Here we go again — I get more email

I confess, I only skimmed, but something from the third letter caught my eye: "Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."

*ahem*

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*wipes a tear* Oh my, I think I hurt myself laughing. Funniest damn thing I've read all night.

I'm upset. . .I want the stupid creationists to go away. :(

Ha ha ha! Pure comedy genius.

One thing all of these letters have in common:

The authors put words in that they only loosely understand the definition of.

Hmm, apparently staying up late messes with my counting skills. Fourth letter, not counting the article.

Notable evolutionary biologist, Bill Ayers. Even Faux News has stopped beating that manufactroversial drum, but the name of Ayers will echo back and forth inside the cavernous intracranial space of Wingnuttius americanus for a generation.

Hahahaha.

That hurt my brain.

To quote Father Ted:

"DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!"

"Careful now"

Clearly the second one didn't get the memo from the Disco 'Tute, since s/he openly admits that ID is just another name for creationism. The 'Tute needs to get its act together; herding sheep is much harder work than it looks from the farmhouse, evidently. My grandmother had a folk saying that sums this situation up perfectly: "They're just as organized as a bag full of gnats."

And where do these loons get the notion that calling someone a liberal is an insult? Thomas Jefferson and I are very happy to be liberal, thanks very much.

"Well, sir (and I use that term extremely loosely)"

Yeah, more like "M'am" if anything, Mrs. Paul Zachary Myers! BA-ZING!

And where do these loons get the notion that calling someone a liberal is an insult? Thomas Jefferson and I are very happy to be liberal, thanks very much.

The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'. Or possibly 'Poopyhead'.

"Mr. Morris" would probably be Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation "Research." Somewhere between Ken Ham and Kent Hovind on the creationism BS scale.

I am so very sorry that your belief in evolution is so weak, that you have to pressure anyone and everyone who wishes to present the Biblical version of the beginning of life.

yet another classic example of projection.

that makes over 2000 entries in my database of self-identified xians engaging in projection.

It's so common as to be classifiable as a "trait" of evangelical xians.

The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'.

Nah, too difficult of a concept to grasp.

Or possibly 'Poopyhead'.

Nah, too many syllables.

That third letter needs some hard returns.
WALL OF TEXT much?

Additionally, the third letter repeatedly calls you a leftist liberal loonie(eg: unamerican), but yet he has the following to say:

"If we weren't, and if we spoke up more, then asinine liberals like yourself wouldn't be trashing this once great country."(emphasis mine)
He hates what America is now PZ, maybe as much as you(you liberal scumbag!)
Perhaps this can be the common ground on which to build on? :P

C'mon P.Z.

Don't let the fact that Morris is dead keep you from debating him.
What are you afraid of? Zombie Morris?

It's hard to pick a favorite. It's hard even reading any of them. Don't these potatoheaded yokels ever go to school to learn how to read and write?

Seriously. I think we desperately need to sneak some basic grammar and logic lessons into their Bibles.

It would help.

First, who is this Mr Morris?

Most likely John Morris, son of the late Henry Morris. John is the current president of ICR.

C'mon, PZ, don't you keep up with the latest in creationism? ;o)

I am wishing everyone I know "Happy monkey!" instead of happy holidays now. Confusion will run rampant, like in the heads of eighth graders who are being taught that ID is science. Hilarious and depressing simultaneously.

of course it was the liberals who trashed this once great country.

all those liberals de-regulating the banking industry, airline industry, auto industry...

wait...

oh, THAT'S right, it was the rethuglicans who did all that.

billy-joe-bob-jeeter apparently likes to shoot himself in the head.

You know, the Cincy Zoo hasn't yet thanked us for convincing them not to throw in their lot with people like these e-mail writers.

"Evolution is the biggest lie Satan has ever told."

You're welcome, Cincy Zoo.

From the 3rd letter:

I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified.

Yeah, no kidding? Never would have guessed...

oh, and before I forget...

Bravo PZ, for walking through the flames of the inane yet again.

I swear I'm going to find you a pair of fireproof longjohns someday.

You know, the Bible is some fairly challenging reading, especially the KJV. Based on their astonishingly inept writing abilities, it causes me to wonder if PZ's Xtianist correspondents have a.) read their Bible, at all, and b.) been able to comprehend the least bit of it.

It doesn't hurt that other bloggers wrote about the zoo aligning with ignorance.

Come on. We all hate anti-science organizations.

By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay, which is absurd. No one is born gay. it is a psychological problems that stems from early childhood scenarios.

There is that argument among homosexuals, that their sexual orientation is not a matter of choice or other things that we can control. I wonder if this guy thinks anyone is born heterosexual.

PZ, I envy you so much for getting these letters. I realize you get way too many, and are fed up, but I bet I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards.

*Pores over letters*

I think my brain shrank from reading all that garbage. How does one put up with this amount of stupidity and vitriol on a regular basis without going insane?

I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards.

phht. that's way too easy to do, given how many of them there are.

just go register at one of the more inane xian fora, like the one for christianexodus.org, and seek to engage.

you'll get plenty of choice rubes to rail on, should you wish.

just remember they will boot your ass at the first sign of contrariness, so wait until you can really sink your teeth into one of them.

I like the 3rd letter: 34 words, then (my bold)

My only words are : The Cincinnati zoo should let their monkeys go and cage the evolutionists because they act more like monkeys than the real ones.

Then another 608 words.

How does one put up with this amount of stupidity and vitriol on a regular basis without going insane?

meh, sanity is overrated.

;)

I liked when the zoo canceled the ticket deal how they were so quick to point out that the deal in no way implied an endorsement or relationship between the two facilities. "It's not about us endorsing them or them endorsing us," said Chad Yelton, a zoo spokesman. "That wasn't the intention of anything we were doing."

Yet when you listen to the creos talk, they imply the exact opposite: "A spokesman with the Creation Museum says it's a shame that intolerant people caused a partnership between the museum and a large zoo to be dissolved."

Hear that? A partnership between the Cincinnati Zoo and this snake oil stand. And that's exactly what we all said the creos wanted--to trade on the Zoo's good name by claiming a collaboration. Transparently dishonest bastards. Any fools duped by this smokescreen are beyond hope.

William Gulvin #25:
I think it's pretty well accepted that no, they don't actually read their bibles. They hear the sunday school and sermon stories, they keep a copy handy, they list it as their 'favorite book', but they look dumbstruck if you mention anything about god ordering the murder of infants in the Midianite war or even jesus' "I come not to bring peace, but the sword" passage.

At least we know it's not concerted. For one guy, people thought the Earth was flat only 500 years ago. For another, prophet Isaiah already knew it wasn't so. It seems that not all of them have read the political and incorrect guide...

I almost tire of ripping on letters like this because these folks so obviously live in a fish bowl of self-satisfied ignorance. But, I too have to confess that I like the expression "Happy Monkey" and I will probably use it from here on out.
Happy Monkey, everyone. Happy Monkey indeed.

I almost tire of ripping on letters like this because these folks so obviously live in a fish bowl of self-satisfied ignorance. But, I too have to confess that I like the expression "Happy Monkey" and I will probably use it from here on out.
Happy Monkey, everyone. Happy Monkey indeed.

@William Gulvin

With the way these nuts parade around biblical passages they think push their agend while disregarding its specific cultural context, or any conflicting verse in the same book, I doubt it.

"Happy Monkey, everyone. Happy Monkey indeed."

Pervert. ;)

PZ's cyberpistol must be very, very large indeed if it's attracting this much attention!

Long-time reader, first-time commenter. I realize you're the one who has to deal with the waves of hatemail, but I must say that it's a relief that the Zoo called off the deal. Good job, Mr. Myers.

(I also second the motion to use "Happy Monkey" from here on out.)

How could PZ be a satanist when he doesn't believe in Satan?

Thats just silly.

People (meaning creationists) need to realize there is a difference between having something exist (the creationist museum) and allowing it to gain credibility from leeching off the credentials of a scientific entity (the zoo).

This is ridiculous. Science has no objective. Science exists to understand. If science pointed towards the earth being 5000 years old and Jesus riding around on a Brontosaurus then Science would support that.

Religion has the agenda. Religious people preach intolerance. Science teaches accepted knowledge. If it changes, science will change with it. Religion rejects change. CHange is scary to religion. Thats why early christians tried to destroy all knowledge except what the church was teaching (thank you Islam for preserving it!)

So, as cool as I think Romans riding around on Raptors fighting T-rexes is. It just didn't happen.

Fossils aren't the work of the Devil.

pssst, the devil isn't even real.

Alison, are you starting a War on Squidmas?! GRrr ;)

"PZ's cyberpistol must be very, very large indeed if it's attracting this much attention!"

/facepalm
Pervert!!

Pervert!!

Happy Monkey to you too, pal!

...wow. My brain hurts. I couldn't make it through the third letter, some paragraphs would have been nice.

What really makes me want to kill kittens is the passage in the second letter about evolution being only an idea, not even a theory, because it's not 'testable in a laboratory environment'. What a stupid bastard.

I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified. I am not a terrorist (BillAyers) and do not worship the environment(global warming nuts), do not seek monkeys as my creator (evolutionists) and do not brainwash other people (Marxists). I suppose I am disqualified from teaching.

Please do not dispare. I am sure you are qualified to teach at Liberty University.

And to everyone here, I just want to say "Happy Monkey".

"Happy Monkey to you too, pal!"

And a happy New Year, jackass! ;)

seriously, anyone reminded of Oceans 11:

"who you calling pal, friend?"

"Who are you calling friend jackass!"

Another good forum to find these types of inane idiots is:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/

You can spend an entire lifetime with great entertainment on there if you choose to engage with the fauna and flora.

I just stumbled upon this website yesterday and while I love the articles I must say the like minded comments truly make it a whole. You guys are great.

Sarcasm, atheism and education all in the one site!

Also, I continue the motion of "Happy Monkey".

When I read the

idea of evolution (it is not a theory because it is not testable in a lab environment)

I could almost hear all the rationalists of the world saying in one voice, the word Lenski.

Sweet.

Well looks like we might get some entertainment for the next few days...

A while ago I read that Dawkins didn't do formal debate with creationist because he didn't want to legitimize them. In my naïveté, I thought that creationist, while wrong, were interested in debate and could perhaps be persuaded. After months of participating in the creation-evolution war online I have come to the conclusion that Dawkins was right.

They have no interest whatsoever in honest debate. They'll make stuff up. They'll flat out lie. They'll repeat the same points that have been refuted over and over again (e.g, evolution is disproved by the second law of....). Rather than the 'scientific method' they prescribe to the 'crackpot method'. Assume your position is true and than twist logic as far as you can to make the facts fit that position.

Oh, and the projecting! "Darwin is your God" "Evolution is your religion" "You believe in a fairytale". Do these people do anything but project!!! Does religion destroy a person's imagination so much that they can't even conceive of someone living life differently from them?

The last gambit the creationist's handbook is to steer the conversation to the idea of "respect". We must "respect" other people's beliefs. Of course, in their twisted dictionary "respect" means "never criticize in any way".

No, creationist are not interested in debate. They are merely interested in manufacturing a controversy and scoring public relations points. Debating them is using reason to try and persuade those who have abandoned reason.
The best thing we can do is point and laugh.

/cranky late night rant

I seriously don't understand how the cognitive dissonance doesn't just cause these people to spontaneously combust. It's one thing to live with a pile of implicit contradictions, but it's quite another to spell them out in great detail, explicitly, and still completely fail to see them.

idiots, every last one of them.

You, just like so many other pea-brained, pinheaded liberals I know, just want to make your stupid little comments then go into hiding and not take any responsibility for what you say or do. But then again, why would I expect you to answer this e-mail.

...Because it's no fun picking on a retard

Christians are always so eager to show how pitifully ignorant they are. Why is this? Isn't ignorance something to be ashamed of? I guess it's what they think their magical, invisible friend wants of them.
How sad.

Oh, c'mon - at least one of these letters has to be a Poe!

I know they're not necessarily the same people, but did any of them consider that their moral Christian leaders attempted to do the very same thing (and worse) to PZ during Crackergate.

Is a modicum of ethicality too much to ask from the people who supposedly chat with the Supreme Moral Authority on a daily basis?

"Inane"? I think we're missing a letter here.

herding sheep is much harder work than it looks from the farmhouse, evidently

apparently it really is a nightmare to herd sheep. my boyfriend says so, and he was forced to do it by his cranky old Lithuanian grandmother. and now he hates sheep.

um. does that make us sound like complete hicks? :-p

Whether is is inane, insane or hypocritical, these all apply to them

@Alan

"Inane" (via Miriam-Webster Online):

1 : empty , insubstantial
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly

In my naïveté, I thought that creationist, while wrong, were interested in debate and could perhaps be persuaded.

I know what you mean. I, too, used to think that creationists were simply mistaken, and that if the evidence for evolution were explained to them, they would realize their mistake. While there are certainly some ordinary creationists who that applies to (mostly, I presume, individuals with inherent intellectual honesty who have simply been insulated from the evidence), it certainly doesn't hold true for the leaders of the movement, the "researchers" and "debaters".

Think you missed the joke there Twin Skies ;)

@Kel

/facepalm

I have much to learn about this blog's brand of humor.

They don't teach basic grammar in Sunday School do they?

" in Minnesota, several hundred miles away"

That's so close, only one day's trip away!

Me too likes "Happy Monkey", even though "Happy Money" might be more accurate.

Well, reading that just killed some brain cells. Pretty soon, I'm gonna have to start choosing between drinking and reading stuff like this: I can only afford to loose so many neurons...

I cannot conceive how it is possible for there to be people this stupid in the world and them be able to survive. Even working customer service and the raving retards that I talk to on a daily basis. These creationists make those people seem like legions of Einstein's and Tesla's. It makes my brain hurt and I can only say to things.

OUCH!!!

Happy Monkey to all

Mark Looy has an 'N' missing in his surname

What's lamentable about the replacement of snail mail with email is the lack of secondary utility of an email, you can't burn it in the fireplace, it has no R-value as insulation. I'm reminded of a book review Spider Robinson did years ago, where he evaluated the performance of books in his wood-burning stove (Search phrase "Spider vs the hax of sol III").

@Tim

Flaming the author is the closest we've got to burning said letter. It leaves one feeling warm and fuzzy too.

PZ, these emails are chock full of logical fallacies. They need to be used as exemplars of how not to think! It hurts! Worse than my caffeine addiction!

#15:

The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'.
Nah, too difficult of a concept to grasp.
Or possibly 'Poopyhead'.
Nah, too many syllables.

How about "U SUK"?

#50:

They have no interest whatsoever in honest debate. They'll make stuff up. They'll flat out lie. They'll repeat the same points that have been refuted over and over again (e.g, evolution is disproved by the second law of....)

And since formal debates are timed, a well-programmed creationist can spew out two dozen fallacies in the time it takes a scientist to thoroughly refute one. Then the creationist can go home and claim that most of his "points" went unanswered.

They're just all over the place, aren't they, science is socialism is satanism, how very interesting. I feel for you having to deal with that kind of stupidity.

Off topic, but I think readers will get a chuckle out of this Harry Hill sketch.

Excellent, PZ. You're an "intolerant liberal"!

The last writer has put the "moron" in oxymoron.

"The meaning of the word 'liberal' has changed recently. When used by a right-winger, it now means 'Someone I dislike'."
Or possibly 'Poopyhead'."

Nope. It means: Everyone that is brighter than me.

I'm still reading the letters, but I wanted to drop down and comment on letter #3.......wow. Just fucking WOW. That cretin has swallowed the radical right wing koolaid to an extent I wouldn't have thought possible.

It's soooo ridiculous, I'm seriously considering the possibility of Poe.

Comic Sans : The font more religious nutjobs use.

Don't knock Comic Sans MS. I like that font, because it's funny looking. Not that I would use it for sending a letter to a total stranger...

Seriously, these people need to understand that science is not a democratic process, it's a merit based process. Heck, the scientific process is probably less forgiving than our economy right now.

PZ,

How dare you or people that read Pharyngula send emails expressing displeasure with an action you disagree with! That is so terribly intolerant. Thank goodness there are now tolerant christians sending you emails to express displeasure with an action they disagree with.

See, the intolerant evolutionists send emails when they are upset about something. The tolerant christians compose emails which are sent. The actions could not be any more different.

*dripping sarcasm*

Chris

pcarini @ #39- "PZ's cyberpistol must be very, very large indeed if it's attracting this much attention!"

As a gay man, I find PZ's ample cyberpistol....strangely interesting.

I blame evolution.

If there WAS a god, there wouldn't be such stupid people.

I am so EFFING SICK of idiot Godbots parroting this. "What are you afraid of? If you weren't afraid you'd just leave us alone! This proves that you're really terrified of the FACTS!" Bullshit.

Of course, they can't understand that we FEAR them because they are RAISING PEOPLE TO BE IGNORANT MORONS. We fear them because THAT IS DANGEROUS.

I am going to go punch a wall. Excuse me.

If your religion is so faultless and absolutely correct then debate with a professional from a creationalist Mr. Morris. Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible. So as long as people like you think you are an infallible god and socialism is the way you chose to deal with unproven fact there are always people that won't and can't believe another false religion.

It is so ironic that he/she seems to think that what is the strength of science, viz. it's non-dogmaticness and progress, is its weekness, not realizing that his/her own believe is justified only by circular reasoning ("The Bible contains the truth, therefore I believe in the Bible, therefore I do not question its contents, and since its contents is never questioned, therefor it contains the truth). Sigh.

Happy Monkey, to everyone except the Librarian, who I wish Happy Ape. He demands precision in his primate references.

Kilian- I hit on that one, too. Unbelievable. This person actually sees progress itself as a negative, a weakness, a fault. How such an idiot even manages to tie their shoes in the morning is a mystery.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what kind of jobs the IDiots do.
Even the most menial task generally demand some level of comprehension. Not much, but at least the ability to understand that black is not white, up is not down, and back is not front.
Which seems way beyond the letter writers' capability. Ugh!

At my moments of greatest empathy, I look at the cloud of irrational fear of the world people like this must live in, a kind of constant, low-grade terror of everything. And I feel sorry for them.

Then I zero in on the damage they do, usually to children, and I become enraged once again.

[quote]Evolution is the biggest lie Santa has ever told.[/quote]

Sometimes being slightly dyslectic and/or lazy has its advantages. It did make sense with the War on Christmass posts though !

There's one bright spot in all of this: a great number of Christians, it seems, have tied their religious colours to the mast of ID/Creationism/Anti-evolution.

And they're fucked, ultimately: they're battling against something that only a severe imagination and/or knowledge failure could fail to see the truth of.

Yes, at present silly arguments like 'it's only a theory' or 'micro good; macro bad' may sustain them briefly. But in reality they simply haven't a leg to stand on.

It may be too much to hope for that they'll all drop their 'faith' along with their opposition to the Fact of Evolution, but it should cut at least some of 'em off at the knees.

"It may be too much to hope for that they'll all drop their 'faith' along with their opposition to the Fact of Evolution, but it should cut at least some of 'em off at the knees."

And what good would that do? Just makes it easier for them to grovel before their idiotic idols ;)

PZ, how do you manage? I can't imagine being faced with that email avalanche of stupidity on a regular basis. Just from reading those letters my brain already hurts. Any second now it's going to curl up in a semi-foetal position, start whimpering and hide in a far, far away corner.

Oh, and to the rest: Happy monkey!

Thanks for sharing, PZ. Until now I had a bad day, but those letters made me laugh. I especially liked the "Happy Monkey" and "DOWN WITH" letter. So much anger, so much stupidity. O, sancta simplicitas, to quote Jan Hus.

The article that you link to begins with

A spokesman with the Creation Museum says it's a shame that intolerant people caused a partnership between the museum and a large zoo to be dissolved.

Intolerant people? Well, if you were honest and called the Creation Museum by its true name, Fairy Tale Museum of Inadequate Creation Myths, we wouldn't bother to protest. It's when you claim that your display is scientifically valid, that we have to stand up and point out what is real and what is not. The process of evolution is the only rational, provable and disprovable explanation for the origin and development of life. Religion provides a nice set of fairy tales and the subjective interpretation of those, nothing else. Present a hypothesis on the origin and development of life where the parameter "god(s)" can be isolated and tested, and subject that to the unbiased scrutiny of science. Or, since you can't do that, keep your ideas in the Childrens' Books department, where they belong.

I love how they make it an issue of 'tolerance', as if teaching religion and junk in a science class deserves to be tolerated.

#9

To quote Father Ted:

"DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING!"

"Careful now"

Ha ha I love Father Ted it's the one of the funniest sitcoms ever

My favourite Ted quote is "That's the great thing about Catholicism. It's so vague and no one really knows what it's about"

The stupidity, it burns.

Oh. My. Monkey.

Samantha Vimes
Happy Monkey, to everyone except the Librarian, who I wish Happy Ape. He demands precision in his primate references.
Yes (s)he does!
Before retirement I ran a large school library and was given a huge poster of The Librarian by my pupils to thank me for keeping the shelves well stocked with the Discworld novels.
Under The Librarian they wrote in large letters '(S)he who must be obeyed' and all the new pupils were duly indoctrinated into the 'Cult of The Librarian'.
I displayed it with pride behind my desk, alongside an equally large poster of Darwin as an ape.
I'm glad to say my successor has continued the tradition.
That has made me a very Happy Ape indeed.

Very nice Father Ted quote!

To tell the truth I rather felt like quoting Father Jack, when reading this inane crap:
"Drink!" "Ass!"

The dumb is strong in those ones.

And there is way too many of them in your country.

Mikael HafO keep your ideas in the Childrens'(sic) Books department, where they belong.

No. Wrong logic, we need to get them out of the children's book department. Creationists don't see their works as fantasy and want to be in the non-fiction section (they come supplied with Dewey numbers so you know where to place them).
I have no problem with feeding fantasy to children (see above) but it should be honest fantasy and not disguised as fact.

One of the creationist retards was very honest: I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified.

@ #65

Me too likes "Happy Monkey", even though "Happy Money" might be more accurate.

£500 to be precise. Though Douglas Adams reckoned that, on the whole, it wasn't the pieces of paper which were unhappy. So the "happy" qualifier is somewhat redundant there.

What is obvious is that the ilk that scribble this nonsense do not do so out of personal discovery, but all the classic creationist lines are regurgitated to each other ad hoc and only verbally.
It is a word of mouth campaign with no checking of either fact or point.

It is not based of even cursory research it is the truth because it suits a world view.
But mainly because in their circle of society everyone repeats this nonsense to each other ad infinitum,like a comforting mantra that stops the reality from peeking in, tis one reason why the same stuff is trotted our year after year it has no base it is in the Creationist lexicon and as a word of mouth mantra it is impossible to stop the rumour, even AiG has problems getting the clones to drop fallacies like 'Paluxy' et al.

This crap is what they endlessly blurt to one and other when the atheists are circling, like a mantra, they never read the refutation on line, they never question the snippets of crap they use...the pastor told them that so that must be true!...
It was in a tacky DI pamphlet it must be true!...I heard from some representative of a Creationist ministry it must be true cos christians do not lie!...some bimbo quoted it on Fox it must be true!...

But it is also used as a defensive reaction, it is their dilapidated shield and wonky blunt sword, they do not really trust it so they never actually analyse what they wield, that way lies madness, but it is all they have against an intolerant world.

It also means that they are very frightened and fear that the delusion is near to falling apart,
The hook up with a scientific organisation was a plank to cross the respectability void, that got pulled from under and that is a bitter blow to the delusion, Christians do nor forgive as easily as they boast, but that retraction of gravitas has also left them out in the cold of a increasingly secular world!

Bit of panic setting in because they now know that in future it will not be quite as easy to dupe a similar institution...so near ...yet so far away!

Kitty: That was the basic message of my comment. Call it by its true name, and then use it to amuse children, as with any other fairy tale. Reading my first comment again, I can see that it wasn't very clear on that point, but that is my opinion on the matter :)

I teach among other things evolutionary biology and genetics at my university, and there are more and more creationists among the students for every year. It's pretty tiring having to explain even the most basic concepts to grown men and women, that have devoted their lives to block out any other ideas than those of their respective religion, and as a result of that have avoided learning what they should have learnt in ground school and high school. Although we try to be polite and respectful, there comes a point in the A level course where we have to say "Stop! We will not discuss this matter any further, on the basis that what you say is no more than mythological bollocks", since any scientifically valid argument seems inadequate to penetrate their armour of ignorance. And furthermore, since it's an A level course in biology and evolution, and not in theology/literature.

I guess that makes me pretty intolerant, but I try to teach science, reason and rationality.

Must... stop... reading... The stupid... it burns... *collapses*

It's worse than that, he's dead, Jim, dead, Jim, dead.

What would be nice is if pharmacists and doctors put signs up around their practices and stores that read something like this:

Antibiotics only work because of the theory of evolution. By using them to treat your illness you are endorsing evolution and rejecting intelligent design and/or creationism. If you wish to honour your god then you need to go home and pray for him to heal you.

The part that made me laugh was the lines "I have no problem with teaching evolution side by side with Creationism (or intelligent design), but for some reason, the evolutionists are afraid to let Creationism (ID) to be taught side by side, so that the students can derive their own opinion." in the second letter you posted.

So finally the IDiots admit that ID and creationism are the same thing.

Mikael
You're not intolerant at all, and apologies if I was a bit harsh.
Decades ago as a Zoology A-level student I and my contemporaries would have laughed at the notion of 'teach the controversy'. Keep being intolerant of this crap.

It's why I kept all creationist, new age, alternative medicine, King Arthur is alive and well and living in Glastonbury, aliens made us what we are, most haunted house... crap off the non-fiction shelves in my library. I had a special section called 'Out of their Minds?' after Z in the fiction library.
It caused absolutely no 'controversy' at all, but then I live in Wales - or perhaps I was just a really scary Librarian!
I've mentioned before on another thread that people like yourself should write more for children - I'd have given my eye teeth for an Eyewitness Guide to Evolution, for instance.
If you want to educate you have to provide the materials to the educators and that includes us lowly librarians as we can often provide more than a class text book. We are the ones who point the kids at the shelves and shout 'GO'.
The free stuff coming into schools from the woo pedlars, even here, is glossy and very attractive. Let's have more real stuff please, written by real scientists.

Didn't they claim the "museum" was within a day's drive of 2/3 of the American population? Being only "several hundred miles away" would make you practically a next-door neighbor then.

In addition to saying "Happy Monkey", you could present people with the traditional Happy Monkey Day gift of Anti Monkey Butt Powder.

Chris Davis (#90):

There's one bright spot in all of this: a great number of Christians, it seems, have tied their religious colours to the mast of ID/Creationism/Anti-evolution.

Many Christians greatly fear the teaching of evolution to their children because they correctly believe it threatens their religion. They are so terrified of evolutionary biology, they try to get laws passed to dumb down science education, and they yell at biology teachers. Where I live in Florida, thousands of Christians became very upset when our public school science standards were changed to make evolution one of the big ideas of science.

Many atheists dishonestly tell Christians they can accept both evolution and their magic god fairy. They shouldn't do that in my opinion. Why not be honest and say it's virtually impossible for a person to understand how evolution works and still believe in supernatural magic. The older totally brainwashed creationists are going to remain creationists anyway. The younger Christians, if they have any intelligence at all, might be convinced to both accept the facts of evolution and throw out their medieval religion. I think the world becomes a better place every time a Christian grows up and throws out Jebus. Why not encourage this?

We've actually discussed the possibility of writing a book on evolution for toddlers (in Swedish), but as it seems such a book would be suitable for some of our students as well :)

It'd be comical if it wasn't so irritating.

Debate that creationalist (eh?), I say!

I'm going shopping tonight, and seriously considering saying "Happy Monkey" to every salesperson I meet.

Many atheists dishonestly tell Christians they can accept both evolution and their magic god fairy.

What about people such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Robert T Bakker? Is it dishonest to tell Christians it's one or the other when there are many biologists who are theists and many religious who accept the theory of evolution? It seems it's dishonest of us to play the dichotomy when the options can and do coexist.

As i like alliterations, i'd rather say Merry Monkey!

I just noticed that if you use Google Translate for translating the Swedish word for "creationists", kreationister to English, it comes back as "creation lard" (kreation + ister). Oh, the irony :D

your foolish belief in your religion evolution

That's fine for you biologists, but as a mechanical engineer, I subscribe to the religion of F=mA.

Happy Monkey!

PS I thought these were actually pretty well written, considering the genre. Most of these screeds are really, really, pitiful, witness PZ's prior examples. Still plenty of burning stoopid, but comparatively, somewhat more coherent than the standard. Thanks, PZ, you rock.

@118
Hahaha. That is funny, never thought of that.

PZ, Please post the name of the author of the "Happy Monkey" letter so that when it enters common parlance, the Wikipedia article will be able to attribute it.

"A Christmas Carol" would have been vastly improved if only Tiny Tim had said, "And a Happy Monkey to us each and everyone!"

What about people such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller and Robert T Bakker?

Scientists like Collins and Miller are rare. I noticed most biologists are atheists.

Collins is a wacko. I don't know what Miller's problem is. I wouldn't be surprised if he was really an atheist who found a way to make big money selling books to gullible Christians.

One big problem with an atheist telling a Christian he can accept both modern biology and magic fairies is the Christian knows the atheist is lying.

There are Christians who accept evolution, but most of them invoke their fairy to guide it. Or they say god invented evolution, or god uses evolution. I would prefer they remain creationists than pollute my favorite branch of science with their disgusting adjective "theistic".

One of the common threads among creationists, other than the fact that they're creationists, seems to be a fear of socialism and communism. I guess I can understand this fear of communism (it hasn't exactly worked out to be pleasant for the people wherever it's been tried), but what on earth is the problem with socialism? They toss it around like a bogeyman, but it doesn't seem to be anything bad to me. Maybe I just need to go back to school and study political science or something. :/

Ichthyic @ 14

yet another classic example of projection.

that makes over 2000 entries in my database of self-identified xians engaging in projection.

It's so common as to be classifiable as a "trait" of evangelical xians.

Can you post that data somewhere or are you going to publish soon ;-)

One big problem with an atheist telling a Christian he can accept both modern biology and magic fairies is the Christian knows the atheist is lying.

I don't feel like I'm lying when I say that, as I pointed out above. Indeed I would feel dishonest by saying they are incompatible. Maybe the Christian feels I'm being dishonest but really that's their loss. My acceptance of evolution has noting to do with my rejection of the magic sky daddy.

Chebus. I'd rather get scams from Nigeria.

Oh man....now I'm going to buy a bunch of blank christmas cards and send them to all my friends and relatives with "HAPPY MONKEY" written inside! That guy just gave us all a new holiday!

Happy Monkey!!

Oh goody.

*sharpens his flaying knife.

I'll have to say Happy Monkey made my day.

*sulks off grumbling about unintentional rhymes

Bloody hell mate, the crap you have to put up with sometimes. Whoo.

From the 3rd letter

Even the prophet Isaiah knew that the earth was round.

I see the problem here: Isiah must not have read Revelation 7:1. The Bible is consistent and true, so sayeth the Bible!

Evolution (and modern cosmology) can certainly pave the way for loss of faith (as it did in Dawkins' case), because if objects that look so complex that they "must" have a designer can be explained without one then that's a major argument against religion- especially the literalist variants.

Its dishonest to say you can't reconcile science and religion, many people do, and can do good science. But it should be recognised that science can erode religious belief.

(And in the words of Steven Weinberg "A good thing too").

These guys couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, unfortunately they can manage to pressure their reps to insert some inane crap into your legislation and to attack basic scientific education. Wouldn't be so bad, but unfortunately another export of the US of A seems to be that branch of non-existent mindedness.

I wouldn't replacing the monkeys in the zoo. Lots of food gets thrown at me and as long as I can get wireless then I'd have a fine old time reading all those journal articles I never have the time to read while in the lab. Maybe even take 'On the Origin of Species' in there for a bit of a laugh.

Happy Monkey one and all.

I don't feel like I'm lying when I say that, as I pointed out above. Indeed I would feel dishonest by saying they are incompatible.

How can a person honestly say evolution is not a threat to theism when that person is an atheist? The Christian knows the atheist is lying. Christians are the most stupid people in human history, but they are at least smart enough to know when they are being lied to.

I tell Christians they are correct to say evolution threatens their religion because I'm in favor of eradicating their death cult. Telling a Christian it's possible to accept modern science and still believe in miracles is just sucking up to the religious insanity that's destroying our country.

I think that these letters show even more evidence of our primal relations, as some homo sapiens sapiens apparently still like to fling their own poop.

Merry Monkey!

(Or should I say Happy Primate Days? Is this a War on Monkey [copyright foxnews])

If you feel you really must address the concept of holding evolution and religion in one mind, why not just say "Sure, evolution & religion can coexist in your mind. You just need to have sufficient cognitive dissonance."?

Happy Monkey, one and all.

How can a person honestly say evolution is not a threat to theism when that person is an atheist?

I don't see the conflict with evolution any more than any other branch of science.

Glad to know you are holding up pretty well with all these attackers bugging you through phone and e-mail. Stay cool!

Dr. Meyers,

The "Mr. Morris" refered to in your posting is Henry M. Morris, Phd. the founder of the Institute for Creation Research of Santee, California. His degree, professional experience and journal articles are in civil engineering specifically in the area of hydralic engineering. How would this make him an expert in biology let alone evolution?

But I thought Comic Sans was 'The Font of the Devil™'?

Dr. Meyers,

The "Mr. Morris" refered to in your posting is Henry M. Morris, Phd. the founder of the Institute for Creation Research of Santee, California. His degree, professional experience and journal articles are in civil engineering specifically in the area of hydralic engineering. How would this make him an expert in biology let alone evolution?

Who is Dr. Meyers?

//Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago//

Hahaha I can't stop laughing! This is fantastic!

I just wished someone in my office a 'happy monkey'
now they think i'm drunk

Does a creationalist believe in the theory of creational? And #138, a debate with Henry Morris would be awfully boring, seeing how he has been dead for two years.

DOWN WITH LOWER CASE LETTERS!

Whether any individual can reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific knowledge is their own responsibility. It's not the job of a science teacher to try to pressure them, one way or the other.

Yay, a seasons greeting I can get behind and suggested by a theist dullard to boot.

Happy monkey everyone, atheists, theists and don't knows alike.

I believe that the state, including university professors, should stay out of the church's business.

There it is in a nutshell: they believe in the separation of state and church. The separation of church and state, however, is a different matter entirely.

a debate with Henry Morris would be awfully boring, seeing how he has been dead for two years. Thoracantha

Actually, having seen Morris debate John Maynard Smith, I can testify that the occasion would have been much less boring had Morris been a corpse at the time: Maynard Smith could undoubtedly used the time to give a fascinating lecture.

To hold the view that Evolution and Religion can co-exist is a dishonesty at the highest level of cognitive dissonance.

They cannot and do not compliment one and other, at best the claim is a rather blatant attempt to hide the knife behind the back of the atheist and no evangelical Christian will buy it anyway.
It seems that it is even less likely to sell now because mainstream Christianity appears to be losing ground to the evangelistic 'born again' bunnies and they have absolutely no intention in calling a truce they are for the most part highly ignorant, politically right wing and full of spite!...they are not gonna give up jeebus because apart from just 'discovering' the delusion they do not see any advantage in accepting the monkey part in all the rapture!

At worst it is an attempt to assuage ones own cognitive dissonance by claiming such an unlikely scenario.

Pontificating thus...'I believe in Evolution but I think we should teach the controversy' is a unicycle to hell...but not back!

'Teach the controversy' is slang for denigrating Evolutionary theory to an also ran...with the express aim of replacing the Darwinism in Biology with a goddidit...that is the top and bottom there is no in between!

It is not an exercise in fairness it is a push to infect every kid in the US and elsewhere with this delusion in god.
Science is the 'auld enemy and the tactics are to infiltrate and erode and replace...simple like so!
That is and always has been the evangelical version of shang-gri-la...they do not want a fair fight because they would lose...and they know that, but if they can undermine education they have a slim chance of fooling enough folks to extend and carry their dogma into the next millennium at least.

Anyone that does not see that is either very naive or a liar!

"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."

Perhaps if anyone is thinking about what to get me for Squidmas, a new Irony Meter would be useful. Mine just left this mortal coil.

JC

"Happy Monkey"

ROFL

Man these people are clueless. :)

I see that someone has left the asylum door open again. I am going to open a new quart of Jack reading some of those letters was painful. Happy Monkey to all

I'm looking for some funding; gonna open up a zoo
With cages of creationists, all blithely flinging poo
They're much more fun than pandas--much more active in their cages
With a longer line on Sundays, when they all sing "Rock of Ages"
The children love to point and laugh--they say "Hey look! They're praying!"
And when they talk, you almost feel they know what they are saying
But clearly it's just gibberish, not language like a man's;
(It shows itself--in transcripts, it comes out in comic sans!)

Typical type 1A supernova of teh creationist stupid.

the goggles... they do nothing!

In fact, I think we need a new font just for them: Comic Sans Crayola Fundie

Anyway, Happy Monkey everybody!

"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."

That quote is pure gold. I'm just sad, that you find this kind of stupidity only on the internet. Would be too funny, if someone would use that kind of argument in a real discussion.

@BobC #133

It depends on the Christian you're talking to. Most of the ones I know don't have any problems with the theory of evolution, or science in general. For the ones I do know, science works as a means of understanding the intricacies of our surroundings. It doesn't make the world any more or less - they just explain how it works.

As to how this is worked into the faith, well, it begins to sound disturbingly close to ID: there is a belief in a greater being that may have had a hand in creation.

The big difference is that unlike ID, the theology I've grown up with explained that as vast as the universe is, there's still much we have to learn, and that there's very little room for prejudice or rash judgement. There is no assumption of irreducible complexity - everything should be subject to study and reflection. It's only through understanding how our surroundings work that we begin to get a grasp of how God may work.

I apologize in advance if this may sound like a load of bull for some, but I'm just laying down the basics of how Catholicism has been passed down at least within my community.

Happy Monkey!

I really think we should thank this guy for giving us what we so obviously need, an atheist holiday (you know, apart from New Year's, the Fourth of July, Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Halloween, and Christmas. And Darwin Day, and Festivus). Maybe send him back a "Merry Christmas" greeting card.

I'm quite puzzled why he would think PZ was in favor of Islamic terrorism. Or maybe he just signs all his correspondence that way?

Of course (and it has probably been pointed out already) the uneducated character of the negative response could be further evidence for evolution - after all, it is a somewhat sloppy process and leaves behind a multitude of structures for which atrophy is a good solution.

Yers, wandering in the Forest of Probabilities,
SHF

"Evolution is used now as a tool to promote the vulgar and disgusting homosexual movement that has recently become violent. By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay, which is absurd."

*head explodes*

"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."

What's really creepy is that these stupid, ignorant dorks think themselves to be reasonably knowledgeable people. At least, I presume that's so, otherwise, why would they write in the way they have to Dr Myers?

As i like alliterations, i'd rather say Merry Monkey!

We wish you a merry monkey / (Repeat 2x) / And a happy lemur / Good tidings to you / To you and your chimp / Good tidings to simians / And prosimians too...

@147,
Memory FAIL. It was Duane Gish, not Henry Morris.

Letter writer #3 is my hero not just for "happy monkey", but also for the brilliant "Allied Communist Lickers Union."

See, a lesser mind might have called the ACLU the "Asshole Communist Lovers Union" or something ordinary like that. But LW3 understands that Communists are in fact very similar to Tootsie Pops, and knows that their true secrets can only be obtained via extensive licking.

Please, friends, lick a Communist today. Do it for America!

In all seriousness, I am saddened every time I read stuff like this . Theists that are glorious ignorant and proud of it. I mean it really makes me sad. Millions of people poisoned by bronze age myths is just disheartening. The fact that we have people in obit around the earth, have sent robots to Mars, and have people that think the earth is 6000 years old, just causes me so much cognitive dissonance. It's just sad.

#152:

Cuttlefish,

Bravo!

I agree that we (scientists and friends) are intolerant. We base our beliefs on facts and evidence. Deal with it creotards.

AJ Milne@160,
Nice! But I suggest replacing "To you and your chimp" with "And your bo-no-boo".

Letter # 2

(I'm sure much has already been pointed out (tl;dr) but...)

*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*

This nation is going crazy with left wing attacks on traditional America and the Christian principles on which it was founded (not the revisionist historian separation of church/state myth) [emphasis mine]

*facepalm*

The war on Christmas every year

*facepalm*

Evolution is the biggest lie Satan has ever told.

*facepalm

By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay, which is absurd. No one is born gay.

*facepalm*

I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified. I am not a terrorist (Bill Ayers) and do not worship the environment (global warming nuts), do not seek monkeys as my creator (evolutionists) and do not brainwash other people (Marxists). [emphasis mine]

*facepalm*

Maybe someday, America will wake up and fire every hippy liberal brainwashed professor and hire real teachers who teach the truth rather than a mock version of reality. [emphasis mine]

*facepalm*

Thank you ACLU! (Allied Communist Lickers Union).

*facepalm*

This letter is (one of) teh [sic] most absurd pieces of sh** I have had the unfortunate displeasure of reading...

*epicFacepalm*

Happy Monkey, everyone!

@144: where, oh where can you point to PZ "pressuring" individuals to think the way he does?

someone get that Chimp an ice pack.

Joyeux Singe à vous tous

Men can fly!!!!!!!

Wow, hold the front page...........

No one is born gay.

Yeah, I will never forget my experimentation with heterosexuality, and that rational decision to work on developing a physical attraction to females and not males. It took some doing, since male and female were always equally attractive to everyone, and Teh Gay Sex is far more pleasurable*. Oh wait, that never happened. What a dipped thong.

*I refer here to Alan Keyes "selfish hedonist" remark here. I mean, if it's true that's why people are gay, it MUST be more pleasurable. I assume Alan knows of what he speaks.

Happy Monkey to all of you.

Happy Monkey everyone!

a monkey in a xmas hat

What's interesting to me, in the article PZ links to at the start of his entry, is the issue that PZ is "a professor in Minnesota, several hundred miles away."

The relevance of the distance factor is sketchy at best, but this is a common strategy when one's position is weak: charge that the claims are being brought by 'an outsider'; and do so either directly or by implication. It's a weak strategy, no doubt, and should send up red flags to any neutral but critical observer (among the 100s of other red flags!).

No, AJ Milne got the scansion just right: bravo!

Merry Monkey to all, and to all a Great Ape!

Stewart @ 176,

That's no monkey. It's a DAMN DIRTY APE!

The "Happy Monkey" idea already has some web presence.

Just Googling for images I found an "actual" December holiday called "Monkey Day" ( http://www.monkeyday.com ), commentary on this with some great pictures ( http://www.jamesfinngarner.com/wordpress/?cat=2 ), a t-shirt company ( http://www.happymonkey.biz/ ), and a coffee company ( http://www.happymonkeycoffeecompany.com/ )

Amusing images here:
http://www.lovepics.it/postcard/happymonkey.jpg
http://www.stuckforwords.co.uk/content/designs/images/monkeypicto_000.j…
http://picasaweb.google.com/cms10676/ThailandPhuketRailayBay#5143975413…
http://www.leblogue.ca/files/blog/323/ist2_1720262_happy_monkey%5B1%5D…

This must be more fun than a barrel of--. Umm. Yeah.

"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible."
Good thing we were able to read the Bible and correct all these deficiencies. Especially the part about man not being able to fly 200 years ago. How stupid could those scientists 200 years ago have been? Angels have been flying since The Garden of Eden.

Wow. Just wow. Letter #4 made my brain hurt the worst, particularly when they got to "Well, sir (and I use that term extremely loosely), Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."

You can tell how tolerant they are by just those four emails. Mmm...tolerance.

Happy monkey, y'all.

"...but I bet I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards."

We all would, Bjorn. The question is: could any of them read it?

@Twin-Skies

There is no assumption of irreducible complexity - everything should be subject to study and reflection.

Except, of course, for study and reflection on the scientific evidence for an assumed, irreducibly complex God. A topic which the Catholic church has consistenly put off limits. Sorry, but the church can't have it both ways.

It is cognitive dissonance like this by "rational" theists regarding science and religion that seeds fundamentalism. If just one aspect of religious belief is exempt from rational investigation then it serves no other purpose than to create the first wall that fundamentalists can hide behind.

Re: "In all seriousness, I am saddened every time I read stuff like this . "

Alas, it appears to be an immutable aspect of our society. Kind of like "the stupid you will have with you always."

@Richard Harris, #159

"What's really creepy is that these stupid, ignorant dorks think themselves to be reasonably knowledgeable people. At least, I presume that's so, otherwise, why would they write in the way they have to Dr Myers?"

Thats because they suffer from the "Unskilled and unaware of it" syndrome. The more incompetent a person is regarding a subject the less he is able to comprehend just how incompetent he is.
Or inverted: The more you know about a subject, the better you know what you DON'T know.

In the case of Xians the symptoms are multiplied by an excessive amount of self-righteousness.

Thats because they suffer from the "Unskilled and unaware of it" syndrome. The more incompetent a person is regarding a subject the less he is able to comprehend just how incompetent he is.

Dunning-Kruger effect

Lets see. If one totals up the probable IQ of all the letters...Yep, still in the double digits.

Funny how they talk about debates, but when they come to the new (or old closed) Ken Ham Whines threads they just tell us how bad we are and run. No staying to actually debate us. Hit and run trolls are sooooo boring.

Nice one Cuttlefish!

It never ceases to amaze me that communism and gay people get dragged into these letters constantly. I have to get back to worshiping monkeys, now.

Happy Monkey! Ha-Ha, yet another atheist holiday celebration to add to the list... Monkey. I'm up for any non-theistic excuse to party. May you all have an ecstatic Monkey!

Happy Monkey everyone! Merry Ape Appreciation Days!

I don't feel like I'm lying when I say that, as I pointed out above. Indeed I would feel dishonest by saying they are incompatible. Maybe the Christian feels I'm being dishonest but really that's their loss. My acceptance of evolution has noting to do with my rejection of the magic sky daddy.

Not to derail the thead but how on earth are they compatible?

#136

I don't see the conflict with evolution any more than any other branch of science

Perhaps there is some truth here but evolution does serious damage to Christianity especially the base claims. It, in my view, is virtually impossible to have a sane reconciliation.

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp

someone get that Chimp an ice pack.

*receivesIcepack*

@ P.Z.

*seenTooManyLolcats* We can haz mail hedderz? plz...

@ Everyone else.

Happy Monkey to all!

And, if I may... I would like to hearby declare December 18th to be "Monkey"... Can I get a motion to second that.

Hey, can someone with some design skillz whip up a quick page with the excerpt from the letter, and a picture of a chimp with a santa hat and a big grin (and yes I know that chimps aren't monkeys -- it's all part of the in-joke), and maybe a link to cafepress, so that we can spread the joy of Happy Monkey and with any luck I can get a Happy Monkey! t-shirt in time for the 25th? Let's do this thing! I'd do it myself, but I'm grading papers today :-(

kthxbai

OT: Greg Laden has an excellent piece on the recount in Minnesota. Go here.

Wow. Why do I feel that I should volunteer to teach kids about science and rational thinking when I go back to school for my degree? (Going for Bio now, then thinking about switching to Applied Plant Sciences and going for grad school).

I think teaching rational thought without even mentioning the word evolution would be useful. Maybe make my old age(not too far away!!!) a little more tolerable. Heh.

Rev. BigDumbChimp Re: Dunning-Kruger effect

How perfectly sweet. I was beating my head for a good term besides "hypocrite" to express what these people were saying but couldn't come up with anything; although I knew someone, somewhere probably had, and I was right. The "Dunning-Kruger effect" is my new lexicon friend, but today you are my hero.

Honestly, do creationists ever come up with anything original?

If they're not cherry picking quotes from the bible, or simply parroting brainless dogma, they're stealing their arguments from the opposition.

We point out that they reach their conclusions a priori; they say, "Nuh huh, that's what you guys do!"

We observe that they have no evidence to back up their claims; they say, "Nuh huh, you guys don't have no evidence!"

We state the obvious: that their logic is circular; they say, "Nuh huh, that's what you guys do!" (and then repeat that most idiotic argument about evolutionists dating fossils based on an arbitrary historical appraisal of sediment layering.)

We point out that their beliefs are based on faith, not science; they say, "Nuh huh, You're the ones who just believe things on faith. YOU just want to believe things!"

Etc.

The evidence is clear: Creationists have no creativity.

HAPPY MONKEY, ONE AND ALL!

blah, blah, blah...hippy...blah, blah, blah...

It warms my heart to know that they're still so torn up about the hippies. The bonus is that this nutcase who now appears to worship Heysoos - a true hippy if ever there was one - would have, in the day, been with the Pharisees whining about the young upstart from Nazareth and his posse.

Peace out. Love your brothers and sisters. Question authority.

Those letters were pissing me off. But they are so insane that by the end I started to chuckle. I get furious thinking about how corrosive their thinking and actions are on our society. Unfortunately, dealing with these assholes is a life time commitment. So, you gotta just laugh at these losers and knock them down when you get the chance. Happy Monkey To All!

I see someone has already registered happymonkeyday.com

To all of you Times Roman fascists out there:
Comic Sans is the one true font. For literally 1000s of years man has used Comic Sans for his most important pronouncements. When Jesus spoke English, he used comic sans. When Moses wrote the Old Testament, he wrote it in comic sans. Both versions of the 10 commandments were written in - well, what do you think? - that's right, Comic Sans. And even the divine PZ Meyers writes his most important extracts in this God-given font.
So I say, teach the controversy! Down with pseudo-classical seriffed letters! Let the true spirit of humanity speak! And our free voices will rise to proclaim our freedom - Comic Sans for everyone!

I like letter #2. I'm perfectly willing to have evolution and creationism taught side by side...in church, so the congregation can "derive" its own opinion.

What's wrong, Christians? Is your faith so weak? Afraid of the facts?

"Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years"

No actually popes and their ilk decreed that the Earth revolved around the sun by promoting the the Platonic idea of the heaven spheres, yet somehow simultaneously supported ideas of flat Earths.

My brain hurts, and I'm very afraid for my country.

I should have stayed in bed.

Next time, can we declare a war on Easter instead, please? The holidays in December are multiplying like rabits. Festivus, winter solstice, and now monkey? Do I have to give presents for all of them? Bah- humbug.

Turns out there is a Monkey Day already.

Looks like a good cause as well and it's close to today

Celebrate Monkey Day This December 14th!

Unfamiliar with Monkey Day? Start with our FAQ here.

This Year's Offical Monkey Day Event:

This year Monkey Day is sponsoring a charity silent art auction on Sunday, December 14th, to benefit our simian friends at Chimps Inc. From their website:

"Chimps Inc. is a nonprofit, 501(C)3-1 wildlife sanctuary dedicated to furthering chimpanzee conservation through education. It was founded by Lesley Day in 1995 in response to the multitude of captive chimpanzees desperately in need of homes. Our private sanctuary provides a place of refuge for those apes that have come from roadside zoos, entertainment industry and the private sector. "

These people really, really need help. I have never read anything that exposes the ignorance and fear that permeate the hearts of most "Christians".

Evolution scares the hell out of them, because it would make them have to actually question what their book says. They would have to think! They would have to try to understand the meaning behind words, not just accept their literal meaning!! That is hard work!!!

The "faith" that these people have is terribly weak. They are dependent upon a literal interpretation of scripture, and anything that challenges that literal interpretation is seen as a threat to them. They don't want to think! They want to be sheep!! They also hate and fear intellect - again, because it challenges them to really think about what they claim to believe.

I don't self-identify as a "Christian" because I don't want to be associated with the hypocrites who wrap themselves up in that label. I do, however, have a great love and admiration for the teachings of Jesus. If only those who claim to follow him would actually try doing the things he taught us to do, then perhaps "Christians" would spend their time doing good works instead of defending hatred and spreading lies. Jesus said a lot more about helping the poor and needy than he did about politicizing religion!

"Onenewsnow.com"? Oh yeah, the news site of the Rev Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, formerly known as the National Federation for Decency.

They have some interesting copy-editing history:

http://www.regrettheerror.com/online/man-wins-race-website-changes-his-…

>>your foolish belief in your religion evolution...

Ha! It's very satisfying to see the word "religion" used in such a derogatory manner. If enough people use the word "religion" to describe what they despise, the word itself will become synonymous with "despicable."

Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene. From London and Washington, D.C., buses to Colorado billboards, skeptics are skewering religions with little respect to the adherents of the religions.

At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "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. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?

If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.

Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?

What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country? As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."

What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?

What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?

What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?

What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?"

What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.

Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?

We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.

I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.

As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

Don't knock Comic Sans MS. I like that font, because it's funny looking. Not that I would use it for sending a letter to a total stranger...

I used to work for a software company that used Comic Sans for a decent amount of official correspondence with customers. Most of it came from one department - the customer service department - and was almost certainly a reflection of the personality of the woman who ran it.

As soon as I had the authority to do so, I made sure that all company communications had a standard look - and it did NOT include Comic Sans.

Wright N Zebutt

Chuck Norris?

Really?

What an idiot.

"Evolution is the biggest lie Satan has ever told."

Hmmmm...I thought the biggest lie Satan told was that he didn't exist. ::::shrugs::::

Maybe they next a "Satan's Greatest Hits" or need to go out and come back in again like in the Spanish Inquisition sketch.

*yawn" so many words in defense of a lying morality tale told to subvert the gullible.

If ZeButt hadn't yammered on so long, he/she/it might have made it in the first fifty posts...gotta hate it when you think you're done, but no, here comes another squirt...

This can be entertaining, but the inanity gets tiresome really fast. The saddest part is that these silly folks really think they have something intelligent, or at least relevant to say.

Wright N Zebutt,
You're a poe, surely. If not, you're a moron. Doesn't seem any point in criticizing your post, it's all been dealt with time and time again....

Yay! I'm building up my holiday collection. Happy Monkey!

I hope you'll all also join me in celebrating Isaac Newton's birthday on the 25th. It should go well with Squidmas.

Of course he's a poe. Wright N Zebutt = Right In The Butt.

Pissed off creationists are like venereal diseases for the brain.

The stupidity...it burns. Like a bad case of herpes.

AnthonyK,

Wright N Zebutt copy and pasted and idiotic rant by genius Chuck Norris.

So not only is he an idiot, he decided to try and pass off his post by quoting an well known idiot.

Wright N Zebutt,
Slimy little creep, aren't you? You post a long series of lies and distortions about atheists and atheism, using the rhetorical device of "What profit would there be if I posted..." to evade responsibility for your words.

I say, YES to Happy Monkey Day.

Let's celebrate on December 25 of every year. Let's celebrate the birth of the very first monkey. Let's erect a tree with a cute little monkey under it, and let's place these symbols on our yards and in our state capitals.

Wright N Zebutt copy and pasted and idiotic rant by genius Chuck Norris.

"and" should be "an"

Keri
One of the common threads among creationists, other than the fact that they're creationists, seems to be a fear of socialism and communism. I guess I can understand this fear of communism (it hasn't exactly worked out to be pleasant for the people wherever it's been tried), but what on earth is the problem with socialism? They toss it around like a bogeyman, but it doesn't seem to be anything bad to me. Maybe I just need to go back to school and study political science or something. :/,

Where socialism takes hold in a community religion often fades away. The support system offered by the church is replaced by the support systems offered by the socialist society. This was particularly observed in coal mining communities in the UK in the 20th century when the Labour Party began to gain power. It culminated in the formation of the Welfare State.
Many mining communities switched allegiance from church, often Methodist or Baptist, to Union run social clubs which provided for families in distress without requiring participants to abide by the 'Thou shalt not' rules of the Chapel.
If the local club will take care of you without telling you how to run your sex life or curb your alcohol intake , indeed if it provides cheap drink, good entertainment, a free library, and a youth club the pews will empty quickly and churches will close.
That's why so many 19th century chapels are now small business units or extremely desirable residences.

If your religion is so faultless and absolutely correct then debate with a professional from a creationalist Mr. Morris.

Creationalist?

Are they specifying?

@Rev BigDumbChimp: Thanks ! I've only read the study püublished on the APA Website, but weren't familiar with this term.

@222
... or Chuck Norris' words, as the case may be!

You mean I combed through that whole comment chain, looking for all the wacky creationists' comments, and all I get is Zebutt with his way too long post that no one in their right mind will read?

Very disappointing. I expect better crazy around here.

Peter Mc - that is apparently the correct name. We've been saying it wrong. Thus it is apparently an evolution-creationalism conflict.

#162
"Please, friends, lick a Communist today. Do it for America!"

America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah!

LOL! Sorry, that reminded me of the theme song from "Team America - World Police".

This may be an overgeneralization, but the impression I get from the right wing fundie faction is that they honestly couldn't give a rat's butt about animals, wildlife, nature, ecology, etc. (which they presumably file under "liberal" causes and the like). ...After all, animals, being infinitely inferior, have no "souls"; the Earth was created by doG for man; and we needn't be concerned with saving the environment since it's all going to go up in a big ball o' fire during the Battle of Armageddon anyways.

For Fundies, animals at best are used as props to make Bible stories more appealing to children -- just like the animatronic dinosaurs which have been disingenuously misappropriated for Ken Ham's "museum". Kudos to the zoo for recognizing the insincerity of it all.

Achewood's take on Comic Sans:
http://achewood.com/index.php?date=07052007

I hate religion. It makes people so stupid. I really am losing patience with all these morons who claim to be 'open' and 'fair'. How can that be when their minds are made up (by ignorant shepherds of long ago) to believe whatever their Demon of the Desert (Jehovah, Yahweh, Jesus, whatever...pick a name already!) says to believe.

Yes, idiots, I do hate your religion. And when you try to force your ignorance on others I hate you too. Yes, hate. I don't have to pretend to be tolerant of fools who attempt to abuse everyone around them.

So screw you, your god, your jeebus, your holy spook, your pedophile priests, your gay ministers, your hypocrite parishioners, and your foolish foolish beliefs.

If you don't like people laughing at your beliefs, stop having such funny beliefs!

As a professional lithographer (not sure that's a proper English word but can't be bothered to find the proper spelling ) I have this to say about the Comic Sans:

We feel the same way about the Comic Sans as most people on this board here feel about Intelligent Design/Creationism.

I'd rather set my headlines in Zapf Dingbats.

:)

I tried to read through all those posts. I really tried. But, though quite humorous, my brain was becoming overloaded with the stupid.

Are paragraphs some liberal thing? These writers certainly don't like them.

I did try to leave a comment on their site, but to be surprised (yes, sarcasm) that it was not immediately posted (I doubt it will). I said something along the lines that the "museum" was more along the lines of "Santa's Village". At least the adults that go there know its just a theme park and not real.

I think you should post the full header of one or two of your most ridiculous emails every once in a while. I think we could have some serious fun with them.

Unleash the hounds every once in a while. We can do more than crash polls and sever ties between "museums" and zoos you know. ;-)

Henry M. Morris, Phd. the founder of the Institute for Creation Research

Sad monkey. Sad, sad monkey.

Well that tears it! I'm going to march right up to the Capitol in Austin and DEMAND that they allow me to place a banana tree right next to the menorah and the baby Jesus. We celebrants of 'Monkey' have for too long been underrepresented and that needs to come to a screeching halt!

HAPPY MONKEY EVERYBODY!!!

Henry M. Morris, Phd. the founder of the Institute for Creation Research

Sad monkey. Sad, sad monkey.

Dead, dead monkey.

Yes, PZ, WHY wont you debate "with a professional from a creationalist Mr. Morris." Shame on you, indeed!

Henry M. Morris, Phd - Craig Boak

The "Phd" (as opposed to "Ph.D") is short for "Phraud", I believe.

244 comments and nobody's used the obvious joke yet?

Sheesh... I guess I'll have to do it.

Two minutes for instigating and a game misconduct! Zing!

245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!

The world would be a better place indeed, if we all spent more time making our monkeys happy! Shouldn't Monkey Day be EVERY day?

Happy Monkey Day to All, and to ALL a Merry Monkey Night!

Oh, and please lick a communist; that can lead to more happy monkeys! And we certainly want the Commie Monkeys to be sated.

We all know you can't spell "creationalist" without using all of the letters in "irrational". Or something like that.

@Multicellular

From what I've come to understand of the Jesuits, they subscribe to Stephen Jay Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria principle - the sciences and the faith are treated as two entirely different disciplines.

Theology and philosophy would fall under matters of metaphysics, which would be an entirely different animal from the sciences.

If just one aspect of religious belief is exempt from rational investigation then it serves no other purpose than to create the first wall that fundamentalists can hide behind.

Once again, it depends on who you ask. The priests I've met didn't have qualms about criticizing and deconstructing how our theology worked. They felt that doing this would help their students better appreciate their belief system, and to curb the sort of religious dogmatism you mention.

On the other hand, said pupils may also end up disillusioned, and would eventually leave the faith altogether.

245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!

And one comment at 246 by a drive-by-idiot who can't make an argument and instead screams persecution like a child.

Care to address the actual topic? Jeffy?

How can a person honestly say evolution is not a threat to theism when that person is an atheist?

I'll just get my xtian friends to tell them.

Yes I do have xtain friends...
and they hate bible thumpers just as much as I do.

That's all that matters.

Jeff: Don't frown. It's almost Monkey. Have a banana.

Happy Monkey everyone!

245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!

Yes Jeff, please elucidate your point-if you have one.

It's the weirdest thing, too -- the majority of them are actually written in Comic Sans.

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I guess I can understand this fear of communism (it hasn't exactly worked out to be pleasant for the people wherever it's been tried), but what on earth is the problem with socialism? They toss it around like a bogeyman, but it doesn't seem to be anything bad to me. Maybe I just need to go back to school and study political science or something. :/

No. The communist countries all called themselves "socialist" (to indicate they hadn't reached the predicted paradisiac stage in the development of society yet), and the US right wing eagerly lapped this up to demonize everything to their left.

DOWN WITH LOWER CASE LETTERS!

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

--------------------------

Now to the Chuck Norris ramble which someone cowardly posted as their own:

At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE

If you add emphasis to a quote, you must say so. To fail to do so is dishonest.

But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable.

Harrassment? Where?

Hatred is protected by the First Amendment, never mind what's going on here is better considered contempt :-)

Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for?

Yes, in fact... yes. Read Jefferson's and Adams' own words about their contempt for Christianity, for example.

What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?

It would reveal you to be breathtakingly ignorant of your own big-C Constitution, and that knowledge would be great profit to your readers. Shall Congress really make any law respecting an establishment of religion?

It would also reveal you to be remarkably stupid. If there were a state religion in the USA, what would happen to all others? Ever thought that far? Their freedom would be suppressed. Separation of church and state is the only way to ensure freedom of (as well as from) religion.

What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?

Few atheists have any missionary impulse. They just tend to speak up when a religion gets imposed on them -- and we know how Norris interprets all contradiction to his wishes.

What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

Why is Christmas on December 25th? Ever thought about that? (Didn't think so.) Ever wondered about the fact that even in Galilee it's too cold in December to hang out outdoors with sheep? (Didn't think so.) It was deliberately placed, by the early church, on the day of the festival of the birth of Mithras, the savior-god of a Persian religion that was widespread in the Roman Empire, to blot Mithraism out of the calendar.

Personally, I don't want to celebrate the winter solstice. (What for, after all?) I want to celebrate Kurisumasu, the Japanese festival of love and rampant consumerism. =8-)

What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies

2) Not everything that a scientist says is scientific. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
1) Atheism, as most commonly understood by self-described atheists, follows from science theory: any sufficiently ineffable deity is not falsifiable even in principle, and unnecessary to explain anything, so, for the time being, the conclusion should be drawn that there simply is no such entity. Ockham's Razor -- look it up. Of course, this is what Davies appears to mean by "agnosticism"!

What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator?

It would expose your muddled thinking. Atheists do not deny the pristine beauty of the universe any more than they deny the pristine beauty of a snowflake. But you know how snowflakes are formed, right? Right? There is nothing involved here except electrostatic attraction and repulsion. To completely understand the shapes of snowflakes, you need to understand the theory of quantum electrodynamics (fittingly abbreviated QED), and you don't need to understand anything else. It is not necessary to assume a god who puts each water molecule into its place in the correct orientation; electrostatics can do the job alone.

There is no reason -- no evidence -- to think the universe as a whole might be different.

As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Yep, that's something the Bible is wrong about, and I'm not even making a subtle statement about the oxymoron "invisible qualities [...] have been clearly seen" (emphasis added).

To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered.

Correct.

That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.

Oh man, the argumentum ad populum. LOL! Look, here's another argumentum ad populum: "Eat shit -- billions of flies cannot err!"

It's a logical fallacy, and a damn obvious one at that. The currently most widespread denomination (of any religion) is Catholicism -- why isn't Chuck Norris a Catholic, then? Because he believes that that billion people is wrong, along with the billion Sunni Muslims and so on. Well, atheists agree on that point.

Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?

It would show that your sense of humor is around the level of that of Beavis & Butthead:

huh huh

heh heh

There is no connection between April 1st and that Bible quote. And besides, the wise man understands in his brain that there's no evidence nor logical necessity for any god, and says so... :-)

We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas.

No. You are being labled ignorant and silly, and people point and laugh at you.

For example:

First Amendment murder

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.

Poor persecuted overwhelming majority. Wince, wail.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

Well, George Washington was wrong about religion.

Are you shocked? Hey, he was just a fallible human being, like you or me. :-|

Do the godless Czechs not have political prosperity? Don't the Swedes, the Estonians, or the French?

Skimmed the letters. I'd rather reserve the brain space for something more useful, like the ingredients to the perfect Bloody Mary (which as I recall involved some Unholy Spirit). Or the last names of Weird Al Yankovic's backup band.

But the author of the "Happy Monkey" letter gave me a warm fuzzy feeling of peace and goodwill for all humankind, and I wanted to thank him or her.

Then again, maybe the warm fuzzy feeling was down to the Bloody Marys.

I'd love to see Dr. Myers debate Dr. Henry M. Morris! But I think he'll need a Ouija board to do so.

Okay, so I don't know much about Satanism but how could they be atheists? If you worship Satan, the fella in the Bible, then doesn't it follow that you believe in the word of the Bible just a little bit and doesn't it further follow that you believe in God as well? Because Satan has got to fight against somebody. Satanists are just rooting for the other team. I guess that would mean atheists are one step worse (if only the letter writers knew!) because they don't believe in a man with a long white beard or a man with horns and a pitchfork.

"Mr. Morris" would probably be Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation "Research." Somewhere between Ken Ham and Kent Hovind on the creationism BS scale."

Or possibly Simon Conway-Morris?

245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go! - Jeff

Gosh, Jeff, that's a cogent and convincing argument. I must throw myself on the mercy of The Lord, stat!

PZed, why is that last quote in Comic Sans? Isn't that *you* being quoted?

Cuttlefish:

They're much more fun than pandas--much more active in their cages
With a longer line on Sundays, when they all sing "Rock of Ages"

I would pay any price to see caged creationists singing Def Leppard.

As far as religion and evolution, I don't think it's a lie to say that they're compatible. Yes, it's cognitive dissonance, but it's the sort of cognitive dissonance that religionists have had to accept and incorporate for centuries. If you take the Augustinian position (reason and evidence > Bible), ignore "literal" interpretations, or reinterpret the Bible (see also the idiot above referencing Isaiah [40:22]: "the circle of the Earth" is very different from "the Earth is a sphere;" elsewhere in the same book, it talks about the Earth's "foundations," which is consistent with the rest of the Biblical model of the Earth: a flat disc on pillars with a firmament dome above), then you can accept any apparent contradiction with reality. Yes, evolution contradicts the Bible, but so does the round earth, heliocentrism, astronomy, botany, history, anthropology, geology, physics, and so on and so forth. If Christians can make their beliefs compatible with all the above stuff, then they can fit evolution in there as well.

If we're going to say that it's a lie that religion and evolution are compatible, then we should just get to the real point: religion is incompatible with reality.

#246: Thank you for pointing out our errant hypocrisy -- us bad. So, in the spirit of free "thought," let us all now embark on letter-writing campaigns urging zoos to give away free copies of [Muslim] Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation", promote the animal-friendly tenets of Hinduism as well as the Shinto and Native American tradition of nature spirits.

Whaddya say?

245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!

Jeff, do you really think that Heysoos would be tolerant of worldly frauds and hucksters like Ham and the Creationist Shop (some refer to it as a museum but that is just plain silly) who look to turn a profit at his expense?

If so, then I should point out that there is a big book of Heysoos' finest words, I recommend it to you.

Posted by: Jeff | December 18, 2008 11:55 AM
"245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!"

I mean what you can say about the emails and Jeff above that isn't stunningly obvious? The ignorance and lack of any reasonable rational thinking is shocking to me but unfortunatley these people are convinced there perceptions have equal and superior weight to the educated.

In other words they are deluded wingnut idiots.

lithographer (not sure that's a proper English word

Of course it is.

Creationalist?

Are they specifying?

Do you mean speciating?

SPELLING POLICE!

#264
unfortunately
their

As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago....

I could be wrong but I do not believe that there was a Bible 2,000 years ago. Perhaps he is referring to another document. Perhaps someone should give Chuck a call.

Chuch Norris is as dumb as a bag of bearded rocks.

It's always tempting but usually not wise to fan the flames with people like this. I was wondering, however, if you have bothered to write a template response for the people that dare you to respond.

The arguments are always the same. It should be fairly easy to write a page or two which debunks all of their arguments.

I'm always a sucker when it comes to falling into these discussions so I'd probably choose the worst option.

Of great importance. Remember this.

"ST JOHNS WOOD" is the only London Underground station you can spell without using any of the letters of the word "MACKEREL".

Happy Chrisimianus!

As usual, I'm much too late to the thread to make an impact, but here goes anyway.

I live in Cincinnati. I have a colleague at work who is involved with several local atheist and secular organizations. He is also [blissfully?] unaware of the blogosphere. I asked him if he'd heard about the Zoo/CM dustup, and he told me that he'd gotten a phone call within hours of the original offer, and that he (as a sustaining Zoo member) and many other local atheists, secularists, and scientists mobilized, making personal phone calls or visits to contacts at the zoo itself. I mentioned PZ and the blogosphere response, and his reply was, "Oh, that's great to hear. I'm sure it helped."

But I suspect that the hard work of local organizations had more to do with the zoo's quick response than an inbox full of emails that were deleted without being read.

Let me see if I read #3 correctly:

attacks on Christianity
evolutionists

left wing attacks
traditional America
Christian principles
revisionist historian separation of church/state myth
The war on Christmas
attacks on Christianity

Satan
Darwin's
justify his own personal revelation
discount God.
it is not a theory (HOLY CRAP HE USED THEORY CORRECTLY!)
the prophet Isaiah

normal people
ultra-left wingers
believe in nothing
university professors
church's business
Liberals complain
our right and our business

vulgar and disgusting homosexual
the gay community
born gay, which is absurd
No one is born gay
the APA used to say this
far left
change history

terrorist
BillAyers
global warming nuts
evolutionists
brainwash
Marxists
hippy liberal brainwashed professor
teach the truth

terrorist Bill Ayers
treason
ACLU! (Allied Communist Lickers Union)
destroyed America
real Americans
take back this country
slaves of deceit
America will wake up
reclaim America

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

There needs to be a "Wingnut Density Rating" (take that however you read it). How many wingnut talking points are used in relationship to the filler words linking them together? From my count I get a SWDR of 0.25 if I stop at "merry christmas." I'd say that's pretty dense.

I'd just like to say, clearly and on the record, that after reading those letters I have completely abandoned all hope for the future of the human species.

Oh well, Happy Monkey, everyone.

What profit would there be Blah, blah, blah, baa, baa, baa

Start a company, sell stock, report your profits on your quarterly filings with the SEC, let us know your company's stock symbol and we can find out for ourselves. We aren't your business consultants.

Merry Monkey to all and to all a good night.

The ACLU is the fault of liberals? That's the first I've heard of it.

Last I checked it's slightly Libertarian leaning (not enough to really qualify as Libertarian). The ACLU takes positions that conservatives hold dear (especially concerning the 2nd Amendment). For the times that they actually support liberty, I am with them. Politically, they're all over the board. I don't think any one party can fairly claim that the ACLU completely represents them.

One thing that is easy to surmise from this is that the writer of the letter really has no clue how often the ACLU has come down on his/her side of the issues.

I doubt the writer of that letter will read this, but here's a link to some Christian support for the ACLU:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/may/22.64.html

My apologies if the link disturbs anyone, I am an atheist and the drivel is pretty hard for me to read too.

bobC @ 212

One big problem with an atheist telling a Christian he can accept both modern biology and magic fairies is the Christian knows the atheist is lying.

So far Catholic church has acepted evolution and big bang. simply, they understood the can deny the facts. And some other religion do not hae problems with it. It is the fundamentalist taht have problem with it.

I do not mind if they still belief in a god as the first source, as long as they accept the facts.

We can not make religion to simply dissapears, and since there is no logical way to prove or disprove the existance of gods, probably religion would survive in a way o other.

But we can (must) combat it most extreme forms, those letter make me feel sick. Those people are really dangeorus to any nation and society. For the moment, it is not religion the problem, but fundamentalism.

Can you post that data somewhere or are you going to publish soon ;-)

Naww, it's just for fun; there have been plenty of tangentially related studies already published in the psych lit. just for fun, though, I'll tell you that the dataset is based on initial observation of first postings from (and personal conversations with) self-proclaimed evangelical/fundamentalist xians, but only when they are obviously on the defensive; typically challenging something about science/evolution/atheism (so obviously there might be bias). I'll just summarize by saying that the employment of projection (as defined by the APA) and denial (again, as defined by the APA) does not require statistical analysis to note the significance (it's so close to 100% as to be not worth differentiating).

:)

I would add that because it tends to be a politically charged topic, the APA typically frowns upon attempts at measurement of mass-delusional thinking, or studying mass use of projection/denial (go read how religion is excluded from the APA's definition of "delusion" sometime; it's rather amusing, if not scary).

Happy Monkey guys!

I absolutely agree with #117. Merry Monkey to all.

Reading these letters reminds me of what the moderator said in Billy Madison: "Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

see also the idiot above referencing Isaiah (40:22): "the circle of the Earth" is very different from "the Earth is a sphere;"

...and again different from talking about "the four corners of the Earth", a phrase that occurs in several places in the Bible; go here and scroll down to "Earth" for the complete list.

If the Earth is a "circle", it hasn't got any corners. Celebrity deathmatch!!!

Happy Monkey, everyone!

@Twin-Skies

I'd have to say that Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria is a copout. It dodges the issue that science and religion aren't nonoverlapping - many aspects of religion are testable using scientific methods and those that have been tested (like prayer) have come up short. It also breeds the idea that because they are perceived to be "nonoverlapping" that religious views based on belief carry equal weight as scientific evidence. This thinking simply feeds such idiotic ideas such as evolution and intelligent design having equal scientific merit.

While it is commendable that the Jesuits encourage investigation into their beliefs it seems to me that eventually it could, as you said, lead some to leave the faith. However, those that stay must, in part, disengage rational thinking in order to support a metaphysical view of the universe that insulates them from any possible contrary evidence (say, for example, the historicity of Jesus). This essentually means that the Jesuits differ from the fundamentalists only in the scope of their cognitive dissonance.

"Evolution is used now as a tool to promote the vulgar and disgusting homosexual movement that has recently become violent. By claiming that evolution is real, the gay community can claim that they were born gay." Ok that one just confuses me. Genetic predispositions to homosexuality are really hard to explain from an evolutionary perspective. Does anyone get what this guy is trying to say? I don't.

"I think so much pressure came on the zoo -- not only by local residents, but [from] all over the country, including an email campaign instigated by a professor in Minnesota, several hundred miles away," notes Looy.

Remind me again: who was it funded Propostion 8 in California? Only local, loyal Californians, right? No undue, outside influence at all? No, sir, no, sirree bob!

Wonderful! I read and read and laughed and laughed until I cried. All the fallacies have been pointed out, so I will add just two things.
1. Religiots get upset when they're told atheists, rationalists etc. are more intelligent--but what more compelling proof do they need than these letters?
2. Merry Monkeymas and a Happy New Meme to you all.

Joshua, if keep up with science there is an explanation. With hominids, the females are the limiting factor for reproduction. A recent study showed the aunts of gay men had more children than women without gay relatives. Increased reproduction, not by the gays themeselves, but with their female relatives. The theory was that the woment relatives liked sex better. That is sufficient to keep "gayness" in the genome.

Happy Lemur everyone

Evolution has clearly allowed the human brain to maintain several violently competing thoughts without injury. The very political letter-writer cited is impressive, hating the protection of civil liberties, Marxism and science all at the same time. It reminds me of the old Jewish World Conspiracy, apparentl engineered by a poverty-stricken communist mob and wealthy bankers in concert.

Happy Monkey, everyone!

Re: Evolution and being born gay... I don't recall ever seeing an article linking evolution and homosexuality, and there is doubt upon the idea of a "gay gene". Perhaps the writer was associating the lack of rigid religious fundamentalism with greater tolerance for homosexuality. Nevertheless, I *can* see how "evolution" (or rather, the principles of genetics) could possibly be used as a rational hypothesis.

For the sake of argument, supposing there *was* some sort of genetic factor determining sexual orientation. Our social system -- where people often marry and reproduce due to social and cultural expectations -- would actually enable a greater chance of survival and perpetuation of those genes (or, conversely, phasing out whatever might determine strong orientation to the opposite sex).

If this were indeed the case, then, ironically, authoritarian, fundamentalist religions may have played a role in perpetuating such biological "diversity" among people, since there is an expectation that everyone ought to marry and reproduce!

Nerd of Redhead, I know that. The point was that isn't at all easy to reconcile evolution and such genetic predispositions so the idea that somehow evolution implied that such genetic predispositions existed was hard to understand. I suspect we may be just overthinking this and the fellow may just be an idiot.

'This essentually means that the Jesuits differ from the fundamentalists only in the scope of their cognitive dissonance.'

Might as well apply that to any belief or sympathy for a belief in a deity...
It is cognitive dissonance all the way down...to one degree or another!

A genetic basis for homosexual orientation is only puzzling if you assume that a given gene is there "to do" one thing and one thing only, and to do it in isolation. First and most obviously, complex traits and behavioral dispositions are overwhelmingly unlikely to be controlled at only one or even just a handful of loci. What we have are probably complex interactions between many areas of the genome. And then too, remember that a gene may "do" one thing when found in a certain kind of body, but "do" quite another thing when found in another kind of body. So the interactions may behave quite differently in, for instance, a female versus a male body, or a young and developing body versus an old and senescent body.

pete moulton @ #182

"...but I bet I am not the only reader who would like to write an email to a couple of those 'tards."

We all would, Bjorn. The question is: could any of them read it?

Writing for the laymen is an important skill. I guess writing for 'tards is as well?

I threw together this Happy Monkey card for you all: http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=PqHB93i

letter #3

"I wish I could get a job teaching at a University, but I am not qualified"

thank fuck.

Letters like these make me want to put on a nice suit and knock on these nuts' doors...

"I'm here to tell you the Good News! Have you heard the Good News? All these things that terrify you and your little brain -- you don't have to be scared anymore! Because they're not actually true, or even relevant! Oh, happy day!"

DOWN WITH HAPPY MONKEY!
DOWN WITH THE WAR ON SQUIDMAS!

While the letter had it wrong (we are both descended from, and still, apes and not monkeys), I feel compelled to point out that only our most recent ancestor would be the shared ancestor with other apes.

Merry Virusmas would probably celebrate evolution best - it encompasses the most likely progenitor of all living things, according to the most recent research. It also casts ironic aspersions on the fundamentalist wackos that believe we're waging a war on Christmas.

Letter 3 sets new standards of bonafide batshitcrazitude by which any future Poe must be judged.

My Bad,

huh huh
heh heh

Me surprise you read da (up)Chuck Norris, Rev. BigDumbChimp

but now, for something completely disgusting,
http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/02503.htm

Merry SQUIDmas
No Happy Monkey for you

Oh, happy -monkey- day!"

Kitty the librarian @98: I understand it's now something of a tradition, at least in the UK, for librarians to wear "Ook!" badges.

Icthyic: It's so common as to be classifiable as a "trait" of evangelical xians.

It's an important trait of the ideologue. Just look at the explosion of conspiracy theories through out the nutter world, and their tendency to form actual, real conspiracies.

Wingism depends hugely on not introspecting, not self-regulating but acting "from the gut", which inevitably leads to projection. It's the only outlet for thought they have.

Me surprise you read da (up)Chuck Norris, Rev. BigDumbChimp

For laughs sure. Why not. He's a joke, might as well laugh.

WND is full of idiots like him whose only measurable service to humanity is providing us canon fodder of sorts.

"You didn't think I picked that font for posting ridiculous comments on accident, did you?"

???????????????????"on accident"????????????????????

SERIOUSLY?

"DOWN WITH HAPPY MONKEY!"
"DOWN WITH THE WAR ON SQUIDMAS!"

/rhythmic chant

"Christians are probably the most tolerant people on the planet."

Well, considering that they're the only people on the earth who shouldn't have to be even the least bit tolerant, merely living in the same country with us is one hell of a concession. We ought to show a little gratitude.

I suspect that the hard work of local organizations had more to do with the zoo's quick response than an inbox full of emails that were deleted without being read.

That's entirely possible. However, it is known that at least some of the e-mails were responded to (see the comments in the original thread). That doesn't mean they were read, but does suggest they were at least quickly skimmed before what appears to have been a boilerplate reply to the issue (giving the good news) was returned. Also, if memory serves me right, the local newspaper's article on the dust-up specifically mentioned the e-mails.

It must be rather tiring having to put up with these attacks. Chin up Prof, you're doing a fine job.

Mikael at #295 - Great Monkey Day card

And I hope you have the courage to answer this e-mail, but then again I'm sure you don't.

I'm reminded of columnist Eric Zorn, who claims to have replied to messages like these with a faux form email thanking the writer for their support and promising to add them to his mailing list. That might be a good answer to this guy.

PZ, I like your site, I like what you're doing, but you do know you are one of the biggest, most easily accessible targets in the Evo side of the Evo/ID war, right? Always online. Always posting. Always on the bleeding edge of what stupid thing the ID camp has going on, why they're ridiculous, etc.

In a sense, you perform a public service to those not involved in the war. That is,

"Look what religious people will do when science gets in their face."

It's an excellent ongoing demonstration of the general lack of critical thinking skills and ignorance of science which, over time, will do nothing but lend itself to your cause and not theirs.

So keep up the good work, kind sir, and Happy Monkey.

It's cold, rainy and dark so I can't quite bring myself to express happy in any sort of honest form so I'll merely wish everybody -

Pleasant Pongid
ook okk eek eek ook ook

Dunning-Kruger effect

thank you, thank you sooo much! page bookmarked for future use against arguments that start with "even my 3-year-old knows..."

Please, friends, lick a Communist today. Do it for America!

err... can i lick an anarchist instead? the only communist in town already has a girlfriend, and she doesn't like sharing :-p
A Merry Monkey and a Happy New Ape to you all!! (I really need to get around to get that T-Shirt design business started... those things create themselves!)

Is there a compendium of creationist (creationalist?) arguments along with a debunking entry? I don't know enough about fossil dating and sedimentary layers to clearly articulate why they are wrong.

Jason, there's Talkorigins.org, but it's still not working at the moment. hopefully it'll be up again soon

In America, anyone can be an evolutionary biologist, even those that can't explain what a mutation is!

Creationists create. Evolution evolves. That's why evolution is taken seriously.

One of the common threads among creationists, other than the fact that they're creationists, seems to be a fear of socialism and communism.

You have to remember that creos are very stupid. They just sort of run on automatic pilot rather than think. One of their tribal rituals is to draw up lists of evil demons. The old list had blacks, browns, Jews, scientists, commies, Catholics, Irish, and gays among others.

As the decades go on, the list of demons changes slightly. Now it is Moslems, gays, scientists, as well as some of the older ones. The problem is, some of them are unable to adapt to a new century. They haven't updated their demonology since the late 20 century.

Communism is dead, the Soviet Union fell a decade ago and nowadays the Red Chinese hold trillions of dollars and sell us stuff cheap. You can bet anyone rattling on about commies this and commie that is some old fossil with all the mental agility of a rock living mentally in the 1950's.

Posted by: Pluto Animus | December 18, 2008 2:59 AM

Christians are always so eager to show how pitifully ignorant they are. Why is this? Isn't ignorance something to be ashamed of?

Only to us educated elitists. To this segment of Christians (which, although large here in the US, is not all American Christians and maybe not even a majority), ignorance is seen as a virtue. No, I'm not kidding.

I wish to defend the inventor of Comic Sans. It is not his fault that it is so frequently abused. It may well be the fault of the company he worked for, though. Much may be laid at that door.

But without it, what font would PZ have to use for the creationists? It's perfect.

Jeffy the idiot:

245 examples of intolerance & counting. So much for free-thinking. Keep on indoctrinating! Go bigots go!

Actually it is 245 examples of intelligent thought with only a few kiddies and morons with drive by insults or ranting and raving. Way lower than the general population which runs around 20-30% kids + morons.

I really like this quote from the first letter:

'Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible'.

Well, firstly, you got a detail wrong - the idea that the Earth was flat went out, for the most part, a few centuries B.C., thanks to the forerunners of modern scientists, the thinkers and philosophers of ancient Greece.

Secondly, you miss the fact that the reason we now know all those things are false is SCIENCE. After the ancient Greeks pretty much proved the Earth was round, most people accepted that, including most Christians. However, the most vocal of those who did not were in the first few centuries A.D., and they did so based on the Christian Bible, such as Lactantius.

Galileo, building on the earlier work by Copernicus, proved the Earth revolved around the sun and got excommunicated and by the church and put under house arrest for the rest of his life for his troubles, as well as having all his works, past, present and any he may write in the future, put in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

As for flying, whilst, as far as I'm aware, there have never been any religious objections to man flying, it was advances in science that caused people to realise that manned flight was possible, and the application of scientific principles that allowed the Wright brothers to build the first aeroplane - and they were not alone in seeking to do so, just the first to actually succeed. However, another detail you got wrong - they were not the first people to have flown, just the inventors of the first fixed-wing aircraft. The first recorded manned flight was actually by balloon, in 1783, and there are unconfirmed stories of people flying by balloon before then, so it is NOT true that scientists believed flight was impossible 200 years ago.

Only to us educated elitists. To this segment of Christians (which, although large here in the US, is not all American Christians and maybe not even a majority), ignorance is seen as a virtue. No, I'm not kidding.

The bible is full of anti-intellectual sentiment, right from the start - Adam & Eve were forbidden to eat the fruit from the tree because it contained knowledge. Moral of the story: do as you're told and don't think for yourself or bad shit will happen. The medicine-man/wise woman/shaman/witch-doctor/priest always knows best because he/she has a 'unique connection to the ultimate truth'.

For the sake of argument, supposing there *was* some sort of genetic factor determining sexual orientation. Our social system -- where people often marry and reproduce due to social and cultural expectations

Never make an argument about behavior on the assumption that it only occurs in humans. (That should be given a fancy Latin name and listed among the classic logical fallacies... too bad argumentum ad hominem is already taken...) In every single species of at least vertebrates that has been watched for long enough, homosexuality has been found. And with a slight mutation you get gay lab flies, too.

I don't know enough about fossil dating and sedimentary layers to clearly articulate why they are wrong.

Just send them here.

Is it Opposite Day already? I thought that was in January, but each of those letters appeared to say the opposite of what's in many cases been shown to be true.

there have never been any religious objections to man flying

Nonsense!!! For starters, if God had wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings! Don't tell me you've never seen that.

What are you afraid of? Zombie Morris?

Morris was a zombie?

there have never been any religious objections to man flying

As Michael Flanders put it: "If God had intended Man to fly, he'd have never let us invent the railway."

Is there a compendium of creationist (creationalist?) arguments along with a debunking entry? I don't know enough about fossil dating and sedimentary layers to clearly articulate why they are wrong.

specifically, when talk origins goes back up, you will want to be checking out the Index to Creationist Claims, which is here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

btw, much of that list was the source material used for the book:

The Counter-Creationism Handbook

which I would highly recommend as a nice, portable reference.

I checked out the website for the Cinncinati Zoo, and an individual membership is only $47, less than a really good one-night bender.

I am thinking of joining in order to show my support, and I will damn well put "PZ Supporter" on the check.

btw, much of that list was the source material used for the book:

The Counter-Creationism Handbook

which I would highly recommend as a nice, portable reference.

Mine is sitting right over there ------>

I was thinking of getting the Counter Creationism Handbook, then I realised it was mainly a print-out of Talk.Origins and I always have access to that resource since all my dealings with creationists is online.

Authors of the first two letters need remedial English, but I am sure this would tax their 18 brain cells. (They also wouldn't know what "remedial" means.)

As PZ correctly points out, the author of the third letter is up to date on all the talking points which also means he can't think for himself.

The fourth letter writer could sum by his letter in one sentence: PZ Myers, your tolerance is intolerable! (Or should that be: I can't tolerate your intolerance?)

Anyhow, Happy Monkey everybody.

@Twin-Skies

It also breeds the idea that because they are perceived to be "nonoverlapping" that religious views based on belief carry equal weight as scientific evidence.

Like I said earlier, the theology I've studied went through great pains to dissuade us from looking at miracles or similar percieved divine incidents as being unquestionable. If there was ever going to be an explanation behind them, it will have to be empirical.

Mikael HafO @ 295:

Happy Monkey card created by Mikael: http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=PqHB93i

Really, this is the Cutest Thing Ever! "Poo, the herald monkeys fling!"

"He got many of his colleagues...

Well I am honored to be called a colleague of PZ.

Religious people trying to act intelligently is homologous to gay people trying to act straight. Its awkward, and glaringly obvious to everyone whats really going on betwixt the ears.

Sorry gay people, this is just an analogy of the activities, not an equivalence between homosexuals and the religious.

"No one is born gay."
--"So you're saying you weren't born straight?"

PZ, this is the first I've heard about a phone campaign. Will all the setting of exams and final classes, I'm surprised you had time.

Happy Gibbon!

It looks like the person who wrote e-mail #3 is okay with other forms of terrorism, it's just islamic terrorism that bothers him... but I guess if muslims didn't do it, it isn't terrorism, right?

He got many of his colleagues to send very angry emails and made some nasty phone calls to the zoo

Colleagues? I thought we were minions.

"Religious people trying to act intelligently is homologous to gay people trying to act straight. Its awkward, and glaringly obvious to everyone whats really going on betwixt the ears."

Then what are straight people trying to act like?

My favorite part was in the second letter when he/she said, "this country was founded under Christianity and it was rewritten to show the separation of church and state myth".

They love the separation of church and state when evolution is kept from their institutions, but when God is kept out of ours they freak.

And you call evolutionists hypocrites? Wow. Get in line Christians, the hypocrisy train starts now!

-Erin

""this country was founded under Christianity and it was rewritten to show the separation of church and state myth"

OK, who rewrote the country? C'mon, fess up.

I think Brian DePalma did an uncredited rewrite, and Carrie Fisher was called in to polish the dialogue.

@Erin

Here's another clincher: Wasn't George Washington a Freemason?

At #284 Joshua Zelinsky wrote:

Ok that one just confuses me. Genetic predispositions to homosexuality are really hard to explain from an evolutionary perspective. Does anyone get what this guy is trying to say? I don't.

Without the gayness genes, musical theater would come to an end. And without musical theater, civilization as we know it would cease to exist.

Without the gayness genes, musical theater would come to an end. And without musical theater, civilization as we know it would cease to exist.

Now that's a terrible stereotype, and I won't have it! Many gays are also involved in non-musical theatre...

...and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible.

I think this person is moving backwards through time.

Wrong. Merlin moved backwards through time.

The writer of the Happy Monkey Day e-mail wrote:

the only way his idea of evolution (it is not a theory because it is not testable in a lab environment) would work is if there was an massive expanse of time for it to happen in.

EXACTLY!

Now, contrast what you wrote about evolution with creationism, by God!

Creationism is not an just a mere idea made up by some mortal, fallible scientist. No! Creationism is a "Proven Fact," as documented by what God wrote in His 100% true and accurate peer-reviewed journal "The Holy Bible."

And, creationism is not only testable in a lab environment, but it has been! Several thousand published peer-reviewed scientific studies done by thousands of the most eminent creationists done over many decades (if not hundreds of years) have provided ample evidence validating creationism and invalidating the "idea" of evolution.

And a Happy Monkey Day to you too!

#341

"Colleagues? I thought we were minions."

Look at it from the point of view of the creationist: people like me, who generally hold similar views as PZ but AREN'T actual scientists... well, to them I'm a colleague. These are the people who think Ken Ham is a scientist.

Just saying something with a straight face and nothing but arrogance to back it up is enough to be a scientist for them.

Also, proven fact: God created slugs to test our faith. They look like penises and this makes any good Christian nervous. Scientists have said this. They've said it again and again. Prove me wrong, evolutionists. You can't. Because you know I'm right. You're denying it because you know I'm right and it makes you scared and angry. Is your faith in your god evolution so flim--

Ah, fuck it, I can't keep this up. I bow to the superior endurance that most creationists must have in order to be that big of an asshole for so long.

What IS it about these people that makes them virtually illiterate? Wanting to teach in a university? Start reading man. My mother used to tell me that if you could read (and read widely) you really did not have to go to school.

Obviously, these creationists don't read much.

"I bow to the superior endurance that most creationists must have in order to be that big of an asshole for so long."

Obviously Octobermermaid, you forget the length and rigorous process that comes with becoming a big asshole. Wah HA ha ha!

"Endurance" indeed! ;)

#351
"..proven fact: God created slugs to test our faith. They look like penises and this makes any good Christian nervous."

...Now wiping red wine from screen, and nostrils.

Thanks for this!

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 18, 2008 5:53 PM
there have never been any religious objections to man flying-
Nonsense!!! For starters, if God had wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings! Don't tell me you've never seen that.

And as Sarah Mills retorted in Those Magnificent Men and Their Flying Machines, 'But papa, we drive cars though God didn't fit us with wheels!'

What's the point in posting the emails if you leave out their name and contact info? I myself am not satisfied at reading such drivel and not having a means to take action.

Without the gayness genes, musical theater would come to an end.,/I> - bastion

Don't say things like that - you'll turn me into a homophobe ;-)

Bri - since you beat me to it with the classical Greeks knowing the earth was round I will add that thanks to Erastothenes they even knew how big it was. The reason Columbus (a dufus who didn't know how big the earth was) had trouble getting support for his idea of saling west to get to China was because any of his contemporaries with any education knew that was the long way around the earth.

Also, a few of the ancient Greeks thought that heliocentrism made more sense because the sun was bigger than the Earth.

Hmmm, all-in-all Number 3 may have one valid point:

"guess all that dope in the 1960s just hasn't worn completely off yet. "

Yep, he's probably right there. His mail certainly does read like he's suffering from a rather severe LSD flashback.

Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn't fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible works, bitches!

Fixed that for you.

Monado @339:

Happy Gibbon!

Splitter.

With no God, and therefore no morals and no values, why do any of you really care? Why waste your time on some blog which consists primarily of bashing the things you people are so sure don't exist. Seriously, where does the motivation for that come from? Evolution? How can you people feel any "anger" toward people with whom you disagree? How do emotions even exist in your mind? I would think, if you truly believed in evolution, you'd be out doing whatever made you feel physiologically best. Ie: rampant sex with whoever you want (whether they want to or not), flooding your mind with as much food, drink and narcotics that you want, etc..

Also, since according to you, I am an evolved creature acting on nothing more than impulse and chemical reactions, why would it be wrong to track down one of you who post on here and rip your throat out? Seriously. The things posted here (and the attitude with which they are posted) make me angry (I'm sure someone here can help me out with the chemical explanation that cause me to be angry). And my next natural (evolved) reaction is to address that anger. Ripping out one of your throats and eating it for breakfast would alleviate some of that anger. Does it also support the survival of the fittest model? In the eyes of the evolutionist, why is that in any way wrong? Why would me raping your mother be wrong, or killing a kitten, or stabbing PZ meyers in the eyeball, or swinging a newborn infant into a telephone pole? Are these things wrong? And if so, why?

Drew. Are you really that stupid? That morally vapid?

The ONLY reason you don't go around raping and killing is a fear of hell?

Really? If you say yes you're either a liar or a psychopath.

Fuck off.

Drew, thanks for stopping by and showing us how illogical Xians are. You are obviously scared to think that your security blanket known to you as god is a myth, and panic as a result.
All morals have always come from man. The tribal structures agreed to what was good and bad prior to writing being developed. After that, wisdom could be written down. But at no time was god involved. At some point fiat by authority was used, and using a god for backing morals was big as authority there was. Never mind the the god may be Zeus, not Yehweh.
So take a deep breath, and relax. Your god doesn't exist, your bible is a semi-historical work of fiction, but nothing else has changed. Men are still deciding what is moral and what is not.

Zack Morris, Evolutionary Biologist.

That's fine guys. Just leave me your real name and addresses and I'll come by and show you the morals I have come up with. I'll rip your throat out, I'll feel better having satisfied my savage animal instincts, and if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges.

(I am a man and since you informed me that morals come from man and the tribe, I should be ok with what I have come up with... no universal code to hold it up against right?) How many men or tribes have to agree on something before it is considered moral? 1/4 of population? 1/2 the population? 27 people, 6 tribes and a chicken?

Wow Drew you really are a sick fucker... If you cannot see how most of the behaviors you used as examples are detrimental to living with others and therefore are on average selected against, then I guess the rest of us are lucky that your fear of retribution by an invisible sky fairy keeps you from acting on your sick, twisted, sociopathic desires. Now kindly go and remove yourself from the gene pool.

Drew, still showing us the famous Xian love. It should just make those in your church so proud to see you speak so nicely. After all, you are showing how the golden rule really works, correct?
The golden rule really works. Game theory has shown this. Most moral structures are built around this concept.
If your imaginary god exists, you should be able to show us some physical evidence for this. Can you do so? Something that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers? Otherwise, how do we know you aren't delusional?

With no God, and therefore no morals and no values
Since this first clause is complete garbage, I almost didn't bother to read any further. I really needn't have bothered, since the rest is equally garbage - and garbage which we've all heard a thousand times before. Do you really think none of your fellow godbots has posted this sort of stuff here before?

Belief in God is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to have morals or values:

Not necessary because morals and values are fundamental to normal human psychology, and our evolved nature as a social species. This latter phrase is key: we have evolved to care about things other than immediate physiological gratification; and in particular, about each other, and about equity: those who have cared about such things, and have preferred to associate with others who do so, have on average left more descendants than those who have not. Indeed, these features are found in many other social species.
Not sufficient (a) because of Euthyphro's dilemma (look it up if you haven't heard of it) and (b) Because religious believers do not agree on what "God" commands.

Ripping out one of your throats and eating it for breakfast would alleviate some of that anger. Does it also support the survival of the fittest model?
No. You would make yourself liable to be attacked in revenge, which would tend to reduce your inclusive fitness.

Why would me raping your mother be wrong, or killing a kitten, or stabbing PZ meyers in the eyeball, or swinging a newborn infant into a telephone pole?
Because this would hurt or kill your victims. If this does not seem intrinsically wrong to you, you're a psychopath.

You saying I don't have morals doesn't make it true.

You have no fucking clue what my morals are, what I value.

It's MAN as in the collective man. Each individual has a choice of following the collective's rules, and there's consequences that have nothing to do with a fictional god.

You could try and rip my throat out. But either the cops or my aluminum baseball bat will stop you. Either way, I win.

if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges - Psychopath Drew

Stupid as well as psychopathic I see. If someone had no values, how could anything they did be hypocritical?

By the way, I use my real name here - unlike you. I'm sure with sufficient dedication you could find my address. I'm not scared of you, scumbag, even though you're clearly a real sack of shit.

I'm just asking why it would be wrong to stab someone in the eye who was causing me discomfort (emotional, physical, etc)? That's all. Why don't we prosecute lions for mutilating baby giraffes? And I haven't been to church since I was a kid so I don't think I'm disappointing anyone with my language. And I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to pretend to be and contrive some "physical evidence" which you seek. However, I have read some about the concept of irreducible complexity with regard to the motors of electrons. I imagine that gave you guys some trouble until you somehow (add a few billion years to the evolution scale) reconciled it with your evolution theory. The evolution of blood clotting systems in the body is another one of particular interest to me. Ie: why didnt everyone bleed to death prior to blood clotting evolving, etc.?

Drew, still no proof for your imaginary god. Still not understanding the concept of morals. It is not absolutes from above, but people telling other people not to unnecessarily hurt each other. If you are being physically hurt, you can morally defend yourself. But you can't use the "he was going to hit me, so I hit him back first" type of explanation either.
Science works by the claimant proving their case. The irreducible complexity concept has been refuted several times over. That makes your questions meaningless. Evolution has never had any problems explaining things. Watch the Nova show Judgement Day, which is about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. It shows how the ID people just plain lied. So if you believe ID, you believe in a lie.

Drew. You're out of your league. I'm not going to point out obvious facts to you. You're not interested in science. Fine. You don't understand natural selection, or what survival of the fittest means.

You're ignorance isn't interesting or compelling. It's mundane. We see your kind around here all the time. Rarely are they ever interesting in learning anything or true debate.

I'm sure many might engage you if you showed a real interest in the concepts we discuss here all the time. But I suspect you're just another AiG fan who thinks T-Rex had big teeth to crack coconuts, and the Noah's ark held dinosaurs too.

Psychopath? By whose definition Nick? And "intrinsically wrong?" Again, by whose definition? The tribes, the "collective man"? We evolved into caring about other things? Are we going to evolve into knowing that our earth can't sustain the exponential population explosion in the next few decades? If so, would it be considered moral at that time for me to start killing people off? Maybe just retarded children? After all, they really don't contribute to society do they? Or should we start by killing off asians, or Gay people? Wait, maybe we should keep the gay people as they won't harmfully contribute to the population problem...

And of course I know that many (most much more informed than myself) have come here and probably said the same thing. Am sure they haven't changed any minds either. Truth is, I was on another site reading something that stoked (thanks evolution) my anger and I simply came here to vent. I might hang for a few more comments and then be off into the the cyber world. I guess I just wanted to make sure that whatever the chemical reactions are that cause anger have not evolved out of us yet...

I'm just asking why it would be wrong to stab someone in the eye who was causing me discomfort (emotional, physical, etc)? - Drew the psychopath

And you've been answered, moron: because it would hurt them.

Why don't we prosecute lions for mutilating baby giraffes?

Are you really as fucking stupid as you appear? Lions are not members of any human society, are not capable of understanding court proceedings, and are acting as they have evolved to do.

However, I have read some about the concept of irreducible complexity with regard to the motors of electrons.

The motors of electrons???? Yes, I see you really are as stupid as you appear. In fact, in the face of extremely strong competition, I nominate this as the stupidest godbot remark to appear on Pharyngula during 2008.

why didnt everyone bleed to death prior to blood clotting evolving, etc.?

Blood clotting systems evolved at the same time as blood, doofus.

Drew #361 wrote:

With no God, and therefore no morals and no values, why do any of you really care?

You are confusing a lot of different ideas here. Which of the following do you accept?:

1.) All human beings share a common sense of good and evil, and right and wrong. We also naturally seek to do what is right, and what is right makes sense. God is needed to explain the where and why for that shared understanding.

2.) There is no common agreement on morals and values. There are hundreds of versions of God, all with different morals and values. The best anyone can do is try to find the right version of God -- the one that actually exists -- and the correct religion -- and then THOSE would be the proper morals, whatever they are. Good and evil are arbitrary from the human standpoint: Divine Might alone makes right.

3.) All human beings share a common sense of right and wrong, but they have no reason to do what is good, or avoid what is evil, unless they are rewarded for doing good, and punished for doing evil, by some outside authority. Those who do good for its own sake are actually being stupid and disobedient.

You cannot believe all of those. Nor can you switch back and forth between them, using each, in turn, as your argument needs it. They each contradict each other.

Remember, a theory does not change what the theory is about. If we start out agreeing there are common human values, you cannot say that, if it turns out that this universal sense evolved, then that means it doesn't exist. If you insist that humans have no agreement at all on what is Good, then you can't point to God as the source for what we don't have -- nor can you point to God as the "standard" for what we don't have.

Psychopath? By whose definition Nick?
Any psychopathologist. A psychopath is a person without conscience or compassion,. as you appear to be, from what you've said.

And "intrinsically wrong?" Again, by whose definition?<,/I>
Pay attention, pillock. I said if you don't feel it to be intrinsically wrong, i.e., that its wrongness is not in need of justification, you are a psychopath. See definition of psychopath above.

Are we going to evolve into knowing that our earth can't sustain the exponential population explosion in the next few decades?
Stupidity upon stupidity. Evolution is not teleological. Sorry to use big words, you'll have to look them up if you don't understand. Incidentally, the world's population is not increasing exponentially.

And of course I know that many (most much more informed than myself) have come here and probably said the same thing.

No, they'll all been ignorant idiots like you - although few quite so stupid and unpleasant.

Those letters could have been written by at least a dozen people in my immediate family.

Drew #371 wrote:

I'm just asking why it would be wrong to stab someone in the eye who was causing me discomfort (emotional, physical, etc)? That's all.

Whether founded on God or not, all good moral systems come down to one thing: a choice to love each other.

If you make the choice to not love other people -- so that there is 'nothing wrong' with stabbing them in the eye -- then you are not be the sort of person who would choose to love God, are you? Adding "God" into your system would do nothing.

If you make the choice to love other people, then stabbing them in the eye is therefore wrong, as measured against your choice to love them. Adding "God" into the system is not necessary.

Think about this. Loving God and loving other people are the same kind of choice. If there is no God -- then there are still other people. And the choice.

I really hope Drew sticks around for a while. We haven't had a really good godbot bashin' in a while.

Nick, so our conscience and compassion has evolved also?

And sastra, after a cursory reading, I'd say it's #1 on your list. Also, I appreciate your evolved sense of written conversation. I think your buddy nick is a few evolutionary models behind you.

Hey Drew, the snide Christian "I'm just trying to understand your world man" act has been tried here thousands of times, to no avail. Why don't you save your energy, go get educated by going to a library on Sunday instead of the local pew warehouse, and start living life, K?

And if I must point out your flagrantly hyprocritical Christianism by labeling us rapists simply because we're athesists, than I guess I have to. But, in your world atheists aren't real humans anyways, so no reason to worry about following Jesus right? After all, how can such base animals demand the same respect you feel entitled to?

Drew. Just stop. Try this out. They've found, through research, that dogs and monkeys have a sense of fairness. Yep, even dogs and monkeys know when something is unfair. Do they believe in god? Did god do that?

Obviously not.

Just listen to yourself. Humans are both violent and altruistic. We function well as social groups under stress, but we also create out groups that we compete with for resources and advantage. It's not hard to trace these behaviors through evolution. We see it in primates and other mammals.

Sastra, is love the product of evolution?

Yumm,fresh troll....

Also, I appreciate your evolved sense of written conversation.

Yes,well,it sure as hell beats yours.

"Sastra, is love the product of evolution?"

Yes. It is in part a survival mechanism. The real question is, why do you feel you must believe that something else created love in order for love to be real. Secondly, is it truly love stemming from that something if it has a ransom tied to it? How about you answer that one?

Drew @ #384,

Yes. Go look up the research yourself. Must everyone do everything for you?

Sorry to step on your toes here, Sastra.

Nick, so our conscience and compassion has evolved also? - Drew

Yes. Have you finally managed to grasp this elementary point?

I think your buddy nick is a few evolutionary models behind you. - Drew

You fucking hypocritical pusbucket. You come on this blog, insulting and threatening everyone, and you expect people to talk nice to you?

Sastra, is love the product of evolution? - Drew

I'm sure Sastra will agree with my answer: yes.

Oh and Drew,

How old is the earth?

Drew, everything biological is a result of evolution. Love, hate, all the emotions too. Nothing comes from your illusionary god.

Drew #384 wrote:

Sastra, is love the product of evolution?

Yes. So is hate.

As an individual, you are what you are -- someone who can make choices. This is going to be the same -- whether God made you that way, or you evolved that way. How we got the way we are is a different question than "what should we choose to do?"

If you make a choice for love. over hate -- then it won't matter whether you think "Love" is an abstract human emotion, a Disembodied Spirit. What you do, would be the same in either case.

I feel bad for you guys. And Nick, if you can't see that my examples of killing, raping, etc. were an effort to prove a point, you're as dumb as you accuse me of being.

Steve, as to the age of the earth; don't know, wasn't there when it started.

Sastra - is "hate" or "love" an actual combination of certain chemicals in your opinion, or do you draw those labels by observing the outward behavior of others and then determine whether what you see is love, hate, anger, etc...?
All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve? Honest question..

I feel bad for you guys.

You really find it hard to write a sentence without insulting people, don't you, scumbag.

Nick, if you can't see that my examples of killing, raping, etc. were an effort to prove a point, you're as dumb as you accuse me of being. - Drew the pusbucket

They were also deliberate insults, and intended to anger and/or frighten people, you lying toad. Apologise for them, and I'm willing to stop calling you the sack of lying psychopathic filth you chose to present yourself as.

Drew the idiot troll:

With no God, and therefore no morals and no values, why do any of you really care?

Morality doesn't come from god. Almost all of us are born with it. Atheistic and nonXian societies are no less moral than xian ones. In fact, the fundie Death Cults seem to be far less moral than the general human population. Which begs the question, "What good is your god if you don't pay any attention to him?"

Drew the homicidal cultist troll

Why waste your time on some blog which consists primarily of bashing the things you people are so sure don't exist.

The atheists and sympathizers don't bash god. They laugh at some of his more demented followers. Like you, who seems to be very stupid and none too sane.

Besides general amusement at how crazy and dumb fundies are, there is a serious purpose. Left to themselves, they would inevitably and cheerfully destroy our society and head on back to the Dark Ages. Fundie xians have nothing much to do with xianity and everything to do with Nihilism, the urge to destroy everything around them.

Drew, when you first arrived it was impossible to see any point, as you were so abusive. Not a good start to anything.

Since then you have avoided answering questions. Not a good continuation. What do you believe the age of the earth to be?

As to what we get from this blog. A sense of community. Most of here are atheists, and we either are scientists or admire the progress that the scientific method has done for hominids in the last century or two.

All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve? Honest question..

Honestly, I like to see if PZ has posted any relatively recent developments in biology.

More importantly, however, once in a while I wake up with the uncomfortable feeling of a mouth without a bit of bile washing about in it. I know that by coming here, or by going to Conservapedia (though that's a table so laden with easy pickings that I could too easily gorge myself), I'll see arguments so fundamentally flawed, self-contradictory, ignorant of all evidence, or horribly stated that my spleen and bile ducts start their rusty crankings, and my mouth again will know the sweet, sweet taste of ire and ridicule.
I'm glad you stuck around long enough to give me a nice dose for the day, Drew.

Drew, I'll give you multiple choice options.

a. roughly 4.5 billions years
b. less than 5 million
c. less than 50,000
d. less than 10,000

You can even give me two answers, the one you thinks science states and the one AiG states.

Drew #392 wrote:

is "hate" or "love" an actual combination of certain chemicals in your opinion, or do you draw those labels by observing the outward behavior of others and then determine whether what you see is love, hate, anger, etc...?

Both.

Look at something less 'controversial' -- hunger. What is "hunger?" Is it the result of chemical reactions in your stomach and nerves? Yes. Is it a way of feeling, a subjective sensation? Yes. Is it something you infer from observation, watching other people and species seek out food? Yes. Is it an abstract idea, where you pick out similar features in experiences and emotions and combine them in new ways, so that you can then talk about "hunger" for truth, or "hunger" for justice, and still make sense? Yes.

You cannot hold hunger in your hand -- but it is real. And, ultimately, physical. We can simply look at it in different ways, at different levels of understanding.

Could God have somehow given all living things which need to eat to survive something called "hunger," a mystical spiritual essense they then carry inside them that makes them want to eat? I suppose so. It seems a little strange to think this way, though. It's not very illuminating, ultimately explains nothing, and basically reduces to magic.

I think it's less simplistic -- but more reasonable -- to try to understand 'hunger' by looking at how cells and insects and animals all feel the sensation of hunger, because of lower level processes which are physical.

And these physical processes could evolve through a physical system.

Love is similar, in many respects, to hunger. They're both physical -- and abstract. Objective -- and subjective. But neither one requires a "spiritual" component, outlook, or vocabulary.

All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve? Honest question..

I'm trying to understand how everything works together into a harmonious whole. I've been finding more consistency, clarity, and satisfaction through a scientific approach.

All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve? Honest question - Drew the shitstain

You've yet to show you're capable of honesty, peabrain.

I'm sorry Nick. Hope you feel better.... although again, I don't know if we agree on the definition of "feel."

Red head, I personally believe in a young earth. 10000 years or so. You asked it, I answered it. And it was obviously asked in order to set off the next assault on my intelligence (or lack thereof that most of you will insinuate). And I'm sure there are plenty reading who do not feel the need to respond to such a lower level of intelligence. Although, some have already gone out of there way to post that they don't feel like I'm worth a rebuttal (which in terms of scientific evidence is probably true).

Co- glad I could crank your bile ducts. But, why, in evolutionary terms, would ridiculing someone else make you feel good?

Drew doesn't even understand his own religion. According to xians, humans learned right from wrong by eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge.

In the belief system, all humans are therefore born knowing morality. Whether you believe in god is irrelevant.

Of course, this gets in the way of him calling a group of people baby killing monsters. But since fundies are all about hate and lies instead of religion, that doesn't matter to him and them.

Drew | December 19, 2008 9:20 AM With no God, and therefore no morals and no values

Drew, you're right. Because I don't have your idiotic childish belief in magic fairies, I have become a serial killer. I especially enjoy killing shit-for-brains assholes like yourself.

Co- glad I could crank your bile ducts. But, why, in evolutionary terms, would ridiculing someone else make you feel good?

Why, in evolutionary terms, would reading Dostoyevsky make one feel good rather than reading Proust? You might want to cast questions into a context where they may make sense.

Also, I could have posted absolutely nothing, and I'd still feel fine watching your arguments here. Why do I post? Palate-cleanser.

Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008

Steve, as to the age of the earth; don't know, wasn't there when it started.

The ultimate in self-centeredness. "I" was not there so how can it be known.

Drew, people are free and encouraged to mock your intelligence. You have shown that you are proud of your ignorance.

Ok Drew. Cool. Thanks for playing. Anyone who thinks the earth is 10000 years old is obviously blinkered by religion. Only creationists, who are so deluded that they deny all of scientific evidence, would hold that belief.

No argument from the standpoint of evidence or reason would make a difference with you.

It's quite sad. However, it can be quite entertaining to see what comes out of a YEC's mouth. The stupidity and ignorance can be pretty amazing.

I don't know if we agree on the definition of "feel." - Drew

I don't see the need to define such generally understood words; nor do I think a watertight definition can be given. How would you define "feel"?

All, what is your motivation for being on this blog? What is it you hope to achieve?

I am fascinated by evolutionary biology (see the biological posts). I enjoy the discussions on topics ranging from evolution to politics, economics, sociology, history, psychology, literature... often highly intelligent and involving people with a great deal of knoweldge and expertise. I like hanging out with a group who mostly share a good part of my take on life. I find I almost invariably get at least one good laugh a day from something intended to be funny by its author; and another from something not so intended. I enjoy sharpening my wits by arguing with the religidiots, "libertarians" and other fools who drop in.

Nick Gotts,

Why do you persistently waste your time on these ignorant creationists? Every person here capable of persuasion knows full well that they're wrong. Are you so hateful and angry at the world that you must vent by beating up on creationists? Is it that your self-esteem is so low that you need the dose of self-confidence? Or is it both, perhaps?

Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008

That's fine guys. Just leave me your real name and addresses and I'll come by and show you the morals I have come up with. I'll rip your throat out, I'll feel better having satisfied my savage animal instincts, and if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges.

If humans were that unfettered at all times, this species would have been wiped out millions of years ago.

Oh, wait. You believe the Earth is 10,000 years old.

How do you know? Were you there?

Come and get it Bob:

78 Vermilion Drive
Levittown, Pa 19054.

And I'm not saying that you will become a serial killer (as you have the knowledge of good and evil imprinted on your heart), I'm just asking why you would yield to any laws/morals/cultural practices, etc. Is it only because the group says it's wrong? Or does something inside you tell you to hold the door open for an old lady, or not take advantage of a weaker person? It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd...

And I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a born-again Christian evangelical by any stretch. I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it.

A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?

Oh, Drew, despite you being a would be mass murderer, I still feel compelled to say this. Happy Monkey!

Drew #400 wrote:

I personally believe in a young earth. 10000 years or so. You asked it, I answered it.

Since you're being nice and answering questions, I'll ask you one. I don't know how you'll answer:

IF it turns out that the scientists are correct, and evolution happened, and the earth is 14.5 billion years or so old -- and you come to this conclusion also -- THEN what would you do?

1.) Become an atheist. If evolution happened, then there is no need for God to explain anything.

2.) Remain a Christian. If evolution happened, then God must have used it to work His plan. The Bible wasn't "wrong" -- your interpretation of the Bible was wrong. You would then become a theistic evolutionist, and a liberal Christian who views much of the Bible as "metaphor."

3.) Change religions. If evolution happened, then the Bible has been contradicted -- no reinterpreting. Christ is no longer real to you. But there are other versions of God which could use evolution, and you won't reject the entire concept because there are still things you'd need a God to 'explain.' You'd start to look around.

---
In other words, how much is really riding on this issue for you? How significant is evolution vs. creationism?

But, why, in evolutionary terms, would ridiculing someone else make you feel good?

How do you explain it in theist terms?

Gustavus, what is your point? All of us can mock creobots. Nick just does it so well, which is why he won a Molly.

as to the age of the earth; don't know, wasn't there when it started.

You also weren't present when you were conceived.

How do you know you were? Or do you think you weren't?

So ummm, Drew why the fuck would you think the earth is younger than the average rock you can pick up off the ground?

There's ancient manmade structures that are older than 10,000 years old. The only reason one can say it's 10,000 years old is because some THEIST told them it was and they accepted that answer over ALL the scientific evidence. It's just willful ignorance to think that way. You seem quite happy about it actually. Like it's a big fuck you to more enlightened and educated people.

Man, that's goofy.

Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008 .

A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?

The depths of your stupidity is staggering.

do evolutionists believe in Astrology?

Drew, contrary to your paranoia, evolutionists do not get together once a month to plot how to take over the world and set policy. Any evolutionist can believe in astrology if they want. But, since most evolutionists use the scientific method for many things, astrology falls short of being scientific. So my guess would be some do, but the numbers would be less than the general public.

Drew the mentally ill wacko

That's fine guys. Just leave me your real name and addresses and I'll come by and show you the morals I have come up with. I'll rip your throat out, I'll feel better having satisfied my savage animal instincts, and if your family shares the same non-values as you do, they would be hypocritical to file charges.

Oh gee, this guy isn't even remotely sane. Another serial killer wannabe spouting god babble. OK Drew, let me know when you swing by my house. The local police will be waiting as well as something loaded with small devices known as "ammunition".

Drew lives where the lower reaches of fundie xianity blends in with homicidal insanity. Because jesus loves you, xianity is a religion of peace, love, and tolerance, and Drew wants to kill people. It all makes perfect sense.

Drew #409 wrote:

A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?

"Evolutionists" are a large group. It includes Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and New Agers as well as atheists (among others.) So it would depend. A Hindu who accepts evolution might also believe in astrology.

Most of the people on this blog are like PZ Myers -- secular humanists. Those are the folks who are atheists because they have taken a scientific and rational approach to life. Method is more fundamental to us than whether there's a God or not.

Since there is no good scientific evidence for astrology -- then no. Secular humanists do not believe in astrology. That could, in theory, change with amazing new studies -- but unlikely.

Hi Drew,

My real name is "God".

My real address is "Outside of your space-time continuum".

I invite you to track me down and try to tear out the throat that I don't actually have, any time you feel up to it.

Why has the "War on Christmas" suddenly made the phrase "Merry Christmas" the Christian equivalent of a five year old saying "poopy" at the dinner table?

Drew (#371):

However, I have read some about the concept of irreducible complexity with regard to the motors of electrons.

Electrons don't have motors, and have nothing to do with the concept of irreducible complexity. I assume that you are misremembering some reference to biochemical mechanisms that (amongst other things) involve the transport of electrons, since otherwise I can't think how you would arrive at such an idiotic misconception. And by the sound of it, whatever you've read about irreducible complexity is almost certainly wrong.

I imagine that gave you guys some trouble until you somehow (add a few billion years to the evolution scale) reconciled it with your evolution theory.

Er, no. Irreducible complexity was first posited by the German geneticist Herman Muller (although he called it interlocking complexity) as an expected consequence of evolution by mutation and selection. I.e., biologists have understood how evolutionary mechanisms can produce non-redundant biological systems for decades before Michael "I can't be arsed to do any proper background research" Behe came on the scene.

The evolution of blood clotting systems in the body is another one of particular interest to me. Ie: why didnt everyone bleed to death prior to blood clotting evolving, etc.?

If you're genuinely interested (which I doubt), then we have a pretty good idea of how blood clotting evolved. No designers involved - just the addition, subtraction and modification of parts by mutation and selection.

Ryan, you are free to say all the Merry Christmas you want. However, some of us realize that not all the people we talk to are christians, and find that Seasons Greetings or Happy Holidays covers the beliefs of a larger number of people without unnecessarily insulting them. Simple politeness, if you will.

I think Drew has stated his morals are this: I do 'bad' things, feel bad about it, I'll let god take it up with me later.

Sounds like a typical run of the mill Xtian.

"And I'm not saying that you will become a serial killer (as you have the knowledge of good and evil imprinted on your heart), I'm just asking why you would yield to any laws/morals/cultural practices, etc. Is it only because the group says it's wrong? Or does something inside you tell you to hold the door open for an old lady, or not take advantage of a weaker person? It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd..."

Atheists yield to laws because the law is that murder is unethical, aside from being illegal. In part it is because the "group" says it's wrong, but it's also inherently repulsive an act. You don't need a god telling you that killing is wrong to know it is. The notion that we wouldn't know killing was bad without a god telling us it is, is preposterous. Holding a door for an old lady is also A) not in the 10 commandments, B) is common courtesy, and C) is an easy way of associating with fellow human beings, of recognizing them. Drew everything you are implying is that humans are but lifeless husks without purpose without a guiding divine energy dictating and puppeteering reality as it sees fit. Answer us: Why do you think this must be so for you or humanity to function?

"And I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a born-again Christian evangelical by any stretch. I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it."

You type this and are in the same breath asking us to take your questions seriously? You like doing things you think are wrong, but keep doing it, even though you "feel bad about it"? What are you talking about? I don't do any of the things you are supposedly copping to. I simply don't get those urges. I don't booze heavily because I've seen boozed people act dumb and get themselves killed. I don't need a god to tell me too much booze is bad. I see what drugs do to people. Again, I don't need a god to see and understand. Are you telling us your own sense of reality is so poor you need something to hold your hand through life, to tell you when and what to feel bad or good about?

"A side question that popped into my head: do evolutionists believe in Astrology?"

No. But then I don't know what an "evolutionist" is. I know the connotations that your use of the word implies, but I don't know what it actually means. What is an "evolutionist"?

And I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a born-again Christian evangelical by any stretch. I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it.

So you are not worried about burning in Hell, flames licking your skin FOR ETERNITY, as long as you 'feel bad about it'?

By the way, just to be pedantically correct, Sastra made a typo above: the earth is not 14.5 billion yeas old; it is approx 4.5 billion yeas old, and the universe itself is about 15 billion years old.

However, the question was valid as it stands.

Regarding astrology — PZ Myers used to post to a skeptic newsgroup, and when an astrologer posted that X would happen during various astrologically significant times, PZ actually did the experiment and showed that X did not happen.

Most on this particular blog are skeptics, as are most scientists in general.

Never said anything about Jesus. Janine, glad I could stagger you. What do you live for Janine? As much as I enjoy the company, I do have temporarily depart. I'll be back in a couple of hours to bestow some more ignorance on you guys.
But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way? Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least? At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind. And I'm not paranoid Reds. I take solace in the fact that people of your intellectual persuasion are a mere fraction of society.
And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society... Oh wait, that wasn't you, it was...

Hi Drew,

My real name is "Satan".

By an astounding coincidence, my address is exactly the same as God's, and I extend the same offer that God made.

Nick Gotts,

Why do you persistently waste your time on these ignorant creationists? Every person here capable of persuasion knows full well that they're wrong. Are you so hateful and angry at the world that you must vent by beating up on creationists? Is it that your self-esteem is so low that you need the dose of self-confidence? Or is it both, perhaps? - Gustavus

Neither. Deliberate ignorance, bigotry and stupidity do anger me, and I feel they should not go unanswered - and I do enjoy an argument. If you review my entire oeuvre here, you'll find I take part in many types of argument and discussion apart from creationist-beating.

BTW, what's it to you, anyway?

Drew:

The reason we don't go around ripping people's throats out is that we are atheists, and most of us have come to this worldview based on reason and insight. In pursuit of a rational lifestyle, we are therefore compelled to behave, in many ways, the opposite of religious people.

You won't find us justifying violence (wars against heathens, for instance) and then rationalizing the violence as the will of a higher power. This kind of ugliness is unacceptable and inherently destructive to order and peace. Strange that you don't see this.

You won't find people of reason training others to be subservient to them, and then further training them to be happy about it, or lying to people and taking advantage of their ignorance for personal gain. How utterly strange that you would see people who do not do these things as having no reason to be moral.

What difference does it make whether our emotions, our sense of right and wrong, evolved or not? It is undeniable that we have emotions and a built in moral compass (unless you are a psychopath, in which case there is something wrong with the machinery.) Scientists have applied themselves diligently to finding out the truth about the properties of the world and nature. It doesn't matter whether evolution appeals to you or not, and it makes no difference whether anybody wants it to be true or not--it is how the world works. We need to deal with this because it is the truth. Or is dealing with the truth anathema to you?

And why do you assume that hedonism is the only way to be happy? How do you know that being temperate, selective, eschewing vices and pursuing good health isn't also rewarding? Again, you are very strange in your assumptions.

It is obvious that you did not form your ideas about right and wrong, others did it for you. You have been infected by religion.

Oh, great. An idiot like Drew starts babbling, and next thing you know, all the riff-raff, like God and Satan, show up.

I am amused to note that I have the power to make all of you disappear. But I stay my hand, godlike in my mercy.

I do believe I just shit myself.

T

DREW! Jesus fucking christ on a stick!

Just because you can't comprehend people behaving morally and living happy fulfilling lives with a belief in a god doesn't not mean that they don't.

We do. It's actually a really good thing. The sad thing is that idiots like you think they need fear to keep them in line and the promise of an eternal afterlife to get through this life.

That's a sad existence.

Oh and just ignore all the atheist scientists that have done a vast amount of the modern research used in those hospitals, factories, farms, and labs.

Without science there is no medicine dumbass.

Never said anything about Jesus. Janine, glad I could stagger you. What do you live for Janine? As much as I enjoy the company, I do have temporarily depart. I'll be back in a couple of hours to bestow some more ignorance on you guys.
But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way? Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least? At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind. And I'm not paranoid Reds. I take solace in the fact that people of your intellectual persuasion are a mere fraction of society.
And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society... Oh wait, that wasn't you, it was...

... people behaving morally and living happy fulfilling lives WITHOUT a belief in a god doesn't not mean that they do...

damn it.

Drew, since you asked why we post here, we can return the favor. Why are you posting here today? By the way, I'm the Nerd, the wife is the Redhead.

Drew, the uneducated brain-dead stupid asshole Christian hick:

I personally believe in a young earth. 10000 years or so.

You're a bit off moron. Multiply your 10,000 by 450,000 to get the correct age of the earth. This is why Christianity must be eradicated. The Christian death cult has made America a laughing stock.

But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way? Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least?

And what motivates you to come here and act like a fucking asshole? What, for that matter, pushes you to the drugs and the sex?

Is it Me? Are you going to blame Me for your foul temper and cruel instincts and moral incontinence? O, please do. I love getting credit! It makes Me feel all warm and special.

But if you actually read your Bible, you may note that God is something of a hardass. "The Devil made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse. So it looks like you'll be meeting up with Me no matter what you do.

See you soon!

Warmest regards,
Satan

Why has the "War on Christmas" suddenly made the phrase "Merry Christmas" the Christian equivalent of a five year old saying "poopy" at the dinner table?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The question is, why has the "war on christmas" suddenly made the phrase "Happy Holidays" an attack on Christianity?

"The War" was not started by atheists objecting to "Merry Christmas", it was started by Christians getting all bent out of shape over "Happy Holidays".

I think we should give these fools something to really gripe about. I suggest we start a crusade to mandate that every Sunday (or Saturday or Friday) service be required to devote a half-hour to teaching physics.

It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd - Drew

You really do not understand the first thing about evolution. There is no such thing as an "evolutionary dictate" for a start. Moreover, natural selection does not select acts done for the good of the species. Do make some effort.

And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society.

I think you'll find that the proportion of atheists among doctors, and even more so medical researchers, is far higher than in the general population. The opposite is true of prison inmates. You might also be interested to learn that the two top philanthropists of our age, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are non-believers in religion.

Why has the "War on Christmas" suddenly made the phrase "Merry Christmas" the Christian equivalent of a five year old saying "poopy" at the dinner table?

Because it hasn't. You are just fruitbat crazy.

At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind.

So, you claim that you're not a Christian, but you are apparently a young earth creationist and parrot the standard evangelical Christian misconceptions about both evolution and atheists...

It would seem that you would be obligated (in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate) to rid the species of these weaker, potential detriments to the herd...

OK, maybe this will actually penetrate your brain: THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. It's not a personally directed process. Individuals that are unable to survive in a specific environment either die before they have fertile offspring, have far less offspring then other individuals, or are unable to reproduce at all. The theory posits absolutely no conscious action by one individual to increase fitness of the group as a whole.

And I'll be the first to tell you I'm not a born-again Christian evangelical by any stretch. I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it.

I see the problem now. You're an unthinking, intemperate, emotionally stunted womanizer and boozer who is slowly working himself into the hysteria needed to chance upon a church service some night and get saved by the Lord. You will listen to the sermon, some omen will present itself to you, and you will then run forward, banging your knees hard, as you fall on the ground crying "I do believe in Jesus! I do, I do, I do believe in Jesus!!

Well, good luck with that.

It might be you Satan. I'm not sure.

If we've been around 4.5 billion years, wouldn't there be many more humans around here? Wouldn't there be millions of transitional versions of us as well? Am sure you guys have a scientific answer, but I'm just asking common sense questions.

I don't need fear to keep me in line. I'm obviously out of line with what a "Christian" is supposed to be, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the logic in their worldview.

Like I stated earlier, I came from another site that frequently comments on the posts here and wanted to see what is was all about. Granted, I did start this off like an asshole and I'm fine with the gruff I've taken on that front, but never have I seen such vitriol espoused in defense of a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all.

Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008

Never said anything about Jesus.

So, you are not a christian. Fine, you are still a theist who has great respect for his own ignorance.

Janine, glad I could stagger you.

I am sorry, I have a low tolerance for the foolish and abusive.

What do you live for Janine?

The same things as most other people. Trying to have some fleeting moments of pleasure. Hoping that my existance does some good for my family and friends. Trying to be an ethical person. And never stop learning.

As much as I enjoy the company, I do have temporarily depart. I'll be back in a couple of hours to bestow some more ignorance on you guys.

Waiting with baited breathe, just hanging on my computer.

But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way?

Because there are people like you who are in positions in power who have a direct effect on our lifes. And these power abusing idiots keep appealing to the fools like you.

Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least?

You are a troll and some of the people here like to play troll stomp. You have come in here wearing a target and you got hit.

At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind.

Because all non christians are incapable of having morals. It is just amazing that there were any non christian civilizations.

And I'm not paranoid Reds.

But it is just that you are afrai that all other people who do not believe as you do are going to rip out your throat.

I take solace in the fact that people of your intellectual persuasion are a mere fraction of society.

Because scientists and humanists are such awful people.

And thanks for all those atheist hospitals you guys have given to society... Oh wait, that wasn't you, it was...

And yet lots of atheists work at these places because they place the treatment of people above advocating for a particular religious believe of lack of believe. But please check for The Catholic Church and other religious groups trying to place restrictions on medical care.

Janine, you need to quit eating worms.

Posted by: Drew | December 19, 2008

If we've been around 4.5 billion years, wouldn't there be many more humans around here?

The Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. Humans, not so much. Please, have a coherent statement.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 19, 2008

Janine, you need to quit eating worms.

I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean. I though I was playing troll stomp.

Orc ball!

Owlmirror #427 wrote:

By the way, just to be pedantically correct, Sastra made a typo above: the earth is not 14.5 billion yeas old; it is approx 4.5 billion yeas old, and the universe itself is about 15 billion years old.

Argh, right. I didn't mean for that '1' to get in there. Thanks.

If we've been around 4.5 billion years, wouldn't there be many more humans around here? - Drew

You are making it really hard to answer you politely. We have not been around that long. 4.5 billion years is the age of the Earth. Homo sapiens has been around approximately 200,000 years. Also, have you noticed, Drew, that people die as well as getting born? So however long we've been around, it wouldn't follow that there would be more of us than there are.

a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all. - Drew

It's been explained to you numerous times why this is crap. I'm not going to go through it again, because it's obvious you are determined not to understand what you are told. You don't even come close to understanding an atheistic world view, or the theory of evolution, so of course, you are incapable of telling what they do and do not imply.

Hey Drew, 3 quick questions for you, rabid learning-yearning you, Drew:

1. How old is the U.S. Declaration of Independence? (to nearest century)
2. When did World War I start? (to nearest decade)
3. Were you there?

Bonus question, just for random's sake:
Is your last name Blank?

Gotta run, it's Friday here

Oh crab, thank dog I missed the pounding by a mere gram. phew.

We're getting a visit from the ghost of terminology past. Reds? Blow? Seriously? And aren't the booze and the sauce the same thing?

Drew #435 wrote:

But I still don't understand why any of you would care either way? Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least? At least from the Christian perspective that many of you (ignorantly) accuse me of propagating, they (Christians) have what on the surface appears to be a "moral" goal in mind.

We also have a "moral" goal in mind -- truth, and the ethics of truth-telling, and ethics themselves. There is not one side defending Right, and the other side defending Wrong. Both sides think they're defending what is right, noble, good, and decent.

But the other side is wrong. ;)

I'm obviously out of line with what a "Christian" is supposed to be, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing the logic in their worldview.

And there are many values in Christianity (and religion in general) which atheists share, too. They're not religious ideas; they come from being human. We simply disagree on some facts. And when they use false facts to derive morals that make no sense without those facts, we object.

Granted, I did start this off like an asshole and I'm fine with the gruff I've taken on that front, but never have I seen such vitriol espoused in defense of a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all.

Welcome to the pro-science version of Tortuga, the pirate island.

And you're mistaken about what happens if the implications of evolution are "logically extrapolated" into a world view. That's like talking about logically extrapolating the world view which comes from molecular theory, or the theory of relativity, or car mechanics. Evolution isn't a "world view." It has no moral implications itself.

Secular humanism is a world view. And it's based on caring about a lot of things.

I seen such vitriol espoused in defense of a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all.

You are right. atheists don't tend to care about beliefs. (Nor do we care about faith.) We care about facts and evidence. We care about investigation and exploration and precision in our ideas. You have been infected by religion, and that is why you equate living a good life, and having morals, with adamancy of belief (in your particular god).

You're afraid not to believe in your god, aren't you?

You find this fear acceptable; we don't. We see very clearly that this fear is causing a lot of problems in the world, not the least of which is, obviously, a diminished capacity for rational thought. It is uncritical thinking that is tearing the world apart, not disbelief.

... but never have I seen such vitriol espoused in defense of a belief system that, if logically extrapolated, would lead one to not really give a shit about any beliefs at all.

I don't think anyone would care about your childish ignorant beliefs, except unfortunately many Christian theocrats want to make every public school a Christian church. The theocrats want to dumb down science education with their medieval magical creation myth. Also, some Americans are a bit tired of the constant laughter coming from more advanced countries, including all of Europe. America has the most scientifically illiterate population in the Western world. It's not a coincidence that America also has the highest percentage of brain-dead Christians.

I'm just wondering, Drew, are you ever going to try to educate yourself, or are you going to remain an ignorant hick the rest of your pathetic wasted life?

Also, instead of wasting other people's time asking stupid questions, have you ever considered doing your own research? For example you could google "evidence evolution" and study it for years. Or do you prefer being an asshole who enjoys asking dumb questions, never caring what the answer is, because you're stupid Christian piece of shit?

One more thing, Drew, science is not a belief system. Scientific facts supported by massive powerful evidence are not beliefs.

Drew wrote: "I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the
blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it."

OK, I have a common sense question for you, Drew. You started off on this thread saying that morals don't exist without God. And I know you said you're not a Bible thumper. But my question is, you're claiming to like blow as much as the next guy. Well, first of all, on what do you base your claim that the average Joe enjoys snorting cocaine? Also, don't you think that following the laws of your state and country requires some sort of moral compass? you started out on the whole "no morality in atheism" jag, and yet you're admitting here that you enjoy breaking the law (doing cocaine, which I'm sure you purchase from some fine street corner purveyor) in your pursuit of chix. And booze (so much, you named it twice!). So where's the morality in being a law breaker who helps drug dealers who, we all know, just want to harm the children?

Why don't you like children Drew?

Whether Drew is a YEC or not, I will say that I have talked to conservative types that are not religious themselves, but think that Christianity must be alright because of anti-slavery advocacy by Christians in the 19th century. I remember talking to a friend who identifies with many things republican, and he that while he's not religious, he thinks Christians are great and that religion is awesome. It doesn't make any sense, and had I pressed him on this a few years ago when it happened, I doubt he'd have a good answer why he felt the way he did.

Drew surely sounds like a YEC who's not willing to admit it to himself, but there are people who think as thinly as Drew does and actually honestly don't follow the religion. The crap they spew is in that sense purely politically sourced from a party whose name we all know.

I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it.

Im at work,and had to tone it down a little bit,but i havent laughed so hard in a long,long time !

Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?"

And I'll take a risk and be honest here. I have said I am not a Christian in much the same way that the "ramblin Dude" described it. I can honestly see it going down that way. And I have no problem with it. Because as far as Jesus goes, he's either what he said he was, or the biggest fraud in homo-sapien history. I have an idea as to which of those two descriptions most in here would ascribe.
I don't know about you guys, but I do have a little (obviously unscientific) voice in my head that lets me know when I've done something wrong or should be doing something different. In fact, it spoke up when I tried to insult Bob and some others with "throat ripping" verbiage. Call it a conscience or whatever you want. Cue the cat calls and hateful laughter from you guys.

Also, I have been looking into religion more seriously lately and that is part of the reason i wound up on this site. Because I have questions as well.

I realize that this and all of my posts have been all over the place and I obviously haven't done the homework required to compete factually on this playing field. But that being said, I'm not sure any of the facts or figures you throw at me will eliminate the feeling that there is something greater out there that made all this. Who made the rules that the universe follows? And I'll never understand the pursuit of temporal, fleeting happiness. Maybe I do need the "crutch" that you refined academicians have withered yourselves off of. I can't begin to fathom that nothing we do on this planet has any repercussions on the larger scale. And for the record, I don't do drugs all that often. I smoke pot too much, but the rest of it is done on very rare occasions.

Ignorant? yes. Honest? most of the time. Hateful? Well regardless of how I began my posts here, I do tend to get along with people of all stripes on a daily basis.

I'll be checking back in. I'll put my tail between my legs and leave now. Keep up your "troll stomping" but also try to keep in mind that some of the trolls you stomp would give everything they had for your right to do so.

I'll be checking back in. I'll put my tail between my legs and leave now. Keep up your "troll stomping" but also try to keep in mind that some of the trolls you stomp would give everything they had for your right to do so.

That sounds an awful lot like a breakup letter I once wrote. You ... you're not... breaking up with us, Drew, are you?!?

Cue the catcalls and hateful laughter from you guys.

That is all you deserve. But you do not get to call us hateful when you started with this.

Also, since according to you, I am an evolved creature acting on nothing more than impulse and chemical reactions, why would it be wrong to track down one of you who post on here and rip your throat out? Seriously. The things posted here (and the attitude with which they are posted) make me angry (I'm sure someone here can help me out with the chemical explanation that cause me to be angry). And my next natural (evolved) reaction is to address that anger. Ripping out one of your throats and eating it for breakfast would alleviate some of that anger. Does it also support the survival of the fittest model? In the eyes of the evolutionist, why is that in any way wrong? Why would me raping your mother be wrong, or killing a kitten, or stabbing PZ meyers in the eyeball, or swinging a newborn infant into a telephone pole? Are these things wrong? And if so, why?

You get along with people. Whatever. Even as ignorant as you admit to being, you had to have known you were asking for hostile reactions with that little gem. You got slammed. Now do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading.

Natural selection isn't only the strongest survive. Start with that idea Drew.

There's many reasons why modern man takes care of it's sick and it's elderly, firstly, we all grow sick and old at some point if we don't die before we get old.

We could turn your idea around "why take care of the old and handicapped" to why take care of helpless children? There's a simple reason for that, you're genetic heredity doesn't survive if you don't.

Man existed long before religion or even written language. We got here collectively not because of a god but because we adapted and survived. Religion is early man's attempt to explain the world around us. Man created myths, heroes and villians to explain why bad things happened and religions probably created more cooperative social structures.

But religion is no longer beneficial as a whole. It's closed minds to reason and new ideas. It creates fear, paranoia, irrational belief in not just a god but demon and angels and a scapegoat (the devil) for why people do bad things. It also encourages behavior that's unhealthy to the society as a whole.

Coming to a blog full of atheists and then questioning how we could possibly be moral is unwise. God isn't the reason we do good things. It's common sense, it's the golden rule... treat people and want for others that you want for yourself. We don't do good things to score brownie points with some omnipotent being or out of fear of eternal torture.

We do it because it's right, and it makes our communities a better place. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?"

You're understanding of "natural selection" is flawed. The program of eugenics you are describing is the "opposite" of natural selection; it is artificial selection. Also, it is not always the strongest--for some particular definition of strength--that survives. There is evidence that caring and empathy, even from "weak" individuals, has been instrumental to the history of our species. And no one is wise enough to know, anyway, who would be wiped out by natural selection--especially when environmental changes take place. In our "wisdom," (or ruthlessness) we may actually eradicate those who have survival characteristics.

Again, you have been infected by religion. Do not base your ideas on science by what you have heard on religious websites.

I don't know about you guys, but I do have a little (obviously unscientific) voice in my head that lets me know when I've done something wrong or should be doing something different.

Why on earth is it unscientific? If it's the truth (the little voice inside you) then it's part of science. You have been infected by religious propaganda.

But that being said, I'm not sure any of the facts or figures you throw at me will eliminate the feeling that there is something greater out there that made all this. [etc.]

Everyone has these questions, but you can't just assume anything. That is what separates science from religion--the tossing out of assumptions and applying investigation to every possibility in order to get as close to the truth as possible. This includes the assumption that it was a "who" and not a "what" that made the rules the universe follows. It appears to be a what. This is not bias; it is the result of investigation. Investigation is good. Don't ever stop.

Keep up your "troll stomping" but also try to keep in mind that some of the trolls you stomp would give everything they had for your right to do so.

Yawn. Really, guy, religious people do not have a monopoly on appreciating the freedoms our secular constitution gives us.

Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?" - Drew

That's a reasonable question. Diseased infants can often recover if looked after (in many cultures, badly deformed infants would indeed be allowed to die). The elderly are (or were until very recently in evolutionary terms) valuable sources of knowledge. As for the "handicapped", they benefit (when they do - individuals and cultures differ greatly in how far they do look after people with disabilities), from our evolved compassion for the weak - which is adaptive so far as it relates to children, the elderly, and the sick or injured who may recover. Natural selection is limited in power - so it may be that it just hasn't been able to restrict our innate compassion to those cases where it actually pays off in evolutionary terms. There are other, more complex possible explanations, but until you have a grasp of the fundamentals, it would probably be a waste of time going into them.

as far as Jesus goes, he's either what he said he was, or the biggest fraud in homo-sapien history.

It's Homo sapiens - the italics and the upper-case "H" are both necessary, there's always an "s" at the end, and there's no hyphen. You are assuming that Jesus said all the words attributed to him in the gospels. This is extremely unlikely to be true - particularly as far as claiming to be the "Son of God" is concerned. Many serious biblical scholars, including Christians, would agree. None of the gospels were written less than about 30 years after Jesus' death - plenty of time for his words to get distorted, particuarly as no-one was writing them down as he spoke them. That's assuming he existed at all - some serious scholars doubt that he did.

Call it a conscience or whatever you want. Cue the cat calls and hateful laughter from you guys.
Why are you so determined not to take any notice of what you are told about what other people believe? Again and again and again, various of us have said that conscience and compassion are evolved human attributes. Drew, we know you have a conscience. We do too. We differ from you only in how we think it got there. Have you got it now?

Who made the rules that the universe follows?
Your question assumes that these "rules" are like the laws Congress passes and the courts enforce: that they have to have been decided on and enforced. This is an unjustified assumption. Do you think someone had to decide that 2+2=4?

I'll never understand the pursuit of temporal, fleeting happiness.
But you've told us you do pursue fleeting happiness - sex, booze, drugs. Among atheists as among religious believers, you'll find a wide range, from those who spend a lot of time and money on these things, to those who live rather monkish (or nunish) existences. This has little or nothing to do with atheism. It has a lot to do with age, health, libido, family responsibilities, moral principles, other interests, how far individuals are willing to take risks.

You're one confused guy, Drew. My advice would be to get some therapy or counselling, from someone who won't push a particular belief system - religious or otherwise - on you.

Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?"

Among social species, individuals may contribute to the fitness of their relations, thereby ensuring that at least some of the genes they carry get passed on. See eusocial insects such as ants, termites, and bees for examples of how this may work.

Among human societies, the presence of elders can increase the survivability of the group by passing on learned information ("Look both ways before crossing", "Don't eat yellow snow", etc.), reducing morbidity and mortality because the younger individuals don't have to experiment to relearn these lessons (in short, anytime you can avoid an experiment in which failure is lethal or nearly so, it's in your best interest evolutionarily to have someone around to give you the answer instead. Think about how you know that rhubarb leaves are poisonous--it sure as hell ain't because you ate 'em, died, and returned to life.)

It pisses me off to have to explain this to trolls, because if they weren't so busy being smugly dense, they'd figure this out in all of about 3.64 seconds by thinking about the world they live in.

And I'll take a risk and be honest here. I have said I am not a Christian in much the same way that the "ramblin Dude" described it. I can honestly see it going down that way. And I have no problem with it. Because as far as Jesus goes, he's either what he said he was, or the biggest fraud in homo-sapien history. I have an idea as to which of those two descriptions most in here would ascribe.

Only two options? Even C.S. Lewis saw three: Jesus could also have been insane.

But neither you nor C.S. Lewis manage to figure out that it's also possible that a few, some or all of those that wrote down Jesus story were frauds, or insane, or got some details wrong, or added details from other stories floating around, or embellished some of the stories, or editorialised them, or any combination of such.

Assuming you haven't lived in a cave with a rock for your only companion, you know that people do these things when recounting stories, even when trying their darndest to recount them accurately (hence eyewitness statements are one of the least reliable types of evidence in law.) Why it is you people seem to forget everything you know about people when considering the authors of the Bible, I'll never understand. (At least literalists with their belief that God himself guided the hands of the scribes have an excuse for this sort of foolishness. Of course, biblical literalism is far more foolish in its own right, what with the contradictions, inaccuracies, and just plain wrong things written in the Bible.)

!!! ! Sastra ! !!!

Always good.

Always beautiful.

Not by accident.

Mind itself.

No God needed.

Good by choice.

That's the difference.

The Fearless.

Drew #462 wrote:

Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?"

Humans are part of natural selection. Not outside of it. We have been shaped by the fact that we are a group dwelling species which requires empathy and altruism for long-term survival. Helping the unfortunate is no more "against evolution" than jumping up and down defies the "law" of gravity. Gravity explains jumping up and down, and evolution explains why we would want to help those who are too weak to survive without help.

Whether we choose to follow those values, or other values, will depend on specific factors at the level of personal choice. Understanding evolution won't tell us what to do, any more than knowing about gravity will tell us whether we should throw people out of windows or not.

I don't know about you guys, but I do have a little (obviously unscientific) voice in my head that lets me know when I've done something wrong or should be doing something different.

So do atheists. We don't really disagree about conscience. But we think our sense of ethics evolved naturally, step by step. You and other religious people think it's supernatural, granted by magic, and can't be accounted for otherwise. "Like comes only from like."

We have learned that new things can grow and evolve from things that are very different. Looking for how morals evolved is a scientific process. "Morals come from a moral force" is simplistic, and tells us nothing.

Since I'm assuming that "the little voice in your head" is meant to be a metaphor -- and you didn't mean to say that you're hearing a real voice -- all we're doing is arguing about origins.

And I'll never understand the pursuit of temporal, fleeting happiness. Maybe I do need the "crutch" that you refined academicians have withered yourselves off of. I can't begin to fathom that nothing we do on this planet has any repercussions on the larger scale.

What we do matters to others, and has repercussions on family, society, history, and our planet, for many years after we are gone. And this is not enough for you? You want eternity, and cosmic significance, and a scale which measures humans and their actions as of supreme importance?

That is not a "crutch." That is a "ladder."

I take back most of what I just wrote to with regard to Janine. I had a vivid image of you being a vile bitch after your first post and you've given nothing to dissuade my opinion. And every one of your guys posts brings up more questions. Do the world a favor and you can all stay here and regurgitate the same crap back and forth to each other. Let me know what Christian/Theist blogs you guys frequent so I can go watch your spasms. When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs. Or do you just stay here and suck each other off and gang up on people? Your arguments are far more flawed than those you attack. Science (the kind that you advocate) is biased. You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there.

Talk about brain-washed. This place is a bunch of PZ meyers worshippers and I've seen how he reacts to challenges to debate. He bitches out. Look at the way you guys cheer him on. It's pathetic. YOU SHOULDN'T CARE. But you follow "truth for truths sake" right? Why should truth matter one single bit?

I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer. But you guys will come out of the wood work when the shit that you guys have propagated really comes to fruition on a grand, global, scale. You'll be running to Church.... and at that point you'll be thanking your "lucky stars" that the people already in church don't adhere to the same "religion" as you do.

I am sorry that many of you willingly suffer such a miserable, depressing existence.

Drew @ $471- Thank you for that letter-perfect example of pure projection.

Honestly. That was awesome.

Goodbye, Drew.

And every one of your guys posts brings up more questions.

And that scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?

Everbleed #469 wrote:

!!! ! Sastra ! !!!
Always good.

Shhhh... I'm really BobC's alter ego.

(But thanks ;)

Hey! I just got a new moniker!

Somehow, I doubt that Drew was out to actually learn anything. Troll bellows. Troll gets stomps. Troll whines. Troll complains that there is a cult.

My but you are a mean and stupid little git. But thank you for the new name!

Bitch Queen flying through....

Carry on, this is fun to read.

Janine, you need to quit eating worms.

I am sorry, I do not understand what you mean.

yeah, sorry, pretty obscure. That was in reference to:

Waiting with baited breath

heh.

aren't the booze and the sauce the same thing?

I believe Drew was referring to his lifelong struggle with marinara.

Vile Bitch! Whoo-who, that trumps my Queen any day. Congrats!

But how are you going to get that troll kack off your red shoes? Ewww.

Patricia, you may be the Bitch Queen, Queen of the Sluts, and Queen of the Typos but you are not Vile Bitch. Just ask Drew. He is an expert on this.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | December 19, 2008

But how are you going to get that troll kack off your red shoes? Ewww

No need to worry. With my new job, I have an unlimited supply of Guccis. Plus I will special order Troll Stomping Guccis dyes the exact shade of troll blood. That way the strains do not show. Plus, I have my servants to shine my shoes. It really is quite lovely.

Janine, Actually I was admiring what a fiesty troll he was. You guys have really had some fun with Drew. He didn't look like a Dollar Store troll.

Vile Bitch trumps Queen. That makes you Queen Vile Bitch. Should go well with La Popessa. He, hee, he! Too bad about the shoes though.

Is this dude bi-polar?

WTF. He's like... "I'm a lost sheep looking for answers" to "You don't care about anything and your creating all the evil in the world!"

hehe... "You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there.'

WOW! He got that right! Sort of. You can't be biased against something that doesn't exist... can you?

Happy Monkey!

Drew #471 wrote:

Your arguments are far more flawed than those you attack.

Explain.

That's where your focus should be. Substance. Not style. Not personalities, but concepts. The issue is not us. It's not you. It's about something greater -- the ideas we're discussing.

Ok, there are a lot of us, and only one of you right now. Most of us are atheists, and so most of us are used to it being the other way around. So we can empathize. I've found the best way to deal is to take ego out of it. Focus on the issue. Ignore the rest.

Science (the kind that you advocate) is biased. You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there.

The other way around. We begin with the scientific method, and see if "God" makes it out of the realm of hypothesis. It doesn't. It barely forms a hypothesis.

I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer.

With any one of us, there would probably be either coffee, or beer -- and I bet you would have more fun than you think you would.

I'd smoke a doob with Drew. As long as he didn't talk too much.

"And every one of your guys posts brings up more questions."

...that you fail to answer when challenged. We ask questions; we don't take orders.

"Let me know what Christian/Theist blogs you guys frequent so I can go watch your spasms."

We typically don't bother, because they usually delete our comments so they can keep their intellectual lean-tos spic and span. We on the other hand, can tolerate dissenters such as yourself. We just don't give stupid ideas any quarter.

"Your arguments are far more flawed than those you attack. Science (the kind that you advocate) is biased. You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there."

If you are so confident our arguments are flawed, lay it out. Man up, ya booze-swilling powder-sniffing 101st keyboard brigadist. Bring it. We don't start with the no god concept and go from there. We ENDED there, we didn't start there. Big difference. You START with a god; answer the question: Why? And do tell us of the sparkly white science you practice. Inform us as to how we can better ourselves, if we're getting it all wrong. After all, you do want to save us, right?

"YOU SHOULDN'T CARE. But you follow "truth for truths sake" right? Why should truth matter one single bit?"

We shouldn't care, yet we do. Your mental walls seem to be crumbling, because now you're begging the question about us, and are becoming confounded that you can't find anything wrong with what we're saying. Isn't that right? Truth matters because it is obvious when one looks for it and absorbs it. Truth is not a dusty book written millenia ago that contradicts itself from paragraph to paragraph, and from one fable to the next.

"I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer. But you guys will come out of the wood work when the shit that you guys have propagated really comes to fruition on a grand, global, scale. You'll be running to Church.... and at that point you'll be thanking your "lucky stars" that the people already in church don't adhere to the same "religion" as you do."

No, I'd be much more interested in meeting someone like you, who is denouncing us for doing the same thing you are right now. You think we wouldn't bring our position in publlic? Do you think you'd be able to just walk right up and make us cry? Please stop with the stories of doomsday and your wet dream fantasies of armageddon over what we think. The problem is there are far too many people listening to old decrepit books in this world, and strangely enough they never find a way to agree on anything, or truly come together and stop killing each other over their pet text. No, the more read people in this world have much more to fear from god worshippers with nuclear fingers -Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or anything else, it matters not - than you have to fear from us. And no, I will not be thanking any church goers because they do. I will be thanking people like Salmon Rushdie for helping to destroy the idea that humanity must be beholden to something it cannot see or experience. Get up off your knees and start living.

"I am sorry that many of you willingly suffer such a miserable, depressing existence."

Our existence is darkened only because people with your poor level of critical thinking are in the majority.

Without reading all of the posts (sorry), did he ever say which blog he came from?

Excellent point BlueIndependent, many people on this blog started out with god, went searching for him, and ENDED up here.

I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer.

We are all just run of the mill people. Some are MDs, Ph.D.s, lawyers, students, teachers, office workers and so on. The average education level, whether formal or self taught is probably way higher than the general population.

Science (the kind that you advocate) is biased. You begin with the notion that there is no God and go from there.

Science has nothing to do with religion. The former is a way of describing the world while the latter is philosophy of some sort.

Raven, a slight point of disagreement. Both science and religion try to describe the world. One is based on beliefs. The other is an attempt to get past bias and describe what is real. I think you can guess which is which.

"I can't begin to fathom that nothing we do on this planet has any repercussions on the larger scale."

What larger scale?

"When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs."

Depends on what you call an expert. Seeing as how the theist side doesn't have any actual knowledge and evidence to draw on, just a bunch of ancient scribblings of wildly divergent content, then I would think that just about anyone could be an expert. There's a fellow named Heddle that's the closest thing I can think of to an expert that comes here regularly, and him and the regulars get into it.

"Or do you just stay here and suck each other off and gang up on people?"

You seem like you could use some sucking off yourself. Well, here isn't quite the right place for it.

And of course, it's hard for me to muster up much sympathy for someone coming into the lion's den with obviously provocative rhetoric about how we're supposed to be as completely uncaring and nihlistic and violent as you seem to want to be. At every turn you just want to dehumanize us. We don't like that. Reminds us too much of organized religious attempts to dehumanize us or other minority groups.

"YOU SHOULDN'T CARE."

Time and time again you've proven yourself to be an extremely poor judge of what we do or don't and should or shouldn't care about. But you just go ahead anyway.

"But you guys will come out of the wood work when the shit that you guys have propagated really comes to fruition on a grand, global, scale."

And what shit might that be? I really truly wish I knew just what it was that theists are always accusing us of. I mean, hanging out with the atheist crowd and arguing theists with chips on their shoulders doesn't seem like it's really such a sinful thing, but it's all Drew is directly accusing us of, and it really seems to have gotten him wound up. So maybe I am just a pawn in an evil game. *shrug*

I think he was meaning ... "I would love for you to meet my fists", as one might say.

I could be wrong.

Drew,
At the risk of prolonging the list of ignorant questions you have, let me offer up this quote of yours way back at #409:

(in order to fulfill your evolutionary dictate)

First, it isn't mine (or even our) dictate nor is it a mandate. We don't control it or manage it. Not in any real sense. I guess I could mate with lots of red heads and try to increase the number of pinkish haired peoples but I don't think that's what you intended.
Second, I think you may have confused "Survival of the fittest" with "The strongest person kills everyone and wins life". Severely confused. Severely ignorant. As am I on many scientific concepts. Skeptic fits me more closely Let's see if this helps any (and real scientists feel free to climb aboard):
Survival of the fittest implies the most likely to breed well within their population. The monkey with the strong teeth may breed better and produce more offspring because they can eat harder food items and be healthy in times of stress. Weak toothed monkeys in the same general habitat will be out-bred and out-paced by the ever increasing population of strong toothed monkeys. Over several generations the strong toothed ones will 'survive' because they were the 'fittest'.
Poor example but hopefully dispels the "King of the hill" mental block you appear to be having with "Survival of the fittest".
I'm only guessing here but your ideas about evolution appear to be related to some sort of mechanical construct much like The Borg from TV's Star Trek The Next Generation. We are not machines without compassion for our fellow man or without compassion for other living beings.
Maybe you need to think about a Chinese twist on the Golden Rule and instead of thinking about how you should do good things to get others to do good for you, let's mix it up a bit like this:
Don't do unto others as you don't want them to do unto you.
See? Now you don't need to buy me a Ferrari so you can get one too. No, all you need to do is not stab me in the eye with a knife and I won't do the same to you and it will also save me the time of gathering my tribe and tracking down everyone in your family and everyone you ever met and mounting them on pikes along the path into the village in retaliation.
Others have suggested that you might need to learn a little more basic things then come back with questions. The bulk of the people here are very intelligent and quite willing to share. On the other hand, the bulk of the people here simply do not tolerate repeated, willful, confrontational ignorance.

I like the booze, the girls, the sauce, and the blow as much as the next guy. I just feel bad about it.

Why do you feel bad? To whom do you feel this way?
If you are an alcoholic or plan on driving or operating heavy machinery then don't drink.
If you are married or in a monogamous relationship then stay away from the girls. If the girls are underage then just stay away.
If you feel bad about doing blow then don't.
The 'sauce' may have already been covered by the 'booze' or are you referring to something else? Me, I prefer 'Ms.' Cholula - nice chili sauce and I think the wood on the cap is kinda cool.

And to answer another question of yours from 409: No, most intelligent people do not believe in Astrology.
As a pre-teen I realized the horoscope column in my local paper and any other paper I read was 'hinkey' and strangely similar no matter what your birth sign was. Most of the time it looked like the same entry for each sign and the author simply used a thesaurus to change them up a bit.

@428 you wondered:

Why would what I think on any particular subject bother you guys in the least?

Simply because, to paraphrase an old TV commercial, A mind is a terrible thing to waste. We in the survival of the fittest business see ignorance as a detriment to mankind's survival. Bringing all this to an end because of the actions of a large population of ignorant people would be very disappointing to most of us. Sort of like watching a jar of fruit flies increase their population until they all die. Please Drew, don't be one of those fruit flies and please don't create any as ignorant as you. Even readers of The National Inquirer were supposed to have inquiring minds.

@446 this bit of ignorance appeared:

If we've been around 4.5 billion years

Whoa there Drew. The earth has been around 4.5 billion years. It spent probably a few of those billion as a very inhospitable hell-like blob of very hot, partially molten, meteor impact zone.

@462 Began with this question:

Why would it benefit humans to take care of those (handicapped, diseased infants, the elderly) who would otherwise be stamped out by "natural selection?"

What do you mean by 'benefit' here? Financially, it usually does the opposite. It can also cut into your leisure time so that's out too. The only quick answer (or this thread will be up to post 600 before I hit preview) would be that you have independently, if a few millennia later than others, discovered what makes us HUMAN. Call it a win, if you will for overcoming ignorance.
Then you also appeared to be learning something when this appeared:

Call it a conscience or whatever you want.

Yes, exactly! Well close enough for today. Conscience - not fear of a smote from a god. Just good old-fashioned human compassion. Ever had a pet? A dog that hasn't been mistreated and turned into a psychopathic monster may nip someone or scratch them and if that person yelps out loud the dog will cower in shame and then try to apologize in their own way by licking the person they hurt. Even animals show compassion for others.

Who made the rules that the universe follows?

Who? Why does it have to be a 'who'? Who made the sky blue? Who made 'up' not be 'down'? Maybe the universe just is. And scientists study how the universe is and then make up the rules. Then the professors put questions on exams to make sure students learn the rules. Side note - great (sciency) bumper sticker: "186,000 miles per second - it isn't just a good idea; it's the LAW!"

I'll be checking back in. I'll put my tail between my legs and leave now.

I can only offer my token comment to your revelation, but I sincerely hope you do check back in.

And, BTW, Janine may or may not be a vile bitch but she is the Insulting Sinner! ;)
See? We're actually quite a fun bunch too.

I apologize for the length and as I refresh the page I notice that many others more intelligent than I have also offered responses to your questions and comments so I'll close with a suggestion that if you are honestly curious then please stick around or check back in and lurk for a while. Read Dr. Myers' topic on the front page. If something seems interesting then hop on in and read through the comments. When someone you see often is making intelligent comments and they recommend another site for further info please go take a look. The world is quite large and there are people with knowledge and ideas that will open your mind for the better. Atheists aren't evil. Not believing in God(s) doesn't automatically imply a belief in The Devil. We have no use for either.

Then you go and write up post 471 and imply you aren't honestly looking to combat your ignorance - you're simply off your medication or have an undiagnosed mental imbalance. May Patricia and Janine have mercy on your soul.

When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs.

If you find an expert then you and they will qualify for a Nobel Prize and I think they're up to US$1.5million these days so get cracking on that talent search.

You'll be running to Church...

How much do you want to bet? Wait, how much do you have to bet?
If a fan-forced feces event does start to happen and it looks earth-shatteringly severe then church is the opposite direction I'll be running. I will want the assistance of intelligent people who will help me survive - not a house of worship full of morons doing nothing by praying or actually encouraging the disaster. No, we'll need duct tape, lots of duct tape and shovels. And folks to man those shovels 'cause that shit isn't getting shoveled into those churches by itself.

I am sorry that many of you willingly suffer such a miserable, depressing existence.

Miserable? Depressing? Sorry cap'n but from your posts here today you are one miserable fuck. Not too sure about depressed but whatever medication you forgot to take today certainly isn't helping with your delusions.
I give you 0.01 martyr points for your presence here today. 100 martyr points gets you a gold star from your favorite (or closest) house of worship. 100 gold stars are redeemable for eternal salvation. You can also purchase eternal salvation and a supplemental rider against being eaten alive by an octopus for the low, low price of US$1.5million.

Posted by: Steve_C | December 19, 2008 4:06 PM [kill][hide comment]

I think he was meaning ... "I would love for you to meet my fists", as one might say.

I could be wrong.

Oh! Does he have L*O*V*E tattooed between the knuckles of his right hand and H*A*T*E on his left hand?

Children!
Chiiild-dreeen!

WRMartin, I.S.

May Patricia and Janine have mercy on your soul.

Patricia, I think we need to recruit a third person so that we may become The Fates.

When is the last time any of you debated an actual expert on the other side of your beliefs.

I've debated many "experts". All pastors. But your question seems to assume that the majority of everyday believers that actually make up the body of the religion don't count as "informed enough" and thus if we are to count ourselves as truly solid in our stance we must debate an "expert". By even asking the question you admit what you're trying to pin on us; that most believers have no idea what they're talking about.

Why should truth matter one single bit?

How very relative of you. I do wonder if you've ever built anything important. Like a sky scraper or a bridge? Then the truth of statements like, 'This rebar only holds this much weight" become very important.

I'd love to meet one of you guys when you're not hiding behind a computer.

So that you could do what O' Follower of Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild? Turn the other cheek? Or do you think your arguments would be better off? Most of us talk faster than we type.

when the shit that you guys have propagated

Oh do tell! What have I propagated this week?

Whoops, there goes a gasket, Drew.

Rather than indulge the thinking-impaired in their delusions that atheism = hedonistic nihilism, I like to turn it around on them and ask,

"So, when you tuck your kids in and kiss them to sleep at night, do you tell them you only do so because you're afraid of God's wrath in the afterlife? Do you tell your spouse, 'I'd rape you, kill you, and rob your corpse if I could, but I don't wanna go to hell'? Do you grit your teeth while helping an elderly person off the bus, knowing that if it weren't for the fear of eternal punishment, you'd be merrily dismembering their bodies and dancing in the blood? If not, why do you break the commandments in your dishonesty?

Or, perhaps you do all of these kind things for reasons beyond your fear of God. And if so, why is it impossible for you to consider that I might do the same things for all the same reasons you do, minus your fear?"

Well, we are hoping for a lull in the action so we can all get the chips PZ planted in our brains adjusted. It is so hard to keep up with all these instructions.

I suspect that some time between 2:00 and 3:00 Drew got into the Alfredo.

Janine, You actually read all that?! ;)

Happy Monkey! You too Drew.

Comparing #462 and #471, it seems clear that either Drew is on something he shouldn't be, given his evident psychological fragility; or he's come off something he's supposed to keep taking.