Many of us were fans of Possummomma and her blog, Atheist in a Mini-van. She was a passionate writer, struggling to make ends meet with her family, coping with lupus, and also having to deal with a lot of anti-atheist-bigotry in her community and online. Well, they finally got to her: she's gone offline and has put her blog under password protection, all because of some extreme harassment and accusations from, believe it or not, Christian fans of a dopey reality TV show. It's a long, sordid, complicated, ugly story which I'm not going to repeat here, sinc The Calladus Blog has covered it thoroughly. The short and simple summary:
Venomous Christians, threats, and stalkers. Enough was enough. Possummomma has been libeled and attacked online, and stalked in real life. This isn't good for her family, or for herself. Stress aggravates the symptoms of SLE, and who needs that? This is one more drama, and P-momma just doesn't have the energy to deal with it. She's offline now, and the rabid Gosselin cult can high-five the fundamentalist preachers with a hearty, "Well Done!"
Possummomma's co-blogger also supports the explanation. I have to sympathize — trying to fight the insanity of religion that afflicts our culture can wear one out, especially when there are bigger personal issues of family and health to deal with — but let's all hope an opportunity to catch her breath and get a rest will be sufficient to restore an excellent writer to her role as a public advocate.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Sad, but understandable I suppose. Here in Canada I can so casually express my lack-of-belief that I wonder if I'm fully grasping the magnitude of anti-atheist sentiments in the USA. Is it really that different? Apparently so ...
christian love strikes again.
It's quite disgusting, it's amazing what deplorable acts people can do in the name of an all-loving deity. I guess all we can do is await the apologists to come and justify this act, then have the moderates turn up to try some damage control. It'll all spiral out in a tedium of predictability, with none leaving here any the wiser. It's not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but there's no point drowning trying to save a baby that just doesn't want to get out of the tub.
it's awful to hear that. i didn't read possummomma, but i can imagine how bad it would be forcefully silenced. much sympathy to her.
Oh my. Well, I hate to say it, but it is surprising that more atheists haven't been harrassed into silence. Almost every other story I come across has some fundie gnashing their teeth and vomiting threats from their anus of love.
FSMDude (youtube eucharist desecrations) had a lot of personal details posted online last week in the hopes that some other wingnut will do something unpleasant with it and now this. Well all I can say is FUCK THEM!!! It makes me more and more militant as each day goes by.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9rNzM2HsUjk
And if she ever decides to come back, even sporadically, I know many of us would be honored to have her guest post on our blogs anytime she feels like it. I certainly would.
Venomous Christians, threats, and stalkers.
I'm not surprised. A long time ago I noticed Christians are assholes.
Ah, another example of that true-christian love of which they're so proud (which is itself a true-christian irony).
This really saddens me. I always greatly enjoyed PM's writing, and she was a great example of how "regular people" can be godless, not just librul intellectual elitists. Present company included, of course ;)
Way to turn the other cheek, Christian assholes.
When I was in college and discovering my unbelief, people kept asking me how I could dislike Christianity. But, anyone who can do this to someone...
Christianist hooligans went after another woman, eh? I'm shocked...How many of these cowards would stalk a healthy male capable of turning and flattening their noses? Very broad-brush, I know, but, yes, I think it's pretty typical.
Wow, just wow. I wondered why she had just vanished out of the blue, and I had a feeling something had tipped her hand. She honestly had put up with far more christian sleaze than most of the people here (PZ doesn't count, he has hate proof armor made out of crackers and ammonite shells), so I guess its no surprise that she would go offline after her children were indirectly threatened, and a couple decided to engage in cyber-stalking at her expense. Still wondering whether or not to take her off my blog list, my darned optimism is telling me not to...
This is sad. I've enjoyed p-momma's blog and am sorry to see it taken away, but I'm even sadder about this little "victory" for the agents of intolerance. Those gutless sheeple will feel empowered and step up their efforts to go after anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Enshoku--
I'm still keeping her in my RSS reader for now . . . I know it doesn't look good, but I just can't give up hope!
I've just read the Christians' take on this (it's linked to from The Calladus blog post PZ mentions) and I am just completely blown away. The acts they're accusing her of just go to show what twisted, sick minds they have and despite hearing about things like this time and time again I am once again flabbergasted. I reached the end, expecting to see comments blasting the author for her flagrant craziness, and what do I see? A great big old pat on the back for her 'hard work' and 'research'.
Enshoku--
I'm still keeping her in my RSS reader for now . . . I know it doesn't look good, but I just can't give up hope!
I've just read the Christians' take on this (it's linked to from The Calladus blog post PZ mentions) and I am just completely blown away. The acts they're accusing her of just go to show what twisted, sick minds they have and despite hearing about things like this time and time again I am once again flabbergasted. I reached the end, expecting to see comments blasting the author for her flagrant craziness, and what do I see? A great big old pat on the back for her 'hard work' and 'research'.
With what Coffeeshop just posted, it's going to be harder for the average xian to say something like "well, that's not a real Christian that did that...
Bloody hell, the more this kind of thing happens, the more hypocritical they look when they criticize the taliban.
My sympathies to Possummomma and her family. Whether she blogs again or not, I hope she pulls through this.
And yet they'll still claim that the big mean atheists are always trying to oppress and silence Christians. This just makes me sick.
I was listening to Private Passions on Radio3 earlier. They had an MP on (:checks: Nick Clegg). After a lovely piece of Bach he casually mentions that he doesn't have any faith, himself.
Guess what? My computer didn't explode at this horrendous display of militant atheism!
@MaryM
I wonder how the fucker got FSMdude's personal info. Just another lovely example of 'christian' love I suppose. Someday, if there's justice, this sort of religiously motivated stupidity will die out.
And it's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything because 'anus of love' woulda cost me a new keyboard. :)
If the fundies were so sure we are going to burn in Hell, why try to silence us? If I were them I would revel in the thought of seeing us with Lucifer. The reason for their acts is simply because they also don't believe in all this religious crap, but maybe, just maybe, we could smuggle with their minds for them to admit it, so: "Off with their heads!"
Been through the threat cycle myself. Cyber death threats are a felony. If you turn hard evidence over the local police and FBI cybercrimes division and push them hard they will investigate credible threats.
The FBI eventually caught one group and charged them with felonies. It still had an effect. I no longer have much of an internet presence and everything is anonymous to the max.
I also learned what absolute cowards the internet stalkers and threateners are. When confronted with law enforcement and courts, they turn into puddles of jello.
If the fundies were so sure we are going to burn in Hell, why try to silence us? If I were them I would revel in the thought of seeing us with Lucifer. The reason for their acts is simply because they also don't believe in all this religious crap, but maybe, just maybe, we could smuggle with their minds for them to admit it, so: "Off with their heads!"
May I add my sympathies to Possummomma and her family. Not being aware of the atheist blog scene in the USA this is totally new to me.
There are people who call themselves Christians but do not DO Christianity. I do not recognise the Christianity I know about in what is being reported here. Where is love, joy, peace, gentleness, mercy, compassion, self control? If they are absent it is not Christianity, whatever people might call themselves.
But that is no comfort to those who suffer and need compassion and support ...
Poor Possummomma, and my sympathies to her and her family.
This is a shame, really. These people are crazy, and more people should be aware of what happened here.
I didn't read Possummomma, but if it comes back I'm going to.
If the fundies were so sure we are going to burn in Hell, why try to silence us? If I were them I would revel in the thought of seeing us with Lucifer.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? I mean, think about it: if we're right, we're ultimately telling the religious they're wasting their time. If the religious are right, they're telling us we're going to burn in a sulfuric lake and be tortured by demons for eternity. But somehow they're the ones who are offended ...
Shit.
I've met her a few times, and I can state without contradiction that she's a better Christian than most of the people in this theism-rotten town.
That's bullshit! I bet those xtian morons are stroking each other over this news, but when you put it into perspective ("Hey, we just picked on a lupus-afflicted mother because she doesn't believe our loony religion!"), this is atrocious.
As a peace-loving hippie-freak it pains me to say that I am occasionally moved to thoughts of pre-emptive violence, making me as bad, or worse, than the wingnuts I so revile.
:(
Tie that in with the recent ridiculous comments that have been made at republican party campaign stops and quite frankly I think it's the open-minded, rational, "intellectual elite" that have much, much more to fear.
It's repulsive and embarassing.
quoth savage: If the fundies were so sure we are going to burn in Hell, why try to silence us?
The thing is, Satan wants to attack the True Christians (TM), and has enlisted the godless mobs as his minions. The poor Christians are just trying to protect their loved ones from the attacks on their faith from those people and things that have been enlisted as Tools of the Devil (TM).
Although I can only guess at how Possummomma stands on the issue of same-sex marriage, I can assure you that you'd mightily piss off the local fundies who've been pulling the same crap on her in Bakersfield by donating to *THIS* cause:
https://secure.ga4.org/01/equalityforall
(And whatever you do, don't sign up any fundies for the mailing list, 'kay?)
Like Dave #30 I get enraged to the point of wanting to apply physical violence. And suddenly the benifience of the FSM (blessings be upon him) hits me between the eyes - I'm thinking, and perhaps moving towards behaving, just like these people we despise for doing it.
So they're being human after all. It's just that scientists, atheists, pastafarians, whatever, tend to think through their decisions before carrying out any course of action.
Why can't theotards let their invisible protector do the dirty work? Sounds like Aryan Nations to me. Tards with purpose!
I used to volunteer as a liberal foil on a rightwing AM drive-time talkshow (WJNT 1180am Kim Wade) here in Jackson, MS. I started coming in on Wednesdays when the local religious expert (aka The Holy Man) did his rapport with the fundie crowd. On one of my early appearances I made the comment that Jesus might have been gay, what with a dozen dudes wandering around in the desert! Talk about lighting up the phones!!
We did a couple more weeks of "The Heathen vrs. The Holy Man" before I tired of it. I continued to do liberal political discourse for a time after that with Kim Wade. For what it's worth, I quit doing it because I felt like my unpaid appearances were probably raising their ratings more than it was worth. You could say I decided to quit doing Fox News before a lot of others decided it wasn't worth it either.
My wife was always nervous and glad I gave up the gig. It never bothered me, but it got kind of creepy when I realized that people were recognizing me (not necessarily reacting in a negative way mind you..) just from the sound of my voice. I reserve the right to return to radio, but will do so only when control of the microphone isn't in the hands of the gestapo and what passes for good debate skill isn't defined by the decibel level of the participant.
One last thing. BREAKING NEWS HERE THAT YOU JUST CAN'T MISS. Granda put in jail through actions of homeowner association upset with his grass.
I bet the prison industrial complex feels immune from the fiscal calamity that is coming to pass. But in the final analysis, folks who have many other bills to pay are going to get tired of paying to keep Grampa in jail for not cutting his grass and their friends and neigbors for smoking it.
Enjoy.
http://digg.com/people/Florida_man_in_jail_because_he_can_t_afford_to_s…
this sucks... i haven't read much of her blog, but I remember it being mentioned before that her kids were threatened. and I can't believe those Christians are congratulations themselves to this! (well ok, I can, but it's still way beyond the pale)
Possummomma- if you are reading this, I would like you to know that you and your family are in my thoughts. It is so sad that you've had to go through this. I hope that knowing that there are those of us out here that support you will give you some strength and make your health issues more manageable.
I too followed the link to the offending blog and found this comment hilarious. It's from one of the ace pseudosleuths, named "betruthful":
Something just wasn't sitting right. I'm a little bit psychic, but I never use it.
That coupled with being obsessed with a reality show sure make these people seem [wink] "normal"!
I'm actually a little more surprised I haven't gotten more stupid people attacking me for my blog - but I think it kind of has to do with tone. I guess there's only so much self-righteousness that you can use in the face of blistering invective. :-)
Alan B@25,
Right down to your comment expressing denial, the events are in every way exactly christianity. It is the christian way. They are not being hypocrites they are being christians, the plan is in their bibel for any who care to read and understand what the mode of operation is.
oh wow. I just read the crazies' blogpost about this. conspiracy theorists, the lot of them...
Personally, my take - after trying to read that eighteen-billion-word explanation and giving up because I have no real reason to care that deeply - is that *all* of these people are best friends with the Drama Llama.
If you pin these alleged Xians down as to why the persecute atheists, the words usually come from either the old testament or Paul. They never seem to quote the words of Jebus. I think they should be called on this. If they like to quote the old testament, call them Jews, and if they like to quote Paul, call them Paulians. If they want the term Xian to apply them, they need to quote the proper source.
This is SO 4th grade schoolyard!
I mean, GROW UP! What we actually have here is a uninteresting blog by a sickly housewife who indecently happens to be an Atheist. Yawn. Oh no wait! Now we have DRAMA! He said that she said that he said that SHE said...oh who CARES! Hey, I can understand that the drama aggravates her sickness. Fine, but this feeding the drama llama after the fact, I mean, HELLO! She closed up shop. It's over. It's done. Nothing to see here, people. Move along.
This is not proper true christian behavior. Attacking this poor woman and her family is wrong. She should be shunned. Her children should be prayed for, and her husband needs a good talking to by the church fathers for his failure as pater familias. If he then doesn't beat some sense into his wife, he gets shunned as well. But the children still need to be prayed for, in hopes that they will turn to gawd. That is what my old death cult does.
I still laugh my ass off every time I meet one of them and they cross the street or leave the store to avoid me!
This story just adds one more grievance for me to hold against the godly. Despicable bastards!
Online stalking and harassment is a crime. I hope Possummomma is looking into pressing charges.
From the post on Calladus:
Once again, internet illiteracy plays a significant (although not decisive) role in yet another internet tragedy. When will the computer industry admit the idea that 'users shouldn't need to know anything' is a dangerous delusion?
Thanks for letting us know what happened. I too will miss reading Possummomma. I myself didn't renounce my religious upbringing until after I had raised my children so they got significant indoctination into during their childhoods. However,I am now helping someone else raise their children so I have a second chance to influence a new generation. These particular kids have taught me that children are actually natrual atheists and much more adept at questioning things that don't make sense than many adults. I will miss Possummamma's insights but I am glad she is doing what she needs to.
Patricia.. Try learning some history. There has never **been** one single instance in the history of Christianity in which burning your neighbor, either because you didn't like something about them, or you wanted their property, etc., wasn't the #1 path for Christians to "spread the faith". It is certainly not in **any** way contradicted by the OT, and there are parts of the NT that condone this kind of idiot BS too. At best, all you do have is some claim that, "Well, Jesus wouldn't have done that!", but... for fracking sakes, if you really bloody believe that, then why don't you throw out all the useless damn crap in the Bible that does condone or demand this stuff, and call yourselves Jesuits, or something (though I am sure there are nuts claiming that too, who are just as insane), not Christians. Because, so long as you tie both of you feet to the same stupid anchor, and in the process "support", how ever unintentionally, the 85%+ of Christians that **do** pull this crap, even if only in very narrow cases, and the much smaller number that do it ***all the time***, you are not doing yourself, or your claims that its not "Christian" for them to do this, any favors, the anchor will drag "all of you" down with it.
Its real simple. If you are not like these people, stop claiming that your, right now apparently tiny, minority of halfway rational people, who don't support either the level of insanity seen here, or all the quack, irrational, stupid "traditional" bullshit that actually harms, instead of helping, and would "never" pull this BS, are the "real thing (TM)" and everyone else isn't. They say the same damn thing, and the fact is that 95% of everything in the Bible, including some of the more insane rantings in parts of the NT, all suggest they are closer to the mark, with respect to the cultish stupidity it teaches, than you are. Its the number one reason why we all reject(ed) it as, if not more, forcefully than most of the rest of the religions floating around the world. There is, absurdly, no way to justify claiming to believe in the Bible, and also believe that it is some sort of story/rule book, intended to help people become nice, friendly, helpful, love filled, "good" people. If it does, its because humanity made them so, not some book that waffles between irrational sociopathy and the tamer scenes from Woodstock.
Kagehi, your sarcasm-meter is broken. Note the "That is what my old death cult does". it was a parody of Creepy Christians
You know.. I can't help but think that some "real Christians", would have, presuming the whole Fishes and Loaves thing had any truth to it, would have been the guy sitting on the end of the beach, shaking their head at the whining of all the other hungry people, based solely on the presumption that Jesus would "find a way" to feed everyone, while really just wanting to not have to do anything about the problem, yet willing to pat themselves on the back for being "right" about it. Too busy being "not like those people", to figure out that, "those people", aren't going to stop being assholes *unless* it no longer profits them to act that way. And how is taking passing swipes at people who point out that Christian is often synonymous with lying idiot, then doing not much more than chastising the loonies for not being "nice enough", making it unprofitable for them to continue to be lying idiots?
So apparently is the comment system. lol But its so damn hard to tell now, and I.. well, frankly, don't have time to remember every single person that ever posted irony, sarcasm, etc. on here. lol Maybe we need like.. some system where PZ makes the names of "known" posters a different color, depending on if they are one of our own, or one of the cranks? lol
Guess we lost, huh.
It appears that xian intolerance is reaching epidemic proportions.
The only reason seems to be that they feel under threat of extinction as a cult and are fighting for the survival of their cult deity...so much for not worshipping graven images...what exactly do they think they are doing.
It is the sane with the general condemnation of things magical...like Harry Potter or the Golden Compass books...they condemn the magic but accept as central to their faith the transubstantiation of wine and crackers into jebus.
Or that whispering to an invisible friend actually is a sane and wondrous trick...
Or gabbering inane nonsense words in tongues is a gift...maybe they should try talking 'parceltongue'...might be more rewarding...
Totally double standards...and their standard of intolerance hatred and bile is above and beyond being faithful...it is insane simple like so...
totally barking and infantile the lot of 'em...
The character Dionisio said, in Louis de'Berniere's book The Trouble Offspring of Cardinal Guzman, "Tolerance only ever prospers where people have grown weary of bogus certainties".
That's "Troublesome", not "Trouble".
Ah, you'll know they are Christians by their love...
Well, I hereby resolve to spend a little more time mocking said superstition, anyway. Seems only right.
"Reason is not automatic. It cannot conquer those who deny it"
Those cowardly, pathetic, clueless little terrorists. And all the time, while carrying out their scare tactics, while stalking, making threats, and preaching fire and brimstone, they still try to pretend to be the little boy crying in the playground because the big mean atheists took his marbles.
Hooray for another silenced voice of reason, courtesy of Jesus Fucking Christ.
I think in a lot of ways this one is even worse than the normal "Shut down the atheists" attacks. Those are at least overt, and clear about their hatred. This is more of the insidious hidden type. The attacks weren't about her atheism per se, but a bizarre case of mistaken identity and conspiracy theory, all aided and abetted by the underlying idea that oh, she's an atheist, so of course we can't trust her, of course she's more likely to be a bad person. It's similar to saying you're tolerant to people's faces but just happening not to hire the person with the more ethnic name, even though their resume is better. That makes it easier for those people to claim that there's nothing wrong with them, because they're not bigoted like the rabid overt types.
Carlie, you may appreciate this. The hill folk are real but the video makes pretty much the same (sarcastic, in their case) comment that you made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFSSvtaaF-c
Thanks for not giving up, PZ.
This whole harassment issue has got me wondering. What can we as individuals do to support atheist bloggers or other "out" atheists who experience harassment? Every time harassment works to silence an atheist (or any other minority member), society is weakened. It would be nice to support them so the "last straw" doesn't happen. Does anyone have any ideas?
K at #44 does an interesting concern troll spin.
I thought concern trolls were supposed to actually feign concern?
I mean it's obvious that's the category of his post by definition (a bit of concern trolling), but I can't recall seeing a more callous bit of "concern" trolling recently.
Is there a better way to label it?
unconcern troll?
another "unconcern troll" at #42 has the audacity to post that, while at the same time, posting this bit of trivial pursuit on their own blog:
http://vee-ecks.livejournal.com/155869.html
because, of course everyone really cares who screws who in Hollywood.
*rolleyes*
I swear, why are these unconcern trolls even bothering to post in this thread?
Were they actually personally involved in what happened to P-mama and now feel guilty?
or are they just moronic 12 year olds who glommed on to this story from somewhere else?
I swear, why are these unconcern trolls even bothering to post in this thread?
I notice they were both drive-by comments. To dismiss the topic out of hand as boring, trite or "drama" is to allow them to comment without investing in it and without having to defend it.
In other words, they are cowards.
It's funny, isn't it, how this is about the only thing the "moderate" Christians ever say or do when these sorts of stories pop up?
PZ- Thanks for posting this.
P-Momma, what can I say....I read her blog and enjoyed the the thoughtful posts she had on life with a family, making due, and trying to cope in an xtian controlled world. I wish these people actually looked at themselves first, for the hatred and lies that they attribute to her and other non theists. I and my family are sending good thoughts your way P-mamma. I hope you do come back to the blogging world, for me and the rest of the sane world to enjoy.
Zel
I was worried something like this happened when I noticed the protective layer. And people wonder why I equate "Christianity" with moral relativism, censorship, and barbarism.
Re: Notagod #40, Azkyroth #67 and my #25
"With what Coffeeshop just posted, it's going to be harder for the average xian to say something like "well, that's not a real Christian that did that...
It's funny, isn't it, how this is about the only thing the "moderate" Christians ever say or do when these sorts of stories pop up?"
Perhaps it just shows I am naive but what do you expect me to do or to say?
The actions of these people appear to be illegal (I am not a lawyer) and definitely immoral. As I said before, I do not recognize it as being the Christianity that Jesus taught. I do not support or condone in any way shape or form what has been said or done.
I guess I live about 3000 to 5000 miles away, in the Midlands of the UK. I am not able to visit with the family (even assuming I would be welcome). Coming from a different culture I would probably not have the right words to help anyway. Certainly, I do not recognise the near hatred expressed by some on both sides.
I have expressed my genuine concern. If you don't like it that's fine. If you think I should do more then give me a hint. I am not a passing, unconcerned troll (although to be fair no one has suggested that of me - for that, many thanks). I could perfectly well have said, "Why bother?" and "passed by on the other side" and ignored the post because I had a pretty good idea of the reaction I and others would receive.
But I still feel for Possummomma and her family.
Isn't that the "no true scotsman" fallacy in a nutshell? You have your own criteria for what being a Christian constitutes, and those who break it are not truly Christian.
Just curious, which of the 38,000 sects are true churches of Christ?
I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. - Emo Phillips
Possummomma has been a really good friend, lending a lot of support to me in my recent (and ongoing) legal action against a creationist who libeled me. Over at the Atheist Experience I've started up an open "messages for Possummomma" thread, here.
Perhaps. At the same time it's pretty important to recognize that moderate Christians, whatever their stripe, disown the type of behavior that shut down Pmomma's blog.
I disagree with the bulk of Christianity, but I also don't take kindly to people calling my parents some of the things Christians are called out-of-hand: they may be misguided (IMO) on some issues, but they're good people, I love them, and people that talk shit about them, even in generalities, deserve my umbrage.
Isn't that half the problem though? The moderates facilitate this kind of extremist behaviour by their abolition of responsibility. Maybe it stems out of the unthinkable alterative - "If they can be so committed to a course of action that is built on belief, then how am I any different?", and from there it may become necessary to disown them as not really Christian because if they take that responsibility of action the entire worldview comes crashing down.
Coffeeshop, it's my understanding that comments on the xtian blog are moderated. All those agreeing with them get through, while posts supporting P-Momma are not approved.
I'll miss her blog and wish her and her family well. I also hold out hope that she'll eventually return to the blogosphere.
Thank you! Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for passing this story on. Whether or not it's a result of when I sent you the link via twitter or not, still, thanks.
How are they abdicating responsibility by arguing that this behaviour isn't actually Christian? Alan, for instance, gave his definition of Christianity and argued that these assholes don't live up to it. Which is, so far as I can see, correct. Presumably they do live up to their own definition of Christianity, but what can liberal Christians do about that? Sue for copyright infringement?
As long as liberal Christians make strong arguments against the religious right--which plenty of them do, like Slacktivist and John Spong and Jimmy Carter--then I think that they're shouldering just as much responsibility as any of us. And it's entirely reasonable for them to argue that liberal Christian behavior is more in line with Jesus' teachings than fundie behavior. I don't think a strict follower of Jesus would behave in a way consistent with any modern subculture, but I do think the liberal Christians generally get a little closer. And if some other Christians recognize that and shift their own positions accordingly, hey, great.
Sure, Christians can't make as strong an argument against fundie nuttery as we can, and far too many don't try. But some still make pretty good arguments, and they deserve encouragement IMO.
Firstly, that's the point of the No True Scotsman fallacy, they define what they think Christianity is and anyone who doesn't live up to it isn't really Christian. What this does is negates the value of their condemnation, they fail to recognise that there are people who in the name of their religion and while being members of that religion do deplorable things. Saying they aren't really part of the religion is trying to deflect what they believe from cricisism, they are in effect protecting their own beliefs from criticism by trying distance that bad acts can happen in the name of belief.
I'm all for moderates standing up to the extremists, what I'm condemning is the shirking of responsibility of religion in this case by the use of the "not a real Christian" argument. Can you see the difference? I'm against the moderates who pass off the extremists in the same manner as the extremists criticise the moderates. In each case, there is a heap of namecalling on not being a true Christian, which involves each group setting their own definitions on what Christianity entails. Which is where the anecdote on post #72 comes in.
Agreed.
But it's only a fallacy when they change the definition of the label mid-argument. E.g., they start out using "Scotsman" to mean "guy from Scotland" and end up using it to mean "guy from Scotland who also holds some set of values I find characteristic of Scots."
If a believer consistently defines "Christian" to mean "one who follows the precepts of Christ," then there's no fallacy. By that definition, there are people who call themselves Christian but simply don't actually act that way.
Not if they make it quite clear that the people they're criticizing do identify as Christians, as Alan did.
In that case, the liberal Christians' whole point is that those people are doing horrible things in the name of Christianity but aren't actually behaving in a Christian manner.
And there's nothing wrong with that...if they have good reason to think that their own beliefs wouldn't logically result in the extremists' bad behavior. Because their beliefs, and those of the extremists, are not the same.
By analogy, I call myself an atheist, and I wouldn't hesitate too much before calling myself a Darwinist. Does that make me responsible for the Chinese government's actions in the name of "Marxist atheism," or assorted rich bastards' actions in the name of "social Darwinism?" No. The unpleasant things they do/did do not follow from atheism or Darwinism as I define it. I'm not avoiding responsibility if I point that out.
How else can they stand up to the extremists? The extremists claim to be justified by Christian principles. As Christians, the moderates obviously have to start by arguing that that claim is false.
What's wrong with that? If the moderates champion a definition like "doing what Jesus told us to do," and the extremists champion a definition like "believing that the Bible is literally true in every detail" or "believing that everything the Pope says ex cathedra is absolute truth," terrific. Those are clearly different definitions, and the rest of us can observe that the latter definitions lead to much nastier behavior.
I don't really see that anecdote illustrating a restrictive definition of Christianity--faux-Emo's happy to call both Catholics and Protestants Christian, for example. It's just that he only has loyalty to his own particular kind of Christianity.
No, there is a preconceived definition for what a Christian is. Basically followers are defining their religion by their own values, rather than using the societal definitions. Which is fine, but you can't just take your own standards and apply them to society as a whole. It doesnt work that way.
There's nothing wrong with an individual doing that, but again, they are interacting in an external environment where there are preconceived definition. Terms are not subjective, I can understand what they are doing and why, I just disagree with it. Say some drunk dickheads go around and commit assaults. Now someone comes out against alcohol because of it. Now as someone who isn't violent or aggressive when intoxicated, would it be okay for me to say that they aren't real drunks because I could imagine how having that toxicant in my system would lead to violence? This is basically what the no true christian argument is doing here. It's distancing themselves from the negative effects of certain individuals where there is a motivating factor, and it's really hard to deny that christianity was a factor in the above attacks just as alcohol was a factor in the hypotheticals.
They can argue the merits of Christianity to the extremists, instead of distancing themselves from the extremists to a non religious group by completely neglecting the role that Christianity played in the afformentioned incident. It's lame apologetic nonsense.
Well it's not an exact correlation, just illustrative of the divisive nature in regard to belief.
Look, he people who play the dark side know damn well how to push the buttons of people that, in their right mind, would **never** support them, and they do so often, constantly, and actively, in every way possible. Its simply not enough to "talk about" how bad these people are, when there is someone on every level from the worst to the best, all pulling for someone that is one level higher, and worse, in the chain of deceit, ignorance, greed, lies and un-Christian behavior. Its like children trying to prevent a flood with sand castles, who don't notice the bullies among their own, who keep kicking over the weak kids, so their look more impressive. The effort isn't enough to start with, and its made even more worthless when their own numbers are trying to make themselves better off, by impressing the next bigger bully up the chain. You are as small a minority as the extremists. Why, because for every "small" bully you have, who subscribes to some "mildly" stupid idea, there is another they look up to, with stupider ideas, who holds up the next, etc. So long as you sit around insisting there "are" no bullies in your own number, nothing changes. So long as people blindly funnel money, support, etc. "to" the bullies, without realizing, nothing changes. So long as all you do is tell people who are already in front of you how the King bully is bad, while failing to deal with the tiny one sitting in front of you, nothing changes. And the only way change "will" happen, is to get people to stop feeding the madness, by assuming that everyone below them is "too liberal" and everyone above them is "too conservative", while failing to note that "most" of them are sitting in the middle of the damn boat while the "too liberal" ones insist its not sinking, and the "too conservative ones" keep trying to "improve things" by knocking holes in the damn hull. The bottom lends credibility to the middle, by not "seeing" the problem, and the middle supports the top, by thinking its "enough" to just protest a lot that someone else is crazier than they are.
People have to "listen" to you saying that, for it to matter, and actions speak way louder than words. For a long time now, actions have "all" said, "If someone presses the right buttons, keeps most of the skeletons in their closet well hidden for a few years, and they don't 'actively' piss off more than 50% of Christians, the other 50% will either actively help them, fall for it, or not bother to do anything about it, because they 'other choice' appears less acceptable." Gosh.. Can't imagine why the "moderates" are on the outs, while the loud, lying, obnoxious, well funded, and often active to the point of their own members direct detriment, wackos, have won so far... Its just, inconceivable. Its almost like, they care more about winning that you do, and are willing to do any damn thing they can do so so, including convincing half of the more gullible "moderates" to vote for them.
But yeah, being outspoken is a nice start. Its just not enough, given that the opposition is willing to do nearly "anything" to get what they want instead, and, as others have said, abdicating responsibility for them, simply because they are not "your kind" of Christian gives "them" power, and weakens "your" ability to change things. After all, if they are not one of you, why they hell do "they" need to listen to you?
a) If you look in pretty much any dictionary in the land, one of the primary definitions of "Christian" refers straight back to the life and teachings of Jesus. That's the definition liberal Christians are using--in fact, that's the definition most Christians use. It's hardly a unique or bizarre use of the word. If you said that the Pope or Jimmy Swaggart was behaving in an un-Christian way, pretty much everyone would understand what you meant. You're not saying that they're actually Jewish or Hindu or agnostic, you're saying that they don't act the way Jesus said they should.
b) Who is more entitled to define a religion than the people who are practicing it? I mean, American society seems to define "atheist" as "Someone who knows there is no god, or hates God, or worships Satan, or possibly is a Muslim." Does that mean atheists themselves can't plug a different definition of the term?
c) Even if liberal Christians were using a weird definition of the word, that wouldn't make it a logical fallacy. I can define "Scotsman" as "a small flower from the Alps" if I want to. It won't be tremendously useful in argument, but it's not a No True Scotsman fallacy either, as long as I make my chosen definition clear.
I dunno. You haven't actually defined "drunk" there, you've just said what "drunk" isn't.
But Christianity--in the sense of adherence to the teachings of Christ--really wasn't a factor. S eriously, Jesus said a lot of weird things, but I'm pretty sure he never said you should harass mothers with chronic illnesses because they dissed your TV show.
Was Christianity--in the sense of membership in certain religious groups which identify as Christian--a factor? Yes. But liberal Christians, in general, don't deny that. They're generally happy to admit that fundie nuts do call themselves Christian, and that their religious affiliation is a factor in their nasty behavior.
But how can they argue the merits of Christianity, except by showing that Christianity would not endorse assorted bad stuff the extremists do? I mean, if you define "Christianity" purely as a laundry list of religious sects, then it doesn't have any merits, or any defects either. It doesn't have any content at all. You've got to go with a definition under which Christianity actually says something, before you can argue about it.
And, again, if they recognize that this incident is partly due to the perps identifying as Christians, then they haven't neglected that role at all. Not all moderate Christians make that recognition, but some do.
Are you referring to the GDNNOP blog as a christian group? They are just a bunch of nutty Gosselin fans who think Possummomma posted as Pennmommy and told lies about the Gosselin family, they aren't some organized christian group. They aren't going after Possummmomma because she's an atheist, they think she made up the Pennmommy blog and they want to prove it, I don't know why trying to prove it matters so much to them.
Maybe it makes it sound more noble to feel as if this is some kind of organized persecution by christians, but it's just some people that are mad because they think they got duped by some lady who seemed to share the same ISP as Possummomma. Hope things calm down for her and that she will be OK and be able to blog again.
Re: #71
Kel asked me:
"Just curious, which of the 38,000 sects are true churches of Christ?"
I wrote a long reply which I have killed. Here's the short one:
The Church Jesus founded is the sum total of all those who have accepted Him as their personal saviour and are, as a result, living a life in line with the example He set. As Paul said, follow me as I follow Christ.
This means that there is no single sect or group of sects that make up the true Church of Christ. Unlike the Old Covenant, which was with a total physical nation, the New Covenant is with individuals.
Hence you will find Christians in many odd places, even in the Roman Catholic Church, The Church of England & the Baptist Church. Even in your "reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879", although not, perhaps, your murderer of #71. You will also find people who do not appear to have much of an idea of what love, joy, mercy, peace and compassion are all about.
There's a difference between saying the Pope acts in a non-Christian manner and saying he's not a true Christian. Though I'd argue that the beginnings of Christianity start with Paul rather than Jesus, and it's only later that Jesus came into it but that's another story. But even so, all I can ask is which teachings? Do we take the teaching that anyone who doesn't hate their family can't follow Jesus? Do we take the teaching that all acts bar blasphemy against the holy spirit are forgivable? Do we take the teaching that vindicates the old testament? Do we take the teaching which instructs the murder of all non-believers? (and yes, I know it's a parable, but it hardly makes it any better). The point is we pick and choose even what teachings of Christ we think is important, that in effect there is no unchristian behaviour as all bad behaviour (bar blasphemy) is forgiven and redeemed by faith in Christ. One could argue that to be a true Christian all they have to do is believe in the redemption of mankind as the gospels show comes through faith in Christ.
And Islam is the religion of peace, those suicide bombers aren't real followers of Muhammad. But of course, lets change the definitions to make them completely subjective. That way everyone can accuse everyone else of not following the guidelines as they see it, and there will be no clear-cut definition for anything anymore. When someone identifies themselves as a Christian, we can ask them if their definition is the same as what Alan B defines it as, and if not, then they aren't real Christians and shouldn't be included in the denomination. Subjectivism of terms leads to a grey area where no term has meaning.
Again with the subjectivism.
What a pathetic comment. I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say not to harass mothers with Chronic illnesses because they dissed your TV show either. Jesus didn't say anything at all on people who diss TV shows, turns out he didn't even know what a TV was. But unlike liberal Christianity, he was around before the time of television. I'd even go so far as to say that television has drastically changed the face of Christianity as it's allowed for a global spread of information like never before. But I digress. The point is that again Liberal Christians are defining what is and what isn't permissible based on their interpretation of the bible. Which parts do they like, which do they not? Surely he can make the argument that they are missing the most important parts of the message of Jesus, but that is different from saying he's not a true Christian when both are subject to interpretation! It's the no true scotsman fallacy no matter how you try and justify it.
Just curious, which teachings of Christ do you consider one must follow in order to be a proper Christian?
quoth Strangest Brew:
It is the sane with the general condemnation of things magical...like Harry Potter or the Golden Compass books...they condemn the magic but accept as central to their faith the transubstantiation of wine and crackers into jebus.
To be clear: The extremist Christians are not doubting the magic in Harry Potter, they accept that witchcraft (and various other occult practices) is true, but condemn it because it is Evil.
As for Golden Compass, the problem was not so much with the supernatural aspects, but with the negative portrayal of God.
Re #76:
You are correct, the blog is heavily moderated. Even middle of the road comments ("are you sure this is the right person?") never show up. Only those crazies that agree 100% with the poster seem to have a voice there, which helps reinforce the groupthink.
"The extremist Christians are not doubting the magic in Harry Potter, they accept that witchcraft (and various other occult practices) is true, but condemn it because it is Evil."
Seems it was not just the extremists either...they all had a pop at the books...archbishops deacons priests popes and evangelists and in fact the whole movement seemed indignant that anyone should upstage their incantations......
Yet they do accept their own brand of magical rites in fact they promote that aspect of their belief...and it is magic what else could it possibly be...?
Seems that if magic is not utilised to gossip nonsense and personal wish lists with a mythological second rate deity they get all pompous and unnecessary.
"As for Golden Compass, the problem was not so much with the supernatural aspects, but with the negative portrayal of God"
Not so much god... more the Holy Roman Catholic Church...which they felt was represented by the ominous 'Magisterium' in the books...
They protesteth to much methinks...although the depiction was unnervingly accurate and the magic flying around did not ding their bell either...seems they want the monopoly on magical practice...
Well the Pope...'ole benny baby' is still the head of the inquisition and holds dearly to the post of exorcist general...so with that warped sense of rationality they know that wizards and witches are a gunning for them obviously...cos they got a score to settle...makes perfect sense really...to a paranoid schizophrenic anyway's.
"When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realised, the Lord doesn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me ... and I got it!"
Emo Phillips
You missed one. There is the, admittedly, indirect, but in no way directly contradicted, implication from his various parables that its OK to indenture someone into servitude to be basically a slave, and where the *only* sort of condemnation of the practice might be in one parable where its implied you just shouldn't beat them "too badly". We derive our morals from what we believe "now", then try to shoehorn religion onto it at justification. If what we believe is *really* dignifying to humanity and positive, then one needs no such justification, if its not, then such justification is dangerous, because it "prolongs" the period of hate, bigotry, injustice or irrationality that come "with" that false justification. Its as simple as that.
Re: #87
Kel asked me:
"Just curious, which teachings of Christ do you consider one must follow in order to be a proper Christian?"
Apologies for quoting scripture but the question has already been asked (and answered) before:
Matthew 22
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
The (b) is a footnote to Deuteronomy 6 verse 5 and (c) is a footnote to Leviticus 19 verse 18 (both of course from the Old Testament because the BASICS do not change). New International Version but any Bible will give very similar phraseology.
As someone pointed out, Jesus was not aware of TV and blogs but it seems to me that this covers the case of Possummomma and her family. Whatever they thought the justification for their actions, did they love their neighbour (P.momma and family) as themselves? If the places were reversed, would they have liked her to jump to conclusions and pass judgement on their actions without at least hearing their point of view? Would they have liked her to rouse up her friends and produce death threats or whatever else has happened? (I do not know the full details)
If their answer was "No" (which I am sure it would be if they sat down and thought) then they are convicted by their own mouths. Note: "No .. but" is not good enough.
You don't need every last detail to be spelt out and a detailed checklist made out.
Again, apologies if I sound like I am preaching but you did ask an excellent question ...
Alan
Let me try putting it another way.
The way of life for a Christian is remarkably straightforward. Put all your effort into loving God and into treating your fellow man (woman / person whatever ...) as you would like to be treated.
I am not saying there are no further questions but that gets the foundation straight.
Well, if atheism is true, it's survival of the fittest, man. No time for empathy, right?
Darwin rules!
No, there's not. Really, look the noun "Christian" up in a dictionary. You will find a definition, one of the primary definitions, along the lines of "a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ." By that definition, if you act in a non-Christian manner, you aren't a Christian.
Is it possible to be a Christian using another definition of the word and yet not act in a Christian manner? Of course. You have to be clear what definition you're using.
Sure, why not. Now--is it true that conservative Christians follow these teachings more faithfully than liberal Christians do? I don't think so. Even the homophobes citing Leviticus aren't particularly attentive to the other fourteen million laws laid down in the Old Testament.
If you want to say that nobody is a "true Christian" in the sense of faithfully following all the teachings of Jesus, I agree. (I'm not entirely sure anyone sane could follow them all.) But liberal Christians can still make a case that they're better at following Jesus' teachings than conservative Christians.
Well, of course it's different if it's a parable. The whole point of a parable is that it shouldn't be taken literally. And--it seems to me--the obvious point of this parable is that the enemies of God will get theirs on Judgment Day, not that Christians should go out and murder unbelievers right now. Does that imply that God's an unpleasant bastard? Sure. Does it sanction religious war? No.
Now you're using an entirely new definition of "Christian," namely "anything which is compatible with eventual salvation." That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't imply anything about the appropriateness of other definitions.
If they wanted to define the label appropriately, they certainly could. Who cares?
Exactly: welcome to the world of human interaction. There is no clear-cut definition for most words--they were created by humans, they're used by humans and they mean whatever the humans using them want them to mean. This is why people begin arguments by defining their terms.
Why would we be in the business of deciding who gets to be in what religious denomination?
Okay. So you agree that the word "atheist" is unusable for us, since most of the English-speaking public considers it to mean something between "claims to know there is no God" and "hates God?" After all, it's only the subjective opinion of us few atheists that it should actually mean "lacks a belief in a God." We're obviously out of step with society, right?
Oh, come on. You know quite well--at least, I hope you do--that I was referring to some fairly straightforward and general teachings of Jesus, which can be logically applied even in the Amazing Future-Land of Televised Images.
I mean, yes, there are inconsistent bits and vague bits and completely insane bits in his teachings, and it's not always easy to figure out what he, or at least the authors' version of him, meant to say. But he was pretty clear on the whole "Don't actively do harm to your enemies" bit. It is not difficult to conclude that Jesus, as portrayed in the canonical Gospels, would disapprove of what was done to Possummomma.
I think you need to review that fallacy; morphing your definition mid-argument is a necessary component. From the Wiki article:
The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e, a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable.
It is not a No True Scotsman fallacy when someone consistently uses a single definition which you don't happen to like.
Alan B,
First off I want to say I agree with you that those acting in this manner is not in the teachings of Christ. What my contention is that you are defining what Christianity is by what you hold as the most important doctrine and that's where I see the problem. What you are doing embodies the no true scotsman fallacy. Where I see the problem is your wording. Instead of saying these Christians are acting contrary to the teachings of Christ (which most will agree), to say they aren't real Christians because of that is a poor argument.
I would have no problem with Christianity if more people took that attitude.
* a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.* a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ*a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
Done. So which one doesn't make someone a true Christian?
That's where this argument leads. Once someone starts defining what is and isn't Christians, it becomes that subjective definition that is useless. I think you are missing the point of what I'm objecting to. It's not moderate Christianity, I have no problem with the moderates. It's that the moderates play the same game as the extremists and look at their interpretation as the way to interpret God's word and anyone who doesn't do that isn't a true Christian. That is the fallacy in a nutshell.
They could make a case, just as conservative Christians can make a case. It doesn't mean that one is more Christian than the other, hence the no true Christian.
Of course not, but that's Christ and not Christians. His canonical portrayal would also be forgiving of that action, put it down to our fruit-eating ancestors and forgive anyone who put their faith in him. Wasn't that the message of the bible? We are all sinners, and only through Jesus can we absolve it. Of course it's a sin, but it hardly matters in Christian theology.
And no true Aussie would abstain from alcohol. Because it's not where you were born that matters, it's the culture you partake in. Seriously, that's the aussie mentality. We can define Scotsman by their culture just as we can define them by birth. By defining certain characteristics that we subjectively put on there, we commit that fallacy.
Seriously, that's the aussie mentality.
so... there's no AA in OZ?
Well there is, but those who are involved are not true aussies. ;)
quoth strange brew: Yet they do accept their own brand of magical rites in fact they promote that aspect of their belief
The point is, from that perspective, there is good magic and bad magic, and the magic of Harry Potter is evil, and even reading about it endangers the reader's immortal soul.
This is rather funny. Alan B had basically managed to reduce his *own* faith to the very thing we say it is in the first place, a bunch of people all collectively deciding that they like what some guy supposedly said about being nice to people, and therefor choose to follow that ideal, while ignoring both the other prior bits that contradict it, *and* the crazier stuff their own prophet is supposed to have said. That's like... one micron away from saying they don't really believe he "was" the son of a god, or god himself, and that they just appreciate his ideas the same way some of us might look to Samuel Clemens as an "inspiration" on how to think about the world. Its got to be almost the same feeling Darwin had to have had when looking in the waters by the Galapagos and discovering that the "fish" he was seeing where really "iguanas". lol
Re: #97 Kel said:
"First off I want to say I agree with you that those acting in this manner is not in the teachings of Christ."
"I would have no problem with Christianity if more people took that attitude."
I am delighted that we are in agreement on the principles behind how a Christian should act. And I happily (or perhaps I should say, sadly) accept the corollary that not all who call themselves "Christian" act that way all the time. I would further agree that there are some/many non-Christians who follow a similar ethical approach although I am sure you would agree that would not include "all".
I might also hazard that loving someone as yourself (or, as much as yourself - God does not expect more) is a pretty high standard for anyone who is honest with themselves: it is definitely not Darwinian. "Reciprocal altruism" is not allowed as the standard Christ set.
Kel further said:
"What my contention is that you are defining what Christianity is by what you hold as the most important doctrine and that's where I see the problem."
Ah, but we have not discussed "the most important doctrine" yet. You asked 2 perfectly reasonable questions but they only really revolved around whether a particulat sect is the "True Church of Christ (TM) and how someone who says they are a Christian should act. This is where I came in - to sympathise with P.momma and her family and express my feelings about those who seem to have taken on this action (is vendetta too strong a word?).
There would be a number of things to tease out if we were to discuss, for example, what 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind' involves and I am aware that I am already risking trying the patience of the readers of this atheist-based blog.
I have already talked practical theology and quoted scripture without so far being barred but I don't wish to push my luck!
Best wishes from the UK!
Alan
I wish I had time to have pointed this out earlier, but I've been a bit busy.
When I first started researching this, I expected to find much the same as what is being said here. However, even on the pro-Gosselin blog, I could only find one instance of her atheism being mentioned in a post, and only three in the comments (here, here, and here.) That's why I only mentioned it in passing, in my post. It's a red herring, and only attempting to poison the well when we make it a Christian vs. Atheist argument.
Since P-Momma's atheism isn't a critical part of the accusations against her I didn't feel it was necessary to deal with it. Even from the three comments, only two people referred to it directly.
Actually, I'm glad they aren't using that as a criticism to level their allegations. It's difficult enough (although sometimes interesting) to deal with their Gish Gallop method of throwing out evidence.
Re: #102
Dear Kagehi
Glad I was able to bring a smile to your face. We British appear to be able to do that occasionally (see Monty Python).
How on earth you reach your conclusion based on what I have written is beyond me! I expressed my sympathy for an abused family with the mother (who happens to be an atheist but that really doesn't matter to me - think about the parable of the Good Samaritan and the idea of not being a respecter of persons) going through severe health problems. I followed up by answering challenges to my comments about actions to be expected of a Christian. I explained the foundations on which a Christian's actions should be based and dismissed the idea that there is a sect or collection of sects that ipso facto constitute the "True Church of Jesus Christ" (TM).
Nowhere have I expounded on other aspects such as why a Christian should act that way, a Christian's relationship with God, the nature of and response to God's love from a Christian point of view, the place of the Old and New Covenants and their terms and conditions etc. etc. and you seem to think I am therefore " ...one micron away from saying [I] don't really believe he "was" the son of a god, or god himself, and that I just appreciate his ideas ...".
Sorry - that is called changing the subject: an unfortunately failing that many scientists claim to be practised by Creationists. (Please note, I am not a "Creationist" by any common definition of the term indeed, I am taking an exam tomorrow on Evolution, a level 3 (final year) course with the Open University, UK. The main, but not the only, text being Evolution by Douglas Futuyma. Theistic Evolutionist may be close but I hate labels).
As I said to Kel, I would consider it discourteous to go on and on "preaching" on a site which is (famous for being; notorious for being - delete which is inapplicable) known to be atheistic. This is PZM's site and I am an uninvited visitor who enjoys coming here and learning. I could discuss further but I am reluctant to present a view which is clearly unpopular to nearly all and resented by some for reasons I can understand. Some of which have been expressed forcefully in the subject matter of this item from PZ.
best wishes at least until after my exam (yes, it is really in October)
Alan
Ok. Lets nip that one on the bud right there. The **only** way the end of that statement makes sense is if your one of the people that insist on claiming that "survival of the fittest" means, "The ones that survive by being uncooperative assholes that kill everything they compete with." **That** definition is not Darwinian. There is however "no" contradiction between the real definition of such fitness and species cooperating to better survive, including developing altruism. And, nothing in **any** field of research has shown any indication that any "group", including moderate Christians, if they feel threatened, don't act entirely Darwinian with respect to those they choose to encompass as "their group", while generally hostile to those that fall outside of it. And, even then, all evidence points to the validity of the hypothesis that we see a few hundred, at best, as "individuals", and everyone else as some homogeneous group, like "fellow humans", which inaccurately lumps *everyone* into some set of definitions and concepts that may not even apply to any damn one of them. Even when dealing with people that disrupt our lives, its not just easier, its "necessary" for our limited minds to lump everyone that we determine is dangerous in some "other" category, which quite often ends up being something like "inhuman", or, "those terrorists".
As for your argument that I am wrong about how you "reach" your position, its true that my description is an "extrapolation" of what you admitted to, but you clearly admitted two things - 1) moderates, including yourself, don't even try to follow "everything" that is attributed to Jesus, that, in your own words, being likely impossible and remaining sane and 2) that you specifically pick the part you do want to follow based on a purely "personal" perception of which parts make sense, and which parts do not. The only "logical" conclusion that can be drawn from this harks back to the same silly issue Plato implied in the play he wrote where Socrates has a nice chat with a fellow named Euthyphro, who, by the end, finds himself confronted with the realization that he can't in fact "describe" what piety is, or even give a valid reason why you need gods to give it to you. The central point being, if good exists as something recognizable, you don't need a god to tell you to be good, while conversely, if good does not exist "except" through a god, then its a completely arbitrary word, and means what ever the "god" wants it to.
As with your statements, the only conclusion one can reach is that gods are not terribly useful for much at all, since their redundant to understanding what is good, and therefor, any conclusion drawn from them is post hoc justifications for what you figured out on your own, not something from which morality itself is, or can be, derived.
Of course not, but then again I'm of the opinion that ethics is closely tied to our genetic make-up so in effect any ethical system is at best a mask over our true nature. I'm of the opinion that our genes, our emotions, and the way our brain is wired (which is helped by social constructs like morality) are what tells us the difference between right and wrong, that higher thinking has very little to do with it for most people. In that sense, the bible is quite a useless doctrine as people will pick and choose the parts of it that match their already pre-conceived notions of right and wrong. So while I'll agree with you on which parts of the J-man's message are important, it's because of my genetic make-up and the area I grew up in which would lead me towards the more loving elements of Christianity.
We see a lot of altruistic behaviour in nature. You should see chimps and what they do with consolation behaviour. Of course reciprocal altruism isn't the whole story, it's a large part of it though. It's in that sense that Jesus' message is impractical for most people. Sure there are some who are truly non-violent and have the desire to help out those who can't return it. There's good evolutionary mechanisms for why such a behaviour should evolve; it's more beneficial to have a group that will support each other because the group as a whole benefits from that kind of behaviour. Why do I give to charity? Because it makes me feel good. Why does it make me feel good? Because I'm wired that way. Why am I wired that way? Either through genes or memes there's a benefit for that kind of behaviour.Note: this does not diminish the words of Jesus, it's an explanation as to why some of us follow it and some don't, why following it doesn't even matter on knowing it.
If you talk in a calm, decent manner then you won't really draw ire. If you are just here to preach, then you will. That's the difference between dialect and godbotting. Most of all, you have to be willing to argue along scientific lines because talking without substance is preaching. Most of us don't recognise the bible as the word of God, so arguments to the authority of the scripture will be taken as Godbotting. Understand the difference?
Just note the difference between talking and preaching and you'll be fine. It's those who insipidly try to convert others who are locked away in the dungeon.
Re: #107
Hi Kel
Thank you for the encouraging reply.
A few thoughts to round this off from my end ...
I did not come here to score points or to crow over arguments I may (or may not!) have won.
I will say clearly here once and for all that I am not here to convert anyone. If you really want to be theological - all right, I know you don't want to be but it may help you to see a little into my reasoning and why it is not just a load of "lieing for Jesus" - anyway, the reason is that it is God who works with someone. Being a Christian is first and foremost about having a relationship with God and you can't get that by arguing someone into it. Too often, I believe, Christians get in the way, no matter how well meaning they are. I personally strongly disagree with the concept of the high octane altar call.
Immediately I know that someone will say, "you are picking and chooseing" so just let me leave it at that. You may not like my approach, "'tis a poor thing but it is my own."
If I do start preaching, tell me off!
If you ask honest questions, as you have, then I will try to reply but to answer the question (from memory), "which do you believe is the most important commandment of Jesus" I cannot avoid the unequivocal scriptural answer.
I will also defend my position if challenged as to why I differ from others in my understanding. Since much of this is (to me, at least) not science but theology I find it difficult to use totally scientific arguments.
In the immediate context of this message about P.momma I came by to offer support, firstly from the UK (that strange country that speaks a dialect of American, uses boiling water instead of seawater or ice to make tea and drinks lukewarm beer) and secondly to suggest that there are Christians who do not behave the same as some of those that you seem to meet rather too often in the US.
I would like to leave this here for the moment. I have a better idea about how you look at things, for which I am grateful. As I said before, I came here to learn but the thread is already 2 pages away from PZ's current comments.
If anyone with an inside track is listening, I would rather like to hear how P.momma and her family are getting on.
best wishes
Alan
I see those who push creationism as lying for Jesus, those who will contradict science in order to explain how the universe works or will contradict history in order to put God in there.
Everyone picks and chooses from the bible, I even do the same when debating with believers. Mostly to see their reaction, asking "what about this verse?" because it's interesting to see how they react to it. To see how they've rationalised away the parts which contradict their view of the nature of God. So when debating conservatives, I'll throw the verses out you mentioned. When people say "God is good", I'll throw out the verses which show God being not good. When they take the passive loving approach, I'll throw out the lines that show Jesus talking about being violent and aggressive - or his conservative message.To me, it's interesting to see why people believe what they do. People base it off the bible, but they do pick and choose. We all do with everything; no-one can copy/paste a worldview and take it as their own. So it's important to see how someone has rationalised their worldview within a system. So in effect, I'm asking why. Why those verses? Why not the other verses? What stands out about that message to you? How does it fit in with the other messages? How do you resolve that with the way it was taught to you, or taught to your ancestors? What role do you see God playing in this world? Because all these questions are relevant, the individual's belief does affect the community as a whole so it's important to know how and why they think that way.
Fair enough, though I'm sure you realise that if your theological arguments are incompatible with science they will be ripped apart. You can't do philosophy without science, it just comes as absurd. Likewise religion needs to fit in with what we know. That's all I'm saying.
Alan (#108) Possummomma is okay. Bewildered a bit but recovering enough to trade quips with me via email over the comments in my blog.
P3 is doing well too. It's my understanding that her surgery went well and she's up and about now.
If you want to leave her a note, you can do so at the "Atheist Experience" blog.
Any one of them. By definition one, a Hindu is not a true Christian. By definition two, Fred Phelps is not. By definition three, Mother Teresa is not. By all of them, I'm not.
What? Because I inferred your definition of Christian, I was able to agree with you. Until you define who is and isn't Christian, you can't even have a meaningful discussion about it.
But conservative Christians would be wrong. Both sides are referring to, roughly, the same text. And while it's full of metaphor and contradiction, it's not completely up for grabs.
Sure. But Alan didn't define Christianity by "what Christ would forgive."
I'll ask again: Do you think atheists have no right to explain that "atheism just means lack of belief in a god," since most of the Western world defines atheism as "hostility toward god or firm belief that there is no god?" Is that us trying to inflict our "subjective definitions" on a mostly Christian public?
If someone told me they hated God and therefore refused to worship him, I would say they're not an atheist by my definition. Have I committed the No True Atheist fallacy?
You can. That's fine. In that case, it would be correct to say that no true Scotsman would commit [insert non-culturally Scottish action here]. If you want to say that's a stupid definition, sure, it's a stupid definition. But it's not a logical fallacy.
Look, suppose I say,
"Dogs, by which I mean four-cornered mahogany tables, are made of wood."
"All wooden items are made from trees."
"Therefore, dogs are made from trees."
That's a very silly definition of "dog". But it's a logically airtight argument. There is no fallacy.
In the right situation, it most definitely is Darwinian. A worker termite "loves" its queen far more than itself. Why? Because it can't pass on its own genes, and it needs the queen to do that for it.
Likewise, a mother may be programmed by evolution to love her child more than herself. Her child carries at least half her genes, and being younger, is likely to pass on those genes to more offspring than the mother can produce in her remaining fertile years. Furthermore, her child is needier and more fragile than she is--by sacrificing her needs for its, she can raise its chances of survival greatly without an equal reduction in her own chances.
Actually, pretty much the entirety of Christ's ethics are based on Darwinian principles: reciprocal altruism and kin selection.
Reciprocal altruism: If you do good, God will reward you in heaven, because good deeds are a personal favor to him. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." The Old Testament says much the same thing--you owe God for past and future favors, so you're "contractually obligated" to please him by leading a righteous life.
Kin selection: Just look at how many times, in the Gospels, other humans are described as your "brethren" and God as your "father." There's a reason for that.
Like most religions, Christianity hijacks some very basic evolved moral mechanisms to construct its own system of ethics. If it didn't, nobody would be inclined to follow it.
Alan B wrote:
Sorry about jumping back in but, I would find it interesting to have an explanation of the use of "perhaps" in the quoted paragraph.
Also, Allen B asked what he could do about the possummomma being attacked by christians. Well, instead of commenting on a blog that is critical of what christians do, thus, trying to defend your christinsanity, you could have gone to a christian blog that defends the christ myth and point out the destructiveness of god-ideas. Using possummomma as an example of christinsanity in practice.
Allen B, I don't expect you to respone because you've already suggested that you are done with the conversation. However, if you do, then I do expect you to explaing your use of "perhaps" above.
http://www.pspsps.tv/facepalm.jpg
That is the fallacy.
Re: 113
My use of "perhaps"?
Tongue in cheek humour. Perhaps it does not go down well in the USA.
Did not the fact that I referred to him as a murderer give you a hint? Do I have to be serious all the time?
Alan
Re: #110
Thank you for the update, calladus. Delighted to hear about P3.
I have left a message.
Alan
Re: 115,
I don't know you so am unable to make assumptions about your christian god-idea. George Bush's christian god-idea thought murdering tens of thousands in Iraq was wonderful. The man depicted by the christian jebus myth, did and expected many things that I consider disgusting, such as the requirement to murder ones parents or children. I realize christians are screwy and can justify all manner of crime for their individual god-idea.
Re: #112
Oh dear, I said I would like to round off the conversation but it appears I am allowing myself to get drawn back ...
You queried my saying:
"Reciprocal altruism" is not allowed as the standard Christ set.
I stand by that. I can understand your argument but I would not use your approach (if I did, I would presumably be believing what you do).
Reciprocal altruism or kin selection, while important considerations for evolution sell short what I believe to be the Christian position.
A Christian does not do good deeds in expectation of reward - some do, of course but that is up to them - I am not going to defend their position. As I understand it (I may have MIS-understood it) GENUINE altruism with no expectation of reward (even by furthering of similar genes) is rare or possibly unknown in nature.
I love my neighbour as myself (imperfectly of course) because God first loved me and I am trying to follow the example of Jesus Christ who loved the world so much He gave His life. When Jesus was asked who His neighbour was He gave the example of the Good Samaritan who helped a victim of mugging, regardless of the fact that the Jews and Samaritans were religious enemies. While I did not go through this thought process, I also saw P.momma as a neighbour, regardless of religious beliefs. Jesus says to show compassion and I did (and precious little thanks I have received for it - not that I did it for that reason). Has anyone said, "How refreshing that someone with christian beliefs is prepared to take the time to give support to an atheist going through trouble caused by other christians"? Do I care? Not particularly. Each has to live their own life and from comments on this site it appears that many have had particularly bad experiences with religion and christians.
The love a Christian shows to God and fellow man is a response to what God first did for us. We love God because He first loved us. I love P.momma (in an agape sense) because God first loved me. Why P.momma specifically? Because she came to my attention because I am a regular reader of this blog. Because it seemed to me that from what I heard she was being put down by those who were stronger than her and instead should have been helping her, not the reverse. Where were the people reaching out to help and support instead of to condemn? In a small country parish where I used to live we had individuals whose self-chosen role was to ensure that neighbours were helped in a quiet respectful way when there was a need. Because they were fellow church goers? No. Because they might be "saved" and "come to know the Lord"? No. Because Jesus would have done something similar.
I do not feel that whether or not I am concerned about P.momma and her family will do me any good and it will harm me (trivially) by not spending the time and mental resources on something like my family or my studies which will bring benefit. It comes because there is a need.
Does God promise to reward those who have an honest and sincere Father /son-daughter relationship with Him. Yes. Is this what attracts some people to religion? Yes. Is it to remain the prime motivator of a Chrisitan? No, although it helps to be reminded when a Christian is going through persecution as in New Testament times. Christianity is a personal response to a loving Father, not a fear and terror of what might happen if we don't.
Again, I do not expect people to believe me. I'm not asking people to believe me. Christianity is a personal relationship.
I am limited in how to express this. Please accept it as reality to me and to many other Christians - and a reality that should lead a Christian to a different course of action to that which we would otherwise have followed.
best wishes
Alan
Re: #117 Notagod said:
"The man depicted by the christian jebus myth, did and expected many things that I consider disgusting, such as the requirement to murder ones parents or children."
Sorry, Notagod, I do not recognise this "jebus myth". Are you suggesting it has anything to do with the teachings of Jesus (apparently a different person from "jebus", whoever he was) and the New Testament gospel? Where did Christ, Himself, murder His parents (He had no children) or command Christians to do the same?
Alan
(Might I ask you to spell my name correctly? In this country - UK - it is regarded as a courtesy.)
Basically, here's how it works. We live in large communities, we have to function with complete strangers in order to survive. So if people were unkind to strangers, if they did not help out, then there would be no reciprocal for them. We understand suffering, we know what it's like to suffer and we don't want that in return for others.Empathy is an evolved trait (see consolation behaviour in primates). The only real difference between us and a pack of chimpanzees in that respect is that we've had to adapt to working in large communities. Turns out that a community of around 150 people is the optimum number, that's as many people as the average human can form a relationship with. They've found that the ideal church congregation size is around that number, they've found that that's about the number of people we have in our address books. But of course society has to work above that number, we've been in larger communities for about 10,000 years. So those who would be more dispositioned to acts of kindness towards those they don't know would be more likely to pass on offspring as their traits are more beneficial in society. Of course, not many people are truly altruistic. As much as you are other Christians preach altruism, I wonder how many of you practice it. How many of you would continue a relationship with someone who steals from you? How many of you would keep in contact with someone who struck you with malicious intent? How many of you would sit there and forgive a man who molested your children? Altruistic in thought, not in practice. This is where reciprocal altruism comes in. It doesn't have to be direct payoff, that's a misconception about reciprocal altruism. We live in a society and it's the group that relies on reciprocal acts. We help strangers because we expect strangers to help us. It's not on an individual level, I honestly never expect to be homeless. But I have no problem giving my change to homeless people.Now here comes the other funny little thing in the tale. We give because it feels good. How many of us do something we hate solely for the benefit of others? Be really honest with this, does it feel good when you give to charity? Does it feel good when you console a stranger? We feel good, there is direct payoff to us for doing kind acts. That feeling of worth from doing such an acts is selfish, it's not altruistic at all.
As for altruism in animals:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2005/05/10/1364191.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7577275.stm
Wikipedia is also a nice place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals
Re: #119 (aka Alan B),
You have my permission to ask me that question.
Yes, jebus and jesus christ are the same myth.
Christians make believe that their god-idea and their jebus myth are the same thing - some don't but the bibel is the official christian god-idea booklet, not the individual sections or words. People can of course, reshape their god-idea as a matter of choice as it is just an idea. Conversely evolution, for instance, is based in reality not merely an idea so it isn't correct to simply pick out the bits that are convenient at the time.
What you are doing is picking convenient pieces out of the christian god-idea booklet in order to boost your self-image. That is also probably what the christians that are harrassing possummamma have done as well. That is, used convenient bits to defend their christian god-idea from truth and honesty. That is the danger and disgusting actions that occur when you present your christian god-idea as something more than the myth that it is.
Re: #122
I notice, Notagod, that you are unable to support the accusation:
"The man depicted by the christian jebus myth, did and expected many things that I consider disgusting, such as the requirement to murder ones parents or children."
My response was:
"Where did Christ, Himself, murder His parents (He had no children) or command Christians to do the same?"
Your latest unsupported argument is:
"That is the danger and disgusting actions that occur when you present your christian god-idea as something more than the myth that it is."
Again, no evidence supporting this claim based on anythin I have said. You disagree with WHY I do things (no problem) but to suggest that my presentation of the "christian god-myth" will result in "...danger and disgusting actions ..." lacks any justification in what I have said here.
I am sorry for you if you really believe these things, especially if you have been led to them by the "disgusting actions" of christians of whatever belief.
Since you are unwilling to give any justification for these silly accusations it seems to me that this really has got to the point where it is a waste of time. I shall not be coming back to this thread although I may join in elsewhere if it is relevant.
Best wishes to all, including Notagod
Alan
(I have appreciated Kel's comments and questions. We can disagree without being disagreeable. You have taught me to be more careful with using Darwinian analogies!)
Thanks for the love, PZ. I meant to comment before but stepped away from the computer for a few days to regroup.
P3 is pretty much recovered. She's back to recess and PE, but not the gym. Another week and she'll be fine. Oddly, our biggest problem during this recovery period was that the scar made it impossible to wear pants/shorts. You don't realize how awkward it is to put a first grader in a dress every day until you do it for a month.
The situation with that reality show board is beyond lame. Even though they've been handed evidence to contradict every claim they've made, they won't apologize. It's comical because they claim to be fair and balanced.
I may blog again, but it'll be a few weeks. This hit my husband and I in a vulnerable place. We had stress from P3s surgery (from an illness that took the life of a family member within two weeks), family drama, and all the normal fall school craziness. I need to be whole before I blog again.
Best of luck to you and your family.
...and definitely only go back to blogging if it makes YOU feel good.
cheers and Happy Halloween.
I can only direct you to a couple of pages on the topic. Key words and phrases: "initially treats the definition," "shifts," and "redefines."
Alan,
I think you confuse conscious motivation with selective advantage.
A mother doesn't care for her children because it will help her spread her genes--she does it because she loves them. But her love has evolved because it motivates maternal care, which does help her spread her genes.
It's pretty unlikely that any nonhuman species performs altruistic acts after a conscious calculation of how they will affect reproductive success. They help because they want to. Evolution predicts altruism with no expectation of reward.
Yes. I did. Well, I don't really find it refreshing, because I know a number of liberal Christians who often do the same. But I did offer my approval.
Going by the teachings of Christ as laid down in the gospels, I disagree. He spent very little time arguing that you should follow his precepts because they're inherently ethical, or for that matter because he or God loves you. He spends a ton of time laying out the rewards you get for following him, and a ton of time laying out the horrible punishments if you don't.
I mean, look at the Beatitudes. Every single one of them says "Do X, and you'll receive reward Y."