What it's like to be me

Yaaaay!!! We've moved on.

Moved on? From what?

Your veiled references make no sense to me, kemosabe.

Goddamnit why are the cool people never coming to my lame canadian province?!

PZ just called me, kemosabe. [blushes]

Do I really have the attention of the All-Powerful Dr. PZ Myers all to myself?

Where did everybody else go?

PZ, I think Bryan means we've move on from the whole "Crackergate" issue.

Speaking of which, there's a troll by the name of "John" in the "Great Desecration" thread that insists on repeatedly posting Pope John Paul II's "Ecclesia de Eucharistia". As each post takes up approximately 45 screens, they're proving to be rather effective speed bumps in the thread. Anything you can do?

Nor in my lame province.

Is this The Rapture?

Is this The Rapture?

Yeah, I'm trying to kill that spammer -- the one catch is that traffic suddenly shot through the roof (I have no idea why, he said, innocently), and all attempts to edit lead to movabletype errors. Major cleanups will have to wait until it all calms down.

Wow, that is so me! If only he'd sang about Concern Trolling and Moral Relativism!

Just saw Roy 2 nights ago at a house concert in PA. Got to speak w/him as well. He not only very talented but a very nice guy as well. Now I understand why he thanked you inside his new CD I bought. Thanks PZ!

Over 10,000 page views . . . in an hour. Not too shabby. That puts me at. . . er. . . something less than one deci-Pharyngule.

I like his lyrics, but I'm just not a fan of the music or his singing.

Sadly, just reading the lyrics isn't good enough because you lose out on the timing and delivery.

Ah, I'm just bitter that he'd probably never come to the creepy Conservative Texas town I'm currently in.

The sad thing about that guy John/GlobalWarmingFraud is that he only shows that he's not rational by trying to spam drown the thread.

Thanks, Pee Zed, for trying to deal with St John of The Copy Paste and Annoy sect.

That Roy song has been one of my favourites since I found it on YouTube a few weeks(?) ago. So when is Roy going to tour the civilized world? sighs...

Bet my province is lamer.

Here's some interesting news, which I hope will assist in moving beyond The Incident:

Scientists at Harvard University and the University of Texas at Austin have found that genetic evolution is strongly shaped by genes' efforts to prevent or tolerate errors in protein production.

Their study also suggests that the cost of errors in protein production may lie in the malformed proteins themselves, rather than the loss of functional proteins. Misfolded proteins can build up in long-lived cells, like neurons, and cause neurodegenerative diseases.

The work, by D. Allan Drummond at Harvard and Claus O. Wilke at Texas, is described in the July 25 issue of the journal Cell.

"It has long been believed that the main force of natural selection on protein-coding genes is the need to maintain a working protein," says Drummond, a Bauer Fellow in Harvard's FAS Center for Systems Biology. "Our work suggests that another force may be equally important: the need to avoid misfolded proteins resulting from errors in translation."

Protein molecules must fold to become biologically active, and mistakes can cause misfolding, which can be toxic. Yet the protein-producing factories in our cells are estimated to make mistakes in 20 percent of the molecules they produce. Adaptations to this surprising sloppiness may be crucial in understanding the evolution of genes across species, from bacteria to humans, say Drummond and Wilke.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724123220.htm

I don't think there's any surprise that codons are selected to prevent misfolding. That it's such a strong effect may be news, however.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Donohye has belched:

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1465

Roy performed for us in Alrington, TX. It was a night a of great entertainment. Not only was Roy great, the unsuspecting bar patrons that weren't there to seem him, were entertaining as well.

(dissing Bush in a bar in TX is a dangerous thing)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/scott_hurst/sets/72157605054379234/

Those crazy conservatives are at it again saying that science doesn't work
:
http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=2020

Don't play innocent with us! We know it's all those atheists flocking here to be outraged after you threw the God Delusion in the garbage!

Donohye has belched

Triglav save us from the inchoate mutterings of the self-appointed Catholic Political-Correctness Police.

"Wah! The Jews, Arabs, and other mud-breeds get all the protection from nasty, filthy atheistses! Don't you people remember that we used to run the world? Good times, good times...."

just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist."

Niiice....what he did was like burning a cross in someone's yard. Un-fucking-believable...

Man, I was masturbating against my will right as he got to that part!

Aaaaaah. Peace.

(Allow me to angle again for one of those extra copies of TGD.)

The spammer asshole on the other thread is really pissing me off.

My favorite piece of religio-bile horked up on the previous thread is a double post from Irene (presently at #640):

Are your actions and words representative of the 8th rate university you teach at? So anyway, why did you leave Temple? Or were you run out of town?

She rather tidily provides an example of what you wrote about so eloquently in your pre-blasphemy essay. If she were to peek at your portrait I've no doubt Irene would first look for horns poking out from under a yarmulke, then figure they were airbrushed out.

You know, John the spammer is probably so busy posting on the other thread, he wouldn't even notice if there was an alternate post set up for everyone else to move to (she said conspiratorially).

Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more say no more, eh? Carlie?

Re: Donohye has belched

And I have already dispatched yet another screed to the college president. As follows...

Dear Dr. Bruininks,

Bill Donohue and the Catholic League are attempting to reenact laws from the dark ages of The Inquisition by attempting to bring about misfortune to Dr. PZ Myers for committing the imaginary crime of "host desecration".

I would like to point out that Dr. Myers stated position and actions in this matter do not, in any way, inhibit or harm any freedoms or abilities of those who wish to promote the communion wafers to superhuman status. Dr. Myers has disrupted no Catholic Mass or in any way invaded anyones private sphere. Mr. Donohue and The Catholic League fervently believe in the superhuman status of certain wafers. Dr. Myers does not. They disagree mightily. However, only one of these parties wishes to silence, censure and foil the career of the other through pleas to vicarious authority.

Please do not grant the Catholic League's request to have their particular beliefs about transubstantiation be authoritative for those who do not hold them. Dr. Myers is an asset to the cause of freedom and education at your institution and wherever else he may go. You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice
to loose him.

Sincerely,

[Omitted for this post]

Since we're here on the calm thread, I'll take the opportunity to tell Brownian and Ken Cope how much I've enjoyed their comments lately.

Oh, I love this song!

"Donohye has belched"

Shouldn't that be "brayed"?

What are you talking about, Ken? (she asked him knowingly)

You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice to loose him.

That's funny.

Yes. We should all abandon that thread until later. I read it. Great Post. Very well done. We're all ready to move one. The pissed Catholics will be stalking us for days though.

Maybe we should treat them all like trolls and just ignore them. But, damn that'll take a lot of restraint.

Posted by: SC | July 24, 2008 4:39 PM

"You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice to loose him.
That's funny."

Why is that funny?

Are you a knower? Eh? What's it like, then?

You would do The University of Minnesota a great disservice to loose him.

:)

@ 17

Science in the midst of all this tomfoolery? eghads!

Thanks for the link! Something to brain around while the other thread decreases to a dull roar.

I am into photography...

Roy gave a gig in San Francisco recently, it was such a great moment.

I've had to abandon it, I've never seen so much copy&paste vomit in my life.

I think someone's a bit upset.

Hey PZ (repost from previous thread):

1. How about a post character limit? Although it might be hard on some of the more thoughtful posters, 4096 characters would be enough for most posts. If someone has something longer to say, they can split it into two or more posts.

2. How about a little javascript to defeat the most common forms of cut-and-paste? You can easily write something to defeat right clicking and cntrl-V. I suspect you can defeat dragging text in with the mouse, but I don't know how to do that off the top of my head. Such things are pretty easy to defeat, but it should stop some of the stupider spammers from pasting in long screeds.

#36--

I don't mind debating them substantively, but this spamming shit has got to stop.

Perhaps this site needs a rating system a la Dailykos.

SC:

Damn! You've shown me my error.

If I was Catholic I might be inclined to write veiled threats and prey[sic] for you.

: )

From the Catholic League:

"It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty. Just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist."

Hmmm... Burning a cross in your own home is an offense? Having a copy of Mein Kampf on your coffee table is a hate crime? There is no comparison here.

MrQhuest

The reminder to note the number of the cut and paste job, then use the browser's search function to type the number of the next post, saved me some carpal tunneliness.

SC, thanks for the nod; I thought I was trying to stay out of the train-wreck of these cracker threads, but the topic has brought out some of the best and worst in all of us.

Highlights of Obama's speech are up : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xrKuQw0Ayw

Re: #44

T'would be easier to simply do a character limit. No comment on a blog should be that lengthy anyways -- the limit could even be a ridiculously large number (5.0 x 10^3? 1.0 x 10^4?) of characters. Normal posters wouldn't be affected, just tards.

Brownian #16: "Bet my province is lamer."

Not a chance. All we get are old farts from the '60s and one hit wonders. And we're too damn conservative to bring in anyone even remotely controversial. sigh.

Although we did get the Blue Man group.

Man that tard is hard to stomach! I'm sitting here giggling over the faint coming to poor MAJeff when he tries to blah blah that crap away. Teee-hee ;)

I am into photography...

Um, Nietzsche was a pho-to-grapher!

I think MAJeff is just sitting back sipping on pinot and enjoying the fun. That would be a lot blahs...

Beautiful, I came home looking forward to cracker desecration, and instead I see ROY! Had to listen to him first.

As someone who finds himself, politically, in the middle, I find liberals to be far more refreshing to talk with for this very reason: They can laugh at themselves.

People who take themselves too seriously shouldn't be trusted.

My boyfriend and I had the great pleasure of seeing Roy live this past Saturday. Not only is he even more awesome live in concert, but he's also incredibly nice and down to earth - during the break I told him how much "Thanks for the support" meant to me and thanked him for it, and we talked about it for a couple of minutes. And after the concert he shook hands with EVERYone on their way out.

2. How about a little javascript to defeat the most common forms of cut-and-paste? You can easily write something to defeat right clicking and cntrl-V. I suspect you can defeat dragging text in with the mouse, but I don't know how to do that off the top of my head. Such things are pretty easy to defeat, but it should stop some of the stupider spammers from pasting in long screeds.

I for one would find this dreadfully annoying, since I type up nearly all of my comments in emacs, and then paste them into firefox. There are ways around it, but in general I stop reading sites that try to limit copy & paste.

A much better solution would be to search recent comments by the commenter for matching text, and put the comment in the moderation bin if it's over 50% repeated, and in the spam bin if it's over 90% repeated.

Thanks for the compliment SC; I was worried my mad skillz as a satirical polemicist (polemical satiricist?) were rusting under the crushing weight of Catholic dogmatism.

But, but Gary, my province invented conservatism. Then we invented oil. And then we invented corporate cronyism and called it fiscal responsibility. And then we invented philosophical and economic arguments rebutting criticism of said cronyism, though they mostly consist of appeals to consequences (the consequences being the embodiment of evil: the NEP and Trudeau). And now we have lots of trucks with pissing Calvin decals on the back driven by cokeheads with cowboy hats, bad teeth, and cheekfuls of chaw. It's like living in The Land of Sergio Leone Film Extras That Time Mostly Forgot, But Remembers Every So Often to Inflict A Band Like Nickelback Upon. I don't know what any of this has to do with anything, but someone please help me! They're everywhere!

Whew. So nice to be in here away from the crowd.

"Whew. So nice to be in here away from the crowd."

Isn't it though? :)

925 comments, not long 'til it's killed I imagine.

Ken @27 - Irene was referring to Dr Myers' former workplace, Temple University. Sorry to interrupt the Monty Python quote fest.

llewelly: Respect. You are truly among the most die hard of emacs users. I am ok with text boxes, but I hope one day to have reached that level of emacs oneness.

Irene was referring to Dr Myers' former workplace, Temple University

That's quite a relief to hear that, thank you. There's plenty of apoplexy on the thread next door without my having to hallucinate it.

Nice, thanks for the reminder PZ! Roy is playing here next Wednesday. I am so there.

"It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty. Just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist."

It seems unlikely that UMM would want to use a picture of the contents of PZ's trash can as grounds for dismissal. PZ would be within his rights to appeel such a move.

I masturbate against my will all the time, it's part of the fun. :)

I'm currently making arrangement for Roy to play in Idaho Falls next month AND HE'LL BE STAYING AT MY HOUSE!!!

PWN3D!!!

Garr, emacs. I used that a little when I was editing shell scripts back in the day. Powerful tool if you knew all of the keystroke shortcuts, but I never used it long enough to really get the hang of all that. The closest I get to that these days is editing Python scripts using either the Python editor or TextPad.

The last time I used emacs was on a Symbolics 3650. On other computers, VI was not just a text editor, but part of a complete 3D modeling package. BTW, I hear Microsoft has completely ripped off and cloned Sun's Open Office.

Got to love being a liberal.

He'll be playing an hour and a half from me next Saturday! Woot!11!

From the Catholic League:"It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty.

So... Donohue is spokesman of the U of Minnesota now?

Wow. Check out the last line in the latest version of PZ's wikipedia entry:

On July 24, 2008, PZ Myers in his post "The Great Desecration" wrote that he had pierced the consecrated wafer with a rusty nail and simply threw it in the trash together with old coffeegrounds and a banana peel. He also nailed it to a few ripped-out pages of the Qur'an and The God Delusion, and included a photograph of these items in the garbage. He wrote that nothing must be held sacred and encouraged people to question everything.[25]

He is immature and should be prayed for and brought to his knees to beg for God's forgiveness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers

Ken #72,

"brought to his knees"

They have such a coercive mentality. The idea of being free and independent must truly frighten them.

That last line has now mysteriously vanished. It must be a miracle.

The last line is still viewable on the history page.

A testament to someone's fear of freedom.

I didn't realize all of that was required to be a liberal... I have a lot of catching up to do.

Well, except I'm not actually that liberal... but since the conservatives won't have the godless... and everyone hates the moderates... even other moderates... I'm stuck for a proper classification. Well, there is that independent thing.

JBS

#60,

Yes, PZ used to be an assistant professor at Temple U. That's all in his published cv. Irene's question is legit; Why did PZ leave? Since he left after 6 years of service, I suspect that PZ was denied tenure. Again, his cv shows no research grants during that period and lame pubs. That's the kiss of death at a research university.

Also, UMM is 8th (or lower) rate compared with Temple.I really don't care about the desecration business and I don't have an axe to grind with PZ either. I do care about the whole truth, though. In addition, if PZ was indeed denied tenure (or was otherwise asked to leave) at Temple, that would be the ultimate irony, wouldn't it?

Paul Lurquin #60

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

it is just petty sniping.

Roy Zimmerman doesn't even get the half of it. Do you know how f***ing* sick and tired I am of all the arugula, latte and brie I have to consume?

*Expurgated version of 'fucking'.

The Adamant Atheist #73,

Indeed, but how batshit insane they got does enable one to understand how religion warps the mind until the point where they believe that torturing people who don't believe in the magic cracker is OK. In some sense, it has solved a longstanding mystery of the Inquisition for me: how in hell people could boil another person in oil or burn them at the stake. Many of these demented fuckwits would do it in a heartbeat to get PZ to "recant his heresy".

#80--

This reminds me of a discussion I once had with a friend. He said "not all religious beliefs are harmful, some are benign and even charming." I told him I wasn't so sure. He told me I was being "dogmatic" and "unsophisticated."

This whole episode has vindicated my position, I think. Once you imbue an object or idea with other-worldly significance, you're pretty much severing ties to reality and heading for the Twilight Zone.

I saw Roy play live in Houston a few months ago, and I laughed so hard my face hurt.

Don't miss him if he comes to your town.

As each post takes up approximately 45 screens, they're proving to be rather effective speed bumps in the thread.

Just double-click a word somewhere (to tell your browser where to start searching) and search for "by:" to jump straight to the end of the post. (Let the machine find the end of the post for you. That's what machines are for.)

Your veiled references

You'd prefer burqa-ed references, maybe?

llewelly:

I type up nearly all of my comments in emacs, and then paste them into firefox.

You may want to look up the "It's all text" Firefox extension. It adds an "edit" button next to text fields, which allows you to edit the field with your favorite editor (thus saving you some copying and pasting). I have mine set to "emacsclient".

#78,
This just shows that PZ is a failed research scientist. No more, no less.

It wouldn't matter if PZ taught biology under a bridge to drifters.

Religious claims would still be complete rubbish.

I like his lyrics, but I'm just not a fan of the music or his singing.

Sadly, just reading the lyrics isn't good enough because you lose out on the timing and delivery.

Ah, I'm just bitter that he'd probably never come to the creepy Conservative Texas town I'm currently in.

Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 24, 2008 3:48 PM

Have you heard his older songs, though? I also don't like as much his newer ones, but the classics like Creation Science 101, Jerry Falwell's God, Defenders of Marriage, Chickenhawk, and less old ones like Thanks for the Support, Hello NSA, and of course the "completely heterosexual" series are all great, I'd say genius. Check out his channel on youtube.

'Indeed, but how batshit insane they got does enable one to understand how religion warps the mind until the point where they believe that torturing people who don't believe in the magic cracker is OK."

#80: Nobody who is religious is torturing anyone. I am not even catholic, but you are acting like a pussy. Torturing is a long way from someone being disrespectful and just an outright dick to someone else.

Are liberals pussies like this all the time? Boo hoo they are upset because we disrespect other people and tramp all over their beliefs?

"This just shows that PZ is a failed research scientist. No more, no less."

No, he is more of an attention whore who is trying to build up atheism while trying to slam other people's lives.

He uses science as a cover to be an asshole and tries to recruit other morons like a lot of people on here. It's like the skinhead Nazi movement, only more useless.

Then he puts out all of this garbage and wonders why he is getting death threats. What a fucking moron. I mean seriously. I am not Catholic but seriously.

If you are going to basically bash someone's religion, disrespect them and basically try to fuck them up the ass with a bunch of bullshit blog posts, don't you think some people would react violently.

What he is too stupid to understand is that this reaction is the human condition. Replace religion with someone's sports team, someone's school, someone's own family and you are likely to get the same result.

He is too fucking stupid to figure it out.

Not only that, but too be honest what good has he done with his life?

This is not a threat, it is a life examination. I mean honestly what has he done with his life that helps humanity in any possible way. His work as a biologist is already being done by better people in the field. He is adding nothing positive to this life and is only being destructive and really is not an asset to the human race. He produces more waste than anything of actual value. There are much better blogs out there and the only thing he does is provide waste and helping himself. There is nothing redeeming in that. If he happen to pass away tomorrow because of a heart attack I and most of the people around the world would not even bother with tears. You don't need to cry for someone that did nothing in life.

Careful where you walk, folks. That mangy cat just went D_o_h on the carpet.

Boo hoo, Downfall of Humanity doesn't like PZ.

Who fucking cares. Religion is still bullshit.

"Who fucking cares. Religion is still bullshit."

Bullshit to someone who is a douchebag maybe. Why the fuck to you have to be so useless to humanity?

Nobody would give a fuck what you believe as long as you don't attack others and act like a douchebag.

People here don't get it. They are like some fucking retarded kid complaining about someone else. Fucking pay attention to your own needs and leave other people alone.

It's pretty sad that I have to come on here and tell you something you should have learned from your parents. The world is not getting to be a better place to live and you are making it much worse.

"Religious claims would still be complete rubbish."

And you still would be a worthless piece of garbage and if being human came with a rating you would be a negative number in helping humankind.

If people had to get judged by all the things they have done to help humanity, there would be no atheists.

That is exactly what I mean by "your a worthless fuck".

It's "you're."

You religious kooks are ignorant fools.

Learn to spell, shit.

Great stuff - must forward this to some friends here down under, rotfl.

(signed) marc

I guess that executive stress ball we got d.o.h. for Christmas isn't working.

"Fucking pay attention to your own needs and leave other people alone."
- Thats the lamest defense of religion I have ever seen. Organized religion is the single most getting-involved-in-other-peoples-business crowd in the world.

"If people had to get judged by all the things they have done to help humanity, there would be no atheists."
- Oh, please. If people had to get judged by how much they are ignoring the real world and discriminating others based on delusions, then there would be no atheists.

I Zimmerman thread has been hijacked into God talk? Is nothing sacred to these people?

Screw this! I'm going to erv.

"Thats the lamest defense of religion I have ever seen. Organized religion is the single most getting-involved-in-other-peoples-business crowd in the world."

It's not about religion you stupid fuck. It's about humanity. The religious people are doing their own thing and if you don't want to join in you don't have to do so. That is the beauty of freedom.

People on here are fucking morons and they should be locked up for their own good. It is one thing to be stupid, it is another to try to spread that stupidity by degrading people, disrespecting them, and acting like attention whores.

If you don't believe in God that is fine, people are not harming you by showing their beliefs. However, attacking people and putting them down for their belief systems is just wrong and attacking what they believe in is wrong.

I love America, but if I saw someone burning the flag and hating America in front of my home, they would get a beat down. I don't give a fuck if it's cloth or whatever, they deserve a beat down because they can't respect me or my country that so many people have died for.

So, I can see why there have been threats made. NO shit!
That is why I said that Myers is a dumbfuck.

I am not even religious nor catholic, but I do understand respect for other people.

Fucking idiots!

"It's "you're."

You religious kooks are ignorant fools.

Learn to spell, shit."

I am not religious, bitch. I will learn to spell
if you learn to respect people who are religious (and respect people in general).

"I Zimmerman thread has been hijacked into God talk? Is nothing sacred to these people?"

LOL, I hope that was a joke. If it wasn't then that is one huge post of irony that I have ever have seen and a lot of hypocrisy thrown in.

would be very typical of the people in this redneck fucked up forum.

"The religious people are doing their own thing and if you don't want to join in you don't have to do so. That is the beauty of freedom."

No, I don't have to join in. Yet they manage to intrude on my life every day. It's not just the dim bulbs like you trooping to my doorstep with pamphlets, it's prayers in public settings, it's threats of hellfire and damnation delivered even to children. It's public figures invoking Gods while being almost as hypocritical as you, D'oH, etc., etc.

" People on here are fucking morons and they should be locked up for their own good. "

Ah, yeah, that's brilliant. That'll show your loving tolerance that you demand from others but are unwilling to extend.

"I love America, but if I saw someone burning the flag and hating America in front of my home, they would get a beat down. I don't give a fuck if it's cloth or whatever, they deserve a beat down because they can't respect me..."

A "beat down?" That's cute, tuffy.

"I am not even religious nor catholic, but I do understand respect for other people."

Curious that you felt the need to repeat that several times so far in your posts. This while you bark like a chihuahua about beating people down for burning a piece of cloth that is an utterly arbitrary symbol of nationalism, then call for them to be imprisoned.

Consistency isn't your forte, junior, nor anything approximating even moderately reflective cognition.

Your posts go to demonstrate that holding symbols so sacred that you'd be willing to "beat down" another human being -- not for harming you or a loved one , but for a vacuous concept of birth-imposed ideation -- is a tragicomic hypocritical brain-barf of cognitive dissonance. Grow up. Move beyond your childlike concepts, Downfall_of_humanity.

#102 Of course it was a fucking joke. Now stop the off-topic trolling or expect to have your tiresome, self-important arse chucked in the dungeon where it belongs.

"Q" the Enchanter @ #79:

Do you know how f***ing* sick and tired I am [...]

*Expurgated version of 'fucking'.

Until I saw the footnote, I thought all four stars stood for missing letters, and I was trying to make sense of "how flamingo sick and tired I am".

Hey, this guy is going to be near me tomorrow night doing a free show.

Worth it? I think so.

What it's like to be Richard Dawkins. . . ;-)

'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'

aka 'I Am The Very Model Of An Atheist Supremacist'

I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
I'm an Intellectual, Evangelical, Godless Evolutionist
I know the crimes of Christians, and I quote their fights historical
From Jerusalem to Ireland, in order categorical

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters biological
I understand equivocation, both scientific and theological
About the "Holey Bible" I'm teeming with a lot o' news
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews

With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and those darn Jews

I'm very good at bigotry and anti-religious insults
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

I know God's mythic history, from Osiris to the (Day of Yule)
I answer to my critics, I've a petty taste for ridicule
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In comics I will fight those other gods who are so fabulous

I can't tell undoubting Muslims from Bahá'ís or Zoroastrians
But know the croaking chorus from those corpse-cold Unitarians
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's Rapical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical

And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense oh so Biblical

Then I can write a bashing book of Biblical enormity
And tell you ev'ry detail of Creationism's deformity
In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

In fact, when I know what is meant by "Babylon" and "churlish"
When I can tell at sight a Mormon from a Whirling Dervish
When such affairs as prayers and "crackers" I'm more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by "Eat your hat"

When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern funnery
When I know more of tactlessness than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of fundamental strategy
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G

You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never ever spat at G

For my religious knowledge, though it's narrowy and shallowy
Has only been brought down to the early Nineteenth century
But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-richard-dawkins-very-mode…

Since the cracker thread is dead, I thought I would insert this is the next available thread, Isaac Asimov in 1984 about creationist "science"

http://vivien23.uw.hu/

It's a good read.

And I will renew my argument for a new law, Myers' Law: as the comment count increases the odds of a mention of the cracker approach unity.

Woohoo! I'm going to see Kevin Bloody Wilson live! Can't believe Kev is finally coming to South Africa. Can't wait! Ok, ok, I just had to share that.

Robin just post the link next time.

Yeah, Robin, that's not funny, but comedy is subjective I'll give you that. And apparently, I'll have to give you that comedy is VERY subjective, if you meant that song to be funny. I won't criticize the purported "funniness" of it.

A couple of things, though. It's not original, since that "tune" has been used before to parody creationists. But you know that obviously. Let's just say that it's your Half-hour News Hour to the original parody's The Daily Show.

And, it's neither the "it's funny because it's true" kind of comedy, nor the "blatant satire", which your readers at least have to "get it". In fact, much like the failed New Yorker Obama cover, one doesn't really get if it's satire until knowing the usual contents of the magazine (your blog), or "reading the article inside" (going to your page). Well, at least you suckered me into your little corner of the interwebs.

I am not even religious nor catholic, but I do understand respect for other people.

Fucking idiots!

Posted by: Downfall_of_humanity | July 25, 2008 6:06 AM

Yeah, what you don't understand is what these "atheists" have been saying all this time. Read a little will you?

Also, your faith is believing in religion. Have any evidence that good deeds can't be done without religion? (not hard to find evidence to the contrary) Have any evidence that "atheism" have never helped humanity? Riiight, because without challenging religion, the religious themselves would have came out of the Dark Ages, yeah. They always felt "in their heart" that burning people for believing something else was wrong, but what the hell, let's do it anyway, we'll come out of the Dark Ages sooner or later.

You can spout the same nonsense that most religionists do about "atheists" having their religion, but it's a claim, and you'll have to back it up. Name some examples where just not believing in gods (notice where I placed the "not"), requires faith. When does not believing in something totally unseen, undetected, and unnecessary (as in totally superfluous) requires some kind of un-evidenced gut feeling (a.k.a. "faith")? Because that disbelief, and only that, is what we "atheists" have in common. We can all have our superstitions or not, but it's not the "faith" that there are no gods.

Professor Myers,
As a fellow scientist and a Catholic, I find your desecration of the body of Christ and other other religious symbols to be both appalling and unscholarly. The fact that you also ripped out some pages from 'The God Delusion' does not warrant any of your hateful actions. Such behavior gives all non-religious people a bad name. Your time would be better spend debating Christians instead of persectuing them.

Professor Myers,
As a fellow scientist and a Catholic, I find your desecration of the body of Christ and other other religious symbols to be both appalling and unscholarly. The fact that you also ripped out some pages from 'The God Delusion' does not warrant any of your hateful actions. Such behavior gives all non-religious people a bad name. Your time would be better spend debating Christians instead of persecuting them.

Re: Bryan at #30

When Donohue "belched" he did so in the face of the U. of Minnesota Board of Regents. Now on that Board we have:

Clyde Allen who was vice-President of Concordia College

Dean Johnson who spent 35 years of his life as Pastor of Calvary Lutheran Church and got his Master's from Luther Theological Seminary.

Now,right off hand, I would be surprised if they were in sync with the antics of PZ the atheist.

DOH:"People on here are fucking morons and they should be locked up for their own good."

And yet, here you are as well. So, is DOH (appropos name btw) an idiot or Poe's Law example? The answer is....
No one cares.

Oh, how the institution has fallen. Once upon a time, being persecuted meant being thrown to lions to be mauled and eaten alive; now it means somebody smooshed my cracker. Waaaah.

Downfall of Humanity,

"I love America, but if I saw someone burning the flag and hating America in front of my home, they would get a beat down."

Good, and your stupid ass would go to prison where you belong. We're a society of laws.

You say you love America but you disregard the freedom that makes it worth loving.

I'm a free American and I will NEVER stop criticizing religion. You can learn to like it, asswipe.

Max Verret #115:

As unfamiliar as I am with the Board of UMN, I am quite familiar with the over-abundance of Lutherans in that region. I can also attest to what PZ has often said of those Lutherans. They are, for the most part, mild-mannered, reasonably deluded people with an affection for Ole and Lena jokes, Spite & Malice, Cribbage, pan-fried Walleye and sleepy, Sunday sermons. Although I would hardly expect them to endorse PZ, I doubt they would be quick to sympathize with the red-faced, tippie-toed bellowing of Bill Douchebag and the Catholic Thugs.

people are not harming you by showing their beliefs.

Understanding of US society: EPIC FAIL.

Steve said - Robin just post the link next time.

Well it only takes about a second to scroll past it if you don't want to read it Steve. . .

andyo said, "Yeah, Robin, that's not funny, but comedy is subjective I'll give you that. And apparently, I'll have to give you that comedy is VERY subjective, if you meant that song to be funny. I won't criticize the purported "funniness" of it."

But you already did andyo. You said, "that's not funny." It's amazing how "Brights" can't even get their facts straight half the time. . .

:A couple of things, though. It's not original, since that "tune" has been used before to parody creationists. But you know that obviously.

Obviously. . . That tune has been used to parody just about everything so it's kind of ridiculous to point out that doing so is not original. OTOH my use of it to parody Richard Dawkins and other Atheist Supremacists is quite original. I have not seen anyone else do so anyway.

:Let's just say that it's your Half-hour News Hour to the original parody's The Daily Show.

But I thought you said that you wouldn't criticize the purported "funniness" of it Andyo. ;-)

:And, it's neither the "it's funny because it's true" kind of comedy, nor the "blatant satire", which your readers at least have to "get it".

To quote Ronald Reagan - There you go again. . .

:In fact, much like the failed New Yorker Obama cover, one doesn't really get if it's satire until knowing the usual contents of the magazine (your blog), or "reading the article inside" (going to your page).

Good point. *Obviously* that is why I provided the link to it so that anyone who wanted to could read the "annotated" version of it.

http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-richard-dawkins-very-mode…

:Well, at least you suckered me into your little corner of the interwebs.

Well you know what famous U*U P.T. Barnum said about suckers. . . ;-)

You would quote Reagan.

IDiots just wanna have fun! ;-)

Well, when I said it's not funny... but comedy is subjective, what exactly did you think I meant? Does it have to be literally spelled out for you? I didn't think it was funny, BUT comedy is subjective. The "purported funniness" is... hell, whatever. You really didn't know what I meant?

I'm not a bright either by the way. I hate the term more than I dislike "atheist".

:Let's just say that it's your Half-hour News Hour to the original parody's The Daily Show.

But I thought you said that you wouldn't criticize the purported "funniness" of it Andyo. ;-)

You can just call me Andy. There were some people who thought the half-hour show was funny. Again, subjective. Although I didn't find it funny in the same way that I didn't your song. But you clearly do, so there.

well done on the cracker chucking :)

but who is thatguy in the video?

Mr. Myers, I have a question. If 'nothing his sacred" and everything must be called into question---

What if you are wrong, and those who believe in a God are right?

Have you considered this?

I'm not trying to slam you in any way. Just wondering if you have considered this, as well.

Celeste...

What if you're wrong?

Celeste:

We could well be wrong. Nobody on this site would claim that we are certain about anything. The question is: can you justify your beliefs? Given the paucity of truly convincing evidence in favor of god, and given that most people -- including believers, might I add -- base the vast majority of their beliefs and opinions on the best available evidence, we conclude that it is not justifiable to believe in god.

Why do you attempt to evaluate evidence when dealing with almost all other aspects of your life, but then dismiss that same line of reasoning when it comes to your belief in god? And have you ever considered that by lowering your standards in that way, you are hampering our ability to argue against people who believe in things that are harmful?

Well, Damian, I do not consider it lowering my standards. And I didn't come to believe in God because I was indoctrinated. My family was Catholic in name only, as, apparently, are many of the hate-spewing "catholics" I've seen on the blogs lately. Just calling oneself Catholic doesn't make it so. There is a lot more to it.

There have been experiences in my life which convince me that there is more there than I can explain rationally. Many of them. But that does not mean that simply because it is unexplained that it automatically means it's spiritual. I accept that there is much that has a logical explanation that we simply do not understand yet. I also believe that there is more to life than can ever be explained by any level of science.

Ironically, it was my love for all things scientific that brought me to a belief in God in the first place.

I fully support your belief that there is no God. I also appreciate your willingness to discuss it without meaness. I'm afraid that the cracker fiasco has brought out the worst in both athiests and believers.

As far as the ability to argue against people who believe in things that are harmful, first a given belief must be shown to be harmful, and to whom. To paraphrase CS Lewis, we may well consider the person in the next pew to be a sinner, and know it to be so in fact, but who can tell how much worse he or she would be without faith?

This is the point where many bring up the scandalous behavior of some priests. It's horrible. Please understand that this is not condoned by anyone. Yes, the church made horrible mistakes and compounded the wrong done. But it was not done by all priests, and it is unfair and unjust to condemn all in a group for the crimes of some. Just as it would be for any group. Some in authority did cover it up. This also was wrong and cannot be defended.

The thing to remember is that Catholics, as any other group, are members of the human race in general, and as such you will find in it those who exemplify the best and the worst of people in general.

As for justifying my beliefs, I only have to justify them to myself and my God. If you don't believe in God, then I guess that means you have to justify your beliefs to yourself alone.

Again, thank you for your kindness in discussing this with me. There has been a paucity of courtesy in the blogs lately.

Steve @ post 127.

Actually, Steve, I have considered it. But as I wrote to Damian, above, there have been experiences in my life which convince me of my faith. Since these events cannot be proven by scientific method, they are useful only to me. That does not make them less valid.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that I am wrong. The tenents of my faith give me a ruler against which I can measure my behavior. It works for me. It keeps me honest in my behavior and my dealings with others. It gives me something outside of myself to strive for. It gives me a way to cope with the evils of the world around me without becoming bitter or cruel. It gives me strength to rise above my circumstances. It gives me rituals by which I count the calendar of my days on the earth. Because of my faith, I have been forced to ammend behaviors that were harmful to me and those around me.

So, I think I will keep it.

Whatever works for ya. I'm my own judge. And I have pretty rigorous standards.

Thanks Steve. Would you be offended if I prayed for you? If you're right, it will do you no harm, and if I'm right, it is a wonderful gift.

All you get is an eye roll for me. I don't need any help thanks. I'm fine the way I am.

FROM me... I'm tired.

Celeste:

Thank you for your reply. I'd like to make a couple of general points, related to tone, civility, and the use of bad language, first and foremost. I am naturally an inoffensive person. That doesn't mean that I refrain from arguing with force, but I am who I am, and I manage to maintain the same tone on the internet as I do in everyday life. That seems to be one of the major problems with debate on the internet -- people sometimes forget that they are interacting with another human being, in my experince.

Having said that, there are two things that I have noticed. Firstly, I often read complaints all around the web about certain sites, including this one, and how the people that frequent them are rude and uncivil, etc. From my own perspective, there are people that only seem to notice those type of comments, even if they are vastly in the minority. That seems to be a little unfair, in my opinion.

PZ doesn't censor comments on this blog, and I will admit that over the last few weeks it has not been a pretty sight [pun intended], at times. If someone leaves racist, or homophobic, or sexist remarks, they tend to be taken apart pretty quickly, and if they continue to make those sort of remarks, they will be banned, eventually. To be honest, I prefer that attitude, and particularly in comparison to some blogs where a comment will be removed, regardless of how civil you are, simply for disagreeing with the blog owner.

Also, I have noticed a trend where people seem to believe that their own personality, nature, and values, should be the standard for tone, civility, and language, etc. This is clearly erroneous because any standard should necessarily apply to all people, and so it is rather arrogant to believe that your own comfortability should be the standard to which you judge others. I would much rather reason my way to that standard, and even if it goes well beyond my own, accept that that is simply the way that I am, but also that it is unreasonable of me to expect others to be the same.

Celeste said:

My family was Catholic in name only, as, apparently, are many of the hate-spewing "catholics" I've seen on the blogs lately. Just calling oneself Catholic doesn't make it so. There is a lot more to it.

Oh no! :-) This is commonly known as The No True Scotsman Fallacy:

"In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy: they didn't really have faith, they weren't true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it."

Sorry to be nit-picky, but one of the reasons that this fallacy exists is because it necessarily leads to the "dumping" of those individuals that are not considered to be True Catholics [and they are generally the ones that are not very nice people] on to some other group! So essentially, by claiming that people who behave poorly are not really Catholics, it is possible to maintain that all true Catholics are good people.

I realize that you are both making a substantive point [about how people should behave], and that you weren't necessarily insinuating that those people aren't really Catholics. I just thought that I would point that out, though, if only to show off!

But that does not mean that simply because it is unexplained that it automatically means it's spiritual. I accept that there is much that has a logical explanation that we simply do not understand yet. I also believe that there is more to life than can ever be explained by any level of science.

I'm glad that you have said this. I'm sure that you are aware of St Augustine's famous warning about how Christians embarrass themselves and the faith when they deny good science, and when non-believers, or believers from other faiths, are more knowledgeable about the natural world?

I sometimes find that people are prepared to believe that literally everything is faith affirming, and without meaning to sound cruel, it both astounds me and scares me in equal measure. It is not that the individual lacks intelligence, or that they are so clearly ignorant of much of what science has discovered. That is common among all people, and it not necessarily something to be ashamed of. Most people have talents in at least one area, for a start. It is that they are often willing to accept unbelievably sloppy, and often downright erroneous, science, as well things that, on the face of it, are frankly absurd, seemingly because they want to believe so passionately.

I would also agree with you that "there is more to life than can ever be explained by any level of science", but as far as we know, it is only subjective experience that science cannot fully describe, and even then, it can do a fairly good job. It is unlikely that science will be able to describe certain aspects of subjective experience [i.e. the exact feeling], but it can still describe many of the aspects of that experience in exquisite detail.

One thing that we have found is that it is technology that limits us, more often than not. Now that we are starting to gain a much better understanding of the brain, and now that we have the technology to record and measure what is happening, it is possible to build up a picture of what love is, as well as the emotional underpinnings of the human mind, etc.

Ironically, it was my love for all things scientific that brought me to a belief in God in the first place.

I'd be interested to hear more about this, if that is alright with you. [yes, I'm nosy]

As far as the ability to argue against people who believe in things that are harmful, first a given belief must be shown to be harmful, and to whom. To paraphrase CS Lewis, we may well consider the person in the next pew to be a sinner, and know it to be so in fact, but who can tell how much worse he or she would be without faith?

Hmmn. I don't like that quote, if I'm honest. I am nothing like an idealist, but I have more confidence in humanity than that. It seems awfully defeatist, and I know that I have too much self respect, as well as respect for others, to write most people off in that way. For a start, it is now fairly clear that we are all born with a basic moral sense -- fairness, decency, altruism, and empathy -- that has evolved over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years.

Of course, that very basic sense can either mature as we learn, or it can be corrupted. Given that we now understand how influential societal surroundings are in shaping young minds, as well as old, it should be possible in the future to work towards limiting the conditions that tend to influence people negatively, without affecting our freedoms, naturally. For instance, there is no question that people that are born in to poverty, on average, struggle in many areas of life that those who are born in to wealth do not. One way to minimize these effects is to create a fairer society, and particularly by narrowing the wealth gap.

If it interests you at all, we can explore morality more fully. I have a number of issues with a theistic morality, and I'm not convinced that enough believers have genuinely thought about how exactly their moral nature manifests itself.

This is the point where many bring up the scandalous behavior of some priests. It's horrible. Please understand that this is not condoned by anyone. Yes, the church made horrible mistakes and compounded the wrong done. But it was not done by all priests, and it is unfair and unjust to condemn all in a group for the crimes of some. Just as it would be for any group. Some in authority did cover it up. This also was wrong and cannot be defended.

I understand, and I don't think that it fair to bash Catholics over the head with this, although I certainly believe that it is a legitimate topic of conversation. Obviously I cannot say for sure, but I find it hard to imagine that I would have remained a Catholic, such was the gross misconduct. I do not say that as a judgment of those who have remained within the church. I realize that it is both a complex issue, and that I have not been in that position, so talk is cheap on my part.

As for justifying my beliefs, I only have to justify them to myself and my God. If you don't believe in God, then I guess that means you have to justify your beliefs to yourself alone.

Hey, that's no fair! :-) In all seriousness, I do believe that it is right and proper that you should have to justify your beliefs, if and when they influence you in terms of public policy. I am not in favor of excluding religion completely from the public square, but I do think that it is fair to expect you to be able to justify any decisions that you make, politically, etc.

I have to justify my beliefs within my own conscience, but also to the people that I love, and all people who I wish to influence. I think that's fair.

Again, thank you for your kindness in discussing this with me.

Thank you.

Damian, thank you for your reply. Perhaps I need to rephrase, or redefine, my use of the term "not true Catholics" or "Catholic in name only." I am by far not the best apologist out there, and sometimes I just don't explain myself well. However, that is my fault and not necessarily that of my church.

Most Catholics received their instruction in the faith as children and, unfortunately, that is where it stops. They never pick up another book, or even a bible again. The most some of these "cradle Catholics" do is attend mass on a regular basis. And while that is a precept of our faith, it is not the only one.

I wonder how the scientific community would fair if the majority of scientists and teachers of the same had stopped their education at a third-grade level? Or even a high-school level? I'm afraid that the general view of science would not be a very good one if that were the case. In the same way, we are supposed to mature in our faith over time, with continued study.

It probably would be better to say that they are not very good Catholics, rather than not true Catholics.

I note that you reference the "No true Scotsman fallacy." I have not heard of this, but I have encountered believers like those you mention, who believe that "once saved always saved." This is not a Catholic teaching, as far as I know. Part of Catholic teaching is that we have been given by our creator a free will, and as such we are free to turn our back on him at any time, or toward him for that matter. So, it is entirely possible to be a "good Christian" for most of your life and still screw it up by an act of will. It's not automatic.

I also understand your point of view about remaining Catholic in light of what horrible things have been done by some of the priesthood. I wish all life were that simple. However, by that view I would have left the United States after Watergate, Vietnam, Waco, or any number of mistakes. It's easy to leave. It's hard to stay and make people accountable. But, the church is not static. It is a living thing, made up of living people, and people screw up. We call it sin. But whatever it is called, it still means that the person has missed the mark. So, rather than leave, we keep trying.

The issue of my beliefs, as to how they influence public policy, is a sticky one. My beliefs make me the kind of person I am. I can no more divorce myself from my beliefs than I can tell my legs to go jogging without the rest of me. I propose that neither can an athiest. Your belief in the scientific method surely influences you, and is a part of you. I would put forth that whatever influences your thinking about public policy is a part of your personality and cannot be divorced from you as a whole. I'm afraid I have not explained this part very well, but that is my own failing, I'm afraid.

From your writing I would posit that we are probably in agreement in more areas of public policy that you would suspect, even though we may come to them from opposite sides of the issue of faith. Fairness, decency, altruism, and empathy, as you have written.

Again, thank you for your courtesy. Believe it or not, you have done a better job of holding to scripture than some believers have. May I quote? "Let your speech be always gracious and in good taste, and strive to respond properly to all who address you." :}

I keep putting robin in the killfile but his posts keep appearing. Is anyone else having this problem?