The Unreasonable Faith blog has started a series on "An Evil God?", documenting the horrible little stories and nasty tribal morality of the Bible.
He has already started with page 1. It's a l o n g book, so he's committing himself to a very long series, I think.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
If you've been following the comment threads lately, you already know that we've had a new arrival who has been inspiring much hilarity, Pastor Tom Estes. He seems to be much dismayed at us atheists, and is promising to meet us at the Creation "Museum" on Friday, to discuss matters. He also has a…
Now, it's time for the final chapter in my "visits with old friends" series, which brings us
back to the Good Math/Bad Math all-time reader favorite crackpot: Mr. George Shollenberger.
Last time I mentioned George, a number of readers commented on the fact that it's cruel to pick on poor George,…
(This is a post about the concluding volume of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, so if you clicked through here because the title made you expect a rant about religion, you're at the wrong blog.)
It's hard to say anything coherent about this other than "Wow." I mean, this is the tenth thousand-page…
I came across this post at Howard Friedman's religion law blog and it got me to thinking. The post is about Pakistan amending their state law to allow for women convicted of premarital sex to be "rehabilitated" rather than put to death, as their law previously demanded. I was repulsed by the notion…
Hmmm...looks like this could be worth following. I wonder if they've thought of publishing this (along with the best comments on each section) as a book !!
Rog
He looks an interesting, intelligent writer. Nice find.
*bookmarked*
@Roger: I have in fact thought of that, and that's the plan. Didn't think about the comments part though -- interesting idea!
@Scaryduck: Thanks!
Didn't Mark Twain do something similar to this? Not, of course, that this should discourage the folks over at Unreasonable Faith. If anything, it underlines that there is a fine and oft-ignored tradition of Biblical criticism that should be practiced and highlighted more often.
From the comments:
No wonder we can't get through to creationists!
I'd think one could link to Ingersoll's writings, or any number of others (some being the founding fathers), to cover this adequately.
I suppose the problem is that people wouldn't read what's already been written. Nonetheless, I can't get very excited over anyone treading such well-worn paths yet again.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Hmm! Tasty! I have always said it: I'm glad there is no God, if there was one and it was like the Bible says, no way I would want to be in his hands!
@Emmet: LOL, good one! :)
Ingersoll never used the phrase "epic fail," therefore his writing is not punchy and fresh.
@Der Bruno Stroszek:
I'm not aware of Twain doing something like this, but I know he wrote his "Dairy of Adam & Eve" poking fun of Genesis (which is hilarious) and also his "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice" which talks generally about some of the absurdity of the Bible and the historical results of it.
But there is alot of Twain I haven't read, so I'm sure I've missed lots of good stuff. If I'm missing something similar to this, please let me know!
@Glen Davidson:
Ingersoll does have some great writings on this which I have read. You are right, though -- many people won't read a simple Ingersoll link. And of course most of what people say has already been said -- but what's the fun if we stop talking and just link? There's always room for fresh conversation. Hopefully I'm bringing a unique perspective to the table and making people think about some things that they normally wouldn't think about.
NB:
Evil Bible
Dark Bible
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
etc
The comments there are an interesting read... this should be worth following. I'm especially looking forward to seeing how the commenter that accuses Daniel of quote mining plans to "slap him with the context", seeing as most of those quotes stand alone.
I cannot get too worked up over his menthod and approach in denouncing his former (?) reliance on religion. His wording, constant references to his former god (always a capital for him) and lamenting this god is the cause of all suffering, is put in such a way that I find it hard to accept that he has completely weaned himself away from his former religion and stress. This is akin to an avowed atheist wearing a tee shirt that says "Thank God I am an Atheist!" You don't excoriate the very thing you don't believe in by giving credence to it by alluding to it's existence. I don't regard his method with approval, and I question his sincereity in total freedom from religion.
Good luck with it, and I hope that it causes many to think.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
the whole of human history is filled with nasty, tribal morality
@Holbach:
I'm trying to write for both atheists and Christians. Capitalizing "God" is automatic for me, and though I often do it lowercase purposely, I don't see either as a big deal.
It would make for a very tedious article if every time I was referring to God I qualified it with "God, whom the Christians believe in but doesn't REALLY exist" and "God, who doesn't exist but is mentioned in this passage"! I sure wouldn't read it, and you wouldn't either.
I find it interesting you "question [my] sincereity in total freedom from religion." You're like the antithesis of most of the emails I receive -- usually it is from Christians questioning my former sincerity to Christianity!
Daniel Florien @ 15
Which sincereity is in question? Your christianity or your atheism? I submit this with sincereity to accept you as one or the other, that is all, with no ridicule ascribed to the truth of either, but not both.
Some sites doing the same thing with the Koran:
http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/
http://uzzas.blogspot.com/
http://atheistexile.com/blog/index.php
and the Bible:
http://a4atheist.wordpress.com/
Unless 90% of the world not only believes in it but thinks you're an evil person because you don't. And "Thank God I'm an Atheist" is a joke.
tsg @ 17
No, it's not a joke. I take my atheism seriously, and don't give it short shrift with stupid innuendo. A good tee shirt would be this: "There are no gods, but there are atheists." A negative followed by a positive, or if you prefer it with more strenght, reverse the comment. Short and realistically direct.
There does not seem to be much room for whimsy in Holbach's life.
Re #9
Try "Letters From the Earth" (Mark Twain)
Yes, it is.
And incredibly dull. Humor can be an effective means of communication. You might look into ordering: Humor, sense of, qty 1.
...which obviously means that nobody else is allowed to joke about their own atheism, right? Meh!
IMHO, anything worth taking seriously is worth joking about.
Every now and then in my travels through libraries or bookstores I'll see various collections of Bible stories for children, sometimes illustrated with those god-awful (ha ha!) sappy, big-eyed greeting card style kids playing the various "roles" in the story. I'd love to see someone put together a book of Bible stories illustrated in the same fashion, but focusing on all the nasty stuff in the Bible. The drowning of the wicked in the Flood, the trials of Job,all the fornication and smiting, all the gross and ugly wretchedness that is kept out the usual "Children's Bible Stories" collections. To have those big-headed, sad-eyed poppets wading hip deep in gore or lost in debauchery would be perversely amusing. An x-rated "children's " Bible. Imagine that.
Punchier version: "Atheists exist; gods don't." - few enough words to just about be visible at a worthwhile distance (especially split across front and back).
Regarding the Quran, I recommend: http://kafirgirl.wordpress.com/
@Daniel Florian:
Note to self: do not accuse Holbach of concern trolling
Actually, I don't find that sort of thing to be a very good joke, either, but it's still a joke. It doesn't cause me to go around questioning motives or actual beliefs.
Pointing out how utterly ridiculous scripture is can sometimes help, I think. Life of Brian shows it can be quite comical, at any rate.
If theology were really a science, I would think that one of the things that theologists would research is how "God's Word" becomes a book. Does he dictate it to a secretary, does he write it out longhand himself? What about all those translators, editors and compilers? Is God whispering in their ears, guiding the whole process along, making sure it doesn't become a big,long version of the telephone game? What about the creation story(ies)? Nobody to take dictation. It doesn't say that God wrote it down while he was busy creatin'. Doesn't even say he took notes for referring to later. At least Muslims have a story behind their book, however unlikely, to explain the chain of command in how it got into print (well, calligraphy). But the Bible-not so much. I've always wondered how that is supposed to have worked.
#12 - Holbach - Once again I agree with you my friend, and I too question his sincerity and strength of conviction. But I am intrigued enough to go back and read his blog a few more times. He is going to have to try harder to get an 'A' from me in bible bashing.
Since this site is apparently a parody of William Lane Craig's I was wondering what people make of his critique of modern evolutionary theory,http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6711.
@23 There is such a book. I think Amazon has it but I can't remember the title. It had big bloody pics of the 'bald head vs bears' story.
Also for the koran,
http://uzzas.blogspot.com/
There are several blogs deconstructing scripture. I posted some but i guess the spam gaurd caught it for having too many links.
#19 - Janine - Betcha ol' Holbach is full of whimsy. He just doesn't twirl in public like I do. Wheeee!!!!
At least Muslims have a story behind their book, however unlikely, to explain the chain of command in how it got into print (well, calligraphy). But the Bible-not so much. I've always wondered how that is supposed to have worked.
Well, the fundies have their own ridiculous version whereby the Torah was essentially dictated to Moses, well, except the parts he's in himself, which he takes care of as YHWH's ghostwriter, and, oh, except for the part where Moses DIES (talk about a ghostwriter, heh).
And then all the rest of it (including redactions and translations) is supposed to be "divinely inspired" so that what is plainly the work of myriad individuals can still be considered The Literal Word of God.
And there's a whole industry for hand-waving away the self-contradictions in this "inspired" text. I think they're powering the state of Alabama with the energy so produced.
Patricia @ 29
I'm sure we think as one on most anti-religious ideas Patricia, and we are in agreement as to Daniel Florian's comment at #15. His very first sentence marks his indecisiveness as to which side he ascribes to, atheists AND christians. One or the other, not playing both sides of the fence.
Holbach(#12) wrote:
I (a life-long atheist and increasingly anti-theism-istic) prefer to use the capitalized God to refer to supreme-being type Gods, and use the lower-case god for the lesser gods of polytheism, who really are not of much significance in the conflict between religionism and rationalism.
Janine @ 19
I assure you I enjoy and deal with much whimsy of all sorts in my life, but I do not find anything whimsical in regards to religion and all manner of superstitious nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, religion should be subjected to ridicule, not whimsy or anything of a comic nature which only tends to make light of a serious subject. There is whimsy in cartoons and fantasy and wharever we may so deign, but religion is far from a whimsical nature and makes it known that it is not to be taken in a light or farcical manner. This is as it should be accepted and so ridiculed in any manner possible. However I may be regarded by my fellow commenters, my atheism is sincere and resolute, and whimsy is reserved for those things I take delight and comic relief in.
@Holbach
I had a very comprehensive Catholic upbringing. So I know how they walk the walk and talk the talk. If the time and audience is right then there's a place for de-bunking their faith in the manner they understand it. I could just say its superstitious nonsense (which it is) but pulling apart the nitty-gritty details can also do the job.
So I'm sure Florian's approach has its use for the audience he's aiming at. Rather interesting in fact for me, as someone who has altogether too much of that clutter rattling around in my brain.
Maybe you had the good fortune not to have had a proper religious education. So maybe you don't know the enemy well enough!
SEF @ 24
I like your version better, simpler and more direct front to back.
SEF @ 24
I like your version better, simpler and more direct front to back.
His very first sentence marks his indecisiveness as to which side he ascribes to, atheists AND christians.
Nonsense, Holbach. He says: "I'm trying to write for both atheists and Christians." That's a statement about the intended audience for his project, not about his own convictions. I suppose in your True Atheism, preaching to anyone not in the choir is tantamount to handing out copies of the Gospel of John on the street and concluding all communications with "Yours in Christ," but it really is tiresome to have you constantly railing against all those who fail your stridency test.
secularguy @ 35
Seriously, there is a difference?
Ah, I knew I'd seen it somewhere:
The Bible According to Mark Twain
Apparently it's a compilation of all his articles on Christianity, some of which have been mentioned by Daniel Florian above, but some of which hasn't been published outside of this collection.
I first heard about it in a Harper's Monthly editorial; they printed a wonderful excerpt which describes the God of the Old Testament as - I'm quoting from memory here, but it's something close to this - "a tyrant without compare" and a purveyor of the worst genocides the world has ever seen, then saying that "it is the most damnatory biography that ever saw print". Not exact quotes, but I remember the sentiments very clearly.
Holbach doesn't think religion is funny. Pete Rooke doesn't think Christmas is funny. Spud doesn't think the vicar with a potato up his ass is funny. Spot the difference.
CJO - Do you find those who come here preaching religion to be equally as tiresome?
What do you consider appropriate instead of constant railing against them and their never ending stupidity? I would genuinely like to know, as I am every bit as whole hog or none in attitude as Holbach is.
Holbach, seriously, you need to
1) take the stick out of your ass,
2) order a Sense of Humor and some Chill Pills, and
3) apply both liberally to the turgid meatsack you call your body.
Honestly, stop being a jackass.
Holbach (#41),
well yes, I think so. Belief in polytheism is insignificant - the greek and norse gods are considered mere myth, while the notion that there is a God, who is higher and of more importance than anything else, and thus can be used to justify anything, is one of the core problems with religion, in my opinion.
stogoe @ 45
Seriously, are you a freaking moron or a bigger jackass and smartass than I am?
Here's a question for you: before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, did they know it was wrong to disobey God's command?
Obviously not, since that would mean that they already knew the difference between good and evil.
The story fails even within its own narrative. Epic Fail!
secularguy @ 46
Good grief, they are all myths no matter how you define them or what historical crap you attach to them!
What do you consider appropriate instead of constant railing against them and their never ending stupidity?
I have no problem with that, per se, and do plenty of it myself. That's not what I'm talking about. Holbach rails against commenters here who, in his eyes, are not sufficiently strident in their atheism. It's annoying, and it's largely a one-note concert, to the point where a Holbach-comment-generator would be a trivially easy (if stupendously pointless) script to write, and I doubt whether anybody could tell the Holbach chatbot from the real thing.
Oh sweet lord!
TALK TALK TALK BLATHER BLATHER BALTHER YAP YAP YAP
Y'all are lazy stuffed shirts full of hot air.
STOP TALKING - GO OUT INTO THE WORLD AND MAKE IT A BETTER PLACE! Screw the church, screw the atheists, screw all this useless palaver.
ACT! Damn you! Hand out toys, ladel soup at the local kitchen, round up blankets and pillows for the homeless shelter, go visit random strangers in a nursing home, volunteer to help someone learn how to read!
This talk is killing me! DO SOMETHING! JUST SHUT UP AND GO DO SOMETHING!
blowhards - y'all make me sick!
Alright! I admit it! I am coming out of the closest. I love Jesus. It is so cool.
#46,
So fucking what? All myths are not equal, that is: All myths don't have consequences of equal severity.
Useless comment.
But who says we aren't doing those things?
And why shouldn't people discuss these things.
In other words do you have a good point or just that real shitty one?
You can talk all you want, but you gotta know the territory.
In the time it took 60613 to write that rant, (s)he could have done much good in the world. For shame, 60613.
CJO @ 50
You have the annoying habit of not reading my comments too closely and thoroughly, or perhaps it is that you not only do not agree with the things I say, but you appear to have a hang up with issues you regard as not in mesh with your own and therefore criticize them with snide remarks as to my too strident atheism. My atheism is definitely real, but yours tend to the chatbox version in all it's venue.
Jesus is like a lizard running around on the nub of my heart.
Y'all are lazy stuffed shirts full of hot air.
Yor concern is noted.
ACT! Damn you! Hand out toys, ladel soup at the local kitchen, round up blankets and pillows for the homeless shelter, go visit random strangers in a nursing home, volunteer to help someone learn how to read!
I missed the part where commenting on a blog conflicts with any of these estimable activities. Do you spend all of your free time doing these things?
This talk is killing me!
So don't fucking read it. Sheesh.
Janine - Haw, haw! You come out of the closet with jezus and they promptly take down the video. What a sinner you are!
On case of [Gg]od...
I regard it as elementary English to capitalise "God" as a proper noun when refering to the specific deity of the Abrahamic religions (or any other god called "God"), and "god" when used as a common noun, referring to some deity but none in particular. It's rather inconvenient that the Christians have chosen to call their god "God", a little like calling a town "Town", but that's the way it is.
I have to say that I've always regarded the notion of attaching "respect" to capitalisation as being insufferably ignorant, as if by writing "George Bush" rather than "george bush", one demonstrates some kind of undeserved respect for him rather than merely demonstrating that one has had competent English teachers.
secularguy @ 53
I cannot seem to persuade you to understand what myths are and what no matter you try to explain them and in any manner, they are still myths. Here is one more try and I'll leave it at that: "A pig in satin is still a pig."
Jello Jesus with extra Mojo.
Do any myths have actual consequences?
Emmet, when I use "god" to refer to the big sky daddy, it is meant to show my lack of respect for the concept. Just like when I refer to GWB as "dubya".
Patricia @ 60
Ha! No luck for me either in watching the video Janine tried to offer. Hell, trying to explain my atheism is getting to be a real pain in the ass, and I just might revert back to religion and go on the other side and have all my detractors here rant against me for switching back and trying to reconvert me so that they'll rant at me again to get back to atheism and fight the religious retards. Whew! Hell, let's discuss the merits of the great Looney Tunes and see if that subject merits as much controversy as degrees of atheism does! Holy crap! Don't worry Patricia, I'll be an atheist until I drop no matter how many and how much phony comments are thrown at me on this site.
My atheism is definitely real, but yours tend to the chatbox version in all it's venue.
First of all, this is frankly incoherent. Looks like the script could use some work. Second, I have no doubts that your atheism is real. You're not responding to the substance of my criticism, but I do note the skillful use of the rubber/glue gambit. Oldest trick in the chatbot toolkit. Really, you're not doing yourself any favors here.
Hint, my first link is not a video.
CJO - Thank You for explaining your remark. While I do not agree with you on Holbach's comments, I will spend some time considering your point of view. I have been accused of being too harsh as well.
Janine - Oh. See that's what twirling without alcohol gets me. Kack!
Janine @65,
IMHO, no god or politician is sufficiently important to warrant violating perfectly good rules or conventions of a language.
"Capitalizing "God" is automatic for me, and though I often do it lowercase purposely, I don't see either as a big deal."
We've tried numerous times to explain to Holbach that capitalizing "God" is just the proper way to denote a proper noun in English, like Aphrodite or Frankie Yankovic or Beck. But he won't have it.
"but religion is far from a whimsical nature and makes it known that it is not to be taken in a light or farcical manner."
All the more reason why we should treat religion in a light and irreverent manner, to take that power away from it. Laughter always wins.
Emmet, I understand what you mean. In fact, it is almost enough to make me change my mind.
Almost.
Holbach - I enjoy your comments. I've recently been told by a member of my family that I am rabid and verging on fanatic, so I've been trying to round my edges a bit. When the family complains I listen.
Birds of a feather... Ayatollah Khomeini:"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
Now that's funny! It's what the nuns said in grade school.
Here's another one for the bible, with cool pictures:
http://analicingthebible.blogspot.com/
Janine,
It seems to me that it's at least arguable that to "decapitalize" God, but not Thor, Kali, or Apollo, is to accord one mythical figure particular significance over the others. I fail to see any reason to do that. Either way, it's nothing I'm going to get my knickers in a knot over.
*shrug*
Patricia @ 74
Point well received, and thanks.
Holbach,
You are too dogmatic in your opinion; there is nothing in what post to suggest the use of God is other than naming the main character of the story. Were Daniel to have used god, it'd seem affected and petty.
Your posts lead me to think you treat atheism as an ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Your Name's Not Bruce?, I give you the Lego Bible:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
That's creative.
Holbach's two chief weapons are fear and surprise. And ruthless efficiency. Frankly, it would be better for everyone if he took his McCarthyism somewhere else.
I have always enjoyed the take on the bible presented by the avant-garde rock group The Residents in their performance art video "Wormwood"... it's a little hard to find, but well worth it. I think excerpts are floating around youtube...
@ Holbach
"I cannot get too worked up over his menthod and approach in denouncing his former (?) reliance on religion. His wording, constant references to his former god (always a capital for him) and lamenting this god is the cause of all suffering, is put in such a way that I find it hard to accept that he has completely weaned himself....."
"Hell, trying to explain my atheism is getting to be a real pain in the ass, and I just might revert back to religion and go on the other side and have all my detractors here rant"
Have you just considered shutting the hell up and NOT taking others to task over the misunderstanding you have for other peoples atheism?
Holbach - No point made toward you or your comments. That was strictly just the comment to me about my attitude. What's made it even harder to take is all the Christmas Bazaar's I've been peddling at. I get at least 50 "gawd bless you" hurled at me every day. Grrr!
RevBDC (@64):
No, but belief in myths does, and not all such consequences are equal, which is I think what secularguy was getting at. Belief in the single God of the Abrahamic religions is socially toxic, both because it is so widespread and because the notion of a single all-powerful supreme being is particularly at odds with personal or intellectual freedom; belief in the Norse or Greek gods is not especially worrisome, for pretty much the exactly converse reasons.
I gotta say, this thread has been surprisingly tiresome: Usually it's the trolls taking chippy little potshots at people, not the Good Guys™!
Not that anyone asked for my opinion, but...
1. Joking about something does not mean you don't take it seriously.
2. Addressing yourself to people who don't share your beliefs does not mean you don't actually believe your beliefs yourself (nor does some triviality of capitalization).
3. A large percentage of us (and a large majority of Americans) were born into a default religion, and it takes an intellectual and emotional journey to arrive at atheism. Pissing on people because you don't perceive them as being as far along on the journey as you are doesn't help anyone.
[deep breath]
BTW, Sven (@55): What can you tell me about the consequences of the Uneeda Biscuit in the airtight sanitary package? ;^)
I have always enjoyed the take on the bible presented by the avant-garde rock group The Residents in their performance art video "Wormwood"... it's a little hard to find, but well worth it. I think excerpts are floating around youtube...
I saw that performed live, in Athens of all places, in an honest-to-goodness (though modern) Greek amphitheater. It was pretty damn cool.
Representative moment: After a lengthy musical re-telling of the trials of Job, "Funny story, I know. But it happened to a friend of mine, just the other day..."
Emmet (@76):
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that discrepancy before, but now that you bring it up, I think it's a matter of treating Thor, Kali, Apollo, et al., more like literary characters and less like "real" gods. That is: Nobody cares whether you capitalize Thor because nobody takes Thor seriously as a god; since there are (effectively) no believers, there's no need to use typographical flourishes to make plain our disbelief.
In addition, in polytheistic schemes, the names of the gods are more like names: A monotheist wouldn't say that "God" was a name (maybe Yahweh, or the 8.999 billion other names); instead, s/he would say something like "there are many false gods but only one true God." It's that one-true-ness that we're denying when we make a point of lowercasing god... for those who bother to worry about such things.
i think i could get used to this kind of treatment of the Bible. I take it then PZ that you will keep this as an update like Friday Cephelapod and Radio reminder. Right? I certainly hope so.
Humans can't be faulted for doing what they want, because if they didn't, evil wouldn't exist. If that were the case, there would be nothing to make God look better by comparison. All these stories serve to do is point out the incompetance of God by constantly giving examples of how he's better. God, by definition, needs no comparisons, so all that he has done is pointless masochism.
As a side note, that God's creations were imperfect shows that God is imperfect. A perfect thing can Never become imperfect, directly or indirectly; and since humans are image-bearers of God (whatever the hell that means), we would be unable to mar that image without having already been made imperfect. How can a God lower his standars like that in the first place? Where's his perfectionism then?
It doesn't apply to Good, only Evil. Evil has all the weapons, all the bases, all the intelligence, but Good people are expected to win out in this "Spiritual War?" Sounds like God himself is delusional.
stogoe @ 81
You can determine McCarthyism from my statements when no reference is infered or otherwise? Man, even that surprises me, and I know my opinions better than you do.
I tend to use 'god' as a noun but not a proper noun, hence the lack of capitalisation - and, since I usually refer, when writing about it, to describe said deity as 'your god' or 'the xian god' it's not in a context that requires capitalisation.
Besides, isn't the judeo-xian god named Yahweh? I feel that by using god with a capital 'g' supports the ridiculous implication that theirs is more real and relevant to the discussion than anyone else's.
er, Bill, there actually are rather a lot of people taking Thor seriously. Asatru is one of the names for Thor religion now.
Sunny Day @ 83
I think I'll accept your opinion and simmer down for a while. There is one point I will not accept, and that is you mention that I have a misunderstanding of other people's atheism. No, I have no such thing, as I understand exactly how their atheism differs from mine, but I do not have to take them to task over it.
RickrOll @88, I'm tempted to sic you onto Rhology :)
Damn! What is this, pick on Holbach day?
Patricia @ 84
Nothing personal meant or interpreted, and I think you are having a harder time than I am since you are definitely on the front lines of all that crap thrown at you every day. Sunny Day @ 83 makes a good point, and I am logical enough to mull it over. My last sentence sums up my attitude and what I don't have to do to rouse the ire of a lot of people who find me a little too strident. I may temper my comments, but my ideals remain intact.
Such days of wonder and pleasure are few and far between, so enjoy it.
Which is as far as I care to "get into it," not at all in any serious sense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Do i want to be in a place like that John? The vote of confidence is heartwarming (or, banishing the paganism attached to such a silly notion, i can has feel good).
Holdbach, your stance on Atheism (certainly you feel it dictates a Capital "A" after all, Atheism is the truth!) is almost as bad as a fundie. Anyting that is taken as seriously as you say it ought leads to bad things- it is the most perfect catylist for Stalinism mk II. I know that Stalin's athiesm is moot, by the buy, he was a sociopathic paranoid tyrant, and so religion has no bearing in the equation.
It (religion, or in your case, fervent anti-religion), is fodder for politicains to become totalarian dictators. It happens all the time. If you take something that seriously, it become God. That is the truest sence of an "idol" that i know of. Don't fall in to the Irony pit of making "not-god" an idol. Certainly, you think that death too, is not a place to make jokes; or sex, because both are equally serious matters, tangential to the concept of society's development. Douglass Adams is a self-proclaimed "radical atheist" and that does in no way detract from his constant jokes at the expense of the pious. http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html
Speaking of this, not yet mentioned is Asimov's Guide to the Bible.
I find the best way to piss off people regarding Jehovah is to call He a She. Not capitalising God is just silly, referring to God as a woman challenges the most basic beliefs of the godbots and christfags.
Bill @87,
It's not that I don't understand why people do it, it's that I don't think it's entirely consistent. We can either refer to the Abrahamic god by one of his "real proper names", such as Yahweh or Elohim, which I often do, or treat "God" as a proper noun, which is conventional. If one wants to use "Yahweh" as a proper noun to refer to the Abrahamic god, and use "god" exclusively as a common noun, then fair enough, but using "god" (all minuscule) as a proper noun accords the referent (always clear from context) a special status.
I'm playing Devil's advocate a little, since it's really not something I care much about one way or the other, but I'm a minor pedant who likes those little rules of language that help to make it more precise and I don't like exceptions. I'm certainly not going to launch a jihad against people who use "god" as a proper noun any more than people who use "intel" as a proper noun.
RickrOll, I dislike spellcheckers, but in your case, I recommend you use one. It's distracting when reading your posts.
Really.
Patricia @ 94
Is Glen Davidson's remark meant in the negative or positive mode? Since he intends to remain noncommital I won't bother to comment on it, directly or indirectly. I suppose one has to just limit his comments to those religionists who are foolhardy to bring their imaginary god with them and expect no ridicule. To question another atheist's degree of atheism as compared to mine just seems to invite negative replies.
You don't like that i don't capitalize "i", John? I don't worry about it mostly lol, it is kind of an non-issue, a personal choice. But you're right, [I] ought to be more caeful when [I] post.
caeful: all for you Mr. Morales :P
Holbach:
...
What's the utility thereof?
Holbach - Beats me, but I've heard I have a rather bizarre sense of humor. I read it as good natured ribbing.
Kel wrote:
Eh, I found a way around it - see my post #90 - but choosing not to capitalise it tends to annoy many of the religulous, and is therefore worthwhile as a mild irritant.
I do like your way Wowbagger, I do something similar. I say "Judeo-Christian deity"
I must confess that I utterly despise "textspeak" -- like "u" for "you" and "ur" for "your" -- and not capitalising the personal pronoun "I" is something I associate strongly with it.
Yes, I'm a pedant.
Isn't not capitalizing god the way you get kicked off Comforts blog?
Lately I've been preaching Discordianism back to the fundies, it makes them furious.
Oh, you/you're/your, no problem; and i try to be cautious with the 'there's. All of it i'm fine with. It is an arrogant little diminutive that on the surface aeems to say "i'm humble", when in fact, it says: "look at Me, I don't capitalize 'I'." An inside joke. I am an atheist after all, what would i be if not arrogant?
There are worse things than pedants out there, Emm. Nuns, for example lol.
I doubt if he'd allow one of my slutty screeds even if I did.
Discordianism- ooh, sounds fun, I'll look it up. In the meantime, consider thusly:
"A good tree bears good fruit, and a band tree bears bad fruit. It is by their fruit that you recognize them. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Do you pick grapes from thorns, or figs from briars?"
"A good man brings goodness out of the treasure stored up in his heart, and a bad man bears bad things out of the treasure of his heart. For it is by the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks."- Jesus, Luke 6:43-45.
Presents a little bit of a conundrum when you consider the problem of Evil, doesn't it?
I'm a silent judgmental pedant rather than the loud preachy kind ;o)
Emmet @109, RickrOll, it's not just the neospeech modality; it's the frequent misspellings in multiple posts. Affected carelessness only masquerades lack of rigour.
I'd allow your slutty screeds, babe. ;)
(even though you still haven't apologized on the potato thread)
A slutty screed or two wouldn't hurt a bit. Feel free to whip yours out any time you like Emmet.
Aha. Yes, i'm a discordian. sort of. In an idealistic sense.
You see, raw chaos natuarlly can be lead to produce anything you can imagine. And what choas would it be if it couldn't even create it's antithesis, Order? Such is the way that the universe was conceaved, once you get to the very bottom of things. I'm glad to have realised this on my own, and seeing that this is a prior system of thought, i am overjoyed. I particularly like the style of this story -no doubt similar to that of Thus Spake Zarathustra, which i have had the enjoyment of reading: http://discordia.loveshade.org/ek-sen-trik-kuh/mythstar.html
In fact, i did a short peice on this in regards to dice; the patterns of numbers that form. No gods though. Oh, and this is all metaphysics, so pay it no nevermind. It isn't anything i would particularly miss if it were to be disproven, at any rate. After all, the best belief system is that: i believe that i do not believe anything.. Beautifully paradoxical. Anywho...
John Morales:
"Emmet @109, RickrOll, it's not just the neospeech modality; it's the frequent misspellings in multiple posts. Affected carelessness only masquerades lack of rigour."
Meanie.
It's only the "i" thing, and yes, misspellings occur. I'm so sorry to intrude upon your linguistic Lordship.
Neospeech modality, no. Just the one word.
I thought there'd already been enough yam-mering on there.
Patricia, make sure your hens are out of range at your end. We don't want them getting any ideas.
The rest of us.....
I don't like to frighten the horses.
Anyway, I'm at my slutty best when there's a creotroll around. It's the exhibitionist in me.
Oh? R u sset to defend that claim?
Yu kon count on it!
Are we having pun yet?
Idahope so!
Evil god is Babelizing us.
I'm having a s-mashing good time.
Rickr0ll- Glad you like it! It seems like this idea of Eris, Druidism and now the FSM is a generational rite of passage among college students, and elitist bastards. Preaching the Goddess of Discord to the fundies outrages them more than just saying you believe it's ALL bullshit.
On a more serious note, I do miss Robert Anton Wilson.
Oh no, I'll just have to ROL with the pun-ches.
Of course! I adora good pun.
Glad you got that chip off your shoulder.
Patricia @129,
I appreciate it he introduced me to E-prime.
Patricia:
Really? Fascinating. One thing I love about reading Pharyngula is that I literally learn something new every day. I certainly didn't mean to be dissing pagans: If you must have a god-belief, modern neopaganism of one form or another strikes me as much more socially benign than most forms of monotheism I'm aware of.
BTW, how extensive is Asatru? My (admittedly not very exhaustive) search turned up only one site that included an estimate of numbers, and that was only "a few thousand worldwide." While I'm fascinated to learn that there are any Thor believers, I'm guessing they're virtually indistinguishable from nonexistent, when compared to the number (and, lamentably, social weight) of Christians and Muslims around the world.
There's this, too: Every time I see (usually on BBC America or the Science Channel) footage of a group of modern neopagans performing a ritual at Stonehenge or carrying out a Wiccan rite, I wonder if these people have the same sort of belief that adherents of more traditionally mainstream religions do.
What I mean is, even the most liberal, nonliteralist Christians usually retain some level of belief that the Jesus story is true; do Thor believers (Asatruians?) have that kind of belief in the thunderer and his cohort? Or are they embracing a cultural legacy they find intriguing, perhaps, or maybe adopting an explicitly symbolic scheme to give shape to an otherwise diffuse sense of the sacred? I hope I don't offend anyone here by posing this question; it's actually something I've wondered about before. Perhaps I'm just too thoroughly captured by a culture that treats most pre-Christian mythologies as literature more than as bonafide belief systems, but I sometimes wonder if many modern neopagans don't have more in common with deeply committed LARPers or historical reenactors than with adherents of more mainstream religions (and, howevermuch it may seem otherwise, I really mean no disrespect by that). After all, at least one neopagan church was inspired in part by Stranger in a Strange Land, so this blurring of the boundaries between literature and belief can't be completely a figment of my imagination.
What a great blog
Bookmarked
Any longer and it would've been a record.
#64 Do any myths have actual consequences?
Why did 19 well-educated middle-class 21st century men forfeit their lives in this world to kill thousands of others? Because they believed in the myth that told them they would go straight to paradise for doing so. Now that's an actual consequence for you.
For some reason I was thinking about polytheistic religions when I went to bed last night ended up dwelling on how much cooler they were than boring old one-god for the Abrahamic-descended. Rather than just be stuck with the default option you could choose the god that most suited you and worship it.
Like my favourite, Wōden. I want to get a t-shirt made up with 'Wōden is my homeboy' - because there's little I hate more than the 'Jesus is my homeboy' prints I see. Unfortunately, my go-to guy for t-shirt design is a fairly enthusiastic xian, so I might have to go elsewhere.
Damn! Can't find it - you've stumped me! More like that and I'll have to nominate you again for a Molli (or tell you to get Lay'd)!
Emmet (@100):
Sure. I didn't mean to suggest you didn't understand (and forgive me if I did). I only took the question up because it was an interesting point about language that I hadn't thought about before.
Of course it's not consistent: It's human language, isn't it?
Why, when I read one of Holbach's posts, do I hear the voice of John Houseman?
Record is the top crisper (variety used for producing crisps or "chips") in Ireland and the UK, making it particularly apposite following your "chip on your shoulder" remark. Pity you missed it. I thought I was being very clever :o)
Good that we reached Accord before Sunrise, though.
Yes, but I'm an inveterate pedant. I like consistency. I don't expect it, which is why I don't get my knickers in a knot over capitalisation, torture of apostrophes, etc., but I can hope, can't I?
Ah. I'm red with embarrassment.
Yes, we were Wise to do so.
Emmet (@100 again):
Somehow I missed commenting on this in my last reply (@140)...
Hmmm... doesn't your logic for lowercasing god also hold for devil? I'm jus' sayin'...
;^)
@ Holbach and Patricia
Atheism: is it an ideology?
I don't believe that it is. But I can't say that it isn't for some people.
My main point, though, is this:
How in the world do we honestly expect freethought to spread if we are going to continue being so judgmental and narrow-minded when having these pathetic and frankly silly arguments about "what atheism is"?
I do take my atheism seriously. However, if we can't have a sense of humor about it, how are we any better than many of the followers of dogmas we criticize?
I will posit that it is not only in poor taste for us not to have a sense of humor, but that it is also hypocritical.
Maybe I could make a case to you that if you dismiss religion, then you shouldn't get up-in-arms about how other people define religion or the lack of it?
Patricia, you asked if it was "pick on Holbach day". However, he picks apart those who he perceives as less atheist all the time. He picks on others all the time. This is perfectly fair. We are not "picking on him": this is constructive criticism. If's much more mild and reasonable treatment than he is used to displaying towards the rest of us.
I'm hating myself a little bit for continuing this, but I am just really frustrated with this continuing saga of pointless exclusion and belittlement from Holbach.
How can we expect to prevail if we ignore or fail to embrace the diversity of freethought? I am thankful that we have people such as Daniel Florien who can speak to Christians and other theists, and those in between.
I thought most of us were rejecting such strange and counterproductive ideas as "ideological purity" and exchanging this irrational perspective for our own judgment.
Isn't this the point of "freethought"?!?
We cannot let a dogmatic sense of self-importance destroy the very thing we seek to advance.
Indeed, it's definitely Superior to continuing, for which I would have to get Wyred on caffeine instead of following my usual drill and going to bed.
Saying it's an evil god still implies that it's a god, and really, it's just an evil book and poorly written at that.
So saying Lord Voldemort is evil implies that the world of Harry Potter is real?
Yeah, rather than offering my usual retort I'll absent myself from the rest of the discussion, in which I've said enough.
Hey. Don't miss the God is Imaginary site, or Adherents.com for information on the population, distribution and central tenets of the world's faiths.
I would've said that I failed to capitalise "advocate" since "Devil's Advocate" is a particular title like "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", usually considered proper nouns and capitalised as such.
In any case my point was, in the context of some of the bickering earlier on, to advance the alternative argument that decapitalising God, used as a proper noun, serves to grant it some special recognition that -- if we're serious about treating all superstitions the same -- we shouldn't. It at least has the merit of consistency. The implicit conclusion was intented to be that whether or not someone capitalises "god" used as a proper noun tells you very little; in particular, it is a poor basis for discerning True Atheists(TM) like some kind of Witchfinder General.
TBH, I really couldn't give a hoot. Yes, I have a personal stylistic preference, but if other people want to capitalise (or not) "god", "leprechaun", or random nouns (as seems to be the modern fashion), the best of Irish luck to 'em... at least for the time being until I'm appointed Grand Inquisitor for Typographic Style and Punctuation, then I'll apply thumbscrews until they recant; apostrophe abusers shall be boiled in oil, users of underlining shall be burnt at the stake, and users of textspeak shall be summarily hanged with their own plaited intestines.
B.T. Murtagh @ # 48: ... before Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, did they know it was wrong to disobey God's command?
Obviously not, since that would mean that they already knew the difference between good and evil.
It also bears noting (repeating) that prelapsarian A 'n' E were therefore insane, by modern legal definition.
Emmet Caulfield et al @ # 61 et seq: could you or a fellow pedant please clarify a terminological question for me?
The contention over capitalization largely depends on whether the G-word is intended as a proper or common noun, but what do we call the standard English usage as a type? It's not quite a descriptor, nor a job title, nor a rank, nor a species, nor...
A poli-sci prof once told me of the only other comparable instance of a categorical noun as a proper name I can recall: Strom Thurmond had represented (the worst of) So. Carolina for so long in the District of Criminality that many of his constituents referred to him anonymously & articlelessly* as "Senator" ("I hear Senator's against that", etc).
(On 2nd thought, perhaps biblical allusions to "Pharoah" & "Caesar" fall into the same pigeonhole.)
*Yes, I know - pls feel free to exercise your pedanticity as needed, but after addressing the primary query, okay?
Teleprompter @ 146
You should not include Patricia when you mention my name as being intolerant of other's so called atheism, as she has never been as strident as me to which I fully concede. She may have been with me on many issues but has never gone to the extremes of which I overwhelmingly admit in badgering other commenters. Your gripe is almost wholly with me, so don't drag Patricia into my den of iniquity. She is not a confederate as you seem to imply, and she more than holds her own to the subject at hand. She is a good ally and can determine when and how much venom to express a point. This post is all the better for her presence and thoughtful remarks.
Why do you equate "freethought" with atheism? The two do not always go hand in hand. I am not inclined to answer your comment at length, so I'll close.
Bruce? @ 23:
Illustrated Stories From The Bible (that they won't tell you in Sunday School). I think PZ promoted it once, but I don't remember for sure. All I know is I saw it somewhere on the intertubes and put it in my Amazon cart until I could afford to get it.
Unfortunately, the cover is the only illustration that is in color. On the other hand, I think that it's graphic enough to make up for that!
Like I wrote upthread, I avoid using 'God' because if I'm talking about Yahweh then I'll write Yahweh, just like I would write Thor, Brahma or Quetzlcoatl. I just prefer to remind christians that their god is not the only one I, as an atheist, lack belief in; hence my use of 'your god' or 'the christian god'.
Agreed. The use of 'lol' in particular grates on me like fingernails down a blackboard, and is often an indicator of an insipid troll here in PZ-town.
Well, other than clinteas, who I forgive because he's a doctor in a city I visit from time to time and I might one day need him onside to be discreet about (and gentle when) pulling a foreign object out of me.
Pierce @153, ?
It all depends on context. In the context of Daniel's piece, he refers to the god of the Bible - so it is used a de-facto proper noun.
In such discussions it is implicitly acknowledged that God refers to the god of monotheists. However, the inclusion of capitalised pronouns for the deity is certainly in a different category, and normally imputes a Holbachian implication.
God made man in His image so to find god all you have to do is look in the mirror.
@ Holbach #154
I didn't mean to say that Patricia is your "confederate", nor for my entire post to apply to her. The only part of my reply that I meant to apply to her was the part where I specifically refer to her. Other than that, I didn't mean to include her in my post. I just placed her name at the top to draw attention. I'm sorry I didn't clarify that enough.
I think we've had a simple misunderstanding on this.
Teleprompter @ 146 - Holbach himself has stated twice that he intends to lighten up. I have also been hit with the Turn It Down hammer by my own family. We get the point. This doesn't mean that I intend to blunt my sword when it comes to the trolls and christian fools that show up sounding the great horn of bullshit.
Vengeance is mine saith Patricia, and sometimes I say it too harshly, that I hope, will not happen again.
Bill Dauphin @ 134 - The website you linked to on Asatru is pretty decent, but a lot of it's dates are from the seventies. The Norse Tradition in neopaganism has grown hugely since then. Your local tattoo artist could tell you how many Thor lovers are in your general area, then double that number to includes their friends and family.
If you are interested in the neopagan holidays a very badly titled little book called 'The Witches' Sabbats' by Mike Nichols is most excellent. There is also a woo-woo website called Witch's Voice or WitchVox that has heavy neopagan traffic, pagan related news briefs, and a blog style commentary.
And no, I don't think you offended any pagans with your remarks... not even those Johnny-Come-Lately whippersnappers that worship Ramen. May Eris slap their meatballs sideways!
So Holbach struts in here, swaggering around, kicking the shit out of people who are "Not Sufficiently Atheist" for his taste, and suddenly it's Holbach's feelings that are hurt?
Fuck. That. Shit.
You want Thor worshiping pagans? Check out Stormfront if you can stomach it. The neonazis have a problem with xianity since they heard a rumor that Jesus was a Jew.
Just wondering about all this evil god stuff you spew up about the Old Testament, wrath, etc.
The State improves roads, builds schools, cares for orphans and protects the weak. It builds parks and provides for the education of millions of kids. The State also puts to death convicted killers. Does that make the State evil?
The Canaanites with whom you sympathize, were wicked as a whole, far beyond anything even the Clinton Administration would have tolerated.
Some of this stuff I am reading here is dumber than a Sam Harris book! Good grief.
"Agreed. The use of 'lol' in particular grates on me like fingernails down a blackboard, and is often an indicator of an insipid troll here in PZ-town." Noted! Ha ha ha; ok, i
shall refrain, just for you Wowbagger.
"It also bears noting (repeating) that prelapsarian A 'n' E were therefore insane, by modern legal definition."-Peirce
You know, that pretty much sums it up. End of discussion, they are all insane. Thanks for the insight. Oh, and isn't the "where are you?" line somewhat reminiscent of an axe murderer who says "where are you" even when he knows his victim is cowering in the coat closet? Just thought i would point that out.
Can people please stop posting their attempts to set new boundaries for Poe's Law? You're not doing it right. Yes, #165, I mean you. You've got to throw in at least one all-caps word to be considered trying.
Holbach - Oh come on! You know you want me to sit with you at the mouth of your den of iniquity. I've got 17 dozen eggs! Think of the fun we can have throwing them at the gawd soaked fools.
I'll hard boil a few for the Pope. *grin*
If the state committed mass genocide, indeed it would. If God only punished murderers, then maybe you have an apt analogy. But the God of the bible drowned humanity, then later on forced the Pharaoh of Egypt into not releasing the Jews which allowed God the chance to commit infanticide. If the state did anything like that...
Kel,
I believe Janice (#165) is another Poe. The post was far too coherent for the author to be as stupid as the content would suggest. And claiming the Canaanites were '...wicked as a whole, far beyond anything even the Clinton Administration would have tolerated' is a dead giveaway.
stogoe @ 163 - No Holbach doesn't just strut in here. He's been here, is a regular commenter and is a warrior against the woo.
Take an exit, you're headed up the wrong road.
Really? You say God did all that and it's reason ... to not believe he even exists? Now that really sounds like Sam Harris. First, he discredits his star witness. Then he calls the same witness to the stand for help. Yikes. That's why peer review is crap anymore. It's just conjecture and gathering evidence. Everyone forgets the REASONING part.
Hey, here comes a car driving down the street and we measured it's velocity and trajectory with a million dollar mobile lab, and we conclude that it must have left SF last Tuesday. Yeah, that's our conclusion. What? Are you questioning our Scientific Method with all this equipment?
I predict the next thing you will do, is go to lunch and talk about the guy. "Oh wasn't he so dumb... ha ha ha", and "Oh I totally agree he was so stupid". Then you'll get onto other blogs like this and refer back to this post.
What kind of dope is Myers anyway? Does anyone know?
how interesting: "Can people please stop posting their attempts to set new boundaries for Poe's Law? You're not doing it right. Yes, #165, I mean you. You've got to throw in at least one all-caps word to be considered trying."
Then: "Really? You say God did all that and it's reason ... to not believe he even exists? Now that really sounds like Sam Harris. First, he discredits his star witness. Then he calls the same witness to the stand for help. Yikes. That's why peer review is crap anymore. It's just conjecture and gathering evidence. Everyone forgets the REASONING part."
I vote poe.
Is it Furlough Night at the troll camp again?
Did you know that Voldemort murdered Harry's parents? I also heard he ran a group called The Death Eaters who murdered anyone who got in their way. I guess discussing how evil Lord Voldemort is cannot be done unless we believe Hogwarts is a real school for magic...It's a critical dissemination of a mythic character; it doesn't imply belief, all it does is talk about the character as presented in the story. The God character in the bible is a bit of a bastard (actually he's a complete bastard, but that's another matter) and this can be said without any need to believe that this God character is anything more than the mythical storytelling of a group of middle-eastern herders.
Janice is indeed full of shit.
gawd gives up the poor Cannanites to be killed, Deuteronomy 20:10 - 15.
I won't post the entire thing, it's bloody and tiresome, just this bit:
Deuteronomy 20:14 - But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is is in the city, EVEN all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
gawd is love!
Kel. For the win. He shoots, he scores.
Janice - Peer review, honey here we are.
Trot out your best stuff. So far, you suck.
Oh, excellent! I just stupidly committed myself to some debating on God's morality as depicted in the bible on someone's blog, and this should provide some good source material without having to go dredging through the entire Old Testament.
I don't understand poe-trolling, if it can be called that. Sure, there are those trying to be funny - I can appreciate that - but the joke loses hilarity after the first couple of posts.
Then I guess you've got those who aren't religulous but are just contrary assholes with nothing better to do with their time.
Wowbagger, are you insinuating that there's something wrong with contrary assholes?! *growls*
I'm joking of course.
Tapetum - Are you kidding? gawd is the biggest asshole in the history of the world. All you have to do is read the bible.
How about a little Leviticus:
Lev. 26:29 - And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.
gawd is love!
Tapetum,
Try the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for some good material on both old and new testaments.
My favourite for the run-down on exactly how much of a monster Yahweh is? Numbers 31. That's some seriously nasty shit going down in that particular chapter of the so-called 'good book'.
Wowbagger - Numbers 31 is some nasty shit. I had forgotten about that bit.
The godly don't want to admit that we know them.
This stuff about Adam and Eve and God's manipulation of it is something I had been discussing with a religious fundy and I learned something rather interesting about it.
People like him think God and his treatment of planet Earth in general, even this Wholly Libel story, is absolutely fine.
I told the aforementioned fundy that God had literally set the two credulous humans - how could they have known what was right or wrong before they had eaten the fruit? -to fail in order to then place his son up on the cross to make him the ultimate scapegoat. In other words God has set up all humans to fail and pretty much demands their love and worship for this through all sorts of fear and misery.
Stockholm Syndrome doth work its magic after that - the more horrifying acts, the more they praise God for doing it.
What was the response?
God was right to do this because, well, he is God and gets to decide who lives or dies.
Its that William Lane Craig (Gargles soap and washes mouth out but still feels unclean - save me! I repent for mentioning this name, I do, may Dawkins have mercy on my DNA!) mentality
"According to the version of divine command ethics which I've defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn't issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfil. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses."
So God goes and even kills all those sinful children in the Wholly Libel - what does Craig and your average fundy say to that?
"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
I figured out you can mention all of God's genocide, homicide, infanticide - whatever disgusting and morally repugnant crime God has ever committed either in the Wholly Libel or to his followers and the above is the response back.
If you are willing to accept that no matter how much God puts you in the utter shit of life, he is only doing it so you can beg for salvation so that when the time comes to kill you in the nastiest way possible, understand he is doing it to save you....??????
Tis a mad world my masters
(Professor Myers please forgive me for using such language upon your site, I hope we can work together so that I can be granted forgiveness for my sins! I won't mention W.L.C again I promise!)
Holbach's atheism is the one true atheism, and if any of you don't believe him then you're a Christian.
There is no God and Holbach is his prophet.
(Is that joke acceptable?)
Ah, so God has bad sinuses too. Explains a lot.
Actually Holbach isn't an atheist -- he's a Christian pretending to be an atheist to make atheists look like fundies.
jimmy @ 190
Oh hell, I've been found out and exposed. Well, now that my cover is blown, I'm going to rant on the side of God and sweet Jesus! All you atheist morons are going to perish in hell for all eternity and no amount of your unbelief is going to save you. Even God is going to ignore your pleas of mercy and let you burn forever for the nasty things you said about Him. Too late now; I've drawn you all out and marked you for eternal damnation. You have to admit that I played the ruse well and suckered you freaking heathens into the net. Even your phony prayers will be of no avail to save your pathetic souls, as you thought it was a big joke when we Christians prayed for you to wise up and see the light, repent and finally be saved. My eternal life is secured; how about yours, suckers?
Thanks Holbach, you made me choke on my coffee! God bless you.
Holbach #191 wrote:
I don't have my Bible handy at the moment, but isn't Holbach's conversion supposed to be one of the seven warning signs of the coming Armaggedon?
Sastra @ 193
Wrong; my conversion is the ONLY sign of the coming Armaggedon.
Patricia (@162):
Thanks for the info; I'll check it out (though my stack of books-I-don't-really-have-time-to-read is already staggeringly tall).
I think you'd need to find a linguist with a particular interest in English to answer your question, as you seem to be drawing a fine distinction that I'm not sure exists. It strikes me, on the one hand, that there is a difference between "senator" and "god" in that one is conventionally used as part of a style and the other isn't -- compare "Senator Jones" and "God Jones" -- and, on the other, that a word may be used in different ways and to try to micro-categorise words and codify some kind of cross-correlation is not likely to be productive. Secondly, I doubt there's anything unprecedented or unique about the use of "Senator" in your professor's example. In colloquial Hiberno-English, it is perfectly usual for kids to use "teacher" as if it were the name of their teacher -- "You'll be in trouble if Teacher catches you". In American English, it's conventional for a football coach to be referred to as "Coach" in a similar way. In Victorian England, it was conventional for commoners to be addressed formally by occupation as "Master Blacksmith" or "Master Cooper" and less formally by occupation alone, "Hey there, Blacksmith". I'm sure that there are innumerable cases where soldiers refer to others by rank alone, "I don't think Sarge would like that". I fail to see much difference between these and the use of "Senator" in your example. It also strikes me that it could be regarded as a nickname; having known people nicknamed "God", "Jimmy the Couch", and "Shitleg", I'd be reluctant to conjecture any limits at all on what may be used as a nickname.
:o)Honestly, I'm not that kind of pedant. There's the aggressive, vociferous kind, who corrects other people at every opportunity, and the silent kind, who just winces at repeated egregious errors and corrects only him/herself. There are quite a few of the silent, wincing, self-correcting kind here and I'm one of them.
Patricia: I asked God to spare you as you are one of the few who sided with me and offered encouragement in my tribulations with the atheist hordes. A special dispensation He was pleased to grant, though out of the ordinary in matters of eternal vengeance. You should be on our side as you will be an asset against the godless hordes.
Watch it god, you've been easily seduced to the dark side by slutty remarks and a generous showing of cleavage.
Patricia @ 198
Guess who, as if you don't know!
god, as YOU should know - I am an ignorant slut and can never 'guess who'. I have to have a picture drawn in crayon.
Today is even worse for me. Holbach's conversion has driven me barking mad. I couldn't pour piss out of a boot without help.
Patricia @ 200
Patricia, your breaking my heart! It's me! god! I wanted to shake all the piss-moaners up for the unwarranted crap they threw at me. I gave you a small hint by using the lower case "g" in the post heading and the capital "G" in the commnet. Did you really think for a moment that I would shed my reason and convert to the insane moron side? Hell, I found that when I "converted" I could not write as well as when in my natural sane state! Didn't mean to cause you any grief as was obvious when I "converted".I think I had a few convinced that I went insane and found an imaginary god again. Anyway, I'm going to take a breather for a while, and thanks again for your sincere concern. Best to you, and hold the fort against the religious morons.
@Philip1978: (#186)
doesn't follow. you're making the same mistake christians often do (possibly for the sake of argument) by conflating the old testament with the new. nevermind all the individual books within the OT, and the individual sources in those books. the bible is not any one thing, but written by close to a hundred people, over the course of 1,000 years or so, in two countries and a occupied territory, and in three languages. if the bible even remotely agreed, we could almost consider it a miracle. but as it is, it is a remarkably limited and human text. and the person who wrote J (the souce in torah this story comes from) in no way ever intended to "set up" for christ. his portrayal of god is markedly different than the christian portrayal 800 some years later. some (such as the link above) might call this god "evil" but he certainly appears fallible and like he's making it up as he goes along.
there's also no definitive and universally accepted argument about what the tree of knowledge was. even treating the story as straight etiology, is it the etiology of human self-awareness, or the etiology of why man doesn't live in the literal presence of god? is it about morality, or godly priveledge? are the effects of the tree hereditary? adam and eve may have known right from wrong -- the story is quite a good deal more complicated than that. do you follow the god who lies to you? or the serpent who tells the truth?
they probably, however, did not understand death. this is one of two consecutive stories where god might be said to have underreacted (possibly could not bring himself to destroy his children). he did promise them death, and instead let them live. and when adam's son (who probably also did not understand death) murders, he not only lets him go, but protects him as well. then he apparently decides that he's too lax, and overreacts by killing everyone. by abraham, he's turning to his creations to figure out what is right and wrong in respect to doing godly things.
well, he does. but that doesn't mean every action of god is immediately just. abraham, a few chapters ahead, accuses god of potentially being unjust, if he should destroy the wicked in sodom along with the innocent. and god accepts that argument.
the argument that god created life, and thus has the right to take it away, is sort of akin to parents claiming they have the right to murder their child because they created it.
i would have responded with the following argument: "if god commands you to take an innocent life, is it just?" and then pointed out the above.
OOF! remind me to bring up this quote next time i debate abortion.
i got a different response once. you just have to formulate the argument right. someone asked on a message board somewhere if god could do any wrong, or some similar question, and i responded with a blind list of godly attrocities. i got accused of blasphemy, accusing god of evil. then i reposted the list with biblical citations. the reaction to the initial post was funny enough, but then to see the backpedalling and equivocating after i pointed out that the bible supported every one of those claims...
arachnophilia
Cheers for your help, I appreciate it.
I have a degree in history and have been reading much about the origins of the Bible of late, you are absolutely correct in what you wrote, the authors of that book are as plentiful as the ancient religions that they stole the stories and patterns from.
I think Emperor Constantine has a lot to answer for when he pitched in and tasked Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea Palaestina and later Aranathius of Alenandra to publish and help canonise what was deemed the "correct" Bible. I am sick to death of people claiming its the word of God when quite clearly it is the work of humans who decided what was the right thing to go in it.
The swines left out the Gospel according to Philip - damn them and their trousers!
My discussion with the fundy was about sin - fundy said all children were born sinful from the beginning and that only through worshipping God whilst feeling utterly devoid of self respect could there be a chance that God might look favourably upon you after your death. I questioned this by asking what possible crime had I committed before I was born to infuriate God so much, I had no involvement in neither Adam and Eve's business (which God set up) or did I have Jesus put to death on my order, what have I done to deserve this?
Its justified because God does it is the crappiest answer I have ever encountered.
Fundy also said that God was justified in putting a tree in the Garden of Eden, creating a talking snake to tempt Eve into eating it and then getting Adam involved. This is because Jesus died on the cross for all the sins committed after "the fall" and for all future sins committed by humankind.
Redemption for him was to feel completely wretched and encouraged others to feel so in order that God might love him.
I was simply arguing that I thought that was an exceptionally cruel thing to do - God set up his own creations to screw up for what? His own deranged and cruel amusement? It has love me or burn written all over it - its for your own salvation! God loves you so much he is willing to do some exceptionally nasty things to you just to prove it! Awww how sweet!
"OOF! remind me to bring up this quote next time i debate abortion."
Will do!
That W.L.C. (Initials used to protect your vomit reflex!) quote is VERY scary isn't it!
Backpeddaling is something I have encountered tenfold, I know exactly what you mean.
I habitually get the Bible quoted at me to prove some kind of point - so then I quote it back using something like Deuteronomy for deeds that are specifically non cuddly and I get accused of "taking it out of context" and "misunderstanding the true meaning of God's purpose!". Asking what God's purpose is is equally futile for we mere mortals are not to question the mind of THE LORD THY GOD!
Saying that I reckon reading Holbach's posts would get you pretty close! :)
Emmet Caulfield @ # 196: ... to try to micro-categorise words and codify some kind of cross-correlation is not likely to be productive.
Report to Remedial Pedantitude class first thing Monday morning!
In your examples, it's the job title that's being used as a proper noun - and since this ploy is, despite my failure to recognize it, not uncommon, there does gotta be a name for that, ain't there?
... There are quite a few of the silent, wincing, self-correcting kind here and I'm one of them.
Is passive pedantification true pedantaciousness?
Philip1978 @ # 203: I ... have been reading much about the origins of the Bible ...
Please allow me to recommend Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts; Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible?; Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth; just about everything by Bart Ehrman; Keith Hopkins, A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity; and G.A. Wells, The Jesus Legend, Did Jesus Exist?, & other titles.
Watch out for Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible - there's some good info in there, but several howling errors as well.
Pierce R. Butler
That's excellent, thank you, I will definitely add some of those to my need to read list.
I have already been on the hunt for Robert M. Price The Empty Tomb and Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity begin with a mythical Christ? Richard Carrier's name has also come up a lot, I will be hunting around for some of his books too.
One book I would recommend is Thomas L Thompson's book The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Origins of Jesus and David, a very thorough insight into what qualities the Near Eastern religions wanted in their Kings or leaders and how a lot of it then makes its way into the characters of the Bible.
Right, I have some Amazon ordering to get on with!
Pierce R. Butler @204,
I don't think so. When a title appears as part of a person's name or instead of the name, it functions as a proper noun and is capitalised, as opposed to when it's used as a descriptor after the name.
It's really only a convention.