Everyone keeps sending me this photo from FAIL blog. I think it's mislabeled.
This is not a failure. This is something working for once. Every church ought to have "Danger!" signs slapped on it. It's a success when churches are clearly marked, exceeded only by those wonderful moments when they are demolished or repurposed for some useful community function.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Here's a point I've often seen made before, this time by Mike the Mad Biologist and Shakespeare's Sister: religion provides an important social outlet in small town America. It is the social network, the source of community activities, and an essential part of the people's identities. It's more…
"He'll never catch up!" the Sicilian cried. "Inconceivable!"
"You keep using that word!" the Spaniard snapped. "I don't think it means what you think it does."
..."Inconceivable!" the Sicilian cried.
The Spaniard whirled on him. "Stop saying that word!" It was inconceivable that anyone could…
Everyone says "encourage your daughters to stick with math and science". And you want to do it. You're proud of your daughter, you want her to have every option in the world open to her. But what do you do when she resists?
A worried dad recently wrote with just such a dilemma:
Slightly off-…
A couple of days ago, Alom Shaha posted on the new Physics Focus blog (by the way, there's a new Physics Focus blog...) about his dissatisfaction with some popular books:
I recently read a popular science book on a topic that I felt I needed to learn more about. The book was well written, ideas…
I don't know that I'd want to credit churches with any kind of power at all. Most of them are perfectly good structures, after all, and some are wonderful works of art and architecture.
Nietzsche's still being metaphorical in the following, but it seems to hit closer to the point:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
"Children are strictly prohibited from entering this site"
lol
That is definitely a WIN!!!
lol, I was considering e-mailing that one too. apparently pharyngulites all visit the same sites. though my peronal favorite FAIL on there is this one: http://failblog.org/2008/09/29/opposites-fail/
I'm suprised you didn't post the one of the virgin mary statue that looks like a penis.
I agree with PZ. Not a failure in the least, rather it's a win.
This isn't the first time that failblog screwed up a caption.
Failblog in general is an exercise in irony. It fails for captioning all of the pics posted on it with "FAIL" (or occasionally "WIN"), often times when what's pictured is humorous, but not actual FAIL.
Personally I think the best use for Gothic Revival style churches is to re-purpose them as hard rock nightclubs. Although the CoE seems to prefer having them knocked down and a block of flats built on the remains instead, given their sales record of recent times.
Christianity - we won't look after God's own house but we'll interfere with yours anyway.
You're right. That's a WIN!
The dildo mary too.
Now if only we could get "Danger: Meme Warfare" signs slapped onto every one of God's brand-loyalists.
I heard that an English philosopher (I haven't been able to track down the reference) once proposed a law that all churches be required to have this inscription over the door: "VERY IMPORTANT, IF TRUE."
That would be an appropriate sign!
The Science Pundit:
"What now, bitches?"
Though, it wasn't directly their fail. It was the fail of the person who put the first caption on (the one that interpreted it as e^2pi).
FAIL FAIL
There should be a sign at the door: "Leave brain outside".
There is a small church in Flagstaff, Arizona, that has a private parking lot in a residential neighborhood. Part of the church's neighborliness was once set forth on a sign at the entrance to its parking lot: "CHURCH - KEEP OUT". Whenever we drove by, I'd say, "Hey, no problem!" They have since removed the sign.
Like, say, a bookstore! :D
The FAIL is for the church, not the signs.
Success!
This should be mandatory outside every church, synagogue, and mosque.
Er... You mean e^(i*pi/2)?
Especially since this looks like an Apostolic Pentecostal church. You really need to be careful, those people are batshit insane. One Pentecostal minister pointed out to me that the church is hospital. I didn't have the presence of mind to point out he is wrong, its an insane asylum and the inmates are running it.
Best use of a church building was the episode of "Sex and the City" where a church building was used as a gay dance club. All the gay go-go boys were dressed as angels in wings, g-strings and little else. Whoa, momma!!!
I always get annoyed when someone labels something at Failblog as a "fail" when it should be a "win".
See you again in a few days my saucy darlings!
This infernal machine has a nasty bug, and must go to the shop. Bye!
Perhaps PZ would have "slapped" his sign on the churches of Tolstoy, Bonhoeffer, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc.? Or the mosques of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, Mumia Abu Jamal (when he's out), and Masouda Jalal?
The fallacy that PZ can't seem to rid from his thought process is as follows: blaming an entire set of people for the wrongdoings of a subset. This is typical of him. Many churches serve as centers for community organization and support workers' and minority rights. Many are fanatical and oppresive. But, forever unable to think carefully and intellectually responsibly, PZ dismisses them all as equally worthy of the "danger" sign. This is just as fallacious as when a creationist fails to distinguish between Stalin's 'atheistic' regime, on the one hand, and atheism per se on the other.
It's been two minutes and nobody has called me a "troll". This is a record.
Somebody is an irrational ideologue around here, and it ain't the blogger.
Let me know when you have a substantive response.
Anyone else distinctly hear the sound of a crybaby crying?
You'd love Scotland ... they keep turning churches into pubs, restaurants and theatres. This one is wonderful, and there are a bunch more too.
Endor,
Please be advised of the reply (#28) to aratina.
Thanks.
Yep, lots of crybabies today. They all have nothing of substance to say. Maybe if they had a clue. I have map and compass I could sell them.
Sounds like one person is purposely trying to provoke a pharyngula attack. Why? Does this person feel that it is an accomplishment?
One of my very favourite repurposeing of a church (well... Jesuit Mission anyway)
You should see their dining room.
JC
Let me know when you have a substantive response.
I snapped this pic of Charlie Wagner just this morning.
Why is my comment automatically thought of as deserving a "pharyngula attack"? I would have thought that rational argumentation is more preferable.
Wow! When I read all of the venomous words that PZ was using in this very general attack on churches, I realized that there are others like me out there, and some of them can write so much better than I can. Thanks for not holding back, PZ.
I would have thought that rational argumentation is more preferable.
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson
Oh, no one gives a flying fuck.
Ichthyic,
Here's the proposition: many churches and mosques are bad and many are good; it's fallacious to claim that all are deserving of a "danger" sign.
How is this an "unintelligible" proposition? Or were you just letting an oversimplistic quotation do your thinking for you?
Or were you just letting an oversimplistic quotation do your thinking for you?
are you calling Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, "oversimplistic"?
I think you owe him a posthumous apology.
PZ=II, we don't give a shit what a troll like you says. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Well said Bill anderson , and very well said PZ myers!
- casey geer
#25
Wrong.
The "nice" people churches give credence to the mad bad people who use their apparent goodness as an excuse to do nasty things.
All the shit about community work and all the rest is just that, shit.
The good works are an excuse to pedal their wares to desperate people and make them obligated to the particular deity being pushed.
The broader picture of closing down the thinking processes of growing children is the real danger of these places.
I thought the same thing when I saw this picture. It's definitely a "Win", or at least a "Right On!"
It's a bummer, really, that scientists cannot effectively communicate to the public. Rather than potentially have informational and interesting dialogue, folks on this site would rather promote blind hate of all religions. Believing in god may be a choice that you abhor, but it in no way prohibits the ability to comprehend science. Perhaps more importantly, in an era where science is in need of money and needs the support of a religious populace to get this funding, I am appalled that those who pretend to share science with the community effectively promote the separation of the community from the academy. Get over yourselves and your beliefs, as well as the beliefs of others.
Perhaps the Surgeon General should issue an alert...
Warning:
Religion may be harmful to one's mental health.
Spiro,
Wrong.
Why?
The "nice" people churches give credence to the mad bad people who use their apparent goodness as an excuse to do nasty things.
Would you mind clarifying this? I'm not sure I understand the sentence.
All the shit about community work and all the rest is just that, shit.
Based on, what? Your say-so?
The good works are an excuse to pedal their wares to desperate people and make them obligated to the particular deity being pushed.
Don't you think this is an overgeneralization?
The broader picture of closing down the thinking processes of growing children is the real danger of these places.
I am not a churchgoer myself, but I'm skeptical that this is true in all cases. I know more than a few believers who tend to think critically, are well educated, and who don't force views on their children as far as I can tell.
Some religions are better than others. Did not the Bokononists blow up the Catholic church? My memory is a little hazy...
Hello pz=ii;
1) It's humor. No one here thinks churches are as bad as someplace really dangerous like Chuck E. Cheese (you'd be shocked the things I've seen there).
2) The serious side of it is that all churches *DO* present a danger of teaching dogmatic and unnatural ideas and concepts. Repurposing would be excellent, as some are nice works of art or at the very least sound structural buildings.
Good point, Jibber. It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who finds PZ's approach problematic (and, perhaps, counter-productive). I think that regardless of whether we're theists or atheists or agnostics, we should start speaking out against people like PZ.
I'm still hearing it. Will someone give the crybaby a cookie and a coloring book so he'll shut up for a while?
If you don't like what Professor Myers has to say, then stop coming to his blog.
Jibber = pz=ii sockpuppet?
All churches teach* concepts that are fundamentally incompatible with rational thought.
All of them. That some of them mean well does nothing to reduce the hazard represented by this flaw.
*by proclamation, not education.
... but then, let's do keep in mind this may also be seen as damning with faint praise...
More to the point: avoid both. Along with chain fast food and places that put trite little 'advice for livin' aphorisms on their moveable letter signs in general.
I've noticed a pattern on the comments here:
The religious commenters generally don't show up to defend their beliefs when the beliefs/consequences are spelled out and hard to defend.
But let PZ Myers post a bit of fluffy humor (i.e., an easy target) and suddenly there are several commenters spluttering away.
Pity. I've always thought it would be interesting to read a solidly intellectual debate over a religious point, but I've never found one. The religious side never holds up its end.
Crypticlife,
I think the picture is quite humorous; PZ's suggestion on the other hand is pretty disturbing.
Also, any view you care to pick out is in some sense "presenting a danger" of becoming dogmatic. That seems like a trivial truth.
It's a bummer, really, that scientists cannot effectively communicate to the public.
I suppose you think Carl Sagan never effectively communicated to the public?
or Neil DeGrasse Tyson?
or Rachel Carson?
or Richard Dawkins?
etc
etc
etc
it's not what we're communicating that's the problem; it's that a certain segment of the population simply refuses to listen at all.
This is what Nisbet and his ilk all too clearly miss.
The religious side never holds up its end.
It has no "end" available to it TO hold up.
Yet an other newcomer with a inaccurate blanket statement about how discussions are conducted here. No wonder pz=ii likes you.
Jibber: The proposition that science and religion can co-exist is a dangerous deception. Religion will in the end always be the enemy of science, since the former will forever contain the seeds of fundamentalism, no matter how moderate and reasonable most of the adherents at a certain epoch may be. As a matter of fact, if you are truly religious I don’t understand why you should not be a fundamentalist. That’s why we fight religion here, because we perceive it as a threat to civilization. If you fail to understand that then go whining somewhere else.
Icthyc asserts:
it's not what we're communicating that's the problem; it's that a certain segment of the population simply refuses to listen at all.
On the contrary, large segments of the population and academia in general have listened and have found your methods to be intellectually irresponsible.
"The religious side never holds up its end."
now why might that be *taps chin*
#48
"The "nice" people churches give credence to the mad bad people who use their apparent goodness as an excuse to do nasty things.
Would you mind clarifying this? I'm not sure I understand the sentence."
The Abrahamic churches are made up of millions of "ordinary" people. They may be gullible but they are mostly harmless and are horrified by what the extremists are doing in their name.
Those extremists are using their holy book and their Creed to justify murder and repression. Because the book is fiction it can be used to justify any form of action "in god's name."
"They don't worship the god I do" is the plaintive cry. Oh yes they do.
Many churches (particularly in Europe) have marvellous acoustics, so I don't think they should be demolished but rather converted into concert halls.
Perhaps they're waiting for a deity to step in and do the heavy lifting?
"Perhaps they're waiting for a deity to step in and do the heavy lifting?"
That, or they're waiting for a deity to smite us.
Someone has to post a link to that Mary/Penis statue. I recall seeing a "St. Peter" a long, long time ago, wonder if it was the same thing?
Jc
As synechdoche, the FAIL is spot on, sadly. Individual WIN.
those cultists.
No, I think jibber = Matt Nisbet sockpuppet.
Either way, its concern is noted.
Hell: the fantasy that intellectual honesty and effort will be punished by brute force.
pz=ii,
You may find it disturbing to repurpose buildings, but I do not. Nor does the demise of the church bother me in the slightest -- I look forward to it.
Religions are often dogmatic in the sense that they stick to their conclusions regardless of evidence. This is why you still have people believing the universe is 6000 years old, why you have children struggling with supposed "evils" they have no control over, and why people get threatened with kidnapping charges for removing crackers from a church.
Science in particular, and rational people generally, are willing to update their views with more evidence. A view that's held but is subject to change is, by definition, not "dogmatic".
pz=ii
is Charlie Wagner
banned from this forum ages ago.
has an imagined personal vendetta against PZ, and is bound and determined to flaunt his ignorance and whinging in order to vent it.
fuck off, Charlie.
Charges of "intellectual irresponsibility" from the religious just have to make me chuckle.
Wedge,
Sorry, I do not adhere to any religion or any kind of spiritual fashion show. (If you must know, I lean heavily toward naturalistic pantheism.) Criticizing PZ for his inanity, and one's refusal to submit to the narrow, illogical ideology of "new atheism" does not make one religious.
Then what made you think I was talking about you?
Ichthyc,
I have no idea who that is. But congrats on holding false beliefs without evidence.
You may be surprised to know this, but most of the outside world (=those not gullible enough to get caught up in the 'new atheism' spectacle) think PZ is an ass, assuming they have heard of him.
Wedge,
"I've noticed a pattern on the comments here:
The religious commenters generally don't show up to defend their beliefs when the beliefs/consequences are spelled out and hard to defend.
But let PZ Myers post a bit of fluffy humor (i.e., an easy target) and suddenly there are several commenters spluttering away."
If you weren't dismissing me as a "religious commenter", then I stand corrected.
Well folks, my break is over and I've said enough for today. Perhaps I'll be back tomorrow for more of your valiant "pharyngula attacks" against me.
Cheers
...most of the outside world (=those not gullible enough to get caught up in the 'new atheism' spectacle) think PZ is an ass...
This bozo demands a substantial dialogue and than drops unsubstantiated bullshit like this. An for a person who claims not to follow any religion, this person gets whiny when religion is dismissed.
Janine,
This bozo demands a substantial dialogue and than drops unsubstantiated bullshit like this.
Well, that's actually pretty substantiated. Most non-new-atheists (including atheists, not just religious apologists) can't stand new atheism (as represented by Dawkins, PZ, Hitchens, et al.).
Ok this is my last comment for the day.
Sorry, the first response to pz=ii was snark, so:
First, it was jibber who actually triggered my initial comment;
Second, seriously critiquing a joking post that churches should be labelled dangerous as 'inane' is a brilliant example of inanity.
I was laughing at the complete silliness of coming into this post and writing oh-so-serious comments about PZ's perceived narrowness and overgeneralizations. It doesn't matter if you're religious or not; it's absurd.
And then you lump religion in with the disparraging label 'spiritual fashion show.' How dare you overgeneralize about the sincerity and value of all religions like that? /sarcasm off
Unless you change your monicker, don't bother. Your monicker says your are here to attack, not discuss. Besides, you haven't said anything cogent ever, which is your real crime.
I'll be satisfied when the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest...
or words to that effect...
LOL... Perfect!
That's put a smile on my face this evening that I expect will last all day tomorrow too, at the very least :-)
really? Got any evidence for that? Keep in mind you said most, so surely you have something substantial to support that.
Well, that's actually pretty substantiated.
So you defense comes down to this; because I said so.
You get no respect because you give no reason to. Don't trip over your clown shoes, bozo.
My proposition is that all churches and mosques are bad and none are good, because they all belong to organizations that espouse a belief in a personal god.
The bicycle shop in Seeley Wisconsin is in an old church building. Imagine how great the the world would be if all churches were converted to bicycle shops.
I'm guessing that by "most non-new-atheists" she meant her kids, who have all turned atheist much to her displeasure... probably after reading Pharyngula.
Put me down for supporting re-purposing of churches for other functions. Many of the cathedrals throughout Europe are, in my opinion, gorgeous examples of architecture and art glass, plus the acoustics in some of them are really cool. The bookstore idea was great, and I've heard a couple of good classical music and choral music performances in them that were excellent, but the possibilities for re-purposing are numerous! How cool would it be to have a science or art museum, library, government office, educational center, or even a restaurant in the cathedral in Köln!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_Cathedral
No kings,
Robert
Here's the proposition: many churches and mosques are bad and many are good; it's fallacious to claim that all are deserving of a "danger" sign.
Mmhm. Many jagged shards of broken glass are colorful and quite pretty to look at; many are quite drab and uninteresting. But it is not fallacious to claim that they're all nevertheless jagged and sharp, and hence dangerous.
All religious institutions peddle in empty promises and false certainty. They sap resources and pollute minds with inanity and absurdities. That a given one may perform beneficial services to the community in addition doesn't change matters.
I'm just curious why you want to up the "persecution" on churches and Christians in America? Christinaity thrives under persectuion. Europe became non-Christian not because of closing down the churches, mocking Christians, or anything of the sort. People just ignored them. They stopped caring. Apathy is contagious. No one wants to be passionate about things no one cares about.
The Church was built on the blood of martyrs - so why the hell are you people creating martyrs? Stop it. Christianity is never going to go away as long as everyone continues making such a big deal about it. The less people care the more secularized Christianity will get. It was well on its way down but because everyone got paranoid about Islam after 9/11 everyone started caring about Christianity again. Stupid stupid stupid. Islam on the other hand thrives on violence and the only way one is ever going to get rid of Islam is through violence.
So to sum up: To end Christianity all we need to do is ignore it. Don't give it lifeblood it needs by creating martyrs. Just have patience. Good things come to those who wait. And to end Islam we are going to have to get rid of our PC idiocracy and our lack of the proverbial spine.
- Frustrated
Perhaps it is a failure on the part of the maintainers of the church - all owners of churches.
Wedge,
Then this is definitely not where you want to hang out.
Best use of church I've seen: The Church Brew Works brewpub in Pittsburgh. The alter is now where the brew tanks are located.
http://www.churchbrew.com/
why ? is this place somehow cursed so that the religious side here can not possibly hold up its end ?
I find two aspects of the "religion" discussion on this blog fascinating - first, how absolutist it is, and second, how counter-productive it is relative to the oft-stated goal of eliminating religion.
”If you don't like what Professor Myers has to say, then stop coming to his blog.”
or better, give your reasonable, uh... reason for not liking it.
Then this is definitely not where you want to hang out.
heddle just strokes his end.
it never manages to hold up for very long.
@79 pz=ii
"most of the outside world (=those not gullible enough to get caught up in the 'new atheism' spectacle) think PZ is an ass,"
That is false and untrue.
You are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong... and so you are wrong.
@#100 Scott Belyea
"first, how absolutist it is, and second, how counter-productive it is relative to the oft-stated goal of eliminating religion"
Define "absolutism." Now, mind you, I really don't think that we are commenting here to plan to how to get rid of religion. We are here only to discuss things amongst ourselves. Why respect idiots in this comment space? Idiots are to be respected only when the politics dictates that this is necessary - but not necessary in this comment space?
I'll be satisfied when the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOdARZ3bs0k
wait for the whistle...
@#25 PZ=Irrational Idealogue
"The fallacy that PZ can't seem to rid from his thought process is as follows: blaming an entire set of people for the wrongdoings of a subset."
Irrationalism is the fault of all religious people, not just the extremists. Irrationalism leads to such religious extremism. It is a very slippery slope to go from irrational beliefs to extreme insane beliefs. That is why all people of religion are to blame.
Actually, from what I can gather, that's fairly close to how heddle's theology works - he appears to believe in his god because he's under the impression his god magically turned him from an unbeliever into a believer, and that's the only way it can happen.
Therefore, we're to remain unbelievers until his god decides otherwise. How that works in terms of arguing in favour of religion I've no idea; it's not like we can change our own minds - only his god can do that.
"why ? is this place somehow cursed so that the religious side here can not possibly hold up its end ?"
Every place is cursed so that the religious side cannot possibly hold up its end. The religious side can never hold up its end.
I specially like the way the church in the movie Alice's Restaurant was 'repurposed'.
Enjoy.
thought insertion delusion implies heddle is psychotic
Now I know very well that if we were to rub Wagner's functioning neurons between a coupla dimes, we'd still just barely have 20 cents, so I shouldn't take anything that drooling excuse for an intellect manages to dribble onto the web as terribly representative of anything much, but it did strike me that the exchange back there did have a certain dynamic that intrigued me:
'New atheist', of course, is one of those labels that usually only pops up when someone wants to insult someone else (which, by the way, I might take as progress, as there was a time when just 'atheist' served that purpose a lot of places--apparently, we've taken ownership enough that said term on its own no longer goes the full mile...) Note also that like the standard 'politically correct' epithet, it has now developed an incredible flexibility. 'Politically correct' is what many species of deeply dishonest shills will call any idea they find vaguely progressive, really, now. Whether the once essential component you could actually legitimately criticize (deliberate control of discourse toward shaping thought) that term originally implied is in any way present is irrelevant to them. Similiarly, 'new atheist' is just any atheist who's ideas or expression you personally consider too radical or extreme.
But there might be a diagnostic for when they'll apply that term, after all--sufficient, at least, if not necessary (as in: they may find other excuses...)
So it is proposed hereby: if at base you see the essential issue with religion is the means by which it is spread--the fact that religion deliberately destroys or perverts the reasoning capacity of its adherents in order to survive--that religions ultimately teach their followers that any argument, however poor, however dishonest, however ad hoc, however riddled with flaws, is acceptable--and that these flaws may be ignored or excused or deliberately disguised as necessary if the argument props up the cosmology and/or code that is to be taken as part of that creed--indeed, if what you would change is that such deliberate (if occasionally covert) hostility to rationality and corrosion of reason is given any respect whatsoever--if what you would like to change in all who have fallen into these sects is a matter of priority: put your reason first, put honesty first, put loyalty to that group and that very ad hoc creed *second*--the very inversion of what these sects truly teach, whatever they may claim...
It is proposed hereby, if this is what drives you, they will call you a new atheist.
It's a misnomer, mind you, as this critique is not so new. It has been observed, again and again and again through human history. It is a fundamental and vital critique of religion.
But it is also one which is peculiarly threatening and incontrovertible, in that it is more difficult to deflect than most. If the charge is that the religious authorities are corrupt, this can be fixed or suitably hidden, or some mixture of both. If the charge is that a religion's adherents are vile and vicious, and social opprobrium builds to a pitch that defending them becomes too costly, those that are so vile may be shed by one means or another--indeed, by schism, if necessary. Regardless, the claim will be made: they weren't getting it right. They misinterpreted. Yes, the book said, verbatim, 'suffer not a witch to live'... But we didn't mean that, really...
But point out the deliberately antirational mechamism by which religion preserves itself, and there are few ways around. For this antireason is central to how they survive. Without it, they are dust.
Thus, if you point it out, in this atmosphere, where openhanded, direct and honest critiques of religion are making it into generally accessible media (and this makes it even more threatening), you are a 'new atheist'. Extreme. Shrill. To be ignored.
All of which code for: we can do nothing with you but attempt to label and marginalize you. There is no other way around.
T_U_T wrote:
You aren't the first person to propose that particular hypothesis, either here or on Ed Brayton's page - one of the other blogs heddle frequents.
Frustrated @95, I think you're quite misinformed about the recent resurgence of aggressive Christianity. You said:
I can't pinpoint a moment, but the "Religious Right" was an important political force at least by the time of Reagan's presidency.
And it's been worrisome ever since!
Scott @100, you've expressed two opinions, but not provided a rationale for us to evaluate.
--
Frustrated @95,
It claims to be persecuted whenever others don't accept its judgements or disagree with legal enforcement of its mores*.
In short, this is not persecution, and they will play the persecution card regardless; also, it's Nisbetian to consider we should not give perceived offense (persecution, in this case) because it will be used as rhetorical ammunition by them.
* Besides, they're hypocrites. Saying churches are dangerous is no more persecution than their saying atheists are amoral.
Theres's nothing blind about my hatred of all religions. I hate them for very good reasons.
Mr Chuck Windor (AKA "pz=irrational ideologue") will either stop using his name field to deliver insults -- ironically enough for a commenter with a grudge who accuses me of being mean -- or he will be banned.
I may toss his ass anyway.
Hi PZ, look what I found (if you've already seen this news story, please ignore):
‘The Tunisian captain of a charter flight that plunged in sea near Sicily in 2005, has been sentenced in Italy to 10 years in jail. The man started praying when he lost control over the aircraft, instead of initiating an emergency procedure. Sixteen people lost their lives.
Among the 23 survivors were the two pilots. The co-pilot also was sentenced to 10 years. The aircraft didn't make it to the airstrip in Palermo because of fuel shortage.
The lawyer said that the pilot had acted according to regulations. ‘‘When he saw danger, he called on god, like we would all have done’’.’
You know, I always used this example as one of the potential dangers of the religious mindset, but everyone always said I was making up a contrived unrealistic example. Now it actually happened.
You can buy old church buildings in some country areas in Australia. They make good houses.
Wash Hands after Touching Christians:
http://failblog.org/2009/03/06/fail-owned-disease-fail/
Another failure at calling a failure.
http://failblog.org/2009/03/22/holy-soap-fail/
Re: Post #48 You are a twit.
"Would you mind clarifying this? I'm not sure I understand the sentence."
-it seemed pretty clear, at least to anyone not predisposed to deny the premise. Religion has been regularly used to justify the basest behavior, all in the name of service to a higher power. At best, a religion may foster a sense of brotherhood within its own membership but it will have not the slightest problem with doing beastly things to those who follow a different set of fairy tales. People don't have to be religious to be good but being religious is clearly no indicator of benign intent.
"Based on, what? Your say-so?"
What's sauce for the goose, etc.. You seem to be fairly fond of making some sweeping statements based on nothing but your say-so, as in the last paragraph of your post, for example. There's a reason why those of a scientific bent don't generally pay a lot of attention to anecdotal evidence; it's almost always biased and usually just plain wrong.
"Don't you think this is an overgeneralization?"
Nope. Religions have two main ways of increasing their membership; one is the early indoctrination of the young of the existing membership and the other is the conversion of those who follow no faith or another faith. Preaching to a captive audience offers obvious benefits.
"I am not a churchgoer myself, but I'm skeptical that this is true in all cases. I know more than a few believers who tend to think critically, are well educated, and who don't force views on their children as far as I can tell."
Your statement is an example of fractal wrongness, wrongness at every scale. The premise doesn't have to be true in all cases when it's more than bad enough if it's true in one case and I think we both know it's more than one case...the really absurd faiths would have died out some time ago if they didn't have a continuing supply of new followers who had any potential for critical thought drilled out of them at an early age.
You may know more than a few believers who are this, that and the other thing. Believers in what, that the earth is 6,000 years old, that Man and Dinosaur co-existed, or was it merely that there's an invisible Sky Buddy who gives a crap about them? Belief, of itself, is no proof of anything and when a parent tells children that all manner of horrible things will happen to them if they don't follow a particular sort of superstition, they are harming that child for a large part of its life, maybe all of it.
We are doomed as a species to follow the merely pointless or outright horrible practices of the past until or unless we come to view the religious indoctrination of children as child abuse, and to deal with it as such.
If only that sign had been in front of the uber christian boarding school I went to for the entirety of my childhood. I may have asked more questions.
Seriously, that the church is a New Apostolic Church is the icing here. You know how some religious systems are more troublesome than others? That one pretty much out-crazies all the other even remotely Christian branches of the Taxonomy.
It's hilarious (and sad) when people name-drop Frederick Douglass and tell us we should be more respectful of Christianity because of him. Something tells me Douglass would have been happy to slap a few signs on churches:
We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the POOR HEATHEN! ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD AND THE GOOD OF SOULS! The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other.
as a long time reader of failblog, i think perhaps you guys are reading it backwards. the pictures is captioned, "church fail." it's the church that's failed, not whoever has put the sign up.
I think the perfect sign for a church would be the "memetic hazard" warning sign from this collection.
Breathtakingly sad headline French newspapers today: Old lady stabbed to death with crucifix in Lourdes.
The 81-year-old victim was killed by her daughter, who had religious visions: she thought she was the devil! (Possibly schizophrenia.) Both mother and crazy daughter were very Catholic and went to live in Lourdes to be close to the famous shrine. They shared an appartment near a church. Apparently, neither thought it might be a good idea to see a psychiatrist...
Article in English with Google Translate.
Thank you, jim1138!
In a darling example of "frying pan/fire" redesigning, one of our local churches here has been renovated as a...wait for it....a mosque...they've even put up the cresent on top where the cross used to be... I love the insidiousness of it.
On a more personal level I used to live in a renovated church in Innisfail (that, perhaps prophetically, did not survive Cyclone Larry)that was hot as hell in summer but had awesome acoustics....my old Dire Straits CD's never sounded so good.
That reminds me of the yellow church warning signs that my wife and I saw on our cross country trip. We mainly saw them in the southern states.
There's a "Christian Rock" group out there who did a song called "This disco used to be a cute cathedral."
Apparently they were lamenting the fact that the building was re-purposed. Me, I was just mildly amused at the idea.
Wowbagger #106
"Therefore, we're to remain unbelievers until his god decides otherwise. How that works in terms of arguing in favour of religion I've no idea; it's not like we can change our own minds - only his god can do that."
Hey,you got it: "By GRACE are ye saved through faith."
His god HAS to decide otherwise.
Wowbagger #106
"Therefore, we're to remain unbelievers until his god decides otherwise. How that works in terms of arguing in favour of religion I've no idea; it's not like we can change our own minds - only his god can do that."
Hey,you got it: "By GRACE are ye saved through faith."
His god HAS to decide otherwise.
Bugger!
Sorry about the double. I DID check to see if it had gone after the timeout.
Hi Windy,
Almost all of the people I listed criticized the organized church (as a mass noun and a count noun). You would have been better off to quote Tolstoy, if anything, since his criticisms were waged more frequently and vehemently than those of Douglass.
But in any case, your point is moot. Some churches should have danger signs on them, sure -- that much is undisputed. And counterfactually speaking, the thinkers I listed would have done so had they the opportunity. For some. You should note that many of these thinkers distinguished between helpful churches and corrupt ones. Indeed, almost all of them attended churches and even delivered sermons.
They did not think that the immorality of corrupt churches should veto out, as it were, the humanitarian ones. They were not guilty of hasty generalizations and they did not let broadly stated, ambiguous soundbites from the mouths of madmen do their thinking for them. They thought for themselves. So the question for you is, will you be like a fundamentalist and allow over-generalization to pollute your perception of your fellow human beings? Or will you be smarter than that -- will you be like Douglass and wage criticism precisely where it is needed?
As an escapee from the "New Apostolic Church" (that's what the sign says) I can testify that the warning is decidely apt here. In fact I'm fairly certain I attended that particular franchise of the organization years ago, and even played a small part in opening it in the first place. Ah, foolish youth...
Douglass uses a lot of generalizations, just like PZ did. It's rhetoric, goddamnit.
Why do I get the most boring trolls? Go sit on a church spire and bounce if you love them so much.
we should start speaking out against people like PZ.
Start?
LOL
You failed to heed the warnings, too late, your brain turned to stinky mush!
That warning can't be over-emphasized.
mental asylum = go in mental, come out hopefully san(er)
church = go in sane, come out mental.
Or a more preferred description - a whorehouse for the mind (with my apologies to all proper prostitutes).
[The religious side never holds up its end.]
Unfortunately, the majority of lay church-goers do nothing more than attend church. They do not spend the necessary time learning and developing an understanding of why they believe what they believe. They may know the Bible inside and out, but an appeal to the Bible holds no merit in the eyes of those who don't believe in God to begin with. So yes, I would agree that "The religious side never holds up its end" in a debate with someone of this predisposition. However, there are many an able debater who not only "hold up" the religious end, but in my experience, quite firmly tilt the scale in their favor, and not in a vengeful or demeaning way. For instance, Ravi Zacharias is more intellectually astute than I and probably the majority of post-ers to this blog will ever hope to be. If you are going to purport such a broad assumption, please provide examples.