Crazy Ken Ham has learned about the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and he has written his confused, garbled version of what it's all about. He's also done his typical cowardly routine of complaining about the convention and also, by the way, about me, but refusing to mention any of us by name, let alone linking to us. He can't have his readers actually seeing what the other side has to say, after all; the world must be filtered through the benevolent and opaque lens of the Maximum Leader, you know.
At least it's fascinating to watch a weak mind struggle to grasp something he doesn't understand…mainly because what he accomplishes is to reveal his own ignorance and bias.
Imagine--listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe! Now, that would be an uplifting conference!
From their worldview, wouldn't atheists see this meeting as a meaningless waste of time? Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning--but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations! All because they shake their fist at God--but why?
Yes, it is a meaningless universe; the universe doesn't care about us, doesn't love us, and is mindless and indifferent. That's simple reality. What we human beings do is wrest meaning for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background, and I think that's wonderful, grand and glorious — it's the process of finding purpose that is our accomplishment, not the imposition of an inhuman goal by a cosmic tyrant. This meeting will be a small part of everyone's ongoing struggle to learn and grow — so yes, it will be uplifting. It will also be fun and constructive.
Shouldn't it be obvious to Ham that his caricature of atheists is false? After all, we aren't all just gloomily digging our graves, lying down in them, and waiting for death, so it should be clear that we aren't a bunch of despondent nihilists. We're living and active. What could possibly be driving us?
The Scripture tells us they "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1). Basically it comes down to the fact that they don't want to have to answer to anyone--they want to set their own rules. They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be (or reject it altogether). They want to do what is "right" in their own eyes! Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!
Ah, that must be it. Atheists are just out to murder babies and mate with anything that moves. Or stops moving. Or something.
Again, since most atheists are productive and cooperative citizens of their communities, it should be obvious that we aren't self-indulgent anarchists, either. We do think there have to be rules, a social contract, that helps tie together the diverse people of our culture and permits civilized interactions between us. The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings.
We don't believe in a creator god, so we reject the notion that we are 'owned' by one, but you can't say that we find such a creator anathema — we don't believe it exists! What's repellent are self-styled prophets and priests (who are real) demanding that we follow their antiquated dogma.
It baffles the mind as to why these atheists even bother to try to aggressively convert people to their meaningless religion--after all, what's the point? The only reason they would even bother is if they are engaged in a spiritual battle. Otherwise they wouldn't care. They know in their hearts there is a God, and they are deliberately suppressing that, as the Scripture so clearly tells us.
Man, we can't win an argument with a person that stupid. We don't believe in gods, plain and simple. Ham says we do. How does he know? Because he has an old book that says we do. That's the problem right there: that rather than actually paying attention to the evidence, talking to people and recognizing what they actually say, the devoted relidjit would rather trust a book written a few thousand years ago that claims to be able to read the minds of 21st century people.
Don't worry. We'll have a fabulous time in Australia. I know that some small part of the conference will be spent laughing at Ken Ham.
Oh, yeah, that part where he talks about me. Of course he doesn't refer to me by name, or mention the blog, or include a link to the article he found objectionable, he just talks about that atheist professor in Minnesota who hates Christians and mocked Kent Hovind. Here's what I wrote about Hovind's recent online writings:
By the way, Kent Hovind is still putting up bizarre dialogs on his CSE blogs. He's been having conversations with God, dead Egyptian priests, and Christian saints, who all reassure him about how clever and smart and good he is, despite being in prison for tax evasion. It's pathetic and sad. There has to be a word for this: it's a kind of mega-sockpuppetry, in which it isn't just random strangers on the internet mysteriously popping up to back him up -- it's God and the saints and heroes of history who are all appearing as voices in his head to validate him.
Now brace yourselves and aim a fire extinguisher at your irony meters, because what Ham wants to argue is that I didn't realize Hovind's conversations with saints and deities was metaphorical.
Basically, Hovind created an imaginary dialogue with Potipherah (Genesis 41:45, 50) to point out that modern America has the same problem the Egyptians had when Joseph oversaw the years of plenty and famine. It's pretty obvious this post is designed to be understood as metaphor. The same is so for the posting with the dialogue between God, Stephen (Christian saint), and Hovind. Any Christian reading Kent Hovind's post would understand what he's doing with these writings. The atheist blogger would also have to say that C.S. Lewis talked with the devil and his fellow demons in order for Lewis to write the Screwtape Letters, if he follows the same logic! Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?
Uh, what? So Ham is accusing me of believing that these phantasms of Hovind's mind literally appeared to him in his jail cell? This is weird. I'm an atheist — I don't believe in gods or long-dead people manifesting in living conversations. Of course I see Hovind as playing a game — he's revealing nothing but his own sad perception of himself as a hero in these imaginary conversations, and that's precisely what is so pathetic about it.
The funniest part of it all, though, is Ken Ham lecturing me on how I ought to recognize that a religious man writing down what he claims are the words of God is so clearly just a metaphor and a literary exercise…when he refuses to recognize the same status of the books of the Bible that he insists are literally and absolutely true and of divine origin.
It's pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. It's Ken Ham who demands that it be regarded as the product of a conversation between ancient scribes and his god.
- Log in to post comments
Cue Twilight Zone theme music...
Well Hovind might actually believe that he was talking to demons--or maybe he believes that you're a demon.
The stupid that Ham infuses into his writings would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Does he honestly think that we don't recognize Hovind's rants and whines as metaphoric?
So PZ... I know of the best cocktail bar in Melbourne, the bartender there, Moses, can part the Red Sea of our sobriety if you so wish!
I know this post may sound off topic but it isn't, getting drunk is about the only way I can handle living in a world of christians.
I think Hammy sounds sulky - like you atheists are gonna planning a fun party that he hasn't been invited to.
Um, yes. So?
W?
T?
F?
I give up.
Seems pretty clear from PZ's post that he doesn't think Hovind is actually talking to god and dead Egyptians. Although, to be fair, considering Hovind believes in supernatural beings, it's not entirely clear whether Hovind realizes these conversations are generated entirely from inside his empty little head.
---------------------------------------------
Legion: Demons You Can Depend On
Sure, you were accusing Kent of being a polytheist, out in the open and all.
Ham probably realizes he could be that stupid, so he projects.
I love how horrible he makes it sound being owned by some arbitrary bastard like Yahweh, then condemns anyone who might object to such an idea.\
The slaves don't want to be slaves. That's the ultimate in evil.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
You could almost be quoting Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Goldman here, you know.
Unlike, say, Ken Ham. Is it just an amazing coincidence that his god hates everyone and everything that Ham does? Or do believers really think that without their misogynist, deranged dogma dictating what is "right" they'd personally have no moral compass whatsoever?
with a rose?
(Personal Warning to Janine: Do Not Click It!)
This has gotten to the level of pathetic. I would really like to see theists taking atheism for what it is instead of constructing a nihilistic strawman to attack. You'd think that they would be more than willing to engage the argument as the argument is put forth, after all it is us who they believe are misled so surely they could spend the effort trying to understand how it is that atheists (not as a collective but individually) could not believe.
At least in my experience, this does not happen. They (generally speaking) don't even seek to understand why it is I'm an atheist and will fall back on what they've been told about atheists by senior religious folk who don't understand it either.
No, Ken. We don't shake our fists at something we don't think exists. But we might shake our fist at you. Although it's more likely we will just laugh at you.
It's a common misconception among the faithful--I having been one of them with the same ideas--that atheism is no different than nihilism.
After all, if there is no Heaven to look forward to, what's the point of being good?
Then I realized, why would I be anything else? How would I be anything else? I wouldn't want to hurt anyone (unless she was into that kind of thing, but then again, I'm paranoid).
There again, even after leaving Christianity for Atheism, I'm still an utter failure with women. The endless, heathenish orgies that I was so hoping for when dropping God have yet to materialize.
The only time I've ever been more disappointed was when I became a nurse and my co-workers were all women in their 60s*.
If there's one thing Christianity and Porn have in common is that they're both full of horrible, shameful lies.
*No offense meant to women in their 60's, it's just that I was 20 at the time and even now at 32, I generally like to keep age differences within 5 years.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/ethics/ch1.html
Wait. Did I seriously just read that a Biblical literalist is criticizing someone of not understanding metaphors? And why can't I leave any comments for Ken Ham's article on his site? What a disgrace to existence.
Dear World, I feel as an Australian the need to apologise. So sorry everyone. Not everyone down here is as crazy as crazy Ken Ham or at least they are crazy about more rational things like Australian Rules Football.
America, the only country big enough to hide Ken Ham's idiocy. Say who did we exchange for Ken Ham? Was it Meryl Dorey?
I never have been to Ken's wonderful blog, but went there after reading this post....I wanted to leave a comment - "why do you, Ken, even care what 'they' do at 'their' convention?" - but wouldn't you know it...no chance or way to leave a comment.....seems as though he is a bit scared of what he might get....but I notice he and those of his "ilk" have no problem coming to this blog and leaving their WONDERFUL thoughts.
What a freaking JOKE....but, what should I expect from him and those like him (Pat Robertson) who spew HATE not LOVE.
Eloquence.
@ sbwright: Hell if I know. You exported Ken Ham AND Comfort, and not only did you not take any nutjobs off our hands, you didn't even give us anyone good for our trouble! As I see it, you owe us at LEAST one of the Chasers. Or a camera.
It's all so obvious! If somebody writes that God or some dead person spoke to them, it's a metaphor. Except when it's not a metaphor. And we know when it's not a metaphor because that's when it's real. But when it's not real, it's a metaphor. Well, I'm glad we have that cleared up.
Why bother? It's like dumping a baby on another's doorstep. Ken Ham is America's problem now ;)
The mind boggles at the idea of objective meaning - meaning independent of any mind.
#22
Some of the best logic I have heard in a really long time. Thanks for the clarification...didn't really understand what he was trying to say, but I do now. metaphor vs. reality...the next great religous battle ground for the souls of sinners.
"Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?"
It's like goldy and bronzy only it's made of iron.
Damn straight.
Wow, humans making a human-invented institution what they want it to be.
"They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be..."
[[citation needed]]
Any Christian reading Kent Hovind's post would understand what he's doing with these writings.
It doesn't look to me like Hovind thinks they're metaphorical.
And no, "Any Christian reading Kent Hovind's post" wouldn't necessarily "understand what he's doing with these writings". They aren't freakin mind readers. (What an idiot.)
The real WTF in all that is that he's quoting the New King James translation. What the hell kind of fundamentalist is this guy?
It doesn't look to me like Hovind thinks they're metaphorical.
I should probably rephrase that. It doesn't look to me like Hovind would mind one bit if people thought he was actually talking to all those made up pretend people. (Hovind may or may not actually be that far out there in cuckoo land.)
Pastor Farm - Don't worry you'll get there. The endless heathen orgies are held during the OM initiations. Until then you'll just have to take it on faith that bacon wrapped nipples, and men in fishnet stockings abusing the spanking couch exist.
D'oh! I wasn't supposed to tell you that.
Mr. Ham just wants us to be closer to what is right in the Bible. God loves you, and that is why he wants you to stone every bad-mouthing child, adulterers, gay, dwarves, fortune tellers, all those girls who love their denims, mixed-fabric wearers, women who wear pearls and golds, pig and shrimp eaters, men who shave their beards, then burn those promiscuous priest daughters, then sacrifice your child to appease him, then slaughter a lamb to cure leprosy, then have rape-victims wed their rapists, then have all men merry as many women as possible but don't let those women ever say anything without your permission, force people to wear hijabs, and then burn Ken Ham himself for being a false prophet! Can't you people see the divine truth in that? He wants you to do as the Bible says so that you can enjoy an eternity with the One True God(s)* in heaven.
*If he knew the origins of Genesis, he should be worshiping multiple Gods.
Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?
It would be kinda blasphemous if Kent Hovind were writing down pretend conversations with God wouldn't it? Writing down conversations with God and saying God says this and God says that? But they were all made up pretend God quotes? (Ken Ham = primo idiot.)
Sounds like what goes on every sunday all over this planet,and he gets his panties in a twist when atheists what to do it once a year.
BTW,anyone know a good abortion club to join?As an atheist I just love killing babies,perhaps we can lobby for it to be an olympic sport./sarcasm/ for those driveby creotards too thick to figure it out.
Hambo , the baby jeebus weeps at your fucking stupidity.
Well, as someone who is going, I know I'll be spending at least some of the time with my fellow godless as we enjoy a drink and laugh our asses off about what an ignorant, dimwitted, fucking clown shoe Ken Ham* is.
That's as much meaning as I need.
*Avoiding blaming any of it on the fact he's from Queensland - since both Bride of Shrek and myself (and perhaps some others) also hail from the 'Sunshine State' (as it's known here).
Please alert me the minute that program goes into effect.
Sorry, *the* best cocktail bar in Melbourne closed a couple of months ago. :~(
RIP Ginger.
Methinks that PZ should have wallpaper with the image of a college professor sitting on a saddled fiberglass dinosaur for when he writes about Ken Ham.
Patricia, bad slut! The only time we talk about the orgy is when there is a new member to induct into the club. I guess I better get you on the spanking couch.
'wicked grin'
You must be punished!
How convenient it is that Hovind's writing down of fictional conversations with God in order to elevate Hovind's status doesn't constitute blasphemy in Ken Ham's eyes. How conveeeeennnieeennnnt. (What a dope.)
@Rocky
I'll make you a deal. You don't need to apologize for Ken Ham as long as I don't have to apologize for Fred Phelps (aside from the fact that I've only lived in Kansas for less than three years). We all have our wackos.
Gyeong,
No. False prophets are in (Canto XX) Bolgia 4 — their punishment is to have their heads turned backwards on their bodies and to be compelled to walk backwards through all eternity, their eyes blinded with tears.
For mine, Ken Ham really belongs in Bolgia 6, The Hypocrites, weighted down by great leaden robes, walk eternally round and round a narrow track. The robes are brilliantly gilded on the outside and are shaped like a monk's habit, for the hypocrite's outward appearance shines brightly and passes for holiness, but under that show lies the terrible weight of his deceit which the souls must bear through all eternity.
Of course, it's arguable which Bolgia the Ham belongs to; there's a number of choices.
(ref: http://jade.ccccd.edu/Andrade/WorldLitI2332/Dante/dante/DanteCiardi.html)
My bad.
Well hell, for you Mistress of Abuse I'd better dig something exceptional out of the naughty trunk. *smirk*
Religious people really don't see contradictions, do they? The same brains that believe that a country could literally (?!?!?!!!) make a pact with the devil *could*, in theory, believe that they are talking to all sort of people that only they can see. What I find interesting is that they act like they are so kind and caring that you really should join their community and you will be at peace with yourself and the world. If you refuse to join or if you join and don't obey, however, the conditional love comes out and all of a sudden you are a mortal enemy. Their god is all about conditional love as well. What a coincidence. No projection there.
To paraphrase, Ken-MYOB.
Patricia, your encouragement is appreciated. And I want you to know that I do have faith. In fact, I'll live every day by a strict but arbitrary moral code (that I'll pick and choose from what's easiest) which I will use to judge the rest of the planet. Because I know that when I die (that's when all the best things happen!), I will have an eternity of all the bacon, nipples, and nude dog-piles a corpse can handle.
The rest, I guess they'll just have to suffer through an eternity of God's love. And that just sounds dirty and painful to me.
John, in Revelations aren't false prophets tossed into brimstone?
We need to find a bigger sulfur pit.
Pastor Farm - Then choose the sluts code.
"All things in excess, moderation is for monks."
Somebody here can convert that to latin, and you can have it emblazoned on your shining armour.
Gyeong, that's the False Prophet (singular) in Rev 19:20. Not sure the Ham qualifies; he's not exactly someone who's "wrought miracles before him".
Like I said, I think he's just a hypocrite.
Ken Ham is a mass murderer. I wouldn't waste the time counting the number of poor innocent strawpeople he murdered in PZ's post. Won't anyone think of the strawpeople?
He accidently got one thing right, that infinite number of monkeys typing thing.
We don't care about wacko religious kooks. We do care when they try to force their sickness on us and destroy our society. Fundies like Ham are blatant about seeking to destroy the US, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.
We and many tens of millions oppose his toxic cults. Many of those are other xians. It is a matter of personal and national survival.
Ham is aware that 70% of the kids in the cults leave after age 18. He just isn't bright or sane enough to figure out that the fundies have nothing to offer anyone but a rerun of the Dark Ages.
John Morales is correct. Also see Matt 7:15 and Matt 24:11.
Patricia,
I don't know latin, but can use the internet.
First approximation:
Omnis nimis, temperantia ob coenobitae.
Thank you, Patricia. My new motto is now Totus redundo. Temperantia pro monachus.
Amen.
Also, for whatever reason, "suck it, Ham," translates to: Combibo is Ham.
sbwright #18
Don't get me started on Meryl Dorey and her death dealing and horrendously misnamed Australian Vaccination Network. If there was ever a reason to have post dated abortions she is it.
As for Ken Ham, I've always been amazed how those who profess to be moral and righteous because they have an omnipotent lawmaker are those groups which have the most trouble restraining themselves. Look at the paedophilia rampant in the Roman Catholic Church and the high number of pack rapes in Australia committed by faithful Muslims, and the Muslim clerics who blame the victims for acting like discarded "cat meat" rather pointing the finger at the pious who can't keep their penises in their pants.
That brings up a point. I remember from photos of his "museum" that a large amount of young Christians become irreligious or non-practicing. It was in the "modern world is without the bible" exhibit. At the same time, there was another exhibit claiming that Christianity is raising in the number of followers (next to a picture of a Hindu god that is actually older than his 6000-year old universe.) So either he's lying about one thing or another or both, or he honestly believe that you can be the moral majority and the oppressed minority at the same time.
I think the book of Job had something to say about that.
This is one of the stupidest of the fundie mantras.
Why does Ken Ham hate and shake his fist at Mickey Mouse, Tinkerbell, fairies, Thor, Bob the Rain god, and Zeus?
Using his logic, if you don't believe in undetectable supernatural beings, you must hate and defy them.
Pastor Farm, I bow to your evident erudition.
Please don't John, I'm pretty sure I just happened to Google a different English to Latin website.
I have to say your Latin looked much more Latin-y than mine.
Hopefully someone can clear this matter up.
Thank you Patricia for directing me to the proper quotes.
Also to clarify one of my comments, Hindu gods can be traced back to animist traditions which predates the supposed creation of the world. (Yahweh, also, has it's roots in pre-Judaic traditions which predates the creation of the universe).
Ha, ha! Thanks John. I should have asked you for my new motto to the Veterans Administration Chaplains Dept. - "Go fuck yourself." Which isn't in my copy of the Complete Idiot's Guide to Learning Latin. (I confess I haven't looked at it for months)
omnes in effusio quia temperantia ab monachis
that's the best I can do, but someone whose Latin is less rusty will have to prettify that. it's not very smooth, and just barely grammatically acceptable :-p
oops, forgot to close the i-tag :-p
Interesting that sties such as Ham's do not allow "feedback," discourse, dialogue.
Perhaps that unintentional misspelling wasn't misplaced after all!
Let me give credit to the original author of the sluts code, Robert A. Heinlen, in a small illuminated book called The Notebooks of Lazarus Long "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." My copy published in 1973 cost $4.95, that must have been the good old days.
Patricia @59, fututio ipsum, as a first approximation.
Anyone surf over to Ham's blog and notice the links to "Already Gone"? Fills me with some hope that those who are God-soaked as kids come to realise the insanity of it all.
Salt brine - that will "cure" Ham.
John @65 - Really? That doesn't sound naughty at all. Ahh, I was hoping for something like: E Humanus Fornicatus Maximus.
See that's bullshitus Latin.
Sorry, Patricia.
However, Ken Ham is indubitably a coprocephalos. :)
(greek, latin, what's the diff? :))
I really think we have to laugh at these clowns more often, and more publicly.
Ham and the like are way beyond ridiculous.
raven @ 49,
That also applies to their thinking, and their way of acquiring knowledge.Their proposal to do this is essentially that of St Augustine from the 5th century, "don't look at nature, look at what's written in our book".
It's all very sad.
Oh man, this is gonna be the BEST convention I've ever attended. I'm already gathering props:
1) Glow in the dark life sized octopus for centrepiece of dinner table
2) What Would Dawkins Do? T-Shirt to wear at Pharyngulite drinkies
3)Blow up cow sized dinosaur for getting PZ cowboy shots
4)A 10 inch "perfect fit" banana which is actually a rather discrete ( or indiscrete depending on how you look at it) dildo, again a potential table centrepiece.
5) the 8 copies of Gideons that I have filched from various hotels since I first decided to attend the conference. This is my new hobby. I nicked the first one for Rorschach but anyone else needing toilet paper/scoob rolling paper/litter box liner is welcome to one.
5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.
*faints*
"Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!"
THIS. RIGHT. HERE.
Slave mentality. "So and so owns me, thus I have to do whatever they tell me to do and like it." They are so afraid of taking responsibility for their actions that they willingly enslave themselves to an imaginary figure.
This is complete BS and I can't stand how they can be so blind that they can actually utter sentences like this while somehow still feeling righteous.
5) and my latest addition- a leather studded bra with peekaboo nipple holes just in case Kenny boy decides to turn up and I can flash my fabulous ta-tas at him.
Bride, for a moment there, I thought you were referring to the long banned troll. It must have been a near death experience.
Rorschach wrote:
Well, it's lucky we'll have a doctor to look after y...oh.
BoS - am I still on the list for the table with you guys?
Of course you are, you better be, but in the case that you're not, I shall make the BoS wear the leather bra when she shakes Prof Dawkins' hand I swear.
:D
Methinks that Ham is trying to deflect a little ridicule from his bruvver in bollocks Hovind...but for the grace of Yahweh there goes I kinda thang!
Hovind, Chick, Ham and Comfort all use the same sort of language and the same two dimensionality in their speel.
They pitch the morality stories and credulousness at a level of a seven year old.
This is either indicative of the average mental age of their marks or they really are pitching the effluent at seven year olds...give 'em the child they will give you the retard kinda deal!
Hovind, as well as et al, is obviously mentally retarded in IQ allotment and is arguably suffering from a form of schizophrenic megalomania!
The inability to admit or understand his crime, or brushing it aside with 'a for jeebus' defence.
Then blaming the government and tax authority for his predicament smacks of classic dissociation.
(Neatly ignoring the reality in which he asked for and got advice from an attorney that told him how to possibly avoid tax and who was himself struck off another's state law register before he landed on Hovind's doorstep...which Hovind probably regarded as a gift from heaven in his insanity.)
Hovind is relegated to playing xian martyr, pretending to talk with figments and characters that might be recognisable to the average victim in his delusional version of reality.
Of course casting himself as a victim is just the egocentric currying of sympathy and support of his dilemma at the hands of an uncaring and godless secular authority, bit like jeebus without the excuse, or indeed the nails.
Although metaphorically speaking he might be getting nailed in other ways!
His defence during his trial was cringe worthy from beginning to end and is still remarkable in the fact that some jerk off lawyer would actually go into a court and argue his clients case based on his clients insane refusal to realise the shit he is in, again classic mental illness.
Ham is probably trying to reconcile rumblings and mutterings in his own flock and at the same time take a poorly aimed pot shot at atheists.
When in doubt attack is the xian maxim!
'Explaining' the Hovind descent into barking dementia the Hambone is also into the damage limitation phase of fundamental pig shit spouting.
Bad bizzyness when one of their own goes into dementia and publicly exposes the fact!
What to do, well for an xian tis easy, bit of cognitive dissonance of course.
The characters in Hovind's discourse are performing in an 'allegorical' cameo!
Funny how when shit is flying a sudden lurch to rationality is an easy step thus neatly indicating that Ham can be a shade or two more rational when required.
Also indicating that Ham knows exactly what he is preaching and realises that there is more cash in lying about an inerrant fact in a fairy story then admitting to a allegorical meaning to his pet hobby.
But when needs must and as a fire blanket 'allegorical' will do nicely, it also indicated that Ham knows what allegorical means, interesting no?
The pop at PZ was to easy a shot to punt.
Of course a certain twist to the rant means that Ham could trumpet a superiority in front of his marks...at least in his own universe... to them danged intelektuals!
A certain misinterpretation is all that is required and depending on his flocks literary ignorance can claim victory while appearing astute!
Switch, bate and roll the dice...the xian way!
...which reminds me - we really need to have an atheist singles night so we can, erm, 'construct some subjective, personal meaning'.
Hey - perhaps all the singles could wear badges with that on it:
Hello! Can we create some subjective, personal meaning together?
Tassie Devil (who has now been outed by google)
Ham is totally confused. It's not his silly non-existent god I'm not believing in because of being pissed off at...
It's John Frum I'm refusing to believe in because I'm pissed off at him.
Two years - two fucking years spent building a bamboo air traffic control tower, and I didn't get jack shit for it.
Fuck you, John Frum! I am SO not going to believe in you until it makes you CRY!
I'm all for that. I'm sure I'm not the only one...
If your going to the convention, and haven't already done so, pop on over to http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=2208 and let us know.
I also live in the "sunshine state". We must need the excuse to escape the "god botherer state" more than others need to leave a burning building.
I've made up a name badge with my usual online avatar and name (DanDare). The convention seems to have built up a reputation as some kind of '60s event. Wonder what it will be like?
See you there!
dannystevens, the aussie Pharyngulite horde has planned to be there for months, and will be there in full strength, so no need to advertise around here LOL
Please elaborate ?
That might actually be a good idea so people know who everyone is. The pharyngulites won't need them tho since we will get together on the Friday, socialise and get a little wasted just to warm up..:-)
#15:
Bacon: the foundation of modern science and ethics.
Humans are greater than gods; others have said as much in past centuries, and yet religion will have us bow down to something that does not exist - worse still religion would have us listen to liars who claim that they speak for this god and know what it wants. A lying president who claimed that this nonexistent being spoke to him was bad enough - fortunately we now have a president who does not appear to be that delusional. (I hope he does less damage, and with any luck some good.)
Where was this benevolent being as humans studied the natural world and learned to manipulate it - to fly, to leave the earth and touch an alien world. No doubt he was raping the children of his adherents in order to teach his adherents a lesson of some sort. Perhaps he was murdering people in droves in one of the wars he inspired, just as we see him demanding murder and mayhem in the old testament. Or perhaps he's just putting words in the mouth of his sock-puppet Ken Ham. Or perhaps Ham is the puppet master?
Hi - first post here!
I love the blog, PZ, and the neat way you skewer the morons like a narwhal. I'm far from godless myself (Deistic Celtic/Norse pagan) but I would rather live next door to an atheist than a fundie of ANY stripe.
I'd also like to apologise on Queensland's behalf for Ken Ham. He does, however, provide me with some minor amusement.
For those who haven't seen Bill Maher interview Ham in Religulous.
Ham [stern, angry face and voice] to Maher: Are you God?
Maher [shakes head, resigned to the stupidity]: No.
Listen to the brief DVD commentary to hear the love Maher and Larry Charles have for Ham.
And while were at it, the Bible's absolute reverence for the Egyptians, one more time:
Rampant nuttery seems to best describe the US christoloonies (and a few others elsewhere).
Notice that the latest one spewing godfucking bile is Pat Robertson over the disaster in Haiti.
How low can they get? And how can people become such zombies that they accept the shit?
The more that is exposed the more frightening The God Virus becomes.
Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM @ 39;
Wait, there's an orgy? Why does nobody ever tell me about the orgies? Its not fair damn it!
You just know that the likes of Ken Ham are going to get the vapours about atheist 'sexual immorality' right about now. The response is easy enough to imagine;
"Orgies! *cluthches pearls* They are talking about orgies like filthy heathens! Won't somebody think of the children!"
Of course what this actually translates to is;
"What! Even the damned atheists get orgies? No fair! I knew I chose the wrong religion. I could be enjoying a nice pagan fertility rite about now, but oh no! I had to pick the weird, prudish god who has 'issues'."
Bride of Shrek OM @ 71;
Ken Ham is utterly undeserving of your fabulous ta-tas, though I am sure that plenty of your fellow Pharyngulites would be highly appreciative. ;-)
The Dude: Fuckin' Ken Ham... that creep can spew, man.
Walter Sobchak: Yeah, but he's a pervert, Dude.
The Dude: Yeah.
Walter Sobchak: No, he's a sex offender. With a record. He served 6 months in Chino for raping a piglet.
The Dude: Oh!
Walter Sobchak: When he moved to Ohio he had to go door to door to tell everyone he was a piglet rapist. [sic]
Donny: What's a... piglet rapist, Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut the fuck up, Donny.
I'm so excited, and can hardly wait for the conference here in the 'spiritual wasteland' of Australia (according to my ex father-in-law). I've ordered some new t-shirts, have the kids organised, and am ready for some wonderful godless knees-up - WOOT.
Are we going to have a drink at Y and J's to salute Chloe?
Slap some Mayo on that Ham and take it out of the toaster oven, it is all done.
Rev @ 90,
priceless !
John Morales @#42- I've never read Dante, but I did read "Inferno" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. In one scene, one of the damned states "We are in the hands of infinite power and infinite sadism".
It was never clear whether the speaker meant Satan of god. Which, I suppose, was the point.
Ken Ham simply cannot wrap his brain around this bizarre idea that "some people do not believe in God." Not only can he not picture the universe without the Magic Skydaddy scrim hanging in his face, but he can't imagine how other people can live without that illusion. There are no atheists in Ham's universe; just people who don't want to worship his God. Through that lens, it's no surprise that the atheist convention looks so bizarre to him.
That, and he's cottoning onto the fact that we heathens really know how to have a good time, and without the hangover of guilt afterwards.
[i]"The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings."[/i]
God couldn't have put it better himself.
Sorry, that should be: satan or god.
[/Rev]
It may be useful to understand a bit of background here. When Ken Ham knifed his former friends in Australia, Wieland et al, one of the more curious things that occurred during the split and subsequent acrimony surrounded a difference of opinion in how to handle the "creationists even *we* think are crazy" question. A lot of website material common to both organisations before the split was now hosted separately. Ham's (AiG) site removed a piece critical of Hovind, and the spurned Australian branch (Creation Ministries) kept theirs up. As insane as both sides are, there was at least the suggestion from Wieland that "the brand" could be tainted by not reproving (be it ever so mildly) loons like Hovind with his "Dinos are alive and well in Indonesia"/antisemitic/9-11 conspiricy theorism gush.
This new blog post from Ham is educative, as it is, as far as I know, his first pronouncement on Hovind for some time. And what does Ham do? Defend Hovind.
Ham is crafty, have no doubt. Evil, but crafty. He dare not come out too strongly against egregiously bad creationists like Hovind or Baugh because it DOES NOT MATTER how shonky their "other" beliefs are; their money is still more valuable. Do they *still* pedal discredited Creationist arguments AiG caution against using? No matter. Are they likely to be antisemitic? Hush now. In prison for a *decade* for tax fraud. Dismiss it in a line but don't separate yourself from Hovind supporters by disowning him.
I think Ham's little rant was just a keep-alive tickle to show he still hasn't got the guts to just come out and say "Hovind is a crazy man's crazy. Don't touch him! You'll get the crazy too!"
Rev #90
Lebowski reference... and on bowling night no less! Sweet serendipity, you rock Rev...
#99
"Ham is crafty, have no doubt. Evil, but crafty."
It is probably more about maintaining a flow of cash through the turnstiles of Ham's circus then any 'bruvver in de crap' thang.
If Ham denounces Hovind not only does he create an internecine war of words b'twixt 'n' b'tween Hovind clones and Ham clones...but...
Comprehensively screws the fishing of demented fuckwits that want to believe crap, cos if they war the stupid get caught in between Ham's comic version and Hovind's comic version and being not that bright they might become Buddhists and split the difference.
America is big but having the two of the largest monuments to absurdity bitch fighting is not good bizzyness!
Just politics really..the seedy kind!
it should be clear that we aren't a bunch of despondent nihilists.
Of course, many nihilists are not despondent.
Well, so I've heard.
DaveH of Lundun.
RickR says:
Well, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.
I think Satan has infinite power in Catholicism, but God's infinite power is of a higher cardinality.
#103
"I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power."
Then why does Yahweh and his brat have such a hard time combating Beelzebub.
Is god supposed to not have infinite power...if so then Satan is holding his own...ergo he has infinite power as well?
Seems god has not the cojones to handle his old pal!
Which, of course, creates yet another conundrum for christianity.
If god is of infinite power, and satan is not... why would god not simply do away with satan and all of his evil tricks that apparently cause us poor stupid humans to question god's existence?
Just blink satan out of existence... it seems that, for a loving, caring, compassionate god, that would be the thing to do to. Think of all the poor Haitians that would be alive today if god had only done away with satan, right Pat Robertson?
So either god is unable to perish satan, in which case he is not god and why should we care... or he is unwilling to perish satan and allows him to harm, seduce, and otherwise affect unwitting humans, in which case he is sadistic and sociopathic.
Either way, why the fuck would anyone want to be associated with such a being?
I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham's AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting. Despite all the spam about which you continually complain. I'm really sorry you get so much junk, P.Z..
However, thank you for keeping it open. I like that very much.
#105
"Is god supposed to not have infinite power"
Better as 'Is not god supposed to have infinite power.'
#106
Reminded me of the classic Epicurus poser...
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?
The blustering and puffing I usually get from committed xians for this is magnificent in its desperation!
"Well, not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power."
Perhaps not, but he's certainly King Cheese of The Hot Place.
[blockquote]It's pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. [/blockquote]
I don't 100% agree with this. The book of Genesis when it was written was probably meant to be taken literally.
I know this is supposed to be a red herring, but it has to be the saddest one I've ever seen. What it really says is "I can't imagine finding meaning in anything other than the banal self delusion I indulge". Stating that you need an imaginary parent and a contrived "happily ever after" ending in order for your life to have meaning has to be the ultimate nihilism. If that is really what makes life livable for you, then why even bother?
I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham's AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting. Despite all the spam about which you continually complain. I'm really sorry you get so much junk, P.Z..
However, thank you for keeping it open. I like that very much.
There is the difference. Ken Ham's site is where to go to receive the revealed wisdom from holy man. There is no interaction for the readers. Here, while PZ may start the topics but this blog is fueled by the interaction of the readers.
I dislike the lack of ability to comment on K. Ham's AiG website, as opposed to how Pharyngula has open commenting.
If he interacted with the logical musings his sheeples flocks, they would quickly discover what an idiot he is. (For example, in this case they would wonder why Ham doesn't think it is blasphemous for Kent Hovind to post fake conversations with God onto the internet, and other idiotic theological stuff like that.)
Huuummmm, 386sx, could it be that our tentacle bearded, baby roasting, nihilist overlord is able to stand up to more scrutiny than the devout Ham?
That's what always bothered me about the story of Job. According to the Bible, God's all-powerful and all-knowing, and Satan knows this. Yet Satan makes enters into a wager with God? Why would Satan do that? Why would you bet against somebody who's never wrong? And what is God thinking, letting it happen? He lets Satan torture and murder women and children just to prove that Job will stay faithful. Hell of an ego.
Huuummmm, 386sx, could it be that our tentacle bearded, baby roasting, nihilist overlord is able to stand up to more scrutiny than the devout Ham?
Yes I believe they would soon find out what an empty headed fool Mr. Ham is. Most of them are probably too steeped in "stupidness" to question Mr. Ham's words, but other people not of his flock would sneak in there and point out the obvious stupidity and emptiness of his words.
The Jewish version of god isn't really much of a nice deity. That was the point of the Job story.
Xianity has evolved over time. These days satan isn't very powerful while god is all powerful. It used to be that satan was planting all the fossils to hide the existence of god. These days it is god hiding the fossils to hide his own existence.
While god is more powerful these days, he is still a monster.
baliset: When Ken Ham knifed his former friends in Australia, Wieland et al, one of the more curious things that occurred during the split and subsequent acrimony surrounded a difference of opinion in how to handle the "creationists even *we* think are crazy" question.
So, there might be a case made for Ninth Circle....
Anri: I don't know of any formulation of Christianity in which Satan has infinite power.
Depends whether you view Satanism as a heretical Christian sect or not.
Yes, that one bothers me too. All too often I see people use the logic "It seems stupid if I interpret it literally, therefore the authors obviously didn't intend me to believe it." - forgetting that with this particular book, there's plenty of precedent for places were stupid things are meant literally, so it's not as if that rationale can be universally applied as a rule of thumb here.
#115 KOPD42 And wouldn't an omniscient God know what Job would do (the outcome of the bet)? And what's the payoff to the winner - gold? jewels? a night in Las Vegas at the loser's expense?
@ Hypatia's Daughter
Re: Job, you would not believe the mental gymnastics theology uses to jump that hurdle. Every sect (Jewish and Xtian) has their own take on it. A very good Yale Open Course on the Hebrew Babble refers to the story's beauty. Yeah, the killing of a man's family and cattle by YHWH and then to be afflicted by boils, etc. is so edifying. Masochistic in the extreme.
Isn't the 'Satan' of the Bible and of original Christian Theology more like God's Beta Tester then some sort of rebel and ultimate evil anyway? I think we're asking the wrong questions in asking why there isn't more of him in the bible for this reason.
Yes, Rutee, he seems to be a sort of prosecuting attorney for the heavenly court in the Job story. The theory is that exposure to Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian exile) led to the idea of Satan as a powerful source of evil. YHWH got to remain the most powerful (and blameless), and Satan has had bad press ever since.
Nerd @ #1
I'm a bit late in responding but The Hamster's rantings make much more sense if you listen to this at the same time instead.
abb3w says:
Ah, good point, I didn't even consider that angle. I don't know much about Satanism as it's actually practiced (if there is anything that ogranized - the few 'Satanists' I have met seem to defy any sort of central dogma.. or for that matter, any sort of sense at all...) So I have no idea how their central worship figure is expressed.
....
My expression of the problem of evil is, of course, nothing new, and my take on it is nothing original with me.
Interestingly enough, I've only ever heard two cogent relpies to it.
A few Christians I have spoken with hold that god, while powerful, is not actually ommnipotent. This seems to conflict with the description of god as 'almighty', but they seem to think that that's just shorthand for 'really, really powerful - no, really powerful!'
The other response I have heard is that in demonstrating the contradiction between god being ommnipotent, perfectly good, and yet still allowing (or doing!) evil, it is claimed that this is the shortage of man's thought and language when applied to god. In other words, we cannot concieve or express god's might or goodness with our limited human facilities.
Of course, the answer for this is also straightforward - aside from the obvious question about god not bothering to make us capable of understanding him - a believer is left with a (twofold) problem:
If words cannot express god's mind, if we can't even try to capture it thusly, then you can't explain it to me using words, and therefore all holy writ is garbage. All of it.
Also, many fairly smart relgious people have happily applied logic and language to the existence and wishes of god - presumably they must all be wrong as well. Baibai, Christian philosophy.
Speaking for myself, it's this twisted snake's nest of logical mess at the heart of Christianity that keeps me from entertaining it even as a faith-only, evidence-free kind of dogma.
In my experience, digging this deeply into what one of the faithful actually believes just elicts an uncomfortable shrug from them.
"Yes, Rutee, he seems to be a sort of prosecuting attorney for the heavenly court in the Job story. The theory is that exposure to Zoroastrianism (during the Babylonian exile) led to the idea of Satan as a powerful source of evil. YHWH got to remain the most powerful (and blameless), and Satan has had bad press ever since."
I'm not sure on that, because I've never heard of the Jews giving a damn about him, which they would if it was taken during the Babylonian Exile. I thought Satan went from Prosecuting Attorney to Evil Deity sometime during the Dark Ages, after Satan had already been conflated with several deities of other mythos to try to bring in converts from the area (Like how the Norse myths we know of technically come from after the christianization of the area)
Satan is literally "the accuser". He doesn't cause or promote evil, he's the angel tasked with reporting on it. Beelzebub ("Lord of Flies," from Baal, the old Canaanite deity) is the more common name for the evil power in the New Testament.
It's all fairly confused, but the take-home is that in the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an agent of God, not his opponent. Conflating the idea of the devil with the serpent in Eden, for instance, is entirely a later Christian fabrication. No such implication exists in Genesis.
No.
What we do is wrest fun for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background!
Now excuse me. I have a manuscript to review want to review a manuscript I was sent!
TREASON!
I never got mine! <trying to lift ridiculously large sword off wall, and failing> Who's in on the conspiracy!!! I should kill them where they stand!
<sob>
If there were a god, the sluts would be ignorant instead of me.
That comes afterwards. First comes Deuteronomy 18:20–22.
Urgh. That's probably just an innocent typo, but it's like saying "for he" when you want to say "for them". You want -is, not -us.
You have another typo in the next paragraph – you wanted id ("it"), not is ("to them").
However, combibo has the ending for the first person singular. You the imperative singular instead, which ends in -e.
Quia! That sounds good! Unfortunately I can't at all remember if it's appropriate. :-)
However, I'd replace omnes by omnia (the neuter form), and ab means "away from" – "for" is good old pro.
That would be the noun, followed by "male-singular-self”. What you want is…
FVTVE·TE·IPSVM
…or ipsam if you're talking to someone female. Or vos ipsos (male plural) or vos ipsas (female plural).
:-o
Aren't these three mutually incompatible options?
"The Bible"? Both of these concepts occur only in parts of the Bible that are younger than the Book of Job.
And the "omnibenevolent" part is younger still. Rather than the mildly henotheistic heavenly court full of divine sons ("God's Beta Tester", LOL! :-D ) found in the Book of Job, the Book of Isaiah declares monotheism in no uncertain terms. So mono- that there's not even room for a devil in it:
Even Islam doesn't go that far.
I think simple confusion is more likely.
WTF?
How did I miss out on this during my OM initiation?
Oh yeah. Link to Isaiah 45.
David Marjanović, now that is a good chapter to remember to stump bible-thumpers and an easy one, too: the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything + the Trinity.
How did I miss out on this during my OM initiation?
I could have sworn that I sent the invitations to every recipient of the OM for every initiation orgy. I will have to check my records.
Well, I guess the secret's out now, but there appears to be some confusion. What she neglected to mention, of course, is that the OM-initiation orgies are (with very few exceptions) women-only events. It's a bonding thing.
harumph
It's a bonding thing.
And a branding thing.
Oops! Did I say that?
And Janine and Patricia really need to stop talking before the Orgy Committee comes for them. Next thing you know, they'll be describing for all the world in detail what we do with the bac
Talk about some well-earned Gumbies! (Just in reference to the post; I haven't read the comments)
Um, kind of not safe for work. This is where we have to be careful about the branding and cooking.
Thinking about it, our orgies and kind of dangerous.
I'm not sure if I'm horribly disgusted or extremely turned on.
Having read the comments; ta-tas, bacon, Ham, and Isaiah! The only things missing are GOATS ON FIRE!
I believe there is no way for sentient, emotion-laden existence to not be "meaningful". A life-containing universe cannot help but have purpose. I get a little frustrated when atheists agree that for the universe to have a meaning, there must be a God behind it, therefore the universe has no ultimate meaning. What the universe lacks is an ultimate Plan, but that's not the same thing as ultimate meaning.
The "purpose" of life is not something we "make for ourselves", because then we would get invent morality, and we don't. (Only God, supposedly, has the power to make up what's right or wrong. Not.) The badness of suffering is part and parcel of what suffering is, and the same for the goodness of freedom and pleasure. In short, my opinion on the subject is "brute facts, brute facts".
The longer atheists talk about meaning as solely something we "make for ourselves", the longer theists will assume us to be relativistic or nihilists, and in a cartoon way, too. I do respect and appreciate nihilism, I just respectfully disagree. I think. Maybe?
No person "makes the meaning" of a butterfly — it is meaningful exactly insofar as it is a butterfly. If this is nonsense, I would say it is less so than the nonsense of a butterfly's meaning coming from an outside force, be it God or PZ. If everything were rational, nothing would exist. :)
Well, I digress in the sense that a butterfly becomes more meaningful the more people are there to appreciate it. But that's not the same as "choosing" whether the butterfly is meaningful. We have no choice in that matter.
Ham and sons of Ham (figuratively),
You are *begging* to be made fun of. And you wonder why we don't respect religion? Ay gevalt! You sure do a good job of alienating people who are smart and rational.
Just occurred to me: Shouldn't Ham and the rest *want* atheist to be fruitful, multiply and organize? Wouldn't this help bring on the Rapture, which Xians want? Same reason they support Israel? I support Israel, but for a different set of reasons, I'm afraid.
I didn't read all the comments on this section, but how did it veer into an orgy chat?
The part of me that is turned on by the thought of women's nether regions is turned on, while the part of me that immediately reaches for the soap after handling uncooked meat really hopes she's going to hop in the shower right after.
Sex and OCD don't always make the best of partners.
Him, walking into the bedroom to find her naked in bed: "Oh, honey, you look delicious! Are those chocolate-dipped strawberries? Rowr, I am so turned on right now." [Grabs the strawberries and leaves the room]
Her: "Hey, where are you going?"
Him, in the kitchen, putting the food in tupperware and into the fridge: "Oh, you didn't think we were going to eat these in bed, did you? Those sheets are Egyptian cotton. But I am so going to show you how turned on you make me once I've got these put away. So hot! Say, you washed your hands after touching these and before you got in the bed, right? Maybe you should wash 'em again, just to make sure. God, I love you. Hey, how long has this milk been in here?"
Man, sometimes I really hate my life.
It's a law of pharyngula threads that given a certain amount of time, all conversations will inevitably veer towards either bacon, lesbians or orgies.
Clearly, this needs a name...
Or some combination of the above.
Raven @ 117;
So Yahweh has leveled up to a level 80 Epic evil deity?
"Clearly, this needs a name..."
well instead of having a tasty BLT, we could have a BLO.
your turn...
Occasionally we'll talk about scotch whisky or biology.
I like those days, I end up learning a lot.
Hypatia's Daughter @ 120;
No silly. The payoff is succulent, tasty souls. Lightly fried in a guilt garnish and seasoned with a sprinkling of unecessary suffering for flavour.
Yahweh and Satan are quite the connoisseurs of fine spectral cuisine, you know.
I say that god is getting weaker. 6,000 years ago he could poof the entire universe into being in less than a week. A couple of thousand years later he couldn't manage a restart of the Earth but had to settle for a big flood. A couple of thousand years later he died and it took him three days to reincarnate himself. Nowadays he's reduced to showing himself on slices of toast and dog's asses.
More than weaker, he's getting senile. Bushfires were raging in Victoria, countless prayers for rain to put it out and what happens? Severe flooding in North Queensland. Missed by 3000km. If that's not senility...
ab also signifies an actor, so in my version it would work like "modesty is what monks do" :-)
I would like to claim that my integrity is unimpeachable, and that I cannot be bought.
Unfortunately, this is not true. I would pretty much believe in any god that provided me with an endless supply of bacon, lebians and orgies (not necessarily in that order). Well, just so long as the deity in question was not an evil sociopath like Yahweh.
So far, the FSM in the lead. If any other deity wants to make me an offer, then they know how to contact me.
and of course the moment I hot post I realized when I said "modesty", I meant "moderation" :-p
'Tis Himself, Om @ 151;
I think you have a point there. I can just see a destitute Yahweh, dressed in a old overcoat stuffed with rags and newspaper, down to his last few coins. Bottle of rot-gut booze in hand, he rails against the cruelty of his lot:-
*Imagine druken, rambling tone*
"I used to be a power to be reckoned with, you know! I was a real player, back in the day. Everyone was scared of me. Even the fancy-pants ancient gods like Zeus didn't dare diss the Y-man. I created everything, all this around us now, in just one week. Actually, it was all done in six days. I put my feet up on the seventh, just to lety everyone know whose the best! *hiccough*
*belch* Someone got on my bad side and blammo! They were gone, just like that. I took out almost all you little humans like that once with a great big flood. Can think why for the life of me now. I was a bit of a rascal back then. Tee Hee! Watching all the humans run about like headless chickens was hilarious! I laughed myself sick! Well, that might have been the hangover actually.
*stagger* Where was I? Oh yes. I used to be the big man, but you know what I do for a living today? Do you? No? Well I'll tell you. I reveal myself to you ungrateful apes on peices on toast and dog's arses! That's right, dog's arses! Its so damned humiliating. Still, I'll get back on my feet, and then you'll be sorry! I'll fix all you lot but good. You see if I don't!
*collapses in a corner, and starts snoring loudly*
Badger3k, not sure what name it will sign me in with.
I agree - Australia, you owe us all a new camera, or else I (and we) will take you off our facebook friends lists. As soon as I put you on, that is.
Irony, thy name is Ham.
The commanding language; the crisp, pear-shaped tones--I'd recognise a graduate of Stuyvesant High School anywhere.
The whole Kw*k episode was worth it solely for the sheer comedy gold Brownian yet still continues to find there.
Jeebus that shit is funny, Brownian.
"crisp, pear-shaped tones."
I still haven't stopped laughing, and people are starting to look at me funny.
Yeah, this is the one that gets me - and which I like to point out to Christians whenever I get the opportunity. Why is something powerful enough to create the universe (albeit in six days) suddently reduced to the status of irritable pissant rain god?
And what about those iron chariots? What kind of wuss-god is driven away by iron fucking chariots?
a magnetic one?
I've never encountered anyone so indignantly baffled by everyone's reaction to him: clearly we were expected to respect his upper class superiority AND his ability to mingle with the common man.
He did everything but call us "townies" and cry that we wouldn't let him sit at our booth at Pop's Chock'lit Shoppe.
Still makes me howl.
No Sven: magnets attract iron objects.
@128
Yeah: Brigid, the Fire of Inspiration, is my Goddess-focus because she represents Creativity. Odin is my God-focus because he represents knowledge and sacrifice.
I'm Deistic because I believe in higher powers, I just think they've got better things or don't give a crap about us. :P
Lots of mythological critters can't handle iron. Celtic elves, unicorns, various færies have an aversion to iron. So it shouldn't be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron.
It should if it's the same god who created the bloody stuff in the first place. What, he didn't know he was allergic to it? Did that slip his mind when he included iron ore in his Six Day Recipe for the Universe?
HELLO !
Remember, the omnipotent creator of the universe had to rest when he was done.
Enough said.
Gregory:
... it would be a malicious god indeed that supplied me with an "endless supply" of lesbians, especially if they were the only other actors in the orgies. The bacon is scant compensation.
I think Ken has a point. I, for one, am getting very tired at shaking my fist at God all the time. And not just Yaweh but Baal, Ahura-Mazda, Tiamat, Marduk, Zeus, Poseidon, Ixchel, Xbalanque, Yen-Lo-Wang, Osiris, Baldur, Amaterasu, Mithras ...well you get the idea.
I don't know why I have all this rebelliousness in me against things that are nonexistent. I'm worried I'll start up on ghosts, yetis, and chupacabras soon. All this disbelief is so damn time-consuming.
....*stumbles in*...
Damn, that last OM orgy was a doozy - I just woke up. What'd I miss?
Buuut David...dear, some of us sluts ARE ignorant.
Now Carlie, we're both going to get chastised for mentioning...you know what. Off to the spanking couch with you my lass.
Bacinis. Resort '11 preview.
Carlie
I know the feeling honey, last OM party I went to I innocently put my car keys in a communal bowl that was sitting on the table and *bam* someone tells me I have to sleep with some guy called Smoggy.
Well, sure, so, you know, any god who didn't want, like, chariots stuck all over her would try to avoid the area, right? If she was magnetic and saw them coming?
Hey, wait...is this..."Theology"?
Bride of Shrek - Oh bad luck dear, but it could have been worse. I drew the keys to the stock trailor, and there was Floyd Rubbers bloody Southdown ram... those damned horns are murder.
pssssssst...you're forgetting the ZFirst and Second Rulez of the orgies...
Well, there was that time that I drew the Truth Machine's keys. It was interesting but damn was it rough. TM did not think my fucking was intellectually honest.
TRUTH MACHINE!!!
yeek, reels off to the grog keg... helmet, someone give me a helmet. shriek!
That must be one of the funniest things I've read for a long long time...:-)
Ah, fortunately only the day old grog keg. If it was the 7 day old grog keg, she might have undergone spontaneous combustion with that much downed, or with 10 feet of an ignition source...
*spews drink across the room*
Gold!
Crap. He's going to come for me now, isn't he?
Just by mentioning him by name we'll invoke his wrath. Now we're all gonna get our butts kicked.
Janine has won her Golden Clusters with that remark.
Oh wait, are Golden Clusters larger than Brass Bosoms?
I hear that, at sleepovers held for members of high school debate teams, if you say his name in front of a mirror five times he'll appear and take you to task for your poor argumentative skills and lack of knowledge...
Well if I could just get these damned ram horns sorted out I could deal with the Truth Machine. *snort*
But Janine has a love Jones going.
Well, I finally had time (time won from regular time-to-go-to-sleep) to read parts of this thread. Janine @178 that was fucking priceless ... and surprisingly intellectually honest.
I love you.
At the OM orgy following my mollydom, we added jello to the usual decadent rituals. This was done in honor of my love for the Jello Corridor in which I live. Rev BDC, this detail is just for you. The jello was green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlkJ7JXETr0
Man I could have used that 10 years ago, even today really. It's just not fun unless someone is taking you to task and therefore pushing you to be better.
All I can say is - Mr PZ you dont have to refute his arguments point by point, dont let him frame the argument.
Unfortunately, as I'm in the UK, following my OM (won, of course, under another name), I've had to take part in the induction orgies by video-link only. OK, I'm a fairly visual person, but a virtual spanking couch just isn't the same!
Lots of mythological critters can't handle iron. Celtic elves, unicorns, various færies have an aversion to iron. So it shouldn't be surprising that a mythological god has the same problem with iron. - 'Tis Himself
The semiotics of iron are fascinating. There's also the Hindu cosmology, which divides time into successive ages of gold, silver, bronze and iron - each worse than the last; I think this has a counterpart in ancient Greek mythology too. My guess is that this disparagement of iron is a bit of upper-class nostalgia: in the bronze age, the most effective weapons - bronze swords and spears - were limited to a small military aristocracy by their expense, in turn due to the limited supplies of tin. One iron-smelting was invented, this class monopoly of effective violence collapsed. The magical properties assigned to iron may reflect the corresponding lower-class glee at having a way to counter upper-class depredations (iron of course also made many non-military activities such as ploughing and tree-felling very much easier).
Maybe the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet, but I've read antirick's comment 5 times and STILL can't figure out what he/she is saying.
@Patricia, Janine, SC, et al: thanks for the morning laughs (bacon, lesbians, spanking couches and all).
'nother laff for Janine
And I begin to perceive the faintest wisp of an outline for the plot of Pharyngula The Movie...
or, wait, are we still working on the Opera? Even better.
Wait, there was a key swap? I wondered where everyone had gone and why I had to clean the place up by myself...
Knockgoats @ 194
By my reckoning we're now in the Hindu age of Artificial Polyamides. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it though.
That key swap was for sex?!
Um, whoever's Acura this is, I'll leave it parked outside PZ's with the keys in it. The timing belt should probably be tightened. I don't know how that blood got on the front bumper.
Brownian?! what did you do to my car?!?!
:-o
Mark my words: the FSM had His Noodly Appendage in this.
Interesting. That was withheld from me. I'll have to look it up sometime.
...
No comment. This is my meatspace name I'm using here.
"I'll beat you up bad, but good!"
– Donald Duck
Now that's a strange combination. After all, those with knowledge tend to know how to get away early enough.
upon further consideration, it doesn't quite work in the way I wanted it to work. it does signify an actor, but probably more in the "bread comes from bakers" (panis ab panifice) sort of way. which still technically works, but it's not what I wanted to express. I wanted to express general possession, not whether something is given to (pro) or given by (ab) someone; however, my latin grammar is too rusty for that.
*glare*
be nice, or i'll force-feed you raw mushrooms; with vinegar.
"Now that's a strange combination. After all, those with knowledge tend to know how to get away early enough."
...Um, Gandalf? Spock? Granted, they're not worshipped, but...
I meant it in the other direction. I wasn't complaining about that typo; that would be silly.
...as fictional characters, they can behave as illogically as they like and still be called wise or logical, respectively. :-)
Applies to the gods, albeit some, such as YHWH (יהוה) are best called insane. And certainly fictional.
I cant wait for Myers to do a one on one debate with Kent Hovind once he gets out. We should video it and send a copy of the DVD to every Christian in Australia. I myself will promise to distribute 1000 DVDs for free if Kent Hovind takes the challenge.
I cant wait for Myers to do a one on one debate with Kent Hovind once he gets out. We should video it and send a copy of the DVD to every Christian in Australia. I myself will promise to distribute 1000 DVDs for free if Kent Hovind takes the challenge.
The debate should occur in the peer reviewed scientific literature, the only place where science is refuted. By more science. If the deluded Hovind has any real evidence he gets a chance to present it. Failure to use that route means he acknowledges he is nothing but an delusional ignorant evidenceless conman. Oh, he has had years to show us that...
bold font troll @ 206,207
I don't imagine Dr Myers has any plans to debate convicted criminals, for one.
And I fail to see the relevance of this for "every Christian in Australia".
It appears that the religion chosen to be criticized is the one most feared to be true: Christianity.
SETI smelling the coffee at last?
The uniqueness of the tremendous amount and varieties of ‘remaining’ life on our planet has led to two predominate schools of thought:
Since SETI’s silence has become deafening, it looks like Prof Davies’ legs are getting wobbly on #2. His best recourse is now looking for life only where #1 claims it occurred.
Written in love & concern, RogerS
-
RogerS #210
How did you get this from Myer's comment? Pretty well all religions have creator gods. There's nothing particularly special in this respect about your favorite pet god. Also your comment doesn't follow from PZ's
Pope Benny doesn't like condoms and so lies about them. Your particular buddy Ken Ham thinks everyone should ignore reality and accept a 2500 year old myth. Mullahs have rape victims imprisoned for immorality. Etc., etc., etc.
Nope, nothing there to even hint that Christianity might even be true. We can provide arguments to show it's false, but you don't want to hear those, do you?
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say with your SETI argument. Davies is suggesting that we look for exotic microbes in Antarctica. That's because Martian meteorites (bits of the planet Mars) have been found there.
Out of all the billions of species of life that exist or have ever existed on Earth only one certain and a few possible species are intelligent (the jury is still out on cetacean intelligence). Intelligence seems to be a very low probability attribute for life. But very low probability does not equal zero. So why do you think out of all the trillions of planets orbiting trillions of stars in this immensely vast universe there's only one intelligent species?
Written with pity for your limited world view, 'Tis Himself.
No, all religions and gods are false. Show conclusive evidence otherwise.
Nope, just looking in more places. Welcome to science. Still searching in my spare computer time for ET.
The ownership comment definitely fits Christianity:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (KJV) What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Today, it looks like the ones who need to come clean are the so called 'Scientists':
-RogerS
Are you familiar with 1 Wowbagger? 'And yea, a scumbag shall come forth and preach the word of Yahweh, who is no god at all but an illusion believed by the foolish.'
My book says your god doesn't exist. Got any means to demonstrate otherwise?
<headshake>
RogerS, you have a lot to read about Climategategate (the scandalous quote-mining and otherwise misrepresentation of a few carefully cherry-picked e-mails coupled with arguments from ignorance and lack of understanding plus a specifically American political, ideological agenda).
There were lots and lots of ScienceBlogs posts about this for a month or two. How is it even possible that you noticed none of them?
It also fits lots and lots of others, Islam and Judaism come to mind immediately.
Again, your ignorance is speaking. You have not even read the book Rare Earth (Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee, 1997) which argues very convincingly that, while life arises very easily, it is extremely improbable that intelligent life* evolves from it, because that requires a large number of conditions (the right amount of water so that plate tectonics etc. etc. can happen, a large moon to keep the axis from wobbling too much like that of Mars does, the right kind of distance from the center of the galaxy so that heavy elements are available but there are not too many supernovae or other dangerous events close by, and the list continues for hours), the combination of which is exceedingly rare.
Ward & Brownlee conclude that there are probably lots and lots and lots of planets where beings comparable to bacteria live, but almost none where beings comparable to a tree live, and extremely few, perhaps even just one, where beings comparable to a human live.
* As defined by radioastronomers: "capable of building a radio telescope".
BTW, what for would Elohim create such a huge universe when there's life on just one planet? You are the one for whose ideas the lack of SETI success poses problems.
Written in complete lack of knowledge of the vast majority of the relevant facts...
I don't doubt the sincerity of your concern, nor even that of your love. They're just both founded on arguments from ignorance, ignorance which is easily remedied.
Your concern is entirely unfounded, and you are lazy. Too lazy to sit down and learn. Catholics call this "sloth" and "one of the 7 Deadly Sins".
No, the meteorites were found on the ice, not in dry valleys. He's noting that life occurs on Earth in places that would have been thought sterile 100 years ago, places similar to ones that are known to occur on other planets and certain moons. Looks like he agrees with the Rare Earth hypothesis.
Written by someone who didn't do the research necessary to understand what happened, and what was there. No "smoking gun" was present in those e-mails. Not to say they weren't quote-mined (a favorite lying tactic of creobots like you) extensively in an attempt to show wrong doing. But, when everything was looked at in total and with the proper perspective, there was nothing there.
Still no conclusive physical evidence presented for your imaginary deity. Tsk, tsk. One might think it doesn't exist, and your deity exists only between your ears.
Hi RogerS
Long time no see or hear.
Are you coming back to explain Flood Geology on the everlasting thread? If I remember, you left a few things outstanding.
Best wishes
Alan B
What do you think we were taught in the govt. subsidized school system? The EVO theory is as bankrupt as the subsidizer.
Darwinian evolutionists hide behind a (pulpit) of “science” while spewing nothing but (religion). Etc., etc., etc. Notice how "religion" dominates Pharyngula “scienceblogs”.
Roger S, most of us are at this thread. It is a direct continuation of what you and Alan started about a year ago. Only now we just passed 20,000 posts. Join us there.
Sorry, but evolutionary theory is good science. It explains the totality of life on earth without the need for a deity. It is the only scientific theory of biology out there. Your ideas are religious ideas. Religion simply cannot refute the science. That requires more science. Science your side never puts into the scientific literature, because what it does isn't scientific, and they know it.
Ah, the old science as religion bullshit. Something you can't prove, but your side make a big deal out of. And it all starts with the fallacious concept that everybody must have a religion. Sorry, some people don't have religions.
Science has no gods, no priests, no holy books, no churches, no parishioners, no theology, no tithes. Science is nothing but a methodology for examining evidence, and figuring out how the world works. Science expects to continually improve, so some ideas will change. Just honest evidence looked at in an honest fashion, without the need for your deity.
As I said above, your old threads have continued and can be found at the link above.
Repetition must be some type of coping mechanism for creationist. They've been saying this since the theory of Evolution was formulated
<smoke coming out of ears and nostrils>
Enough is enough. Have you ever noticed, moron, that there's more than one country on this planet!?!
Did you know that the only halfway rich countries with a noticeable proportion of creationists among the population are the USA and Turkey?
Your links don't work, and your sentence is akin to colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
There's no such thing as Pharyngula “scienceblogs”. Pharyngula is one of dozens of ScienceBlogs. There are many where religion is never mentioned, like this one...
Dear David M,
You are now not far from Creationism and the kingdom of God.
An observation,
Roger,S
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "true" means!
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "love" and "concern" mean either! I will gladly use them when I mean "smugness" and "contempt"!
Translation: I approve of slavery !!
Translation: More smugness and contempt, just for you !!
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "science" means !! And "religion" means whatever I want it to mean, too !! Say, how do you like my latest false equivalence, which I gladly claim to be true equivalence, because I don't know or care what "true" means !?
Translation: I do not actually know or care what "religion", "Pharyngula", or "scienceblogs" mean !!
Translation: Since I have no idea what science is or how it works, I will gladly make moronic and insane assertions based on my profound ignorance and apathy !!
Only in your delusions. Solid scientist, who knows how weak and non-existent the evidence for you imaginary deity is. And how non-existent the evidence for creationism is, since it is based on a book of myths.
Translation, I have no evidence, so I must bullshit with religious word salad.
OK, I'll admit it. I'm glad RogerS is back because I missed the translations.
I suspect that if he stays, he will incur the banhammer for epic godbotting, wanking, and mind-boggling insipidity.
It's not like he's keeping the thread going any longer, or inspiring geoinfodumps.
What? Has Owlmirror out witted you?
What? Has Owlmirror out witted you?
A dead cat could outwit poor Roger.
But can a live fuckosaurus outwit RogerS?
But can a live fuckosaurus outwit RogerS?
0x0=0
they would just spout irrelevant gibberish at each other.
the only thing that would lose would be anyone trying to follow wtf either of them were trying to say.
RogerS could outwit RogerS, and frequently does.
(Hence the fractal wrongness.)
Dear RogerS,
Once again you demonstrate that you don't understand what you're reading. The Rare Earth hypothesis does not contain a single miracle. There's not the slightest need for anything supernatural in it. It's all so simple! Why drag a ridiculously improbable, completely unnecessary assumption into it?
Why?
Because you want to believe it?
Isn't that the worst imaginable reason for believing anything?
To follow up on my observation, the list of necessary conditions is long – but the list of planets in the galaxy is longer still. It is therefore not at all surprising that the entire list of conditions applies to at least one planet.
There are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone, Roger. Many stars have several planets.
"A-million-to-one odds happen eight times a day in New York City."
If he made an effort to understand, he might realize that there is an enormous short-circuit in his epistemology, and then he might lose his faith... and that would be bad™.
At a bare minimum -- more recent estimates have been upwards due to the discovery of a bar in the spiral of the Milky Way. [1],[2]
SCIENCE & EMPTINESS
Eight Notable Predecessors:
Matthew 7:26-27 (KJV) And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
-Written with love & concern,
RogerS
THE scientist at the centre of the "climategate" email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.
Roger, the reason the man was depressed, was because of fuckwits just like yourself.
do you feel no shame in your continuing attempts to murder people by suicide?
...and I'll trade you a Ted Haggard or a Gary Aldridge for every Boltzmann or Berger you wish to trot out.
Liar.
RogerS @ 237:
Mm hmm. You write gleefully of suicides, not caring in the least about the context of those deaths; you exhibit no compassion nor do you care at all about the contributions of those people. They gave a great deal more to society than you and your ilk ever have.
You are a prime example of the self-absorbed nastiness which forms the core of too many religious people.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26 (KJV)
Translation: I still do not actually know or care what "love" and "concern" mean and will still gladly use them when I mean "smugness" and "contempt"!
No, written with hate and contempt. We know the Xian codewords Roger S. NOTHING you say fools us.
Roger S, if you find science evil, do yourself a favor and take science out of your life. You will need to remove all electronics and electrical devices including your computer, TV, radio, and electrical service. Cease using all cars, medicine and medical treatment, purified water, grocery stores, plastics including polyester clothes. Go work on an Amish farm, and never, ever set foot off of it. Or, shut the fuck up.
I lift up a light in gross darkness for those standing on the precipise.
Translation: Unless you comes to the light you are "good as dead".
A work in progress,
RogerS
What light? Your deity doesn't exist, no conclusive physical evidence for one. Unless you have an eternally burning bush to present to science for study. Your babble is a book of fiction/mythology, and you can't prove otherwise with evidence. So all you have is your delusions, which we don't care to share. Take your delusions elsewhere. I suggest a mental health professional.
Wow, are you disgusting, Roger the Dodger. Are you disgusting.
First you insinuate that it's normal for scientists and inventors (…not remotely the same thing…) to kill themselves by listing a laughable 7 examples. With a slight bit of effort, you could compile a list of tens of thousands of scientists who died peacefully and of a natural death. But I know you won't, because you prefer to keep lying to yourself.
Then you insinuate that the only reason ever to kill oneself is to find oneself complicit in deicide.
The stupid! It burns!
In your next comment, you go on to simply state that your favorite story is "the light". First, my friend, you have to establish that that story is true… then we can discuss whether it's "the light".
Really, I think you're projecting. I think you are depressive and believe everyone else must be at least as depressive as you – simply because you can't imagine what it's like to not be depressive.
BTW, precipice.
Christians never kill themselves.
I knew about the 200 billion number, but wasn't sure if I had confused it with something else, and about the bar and the 2 instead of 4 main spiral arms. But the number of 400 billion was news to me! Thanks!
Translation: My ego is gargantuan. And my ego declares that there is a new way to spell "precipice".
Translation: I want you all to be dead unless you worship my gargantuan ego.
Translation: An intellectual suicide in progress.
Parade's over, McQueen e'x'its into eternity.
-RogerS
I guess in creationist statistics sample sizes of n=1 suffices, especially if the claim fits your agenda.
Roger S, given your recent fixation on suicide, which is utterly and totally irrelevant to any intellectual argument for or against atheism, one might think you have problems and are considering suicide. We certainly aren't.
Oh yes, your deity doesn't exist since you have provide no conclusive physical evidence for one. Your babble is still a book of mythology/fiction since you haven't proven otherwise with hard evidence. And your testament is wortheless since you are a proven lair. Still a delusional fool Roger S, as your fixation with suicide attests to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals
I guess all Christian evangelicals are tax cheaters who have gay sex with drug-dealing prostitutes.
RogerS,
I noticed you left out this part of the article about Alan Turing:
Sorry, but the number don't look pretty.-RogerS
Quoting the bible is not the equivalent of QED.
Correction: change "number" to "numbers"
So that justifies treating them poorly?
RogerS,
Did you ever consider the fact that these people are driven to suicide because they are treated like scum by many of your fellow Christians?
Anyways, given a certain you-know-who you really shouldn't be discussing sexual issues and psychological well-being.
Next sentence:
Fail.
I remember listening to a podcast recently about this issue. Gays and lesbians who are shunned by their family and community are far more likely to engage in self-harm, while those who receive good family support about who they are don't engage in that form of behaviour.
Seems pretty obvious, humans are social creatures so exile and being ostracised are much more likely to lead to self-destructive behaviour. Which of course conservative fucks can point to as an indicator of the deviant lifestyle to further justify their discrimination of those who are most in need of support.
Kel,
I know both a former transvestite and lesbian who were leading destructive lives. With love and support from a church that believed in deliverance from sin, they left their former lifestyles and now live very normal productive lives in their community. The lesbian married & had a son who became a Purdue grad and is likewise living a fulfilling married life. The transformation was due to long term effort by dedicated Christians and the inward work of Christ.
I believe the fate of their new lives will not align with the poor statistics I previously cited.
Feynmaniac and Kel, the harm done to LGBT people is well worth it because a few individuals are convinced to not live such degenerate lives. If they were allowed to life their lives with impunity, they would be destructive.
Kiss the belt of love not given lightly.
Translation: I do not know or care what the phrase "selection bias" means!
Translation: I do not know or care what the phrase "social bias" means!
Translation: Why, yes, I do think that my anecdotal confirmation bias is truth.
Translation: Why, yes, I do think I can read God's mind.
Translation: Why, yes, I do think I know everything, just like God!
And that justifies being cruel to them, how?
Do you think that maybe the church's stance that they are defective may have contributed in the first place?
Again, how does any of those statistics justify treating gays or lesbians as inferior or defective? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, if you're going to believe in original sin then surely you must take stance that homosexuality is no more defective than any other "sin". Why not take Christ's message on "love your neighbour"?
This is why I'm anti-theist. Theism is justifying discrimination and cruelty by invoking magic properties. It's bad enough that discrimination exists without divine justification - but you're mortal and fallible and you're justifying treating people with contempt and cruelty for something that's beyond their control. So much for God being a loving God - all I see preached from believers is a God of intolerance, a God of cruelty, a God of discrimination and extreme persecution.
And you say you're doing the work of Christ? Mr "Love your enemies", Mr "Do good to those who wrong you", Mr "Judge not lest ye be judged", Mr "Turn the other cheek"? Bullshit you are. You've turned God into Satan to justify your own prejudice, then you have the nerve to say you're doing Christ's work... you're doing a grave disservice to the one you call God.
Educational “Brainwashing” Claimed by Prominent Scientist
Educational “Brainwashing” Backlash
"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it."
-Blaise Pascal 1623-1662
HAHAHAHAHA
You actually are using Inhofe as an argument against idiocy?
wow that's rich
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHA
RogerS you're funny.
And so what if a couple of scientists believe now?
Can they offer any actual evidence for a "creator"?
Nope.
Roger S. Still no evidence for your imaginary deity. Still no evidence your babble is anything other than mythology/fiction. Still delusional if you think your babble has any meaning to us.
The problem you have Roger S, is that you must first prove conclusive physical evidence for the creator. Without that, you have nothing. That makes your whole religion invalid. You cannot presuppose it validly. That is why we laugh at you. You can't even get out of the starting blocks with any logical argument.
Chandra Wickramasinghe has been a believer in various kinds of nonsense since I don't know when. If he believes that he was brainwashed, he believes that with no evidence at all. Creationists have loved him a long time, so he isn't new, and he probably isn't right.
If there was a creator, science would have found it by now, or rather, never moved away from it. When what we now call science got started, most scientists assumed that there was a creator, but the relentless search for truth has led away from that hypothesis. Science finds truth. There is no creator, and that's the truth.
True, that piddling little confusion was the greatest scientific scandal--science doesn't have scandals very often. The e-mails didn't show a damn bit of wrong-doing--the leakers picked out a few confusing sentences, spun them for maximum confusion, and suckered a lot of gullible idiots.
You, RogerS, are a gullible idiot who has been suckered so bad that you now work for the people who have brainwashed you.
Translation: Argument from authority demonstrated by insipid Creationist.
Translation: Illogical argument from ignorance and incredulity advanced by Prominent Scientists.
PS: "The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion." -- Fred Hoyle
Translation: Creationists can't get enough of that false equivalence.
Translation: Hypocritical Creationists hate truth, refuse to know truth, and try to obscure truth, if truth demonstrates that beloved Creationist presuppositions are nothing but established falsehoods.
Deep Life –How Did It Get There?
US average depth of crude oil and natural gas is approximately 1 mile.(Source)
Simple Explanation from Walt Brown (Ph.D. in ME from MIT, B.S. from West Point)
2 Peter 3:3-6 (KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
-RogerS
Still delusional Roger S. Your "authorities" are not speaking from scientific authority. Rather trying to reconcile their religious beliefs with sophistry. For example:
is to be expected from regular science. Why? Radioactivity within the earth causes neutron activation of carbon 13 to carbon 14, so there is a very small, but steady amount of carbon 14 being formed. It is not a scientific proof for creation, but rather for real science and an old, 4.6 billion year old, earth.
You deity doesn't exist and your babble is fiction. You have demonstrated no evidence otherwise. And the is the first steps you must do to convince this blog you have anything other than lies and deception. And quoting your ficitonal babble like it means something confirms your delusional status.
So by failing to understand his work, and demonizing him because you're a lackwit, he is therefore responsible for his depression.
What the hell is wrong with some people?
Water seeps down, you moron.
Please.
Think. Just once. And if you'll never do it again, just think this one time!
14C is produced by particles flying around very fast and hitting carbon or nitrogen. One source is the sun; that's why 14C occurs in the air. Another is radioactivity; that's why coal and oil contains small amounts of 14C if it lies close enough to uranium deposits for long enough, and why it contains the more 14C the closer it lay to deposits of uranium or other radioactive elements; when it lay far enough from any such deposits, it does not contain any measurable amounts of 14C.
All this has been known for decades, Dodger. As usual, you talk about things you don't know anything about, and, what's worse, you believe everyone else (even those scientists who study that stuff for a living!) knows just as little as you.
You should be ashamed of such stupidity.
BTW, 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic – it was written a century after Peter's death by someone who wanted to borrow Peter's authority.
Classic sign of a troll, posts his inanity until it gets refuted and then completely changes topic.
Translation: After having it pointed out that I hate truth, I will now demonstrate my hatred of truth !!
Translation: I neither know nor care how carbon-14 is formed.
Translation: I neither know nor care about the applicability of carbon dating to anything older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
Translation: See how I confirm my presuppositions with bullshit pseudoscience.
Translation: False "explanation" from Walt Brown.
Translation: I am easily impressed by a Creationist liar bearing degrees, in inapplicable subjects no less.
Translation: Very precise measurements now show that most fossils older than ten half-lives of carbon-14 are indeed older than ten half-lives of carbon-14.
Translation: Therefore, I must lie and assert with no evidence or logic that most fossils older than ten half-lives of carbon-14 have only existed for about ten half-lives of carbon-14.
Translation: Because I presuppose that all water deposited sediments came from a fairly recent, gigantic flud, I must conclude that all former life was buried by a fairly recent, gigantic flud. I ♥ circular reasoning !!
Translation: Please read this bible verse with which I have brainwashed myself with a fairly recent, gigantic flud !!
Oh yeah, forgot one thing... Roger the Dodger and Walt Brown accept that the Earth is 100,000 years old rather than 6,000? Iiiiiiinteresting.
Read that again: less than 100,000 years ago
6,000 < 100,000, so YECs can work with that. And some YECs don't mind one or two orders of magnitude, as long as they can figure out ways to reject the greater orders of magnitude of secular science.
RogerS has been caught many times citing things that contradict [some aspects of strict] YEC dogma, and saying things contradicting his own earlier statements. He doesn't care at all when this is pointed out to him. He will literally cite anything at all, and say anything at all, and ignore all contradictions, because he, like all Creationists, really does not care about what is true and what is false. Only defending his presupposed assumptions and dogma matter to him, even if he can't even articulate his dogma coherently.
Hi RogerS
You refer to Drs Chandra Wickramasinghe and Fred Hoyle.
Unfortunately, you have chosen 2 men, brilliant in their own fields, who think they are thereby qualified to state as fact things they have hardly studied in unrelated fields.
Thus, it was these two who were convinced by the speculation of an Israeli scientist that Archaeopteryx might be a fraud. Without discussing it with genuine experts they went to the Natural History Museum, London and asked to photograph the London Archaeopterix specimen, arguably the second best found so far. They concluded that it was a deliberate fraud. You can find the story by googling Dr. Wick.'s name combined with feathers.
So where did they publish this earth-shattering discovery? In a high impact science journal like Nature? Or Science? A palaeontology journal, perhaps? Since this was an important British-owned fossil, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London? No. The British Journal of Photography! Volume 132, March 8th, March 29th, April 26th 1985."
Anybody who pours over the same set of photographs for hours on end over a period of months is going to see what they wanted to see in the first place. They convinced themselves that they, with no knowledge of Archaeopterix other than some high resolution photos, knew more than the entire scientific staff of the Natural History Museum who have worked on the fossil for years decades.
This is just an example of the arrogance of these two scientists in a field about which they knew little. Other examples could be taken. It is hardly surprising that two excellent scientists in their own field are not going to be over convincing once they go off into other fields.
(Incidentally, the NHM staff produced a detailed, peer reviewed paper published in Science which showed that Hoyle and his team were mistaken.)
Scientists Surprised, Embarrassed, & Disturbed: “Far From Truth”
It is too bad these other “surprised scientists” were not informed by David ahead of time. The Marjanovic “water seeps down” transport mechanism may have transported C14 as well as the lifeforms. I bet Allen B could propose an entirely different mechanism responsible for lifeforms 6.7 km down. The big question is how “far from truth” is it?
BTW, Good to see that Kel & Allen B are still hopping.
RogerS,
The Wikipedia page on the Kola Borehole has this line:
Emphasis mine. Remind me - is 2.5 billion years more or less than 6,000?
RogerS, still not presenting any real evidence. In fact, what you presented confirms evolution and geology. You are batting 1.000 in confirming science. In fact, you keep shooting your in the foot with your inane and illogical attempts to prove science wrong. You can't prove yourself right by proving science wrong. Your creationism is not the default position. You must prove it in its own right. Which you have totally and utterly failed to do.
Why aren't you starting with physical evidence for your imaginary deity? Without a deity, your babble is nothing but a book of myth/fiction. And since it is myth/fiction, the creation myth in it is fiction. You can only convince us by starting with the appropriate material. No god, no babble, ergo you are wrong. That is where things stand at the moment. You need to change that.
RogerS,
I fail to see how this supports anything you would like it to support.
Care to explain?
Also RogerS I'm having a difficult time finding any information about these supposed fossils outside of your one link and lots of creationism and conspiracy sites with an occasional other site just repeating word for word the same paragraph.
Do you have anything from a legitimate source?
Thanks
Sure.
I attribute it to a world wide, mountain covering, "fountains of the deep" breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD of judgement that Noah's contemporaries failed to predict.
Ok, can you now provide actual evidence for this?
You can attribute things to the flud all you want, but you have to actually back up those claims.
Something you have been 100% unable to do on every single one of your visits here.
By the way your above link is not evidence for this.
It doesn't matter what your wishful thinking attributes it to.
What evidence do you have for any of these assertions?
None, as Josh so amply demonstrated.
You're like Oliver from Upper Class Twit of the Year-You don't know when you're being beaten, and you don't have any sort of sensory apparatus known to man.
RogerS, since science explains the evidence better than your religious sophistry, your creationism continues to lack support. That is your problem. You don't have the proper evidence to support your claims. No evidence for a one time world wide flood, a kill off of all Homo sapiens except one family. Absolutely not present in the geological record. You also must contend with civilizations with written records in place before and after the alleged flud. Since you don't, you have nothing of consequence to offer.
David M wrote:
David, please read Brown’s following line again. He is on a YEC time line:
“Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time—less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.” -In The Beginning p.343
You yourself evidently have little confidence in radioactive carbon still active in coal, oil, metane, etc. other than due to “water seeps down” & uranium contamination. When radioactive carbon supports a young earth the ratios are skewed by contamination but when they date “LESS THAN 100,000 yrs” they suddenly become credible and become OVER 6,000 yrs.??? If a global flood is considered, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes sense.
The average depth of crude oil and natural gas is about 1 mile or 1,600m, pretty far from contamination by uranium as low as 240m.
True dating accuracy by C14 is highly questionable but it can be useful as a rough indicator only if the effects of a global flood are factored in.
Carbon 14 Accuracy Seriously Questioned
Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol 19, No 4 (1981) pp. 9-29
Rogers, your carbon-14 idiocy is just that. Idiocy. Carbon-14 is only one dating method, and all the others show the Earth to be millions, if not billions of years old. Trying to throw doubt on Carbon-14 dating, where there is none within the scientific community as we are well aware of its limitations, does nothing to prove your own points. It just makes you look like you have no idea of what you are doing. For your idea (it doesn't even reach hypothesis stage) of creationism must be shown independently of attempting (but always failing in) trashing science, starting with conclusive physical evidence for your deity. For some strange reason, you keep failing to do that. Almost like all you have is a presupposition argument. There is tremendous doubt as to the existence of your deity/creator. So, start there.
RogerS, here is some homework for you.
Instead of cherry picking random inconsequential articles that you think are poking big holes in everything that we actually know about science, try and put forth some support for your claims.
Present us positive science supporting your "yet to be given one iota of support" view that the earth is 6000 years old, there was a great flud and Noah really did build that really big boat with all the cute fuzzy creatures in pairs on it. Not another article you think upsets the established well supported science we have.
Actual science Rog.
/pats Rog on the head and sends him on his way
Translation: God commands me to bear false testimony, and I enjoy quote-mining so as to bear false testimony as God commands me.
Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is nor how it forms.
[Editor's note: Hm. I note that the stylistic trope of adding commenter names to what they said as a sneer is something that I recall Alan Clarke did, and RogerS did not do. Is the banned pedophile sockpuppeting?]
Translation: I can't spell names right even when they are right in front of me, even though the spelling should be very familiar indeed.
Translation: Please read Brown’s line again, because "less than 100,000" must mean "6,000". Because I say so.
Translation: I presuppose a world wide, mountain covering, "fountains of the deep" breakup, Pacific Ocean Basin displacing, mountain raising, year long catastrophic FLOOD, and therefore any hint of water anywhere in the world leads me to conclude that my presuppositions are correct !!
Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is, nor how it forms, nor how it decays. Also, I have forgotten how to spell "methane".
Translation: I presuppose a young earth, and therefore ignore the simple fact that radioactive carbon does not actually support a young earth.
Translation: I can't do the basic math working out that if the half-life of 14C is 5,730±40 years, then ten half-lives of carbon-14 must be greater than 6,000 years. Math is hard !!!
Translation: If a global flood is presupposed, the dispersion of radioactive carbon in sedimentary rock and still contained in fossil fuels at great depths makes no sense at all, but I don't actually care about making sense.
Translation: Other people mine for uranium; but I, like ALL YECs, mine for quotes ! I so enjoy bearing false testimony by quotemine !!
[Editor's note: Is RogerS/Alan Clarke a sociopath on top of everything else?]
[Editor's note: Actual Uranium Geology, as opposed to YEC bullshit about uranium geology:
]
Translation: I still neither know nor care what 14C is, nor how it forms, nor how it decays, nor how the decay rate is used for dating. Since its results contradict my YEC presuppositions, I question them. Not that I would care about or understand the answers to my questioning.
[Editor's note: I assumed that YEC presuppositions prevented RogerS/Alan Clarke from reading Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, but given the laughable blunders in basic math and logic made above, I suspect that they're both too stupid to understand it, even if they did read it. ]
Translation: I shall demonstrate my invincible ignorance of radiocarbon dating by flat-out lying and asserting with neither logic nor evidence that my presupposition of a "global flood" is true, and that its nonexistent "effects" can be "factored in" to radiocarbon dating.
Translation: Yay! More old papers to quote-mine !!
[Editor's note: Good fucking grief. I just knew that that 1981 date meant that the cited reference would be in here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html ]
*sniff*
That was just beautiful.
#280 Hi RogerS
Just for clarification, who is "Allen B"?
Is it supposed to be me??
I am the author of the piece just before yours (which, of course, you have ignored - but then little changes, does it?). Just to remind you, I am Alan B. The first part is the same spelling as Alan Clarke (who, I admit, I sometimes refer to as Alan C).
I've been thinking about it, and Owlmirror is probably right in thinking that some sockpuppetry is going on. That does not speak well for the creationist community's integrity that they would stoop to such unseemly behavior. Just another reason to see them as nothing but liars and bullshitters.
RogerS, come forward to the eternal thread, and post your stuff there. That thread is an open thread, so you can bring forth your ideas. The thread is the link below PZ's picture on the home page. One might think you are hiding here in the shadows of an old thread because you are ashamed to be seen or heard. More unseemly behavior.
#280 and others
Hi RogerS
Are you aware of the amount of scientific work that has been done on C-14 dating? The paper you chose to quote was from 1981. Considering that papers take a finite time to produce from scratch to being published, that's 30 years ago!!
Even if it were valid (and I don't intend to chase that up) it is so far out of date as to be pre-history!
Just another thought ...
You quoted a source in #280. Going to it and nosing around a little it appears to have been written by David Pratt. Looking at his website shows that he is a student of Theosophy and relies on a date of the Earth of around 2 billion years old, based on Hindu or Budhist writings.
So. You who believe that the Earth (indeed, the Creation) is around 6000 years old are relying, not on science, but the studies of heathen religions. These are only out by a factor of around 2 compared with science whereas you are out by a factor of around 500,000 (taking 4.5 Gy & 9000 y).
Odd N'est pas?
(Apologies to David M if my 50+ year old French is incorrect)
I don't need to add anything, Owlmirror and Alan B have said it all. Roger, you have no clue what you're talking about, and that's painfully obvious. Read some of the writings of St Augustine as soon as you find the time.
Sockpuppetry or not, I think Roger should be banned for the one-two punch of his copy-paste addiction, and his apparent glee in the suicides of scientists and homosexuals (I honestly think he can't separate the two).
I reiterate what I wrote @#278, with some modifications:
Alan Clarke/RogerS have been caught many times citing things that contradict some aspects of strict YEC dogma, and saying things contradicting their own earlier statements. They doesn't care at all when this is pointed out to them. They will literally cite anything at all, and say anything at all, and ignore all contradictions, because they, like all Creationists, really do not care about what is true and what is false. Only regurgitating their presupposed assumptions and dogma matter to them, even if neither of them can even articulate their dogma coherently.
----
The only bit of Augustine that matters is the part that basically says "don't say stupid things about the natural world and claim that they are Christian truths when they aren't because they make Christianity look stupid." (On the Literal Translation of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim))
That citation from Augustine was posted for them many times before. Obviously, they don't give a shit about looking stupid or making Christianity look stupid.
Augustine is not otherwise helpful in the matter of science, and the rest is theology, which I doubt they need more of, given their total self-brainwashing.
I'm picturing RogerS scouring the wingnut websites for any sign that science has ever discovered anything that altered a previously held view even slightly and then trying to jackhammer that into some perceived support of the flud/creation/Noah/crucified bunnies/Celene Dion is good music.
#300
Come on, Rev., enough foolishness ...