Bill Donohue has once again issued a press release, urging all of his followers to harass my in-box. Once again, my email is rendered useless by a flood of idiots sending me bizarre tirades and links to Catholic fables and threats. There is a new change in tone: now lots of them are gloating that they've written to CAIR, and the Muslims are now going to come and blow up my house, ha ha! Thanks, Donohue, for reinforcing prejudice about Muslims.
I may have to simply dump all email sent to my more public addresses and create new accounts that I'll only make known to a sensible few. It's that bad.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Over the last couple of days, I've considered posting something on the controversy that's been sparked by PZ Myers' comments about the eucharist, and the reaction of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League to those comments. I've been putting it off because it's not an easy post for me to write. The…
30 September is going to be International Blasphemy Day, and I suspect Donohue will be turning purple while his head twirls around on his neck. It should be entertaining: he's already sending out press releases to complain.
BLASPHEMY DAY TARGETS CHRISTIANITY
The Center for Inquiry will launch the…
Good news! While I still get flooded with email every time Bill Donohue puts my address in a press release, I'm getting 90% fewer death threats! I think that maybe the example of Ms Kroll and her trollish husband has made people thinking twice before explicitly spelling out their gruesome plans, so…
Webster Cook is the young man attending a Florida University who was assaulted by Catholic Host Watchers because he did not chew the sacred cracker fast enough in church several weeks ago. This led to the incident that became internationally known as Crackergate. The internet itself became the…
We are half way to 1000. Let's give PZ a migraine. Only 500 posts to go.
The above story is true btw, I did not write it. Here is another quote from Louis Pasteur:
"The more I know, the more nearly is my faith that of the Breton peasant. Could I but know all I would have the faith of a Breton peasant's wife."
He died while listening to the Life of St. Vincent de Paul.
Anyone here want to claim he was uneducated, ignorant, and stupid?
You're late again, Fr.J. We've already been told, several times that Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur were observant Catholics. So what? Galileo was brought before the Inquisition. Copernicus' De Revolutionibus was placed on the Index of Forbidden books, as were all of Kepler's works.
BTW, you're still a patronizing, pompous prig.
4. Science and religion are not necessarily in opposition and you can be a good scientist and believe in God.
Posted by: Fr. J
Please try telling that to the Discovery Institute.
Anyone here want to claim he was uneducated, ignorant, and stupid?
No one has made such a claim.
You, however, are far from impressive.
Sorry, Janine,
I just found your NYKTROTS tagline above. I didn't mean to try to steal your thunder.
Fr. J.:
Bleeech, I mean really. There is no way you have an education beyond a high school. level. If you're a priest, your diocese is truly screwed.
We are half way to 1000. Let's give PZ a migraine. Only 500 posts to go.
Posted by: Fr. J
It is not the amount of posts that brings on the migraine, it the sheer stupidity that brings it on.
So, you like to cause pain, I see. Damned sadist.
E.V. No need to apologize. I thought you had a laugh and was carrying on the joke.
Sorry, Fr. J, I should have been more specific. I'll try again:
Is there a valid or worthwhile point in there somewhere? Because pointing out that someone who is otherwise intelligent clings to an irrational belief is nothing new to anyone here.
1. Heck, many (if not most) of the posters here are former believers - and, considering how often (and easily) they're thrashing you on every pathetic, flimsy argument you post, they're obviously intelligent. I'm sure they can tell you why they clung to their beliefs better than I - and that it had little or nothing to do with intelligence.
2. Today, most great scientists are atheists. What's your point?
3. Since when does arrogant and rude stop someone from being right?
4. Cognitive dissonance is alive and well. This i do not deny.
5. Religious people have done negative things in the world - including the one your brother-in-faith, Hitler.
6. I'm sorry - you've made how many assumptions about posters here all being atheists? Do you remember what Scott Hatfield said?
7. Atheists may indeed be dogmatic - just not about atheism, since there's no dogma. There's just no god. Or do you tell bald men their non-hair is parted to the left and not the right?
Norman Doering #438,
"Feynmaniac, both your links go to the "MYERS TO DESECRATE EUCHARIST AND KORAN" release."
Here are the correct links,
MYERS STILL WANTS TO ABUSE EUCHARIST; SHOWS DEFERENCE TO ISLAM
MYERS TO DESECRATE EUCHARIST AND KORAN
Thanks for catching that Norman!
Ever hear of Gregor Mendel? Father of genetics. Also Abbot of an Augustinian monastery.
Copernicus was a priest who died in the Church. His book was only placed on the index later and only in the original version. Remember at the time heliocentrism was one theory and not the only one. The Church was concerned when scientists began expounding theology, which was Galileo's problem. Oddly scientists don't like theologians commenting on science, but seem to feel that they have the right to do the opposite. All of that aside, you owe much of modern science to Catholics. You're welcome.
Fr. J:
I am not a scientist, an educator or an intellectual. I have no illusions that I am as smart as many of the pharyngulites. But I can run rings around you even after a few scotches (single malt and neat btw). You are trying to defend the supernatural with just anecdotal evidence and your personal faith. Every argument you have proposed has been ably answered by some of the best and brightest. Hold on to your faith if you want to, but I'll take reason and rationality every time. (and learn to accept when you've been shot down) G'night.
Posted by: Fr. J | July 22, 2008 10:48 PM
blah blah blah blah
@ Fr. J (#494)
Thank you for pointing out the beauty and power of science. Even when scientists individually share in human foibles, the process of science advances knowledge, because it subjects the individual practitioners' work and ideas to relentless, systematic doubt, scrutiny, and critique. What does not survive is discarded, what survives gets a bit closer to 'truths' - and gets doubted again.
Please, do try that at home!
1. Not all religious people are stupid.
Posted by: Fr. J
No shit. But Pasteur's faith in a catholic god is no more proof of the existence of said god than Feynmann lack of faith is a proof of no god.
Fr. J: Either make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion or leave, you homophobic, sanctimonious, asinine scumbag.
Wow, I see you still don't understand the point of the story. Maybe if I drew you a picture that would help? It might also help if you actually thought about the points I posted before you answered.
As of yet no one seems inclined to even answer my "flimsy arguments." They are to busy insulting me and pretending that makes them clever. As to education, isn't that the point of the Pasteur story? The student thought Pasteur was dumb. He was quite wrong. There are many well-educated and intelligent religious people.
friar jeebus @ 494 That may have been a real episode in Pasteur's life, but it still does nor detract from the fact that there is no god. He may very well have believed in one but this still does not prove the imaginary nothing in spite of the sappy rosary puke. Are we to negate what he has done for science on the basis of his religious beliefs? Newton also believed in a god long before Pasteur, and even though he was deluded as Pasteur, this does not cancel out their contributions in the world of science. We have to give them their due; but it still does not prove their belief, as smug as you perchance to be. Hitler wore a suit and tie every day; yes, but he was still a murderous madman. Just as Hitler's tonsorial style made him to appear presentable to the world, his darker side is to be excoriated. The analogy may be a bit extreme, but as in Newton and Pasteur, we honor their contributions but excoriate their beliefs. Newton and Pasteur could have done their experiments as atheists; the results would be the same as it would not make a bit of difference even if they believed in an imaginary god. I am an atheist and can brush my teeth; now I'm a raving religionist retard and can still brush my teeth. It makes no difference whether you do it without religion or with it; the outcome has absolutely no bearing on the results. So to proffer sappy stories of religious muck is just so stupid and worthless.
he can't even read.
Ever hear of Gregor Mendel? Father of genetics. Also Abbot of an Augustinian monastery.
ever hear of Giordano Bruno?
All of that aside, you owe much of modern science to Catholics. You're welcome.
Posted by: Fr. J
No, you smug roaring ass. What this means is that scientific principles can can over come emerging from such a piss poor past.
You're welcome.
How about something similar just this year?
The $1.6 million 2008 Templeton Prize, the richest award made to an individual by a philanthropic organization, was given Wednesday to Michael Heller, 72, a Polish Roman Catholic priest, cosmologist, and philosopher who has spent his life asking, and perhaps more impressively, answering, questions like "Does the universe need to have a cause?"
The John Templeton Foundation, which awards grants to encourage scientific discovery on the "big questions" in science and philosophy, commended Professor Heller, who is from Poland, for his extensive writings that have "evoked new and important consideration of some of humankind's most profound concepts."
Much of Professor Heller's career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.
In doing so, he has argued against a "God of the gaps" strategy for relating science and religion, a view that uses God to explain what science cannot.
Professor Heller said he believes, for example, that the religious objection to teaching evolution "is one of the greatest misunderstandings" because it "introduces a contradiction or opposition between God and chance."
In a telephone interview, Professor Heller explained his affinity for the two fields: "I always wanted to do the most important things, and what can be more important than science and religion? Science gives us knowledge, and religion gives us meaning. Both are prerequisites of the decent existence."
Professor Heller said he planned to use his prize to create a center for the study of science and theology at the Pontifical Academy of Theology, in Krakow, Poland, where he is a faculty member.
True. However, there is considerable evidence that religiosity is negatively correlated with intelligence and education.
True. The vast majority of outstanding modern scientists, however, are atheists.
Yes, and all of the Catholics involved have conducted themselves with modesty, politeness, and tolerance.
Same as 2.
True. Religious people have also contributed greatly in a negative way to our world: clawing us back into the dark ages with nonsense like trying to implant creationism in schools, etc.
True. Tell that to the girl who started this whole mess by assaulting Webster Cook, and the intemperate hotheads like Bill Donahue who accused him of a "hate crime" and demanded a Holy Inquisition to ruin his life.
There is no atheist dogma, but, yes, there are a small number of people who self-identify as atheists who have taken a "faith position" that there are no gods rather than arriving at atheism via metaphysical naturalism -- the "7.0s" on the Dawkins Scale -- and they can, indeed, be dogmatic.
So, now, what was all that shit about?
The Templeton!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
I think someone is working their nightly martyr-hard-on.
Wait! Wait! I think I got the bad friar's point, don't judge a book by it's cover.
As my prize for winning this contest, I would like you to stop posting.
@521 Err... "The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works." So, he won a prize given to religious scientists?
Emmet, you are close to the Kingdom. However:
1. There is no such correlation.
2. I don't think anyone has actually taken a count.
3. Just take a look at the language of the atheists here.
4. So you can be religious and a good scientist.
5. I am not a creationist. And scientists have also contributed negatively to our world.
6. Cook and PZ have made rash judgments.
7. Then you agree. Also note how dogmatic atheists are about religious people being stupid. That is simply prejudice.
Good night all.
Also note how dogmatic atheists are about religious people being stupid.
Just you.
There. Fixed. :)
7. Then you agree. Also note how dogmatic atheists are about religious people being stupid. That is simply prejudice.
Good night all.
Posted by: Fr. J
You are quite mistaken, my intelligence challenged fiend. We are treating you as if you are stupid. You are making the mistake of thinking you stand in for all religious people.
Now, please no not make a liar of yourself and respond again.
Sastra @490: So felicitously phrased, so cogent! I envy you.
seriously, you're going to cite an organization that all of us know is concerned with trying to find positive results for religious ideology, as somehow indicative that religion is the basis for the best of science?
what a tweaker.
while you're at it, you might want to review the many times that the Templeton Foundation has funded studies that failed to find any effect whatsoever for intercessionary prayer. The last one even found a significant NEGATIVE effect, (if the person who was being prayed for knew they were being prayed for - check the results from 2006). Now, why would the Templeton Foundation be so interested in finding a positive result for intercessionary prayer, I wonder...
I'll give TF one point, at least they didn't lie about the results of the 2.4 million dollar study.
so what could be more "important" than doing science and religion?
how about doing science WITHOUT religion.
WTF?
If the student was deluded, it was because he'd been lied to.
Anyway, it sounds made-up to me.
No one doubts that believers can be and are scientists. Today we have Ken Miller, prominent evolutionary biologist and Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project. In fact, 40% of biologists describe themselves as religious.
But that is a strawman changing of the subject. The subject is Bill Donohue's fatwa and harrassment of PZ Myers. Plus his mob of psychotically insane followers who have been sending death threats daily. Myers refuses to make the number of death threats public but by my estimate it is around a hundred by now plus/minus twofold.
PZ has cleverly and at some risk to himself demonstrated that catholic terrorists are no different from moslem terrorists.
He has also offered to give the cracker collection to the church if they would disavow Donohue and his spooky zombies. Not stop them since we no longer allow the catholic church to torture, burn, or imprison heretics and irritating morons. Just distance themselves.
The result has been so far a refusal and dead silence. Shows that this is more about an excuse for hatred and threats of violence than anything to do with crackers or religion.
Oh well, after 2,000 years hypocrisy is the norm. About time to desecrate Darwin again. I'm too bored with crackergate, people will just have to scroll up and read my old ones.
Fr. J,
I can agree with on religion providing you can tell me where to find a little physical evidence. For example, Moses saw an eternally burning bush. Either he was having a hallucination due to fasting, dehydration, and bad cactus juice, or there was actually divine will present. Can you point to where I might find this burning bush and run tests to prove that it is not a fake attached to a propane tank? If cannot show any physical evidence, you have nothing to offer to me or this discussion. Don't bother to mention the bible. Been there, done that, not divinely inspired. Written by a bunch of petty control freaks with different voices.
Besides patronizing and pompous, you can add ignorant to your resume.
Galileo wasn't put on trial for expounding theology. He did use some theological arguments, primarily Augustine's position on scripture, not to take every passage literally (see De Genesi ad Litteram "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis"). However, considering that Cardinal Bellermine ordered him not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the center, the objection was scientific, not theological.
While theological disputation may have been the de jure charge against Galileo, the de facto charge was scientific. There's also the point that Galileo was like you, a patronizing jerk. Pope Urban VIII had been friendly to Galileo, but was understandably annoyed when some of Urban's arguments in favor of geocentrism were mocked by Galileo. Urban could have kept Galileo out of the hands of the Inquisition, but didn't because of the mockery.
Galileo's two prosecutors at his trial were Fr. Orazio Grassi SJ and Fr. Christopher Scheiner SJ. Both Grassi and Scheiner were astronomers. Galileo had gone out of his way to insult both men. He held an erroneous opinion about comets being meteorological phenomena while Grassi said, correctly, that they were astronomical. Galileo quite purposely sneered at Grassi. Galileo claimed, again erroneously, that Scheiner was a plagiarist. Galileo's disputes with Grassi and Scheiner permanently alienated many of the Jesuits who had previously been sympathetic to his ideas.
As part of the trial sentence, Galileo was required to deny the opinion that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, and that the Earth is not at its center and moves; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." So yes, in a very limited sense Galileo's argument with your church was theological. But in real life it was more political and scientific.
friar jeebus @ 521 We all know what the John Simpleton Foundation espouses; scientific research under the guise of religious overtones. Scenario: Simpleton approaches a renown scientist and urges him to do the research under the auspices of the Simpleton Foundation with a surety of a handsome renumeration if he mentions god in the final outcome. The scientist agrees, gets the sucker's money up front, snicker, and goes on to win the Nobel Prize in Physics. In his speech in Stockholm, and in the press and published reports, he makes no mention or allusion to this god thing. Simpleton is furious and confronts the scientist to ask why he did not mention the god thing and give credit to his research. The scientist says to Simpleton: "I lied". Do you see the point friar Tuck? The results are the same whether he believes in gods or not.
I have something that will cause you to be both livid and perplexed. I have little booklets that have a title that says,"What god has revealed to man". When you open it, drum roll, the pages are all blank! Get the point, friar jackanapes?
Yes there is. IIRC, there is even a meta-analysis of 47 such studies, all but two of which show a statistically significant negative correlation. Dawkins cites it regularly.
Yes they have. It's extremely well-known to anyone with even a passing interest! The huge majority of the NAS (~93%) and the RS (~97%) have no belief in a personal God.
So what.
Yes. So what.
a) I never said you were. b) The overall contribution of science to humanity has been overwhelmingly positive; religious "knowledge" cannot hold a candle to scientific knowledge in this regard.
I never said they didnt; so what.
a) Yes, I agreed. b) Also note how you are generalising about atheists being "dogmatic" about religious people being stupid. That is simply prejudice.
Most of the religious people who turn up here are, indeed, stupid and ignorant. You do little for your side. Frankly, I know many Catholic priests, most of whom are a great deal more intelligent and educated than you appear to be. The falloff in vocations must be taking its toll indeed.
Here are some of the comments which have been posted on a Catholic forum concerning this whole affair. If ever there was a case to be made that God botherers are delusional, and in denial, then this is it.
From: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=3960891#post3960891
"I wonder if they could be arrested for unseemly behavior. They had ought to at least. There aren't any nuns out there who'd be willing to destroy that Professor's text books, and the Eucharist is WAY more significant than anything that guy owns."
"Catholics need to REALLY be careful on this one. I get the feeling that this could easily become an organizied effort to bait Catholics into retribution that would allow the anti-theist sects of our society to start screaming their heads off about "supression" and make comparisons with the Islamic retribution that followed the various incidents in Denmark and England."
"Let me start off by saying that threats of violence are out of hand in this matter. Alright, now that's over with."
"I also hope you realise how hurtful these comments are to so many people, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you came here to speak your opinions to us crazy Catholics because you think you need to share your version of the truth. But keep in mind that the veil that the internet provides is very thin - please try to remain civil and use language that you would if you were talking to us in person. I'm sure we'll all be praying for you."
God bless,
Matt
"What we have discussed on other threads is the fact that there are 1 billion Catholics, many (including members of this forum) have sent polite e-mails to Myers to ask him not to disrespect our beliefs and the only messages he has published are two aberrations containing threats of violence."
"I doubt that [he] actually received death threats."
"Maybe he DID receive death threats........how does anyone know they are from CATHOLICS? When you put something out there that is clearly offensive to a culture, religion, or a life style, what ya think you're gonna get? It's a "no brainier."
"Do these people really think that if they waltzed up to the altar and said: "I'm not really Catholic, I'm actually an atheist, and I would like one of those crackers so I can publicly prove a point and desecrate something YOU BELIEVE is sacred and holy. And I'm going to desecrate it with much fan fare and cracker abuse." "Going to put it on You Tube if you care to watch!" think the priest would just hand it over and accommodate him or her? Over his dead body. And if I were EM, over mine as well. Doesn't really matter to me WHAT they believe or don't believe, and it doesn't matter that to them it is only a cracker, this is something very sacred and precious to Catholics, and they want to abuse, disrespect and totally annihilate something that is very precious to other people. These people are STEALING AND LYING and using terror tactics themselves.......the pot calling the kettle black. Cyber Thugs...I am not convinced if there were death threats, they were coming from true Catholic people. Not what we're all about. But I don't think they should expect us to sit on our hands and do nothing either... Yep, I sent an email to the University, expressing my shock and dismay, but I didn't bother with Mr. Myers. Pointless to me. Like trying to talk to rock. You could try to explain all day long about transubstantiation but they only see the tangible. What's in front of their eyes. Sad really, but there it is."
"Hard to take advice from someone who obviously signed up to CA to harrass catholics. Very childish!"
"Your assuming this kid actually received death threats. As I have said before - it is highly unlikely that he received threats...Comparing emailing threats (Which I think the kid is lying about) to terrorism is idiotic. When was the last time a catholic murdered somebody in the name of Christ?"
"So far, there has been one claim of a threat to a professor, and no substantiated claims of "death threats" other than by some kid who just got impeached from his role on the university senate. Care to distort this further?"
Oh right! I trudge off to find some soothing music for PZ and you ILK just keep making great posts.
#512 - MAJeff - That blah, blah, blah is getting to me. It might be love.
#515 - NanuNanu - seriously nice name calling!
#517 - Holbach - another of your classics, of course.
#525 - MAJeff - Thats just plain naughty.
#527 - Emmet, you are close to the kingdom. RUN Emmet, run!
Now to the music, Holbach you might enjoy the first half of the performance. From 2:26 on is especially for PZ, and everyone else stressed out by the cracker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBVwz3yQeMQ&NR=1
I'm off to enjoy my favorite atheist doctor program, House. So good night sweethearts! :)
That is correct! And stop calling me Shirley.
Oh christ on a cracker! I refresh this thread before buzzing off to House land & Dingo Dave turns out to be a goddist?
Damn it! I'll see you in the morning buster.
On the other hand, Bride of Shrek might sashay through and fillet him.
House.
Good night sweethearts!
As of yet no one seems inclined to even answer my "flimsy arguments." They are to busy insulting me and pretending that makes them clever. As to education, isn't that the point of the Pasteur story? The student thought Pasteur was dumb. He was quite wrong. There are many well-educated and intelligent religious people.
'Father', I don't mean to be mean, but you don't appear to be one of those people. Telling anecdotes about the faith of past greats of science says nothing one way or the other about the correctness of those beliefs. Keep in mind that I'm a theist and that I'm inclined to agree with points #1-#7 in post #498. I can rattle off the names of some living scientists who are believers! Nevertheless, these points are largely irrelevant to this whole cracker affair. Here's why:
#1 It is not what we believe that counts in science, but what we have evidence to support
#2 You've presented no evidence that any particular viewpoint should be privileged, either within or without science
#3 You've equated a blogger's vague threat to mishandle a communion wafer with death threats aimed at real human beings, all the while using odious counter-examples of hate speech aimed at Jews and Muslims. You are clearly a fellow traveler of those who have been baiting PZ to provoke people of other faiths. As mentioned, I and others find that repulsive.
#4 You've failed to make a case that the way Webster Cook was originally treated was just, or that the opportunistic campaigns waged by the Catholic League against Mr. Cook and Professor Myers are appropriate responses.
I'm trying to picture the priests of my acquaintance acting in the unseemly manner you've acted, and I'm drawing a blank. In fact, you know what I think? You are more provocateur than prelate. You are no shepherd that I recognize; rather, you are an old, nearly toothless wolf in the fold.
Oh, my. What's next? A Chick tract?
The sad thing here, Friar Jay, is that you seem like a decent fellah with good intentions, but you're way out of your depth here and don't have the sense to realize it.
I have it, I think, PZ could collect all the spam email from the Catholics, send them all a jolly friendly return email thanking them for their comments and inform them that since they have shown such great interest in atheism and secular humanism you have subscribed them to the Atheist Weekly email circular, as a way of saying thank you.
Its all about education and enlightenment after all.
Today we have Ken Miller, prominent evolutionary biologist and Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project. In fact, 40% of biologists describe themselves as religious.
I'd like to add that it's also quite possible that they are successful scientists in spite of also being religious.
compartmentalization is a wonderful thing, and when it breaks down, you get things like Collins' "Moral Law" argument.
August 15th, 1998
Patricia, I can assure you that DingoDave is not a "goddist". I run into him all the time at Debunking Christianity blog. He's one of the best at skewering.
It must be that you have grog overload and forgot to check for the quotation marks throughout dingo's comment.
Go to sleep now, those chickens wake up awfully early.
I would've said July 23rd, 2008: countless Africans die every day of HIV/AIDS because of the genocidally stupid RCC attitude to condoms.
Don't forget the mothers who die from complications in childbirth - even though the doctor told them they're risking their lives if they have another child - because they were told they can't be 'good catholics' if they stop procreating.
"Is there a valid or worthwhile point in there somewhere?"
Sure there is. The point is that CATHOLICS RULE! WOOOOO! *horn honk* Suck my Pasteur, atheists! WOOOOOOO!
"#512 - MAJeff - That blah, blah, blah is getting to me. It might be love."
No, it's just Damon Albarn.
I'm sure annoying the holy shit out of PZ will change his mind. Right? This is a very effective strategy. Everyone knows how persuasive spam can be. These people are so intelligent! How did they come up with such a clever idea? Maybe I've been wrong about their imaginary friend all along. I think I'm finding my way to Jesus at long last!
Oh, wait. There's an e-mail in my inbox from the Microsoft Lottery! I think I'm going to be rich! Maybe I'll donate Bill Gates' money to the Vatican. Then again, this poor guy in Nigera that keeps e-mailing me seems really hard up for cash...
I dont know if it will help you any, but this program http://cutedgesystems.com/software/MailServeForLeopard/ is what I am using on my Macintosh to run it as a fully fledged mail server. It's only $15 unless you want the Dovecot version which is $25 (I have the UW/IMAP version and it works fine for me, but Dovecot is supposed to be faster). What I like about it (besides being able to send mail from my domain name) is that it allows me control over access configuration and mapping virtual domains. Combined with my Mail.app and some personal applescripts, I have a very robust automated email server.
If you find yourself interested let me know. Although you CAN use Gmail as a Smart Host, the developer of MailServe doesn't have instructions on how to set it up (there's a bit of a trick to it). I put the instructions in my Wiki after I discovered how to do it but I do not have the Wiki set up for public use.
Patricia wrote:
"Oh christ on a cracker! I refresh this thread before buzzing off to House land & Dingo Dave turns out to be a goddist?"
??? WTF : O
If I'm a goddist, then Bill Donahue is an atheist! : )
I suspect that I haven't made many friends over on that forum with the comment I posted there. Nothing rude or abusive mind you, but it doesn't take much to set them off.
Now that you mention it, after looking at my last post again, I suppose that putting bullet points in front of their comments would have make it clearer. Good lesson to learn.
Rick T wrote:
"Patricia, I can assure you that DingoDave is not a "goddist". I run into him all the time at Debunking Christianity blog. He's one of the best at skewering."
Thanks for the compliment Rick.
Good to see another 'Debunker' over here at Pharyngula.
Fr. J wrote:
Wrong about that, J:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Nowadays, the Church doesn't burn people who deny the doctrine of transubstantation at the stake anymore.
No, they don't use the same methods as during the reign of queen Mary of England for instance :
Meet John Rogers. "On January 28 and January 29 1555, he came before the commission appointed by Cardinal Pole, and was sentenced to death by Gardiner for heretically denying the Christian character of the Church of Rome and the real presence in the sacrament. He awaited and met death cheerfully, though he was even denied a meeting with his wife. He was burned at the stake on February 4, 1555 at Smithfield." (source wikipedia)
Meet John Frith. "He was sentenced to death by fire and offered a pardon if he answered positively to two questions: Do you believe in purgatory, and do you believe in transubstantiation? He replied that neither purgatory nor transubstantiation could be proven by Holy Scriptures, and thus was condemned as a heretic and was transferred to the secular arm for his execution on June 23, 1533. He was burned at the stake on July 4, 1533 at Smithfield, London for, he was told, his soul's salvation." (source wikipedia)
No, they don't burn people at the stake, and they don't anathematize them either. They haven't issued yet a press release that says :
No, they don't do that anymore, we're in the 21st century, they have adapted to today's laws and technologies. So instead, they have the Catholic League and their press releases, and they wait, comfortably, and cowardly, in complete approbation, until all these Catholic fanatics have sent their anathematizing emails and maybe, maybe, one of them tries to burn PZ at the stake.
Nothing has really changed since the reign of queen Mary of England. The instruments have changed, but the effects are still the same, when they continue to endoctrinate people and make them love worthless symbols more than humans, and they continue to approve and stimulate their most lunatic and fanatical reactions.
And here's some Islam meat to go on PZ's crackers!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7520149.stm
Crazy crazy retards...
Here is a story you won't hear in PZ's class:
Well, of course not. It would be bad teaching to introduce such an irrelevant story.
Then again...whoooooooooooooosh.
Fr J said this stupid thing;
[quote]Much of Professor Heller's career has been dedicated to reconciling the known scientific world with the unknowable dimensions of God.[/quote]
This is an obvious contradiction. To reconcile you need contradictory facts, yet if God is of "unknowable dimensions" nothing could possibly contradict it.
Fr J. at 494 said
"Here is a story you won't hear in PZ's class:"
Probably because it is unlikely to have any truth to it, as with so many christian stories of this type.
Sorry to come into the thread late and ignore all the other soap operas going on, but...
Inbox glutting? Sounds like a typically original approach from those remarkably clear-thinking crisschins. I imagine the vast majority of them chuckling delightedly each time they hit Send, never recognizing that you won't even have to read what they write before you hit Delete. Whoops, computers work the same on both ends, forgot about that one!
Desperate cries from a dying section of our populace - doesn't really sound like they're confident in their god to sort things out, does it? And the best part is, they're happy to announce that fact. Gotta love it! ;-)
The card read: "Louis Pasteur, Director of the Institute of Scientific Research, Paris."
And hanging from the card, was....a HOOK!!!!!!
Anecdotes are anecdotes, they make us feel warm and fuzzy, but they should not stand in for reason.
Pox on your Nabisco
Louis #557 (from the linked article) "Diners have been flocking to a restaurant in northern Nigeria to see pieces of meat which the owner says are inscribed with the name of Allah. ... The meat was boiled and then fried before being served,"
Shit, they boiled and fried Allah?! He's going to be so pissed about that! The one place I certainly would flock to is the restaurant. Allah uses thunderbolts right? Or was that one of the other thousands of gods that humans have invented? There are so many that I sometimes get confused.
Mark
:-)
@ Sastra #432
Indeed, it retards instead - mentally, educationally, morally and emotionally.
@ Brownian #448
But as a proportion of the whole ...
Janus @ 463,
So by your logic, the last book of the NT would hold the most wieght, right? That would be Insane Ramblings Of A Madman Revelations, a singular piece of work.
Personally, I assign no value to religions, so IMO cheesesology is no better than mohammedology. They both get twisted to suit the purposes of individuals, which has nothing to do with their relative philosophical merits.
I am shocked, shocked that no one pointed out to Fr J that he's using the Argument From Authority. Which is, of course, crap.
@ #330:
Your premise would be regarded as patently false by all those who claim the communist movement in Russia (and China etc) as areligious, ie atheist - while conveniently ignoring the quasi-religious nature of the ideology which actually led to overthrowing oppressors there, including the evil religions.
More recently various nations have been becoming relatively secular. However, the official areligiosity of the state doesn't mean that no theist is allowed to set foot in the country and live, assuming that's going to be your excuse for disqualifying various countries. It's theists who traditionally (or even habitually) kill, torture and imprison atheists (and rival theists!), not the other way round.
Meanwhile, I'd suggest ant (and bee) civilisation / society as a likely candidate for being areligious. They're not big enough (either sense!) to claim whole country though.
@ #485
Indeed. "Historically":
Let him have the cracker. It's not wise to upset a theist.
But nobody worries about upsetting an atheist.
That's 'cause an atheist don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Theists are known to do that.
I see your point. I suggest a new strategy. Let the theist win.
True Bob @ 567.
Well, an argument from authority [i]may[/i] be crap, but then again it may not be. It depends upon the authority, and if they are an authority on the subject in question. Saying "I believe it because individual xyz does" is, I would agree, a very weak argument, basically the one a sheep might make.
SEF @ 568,
Nice quote. I wonder how many get it....
test
may
btw, I just visited CAIR's website. A search for "Myers" comes up with zero hits. Methinks CAIR just - doesn't - cair about this.
Good work Donowho - may your name be forgotten in history.
Jeffrey @ 500
The man's name is DONOHUE not DONAHUE. Do you think he's going to pay attention to a letter from a guy who can't even spell his name correctly?
From Max's only other post on this thread:
That would be Bruininks.
Fr. J - You have posted that there are intelligent Catholics and believers in diety. Good. You are close to the kingdom.
Intelligent homophobes, gays, war mongers, peace lovers, hindus, buddhists, cowboys, indians, ebony and ivory, sociopaths, family guys, leaders and followers of all belief systems, etc.
What is to be learned from your story?
Skepticism
Let the wookie win.
For those that have asked for citations and/or 'proofs', here's a couple of quick ones.
http://www.persecution.com/news/index.cfm - Enough persecution stories to warrant an rss feed.
http://www.prisoneralert.com/ - Christians currently imprisoned for their faith.
It's undeniable that it is a fact that this kind of thing is actively occurring every day throughout the world. The interesting question to ask is why.
As a quick follow up to the links I posted above, it should be noted that not all of those cases are cases of Christians being persecuted by atheists. Some are, others are Christians being persecuted by non-Christian non-atheists of some sort.
Bryan (577)
The 'why' question is interesting even, I would say, fascinating. Have you ever heard of the Trolly Car experiment? If not I suggest googling. If I could snap my fingers and be young again I would seriously consider pursuing neuroscience as a profession.
I hopy you're not trying to suggest that "our martyrdom is greatest so we win".
Martin @574
You're right, its Bruininks, but you can just call him Paulie (his real name is Paul). Nice old fellow, he'll do the right thing.
@AgnoAtheist
I'm not trying to make the 'greatest martyrdom' suggestion you allude to. I was trying to do two things.
1) Show that it is futile to attempt to deny that atheist persecution of Christians is happening.
2) Simply ponder why this could be occurring. I'm sure there are multiple decent possible answers to this question - answers to which reasonable people could reasonably disagree on. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
I have not heard of the Trolly Car experiment. I'll have to read up on it.
Bryan (581)
Ok, good. I find tribalist arguements from any side to be weak sauce. In group/out group reasoning can't even begin to address whether wheat paste becomes God.
Wookiee.
George Lucas, you spelling scoundrel you.
Here are the facts about Atheists killing Christians from your favorite Vox Day.
Link here:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheists-in-denial.html
It is a little more up to date that the inquisitions and crusades that you love to rant on about. Now continue with the insults - I won't be back to look at you try and twist the facts. Whenever atheists get power they have propensity to kill their own subjects - full stop.
There are four atheist countries in which atheists are presently jailing, torturing, and murdering Christians. These countries are China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. (Cuba was doing the same in the past, but has shown some respect for religious freedom for nearly a decade now.) While American atheists customarily try to fall back on a spurious No True Atheist defense, government documents prove this defense to not only be illogical, but incontrovertibly false. For example, the motivation for China's most recent wave of anti-Christian persecution was laid out in a government document entitled "Notice on Further Strengthening Marxist Atheism Research, Propaganda and Education". This proves that the motivation underlying the persecution is atheism; specifically the Marxist variant which is the heart of a godless worldview that correctly sees Christianity as a serious threat.
A subsequent document laid out the case against the Christian church: "We have dealt with the Falun-gong. We have arrested and put their leaders on the run. Now we must resolutely and strongly deal with the unregistered house churches. They are too numerous -- too many. We must deal with them strongly."
Given that at least 1,600 Falun Gong practitioners have been tortured to death and a number of recent Christian deaths have also been confirmed, such as the beating death of Ms. Jiang Zongxiu in prison on June 18, 2004 and the death of Bishop John Han Dingxian on September 12, 2007, there is absolutely no question that Chinese atheists are murdering Christians today and intend to continue doing so.
The situation is much worse in North Korea. In TIA, I quoted a 2004 article published by The Guardian: "The number of prisoners held in the North Korean gulag is not known: one estimate is 200,000, held in 12 or more centres. Camp 22 is thought to hold 50,000. Most are imprisoned because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime. Many are Christians, a religion believed by Kim Jong-il to be one of the greatest threats to his power." These North Koreans are not "Kim Jong-ilists"; they are atheists and correctly identify themselves as such. Their atheist self-identification is less dubious than that of the American atheist who makes a fetish of science and/or Darwinism and believes in the ever-ineffable "progress" towards a shiny, secular, material paradise.
In Vietnam, the atheist regime is currently persecuting the Montagnards, a predominantly Christian minority. This is probably done as much for ethnic reasons as anti-religious ones, but the persecution has been purely religious and directed against ethnic Vietnamese Christians in the recent past. Persecution is most intense for the ethnic minorities, especially the Montagnards from the hill country. Many of these people have attempted to flee to neighbouring Cambodia. However, under an agreement with the Vietnamese government, the authorities there have been returning the refugees to Vietnam to collect a bounty. Those who are returned are imprisoned, tortured or killed. Despite the persecution, instead of being destroyed, the church in Vietnam is growing and becoming stronger. Christians now make up almost ten percent of the population.
In Laos, Christians are considered to be enemies of the state and have been viciously persecuted since 1975. Although the persecution has not been as intense in the last three years, it still continues: "At least thirteen Christian villagers who were falsely accused of stirring rebel dissent have been killed by authorities in Laos over the past month, according to an August 7, [2007] report from Compass Direct. The report also states that approximately 200 Christians in the village of Sai Jerern have been arrested and imprisoned."
Atheists have been murdering Christians almost non-stop around the world for the last 91 years and they have done so with predictable regularity in the majority of countries where they have obtained political dominance. It is all too typical that American atheists are far more concerned about Christian crimes committed against non-atheists in Europe more than 500 years ago than they are about the crimes being committed by avowed atheists against Asian Christians today.
But the persecutions will fail in the end, as they always do, and as Western Christianity continues to decline amidst its sloth, wealth, and apostasy, Eastern Christianity will rise, energized by the bloody test of its faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.
Bryan - This link:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
houses Professor Bob Altemyer's book The Authortarians. He makes an interesting argument about personality types and the threat of mass violence.
more martyr fetishism.
James Stephenson (585)
The imposition of dogmatic, statist atheism as has been done with communistic systems is a symptom of authortarianism. Authortarianism is more easily hijacked for mass destruction than egalitarian systems.
I don't think even one of the nonreligious who have posted on this site are in favor of authortarian, atheistic regimes.
Michelle wrote:
A little slight of hand with contexts there. You know, the world is a big place with about 6 billion people and several hundred countries. Thrown in all of history and you've made it bigger. You can find whatever you want if you do that and it's hard to check on; women marrying snakes, human sacrifice and slavery. A lot of Asian countries are "atheistic." So, yea, somewhere in the world "atheists have tortured and killed Christians," but there will be a lot more to it than that. China thinks of Christianity as American Psyops and they have a good chance of being right in some specific cases.
But we're not Asians with Asian motives and Bill Donohue isn't the Spanish Inquisition (even if he seems to want to be). Stick to the situation at hand and don't pull in all this outside shit. It's irrelevant and it will not help us understand each other.
Nice fail, James S. Thanks for playing. I live in a country with an atheist government - it's called the United Sates of America. All those government functions (e.g. police, librarties, postal service, prisons, fire departments blah de blah) are atheist. They rely on no worshipping to be carried out, and they aid according to necessity, not religion.
The Chinese document could have any title (say, Clean Air Act). That means nothing wrt what it says and what the unwritten intentions are.
Do you really believe that the I Believe license plate kerfluffle is about free expression? If you do, you're teh stoopid. It's an attempt to get gummint to choose a winning religion.
And I am sooo relieved to understand that no True Christians are killing or tormenting anyone. Abu what? Guantana Mo Pain? I suppose muslims don't count as humans.
I have a harder time affecting those chosen countries than my own, atheist country. I deplore human rights violations, whoever commits them. And you know what? Those countries all suck ass for their power plays. And that is what it is all about, in all those situations. They feel threatened, as you note, but not by some mystical Truth (TM), but because they are afraid of losing the populace's support fear. That's why Stalin suppressed religion, and it's why any totalitarian suppresses their rivals.
Work smarter, not harder.
Whenever religious fanatics gain power, they always start killing whoever they can get their hands on. Never fails.
This is why theocracy is now synonymous with disaster, chaos, and mass graves.
Northern Ireland, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, the xian terrorists of the USA, and on and on.
The reason why Xians no longer commit mass murders like the Islamics do is really simple. So simple even a moron can understand it, although you are even dumber and won't. After 2,000 years of nonstop bloodshed, we of the west no longer tolerate religious fanatics in political power. We may be slow learners but the crusades, the reformation, the heresy trials, the torture, the witch hunts, and on and on has gotten old.
The height of theocracy in America was the Puritan regime. They killed 25 people for being witches and Unitarians and Quakers for being heretics. Rhode Island was founded to get away from those creeps. Without eternal vigilance, it will happen again. You and your cultist wannabe murderers are just waiting for another chance.
I'm sure if Dobson, Robertson, Hagee, and the rest of the humanoid toad bunch gained power as they are trying, things would be different. The next day mass graves would be dug but they would use bulldozers instead of doomed prisoners.
Raven (590)
I think Dubya fits right in with the Dobson crowd.
Agno, There are smart and dumb religious people. Smart and dumb atheists. Smart and dumb fascists etc. To argue otherwise is just...dumb. But atheists do precisely that. They assume that religious people are stupid. Was Beethoven or Bach stupid? It is simply bigotry and it leads to violence against religious people.
My IQ is 142 and I hold 3 degrees and am working on a 4th.
So far I don't see much evidence of intelligent life among atheists here, if I were to judge solely by what I see on this blog. Insults are not arguments. They are a sign that you cannot respond and have lost the debate.
Can we stop with the asinine argument?
'The attacks on my wounded dick are bigger than the attacks to your wounded dick. So we win.'
There's enough mass killing and infliction of suffering to please everyone no matter what their beliefs.
Complete misdirection.
Stephenson is right; authoritarian regimes have a habit of trying to stamp out the competition for the minds and bodies of their subjects, and some of those regimes are ostensibly irreligious. Yet he seems to have forgotten the Third Reich, and how it was fueled by Hitler's spectacularly successful appeals to Christianity. Atheists like to rant about that one, too. Gosh - has it been 500 years already?
Feh. Pure sophistry. Aside: How can it be "ever-ineffable" if there's a word for it?
Listen up, James. Subtract scientific progress from the last millenium, and where would we be? And don't give me no "Well, scientists invented the A-bomb" to quoque dodge. Mankind has always found inventive ways to hack itself to pieces over conflicting needs and (often theistic) worldviews.
LOL! And you have the gall to accuse rationalists of fetishism? That's rich.
Incidentally, have you failed to notice how the Catholic church is effectively killing people all over the world with its taboos over prophylactic birth-control methods? While not technically murder, how is it in any way supportable? How are these taboos not directly responsible for the proliferation of HIV in the third world? These policies carry the faint whiff of genocide, even if unintentional. And this doesn't even touch on the grossly irresponsible attitude about unlimited procreation in today's resource-challenged world.
Yes, I have a "fetish" about the concept of responsibility on local and global levels. You, on the other hand, would apparently rather waste time bashing people here for what the Chinese and North Koreans are doing on the other side of the world. What's the point in that?
Fr. J.
We all know smart people can believe in dumb things. We're all too happy to point out the dumb things.
Also a lot of religious people come here and say dumb things.
Not a good idea. They all tend to have thin skins and even thinner grasps of logic.
Fr. J - You seem to be sucked in by the style of the more heated posters on the blog. The idea that there are no intelligent Catholics is preposterous as is the argument that there are no intelligent sociopaths or Muslims or posters on this blog. Probably you value decorum and social grace more that most who post here.
As to intelligent postings: Please provide testible evidence that wheat paste becomes god or if you can't do that then please provide a reason why the burden of proof is on us to prove mundane things don't turn into god.
All of this is just saying the incredibly obvious, but I'll say it anyway: Note that, generally speaking, I doubt you'd find a lot of atheists/freethinkers/agnostics/irreligious types around, at least in the West, who'd pull for a formally 'atheist' state, anyway. And there's a typically sane, pragmatic reason apart from the philosophical ones: look honestly at the list of formally 'atheist' states, historical and contemporary and it's an ugly bunch. Roughly as ugly as the formally theocratic ones, actually, in their diverse ways, and no, that's not just some rhetorical trick: the examples are very real and very instructive: in theocracies, Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind, in the current world; the older ones in which Christianity held the whip have already been much discussed. Short lesson: trying with legislation, the courts, and detention to compel people to believe something--true or not--tends to make for an unpleasant situation for everyone. Contemporary Western atheists will more generally and more wisely pull for secularism, as they know from experience it can work pretty decently. Better than either theocracy or state atheism, by far. And, in fact, far more in keeping with the actual intellectual traditions of Western freethought, which have frequently had a pretty prickly relationship with unchecked and unquestioned authority anyway, regardless of what cosmological badge it happens to wear.
But even for secularism, we can say at best it *can* work, only, of course, insofar as there's a long, long list of formally and de facto secular states, and they're a mixed bag, in terms of the actual quality of life in general, never mind the actual religious freedom/freedom of conscience enjoyed by their citizens. China, as I understand it, as a particularly nasty example, is *formally* secular--see article 36 of their constitution--but of course, in practice, it's nothing of the sort, as many Falung Gong practitioners will tell you. But then, most advanced industrial democracies are also secular, and most of them are very different in terms of practical religious freedom. Again, it's a mixed bag. You can't say formal secularism is a sufficient condition for a decent record for human rights being respected in that area. The degree to which that secularism is genuinely practised is what counts, and even that's only part of a larger picture.
So bringing up Vox Day's pretty little list is a nice little libel, but neglects these realities conveniently: that Western atheists generally don't want state atheism anyway, and theocracies have really done no better. Christianity is (thankfully) a few centuries past really commanding formal theocratic states, but given the relatively limited means of repression available then (no tanks, guns didn't work so well for most of the time, rapid transit and mass communications were in their infancy), they still managed to make life pretty unpleasant for anyone not adhering to the correct doctrine. They made do, and it's incredible what you can get done with just a good hot roaring fire and creative use of heated metal. The modern atheist states, of course, have relative advantages in this area, and certainly, they use them to terrifying effect, no question.
But again, look at that more complicated reality: i) Western atheists don't generally want atheist states anyway, but secular ones, for reasons related both to their intellectual traditions and purely pragmatic ones (oh, and there *are* lots of those states, and a lot of those work pretty well, thank you very much), ii) secularism on its own is only a larger part of human rights, iii) theocracy and state atheism are both about as promising as decent ways to run a country you'd actually want to live in, and all of this leads the elephant in the room guys like Day's followers always try to ignore or render insignificant to the discussion: state atheism generally is implemented because some *other* generally repressive and nasty institution sees religion as a potential rival. And, of course, usually, that one's the local branch of the communist party. And last I checked, most western atheists aren't by any means members, and are generally pretty touchy about *all* authoritarian forms of government, from de facto plutocracies and wannabe theocracies masquerading as democracies on, however much deep thinkers like Day would like to keep things nice and binary, simple, and polar for their more impressionable followers. Which just really adds one more deliberate distortion to the long and embarrassing tradition of libels against atheism: that 'atheists' would do this...
And no, there's little evidence for that, on its own. I'm pretty sure *I* wouldn't do that; I'd take up arms against it, if necessary, and I'm an atheist (as, y'know, I just happen to be at least marginally sane in that particular area). Communists, clearly, have, and do, and yes, they also happen to be atheists, among other things, but saying or implying 'Communists repress people, thus all atheists, regardless of their intellectual traditions, should not be respected when they pull for secularism' (as certain latter day theocrats regularly attempt to do) is so hilariously and transparently a bait and switch of a particularly shameless quality, it's a wonder they keep a straight face when they do so.
Now in fairness, sauce for the goose also suits the gander: being religious doesn't mean you want theocracy, either. It opens you up to other richly deserved avenues of ridicule and derision, of course, and let's not neglect those, either, as they entertain me, but it doesn't make you a theocrat on its own. But then, deliberately pulling for wanting formal respect for religion in your government, 'a country of Christian laws', and so on, of course, does. And there's more than enough of those around to give us contemporary atheists plenty of ammunition, thank you all so very much.
I hold 3 degrees and am working on a 4th.
Trouble with the application to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?
Fr. J, being dishonest as usual. Hey, remember how this all started? With the threats of physical violence against young Mr. Cook, and then to PZ?
And that's not the only way in which he's being dishonest. Here, let me take a page from your book, Friar J:
Why do theists focus only on the negative, abusive responses, and act as if the civil, reasonable responses were never made? Why? Why do they always do that?
But atheists do precisely that. They assume that religious people are stupid. Was Beethoven or Bach stupid? It is simply bigotry and it leads to violence against religious people.
blah blah blah blah blah.
AJ Milne, that's a pretty good comment, there.
Funny, though, how you have to continue to state "the incredibly obvious" over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over... isn't it? Could it be that the average Christian just doesn't want to hear or admit the truth in what you've said, and prefer instead to pursue their millenia-old campaign to claim sole dominion over the earth at the expense of everyone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus?
Funny, though, how you have to continue to state "the incredibly obvious" over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over... isn't it? Could it be that the average Christian just doesn't want to hear or admit the truth in what you've said, and prefer instead to pursue their millenia-old campaign to claim sole dominion over the earth at the expense of everyone who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus?
Well, in fairness, again, I'm not sure how 'average' that particular impulse is amongst them, at least as a considered direction. What I do think happens is that the simple requirement within any religion that unbelief be properly demonised/painted as ugly and nasty and dangerous so believers just don't go there means any additional distortions like this someone with a political axe to grind might pile on become ever so much easier to push. Ironically enough, I suspect the average Christian would find theocracy pretty unpleasant, too, if they actually got it, and at least some of them are smart enough to spot this, when they think about it.
But there is this grain of truth, there: secularism probably does seem initially like a better deal to atheists than it does to the average believer. And, of course, the unbeliever doesn't have all those ugly old theocratic traditions hanging around in mouldy corners of books and institutions they're expected formally to respect. So it's less confusing for them...
And speaking of discomfort, we also get here (again, obviously), to the crux of this biscuit... err... cracker... Which is one of the pragmatic requirements of secularism: freedom of conscience also means, effectively, freedom to ridicule. If you're free to believe what you want, you're free to argue for and against, say what you will about it. And a lot of religious traditions still aren't wrapping their head around that terribly well. They'll make a million hazy exuses--it's not civil, it's just not done--but it all comes down to the same thing: ridicule is scarier than most things to them, messes and mixes extremely badly with the socialized attitudes in whch they generally live that and which deliberately try to hold these things sacred, away from such loud guffaws Being able simply to stamp it out in the name of civility would make them all feel so much better. It's a natural enough impulse, for them.
Scott, I have reviewed your post. I don't recognize myself in any of it. Either you deliberately misunderstand or don't understand or don't want to understand. However, you are not alone on this site.
Agno, well I am not usually subject to such foul language. Although I was in the military, so I have heard much worse. These guys are amateurs compared to my drill instructors. What really interests me is that they insist on misrepresenting what I say or just ignore and insult me. Somehow that makes them feel superior I guess. It doesn't occur to them that they lose the argument that way. Very strange coming from those who say that admire reason and logic.
Either you deliberately misunderstand or don't understand or don't want to understand.
What really interests me is that they insist on misrepresenting what I say or just ignore and insult me. Somehow that makes them feel superior I guess. It doesn't occur to them that they lose the argument that way. Very strange coming from those who say that admire reason and logic.
blah blah blah blah blah
Oh, god.
Um, why not actually read the document?
"Facing the new task of reform, development and stability, the new demand of the people on spiritual and cultural life, the new situation on targeting the cultic organization of "Falungong" and various pseudoscience and superstition, and the new trend on Western hostile forces' attempt to "westernize" and "disintegrating" China in the name of religion, we need to further strengthen Marxist atheism research, propaganda and education, which is of great significance to consolidating the directive status of Marxism in ideological field, maintaining the advancement and purity of our party, improving the spiritual, moral, scientific and cultural makings of the whole nation, laying solid foundation for the concerted endeavors of the whole party and the whole people, and promoting the harmonious development of socialist materialist civilization, political civilization and spiritual civilization."
In other words, no, the Chinese government's motivation for religious persecution is not atheism, nor is atheism the "heart" of its worldview. The goverment admittedly promotes atheism because it considers organized religion a threat to the state and to their vision of Chinese culture. Atheism is a tool to further its political and social goals.
No, they are theists. Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are literal gods. Immortal (government propaganda still refers to Kim Il Sung as alive), non-defecating, weather-controlling gods whose births were heralded by literal miracles.
You probably consider the Voice of the Martyrs newsletter reasonably trustworthy, yes? They interviewed a North Korean Christian recently who had fled to South Korea. He said, "All North Koreans really believe that Kim Il Sung is a god. He [hid] the bad things he had done, to preserve his godlike status to the people. I think 70 to 80 percent of what is said about Kim Il Sung is similar to the Bible." (emphasis mine)
Ethnic and political. The Montagnards were staunch allies of the US during the Vietnam War.
For the same reasons as in China. Christianity--particularly Protestantism--was considered a pernicious, foreign, anti-government influence. For the most part the government's been openly friendly toward Buddhism, preferring to steer its practice more subtly.
Southeast Asian hostility to Christianity goes back a hundred years before the rise of Communism, btw; Christianity has always been seen as a foreign influence by local rulers.
Yep. There are quite a few government-sanctioned, openly-worshipping Christian churches in Vietnam. The Catholic Church alone has about 5.5 million adherents and 2500 priests, and the Vatican frequently sends delegations to meet with government authorities and visit local parishes. Which should underscore the fact that the regime is persecuting the Montagnards for ethnic and political reasons, not religious ones.
Laos isn't atheist, Vox. The majority of citizens are practicing Theravada Buddhists; Buddhism is the closest thing Laos has to a state religion. Most of the rest are animist, with a dash of Christians, Muslims and Hindus.
And no, Christians are not considered enemies of the state. The Lao government officially recognizes three Christian churches: the Roman Catholics, the Seventh-Day Adventists, and the Lao Evangelical Church. All Christians are required to join one of these organizations.
There's a lot of governmental hostility toward Protestantism, especially at the local level. Again, it's the foreign influence thing.
Four for four. Jeez.
#577:
Payback for centuries of Inquisitions fomented and supported by the corrupt governments of "Christian" nations, maybe? Centuries of "missionary" imperialism?
/snark
#578:
Let's not forget the Christians who have been - and still are - persecuted, imprisoned, and killed by other Christians for being the "wrong" kind of Christians. I've known a few of those personally.
Vanity of Vanities, sayeth the Preacher's Kid: all is vanity.
Max Verret wrote (#573):
Max, if you are going to comment on my letter to Donohue, how about addressing the content of what I wrote rather than picking on a spelling error.
Whether he pays any attention or not, I have no idea. Nonetheless, the points I make are valid. Care to dispute them?
Counselor, know thyself.
Honestly, though, Friar J, I thought Scott's words were a little harsh, and (you have no way of knowing this) uncharacteristically so. He's the most mild-mannered commenter here, like, ever! You might do some soul-searching and see if you can spot yourself somewhere in his comment. I say that with no rancor. Consider it a spiritual exercise.
My IQ is ~140. My brother's is ten points higher. He's a dope. *shrug*
Sometimes.
:-)
Fr.J #603
You keep putting up weak arguments which are easily ripped to shreds. You indulged in fatwah envy, only attempted to use the Jews instead of Muslims. Also, you came here and claimed to be a priest (the jury is still out as to whether or not your claim has any validity) and expected automatic respect as a clergyman. When that respect was not forthcoming you whined that we're not playing nice. You go out of your way to sneer at atheists and pretend that all the insults flow only in one direction.
You may have an IQ of 142 and three degrees (the jury is still out on this claim as well) but you have the maturity of a spoiled 13 year old. All you've proved is that you're a patronizing, pompous prig.
The goverment admittedly promotes atheism because it considers organized religion a threat to the state and to their vision of Chinese culture. Atheism is a tool to further its political and social goals.
Which are based on its worldview of Marxist atheism. Your reasoning is circular. Moreover, this does not change the fact that Chinese atheists are, in fact, killing Christians. 0 for 1.
All North Koreans really believe that Kim Il Sung is a god.
Well, if one poor refugee said that, it must be true! Interesting, most atheists tend to claim that testimonial evidence is not real evidence. Now, regardless of what the regime's sales job is, the history of dictatorships strongly indicates that the praetorian guard around Kim doesn't believe he's a god, and they're the ones doing the killing. But this may well be a good illustration of how atheism tends to transform into paganism over time. In any event, a cult of personality is not a religion. But I'm willing to call it a draw until I have more evidence than the mere fact of a Marxist regime vs the opinion of one refugee.... 0.5 for 2
Ethnic and political. The Montagnards were staunch allies of the US during the Vietnam War.
That's true. It also doesn't change the fact that atheists are killing Christians. 0.5 for 3.
Laos isn't atheist, Vox. The majority of citizens are practicing Theravada Buddhists; Buddhism is the closest thing Laos has to a state religion. Most of the rest are animist, with a dash of Christians, Muslims and Hindus
Laos isn't atheist, the ruling Pathet Lao, the former Lao People's Revolutionary Party, certainly are. The fact of a Buddhist peasantry does not change the fact that it is the atheist authorities killing Christians. 0.5 for 4.
You know, no self-professed "bright" should find it hard to understand that arguing philosophical motivation versus verifiable empirical evidence is both futile and ironic. Arguing that atheists have no good reason to kill people is not an effective argument against the historical fact that while most atheists will never harm anyone, most atheist leaders have undeniably chosen to kill in large quantities. Your efforts would be much better spent figuring out the reason for this in place of crying No True Atheist and denying the obvious.
Jeffrey @ 500
"comment on the content"
OK, first, I think thou thus portest too much" as the saying goes. I smell the distinct odor of a religious believer under that pile of praddle. I sense a very uncomfortable atheist trying to convince himself that he has made the right choice. I detect a person who feels that only by eliminating all opposition to his views can he maintain his tenuous convictions.
How much further and absurdly off-topic can we get?
VD wrote:
Today, it's Marxism. During the Boxer Rebellion, under the Qing Dynasty, it wasn't Marxism. They didn't need Marxism or atheism back then to attack foreigners who were building railroads and violating Feng shui, as well as Christians, who were held responsible for the foreign domination of China. (The "missionary" imperialism themadlolscientist mentioned.)
It also doesn't make it relevant. Just because someone who is an atheist kills someone who is a Christian doesn't mean they really killed them because they were Christian.
There is a lot more than testimonial evidence to back up that claim (but the word "all" should not have been used). There is plenty of Korean literature that declares that Kim Il Sung is a god.
When you introduce supernaturalism into it, then yes it does become a religion.
Just because someone who is atheist kills someone who is Christian doesn't mean they were killed because they were Christian. There are plenty of other reasons to kill people.
The fact that there are officially recognized Christian churches points to the fact that Christians are not considered enemies of the state.
Who argued that??
Another straw man.
Hey VD, killed any more children because of the voices in your head recently?
Vox - you're trying to win an argument between who's worse at killing their opponents - those who believe in the christian's god and those who don't? I like that - fighting hard to be number two.
If god exists and he lets atheists kill christians in such numbers then it's fair to say he probably doesn't care that much about christians.
However, if god exists and lets even one christian kill anyone he's a liar and/or a hypocrite.
No god vs. not much of a god? Good reason to be atheist.
E.V. @ # 169: The Catholic League has well over 280,000 members, a yearly operating budget just under $3million...
Following up on my own comment # 197, I went to the Catholic League's web site and poked around a little. Their "Individual" membership is $30/yr ($20 for students & seniors) - so if they've got 280K members, all in the low-rent category, and zero other income, approximately half the funds received are being transubstantiated into thin air.
It's a blessed miracle!
Favorite line found so far at Bill's Place:
Is that an "accident" like the material form of the SuperCracker is an "accident"?
Wowbagger, God doesn't make anyone do anything, and he doesn't stop anyone from doing anything. He's all about a laid-back, hands-off management style. Free Will, baby! Micromanaging is so Old Testament, y'know?
Nowadays, it's hard to know whether or not he's paying any attention at all. At least not until you show up at the Pearly Gates, and if you once used birth control, you go straight to Heck, or Perky Tory, or someplace.
He's a "give'em enough rope" kind of God now.
(Why does that last sentence make me think of Kirby?)
#610
Atheism and "Marxist atheism" are different things. Atheism says that belief in God is unjustified; Marxist atheism says that it's undesirable. Look through the document; hell, look anywhere. Find any evidence that the policies and goals of the Chinese government are based on the nonexistence of God.
China at least claims that it's following Marxist principles, though that's an obvious lie at this point. It doesn't even pretend to derive policy from atheism.
But it refutes your claim that "the motivation underlying the persecution is atheism."
How about Han Sung-Joo, former South Korean minister of Foreign Affairs?
"There is a deification and a religious emotional element in the North," said Han. "The twinned photos of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il are everywhere. Every speech says Kim Il-sung is still alive. I think if I stayed another two weeks, I might even see Kim Il-sung. The country worships someone who is deceased, as if he were alive."
What do you call it when people believe that their beloved leader is still alive after physical death? Think carefully.
Er, no, they don't. And if they did, most of the evidence that North Korea is persecuting Christians at all would evaporate. We get the occasional hard document, but it's mostly the first-hand testimony of defectors and refugees. As the very article you cited points out.
Buh? I'm glad you can mindread Kim's personal guard, but no, they're not the ones conducting executions in the prison camps. Did you actually read the article you cited?
When it involves claims that the person in question is immortal and can work miracles, it is. See also: Chairman Mao. (His cult is so powerful a religion that the Chinese government is currently working like crazy to stamp it out...unsuccessfully.)
But it makes it irrelevant. American soldiers, predominantly Christian, are killing Muslims by the thousand in Iraq. Does this constitute a Christian war on Islam?
No, Vox, they really aren't. Laos is not Cambodia. Where the Khmer Rouge tried to stamp out Buddhism, the Pathet Lao has always chosen to coopt it. Since its inception, the Pathet Lao has continually recruited Buddhist clergy and argued that Marxism and Buddhism are complementary.
Buddhist festivals are state holidays. Monks are invited to bless new government buildings. Senior party officials usually attend Buddhist ceremonies, and are even permitted be ordained as monks. Decree 92 (the Decree on Religious Practice) exempts Buddhism from many of its restrictions; Buddhists don't have to report their membership information to the government, for instance, and they can print and distribute religious material without prior official approval. The Lao government is nominally secular--as is, for instance, the American government--but Buddhism is clearly the de facto state religion.
Oh, and some of the persecuted Lao Christians report being advised to convert to Buddhism or animism. Atheism simply has nothing to do with it.
Anton Mates wrote:
I think you (and that article) might be under estimating the amount of hard evidence that exists. Here's a youTube page with videos out of North Korea:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Nimwghen
Christopher Hitchens visited North Korea and reported on it.
There is a biography of Kim Jong-il that notes miracles happened when he was born.
There are NASA photos from space showing the nighttime Korean peninsula from outer space and there is a blaze of electric light all over the southern half, stopping exactly at the demilitarized zone and becoming an area of darkness in the north.
And you can find a lot of it with a Google search.
I was talking specifically about evidence that North Korea targets Christians for persecution, though. I may have missed some footage in those videos, but I didn't notice anything on that subject. (I dunno whether Hitchens reported on it, but technically that would be personal testimony too, right?)
Certainly there's lots of hard evidence for North Korea being a repressive, economically ruined theocracy.
(And when I say "persecution" above, I mean "persecution to the point of frequent execution," which is what Vox was talking about in the first place.)
My mistake. I thought you also meant to reference the fact that Vox was claiming that there is no evidence but testimonial evidence that Kim Il Sung is claimed to be a "god." It's not clear you don't mean to reference it.
Remember the context of Vox's remark:
Still, the evidence we do have of Kim Il Sung claiming to be a "god" and the repression of so many other things does make the testimonial evidence of Christian persecution more probable. If that other stuff were not happening, if Vox made that claim about Sweden or Denmark, we'd certainly doubt it if all he had was testimonial evidence.
Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, you're right, he's simply wrong on that claim. My point was that he's also inconsistent; even if there was only the testimony of random refugees to go on, that's pretty much the case for the evidence of Christian-slaughtering as well.
(Which isn't really surprising; it's not like people can wander into the concentration camps and take pictures all the time.)