I have a suspicion that that photo of squid guts in the last post is going to make a few people feel squeamish, and now I'm going to show something even worse: Bill O'Reilly. <cue frantic screams from everyone…"More squid guts! Please! Anything but Billo!">
Of course Billo is outraged at the news from Washington state. How dare they allow atheists to express themselves? This is a Judeo-Christian nation, and only Christians are allowed to have a voice in the public square (Jews, too, as long as they're quiet and willing to pretend that they're pre-Christians).
He urges his listeners to howl dementedly at Governor Gregoire. I may not have quite the reach of Mr Falafel, but I'll suggest that you write polite, supportive letters to Gregoire as an antidote. If you want a little instant gratification, there's also a poll to crash: Under freedom of expression do you approve of the atheist representation at the State Capitol?. It's split 51:49 right now.
- Log in to post comments
Squid Guts are WAY cooler than Bill-O
The poll had 864 votes when I voted.
I will not be happy until they let us have photos of our Christmas Baby Roast shown at Christmas displays.
It's not like the sign was posted next to a nativity scene in a church. It was a STATE BUILDING! The question is what is the nativity scene doing there in the first place?
56% 44% approve
Billo is such a tool...
I'm thrilled that he played the whole Dan Barker segment, rather than simply cropping out the "hardens hears" bit. Go, Dan!
Evidently you are unaware of the "atheism" exception to the First Amendment. It's kind of like the "drugs" exception to the Fourth -- you know, based on those good old conservative principles of strict constructionism and original intent.
This is another one of those polls where, if you have your browser set to not allow cookies, you can vote as many times as you like. Silly micropoll.com.
Does he even know that the Winter Solstice is an astronomical event that you can see? BillO is such a moron.
If Colbert read that rant verbatim I would laugh and think it was good satire. Since it is presented as how Mr. O'Reilly genuinely feels I worry.
Oh man Billo, your antics never fail to amuse. My favorite part was where he claimed we celebrate Christmas because of our JUDEO-christian traditions. Personally I love going to the Christmas mass at my local synagogue.
Why is the nativity scene, or the sign for that matter, even allowed on the State Capitol? Government should should be secular, meaning neutral in regards to religion. I don't want the government endorsing atheism anymore than I want it endorsing Christianity.
Oh, and to state the obvious, O'Reilly is a fool. It says something that Stephen Colbert can parody him half an hour a day, four days a week, and become so popular.
More squid guts, please, anything but that asshole Bill.*
*Unless it's Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert mocking him
Daniel@#11,
I'm not sure that's how he really feels. He's a smart and funny man when he's not being an idealogue, even though he's a chocolate covered douche. I suspect he himself doesn't believe half of what he says, but it gets him ratings and keeps him rich.
I think he's the world's best (worst?) troll.
Well, that's a downer after the last post...
Yeah, I don't get it either. Why did they allow the nativity scene at the State Capitol in the first place? If they had just stuck w/Santa, none of this would be happening and O'Reilly wouldn't be having another hissy fit about Xmas. Gahhh.
While you are politely expressing your approval, please consider also sending a complimentary note to the D.C. Metro transit system about the "be good for goodness' sake" bus ads. It seems some intolerant people, many of whom have never actually seen the ads, have been expressing their disapproval:Metro fields hundreds of complaints about bus ads
If no one has the right to not be offended, were all doomed to be mortified.
"That's my third monocle this week! I simply must stop being so horrified!"
Ignore Bill O'Reilly.
I'm sure you and your office are being overrun by the overwrought hand-wringings of a very vocal minority who feel that freedom of expression only applies to them and theirs. While most of us are wise enough to know that one need not be bombastic or rancorous in order to be heard -- that sometimes a simple sign is all one needs -- there will always be blow-hards bent on bullying you and your office into doing what you clearly know to be wrong.
Don't bend, don't waver in your commitment to protecting the public square!
I'm not one of your constituents; but, as far as I know neither is Mr. O'Reilly nor many of his legion that will call or write you. Even so, both groups -- those who support free speech and those who seek to have only their ideas of this season given voice -- appeal to you.
I, for one, appeal to you to continue to take a principled stand. I encourage you to continue to protect the public square. It is not the domain of just some vocal partisans -- it's everyone's PUBLIC square. If any view is to be expressed, then all must have the same chance. It is no one groups' private forum; it is one of the few remaining free marketplace of ideas.
I hope you will continue to keep it this way.
warmest regards,
-Chris Phillips
"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and the more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within." -- Immanuel Kant, KpV (5:161-2)
The rules are that the government must remain neutral on issued of religion. Therefore, if they allow one such display, such as a nativity creche, they must also allow other (ir)religious viewpoints to be expressed. So the choice is simple: open it up to all, or keep it closed.
Christmas IS a solstice celebration. Well celebrating Dec. 25th was before it was taken over by Christianity at any rate.
I'm all for instant gratification.
Poor, poor wrong Billo.
as far as i know, in the UK we don't have any program where one person just rants their own loony opinions straight at the viewers by themselves. watching this is kind of like wandering into a random ward at an old peoples' carehome and listening to a very senile old man rant about the japs during the war.
Alas, the "news from Washington state" link points to the squid-guts post, not to the WA atheism/capitol story. FYI.
So BillO is the BobC of the rightwingers....
What else is new?
Bill denigrates Governor Gregoire by saying she refuses to even issue a statement about the display and she walks past it every day, and then he says "she is a weak, confused leader."
Noooo, Bill. She is leading by example! She is allowing all voices to be heard and not interfering with atheist's rights to express an opinion about the holiday, and not pandering to the demands of religious bigots who believe only their holiday should be shown deference. Bravo to Gov. Gregoire for this.
There is a new book out "The Man Who Owns The News" about Robert Murdoch by Michael Wolff. In it he says that Murdoch is embarrassed by Fox News and really dislikes BillO, as apparently do many at Fox including Roger Ailes. The only reason he is tolerated is because he is their top ad dollar draw.
Ugh, I can't stand this guy. It really pisses me off when people like him spout this crap with such conviction. The over the top emotion and outrage in his voice - and he calls 'us' fanatical. Hmmm, something doesn't quite make sense there.
The poll is now at:
Approve
76%
Do not approve
24%
Total Votes : 1859
... and I can't believe he broadcasted her phone number. What an unbelievable asshole.
Looks like the "News from Washington State link" directs me back to squid guts.. I'm at work and can't watch the video, but I'm not sure that Billo cares enough about squid guts to rant about them (unless it was an atheist squid...)
Anyways.. wrong link, I think.
Up to 78%! Crash away, crash away, crash away all
I think Maddox says it all about old Bill:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
"Bill O'Reilly is a big blubbering vagina..."
Bill O'Reilly = Windbag
This is a Judeo-Christian nation, and only Christians are allowed to have a voice in the public square (Jews, too, as long as they're quiet and willing to pretend that they're pre-Christians).
Coming from the modern Right, "Judeo-Christian" means: "Ignore the fact that we treated you like shit for 17 or so centuries, we'll now let you be honorary Christians if you'll vote for us."
@#13 Government should should be secular, meaning neutral in regards to religion.
That's the problem: to rightwingnuts, "neutral in religion" pretty much equals "atheism." So does "secular." If there's no, say, Nativity scene on the Capitol grounds at Xmas time, why those atheists have won! If the government isn't actively acknowledging Xianity, then it is by default endorsing atheism.
Current status:
Under freedom of expression do you approve of the atheist representation at the State Capitol?
Approve 80%
Do not approve 20%
Total Votes : 2311
Keep fighting the God fight!
This is a Judeo-Christian nation, and only Christians are allowed to have a voice in the public square (Jews, too, as long as they're quiet and willing to pretend that they're pre-Christians).
This reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live skit where Al Franken, as Pat Robertson, claims that the Christian Coalition is really more of a Judeo-Christian organization.
I know it's ultimately fruitless, but I dearly wish someone would find a way to refute the myriad examples of faulty thinking when he speaks. The Crazy is so hard to stomach.
As it's worded, I'm actually torn as to how to respond to the poll. I actually do not approve of simply having an atheistic display at the State Capitol, since the Establishment Clause applies to us, too, obviously. I would be more willing to say "yes" to a poll that read "Given that the State Capitol is insisting on having a Christian representation anyway, do you approve of there being an atheistic representation alongside it?"
Bill O'Reilly clearly has no respect for the freedom of speech, if not the whole separateion of church and state.
Poll's up to 82% :)
As far as the original poll stats are concerned, why does it look like half of these Christians not support freedom of expression? Why do Christians hate America? ;-)
Bill O'Really - Fractally wrong.
It is 83 to 17 now.
can't vote from work (as i think someone already said). i'll say a prayer though (ha ha).
>>as far as i know, in the UK we don't have any program where
>>one person just rants their own loony opinions straight at
>>the viewers by themselves.
I'm sure I've seen the Queen give a speech every Christmas.
j/k :) The Queen isn't that crazy.
So really what O'Reilly wants is for the State of Washington to endure a First Amendment lawsuit they would most certainly lose to ensure that his favored superstition is free from any challenge on the public square. It's amazing how easily the diseased, religious mind is offended. Equal treatment for minority ideas becomes an "attack" on "traditional values".
What a muddle-headed fool.
I wish we could find better terms than "vagina" and "asshole" for this man. These are useful orifices.
I know he's an idiot, you know he's an idiot. His supporters have seething disdain for evidence and facts. You could show him being wrong or stupid for eternity, and their just going to keep ignoring it.
The only reason he is tolerated is because he is their top ad dollar draw.
If that's really true, and nobody likes him except that he's a big fat cash cow, there is a way to deal with him. Do what my buddy Spocko does and start recording clips of him being particularly obnoxious. Keep a record of who advertises on his show, and when, and what BillO says right near the commercial breaks. Post it all online. Write to the advertisers' marketing executives, with links to the clips of his obnoxious comments, preferably with lots and lots of context (including the associated commercials. Ask the executives if that kind of tripe is really what they want associated with their (good, wholesome, et cetera) brand. Chances are good that the ad buyers don't listen to the show, and they just put the ads there because they know it draws listeners. If they realise that being associated with BillO makes them look like assholes, they might pull the ads. BillO losing ad revenue means that everyone's free to hate him, and he could wind up off the air.
This is complex and time-consuming, but it also works. Spocko alone has been responsible for getting over $3M worth of ads pulled from the broadcast of a right-wing screamer-talk radio host in his local area, and he's just one guy with a digital recorder and some time on his hands. Fifty Pharynguloids doing the same thing could probably take BillO off the air, all in a manner perfectly consonant with market supply and demand.
What I like a lot with religious kooks is that they are really fast to scream about intolerance when they are mocked. But when it comes to tolerate displays of an opinion that diverges from theirs, all tolerance is right away thrown out of the window.
Poll's up to 85% approve, 15% oppose.
Woo-hoo!
An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and "holiday tree" on display during December.
The Christian Jebus display on government property is an obvious violation of the Establishment Clause. There should be a lawsuit to remove it, instead of sticking an atheist sign in there. However, perhaps what these atheists did is more effective than a lawsuit. If Christian theocrats think their religious stupidity on government property is going to have to be next to an advertisement for atheism, they might figure out it's in their best interest to respect our wall of separation between church and state.
Just tried to check the poll and got this:
Well and truly crashed, I'd say.
I wrote the governor a quick note thanking her for recognizing that all Americans have the right to be heard. If governments want to put up holiday displays, only those that are inclusive and recognize the existence of all faith traditions -- including those of us who have none at all -- should be allowed.
Private property? Go nuts. Put up anything you want. But public land is for all citizens, not just the majority.
While I consider myself an atheist (or at least, certainly more atheist than theist), O'Reilly has a point: the atheist sign didn't just say "Celebrate the winter solstice and be good for goodness sake," it effectively said "Fuck religion." Debatably it's more offensive to Christians than a crèche is to atheists; a crèche is just a scene from one of their fictitious holy books, not an active attack on atheism. If the atheist sign had spent more time extolling the virtues of science and reason and less time bashing religion, it would be much easier to defend.
clip and poll are now down. At least the clip won't load for me and I've never had a problem viewing clips from here before
"The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later. "
Oops - we seem to have crashed the poll.
I'm not sure where he's going with the whole Christmas as a celebration of Jesus as a religious person. If we were really going to follow that line of thinking, . . . well, there's a whole lot of different ways it could go, none of them what Bill intended, and thinking about it too hard makes my head go asplody.
But what about my Cthulhlu-mas poster ?
Do the Satanists get to post something on Anton LeVay's birthday ?
Oh, and I think Odin is still kinda annoyed, even though the third day of every week is named for him.
Posted by: Randall | December 4, 2008 11:01 AM
"While I consider myself an atheist (or at least, certainly more atheist than theist), O'Reilly has a point: the atheist sign didn't just say "Celebrate the winter solstice and be good for goodness sake," it effectively said "Fuck religion." "
Either you are an atheist, or you are not. If you want to live in a noncommital grey area then call yourself an agnostic.
Every Christian cross and and display "effectively" says "If you are not a Christian you are going to Hell for an Eternity." ie "Fuck non-Christians."
Now what were you saying about BillO's and your supposed "point?"
Seems like we've crashed the poll...
good on ya...
Anent Randall @ 57: it effectively said "Fuck religion."
You say that is if it's a bad thing?
He's always eager to give publicity to the "evil atheists" and their message, just so long as he can siphon a bit off for himself.
You're obnoxious, Billo, but then again, who else would raise a forgetable atheist statement to the status that you do?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
He's such a whore.
Busted link... the news article link instead goes to squid guts:
at the news from Washington state.
The sign doesn't work where it is. For the holidays, one wants something lightheared, humorous, and artistic. Maybe a Flying Spagetthi Monster made out of light strings. The FSM is just perfect for such a sculptor.
Shows a lack of imagination and probably scares the more paranoid of the "We're a persecuted minority of only 78% of the population" types. Sure, someone can put up an statement of belief, "The imaginary sky daddy doesn't exist and you will live once and be dead forever." In context of holiday displays, the message getting across is "We ae dour fanatics with no sense of humor.
Really ineffective PR and communications.
At least with squid guts the shit comes out the right orifice.
The poll is now broken.
This morning after dropping kids at school I listened to the local radio commentary from KIRO's Dave Ross. It will be put online later at: http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=90
But in the meantime he claims that Bill and whoever the other one was that were questioning Gov. Gregroire's Catholic faith have seem to appointed themselves pope or bishop in deciding she should be excommunicated. Oh, and he explains that it was decided a while ago that if the state was going to allow one religious display, they were obligated in fairness allow others.
Do creobots ever consider that, if their God truly existed, It would be disgusted that its most vocal followers were such whiny fucks?
As the poll server is currently excluding us - presumably too many xtian executives in the company that runs it - why not help out with a few more votes on the pledge poll over at AOL. There's still one or two of us voting there and shortly it will move from 40/60 to fortysomething/fiftysomething. That will be a little bit of a triumph, considering how the xtians beat us to the draw and rattled their total up to unassailable heights on the very first day.
Quote of the day!
"I'm a secular guy. It's the separation of church and state. We don't make laws based on religion, and I don't accept arguments based on that."
Source: Bill O'Reilly, Hypocrite.
The problem here, for both sides, is that Christmas is an official federal holiday. The government recognizes Christmas.
What Bill O'Reilly and other Christians infer from this, is that the United States is recognizing the truth of Christianity. To them, Christmas has only one real purpose: celebrating the birth of Jesus. Everything else is secondary and negligible. Therefore, as O'Reilly put it, the US is honoring Jesus for the same reason it honors Martin Luther King or Abraham Lincoln. Jesus Christ embodies and represents the principle of liberty embedded in the Constitution. From following this reasoning, it becomes clear that being a Christian is being promoted as one of the attributes of true citizenship. A non-christian American is then like an American who rejects something vital in the Constitution: a citizen in technical sense only, gaining the benefits without recognizing where they came from.
This, clearly, is an establishment of religion, and a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. So Christmas cannot be recognized in law as a religious holiday. Instead, it must be recognized only as a secular holiday -- with the religious part optional. That is how it can pass judicial challenge.
This now makes a problem for the Christians nationalists -- and benefits the secularists and atheists. There would be no need for the whiny "Keep the Christ in Christmas" or "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" campaigns if it wasn't perfectly easy to take the Christ out of Christmas, and celebrate the season with no hint of Jesus anywhere. Santa Claus, reindeer, decorated trees, exchanged gifts, jingle bells, charity donations, decking halls with holly -- all perfectly neutral, non-religious activities. Nothing about Jesus or his creepy blood atonement for sins anywhere.
I do agree with Randall in #57 that it's nicer when the atheist holiday message is more positive and upbeat. If nothing else, I would have left off the last sentence. It sounds cranky, and we don't need cranky. But if it were up to me, I'd add something to signify that atheists are part of a secular Christmas. Maybe a "Merry Christmas" at the end. Or, "Merry Xmas!" Heh.
Atheists have a choice: agree with the Christians that Christmas is about the birth of Jesus, and get out of it. Or follow the natural path of secularization and law, and make Christmas into a holiday for everyone. While there are good arguments for the first choice, I think the second one has a better case, more chance of success, and additional positive benefits -- so that's where I choose to go.
The poll still works if you copy/paste it rather than click it from Pharyngula.
It's sitting at 85% Approve.
Every religion effectively says "fuck every other religion".
I see. "There is a god" is not an attack on those who don't believe there is but "there is not a god" is an attack on those who do. Nice double standard.
Your concern is noted.
Bill O'Reilly is a partisan moron who can only see things from his neoconservative perspective. Such is the way of so many Republicans these days.
Freedom of speech is intended PRECISELY TO PROTECT those views which you/he/they may FIND MOST OFFENSIVE. That's the whole f*cking point.
BillO must have been too busy accosting women with Falafels in college to attend his philosophy classes.
Then it would've been a pro-science sign, not an atheist sign. Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods; it is not synonymous with being "pro-science", even if the two often go hand-in-hand.
In any case, how is "there are no gods" any worse than "our god exists and is great, your god doesn't exist and sucks"? Essentially every religious display says the latter, and it is deemed perfectly acceptable, but the former is not. It's as if there is a bizarre rule of religious expression that you can denigrate any god provided that you promote another one. There's a stupid double-standard in operation, and it ain't us who's operating it.
BobC wrote:
The Christian Jebus display on government property is an obvious violation of the Establishment Clause. There should be a lawsuit to remove it...
The display is actually the result of a settlement of a lawsuit from 2006 challenging the refusal by Washington state officials to permit a private citizen to put up a Nativity Scene in the state Capitol building next to a menorah and holiday tree that were approved for display. Under the settlement agreement, (full text) officials had to allow plaintiff to display a Nativity Scene in the commons area of the Capitol Rotunda. The Capitol Campus Facilities Policy was amended to provide that public use of Capitol facilities be made available on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to the religious or political content or viewpoint of the person seeking access.
So, rather than doing this out of their enlightened view of free speech, this was something that Washington State was forced to do by the courts.
WTF is that nativity scene doing next to the homage to the celebration of winter solstice? It's totally inappropriate.
I just wrote the governor thanking her and so should you!!! Let's send some positive thoughts her way to battle all the loving Christian negativity that I am sure Bill's drones are sending her way!!
In any case, how is "there are no gods" any worse than "our god exists and is great, your god doesn't exist and sucks"? Essentially every religious display says the latter, and it is deemed perfectly acceptable, but the former is not. It's as if there is a bizarre rule of religious expression that you can denigrate any god provided that you promote another one. There's a stupid double-standard in operation, and it ain't us who's operating it.
========
Yes there is. If the X-tians had put up a signs saying. "Jesus is born. The Jews are wrong and are damned" you can bet there would be a backlash against it - by Jews and all but the most wolrdnetdaily-y Christians. Ok, it's kind of true that any religious symbol is, in part, an affirmation of that religion's supremacy and implies the inferiority or falsehood of other faiths (or no faith).
But I think this atheist display crosses the line by posting open denigration of religious beliefs. I would have been fine with any other type of display including the "be good for goodness sake" kind of sign. You know, something that accentuates the positives of atheism - reason, logic, intellectual freedom - rather than takes pot shots at the other guys. It's the difference between positive campaigning and negative campaigning.
Why does the crazy man sound like Stephen Colbert?
I must say I didn't realise that MLK had been made saint MLK recently.
Claire wrote: I just wrote the governor thanking her and so should you!!!
As the above referenced document shows, the governor deserves no thanks, since the she fought against this inclusive policy in court. Proving once again that the courts are our last bastion of defense against dumb politicians and, incidentally, showing O'Reilly to be even dumber than he appears, if that's possible.
Dr. Steve @ #81
Ummm... that's exactly what a nativity scene is, Dr. Steve... and you even make that very point yourself in the very next line!
So you made a point, and then correctly pointed out the obvious counter-point... and then went on to defend your original point.
I'm not really sure how to debate that...
It's a little bit different if the sign singled out Jews specifically. But even without it, "Jesus is born" does say "everyone else is wrong and be damned." The only difference is that Jews aren't singled out.
It didn't single out any religion either, so how is it different?
Ick I couldn't watch the whole thing I'd much rather watch the octopus guts. But what I want to say to Bill is simple,
"We're out and we're proud. Get used to it." We will not go back quietly into the darkness.
But atheism has a holiday, it called April Fools!
# 87
Weak.
There is no denigration of religion in that sign.
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds".
These are proven accusations. There is no denigration in truth. No one can show evidence to refute this.
As of 9:44 AM pacific coast time the Gov's voice mail and phone line is over whelmed. I will continue to call until I can get a message in in support of the FFRF sign. I'm a member of FFRF and damned proud of Dan Barker for doing this display.
@Dawkin's who?
Don't you mean "Dawkin's what?", or does that apostrophe mean "here comes an 's'"?
the poll is back up but I notice my particular option is missing. Have neither up because neither belongs in a government building but if you're going to allow one then you have to allow all.
Yip yew! We're winning 89% to 11% in the poll.
Dr. Steve @81,
Atheism is the position that there are no gods. No more, no less. You can't expect an atheist sign to say other than "there are no gods" any more than you can expect an anti-DUI sign to say other than "don't drink and drive". Would you expect MADD to put up a sign saying "be careful with chainsaws"? It's a positively-phrased message about exercising caution with potentially dangerous machines, but its connection to driving drunk is so tenuous that nobody would ever connect the two; it shares this with "be good for goodness sake", which has precisely bugger all to do with atheism.
"Our traditions are Judeo-Christian; not Muslim, not agnostic."
What a dick.
Billy'O...always hoisting the canard of fairness - except of course when it comes to the superstitions of "traditional Americans". Then those Americans free from such superstitions, Bill doesn't want seated at the same table.
Just because a particular religious festival has been designated a federal holiday, does not grant it a right of exclusivity to State or Federal property. If Bill or his "traditional Americans" want a display to celebrate the federal holiday honoring their myth figure free from other displays and signs - then they can take it elsewhere. Otherwise, move over. We who do not believe have just as much of a right to the public square as they do - irrespective of any designated federal observance for an invisible friend's birthday.
As of 9:44 AM pacific coast time the Gov's voice mail and phone line is over whelmed.
Can someone explain why the governor deserves any praise or credit for capitulating to a court order, mandating non-discrimination, that she fought against? She had no choice! If she tried to block any display she would be sitting in jail for contempt of court. If you want to thank someone, thank the judge who approved the settlement over a year ago.
tomh writes:
Governor Gregoire is seen as a fairly progressive governor with a strong platform of civil rights... actively fighting against a non-discrimination bill would not seem to fit her platform, to this point... can you please provide citation for this claim? I'd be interested to know more about the bill to which you are referring, and the specifics of her opposition to it... but I have come up empty in searching for that so far.
So who is this judge? I'll be more than happy to call him/her as well.
And here is Keith Olbermann's takedown of Billo.
regarding tomh @ #97...
Ahhh... I did find it now... the full story is here.
It seems that last year Gov. Gregoire lit a menorah that was allowed to be displayed, and had a "holiday tree" in the Capitol rotunda, but refused to allow a nativity to be displayed.
A law suit correctly ordered that a nativity should be allowed if the others were to be. So yes... it appears as though the Governor's judgment here can be called into question...
O'Reilly is still an ass, but this does paint Gov. Gregoire in a bit of a different light. If she wasn't going to allow the nativity, she should never have allowed the menorah to be displayed. She really should know better.
Young persons who want to become sanctimonious blowhards
could hardly do better than to check out Big Giant Head's
interview with R. Dawkins,
here.
Since my boyfriend and I just moved to Washington State a few months back, I AM one of Gregoire's constituents, a fact I pointed out in my letter. I further pointed out that my boyfriend and I--even before Billo went apeshit--said that we felt we'd made a good choice in moving here when we saw the inclusion of the atheist statement. Whether or not she worked against the inclusion of the Nativity scene in 2006 as Tomh says, she's the one in power now, so it behooves me as her constituent to make it known to her that I approve the inclusion of the atheist plaque, so that she'll CONTINUE to uphold its inclusion.
Here was my email message to Gov. Gregoire:
I'd like to give a "thank you" and offer my support for the display of the Freedom From Religion Foundation's "atheist sign" on the Capitol alongside religious symbols. I feel that this is in accordance with the First Amendment "Establishment Clause", and I hope other states follow this example and maintain strict neutrality (separation of church and state interests) rather than endorsing only one or two popular traditions.
In fact, I'd love to see states actually endorse a Winter Solstice celebration rather than Christmas. As the "return of the sun" (more daylight hours thereafter), solstice has a scientific basis, and it not old predates but is widely incorporated into other worldwide traditions. In addition, the solstice holiday demands no superstition and no wasteful spending across the retail sector when budgets are tight and families should be investing intelligently.
I also support the comment by Ron Wesselius, who proposed the Christian Nativity scene at the Capitol. He was asked about the FFRF sign and said "I appreciate freedom of speech and freedom of access. That's why they're in there, and hey - you know, that's great."
Celtic_Evolution wrote: can you please provide citation for this claim? ..more about the bill to which you are referring ...
I referred to no bill but to a lawsuit and settlement agreement, which I cited in my post above.
But, since no one pays attention, here is the settlement again and this is the original complaint
@ tomh
Care to take a moment, re-read the last few comments to find my follow up, and then retract your last little post? I gave a reasonable request for more information that did not require your snarky little "since no-one pays attention" remark.
Around here, generally when people refer to a news-worthy or historical event, they provide citation and link so that people can do exactly what I asked to do... find out more about it. And you didn't "cite" anything in your post above... you made vague reference to it. There's a difference.
Happy holidays, asshole.
I cited the full text of the settlement agreement and gave the full story in post #78. I apologize for any snarkiness, I didn't mean to offend.
Amen Pixelfish!
I just called FFRF and gave them a hearty thanks. Ordered a signed copy of Dan's new book 'Godless' as well. It couldn't hurt for some of y'll to thank Dan & Annie Laurie too! info@ffrf.org
@ tomh #107
Oh crap... it appears as if I'M the asshole.
*sigh*.
You were right... i did exactly what you said I did... I read the comments and missed the citation... just didn't even see your post @ #78.
You provided the link, I should have read it more carefully... sorry for sniping at you. Humble apologies, tomh.
As of 2:05 eastern, the poll is at 90% Approve, 10% disapprove, Total Votes : 5040
@ Celtic_Evolution #109 just didn't even see your post @ #78.
No problem, there are a lot of comments here. More importantly, my point was that the governor is coming in for a lot of criticism she doesn't deserve, from O'Reilly, et.al, and a lot of praise she doesn't deserve from everyone else. Because, pro or con, it wasn't her decision.
#81 - "I would have been fine with any other type of display including the "be good for goodness sake" kind of sign. You know, something that accentuates the positives of atheism - reason, logic, intellectual freedom - rather than takes pot shots at the other guys. It's the difference between positive campaigning and negative campaigning.".
The downside of positive campaigning can be seen in the political arena. It doesn't work. Negative adverts are the norm because these are what get the votes in an adversarial contest.
tomh
Having read the background more carefully, we are fully agreed.
Its interesting to note that Governor Gregoire is Roman Catholic. You might want to promise not to kidnap crackers where she attends mass since she is so vigorously defending the sign.
This morning I also heard Dave Ross, a pominent talk show host in Seattle who I listen to daily, vigorously defeneding the right of atheists to express themselves in this fashion. He is also Catholic.
Devil's advocate...
Should the KKK be allowed to put up a sign in the capital building, on Martin Luther King day, that states "Niggers should hang" or "Go pick my cotton", right next to a banner that extols the virtues of Dr. King?
@ tomh
I didn't have time to fully read the majority of the comments before I posted (until now), I strictly went off the info PZ displayed. I see now what you are pointing out. And I thought someone was finally doing something right just for the hell of it, damn :( I should just remember from now on that nothing is that easy when it comes to matters like this, there is usually always a lawsuit somewhere floating in the background.
"The downside of positive campaigning can be seen in the political arena. It doesn't work. Negative adverts are the norm because these are what get the votes in an adversarial contest."- John M
Were you paying attention in '08? I can't attribute Obama's win solely on him, now can i? There is a horrid slew of gutter beasties that McCain worked with on his campain, and i can say doubtless that it drove away many who maybe-sorta wanted to vote for him. Not that there wasn't a plethora of other negative things that might have detered them.
No, i think it is when there is that sharp contrast, people can't help but notice. Oh, and money helps ;)
Randy, still trolling?
[Un]intelligent Designer said...
"I am not interested in having a silly conversation about the credibility of talkorigins.org. And you forgot to read the last two lines of this blog entry."
Rickr0ll said...
"i see you take care of your business well Randy. How fortunate that i don't really give a damn about your erroneous take on Biology. Quick question: Where did the aliens come from?"
"If you delete this comment, that makes you as pathetic as the rest of the creationist morons out there, who instead of addressing issues, sweeps them under the rug and pretends that they heard and saw nothing. Put up or shut up, and as for my preferance, that you man up to your assertions and come back with some evidence. It's all up from here, Randy, unless you want to pretend for a little while longer..."
I'm sill waiting, brickbrain. You Reeeeally ought to take care of your own blog before coming over here and making yourself comfortable, otherwise it makes you look like an idiot.
tomh, thanks for the info. I only contacted the Governor because I assumed PZ was correct in suggesting that she was involved in the decision to allow the sign.
Did the atheist sign say "Christians/Jews/Muslims should hang" or even anything remotely comparable? No: the atheist sign contained no incitement to hatred or endorsement of violence, nor even so much as criticism of any person(s), merely a statement of fact and a pointed criticism of ideology.
Analogy fail.
@ truckboattruck
Do you understand the difference between exercising free speech and advocating violence with threats?
The KKK has always been allowed their demonstrations, as is their right, and have had some pretty hateful things to say within them... but no-one is allowed to intentionally incite violence and display threats against any persons, as would be the case with your "should hang" example"...
I am an IDiot.
Haha, in Wisconsin, this is sooo old hat. :P
I'm a sculptore, I have some strings of lights and lots of wire. I may have to do that this year. More likely though I'll make a display for cephalopodmas.
Gov. Gregoire should have "Never Gonna Give You Up" on her answering machine so she can RickRoll the geriatric O'Reilly/Donohue fans who call her number. Too bad they wouldn't get it.
If there are any fans of cheesy hard rock out in Washington, maybe you could put together a choir and sing "No Lies" by Bruce Dickinson in front of the State Capitol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1idH6AuGtQ
It should be noted that O'Reilly is factually wrong concerning the nature of the both the US and State government and their recognition of Christmas. The court ruled in a challenge to the designation of Christmas as a national holiday that served a SECULAR purpose and therefore was not a breach of the Establishment Clause. US Code does call December 25th Christmas, however, there are no religious connotations or statements in it. Heck it wasn't even a federally recognized holiday until 1870 and there is nothing that requires States to recognize it or any other federal holiday.
O'Reilly simply doesn't understand any of this or, if he does, he simply doesn't care. Any challenge to his worldview must be silenced.
"Bill denigrates Governor Gregoire by saying she refuses to even issue a statement about the display and she walks past it every day, and then he says "she is a weak, confused leader."
Good. It means she's treating this non-issue with exactly the pomp and circumstance that it deserves. I'm sure it will be short-lived though, this mounting pressure from Falafel O'Reilly will probably force her into either removing the sign, or coming out with some statement where she defends the right to have it up, but at the same time bends over backwards to kiss the asses of the god-besotted.
The sign/scene in question is five minutes walk from my house, so I figured I'd chime in. I remember the brouhaha re: menorah & creche when it first came up. NONE of this stuff belongs in the Capitol, but once you have one bit, you have to allow all of it.
I don't think it's the best atheist sign. When your enemies are saying you're evil (see BillO, etc), it's helpful to convince people that you're actually, y'know, NICE. When people are feeling like celebrating the holidays, they're going to think your argument is bitter if it doesn't have any actual celebration in it. Too many people already think that atheism is at root depressing or immoral. Bbus campaigns did a great job of treading this line, I think.
"Don't waste your love on a non-existant God - Celebrate your friends & family!"
"WE are the reason for the season." (Okay, I prefer "axial tilt is...", but aim at warm, community messages, yah?)
"Give thanks to those here on Earth."
"You don't need God to get through winter if you have a warm community."
The unrelenting negativity is the sign of people who want to be recognised as Right, but not people who want to be joined.
This post is getting rather long, or I'd share some conversations with religionists that made me think emphasising shared joy/awe (at nature, at squid!) is the way to go, because they really honestly don't think we have that. It's scary.
@ Celtic_Evolution
Please note that my comment included the term "Devil's advocate" -- which was the role my comment was playing.
That said, yes I understand the difference between free speech and advocating violence, hence the 2 different KKK signs -- one that could be construed as an attempt to incite violence and another that simply suggests that come cotton needs to be picked.
@ Emmet Caulfield
As said, I'm simply playing devil's advocate, so please fail my analogy if it warrants it, but do so by addressing the analogy as a whole... for you jumped on the obvious option but ignored the "cotton" sign -- which doesn't incite, nor endorse, hatred or violence... nor does it criticize any person(s). It is merely a request that some cotton needs to be picked.
Right now: 91% in favour of the Constitution, 9% against it..
@ truckboattruck
If it was obvious, you shouldn't have included it... that's not playing devil's advocate. That's making an intentionally poor analogy. YOU lumped the two things together in the same sentence then criticize us for not treating them or addressing them separately? You lumping them in together that way gives the impression that you see them as the same thing. So it was addressed as it was presented.
To answer the separately, yes... advocating hanging constitutes incitement of violence, and is not legally permitted. Making a point about cotton needing to be picked, while stupid, unintelligent and vapid, is not in any way illegal, and such a sign could be placed in your example.
HOWEVER, the point you are missing here is this: What constructive, valid POINT does placing a sign about cotton needing to be picked make concerning the celebration of Dr. King? And now compare that to the constructive, valid point that this atheist sign makes.
This is still a total analogy fail, as you are still comparing apples to, well... cotton.
That poll had 820 votes when I brought it to PZ's attention. Thanks everybody!
"This is another one of those polls where, if you have your browser set to not allow cookies, you can vote as many times as you like. Silly micropoll.com."
It would be unethical for anyone to attempt to skew the outcome of the poll by voting more than once.
Remember that it is the "Good Christians" who claim that unbelievers are those who have faulty morals.
Let us prove them wrong by behaving in an ethical manner.
Sorry if I am being judgemental but I think it is important for atheists to behave in a way that does not reinforce the prejudices against us.
Just got it to 92%
Oh, and to Brian @132, I will only vote on behalf of my 100 or so atheist friends who have better things to do.
@ Brian S
Your point about answering the poll "ethically" is beside the point. We do "poll crashings" around here not simply to push an agenda or show our superiority in numbers...
Internet polls are inherently useless, statistically, because they do not contain a truly "random sample". Yet they are used regularly to push agendas. The point behind "crashing" polls is to show this very fact by intentionally skewing the data. If someone wants to do a statistically valid, scientific survey, they'd construct the polls better and conduct the survey in a scientific manner.
There's a reason that every one of these polls that PZ points out for crashing is categorized under the heading "pointless polls": because they are, without exception, pointless.
The Poll is now at 92% approval against 2% disaproval with 6125 votes. All it would take is an additional 43000 approval votes to reach 99% approval ... need a few more internet drivers to crash on through.
truckboattruck @128,
Now you're being tiresome and obtuse. We shouldn't have to explicitly pick apart every fucking atom of your "analogy" to make the point that it's not an apposite analogy, it's an ignorant straw-man. If you really want to play nit-picking asshole, you said "or" which gave us the choice; of course we went for the more egregiously stupid element!
Not that "Go pick cotton" remark is much better: it's plainly a racist exhortation intended to inflame one particular group by reminding them of their past slavery and suggesting that it was OK. How is that comparable, in any sense, to any content of the atheist ad., which simply states a belief and criticises an ideology?
If you were any good at constructing analogies, yours would've been "Blacks are inferior to whites" (a bald statement of belief) and "Racial equality is a false notion" (criticism of ideology). That might've led to an interesting segue into a comparison of religious and racial prejudice.
Don't play Devil's Advocate if you can't do it with a modicum of competence.
That loud whoosh sound was the point flying over your head.
Approve 91% 5708
Do not approve 9% 537
Total Votes : 6245
90 - 10 W/6364 VOTES
Yay!!! Another useless poll crashed.
Also for Brian S @132:
Some of us vote multiple times and adjust the amount based on how strongly we are against/for the topic of the poll. If, for example, we were 100 times against something then we might vote 100 times. It's a weighted poll, so to speak.
;)
That and online polls are invalid as a source of data oh, about -1 seconds after they are posted.
Hmm... the "do not approve"'s have gained a couple of % points in the last hour... must be ol' billo's show re-aired on radio and got a few dozen whacky christians in a frenzy...
bring it... no poll has thwarted us yet...
Thus spake Celtic_Evolution:
Wasn't there one on AOL a while back with several million votes that we didn't pharyngulate?
Yeah... but it was a poll that had literally been up for months... maybe more than a year... terribly scientific...
Sheesh, Celtic_Evolution and Emmet, are you two always so friendly? I simply posted a devil's advocate scenario -- no it isn't perfect -- but I think it merits discussion. Once you allow for the placement of any display in a government building, who determines what is and what isn't appropriate? (I happen to think it best to keep these types of displays completely off of government property... but if this thinking is wrong, I'm sure you guys will point that out.)
In any event, my (poor) analogy wasn't meant to be a gotcha-analogy, nor was I being mean or spiteful in my original post or in my reply. And I'm an atheist for goodness sake! (Not that that fact should matter.)
That being said, I think the wording of the FFRF sign is poor. Why go there (ie, "hardens hearts and enslaves minds") unless your intention was to simply piss people off. Why not take the high road and put forth a positive/nice sign?
Nah, I just got bored voting for our side. fun to make the needle wiggle, like catching your odometer flipping 66,666.66 or something.
truckboattruck @146,
Sorry, if you'd said that, you would've got a less hostile response, but what you did was defend a very poor analogy by nit-picking.
FWIW, I believe that the only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them at all, and the place for religious displays of any kind is on private property -- it's not like there's a shortage of it -- not in/on any public property. Equally, I would've preferred a positive humanist message to a negative atheist one.
In short, I substantially if not entirely agree with you on the substantive issue, but I still think your analogy was stupid and your defence of it obtuse.
And, no, it doesn't matter whether you're an atheist or not.
truckboattruck
.
Sure... what reason would I have not to be? And your point would be what?
And we aptly explained to you why it was a really poor example of devil's advocacy and really doesn't merit further discussion within this framework. Emmit even gave you a good example of what would constitute a fair devil's advocate point.
No-one's debating that point. We agree. Public statements of protest or whatever else you wish to express are fair game in a public square. Our issue was with the merits of your example(s), one of which uses statements of violence, the other of which makes no apt analogy to the situation being currently discussed.
Constitutional freedom of speech would make it hard to support that stand, from a governmental standpoint. You can make a statement that no displays which advocate religious preference can be displayed in the public square, but it could be challenged as a violation of freedom of speech. Instead of fighting that battle, it's better to allow all viewpoints to be displayed, as long as they don't incite or advocate violence. And frankly, I'm OK with that... I'd rather see all viewpoints expressed than have any single one censored in deference to any other group. That's supposed to be what we're all about.
In that this was a poorly constructed analogy, it doesn't.
I respect that opinion, although I disagree with it. I think calling it "denigrating" is a bit hyperbolic, and just feeds the inherent persecution complex that most christians seem to carry. But I respect your opinion on it, and had you said that, instead of trying to equate hateful racism with this display, we'd have no issue other than a difference of opinion.
Either way, the sign has every right to be there, and no-one, especially Bill O'Reilly, has the right to say otherwise.
truckboattruck, another thing to consider regarding your analogy is that racist ideology and religion are treated separately under the law. The Constitution specifically forbids the government from discriminating for or against any particular religion or lack thereof. The same cannot be said of racism. Furthermore, later civil rights acts specifically list religion as a protected class, but they do not protect people on the basis of their political ideas or philosophies, such as racism.
I took a new poll
Bill O'Reilly is an asshole?
no - 2
yes - 6,345,234,692
O'Reilly is a tool and a fool. So much for the first amendment: Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, there sahll not be an established religion.
Bottom line is that the Federal recognition of Christmas is a violation of the establishment clause, as is the "under God" in the pledge, and "In God We Trust" on the money.
Are these battles worth fighting? Not in my opinion, not yet.
Hey, I say "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hannukah", "Happy Kwanzaa", "Good Yule!", "Happy Winter Solstice", I don't really care what flips your switch. O'Reilly is just exhibiting himself as a bigoted twit.
2 people voted no?
See? These polls really ARE useless...
I think I'll take another shot at being the devil's advocate here because there is one bit I found left a bad taste in my mouth.
It seems to me that the second part of the sign referring to religions is in fact explicitly antagonistic and therefore, while I hold Billo to be a douche in many things, I won't for him picking up the bait. This was a controversy starter and this should be obvious. To make the claim that this is just an atheist seasonal contribution seems to me completely disingenuous. And now that its being discussed, Barker is on the news playing the innocent lamb, and bringing up that Xmas was superimposed on the solstice, which in my POV gives more worth than necessary to the date (that is still connected with wicca and other forms of woo) and fails to mention other points that are pertinent, like the aforementioned intrinsic intolerance in religion. All in all, this seems like a stunt that failed on its execution. (I reserve the right to amend my opinion as I haven't seen many clips on this yet)
That idiot gawd soaked Lars Larson is on the radio in Portland hammering away at the FFRF sign. He's whipping up his rabid fans calling the sign hate speech.
What a fucking asshole. That guy is so far up his own religious ass he will never see the light. What a dick thing to do by putting her phone number on TV.
No, Billo voted twice.
Oohhh, I like how the micropoll has a by-state option. Apparently 98% of Texans support the atheist signage!
As far as the BOreilly being an a$$ poll, clearly he cheated and voted twice.
If the sign is hate speech it's pretty lame compared to what goes on here.
Yes; we're all so mean when we point out that you don't know what you're talking about.
Sigh.
*eyeroll*
Calling you a blithering ignoramus who is trying to rewrite science without any credentials is not hate speech, it's just being honest.
Kel, it isn't his lack of credentials that bothers me, but rather his insistence on telling us his theories rather than publishing them in a reputable scientific journal. Randy, if someone publishes your ideas in the scientific literature before you do they get credit for them.
The lack of credentials shouldn't prohibit anyone from contributing to science, but it's a huge wall to climb in order to do so. Randy's "look evolution is impossible therefore all evidence for evolution is invalid" approach is completely an affront to the way science works, he's basically taking the bunny in the precambrian approach to dismissal of the evidence. What he's saying has to fit in with all the facts of the universe, all the evidence we've discovered.It also doesn't help that his line of reasoning relies on an assumption that simply isn't there.
Randy won't even bother to post on His Own blog, that's how fucking lazy he is! But he would rather open his mouth and prove he's ignorant, than open his mouth and prove he know's what the fuck is actually going on. Seriously Randy, say something or leave-babble doesn't constitute speach.
Besides, who said it was wrong to hate stupid? ;)
"WAAAH! Stop oppressing Christians by not allowing us to oppress atheists!"
What a jerkoff. I will never understand why this loud-mouthed hypocrite is as popular as he is.
Vote made and polite "thank you for standing up for the freedom of expression" email sent... thanks for bring that to our attention. I've never taken the time to watch O'Reilly because I have a limited tolerance for complete asshattery, but after watching that.. wow, what a bigoted little prick he is.
Bill-o has a slight point. In that we do target the holidays. But then, who cares anyway if we do. The whole damn thing is silly.
So Kel, does that mean you like me? Is there anyone here that hates me because of what I believe? I know there are some of you out there. If you are one of them what makes you different from an intolerant religious person. You could say that one of the problems of religion is that many religious people are intolerant of others beliefs (or lack of belief). The problem isn't restricted to religion. I think it would be just as accurate (or inaccurate) to say that "ideologies harden hearts and enslave minds".
I'm fairly ambivalent towards you really, I find your insistence on rewriting science frustrating and I find your methodology of thought flawed. Aside from that, I really harbour no personal feelings towards you at all.
I am a Godless liberal and proud of it.
I also like Bill O'Reilly. I like him a lot. In fact, I like him much more than 95% of the hate spewers on this sorry excuse for a reasonable blog. The posters here simply caricature his opinions to make him seem foolish.
Christmas is a national holiday! He makes a good point that it is inappropriate to put up a sign like that in a public place that is simply celebrating a national holiday! The atheist sign is simply not pertinent to a tradition of both Christians, and non-Christians in this country.
Now perhaps he's wrong. Perhaps the sign is pertinent. Perhaps Christmas shouldn't even be a national holiday, but O'Reilly is not an idiot/chocolate covered douche/asshole/tool, etc. as has been said so uncritically above. He makes a valid point based on the state of our country.
Grow out of your own blind bigotry people. Don't create a straw man of this guy's case, just because you disagree with him. We're not little kids anymore.
Our local right wing radio station had a whole segment on this topic yesterday while I was driving home. I wish I could have recorded all the asinine and frankly extremely offensive comments on athiests made by callers.
Things like why is 1% of the population trying to tell the other 99% how to live - I thought we believed in majority rule. Or why are atheists so militant. Or why are they so against something that they don't believe exists. Or this is an example of political correctness - the other side always needs to be expressed. This is just the tip of the iceberg - and these are the 'nice' comments. I was so disgusted I changed the station. I think someone could do a good sociology PhD study on public attitudes and misperceptions on athiesm.
Events like this are eye opening about how abysmally ignorant most of the public is.
I'm beginning to think maybe we need our own Harvey Milk - perhaps people like Richard Dawkins are playing that role - but I think it eventually needs political teeth too.
The vast majority of nobel winners and prominent scientists are athiests - I know that's elitism - but imagine if all the athiests in the world were suddenly raptured from the planet tomorrow - I suggest there would be a brain drain that would put our planet back to the stone age - if that's what people want.
Randy, i hate you becasue you're an intellectually bankrupt twit who can't let Really go of God. You belifs are only a subset of this fact.
Let it be known i speak for myself, thank you very much.
Oh, and Randy has a point. Sometimes you people make me feel ashamed to identify as an atheist. If you want people to start agreeing with you, start treating them with respect.
Calling someone a blithering ignoramus and then pretending that you are ambivalent towards him is obviously dishonest back peddling. If you are right (which you are) about the science and facts, calling someone names is not going to change minds.
Again, to all you Pharyngula posters who feel that since they are anonymous, anything goes: grow up. You are doing injustice to the cause of secular people around the world.
Exactly. A national holiday. It doesn't belong to the Christians exclusively.
Oh, I think he's talented enough to be all of those simultaneously.
Sorry PEACE.
But Bill-O is a liar, a bully and a hypocrite.
Bill is an asshole. There's is no war on Christmas. There's nothing wrong with saying Happy Holidays. There's nothing wrong with a sign that states what atheists believe.
I am proud to live in Washington state and I have sent an email to the governor so I can be counted in their "pro-atheist sign" column when they tally up this shit storm. I don't care why Gov. Gregoire did what she did, I will take the fact that she did it and is sticking with it as a win for us all.
Peace, please wrote:
Oh, you're one of those. Don't worry - your concern is noted.
As a scientist, Randy's ideas are just blithering nonsense. That is a statement of fact, not derision. There is no scientific content to them. If Randy wants a different response from us, he always has the option of keeping his nonsense to himself when he posts here, as he can keep his opinions on certain subjects on his blog. Respect must be earned.
Peace, please, where you M on the old Hamykens thread? PZ doesn't like morphing. If you were, find one nomen and stick to it.
Is Christmas a federal or religious holiday? Make your mind up Bill. I for one "sort of" celebrate Christmas. We don't put up a tree(wtf do trees have to do with Christianity?) any more and last year I think we put up the bare minimum of Christmas decorations but I still give some people cards(albeit ones that are non-religious in nature) and I still buy gifts for my family. Freedom of speech and separation of church and state are supposed to be principles America stands for. Only when they agree with you eh Bill? To me the sign seems silly but then again I don't live in a country where atheists are denigrated and Jesus is shoved down your throat. Perhaps their sign is provocative but you have to do that to get press. How about a sign that says "Try thinking for yourself, there is no evidence that any god exists." Also, Christmas is a capitalist holiday on which we honour the Coca-Cola Santa by buying expensive gifts for our loved ones. Jesus if he existed wasn't even born on the 25th.
Why would anyone hate you?
I am certain that you're wrong, and quite probably more than a little dishonest and/or delusional, but for the most part, your refusal to address a scientific question scientifically, and calling those who do so address science as having an "atheist agenda" is more of an irritation than anything else.
Sometimes it's more irritating than others.
No morphing intended. Just new here. I'll stick to this naive nomen if I drop any other hippie outbursts.
Here's a challenge I thought of. Watch O'Reilly's talking points for a week, maybe two, and then decide to hate him. I feel most people will be surprised. Most of you missed his criticisms of both candidates during the campaigns. I feel he would have won over some liberal hearts during those times, especially in his defense of Obama (O'Reilly knew that whole lipstick on a pig comment was ridiculous).
I've watched O'Reilly a lot. He not only has some odd, disgusting and childish opinions. He also lies and twists things and frankly just gets facts wrong all the time.
He's a blow hard with a chip on his shoulder.
Don't assume people here haven't watched him because they don't agree with you. that is FAR from the case.
Hate requires effort. I find it very hard to hate people. I find Randy obnoxious when he wrongly pontificates on entropy, but I can live with him when he avoids that topic. For all I know, he might be fun guy to swig beer with.
The creationists who think their religion trumps 150 years of scientific papers supporting evolution, I have more trouble with. This is due to the fact that the worst sin a scientist can commit professionally is to deliberately and knowingly lie to his colleagues. So as long as the creobots keep their opinions close to home, I have not problem with it. Those who knowingly lie about science as their profession, like Ken Ham or the DI liars, get close to the hate category. As I said earlier, respect must be earned. A small amount may be granted as courtesy, but that can go away quickly with deliberate ignorance or lying.
Peace, Please wrote: I also like Bill O'Reilly. I like him a lot.
So you would agree with O'Reilly's statements like,
"There's no reason whatsoever to allow an anti-religious sign to be posted alongside a Christmas display."
How about a reason like, it's the law of the land and a court ordered that there be no discrimination of displays in this public area, based on content.
Or this beauty, displaying his ignorance of the whole situation,
"The buck stops with Governor Gregoire...She is a weak, confused leader who is allowing a small fanatical group parity in Christmas displays."
Aside from the fact that these aren't "Christmas displays", it's a public area where anyone can display what they wish for the holidays, he's ignorant of the fact that the governor had nothing to do with it. Except, of course, that she is sworn to obey and uphold the law.
I have to admit that I'm not fond of the creches, etc, that sprout like mushrooms this time of year, so you know what I do? I ignore them. Our loving, Christian brethren should try doing the same with displays they don't like.
Peace, Please said: I am a Godless liberal
Sure you are.
Peace, Please
I have watched his show before. You are assuming that our dislike of the man is because we don't know him. Wrong. I've seen him (as many here have) and the more I see the more I don't like.
I don't like that he blamed Nazis war crimes on American soldiers and then tried to use that as justification for Abu Ghraib. I don't like that in a world where people are suffering for hunger and disease he spends hours of his show on "The War on Christmas".
I don't like that he called for a boycott of French products because the French government followed the wishes of its population and didn't go along with an unnecessary war. I don't like that he then referenced the nonexistent "Paris Business Review" to say that trade between France and the US had gone down during that period, when in fact it had increased.
I don't like that he bullies everyone on his show and cuts off people's mics. I don't like how he thinks yelling is a substitute for substance. I don't like that he complete distorts reality to fit his worldview.
There is a reason why a television show parodying him is so successful.
no Randy, we don't hate you for that, we just laugh at you for it. You waste other people's time with your lack of reason, lack of critical thinking and lack of evidence.
The FFRF sign may seem a bit harsh to some, but keep in mind, the god bothers can, and do, put up obnoixous church and other signs on private property, and bill boards.
Here is a small sample I found by googling:
Church signs----
"God does not believe in atheists, therefore, atheists don't exist"
"Dictate-Dominate-Devastate the World for God"
"Christmas: Easier to spell than Hannukah"
Billboards
"Why Do Atheists Hate America?" (in response to a FFRF billboard)
"One nation under me.--God"
"Big Bang Theory? You've got to be kidding.--God"
These awful signs are fully legal and fully odious and are frequently seen at all times of the year.
So a puny atheist sign appears Seattle, Wa and Masison, WI for a few weeks in the winter, and the atheist sign is contraversial? Well just fuck the whiny babies crying over the little atheist sign! The got plenty of signs getting their hatefull messages out! (pardon the bad spelling)
I wrote a blog post about this. Feel free to read. It's long, so I don't want to post it here.
Link:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6gz8mh
What would you expect them to do? Given that the majority of ISPs route web traffic through big proxy/caches, if you relied on the source IP you would have many people being unable to vote.
To paraphrase Dan Akroyd, "Bill, you ignorant slut!" Why didn't he put his phone number up there too and give us a choice of who to call?
Ive watched O'Reilly quite a bit. I find it a very frustrating experience, he makes so many statements that are simply flat out wrong, I find myself wanting to talk back to the TV and contradict his falsehoods. But I dont hate him. Hate is a very strong emotion, Ive only hated a handful of people in my life, and now I hate no one. An annoying blowhard such as Falafel-Boy doesnt rate much more that distaste.
HEY GUYS I DON'T THINK PEACE IS A LIBERAL
ALSO THE SKY IS BLUE AND WATER IS WET
Just watched our local news, KOMO (a.k.a "KOMA", as in a persistent state of unconsciousness)out of Seattle. The reporter asked passers-by what they thought of the sign, and somehow they all turned out to be offended christians. And of course there's some local minister who's stirring up his flock over this "intolerant, bigoted" attack on religion - he got his five minutes of TV time. Not one atheist. Not one person from FFRF. Nope, the only opinion that seems to matter is that of the xtians.
I personally hate Randy because he's a creotard.
Have you seen how Randy talks here? He calls into question of the intelligence of anyone who disagreed with him, then refused to read any information on the subject he was trying to destroy until people did an IQ test and performed to what he deemed as satisfactory. Where's his respect for us? Where's his respect for all the scientists who have worked on evolution including the problems he's presenting for the last 150 years? Why is it when people show him evidence and papers dealing with his exact concerns that he just brushes them off and still repeats the same inanity? How is anyone meant to respect someone who acts intellectually dishonest?!?
If you want to be shown respect, you have to show some yourself. You don't just get respect when acting like a spoilt child.
Randy has his own precambrian rabbit he's trying to tell the world about. Only problem is that it's obviously not a rabbit, nor is it even a skeleton - it's a lump of stone he's fashioned into the shape of a rabbit.
Kel,
Glad you reminded me of what Peace, Please wrote a while back:
Oh, you're ashamed, are you? Then by all means keep on deferring to religion, tugging your forelock and letting it have its way whenever it wants it, giving up your seat to it and moving to the back of the bus. If everyone was as obsequious and fawning as you we'd be enjoying the delightful fruits of worldwide theocracy.
No, go ahead, leave the real work to be done to the rest of us, those who someone like you would probably refer to as 'uppity'.
Are you talking about me?
He's got a point - with all the other Randys posting here I guess it gets a bit confusing...
/sarcasm>
I really wish I could keep up with all the comments. There's so much to respond to! I appreciate the criticisms, especially of my liking O'Reilly. All in all I think they're fair. He has certainly said some things to make me cringe.
On the other hand, I stand by my claim that watching him will mellow some opinions. I am glad some of you created opinions after watching the show, and I did not mean to imply that anyone who dislikes him just doesn't know him. It's just that in my personal experience, however limited, most people get their information about him from sources that aggregate all possible negative things about him. Look at the conservapedia article on Obama and you'll see how irrational and unfair that approach is. I still believe that many people, although not all, will dislike O'Reilly much less, after normal sampling of his show.
Now, what I don't appreciate is baseless attacks on my integrity. I said: I am a Godless Liberal
tomh said: Sure you are.
nanu nanu said: HEY GUYS I DON'T THINK PEACE IS A LIBERAL ALSO THE SKY IS BLUE AND WATER IS WET
Please do not stoop to implying that I am a liar about my professed beliefs because I like O'Reilly. Remember, I never said I agreed with him. It is difficult, but it is possible to like people you disagree with. I personally prefer not to demonize my opponents, as that unfair tactic is used against us all too often. You don't have to feel the same way, although I maintain that it would help atheists' PR. (Ever see how sugary sweet ID proponents are?)
Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, as I well may be. Please don't make baseless attacks on me based on your ideology.
Yes, your shannon entropy disproof of evolution. It's an attempt to disprove the concept with just one piece of evidence and ignoring all the evidence that supports evolution. And the concept doesn't even apply to evolution, it applies to specified information.
Nerd of a Redhead,
I never would have guessed you to be a scientist. What do you do as a scientist?
I probably would not be a fun guy to swig a beer with. I never do that. If you like to talk politics, religion, or science while walking around Green Lake or something then I'm your man. Or perhaps a game of Chess.
Peace, please, all the IDiots have is nice. They have no logic or evidence. They knowingly lie. They are not people to emulate. Now, if they stopped lying you would have a point.
Wowbagger wrote: Oh, you're ashamed, are you? Then by all means keep on deferring to religion, tugging your forelock and letting it have its way whenever it wants. . .
I maintain sometimes being ashamed to identify as an atheist (although I think if you are, should out yourself nonetheles). The reason has nothing to do with the position itself, which happens to be correct. It has to do with the way my fellow non-believers act. I read immature ad-hominems, and unfair caricatures of others' beliefs. Christians are no better, perhaps much worse. They can be immature, and we have all been characterized unfairly in the past. On the other hand, I would rather that we claim the moral stance, and take the higher path.
Please don't misunderstand this for obsequiousness. I think that we should criticize, and criticize hard, comments from those like O'Reilly. He deserves criticism. Let's just be as fair to him as we would have others be to us. I would not want others to call me a chocolate covered douche. That's just my preference.
We should stand up for what we believe, or don't believe, and we should make our case for it without shame. What we shouldn't do is stoop down to playground tactics of calling each other mean names. It's those sorts of tactics I am identified with as an atheist, and that sort of identity that brings shame. This is because of some of the posters here, and I am making a plea for us all to be more reasonable in our criticisms.
Kel, DNA is specified information.
I apologize for the too lengthy posts- gotta fix that.
Nerd of Redhead, I don't seek to emulate ID proponents. I do think that they are ingenious in their tactics. I agree that all they have is nice. How powerful would we be if we had that in addition to being right? We come across as angry jerks. It is hard to agree with an angry jerk. Not everyone is reasonable enough to wade through that.
DNA can and is modified every time there is reproduction with no effect on the fitness of the organism. Shannon entropy talks about loss from perfection, there is no perfection in DNA, there's just change - about 128 changes in each of us from generation to generation. Shannon entropy only accounts for loss, mutations can have loss, gain and no effect whatsoever on the overall fitness. Shannon Entropy simply doesn't apply.
Randy, what part of you are wrong don't you understand? You are wrong. Time to quit trying to defend that which cannot be defended.
As I have repeatedly said, if you think your idea is good, write it up and submit it to a scientific journal. You haven't said you have done that. But you also need to realize, the journals have every right to reject papers that are not scientific, as yours will be. If you bothered to learn some real science, you would make that decision on your own.
Peace, tell you what. Get the IDiots to quite lying. Then we won't get mad.
Peace. You're concern is boring. Don't come her scolding us for thinking Bill-O is a douche.
I don't really care if you like and respect his opinion. He's a jerk, a liar and a hypocrite. It has nothing to do with a difference of opinion. I can deal with blowhards when they're honest. But he's a complete tool.
So move on. Stop defending him. We don't care.
Peace, Please,
If you're still seeking a consistent nym to adopt, can I suggest "Oreo Atheist", or "Uncle Tom".
Peace, Please wrote: Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong
Well, why don't you answer what I asked? You like O'Reilly, do you agree with those statements he made? That there's no reason to allow this sign next to a Christmas display? That the Governor should put a stop to it? Because statements like that certainly make him look like an intolerant fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Here's the thing. I'm angry. I am angry that people get killed for being atheists, that no one would elect an atheist as president. I am angry that people can use defense of "Well, most people in the world believe, so they can't all be wrong!" I am tired of civil rights being hindered by people due to religious ideology.
I am also angry at those who agree with me because they are so often being counter productive. They are saying "You suck ass people who disagree" and making it harder to make any progress. People refuse to identify as atheists because they don't want to be seen as jerks. The sooner atheism grows up and either disassociates itself from immature kids rebelling against their parents, the better. All I'm saying is, stop creating that association!
Fight for what's right. But fight smart, don't fight like you're a toddler
Nerd of a Redhead,
I have learned plenty of real science. However, I am wondering if you really are a scientist. I have never read one scientific comment made by you on this blog. Please answer me. What makes you a scientist? What do you do that makes you so smart? Please don't read the wrong tone of voice into the above words. I would really like to know.
Fuck. I hate this concern about TONE. I'm not here trying to win anyone over. We're (mostly) atheists here and we should have to worry about how we vent or show our contempt for assholes like Bill-O amongst ourselves.
Peace. Fuck off. Seriously.
Peace, there is a theme to our comment. We don't like people who deliberately lie. This can be commentators like BOR, or IDiots like Ken Ham, or Randy and his silly ideas on entropy. Science requires complete honesty for those of us who are scientists. So we expect others to be honest too. When it doesn't happen, except for those minor polite lies (you look nice, dear), we tend to be disappointed and angry.
So the cure is for you to get those people to stop deliberately lying.
Peace Please,
While it is true that civil rights are often hindered by religions people, it is also true that the greatest proponents of civil rights are also religious people.
Peace (for short), atheism isn't - as I've written before -a country club. We don't attract members by being nice or friendly or having a great wine selection or the best back nine in the tri-state area.
As I'm sure you're aware, atheism is about being without the belief in gods - any gods. How atheists behave has no impact whatsoever on the non-existence of gods. It shouldn't be considered, in and of itself, a positive worldview. It will probably coincide with a positive worldview - humanism, for example - but they aren't the same thing.
Or do you believe that those people who've managed to shrug off the fog of religious indoctrination enough to start thinking for themselves and coming to sites like this are going to read a few insulting posts and think to themselves, 'well, that's it for me; here I was doubting the existence of god because the bible is full of nonsense and most of the christians I've met are lying, hypocritical sacks of shit. But now I've seen how awful and mean atheists are; well, that must mean there's a god after all. Hallejuh, Lord - I'm coming back to the flock! Here, take my money. Sure, the priest can fuck my kids, why not?'
Atheist numbers will continue to grow for as long as people are able to think for themselves and break free from (or resist imposing) religious shackles. A few of us slagging off a lying, fat sack of crap like O'Reilly for our amusement won't change that.
Nerd of a Readhead,
Do you think I secretly believe in evolution and I am deliberately trying to deceive you -- and I am therefore lying?
And please tell me what work you do as a scientist.
There are two things to be thankful of O'Rielly for: Stephen Colbert and "Fuck it! do it live!"
One of the many Randys* wrote:
Yeah, but the latter are going against the traditions of their religon - christianity, of course, supports slavery, views women as less than men, and makes no mention of democracy.
Steven Weinberg sums it up perfectly:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
*see post #201 and it'll make sense
Randy, you are misrepresenting entropy. That is the lie. Whether you believe in evolution or not is irrelevant.
As I keep telling you, if you think your idea has merit, write up a paper and submit it to an appropriate scientific journal. The first issue of each year usually has the submission process, and page charges if applicable (these can be hefty, so read carefully). After your paper is submitted, if it isn't rejected outright by the editor, it will be sent for peer review to experts in the field for evaluation. They will report back to the editor. At that point, the paper will be rejected, sent back for rewriting based on reviewers comments, or accepted as is for publication. There is no requirement that a person be degreed to publish, but the paper from a non-degreed person will receive close scrutiny.
Randy, there are authors who keep showing their manuscripts to everyone but agents and editors, and there are those who only show their manuscripts mainly to agents and editors. Guess who gets their books published.
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer wrote:
While it is true that civil rights are often hindered by religions people, it is also true that the greatest proponents of civil rights are also religious people.
The difference is that civil rights are hindered by religious people because of their religion, but promoted by religious people in spite of their religion.
Randy @ 216: you hide it well. Additionally, you have never made a scientific statement Ever on this blog, and from what i can tell, your own either. Don't try to patranize bpeople after being so intellectully vacuous. Again: where did the aliens come from?
Wowbagger,
I hate to be in a position of defending the Bible. However, you have to consider the time in which it was written. In contrast to the culture in which it was written, it is fairly progressive.
And consider Thomas Jefferson. He was a slave owner. Yet he was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence and probably one of the most infuential people of our history. He is an american hero. He was also a hypocrite. He was busy doing his slave mistress while condeming race relations. When you add it all up though, the United States is a better place because of him.
Peace, Please,
No, we've been stereotyped as angry jerks, and you've bought into it.The oppressor always seeks to stereotype the oppressed. Look at Richard Dawkins or PZ. I can't imagine two more mild-mannered individuals, but how are they portrayed by the likes of Bill-O? The negative stereotype that's been chosen for us is "angry", "shrill", "ranting", and "hateful". It doesn't matter a damn what atheists actually do, by being the tiniest bit assertive, by simply refusing to be cowed into silence, they're branded with the negative stereotype that has been chosen for them: "Jews are mean and avaricious", "blacks are stupid and violent", "atheists are angry and intolerant".How well did "keeping your head down and your mouth shut" work for atheists? Blacks? Gays? The rise of the religious right saw atheists more maligned than ever, but the recent backlash of more assertive atheism has seen more people self-identifying as atheist than ever before. It seems like a great many atheists have actually seen through the religious propaganda that you'd have us believe. It's time to come out of the closet and screw how they want to stereotype us."First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."... I think we're somewhere between "ridicule" and "fight".
Yes, it's a socially constructed document and a product of it's time. Some of it may have been progressive (That Jebus was a hippie), but there's some stuff in there which would make a mass murderer sick to his stomach.
The problem is that this book that was mostly draconian for it's time is still being used today as a guide for morality. The bible would be much better served if it cut out almost everything and just left in: "Love your God, and love your fellow man." Simple, unambiguous, and gets the point across.
it is also true that the greatest proponents of civil rights are also religious people.
Says who?
Nerd of Redhead,
Why do you refuse to answer my simple question? What makes you a scientist? And what is the extent of your scientific training?
That what's written in it is a 'product of its time' is a dead giveaway that it's entirely human in origin with absolutely no divine inspiration whatsoever. The emergence of a character like Jesus reflects a change in societal values, indicating that humanity was, on the whole, becoming more compassionate and less warlike - and they modified their religion to reflect this.
Christianity might have had a chance with the intellectually honest had Jesus' first lesson been 'do away with the old testament entirely; what's in it is the work of an evil monster, not the true god.' But this didn't happen, and they're now stuck with having to try and justify monstrous events like those listed in Numbers 31 - which just doesn't work. Evil acts are evil acts, and trying to argue that the Canaanites and Midianites 'deserved it' doesn't change that.
I think that the statement about religion hardening hearts is rather rude, and certainly speculative. Why was that put in there? Just to annoy people?
I have been religion-free for 10 years now, but I really like Christmas! The whole Christmas mythology is silly to argue anyway. Celebrate the reason for the season! Mithras! ;-)
Christ.
Billo is an idiot.
Wowbaggar,
As you know, I am a diest -- not a Christian. The fact that there is some very ugly stuff in the Bible has nothing to do with the existance of God. But that is vearing of topic.
Governor Gregoire is a Catholic and she is on the side of tolerance. What side are you on?
So, Randy, are you trying to imply that Wowbagger hates all religious people?
O'Reilly was frothing at the mouth over this issue again tonight. The guest that he had on (one of FOX's legal analysts) mainly argued a point that was brought up earlier in this thread: 1) The 1st amendment is in place to protect speech that you agree with AND speech that you do not agree with. This little point -- not surprisingly -- ticked O'Reilly off.
Maybe I'm elitist, but if you can't spell the key word of your key point, then I'm not convinced that you are telling the truth.
No. He may assume that they are generally idiots and/or liars and that would be bigotry. Some people here freely admit to hating religious people and others are appalled by that attitude. Wowbaggar is somewhere in the middle. He did say in #220 that
and he makes no apologies for such an attitude.
echidna,
I am also a bad speller. There is just too much math running around my head to make room for spelling.
Randy the deist (the wuusiest kind of athiest possible- beleive me, it's atheism): i have a great video for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Randy,
On the topic of math.
How do you rationalize going somewhere for eternity after this so called plane-of-existence?
If we spend eternity in this plane where "The Deity" exists then what are the chances of us living within some set time at all, be it 10 seconds of 3 trillion years. Eternity is eternity. The odds are so close to 100% that you may as well say that we should be there now; if can even say 'now' it a context outside of time.
So why do we exist within such an infinitely small time frame that you may as well say we do not exist at all.
Does that make any sense?
To clarify a tiny bit. I am referring to infinities, as in forever.
Emmet Caulfield wrote: No, we've been stereotyped as angry jerks, and you've bought into it.
In response:
Steven_C wrote: Peace. Fuck off. Seriously.
Also,
Emmet Caulfield wrote: Look at Richard Dawkins or PZ. I can't imagine two more mild-mannered individuals. . .
Richard Dawkins has been mild mannered in my opinion but do you see the blog post title here?
"Give Bill O'Reilly Apoplexy." Not a mild mannered statement. No embellishment needed from our cultural competitors. Thanks for giving them ammo.
Finally:
Emmet Caulfield said: If you're still seeking a consistent nym to adopt, can I suggest "Oreo Atheist", or "Uncle Tom".
Forgive me for sharing my opinion. I suppose criticism of others is off limits when you are both in the same in group. Personally, I respect others' rights to free inquiry and would not seek to insult others for their comments.
sorry ranxerox, it doesn't. In an infinite span of time, anything is liable to happen. Our present reality is a inevitability of propability.
But if there actually were some place to go, eventually, then we should already be there, no.
Yes, the universe exists because we are here to observe it and all.
Peace, change to Faith -1. Clever, eh? After all, we only disbelieve one more God than nearly anybody else. If this were india, i would have to say something like faith -1000
I think you are giving them ammo by supporting the dumbassery of Tone over Truth. This is exactly why they live in a socioculteral shell, because they feel that they can retreat into their enormous blinders to reality and pretend like there is nothing to acknowledge. The only proper recourse is... that's right, SMASH The Shell!
No.
Well, in infinity Ranxerox, everything exists because it can! Just because hypothetically eternity stretches infinitely far back into the past, doean't mean than finite numbers do not exist. Point and fact: the number line.
Another thing: Everything necessarily means everythingxinfinity, so there are obviously going to be repeats. The real noodle killer is "how did it get to be infinite?" It would have taken an eternity to get that way, so we Should, under this assumption, be living in a finite reality. There is exactly 50/50 chance that we live in a finite reality vs. an infinite one, from these assumptions. Unless it doesn't change at all over time, which has it's own unique problems
"Now you go read this. It will take less than one minute."
Relavence?
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | December 5, 2008
The fact that there is some very ugly stuff in the Bible has nothing to do with the existance of God. But that is vearing of topic.
Yet an other deist who picks and chooses from the Bible.
In my humble opinion, this mad tyrant of of deity deserves no reverence. That is, if the deity were real.
Yes, the infinities cancel therefore we live exactly in the middle.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | December 5, 2008
I hate to be in a position of defending the Bible. However, you have to consider the time in which it was written. In contrast to the culture in which it was written, it is fairly progressive.
If the big sky daddy is suppose to be so much better and more perfect then mere mortal, it would seem it should have done a better job leaving better stories for we peons.
None whatsoever. Besides this and this it is my favorite blog entry. I just wanted you to read it. Perhaps you can benefit from it. This is pretty good too.
Peace,
BillO is not known for his mild manners either,is he?
Eye for an eye,right?
I dont think its bad manners to make a snark in a headline about this man,he gives it out,he better be able to take some.
As Emmet Caulfield,btw my next Molly nominee,has already pointed out,you seem to have fallen victim to a certain stereotyping of atheists in the media,as angry hateful raging adolescents,incapable of tolerance,love,any positive emotion or deed....
This makes it very easy of course to escape to have any serious discussions,you can just ad-hominem away to your hearts content.
The truth is actually the opposite.
And if you cant take it that people on an Internet blog have heated discussions at times,then just grow up,or go read a book.
Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer
Presumably you are claiming that he was wrong to have a relationship with Sally Hemmings because he thought slavery was wrong? You can call him a hypocrite, but that oversimplifies the very complex situation he was in.
Tell me, how many times did Jefferson try to abolish slavery? What laws did he pass to limit it? And what would have happened, by the law of Virginia, if he had emancipated his slaves?
I'm not in any way condoning slavery, and Jefferson wasn't perfect, but calling him a hypocrite fails to account for the realities of the time.
This is a good article on the subject of Washington, Jefferson & Slavery in Virgnia.
In some respects Jefferson was a hypocrite. He was also a great man that accomplished a lot of good. My point was that Jefferson, who lived roughly 200 years ago, would be considered a scoundrel today. How much more so those who lived 2000+ years ago.
In other words, what counts more than the place that Jefferson was at is the direction that he was pointing us to. Likewise for Jesus and his followers.
I hope that I have clairified my attitude towards Jefferson. But if it is still ambiguous let me just say he is one of my heros.
"Yes, the infinities cancel therefore we live exactly in the middle."
Unless we live in a finite reality, in which case either our present or future is also finite. Besides, "Middle" is a bizzare way to phrase it, because our place in reality doesn't change. Similar to how quasars inhabit a particular partition of spacetime (that is, one that is a lot closer to the big bang) Anywhere on an infinite line is the "middle", so nowhere is the middle. And infinities do not always cancel out. Additionally, all finite numbers might as well be 1 if we are going to continue on this path.
After all, 1 is the one thing we can be certain of. Ironically, we can't even be certain that we can be certain of it, it is the epimendes version of "cogito, ergo sum"
Which literally means "Thinking, therefore Being" and wasn't an identity question. It was actually an ontological argument of man. But anyway, any finite number if meaningless against infinity, which brings up another point: pointlessness.
Anything we do is pointless, precisely because A) it was inevitable B) it will have already have happened somehwere else in time regardless "our" existance C) it will be utterly muted by the progress of time and D) we have no real reason to assume we had anything to do with it. We are as much as a epiphenomenon as our activities.
Along the same tangent, we can easily prove that God (any God, no matter how beautifully phrased) is equally as pointless. He did 1 thing. Create- all further interactions are merely subcatagories of this creation. Big fucking deal. His existance is no more consequential to eternity than our own.
And you guys thought i was on the Lost Continent of
Tangentia, but i wasn't.
Now, imagine that there is only finite reality. Easy. We don't have to really even imagine. Everything we do now has permenant consequence to existance. Theists say that our existance is meaningless after we die, But Heaven and Hell have no function whatsoever either. They are mearly the masterbatory effects of a jealous and bored God.
After all, we won't lement having no "Real" purpose, because the only real kind of purpose is one that takes forever to accomplish, which, obviously will never get accomplished. Here and now never have to be pushed aside, and the vanishing timespan we have to relish that ought to be realized for what it is: freedom from tyrrany. Even if Atheism is meaningless, Reality has it's own special charms.
"Meaningless symbols aquire meaning despite themselves"- Hofstadter.
I still disagree Jefferson was a hypocrite.
Regardless, while we might agree that parts of the Bible say nice things, who gives a crap? So do the Lord of the Rings and various other works of fiction. As several others have pointed out, you can't simultaneously believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and also forgivable as a work of the times unless your concept of God is completely different from that of Christians, in which case the Bible should be irrelevant to you.
If it was widely accepted that the Bible is a work of fiction, we wouldn't care. It is full of contradictions and so what? I've read lots of bad fiction and been entertained.
It is because people believe it is true and model their behavior based on what it says that I have an objection. Ancient texts are no manual for modern life.
I believe this whole thing started with your assertion that
Civil rights are hindered by religion, do you disagree?
I was just reading the artical sited by Doo Shabag. It looks like Washington was a Bliss Ninny.
"Tell me, how many times did Jefferson try to abolish slavery? What laws did he pass to limit it? And what would have happened, by the law of Virginia, if he had emancipated his slaves?"
Is it Just Me, or wasn't the 3/5 Compramise supposed to be irrelevant after 1820 because by then slavery was supposed to be unnecessary? I have heard this before, but i'm not sure of it's validity at all. Anyway, it isn't like he hated his slaves and was some sort of tyrranical person who would work them into the ground. Clearly. Same with Washington. Slaveholding was just a perk of being wealthy. They would have fought dearly to make African-Americans equal in status if they were to be freed. But at that time, it wasn't going to help Blacks at all to do so.
And yet the real problems still came after slavery was abolished and Blacks were completely abandoned to thier status of Pariah, sans protection or work. Education was still essentially prohibited, and they were kept poor and miserable, the permanent underdog in society. This is still radically emminent. D.C. is the perfect town where this is emphasised.
Randy Stimpson, you're being rude asking Nerd for details.
Argue his posts, not his credentials.
Peace, Please:
What makes you think those opining haven't?
And in that post you also said "Grow out of your own blind bigotry people." Hm.
Morphing much, "Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer" aka "Bliss Ninny"?
*sniff*
*blub*
Hang around here for a while, and you'll see how robust the disagreement can be. What is off-limits is being an unctuous douchenozzle.
Get down off the cross: we need the wood.You got insulted because you waddled in here and pissed on the carpet with your "you uppity atheists" lecture, concern-trolling, and "I love Bill-O", "Bill-O is right" schtick. You've been treated with contempt accordingly.
Maybe we should ask Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Yes. I disagree. Civil rights are hindered by some religious people. However the over all affect of religion is the advancement of human rights. Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself". What could be more civil than that?
Doo Shabag,
I concur.
#236. It's not like I am trying to disguise myself. How smart would it be to disguise myself and point to my blog at the same time.
Randy @267, so you do it for the yuks. It's annoying and also rude.
Peace,please:
I beg to differ. You have spent the majority of your posts here complaining about the comments that they have made.
For example:
Perhaps these are not insults to you, but you certainly seem to be believe that you are the only one who knows what types of comments should be allowed.
I have no idea what you mean.
Randy said: "Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Right. Because that's the only part of the bible that any Christian follows. And every atheist disagrees with that statement.
Randy, Randy, are you going to get back to the point of contention? That being your biological knowledge can be summed up within 4 or so nuerons. I still say that that is an insult to the nuerons, and that 2 ought to be sufficient. Yukking around gets you nowhere.
Jerrerson was as hypocrite, but hey, at least he felt guilty. Too bad about all that. But it reminds me of something from Morel Orel:
Orel: "I feel guilty."
Paster: "Orel, guilt is for Catholics."
Too bad that show is spot on so much of the time.
Similarly, " Yes. I disagree. Civil rights are hindered by some religious people. However the over all affect of religion is the advancement of human rights."--Yeah, tell that to the Jews Pilty. Whoops, was i mistaken in your identity? Or are you?
Randy @270,(on changing nyms)
No? What reason was there to morph? Would it be helpful if all commenters were to change nyms at whim?
#172
#196
I hope I don't get expelled for morphing into Bliss Ninny and for quoting a scripture.
I also hope that the people that made the above statements don't get Molly awards.
"No? What reason was there to morph? Would it be helpful if all commenters were to change nyms at whim?"
Ii got dibs on "project 2501"!
Thanks for the endorsement Randy, your say-so is alot like a McCain vote in California Ha ha ha! And i don't have the authority to boot you; you aren't worth it anyway. And it's not like i hate you with a passion, it is more of a dismissive hate.
I gave lots of thought to that comment after i posted it, and realized that although B,C,and D were true- barring of course, some miraculous event where you actually show your intellectual capability, my "hate" really isn't worth the name. Maybe it's a knee-jerk reaction to stupid? who knows? But at least your a nice IDiot.
I was simply identifying with Washington.
Opps ... I morphed again. John, please don't scold me. My fingers are just getting tired. Scold #172 and #196 instead.
PZ:
Good night all ... What it means to be an IDiot
"Good night all ... What it means to be an IDiot"
*Raised middle finger* I went over that numbnuts.
Randy
I believe Jesus was suggesting you should masturbate your neighbor.
Civil rights are hindered by religion, except perhaps for some civil rights for those who actually follow that religion. That is not to say that SOME religious people haven't tried to advance the cause, but that is not what their religion teaches which several people have already mentioned.
Should we have dueling cherry-picked Bible quotes?
Jesus also said (Matthew 10:34...)
He also advocated abondoning your families and children (Matthew 19:29)
He also explains how to beat your servants/slaves (Luke 12:47-48)
Randy
I don't know you at all, but several people here seem to think you're not that smart. Regardless, it's just rude. Until I moused over the link, I was wondering who the newcomer to the conversation was.
Alex at #24: ...as far as i know, in the UK we don't have any program where one person just rants their own loony opinions straight at the viewers by themselves.
I know. I'd love to host one some day. It sounds like my ideal format. :-)
Randy, on your blog post you linked in #279:
Barring the obvious argument that evolution is plausible by people who understand it, this is still nothing more than a fallacy called 'false dichotomy':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy
Which I find strange because in the same post you talk about how you require higher standards of proof because you're a mathematician, and logic statements like 'because x is not part of set A does not necessarily mean that x is part of set B without further specification' should really be in a mathematicians realm.
Maybe it's that computer science training you mentioned, you're thinking in binary.
And, as it's stated there, it's also an 'argument from incredulity':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Your other statement is revealing:
Translation:
"I could believe in ID evolution if there was evidence that evolution occurred (without evidence of ID, that part is just assumed) however I would not believe in naturalistic evolution no matter what the evidence says."
In math terms, you have set an axiom that some sort of god exists, and the evidence that leads you to believe in a deistic god is the same evidence that leads those of us without such an axiom to believe no god exists.
I'm sure you'll just say we have an axiom that no god exists, and maybe you're right, although I can't explain why I personally would have set such an axiom when growing up in a religious environment, and even being a creationist years ago. You stated you had a christian background too, it seems the easiest interpretation is that we both moved away from christianity (I considered myself deist at one time too), but I was willing to examine the validity of my axioms when you were not.
The most insidious dogma is the dogma you're not even aware of.
@Peace (whichever morph):
I actually took your advice and watched O'Reilly last night. I'll explain EXACTLY why I call him what I do:
1. He makes no attempt to allow his guests to complete their answers, much less listen to what they have to say.
2. He plainly stated in response to Megyn Kelly last night that he believes the government SHOULD determine what people are allowed to say. This statement can be attributed to the fact that he, like most other people, doesn't like to hear a dissenting opinion. However, most of us here wouldn't care to resort to blatant censorship to silence that dissent. (I'll grant you that many, occasionally including myself, will resort to scorn and ridicule instead)
3. You stated, as O'Reilly does, that the sign posted by FFRF is inappropriate. So is allowing a religious representation at a government building. Christmas may indeed by a federal holiday, and I wouldn't bat an eye at a secular representation of that holiday (lights, wreath, tree) being present. Once one steps into displaying religious icons, it beceoms necessary to allow ALL an equal say. Anything less is unconstitutional and discriminatory.
I agree with you that some of the responses people put on here are inflammatory or rude. Most of them are also patently earned by those who receive them. There exists a minority of religites that post here who are actually attempting to start a reasonable discussion, and I do actually feel sorry for them when they are automatically dismissed as another lunatic. Those are the few chances we MIGHT have to convince someone of their delusions. I disagree, however, that we do the cause of secularism harm in the way that things are addressed here. Those who wish to have a poor view of secularism/atheism already hold that view, and anyone rational enough to consider what's in front of them might realise, as you have failed to do, that one individual's (or a small group's) treatment of others is not indicative of the group as a whole. You, me, and the rest here are entitled to our opinions; Unlike your 'friend' on Fox News, I believe it is our constitutional right to share them if we wish.
Randy, turn on auto-fill. That way you don't have to type your long moniker or email address or website url every time. Just one letter and click.
I do it.
I was trying to write a kind, nice, sincere, polite, email to the governor of Washington when I decided my best praise was "Thanks for not violating the constitutional rights of, according to studies, more than 10% of your constituents." I fail at thankyou. However, I win at correct. Somehow, I'm okay with that. My fall-back of "keep up the good fight of not commenting on something you're legally forced (?) to do because it isn't politically expedient" just seemed to condescending and self-defeating.
I really do fail at thankyou... especially to people who are really only doing what they're legally obligated to do, in the first place. Hope other people had more luck at that.
I suggest we simply stop replying to Randy altogether... he stopped making any attempts at coherent talking points about 100 posts ago...
Now he's just reduced to demanding credentials (ooooh, the irony of THAT one), morphing, insipidity, wanking, and blatant blog-pimping...
Hold on... let me look at the list of banishable offenses... hmmmm...
Randy, PhD in chemistry with 30+ years working in the field. Including failing people like yourself back in my teaching days.
Randy, entropy is an irrelevant argument for evolution. Entropy may be unfavorable, but the free energy is what drives chemical and biological processes. If you forgot the Gibbs equation, which is the change in free energy is equal to the change in enthalpy (heat) minus the temperature times the change in entropy. Even if the entropy term is unfavorable, the enthalpy contibution can overwhelm it, making the process overall possible. As happened with evolution. In the mystery novels I read entropy would be called a "red herring". A clue that appears to be important, but at the end of the story is totally irrelevant.
Peace, Please is probably gone, but just in case I'll say what I want to say.
Peace, you are stereotyping yourself by being ashamed, as you say, to identify as an atheist. Just so we don't have any confusion here, I'm defining the word stereotyp to mean using the actions or behavior of one individual member of a group to define or reflect on all members of that group.
You say that the actions of other atheists make you ashamed to identify yourself as an atheist. Why? Why do you care what other people who happen to share a demographic category with you do? And further more, why would you bow to people who insist that, because you and I share a demographic group, you are somehow responsible for my actions? Anyone doing that is WRONG, and you should be telling them that rather than bowing to their wrongheaded, discriminatory, bigoted behavior.
I am a white female. Should I follow your example and be embarrassed every time an idiot starlet say something idiotic, simply because we both happen to have a vagina? Should I be ashamed to identify as white because of every white supremacist out there, or every member of the Minutemen or whatever that border militia is called? Hell no. Part of acheiving equality as a minority group is demanding to be viewed as an individual, not as a part of a monolithic demographic that must speak with one voice. You are capitulating to the bigots, and personally I think you should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.
And why do you, yourself, stereotype in this very comment thread? In your post #244 you respond to something that one poster says, wtih something another poster says. Since when does Steve C speak for Emmett Caulfield, or vice versa? Why do you think that Steve C speaks for all atheists? Not only are you capitulating ot bigots, you have become one yourself. And apparently, your bigotry is directed to a group you apparently belong to, which is more shameful in my opinion.
Lastly, I think if you pay closer attention you will see that the mildest mannered atheists are regularly smeared as "militant" and so on, simply because they are atheists. Dawkins, who you describe as mild-mannered, is villified by some Christians, just because he is an atheist. As others have pointed out, no one has ever won their civil rights by being quiet and polite and rolling over to play dead whenever a bigot gets a little bit pissy. No matter what you do, fundies are going to call you names and perceive you as militant, angry, and so on. Your worldview, as an atheist, is directly and personally threatening to them no matter how you express it.
Sorry for the somewhat disjointedness, but I find your attitude sad and upsetting. A self-hating whatever is just tragic, particularly since you seem to think you have pride.
On the apoplexy thing - it's a variation on a fucking figure of speech. The common permutation is "apoplectic with rage". Sheesh.
NB: In my fourth paragraph, it sort of sounds like I'm defining "white" and "female" as minority groups. I'm not, it's just poor paragraph construction. I'm aware that these are both majorities in my country (US), although women as a group are not in the power position.
Exactly how is it unethical to point out the flaws in an online poll by exploiting them?
Your concern is noted.
Oh, goody, another "sit down and shut up" atheist. Your concern is noted.
Q13Fox.com
The Seattle Faux station Q13 has a poll to crash:
"Should the atheist billboard at the state capitol be taken down?"
54% say YES...aw, poor bigots.
I have another poll to crash. It is at daily-journal.com, the local paper in a Nazarene run area of Illinois that is once again promoting nativity scenes on government property. It is a little tricky to get to as one has to go to the Daily Journal site, then to opinions, which has the question on the left about our previous governor having his sentence commuted. After voting or deciding to see the poll results one gets to vote on the nativity scene questions. I am sure that, like every year, they will come up with a great result of local people supporting these nativity scenes. This seems to give the local officials the OK to promote their religious views on government property. Keep up the good work on poll crashing and the Cinncy Zoo thing was great.
Don't forget, it was Bill O'Liely who stated that the US Army committed the Malmedy massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Bill_O'Reilly#Malmedy_massacr…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre
PZ mentioned Bill O'Reilly and squid guts. Could someone tell me which is which? Because I'm having trouble distinguishing.
Oops, looks like one or more self appointed 'saviors of Christmas' have committed a crime:
"Atheists' solstice sign appears stolen from Capitol"
http://www.theolympian.com/118/story/687910.html
well there's a big shocker
I love it!!! I'm sure it is completely lost on them that they are putting their personal feelings above the Constitution, but they accuse atheists of being un-American. At least we think they have the right to believe their nonsense.
and...
300!!! King of de castle! King of de castle! Look at me, I have a chair. I have a chair.
From http://www.theolympian.com/118/story/687910.html
What an ass. Although I find it absolutely hysterical that s/he managed to misspell "believe" every single time. Christian LoveTM at its finest.
huh?
@ #19: You wrote,
"I'm sure you and your office are being overrun by the overwrought hand-wringings of a very vocal minority who feel that freedom of expression only applies to them and theirs. "
Yes, atheists ARE a very vocal minority. After all, 76% of Americans identify as Christian. Look it up.
I'm glad you agree that these minorities should not be permitted to run roughshod over the rights of the vast majority.
Christmas displays are supposed to be festive and uplifting, not political messageboards. Why can't these God-mockers at least provide something positive and season-appropriate?
Or should we start including other political messages in Christmas displays, like "One Man, One Woman"?
I swear you are poe but...
you miss the point COMPLETELY. There shouldn't be any of these types of displays at all. Christian or atheist. But since you Christians feel so persecuted and have to use public lands for your displays we atheists should get equal time as well.
You mean that all of these messages that came before were apolitical?
Right, Prop 8 had nothing to do with religion. So sorry the LGBT community tried to intrude onto your marriage.
@ Paliban Mom #304, posted to your blog:
You really don't get it do you?
First, atheists don't hate your god any more than we hate unicorns, yeti, and other things that don't exist.
Second, you are un-American. By cheering ("Update: The sign has been reported "liberated" by Godly Americans. PRAISE!") that the sign has been stolen, you are showing that you do not believe in the 1st Amendment right to free speech.
Third, for praising the theft you are not a good Christian. #8 - Thou shalt not steal. Who praises a sinner for their sin?
Atheist sign disappears from Washington state Capitol
NEW: Placard to be replaced with temporary sign, note saying, "Thou shalt not steal"
(CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, has disappeared, the co-founder of the organization sponsoring it said Friday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html?…
And Paliban Mom is post number 57 (or something like that... I lose count) that displays a magnificent ability to express ignorance, expected deference, and hypocritical intolerance while displaying a gross lack of understanding of the constitution and law, all while completely missing the point.
Way to go... you're a fine example for all the kids out there. Take a bow.
Isn't Paliban Mom a Colbert-like satire? (except not as funny)
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Paliban Mom, not to praise her: check out Paliban Mom's website, it's not even a remotely subtle parody.
A portmanteau of "Palin" and "Taliban" and you're treating him/her seriously? C'mon, recalibrate your parody/satire meters!
@ Celtic_evolution -
I think you're the one that doesn't get it.
The entire point of the Christian Reconstruction movement (look it up) is not to follow a "Constitution" put into place by a bunch of agnostics with a handful of Christians among them; it is to replace that depraved, secular document with God's Law. ALL of it, not just the bits some people like.
Where have I shown ignorance? Where have I shown hypocrisy? Please, explain your insults.
And I'm glad to help you and all the "kids" understand God's Law, and how much better the United States will be as a Christian Nation.
Man, I wanted to punch my monitor SO hard just now. It was just the normal outrage until I got to the end. MLK Jr's history is certainly whitewashed in some places, but at least we can prove he freakin' existed.
And people DO celebrate Ramadan in this country, thank you.
yeah
Poe. I called poe first time I saw her site but damn she's a persistent little parody.
Mine is apparently completely broken. I need to go buy a new one.
Huh... let's see, Paliban Mom... I'm guessing you're one of those people feeding off the fruits of that ""Constitution" put into place by a bunch of agnostics with a handful of Christians among them", as you put it.
What a hypocrite you are.
Every word that spews from your mouth (or oozes off your keyboard, as the case my be), displays your ignorance. Ignorance of law, ignorance of fairness and human decency.
So, if you're living by "God's Law", I'm guessing you see the abolition of slavery in this country as a mistake? What a joke you are.
And as you are clearly a nutter, looking for a platform from which to be heard, by all indications from your whacko website... I'll not be replying to you any further.
The Poll is now 91% 'approve' to 9% 'against'
Good horb guys
@Emmet -
I realize you think yourself very clever, but apparently you've not heard of Tabor's Law.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tabor's%20Law
"When an atheist is losing an argument with a Christian, the atheist will always accuse the Christian of joking . . ."
It's easy to decide someone must be making a joke, rather than realizing that she is sharing God's Truth. The Bible demands that Christians stone to death anyone who tries to lead us from Him. See Deuteronomy 13:6-10 for detailed instructions from God. (The Bible is available and searchable online.)
76% of the American population claims to be Christian, but only 11% are Evangelical. Fortunately, that 11% is performing lots of outreach and converting your children at a rapid rate. (Ever see Jesus Camp? It's a wonderful documentary, very uplifting! Netflix has it.)
That 11% also has people in all levels of government (including the current President). Even Obama had to run on a "faith" platform in order to get elected in the US.
Of course, some would say that I should not raise the attention of atheists like you all to God's Plan for a Christian Nation, which is being advanced daily. Some would say that I should let you yammer amongst yourselves, thinking you're the majority (ha!), until such time as you are overcome and wiped out under God's Law. But I want you to have a chance to be Saved.
I suppose that makes me a horrible, bigoted monster, eh?
@Celtic_Hatemonger -
I'm amazed at the vitriol which spews forth from your fingertips. Do you touch your mother with those hands?
It's a shame you're so filled with hatred of everything good, pure, and Christian.
The Bible DOES give explicit instruction to slaves to be obedient to their masters, that's true. But there is no commandment to HAVE slaves, only prescriptions regarding their treatment. God clearly thinks slavery is OK, but doesn't require its institution.
I hope this helps you understand the Lord a bit better.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tabor's%20Law
Excellent, now that we realize that the god-bots have made up this term, we can correct the definition by going to urban dictionary and giving thumbs up to the other definitions. I suspect the reality is "Some retarded phrase coined up by a trolling idiot" but now it can mean "A feeble attempt by inept Bible-humping Christians to claim victory..."
Paliban Mom is either a Kaufmannesque Pot of one seriously twisted monster who will encourage atrocities in the name of her sky daddy. Either way, not much fun to deal with. It's evil!. Don't touch it!
No, it makes you mildly amusing.Apart from your website, a gross parody, you're plainly too articulate to be serious. When the people you are parodying actually come in here foaming at the mouth, they are never that coherent; their spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc. is never any good, much less consistently perfect (or nearly so) as yours is.In fact, there's something eerily familiar about your writing style, almost as if I, em, know you? Now if only I could put my finger on it...
From your link:
*zip*
breaking my own pledge here, but... *sigh*
Paliban Mom vomits:
OHHHHH!! That's MUCH better. Whew... I thought god was some kind of sadistic, evil asshole. That clears it up for me. When god finally shows up and sets us all straight, I'm making you my first slave. Sound good to you?
Or can you just agree that since that's never going to happen, you can just kindly fuck off, you twisted, sick excuse for a human being.
There... NOW I'm through with you.
Kazakhstan?
Utah?
Oklahoma?
Luxembourg?
Grand Fenwick?
Emmet Caulfield wrote:
there's something eerily familiar about your writing style, almost as if I, em, know you? Now if only I could put my finger on it...
Could be a direct quote from Bill O'Reilly.
From Paliban Mom's website:
*chortle*
and:
*snort*
Paliban Mom
Have you ever read The Gold Bug?
It's that nasty tin thing again!
Could be a message.
@ #302 - Paliban Mom
Let us first discuss the 76% of Americans which identify as Christian. This statistic is (stealing the words of Lawrence Lowell, here) "...like veal pies, are good if you know the person that made them, and are sure of the ingredients." In other words, I question the method used to get this statistic. I don't trust this veal pie. Only approximately 50,000 (the US has a population exceeding 300 million - so, tiny percentage) gave completed interviews on religious identification. This isn't a Census question - it's a phone survey. One conducted in 1990, and another in 2001. And even their results show a downward trend in identifying as religious from 1990 to 2001.
Speaking of other minorities - Mormons - only 1.7%, and they are pretty vocal if Prop 8 is any indication. Born-again Christians, Fundamentalist - far smaller percentages. 13.2% identified as having no religion. I certainly hear more from the tinier population of born-agains and fundamentalists than I do from us no-religion sorts. The Catholics are the biggest chunk of change in self-identification - and they aren't a majority either. They're 24.5%. So - until we non-religious sorts can lump all Christians as having the same agenda - I think you can pretty well shut it as far as I'm concerned on your so-called majority. Every little (and big) Christian cult is a minority too. A vocal one. Our statistical wang is almost as big as the Baptist wang - if we're going to whip it out.
I am for equal protection of rights under the law. I wish all of those Christian minorities were as committed to that idea as I am. I am for that beautiful wall of separation erected between church and state. I think you should be free to practice your particular brand of religion in your church, home, and heart. But, I should be equally free to ignore your religious beliefs. Where our lines of discourse intersect - I should also feel free to espouse my views without the government intervening on your behalf and thwapping me as the irreverent sort I am, while giving you carte blanche to say whatever you'd like.
This is the marketplace of ideas. I will give the same deference to your religious notions as I do your political ones. None. Instead, I will engage in arguments rooted in logic, critical thinking, where due consideration is given to the evidence, the context of judgment, the relevant criteria for making that judgment well, the applicable methods/techniques for forming that judgment, and the applicable theoretical constructs for understanding the nature of the problem and the question at hand.
This season, for me, isn't a war - on Chrismas, or anything else. It's extra time to spend with my friends and family. That's my reason for the season. I'll be busy this month appreciating my network of people for the good they do in my life. In fact - I don't need a special season for that. I acknowledge and appreciate that at every opportunity that presents itself. (Hey people on this blog - I appreciate your insights, attacks, and links of awesome. Happy Friday to you.)
Us God(AKA the invisible friend)-mockers think Christmas displays as a whole - belong in the private, not government sector. But, as long as religion has a place at the capitol, in a holiday display - so does an atheist message - however inappropriate your minority finds it.
Like Balaam's ass, you simply speak clearly about that which you see before you.
I am God, and I approve this message.
PS: Please remind people that eating unclean seafood (and unclean food not from the sea) is wrong. My Holy Word does not change.
What's the acronym for Power of Ethernet?
Power over Ethernet - PoE
"HOST A BOOK BURNING!"
Or a CD burning party!
God - Please order your moron follower to shut up. Thank you.
Diagoras wrote: This isn't a Census question - it's a phone survey. One conducted in 1990, and another in 2001.
Oh, there are more recent polls than that. Here's a Pew survey from 2007 that shows evangelicals at over 26%. As far as the sampling being a tiny minority of the total population, that's what polls are for. If we could get an answer from everyone, there would be no need for polls. Regardless, Pew spells out their methodology quite clearly under the tab, Full Reports.
poe
exactly
I know this thread's probably dead but I just want to clear something up.
Randy Stimpson, in #239 you wrote that I had written in my post #220 that 'most of the christians I've met are lying, hypocritical sacks of shit'.
Can you go back and look at my post again, please? That phrase was within single quotation marks, and was the description of a hypothetical scenario of the mindset of someone who had reason to doubt christianity; it is the the hypothetical person describing christians as 'lying hypocritical sacks of shit'.
I can understand your mistake; I just thought I'd clear it up. I don't hate christians in general - though I certainly loathe many specific christians. I don't think all christians are lying hypocritical sacks of shit, but some of them certainly are.
The vast majority of christians I just feel sorry for.
I actually prefer the 2001 survey, to the 2007 Pew Survey. Starting with the disproportionate representation of the midwest and south in their data. Additionally, a greater number of Americans live in urban areas - so low population areas have a greater instance of representation via the use of area codes in their 35,000 or so grouping. I have only skimmed the 210 page report - so, in just viewing their methodology and the construction of their questions - I think I can safely say that I think their findings and analysis of such is dubious, at best.
@Wowbaggar,
Opps.
@ #340
Don't like that one? Here are Gallup's numbers on a state by state basis, taken over a four year period with almost twice as many respondents. They claim a 1% margin of error, but who knows. I agree with you that state by state or region by region might be more valuable. At least, I think you agree.
I also like Gallup because it shows my state, Oregon, with the highest percentage of non-religious, 18%. Oregon finally leads in something.
tomh - Oregon has lead in quality beer for a REALLY long time.
@#344
Well, I might agree, but you'll never get a consensus on that one.
@345 Maybe. I think the only reasonable case can be made for CA, but those people probably never had Cherry Adam from the Wood.
@tomh, thank you for the more recent numbers. I had been using data from religioustolerance.org, which is clearly outdated. (Their most recent figures are from the 2001 ARIS study.)
I'm thrilled to see that 26% are now referring to themselves as Evangelical! That'd be 1/3 of all Christians . . . including people you see every day, at work, at the store, your neighbors . . . all waiting to gain control, all becoming Values Voters!
Now, I forget who it was and can't be bothered to scroll halfway back up the page to find out, but some twerp insisted I must be a joke because I'm "too articulate" . . . Your bigotry and elitism is showing, dear.
Not all Christians are semi-literate, knuckle-dragging morons, the caricature you like to believe. Take, for example, your precious Obama, a professing Christian who spoke extensively about his faith, attending the same church for 20 years. How about Hillary Clinton? Google her name and "The Family" and see what you learn about her long-term connections with evangelical Christianity on Capitol Hill. Weekly prayer breakfasts, friend, among other things.
We are everywhere, in the background, allowing you to see the idiots so you think we're a joke. We let you think you're the majority, while we quietly increase our numbers. Heck, even those folks at Westboro play their role; did you know nearly all the adults at Westboro are LAWYERS? Nope, not uneducated, inbred hicks. That's just what they want you to believe, so you don't take them seriously as a threat to your depraved lifestyles.
If you want to see some truly articulate Christian writing -- which blows mine out of the water, I freely admit -- I suggest you visit www.americanvision.org. This site is hosted by Gary Dumar and others of the Reconstruction/Dominion movement. Neither in their writings nor in the online discussion forum will you find the halfwits you think all Christians are. I'd wager you'd not be able to keep up, in fact.
My website will continue to post news items (with a little opinion added) to inform readers of what's going on with the Christian Reconstruction movement. That's the point; while most Reconstructionists want to move toward the day when Christians take over and IMPOSE God's Law (and 26% is a great start), I want you all to become saved, so you can join WITH us instead of . . . well, scroll down to "Practices" on this page: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
I suggest you review my "non-blog" pages -- the stuff centered on future President Palin, though it was written with the 2008 campaign in mind and needs updating -- a bit more carefully. You'll find, if you do, that every view of hers which I explain is based entirely upon hard news sources -- not random blogs or editorials -- every one referenced. Sorry, I don't make stuff up, I just tell it as I, an educated Evangelical Christian, see it.
that's good stuff right there
Some things I found in the store on the Paliban site:
A McPalin bumper sticker that says "I can see Russia from my house!"
A description of a bumper sticker called the Bastard Sticker that says "God hates bastards. Get married or get an abortion!"
It all seems more than a little unlikely for an allegedly evangelical website that supports Palin in 2012.
The only way Palin will be President in 2012 is if Alaska Does secede from the Union!
If anyone seems to have an insecurity about peoples right to believe something or not believe something and have it displayed publicly in a positive way it is this group of atheists who are making these displays. I am not Jewish. Yet I dont feel a need to make a display explaining why their beliefs differ with mine during the holidays. I like seeing how people of other beliefs or non-belief and cultures express themselves in a [b]positive[\b] way.
Let's call this display by this group what it is. Something to piss people off. It's not something there to make a statement for freedom of speech. Should people just keep making signs in public countering one another in a negative way? No. This is best left ignored. People celebrate the holidays for all sorts of reasons and this just makes atheists look like people who are out to suck the life out of a time of year that brings enjoyment to people.
This is negative attention seeking and it doesnt impress me much that people who consider themselves atheists agree with this display just because this group that made it also happens to be an atheist organization. It's an unintelligent and inappropriate way to go about making a point.
Max, thank you for your concern. But must of us have already come to a conclusion on the matter after 350 posts.
I'm stating my opinion, not helping you or anyone else come to a conclusion. I wouldn't want to deprive anyone from using their own critical thinking skills to robotically agree with Dan Barkers dic*ish display at the holidays.
Max, you have stated you opinion. It will be read by those interested. You are about the tenth or twentieth person (I lost count) to make the same opinion known, so some of us are aren't going to debate the issue with you due to sheer boredom with the subject. Nothing personal, but you are just late to the game, and repetition of previous views.
It's an unintelligent and inappropriate way to go about making a point.
Why do you think anyone is trying to make a point? This is a public area where citizens are encouraged to participate, in this case with displays, in any fashion they see fit. The Nativity display has a sign in front of it expressing the donor's personal beliefs. Why should another display expressing the beliefs of the donor be any different?
This is a public area where citizens are encouraged to participate, in this case with displays,[B]in any fashion they see fit[/B]
-----------------------------------------------------------
First of all that statement is incorrect. Second of all atheism is supposedly merely a lack of belief in god(s).
This is by Dan Barkers own word "an attack on religion" during his television interview and own explanation of the sign. The Menorah or Nativity scene's are not setup as negative attacks against any group. The FFRF group has bestowed that honor upon themselves.
First of all that statement is incorrect. Second of all atheism is supposedly merely a lack of belief in god(s).
According to you. As long as an application for a display follows the regulations set out by the state it will be approved, without regard to the content. Because people don't like what it says makes no difference. Who cares what someone says on TV? It's the display that's approved. What is your point, anyway? You think this display shouldn't be allowed?
Barker's point is that the nativity and other religious items in the capital are offensive to those who are non-religious. Their mere presence causes distress. He went out of his way to make a sign that negatively attacks religion(by his own admission) I assume to get people to say that his display is offensive and should be removed. Which is what he would ultimately like for religious displays to have done to them. So, I think the display should stand so we can see what this group has to offer us as an alternative at the holidays. No thanks.
Applejack @358:
Really.
"Our members want equal time," Barker said. "Not to muscle, not to coerce, but just to have a place at the table."
"It's not a religious display. It is an attack on religion" -Dan Barker
Applejack, you confuse what the sign is with the reason why it is there.
The sign is not a religious display because atheism is not a religion.
It's an attack on religion because it says "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Their [religious messages & symbolism] mere presence causes distress rather than "Their [religious messages & symbolism] mere unopposed, privileged presence causes distress".
There isn't anything besides Barker's display which negatively asserts something in the capitol building. The Christian and Jewish displays do not comment on other religious or non-religious beliefs. I think what we can take from this is this FFRF cannot come up with it's own positive message or intentionally chooses not to and instead concentrates on basically pissing on others. Excusing the negative attention seeking and provoking nature of this sign is fairly disingenous. I live in NY where people can all watch a 60 foot Menorah get lit and see people celebrate Christmas for religious or non-religious reasons and not go out of their way to throw a wet blanket on things. Barkers sign contains language that intentionally goes out of its way to invalidate the ideas and beliefs of all religions. If you want to tell me that is truly part of the atheist holiday tradition maybe legally you have a right to it but it's pretty lame.
There isn't anything besides Barker's display which negatively asserts something in the capitol building.
So what? So you don't like the sign, who cares? I like it, again no one cares. The annoying thing about free speech and fairness in America is that you have to endure speech you don't like. Here's a suggestion for all you unamerican, intolerant types - just ignore displays you don't like.
maybe legally you have a right to it...
There's no maybe about it. Get used to it, this is America.
tomh, a plausible explanation is that Applejack is projecting, by implying that the sign's "mere presence causes distress", since it's "negatively asserting" something. It certainly does to Bill O'Reilly :)
Pedantically, I note that asserting a negative is not the same as negatively asserting.
Nice try John Morales. This is nothing to do with projecting anything. The sign is flat out said to be an attack on religion by the author of the sign itself. None of the other displays in the building besides Barker's use language to attempt to invalidate the others. You also misread my earlier post. People that complain that displays related to religious belief in public places should be removed are primarily non-religious people.
Your point and Barker's would be respectable if the sign stated that it was a display that was based on reason and knowledge and the winter season period. The fact that it goes further to try to negate others ideas and beliefs is where it loses credibility and the motive becomes one of trying to provoke.
The motive here is fairly straight forward although people here would like to explain it as a more noble effort. It's pure and simple put there to piss people off. Like I said, the guy legally has a right to say whatever he wants but do you really want your message to be "Look how bothersome non-religious people can be to what others think at the holidays"? He obviously isn't looking strictly for equal footing for an atheist display with the other religious ones or he wouldve done something positive.
Applejack wrote: The motive here is fairly straight forward although people here would like to explain it as a more noble effort. It's pure and simple put there to piss people off.
Looks like it's working, too. That's the most enjoyable part of the whole thing. Free speech is a wonderful thing.
Applejack, it's not "Your point and Barker's"; my point is that your claims regarding his point in your comment based on the quotes of Dan Barker is not supportable, whilst Dan Barker is talking about the sign and its effects, not about your post as I am.
You already said that @358. I did not misunderstand you. I think the statement is forthright and not intrinsically offensive and anyone pissed off is hypersensitive - but frankly, that's only a bonus.
The true intent is unknown to me, but clearly part of it was a desire to be heard. The sign raises consciousness regarding an alternative to religion and what a privileged and unexamined ubiquity it has in USA culture.
All good stuff.
The sign does more to show adesire to be obnoxious to other views then to raise consciousness towards any alternative. Like I said the pot shot at the end of the FFRF display is intentional to get attention. If that's this groups only way of grabbing attention towards what it's views are it needs to go back to the drawing board. If someone made a sign specifically pointing out the shortcomings of a particular religious group or those that are non-religious I wouldnt be impressed that it was raising some sort of awareness by using negative attention getting tactics. This display is nothing for people who are atheists to be proud of or rally behind. It's just people trying to throw a wet blanket on a time of year most everyone tries to relax and enjoy. People probably wouldve thought it was cool if there was a winter solstice display or a knowledge tree but all that has happened is atheists have come off as looking bitter and angry.
The state of Washington has a disproportionate non-religious population of 25-30% and obviously the governor there is pandering to them.
Applejack, you're just repeating yourself.
Applejack, your concern has been noted. But notice that nobody is agreeing with you. You are reaching the point where your continued posting could be considered in the same vein as you consider the card. Now, either you have freedom of speech to continue posting, in which case everybody else does, and the card is correct since it is free speech. Or, if the card is wrong and should be pulled because it offends you, we can ask you to quit posting here since your posts offend us. Time to come down on one side or the other, and the live with the consequences of your decision. Free speech means that sometimes you see/hear things you don't like.
Applejack wrote: The state of Washington has a disproportionate non-religious population of 25-30% and obviously the governor there is pandering to them.
That's rich, now you're just going to make up numbers to try and convince someone? Not to mention that the governor has nothing to do with it. If you want the real numbers
Gallup has them.
My point has never been to deny someone free speech so on that you have misunderstood or maybe tried to create a point where there isn't one. My point is that this group has apparently very little to offer as this conscious raising alternative except to bash others.
Where are these concerns being noted by the way? Haha. You are sounding a bit like the Professor from the movie Finding Forrester.
Applejack, this may surprise you, but you are the sixth or seventh poster (I lost count a while back) with the same concerns. We have heard all your arguments from the previous posters for a couple of days and are bored with them. Every time the thread was dying a natural death, another poster with the same concerns as you would revive it. Just like you did with your first post (#358?). If you would actually give us a new argument, we might perk up.
Religion
The religious affiliations of Washington's population are:
Christian - 63%
Protestant - 29%
Lutheran - 6%
Baptist - 6%
Methodist - 4%
Presbyterian - 3%
Other Protestant or general Protestant - 10%
Catholic - 20%
Other Christian - 11%
Latter-day Saint - 3%
Other Religions - 5%
Refused - 6%
No religion - 25%
The percentage of Washington's population identifying themselves as "non-religious" is higher than the national average. The percentage of non-religious people in Washington is the highest of any state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington
We can both quibble over exact percentages but the point is made that there is a large base of non-religious folks this governor is pandering to. I doubt Barker hasn't tried to put that sign up everywhere he could and got told to fly a kite by everyone except Gregoire.
Applejack:
Really.
From Wikipedia: "The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is an American freethought organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the separation of church and state, the removal of religion from public life, and to educate the public on matters relating to atheism, agnosticism, and nontheism. The FFRF publishes Freethought Today, the only freethought newspaper in North America. The organization pursues public interest lawsuits and engages in public debates to further their goals. Since 2006, the Foundation has produced the Freethought Radio show, currently the only national nontheistic radio broadcast in the United States."
@374 there is a large base of non-religious folks this governor is pandering to.
Why is it so hard to understand that the governor has nothing to do with this? The court approved a settlement that requires displays to be allowed on a non-discrimatory basis. If the governor ordered the sign pulled she would probably be sitting in jail for contempt of court. The most she could do is to allow no displays, including the tree. This is what happens when you get all your information from O'Reilly and Fox News.
That's a very nice mission statement you provided. When you see this group go about things the way they do and Barker saying that Jesus was a dictator and the sign he made was to specifically attack religion then I think we know this group has more on it's mind than seperation of church and state. Maybe you can explain how that sign raised the general awareness of the public to what atheism is about. If your view is that anti-religious statements are equivalent somehow to atheism or agnosticism then you might have a point about his sign.
If the governor ordered the sign pulled she would probably be sitting in jail for contempt of court.
----------------------------------------------------------
Do you seriously think this Barker character didn't try this wherever he could possibly put this sign up? I'm sure Washington State isnt the only place whose capitol building has a holiday display. If you agree with the general statement he made then you shouldnt be bothered if he specifically made a sign criticizing particular religions. If that were the case where he singled out one imparticular he would have been disallowed most likely for hate speech. There is no nobility or ground for people to be proud of the way this point is being made.
Oh no, we wuined their Chwistmas.
Sheesh, you guys are tedious.
@378
If that were the case where he singled out one imparticular he would have been disallowed most likely for hate speech.
That's what happens when you get all your information from O'Reilly. You don't even know that in America there is no law against hate speech. We have this thing called free speech here. Other than that I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Going to have to agree with tomh here.
Applejack, i did agree with you....at first. But as soon as the Xians reacted the way they did, they completely legitimized the message written there. They ought to have listened to the guy who put up the nativity set. seriously, your concerns are really no longer valid, even if i do agree with you.
You don't even know that in America there is no law against hate speech. We have this thing called free speech here. Other than that I have no idea what you are trying to say.
----------------------------------------------------------
I didnt say anything about a law. I said it could have been "disallowed" based on the governors supposed judgement. Like I said, I'm sure Barker has tried to put his signs up all over the place and has been turned away.
Can't even get his name right.
What a fucking moron.
It would seem Applejack is sock-puppeting and possibly morphing (384).
Nah I don't think it's apple jack.
it's some other idiot who obviously doesn't have the ability to make a point. So instead he's acting on his stunted intellectual impulses and showing his ass.
Rev BDC, you might be right. Sorry, Applejack, for #386.
I know who I am! I'm the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude!
Although an Aussie, with our own problems keeping free speech going, I've added my vote to that poll. I think you fellas have been hammering the poor minipoll site, though. The opposition were down to 11%.
Additionally, I've put in a suggested poll of my own. It simply askes 'if you were suffering a bacterial infection, would you choose 1928-era Penicillin over a modern anti-bacterial that used evolutionary principles in its research and development? Yes / No.
I shall be interested to see if this suggested poll is added, and even moreso in the results...