. We don't hold your indefensible, crazy ideas about magical crackers sacred. Furthermore, we have powerful reasons and arguments why we think it's accurate to describe your ideas about magical crackers as insane. Additionally, those same crazy ideas seem to either leak into society or are foisted with a demand for deference, even though they are bat-shit crazy! Superstitious beliefs are poison to modern society and cause people to do bat-shit crazy things - like make death threats over a CRACKER!
Here's a thought. Maybe we could live in a society where child molesting priests go to jail just like child molesting non-priests do. Too much to ask?
Asshole.
Some crazy ideas imagined by superstition:
- You continue to live after you stop living
- Although unseen and untestable, deities are real
- Although unseen and untestable, angels are real
- Although unseen and untestable, devils are real
- Although unseen and untestable, souls are real
- Magical incantations are effectual
- Even though created by simple people thousands of years ago, the writings are accurate
- Kill an infidel, get some virgins
- The Earth is about 6000 years old
- Humans are not of the animal kingdom
- There used to be a spherical shell of water encompassing the Earth
- A cracker is worth killing a person over
- Vicarious punishment and redemption is perfectly moral
- So is owning slaves
- Just because my beliefs can't be defended rationally, that doesn't mean they're crazy
"Here's an thought -- we could live in a society where people didn't try to steal what others consider sacred."
I will never enter any church for any reason, because I prefer to stay away from people who are criminally insane. But if anyone wants to go into a church just to annoy religious assholes, that's OK with me. Religious insanity is out of control in this world. The only solution is the complete eradication of all religions. The only way to accomplish this is better science education combined with relentless ridicule of people who think there's a magical fairy hiding in the clouds.
This started with a student protesting that his tuition was supporting a Catholic church. Then he received so many threats that he surrendered. PZ then stepped in, as I interpret it, with the message that he would not be intimidated so easily, and would stand up to the abuse from Catholics instead. The original point is that the church is claiming public money for itself and demanding that everyone else respect their beliefs and practices. All of this is about saying "no" to that.
#115 - Richard in Edmonton - Yesterday we both wondered about the begining of the eucharist. I think one of PZ's other Ilk answered it somewhere, but in case I'm really confused (sheesh!)and no one actually has - in a short answer - Paul made it up. It's bunk and made up from nothing but Pauls ravings. I get this info from a book of mine called: 'In Search of Paul' by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, 2004, HarperCollins. The book got very high ratings in reviews by "biblical experts".
I don't know. It may be, technically---I'm not sure where the law draws that particular line---but be below the level of seriousness that anybody gives a shit. The free newspaper people aren't going to make a big deal about that, so the courts won't, either.
Asking people to obtain consecrated communion wafers may be above the line, even if filching a newspaper or two isn't. It's obviously a bigger deal to a lot of people, including the people being tricked out of the wafers, so it's more likely to be an issue that laws and courts would take seriously.
That may be, but it's pretty clear that the people treating it as a simple black-and-white issue of "giving something away" need to work on theirs as well.
I was just giving a counterexample to the often-expressed idea that if you "give something away," it's yours to do with as you wish, and that's all there is to it. That is not true if the other side can make a case that you're creating a barrier to the easy exercise of their first amendment rights.
I'm not saying that what PZ is doing is illegal; I don't know, and I think it's likely not. (And I hope not.)
I am objecting to people making it sound like these things are dead obvious. They aren't.
This reminds me of the Ono vs. Premise thing. A lot of people here said that it was an obvious, open-and-shut case of copyright infringment, and several ridiculed me and Russell Blackford for saying that Premise had a good case that they "ought" to win.
I'm less confident of my judgement of the issues in this case---I know less about civil rights law than copyright law. On the other hand, I'm still less confident of the consensus Pharyngula view; I'm pretty sure that what seems obvious to many people here should not seem so obvious, as a matter of law.
I've seen zero indication that anybody here actually knows the relevant law. (Although frog did a good job of straightening me out on one basic misconception.)
My analogies aren't perfect, but they don't have to be. If similar analogies convince lawmakers and judges, that's all it takes. (Nobody here bought my analogies in the Imagine case, either, but the judge made essentially the same argument, and Ono lost.)
You seem to think the burden of proof is on me to show that P.Z. is doing something illegal. I don't claim that he is, just that people's simplistic arguments that he's not don't hold water. A single counterexample is sufficient to show the invalidity of one of the major arguments that's been used over and over here.
This kind of stuff often depends on exactly where legislatures and courts draw several very specific lines to balance several conflicting rights. Pretending that it's simple is foolish. Assuming that the law wouldn't enshrine something foolish is dangerous, too.
Have a look at 18 USC 247. It may not apply here, but it's an interesting example of what may be enshrined in law, no matter how obviously stupid it is to Pharynguloids like us. Notice, for example, the talk about "religious objects" and the criminality of defacing them without reference to whether the "religious object" really, objectively has any particular economic value. Maybe a cracker would count if the right guy mumbles the right words over it.
(Why not? What's the point of protecting "religious objects" specifically, if not to go well beyond what you get from protecting rationally valuable objects?)
Whether that law actually applies here or not, for other reasons, I think such a cracker would count as a religious object you could get up to a year in prison for mistreating in certain ways. That's cause for concern. If this federal law doesn't apply, some similar state law might.
Does anybody here know that Minnesota doesn't have any laws like that? If so, they should speak up. And until then, people shouldn't be so cocksure about what they or P.Z. have "a legal right" to do with certain crackers.
Dammit, qbsmd, stay away from those original issues. You don't know where they've been.
So, now we're supposed to "respect" the beliefs and practices of others when we step into their churches? If we happen to stop by a party where the host and guests are dropping acid, are we supposed to "respect" those delusions too? If we get lost in Thailand and set foot in a brothel specializing in children, are we expected to "respect" their beliefs and practices as well? If we visit a prison, are we supposed to act like raping your cellmate and peeing on the warden is OK with us? If we tour the headquarters of a large company, should we nod and smile as the CFO tells us about the three sets of books he keeps and the kickbacks he receives from government contractors, and how it's OK because "that's business?"
My point is simply that it is not necessary or proper to let a dysfunctional, delusional bunch of brainwashed cultists dictate to us that we must "respect" their fantasies and crimes.
Crazy ideas deserve to be disgraced. Dressing them in fancy robes, tall hats, and ornate ceremony does not change the fact that they are crazy ideas that are poisonous to modern society.
Patricia @ 452 Gone since early this morning for lub, oil and filter, auto inspection sticker and sundry other things, and also to check out local churches for any loose crackers hanging about. I just checked the Comcast Internet News, and the chief moron sheep herder is in Sydney, Australia in conjunction with the World Youth Day. Oh what a farce, to see this dolt coming off the plane from Rome and all the local bishops, cardinals, priests and other insane rabble fawning in their circus outfits and kissing the moron's ass. What a pathetic and demeaning sight to see the insane hordes grovel before this symbol of abject insanity! As for the apology, this is forthcoming in a mass insane gathering of the sheep of the world, to be given in the next few days. There were scenes of the insane refuse gathering in pockets all over the place and puking themselves stupid over the presence of the hily farter(sic). Oh, the youth of the world; this is the time to grab them when their brains are still mush after the initial mulching by parents and local churches. We'll have these pablum shitters before they reach adulthood, and by god, we'll have their cesspit brains forever! Yeah, praise the lord shitter! I would like to witness this farcical scenario as portrayed in my ever ready mind to blast the retards:
The papist is on a monstrous stage with microphones spread out to broadcast the crap to the insane world. After his initial homilies, he finally states that the apology is now at hand: "And here to offer his utmost and sincere apology for the sexual molestation by his slimy priests, I give you our god! Er, I give you our god! (Still no appearance). And here he is at last, our lord god! (and in a whisper from the corner of his mouth, "where the fuck are you; you're making me look bad!) One more time, let's hear it for our lord , the god! Hey, you're making me look foolish; make an appearance, damn it! Okay you son of a bitch, I'll suspend the cracker ritual until you make an appearance! Make me look like an asshole, eh? Okay my sheep, er, my children, god said it could not make it today but just keep praying and it will let you know of a surprise visit to you fuckers, er, suckers, er muckers; hell, you know what I mean! And oh by the way, god told me to drop the cracker ritual as it is all a bunch of insane shit to keep your bowels flowing!
I'd like to select "soylent green on a cracker"
Holbach - I spent the morning trying to figure out that damned eucharist, so I haven't got to see what the lead tard is up to.
Last time he gave his sorries it boiled down to I'll pray for you. It's a disgrace. His prayers are worth even less than his crackers.
Here's a thought. Maybe we could live in a society where child molesting priests go to jail just like child molesting non-priests do. Too much to ask?
No. Has anyone in this thread asserted otherwise?
Here's another thought - we could live in a society where a member of a church could try to share part of his faith with a non-believer without being assaulted in his place of worship, threatened with expulsion, threatened with a lawsuit, and threatened with death. That's seemingly too much to ask as well.
No.
But if that involves taking from that place of worship under false pretenses, then yes, it is probably too much to ask as well.
Asshole.
Yes, more of that rational, evidence-based dialogue that is a hallmark of the anit-"cracker" community.
Paul W,
"My analogies aren't perfect, but they don't have to be. If similar analogies convince lawmakers and judges, that's all it takes."
That would make responding to your arguments a big old waste of time, wouldn't it? Since they're only examples of arguments that could be presented to judges and lawmakers in the future, who may or may not be on acid by then. It doesn't matter if they make sense (and you may or may not even be making them), they just have to roughly look like they do. Hey, the burden is on other people to prove that any number of hypothetical arguments can't hypothetically convince any number of hypothetical people in the future.
You did make a good point by saying that legally, receiving something for free isn't necessarily unconditional. And I could certainly see a situation in which the giving out of wafers could be abused in the same way that free newspapers can be.
There's still no point in saying that these conditions could be redefined into anything, regardless of any standard of logic or reason. They could, but it doesn't matter.
I think we should give the Aussies some credit, though. The loony-pacifying faction came up with a law to protect the sensitivities of catholics by not "annoying" them - no handing out condoms or coat hangers to protest the catholic church's line on sex, abortion, AIDS, child rape, whatever.
The Australian federal court just struck down the law. Hooray!
It is based on evidence.
Call em like we see them.
Then what are you saying? Can you please say in simple words what the counterargument is?
I have addressed your primary assertion.
One does not need to believe in an assumption in order to reason from it. That's how logic works.
Look:
Major premise: All flying purple people-eaters have green-and-black striped tongues.
Minor premise: JC is a flying purple people-eater.
Conclusion: Even if JC never opens his mouth for us, I can infer that JC has a green-and-black striped tongue.
And I can say this without believing for an instant that either of the two premises are really true.
Intelligent adults use reason. Which is exactly what I am trying to do, and you are refusing to do.
In referencing 1 Corinthians 11, you appear to be dancing around referring to verse 27, without actually saying so explicitly: "27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord."
Is that what you mean? Is that the verse which you think ruins my argument? Because it is from Paul of Tarsus, and it is on his authority, as best as I can understand it, that the Roman Catholic Church takes that verse and interprets it as being a deadly seriously literal assertion that the Almighty and Perfect Omniscient and Omnipotent God is completely unable to prevent himself from being taken into someone "in an unworthy manner".
Yes or no?
By the way, I note that the following verses certainly appear to imply that those who do partake of the host "in an unworthy manner" are "weak and sick", and that God, angry and powerful, has punished them. So even Paul of Tarsus certainly seemed to think that if God was not omniscient enough to avoid being ingested "in an unworthy manner", God was nevertheless powerful enough to directly punish those who did so on his own, without needing humans to become involved at all.
Is this interpretation correct? Why or why not?
There would be something quite ironic about this being threadjacked for a discussion of differing Scriptual interpretations.
If this is the question: should PZ publicly desecrate a cracker?
...then here is what he needs to bear in mind: if he does, it will be interpreted a giant "fuck you", taken personally by every single Catholic in the world.
Now you can argue until you are blue in the face that they're stupid to interpret it that way, because it's just a frackin' cracker and everything. But you have no chance of getting that argument to stick, and you know it.
Look, if I flip you the middle finger, would you be convinced by "hey, it's just a frackin' finger"? The fact is we live in a society where that middle finger has been endowed with a meaning: namely "fuck you". And in Catholic culture, desecrating a consecrated cracker has exactly the same meaning, multiplied by infinity-plus-one. That's simply a fact, and no amount of furious rationalizing and material reductionism is going to change it.
So the essential decision before PZ isn't actually anything to do with crackers at all. It's just this: does he want to insult, personally, and as greviously as possible, every single Catholic in the world?
And I hope that he does not. Because it wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile whatsoever. And in fact it would be utterly counterproductive and unhelpful.
Yep. Let's insult every single one of them. Maybe one of them will think... "well it is just a nasty piece of bread".
Because that's what it is.
Someone upstream asked (more or less), what useful purpose does Dr. Myer's stated intention of desecrating a sanctified communion wafer, serve? Probably someone else has already answered this, but to me it comes down to this; that many Christians (available in an assortment of flavors) go on about how silly those other people are being when they get all hostile and outraged when someone pokes fun at something that is only holy or special to them, but our religion is different! We don't act like that! Our religion is better (not to mention right and true.)
Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and their reactions look just a whole lot like the reactions of those (laughable) others; the fundmentalists with screams and threats, the more moderate with more or less calm expressions of hurt and dismay that anyone would do such a thing. And, since this whole thing has been very public (all over the Webs!), it's going to be that much harder for Christians to believably claim that those others are just "overreacting", or "blowing things all out of proportion", but our people would never act like that! And if they do, well then, they must not really be Christians!
It isn't something I would have done; I'm not generally that confrontational. It takes more courage than I've got. But I can see the use in it.
Of course, this is only my opinion. I'm sure that there are others who are thinking that it was all just mean-spiritedness and/or rebellious disrespect.
No one has the right to not be insulted.
It would illustrate the fact that no one has the right to not be insulted.
Maybe if one is insulted by such a mundane act, they should either grow a thicker skin or revere something that is a little less susceptible to insult.
#488 - Owlmirror - Thankyou for posting verse 27. To me that means the punishment for desecrating a cracker = none. Not even a threat of hell or raining frogs. As usual, gawd himself does nothing.
The problem with having utopian ambitions for your society might be that you start to have trouble being sensitive to the pluralism that exists in it now, and the dreary necessity of reigning in your personal absolutism in order to foster a good environment for everyone to coexist in.
People keep coming back to the falsity of the belief as a reason for discounting the importance it has for Catholics -- as a justification for the big act of disrespect toward them that PZ proposed making. But that is not a viable way of organizing the world, not right now. You can't just tell everyone who doesn't agree with you that they have no right to complain when you shit on their worldview on the basis that you're right and they're wrong. Because they equally believe themselves to be right. You have to recognize yourself as situated in a group within a culture just like everyone else, and work from there.
Of course the need to move toward improving society (say -- debatably -- by discouraging religious beliefs) is at odds with the need to respect the bounds in the current one. But I don't take that as a sign that the latter should just be ignored -- just that it's very tricky ground and that we should keep both in mind.
So, I'm still not decided on the general question of whether to publicly deride religion as a means to ending it. The reason I leap on this particular issue is that PZ's proposed sacrilege appears so incredibly unhelpful: it's a display of utter venom toward this group, in response to their venomous reaction to this guy's disruptive act (which may have been a touch venomously motivated anyway).
There's so much divisiveness in the political climate already that I can't see the gain in worsening it. Damian #387's eloquent post starts to sound implausible to me right when he starts explaining how pissing people off more will help dispel their false belief systems. To my mind the vast effect of this sort of thing is to reinforce the mentality they share with this group: that they are persecuted, beset by unsympathetic enemies who wish to eliminate them, and that they can only triumph if they band together against them. In fact, that seems like the blindingly obvious result, in which case all the "It'll open their minds" talk is pure rationalization for an act of spite, another grenade lobbed in the culture wars. There must be more reasonable ways to advance the dialogue.
Moses, #441: I'm not Catholic. You should swear and accuse less, and read more closely.
Pope McTrousers writes
"And I hope that he does not. Because it wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile whatsoever. And in fact it would be utterly counterproductive and unhelpful."
The act of desecration by an unbeliever is in what way counterproductive in dealing with people who believe that incantation spoken by their priest have any real effect at all?
These sheep have been led from an early age to not question the authority to whom they defer. This is a serious problem that is becoming more serious over time. It is paramount that such participation as PZ Myers has engaged in be allowed both as a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
The fact of the matter is that the church hides behind its flimsy veil of secrecy and is losing grounds in the bright lights of the 21st century{one can argue!} and that if it is to remain at all relevant in a global village it simply must be able to answer questions asked of it without burying its face in the sand.
So I disagree that it is either counterproductive or helpful. In fact I am of the distinct impression that it is really needed.
Pope McTrousers, at #490, I agree with you.
However I think there's a question to be asked here about how much offense a group in our society can get to take.
There's talk here that the Catholic reaction has to a large degree been generated by the frothings of the Catholic League people. Perhaps people would not react so much without demagogues reacting for them. At some point one has to draw the line regarding just how much self-righteousness a group can help itself to (although hell if I know where that can be drawn).
I don't think the whole reaction is really about the cracker in the first place, though. It's about Catholics' ongoing perception of themselves as persecuted and insulted by disrespectful outsiders, their feeling of being a last bastion of values in a nihilistic modern world, and the sense of a continuing war against atheists (which the atheists share).
I'm deeply offended when Katie Couric wears pink. It's the color of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and she's not amused. However, the IPU approves of Rachael Ray wearing pink; mysterious are the ways of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. What was the topic again?
It would illustrate the fact that no one has the right to not be insulted.
And I'm sure the Nobel Prize committee will be on the phone to congratulate him for this amjazing insight.
...or maybe if we're all so terrifically scientific and rational, maybe we should set our sights just a teensy bit higher than performing mundane acts on crackers in order to piss people off.
To me the purpose is to meet dangerous lies with dangerous truths.
When I was little, my parents taught me not to lie. Of course, they also taught me religion, and I believed it, which became harder and harder as I saw that it varied from sober, realistic evidence. Then one day the tension became too much and I "broke." I couldn't keep up the pretense any longer. I was not able to avoid the realization that one side was true and the other side was in conflict with the truth.
Some people in that "broken" situation become literally insane, rejecting the evidence of their senses and reason, and cling frenziedly to their unreality (or simply switch to another equally insane unreality). Others reject the pernicious fairy tales and choose the framework of reality.
Some of the people we are dealing with here on this blog are the crazy ones who chose to live in their own made-up role playing game, and who want to force everyone else to play, too. Some have still not come to the step of separating lies from truth, and they defend the right of these ill ones to cling to their sickness, even when they know it's a contagious and frequently lethal disease. Some of us want to eradicate the craziness.
We don't hate the people who are brainwashed (since many of us were there ourselves once). We hate the lies. It's OK to fight lies. It's OK to speak up for the truth, when the truth is something that can be defended by facts.