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 that's an improvement.
I'm still getting way too much repetitive crap, though. Yes, people, I know you're offended. You don't all need to tell me. If I had time to reply to each one of you individually, I'd simply tell you to tough it out — I'm offended by you, but none of us have a right to not be offended. So let me just tell you collectively: I've heard that message, and the message that you'll pray for me, and the message that I'll be going to hell, and the message that you think I need to be sent to jail or an asylum, and I don't care what you think, so put a sock in it already. OK? OK. I've now got a bunch of filters in place that trash mail that mentions certain common keywords (hint to people legitimately attempting to contact me: try not to sound too Catholic), so there's not even the point of harassment to your continued volleys. You can all stop now.
Anyway, in the hopes that at least a few of these loons will notice how silly their protestations look, I've put a semi-random sampling below the fold. Or, at least, I hope it will at least induce them to proofread before they send their whines into my trash folder.
Bryan Stikeleather is a Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, and this is the way his mind works. Actually, a lot of Catholics have been sending me email along these lines — do you all fantasize about raping and murdering people? Please stop reading the Old Testament!
Just wanted to send you a note to say that if someone publicized that they were going to kidnap your wife, Mary, and your kids Alaric, Connlann, and Skatje, rape them brutally, kill them, throw them in a trashcan, and then laugh and brag about it, then you just might have just a hint of the outrage that you have caused many good people.
Hoss Gardner wants to hurt the educational system of some mysterious state I've never heard of in retaliation. Read further and you'll discover the irony of that.
You have put y our education institution in the middle of this. So every agency, public and private, that gives to Minnisota University will be informed of your actions and letters of protest will be going to halt all funding. The bureau of Minnisota Tourism and Chamber of Commerce will be notified and a boycot started against the state of minnisota. We will hit you economically every way we can.
And there's more! Hoss keeps sending me email.
I work at a school working with high school students. If I did anything like this and publized it I would be fired for unprofessional behavior.
But beyond that, it seems to me that you are afraid. I noticed on your site that there is a small insert about violent attacks be reported. So its true that the Christian martyrs have and had more guts than atheists. After all you are afraid that now you have insult the Catholics and the Muslims, you might be hurt.
Mainly I'm afraid of the Catholics. The Muslims haven't threatened me at all. But…Hoss works in a school? That is the most frightful thing I've read yet.
This one just calls himself "Al. G.".
hey jew if you got balls say somthing about your jewish backround fag.or the moslems
Well, gosh, I don't think I have any Jewish background — at least not anywhere in the last few centuries. Why are so many of these letter writers calling me Jewish?
At least Ron Peplau is a little more imaginative in his queries.
Your actions are irrational. You must have done this before. Are you a wiccan.
Why, no, Ron! I'm an atheist! Wiccans are kind of silly, don't you think?
I read this one with some concern — I'm happily married, and anyway, I don't really swing that way. Jason really needs to find his own teddy bear and bottom.
Hello, my name is jason Larrimore, I am a 35 year old mechanic from Thomasville, AL. I am a Catholic Christian, I would like to desacrate your fat ass. I know that I shouldn't feel that way, but you are truly ther worst kind of ignorant.Give me a call {if you are man enough} and I will come to you to deliver your ass whipping. 334-410-0611. I'm sure that you won't call, I'm sure that you will know the truth eventually, hopefully sooner than too late. I will pray for you, even though I would really enjoy kicking your ass.
If nothing else, he has a future writing copy for the classified ads section of your local city weekly.
Rick DeLano is more representative — he sends his demands to both me and President Bruininks (who must be heartily sick of all this).
Please be advised that there is a limit beyond which gratuitous, evil and demonic hatred expressed toward Catholics will either be dealt with by the appropriate authorities, as it should have been long ago in this instant case, or else the victims of these hate crimes will have no choice but to defend themselves against the unopposed spread of this blatant, bigoted, Nazi-like hatred.
I strongly urge, advise, and recommend that you fire this bigot and hate criminal NOW, because if you do not, you will have opened the door to something terrible indeed, a return to the religious persecutions and ugly anti-Catholic vandalism for which this country has had plenty of occasion to be ashamed in the past.
If that particular Pandora's Box is opened up how very sorry those authorities will be, who could have intervened with a decent application of existing authoritative guidelines against such evil and vile contempt and bias.
Stop the bigots and haters NOW.
Fire this grotesque blasphemer Myers NOW.
Stop the desecrators of the Catholic eucharist RIGHT NOW.
Or we will have no choice but to conclude that our defense will have to rely upon our own resources.
Most sincerely,
Rick DeLano
Right…Surrender Dorothy, or we'll send in the flying monkeys!
Mr S. K. Kutai is very, very Catholic. And very, very stupid.
so you are a biologist, huh. I presume you are quite acquainted with amoeba; you know the thing that divides and divides and divides without doing the thing that you and your wife do as a bedtime pastime.. no, you don't know why it divides and divides and divides apart from appropriating it some kind of 'intelligence'which it has not. so you see, you are quite stupid on that. Is that all you can be, a stupid biologist? you can't even stop aging. look at your tummy!!!why didn't you learn to be a philosopher? so at least you can understand the associations of words and their effect on society. how much do you love your son. myers? or are you looking at him just as a big blob - a collection of amoeba-like entities? a blob you could abuse to satisfy your animal instinct? given your state of biology-based stupidity, i presume it's not immoral for you to fondle your son to satisfy your penis' needs, huh? afterall you are not on any moral code; you are just a plain professor of biology, someone the world can survive without....just a blob of amoeba - a blob that is hell-bound until your 9th generation..Have you heard of the candle fire at the stadium biblicum ofm in hongkong , myers? I presume not. well that fire is from Jerusalem. it is especially transmitted. do you know about the words of consecration for the consecrated hosts, myers? they are the same words used by Jesus and handed over to Catholic priests through the ages through apostolic succession. and what Jesus wants done, it goes. many martyred their lives to get His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity to the present. don't think a desecration of the Eucharist by you will go unabated. what you did was sacrilegious. you can laugh at what you did, but you have also brought abomination to yourself and your generations to come. you are hell-bound, myers!!! I can only advise you to repent. go to a Catholic priest and confess....or hell shall be your rightful dues. we'll see each other but from oppossite sides of the great divide...I'll raise my hand to remind you, and you'll raise your clenched hand with a grotesque face to acknowledge me but you'll be naked and burning all eaten up by your generations of cursed posterity.
Yeah, my brain hurts too. I hope you didn't strain yourself actually trying to make sense of that.
Dorothy Westermann of Eau Claire is a bit peeved.
Your actions described below indicate you are not fit to be a professor at any institution of learning. Your immature and irrational actions are not only hateful, hurtful and destructive, you should not be allowed access to young people. Your intentional harm to both Christians and Muslims should be punished by jail time, firing from the University staff and social ostracism.
You have used the education, position and privileges you have received in life to spew your bile from a high podium. This makes you also an ingrate and a disgrace to the University of Minnesota.
I other words, I hope you rot. You are not worthy to be called human.
What? I'm not human, but I bet she thinks a blastocyst is!
Just to be fair, let me mention the current tally: somewhere well above 12,000 hate mail messages from religious people, mostly Catholic; two reasonable messages from Catholics who said that while they are unshaken in their faith, they approve of my opposition to cracker idolatry; and zero comments of any kind from admitted Muslims.
I'm afraid that I won't be able to estimate the numbers in the future, now that they're being automatically trashed, but I think it's safe to say that the Catholics have run the scoreboard.
- Log in to post comments
Prof. Myers,
It appears you have been duped. If a consecrated host is nothing more than a cracker for you, then why the dramatics? Where was the science? I would expect rather a variety of material analyses to demonstrate that it remained bread.
Your actions did nothing toward convincing people that there is nothing supernatural. In a way, it demonstrates that there is something to it, even if only a great cultural power, to impassion you. This "cracker" has a hold of you.
Basic to the pursuit of science is the basis that there is knowledge to be had and the universe is not completely known. Science requires a sort of humility fundamental to the act of discovery. When it turns to arrogance it becomes stuck.
I would ask you to consider reading up on the theology regarding the Eucharist and what it actually means. This might help you to understand what is going on here and why the Eucharist has been sacred to Christians for 2000 years and will be for as many years to come.
I know it doesn't make sense to you, but there is rational sense to it. For your own scientific curiousity you should do more research.
When they pierced Christ with a nail at the crucifixion, it was because they wanted to show that He was not who he said He was. It was also because they did not want to accept the type of messiah he said we was as well. Yet that act did nothing to convince the world to their view. On the contrary, it united Christ to the world's suffering. You have demonstrated that the body of Christ, both in the Eucharist as well as the Church, the Body of Christ, is still united in that suffering.
Be the scientist by either pursuing your intellectual interest in this or by disregarding the Eucharist as bread on strictly materialistic grounds with lost interest. The fanfare undermines your talent as well as many of those contributing to this blog.
Like I said. A fine specimen.
Indeed. Let's propose an experiement to test on him. It will be great fun, and perhaps we can establish a hypothesis for further study.
One has to wonder, if there isn't really something to all this Eucharist and transubstantiation stuff after all. It never didn't manage to actually transubstantiate itself into flesh and blood, but it sure has turned a lot of brains into shit.
Of course I meant "experiment". Typo.
Perhaps he is now "Br. Juniper". It's easy to spot trolls at nearly 2 AM ET, since so few other people are on here posting. "Br. Juniper" is similar to "Fr. J", so maybe they're all one sockpuppet.
Ok, hypothesis: "Trolls will stop posting if people stop replying to them." Ready? Everybody follow along, let's see where this goes...
Well, it's lost control of its pseudo-biochromatic elements and is changing camouflage wildly.
Interesting.
I would ask you to consider reading up on the theology regarding the Eucharist and what it actually means. This might help you to understand what is going on here and why the Eucharist has been sacred to Christians for 2000 years and will be for as many years to come.
No it won't be sacred 2000 years to come. It's too stupid!! Thanks though.
I'm not familar with the term "Trolls", but for those Tolkein fans...
"I put before you the one great thing to love on earth: The Blessed Sacrament. There you will find romance, glory, honor, fidelity, and the true way of all your loves on earth, and more than that..." J.R.R. Tolkien
For those of you who don't know, the "Blessed Sacrament" is another term for the Eucharst.
And now it makes some sort of burbling sounds.
Interesting.
#508 -
Any chance of you explaining why you think a quote by a writer of fiction is in any way relevant?
Do you think that enjoying an artist's work means you have to agree with all of their statements and beliefs? Because if that's where you're coming from with that, whew...
Look at it thrash about.
After several minutes, nothing. The specimen apparently has no mind of its own, and only responds to verbal stimuli.
I'm sorry you missed the point.
Have fun with the science. : )
Hm. Wonder if it's sentient enough to seek forage in new pastures.
Though I know that's a bit far-fetched.
I now propose another hypothesis: In an effort to offset the appearance of obsolescence, the specimen will post a random set of gibberish in a last-ditch effort to gain attention. However, now that I've said this, the cunning subject may not post anything at all in an effort to disprove the hypothesis.
Further study is needed.
Oh, well. Conjecture falsified.
I stress that any possibility of sentience was highly speculative.
Yes! The specimen did indeed post a random set of gibberish. What next?
Jeremy, we're sure bored...
Reduced to troll-watching.
Note: The specimen has morphed into a new identity, yet with the same tired argument that has been proven false time and again.
... ah well. Bored now.
Bye, fool.
I think this right here is the most awesomest trolling in the whole damned saga. Especially the last sentence, where the troll feels the need to clarify the term "Blessed Sacrament" for the doubting masses.
The thing I'm wondering now is, in keeping with the rules of the Tolkien universe, if we keep the troll here talking until the sun comes up will it be turned to stone?
Wait... was there a point?
Oh, yes. We sure will :)
There are far more awesome and useful things in science, Horatio, than in your religion.
John: Science isn't always glamorous, sometimes we need to toil away staring at the seeming mediocrity of our test subjects.
I'm heading out soon too, I propose that our specimen will do so as well. Unless, of course, someone else starts to provide them with verbal stimuli on which to react. In the absence of that, the specimen will seek more fertile pastures.
See you on the flipside.
Jeremy: :)
Now morales is talking to himself.
@ 510:
It appears you've not been paying attention.
It all began w/the original story. Had the religious simply behaved as they've been instructed to, it would not've gained such momentum.
(In case you're wondering, I'm referring to that old adage none of you seem to be able to follow, 'turn the other cheek'.)
This is another sad effort @ a back-handed tu quoque. You wanted what? Actual laboratory results for a cracker being a cracker? Most of you hide behind the shield of the unknowable, that being faith, & when pinned down by evidence, claim faith is not to be questioned.
What pray tell, would be the criterion? How is the cracker changed - besides the process of mastication & the inevitable loss of molecules?
Please - do share, or shut up.
The hypothesis has been verified. After numerous minutes of inactivity, the specimen has failed to belch its usual trite, predictable blather! Indeed, it would seem the "troll" is incapable of formulating its own arguments, and depends solely on reactive comments made in response to others!
I'm heading to bed now. Perhaps tomorrow we can repeat this experiment to seek verification or disproof. I do, however, have one final hypothesis. Since the specimen knows its adversaries are all retiring to bed, it may make one last futile effort to reply to this post in an effort to verify its own validity. How will this pan out? I guess I'll find out tomorrow.
We could have told him, and many of us did tell him
I haven't read every comment, of course, but I know a lot of people took the opposite tack and warned of dire consequences in this world. Yet the bullies who threatened Myers have suffered more than he has. The extra traffic will probably benefit him in the long run.
See, Bill Donahue seems to think that fear of jerks like him society should substitute for fear of God, since his God lacks the power or desire to bully people directly. It therefore seems imperative to show others who disagree with his church that here, as with terror of the sky-man, fear is often misplaced.
Stupid non-working strike tags.
The first one is a classic, summing up the names of your family (as if you don't know them) in an effort to scare you you that they know all these things about you, and they might drive by your house and take pictures.
Aren't you TERRIFIED PZ , you cephalophile? Yes.. I know all about your love of the tentacled ones. Be afraid... be very afraid.... MUAHAHA
That phone number is listed under Selma in Alabama, so is it that 'jason' not only is deranged, but also that he 'isn't man enough' to give his real phone number??
I feel lonely after seeing this on /.: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=625181&cid=24328599
someone reply to me just so I know that I'm not alone, in a "Trollcage."
Oh ffs.
Of course someone had to mail you from Alabama. And of course it had to be my bloody home town.
It's his real phone number. The cell phones here are a bit screwy and tend to have numbers ranging for a few hundred miles. He's stupid enough to give his real phone number.
He's some of the trash so common to the area, though usually it's baptists.
I gave him a call. I await my asswhooping with much amusement, but I'm not holding my breath.
Typically the people that like to threaten don't care much for backing it up.
You sometimes get that impression here these days nozzle,very true.
As various clever people before me have pointed out,this has shown me tho what a fringe cult the catholic church is and how deranged and incapable of rational thought its members are.
As Ive said here before,the Pope himself would be embarrassed by the christians that have commented here.
"You guys have are all trying to figure out life by playing guessing games, hosted by the master of delusion himself: PZ Myers.
None of you have an effing clue what life is all about. You just think you know, and make yourselves convincing by interspersing your arguments with psycho-babble in order to impress.
You are a sad lot of wandering, lost souls who possess intelligence but no wisdom"
I was born I will die life is what happens in between.
someone reply to me just so I know that I'm not alone, in a "Trollcage."
Nope, sorry, no-one's seeing the post. Why you been caged I don't know--I haven't been following this thread too closely.
Assuming you are like other trolls, to get out of the cage will be very difficult, but is not impossible. Try thinking, calming down, and moving to the rational world. That doesn't mean abandoning any belief in dogs you may have, but doing so is known to help (with the rational bit, you could still be a troll). There's probably some de-trolling (think de-programming or de-brainwashing) help sites on the 'net that could help?
All of this over a cracker? Still?
So you poked a tiny bit of Jesus. They don't actually believe it IS Jesus, do they? How many crackers are Jesus at any given time?
Looks like Chris at Mixing Memory is after some traffic.
Hi P.Z. sorry for the shitty emails from the belivers, but I think you can make a kickass textbook of them. Just put them all together, bind them in to a book, Give it a good explaining title "The catholic way", "Love is all around us" or just plain "Catholisism explained", and there you go.
MH,
looks like he's a dickhead too.
Ever heard of the PRC? Atheist wonderland where all your dreams of religious intolerance can come true!
@ 543
Talk about trollcages.
Trolls? Trollcages? You people will believe anything!
Wow. I've never used the phrase "demented fuckwits" before, but if ever there were an occasion, your continuing torrents of e-mail would be it. It's remarkable how they all seem absolutely hell-bent on proving your point for you.
Solzhenisyn clearly establishes that millions were slaughtered because of the atheistic motivation to eliminate religion.
______
Religites think that's scary? What is happening at present is even more frightening to you religites--whittling away at the foundation of your pathetic, primitive beliefs through argument, debate, snark, ridicule, and political lobbying. You are finally being confronted and challenged PEACEFULLY for the complete asshattery of which you professed. This time, there is no persecution, just honest, direct calling out on your non-evidence based beliefs.
I don't see what the drama is all about - it's a real stretch to call these e-mails "hate-mail". Apart from the anti-semite and the guy whot wants PZ to rot (which he will do some day so how can you call that hate?) there's no real hatred being spouted. You guys need to get a grip on reality and stop having delusions of persecution.
Ah, the drooling one is back.
Stop with the hatred!
Mr Juniper (I already have a brother), you gabbling limpet! (italicized to give credit to Etha Williams OM whom I think either originated or consistently used that phrase and sadly has not been seen in these parts for a while)
Mr. Juniper writes: You have demonstrated that the body of Christ, both in the Eucharist as well as the Church, the Body of Christ, is still united in that suffering.
______
Yup, that sure sounds like the immoral Cult of Misery (Catholicism). Not only do they rejoice in suffering, they pretend that it is moral to embrace the concept of a scapegoat (and this is for a sin supposedly committed by someone else way back). Two very immoral concepts that no court of law will support (blaming someone else for something they did not do and allowing others to take the punishment for a crime).
And safe words are not even allowed in this cult of misery, unlike in SM practices. If the cult of misery was as savvy as SM, Jesus would have been spared his horrid death.
Logicel,
agree that Etha is sadly missed,she seems rather busy exploring classical music atm.
The term gabbling limpet I believe was coined by Kseniya.
I just find it pretty freaking retarded that Catholics are getting worked up over this stupid cracker, yet they and every other form of Christianity feels they are better than everyone else and that they can condemn someone to "hell" because they have different beliefs. You have no idea how many times my sister gets berated from a Christian because she is a witch and proudly wears her pentacle. Anyway, I think this whole thing is freaking hypocritical on the Catholics part.
I agree. Atheists do that all the time.
@ 554
//You have no idea how many times my sister gets berated from a Christian because she is a witch//
There goes another irony meter !
LOL
I don't believe it. Dram, drama, drama!!
So it has come to pass that the cracker has symbolic meaning for everyone. For Catholics, the body of Christ. For atheists, it symbolizes the stupidest parts of suspended reason. I'm not saying the cracker has any inherent qualities beyond a bland taste and five calories. However, can we all move on now? PZ will continue to get foaming e-mails and if he wants to keep posting them, fine. But to keep making cracker comments (even below posts where crackers aren't relevant) shows you're paying way too much regard to something that requires none.
*Sigh* Again, for the eleventy-first time, but ever hopeful that it is news to some:
Totalitarian states like the Maoist* People's Republic of China and the un-mourned Stalinist USSR merely replace(d) cults of Gods with cults of States. The various forms of Marxism and Nazism, with their received texts, faultless Great Leaders, suppression of free inquiry and press, and fatal dedication to ideologies over reason became state religions as surely as Catholicism in Isabella's Spain, Protestantism in colonial New England, or Islam in the mullahs' Afghanistan. Maoists and Soviets are (or were) not free-thinking, reason-based atheists: they ruthlessly suppress(ed) religion because they hate(ed) the competition. (The Nazis, unique in so many ways, learned to work with a few flavors of Christianity when it suited their purposes; otherwise, well, the rest is history...)
You cannot tell the difference between the former USSR or the current Islamic Republic of Iran any more than the other animals could tell the difference between the men and the pigs at the end of Animal Farm. Blind devotion to a book, a political model, or a man is the same whether the book is the Qur'an, the Bible, Das Kapital, or Mao's Little Red Book; whether the man is a pope, an ayatollah, or a party chairman.
The knock at the door in the middle of the night is the same whether it is by the left hand or the right hand.
* We will see how long their totalitarianism lasts as their economy and borders continue to open up. One hopes the answer is "not very"...
There are few,if any, foaming hate e-mails. It's all about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the alleged "hate-mail" originated with PZ's drones to provide "evidence" for their delusional sense of persecution.
For Anne and anyone else curious, here's a review of "Mere Christianity"
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/books/merechristianity.html
And, preemptively:
No. "Atheism" is not a religion in any way because there is no ideology, no received texts, no Great Leaders or flawless prophets, no orthodoxy, no heterodoxy.
Just... no god.
No idea or person or text is beyond question or examination. Respected, sure, even revered maybe, but only if they have earned it.
Yes, think for yourself, but this is what you should really think!!
It's the Cult of Self-Proclaimed Rationality, without proof thereof.
@ Anne #308
No, you don't really think it, you parrot it. There's a difference.
Untrue. For a start, it's not just your particular idea of a god but all the other specified versions of gods which have already been disproved by the evidence of reality.
Meanwhile, a hypothetical non-specific god is too vague (generally deliberately so) to be open to falsification. However, such a being is also not honestly open to worship either since, by definition, it lacks the necessary specified properties on which to frame any worship. As soon as you claim specific properties for it (eg that it is deserving of and wants to be worshipped and in a specific way) you open the concept up to falsification and to the rather obvious observation that you're only making it all up anyway.
Untrue. That's generally a dishonest, hypocritical and cowardly position - a term used in self-description by those who don't want to apply the demonised label of atheist to themselves, because they would risk much persecution by the many and varied religious zealots running things and sometimes because they've fallen for the falsehoods being told about atheists by theists.
The original concept of an Agnostic was someone who firmly believed god(s) existed but that it/their properties couldn't be known. A modern agnostic is someone who professes to be sitting on the fence over whether gods even exist at all. Yet they don't generally engage in religiously worshipping all gods ever described just in case one or more of them is real. Nor do they really invest a significant part of their time in investigating which of all possible gods might be real. Instead, for all practical everyday purposes, they behave as though no gods exist - as though the preponderance of evidence had adequately settled the question for the time being in favour of there being no gods to concern them. Ie they are atheists in all but name.
Now, should any gods ever bother to suddenly start existing (that self-creation from nothing and nowhere apparently being one of the things to be expected of some flavours of them), we might bother to investigate their claims to the term "god" and, separately, decide whether they are worthy of worship or contempt (the latter option being appropriate for the sort of specific gods that religious people around the world have made up so far). Since no such beings are currently around though, the only rational response is to be atheistic.
As I mentioned elsewhere, the combination which best describes my view-point is agnostic atheist anti-theist.
Moses #439:
Baba @ 564:
Cute!
There is, for me, insufficient proof that there are any beings that I would call a "god." Is there absolutely nothing behind the idea that is behind the idea of what someone else might call a god? I have no idea, but there is not any good evidence that there is such a being.
I used to say that I was an agnostic, but have decided that it was too weasely. I don't know that there is not anything but I do not have one particle of doubt that whatever there might be, it is not the Abrahamic God.
Or Thor.
bgbaysjr, FYI: you're feeding a troll.
@ Anne #328
If you genuinely mean that (despite the smiley face), then more credit to you. Note that you do actually have to think properly about and give due consideration to the import of the words, rather than just read them ritualistically, in order for it to count though. Reading comprehension is a lot more than just mouthing syllables in sequence.
John: I know -- sorry! A moment of weakness that won't happen again...
Thanx!! Have you measured your rationality lately?
Is Scrote some sort of twisted Zen Yogi?
Get your finger out of my 3rd eye asshole.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 27, 2008 12:50 AM
______
Most excellent, I am chortling here like a, well, a v happy person--inner peace and outer peace abounding.
The approach taken by Mr J/Juniper and the other posting religites who lamely substitute rationalizing for rationality have been solidly dismantled by PZs famous The Courtier's Reply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_(blog)#The_Courtier.27s_Reply
Trolls do not exist!!
Re: "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis
It took me quite a while (and I had to google repeatedly rather than look in the expected places such as Project Gutenberg) given the claim that that book is a classic, but I appear to have found an online copy of it - and before that I found an audio fragment retained by the BBC and the information that the "book" was really put together from radio show transcripts. I also found a critical review of it.
The interesting thing about Stikeleather is that not only is he apparently a recent CONVERT to Catholicism (can you imagine that, actually converting *to* that depressing set of beliefs?), but he is working on a PhD in *accounting* at Pitt's Business School. (My atheist daughter goes to Pitt.)
Accounting! Boy, *that* really heals the sick, feeds the hungry (himself, probably), and clothes the naked!
By the way, take a look at an interesting development in Pennsylvania, and don't miss the comment, and click on a closeup of the photo: http://panonbelievers.blogspot.com/
Yes, Shas and Scrote are the same annoyingly supercilious person.
This is comedy gold! Don't drop the soap in Catholic showers, I guess!
Joe M, that's something most people have known for a while now... bending over near a Catholic male is a dangerous sport, and not one you want to undertake without proper protection!
"Is nothing sacred?"
Gahan Wilson comes to mind.
#560
"There are few,if any, foaming hate e-mails. It's all about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It wouldn't surprise me if most of the alleged "hate-mail" originated with PZ's drones to provide "evidence" for their delusional sense of persecution."
Delusion is a truly religious thing....this fiasco has really exposed the reality of jebus and his sunbeams...
Jebus is a construct, he obviously does not have woo woo powers as advertised, otherwise he would have made all the RC's wet dreams come true by now, unless of course he is highly incompetant, which cannot, of course, be ruled out.
As for the homicidal fundie sunbeams, they are just mentally sick bunnies with shit for brains...who obviously enjoy threatening folks, and if that does not work then threaten the families, especially the ones that do not share their point of view on religious claptrap.
Because these little heroes actually misunderstand their own religion...bit like the Muslims that use the koran to justify suicide bombing...that is easy to quantify...
What actually in the Roman Catholic religion sanctifies the use of lies and physical threats against non-believers in their fairy tale version of events?.
There must be something specific there because the RC's have done it since the crusades...and they seem extraordinary proud of it.
That things are made up to con and control the followers, is true of every religion, but because the idiots actually buy the nonsense does not mean it is not made up, by the sexually inadequate socially challenged men they call priests.
Claiming infallibility is just the church covering it's own arse,
and claiming injured innocence and religious intolerance is not a winning hand...not any more...folks are not quite as gullible as they once were.
Thing is... tis far too late to attempt to lie for damage control...the truth is out there.
Fun seeing them squirm though...sad....but fun!
@#355
Interesting, since I regard her as being one of the significantly less despicable of deity concepts. Perhaps that's why she doesn't attract attention these days - she doesn't inspire enough hatred and violence to have actual followers and hence her non-existence doesn't need mentioning. Thor had plenty of violence to attract worshippers (and followers of the Asatru religion do still exist).
Hmm... the idea that "nice gods don't get worshipped" would possibly be worthy of investigation. It would certainly fit in with the psychological basis of religion being fear (as of an abusive parent) and also greed (since the nice god would give you stuff regardless).
CS Lewis, instead of devising a baloney detection kit (a la Carl Sagan), ate the baloney with great gusto, regurgitating slimy, masticated globs of meandering, circular rationalizing while passing it off as some lovely elegantly prepared dinner of rationality that one just can't wait to tuck in. For those equipped with baloney detection kits, we take one look at his mangled reasoning and easily refrain from gobbling it up.
You're foaming! Stop posting PZ hate-mail!
Anne (Comment #340):
That would be nihilism (in ethics) or radical skepticism (in epistemology). Neither is the same as atheism, which is simply the belief (on whatever grounds, and held with whatever degree of confidence) that gods do not exist.
Please learn what a term means before pontificating on it. To do otherwise risks embarrassment.
So...that's what "Christians" really mean when they say they will pray for you? Hmm, learn something new everyday.
If anyone wishes to see only this:
install both Greasemonkey [for firefox] and killfile and you can make it happen.
There's something quite cathartic about not feeding the trolls.
Clinteas, thanks for the info about Etha OM--glad to hear that she is enjoying herself and working hard for something she wants. Ah, so it was clever Kseniya OM who coined the supremely wonderful descriptive, gabbling limpet.
And I am ever so chuffed that that an upper court in OZ ruled against those unconstitutional prior rules pertaining to the Papal nut's visit.
Baba, you gabbling limpet!
I've read Lewis' Mere Christianity.
That work is an excellent example of the difference between being intelligent and being articulate. Lewis was a skilled writer, but his arguments are still nothing more than wishful thinking to support his emotional position.
-jcr
SEF @ 581:
I am always glad to see the "religious believers as abused children" meme repeated. I mean, if most iterations of God the Father were a real father, Child Protective Services would have taken us away...
And bless Amaterasu's heart: Too good for her own good, or at least, for her continued worship... thanks for the image! What little I know about Japanese religion attitudes seems almost... reasonable. As I recall, some aspects of life are attended to with Shinto rites (especially marriage and birth), others with Buddhist rites (especially death), but very few of the Japanese people I know (I live in Honolulu) seem to take much of it literally.
@#370
Yes, C.S.Lewis himself (and anyone who falls for it) has to be rather stupid, insane or dishonest to omit the obvious "or fictional character" from that set of options. There would have been lots of real people called Jesus or similar back then (as now) but none matching the actual claims made.
In the Snow White account, the evil stepmother who claimed to consult a magic mirror also has to have been a lunatic, liar or a witch-queen (the equivalent of "lord" in the magic-using sense as well as matching the royalty sense) as long as you carefully omit the rather obvious option of "fictional character".
the wafer rose above the water, and Jesus appeared.
So, you can re-hydrate Jesus by boiling a cracker?
Well, why doesn't the church just do THAT every sunday? How could anyone remain a skeptic in the face of such a demonstration?
I put saltines in my chicken soup from time to time, but all they do is get soggy.
-jcr
Re "lunatic, liar or Lord":
I always wondered why "nice guy, wildly lied about" was also not an option. It is sad, how small some people's world is...
Limpets have vocal chords! You're irrational.
Like the fictional characters that are posting PZ hate-mail?
Brother Juniper, you wrote:
I would ask you to consider reading up on the theology regarding the Eucharist and what it actually means.
and I would recommend that you in turn read Dr. Myers' description of the Courtier's Reply.
-jcr
Yummy! I'm skeptical that you can prove the exiestence of your rationality.
Anne's equating atheism with not believing in anything is a common fallacy. Like many atheists, I embrace, accept, hold special many aspects of living and being a human.
Supporters of religious superstitions need to be able to recognize that atheists are not for the most part nihilists. And even more importantly, they themselves, if they accepted the existence of a personal god that created you for a purpose and is able to watch your every move and monitor every thought and emotion as being highly improbable, they can also as well live happy and meaningful lives.
Excerpted from The God Delusion, p 1:
I suspect - well, I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy in it, don't believe it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name; people who feel vague yearnings to leave their parents' religion and wish they could, but just don't realize that leaving is an option. If you are one of them, this book is for you. It is intended to raise consciousness - raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is an realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
Like Peter Singer. Heil!
Pretty sure Baba's just joking around, so it seems more like he's doing, I don't know, "gentle trolling" or something?
Better than the real trolls or, saints preserve us, the people who actually believe the fairy tales.
Limpets have vocal chords! You're irrational.
Posted by: Baba
_____
Here's a crumb of knowledge for you my dear trollish godsoaked baba (I certainly prefer the rum-soaked variety):
Another dictionary definition for limpet is one that clings persistently. Referring to your religiously superstitious ilk as limpets is metaphorical, we are not under the delusion that you are a marine gastropod mollusk.
I suspect Buba, um.... Baba, is 12, although it's entirely possible he's any age and just has a shrunken brain. In any event, it's clear he's fishing for reaction. Pure troll.
And I just fed him a morsel. Dammit. :(
OctoberMermaid, a troll is a troll is a troll and baba's raison d'etre on these threads is to ply a short-and-sour version of tu quoque.
Here's a crumb of knowledge for you my dear trollish godsoaked baba (I certainly prefer the rum-soaked variety):
I love it when you talk dirty! Please say something rational, show me it's true!
Better than the real trolls or, saints preserve us, the people who actually believe the fairy tales.
How dare you! I am a real troll!
@#479
Untrue - but a lie often repeated by the relevant religious people for all its well documented falsity:
commandments of Bible vs Solon
Treaty with Tripoli
a lawyer comments
UnSAnians got their ideas of law largely from the UK (despite the occasion being one of rejecting UK royalty) and the UK law was in turn largely based on Roman law (something which certainly used to be taught in Law School in the UK) and the Romans in turn got many ideas from the ancient Greeks. Plus there's always been a certain amount of the blindingly obvious to such things, which thus went into Common Law as well as into religions as those were invented (even though they dishonestly pretended ownership of the ideas afterwards).
Buba? That's my brother. He's 12, I'm 5. But I admire your critical thinking skills.
More coooookies!!! God Bless.
Very well then. If he's a real troll, if we cut him into bits he should regenerate in 7 days (according to the 1977 edition of the AD&D Monster Manual)
Let the disemvoweling begin.
anthropic, because of your user id, I wonder if you have read, or if you have not read, perhaps it would behoove you to hunt down the July/August issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact and delight in a science fact article on the anthropic principle in addition to a clever short story titled: The Challenge of the Anthrophic Universe, both penned by the physicist, Carl Frederick.
Second paragraph of the following link gives a summary of the articles:
http://www.analogsf.com/0807_8/issue_07_8.shtml
PZ,
You list Stupidity as an offense punishable by tossing into the dungeon. Also, Sockpuppetry. Hasn't Baba shown enough of both t get tossed?
Don't feed the Babeller... the BaBABAboozlaer... the drooling Baba...
Don't babies call their pacifiers babas?
Just kidding, trolls don't exist - you guys will believe anything!
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
*throws Baba into a pit full of angry cobras*
"So, you can re-hydrate Jesus by boiling a cracker?"
That reminds me of an old gag gift: "Dehydrated water. Instructions: empty tin into bowl of water, stir and enjoy."
Steve_C,
Install greasemonkey for firefox.
This has been a reminder. :)
baba is probably that intuition-addicted, anti-intellectual shaz/scote sock puppet.
While it isn't a water tight test by far, I'm fairly sure that the reactions from this religious group has gone towards confirming Dawkins' conclusion that adhering to religious dogma is hurtful for ones mind. I would thank them for their willing cooperation if I wasn't so disgusted by them.
Say, what would be a current description of their utter failure to resemble sanity? CrackerGate, al-Qracker attacks, ... ?
I'm happy I live in Scandinavia, where most of the people don't go batshit crazy over stupid superstitions. Following this string of events is interesting, but I'm getting kinda worried about the state of the States. It's good to know there are loads of rational people there, though.
Logicel at 614,
Yeah, I had the same thought. The stupid is almost identical.
@ raven #493
Since they're not really genetic groupings as such, perhaps it should be called secticide. Then mass killing within one's own religous cult would be insecticide. ;-)
What, here??? I've seen no evidence.
I sensed that you would say something like that.
Trollcage!!!
Baba, I'm starting to think you truly derive some sort of satisfaction out of your inane comments.
I'm thinking of starting an atheist church. We'll all gather together (preferrably someplace where they have a liquor license) and come up with catchy phrases to piss off the non-unbelievers like "Hate the belief; love the believer" and "I'll think for you."
Similarly for proof of rationality; profess atheism, become obnoxious, adhere to blog of the most pompously self-proclaimed rationalists, pretend to know more about the religions you hate than you actually do, adopt policy of totalitarian intolerance, et voila!! You're rational!!!!
Or, simply proclaim it without providing proof.
About time! No, I don't believe you.
How about this......"renounce your religion or we'll put you in the gulag"?
#501
They did not pierce Jesus' hands to prove he could bleed. That was simply the way the Roman's dealt with criminals. See:
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/sleeman/Story/rcrucify.htm
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
or just google "roman crucifixion" and read.
This is really a form of projection, which is performed by religions ad nauseam. Meaning is added to things that had nothing to do with the meaning being added.
Nice try.
Regards,
David
The only church I've found that comes close to backing up their claims:
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
btw, I love greasemonkey and the killfile. I recommend them. I'm too old to exhaust myself feeding hungry trolls. Sleep well in your cage babatroll.
"How about this......"renounce your religion or we'll put you in the gulag"?"
Ah, another willing to evince his lack of understanding for history, and the real machinations behind what happened.
Yet another person who doesn't get it.
I will post one quick note before I head off to a meeting.
For those who think Anne (the theist one) is a nice person who plans to stick around and and have genuinely productive conversations...give it some time.
What you mistakenly see as politeness is someone being unbelievably arrogant and condescending. Her *politeness* is not a respect for your views, it is a reflection of a lofty position (in her mind), of a superior being lowering themselves to talk to the lost and evil creatures that live beneath her. She does not interact with you because she cares about you, she interacts with you to reinforce her delusion that she is morally superior.
If she chooses to stay, the veil will drop soon and you will see that she is exactly like Lily. (who knows, she may even be Lily.)
A closed mind is a dead mind.
*sigh*
Baba, Baba, Baba.
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2007/07/doggerel-114-communists.h…
In the tradition of Dawkins, Harris et al.
Reveal more, Oh Great Seer!!
Here's a fun game: list the logical fallacies Baba commits.
"In the tradition of Dawkins, Harris et al."
Projection.
"A closed mind is a dead mind."
Doggerel #4, "Closed-minded".
http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/05/doggerel-4-closed-minded…
Let me think... umm... No. You're free to go on practicing your silly beliefs (and we're free to go on ridiculing them).
Gulag? Oh, I get it. *groan*
The old "Stalin was an atheist!" cannard doesn't work until you can demonstrate where Stalin killed anyone in the name of atheism. What atheist doctrine compels its followers to commit murder in order to achieve a stated goal? And please don't say Darwinism because what Stalin did violated the concept of natural selection. "Natural" being the key word here.
Stalin had a mustache. Hitler had a mustache. I can just as equally declare that they killed millions in the name of their respective mustaches.
Besides, I doubt seriously whether my church would consider using, "Hitlter was a Catholic/Christian." Unlike you, we don't wish to replace our secular government with one that would allow such things. It must really chaff your ass not having a theocracy.
CS Lewis "lunatic, liar or Lord"
What about "misunderstood, mythologized or made-up"?
And with the gulag comment, baba has laid on the last straw to break the camel's back. After trudging through innumerable trolls of all shapes, creeds, and levels of idiocy, I finally can't take it any more. My greasemonkey has a new script. Now I just see lovely "blocked" comments everywhere I look. Buh-bye, baba!
So there's an argument going on over whether it is a wafer or a cracker? Well that makes a big difference, whether you are a Wafer Worshipper, or just a Cracker Caresser.
NOW peace is with me. Thanks for nothing, Jebus.
Baba:
I get you now. It is oh, so hilarious to incite reactions from people. Here's one comment for you that is on the same level as you operate on: You are a poopy-head.
I know you'll have a snarky comeback on the level of intellect of the comment and I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but hey, everyone has got to eat.
I forgive you.
Times a thousand.(or more if needed)
What? What?What?
Transcript from CA (Cathoholics Anonymous)
Fr.J: Hi, my name is Father John and I'm a Cathoholic.
Group: Hi, Father John.
Fr.J: I'm not a real Father, in the same way Little John wasn't little. But. I'm here because I have a wafer problem...
Group: sighs...preach it brother..
Fr.J: It all started when I was a baby and they washed my brain in the first Sacrament, the baptism. Every since then I've been addicted to wafers, wine, and guilty masturbation.
Group: We've all been there...(laughing)..
Fr.J: It got worse, I'd go to chat rooms and atheist websites to preach the word, but I was mocked just like my Savior in Luke 22:63. I would try to witness to them but they were wicked and cursed me. They would ask me questions that I tried to answer, just like is says in 1 Pet. 3:15 but I could not answer them faithfully....I was not equipped.
Sandi: I know that's right...I tried myself to...(Interrupted)...
Fr.J: Shut the fuck up Sandi, it's my turn, besides 1 Cor 14:34 says "women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says" and again in 1 Tim 2:12 it says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." So learn your place woman!!!
Sandi: But..I...
Fr.J. and Group: Shut up!
Fr.J: Ok, where was I...Oh yes, I like wafers...wine...choir b...err...singing...and the internets...
To be continued...
Bo-bo-bo Bo Bo-bo-bo!
say whaaaaat?
I just installed Greasemonkey and the Killfile script. One click and it's bye-bye Baba.
Cool extension. Thanks for the recommendation!
{sigh} I love Firefox.
Baba:
Your Shas is showing.
Until your next trip to the dungeon, Baba, meet killfile. Killfile, meet Baba. I'm sure you two will get along swimmingly.
"Impotent fist-waving" sounds vaguely masturbatory, and nothing at all like the important fist-waving you've been doing since crackergate commenced.
*love you*
Damn. We need to make better use of that IRC channel (#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net) or set a new one up like on Dalnet.
So is this university going to fully investigate Crackergate? Round up all of the evil-doers. It's kind of expected with the new attitude:
Political Correctness: Bad; Dogmatic Correctness: Good.
MH@645 - Me too. doesn't the tread look better!
#589:
There does seem to be some to be some who seriously believe at least some aspects of Shinto, whether or not they take the particular legends seriously. And in the 40's, there were quite a few people willing to die for Shinto. Even suicide-bombers, the kamikaze!
However, one thing I find interesting is this: http://www.isejingu.or.jp/english/myth/myth1.htm
From the official website of the Grande Shrine of Ise, the most important shrine to Amaterasu. I find it fascinating how objectively they describe the myths - using that very word! - that their faith is based on, and the social context behind those beliefs! Imagine if the Vatican described their own beliefs in such terms!
Dear Professor Myers, I am a Catholic Christian and have been reading your various blog entries regarding your hatred and contempt for my religion and for its beliefs. First, I'd like to say that I respect that you have the right to believe or not to believe as you choose. I am, however, wondering why you are spending so much time and energy writing about something which you obviously do not believe to be true. You have mentioned how this is so unimportant to you. If it is, why spend so much time writing about it and with such hatred in your writing? I have to admit that there are many writings from other religions which I do not believe to be true or sacred. In light of this, I wouldn't request that my readers or friends send me some of these books so that I could make a point of publicly destroying them. It's one thing to write articles which try to clearly explain your beliefs and to explain objections to other beliefs. There are ways to do this with kindness and with courtesy, but your posts resort to immature namecalling and insults. I don't subscribe to atheism and I could attempt to demonstrate why such a belief is false, but I would do so with charity and without hurling insults at you or other atheists. Has the Catholic Church done something to you to deserve such insults and hatred?
Admit it - Stalin was just as capable rational thought as you.
Brilliant. And, yes, Stalin vicerally knew game theory, too.
What a stupid thing to claim as nobody with even the slightest shred of awareness could make that claim. BTW, honey, your bigot-slip is showing.
And download a spellchecker. Jesus.
Dear Professor Myers, I am a Catholic Christian and have been reading your various blog entries regarding your hatred and contempt for my religion and for its beliefs. First, I'd like to say that I respect that you have the right to believe or not to believe as you choose. I am, however, wondering why you are spending so much time and energy writing about something which you obviously do not believe to be true. You have mentioned how this is so unimportant to you. If it is, why spend so much time writing about it and with such hatred in your writing? I have to admit that there are many writings from other religions which I do not believe to be true or sacred. In light of this, I wouldn't request that my readers or friends send me some of these books so that I could make a point of publicly destroying them. It's one thing to write articles which try to clearly explain your beliefs and to explain objections to other beliefs. There are ways to do this with kindness and with courtesy, but your posts resort to immature namecalling and insults. I don't subscribe to atheism and I could attempt to demonstrate why such a belief is false, but I would do so with charity and without hurling insults at you or other atheists. Has the Catholic Church done something to you to deserve such insults and hatred?
Sacred Cows Make the Best Burgers! ;-)
At #82 "My roommates and I prank called poor Jason. He's a dumb instinctive dude, but one of us did a chat with him and he's a bit remorseful and feels kinda stupid for what he did.
I'm pissed at my roommate for letting him know his phone number had been posted - I was gonna call as a collections agent.
Posted by: Andrew | July 26, 2008 4:47 PM "
The link to Andrew's page is reported as an attack site by FireFox.
Of course - this is precisely what the Catholic Church has limited itself to for the past several centuries. You would never dream of shaping laws to promote or enforce your beliefs about sexuality, reproduction, marriage, child-rearing, education,..., or, like, becoming the official state religion. You're the Sara Lee Baked-Goods Appreciation Society!
Go for it, David! It's too early for a drinking game, but I'm dying to test my speed at locating your arguments in the list JeffreyD linked to @ #336.
As I was explaining / hypothesising earlier, I doubt that they could ever do so.
The key thing about Amaterasu is that she's a nice god who bestows her goodness indiscriminately and without badness. So no believers feel at all pressured to make other people believe in her lest she stop bestowing goodness onto themselves and neither in her continuing lack of existence do they feel pressured to do any bad stuff on her behalf. The people who believe in nasty, violent, vengeful gods (such as the Jewish-Christian-Muslim versions) are stuck with having to proselytise, persecute and retaliate against other people out of fear combined with inevitable recognition that their god isn't around doing those things itself despite their religion's claims.
One sees the same pathological behaviour among groups of bullies - whether at school or in the military or similar enforcers within evil regimes. The followers are nasty to those they believe the bosses would want attacked, lest they incur the wrath of the boss themselves on his return. The boss doesn't have to be a real person for this mentality to apply. They're still going to behave as fearful and abused abusers.
Baby the Wonder Troll Writes:
Just for others on this board, because I couldn't give a shit less about Baba, but his short, whiny post is about as inept as it comes as a put-down.
Baba doesn't know that religion is, and foreign missionaries are, tolerated there. Heck, my neighbor's ex-husband ran-away to China to be a missionary, leaving her with three kids and a single-parent income because "God called him."
Man, she's bitter.
Anyway, back to his EPIC FAIL of a point, there are about 600 million Buddhists in China. About 400 million Taoists. But these populations massively over-lap because most are both as the doctrines are NOT incompatible.
There are about 50 million Christians. There are 20 million Muslims. Heck, even the Hindus are represented and they just built their first temple in Foshan. And there are Jews there, too.
So, for those who think China is religiously intolerant, I'd suggest getting out of your mother's basement more often and finding out how the world really works. And not from your current propaganda sources which are, if you believe this idiocy, ignorant or liars or both.
BTW, China is still predominantly atheist with 59% of the population being non-religious/atheist. And, oddly, it has a lower poverty rate (8%) than the United States which runs between 12% and 16% at anyone time.
Kind of a fucked-up indictment of this "Christian Nation" isn't it? We're like 12th to 20th at anyone time. Yet, as a first-world nation WE ARE BY AND FAR THE MOST CHRISTIAN.
Yet we suck at the very ministry of Jesus - taking care of the poor, downtrodden and despised. What a plague this religion has become on our race.
I don't really understand the mentality behind this act. It seems to have a been motivated by a spirit of meanness, mockery and contempt that doesn't seem worthy of a scientist and educator.
I am planning on a day of prayer and fasting on August 6th, in reparation for this act. I ask fellow Catholics to join me..
Peace+
We all have a vested interest in seeing that immoral behavior is suppressed. The response of many Catholics to the actions regarding the cracker are an example (imo) of a behavior that should be suppressed. The immoral actions of the student are a pittance in comparison to the response of many Catholics.
In any event, pointing out that it is only a cracker is not congruent with insults and hatred. To get an idea of what does constituted insult and hatred, read any one of the emails PZ posted.
David #655
You obviously haven't been reading the comments that much, because this question has been answered numerous times. The threat of a desecration started out more or less as an off-the-cuff comment. It was facetious and rhetorical in nature. It only became serious when PZ saw the "mass lunacy" that his "threat" created. At that point he decided that he couldn't just let it drop.
The brainwashing of superstitious people needs to be challenged.
Not the Catholic Church per se. It has been eerily silent on the whole issue. But PZ has received dozens of death threats and over 12,000 emails, many of them hateful, and has witnessed an organized campaign, led by Bill Donohue and the Catholic League, to discredit him and get him fired from his job. And that was all before the desecration took place.
All that said, I have yet to see him attack Catholics themselves. He continues to criticize their beliefs and their reasoning abilities.
Dan:
you're right, you don't understand the mentality of it. read the original blog posts in order for a more full comprehension of why all this happened.
wrong place to ask.
It appears that Dan never got the memo. The entire month of August has been dedicated to prayers, masses, abstinence, etc. to get PZ to convert to Catholicism.
Comment by Baba blocked. [unkill][show comment]
oh god sweet peace at last.
You guys believe everything you're told? The examples that pasted were far from hateful. Stop trying to act persecuted.
You must be a moron. 17% of China's population lives on less than $1/day.
You're dishonestly splitting hairs if you think Myers wanted only to disparage Catholic beliefs and not Catholic believers (i.e., Catholic people). If so, he would have written a scholarly, polite little discourse on how Catholic AND OTHER Christian beliefs are not logical. He didn't do that. Instead, with great adolescent glee, he bent over backwards to insult Catholic people. As the kindly and mature professor said, "I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker." If you've read Myers' rants and diatribes on this website, he's insulted Catholic people over and over again--not just their beliefs in some scholarly, polite, dispassionate way, but Catholic people. It was his intention to offend Catholics and cause great pain, and if you think he was just challenging us all to critique Catholic beliefs, then you're either hopelessly naive or just plain stupid. Hence, my analogy to Judaism previously was precisely on point. I'll reprint it here: "Black Wolf (#245). You're absolutely right, so let's start attacking Jewish beliefs. Have somebody steal a Jewish Torah and hand it to Myers. Myers can then rip the Torah and place it in a trash bin with a side of ham... Then, post the photo on the website. No bigotry there, right pal? Let's go for it! I can hardly await your response. Let me guess...Catholics aren't the same as Jews. It's not bigotry to bash Catholics, but it is to bash Jews. No logic.
Oh, and for anyone who calls me a bigot and says I actually want to bash Jews, let me acquint you with the word "analogy." I'm taking another religious group and substituting it for Catholics to illustrate a point. Duh.
Sandi @ 668:
NO ONE IS STEALING ANYTHING! Where did this "stealing" idea come from? Taking a cheap mass-produced piece of bread given to you by a priest and just leaving with it instead of eating it is NOT the same as breaking into a synagogue and stealing an expensive torah scroll. The first is a breach of etiquette, the second is breaking and entering, and theft. Not to mention, the congregants of said synagogue would have legitimate reason to fear for their safety if such an event took place, as such behavior is often associated with violent anti-Semetic groups.
Baba is our anti-truth-machine. Same style of a flurry of meaningless one-liners that amount to "nuh-uh!" with a snotty demeanor, except from the "loving" Christian end of the spectrum.
'course, Baba Loonie can't defend any of his assertions.
Sandi @ 669:
I don't think anyone here would've accused you of being an anti-semite for that reason. We're smart enough to understand the concept of analogy. We just think that your analogy is worthless. Torahs are not cheap mass-produced items given away at synagogue services
Paperhand at 668: You're just pulling my leg, right? I mean, you don't actually believe what you wrote, right? Myers asked someone to steal him a Eucharistic wafer. If you're not a Catholic, and if you don't intend to consume the wafer immediately, but, rather, you intend to mail it to Myers so he can desecrate it, then it's stealing. Breaking and entering isn't necessary--we're not talking about sending anyone to jail. It's not bread to us, pal. It's the body of Christ, and that's more valuable to us then a Torah would be to a Jew, as they don't consider the Torah to be God. And I didn't say anything about breaking into a synagogue. Like Myers, we could call on someone to abscond with one. Anyway, it was just an analogy, which of course is lost on a blockhead like you.
What I'm finding interesting is that all this outrage over the Eucharist really seems to me to show idolatry. You're not supposed to be worshiping the physical things representing a religion or figure. All the texts say to worship God....not the statues, not the building you pray in, and certainly not the Eucharist.
From the phrase, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's" one is supposed to learn what is actually God's is a person's soul and mind. Physical things belong to the physical world.
The people who are either worshiping the Eucharist and/or sending threats are the ones going to hell.
----Ex-Catholic
Au contraire, Jews are an ethnic group, not simply a religion. It is bigotry to bash Jewish ethnicity, Mexicans, blacks, or women because they can't control their ethnicity, nationality, skin-colour, or gender. It is not bigotry to bash Catholics or Jewish religious beliefs, because those are ideas freely chosen by the individuals who choose them. Indeed, the Torah is regularly bashed here when the Exodus is held up to ridicule as the fiction that it is, and Yahweh is ridiculed as the petty, evil, genocidal, misogynist, maniac fucktard god that he is.
If you don't like having your beliefs ridiculed, you should avoid believing ridiculous things.
Sandi vomited- "It was his intention to offend Catholics and cause great pain, and if you think he was just challenging us all to critique Catholic beliefs, then you're either hopelessly naive or just plain stupid."
Epic wrong. He was exercising his free speech rights. If you're insulted, too bad. The goal wasn't to make you "feel bad", it was to show EVERYONE ELSE that the reaction by the "good gentle catholics" at UCF campus ministries and the catholic league was extreme and unwarranted. It makes you look bad.
And that's really what's bothering you. Tough.
Try two.
Sandi, Lily, FrJ, Baba or some other catholic apologist as the main players seem to avoid the issue
Is catholic church innocent of wrong doings?
SC at #658, who said it is too early for a drinking game? It is after 5...somewhere.
Ciao
He does that every other day. In THIS case, though, Catholics were threatening to have two students expelled from their University over a wafer. These students are still at risk of being expelled, as a matter of fact. So why take on other Christians, at this particular time?
In general, PZ goes against all sorts of religious belief. Even this time, the wafer is nailed to a Quran, isn't it?
Also, I don't understand why you would feel vindicated if yet another religion were debased. Shouldn't you be turning the other cheek, instead of pointing at someone else to receive the treatment you have? That's what
I remember from my Catholic upbringing, but I may be wrong.
How do you choose what something is? We can certainly differ on what a thing represents, since all symbols are ultimately arbitrary, but we don't all get to choose the physical reality of things.
You wouldn't accept this Neo-Platonic nonsense about anything else in life. You wouldn't, for instance, accept being paid for your work with a handful of beans, no matter how much your employer insisted they had the true substance of U.S. hundred-dollar bills. Why the double standard?
Now, don't beg off answering the question by claiming I don't understand the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Nature of the Eucharist. I was Catholic once. I understand it. It's just nonsense, that's all.
Sandi, take a deep breath and calm down a little. First, quit asking for special considerations. By that, I mean that because you are upset, we have to do something about your upset. That won't happen, even in a polite society, because there are certain upsets you just have to learn to deal with as part of growing up. This is one of them. We do not have to give special consideration to the Catholic church and its members no matter how much they are upset. Second, quit saying that PZ just makes fun of Catholics. He makes fun of all religions. Failure to acknowledge this makes you a liar and bullshitter. Third, some Catholics have written stupid thing to PZ and threatened him. You have two choices here. Either condemn those threats as unchristian, or agree with them. Fourth, what is your real reason for you continuing to post here? I don't think you know why you do. But before you can explain it to us, you have to explain it to yourself.
So...if they're going to pray for PZ and he's going to hell, doesn't that mean they know prayers are ineffective?
Anyway, it was just an analogy, which of course is lost on a blockhead like you.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fresh_thread.php#comment-101…
#682- Nah. They're praying for him to GO to hell.
Sandi Said
Now if you went back to the post in question
PZ said
Here is a hint Sandi, score doesn't equal steal. The cracker is given away to those who walk to the rail, there is not theft involved. In the other examples you throw out, the item in question is not something that is given away. So now a question for you. Are you just not real smart, or are you lying for Jesus again?
Sand @ 673:
I understand analogy. I just think your analogy is stupid. If someone wanted to buy a torah, and then desecrate it, that would be their own business. I think it'd be stupid to waste the money, but that's all. Or if some rabbi chose to give a torah away (I seriously doubt any rabbi *would*, of course), then the person who received it could desecrate it if they wished, and I would never accuse them of theft.
The host is JUST a piece of bread. Just because you're under the delusion that it's human flesh that happens to look and taste like bread doesn't mean that it really is.
This is in response to the assertion above that religious liberty in the U.S. Constitution is somehow the result of Judeo-Christian philosophy (so, all of those religious wars... didn't happen? Weren't properly philosophical?).
A while back, when I was researching early Colonial American attitudes towards religion and religious freedom, I found an interesting source: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties. Which does indeed prescribe certain rights and liberties to all.
But it has an... interesting section under "Capital Laws":
And that's before the laws that declare murder to be a capital crime. The original also has footnotes that cite the relevant biblical verses that the laws derive from.
Yeah, that's real supportive of religious liberty, there...
Then, by definition (yours anyway!), it (a) can't be stealing and (b) means you're a cannibal with a side-order of necrophilia.
You, Sandi, are dishonest or an ill-educated idiot or, very probably, both.
jason larrymore, well hes rather scary isnt he.
as a mechanic hes going to be hairy and oily, as a catholic hes also going to avoid using a condom to desecrate an unwilling ass.
oh dear: oily mechanic pummeling ass bareback.
and jason isnt actually homosexual?? he needs to be careful as he just might be getting a lot of phonecalls that he didnt want!
Everyone, really. Does anyone here think that by this point Sandi is going to suddenly become amenable to reason? Will Baba ever post a complete thought?
We waste our energies and eat up bandwidth dealing with those who have proven themselves impervious to coherent thought. If either of these people showed the capacity to mend their arguments in accordance with new information then I'd praise us all for the good conversation. But, really, there is no evidence of its existence before, and no evidence that it is going to appear in the future.
Sandi is a troll. Not as asinine as Baba, as she actually seems to believe the nonsense she spouts, but a troll nonetheless. Let them both die from lack of attention. There are real issues being dealt with on this blog. Like Sagan's video on nuclear weapons for example.
So many sharp intellects would be better spent there.
(how the fuck did I get on this soap box? Where the hell do these things come from? Sneaky little bastards...)
Michael @ 690:
You're right. I shouldn't be wasting my time with Sandi. SIWOTI syndrome again ...
My soap comes in packets. I don't recall seeing it in boxes - unless you count the old plastic ice-cream tub in which I store it after purchase. I can't quite see that being of much use in oration though. Or is walloping someone over the head a legitimate rhetorical tactic in those situations?
One more thing: As others above, I seriously doubt the number given by the ass-desecrating Christian is his own.
Just found your blog and love it. I am sorry the nutters are coming out of the woodwork for your piercing of a frigging cracker and some paper with a nail. I have been an athiest all my life - THANK YOU MOM!!! for giving me the best advice every - question everything....
I will be visiting again so thanks you have a brilliant mind for sure....even more scare is the thought of muslims wanting to take over the world and make everyone convert...scary scary scary.
Welcome Janice. Feel free to jump in any time. Sometimes the best fun is to sit back with popcorn and your favorite libation and watch the action.
When dealing with Sandi, keep this post handy:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/i_get_email_20.php#comment-1…
As for me, I've shoved her into the killfile, where she and Baba can commune.
I'm all out of popcorn. Care to throw some over here?
Welcome Janice. I wouldn't worry too much about the muslims, they don't seem to be too bothered about this latest kerfuffle (I like that word!)
I know. When are these people going to get it that Stalin killed in the name of atheism?
We're not actually in your computer.
The day after you acknowledge he killed in the name of power.
Baba do you work for Fox News?
You seem to believe, as they do, that if you repeat a falsehood enough times it suddenly becomes true.
Are you Baba O'reilly?
No, you first!
Never heard of him.
This morning, when I poured milk in my coffee, it assumed the shape of Mary and the Baby Jesus. But it was just clouds in my coffee, clouds in my coffee and YOU'RE SO VAIN!!!!!!
You probably think this comment's about you!
Speaking of desecrating the torah, I recently stumbled across the profession of "faith" that Jews had to make when converting to Christianity, post-Constantine. At some point, Jewish Christianity became an oxymoron — you were either one, or the other, and you could not be both, and this separation was enforced:
And when searching for the above, I found a whole page of similar professions and statements:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/jewish-oaths.html
And I was reminded, on seeing the edge.org article about disgust cited @#420, of this particular phrase in one of the oaths: "I promise that I will never return to the vomit of Jewish superstition" and "With absolute sincerity, as I have said in my profession, I have abjured all Jewish rites and observances, and with my whole heart shall believe in the Holy Trinity, never returning in any way to the vomit of my former error, or associating with the wicked Jews."
The separation of Judaism and Christianity was enforced by associating beliefs and practices with something literally disgusting. This is how anti-Judaism was absorbed into Christianity and reinforced by the numerically dominant Christians. And this is almost certainly what eventually lead to the massacres of Jews, including that of Berlitz in 1243 for the alleged crime of desecrating the host, and the blood libels, and the pogroms, and eventually, the Holocaust.
The roots of all religious beliefs are in the awe and wonder of the sacred, yet the sacred is indistinguishable from superstition and primitive taboo. And the disgust and outrage at the violation of that which is taboo; of that which is sacred, can lead to violent outrage, and even the willingness to kill and die for the sake of the sacred.
They told you their names??!!
701:
We won't be fooled again!
Baba, stop shifting the burden of proof already.
*YOU* MADE THE CLAIM, *YOU* HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR IT.
And just to make sure...
*attaches the burden of proof onto Baba's back with superglue, nails, duct tape and 12 pounds of twine*
I'm going to bring up #698
"When are these people going to get it that Stalin killed in the name of atheism?"
until you can back it up with facts instead of rhetoric.
Out here in the blogs
Every post I will clog
I waste time for a living
I refuse to fight
To prove I'm right
I hope one day I can be forgiven
-Baba O'reilly
Nonsense. Where's the proof?
Babasense. Where's the Baba?
Who?
Who's next!
I'm speechless!!!
Baba?
I'm babaless!!!
I'm Babaless!!!
Yay!!!!!
Yup. Judging from the batshit insanity that's cropped up during Crackergate, I've no doubt that if there were lots of towns in the US that were 95%+ Catholic, there would have been riots, looting, arson, and so on in at least one of them, just as we saw in some parts of the Muslim world over the Jyllands Posten cartoons.
When a person gets deeply emotionally invested in a belief that lacks any basis in reality, no reaction is disproportionate: the emotion invested in the belief doesn't have to be proportionate to anything real. Sending death threats over a peanut is insane, but if it's a magic, sacred peanut, then the reaction of the believer is proportionate only to their own emotional commitment to the magicness and sacredness, which may be bizarrely inflated to the point where a peanut is more important than a life in the mind of the true believer.
Babay!!!!!
Baba's best!!
I am surprised that people still ask what stops atheists from raping women. My father went to a catholic school on the east coast, however, he was the only atheist there. At one point, a catholic asked him, "what stops you from raping women?" My father was very surprised that someone had to ask him this. This was the late 1960s, not a time without law. The person went on to say that the only thing that kept him from raping women, was the fear of God. My father was rather pleased that something was stopping this man from raping, although belief in a mystical higher power hasn't stopped other people from doing similar actions.
I was shocked when my father told me about this incident, and I am shocked even more, that this still goes on. I was one of the few who was raised without religion. I tried various religion, but never catholicism because I had learned enough about them to think that they were nuts. It seems I was right.
I am now with someone whose family is entirely catholic, so at least one of them thinks we're going to hell. No question about it. When we actually get married, we are going to have to keep it as close to a religious wedding, so that they realize that we're human, and not all that different.
I think what some of the religious people need to realize, is that atheists have been persecuted for a very long time. We have always been seen as different, as if we think we are better than everyone else because we don't need to redeem ourselves in the eyes of some big cosmic guy. Growing up with that was a bit rough. People didn't see other religions as bad, as they saw atheists as bad. There have been cases of atheist groups starting on university campuses, and then being shut down because they did not allow people of other faiths to join. However, catholic groups are strong.
I am not out to sling mud. I think what PZ did was simply to prove a point that a cracker is a cracker. The point has been proven. It is best to move on. And no, don't go screaming that he is not tolerant of religions, because religions are not tolerant of us. It is a two way street.
Nostradamus lives!!!
Cortx Vortx @ #671,
That comparison is unfair to tm, and appears to contradict itself.
I'm....in...tears..that was beautiful....you should write for the Enquirer.
I was honestly amused by the suggestion that it shows you that you made many 'good people' upset, if you get violent hate mail.
Doesn't it rather show that you made some really bad, violent, horrible people upset?
Good people wouldn't send such mail.
Trin #722,
When Richard Dawkins did his book tour for The God Delusion, he did an interview on a radio call-in show. One of the callers said pretty much the same thing as the Catholic in your father's story. Dawkins's "stock answer" is that fear of divine retribution is a piss-poor reason for moral behaviour. The presenter picked up on that and pressed the caller, who ultimately admitted that the only thing that kept him from murdering his neighbour was the belief that he would go to hell for it.
Sad but true. I've heard the show: there's an MP3 of it online somewhere.
I always thought that guy was a bullshitter.
I'm....in...Babas..that was Babaful....You should Baba for the Babuirer.
Ever watch a dog visit your back yard? He'll lift his hind leg and piss a drop or two at every spot where he finds a scent message. I'd say Baba provides the strongest evidence yet for reincarnation.
The mail wasn't hateful. That's a fanciful exaggeration. Please people, get a grip.
The Baba wasn't Babaful. That's a Babaful Baberation. Please people, get a Baba.
Don't try to disguise your fetish for watching dogs pee as scientific enquiry.
No the email was fair and balanced!
Don't Baba to Baba your Babish for bashing babas baba as babantific babuiry.
No the baba was babair and babalanced!!
Baba agrees!
"Baba (goddess) or Bau, a Sumerian goddess depicted with the head of a dog"
Oh how appropriate.
I get to Pharyngula through IE. Is there any way I can get rid of troll posts? Or blow by them, or not see tham on my screen? How did you guys get rid of He-who-will-not-be-named?
Baba? Baba? I'm sure he's around here somewhere, I just can't see him.
Lee #739,
To preserve your own sanity: use Firefox, install the Greasemonkey user scripts extension, then install the 'killfile' script. You can then kill the comments from the loons -- it greatly increases the S/N ratio.
Morality because of fear of retribution is pretty piss-poor basis for morality. It's the same as a five year old not stealing cookies from the cookie jar because Mommy will spank him if he does. I can think of much better reasons, even religious reasons, to be moral besides "be a good boy or girl or else the boogyman'll get ya."
PZ, how often do you read Normal Bob Smith? You guys should organize a hate-mail exchange.
Lee #739 "I get to Pharyngula through IE. Is there any way I can get rid of troll posts?"
I don't think so, Lee, but if you swap over to Firefox, you can also download AdBlockPlus which will get rid of all adverts too.
Now, where's Baba? Is she hiding in the same place as Sandie?
When I look at PZ's tummy, I see the Virgin Mary. THE VIRGIN MARY!
Chew on that, ya crackers.
This Stikeleather wackaloon should probably be reported. Asking "what if your wife and children" is one thing, but specifically naming them moves beyond rhetoric toward threat.
Anne Nonymous said:
Hi Anne - we appear to be in the same boat!
Jaga, the trolls will not answer direct questions. They have no answers so they ignore those kinds of questions. I have asked them numerous times to offer proof that Atheists have a creed that somehow connects us to Stalin...crickets chirped. Wowbanger asked about fifty times for one of them to offer opinions on the policy of the catholic church to protect pedophiles and actively thwart law enforcement...crickets chirped. You have asked your direct question many times... crickets chirped.
The best thing we can do is to refuse to dialog with the defective specimens. They will undoubtedly throw a huge tantrum, but eventually they will go away.
I'm sure they will create new names and start the game over again in an attempt to get more attention, but perhaps we can shorten the time we waste on their antics by compiling a list of well thought out posts and keep posting that each time a new troll shows up. Something along the lines of "Please read posts so and so", and refuse further discussion. We have refuted every rediculous argument they've raised, time and time again. I for one am tired of repeating myself.
#666
I love that your post *is* #666.
Regards,
David
That's the standard of intelligence of your enemies, PZ? You're a lucky guy...
It needs to be said:
It was cowardly and reprehensible when anonymous posters posted the Myers family's personal information. It's equally cowardly and reprehensible to post the personal information of his detractors.
Sorry I left for a little while, folks. I got tired of trying to have a rational, intellectual debate with you people and decided to debate with the brick wall outside. You know what? The brick wall actually came up with better arguments than you did!! Maybe I'll convert to the "Church of the Atheist Brick Walls." I've had enough of the illogical loony bin, so you guys can just "talk amongst yourselves" now. Catch you the next time Myers blasphemes God and attacks people of good will.
I do so love the blocking software, the Greasemonkey user scripts extension and the 'killfile' script. I had been concerned that blocking people would make the thread hard to follow. Oddly enough, blocking Sandi, Baba and a few others makes the thread even easier to follow. I highly recommend this to all.
Ciao
"I got tired of trying to have a rational, intellectual debate with you people and decided to debate with the brick wall outside."
It would certainly have been more of an evenly-matched discussion.
"When are these people going to get it that Stalin killed in the name of atheism?"
Still waiting for the evidence for that claim, Baba.
Tum te tum...
Buh-bye Sandi. And fer christ's sake will ya take "baba" with you?
I encourage this course of action. I mean, you're certainly a brick wall, and you believe far more in yourself than in God.
Reminds me of someone... I wonder who?
#739 Lee Picton, unlike some programs, IE and Firefox will happily co-exist on your computer.
Isn't is wonderful when you demand trolls answer direct questions before you will engage in further dialog and they then storm off? It's an effective technique and one we should use more often. Do not respond to their idiotic posts but instead ask a probing and direct question and refuse to talk further until they give an answer.
Once it's clear that they are refusing to answer direct questions, they huff and puff, claim YOU are being a brick wall, and they trounce off in a blustery hissy fit. I so love it!
It's all about control folks. Once they loose the ability to manipulate you into endless, useless dialog they vanish.
@ JoJo #742
That's because religious people are mentally, educationally, morally and emotionally retarded. The more religious (in that unthinking, by-rote, goddidit, faith-based way of theirs) the more retarded. Religions mis-label mental vices as virtues.
It's a reinforcing feedback loop because religion may preferentially attract and select for some of the worst sorts of people anyway and then it makes them worse than they were, by actively encouraging the insanitary mental habits which will keep them religious and make them more easily manipulated by those who are similarly attracted to be in charge of such sheeple. Religious groups form a convenient ready-made gang for a psychopath to have.
Rayven,
It's equally amusing when they just as loudly announce that they're back. It's rather remniscent of a six-year-old loudly announcing that they're running away, going around the corner, waiting five minutes, and then returning because nobody came hunting for them.
Posted by Sandi @ #673:
"It's not bread to us, pal. It's the body of Christ, and that's more valuable to us then a Torah would be to a Jew, as they don't consider the Torah to be God."
Dear Sandi, I guess you didn't get the memos. When was the last time you checked your 'In-Box'?
From: God
To: DingoDave
Cc: Sandi
Subject: Idols
-Lev.19
[4] Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.
-Lev.26
[1] "You shall make for yourselves no idols and erect no graven image or pillar, and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land, to bow down to them; for I am the LORD your God.
[30] And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the dead bodies of your idols; and my soul will abhor you.
-Deut.32
[21] They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their idols. So I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no people;
-2Kgs.17
[12] and they served idols, of which the LORD had said to them, "You shall not do this."
-Ps.97
[7] All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.
-Isa.2
[8] Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made.
-Isa.44
[9] All who make idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit; their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame.
-Isa.57
[13] When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver you! The wind will carry them off, a breath will take them away.
-Jer.10
[5] Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good."
[8] They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction of idols is but wood!
[14] Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.
Jer.16
[18] And I will doubly recompense their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have filled my inheritance with their abominations."
-Ezek.6
[4] Your altars shall become desolate, and your incense altars shall be broken; and I will cast down your slain before your idols.
[5] And I will lay the dead bodies of the people of Israel before their idols; and I will scatter your bones round about your altars.
[6] Wherever you dwell your cities shall be waste and your high places ruined, so that your altars will be waste and ruined, your idols broken and destroyed, your incense altars cut down, and your works wiped out.
-Ezek.14
[3] "Son of man, these men have taken their idols into their hearts, and set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their faces; should I let myself be inquired of at all by them?
[6] "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: Repent and turn away from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.
-Ezek.22
[4] You have become guilty by the blood which you have shed, and defiled by the idols which you have made; and you have brought your day near, the appointed time of your years has come. Therefore I have made you a reproach to the nations, and a mocking to all the countries.
-Ezek.33
[25] Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: You eat flesh with the blood, and lift up your eyes to your idols, and shed blood; shall you then possess the land?
-Ezek.36
[25] I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
-Hos.11
[2] The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Ba'als (Lords), and burning incense to idols.
-Jonah.2
[8] Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their true loyalty.
-Mic.1
[7] All her images shall be beaten to pieces, all her hires shall be burned with fire, and all her idols I will lay waste; for from the hire of a harlot she gathered them, and to the hire of a harlot they shall return.
-Hab.2
[18] What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies? For the workman trusts in his own creation when he makes dumb idols!
-Zech.13
[2] "And on that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more; and also I will remove from the land the
prophets and the unclean spirit.
-1Cor.10
[14] Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
-1John.5
[21] Little children, keep yourselves from idols.
This message and any attachments may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message would you please delete the message and any attachments and advise the sender.
This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressees named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify me immediately.
Any views expressed in this message are those of God except where the sender expressly and with authority states them to be the views of men .
I am planning on a day of prayer and fasting on August 6th, in reparation for this act.
I'll offset your day of prayer and fasting with a day of BBQ, beer, and fornication. Have a good one! I sure will.
Dr. Myers Beware - Another Psychotic Christian Strikes Again! This time they are trying to kill their young rather than molest them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25872864/
updated 1 hour, 32 minutes ago
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. - A man wielding a shotgun entered a church and opened fire as congregants watched a youth performance Sunday, killing one person and injuring eight others, Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen said.
Police said the gunman was taken into custody. They didn't immediately release his name. No children were injured. A hospital spokeswoman said five of the wounded were in critical condition.
Owen said the man killed was Greg McKendry, 60, a longtime church member and usher...
Sick bastards -
On another note: It is just a fracking cracker, morons.
This may turn out to be a rather funny comment. I am wondering, although I haven't fully investigated, if Sandi and Baba might be one in the same. Do their posts overlap, or do they tend to post a bunch of posts, then disappear and the other one pops up posting a bunch of posts? I did notice that they sometimes vanish for long periods of time at the same time. (I didn't word that well, but you know what I mean.)
Since Sandi huffed off I haven't seen a post by Baba either. Kind of odd. Perhaps they both had to go some place at the same time. It may be coincidence though, and they both left just to go to evening church.
Rayven,
Yes, I noticed that as well. It's another reason I began to wonder if she's Baba. It's as though she feels a need to explain why she was absent to throw us off the trail. It may be as you mentioned though, a "Look at me, look at me, I'm back" thingy.
The trolls are always so similar though, that even if they aren't the same person, they might as well be.
'Church of the Atheist Brick Walls'.... thanks Sandi! I've been trying to think of a fitting name for my atheist church I'm building out back, and your's is just perfect!
Rayven at #764, I think you may just have something there about Sandi and Baba being the same person.
When are these people going to get it that Stalin killed in the name of atheism?
I kill in the name of whatever is convenient and offer no proof or justification.
What about you?
There seems to be a few posters who aren't just feeding the trolls, they're taking the trolls out for a three course meal followed by brandy, coffees, cigars and then inviting them back to their place for an evening of mutual masturbation.
also in the news: It happens that a car door, a 10 year old girl, a bible, a Sunday school book and a watermelon, in that order will stop a stray bullet. Who do you suppose is getting the credit? If you answered the car door or the girl, you don't know xians.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25710198/
Being in the same time-zone could account for a lot of that sort of thing though. I've noticed certain non-trolls also appear and disappear at about the same time as each other. Yet there's no good reason to suppose various of those are really the same person.
Sandi,
since you seem incapable of comprehending sophisticated explanations for what bigotry is, and why attacking catholic beliefs is different from attacking people, I'll simplify it for you.
There are such things as ex-catholics, aren't there? Of course there are - many. Now, what you need to do is show me an ex-ethnic-Jew. Or an ex-African-American (Michael Jackson still identifies, BTW, so you can't claim him). Or an ex-Latino.
What's that? You can't? Why's that? Is that because ethnicity isn't a choice? It's not based on beliefs one chooses to hold?
Do you get it now?
Oh, and as for the ridiculous 'destroying a Torah' analogy - remind me: what happens to the cracker when it's given to you? Is it taken home and put in a safe place, protected and revered?
No. It's eaten and destroyed. I'll write it again: eaten and destroyed. Whether it releases Jebons™ into your bloodstream or not.
When you can show me that part of any Judaistic religious ceremony involves Torahs being given to people to be destroyed as part of that ceremony, you might have an analogy.
To be fair, the watermelon is getting partial credit.
#768 Blind Squirrel FCD
10 year old girls don't do too well stopping bullets even when they have gone through the car door. The true miracle is that it didn't kill her outright. The rest of the fluff is just just that.
jorge666 @772
No, a true miracle would be if an angel of the lord appeared in full regalia and caught the bullet before it hit the girl, and then vanished in a puff of pleasant smelling purple smoke. Lilac would be nice. Otherwise, I would tend to interpret the affair as blind dumb luck.
Did I really expect an answer to the question? I suppose not. It is simple question but answers are not easily forthcoming without a tirade of excuses which one is not allowed to use in defense of any other concept but theirs.
Then to the oh, so battered and bruised equus that all animal protection groups would hang us if the afore mentioned equus would not be already dead.
Have atheists killed people, yes. In the name of the atheism? Well, I do not know. I have heard urban legends of such killings but verifiable killings in the name of atheism are just about as rare as people who are able to hold their convictions unchanged from birth to the day of their death.
Has churches been the cause of death for people? Well, Athanase Seromba organized the killing of 1500 Tutsis in the 1994. In the name of catholic church? Probably not but when a priest, regardless of denomination orchestrates such a massacre, one always wonders why a priest would do it? How he rationaled it and was the promised salvation after some regret in confessional booth one of the reasons allowing such a horrible deed?
"No. It's eaten and destroyed. I'll write it again: eaten and destroyed."
Well, to be more specific, it's broken down into carbohydrates and monosacchirides.
#773 Blind Squirrel FCD
Come to think of it, this really should be the "Miracle of the Watermelon". After all it was the watermelon that stopped the bullet. We should find out which farm the melon came from. From here on all melons coming from that farm should be Holy Watermelons! Maybe we should replace armour plate with this Holy Watermelon. It would be cheaper, but then again it would probably result in just 'holey watermelon'.
To: Pharangula (PZ) and his acolates who are the freethinkers of godlessness and followers of the deceiving father of lies: Behold I bring you good news.
The Kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it." Mt.13:45-46
Freethinkers, recognize that Jesus Christ is the True Pearl of great price. Only He can't be bought with money, but with a circumcision of the heart.
Freethinkers, Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light.
Jesus is the Pearl of everlasting life and value.
He suffered, was beaten, spit upon, dragged through the streets, crowned with thorns and nailed to a cross for you and me. Also, too raised to life in a Ressurection that screams through the centuries - Jesus is Alive!
The father of lies detests this and is using freethinkers like you to further his debauchery. Guess who Won!
Jesus IS Alive!
Jesus is the Pearl of great price, offered to
All Freethinkers (pharangula-type, PZ and acolates),
who choose as freethinkers to believe by their own accord and given Free Will, (a God given gift to you).
Chose this day whom you will serve!
Jesus Christ is your Savior!
May you find the Truth-that you shall know the Truth and it shall set you free.
Post more of these! They're comedy gold.
If you posted their email addresses, things could really get jiggy.
Dear PZ,
Over at Andrew Sullivan's blog, one of his readers defends you;
»
Dissent Of The Day
26 Jul 2008 07:30 pm
By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
I feel that there is one point about the Myers affair which is not being made clearly and often enough: that is, Myers was not merely attempting to provoke the ire of Catholics. Out of context, what Myers did with the cracker - I am among those who believes that's all it is - may seem strange, unnecessary, even hateful. Were he simply desecrating a religious symbol for the sake of desecrating a religious symbol, perhaps a case could be reasonably made that he was crossing a line. (Though, and I think you would agree, it would still not be reasonable to attempt to have him fired, to make threats against him, and make threats against his family - all of which Catholics have done in response.)
However, in context, Myers' actions are entirely justified, and quite appropriate to the situation.
Remember, Myers did not simply wake up one day and decide that he wanted to provoke Catholics. Rather, he was reacting in an entirely reasonable way to an absurd situation. Poor Webster Cook, whose crime was nothing greater than failing to ingest his wafer, was put through hell for what he did. He received threats of violence and threats against his life, and he now faces censure, even expulsion from his university. And it is against the backdrop of this mindless bigotry and fanaticism that Myers decided he had to act. He was not acting out of bigotry, but in response to it. His point is one that needed to be made - simply put, that Catholics (and Muslims, and Jews, and Hindus, and any other faction, sect or group) do not have the right to impose their views on the rest of us, particularly those of us who find such views utterly irreconcilable with the facts of the world in which we live, and choose to say so. Had those Catholic fanatics simply left that poor kid alone, I guarantee you that it would never have even occurred to Myers to do what he did. But they didn't leave him alone; they insisted on demonstrating just how little progress Catholicism has actually made - and Myers was happy to point this out. The simple fact that they tried to tell him he's not allowed to do what he did is reason enough for him to do it. There's a say, "Any book worth burning is a book worth reading." The same principle applies here: any speech that is banned is speech that must be said, and any expression (provided it's non-violent) not permitted is an expression which must be made - simply to make the point that this is a free society, and such restrictions cannot be allowed to stand.
That bears repeating: this is not the middle east; this is not the middle ages. This is a free society. And in a free society, there exists no right to not be offended. If the Catholic church can get away with desecrating what others consider sacred (or, for those of us who have no concept of sacredness, at least special) - if they can call a loving union between two gay men or women an "abomination", if they can call the union into which I hope to enter someday a "perversion", then damn it, I reserve the right to desecrate what they consider sacred also. Respect is a two-way street - if they want my respect, they must give me theirs. If they want Myers to respect them, they must also respect him (and Mr. Cook for that matter). But this is something of which religion in general seems incapable - they always want respect, but reserve the right to give none in return.
Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It!
@ Theresa #777
And then the silly man starved because all he had was an utterly useless bauble of symbolic value over which he inappropriately gloated, forsaking all things of true merit. While the conman who had sold him the false idol lived smugly ever after in the lap of luxury, breeding and raising more of his own dishonest kind.
jagannath,
I don't think any amount of evidence is going to convince believers that Stalin (or Mao or whoever), despite being an atheist, didn't do what he did to further the interests of atheism. It's too complicated.
Similarly, I don't think we get much value from pointing out the number of quotes, photos and 'Gott Mitt Uns' badges we produce to show that Hitler certainly exhibited, at least some of the time, a leaning to christianity. The only help that is to us is that being christian is no barrier to moral failings - which the christians admit anyway, despite it undermining the argument about the benefits of believing.
Neither of them are around to be asked what they 'really believed' - and even if they had been asked, I wouldn't trust what either of them said; they were both, on their best days, paranoid and delusional.
What I want to ask the believers when this comes up is 'how does the fact that both Hitler and Stalin (religious or atheist notwithstanding) were able to do what they did, help you to believe there's a kind, loving and all-powerful being who will help you in times of need?'
It's the same with paedophile priests. For me, it's not so much about the church covering it up; it's about the ridiculous notion that an all-powerful, omniscient, benevolent deity would let those who were charged with 'tending to his flock' commit those unforgiveable acts.
Oh I love the GreaseMonkey add on. Sandi and Baba... gone!
No, I'm not.
No, I'm not.
Ow. Do you have to remind me?
Believe me, it wasn't for you, or for anyone else alive today.
No, I wasn't.
PS: If I had been, it would be spelled "Resurrection".
No, it doesn't, because I'm not.
No, he finds the whole business amusing. Because it's not true, and people fought wars and committed massacres over it.
No, I'm not.
No, I most certainly, absolutely, am not.
And in all sincerity, I wish the same for you.
Hey, Theresa, I know you godbots love scripture, so here's one for you: Malachi 2:3.
See if you can read that with a straight face.
Since your Wholly Babble (Levicticus 11:19, 11, 12) says that eating shellfish is an abomination, I guess it would be bad form to bring clam dip to communion . . . . .
Sondra, that was (to whoever wrote it) well said.
And was that Theresa chic mormon? So much talk about 'pearls of great price' and all. I wasn't expecting one of them in all this Catholic insanity. I don't even know where to begin when talking with most mormons. I get lost right at the beginning when I reflect on the fact that it's simply christianity with some really silly ideas attached to it. I tend to either burst into laughter or my mouth hangs open as I shake my head.
It is my opinion that some religious people think Atheism is the cause of horrors committed by Stalin etc...because in their twisted minds, Atheism is linked to Satan. They believe Satan sways us to forsake their imaginary friend, and therefor Atheism is part of a *plan* to overthrow the world.
They simply cannot think in a rational manner and see how fucking absurd that thought is. In their minds EVERYTHING is an epic battle between gawdfairy and Satan. We don't believe in godfairies, therefor we must be part of Satan's plan. Since they personalize evil in the form of a Satan, and think of all things without gawdfairy worship as part of satan's plan, they then think there must be some kind of philosophy, creed, and plan to Atheism.
They will never comprehend us because they simply don't want to. Some Christians get it, I know many who DO get it, but a certain type of religious person,(the brain dead),simply cannot grasp rational thought. We waste our time interacting with them.
Hey Theresa, you look and sound just like a crazy, dirty street bum who walks up to you shouting nonsense. Or a Halloween witch mumbling arcane curses. Do you not understand yet that your magic words and fantasies are not real? You soon will.
Shut up Sandi, you ignorant slut.
As a christian woman, you are property and chattel of a man. You cannot follow in good faith the sacred word of gawd and post here. PZ is a teacher and a man. YOU are ordered to be silent by your own bible.
Shut up, show us what a good faithful christian you are.
1 Timothy 2:11 - 14.
Just for curiosity's sake, what was Pearl's price?
Come on, don't pull that 'why do you ignore what it says about the value and place of women/shellfish/clothes of mixed fibre/pi=3/divorce/polygamy/pacifism/etc. in the bible?' trick the atheists love so much.
True Christians™ know that, as soon as you accept jesus into your heart, you get to ignore any of the bible verses (his included) that don't fit conveniently into your worldview.
Otherwise all that christians who genuinely adhered to jesus' teachings could do about someone who did something mean to them is a) forgive, b) think about their own sins, and c) pray.
Does that sound like many christians we (and PZ) have heard from in the last few weeks?
#789 - JoJo - Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it. Matthew 13:46
Sorry, Theresa @ 777. It's not news; we know all about it, and have for a long time. And it's not true...
OK. Let me reword that: it may be true that you believe it, but your belief only demonstrates that you are credulous at best. It is not evidence. In fact, frankly, it is the opposite of evidence: "if the wackaloons believe it, it is going to take a lot more evidence than they've provided so far for me to accept it as valid."
As an aside, one of my favorite "arguments" has always been when Christiopaths bleat "but if the Bible is not true, that would mean that we are... are wrong!"
Theresa:
Ugh. I repeat: Please stop butchering the English language.
Anyone else:
Circumcision of the heart? Short of a cracker performing open-heart surgery on me, I have no idea what this blathering twat means by it...
Actually JoJo, Pearl wasn't too demanding. All she needed was a nice car and a pack of zig zags and she'd go with just about anyone. But up comes this guy offering "all he has" and well, Pearl knows a sucker when she sees one. The rest as they say is: mostly made up fable with little credible evidence.
At best, the listing of misdeeds of atheists is an argument that life without god means a guaranteed moral deficieny.
Unfortunately, since we know that atheists can - and do - perform good deeds, and those who believe in god can - and do - perform evil deeds, this argument holds about as much water as the average tennis racket.
I have just installed GreaseMonkey and the KillFile. I have done the click and drag on Sandi. But nothing happened. What have I done wrong?
Paper Hand at 561:
Yes! But when it didn't work, and the Emperor declared that he was not a god, that aspect of the faith seems to have withered. Not gone, but much reduced. My sample is only a couple of dozen people, mostly under 50, but while the rites are still important for social cohesion, that is about it. They dance at O-Bon, but don't think there are any ghosts visiting. (PS: thanks for the link!)
There is perhaps another way, then, away from the binary absolutism -- "you are on our side or the devil's side" -- that Rayven talks about in #786.
Janine - refresh the post page, and there should be options next to each person's name in their comment that say "[kill]" and "[hide comment]". I didn't realize it was dynamic on the page until I refreshed it after having it installed and the greasemonkey on and smiling.
#777 - Theresa - Shut the fuck up.
1 Timothy 2:11 - 14
You christian women do not behave in a manner in keeping with scripture.
Thank You, Carlie. I now see [kill] and [hide comment]. This is going to help what little sanity I still have.
Oops! Sorry, bad example: O-Bon is Buddhist, not Shinto. The attitude was what I was getting at, though.
It's a phrase that goes back to the Old Testament, which established that males had to have circumcised penes in order to be a member of the covenant with God. Of course, lacking a bit of penisskin did not necessarily mean that they would behave the way that God said they should, so someone with an "uncircumcised heart" might have a penis that was properly trimmed, but was misbehaving otherwise.
And the concept, I see, made it into the New Testament as well.
"... circumcision of the heart."
"We are washed in the Blood of the Lamb."
"... and the Host BLED!!1!"
Christiopaths do love their blood play, don't they?
I'm still getting way too much repetitive crap, though.
The experience you are describing is "deja moo". As in, "I've seen this BS before". HTH. HAND.
And, I should add, the phrase "uncircumcised heart" is used in conjunction with "stiff neck", as in proud and stubborn. So the actual call to circumcise your heart is to make yourself humble.
Oh, and I recently read an archeological analysis which suggested that circumcision was originally used as a method of marking slaves, like a brand, so circumcision may have either been something that was co-opted by the (presumed) slave people that became the Children of Israel as a tribal recognition sign, or was used to indicate that they were all equally slaves of God, or both. Again, note the association of being humbled or of humble station with being circumcised.
This has been your religio-speak translation of the day.
The Catholics could solve this problem permanently, and on their own terms, merely by declaring that the Eucharist miracle is temporary; the wafer reverts to being a mere cracker when the ceremony ends. It's all nonsense anyhow, I'm not sure why they haven't settled on this convenient form of nonsense by now.
Though of course to a professional offendee like Donohue, the present nonsense is convenient.
Scarification rituals exist amonst many cultures - is there anything that indicates how far back (pre-pre-Judaism) the act of circumcision goes?
At the moment i'm thinking it might have been instigated at a time when their society was more matriarchal. Why would any males think that doing that to that particular body part would be a good idea?
#790 - Wowbagger - Good point. The bible belters really hate it when we quote their stupidity back to them.
I've always wondered why Adam & Eve, in christian art, have navels? They are creations of gawd - not born of anyone.... They can't answer you, it's all lies and they are cowards.
Owlmirror:
Thanks for the explanation! That is, as bgbaysjr says, disturbing imagery typical of religious texts.
Owlmirror, thanks, but does that mean that when I was circumcised as a wee hatchling 50 years ago... they did it to make me God's bitch? Oh, man...
I see Theresa did another drive by. She hasn't realized yet that her mental diarrhea should go in the toilet like regular diarrhea. Theresa, if you stop by again, why don't you say something that make is sounds like you actually have a brain that works, rather than repeating your religious instruction for the day. That makes you sound like you have an IQ of 50.
"Shut up Sandi, you ignorant slut.
As a christian woman, you are property and chattel of a man. You cannot follow in good faith the sacred word of gawd and post here. PZ is a teacher and a man. YOU are ordered to be silent by your own bible.
Shut up, show us what a good faithful christian you are.
1 Timothy 2:11 - 14."
OMG! You're right! Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Um, would someone mind punching my cunt again? I found I rather enjoyed that.
bad example: O-Bon is Buddhist, not Shinto.
Back when we broke Japan's isolation, the people who took over in the name of the Emperor (removing the Shogun) decided to create a "pure" Japanese form of Shinto without all these foreign Buddhist influences. Of course they focused on the divinity of their mascot the Emperor. Now that people ignore that bit, they seem to have gone back to the authentic Japanese practice of taking whatever seems good to them and not worrying where it came from.
Patricia, #808
It's all just evidence of the kind of rationalisations christians have to make. God gives them moral superiority, but because they're human so they still sin. God is all-loving and just, but he doesn't stop natural disasters or other bad things happening to good people. God gave us free will but will punish us for doing things he doesn't like.
I don't know how people can accept that.
Adam and Eve are shown having navels? That is weird. Just like Jesus (and the other biblical characters) in Western art are almost always very fair-skinned with brown/light-brown hair and blue eyes. Not exactly representative of the semitic people.
Thanks, hf! Nice reminder how cultures grow and change (both "top-down" and "bottom-up") in response to changing conditions.
Sort of reminds me of something, but I cannot for the life of me think what...
OMG! You're right! Thanks for pointing that out to me.
Um, would someone mind punching my cunt again? I found I rather enjoyed that.
Sorry, Sandi, your god's rules, not ours. Don't get all bent out of shape just because your god hates women.
(the slut line, however, was from SNL)
The circumcision thing:
Gen. 17:10, Exo. 4:25, Exo. 12:48, Josh 5:2, Luke 1: 59 - 64, Luke 2:21, Acts 16:3, Gal. 5:2, OF THE HEART - Deut. 10:16, Col. 2:11, Rom. 2:28, 29.
Christ on a cracker -
10:16 - Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
Is there a doctor in the house? Do I have a foreskin on my heart?
Um, would someone mind punching my cunt again? I found I rather enjoyed that.
You're welcome, you pathetic whining little fool.
Wow. The Christian love just keeps on cummin', doesn't it? I didn't get to comment on the Great Desecration thread, because I was trying to read all the comments before I posted one myself. Bad strategy.
It amazes me how many people still just don't get it!
And I dunno if this Baba troll is a guy. I'm called "Baba" by the little boy I used to babysit, and I know other women called Baba as a substitute word for grandmother. I kinda feel like Anne and Lily (the rational ones), even though I don't use Baba as my screen name here.
Sandi,
"Um, would someone mind punching my cunt again? I found I rather enjoyed that."
You dirty girl. Um, for clarity, is that above or below your neck? I went to an Abstinence-only Catholic school so I'm a little slow in the sex dept.
Fr.J
@#820, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wowbagger @ 814, it is as if the poor bastards think, "My daddy loves me and can do anything but sometimes i am bad so he kicks my ass and every time he does he says he loves me but that he has to kick my ass because i am so bad but i... i don't always know what it is i did wrong but i know that he loves me because feeds me most of the time and lets me live in his house and sometimes he gives me presents but when he doesn't it is because i am bad and it is because he wants me to be good."
Breaks. Your. Heart.
Oh, and the whole "did Adam and Eve have navels" thing was a huge controversy back in the day. That is why they sometimes were shown with a branch or their hands over their midsection.
Sandi - No one here is punching your 'cunt'.
I am simply pointing out to you the stupidity and slave mentality of your faith.
If you like suffering in silence, cursed child bearing, and being chattel, hey cool - go for it.
But not me!
Your bible, your sacred laws, shut the fuck up. Or, burn in hell.
Re: Theresa @ 777,
No, more like a cheap cultured pearl that is produced by inserting an irritant into the mantle of an oyster. Sort of like inserting a religious meme into a mind. Apparently many people of religious persuasion seem to have intellectual capabilities on par with your typical bivalve. They metaphorically take the irritating truth and wrap it in many layers of polished irrationality so they no longer have to deal with hard truths of reality. One can only wish that they would just clam up.
Sondra #779
But this is something of which religion in general seems incapable - they always want respect, but reserve the right to give none in return.
Amen
It's just a crazy, you fucking asshole. People snap, they do stupid shit like that.
As for the Church it was a Unitarian-Universalist Church. You know, the church where 16% of its members are atheists. Where they don't believe that Jesus was divine. Where all religions, and those who have none, are accepted. Where social justice, support of equality and support of the rights of man (gay, straight or transgendered) are pillars of the community.
Seriously, that Church group is likely as, or more, progressive than the average of the "liberal" members of this blog. Yet, out of complete fucking ignorance, you've got to open your mouth project some bullshit of your own to make a point. Drop dead, fuck wad.
Here's the part you left off:
The church, like many other Unitarian Universalist churches, promotes progressive social work, such as desegregation and fighting for the rights of women and gays. The Knoxville congregation has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.
You're as bad as the Catholic Trolls. All balls, no brains.
Patricia at 817:
Is there a doctor in the house? Do I have a foreskin on my heart?
Well, you have a little sack (sort of) that your heart lives in called the pericardium. Mine got inflamed once (who knew the flu could do that) and it put me in the hospital. There was never any talk about removing it, though, but it never got very bad.
The Aztecs might have been experimenting with cardiac circumcision for religious, but the priests burned their books (as usual) so we don't know...
(I am a terrible typist, but when I first typed "preasts" in the line above, I thought is was a gift from doG.)
Michael X @ # 269: ... criticizing the Jewish religion? But, don't worry. They'll commit some oppressive act soon enough and we'll be there to criticize it.
Depends on your definitions of "Jewish" and "oppressive", doesn't it?
"... cardiac circumcision for religious reasons..." @ 827
David #652 writes: I am, however, wondering why you are spending so much time and energy writing about something which you obviously do not believe to be true. You have mentioned how this is so unimportant to you. If it is, why spend so much time writing about it and with such hatred in your writing?
____
Religious beliefs are personally unimportant to atheists, however, the existence of religious beliefs and their corresponding institutions with their exemption from criticism, corruption, scrutiny, taxes, etc., is one giant meaty topic that us atheists will continue discuss/debate/confront/challenge until changes are made. The free ride that religion has been on is and will continue to get very bumpy for its riders.
So I actually bothered to look up 1 Tim 2:11-14:
Wow. Just, wow.
#827 - Thank you!!!
If there's something you need,
oh, that you've never ever ever ever had,
oh, you've never had it,
oh, honey, don't you just sit there cryin'
don't just sit there feelin' bad.
No, no, no.
You'd better get up
- now don't ya understand?
Raise your hand!
Logicel @ 830:
*applause*
Very well-said.
Logicel @ 830: perfect!
Patricia @ 832: you are welcome!
Logicel wins the thread!
I'm impressed that Mr. Kutai spelled "sacrilegious" correctly!
Owlmirror wrote:
I'm reminded of an old joke. Moses is talking to God and says: "So the Arabs get all of the oil and we have to cut off the tips of our WHAT?"
#826 Moses with his balls in an uproar wrote
It's just a crazy, you fucking asshole. People snap, they do stupid shit like that.
Wait until the rest of the story comes in. The psycho fuck was yelling "hateful things" as he launched a few rounds at the congregation. Maybe they should have has some watermelons there (see other post)
As for the Church it was a Unitarian-Universalist Church. You know, the church where 16% of its members are atheists. Where they don't believe that Jesus was divine. Where all religions, and those who have none, are accepted. Where social justice, support of equality and support of the rights of man (gay, straight or transgendered) are pillars of the community.
All the more reason for some deranged right wingnuts in that part of the country to assault them. After all, we are speaking of Klan country here.
Seriously, that Church group is likely as, or more, progressive than the average of the "liberal" members of this blog. Yet, out of complete fucking ignorance, you've got to open your mouth project some bullshit of your own to make a point. Drop dead, fuck wad.
What orbit did you just come out of? I referenced the news story and published the standard ... which in any language besides whatever kOOkian dialect you speak means there is more to the story.
Here's the part you left off:
The church, like many other Unitarian Universalist churches, promotes progressive social work, such as desegregation and fighting for the rights of women and gays. The Knoxville congregation has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.
I left off the rest of complete story as it would be a copyright violation to reprint the whole thing, asshole. I referenced the article, and indicated that there was much more to the story. Sorry not to translate that to fucktardese to you could understand it.
You're as bad as the Catholic Trolls. All balls, no brains.
Sure beats some ignant jackoff just stumbling in from a Sunday amateur pharmaceuitical study sans balls AND brains
#831 - See, this bullshit just keeps on rolling.
I wonder, PZ and others on the blog - what do you think, should we quote book and verse of scripture to these fools, or have the posters here had SO much bible bullshit that biblical quotes drive you mad?
Fuck em', I'll take on any bible fool. *grin*
Up to you ILK. ;)
I left off the rest of complete story as it would be a copyright violation to reprint the whole thing, asshole.
Wow, you are the first person in the history of the Internet to care about that.
Maybe quoting would work if the religious people would read their own holy books but how often the vapid ranters really know their own books?
@824 -
What are the irritating truths you believe religious people would rather ignore?
Eh, it is a cracker, perhaps?
*841 Neural T
Why should that be so strange on a (semi at the moment) scientific blog where the veracity of information is buttressed by following the rules of referencing and the respect for the copyright rules?
Additionally, what is the point of reproducing the entire article consuming bandwidth where a short into and a pointer/link would do? Several of the trolls have posted 45 page nauseating missives where a couple of lines and a pointer (which would have been graciously ignored).
Additional information can always be garnered from the original source by clicking the link at any given time.
jorge666:
You're right. The whole story wasn't in. It still isn't.
From another source:
(http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/27/neighbors-accused-shooter-ever…)
Are you willing to suggest that all of those who question or otherwise have problems with Christianity "sick bastards" or "psychotic" because this one man who seems to have questioned or had some problems with Chistianty killed some folks?
While you're painting Christians in general with your broad "sick bastard" brush... How would you like to deal with Christians like Greg McKandry, killed while blocking the gunman from the rest of the congregation, and the Christians who reportedly risked their own lives to wrestle the gunman to the ground? Where do they fit in?
Sure, some Christians are psychotic and some are sick bastards. This guy, whatever his religious beliefs or lackthereof, may have been a bit psychotic and a sick bastard. You don't know enough to make the judgment that that individual -- let alone Christians in general -- are either.
You jumped the gun on this one. That's all people are calling you on.
To Wowbagger #781 Answers to your questions following:
"What I want to ask the believers...how does the fact that both Hitler and Stalin(religious or atheistic notwithstanding), were able to do what they did, help you believe there's a kind, loving and all-powerful being who will help you in times of need?"
Wowbagger further states, "The same with the priests. For me, it's not so much about the Church covering it up; it's about the ridiculous notion that an all-powerful, omniscient
benevolent Deity would let those who were charged with "tending to His flock", commit those unforgiveable acts."
Answers: There is more going on here than you realize. We are all battling with our own salvation. There is a spiritual battle in full force. Open your eyes to the Truth.
All of man's words, his knowledge, his intelligence, his man-made wisdom, his freethinking, his pride are naught unto our God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1Cor.19
It is awful when men are consumed with evil, men like Stalin and Hitler in particular, who FREELY choose to do evil. They made the choice. Who knows when or where this occurred, but somewhere along the way they of their own volition used FREE WILL -{God's gift to man) to commit evil.
God, in His infinite wisdom and mercy would never force anyone to do anything,(even for Salvation's sake), he or she doesn't want to do. It's an everyday thing. We get to pick good or evil all the time.
Oh, yeah, by the way I am a practing Catholic. As for my earlier post about the Pearl of Great Price, that was the Scripture reading today. Jesus in the Eucharist is the Pearl that we should be willing(by Free Will) to accept as Lord and Savior. Jesus' words, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty." Jn.6:35
Now to the question of the pediphile Priests and those who covered up their sins. I too, am very much upset and outraged at their behavior, and disappointed to see them fail us so unbelievably. Catholics have wondered how could they do this too. How could they stand there in front of us knowing what they did? It all brings heartbreak to not only the victims, but to all of us who recognize that as evil. Trust me, they are not all that way. Those who are true to their vows, good holy priests are suffering for the sins of the others too. I too am appalled that some of the Bishops hid things and moved them around-the sinful priests. This causes us shame and horror. Please understand it is not the whole Catholic brood--but some who have sinned in this awful way-abusing the innocent. I say I am sorry for what some have done, but I also say the legal system will deal with it all for now, and God will unleash His fury in no uncertain manner. He is a God of justice. He offers you love and not fear. He gives you FREE WILL.
That is what these evil men did- they freely chose to do evil and harm to innocent individuals with no care or concern for all the damages that would be done to the victims, the Church, and to their salvation.
Lord have mercy on us all!
They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him...Zech12:11
Hmm, let's break that down shall we?
A 'pearl' is a small speck of crap with layers and layers of shiny stuff surrounding it which results in an object that some people think is pretty.
Therefore, I agree. The 'crap' at the centre is religion. The 'layers of shiny stuff' are the apologetics and rationalisations created to distract people from seeing that, at the centre, it's actually a piece of crap. The 'people who think it's pretty' are the religious.
Funny, I don't find either pearls or religion particularly attractive.
Anyone who walks in a group of people and starts losing shotgun rounds into the crowd is one sick bastard. Cut the bullshit excuses.
PS, jorge666:
My last post to you wasn't meant to be snarky. In re-reading it, that's less clear than I'd like it to be. I just thought that (a) the new information, though it's hear-say at best, might be relevant and (b) a clearer explanation of why the "sick bastards" comment, without some serious qualifications, wasn't really appropriate in this case.
#762 - Marcus Ranum - BBQ, -SANGRIA- , and fornication - I join you in solidarity.
The freaks are cowards.
Theresa,
Free will means choice. If that's the case, answer me this:
What choice did your god give to the murdered and molested? Or are you claiming they deserved it?
Kudos, Theresa! It's not easy to take a stand for your faith around here.
paradoctor @806:
The problem with having the miracle end when the ceremony ends is that then, they can't send consecrated wafers off-site to the sick and elderly who can't make it to the meeting, and they can't put one in the proper vessel, the name of which escapes me at the moment (I know it was mentioned either up-thread or in one or more of the other Crackergate-related threads, but there are so many posts, and threads....) for lengthy meditation and veneration, both of which are important parts of this balanced breakfast. (Sorry; it's late, and I'm punchy. Couldn't resist.)
I've said it before; this whole category of offense would be impossible if the All-Knowing God would just take note of which if any of his morsels are in imminent danger of defilement (surely he's at least as aware of them as he is of falling sparrows!), and All-Powerfully vacate the imperilled wafer.
This problem has been around a long time, as reviewed in Dr. Myers' plot exposition in the "The Great Desecration" thread, so I have to think that it shouldn't be considered to be a bug, but a feature, and that, over the centuries, Donohue is not the only one who has found it convenient. It makes such a fine rationalisation for hatred and violence!
_____________________________
Edit after Preview: on a completely unrelated note, the blockquote wanted to drop the second paragraph of the quoted material, which was included in the same blockquote as the first. I had to go back in and do a separate blockquote to make it come out right. Any ideas on how I did it wrong?
jorge666:
Labelling an entire group of people -- possibly (likely?) the wrong group, as I've just pointed out -- "sick bastards" on the basis of one man's sick bastardery is wholly inappropriate. Cut the bullshit.
It's not easy to stop a tank by throwing kittens at it either - doesn't mean it's going to work.
#850 KM
First of all I would like to say thank you for your post. Yes, there is going to be much more come out on this by far this isn't over yet.
My sick bastard comment wasn't meant toward Christians in general. It was meant toward the individual in particular. Greg McKandry was placed in an exceptional situation. Unfortunately, his rise to the occasion cost him his life. In the services, conduct such as his is recognized by The Congressional Medal of Honor. He is a true hero as he made the supreme sacrifice for his congregation. The lady who also was killed apparently by another round or the collateral damage.
My family has a long history in the hills to the east of that area. I know firsthand how some of them feel toward atheists, the ACLU, integration, any religion except the S. Baptists, African Americans etc.
People may think I jumped the gun, but mark my words - the dark world of this sick bastard will come out and not the way you think.
Theresa #847
Pope Benedict, back when he was running the Inquisition Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, put out a letter telling every bishop not to tell the civil authorities about priests accused of certain grave ecclesiastical crimes including sexual abuse. The legal system had a major problem dealing with the problem because your pope (okay, he was just a cardinal and a very senior member of the hierarchy then) effectively gagged the bishops under pain of excommunication. Sorry, Theresa, but it's very hard to have any respect for an organization which, as a matter of official policy, protects pedophiles and other sexual abusers.
So you christian freaks, of what value do you assign women?
"So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea 3:2
Let's go you fools. Bring your bible on. Cowards!
PZ: "Oh my, I am SO tired of getting all these hits to my (science?) blog; I am so sick of all this attention I keep creating for myself....I'm just so sick of it. . .
. . . I know, I will open another thread to show how very sick I am of all this drama I've created for myself."
Hey, paul, the 15 minutes is over. don't you have classes to teach or something? yowza.
Rob the Lurker, you totally just made reading through 623 comments worth it. That quote is going on my office door. "I'll think for you." tee hee! Can't wait to use that one.
On another note: Damian with an a- THANK YOU for killfile... you just made my world a slightly better (more quiet) place... and I'm grateful.
jorge666:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it.
Your initial post on the subject seemed to say -- this is certainly how I and a few others have read it -- that ALL Christians are sick bastards. If that's not what you meant to say, sorry for the misunderstanding.
I will be interested to see how the story actually does play out. For now, I think I'll suspend judgement on it.
Please ignore the part of my last comment which reads "Cut the bullshit". I was under the mistaken inpression that your "Cut the bullshit excuses" was directed at me. Sincerest apologies. It seems I, too, have a problem with jumping the gun. :)
JoJo, don't you understand? Theresa said bad things happen because god gave humans free will - therefore, all the children the priests molested chose for it to happen.
Just like people killed by landslides, volcanos, tsunamis and earthquakes all chose for it to happen. How else do you explain it?
Well other than god a) not being capable, b) not giving a crap, or c) not existing.
More mental diarrhea from Theresa. She should to try to make a point without gratuitous references to god (he doesn't exist) and the bible. Theresa, most of us have read the bible (twice in my case), and probably know more about it than you do. Bible quotes simply say you can't think for yourself, which gets you bad treatment from the other posters.
Theresa:
All of man's words, his knowledge, his intelligence, his man-made wisdom, his freethinking, his pride are naught unto our God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1Cor.19
This is how religion kills healthy minds.
#862 KM
As far as the misunderstanding about ALL Christians being sick bastards, I feel that comment was tainted in everyone's mind here by the preponderance of the catholic trolls trying to monopolize the bandwidth with bovine excrement.
I apologize to those who misunderstood the context. I was speaking of only one particular person.
To the poster known as Moses - had you addressed me in a civil manner, there is quite a good chance I would have responded in the same spirit. We may have even had a satisfactory and constructive conversation where all may learn. As it was you didn't. You elected to behave viciously, so I elected to return in the spirit in which it was given.
KM, I think we can table this in the meantime while awaiting further developments from the foothills of Eastern Tennessee.
Thank you,
Jorge
Please, Theresa, do not say that your God lets priests molest children as 1) a test, or 2) because His ways are unknowable.
Please do not pretend that the actions of the highest offices of the Church to cover up those actions are in any way unrepresentative of centuries and centuries of behavior.
Please know that if you do, you will be confessing that the God in whom you believe is truly, profoundly, an evil and vicious Monster such that Satan, who is rendered utterly superfluous, would weep with envy.
Please know, too, that I do not hate you for believing the people in whom you have trusted your immortal soul. (I may not think there is such a thing, but I recognize that your belief that there is guides your actions.) It is not your fault that the people you trust the most have lied to you absolutely, and threatened you and those you love with worse than death is you question their lies. Instead, I pity how utterly that trust has been -- and continues to be -- violated. You are a rape victim as surely as those children, yet you continue to kiss the hand that violates you.
Please, finally, know there is help, and healing, once you let go of the lies.
Neural T,
Religion has been against independent learning from the start - Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Basically, it's yet another not-very-will-hidden admonition to do as you're told and let the people in charge do the thinking for you - that way everything will be fine.
It's why it always amuses me when theists post the lists of great thinkers who were religious - of course they were religious; the churches controlled all the access to learning. Plus, if you weren't under church control and you managed to discover any science or technology you'd probably have been burned as a witch.
The catholics, of course, opposed the translation of the bible into the languages of the people, because that meant they'd be able to read and interpret it for themselves - and the feared that maybe the people wouldn't agree with what the church said and do something about it.
So religion not only kills healthy minds, it does its darndest to prevent them from existing in the first place.
Yeah, the Church has been drunk on power, has taken its position for granted, and as a consequence, has been in a state of lethargy and decline for centuries. Denouncing free thought, hiding knowledge, and protecting criminal violations within its ranks are just last ditch efforts to hold onto power.
Wowbagger @ 868:
Yes! In general, and to all of the particulars of this post.
OT :
Surprising to see quite a few fellow sciencebloggers demonstrating a rather christian approach to PZ's desecration post and crackergate,by happily combining ad hominems with lies,insults and comparisons to Coulter and Limbaugh,its rather refreshing.
We are all mindless minions of PZ the anti-intellectual shock blogger of atheism.LOL
The blog is not worth linking to,if you search for mixing memory you'll find it.
And,praise the Lord for the killfile !
Yeah, the anti-PZ backlash based around 'our' apparent need to follow him blindly and support him in anything he does has been a bit surprising. Still, when you've got no real argument to present you'll try anything.
Just because goats end up drinking at the same watering-hole doesn't mean they've become sheep.
This is an interesting community, perhaps a little ill-aimed at times, but I thought to throw in my 2c in support of PZ and the thinking team. And I know it won't help, but the following resonated with me, more so for coming from the left field as it were - a CNN financial bit today popping the balloon of commonly-held myths about what the Federal Reserve can and can't do ("Two Fed myths that need debunking" - Allan Sloane):
> Why am I bothering you with this stuff in mid-summer,
> a time when I'd rather be off drinking something cold
> than trying to deal with the Fed?
>
> Because myths get in the way of understanding.
A good question! And the answer too, coming from the different context of popular misconceptions about the US financial system, but which seems to also be (split infinitive!) relevant here in discussing the value of religious beliefs - in fact, rather hits the nail on the head. Falling back on the myths that were yesterday's 'truths', handed down by fiat (so to speak) from an all too human power structure that is all too interested in self-preservation, shrouds both itself and the natural universe from human inquiry. And it must maintain mystery, having not a shred of evidence that passes muster to support its claims.
What puzzles me is the preference of the religious to blindly maintain faith to a mish-mash of myths when all around is natural, touchable, reproducible evidence of a different and more compelling truth. If one thinks eyes and brains are god-given, then what are they for if not to be used?
\delurking
Question for the atheists here (e.g., 95% of you): What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism? I've heard of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Hitchens "God is Not Great", but are there any other books you would recommend?
Shorter Catholic,@ 479:
ARGUMENT FROM THE FOUNDING FATHERS (I)
(1) Some of America's Founding Fathers wrote favorably about the Bible.
(2) The Founding Fathers were really, really smart.
(3) Accordingly, the Bible must be true.
(4) The Bible says that God exists.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
JeffreyD linked to this before,but I'll repeat it,its just too hilarious !
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
I told my own priest what was going on
Totally leaving out the part about Cook being assaulted in the church and the threats he has received since, no doubt.
Well, David, I suggest you read the Bible. Nothing, nothing will bring you to an atheist position like the fucking Bible.
It's full of pure bullshit, violence, sexual perversion, and incredible lunacy.
It teaches us that the universe is 6,000 years old, snakes talk, the earth is flat, and pi=3.0, among other gems.
All you need is the bible and a willingness to think for yourself.
All the best to you.
David, #874
As far as I'm concerened, it's not about atheism being superior to religion - it's not a competition. Atheism is about understanding that the justifications people have for being religious aren't sufficient when vigorously analysed.
But if you want something that'll help you to develop the sort of critical thinking that can often lead to the realisation of the shortfalls of religion, I recommend Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World.
Question for the atheists here (e.g., 95% of you): What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
The Varieties of Scientific Experience, Carl Sagan.
Wow, David @ 874, ask and ye shall receive! Just following the link Clinteas so kindly provided will be a beautiful start on to why the "proofs" for God are so absurd. (All the flavors of the ontological argument have always seemed to stupid that I couldn't believe they were serious...)
Beyond that, Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation" is short and sweet. One really doesn't need to go on and on about why there are no gods any more than one needs to go on and on about why there are no unicorns or dragons.
And if you can do it objectively, waldteufel is absolutely right. Once you look a the Bible objectively, you will never understand how anyone can believe it is literally true.
Good luck, and let us know how the inquiry goes!
2 favourites we see here all the time:
ARGUMENT FROM HAULING ASS
(1) [Theist creates message board account and logs in.]
(2) "GOD IS REEL AND ALL YOU HEATHEN ATHEIST INFEDILS WILL BERN IN HELL FORE-EVER MARK MY WERDS!!!!!!!!@#3FD"
(3) [Theist logs off and never returns.]
(4) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM NAZIISM (INVERSE-GODWIN)
(1) Hitler didn't establish a Christian theocracy.
(2) Therefore, Hitler was an Atheist.
(3) Hitler was the worst leader possible.
(4) Therefore, all Atheists are bad people.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
And the all-time classic:
ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY
(1) I've had religious experiences that can't be explained unless I'm insane or God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
It's funny how the fairy-talers think we're all PZ's army of mindless, parroting suck-ups. We just happen to agree with much of what he says. If that's a problem, then is no individual allowed to agree with any other individual?
I'm sure most, if not all, of us have become atheists through extensive rational analysis of religion.
In contrast, most religious people seem to have been brainwashed with religion from a young age, and never think to question it. They've been so ingrained with it that the thought of rejecting it is terrifying to them. They don't think about what it all means, or how silly and make-believe it all is. Thus, if anything, the religious are the army of mindless, parroting suck-ups.
David #874
You could start with some college-level textbooks on biology (especially evolutionary biology), chemistry and physics. Get familiar with the basics of the natural world.
Then I'd recommend stuff on evolutionary psychology and the field of heuristics and biases, along with books on rational decision making (Hastie/Dawes and Gigerenzer).
Then maybe books that provide a naturalistic explanation of religion and human nature (Pascal Boyer, Steven Pinker).
While Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World has already been mentioned, I'll second it.
Also, Jennifer Hecht's Doubt: A History.
You might try browsing through:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/
and
http://www.daylightatheism.org/
clinteas @ 882:
And the best part is, once you know a little psychophysics, you can start to explain some of those experiences.
For example, I could say, "once while meditating, I reached such a state of transcendence that I became invisible. When I noticed my arms fading, my concentration was broken and I became visible again. But once I had attained that state, it was easier to slip into."
What actually happened was that I was sunning on the deck and a bag worm inched by. I was laying on my stomach with my arms forward. If I moved at all, the animal withdrew into its shelter. I could not move my head, and gradually my retina near the center of my field of view started to habituate, and wasn't sending as strong a signal. Your brain hates blind spots, so it starts patching in surrounding surface of the deck. My hand was just off center, and my hand and forearm looked like they were fading away, getting see-through in the center but with a vague outline. It was so cool! When I glanced at my hand, it "popped" back into view. Since my retina was already "tired" it was easy for my hand to fade again when I went back to looking at the bug. (He stayed visible, I think, because tiny eye movements "refreshed" the image.)
If I had not know what was going on, I would have though I was either going crazy or having a paranormal experience. But because I had a background in comparative psych, I knew what was going on, more or less, neurologically, and perception is a neurologically phenomenon...
You can have a similar experience by looking at one star and noticing that the others start to fade, or by staring at the TV in a semi-darkened room (not that anyone here does that).
@ 885: "perception is a neurologically mediated phenomenon..."
I agree the best book to read would be the bible, in it's entirety. That is what made me an Atheist. I was a Southern Baptist sunday school teacher, in the choir, played handbells, the whole nine yards. I was deeply religious. I studied the bible in depth and was so disturbed by what I read I began to question Christianity. I then joined a more progressive denomination and became a youth minister. (They didn't take the bible literally.) Even that didn't put me at peace. Even when I tried to look at the bible from a philosophical standpoint, I knew the whole religion was based on racism and hatred and I could not in good conscience associate with such evil. I walked away and found out how wonderful it feels to be free.
The bible is a vile and evil book. Few Christians have actually read the whole thing. They read what they are told to read and skip the nasty stuff. Once you read it for yourself and find all the contradictions and see the purely evil things *God* has done, a decent person cannot remain a Christian. The basis for religions that worship deities is just to idiotic to ignore once you really start searching for truth. Once you care more about truth than you do being accepted and popular, you will find truth.
There are many books on Atheism, just google and I'm sure you'll find many. In all honesty though, it took no outside persuasion to convince me the religion was evil. All it took was the bible. The first time I read an "Atheist" book was more than a decade after becoming one. You could also find Atheist websites and read them. Many personal blogs have as much information as the books do. There are also a few Atheist radio programs. You might want to tune in and have a listen. If you become an Atheist there are meetup groups you can join to find social interaction that is free from religious dogma.
I have also read most of the Koran, it is just as bad, if not worse, than the bible. I admit I have not read all religious texts though, so I cannot comment on them all.
"so put a sock in it already. OK? OK"
AWWWW (sniffle sniffle). Is the poor prof. tired of being bothered? I guess he shouldn't hold his inbox as sacred and inviolable since "nothing is sacred". I guess he is above questioning despite telling us to "question everything."
I feel sorry for the people for whom conversion, deconversion, deprogramming (whatever you want to call it) to atheism is a frightening experience, mostly because of the expected reactions of their family and community, and the indoctrination that they've had since childhood.
For me it was rather easy.
@ 882:
//I'm sure most, if not all, of us have become atheists through extensive rational analysis of religion.//
Not quite.I got fired by the pastor a few days before the firmation ceremony (or whatever its called in English) for unashamedly giggling while reading out bible verses.And that was that.
Confirmation?
Yup,that one.
Thanks for all the suggestions. I've got plenty to get me started.
I can't honestly say I was ever religious - while my mother made me go to Sunday School for a few years, and be involved with the church social club one night a week (and the occasional weekend camping trip), the actual religious aspects of it were minimal to nonexistent, due to the rather apathetic protestantism of the sect I belonged to.
Basically, nobody ever asked me if I believed in any of it - so it wasn't ever forced upon me.
It's never occurred to me that god could be real. As a result, I can't pinpoint a time at which I 'became' an atheist; as far as I'm concerned I never was anything else.
You can have a similar experience by looking at one star and noticing that the others start to fade, or by staring at the TV in a semi-darkened room (not that anyone here does that).
I used to do this all the time as a kid during Mass. I would get so bored that I would just stare at a fixed spot and let the scene fade in and out as I would either hold my eyes still or let them move. And despite the fact that I was at Mass and a child, it never occurred to me that I was experiencing anything but a purely visual effect and not some kind of mystical religious experience. Maybe it was just so clear that I could induce the effect at will that never considered any mystical interpretation.
For me, atheism came about, ironically, because I *was*, at one point, very religious. I thought alot about my religion, because it was something very important to me, and I had a lot of questions. My pastor never gave me any satisfactory answers, so, I turned to the Bible, the Word of God, right?
Even after reading the horrific evils there, I had a hard time abandoning my belief, and attempted desperately to reconcile it. I tried to find good in the Biblical god. But I found that every rationalization I could come up with for God's behavior only worked if I assumed a very limited deity, one who was doing all he could, and had to choose the least evil option, and was more concerned with nations and humanity as a whole than individuals. That sort of worked for a while, but eventually even that crumbled.
The whole of my religious experiences, from the time I was old enough to think logically to the time I finally became atheist, was an alternation between serious mental anguish, desperate searching for "The Truth", and periods when I could find a rationalization that sort of worked, and was able to ignore the cracks. But, inevitably, my relentless self-honesty forced me to see the gaping flaws in my rationalization, and it would fall, and I'd search for another rationalization.
Once I came to terms with atheism, I finally found true peace.
Yeah, I did the star thing when I was little. I was surprised when only about half of the other students in my psychophysics class had discovered it. The easier experiences are hard to misread, which is why "becoming invisible" was such an insight into the whole seemingly-delusional mindset: I could never understand how yogis could claim such an obviously impossible thing as becoming invisible when the meditated. Floating, I could understand, but not that.
@ 897 :
Psychophysics?
Who was your teacher,fucking Yoda??
One thing I did was to read the bible and replace the God I loved with another one. (Zeus, Ra, whoever).Once you read the stories and attribute them to some other god, which you don't already believe in, you see the book for what it is. Take away the pre-belief and your eyes are opened.
@ 898:
Almost! It was 1981 at the University of Hawai'i. Bill Uttal taught our graduate psychology class in the biology of perception (as well as it was understood at the time). He got into a lot of phenomenology (which was unusual in those days) and taught us that everything we experience is in our brain. There is no "red," no "sweet," no "sharp" except in your brain.
To answer the age-old question, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no ear present to detect them, nor brain to process them, the "compressions and rarefications of air" produced are not "sound."
For a 22 or 23-yo grad student, he might as well have been Yoda! (Except I don't think we knew about Yoda yet...)
//To answer the age-old question, if a tree falls in the forest and there is no ear present to detect them, nor brain to process them, the "compressions and rarefications of air" produced are not "sound."//
Sounds like a philosophical question to me.One that Im sure has been much debated over forever.
*Looks around the room*
Wilkins? John S? To the rescue !!
That was when I started to say that "reality is a Mach band": we experience it, but is is not "really" there. But because we all have similar biology, our experiences of what is "real" are similar. And in part because our biologies slightly vary, and in part because our life events often significantly vary, our experience of what is "real" varies.
After realizing that, the idea that and gods had external reality was absurd. Sure, some people "experience" God, but He is only between their ears.
@ cicely #854
It's a long-standing bug/feature of ScienceBlogs. You didn't do it wrong. They did.
//Sounds like a philosophical question to me.One that Im sure has been much debated over forever.//
It is philosophical, which is what made the class so amazing! And in the campus beer garden after class... mmmm!
We are biological, so our biology must influence our philosophy. How can it not? We are made of meat, but we are the meat that dreams. That was what is so cool.
Cracker-geddon: the day after.
As always, exquisitely enacted by jesus and mo.
@ Paper Hand #896
That's the real religion-killer: persistent curiosity combined with relentless honesty - in other words, critical thinking (about everything, inherently and unavoidably, and not just barely doing it at all when forced to sit an exam in it!). That's what separates the traditional atheists from the theists. Though now, with more atheists around and less immediately fatal persecution of them, it has become possible for unthinking atheists to become a substantial proportion of the whole - ones who were merely brought up atheist and never paid the issues any mind.
Meanwhile, I was actually more like wowbagger - in never having been gullible enough to fall for religion in the first place. It always seemed bogus to me and I'd dispensed with the Santa lie at a very young age by quiet investigation. Religion looked to be another of those play-acting things and I was rather appalled to find the adults involved were delusional enough to believe in it themselves and seriously expected me to believe in it too.
However, the real clincher was still the Bible itself. So I have to third or whatever that recommendation to read the repulsive thing.
Unlike the lazy and incurious and unthinking masses, when I got my first Bible at a young age I didn't just shelve it. They'd told us to memorise the book names by rote and they'd selected some silly stories they liked and there was this claim they'd made about it being the bestest book ever. So I investigated by reading the whole thing. And it wasn't the bestest book ever at all. It was mindlessly dull in places and utterly evil in others. It contradicted itself and was contradicted by reality. I had to conclude (as had already been my suspicion) that those religious people really weren't quite right in the head in more ways than one.
It later became apparent that most of them hadn't even read the whole thing themselves - let alone thought critically about it. They were stupid, ignorant, dishonest, emotional, irrational and quite possibly insane in some instances. Whereas I, even as a young child, was not.
Bible verses for Theresa and Sandi:
Matthew 27:5
Luke 10:37
All people are born atheist but some are apparently "athier" than others. ;-)
Gullibility in the young is supposed to be an important survival trait. But lack of gullibility only really gets you killed if you're also stupid and impulsive. While stupidity is normal and impulsiveness very common among humans, they aren't inevitably present. In an environment where the intrinsic danger levels are anything lower than immediately fatal, those with the right combination of abilities to be and remain thinking atheists, even in the face of societal mass-delusion, do survive.
Others can get back to being atheist when they lose enough of their gullibility by growing up, as long as they still have sufficient honesty and curiosity (and courage and self-reliance, given likely family and societal pressures) to carry them through the detox / deprogramming / deconversion experience. A great many religious people will lack one or more of the traits they need though.
The really funny thing about the religious insistance on "free-will", is that religions actually tend to do their best to suppress it and those individuals who genuinely have the most of it are the least likely to be religious. As an allegedly god-given thing, it's rather odd.
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
- H.L. Mencken
A scrupulously honest person can't be a theist. Only a dishonest person can be a theist. However, since dishonesty is very much the norm among humans, albeit in somewhat varying amounts and directions, religions aren't really in danger of running out of sheeple entirely.
That's actually where C.S.Lewis provides a classic example. He had to be very dishonest in his argumentation (paradoxically openly at times!) in order to remain a theist. Even his claims to have been an atheist for a while are not credible. He seems only to have been the sort of fake atheist of which theists frequently falsely accuse real atheists - hating his god for something he believed his god did, rather than disbelieving in god(s). It's that projection schtick of theirs.
SEF,
true,only dishonest people can be theists.
But nothing stopping atheists from being dishonest ,lets not forget.
SEF said:
As far as I can see that's because in religious arguments it's used, not as a virtue in it's own right, but as a handy "this is why bad things happen - because of humans screwing things up by exercising their free will" explanation for the existence of evil in a world supposedly run by an omnipotent and omniscient god (why the free will of sundry evil bastards trumps that of their victims in god's eyes is one of the many things you are not supposed to talk about).
As far as I can make out for the religious free will is a bit like the sex drive - god gave it to us alright, but that doesn't mean he actually meant us to use it (or at least in any way other than in the most circumscribed and pre-approved manner possible)!
David @ #853:
"Kudos, Theresa! It's not easy to take a stand for your faith around here."
Err, it's an atheist blog and 95% of us are atheists. You've got to expect it not to be easy.
At least your posts actually make it, and similar on the Richard Dawkins site. But try making an atheist post on one of the numerous religious forums, it won't get published.
We atheists love a good argument, it's why we are atheists.
Lilly de Lure,
please dont talk about sexdrive LOL.
And you are absolutely right,free will and anything potentially positive and not-determined will be twisted into the reason for why bad things happen to humans,you just deviated from the course god had set out for you,and thats what happens !
@904: An ontological question. So, metaphysics more than philosophy.
Question for the atheists here (e.g., 95% of you): What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism? I've heard of Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Hitchens "God is Not Great", but are there any other books you would recommend?<\i>
If you are a Christian, then the first thing that you need to know is that you are not abandoning the Truth, the Way and the Life for, well, nothing. The potentially superior path is the one that is most likely to be true, whatever that means for you.
It depends a little on what you are ready for. Losing your childhood indoctrination is not trivial. For me, truth is "potentially superior" to not-truth. If you believe that the Bible is more-or-less historically accurate, then I would recommend that this is the first area to research.
It's not easy reading, but I would recommend Robert Eisenmann's James Brother of Jesus. To get the most out of this book, you need to think like a historian: you want to study material as close to the primary sources as you can get, and anomalies indicate a point of interest, not something to be waved away. Secondly, you need to suspend what you think you know, and look at the data anew. Here is somebody else's take on this book:http://www.formercatholic.com/jesus.html
In any case, David above has it right: you need to research the Bible, and see for yourself that this is not the Good Book that you may have been led to believe it is. The evil within the book didn't bother me anywhere near as much as unbelievable notion that Jesus spent three years training disciples in strict adherence to the Jewish Law, only for Paul, a Roman, who was tasked with quelling the Jewish Rebellion, to create a new religion so far from the Law that Jesus revered that he called the Law a curse. And the Church now teaches that following Paul is the same as following Jesus. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Try looking to what professors of religious studies have to say, particularly Hector Avalos.
Doh. Obviously, philosophy encompasses metaphysics.
I disagree. I know many theists who are honest people; who nonetheless manage to hold onto intellectually dishonest views.
How is that possible? In a word: faith. Faith is what allows an honest person to believe a dishonest thing, what drives an intelligent, sane person to believe ridiculous nonsense, and causes a moral person to commit atrocities.
Scary. I hope you'll stop getting letters from nutcases soon, PZ.
Dear Catholics, evangelicals, and theists of all shapes and colours who have decided to infest this blog.
I'm going to ask if you could do something for me. If you could please do so, I'll entertain you arguments for why there are fairies at the bottom of the garden and how you can somehow equate the rape, murder, torture or otherwise general nastiness to living, breathing, thinking human beings with the "desecration" of a biscuit.
Deal?
'K here goes....
PLEASE, please, please, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease, with sugar on top, stop telling me (and other atheists and agnostics here) what we believe in.
See, various people, over the last couple of days of crackergate, have decided to tell those of us who don't indulge in bronze age myths, what we believe. Aparently, we don't believe in goodness, humanity and all worship Stalin. Hell...some have gone so far to say that we're immoral, have no sense of justice or decency, and go out of our way to oppress your right to the private worship of ceiling cat in your own homes.
But, here's the thing (try and keep up). We who don't subscribe to organsised religion, don't have a pocket sized play book to tell us what to do! Some athesits I've met are the most rabid, foam at the mouth, free-market worshipping right wingers on the face of the earth. Others are the most smelly, dirty, lefty hippies you'll encounter outside of a Gratefull Dead reunion. The only thing that really brings us together is... a lack of belief in god (or gods).
Sure...go ahead and pray to Jebus/ceiling cat/FSM for my soul. But remember, you don't know what I "believe" in. Atheist "beliefs" are not homogenous. Some athesists are good people. Some are horrid. Some have a highly developed sense of ethics.
As for that whole "Atheists have no fear of devine retribution... therefore they have no morals", I would say that you had better pray (choice of words in intended) that this is not true, because I (and I don't think I'm alone here) simply cannot swallow the beliefs of any organised religion I've encountered. I couldn't believe in the same stuff you do if you tied me to a pile of sticks and threatened to set it on fire if I didn't repent (not that this has EVER happened in the past!). So, you had better hope that I, and the millions of others who don't believe in god/devil/zeus, that we can behave ethically.
Good night and good luck. And it's just a cracker.
echidna said:
Absolutely right - one thing that helped me was to read it in conjunction with the mythology, literature and history of other civilisations that were thriving around the same time and place as the ancient Israelites (try the Illiad, Odyssey and the Egyptian Book of the Dead and Amduat for starters).
What you will find is that in terms of ethics, literary merit, philosophical advancement e.t.c. the Bible really is a book of it's time just like them, there is nothing particularly special about it and there is no more reason to try and live your life according to it's precepts than there is to try and live up to the warrior concepts of honour as lived by Achilles in the Illiad.
I agree with DaveL (#918) that faith is the culprit which allows otherwise intelligent, rational people to believe in religion.
I consider myself reasonably intelligent. My brother is much more intelligent than I and is a believing, practicing Catholic. When I ask him about some of the contradictions in religion in general and Catholicism in specific, he freely admits that those contradictions exist. He also admits that there is no rational, logical basis for his belief. He has faith that God exists and Catholic dogma is dictated by God to the Pope and the rest of the church hierarchy.
@ 921,Lilly
//What you will find is that in terms of ethics, literary merit, philosophical advancement e.t.c. the Bible really is a book of it's time just like them//
Yes,true of course,however,that has never bothered anyone who got brainwashed into christianity as a kid to take it for face value later in their life,while at the same time appreciating the Iliad or Odyssey as a literary piece.
it goes like this:
ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Or this:
PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Or this:
ARGUMENT FROM BIBLICAL HISTORY
(1) Many modern historians think that there probably was somebody named Jesus, maybe.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
@ echidna #916
That's because, in reality, most of them are Paulians (especially the Catholics of course) and not genuinely Christians at all. The bits they tend to quote and actually follow are the bits invented by Paul. They also typically get cross when you point out that uncomfortable fact to them.
@ DaveL #918
Whereas I class that as part of their dishonesty (hence mentioning the different directions it can take). They know they don't have a good reason to believe faith is actually a good thing and they even have evidence that it's a bad thing (or are dishonest about not even looking for or considering that). So they are being dishonest about pretending it's a good thing or a reliable way of forming a judgment or something to be inflicted upon others. There will always be more to their dishonesty than just "faith" anyway.
@ clinteas #911
Of course. But atheists have a choice whether or not to be dishonest (free-will again!), unlike theists - who are forced into being dishonest by their religion.
JoJo #922: As I've said before, the smarter one is the better one's self-rationalisations.
The important thing is intellectual honesty, rather than intelligence.
Clinteas said:
Agreed, that's why I recommended reading them alongside each other as it's then much harder to get away from the similarities between them, particularly in regards to the mixture of the good, the bad and the stomach-churningly horrible contained in them.
Religious people, when they read religious works of cultures other than their own don't (for many reasons, including the ones you mention) tend to associate their own holy books with the ones they are reading. The works of other religions then automatically get pigeon-holed into the "mythology" category and so aren't really directly compared with their own holy books.
Reading them together with your own holy book makes it much harder to maintain the "this is holy - this isn't" barrier between the two and makes the ethical, literary and philosophical equivalence of the works much easier to appreciate, which is why I suggested it.
Ofcourse this won't work if the reader happens to be a raving fundamentalist, but a raving fundamentalist would be unlikely to be asking for suggested literature about atheism to begin with, so I thought it might be worth a go!
John Morales said:
Indeed, as Allen Wood said in, "Ethics of Belief: Essays in Tribute to D.Z. Phillips", about that exact point:
Damian,
youre my Molly man,even if you only quote....
@ John Morales #927
I claim that both help. Though one may not need as much intelligence as honesty.
Without much intelligence, the chances are high that the religious person won't even notice the contradictions (they may not read, comprehend, compare and contrast with other things read and comprehended etc). They'd be relying on someone else to point out contradictions but probably then be satisfied with the flimsiest of excuses from a fellow religionist. Meanwhile, it takes a lot of honesty to reject the various excuses and apologetics for what they are if you have a vested interest in falling for them. But you might have difficulty even thinking that straight if you're extremely thick (and then be limited to the honest position of realising you're not capable of judging).
So, in the past when it was every potential atheist for themselves, intelligence was more important since there wasn't going to be someone doing the job of pointing out the contradictions to the people who couldn't spot them for themselves. Nowadays, intelligence can give way somewhat to education - ie being told about contradictions, including encountering rival religions and religionists. Honesty is always indispensable but its relative importance varies with circumstances.
ChrisC,
what you are saying is true, one will always find Atheists on the whole political spectrum. But what is interesting, is that there is quite some evidence to suggest that Atheists are predominantely liberal or even social democrats on their political stances :
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/survey-results-personal-data-an…
50% Atheists define themselves as "strongly liberal"
35% Atheists define themselves as "somewhat liberal"
In France, other example, during the last presidential elections, polls show that non believers voted for more than 75% for the socialist party candidate Ségolène Royal.
And I personally think it is good news, not bad news, that when people start thinking rationally about how we need to organize society and what should be the key moral imperatives in the 21st century absent of the moral norms of antique mesopotamian goatherders, they tend to converge towards similar choices.
What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
Posted by: David | July 28, 2008 12:43 AM
Go to Amazon and type in Atheism. There are many good books available, but it depends on the author if the style will appeal to you.
Why I became an Atheist - John Loftus
Losing Faith in Faith - Dan Barker
Leaving the Fold - Edward T. Babinski
Why I am not a Muslim - Ibn Warraq
Atheist Universe - David Mills
To name a few.
Chris
Why is this interesting? The same thing that compels people to believe that the bible is true is also required for people to believe that supply-side economic theory works to improve the lot for the bottom 60%. It's only faith that allows a guy making $18,000 a year to believe he's just one more tax cut away from becoming independantly wealthy. Faith isn't just for breakfast (or religion) anymore.
As Stephen Colbert once said, "The truth has a liberal bias."
But not, tellingly, if they still live in similarly primitive conditions to those biblical peoples. With civilisation, the utilitarian component to the formation of people's morals/ethics shifts a great deal.
Nomads and tribes at war don't have time for lengthy justice. They tend not to be able to run prisons in which people can be kept, eg in case a mistake has been made, rather than summarily executed. They can't afford to employ a separate police force let alone take care of those they believe to be guilty and a danger to the rest of them. They can't leave criminals behind for fear of later ambush. Mercy is a liability when living on the edge.
When breeding at the limit of survival, there's an entirely expected tendency to treat women as mere cattle. Something which then also entails preventing them having the education to know they should object. That in turn can get caught up in a larger misogynistic structure designed to maintain the vested interests of the privileged few.
Religion only has the uncivilised corners knocked off it when it's forced to deal with more civilised people who won't simply give in to its traditional immorality nor be easily trampled in its violent rampages.
Eg FT:
clinteas
Following on from my entry in the thread for the Carnival of Elitist Bastards, I should think so too! :)
In all seriousness, thank you very much.
Civilised people can afford to be liberal. Atheists doubly so (since they are free to notice and tell the truth). Primitive and religious people are considerably less able to be liberal. The less religious they are though, the more liberal and honest they can be within a civilisation. Eg modern Unitarians or the non-religious subset of Buddhists.
negentropyeater #932
France is a special case. Being a practicing Catholic there is as much a political statement as a religious one. French Catholics are politically conservative. The vast majority of the monarchist party are Catholics. Yes, folks, there are people who would like Prince Henri Philippe Pierre Marie d'Orléans, comte de Paris, duc de France to be the outright ruler of France. Many French monarchists believe the divine right of kings should be the political system in France. The reactionary Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre condemned the 1789 French Revolution, and what he called its "Masonic and anti-Catholic principles".
ChrisC #920 Amen Brother.
Quite a good discussion after the trolls left.
DingoDave,
Very nice work. It's always fun to shoot down the superstitious gits with their own mythology.
-jcr
Jojo,
what are you talking about ? French monarchist parties, such as l'Alliance Royale, le Rassemblement Démocrate or la Nouvelle Action Royaliste are so tiny they couldn't even manage to get a candidate together at the first round of the presidential election. None of them represents more than 0.1% to 0.2% of the electorate, so please don't make this sound as this is a major issue in France, which it most evidently isn't.
To Mr S. K. Kutai -- if your belief in Cathol is all that keeps *you* from "satisfying your penis' needs" with your son, or any other young boy, then keep the faith!
Of course, most of the rest of us aren't insane, or perverted, so we'll be fine w/out.
Just don't take the faith so far as to become a priest, as people like you in that kind of a role hasn't worked out so well in your religion, lately.
;)
I find that these emails should be taken a bit like a good zen koan.
Try to accept that they are contently bags of holy air, and then become enlightened.
For my part, they helped me finish proving this theorem I've been working on.
Thank you Catholic dips! You sucked all the stupid out of my head and left me only with intelligence! On to the Riemann Hypothesis!
Question for the atheists here (e.g., 95% of you): What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
I would recommend reading some works of Christian apologetics (I'm not familiar with any such counterparts for other religions). If the reader can see through the bogus arguments, he may do like I did and realize that there *is* no good reason to have faith, that the only reason he ever did believe was because other people did. All the rationalizations I have encountered have amounted to little more than excuses for God, and for continuing to believe something they had been taught just because it felt right.
You know those death threats aren't serious. Really would you have risked your children's well-being for the title of "Internet Tough Guy."
You are getting the best of both worlds, you get to appear like a hero defending science against the most pro-evolution of the conservative faiths, without actually accomplishing or risking anything.
Re: David:
"What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
Posted by: David | July 28, 2008 12:43 AM"
Read anything by Robert Green Ingersoll, the great American orator from the late 1800's. His works are very readable and devastating to religious claims.
Cheezits said:
Great idea! I'd recommend starting with C.S Lewis, along side a lttle note reminding people that he is generally regarded as one of the best apologists Christianity has produced for about a century.
If that won't get a religious reader to wonder about the logic and depth of modern religious thought (or lack thereof), nothing will!
What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
The Bible. I have heard many people became atheists after reading it.
Anyone should be able to figure out a magical fairy hiding in the clouds is a childish idea.
God is just another word for MAGIC. Only gullible people who are too lazy to think believe in magic.
What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering REALITY as a potentially superior alternative to MAGIC?
I'm sure it has been expressed in one the thousands of postings concerning Our Sky-Friend, The Cracker, but I can't get out of my mind the last line of a movie:
jorge666 @ #69B:
Oh, that could be a very interesting book! I'm thinking of "Letters from a Nut", some of the "True Tales of Induhviduals" in the Dilbert books, "In Their Own Words" (a book on religious fundamentalism whose author eludes me, and I may have mixed up the title). I'm also reminded of a song on the FFRF "Beware of Dogma" CD, called "My God Is In My Soul". It consists of sappy, repetitive hymn-like singing about how wonderful god is, and how religion inspires people to such kindness and compassion, all interspersed with actual messages left on the answering machine of atheist Michael Newdow, when he was involved in a pledge of allegiance court case, calling for his death and eternal torture, falsely accusing him of treason, using foul language and burning hatred. Nice contrast.
And this asshat with the 334 phone number? I recognize the area code. I'm simultaneously embarassed for those I know in Alabama, and totally unsurprised that such idiots live there. Fucking Bible Belt.
What literature would you recommend to the believer who is interested in considering atheism as a potentially superior alternative to theism?
I reckon the bible is a fairly good advert for the avoidance of religion.
@ Baba #75
Don't be such an ignoramus.
Torquemada vivisecting people in the name of Christ = killing someone in the name of "God."
Stalin killing people in the name of Stalin = killing someone in the name of "Stalin."
Atheism didn't push him to slay those people, numbnuts - it was his quest for personal power. How many times to you moron churchies need to have that spelled out for you?
Figure it out: atheism has no driving force behind it. The only thing that atheists gather in unity for is to stand up for our rights to not be bothered by goofballs waving their dusty little books.
T
Dervin #945,
You'll never catch a billy-goat at that speed.
You think he has absolute control over the responses of others? Does that make him god?
You mean just like prayer?
David said:
Hi David, if you feel comfortable with some fairly serious philosophy, and you want to read some of the best work in defense of atheism, I would recommend:
- "The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and Against the Existence of God"* by J.L. Mackie
- "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification"* by Michael Martin.
- "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism"* by Richard Carrier.
- "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith.
- "The Improbability of God" by Michael Martin.
- "The Impossibility of God" by Michael Martin.
If you are going to read any, I would recommend the ones that I have placed a star next to.
Also, books about morality and ethics without god:
- "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe" by Erik J. Wielenberg
- "Atheism, Morality and Meaning" by Michael Martin
You can also find articles by some of these authors in the Modern Library at The Secular Web, one of my favorite sites on the internet. The articles defend a number of positions and criticize almost all aspects of religion, theism, etc. There are some debates between believers and non-believers, as well.
In particular, I would recommend reading Richard Carrier's, "Why I Am Not a Christian", which lays out his reasons for rejecting Christianity.
There are many hours of intellectual stimulation to be had at the secular web.
SEF:
@903
Thanks for telling me! :) I'm fairly computer-inept; my default position for when something doesn't work as expected is, "So, I've screwed it up again!".
@908
So...religiousity is neoteny at work? :P
You think he has absolute control over the responses of others? Does that make him god?
He doesn't have the control, but he does have a memory. He's examined how Catholics react when their faith is being attacked and it's quite simple really - Donahue goes on Fox News and his email will be flooded from Internet Tough Guys and the hyperpious.
Ask yourself a simple question, "What would you risk your family's well being for?"
PZ is not an idiot, if he really felt that his family would be really threatened in any way, he wouldn't have done this.
So, your hypothesis is that Catholics are a bunch of kumbaya singing pacifists, and the death threats are actually coming from us militant atheists dressed up as Catholics in order to... err... justify a full-scale invasion of Poland?
@Catholic #469
You wrote:
***************
1) If you want true separation of church and state, then tear up the US Constitution - the rights guaranteed in it are based solely on Judeao-Christian philosophy
***************
Umm, no. Wrong. I recommend you go read some history. That's Greek philosophy you're looking at. This casual insistence that somehow Judeo-Christian background can lay claim to credit for creating the USA is the hallmark of a jackass.
***************
2) How do you expect any human to understand the fullness of God's creation?
***************
Disregarded as it makes an assertion (god created all this) that has no proof.
***************
What fuels PZ and his ilk, is the fact that they have a scientific answer and understanding for all that is explainable; but, when the topic of God arises, they have no ability to fully explain It.
***************
Wrong again. We don't hold science up as having every answer, only religion seems to be so bold. We have no need to "fully explain It" - you do. You assert this god exists, so prove it. Or are you just lying?
***************
Since they cannot explain It, they mock It and choose to accept their inability to understand.
***************
No, you seem to misunderstand: we're mocking you. You're like one of those people who joined AmWay and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, even though the rest of us can see you're paying more for a lower quality product. We do also find humor the belief system itself, but it's buffoons who come parading around as if they've got the revelation of the cosmos in their hand, and it amounts to only so much warm feces that really sparks the hilarity.
***************
3) Catholics believe in evolution - God created the process.
***************
Speaking for all of them, I see? Well, glad you at least found some of the science to your liking (even though only because the pope told you to).
***************
4) I wish PZ well...may his hatred and disrespect subside.
***************
"Hatred" is a bit strong, though of course I can't speak for him. For myself, hatred is reserved for individuals and they have to earn it. Disrespect, on the other hand - may it live long and prosper, hosanna in the highest, may its kingdom rule for ever and ever. Without disrespect we'd never have such pearls as Eric Idle or George Carlin - or Ben Franklin or the United States, for that matter.
Respect should only be awarded to those persons and ideas that deserve it - and disrespect is our (humanity's) only real defense against stupidity.
T
PZ Said:"As for Larrimore's phone number, please don't call it unless you really, seriously definitely desire him to desecrate your ass. And if you are MAN ENOUGH."
Since he's a mechanic, I'm thinking of giving a call and asking if he can help me with my car... You see, I shoved a whole bunch of communion wafers into my gas tank, hoping that I would be able run off of the " Power of Godtm ". As in most things god-related, the results were less satisfactory than I hoped.
Of course, if I did I am sure he'd just offer to "clean my tailpipe".
A 2008 M3 convertible with 6-speed manual transmission.
David (Comment #874):
Depends on what you mean by "superior". If you mean "more rationally justified", then you might try:
The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie (note - the "miracle" is meant ironically), and
The Non-Existence of God by Nicholas Everitt
Both are critical examinations of the arguments for and against theism which come down on the "against" side.
Rob the Lurker FCD BMWCCA,
The death threats are nothing more than hot air and PZ knew that before he started this publicity stunt. And a BMW while boringly clichéd is still more than an increase in Blog traffic.
It's a win-win for all the internet tough guys, PZ, his readers and Evangelicals tweaked the nose of a bunch of Catholics. A bunch of the self styled Defenders of the Faith, write emails and think they've moved up a few places in line for the pearly gates.
I get so tired of hearing this line of bullshit. Have you ever heard of Rev. John Leland? He was a baptist minister, so perhaps you'll listen to his words more than you'd listen to ours. Google his name and "separation". Please educate yourself, your stupidity is showing.
What was the original Motto for this country? Do you think it's "In god we trust"? Again, go educate yourself. It is E Pluribus Unum. Google it.
The god shit was added later. It was first proposed in 1861 and was added to only a few coins (basically to shut the religious folks up). It was not added to paper money until 1956.
In 1970, there was a case, Aronow v. United states. They ruled that "In God we Trust" has nothing what-so-ever to do with the establishment of religion. They claim it's use is patriotic and has nothing to do with a God. That was a clever way to get AROUND the constitution, which PROHIBITS such things as the rediculous "In God we trust" crap. Religious people are so slimy and deceptive it leaves me baffled.
The Supreme court refuses to hear arguments. (because they fear retribution from religious people and they know that if the case comes before them they have to admit the government is endorsing and promotion one religion, which is completely at odds with the principles this country was founded on. They would have to reject the constitution to rule that "In God we trust" is acceptable. Therefor, they avoid the issue like the lowlife cowards they are.
I wonder if that first kid is aware that giving one's full name and university affiliation is a sure fire way to get one's real self discovered on the internet. Two seconds after putting his name in quotation marks and adding University of Pittsburgh in google, I found out that he's starting as an accounting student in the business faculty there. His new email address isn't up yet, but I'm sure it will be in September (well, depending how slow their webmaster is).
Sending hate mail mentioning that you're a graduate student at a school where you probably just got accepted isn't really the best way to start there. Nor is being a PhD student in accounting something to brag about, imo.
Since religious bigots will reject anything an Atheist says, here's a bit of history from one of their own.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0604.waldman.html
Dervin @964. Apparently you're not familiar with the phrase "courage of your convictions". Just because you're spineless, you shouldn't project that on PZ. Freedom of speech is worth a little risk - don't you think?
Keep rockin' Dr. Myers. I do find it so amusing that all this religious hatred shows its true colors. Religious morality, my atheist ass. The level of ignorance shown by these hate emails only goes to show that education and religious belief are in an inverse relationship.
Keep up the good work.
@ David, #874
One of my favorites is Richard Feynman's "The Meaning of it All: Thoughts of a Citizen Scientist", Reading, Mass: 1998. It's short, lucid, and delightful.
** hocus pocus -- magical misery tour **
The stock magicians' formula is an old parody of the Latin phrase "hoc est corpus" for 'this is god's body' said at the elevation of a wafer (the host) at mass.
RCs by the millions still accept late hellenistic magical texts as sacred. And you thought theurgy -- summoning a god's presence and forcing "him" to act through incantations -- had died out.
You simply cannot desecrate what is not sacred in the first place. Ods bodkins! But now, I'm begging the question whether "god's little bodies" are just completely non-nutritious substitutes for the old agapé fest. It'll take more than Aquinas' gloss on The Philosopher's dead metaphysics to make theurgy plausible.
If you can believe the dogma of transubstantiation; then you can believe anything the Magisterium serves up. The RC's dogmata on abortion and stem cell research are on a par with papal infallibility and the bodily assumption of Mary. One authoritative irrationality is as sound as another.
Well, as Luther said, "Reason is the devil's whore." And Paul of Tarsus, never one to be shy, puts xian anti-intellectualism high on his list of nihilistic values:
27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are . . . . 1Cor1:26-28 NIV
OK, so Paul was the laughingstock of Athens on the day he tried to convince the Epicureans and Stoics that they were sinners in the hands of angry god.
Old grudges against skepticism and science apparently still justify a holy xian fatwah. As the crusade against PZ Myers proves -- he at least is on the correct side of the barricades.
bipolar2
"A bunch of the self styled Defenders of the Faith, write emails and think they've moved up a few places in line for the pearly gates. - Dervin "
How many places did you get up?
@908:
Gullibility in the young is supposed to be an important survival trait.
I'm not sure that it's so much gullibility as simple trust that's an important survival trait. It makes sense for a small child to do what the adults around him or her are doing, to accept that what they say is correct. Many things that are quite sensible have reasons that are incomprehensible to a small child. It is, therefore, a sensible course of action for a child to simply take what he or she is told at face value. The potential cost is much smaller than the potential benefit, especially in primitive conditions. In more civilized times, there is more of a margin of safety for error, and the consequences of blind trust are much greater, but evolution is a slow process, so we're left with something that was, at one time, an adaptive trait.
In a similar way, the tendency to anthropomorphize natural processes is probably a simple consequence of humanity's intelligence evolving to cope with larger social groups. Our intelligence seems to be primarily oriented towards understanding other people, with abstract reasoning being an adaptation of that, which still bears many characteristics of the primitive human-understanding facility. God has the same basic origin as the tendency to yell at your computer when it malfunctions, as though it were consciously choosing to defy you. The only difference is that most people understand that the computer isn't *actually* sentient, while a good many people actually do believe that their anthropomorphic view of nature is real
I give gullibility approximately the same relationship to simple trust as the anthropomorphisation error has to the basic theory of mind. It's a malfunction which goes with the necessity of the desirable feature, given the way that evolution builds in features imperfectly. It's still not present in all people to the same degree though.
Yeah, I think that's probably an accurate way to view it. *nods*
Fr. J, the allegations about O'Hair being a thief are completely unfounded. She may have been an unfriendly person, but she was not a criminal.
Catholics were among the greatest beneficiaries of her lawsuit removing mandatory prayer from public schools; after her court victory, public schools were no longer allowed to force Catholic students to recite Protestant prayers.
Being that I am nearly post #1,000 it is unlikely that this will be read - and also it is doubtful that it will make a difference anyway.
I really don't see the point of your exercise, except as a publicity stunt, and it was a rather stupid one at that. Why would you intentionally do something to upset such a great number of people? Personally, I don't care - yes I'm a practicing Anglican (we also use consecrate the bread and wine at communion), but I don't care. My catholic grandmother would have cared, as most of my aunts and uncles who are catholic as well. I chose not to follow the catholic faith, but I wouldn't go out of my way to offend them.
It's not something you believe in, so it was just a cracker to you - just a cracker. Even if you had eaten it - it would have no effect on your life, just a couple of extra carbs (which by your photo looks like you could cut down anyway - hope I didn't offend you there).
It's as unimportant as the piece of paper you have framed on your wall showing your PhD, just a piece of paper. But why do you have it framed? Is it important to you? If you lost that parchment for ever, would you care? Maybe not. It's just paper after all.
If someone took the time out of their day to upset a family member, would you be upset? Would you want to voice your opinion? If someone stuck a nail through your son or daughter's soccer ball, or ripped the head of their favorite toy, would that bother you?
What you did was just childish, sure it didn't hurt anyone, you didn't kill Jesus (it's been done before), but for what? Really ... for what? Just to say "na na na na na na ... look what I did to your sacrament"
Big deal.
It probably increased the visits to your blog by a thousand fold, which is probably why you did it.
I just hope it was worth it.
JB,
Why not try reading the earlier posts? The reasons for the action are laid out quite clearly. But then, you're not really interested in them are you? You've just come here to have a whine, and throw a few insults.
Obviously.
It's not why he did it. Read more.
Never underestimate human stupidity!
Keep at it Dr Myers! People are free to criticize and mock other people's beliefs even if we're talking crackers!
I'm surprised(not really) with the amount of people that simply stopped using their brains(do they use it at all?) and turn on their hate, their ignorance, their prejudices and showed their true nature!
Calling a hate crime to that cracker episode it's ridiculous and offensive for real hate crime victims!
Wow. Just wow. That is sickening that people would threaten your family, or threaten anyone, over this.
No, I do not agree with what you did, but that really doesn't matter.
And as far as Donohue goes, he ain't clergy, and to quote Monty Python "I didn't vote for him!"
You may find it hard to believe, but most practicing Catholics I know, although they would be deeply offended by what you did, would be appalled by the idea that anyone would threaten you and your family. And I include my Aunt who won't go to non-Catholic (or non-religious) ceremonies.
Since I have been censored by Chris at mixing memory I drop here a reply I made to TSK.
People should not pretend to be atheists when all their concern is to defend the indefensible religionists wackos.
----------------------------------------------------
TSK: Yes, these bankers on the other street of our university...untrustworthy, yes, yes. And these other
people: blacks, feminists, commies, rednecks, right-wingers, Christians, Jews, Buddhists...oh my god, the list of enemies grows and grows. And all those countries in the vicinity...dear me...good that we have some weapons.
Uh! Oh! Turning "professional", you had a good training!
In this paragraph you are trying to ascribe to ME the enemity propensity that I denounce as a result of group bonding!!!
Confusing the issues by painting the "enemy" with your own flaws, good ,good...
Ah, yes, INSANE...I presume that is the reason for the title "The God Delusion" and the pseudoscientific theory of thought viruses called memes embraced by atheists: In the long run all non-atheists should be treated as crazy.
There is no need for any "controversial theory" to show that unsubstantiated beliefs CANNOT be the basis of intersubjective ethical decisions.
As SC reminded us above:
I have yet to see any of the self-appointed ethicists engage with it in any meaningful way.
Therefore those who insist that their private fantasies be "respected" by others can indeed be deemed INSANE.
And dear me, they are a danger to humanity. How do we handle dangers to humanity ? I think we set up some Gulags, erm, hospitals and cure them as long as...well, they are cured.
The old saw against Stalinism, this has been debated ad nauseam in PZ "cracker" threads, but this is NOT relevant.
I DID NOT suggest any "remedy" to religionists insanity, you are making this up, yet another strawman!
In fact exactly this happened in Russia and its satellite states: Under Lenin and Stalin the Russian-Orthodox church was purged.
Not very effective, was it?
So why are you bringing this up?
Oh, how high is the ratio between believers and non-believers in the USA again ? The amount of money and support in the population ? Who will probably survive in the case of a clash ?
Right!
Is this yet another "clever" attempt at confusing the issues or just plain stupidity?
I SAID MYSELF that group bonding (religious or otherwise) gives a survival advantage to the most aggressive groups and that up to now this was an evolutionary advantage.
No wonder that the USA is full of righteous "successfull" believers, it was very handy for exterminating the natives without remorse.
(Oh! Ah! May be I misconstrue your point. Is this a death threat adressed to the atheists as a group?)
Also, did you miss my reference to Apocalypse?
How do you feel about Apocalypse?
Strange you didn't comment on that...
It seems my link to TSK's comment went wrong, I hope this one is OK.
It's also "amusing" that Chris seem to find such comments by Shmuel worthy of publication...
Rilke's Granddaughter, his freedom of speech was never challenged. The government couldn't do a d@mn thing about PZ's actions.
Hello all!
This is your beloved Catholic Bryan Stikeleather. I hope you are all well today. I noticed with great joy that Prof Myers posted a clip of a private email I sent with him, along with a few of my personal details. I commend him: a shrewd move on his part. Unfortunately he failed to post the entire email I sent to him nor his response to it, nor my follow-up to his response! Almost as bad as the 5:00 news. This being the case, we need to clear up some things:
Dustin:
1. "A grad student writes something like this, but it's Webster Cook and the guy who did nothing but warm the pew beside him who deserve to be expelled?"
I am not familiar with Webster Cook: is he the disturbed young man who stole my "cracker-God" from a house of worship? If so, he is guilty of theft, and I am guilty of being a whiny meanie--which is the worse?
2. Jim RL writes insightfully, "Dustin, I couldn't agree more. Can Bryan Stikeleather really not differentiate between a communion wafer and four very real people!?"
Unfortunately my friend, I and about 1 billion other people believe that our cracker-God IS a person! Not just any person either--God! Not to mention the 1 billion people who believe the Qu'ran is the holy, uncreated word of God! Crazy I know! Foolish! Insanity! Alas, what better way to show people like me my foolishness than by trashing that which I hold most sacred and dear? Excellent reasoning! So, then the question becomes, how does a Catholic communicate to Dr. Myers, who holds "nothing is sacred", that some acts are still offensive and immoral? Hmm....and if "nothing is sacred" why the offense at my e-mail? If nothing is sacred, then surely familial ties are of no import, correct?
3. DScott asks, "What is Bryan Stikeleather's email address? I have to ask him something."
Unfortunately, DScott, Ejj's answer of:
"Email: brs83@pitt.edu"
IS WRONG! I have no idea how to access the Pitt acct, never use it. If you want to contact me, please email me at firstnamelastname [at] hotmail. I am going to make a deal with you all: I will read all of your emails, ignore them for 1 week to allow myself to rationally digest your queries, and then respond.
4. Zeno writes in with this humorous comment:
"have a question for Bryan, too. When did his family lose the "r" in its last name? I'll bet it used to be "Strikeleather" and no one noticed when they started to misspell it."
Actually, Zeno, my family name is of Anglicized German heritage, from Steigleder. We came over in the mid-1600's, so I am not sure when we dropped the "r". However, you would be surprised at how many smart atheists mis-pronounce it as Strikeleather. It's almost as if they want to believe an "r" should be there, even if one isn't. I suppose you would say the same about my belief in God. BTW, I am a native Southerner, so please pardon me while I go put in my dentures and tell the kids to get back into the barn.
5. Alas, Trolleyfish, your post is too detailed and nuanced for me to attend to at the current moment. But if you would kindly cut and paste it and email it to my afore-mentioned email address, I will certainly respond.
6. Mr. satanhimself had this to say, in part:
"The interesting thing about Stikeleather is that not only is he apparently a recent CONVERT to Catholicism (can you imagine that, actually converting *to* that depressing set of beliefs?), but he is working on a PhD in *accounting* at Pitt's Business School. (My atheist daughter goes to Pitt.)"
If you would be sure to tell your daughter to look me up in my office in the Fall, I would love to chat with her for a while regarding her belief system. I can assure you, Mr. Satanhimself, that I will treat her beliefs with the utmost respect and will in no way threaten or berate her. Hopefully, we would both learn something from the conversation.
7. Mike writes that "This Stikeleather wackaloon should probably be reported. Asking "what if your wife and children" is one thing, but specifically naming them moves beyond rhetoric toward threat."
Alas Mike, Prof Myers publicizes their names on his web site for all to see. Just as many of your fellow atheists have looked up information on me via Google, so too did I do a little research on Prof Myers to give him the benefit of the doubt prior to my email to him. Personal names were used to make Prof Myers think of the scenario in a personal way as opposed to abstracting it. I can assure you my record is clean--I am a former federal law enforcement officer. It is also the case that my loony religion causes me to refrain from threatening Prof Myers, can the same be said for your's?
The best part of it all, my friends, is that I converted from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism! Yes! And you can too! May I suggest johncwright.livejournal.com . BTW, I am a former subscriber to Seed!
As a send-off, I would like to invite you all to become Catholic and examine what the Catholic faith holds from someone who practices it. I bless you all and wish you well. Please send me a line and let me know how you come along...and tell PZ to post ALL of our correspondence, not just his favorite parts. Sly guy that he is.
With regards,
Bryan Stikeleather
We don't need to threaten. We just laugh and laugh.
That your a former "cop" is a little nauseating.
Actually it's the law that refrains you from threatening him, not your religion. But since you were in law enforcement I bet you have the menacing thing down pat.
To Mr. Stikeleather--
You were way out of line. The comments in your email might be taken as a legal threat, and at the very least, it is HIGHLY offensive to ask someone to imagine family members being kidnapped, raped, and/or murdered.
If you are a practicing Catholic, you might want to consider taking a copy of that email, showing it to your spiritual adviser, and discussing penance.
I say that as a Catholic who disagrees with what Dr. Myers did, but who still thinks that as a Catholic, or even setting aside faith or God, as a moral human being, such statements are unacceptable.
-Ismone
Bryan Stikeleather:
If you feel PZ quoted you out of context, why didn't you just post the entire exchange?
If so, he is guilty of theft
nope. he was given the cracker.
strike one.
I and about 1 billion other people believe that our cracker-God IS a person!
you speak for all Catholics now? funny, many catholics are taught by their parishes that it is only metaphorical, and have written their disgust at reactions such as yours.
so, strike two.
if "nothing is sacred" why the offense at my e-mail
because it contains rather thinly veiled threats?
one doesn't have to hold ones life, or the life of progeny "sacred" in order to value them.
strike 3.
bye.
as you hang your head in shame walking away, I wonder why it is you want us all to become Catholic?
ROFLMAO
People who are of faith, or not of faith, live by morals. I have many atheist and non-atheist friends who in their personal morals do not go out of the way to insult and hurt people for their faith.
This exercise only proved that Dr. Myers no moral fabric whatsoever. Go ahead, speak your mind, tell the world you are atheist and don't believe, you have every right to do that.
But your actions are worse than those of the many Christian loonies there are out there.
That comparison is unfair to tm, and appears to contradict itself.
Kind heart!
No moral fabric whatsoever?
He threw out a cracker!
What the fuck.
Kind heart!
There you go with another meaningless one-liner.
(So, two references - I had forgotten about the explicit one.)
<shiteating> :-) </shiteating>
"But your actions are worse than those of the many Christian loonies there are out there. "
Are you including the ones who kill abortion doctors in that statement?
So once again, we learn: cracker > human life. Wonderful.
A little childhood phrase comes to mind: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but the disposal of a cracker can never hurt me.
Sticks and stones may break my bones - but flour and water is Jesus...
Just want to see this thread go to 1,000.
Success!
What the hell? My last post was #1000 last night. Stop doing that!
Success is mine.