Because performance all over scienceblogs starts to suffer when a comment thread gets too long, I’m closing the thread in which I grievously insult a cracker…but if you must, you can continue here.
Fresh crackers!
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
RE: MAJeff, OM post #995
“How dare religious belief not be granted automatic respect?!”
Well, I agree with your statements entirely, but the Christians do not want religious belief to be granted automatic respect. They have no respect or tolerence to other existing religions. I think they’d be quite upset if Christians were required to RESPECT religious establishments such as Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Druids, Moromons, The Church of the Flying Speghetti Monster… etc.
RE: Joey Weber #999
“What if ideas in the Scientific community were ridiculed so much that the only thing left was your faith, or your trust in Science”
I don’t have faith in Science. I have PROOF!! The beauty of science, it’s always being questioned! That’s the point of it. To be questioned and tested repeatedly.
What kind of science do you “believe” in?
Why can’t Religon and Science co-exist?
Why can’t Evoloution be where God wanted to make us better?
Why can’t Science be where God wanted us to better ourselves? Make us understand his beautiful creations more?
Why can’t the Big bang be where God created the universe in the biggest explosion ever?
Not meaning to contradict my first statement but, if we really are evolved from other organisms, back and back, again and again. What was the first organism we were evolved from? What kind of bacteria just comes to life?
We had to be created by something, even if that something is not like God, or some spirit.
It still applies as our creator.
our “God”.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
I have proof of God too, Go in front of a mirror and look at yourself.
Look at the way God made you.
Close your eyes and know that he is there.
I have more proof in God,
I am alive, he is alive in me.
All my sins are forgiven,
We have music,
We can express ourselves,
We can communicate with other people,
You can doubt God.
Nature.
Love, Hate.
Thats all the proof I need.
Ridicule me if you want.
Did Jolene leave again?! Everytime I ask her to guide me on becoming religious she leaves!
Thats all the proof I need.
It actually takes absolutely nothing to convince you.
Ridicule me if you want.
no problem.
RE: Joey weber #1004
I went to the mirror as you suggested I do. I didn’t not find God there. I saw some zits, a scar above my eye, some black heads.. I notice I need to pluck my eyebrows. The one thing I did notice tho! I was alone in the bathroom. Which is great! God is NOT allowed to spy on me in the shitter. I refuse to allow such perversion in my house.
RE: mephisto post #991
“The only religious group that hasn’t taken a few pops but deserves them are the Jew-Tards.”
what do you mean by a few “pops”? Do you mean soda pops? Corn pops?
If you mean attacks, you are not following Christian history very closely. As the Jews have been persecuted by the Christians since Christ was hung on the Cross. Ask Mel Gibson! He has a lot of “pops” for the members of the Jewish faith
Jennie. Fuck Mel Gibson too. And nobody bothers the Jew-Tards now. The Inquisition was then and this is now. And now the clipped-prick Tribe just rakes in the dough. And they use the Fucking Holocaust like it happened last week as their club to beat up on the Palestinians. The last thing the Jew-Tards on this blog deserve is a break.
wow, “using the fucking holocaust.” lovely troll here.
What’s hilarious is the lack of perspective the trolls bring.
destroying a cracker=minimizing the Holocaust.
keeping a cracker=kidnapping
crumbling a cracker=assualt
Oh, go pray for yourself.
:)
RE: Mephisto #1008
“The last thing the Jew-Tards on this blog deserve is a break.”
The fact that you are here taking “pops” at the “Jew-tards” proves that your beliefs never give them a break.
But if it makes you feel better. The Jewish faith is just as ridiculous as the Christian faith.
Why can’t Religon and Science co-exist?
Religion and science CAN coexist. The 1.8m Alice P. Lennon Telescope is part of the Mount Graham International Observatory (MGIO) in southeastern Arizona. It is financed, designed, and operated by the Vatican. Not an unusual partnership, since the Catholic Church founded the modern university system in Europe.
The problem is really this: religion and “scientism” cannot coexist because of the pretentions of the latter. Scientism falsely claims to have the power to describe all reality and knowledge. That’s a nonstarter.
It’s a shame a rational discussion of science and Christianity on this thread isn’t possible because most posters here are too emotionally labile. One must call on reason and logic to discern a difference between Bin Laden, Fred Phelps and, say, Aquinas.
RE: Jolene post #1012
“Religion and science CAN coexist. The 1.8m Alice P. Lennon Telescope is part of the Mount Graham International Observatory (MGIO) in southeastern Arizona. It is financed, designed, and operated by the Vatican. Not an unusual partnership, since the Catholic Church founded the modern university system in Europe.
The problem is really this: religion and “scientism” cannot coexist because of the pretentions of the latter. Scientism falsely claims to have the power to describe all reality and knowledge. That’s a nonstarter.
It’s a shame a rational discussion of science and Christianity on this thread isn’t possible because most posters here are too emotionally labile. One must call on reason and logic to discern a difference between Bin Laden, Fred Phelps and, say, Aquinas.”
actually.. if you know anything Jolene, you’d know that the Church is the biggest enemy to science. The story of Galileo is just one of many examples.
“The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo’s presentation of heliocentrism as proven fact resulted in the Catholic Church’s prohibiting its advocacy as empirically proven fact, because it was not empirically proven at the time and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.[7] Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.”
You guys probably don’t care very much, but I’m going to tell you something about me.
I’m a white male, 14 years of age, Catholic, and pretty open-minded.
I was an Athiest for most of my life.
I found God, or rather: God found me.
I’m not going to try to convert anyone.
I’m not here to tell you you’re going to Hell.
It’s not my place to do it.
God gave us free will.
and he intends us to use it.
But insulting God is not going to make him go away.
i don’t know.
Maybe I have it all wrong.
Maybe there is no God.
But the real thing is,
i feel him living in me.
Regardless of if he is real or not,
he makes me a better person.
Everything I have in my life is a blessing from God.
everything you have is a blessing frm God.
God cares about everyone.
regardless of gender, race, sexual preference, age, or religion.
Just because the Bible says things doesntmean its true.
People wrote the bible, not god.
If you want to hear God,
lsiten to children laughing, or the wind, or music.
He won’t do it by himself.
You have to reach out to him.
You could say I’m only 14 and I have no idea what I’m talking about, or im brainwashed. but everything I know is because of God.
Everything I say is beacuse God gives me free will.
God sent his only son to die for you on Earth.
God sacrificed his flesh and blood so we could live happier lives.
Jesus followed his father’s plan because he knew that we would be forever grateful.
He suffered the most excruciatingly painful thing ever, so we could live with God.
I don’t know about you,
but I think thats pretty cool.
Jolene, at #858. Dear girl, shame on your for either being a poor scholar or an outright liar. While satan may be the father of lies, he neglected to patent the idea which does allow you free use.
Regarding your posting on the top eight deadliest wars in human history, sorry, they did not all originate in “mainland Asia or the near east” as you claim. Will be glad to help you with geography if you need it dear. Hint, the two WWs are a clue, among others.
I see you claim a list of eight but only listed seven. Did you miss the mid 19th century Taiping Rebellion aka Rebellion of Great Peace on purpose? It was led by
heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan (oh yes, not a True xtian, eh?) With a death toll of 20 to 30 million people, this comes in pretty high on the list, a religious war, a xtian war.
The Manchu conquest of the Ming Dynasty comes in at about 20 to 25 million as well. This was 1616-1662, btw.
Some of your figures are a bit suspect as well, and thus your ranking, the WWI figure is now estimated at closer to 20 million, many historians think WWII may now have the highest toll, and the Tianbao figures seem a bit high, but let us not quibble. None on the list can ever be accurately counted.
You also missed a couple. The Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, has a respectable body count, especially when put against the population size. Estimates range from 3 to 11.5 million. When I studied it years ago, I am a military historian by training – not profession, I decided 7-9 million was about right, but no longer have those notes. Feel free to research, not just Google and take the first hit.
Anyway, one flaw is just using actual numbers, you have to understand the percentage as well. While a million is a horrible number of dead in any circumstance, the impact of a million in 1620 is more on society than a million in 2008. Not better or worse, just a greater impact.
Your nonsense about equating Nazi and Communist and atheist has been pointed out, but since you are impervious to reason, will not readdress your canards. Actually, I know you will ignore all of this, but wanted to correct some of your more glaring errors since I do not assume all xtians are liars and some might appreciate a little balance.
Assuming that you are a xtian, since you appear to be a catholic, I must ask if you accept the old testament as having any validity? If so, you must recognize that if it were true, your god is reported to have killed the entire world sans Noah and his immediate family. Not in raw numbers, but in percentages, this, if true, would be the greatest mass murder in history.
I will “pray for you” Jolene.
Pax Nabisco
That’s nice Joey, but if you are not here to convert us, tell your story and leave.
I am in need of converting according to Jolene, but she now refuses to give me direction. I have decided to become a Mormon, as Jolene doesn’t seem to have a problem with that. They will give me a free book, which is great because I enjoy reading. I’m so excited to become a god believing morally superior individual. I can hardly contain myself.
Anyone having a hard time viewing life as something that came from inanimate matter, or more crudely saying “it just happened”, has a very impoverished view of what is actually known about the natural world that we live in. First of all we have evolution, which if you go back to the origins of life, it’s very easy to see that the first forms of life were probably very simple.
Science has a lot of very decent theories of how life emerged, all of them assume that the first forms of life were indeed simple. A good introduction to this can be found on Wikipedia by typing in Abiogenesis. One of the goals in this area of study right now is to create a simple form of life in a test tube with modern chemistry, in principal this is a very possible and reasonable endeavor. I just wonder what the religious community would say if it does happen.
Now take the idea that life arouse simply and take into account the size of the universe with all the billions and billions of stars and galaxy we can detect right now. Simple life emerging on a single celestial body by random chance is actually not that far fetched of an idea. Again, I must repeat, a SIMPLE form of life, not a walking and talking human.
You can read the Book of Mormon online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents
All kidding aside though,
You should probably learn about a religion before you throw your arms out to it.
I haven’t made fun of Atheism once since I’ve been posting,
Yet you continue to ridicule every religion we speak of.
If Mormonism can help you, thats great.
Joey:
Let me tell you something about myself.
I’m 41 years old, born and raised Catholic. A few years before I reached the age you are now, I realized that the only good that has come to human beings was done BY human beings. I never saw any evidence of God (or gods, or whatever) directly doing a single thing to improve the life of a single member of the human species on this planet.
Your post (#1014) sounds reads like it could have been written by someone who has been brainwashed; or, as is likely in your case, by a young person who has not yet seen enough of the world, or studied enough about it, to realize that the world IS ALL THERE IS, and that you don’t really need anything else. You are definitely in the “need” stage – and what you found was religion.
My suggestion to you is to STUDY – and that is, to study the history of the world in general and the history of religion in particular (how many religions have come and gone? How many people were as sure in their faith as you are now, but you would now dismiss as misguided?). When you realize how much more there is to existence than what your religious faith teaches you, I guarantee you that your mind will be EXPANDED – as opposed to the confines you have no voluntarily limited your thoughts to.
Just an older man offering some advice. ; )
RE: Mephisto #1008
“The last thing the Jew-Tards on this blog deserve is a break.”
The fact that you are here taking “pops” at the “Jew-tards” proves that your beliefs never give them a break.
But if it makes you feel better. The Jewish faith is just as ridiculous as the Christian faith.
Well Jennie, Duh!? Maybe that was my point. I see them getting a pass here. And to the numbskull further up who commented on my post. Yeah, I will minimize the fucking Holocaust because it does not meam shit now. Jews are making out OK in my book.
ALL religion is CRAP including the violent Hebrew Bible of the Jew-Tards. Let’s get in on with all of them!
RE: Joey Weber post #1018
“You can read the Book of Mormon online here: http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents
All kidding aside though,
You should probably learn about a religion before you throw your arms out to it.
I haven’t made fun of Atheism once since I’ve been posting,
Yet you continue to ridicule every religion we speak of.
If Mormonism can help you, thats great.”
All kidding aside?! All kidding aside?! HOW DARE YOU KID ABOUT MY NEWLY FOUND RELIGION! I FOUND GOD AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO KID ABOUT IT?! THEN LIKE THE HIPPOCRITE YOU ARE, IN TURN SAY THAT I RIDICULE RELIGION?!
You, Joey, are a very misguided youth who has no business making fun of MY BELIEFS!
TonyT: i’m trying to understand what you are saying but this is what is happening in my mind,
“How can you create something living from something that is not living?”
How can you add, subtract, multiply, or divide 0 with 0 to get anything other than 0?
Could you please explain it a little better to me,
or give me a site other than Wikipedia?
If you convert to Mormonism, do you get a commemorative, Franklin Mint-style set of replicas of the plates Joseph Smith found? I’d rather have a toaster myself, but those replicas might make for good coasters.
RE: Bobber #1023
I believe you can find somewhere purchase replicas of the plates Joseph Smith online. They give you the book of Mormon, a subscription to a geneology website, some pamphlets reguarding all kinds of subjects from the family to the evils of pornography, but MOST importantly, your soul is saved.
Isn’t that great?! I think I’ve made the right decision with Mormonism.
Jeffery D,
I wouldn’t exactly call Wikipedia and The Davinci Code peer-reviewed research resources. I’m surprised a historian such as yourself is unaware of this.
Despite the reasoning errors and incorrect facts, nice try… at least it’s an attempt at dialogue and at least you didn’t say “cracker..”
This is my final comment on this thread beacuse I would love to argue on the internet all day but even if you win, its still the internet.
and… we’re not even talking about the thing that this thread was originally about.
i can’t even remember the guy’s name.
and its just become a war between science and religion.
Bobber: My life before I found God was the most pathetic thing ever, My parents are divorced. I have close to no friends, and nothing ever went right for me.
I found God through reading the bible not through a Church.
Did I mention my dad is atheist and screams at me every time I say, “God”?
Saying that I’m brainwashed is really hurtful because I am my own person and will always be.
my final statement on this thread is goning to be this:
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”
I will never need an explanation because of Faith and because I can feel him alive inside of me.
Athiests will never believe because accepting God makes you “less intelligent then other scientists”.
I wish it wasn’t like this but it is.
Bye Everybody.
P.s. Jennie, you are kind of bat-shit insane. well, actually not kinda. you’re REALLY bat-shit insane.
oh, and bobber.
Thank you,
but you’re wrong about everything.
Jennie:
Not to give you cause to doubt your heartfelt conversion to Mormonism, but might I suggest that a faith that considers a 1:10 male-female ratio the perfect number for a good marriage may be less than desirable for you?
Unless you like that sort of thing, but I’m a pervert, and even I draw the line at 1:2 or 1:3 – granted, we’re not talking marriage there, either…
Forget I said anything. : )
Joey, you are very bad at arguing in the first place. You were the one that directed the conversation toward science and religion. It’s funny how you are in a constant state of hippocracy.
PS. You are Bat-shit insane for not following the Book of Mormon. When you die, you will have the grueling process of explaining to God why you did not follow his teachings from the Book of Moromon, and why you chose to follow a religion that was an obvious apostacy. I PRAY for your soul.
Joey at 1026: “My life before I found God was the most pathetic thing ever, My parents are divorced. I have close to no friends, and nothing ever went right for me. I found God through reading the bible not through a Church.”
Joey:
It would appear that I wasn’t wrong about everything.
My advice remains: You are still young enough to keep your mind open. Don’t keep it closed within the comfortable confines of the Bible. There are greater thinkers out there, who have written much greater things than anything the Gospel writers have. Don’t neglect them.
RE: Bobber post #1028
Well, I agree, I’m not looking forward to a polygamist lifestyle. I have been on this path of enlightenment since Jolene pointed out that I need the fear of eternal damnation to lead a morally correct lifestyle.
I am not very good at choosing which is the God for me. It’s like shopping for shampoo in wal-mart. There are so many choices.
I can’t go with Islam because, according to Jolene, it’s Christian Heresy. To choose Christianity would mean I’d have to give up a lot of my current moral standings including the belief that its NOT OK TO THREATEN SOMEONE’S LIFE. Mormons have been picked on for a long time, and they don’t threaten people so I figured they were a calm bunch and I’d fit in there.
I’m a white male, 14 years of age, Catholic, and pretty open-minded.
I was an Athiest for most of my life.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Um Jennie, “hippocracy” means “rule by horses.” Perhaps you mean Hypocrisy?
lmfao ahahah I love your responses MAJeff, OM They are so accurate!
Um Jennie, “hippocracy” means rule by horses, as in Book IV of Gulliver’s Travels.
Perhaps you mean Hypocrisy?
Jolene, let me go through this thread and point out all of your typos. Thanks.
Jennie at 1031: “Mormons have been picked on for a long time, and they don’t threaten people so I figured they were a calm bunch and I’d fit in there.”
Why not go the whole way and join the Amish? I mean, if you want calm and all. And at least they have a better excuse for wearing those clothes. They separate themselves from everything, including, apparently, colors. Mormons can at least go to the mall. C’mon – their missionaries look like they’re going to a funeral. (There’s a joke in there, but I’m too beset by my 5-year old to make it.)
Um Jennie, “hippocracy” means rule by horses, as in Book IV of Gulliver’s Travels.
Perhaps you mean Hypocrisy?
Jolene at #1025 – Did you actually read my post? Point out an error in fact and I will discuss it with you and apologize to you in public here if you actually have one. I am confident that will not come to pass. You can point out controvery over numbers, as I did, but that is not error, that is a question of range. And no, the nonsense over atheism equaling whatever you want it to be does not qualify. I await your comments on actual errors.
Never read Brown’s book, but saw the movie. I do not recall this discussion in the movie, but then again it was boring. Maybe you can help on this point and tell me what you mean. The Wikipedia comment is priceless, never heard that before – a hit, a palpable hit…I do confess I fear I breath my last. Marvelous pair of nonsense insult attempts, by the way, so original.
So far, all you wish to do is lie, eh? Good thing for you that satan did not patent that lie thing. Oh, I am not a historian remember, trained as one, not employed as one.
Do you believe the Noah story as something that actually happened?
Do you plan on answering Jennie or are you ignoring her? Lucky Jennie.
Pax Nabisco, go an pray yourself, honey.
P.S. Going out to mow the lawn. So, if you do reply, I will get back to you later.
Joey,
I’m happy that you find the subject very interesting, and your skepticism of Wikipedia is very commendable. If you would like to learn more about this subject, and really any subject, I recommend looking at the references that are provided with the article.
Lets take a look at the Wikipedia article for abiogenesis. If you notice that throughout the article little numbers are placed everywhere. The little numbers are actually numerical citation indicators that direct the reader to the reference section. The primary purpose of this is to allow the author of the article to give credit to the person who originally came up with the idea, it is also a very useful tool for people who are investigating things on their own. (trust me it’s very useful when you go to college)
Also, with wikipedia, you have a Further Reading section, that provides you links and references to books that are related to the subject at hand. And this article also has an External Links section as well. I think the first one listed “Harvard Team Creates the World’s 1st Synthesized Cells” would be something you find interesting.
You see Joey, the information is readily available at your disposal. If it is something that you do indeed care about, why don’t you study up these things on your own? I’d never be happy if all I ever knew was spoon feed to me by my parents, pastor/priest or even public school. The best education is self motivated.
Jolene, I find it amusing that instead of addressing my questions about religion, you have taken to proofreading my posts.
I can only assume that you agree with my decision to become a Mormon. You have stated that Athiesm is wrong, and so are Islamic beliefs. You have yet to say Mormonism is incorrect, should I assume that it is a path you approve of?
To each his own, Jeffrey… My students know full well that any hint they’re sourcing from Wikipedia results in an instant “F.” We discuss the validity of open source scratchings vs. journal and book research. They’re aware Wikipedia is a mixture of fact, fiction and leftist propaganda. It runs about 60% truth, 40% agenda.
Jennie, actually my heartfelt advice to you is that you should stay away from all religions for the time being… Give it a few years. I was once like you and later in life I converted to Catholicism. Give it time. Some day, you’ll face an obstacle or loss in life that no one can help you with. I pray that at that moment, God will give you the grace to do what I did: Open your heart to God and pray to him to reveal Himself and help you. That will be your God moment. Everything will happen for you and you’ll know what we know: God is real. Faith is a gift, not a proof. Give it time.
-Jolene, the former uber-atheist
Jolene Cassa wrote:
Nice try. Opened your biographical dictionary in the interim, huh? Good for you. Unfortunately, your original post was this:
Russia and The Soviet State? Not the same thing. My call (Epic Fail!) still stands.
Oh, and since you’re such a spelling hardass, I’ll point out that you probably used ‘borne’ when you should have used ‘born’. ‘Borne’ means ‘carried’ – though I guess it could be argued Marx’s mother did in fact bear him through Germany. Was that what you meant?
Jolene,
Please don’t assume that I have only been alive for 10 minutes on Earth by saying things like:
“Give it time. Some day, you’ll face an obstacle or loss in life that no one can help you with.”
I have faced numerous obstacles in life including losses that no one can help me with. Thanks for the advice, but at the age of 27, I think God will be about as much assistance in my future as he was in my past.
Jolene at #1042. Going to address the points I raised in my posts or continue to lie and avoid? My bet is on lie and avoid since you have shown such skill at that. Have you ever tried telling the truth?
Pax Nabisco
Wowbagger,
Thanks for the support, I’m glad that you are willing to call Jolene her on mistakes she’s made typing.
She finds it necessary to do the same to others around her, as if she’s somehow superior for not making such mistakes.
I would never recommend people use Wikipedia for original research, but it’s a decent starting point. And I understand as a teacher, it’s best to make the students work for their grade than to take an easy road. Do you ever look at the citations? It gives you a decent idea of quality of work.
Saying that Wikipedia is a source of leftest propaganda, I would have to say that’s a moot point. I’m sure there are plenty of articles with bad evidence to support them, in addition I wouldn’t doubt that some are actually written with some kind of agenda hidden within the margins. Wikipedia does indeed have pretty remarkable methods of quality control. I recommend looking at the project’s website on how the whole thing is operated. You may find that the whole process is much more complicated than having people write whatever they want.
What exactly is a leftest idea? Something that you don’t agree with, or is it something that the group of people that you caucus your ideas with don’t agree with? Why does the left always the the bad reputation for ideas, a lot of people just as strongly about “Rightist” ideas as well. Ever consider the possibility that the world isn’t always a matter of black or white, but a multitude of shades of gray?
Well, too lazy to make dinner after yard work, so time to treat myself, second time today.
I am sure someone will let me know if Jolene decides to stop telling lies and actually addresses questions posed to her, and not just my posts. My breath will not be held in anticipation.
Night all – Pax Nabisco
Jennie,
Normally I wouldn’t bother, since lately it’s a race to get a comment in before ten more are added and it’s easy to make mistakes.
But once Jolene, by being pedantic, decided to advertise that the stick up her ass has a stick up its ass, I decided to fight fire with fire.
I agree, it seems Jolene feels that the mistakes in the comments are more important to address than the content of the comments.
I’m wondering if this is one of her methods of avoiding a response. Possibly she feels that poor grammer and spelling discredits the entire comment.
Jeffrey, Jeffrey…
I’m Catholic, because that is the Church Jesus founded and as such is the true and full source of God’s truth. I don’t defend Evangelicals, Protestants, Anglicans, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Pentecostalists, or any of the other 30,000+ denominations, which may have various portions of the truth but no Sacred tradition, apostolic authority or succession.
I didn’t mention the Taiping Rebellion because it had nothing to do with recognizable Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.
Hong Xiuquan earned his Christianity like Elvis earned his black belt. He was a delusional Nietzschean-style whack job. It’s pretty ridiculous for any student of history to ascribe Hong Xiuquan’s beliefs as “Christian” when they were clearly a result of his descent into psychosis in the 1830s. Hung never accepted Jesus as a deity. Even his version of the Ten Commandments, (the Ten Heavenly Precepts) differ significantly from the bible. It’s a completely different, made up religion, with far more in common with Confucianism than Jesus. Hong reminds me a lot of the Himmler, who used his bogus “Aryan” research of his Ahnenerbe Institute to create a religion to serve political agenda of Nazi Germany.
Many of your other statements are erroneous or outright false. Stay off the Wiki, ok?
I’m Catholic, because that is the Church Jesus founded and as such is the true and full source of God’s truth.
thanks for an excellent example of the True Scotsman fallacy, Jolene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
link to Wiki entirely intentional, but you could verify the veracity of the scotsman fallacy at any number of sources, just like with many of the other criticisms of what you have posted in this thread.
stay off the religion, OK?
“You’re wrong about everything,” says the 14-year-old Joey, who no doubt views himself as the very model of modern Christian humility.
Oh? Says who? You? Alright then.
So. Nothing can exist without having been “created by something”? If that’s true, then why does our creator exist? What created the creator? And what created the thing that created the creator?
And on, and on, and on – backwards to infinity. And so fails the “everything must have a creator” argument.
You seem like a nice kid, Joey, but you’re so far out of your depth here, you can’t even begin to imagine it. Peace.
Jolene at #1052, you did not mention the Taiping Rebellion because it does not fit with your xtianity view. OK, by that point of view, what does the Tianbao Rebellion have to do with xtianity? The Mongol activities do half connect with xtianity once Europe was invaded. You also have not addressed your statement that the “top eight deadliest wars in human history originated in mainland Asia or the near east” which is patently false. Which is number eight, btw, did you not manage to copy the whole list from where you got it or did you decide you did not want to list one of them? Why?
You are are right, Hong Xiuquan was not a catholic, so what? Religious war by a nominal xtian. I do not recall you saying your list was catholic oriented, but you are apparently now making that claim, which still raises the question of why you put the Tianbao rebellion in the list. And yes, I think Hong was a fine example of xtianity as demonstrated by you, half truths, lies, and nonsense. Not including the Taiping rebellion is intellectually dishonest anyway as you provided a list of the eight, oh wait, seven deadliest wars. It certainly fits in that list.
Beat the Wikepedia drum all you want, little one, you are still telling lies and still evading and using that to avoid having to reply. On that point, error of facts? What are they? You made the original comments, I replied. You have only lied and evaded from that point. Do you also cheat and steal? Do you only prostitute your mind? Do you need more ammunition than Wiki world? I am also ugly and overweight, feel free to find a new way to lie and evade.
You are amusing for a while, but ultimately sad, ultimately a figure of contempt. No, I do not expect an answer because you cannot engage honestly. Save the trouble if you wish, I can just fill in the blank – Jolene = lie and evade.
Pax Nabisco
And on, and on, and on – backwards to infinity. And so fails the “everything must have a creator” argument.
for Joey:
It’s turtles, all the way down.
And so to bed. Night all, try not to dream of voracious crackers coming for you in the night, or giant nuns swinging their nunchuk(sp?) rosaries. Sleep the sleep of the just, fellow pharyngulites, because your hearts are pure.
Off to the arms of Morpheus.
Pax Nabisco
Jolene, I see you’re still having issues with people using Wikipedia in referencing there point. I realize it is not a valid source for research papers, but no one here is writing research papers. They need an easily accessable and free source to refer to on the internet. Would you prefer people pay $200 to access complete online libraries? If that was done, and people site their sources from that, would you then say they are invalid because you currently do not have a subcription to the site in question, and therefore cannot access the documents?
How about if you just scroll to the bottom of the Wikipedia page and take a glance at the references pertaining to the information? I think that is a far easier way to establish the credibility of the information in question.
Unless it’s just that you refuse to accept any material contrary to your opinion.
Also, when it comes to proof of YOUR God’s existance, I would like to see some references. The Bible doesn’t count because if I were to site the Bible as a source in a classroom I WOULD get an “F” on the paper. Stating that you “feel” or “believe” that your God is real, does not count.
To my fellow athiests, I have been looking through Jolene’s previous posts to see where she sites her information from, and I can’t seem to find one source sited for her rants.
I find it strange that she’s giving people lectures about siting from Wikipedia, yet I can’t find one single account of her siting her information posted.
If you do find a post that she has a reference for, could you please let me know what post that would be.
Thanks
Here’s an example how to cite a direct quotation:
“We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
What a wonderful example of an actual quotation TonyT!
And! Before Jolene stresses over the whole mess, I’d like to point out that I had been spelling Cite wrong. I realize that now when reading TonyT’s last comment.
My apologize to the dark lord of spelling.
Jennie:
It would seem that Jolene is not citing sources, but this is probably just as well; her description of Wikipedia – that it “is a mixture of fact, fiction and leftist propaganda” – would seem to indicate that she has swallowed the Conservapedia lie regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia. Of course Wiki is not an authorative source of information. However, it’s as close as we’ll find, for free, on the internet. And since the articles there are heavily sourced, it is not difficult for people to do their own research to verify the accuracy of Wiki’s content.
What I believe is that Jolene is hypocritically denouncing Wiki for being “agenda-driven”, while it is fairly obvious that she herself is making a case solely to suit her own agenda. This in and of itself isn’t a bad thing – we all have our own agendas, of course – but to ignore inconvenient facts IS a bad thing, and she should be called upon it – as others already have.
By the way, have you given up on Mormonism so quickly? ; )
Bobber,
Well, after Jolene stated that:
“If human beings act as if there’s no eternal consequences for immorality and evil, then morality is an illusion”
So I took up my quest for religion, a decided on Mormonism since Jolene seemed to think that wasn’t a big deal, and she wasn’t offended by my decision. She was offended by my decision when I had decided on Islam, she told me that Islam was not a real religion.
After refusing to respond to me at all in regards to which religion to choose, she finally responded with:
“Jennie, actually my heartfelt advice to you is that you should stay away from all religions for the time being… Give it a few years. I was once like you and later in life I converted to Catholicism. Give it time. Some day, you’ll face an obstacle or loss in life that no one can help you with. I pray that at that moment, God will give you the grace to do what I did: Open your heart to God and pray to him to reveal Himself and help you. That will be your God moment. Everything will happen for you and you’ll know what we know: God is real. Faith is a gift, not a proof. Give it time.
-Jolene, the former uber-atheist”
I guess Jolene doesn’t think I need fear of eternal consequences after all. Which is great! I was having trouble believing any of the fairy tales that religions provide.
:D
Another wonderful quote:
“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933
What a cracker — it really puts the “host” back to hostage.
TonyT!
My goodness! Are you telling us that, contrary to Jolene’s beliefs, Hitler was not an athiest but a Christian?!
Of course you are not telling us that. You are citing Hitler’s own words!
Wow. Jolene, what is your response to this information??
I just love quoting our “christian” founding fathers:
“Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
Oh no no no no no no no. You’ve got it all wrong. Hitler was an atheist, working secretly from the inside to bring down the church. All that clever stuff he did that sounded like he was following the ideas of historical Christian antisemitism and the teachings of Luther, really wasn’t that at all.
Same with his attempt to smear the asexuals, the vegetarians and the mono-testicular. He gave it to Eva Braun, with both barrels, twice a day – right after a huge meal of steak and bratwurst.
All part of the Secret Atheist Agenda™, which, having accepted Jesus into my life, I am honour-bound to reveal.
Hallelujah!
The stock answer will be “Hitler wasn’t a Christian, he didn’t behave in a way that a Christian would, yadda yadda yadda” and then something about atheism, Darwin, and eugenics. Of course, historically, German anti-Semitism had nothing at all to do with Christianity…
Sorry, I had to pick up my eyeballs… rolled onto the floor here…
Wowbagger, you’ve accepted Jesus into your life? I was afraid to. I don’t want Jesus or God watching my every move. Especially in the shower. Seems a bit perverted to me.
Christians: Jesus can take care of Himself, thank you very much.
Atheists: It’s only a cracker. Why fight over it?
Chilleth, all!
Jennie, before this whole cracker incident I thought I was content to be an Atheist. But the Christians who’ve come here and posted have shown me the light (can I get an ay-men?!) – obviously, it’s a religion of love, tolerance and – above all else – reason.
I mean, with all the irrefutable evidence and impeccable logic presented by Jolene and her brothers and sisters in faith, how can you not accept that it’s real and true and better for you than icky, evil Atheism?
I like Sam Harris and his rebuttal of the “Mao and Stalin were atheist” argument.
“that the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence.”
It’s interesting to add that Stalin did try to form a quasi-religion within the USSR that revolved around communism, himself, Marx and Lenin. If Lenin was Jesus, Carl Marx was god the father. Pictures of Lenin were plastered everywhere, in people’s homes and on the streets. There was even a type of communist hymnal that had songs about Lenin. Stalin may have been an atheist, but Atheism itself too narrow a context to include his actions and what he tried to do. People either don’t know their history, but after the death of Lenin, Stalin maneuvered himself over Trotsky to become primer of the USSR. He took advantage of a system that was vulnerable to a dictatorship, and that’s exactly what the place became. Stalinism is a better description of the USSR’s political system at that time than Communism.
And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26
Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.
27
Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, 15 which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
28
So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”
29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.”
30
So they said to him, “What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31
16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'”
32
So Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34
So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
35
17 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day.”
41
The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,”
42
and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”
43
Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
I am the bread of life.
49
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Nancy P: We, athiests, are not fighting over a cracker. We are fighting over the idea that a stolen cracker is more important than the death threats that were sent to both Cook and Myers.
One article I read said they had place security around the church to protect the crackers…
but umm… none for Cook who had his life threatened.
Do a little reading before you open your corn-hole. You look less ignorant that way.
Athough, I must commend Nancy P. on her acknowledgment that Jesus can take care of himself. I’m assuming that she is a Christian. If not I hope she corrects me.
If she is: She’s one of the few Christians that have posted here, who hasn’t seen a need to condemn Cook and Myers, as their actions will be punished by God according to their beliefs.
RE: JM post #1074
JM, are those your own words? You should probably put quotations around that information and cite your source. We have a research police officer visiting this blog named Jolene.
Everyone! Here is our daily Mana:
Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Exodus 12:29 “And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt…”
2 Samuel 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.!
And for the Christians in the room, this one is for you!
Romans 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
In the name of the father, son, holy spirit… amen!
It’s always nice to cherrypick, isn’t it?
Beg pardon, what I posted is part of the 6th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John. But being roughly 2000 years old, i trust it’s out of copyright. This is the New American translation. Imagine an all powerful God who makes Himself all vulnerable, and you will begin to understand Christianity, and the Catholic faith in the Eucharist.
RE: JM post #1079
Actually, I think TonyT’s citations of Christian doctrine are a more accurate source to understand Christianity and the Catholic faith, but thank’s for your input.
“…You are citing Hitler’s own words! Wow. Jolene, what is your response to this information…??
My response is that Hitler was a politician and he gave propaganda speeches to nearly every demographic group in Germany. He targeted women and styled himself as single but “married to the Fatherland.” Women loved him more than their own fathers. On the advice of Goebbels, his minister of propaganda, Hitler gave speeches which singled the interests of the Protestant North and Catholic south. He gave speeches to industrialists promising them international trade and untold riches in the new “greater Germany.” Did any of this bombast magically make Hitler a practicing in-communion Catholic? (Hardly-see #871)
Let’s make a contemporary comparison. Remember when Obama celebrated clinching the Democratic nomination with his speech telling the adoring crowds they would one day look upon this night and say “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…” Sure it was high comedy to conservatives, but it revealed a greater truth. Like Hitler, Obama was shrewdly appealing to the spiritual element in any society. Not to the Christians like Hitler, but rather, to low carbon footprint Gaia worshippers which constitute the unofficial religion of Liberal America.
So Jennie, you ought to recognize that politicians are generally full of hot air. They promise the credulous the moon-anything to be elected. Hitler was reading from the same playbook as politicians like Obamessiah.
you will begin to understand Christianity
oh we understand it perfectly well.
which is why most of us are atheists.
Jolene wrote:
Well, if you’re going to go target the credulous your best bet is always going to be Christians. Considering the crap they already believe, coming up with something they won’t swallow is actually a real challenge.
I think most people can easily imagine an all powerful God who makes himself all vulnerable, along with an infinite number of similar types of omniscient beings as well.
I can even create an imaginary being this moment that governs the universe while rollerskating, it’s neither male or female and looks like a goldfish.
None of the imaginary beings exists in the real world, that’s why they are only limited to the imagination!
Why don’t you believe in Allah or Sheba? Because you lack the empathy to acknowledge that those people feel just as strongly about their gods as you do about yours.
TonyT wrote:
Hold the phone – my neighbour’s cat is a god?
Well Jolene, FIRST of all, you didn’t cite your sources for your information regarding Hitler and what he “believed”. Remember not to use Wiki!!!
SECOND: Your response was predicted by not one, but two individuals on this blog before you even bothered to respond.
Post #1068 by Wowbagger | July 13, 2008 11:32 PM
and
Post #1069 by Bobber
EXTRA EXTRA!!
According to Jolene’s uncited reponse, Hitler was not a Christian!
MORE NOTEWORTHY NEWS:
Bobber and Wowbagger are psychics, as they predicted Jolene’s response that Hitler was NOT a Christian.
In other words, make-believe that God makes himself vulnerable? Pretend?
Yes, I do understand that Christianity, and the Catholic faith in the Eucharist, are utterly and completely made-up and pretended. Fiction. A story that is told to themselves and each other.
However, believing that a make-believe story is true is by definition delusional.
Wow, this is a GREAT new comedy! This shit has been cracking me up for two days!
Wait, you people are serious? OMG, please PRAY for yourselves. I’m concerned about the level of zealotry and fanaticism over a…piece of bread.
P.S. If you REALLY want to find Jesus, look behind the couch. That’s where I always find him.
P. P. S. That IS kind of pervy. Hmmmm. ;)
Well I must say that PZ Myers’ original thread, and no shortage of the follow-up comments there and here, do a stand-up job of publicly demonstrating just how goddamned stupid, petty and stupid, hateful and stupid, and just plain stupid fundamentalist atheists can be.
Welcome back Owlmirror!! Glad to see another rational individual in the conversation.
An update for you:
Jolene is now demanding that we not cite from Wikipedia, as “Wikipedia is a mixture of fact, fiction and leftist propaganda. It runs about 60% truth, 40% agenda.”
Being the true reference police officer that she is, she is above the law, and refuses to cite even ONE source for any of the comments she has made here.
In other words, Protestants and Catholics — Christians, one and all — voted for Hitler, enthusiastically joined the Nazi Party, and became Hitler’s willing executioners.
Thank you for confirming my argument.
And as for “Obamessiah” — am I correct to infer that you are a Rethuglican?
RE: Robin Edgar #1090
Not to mention, the comments posted by Christians on this site goes to show how cruel, inhuman, and just plain violent the religion truely is.
Unlike you I don’t have alzheimers so I don’t need to place the word stupid with every adjective I use.
Hilter’s words may have been just political pandering, but the fact of the matter was that lumping Hitler with atheism is completely misleading. Their is enough written documentation to strongly suggest that he was indeed a Christian, and possibly believed in other things as well. The very fact that he stimulated the German people’s religiosity to get them to do what he wanted them to do is enough to say that everything that the Nazis did was done in the name of Christianity, among other crazy supernatural claims.
No Jolene, you are completely wrong and misguided when you talk about these matters, and it illustrates your complete lack of understanding of what it means to be an Atheist.
I question authority, do you?? Ever question the Pope? How do you feel about Aids in Africa? Wouldn’t condoms help the matter? How about non-catholics?? Are they all going to burn in hell? How well do you know your bible? Can you quote much from it? Do you like the war in Iraq? Is waterboarding torture?
Why are you just an all around unpleasant person on this website?
Think about it, why is unbelief in the supernatural so bad? Is questioning everything a sign of immorality, or is it the opposite?
Oh, you’re right, Robin Edgar. Us nasty atheists threatening Christians with physical violence and death and trying to get Christians fired from their jobs – yes, that is goddamned stupid, petty and stupid, hateful and stupid, and just plain stupid isn’t it?
Oh, hang on…
Oh, goody, another “fundamentalist atheist” line. I want to know which atheist book is my ultimate authority! Whose words do I take literally? Which tome is it that includes the dictates that Guide My Every Move? Point out the Atheist Code that I unquestionningly follow. I have my iced coffee. I can wait.
Fixed.
I think Robin Edgar needs to get him self checked out by a doctor. Repetative speech is a sign of alzheimer’s disease, and should be addressed.
Wonderful Owlmirror! I think that’s a much clearer statement than the first.
Bobber, do you think it’s true? Is there an athiest Bible?! I’m such a bad athiest, I haven’t even read this book! I’m so ashamed. DO you think it’s just blank pages? Or maybe it reads:
“There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God.
End Chapter One”
Nazism was many things – it had Christian elements, pagan elements, and some shit they just kind of made up. Were there Christians (Catholic and Protestant) who supported Hitler? Of course. Just as there were Christians who did not support Hitler. Which also goes to the point that there is no monolithic “Christian way” – there is just personal conscience, subjective ideas of morality, and societal expectations that influence those choices one way or another. No different than anyone else, no better, no worse.
But to claim that Hitler and the Nazis were atheists is just flat-out revisionist bullshit.
Hey there Jennie!
Actually, I think it might be argued that Mormonism is a Christian heresy as well. Although, as I said earlier, Christianity is a Jewish heresy, which is a Canaanite-Babylonian-Egyptian heresy…
Hm. Maybe you need to stay away from religions that grew out of the Middle East. They seem to want to tend to become heresies of earlier religions.
Let’s see, Buddhism — wait, that can be considered a Hindu heresy. Although I’m not sure how that works because Hinduism is pretty lax about heresy. Hm. And given how Hinduism treats women, especially widows, well, it might not be too fun for you.
Say, how about Taoism? That’s pretty old, and I’m pretty sure that it’s original (not a heresy of something earlier).
I’m not sure if Taoists give out free books, though. Bummer.
Bobber, you should know better…
Everyone is born an atheist, it’s when they develop and told nonsence day and night is how they become religious.
No book needed Bobber… No book needed.
Oh, goody, another “fundamentalist atheist” line. I want to know which atheist book is my ultimate authority! Whose words do I take literally? Which tome is it that includes the dictates that Guide My Every Move? Point out the Atheist Code that I unquestionningly follow. I have my iced coffee. I can wait.
adogma?
The multitudinous writers of the Christian Bible was purportedly inspired by God. Hence, the Atheist Bible is a book composed of nothing but blank pages.
Atheist Code™:
10 I do not believe in god/s
20 goto 10
Good News Owl! Jolene has suggested that I just remain an Athiest! Isn’t that great!
Post #1043
“Jennie, actually my heartfelt advice to you is that you should stay away from all religions for the time being… Give it a few years. I was once like you and later in life I converted to Catholicism. Give it time. Some day, you’ll face an obstacle or loss in life that no one can help you with. I pray that at that moment, God will give you the grace to do what I did: Open your heart to God and pray to him to reveal Himself and help you. That will be your God moment. Everything will happen for you and you’ll know what we know: God is real. Faith is a gift, not a proof. Give it time.
-Jolene, the former uber-atheist”
Apparently she’s German, I looked it up and uber means super in German.
TonyT:
Oh, I do remember those days. Being taken to church, listening to the priests drone on and on, going to catechism and evening events for the kids… I was very lucky to have seen through that stuff very early on. And all it takes is to start asking questions without presupposing the answers. Simple, really!
DO you think it’s just blank pages? Or maybe it reads:
or maybe it reads like this?
and the thread where that came from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/actually_its_theists_who_belie.php
FYI
This line from Jolene’s statement has stuck with me:
“That will be your God moment.”
…otherwise known as orgasm, I believe.
ROTFLMU*UO!
Jennie said – “I think Robin Edgar needs to get him self checked out by a doctor. Repetative speech is a sign of alzheimer’s disease, and should be addressed.”
Jennie might want to pass that information on to Professor PZ Myers since I was only mockingly parroting his own repetitive speech. Read it and weep. . .
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php
RE: Ichthyic post #1109
That’s a very nice Creed.
Hold the phone – my neighbour’s cat is a god?
wait, we translocated to ancient Egypt?
My background is similar Bobber.
When you actually critically think about religion, and are willing to face up to the inconsistencies, you eventually see how ridiculous it is. Most people are deathly afraid to let their minds tackle the subject. They have to perform ceremonies to make it seem like it’s real, to divert their attention from the real world.
I call it the religious trance, and few who are in it’s grip actually get free from it.
Ichthyic:
Of course, what you quoted is worthy of being printed out, laminated, and hung from every atheist’s rafter. But there’s no God there! Where’s the miracles? Where’s the virgin birth? Where’s the slaughter of Egyptian children? Where’s the worldwide flood? Where’s the…
…ewww, I just vomited in my mouth. Just a little. Enough to remind me that I threw up all that religious poison thirty-odd years ago, and I’m SO much healthier for it!
Anyone got a wet-wipe?
RE: Robin Edgar #1111
Do you think I have a personal relationship with Myers?
That’s a very nice Creed.
It caught my eye when I first saw it, but having it in that particular thread was just perfect.
How many times has a religionaut asked how you can live a life while believing in “nothing”?
I can’t count how many times it’s happened to me, even using my fingers AND toes, just so Robin knows us stupid atheists know how to count.
Ichthyic wrote:
The Christians seem to think we’re still in ancient Israel, so if it’s good for the goose…
TonyT:
I’ve pretty much given up discussing religion with folks my way. They are far too comfortable in their faith, and they have guns and I don’t. ; )
On the other hand, I don’t hide the fact that I’m an atheist, either. I don’t press the issue should it come up; in all honesty, it’s the religious folks in the conversation who ask me “Why?” And that opens up possibilities of my asking them “why?” – and some of them start to think…
I wasn’t always so subtle in my approach. When I was in high school I crashed the meeting of the Christian club. Hey, it was on school grounds, dammit! : )
It’s not that as an athiest I believe in nothing. In fact, tomorrow I believe I’ll wake up early and go to Six Flags for the day.
It seems that Ms. Cassa is yet another failure of the American school system. Here are some of the major figures of the Age of Enlightenment, people who influenced (or were among) the founders of the U.S.:
* Baruch Spinoza (1632-1672) Dutch, philosopher who is considered to have laid the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment.
* Balthasar Bekker (1634-1698) Dutch, a key figure in the Early Enlightenment. In his book De Philosophia Cartesiana (1668) Bekker argued that theology and philosophy each had their separate terrain and that Nature can no more be explained from Scripture than can theological truth be deduced from Nature.
* Robert Hooke (1635-1703) English, probably the leading experimenter of his age, Curator of Experiments for the Royal Society. Performed the work which quantified such concepts as Boyle’s Law and the inverse-square nature of gravitation, father of the science of microscopy.
* Jean le Rond d’Alembert (1717-1783) French. Mathematician and physicist, one of the editors of Encyclopédie.
* Thomas Abbt (1738-1766) German. Promoted what would later be called Nationalism in Vom Tode für’s Vaterland (On dying for one’s nation).
* Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) French. Literary critic known for Nouvelles de la république des lettres and Dictionnaire historique et critique, and one of the earliest influences on the Enlightenment thinkers to advocate tolerance between the difference religious beliefs.
* G.L. Buffon (1707-1788) French. Author of L’Histoire Naturelle who considered Natural Selection and the similarities between humans and apes.
* James Burnett Lord Monboddo Scottish. Philosopher, jurist, pre-evolutionary thinker and contributor to linguistic evolution. See Scottish Enlightenment
* James Boswell (1740-1795) Scottish. Biographer of Samuel Johnson, helped established the norms for writing Biography in general.
* Edmund Burke (1729-1797) Irish. Parliamentarian and political philosopher, best known for pragmatism, considered important to both liberal and conservative thinking.
* Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) French. Philosopher, mathematician, and early political scientist who devised the concept of a Condorcet method.
* Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789) French. Author, encyclopaedist and Europe’s first outspoken atheist. Roused much controversy over his criticism of religion as a whole in his work The System of Nature.
* Denis Diderot (1713-1784) French. Founder of the Encyclopédie, speculated on free will and attachment to material objects, contributed to the theory of literature.
* Ignacy Krasicki (1735-1801): Polish. Leading poet of the Polish Enlightenment, hailed by contemporaries as “the Prince of Poets.” After the 1764 election of Stanisław August Poniatowski as King of Poland, Krasicki became the new King’s confidant and chaplain. He participated in the King’s famous “Thursday dinners” and co-founded the Monitor, the preeminent periodical of the Polish Enlightenment, sponsored by the King. He is remembered especially for his Fables and Parables.
* Benito Jerónimo Feijóo y Montenegro (1676-1764) Spanish, was the most prominent promoter of the critical empiricist attitude at the dawn of the Spanish Enlightenment. See also the portuguese Martín Sarmiento.
* Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American. Statesman, scientist, political philosopher, pragmatic deist, author. As a philosopher known for his writings on nationality, economic matters, aphorisms published in Poor Richard’s Almanac and polemics in favour of American Independence. Involved with writing the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1787.
* Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) English. Historian best known for his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
* Johann Gottfried von Herder German. Theologian and Linguist. Proposed that language determines thought, introduced concepts of ethnic study and nationalism, influential on later Romantic thinkers. Early supporter of democracy and republican self rule.
* David Hume (1711-1776) Scottish. Historian, philosopher and economist. Best known for his empiricism and scientific scepticism, advanced doctrines of naturalism and material causes. Influenced Kant and Adam Smith.
* Thomas Reid (1710-1796) Scottish. Presbyterian minister and Philosopher. Contributed greatly to the idea of Common-Sense philosophy and was Hume’s most famous contemporary critic. Best known for his An Inquiry Into The Human Mind. Heavily influenced William James.
* Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) German. Philosopher and physicist. Established critical philosophy on a systematic basis, proposed a material theory for the origin of the solar system, wrote on ethics and morals. Prescribed a politics of Enlightenment in What is Enlightenment? (1784). Influenced by Hume and Isaac Newton. Important figure in German Idealism, and important to the work of Fichte and Hegel.
* Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) American. Statesman, political philosopher, educator, deist. As a philosopher best known for the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and his interpretation of the United States Constitution (1787) which he pursued as president. Argued for natural rights as the basis of all states, argued that violation of these rights negates the contract which bind a people to their rulers and that therefore there is an inherent “Right to Revolution.”
* Joseph-Alexandre-Victor Hupay de Fuveau,(1746-1818), writer and philosopher who had used for the first time in 1785 the word “communism” in a doctrinal sense.
* Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830) German who founded the Order of the Illuminati.
* Hugo Kołłątaj (1750-1812) Polish. He was active in the Commission for National Education and the Society for Elementary Textbooks, and reformed the Kraków Academy, of which he was rector in 1783-86. He co-authored the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s Constitution of May 3, 1791, and founded the Assembly of Friends of the Government Constitution to assist in the document’s implementation.
* Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) German. Dramatist, critic, political philosopher. Created theatre in the German language, began reappraisal of Shakespeare to being a central figure, and the importance of classical dramatic norms as being crucial to good dramatic writing, theorized that the centre of political and cultural life is the middle class.
* Johann Joachim Winckelmann, German founder of art-history, who emphasised the mimetic or imitative function in art and laid important foundations to German classical idealism of the Enlightenment.
* John Locke (1632-1704) English Philosopher. Important empiricist who expanded and extended the work of Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes. Seminal thinker in the realm of the relationship between the state and the individual, the contractual basis of the state and the rule of law. Argued for personal liberty with respect to property.
* Leandro Fernández de Moratín (1760-1828) Spanish. Dramatist and translator, support of republicanism and free thinking. Transitional figure to Romanticism.
* Montesquieu (1689-1755) French political thinker. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions all over the world.
* Nikolay Novikov (1744-1818) Russian. Philanthropist and journalist who sought to raise the culture of Russian readers and publicly argued with the Empress. See Russian Enlightenment for other prominent figures.
* Thomas Paine (1737-1809) English/American. Pamphleteer, Deist, and polemicist, most famous for Common Sense attacking England’s domination of the colonies in America. The pamphlet was key in fomenting the American Revolution. Also wrote The Age of Reason which remains one of the most persuasive critiques of the Bible ever written, his writings (mainly Age of Reason and Rights of Man) made Americans study their religion, their behaviors, and the ruling hierarchy. His work “The Rights of Man” was written in defense of the French Revolution and is the classic example up of the Enlightenment arguments in favor of classical liberalism.
* Francois Quesney (1694-1774) French economist of the Physiocratic school. He also practiced surgery.
* Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos. Main figure of the Spanish Enlightenment. Preeminent statesman.
* Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) Natural philosopher and theologian whose search for the operation of the soul in the body led him to construct a detailed metaphysical model for spiritual-natural causation.
* French Encyclopédistes
* François-Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) (1694-1778) French Enlightenment writer, essayist, deist and philosopher. He wrote several books, the most famous of which is Dictionnaire Philosophique , in which he argued that organized religion is pernicious. He was the Enlightenment’s most vigorous antireligious polemicist, as well as being a highly well known advocate of intellectual freedom.
* Sebastião de Melo, Marquis of Pombal (1699-1782) Portuguese statesman notable for his swift and competent leadership in the aftermath of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. He also implemented sweeping economic policies to regulate commercial activity and standardize quality throughout the country. The term Pombaline is used to describe not only his tenure, but also the architectural style which formed after the great earthquake.
* Jean-Jacques Rousseau Swiss political philosopher. Argued that the basis of morality was conscience, rather than reason, as most other philosophers argued. He wrote Du Contrat Social, in which Rousseau claims that citizens of a state must take part in creating a ‘social contract’ laying out the state’s ground rules in order to found an ideal society in which they are free from arbitrary power. His rejection of reason in favor of the “Noble Savage” and his idealizing of ages past make him truly fit more into the romantic philosophical school, which was a reaction against the enlightenment. He largely rejected the individualism inherent in classical liberalism, arguing that the general will overrides the will of the individual.
* Adam Smith (1723-1790) Scottish economist and philosopher. He wrote The Wealth of Nations, in which he argued that wealth was not money in itself, but wealth was derived from the added value in manufactured items produced by both invested capital and labor. He is sometimes considered to be the founding father of the Laissez-faire economic theory, but in fact argues for some degree of government control in order to maintain equity.
* Gottfried Leibniz
* Christian Wolff (1679-1754)”German” Co-founder of the German Enlightenment.
* Helvétius
* Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle
* Olympe de Gouges
* Cesare Beccaria
* Sir Isaac Newton Founder of modern physics and inventor of calculus.
* John Wilkes
* Antoine Lavoisier
* Mikhail Lomonosov
* Mikhailo Shcherbatov
* Ekaterina Dashkova
* Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) British writer, philosopher, and feminist.
* Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) English philosopher, who wrote Leviathan, a key text in political philosophy.
* Alexis de Tocqueville
* Carl Linnaeus (1707 – 1778) Swedish botanist, physician and zoologist who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of Binomial nomenclature.
* Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is closely identified with Enlightenment values, progressing from Sturm und Drang and participating with Schiller in the movement of Weimar Classicism.
* George Berkeley
Where’s the miracles? Where’s the virgin birth? Where’s the slaughter of Egyptian children? Where’s the worldwide flood? Where’s the…
well, it is just a creed, after all, I don’t think they’ve been able to translate the whole atheist bible from the ancient sanskrit yet.
…but we have top men working on it now.
RE: Jennie #1116
“Do you think I have a personal relationship with Myers?”
Not at all Jennie but, if you really think that he should get himself checked out by a doctor because his repetitive speech is a symptom of Alzheimer’s disease, I thought you might want to send him an email or something to let him know. It would be the humane thing to do. . . ;-)
I thought the atheis bible was written in proto-Indo-European. mmmm pie.
RE: Robin Edgar post #1123
Well I shall do that immediately then, because athiests, unlike Christians, are humane people.
nice list, TM. Saved for future reference.
where did you come across that?
Truth Machine’s post is a fortuitous one. I was just trying to find a few books to order for some summer reading; and here he provides me with a list of thinkers whose insights might further my own education regarding the philosophical influences on the Founders. I need to delve deeper into the roots of American political history – he’s just given me a starting point to work from. Many thanks!
Truth Machine:
Excellent list. Jolene was also the person who wrote this: I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn’t base their atheism on the idea that humankind sprang spontaneously from the primordial muck
I was a few hours behind when I read that (it’s been a bit annoying being in another hemisphere) so I didn’t get the chance to challenge her to explain if that meant that there couldn’t have been any atheists before Darwin/Wallace – since ‘primordial muck’ is a hallmark of a clueless evolution denier.
Jolene – if you’re still around, would you care to explain how Truth Machine’s list of pre-Darwin atheists is possible?
Apparently there are some atheists here who are unaware that the word “fundamentalist” has evolved somewhat and can now be applied to atheists who are as absolutely convinced of the non-existence of God as believers who are convinced that God exists. The term “fundamentalist atheist” can be properly used to describe devout “militant atheists” whose behavior is characterized by rigid adherence to atheist beliefs, by intolerance of religious beliefs, and opposition to religion.
That’s right Jenni!
Atheist don’t pray, they know it’s a waste of time, so they go out and do!
Christians are often disappointed about the outcomes of their prayers, so they just say “the lord works on mysterious ways” or deceive themselves some other way.
RE: Robin Edgar #1129
Thank you for the clarification on this matter. It is much appreciated.
where did you come across that?
Um, guess.
RE: Jennie post #1125
Jennie said, “Well I shall do that immediately then, because athiests, unlike Christians, are humane people.”
Spoken like a true fundamentalist atheist Jennie!
Or would you prefer Atheist Supremacist?
evolved somewhat
translation:
been personally remade by morons to try and say something nonsensical, like there is some form of atheist dogma.
just to piss off Jolene (even though it’s directed at Bobin), here’s the wiki definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
note:
now, now, you don’t want to offend xians do you?
. The term “fundamentalist atheist” can be properly used to describe devout “militant atheists”
then why are you using all the fucking scare quotes, moron?
Well, since you are reluctant to get caught up on the posts found on this blog, I will update you. I’ve already had this conversation with a guy named Bill.
You can call me all the names you want.
By the way, Bill left this Blog and his exact words were
“Jennie, I respect you!!”
You will define me how you want by the time you leave, I have no control over that.
Again, your attempt at insulting me do not hurt my feelings.
I like the sound of militant Atheist isn’t so bad, it sounds pretty cool.
Now when I hear about a militant Christian, for some reason Timothy McVeigh comes to mind. It’s probably a warning to duck and cover.
You are most welcome for the clarification of the meaning of the term “fundamentalist atheist” Jennie. I trust that I need not clarify what the term Atheist Supremacist means.
would you care to explain how Truth Machine’s list of pre-Darwin atheists is possible?
I should note that that wasn’t my point. In fact, I wanted to address her nonsense about the founders not being influenced by Enlightenment thought because they weren’t atheists. The ideas of the Enlightenment were largely secular — which does not mean atheistic, and few of the Enlightenment thinkers were atheists (but many were deists).
I trust that I need not clarify what the term Atheist Supremacist means.
no, we all know you’re making it up as you go along.
I trust you don’t need us to clarify that we’re laughing at you?
RE: Robin Edgar #1137
No, you do not need to clarify what the term Atheist Supremacist means, but if you’d like to, I’ll definetly read what you write.
Although I cannot speak for others on this blog, so you may want to define the term anyhow, but it’s your choice.
Robin Edgar wrote:
Oh, we’re not ‘unaware’ that that’s what some desperate theists with no other argument to fall back on like to – well, I’d say think, but that’s really inaccurate; how about ‘blather’?
One of us even came up with an expression to describe it:
Oh, and ‘rigid adherence to atheist beliefs’? Nice try, but (read this carefully) there are no atheist beliefs.
truth machine, that’s a very accurate description of the founders of the United States. It’s amazing how the influence of religious dogma was low enough to allow people to finally be able to think freely without having to worry about getting burned at the stake. The enlightenment was not a religious movement in any way, but a breath of fresh air from the centuries of oppression from the powers in Europe, including the Vatican.
Did Wowbagger put Robin Edgar in his place?! Kudos!
Did Wowbagger put Robin Edgar in his place?! Kudos!
naw, it just doesn’t happen that people like Robin ever consider themselves to be incorrect. Why should they, when they feel justified in just making shit up as they go along?
much more likely it was beddy-bye time for Robin.
Well even pray-holes need their sleep I guess.
I grew up Catholic and served as an “usher” as a teen and once they asked me to stand guard at the door because some teens were trying to steal the communion wafer (I always called it a “wafer” though everyone else called it “the Eucharist”). I thought it was really crazy they asked me to do that, I mean what, was I supposed to tackle someone who didn’t eat the cracker? After reading this story apparently YES, I should have used violent force. So freaking ridiculous. I feel like if any other random person (Not Catholic), said a rock was “Jesus Christ” and really believed it, people would think they were insane. Why don’t more people think these people are insane? I always thought it was just a wafer, no matter how many times “transubstantiation” was explained to me. Come on! Sorry you’re taking so muck flak for this, ridiculous.
…not to say that Wowbagger’s link to Blake’s Law wasn’t perfectly timed.
Why don’t more people think these people are insane?
commonality of the delusion makes most in the field of psychology/psychiatry reticent to label it as such.
that’s about the size of it, really.
IOW:
It’s not a delusion if everyone thinks the same way.
yeah, I rather disagree as well, but I understand the politics involved with why the American Psychiatric Association chose to utilize such a definition.
can you imagine an official organization devoted to mental health proclaiming that 25% of Americans are clinically insane?
Since I’m having fun posting stuff from Wiki today, there is a short overview on the subject of delusion there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
note:
therein lies one of the big problems with religion in general:
it is often given a free pass by not only the public, but even official organizations.
IMO, if you remove the religious exceptionalism, thinking an inanimate object is a deity would qualify as a delusion.
of course, I’m a bit biased, since I’m an atheist and think ALL deification is based on delusion, whether one wants to project one’s deity onto a cracker, or not.
Ichthyic, it’s nice to hear that you don’t discriminate Catholic delusions from Heaven’s Gate delusions, or even Mormon delusions. I guess in the eyes of a fellow non-believer, they should be all treated the same. (I guess if it’s bad enough, might have to break out the Haldol and Thorazine)
You’re just exposing to ridicule your own failure to read widely enough. Eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Nature_of_Things
Unfortunately, I couldn’t re-find a nice copy of that ancient rock inscription / poem by someone who was evidently an atheist (and which was addressing anyone who might read the graffiti after his death).
here, you see if YOU think, without the religious exclusion, you would label transubstantiation of a cracker as delusional, based on what this psychiatrist says about delusion:
– Anthony David
-patently bizarre?
check.
-causes significant distress?
do death threats against those criticizing the delusion count as “distress”?
check.
-excessive preoccupation?
like… at least once a week?
check.
-unswayed in belief by counter-evidence or reasonable arguments?
I think we can safely say…
check.
your conclusion?
I really like the theory of natural selection because it does a far better job explaining the diversity of life on this planet than any holy book does. It’s a seriously reasonable theory, and nothing else that has been proposed has been able to succeed in explaining as much as Natural Selection. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to look at the wide variety of Lemurs in Madagascar and see how each one of them has adapted to different diets and living conditions. We as humans even have vestigial organs, such as the appendix and wisdom teeth that are no longer needed, but we still have them in our bodies. Our brains are made up of several different layers (i.e. mylenencephalon, mesaencephalon, teleencephalon…) which evidence from other creatures show that they have evolved gradually over long periods of time in successive stages. Where in any bible is there mention of such things? (bible code doesn’t count!)
For myself, it was not the cause of my own disbelief; that was caused by simple thinking and reevaluation of my life at the time, and realizing that there is nothing supernatural, regardless of the claims that were made to me, none of them were actually real when I investigated them further… (Why doesn’t god cause a car to levitate? Why doesn’t he grow back limbs? And so on…)
I went on learning about the human body, and fully realizing that there is nothing supernatural about the body either, it’s all machinery. The mind and brain, nothing but an intricate lattice of cells and neurons. When the brain is not working, you cease to be.. Basically in the same condition before you were born.
It’s not an easy thing to stomach at first if you have been brought up religious, but you get used to it.
Yeah, a shrink won’t diagnose a person with anything serious unless it has a profound negative impact on their daily functioning. If a person if they are running naked and attacking people in a shopping mall thinking they are after the devil, then the person will get some kind of diagnoses and hopefully treatment as well.
I really like the theory of natural selection because it does a far better job explaining the diversity of life on this planet than any holy book does.
Oh, I think you could readily stretch that to say:
Science does a far better job explaining ANYTHING than any holy book does.
which of course is why, as science has gained ground over the last few hundred years, the religious grow ever more desperate to indoctrinate their flocks in their old superstitious nonsense, and ever more blatantly attack science as a “competitor”.
A snake oil salesman’s natural enemy is a real physician.
Speaking of Snakes! Here is a fun story of people who believe ridiculous things!!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/13/snake.bust.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest
ah yeah, the Pentecostal snake handlers.
great case for analyzing whether religious indoctrination could be considered child abuse.
http://www.rickross.com/groups/snake.html
It’s interesting to see people behave like. It seems like they will go great lengths to try to confirm their beliefs with some kind of evidence. Taking a bible line on how snakes can’t hurt a believer, and then testing it first hand. Hey, if they don’t get bit, it must be true and the bible is correct… I guess the people who died from this practice were probably not in a state of belief while handing those reptiles.
I guess the people who died from this practice were probably not in a state of belief while handing those reptiles.
that’s the “theory” anyway.
I’m still amazed there are states that allow it, and attempts at prosecution for abuse have been few and far between.
like I said, religion, no matter how bugfuck nuts, is by and large given a free pass in this country until the body count really start to pile up. Even then…
RE: Ichthyic post #1156
Thanks for the link! I love a good read, and a good laugh!
Wowbagger said – “Oh, we’re not ‘unaware’ that that’s what some desperate theists with no other argument to fall back on like to – well, I’d say think, but that’s really inaccurate; how about ‘blather’?”
Be assured that I am far from “desperate” Wowbagger. The use of the term “fundamentalist atheist” is very much in line with dictionary definitions of the word fundamentalist. Atheist Supremacist does a pretty good job of describing a subset of atheists too. . .
:One of us even came up with an expression to describe it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake's_Law
I am quite aware of Blake’s Law. Unfortunately it is every bit as “made up” as the term “fundamentalist atheist”. For starters I am not comparing vocal atheists to religious fundamentalists. My definition of a “fundamentalist atheist” is almost identical to an accepted dictionary definition of the word “fundamentalist”. If militant atheists don’t want to be compared to religious fundamentalists they shouldn’t behave in ways that make such comparisons not only possible but highly valid. . .
:Oh, and ‘rigid adherence to atheist beliefs’? Nice try, but (read this carefully) there are no atheist beliefs.
Wrong. As evidenced by many of the comments in this thread, to say nothing of PZ Myers’ blog posts, atheists hold to some specific beliefs. Just for starters all atheists, from the most moderate to the most militant aka fundamentalist, *believe* that God does not exist. Fundamentalist atheists aka Atheist Supremacists go well beyond that *fundamental* belief of atheists in their militant atheism. “Fundie” atheists are every bit as convinced of the non-existence of God as religious fundamentalists are convinced of their beliefs about God. Atheist Supremacists *believe* that God believing people are less intelligent than atheists. Besides *believing* that theists are less intelligent people than atheists fundamentalist atheists strongly *believe* that God believing people are delusional hence the title of Richard Dawkins’ book ‘The God Delusion’. For various other fundamentalist atheist *beliefs* just read the beliefs expressed by intolerant and obnoxious militant atheists on this blog. . .
The use of the term “fundamentalist atheist” is very much in line with dictionary definitions…
Unfortunately it is every bit as “made up” as the term “fundamentalist atheist”.
what’s that now? You’re actually trying to argue that the term you think is a “dictionary definition” is made up.
damn, you’re nutty.
dude, go home, sleep it off.
you’re not making any sense.
Robin you seem to think there is only one god.
I would refer you to http://www.godfinder.org
I would bet you are atheist with respect to most of that list, right? Are you a fundamental atheist with most of that list?
Thank you kindly
@Jennie-
see?
I told you he was completely irrational, and that the irrational don’t stop trolling a blog because someone trashed their nonsense completely.
if robin wants to keep posting the same drivel over and over again, it doesn’t matter how wrong he really is, he’ll just keep doing it anyway, until he finally tuckers himself out, or the blog owner is annoyed enough to toss him in the dungeon.
not like it hasn’t happened a thousand times before, even though I’m sure Robin is completely convinced his arguments are entirely novel.
I’m sure he hasn’t even bothered to consider WHY there is a Blake’s Law.
BTW-for those of you who believe there is no God-then accept the fact that your mom,dad,relatives,spouse and children are nothing more than “grasshoppers”. Smart ones for sure but “just grasshoppers”.
Maybe you are more than that
Christians (and most of religious people in general) never fail to prove my theory that they are nothing but big, big egomaniacs, albeit with an obvious lack of self confidence.
Some of us can accept our limited role in the universe, you know. We don’t need “hope” in an afterlife to find ourselves valuable for what we are and give some meaning to our lives.
TruthMachine,
Nice list. Nice people. Probably fascinating dinner guests as well. Spurge claimed he/she/it lived in a secular nation founded on the principles of the enlightenment. I think we have established that this criteria knocks America out of contention as Spurge’s homeland.
Lets get on with the obvious: America is a Christian nation. It’s an excruciating request of Liberals to ask for a little contextual, lateral thinking, but Truth is often discovered through this reasoned attitude. I do not suggest that all Americans were or are Christian. I’m just pointing out what ANY school textbook will tell you: that there was a Christian consensus (based on Christian principles derived from the Bible) in all our founding documents, laws, moral codes and institutions.
Perhaps you’re confused by the term “nation.” A nation is not a name on a map-the Jewish people were a “nation” during the 40 years they wandered in the wilderness but they had no land of their own. A nation is an aggregation of people bound together by common ideals and purpose, an inheritance of memories and a common desire to preserve those memories. Truly, we can say a nation is a spiritual entity brought into existence by the accretion of similar traditions and a similar imagination within a particular historical condition.
As to the founding of this country, true there were woven into the ideals of the Nation some “enlightenment” (insert large grain of salt here) ideas, but to be fair, many of these ideas were recycled or heretical spin-offs and fragments of fuller Christian Truths. Certain ideas-notably those on the nature of human freedom-would later come back in the 19th and 20th centuries to plague this nation with an anarchic sense of freedom. The “Enlightenment freedom” we were promised has become the dictatorship of relativity and licentiousness.
The historical documents of America’s founding will reveal the Truth…I hope they will give the few objective thinkers on this board a lesson in America’s Christian roots.
Let’s travel way back to 1638 and America’s first “constitution,” The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut. That document clearly stated that we.. “enter into a combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which we now profess.” Most significantly, it also states an idea anathema to the “enlightenment”: that men’s rights come FROM God, (as later stated in the Declaration of Independence).
In 1776, Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. Let’s not forget it’s FOUR direct religious acknowledgments referring to God’s eternal attributes:
1) the Creator: “…All people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
2) the Lawgiver: “…the laws of nature and nature’s God.”
3) the Judge: “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world.”
4) the Protector: “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”
The First Continental Congress in 1777 appropriated funds to import 20,000 Holy Bibles for the people to serve as “the great political textbook of the patriots.” In 1782, Congress adopted the National Seal with its Latin motto “Annuit Coeptis,” meaning “God has favored our undertakings.”
The 1783 Treaty of Paris (that established America as an independent Nation begins with “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity…”
Can we forget George Washington’s Inaugural Address? “The propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained.” BTW, ALL inaugural addresses and state constitutions refer to Almighty God,described as the AUTHOR of life and sustainer of our liberty.
If you’re ever in DC, check out Thomas Jefferson’s memorial. There, chiseled in stone, you’ll read: “God who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that the liberties are the gift of God?”
And last (but certainly not least) TruthMachine… Let’s visit the supreme court’s opinion:
In 1897, the Supreme Court-citing 87 precedents-declared: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind (aka Jesus Christ). It is impossible that it should be otherwise: and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian … This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation … we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.”
OK THAT’S IT.
How about the Spanish Civil War.? In the summer of 1936, 7,937 Catholic priests, bishops, and 283 nuns, (many whom were raped first) were shot, burned, buried alive, thrown down mineshafts, and otherwise murdered in Red Spain. Their atheist captors gave them an ultimatum: “Join the peoples militias or die,” Most made the sign of the cross and immediately forgave their killers. They were immediately executed. Marxism/atheism in action, folks.
AT LEAST THEY GAVE THEM A FUCKING CHANCE.
What fucking chance had the thousand people dying under the bombs in Gernika? You know, the very first bombing of a civil location in history. By the very same nazis allied to the so catholic fascist followers of Franco.
What fucking chance had the thousands of war prisoners forced to work in the fascist concentration camps?
WHAT FUCKING CHANCE HAD THE 60.000 PEOPLE CONDEMNED TO DEATH IN JUST THE 2 FIRST YEARS AFTER THE WAR??? WHAT ABOUT THE FUCKING CHANCES OF THE MORE THAN 300.000 POLITICAL PRISONERS JUST IN THE 5 FIRST YEARS AFTER THE WAR??
What about the chances to their children, who were, at the very best, “relocated” to strangers and separated from their families, and at the very worst, confined with them in hideous camps and marked for life, unable to find a decent living?
But oh no, who remembers those 8.000 catholic priests and nuns? Whom’ve been honored in the churches and public monuments for decades, while their “red” counterparts laid in commonal graves of undisclosed location? That’s like, and excuse me for pulling out the Godwin law, comparing the backlash against the collaborationists after WWII to Auschwitz.
Jolene:
And here we see the intellectual dishonesty of your claim that the U.S. is a “Christian nation”, a claim that has been debunked time and again by people much smarter than either you or I.
For all the documents you mentioned, you failed to mention the only document that matters as regards the makeup of the U.S. body politic:
The Constitution.
The personal beliefs of the Founders, as well as the opinions of various courts and even the sentiments expressed in the Declaration, do not in any way have the last word in how our government was set up, as regards religious faith. The Constitution does. So while individuals may believe their ideas are founded in their faith, the laws by which our nation is governed lend them NO OFFICIAL CREDENCE, and certainly no government-sanctioned support.
As evidence, I invite you to find a single reference to God, Christians and Christianity, or Jesus in the Constitution. I have another cup of ice coffee here. I wil be happy to wait.
This is not a Christian nation. It is a Constitutional nation. Our leaders and military are not sworn to protect God or the Church; they vow to defend the Constitution – the Godless, not-Christian Constitution.
No matter what else you may post, you can’t win – because the Constitution defies you. ; )
What is it with these people imposing their biological chauvinism on us? The fact that the people I love and care about are animals is irrelevant. The *smart* is what matters. They have the requisite intelligence to have emotion, thoughts, and all that valuable stuff. Being made of the same building materials as mindless bugs has absolutely nothing to do with that.
If I were beamed up onto a sci-fi spaceship, my evaluation of the people on board wouldn’t be affected by what they’re made out of. It doesn’t matter if you’re made of meat, greens, positronic circuits a large number of 1’s and 0’s, or even if there’s some yet-undiscovered method of thinking using spiritual particles and pressure. A person is a person, regardless of the physical mechanisms that give them sentience.
OK, for anyone who’s interested, you can order your magic crackers here:
http://www.autom.com/autom/Church-Supplies_304489/Hosts-Altar-Breads_304711.htm
Apologies if it’s already been posted, such a loooong thread.
Elgie,
What the atheists did was far more perverse and evil. To hold a gun at a nun’s head and attempt to extort her? This life in exchange for eternal life? Sick, sick, sick.
War is hell. Civilians get killed and your statement that the Spanish Civil War was the first time innnocent civilians have been targeted really belies a wholesale leftist indoctrination. Stalin liquidated how many millions of Ukrainian Catholics using slow starvation and death. You’re all mixed up and confused.
You forget the atheist Spanish Republicans started all the death and destruction in Spain in the first place, with the help of the Soviet politburo, the Soviet Red Army, the International Socialist movement and the International Brigades. ALL the death, torture, murder and loss is the fault of the INSTIGATORS. If there were prior injustices in Spanish society, they were nothing compared to the atheist solution which later descended like a plague on all of Spain: the hated Republicans who turned their backs on God to worship the demonic light of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin-the four apostles of atheism.
one more thing elgie…
To answer the question what ****** chance had the thousands of war prisoners forced to work in the fascist concentration camps? Why don’t you open your mind and learn about Dachau’s “Priest Block 25487” a barracks that housed more than 3,000 clergy (the vast majority Roman Catholic priests). All were gassed for no other reason than they refused to pledge fealty to the goals of Fascist atheism.
Well if your America consists solely of the constitution, don’t hate us Christians, join us!
The constitution contains no reference whatsoever that there should exist a “Separation Of Church and State.” The ideals and intentions of the framers stand as I’ve stated them
Jolene:
Your defense of the Franco regime is, quite frankly, disgusting – and rather disingenuous. You rail against “athestic Fascism”, but you are aware that Franco’s Spain was a Fascist nation, are you not? A Fascist regime with the full support of the Catholic church?
The Republicans did not instigate the Civil War, despite your reivisionist claims to the contrary. The left won an election partly on the promises of land reform and universal education – both of which were a threat to the Catholic power structure in Spain and to the military hierarchy with which they were in league. The opening shots were fired by the Fascists, with the military uprising against a LEGALLY ELECTED government. Whether that government was leftist, rightist, or clownist, doesn’t matter – it was the military that started the war, with the full backing of the Catholic church. Atrocities against civilians occurred on both sides, but it was the Fascists who won, and it was they who continued to execute and imprison with impunity.
Spain provides you with a poor example to make your points, because it was undoubtedly a Catholic Fascist dictatorship – and belies your claim of “atheistic Fascism”.
If you would argue from history, you must first KNOW your history.
P.S. As a matter of interest, my maternal grandfather was part of the Italian “volunteers” that served on the Fascist side. I also still have living relatives – extremely Catholic, of course – who look favorably upon Mussolini. “Atheistic Fascism” my Italian ass.
Is it possible to believe that (1) the doctrine of transubstantiation is silly, (2) as are most religious beliefs, *and* (3) PZ’s still a total asshole for proposing to desecrate a eucharist?
Next up, let’s go whack a hornet’s nest! ‘Cuz hornets are stupid! LOLAMIRITE?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Separation of church and state is implicit. The individual may be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, whatever. The government is none of those things, and all of those things; it is not exclusively Christian, because it is Constitutionally barred from being so.
Our Godless, non-Christian Constitution, while not perfect, is a far superior guide to good governance than any religious tract.
You don’t know what you’re talking about Bobster…
The Spanish Civil War was the brainchild of about 10 men in the Soviet politburo-that’s where the plan was hatched. It’ was a foreign, imposed war on Catholicism, the eternal enemy of atheism. Europeans forming the Body of Christ was the one power that stood in the way of communism’s victory across western Europe. The so-called Republican political victory was a masterstroke of “agitation and propaganda” straight out of the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary handbook. It was an utterly illegitimate “win.” The Republicans promised to wipe out every vestige of the Catholic Church upon victory. Franco offered protection to believers. And you’re saying the Church was immoral because it didn’t want to vote itself out of existence by siding with communism? Sorry, I don’t take that position.
Fletch, #276: I’m anti-materialism.
No you’re not.
If you plug your toaster in instead of praying for magic pixies to toast your bread, you ar a materialist. If you use an ignition key to start your car instead of casting incantations at the starter motor, you are a materialist.
If you were actually an anti-materialist you’d either be dead of starvation or locked up somewhere where you could have pablum shoved in your maw on a rigorous schedule.
Jolene:
Name your sources.
Jolene,
Really? The United States was a founded as a Christian nation on Christian principles?
Text from the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by a unanimous Senate vote in 1797.
From Article 6 of the US Constitution
Therefore, the highest law of the land states that the US is not a Christian nation. We just so happen to have a secular country.
One other thing Jolene: All of your statements to the contrary notwithstanding, the USA did not exist as a nation until the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. Prior to the Revolutionary War, most people living in what is now the USA thought of themselves as British subjects, not as a separate nation.
If you don’t understand history, don’t try to talk about it.
My sources are real books, not Wikipropaganda…
90% of what is accepted as truth about the Spanish Civil War is leftist feelgood propaganda and like all leftist propaganda it ultimately it zeros in on enemy number one: Jesus Christ or enemy number two: Capitalism. If you want the clear light of reason and Truth, here’s a good start:
Ronald Radosh edited a great compilation of historical writing in a volume called: “Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War.” Also worthwhile is Antony Beevor’s “The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939.”
Jolene:
You are still missing the point. Whether or not the Soviet Union was as intimately involved with the Spanish Republic as Radosh claims (and, by the way, I have read some criticism about both Radosh and Beevor that I don’t find surprising – the company Radosh keeps, in particular, does not speak well of his objectivity in his research) does not for one moment diminish the fact that the Franco government was a murderous, Catholic-supported regime that removed the legal rights of millions of Spaniards, tortured and murdered tens of thousands, and enforced a dictatorship whose main beneficiaries were the Spanish Church and Franco’s military cronies. Nor does it justify the overthrow of a duly-elected government by the Army – unless, of course, you don’t personally believe in democracy.
Do you still maintain that the brutal Franco government is a model of pro-Catholic, pro-capitalist rule? Are you, in truth, a closeted religio-fascist?
Jolene:
“It’s an excruciating request of Liberals to ask for a little contextual, lateral thinking…
Oh, my! How Christian of you to say so.
Say! You’re not one of those shit-for-brains conservatives who thinks that Al Gore and “the libruls”, who of course control, you know, everything, are behind the $4.00/gal gasoline prices, are you? I received an email claiming exactly that, just last week. Frankly, you seem a bit too intelligent to believe that kind of nonsense. And to think, until now, I’d been putting all of you conservatives into one big monochromatic, shit-for-brains bucket! How silly of me.
I’ve learned a lot today, and it’s not even three o’clock.
Anways, back on topic:
Population A: “I believe in God because I need to feel special. Join me!”
Population B: “Thanks for the offer, but I prefer to engage with reality than to wallow in self-indulgent fairy tales.”
Shorter Jolene and Robin:
“Pay no attention to the death threats made by Christians towards Cook and Myers! I am the Great and Powerful Sophist!”
How inexpressibly dull.
Believe what you like, children, but any theist who claims to know The Way and The Truth is an arrogant fool. Beliefs and myths are not truths. Otherwise, enjoy your stay here on Planet Earth, but please keep your kind, loving death threats to yourselves. Thank you.
Jolene: “Perhaps you’re confused by the term ‘nation.’ A nation is not a name on a map…”
True, I agree, and yet you go on to do little but quote very brief passages from government documents. Is that supposed to prove your point? Who’s confused?
You wrote:
(ANY textbook? Can you name one? Can you name five?)
So you claim. And yet it was Jefferson who wrote, in letter to Major John Cartwright dated June 5, 1824 and in response to the idea that the common law was derived from Christian principles, that “the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or that such a character existed …. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State.”
Ten years earlier (Feb. 10, 1814) he’d addressed the same topic in a letter to his friend Dr. Thomas Cooper:
As for the source of morality, Jefferson had this to say:
And so on.
Yes, I’ve only quoted one man, “only” Jefferson, but if you’re truly a student of American history, and not just a virtually citation-free cut’n’paster, you’ll already know that his compatriots Adams, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Paine, among others, were at best Deists rather than Christians in the commonly accepted sense. Paine excepted, they generally maintained a minimum level of outward Christian piety for practical purposes, but did neither accept the divinity of Jesus nor believe the miraculous elements of the Bible. This view led Jefferson to edit and publish his own version of the New Testamant, of which I am sure, in light of your glimmering erudition, you are no doubt already completely aware.
I suppose by now someone has cited Article Eleven of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, so I won’t go there, and anyway, that doesn’t address the point you tried (but inexplicably failed) to prove, which is the “nation” isn’t the goverment.
Anyway, Jolene, if you can extricate yourself from the gooey ankle-deep bullshit into which you’ve begun to sink, without losing an FMP, then stop bleating for a moment and try to think… you know… contextually… and if you have a speck of intellectual honesty you’ll admit that present-day dominionists speak of a “Christian Nation” in the sense that you (ostensibly, anyway) do not – which is that this country, indeed the government, was founded on Christian principles and should recognize Christianity as the nation’s religion, to which all other creeds must necessarily take a back seat.
Surely you’ve heard the outcry and uproar from dominionists who scream and cry when a Hindu, for example, delivers the opening prayer before the US Senate. Surely you’re aware of the published lies of dominionist David Barton, who now admits that he fabricated quotes by James Madison to “support” his claim that The United States of America was founded – politically – as a Christian Nation. Am I right? Or is this news to you?
Do you still maintain that the brutal Franco government is a model of pro-Catholic, pro-capitalist rule? Are you, in truth, a closeted religio-fascist?
Did I ever say that? I said war is hell and it is. Both sides are composed of human beings. Human beings are fallen creatures. Human beings sin.
The atheists have perpetrated one of the biggest slurs in modern European history. First they imposed and directed this death and destruction of Spain, then, as a followup, their KGB and useful idiots in the western press perpetuate the fantasy that “the Catholic Church has blood on it’s hands, that they were the killers and torturers. Very sad. Pray for the atheists.
The Catholic Church beatified 498 martyrs who died during the anti-Catholic violence of Spain’s Civil War. The martyrs beatified died because of hatred of the faith. Leftist ideologues who persecuted Catholics were driven by a desire to silence the Church once and for all.
Tsk, Jolene. Just come right out and say it: you admire the Franco government. All you’ve done is complain about the mote in the Communists’ eyes, while ignoring the redwood tree in your own.
Spanish Catholics weren’t slaughtered because they were people of faith. They were targeted because, in many cases, they were people who contributed to the corruption of the Spanish elite and kept the greater part of the Spanish people in ignorance and poverty in order to maintain control over them. If you don’t want Communist revolutions, then help to elevate the poor, not oppress them – which oppression is exactly what the Spanish Church conspired with the governing elites to do before they were elected out of office.
Faith may keep the masses quiet for a time, but an empty belly and social injustice is a great motivator for change.
And how were the Founding Fathers raised? What were there parents’ Faiths? Are they in fact acting as Christians, as believers of the One True God. The pre-christian people: They were also created in the image and likeness of God, and Roman Catholicism can be thanked for saving what is good in their civilizations, Greece, Roman, etc. Yes, the founders of Western Civilization … saving only the good. The Christmas Tree as a symbol of the Light of the World … God saw His creation as good, as is said in Genesis. God is in charge. All sin is from the devil. What God allows, He has His reasons. Why is Communism so bad? It is a distortion of God’s plan for us. It is atheistic, for that reason, Religion is outlawed and religious property destroyed, religious people imprisoned. Those are good signs that what is happening is evil.
“Christian consensus”? You mean the Christians who have, for the past 2000 years been killing each other for being the wrong sort of Christian?
Who has been accusing Jesus of anything? Jesus is dead.
His fan club, however, has been carrying out mass murders in his name. And splitting into factions that murder each other.
Nice fan club you’re a member of, there.
PS: Read the bible. Jesus and his followers were communists.
PPS: Franco was allies with Hitler. You don’t get more mass-murdery than that.
Where do they vote in the bible?
Where is there any sign of democracy there?
Jolene?
Anyone else?
Thank you kindly
Ex-patriot Luxembourgers and Rhinelanders, who yes are German, and yes are Roman Catholic, and yes perhaps because the Prince in that area decided to remain Roman Catholic during the Protestant uprising in Germany, some, though may have come from the east are may be Saxon even … came to America between 1800 and 1850, well before the World Wars. Yes they are peace loving Catholics, who are perhaps different politically than the Catholics who came to America after the World Wars. The Germans, and the Irish, too, having experienced economic oppression, the Polish, Hungarian and Czech, Italian, political and religious oppression. A simplified explanation, but, truly, these Europeans who came to America, and who are Catholic, are in no way Fascists. Neither are those who remained, for that matter, as you can well see from the Governments that are now in existance, and, I specifically would mention Germany with their care for their citizens and their love for the rest of the world’s citizens.
I offer a reminder of how unnecessary it is to depend on a hypothetical external divinity.
And let’s not forget the actual US Constitution itself:
Article 6: “…no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.”
At least I’m not the member of a church that appointed a Nazi as their spiritual leader! How obvious does it have to be?
(That didn’t work so well; looks like the link got stripped. Oops.)
Anyway: http://youtube.com/watch?v=L4wVRcE5gIs
Posted by: Sharon Z. | July 14, 2008 3:05 PM
It is definitely not atheistic when a religious figure or organization manipulates society in God’s name, even if it is a distortion of the supposedly divine plan. Distorted or not, it is still a decidedly theistic motivation.
And in defying their established church’s views on society, they were most definitely outside their faith’s doctrine and practice. This reflects quite nobly upon those individuals, for sure, but in no way defends the established religions for their notably authoritarian and oppressive natures.
Sharon Z postulates, “Are they in fact acting as Christians, as believers of the One True God. ”
No, they were not, and they are very clear about that, as is proven by their own letters and the documents that formed this nation.
Why do religious nuts use discrimination laws to force their superstitions on me? Dear Jesus, save me from your followers!
RE: post 1161 by Ichthyic
:what’s that now? You’re actually trying to argue that the term you think is a “dictionary definition” is made up. damn, you’re nutty. dude, go home, sleep it off. you’re not making any sense.
Actually I am making plenty of sense Ichthyic. All words, phrases, and other combinations of words, including dictionary definitions of words are “made up” aka created by human beings. Here is a dictionary definition of the word fundamentalism –
American Heritage Dictionary –
fun·da·men·tal·ism (fŭn’də-měn’tl-ĭz’əm) n.
I. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
end quote
Please note that is says “usually” (i.e. not exclusively) a “religious movement”. This means that the words fundamentalism and fundamentalist can be legitimately used outside of a religious context. It seems to me that there are atheists, and indeed a movement of atheists, that seek to “return to fundamental principles” of atheism. Indeed some atheists hold a “rigid adherence to those principles”. As clearly demonstrated by numerous intolerant, to say nothing of outright hostile and abusive comments here, the “point of view” of these atheists is characterized by “intolerance of other views” and opposition to religion.
Voila. With only some slight modification this dictionary definition of the word ‘fundamentalism’ can be very appropriately applied to that subset of atheists whose words, if not actions, are quite readily comparable to those of religious fundamentalists. I am confident that most people, including a good number of moderate atheists who would prefer to distance themselves from intolerant and obnoxious anti-religious atheists, will agree that this *evolution* of the English usage of the terms ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘fundamentalist’ is quite acceptable and I expect that the term “fundamentalist atheist” will become ever more widely accepted and used in the future thanks to the antics of militant atheists like P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins. In fact I expect to see the term “Atheist Supremacist” to gain popularity and wider usage in the future as well. . .
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Supremacist
I don’t think that anyone can successfully argue that Richard Dawkins and Co. are not Atheist Supremacists but do feel free to try. . .
RE: post #1162
:Robin you seem to think there is only one god.
I am very much a monotheist, even to the point of doubting the existence of “lesser gods” such as Satan, but I do not entirely rule out the possibility that such “lesser gods” might actually exists. Still I believe in one Supreme Being aka the Creator of the Universe.
:I would refer you to http://www.godfinder.org
I have seen it before.
:I would bet you are atheist with respect to most of that list, right?
Not necessarily. I think that a good number of ancient gods reflect aspects of the Supreme Being. They may not exist themselves but they represent ancient religious beliefs arising from limited knowledge and understanding of the Supreme Being. In many cases these are ancient sun gods, moon gods, or gods inspired by other natural phenomena. I certainly believe in the sun and the moon and I understand why ancient human beings considered them to be gods. So call me a “soft atheist” on those ancient gods. I happen to be a fan of Horus and other bird-gods such as the phoenix inspired by the bird-like form of the sun’s corona that is revealed during some total solar eclipses.
:Are you a fundamental atheist with most of that list?
Absolutely not. While I do not believe that those gods are actual gods I am by no means intolerant or disrespectful, to say nothing of hostile or abusive, towards the ancient human beings who believed in those gods. I have a good understanding of their beliefs and I empathize with them.
:Thank you kindly
You’re welcome Britomart
Ok… kiddies, its been fun but I see that this site is full of communist apologists and Che whores. Disgraceful, the lot of you. After this century’s 80 MILLION+ murdered by the Atheist Way of Death, you still need proof. It’s all very disordered and sick and the loving thing is for me to do is to leave you all and remember you in my Mass intentions. Especially the author of this contemptible and divisive board-Mephistopheles with a Man Purse-Mr. PZ Myers…
I’d stay if I found any of your arguments compelling or even original…I’ve heard it all-and a lot more clever. Pharyngula is not as lowbrow as Huffington Post or Democratic Underground, but it comes real close….
God be with you all. May His love transform your angry internet cut n’ pasting and Non-Serviam attitudes to a genuine love for God.
Jolene,
You present us with a lot of information without citation, as usual. You must be prompted to cite your sources repeatedly and then finally you respond. The best you can come up with is post #1180:
“My sources are real books, not Wikipropaganda…”,
which you then suggest a few books pertaining to that comment. Is all the information you presented found in those books?
You then throw more information out. Example: Post #1183
“The atheists have perpetrated one of the biggest slurs in modern European history. First they imposed and directed this death and destruction of Spain, then, as a followup, their KGB and useful idiots in the western press perpetuate the fantasy that “the Catholic Church has blood on it’s hands, that they were the killers and torturers. Very sad. Pray for the atheists.
The Catholic Church beatified 498 martyrs who died during the anti-Catholic violence of Spain’s Civil War. The martyrs beatified died because of hatred of the faith. Leftist ideologues who persecuted Catholics were driven by a desire to silence the Church once and for all.”
Again, no source for your information!
It’s very amusing that you call others out on citing their sources because you don’t approve of the source used, YET you don’t cite your sources unless prompted, and quickly abandon the idea of citation after citing one comment.
So, cite your sources! It’s really not that hard.
Jolene,
I think your last comment indicates you are leaving this blog. Thanks for your input into our conversation. We appreciate the ideas you have brought to us.
Always,
Jennie
I don’t think that anyone can successfully argue that Richard Dawkins and Co. are not Atheist Supremacists but do feel free to try. . .
How about this: they are not trying to subvert the plain meaning of the Constitution, and force everybody else to adhere to their beliefs, as they Christianist Fundamentalists most definitely are. In what (non-crazy)sense can that possibly be considered “Supremacist”? They’re not trying to exert supremacy over anyone, they’re just asserting their views in a more forceful and cogent manner than some people would like. When PZ Myers & Co. start trying to take over the country, get back to me with your “supremacist” codswallop. Until then, get used to us being more uppity.
And as for “fundamentalism”, you cite a dictionary definition: “[a] usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.”
Let’s see, now:
1. religious. That obviously doesn’t apply. 0 points.
2. fundamental principles. What fundamental principles. Other than asserting, with varying degrees of politeness and patience for opposing views, there are no atheist fundamental which we are required to profess. 0 points.
3.intolerance. This is the only part of the definition which has any validity in reference to Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. Yes, they are less circumspect than some atheists (which is a good thing, IMO), and their contempt for “mind-forged manacles” and theocratic tyranny is evident. So 1 point for this one.
4.opposition to secularism. Obviously not. We are defending secularism from the likes of Joline (good riddance, BTW!) So, 0 points.
Score: 1 out of 4 points. EPIC FAIL.
What you are really objecting to, then is unmannerly atheists who don’t know their place (being properly deferential to the deluded thinking, historical revisionism and bigotry of the Jolines who think they own this country and that the rest of us don’t count.
Satan is My sockpuppet!
I have seen in many comments about PZ’s post, as well as reponses I have made at blogs, that the non-Catholics are bigots. So I looked up the definition of bigot.
From Websters-
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite.
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
So, are the people calling the cracker a cracker bigoted? By definition, yes.
Are the people insisting that the cracker is the flesh of Jesus bigoted? By definition, yes.
Fortunately, it is not yet against the law to be bigoted.
But it seems that Donahue, and the vast preponderance of those who consider themselves the “christian right”, equate bigotry with hatred, and want to consider anyone intolerant of their beliefs as guilty of a “hate crime”.
There are crimes against individuals, there are crimes against property, but when it comes to a point when it’s a crime to think a certain way, we will absolutley be sacrificing all our freedoms.
I don’t think Bill Donahue and his “ilk” care as much for our freedom as they care for their crackers. Is the problem one of bigotry, or actions based on those opinions and beliefs?
Hey Jolene-
Our casa es su casa!
come around anytime.
Damn! #2 should read:
2. fundamental principles. What fundamental principles? Other than asserting, with varying degrees of politeness and patience for opposing views, that there is no evidence for God, there are no atheist fundamentals which we are required to profess. 0 points.
That’s what I get for not proofreading!
Did Jolene really make a dig at the kind of bag PZ carries?
What a twit. I guess for Catholics the best dig they can come up with is that you’re a metrosexual.
Nah.
You, on the other hand, are definitely a fascist apologist and Franco whore.
Of course. Since a large fraction of those murdered were in fact killed by Christians, and the other large fraction were killed by Bolsheviks, we need proof that you’re not a deluded agenda-driven liar. Which you cannot, in point of fact, provide.
You’re just bailing because you don’t actually know how to argue honestly and in good faith. You’re just another corrupt fanatic.
If there really were a God of truth and justice, he would be utterly disgusted with you, you liar and hypocrite.
Hey, if they can get a cracker to pass the various tests we’re willing to throw it it, we’ll question it. Goodbye to the ‘unquestionable’ and ‘blind’ parts. The fact that they haven’t gotten it to pass a test yet believe anyway means they are unreasonable, not that we just merely think so.
As for wicked, it’s not the silliness, it’s the death threats that are wicked.
So, I certainly fail to meet the definition, as do most commenters I know.
I take a nap, and Jolene leaves?
In all honesty, I was shocked to read her defense of the Franco regime. The authors she cited are somewhat controversial in that they have pointed out atrocities committed by the Soviet Union during the World War II era, but in such a way that it almost excuses the aggression of Fascist governments because they were the enemies of Communists. As if one evil excuses another..?
I am amazed.
Freedom of Religion, in America, began with Catholics in Maryland. It may be that some pre-christian nation had this freedom, let say, Greece? What countries had some freedom behind the Iron Curtain, until there was a crackdown … and what country give limited freedom of religion as long as they are allowed to approve or appoint Bishops in the Church. A lot of different ways that atheistic governments try to control people and religion as much as people allow. True freedom comes from God. Atheistic people try to take the place of God in other people’s minds. To turn from God, and to believe what “fill in the blank person” says instead?! Not likely for the heros in this world. People die for that freedom of religion, since Christianity began. Americans are dying in Iraq today to protect the freedom of religion. Catholic Families are suffering in Iraq, and are leaving just as they have done in the past. It was very predictable. With Saddam, they were living perhaps, similarly as to how it may have been in Germany during Hitler’s time. But we know who put Saddam in the position that he was in, and that was the finnagling of the US Gov’t with a country near the rich oil preserves. BTW, I’m against opening up the Alaskan Reserve for drilling. An example that shows how one cannot have the US Gov’t as a substitute for God, either!
Sharon Z. I have read your post #1208. I would like to thank you for pointing out that “Atheistic people try to take the place of God in other people’s minds.”
I apologize for trying to take the place of God in other people’s minds.
Fixed.
These, though, I don’t think I can fix. They’re just meaningless nonsense. This is fractally wrong.
Killed mostly by other Christians, who assert that the Christians they want to kill aren’t real Christians.
What about the Iraqi Christians who aren’t Catholic? Or don’t those count as “real” Christians?
I knew I should have checked the thread before going to bed last night (daytime in the US). I go to all the effort of setting someone up and they go and do exactly what I expected them to.
The thread’s probably dead, but just in case…
Robin Edgar, remember what I wrote? It was this:
I prefaced it with ‘read this carefully’ for a reason. I’ll write it again: there are no atheist beliefs.
What I didn’t write was ‘atheists have no beliefs’ – because that isn’t true. I believe (hah!) that philosophy is called nihilism, which I’m not confusing with atheism. I suspect most (if not all) atheists have many beliefs. Just not about god/s.
My point is that there are – and maybe you should read this bit really, really carefully – NO BELIEFS ASSOCIATED WITH ATHEISM ITSELF. One may be an atheist and hold beliefs, but that is not the same thing.
Ergo, one cannot be a fundamental atheist. One can be an atheist and fundamental about something else – secularism, for example – but there are fundamental secularists who are not atheists.
Can you guess what I’m going to say now?
EPIC FAIL!
OK, I’ll jump in… I can’t compete with most of you, so I won’t even try, but I will ask one question.
As agnostics or atheists, do you follow any type of civil/moral code? Would that code include respect of others, whether or not you agreed with their point or not?
As a Catholic, I believe that the wafer, once consecrated by a priest, is not the SYMBOL of Jesus Christ, but His Body and His Blood. You do not have to believe this. Obviously most of you do not, but respecting that I do would mean that you would not threaten to destroy that which I hold sacred.
If Mr. Cook has received death threats, these were not from the Church. Yes, we have radicals just as anyone does and what they do, we can not always control. We do not condone it. The Church authorities have asked for time to speak with Mr. Cook to explain why this is such a serious act that he has done.
Mr. Myers, while attempting to be humorous on some level, has attacked my faith, those ideas which I hold Sacred, and while I don’t agree with all that he believes, I do respect his opinions and would not try to threaten him in such an aggressive way.
I also find it interesting that he calls on a god which he does not believe exists to damn a cracker.
OK… feel free to tear me apart.
Sending death threats to Webster Cook was wrong. But I’ve read enough of this, including the over-the-top original blog, to know that Myers is a hate-filled bigot. It might be interesting to speculate what psychological factors drive his hatred, but I won’t get into that. It is also clear that there are a goodly number of other hate-filled anti-Catholics out there. There is also a lot of juvenile stupidity masquerading as humor, and a lot of just plain ignorance. I also note that there are a few people who understand why Cook’s action got the reaction it did, and I’m glad they tried to explain it in a way that would clarify it for those who did not understand the reaction but are willing to learn and understand.
Sure. Usually, no one would want to be deliberately rude to believers, even if they believe silly things.
However, PZ was not outraged because Catholics believe silly things. He was outraged because of the threats made by Catholics who believe their silly things means that those who violate those silly things deserve punishment outside of the scope of believers.
So if Catholics had simply called for Cook to be censured by the Church, I don’t think PZ would have been quite so outraged. It’s your club and your rules.
But the threats went far beyond that: For a minor violation of a Catholic ritual, Cook was threatened with harm to his property and his life, and with expulsion from school.
Or in other words, some Catholics showed that it is they who lack a code of respect for others.
PS: Could you please read this comment, and explain why host desecration offends you when by Catholicism’s own logic, host desecration is impossible.
I don’t think anyone’s going to tear you apart, K. The whole thing has moved on well beyond interesting, and I suspect most of the regulars here are looking forward to some new and interesting thing to discuss.
My last post was probably a case of shutting the stable door – I don’t know if the the person it’s directed toward is likely to read it – but it was good practice for me in explaining my point.
If you’re really looking for explanations for why PZ did what he did, why some atheists are in support (and why some aren’t) and what all the differing opinions on the topic are, you should read through the comments last week.
So if you’re looking for a fight then you’re probably too late.
A lot to get through, but it’ll give you what you need to know.
K
Have you sent mail to The Catholic league to tell them that they do not represent you and that they should leave the student alone?
Naturgesetz wrote:
I suspect the only thing he’s against (I won’t say hates because I don’t believe that’s accurate) is the people who value the the trappings of a hypocritical, outdated, antique superstition.
If he criticises someone for valuing that above the well-being of a single actual human being then he’s diplaying far more of Jesus’ supposed qualities than any of those who claim to be his followers.
Ah, I see Jolene lived down to my expectations, actually further down that I could have foreseen. Who knew Franco still had groupies?
Jolene = Lies, and evasion, evasion and lies, make stuff up, complain about sourcing while providing none.
Shorter Jolene = Lies and evasion
Shortest Jolene = Lies
True Jolene = Contemptible, perverse, distasteful, repulsive, a tumor in the body of society – or in the vernacular, a turd in the punchbowl of life. A fan of force and power, she would have been a fascist in Spain, a communist in Russia, a nazi in Germany, an aide in the inquisition. No morals, no base, no ethics – only what those in power give her, and she will always be a hound at their heels, willing to attack.
Pax Nabisco
I wonder what the “established priesthood” would think of my priest who once used pizza and soda for communion? Sauce makes for good, realistic blood.
Stupid problems, stupid reaction. Makes me glad I left the Catholic Church to become a witch. At least we know what we’re drinking and eating.
Posted by: Sharon Z. | July 14, 2008 5:54 PM
that’s some concentrated stupid.
Nice list. Nice people. Probably fascinating dinner guests as well. Spurge claimed he/she/it lived in a secular nation founded on the principles of the enlightenment. I think we have established that this criteria knocks America out of contention as Spurge’s homeland.As to the founding of this country, true there were woven into the ideals of the Nation some “enlightenment” (insert large grain of salt here) ideas, but to be fair, many of these ideas were recycled or heretical spin-offs and fragments of fuller Christian Truths.
Even if this were true it has no bearing on whether the nation was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment.
[blah blah]
Apologetics = cherry picking.
Ok… kiddies, its been fun but I see that this site is full of communist apologists and Che whores.
Yes, that’s right; why did it take you so long to realize it? Not at all the sort of place you want to hang out. Bye bye.
RE: post #1211 by Wowbagger
:I go to all the effort of setting someone up and they go and do exactly what I expected them to.
I don’t suppose it has occurred to you that some people deliberately do what other people set them up to do in order to show them up for what fools they are Wowbagger? I am not saying that I did so in this instance but I quite regularly allow people to set me up, do what they expect me to do, and then turn the tables on them. . .
:The thread’s probably dead, but just in case…
It’s not dead yet. . .
:Robin Edgar, remember what I wrote? It was this: Nice try, but (read this carefully) there are no atheist beliefs. I prefaced it with ‘read this carefully’ for a reason. I’ll write it again: there are no atheist beliefs.
ROTFLMU*UO Of course there are atheist beliefs. The number one *fundamental* atheist belief is that God does not exist but there are a variety of related beliefs that atheists hold to. Maybe you should tell Canadian author Thomas F. Shaw that there are no atheist beliefs. You’d be a bit late though since he has already created a website about atheist beliefs which you may find at –
http://www.atheistbeliefs.com/ Doh! Dare I say “EPIC FAIL!”?
Here are some common atheist beliefs derived from that page.
“There is no “Divine Purpose” for Human existence.”
Human beings “are simply the product of an evolutionary process which has given us a large brain and self-awareness. ”
“Early Mankind needed to believe in the supernatural to explain the natural phenomena it couldn’t understand.”
Maybe you should tell the folks at http://www.infidels.org that there are no atheist beliefs Wowbagger. . .
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism.”
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. “Weak atheism” is simple skepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. “Strong atheism” is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are “strong atheists.” There is a qualitative difference in the “strong” and “weak” positions; it’s not just a matter of degree.
:What I didn’t write was ‘atheists have no beliefs’ – because that isn’t true. I believe (hah!) that philosophy is called nihilism, which I’m not confusing with atheism. I suspect most (if not all) atheists have many beliefs. Just not about god/s.
See above. . . Atheists, especially “strong atheists” “fundamentalist atheists” and Atheist Supremacists most certainly have beliefs about religion. Indeed such atheists can be justifiably described as being anti-religious.
:My point is that there are – and maybe you should read this bit really, really carefully – NO BELIEFS ASSOCIATED WITH ATHEISM ITSELF. One may be an atheist and hold beliefs, but that is not the same thing.
Maybe you should read these bits really, really carefully Wowwanker. . .
“Atheism can involve the positive assertion that there is no deity; this is sometimes referred to as “strong Atheism.” It is the most common dictionary definition for the term “Atheist,” and is probably the definition used by most theists.”
“Atheism often promote the belief that all Gods and Goddesses (as well as angels, demons, ghosts, etc.) are nonexistent entities created by human minds.”
“As an atheist, I deny exist (sic) of all Gods: those of the Mayans, the Hindu, the Ancient Egyptians, and the God of the Old and New Testaments. If I am right, all of these are fictional constructs invented by clever humans for purposes, a variety of purposes, ranging from psychological comfort to entertainment.”
Doug Jesseph
“And it is in his own image, let us remember, that Man creates God.”
H. Havelock Ellis expressing a common atheist belief. . .
“I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.”
Isaac Asimov expressing another common atheist belief. . .
Source – http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
Believe me there is a lot more expression of atheist beliefs that I can find and post here if you want.
:Ergo, one cannot be a fundamental atheist. One can be an atheist and fundamental about something else – secularism, for example – but there are fundamental secularists who are not atheists.
Thanks for acknowledging that one can be *fundamental* about something other than religion, such as secularism for example. Unfortunately however are just plain wrong in pretending that one cannot be a fundamentalist atheist. I have already shown how that phrase is entirely justified by the behavior of intolerant militant “strong atheists” who express and act upon their *atheist beliefs* in manners that are all but indistinguishable from how many religious fundamentalists behave.
:Can you guess what I’m going to say now? EPIC FAIL!
Yes. That was quite predictable Wowwanker. I expect however that most reasonable people will agree that your “EPIC FAIL! ” is rather misdirected though.
@Robin Edgar
Snore.
Robin Edgar,
Sigh. You’re still confusing ‘atheist beliefs’ with ‘atheist’s beliefs’. If I meet an other atheist all we need to do to agree we are both atheists is both say ‘we lack a belief in god/s’.
That it can be argued that we posess other beliefs, that we want to make further definitions of those beliefs about why it is we are atheists (strong, weak etc.) makes no difference whatsoever.
Atheism = no belief in god.
Atheist = no belief in god plus any number of beliefs in other things, including why they feel there is no god.
In other words, what an atheist believes does not equal atheist beliefs. Claiming there are atheist beliefs is the same as telling a bald man his non-hair is parted on the right and not the left.
I was not and am not looking for a fight. I realize that most people have moved past this issue and on to another. I had only heard about this today and after spending a few hours reading the comments to the original post and the ones here, I felt called to make a statement.
From what I understand, Mr. Cook is a Catholic and does believe in the presence of Our Lord under the species of the consecrated host. Therefore, what he did was quite alarming to the Church and her believers. This business of, “I wanted to show it to my non-Catholic friend” smacks of an ignorant, immature individual. As a Senator on that campus I highly doubt that he is unintelligent, but I can allow that he made a mistake and once he dug his heels in, he felt he had to follow through to make his point.
If he was “man-handled”, I do not believe that this was the appropriate way to handle the situation. However, you must understand that there are Satanists who do believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist and have in the past found ways of retrieving it and desecrating it during their Black masses. As a Catholic, I am called to protect the vulnerable form that Christ takes when He is in the form of the Consecrated Host.
Again, to those of you who do not believe as I do, I don’t expect understanding, but rather respect. If Mr. Cook was not a Catholic, I wouldn’t expect that he would truly understand how upsetting this whole scenario was, but as a Catholic, he should. And if he didn’t, I am sure he does now.
What Mr. Myers has done is reacted to what he has heard from the media about death threats to Mr. Cook. I have yet to see anywhere, (please point them out to me if you have them) an actual death threat. If he has, I apologize on behalf of the Church and those who obviously do not understand the gravity of their threats.
Mr. Myers is inciting people to enter places of worship and receive the Eucharist with the sole intent of desecrating it. What will he do if someone actually does this? Will he follow through with giving them his address so he can carry out his tongue in cheek rant? Or will he leave it to be handled by the individual that has carried out the act of taking the Eucharist?
Our Lord is bigger than all of this. Yes, I believe that it makes Him quite sad to see His children act in this manner, but I do believe that the act of desecration, while seriously grave, is something that He will survive.
Remember, the truth of my faith teaches me that they mocked Him and crucified Him and He rose again. Death and destruction can not stop Him.
Finally, I found Mr. Myers Atheists Creed and this stanza spoke to me:
“We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.”
Where does what he has proposed for his readers to do to the Eucharist fall under “love and community”?
Peace.
“Yes, I believe that it makes Him quite sad to see His children act in this manner, but I do believe that the act of desecration, while seriously grave, is something that He will survive.”
Are you serious? Somehow god might be harmed? Not much of a deity you have there.
People are dying all over the world in all manner of vile ways and someone being careless with a cracker is a big deal to you?
Get some perspective.
“Where does what he has proposed for his readers to do to the Eucharist fall under “love and community”?”
The part where he cares more about the kid being attacked than a cracker.
You do know they are trying to get him expelled right?
K, you sound like a decent human being rather than a blathering idiot coming here to cause trouble, so I’m going to spare the snark.
All PZ is doing with his ‘threats’ is getting you to think about your religion by pointing out a) how silly it is, and b) how much certain members of your religion react to have that pointed out.
I imagine there are many people who’ve heard about this and gone, ‘hang on – my religion requires me to believe that the cracker is actually Jesus in the flesh, and should be treated accordingly? That’s just a bit…silly’.
And maybe – just maybe – some of them won’t be Christians anymore. It’s certainly true that many posters here are former Christians, and at least one is a former Catholic.
Oh, and you have to stop and think about how your god can be the all-powerful deity you usually purport him to be when you write things like this:
That’s somewhat contradictory to say the least.
I’m not in there. For pity’s sake, do you not understand that I do not go into wafers and wine just because a priest says some words?
I. Do. Not. Turn. Into. Wafers. And. Wine.
Never.
Ever.
I am now an entirely incorporeal entity. No body. None whatsoever.
The remnants of my body may be in there, but then, the remnants of my body are everywhere. And there’s no magic ritual that affects those remnants.
See above, comment #243.
Wowbagger,
I thank you for your comments. They are well received. I suppose my faith doesn’t make much sense to most here, because it is not a tangible thing. But it is what I believe, I make no apologies for it, other than I am sorry that we can’t agree. But I do respect where you are coming from. I appreciate the respect you have shown to me.
My faith is between me and my God. I liken it to the love that I have for each of my 6 children. I love them all more than words can say, each differently, but not any less than the others. I feel a deep connection to my Lord, and I do feel His presence daily. I understand that many here do not, and while I do understand that, I can not comprehend it. I suppose we are more alike than not.
In my view, Christ took the form of a vulnerable child, as a victim of Crucifixion, and comes in the form of the Eucharist to allow the faithful the opportunity to show our love for Him as we revere Him in these forms, as well as in many others.
I know it must be very difficult to comprehend how one can believe this, but that is what my faith is.
I do wish all of you well and I appreciate your willingness to allow me to participate, even in a small way with this discussion.
Peace.
No, I didn’t.
No, I don’t. And it would be pretty disgusting if I did.
And that is just way too creepy. I’ve been dead and incorporeal for twenty centuries, and seeing that sort of sentiment just sends a shudder up my nonexistent spine.
K, You are more than welcome to comment here, without insult. I do not share your beliefs, but I respect your right to believe and practice them. I am glad to see other atheists here have commended you on your rational discussion of your beliefs.
I agree that Myers is being a bit dramatic, but at the same time I appreciate that he has now taken the spotlight off of Cook. I think Myers is better equipped to take on the backlash that has resulted in this Eucharist threat, than Cook would have been.
I notice in your first post you stated:
“OK… feel free to tear me apart.”
You had expected that atheists would tear you apart. You expected us to be unreasonably intolerant of your beliefs. Do you feel differently now that you have commented on an atheist blog and lived to tell the tale?
Also I should note that Robin Edgar could take a lesson in presenting information in a rational manner from you.
Thank you for visiting us, and I’ll let you know that you are about the third Christian believer to come here and not tear us down for being atheists, I appreciate the tolerance you have shown us.
RE: Jesus, called Christ post #1231
Really? Is this as good as some people can get? I find this insulting and I don’t even believe in God or Jesus. I hope Myers bans the person behaving in this way. It’s just ridiculous.
Jennie, everyone’s entitled to comment in their own fashion. There is a regular person (or people) who post(s) under the name of deities to have a certain impact.
It’s insulting satire, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it. It can get quite entertaining if several extra-pantheonic deities show up and appear to argue with each other.
Jennie,
Thank you for your kind comments. I should have reconsidered the “tear me apart” statement. I did expect a bit more tearing, especially after reading some of the responses to some of the other posts, but am very grateful that I was wrong. Please accept my apologies for making that assumption.
Peace
Why do you persecute me?
RE: #1236
Shhhhhh no one likes an idiot.
K,
No apologies necessary! I know atheists are said to be “unkind, evil, and heartless people who lack morals” We’ve been told repeatedly that is what we are. I’m glad one person agrees these statements are innacurate.
Peace to you as well.
Well, I’ve been gone in the Owyhees for a couple days and a night, so I just skimmed over this thread, and I think I found the thread-winner in one comment by Joey Weber:
“Yes, We do participate in ritulized cannabilism.
but we don’t see it that way.”
Religion in a nutshell.
Wowbagger,
As I usually agree with you, I don’t this time.
I find nothing this “Jesus, called Christ” individual has said humorous. Not that I lack a sense of humor, I find many individuals on here to be side splitting.
I find it mostly insulting because it’s rare that a Christian posts here showing US respect. To find someone behaving like a twat while K is visiting is rude to her and her beliefs.
I comment against this behavior only out of the respect for those who have shown us equal amounts of respect.
I hope you understand my point of view.
In Iraq, the Chaldeans are Catholic. Atheists would point us to anyone but Christ, or Our Lady for role models. I can hardly imagine how many books an atheist must read, how many various idols they must peruse, before they can find another person’s opinion that they can internalize, and call their own. It is true, Catholics, have the most freedom to think, love and act in God’s world. Why would anyone waste a minute being outside of God’s Church! One can remain in a cell, all of their life, and have a more fullfilling life than a person who does not believe in God.
Hello. I’m just a crazy religious wacko who actually believes in God and believes that a God that can do anything He wants can very well come down into a wafer. Not cracker, Meyers. Even if you don’t believe in Real Presence you could at least call it by its proper name. It is not a cracker, but unleavened bread made from wheat. And you call us the dumb ones.
Please, fire away and insult me in any way possible. I’m all ears.
Speaking of respect, I assume K is a female, but I may be wrong.
If I am wrong in that assumption, I apologize.
I’m not trying to be funny.
I’m sure that K is trying to be nice, yet one persons’ “nice” is another persons’ horror.
In my case, as the dead Jew that K’s religion is about, I just naturally feel horror at how he perceives me. Or rather, perceives what he thinks is me.
Can’t you respect my perspective as well?
Both PZ and Cook were ridiculously insensitive and PZ was typically mean-spirited, but free speech rights should and in fact do protect their silly and immature behavior in the same way cross-burning while wearing white sheets is insensitive, mean-spirited, silly and immature (not to mention bigoted) but constitutionally protected. They’re only sheets and a couple of sticks set on fire, right? So what’s the big deal?
Yes, I know what matzo is. It’s basically a big cracker.
I don’t become matzo either.
I dunno, somehow an anonymous mob and a threat of arson, not to mention actual trespass and property destruction if the cross is burned on someone’s lawn seems just a wee bit more ugly than doing something to a cracker that is meant to be eaten anyway.
Don’t you think?
Sinbad wrote:
Both Catholic belief in transubstantiation and the KKK are good examples of what happens when Christians choose to interpret the writing of people as the word of a god.
I’d like to Thank:
A Catholic who’s sick of all your comments.
S.
and Sinbad for coming here.
Your positive comments are uplifting and very worthy of respect.
Jesus, Have at em!
RE: A Catholic who’s sick of all your comments post #1242
“Hello. I’m just a crazy religious wacko who actually believes in God”
With introductions like that, we don’t need to insult you, you do a fine job of it yourself.
For some reason, Christians don’t seem to want to pay any attention to me. It’s very odd: I carefully explain who I am, and the simple truth that I am not who they think I am, and God is not who they think he is, either, and they just… ignore me. They don’t argue. They don’t debate. They just find something else to do.
It would bother me if it weren’t so interesting. It seems more and more clear to me that they are so firmly committed to a certain idea of who I am that they ignore the simple reality of my words.
But I’ll keep on trying. Maybe I’ll eventually break through someone’s mental constructs. And if not, well, that’s afterlife.
K said:
Hi K, if you want to find out what atheists and agnostics [in my opinion, it is impossible not to be both, depending on the god that posited] believe, I would suggest that you read some of these:
Morality and Atheism
ETHICS WITHOUT GODS (note: there is another article called “Morality Without Gods”, as well)
The question, ‘Would that code include respect of others, whether or not you agreed with their point or not?’, is, I admit, a difficult one to answer. What kind of respect are you asking for? Is my respecting you as a human being not enough? Why is it not good enough that I respect your right to believe as you do, but not the actual beliefs?
Many atheists, though not all, believe that we are duty bound to afford everyone a baseline respect as a human being, but that there is no duty to respect the beliefs that an individual holds. Just as you would, I expect, scold someone who continually made political claims that had no basis in evidence, many atheists feel the same about religion. If there is a difference, what is it?
Ask yourself this: if I believe that you are not only wrong, but that some of your religious beliefs do a great deal of harm to people, especially the minds of the young [note the paucity of religious believers in the National Academy of Sciences, for example], and particularly fundamentalist beliefs, am I more respectful by taking a live-and-let-live approach, or should I at least attempt to explain why I believe as I do?
I believe that we are patronizing the religious by not holding them to the same standards that we expect of ourselves. I would argue that those who do not simply ‘live-and-let-live’ are actually showing far more respect than those who essentially claim, ‘well, what do you expect, they are, you know, religious.’
No, I expect believers to be just as rational, just as questioning of their beliefs, and their beliefs to be just as evidence based as we should all be striving for (but never quite fulfill). Not doing so is looking down on people, in my opinion, and that is why all arguments for a live-and-let-live attitude are hopelessly misguided.
Many atheists believe that this is an ethical issue, as well. There are few, if any, good arguments for believing things without evidence. In contrast, there are many good arguments, as well as an ever increasing amount of evidence, to suggest that it can lead to all sorts of undesirable outcomes. Is it ethical to believe something without evidence?
Now, I have no doubt that religion has directly influenced a great many people to do good, but that is not a good argument for believing without evidence, in my opinion. And it would be hopelessly tragic if we couldn’t motivate people to do good without expecting them to believe in things are unjustifiable. Most religious believers wouldn’t accept faith based reasoning in almost any other aspect of their lives, either, yet it is given [many atheists believe] undue reverence, particularly in the United States.
So, I respect your rights as a fellow human being, but I can not, in good conscience, provide what would surely be a disingenuous level of respect for your beliefs, even if that may offend you. It would almost certainly be advantageous if we could reach a point where all ideas, no matter how precious, were open to criticism, and if all people were to recognize that this is explicitly not an attack on the very core of their being, but part of normal, everyday discourse.
Finally, ask yourself whether the desire for respect is precisely because many beliefs are not justifiable. The funny thing about religious institutions essentially begging — and if they can, legislating — for respect is that, in the end, it can only do them more harm than good, in my opinion. What could be more damaging to a religion, each of which prides itself on being the one true dogma, on having the god given truth at their disposal, than forcing everybody to treat each of them with an equal amount of respect? And it would have to be that way in any western liberal democracy, otherwise we are favoring one over the other.
Surely, given that our societies are geared towards apportioning respect based on merit, on efficiency, on accuracy, and on value, it will be easy, even for some small children, to spot this great elephant in the room? The inevitable conclusion that many young people will reach is that all religions being afforded the same amount of respect, and knowing that they cannot all be true, is a clear indication that none of them are, and that they’re protected precisely for that reason. After all, why on earth would you need to ask for respect when you are supposedly in possession of the truth about the universe and everything in it?
Is it ethical to believe something without evidence?
I believe the following, unevidenced though it is:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Am I unethical to do so?
Sinbad,
Are you a pirate?
I only read the first thread, so all post numbers refer to the previous thread. I apologize if something adressed here has already been over-argued here (insofar as a 2200 post thread about stealing a magic, blessed flesh-cookie can be).
This has ticked me offbecause of how many times people likened keeping the communion wafer in a plastic bag to keeping a potocopy of the constitution ion a plastic bag, or to keeping a piece torn off of the constitution in a plastic bag. Eucharist kept in plastic bag instead of being eaten is not like a print of the constitution being kept in a plastic bag, it;s like a copy of Thomas Payne’s Comon Sense (circa early 1776) being klept in a plastic bag (or cloth sack, or unused wine bladder, or another reasonable analogy for a plastic bag) instead of being read. Only without the possible evidence of treason and downfall of the english colonies’ uprising. In another article, he was stated to have taken the wafer, not as an affront to the catholic church, but as an aid to help explain to a non-cathiolic friend about the church.
541 stated that this was like someone beng handed a dangerous biological specimen, then attempting to walk out of the lab without disposing of it, but this is also inaccurate. hey did not explain why he could not leave with the comunion wafer, only tht they didn;t want him to take a cracker that contained bits of their god, which would not be dangerous if not “disposed of” (eaten).
Personal opinion on whether cook was right or wrong: He was wrong to take their cracker specifically because they tried to take it back at the church, but was perfectly within reason to take the cracker for explanatory purposes with intent to eat it later.. The woman who tried to pry the cookie out of his hand was wrong, because she commited assault. The church was wrong for blowing this out of proportion, and would have been within reason to ask for it back, had they not slandered Cook in doing so. The university was wrong, because they’re jack***es who decided they wanted finding more than they wanted to protect one of their own. And the people who threatened him with death are wrong because death threats are illegal. And Bill Donohue is wrong for having a name similar enough to Phil Donohue’s that I am confused (but it’s not his fault I was confused, so I would be wrong to be angry at him for not changing his name).
Idea: Take an unconsecrated communion wafer into a church, palm it before going up to recieve communion. go back to your pew, and start doing the thing where you roll a coin across the back of your fingers, but with the unconsecrated wader. The eucharist you recieved earlier is currently in your stomach (or stuck to the roof of your mouth, in case you need proof or don;t produce much saliva). Someone attacks you for the unconsecrated wafer, and you explain that it isn;t consecrated, and they are attempting to take something that was not theirs in the first place. If they continue to insist that it is transubstantiated jesus-flesh, ask them to prove it. If they try to get around it by “re”-blessing it, file a legal complaint that they attempted to alter (or altar, I hate me sometimes) your property without permission.
@#673: Atheism is more like not havinn a job than not being a plumber.
PS@#580: Garlic Jesus would rock. I;ve previously considered buying unconsecrated communion wafers, but then decided I would do so only if I could find some with garlic flavoring. But hey, see if you could get a priest to bless some garlic (say, one of those priests that believe in the typical modern view of a vampire), mix it with some marinara (blessed by a pastafarian priest, if such a person exists), and you;d have yourself a nice, tasty blasphemy snack.
Welcome JET73L!
I find your post #1255 completely amusing and hilarious! I appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
Sinbad said:
Apart from mentioning the Creator, of which there is no serious evidence, what on earth leads you to believe that there is no evidence that all of humanity deserves ‘unalienable Rights’, including ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’?
Remember, evidence doesn’t have to be empirical, and it would be relatively easy to make a very strong case, using empirical data alongside historical evidence, etc, for all of those things.
Part of the reason that we believe in those rights is because, time and again, they have been largely responsible for helping to create healthy and productive societies. Do you honestly think that we would still believe it if they had been shown to produce unhealthy and unproductive societies? I don’t.
Religion, if it weren’t for all the senseless slaughter in gods name campaign sloganeering, it would be just non-stop 3 Stooges meets Basil Fawlty.
But there is that gazillion gallons of blood on their hands that spoils th humor.
[W]hat on earth leads you to believe that there is no evidence that all of humanity deserves ‘unalienable Rights’, including ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’?
The inability of anyone to produce such evidence.
Oh, by the way, the Declaration doesn’t assert that we “deserve” these Rights, but that we are “endowed” with them. Big difference.
[I]t would be relatively easy to make a very strong case, using empirical data alongside historical evidence, etc, for all of those things.
I agree that a good case can be made that such rights are a good thing (despite the highly subjective nature of what folks perceive to be “good”). That is decidedly not to say that such rights are “endowed” and “unalienable.” Need I mention as well that without a God, the idea of “unalienable” rights is incoherent? Without a God, rights can be given by the state but may also be taken away.
Part of the reason that we believe in those rights is because, time and again, they have been largely responsible for helping to create healthy and productive societies.
How does their being good make the existence of these rights true?
Do you honestly think that we would still believe it if they had been shown to produce unhealthy and unproductive societies?
There are still communists around, donchaknow.
I’m convinced that Sinbad is a pirate.
Need I mention as well that without a God, the idea of “unalienable” rights is incoherent? Without a God, rights can be given by the state but may also be taken away.
Congratulations, you’ve just disproved your God.
Maybe, if I speak Sinbad’s language he’ll answer me.
ARRR!!! You be a pirate Sinbad?!
RE: Zarquon post # 1261
Good point, as many individuals were denied these rights in the beginning of this Country, only later to be given these rights after significant struggle.
I love the level of intelligence being shown here by my fellow atheists.
Congratulations, you’ve just disproved your God.
Wow. Zarquon has just proved that Thomas Jefferson was a moron. Stop the presses!
RE: Sinbad post #1264
Actually, Zarquon has just proved that you are a moron. He only proved that Thomas Jefferson was a product of his time.
Sinbad,
Does your religion approve of homosexuality and anal sex?
Hiya Sinbad. Long time, no see.
I’m glad you mentioned that. I cannot agree. I realize that a great deal of your theistic belief system depends on the correctness of your conclusion that the human experience is incoherent without a god – but still, I cannot agree. Rights endowed by a creator can be taken away by that creator with as much, if not more, ease as they can be revoked by the state. (As they often are.)
Everybody is unalienably entitled to Life – and yet everybody dies.
If you’re arguing that they are unalienable by virtue of their being an inherent property of our existence, then the source of their endowment is irrelevant; a god is unnecessary and therefore optional.
Is a granite outcropping permitted to be hard?
Does Sinbad refuse to answer any of my questions because I’m female?
That seems suspiciously like Islamic behavior… hmmm…
Civilians get killed and your statement that the Spanish Civil War was the first time innnocent civilians have been targeted
Bombed. I said BOMBED.
Anyway, there’s no use in arguing against someone with such a poor comprehension of history. Believe what you want about Stalin’s masterplan to rule the Iberian peninsule, while the rest know perfectly that the Civil War was the result of a failed attempt of a coup d’etat.
He only proved that Thomas Jefferson was a product of his time.
Only partly true. He was surely a product of his time (as his disquiet over slavery amply demonstrates), but he also well recognized that human rights, to truly be rights rather than privileges, require a source above the crown.
Hiya Sinbad. Long time, no see.
Hi backatcha. Still firewalled out at the office so a rare visitor.
I realize that a great deal of your theistic belief system depends on the correctness of your conclusion that the human experience is incoherent without a god….
Yup. Volition is impossible without One and our existence is incoherent without volitional freedom.
Rights endowed by a creator can be taken away by that creator with as much, if not more, ease as they can be revoked by the state.
Not so. An endowed right (as opposed to a privilege) is irrevocable. That the state may try to withhold the rights or to preclude their exercise doesn’t mean that it has the right to do so.
Everybody is unalienably entitled to Life – and yet everybody dies.
Indeed. We’re entitled to pursue happiness but may not achieve it.
If you’re arguing that they are unalienable by virtue of their being an inherent property of our existence, then the source of their endowment is irrelevant; a god is unnecessary and therefore optional.
Without a sovereign, how can such rights come into existence or be bestowed?
Come on, Sinbad, now you are simply being obtuse. There is more than enough evidence that can be directly linked to those concepts.
I don’t believe that we are ‘endowed’ with them, and there is no evidence that we are, either. I would have said it a little differently, but that doesn’t necessarily alter the power of the message. In 2008, more than at any other time, we now have the ability to assess these kind of things.
Of course there would have to be generally agreed standards for what we are attempting to achieve, but even that can be influenced by evidence, creating a feedback loop.
While I would agree that ‘unalienable’ is [possibly] more difficult argue for, biology could inform us on that question. Given what we now know about Homo Sapiens, I don’t see why it is not at least possible to show that all humans really are born equal, particularly where race is concerned. If it is possible to argue for gay rights, using science as the basis for your thesis, then I don’t see any reason why it would not be possible to argue that humans are all equal, and that even those who are born with major differences (say, handicapped) have inherent worth to humanity.
I’d like to hear a defense of God-given rights, to be honest. As with morality, what mechanism transforms these rights in to anything that is even remotely meaningful? In other words, how are we given these rights by god, and why are they more meaningful than simply afforing them to ourselves. That they are absolute, perhaps?
As with morality, I’m wondering if it’s possible to apply the the Euthyphro dilemma to unalienable Rights. Let’s see:
“Is what is unalienable commanded by God because it is unalienable, or is it unalienable because it is commanded by God?”
The first horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is unalienable is commanded by God because it is unalienable) implies that rights are independent of God and, indeed, that God is bound by those rights just as his creatures are. God then becomes little more than a passer-on of unalienable Rights.
The second horn of the dilemma (i.e. that which is unalienable is unalienable because it is commanded by God) implies that what is unalienable is arbitrary, based merely upon God’s whim; if God had created the world to include that Death, Dictatorship, and Unhappiness were the only ‘Rights’, while Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, were not, then they would have been.
Secondly, it involves a form of reasoning that G.E. Moore classified as a naturalistic fallacy; to explain the claim that Rights are unalienable, in terms of what God has or hasn’t said is to argue from what Moore classified as a putative fact about the world to what Moore classified as a value (see is-ought problem).
Also, connected to my usual use of the dilemma, how would you objectively decide between all of the competing accounts of Unalienable Rights, not only between religions, but between different sects of the same religion? By doing so, we are introducing subjectivity in to the equation.
And what do we do about rights that we may now consider to be Unalienable, but there is no mention of them in any Holy book, etc? Would they be less of a right?
I guess that it doesn’t quite work as well with Unalienable Rights, but never having thought about it before, that still isn’t a bad argument. Although you may, of course, disagree.
Because we have agreed as a nation (in my fantasy world) to abide by evidentialism as our principal guide. Why do they have to be Truths, bound up in the universe, for them to be any more meaningful, anyway?
As I have [hopefully] shown using the Euthyphro dilemma, claiming that anything that comes from god is absolute, is problematic. There has to be a mechanism. Otherwise, it is simply an assertion.
Indeed there are. And they are both wrong according to the evidence, and immoral [I don’t want it to sound like it they are monsters, or anything] for not following the evidence where it leads.
Sinbad, it was you that claimed inalienable rights were incoherent without a god, not Thomas Jefferson. But the right to life has been shown to be alienable in those societies that permit the death penalty, the right to liberty in those societies that permit slavery and the right to the pursuit of happiness just about everywhere. So your concept of rights, and your concept that they depend on gods are both incoherent.
No, Jennie, I don’t think so – not even close. Sinbad’s a good fellah; he’s just on the opposite side of the fence from the average godless liberal on many issues. He’s religious, but not a fundie. He’s conservative, but not a wingnut. There are, in my opinion, compelling arguments against the conclusions he’s reached about the nature of reality, the human experience, free will, and the necessity of the existence of God to explain it all – but whether they are right or wrong, I believe that he has come by those conclusions honestly. You can draw your own conclusions about all that.
This isn’t to say that he doesn’t stir the nest from time to time. There are some regulars here with whom he doesn’t get along well at all. That’s normal, I guess. *shrug*
This is, after all, the internet…
that human rights, to truly be rights rather than privileges, require a source above the crown.
Yes, and his source? “We, the people…”
RE: Kseniya post #1273
Well, that may be what you think, but you cannot claim to know what Sinbad believes. I thank you for acknowledging me tho, I was starting to feel invisible.
With that, I’m now going to go sit down and watch the movie Expelled.
I’ll be back later.
Sinbad, I know I’m not going to sway you with my little metaphors about metamorphic rock, so we may have to agree to disagree. Things can have inherent properties. Properties need not be concrete (in a manner of speaking – heh – what I mean is physical or tangible).
A person’s right to life is revoked every time the person dies. The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. Nothing is unalienable; the notion that rights can be so is a human one which intends to secure some protection for these rights against arbitrary revocation by the state. And yet the state revokes them, conditionally, by the power vested in it by the people whose rights the government is sworn to protect.
What’s incoherent with reality is not the notion of unalienable rights without a God, it’s the notion of bestowed unalienable rights, period.
Or, perhaps, the only coherently unalienable rights must be inherent, and not bestowed.
Anyway, that’s the best I can do at 3:00 a.m. Nitol!
Jennie,
It’s probably something you’ll have to get used to. Not all the posters respond to everyone. Some of them prefer to write long, structured posts and don’t stop for the ‘banter’ of short conversations.
Others don’t have the inclination – for any number of reasons both good and bad.
Sinbad hasn’t been here much since I’ve started posting (in the last few months) so I can’t say into which of the two categories he falls – but it’s reasonable to trust Kseniya on this since she’s a regular here and appears to know him well.
Jennie:
That is correct. I know what he has said, which I believe is a reasonably accurate and honest representation of what he thinks and believes – but no, I do not claim to be a mind reader.
Enjoy the movie. Or should I say, “enjoy” the movie. Heh. Let us know what you think.
I don’t believe that we are ‘endowed’ with them, and there is no evidence that we are, either. I would have said it a little differently, but that doesn’t necessarily alter the power of the message.
If they aren’t irrevocable, the message is negated.
While I would agree that ‘unalienable’ is [possibly] more difficult argue for….
Without a sovereign to bestow such rights, the concept isn’t just “difficult” — it’s incoherent.
I don’t see why it is not at least possible to show that all humans really are born equal, particularly where race is concerned.
Except that such evidence as there is (at least) suggests the very opposite. We are decidedly unequal in any number of ways.
…and that even those who are born with major differences (say, handicapped) have inherent worth to humanity.
That’s a nonsensical concept without a God acting as sovereign. You might want to read Peter Singer.
While I would agree that ‘unalienable’ is [possibly] more difficult argue for, biology could inform us on that question.
That’s not in dispute and I don’t suggest otherwise.
I’d like to hear a defense of God-given rights, to be honest.
Then read the Declaration of Independence again.
[W]hy are they more meaningful than simply afforing them to ourselves. That they are absolute, perhaps?
You might be onto something, but the word you’re after is “unalienable,” not “absolute.”
Why do they have to be Truths, bound up in the universe, for them to be any more meaningful, anyway?
I thought you were arguing against religion?
[C]laiming that anything that comes from god is absolute, is problematic.
Of course it is.
There has to be a mechanism. Otherwise, it is simply an assertion.
That’s why we have minds.
Because we have agreed as a nation (in my fantasy world) to abide by evidentialism as our principal guide.
Since all the evidence supports the idea that we are decidedly unequal, you’re necessarily opposed to the idea that we’re all created equal, right?
Not necessarily. If someone makes a false statement, it might be out of stupidity, but it might also be out of deception.
I don’t know for sure which one it was, but given that Jefferson was supposed to have been very, very smart, I’d bet on the “deception”.
Especially since even as Jefferson wrote those words, there were men whose lives, liberty, and “pursuit of happiness” were totally and completely his, not their own, since they were his chattel property. I think we can be pretty sure that Jefferson knew that those rights were not so “unalienable” after all.
Or Jefferson was simply wrong. People are not endowed with rights, we simply arrogate them in the face of an indifferent universe.
Good grief, what do you think I am, some sort of rights-granting pixie, bopping everyone with a rights-granting wand?
The simple fact of the matter is that none of you have any rights whatsoever. You are all my slaves, puppets, toys, pets — you exist to amuse Me. So you have no real right to liberty.
And as mentioned above, you all die, so you have no real right to life.
And as for pursuit of happiness, well, pursue all you want. Only My happiness matters anyway.
However, I have no particular objection if you make up stories about Me granting you rights. I’m not granting you the right to do so; I simply don’t care enough to do anything about stopping you from doing so.
Sinbad, it was you that claimed inalienable rights were incoherent without a god, not Thomas Jefferson.
It’s a fair (and, frankly, obvious) reading of what Jefferson wrote.
But the right to life has been shown to be alienable in those societies that permit the death penalty, the right to liberty in those societies that permit slavery and the right to the pursuit of happiness just about everywhere.
That states dishonor the rights of its citizens in no way requires that they don’t exist.
So your concept of rights, and your concept that they depend on gods are both incoherent.
You and King George may think (have thought) so, but Jefferson and I disagree.
Yes, and his source? “We, the people…”
Only if you (intentionally) confuse subject and predicate because it is “the People” who “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
To bed for me too.
God be with you all. May His love transform your angry internet cut n’ pasting and Non-Serviam attitudes to a genuine love for God. – Jolene Cassa
A new contender for the longest Christian way to say “Fuck you”! Can any of you god-botherers out there beat this?
Absolute nonsense. The fact is, and has always been, that nothing has remained the same in the history of this planet. Not rights, not morality, nothing. So why expect, or more accurately, believe, that it is true in 2008, when we have the tools to make an evdentiary case — something tangible, something truly worthy of having, something, heaven forbid, human?
And how come it took nearly 2000 years for humanity to ‘discover’ and popularize these rights? Also, where is the biblical support for any of this, because if there isn’t any, how on earth do we know that they are God-given?
Yes, that’s lovely. Now make an argument. An assertion does not an argument make.
Sure, aesthetically, appearance-wise, but not biologically. What could be more fundamental than the very building blocks, the very foundation of our being?
There are no differences between race, for instance. Or at least none that are meaningful. In fact, biology has rendered race as a meaningless concept.
Or, if you disagree, name some meaningful biological differences between humans?
I have read Peter Singer, but it would be disingenuous of you to intimate that his is anything like a consensus view [I realize that isn’t what you were suggesting]. It is far from it, in fact.
It worries me that your thinking is so thoroughly reliant on a cosmic arbiter. And yet, you haven’t provided anything like a coherent mechanism that makes any of this even relevant, or shown how this is all justified using scripture, or shown that said scripture really does express the wishes of the cosmic arbiter. Does that not worry you, at all? Or am I being silly, worrying about the ‘minor’ details?
Uh? How does that help? Is there a mechanism contained within? Any theology? I’m having a hard time believing that you are being serious. I am being deadly serious when I say that I don’t believe that you can defend any of the concepts that you espouse, and that that is a fairly serious problem. Simply saying that God has provided us with inalienable rights is not an argument, it’s an assertion.
Sure, but you are yet to defend that. How are they absolute? How do you know? What is the mechanism, etc?
If you are allowed to argue by assertion, then so am I, and we get nowhere. This is the problem with believing that rules, moral obligations, and inalienable rights have been ordained by God. In some cases — too many, in my experience — it is seen as a license to stop thinking.
I am, and I don’t believe that there are any fundamental Truths. I’m not even sure what that would mean. How would you even begin to show that there are?
Right, and you are arguing for what? That God influences your mind? Inspiration, revelation, or some kind of cognitive mechanic that alters your brain states? Quite how you would go about showing any of this to be true, I have no idea. And if you cannot, I have no reason to believe you.
And unless you are arguing that God does influence us all, biologically, the evidence that atheists are just as moral as believers would appear to weaken your case even further.
I will be if you can show me the evidence, yes. If biology suggests that we are frighteningly similar, and I am arguing that all of humanity is intrinsically equal — which has nothing to do with social circumstances — then my case is built on solid foundations.
Finally, I notice that you haven’t touched the amended ‘Euthyphro dilemma’, which, even if it is not as effective as it is against a God given morality, still highlighted the problems with anything — and in this instance, inalienable Rights — supposedly ordained by God.
Since you asked… Your just another drama whore. Oh, wait, don’t think I’m responding to one of the other commenters. I’m responding to PZ Myers, for playing the drama whore rather than finding something better to do with his time. But hey, he’ll just chalk this up to a veiled death threat from a cooky cracker nut rather than a fellow intellectual who thinks the good(?) professor(?) is being an ass.
But to each his own. Whore on, McDuff! Whore on!
I think the obvious suspicion has to be that Jolene was religiously home-schooled. She can’t risk citing the specific books in which she read the misinformation and disinformation because she secretly knows they contained a pack of lies and that they would also easily be recognised by some other people here as being dishonest religious propaganda. So she has to keep dodging that request on the “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and confirm it” principle.
Meanwhile, she’s unable to address the substantive parts of your criticism of her claims, eg the damning evidence of the US Constitution itself, because she hasn’t been programmed to respond in that area. Her indoctrination necessarily had to carefully avoid dealing with dangerous truths.
Steven Weinberg, Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries
Chapter 15. Zionism and Its Adversaries
David Ben Gurion:
“If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Can we burn a stack of Israeli Flags now?
in New York?
And in a related news story: Host-Nailing!!
In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council established the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. As a result, “Soon, among superstitious people, rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and mutilating them or driving nails through them, to crucify Jesus again. Reports said the pierced host bled, or cried out, or emitted spirits….
On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany – the first of more than a hundred slaughters.
In 1298, a priest spread the host-nailing story in Nurenberg, and 628 Jews were killed, including Mordecai ben Hillel, the famous scholar…”
But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg and such persecutions for imaginary crimes continued unabated until the 1700’s. (Excerpted from “Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness” by James A. Haught)
As an altar boy i use to smuggle the damned blessed crakers leftovers home and feed my pet bunny rabbit with them. He loved it. I guess Im going to Hell.
Christian here.
PZ, if you want to do something sacrilegious to a Eucharist cracker, go ahead.
Just remember to keep it in good taste and remember to tell everyone about your right to free speech and parody.
And if we want to argue semantics, it’s supposed to be unleavened bread, not round disc-shaped cookies. And it’s supposed to be the Jews who should be calling for the whipping of said offender, not some Catholics.
Pita is too tasty! Doesn’t meld with the Catholic need for self immolation.
Bravo, Mr. Myers! I really appreciated the bile-dripping derision you poured on the Catholic “church” and their massively powerful organization that runs the entire world, pratically. You exposed Catholics for the slack jawed idiots that they are. Imagine, taking Christ’s words literally! How stupid they are.
But come on! Catholics small potatos. Catholics just sit back and take it when you attack them. At most, they write screeds disagreeing with you. Now, I’d love to see you show some REAL stones and attack Islam as well! Then we’ll know you’re a man, and not some pathetic snivelling coward.
Did you even bother to check back through the blog for such prior entries before indulging in what we’ve apparently christened [;-)] fatwa-envy?
“Your just another drama whore.”
And you‘re just a drama john.
Yep… he KnowsNothing alright.
I have a question for the Catholics out there getting so up in arms about this…
Have you ever had a Jehovah Witness come to your home and give you literature and/or a bible? What about Mormons’?
What do you do with this? Probably throw it in the trash right… And if someone gave you a Koran or Torah what would you do with it? Probably toss it in the garbage too huh…
That’s desecration… But it doesn’t mean anything to you right? Because you don’t believe in that stuff.
And of course you can read your own bible, John 8:2-11 they have this lovely thing about hypocrisy, sin and casting stones ^_~
Dear SEF,
Hey, thanks for the heads up. I’m right with you. Stuff that’s already been posted higher up is always more correct than the johnny-come-latelys at the bottom. Common sense will tell you that much.
And you guys are so funny with the “fatwa-envy” thing! Where do you come up with this stuff? Just a font bubbling over with wit and creativity–that’s what you guys are.
But seriously, though, I’m waiting for this guy to really take some shots at Islam to prove that he’s a brave atheist hero, not afraid to declare his non-belief to truly dangerous people, and not just some pathetic little dime-a-dozen Catholic hating moron.
As a Catholic, though I wouldn’t say I am up in arms about this matter, I have received information from both JW and Mormons. I do not keep the literature that they give me, and I do not believe it is considered sacred, but for what it is worth, I do recycle.
If I was ever given a Torah or Koran, I would treat it with respect. Perhaps it would sit on my shelf as a source of reference, or perhaps I would donate it to a center that would distribute it to the right person that would benefit from it.
Or lastly, perhaps I would let the person that was giving it to me know that I would not use it and I would feel terribly keeping it if it wasn’t to be used.
And, Jennie, yes, I am a female. Mom of 6 great kids!!
No, you really aren’t. I said “blog” not “thread” and “back” not “higher-up”. I used the words I used for a reason – viz that they were the correct ones. Yet you’re apparently so clueless you can’t even manage to read the directions for how to get what you claim to want – but probably don’t really want because you’d much rather have a pretend grievance about it not existing (to go with all your other pretences).
Man you’re a douche KnowNothingAboutPZorthisblog.
Try doing a SEARCH.
There’s been MANY posts in which PZ attacks Islam. Try “honor killings” asshole.
Erin, just stop talking, we’ve been over it and the stupid things you’re saying have been done to death.
to recap for you, since apparently you’re too lazy to read.
THIS IS ALL RETARDED. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO DISCUSS THIS. NO AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION IS GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE FUCKING IDIOTS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO ON SUNDAY MORNING.
Salute the militant atheists!
Josef Stalin
Adolph Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
now PZ Myers!
What an admirable group of people!
Hitler was a CATHOLIC dumbass.
It’s fascinating how smooshing a cracker is equated with violence and mass murder.
What is wrong with you people?
Not to mention the others enshrined themselves and their political beliefs in religious trappings and did everything they could to censor others. You know, like the extremist Catholics unleashing death threats on PZ.
PZ’s taking a stand against censorship and authoritarianism. We hate the dogmas of Stalinism, Nazism, and fundamentalism, which is why we’re doing this. How about you separate yourself from all those evil people you list by denouncing the extremists who value a cracker over human life and free expression, you hypocrite?
Bronze Dog, Steve C., et al. For rationalists, atheists, your language is sure peppered with vulgarities, extreme assumptions, generalities and strawmen arguments, etc.–all of which begs the question whether you are as rational, cool-headed, and logical as you and your ilk present themselves. It’s fun to just leave a short comment and watch you drool, snarl, and attack like a pack of Michael Vick’s abused pitbulls. But, hey, fundamentalist, fanatical whackos are like that, whether they are religious or non-religious. Well, at least if you are writing comments on this blog, it takes you away for few minutes from the internet porn that occupies the other 99 percent of your daily web browsing. Hey, isn’t masturbating a sin? Yeah, but through the Catholic law of double-effect at least it prevents the greater evil of little squibbs like you actually meeting women and reproducing your progeny on earth. Thank God–oops, I mean, PURE CHANCE–for natural selection…
Hitler was raised a Catholic. He totally denounced his Catholic faith as an adult…as many here on this site seem to have done also. Catholic is not an ethnicity. You don’t inherit it. You choose it. Hitler as an adult decided that he didn’t believe in God and said he was an atheist.
The USSR has never been Catholic. For pete’s sake, does no one read? Russia was, and is one of the largest Orthodox countries.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/07/pz-myers-hates-christians-excl.html
Insulting language does not negate rationality.
It’s colorful and precise.
And I already have a son, you putz.
And it’s not like we haven’t seen the exact same ignorant comments from hundreds of other before you. Do you have a quote where Hitler claims to be an atheist?
I don’t think you do.
here we go again…
insulting a cracker=genocide.
Quite the perspective these folks have.
And the award for “Dumbest Comment Ever From a Religiot to an Atheist” goes to….
And the award for “Comment That Most Illustrates the Commenter Has Failed to Study the Subject Material” goes to….
In reference to post #1308: All the wrong people learn how to type.
In reference to those who agree with the idea expressed by the poster of #1309, I am an Historian and you are absolutely incorrect about Hitler. Yes, he was raised a Catholic- but NO he was never an Atheist. He used Christian references throughout his political career. Just read his speeches, his faith was blatantly obvious. I find it very weak on the part of the religious to use such examples to argue against Atheists.
since the whole “science->atheism->Hitler” bullshit has come up yet again, might as well put up the link again:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
btw, Bernie, have you ever heard of quotemining?
’cause the article you linked to is full of it, putz.
The USSR has never been Catholic.
are you trying to say there are no Catholics in Russia?
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/1998-03-04/russia.html
by your logic, the US isn’t, and has never been, Catholic either. Sounds obvious to me, but is that what you were trying to imply?
Even if, for the sake of argument, we concede that Hitler was an atheist by the start of the Holocaust, consider this:
He is only one man, and the true legacy of the Third Reich is, therefore, that Christians (German ones, anyway) are the most easily fooled, readily manipulated, credulous group of fools who ever committed a genocide on the say-so of a maniac who claimed to be doing God’s work.
Deal with it.
Christians (German ones, anyway) are the most easily fooled, readily manipulated, credulous group of fools who ever committed a genocide on the say-so of a maniac who claimed to be doing God’s work.
ooh, that gives me a chance to try that new trick we picked up last night (fingers crossed):
At the Adelaide Fringe this year I saw a play called Goering’s Defence which dealt with his last hours in his cell, interspersed with his testimony at the trials.
This quote was one of the lines.
Bernie is fractally wrong @ 1309 regarding Hitler, but I appreciate his attempt to link to the even more fractally wrong blog at Beliefnet. At that link I posted the following (hope it’s OK to include it here):
We’ve had a few Catholic commenters on this thread who have earned some respect from me. Most however have not. They lose points for over reacting (threats against life and livelihood for example) or as in Bernie’s case and Jolene’s case, poor scholarship.
Enough for one night. Time to go masturbate.
This quote was one of the lines.
I think it might be the single most common link I utilize on Pharyngula, it just seems so apt for fundies and religionauts; hell ANY group that relies on authoritarian argument to decide their actions for them. If it weren’t so correct, there would be no “Disinformation Institute” for Casey Luskin to spew lies from.
big hattip to Kobra for reminding me of the in-line style tags.
Hell, what Myers has in mind with crackers is better than his usual pastime of fucking little boys in the lab. I say send him a ton of them just to keep the boys safe for a while.
Hell, what Myers has in mind with crackers is better than his usual pastime of fucking little boys in the lab. I say send him a ton of them just to keep the boys safe for a while.
another religionaut spews forth. Such exemplary
slandermorals.“another religionaut spews forth.”
Well, that’s how you know they’re Christian, after all. By their love.
Ok, so here we have some CRAZY Catholics. Nothing to strange here…But I like the painting as crazy “Christians”. Why don’t you go even more broad and say crazy “Religious persons” or maybe “crazy people?” Why avoid “Crazy Catholics?”
Because Catholic and Democrats go hand in hand, and you can’t have that. Oh, the left loves to embrace the Catholics up until a little boy gets touched or a man gets death threats over a cracker. Then they are “right wing religious nuts”…Those Clintons and Kennedy’s…man, what a bunch of crazies…
Safe from whom? Their priests? Great idea! Very clever! Thanks for coming through for the greater good of humanity, Johnsmith.
FWIW: The Goering quote, to the best of my knowledge, comes from a conversation he had with a visitor in his cell. It wasn’t in any way part of the trial testimony.
Gene Lyons has it exactly right in his column today. Myers should be ashamed of himself.
Granted this is a so-called “science” blog, but it’s this kind of anti-Catholic bigotry that really hurts so-called “progressives” who defend this kind of nonsense perpetrated by Myers.
OmG, funny stuff . Religion at it best . healthy old Religion .
Susan Nunes:
Hillary lost. Get over it already. ; )
Susan Nunes has joined the choir of so-called Christian “moralists” who think defacing a cracker is worse than sending death threats to a person who has not actually done anything.
Pax Nabisco, Susan. Get some perspective, hmmm? At least try.
Jrod: Huh? I think we’d better do some reality checking:
Ichthyic: Did you have to put the pixel dimensions and mozilla flags into the [p] tag to imbed that image? Or just specify the url? (Not that I want to help turn Pharyngula into one of those blogs whose comment section is teeming with superfluous embedded images, but I am curious.)
I figured out that there was a loophole way back when I realized that copying that style info for “creationist” (Comic Sans font + gumby image) did in fact get you the gumby image.
And it is a loophole. I kinda suspect that given how the “img” tag is autostripped from comments, the Seed Overlords don’t want this to be one of those blogs (“comment section is teeming with superfluous embedded images”) either, and that the loophole will be closed if it becomes widely used.
Oh, and I think the mozilla flags + pixel dimensions are probably an artifact of something or other. I don’t recall entering them when copying the style info from the “creationist” class.
Hell, what Myers has in mind with crackers is better than his usual pastime of fucking little boys in the lab. I say send him a ton of them just to keep the boys safe for a while.
Are the priests done with them already?
I think everyone has completely missed the point. I’m an agnostic, with no use for religion in general and Christianity in particular so I don’t really give a shit about wether a cracker is a cracker. If somebody wants to think its something more, thats their business. If you don’t, thats also your business. Shut the fuck up about the cracker.
This guy went to the service of Church he didn’t belong to for the sole purpose of doing something he knew would be interpreted as spiteful and insulting. How’d you like it if you invited me into your house and I pissed in the coffee pot?
Who would hire this man to teach anywhere? The use of such vulgar language hurts academia everywhere. Thank God above for the beautiful ivy league institution I attend, that, though liberal, is no way disrespectful and vulgar.
Whatever people chose to believe is their right, as you don’t believe, that is also your right. But get a life, a good job, get a full life, and then things like this will cease to matter.
Matt, you haven’t paid attention to anything, have you?
1. “Just shut up!” is not going to work on us. We have the right to express an opinion. They do not have a right to live in an inoffensive world.
2. Being silent has gotten us nothing.
3. Most importantly, this really isn’t about the cracker, this is about the death threats and the lack of civilized self-control of a group of extremist terrorists who you and the not-barbaric Catholics should be up in arms about. (Note: Politeness isn’t a part of being minimally civilized as far as I’m concerned. False etiquette and the PC police are the first steps towards the destruction of free speech.)
Matt.
You don’t have the first clue what you are talking about.
“Cause real, Ivy League academicians always use Latin euphemisms instead of the Anglo-Saxon terms for the same things. It’s much less *sniff* vulgar.
(In my opinion, your compulsive comma-splicing is a far greater crime against the language than the use of “vulgar” words.)
I almost sprayed my coke over my monitor when I read that! I remember taking my 1st Communion as a six year old boy. The priest gave it to me, I chomped it, and immediately spit the bloody thing out! It tasted like cardboard. I’m 43 now, no longer Catholic, but I still remember the shocked look on everyone’s face in the church! To my knowledge the was no Catholic Fatwa issued against me though.
Interesting all the hyperbole and ‘left-wing fundamentalist’ rhetoric I see here. Funny how the athiests exhibit so many of the same troubling failings as the religious right, except it’s so many small minds clamouring to be ‘unholier-than-thou’.
It’s all rather sad to me.
Desecrating the host at it’s essence (or rejoicing over it) is not different than cross-burning or uttering hateful epithets or enjoying the mocking of Islam, and no different than American flag-burning:
You’re purposely provoking and disrespecting another human-being and mocking their beliefs and values for childish kicks and reactionary political purposes.
Truthfully, there’s no upside, and it’s not doing anything other than showing your lack of confidence, and lack of respect for other human beings.
I’m a reformed catholic, having chosen to walk away from the faith of my ancestors for many reasons, not the least of which was my distaste for hypocritical beliefs and actions by the church.
Interestingly, your comments have actually caused me to reflect on the fact that hypocrisy is more of a human failing than a religious one – with a great many so-called enlightened folks here exhibiting the same lack of logic, respect, and humanity that I had identified with the church, and caused my estrangement from religion.
Seems that it’s not The Church, or Religion, any more than its Patriotic America or The Liberals… it’s angry, unhappy people who lack compassion for others.
I wish you all peace and generosity of spirit, regardles of what you choose to believe in.
Thank you PZ Meyers for standing up for reason! I’m a student at the University of Pennsylvania and I’m proud that next year Penn will be celebrating and emphasizing evolution. We need more professors and educational institutions to grow spines here in the US and face up to religious bullying.
Now, towards the story: I think what potentially bothers me most about it is the allegation that Cook was physically accosted by representative of the Church and this assault continued even after he requested that she cease multiple times. It seems to me that this conforms to the legal requirements for harrassment and assault (and potentially battery depending on what she was doing). It is my fervent wish that Webster Cook press charges against the Catholic church for these crimes along with slander and libel. The Catholic Church has already received a good number of black eyes over all the little boy raping that’s gone on, now it’s time they receive some for attacking young men.
YOU ARE CRAZY MAN! YOU HAVE LUCKY THAT CATHOLIC ISN’T ISLAM… WHATEVER I WISH YOU THAT THE CATHOLIC DO WITH YOU SAME AS ISLAM PEOPLE DO WITH SOMEONE WHO PROFANE THEIR RELIGION!
Fuck islam, Fuck Catholicism, fuck christianity,fuck hinduism, fuck buddhism(not as much as the others, fuck religion. Fuck people who want to kill somebody for saying what I just said. Having said all that, I will admit that totally insulting another person’s religious beliefs is somewhat rude but faced with incredible ignorance and people losing their lives in the name of your shit-eating religion, I say “FUCK YOU”
1342 just has to be a Poe. At least, I fervently hope so.
YOU HAVE LUCKY THAT CATHOLIC ISN’T ISLAM…
oh really?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
comparing the shitstorm that arose from threatening a fucking cracker, to that from talking about pissing on the Koran…
The Catholics are clear winners in the “I will kill you for your sacrilege!” battle.
Religious fanaticism aside, Meyer’s behavior here is entirely bigoted and insensitive to Catholics who constitute of 1/5 of the worlds population. To Meyer’s no harm has been done, but to 1 billion Catholics, he is desecrating the living body of Christ. To put things in perspective, this act would be similar to urinating on Prophet Muhammad for Muslims, or perhaps spitting in the Dalai Llama’s face for Tibetan Buddhists. Unfortunately, the responses to this blog show how Anti-Catholicism is just as socially acceptable throughout white America, as it has been since the US’ inception.
Did you have to put the pixel dimensions and mozilla flags into the [p] tag to imbed that image?
yes.
It utilizes an in-line style tag to place an image into the background of the comment.
Just block out the comment, and view the source of the selection (if using firefox) to see the code used.
it’s quite simple.
I (and a couple of others) have sent messages to sciblogs gently poking around whether this would be acceptable or not, and why they initially blocked image tags to begin with, but have not received a response yet.
I’m sure there is a reason(s) why they disabled image tags, but I figure so long as style tags aren’t completely abused, people posting occasional images to the comments sections probably won’t trigger much alarm.
I have chosen to limit it to one per day (or less), myself, until someone hears back from sciblogs.
…..
correction to my post before this one:
The Catholics are [at least] clear winners in the “I will [threaten to] kill you for your sacrilege!” battle.
To Meyer’s no harm has been done, but to 1 billion Catholics, he is desecrating the living body of Christ.
are you being truthful that you speak for all 1 billion people claiming to be Catholics?
c’mon now… tell the truth.
Joseph Gassner,
I won’t call you an idiot – yet.
It’s a good idea to at least try reading all the posts in a thread before you comment. You’ll discover that a) what you’ve written has already been said, many times; and b) there are many, many examples where PZ has pointed out the ludicrous inanity of religions other than christianity and sects other than catholicism.
If, once you’ve done that, you still feel you have something new to add, feel free.
Did you belong to the Catholic Church when you were a child?? check out my blog
http://www.johnpreiss.wordpress.com
comment 1350 for PZ
http://www.johnpreiss.wordpress.com
I think posting repeated spam is grounds for bouncing, “John”.
I not posting spam, I am wondering why PZ has such hatred towards Catholicism? He has not mentioned much about any other religion.
He has not mentioned much about any other religion.
Liar.
Lying is a sin. Oh yeah, yall don’t believe in God. Was PZ a Catholic in his early childhood?
You lied.
We don’t need any nonsense about sin. You lied.
John Preiss, liar:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php
Read, then admit you are either ignorant, a liar – or both.
“This is My Body, This is my Blood”. The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years the Bible was put together around 397 A.D. There was a Church before a Bible. The Catholic Church. Ma Jeff were did your soul come from?
You lied. Is that so hard to admit? You lied.
Don’t Get Hostile ! I am just trying to get some simple answers. I am not being mean
You lied, and you keep trying to change the subject. You lied.
The SPAM , i just went from my site were the PZ left me a comment so I came in here to check out his site. He has not mentioned much about any other religion. He just wanted to shock the Catholics for publicity. What did I lie about.
Lying is a sin. Oh yeah, yall don’t believe in God. Was PZ a Catholic in his early childhood?
The logic here being that, if we don’t believe in God and sin, we don’t believe in lying? In your case, the bigger sin than lying is being willfully retarded.
He has not mentioned much about any other religion.
In what, the last three days? Go to the link provided in 1357. You lied about him only going after Catholicism.
The SPAM , i just went from my site were the PZ left me a comment
Lie.
so I came in here to check out his site. He has not mentioned much about any other religion.
Lie.
He just wanted to shock the Catholics for publicity.
Lie.
What did I lie about.
Cretin.
Whatever Ok I am a liar All Ive seen is this blog. It does not matter anti God then to all I guess. I just asked some simple questions that no one has answered. I think you are in DENIAL to justify your lifestyle
It does not matter anti God then to all I guess. I just asked some simple questions that no one has answered. I think you are in DENIAL to justify your lifestyle
blah blah blah blah
The SPAM , i just went from my site were the PZ left me a comment so I came in here to check out his site.
you say this, right after repeatedly posting advertisements for your site.
If you won’t admit to US that you’re lying, at least admit it to yourself.
…and get help, because when someone exhibits THAT much denial, they really must have some serious issues that need to be dealt with, and frankly, none of us here (that I’m aware of) are qualified to help you with them.
try this site:
http://www.find-a-therapist.com/
bye.
How can I be anti something that is not real?
NUTCRACKER Later”’
See you
You like that. Got to go.
God Bless,
JP
How can I be anti something that is not real?
Are you trying to turn it into kenny?
That was not my intention.
You notice I did not mention NDE….Oh shit
Hey If He is not real why not try and believe, what would it hurt just in case HE is real. Did you ever believe? what about your family do they believe?
Whatever Ok I am a liar
Ok to you, clearly.
All Ive seen is this blog. It does not matter anti God then to all I guess. I just asked some simple questions that no one has answered. I think you are in DENIAL to justify your lifestyle
It’s irrelevant what an imbecile like you thinks.
You notice I did not mention NDE….Oh shit
what, is it like some sort of “beetelgeuse” type chant?
let’s find out….
NDE
NDE
NDE
*ducks*
Hey If He is not real why not try and believe, what would it hurt just in case HE is real. Did you ever believe? what about your family do they believe?
thought you had to go?
liar.
Holy crap.
First the idiotic assertion that we don’t believe so we can be bad.
Now Pascals wager.
Pathetic
Hey If He is not real why not try and believe, what would it hurt just in case HE is real. Did you ever believe? what about your family do they believe?
That’s even a couple of orders of magnitude more imbecilic than the usual references to PW.
Hey If He is not real why not try and believe, what would it hurt just in case HE is real.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
We got a live one!
How exactly does one “try and believe”?
NDE
NDE
NDE
Now look what you’ve done.
This is some pretty spectacular asshattery alright.
JP, if you’re still here – has this approached ever worked for you? I mean, seriously? Has anyone ever been convinced by what has to be the world’s worst argument for religious belief?
This idiot makes me miss Kenny.
You need to watch EXPELLED, Your so called experts sure made me want to be an evolutionist. That last Dr. IGNORANT
Come on Guys this all is a joke right?
DAY-O!
You need to watch EXPELLED
no, you need to visit:
Expelled Exposed
before you spread even more lies than you already have.
John, seriously – put down the furniture polish, stand up and back away from the keyboard.
Don’t trip and blog, bro.
You need to watch EXPELLED, Your so called experts sure made me want to be an evolutionist.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Hey johnpreiss, if I think evil thoughts about you you’ll forgive me right? Maybe waste a few minutes of your life praying for me, even?
I’m thinking unkind, evil things about you.
No but when you are dealing with people who are unteachable and are oblivious you try anything. I usually use Church History and writers from past centuries. And Logic.
No one here is tempted to see
ExpiredExpelled.You, though, need to read:
http://expelledexposed.com/
And Logic.
as someone here once said:
Logic: you’re doing it wrong.
Just when you think a thread is about to die… someone like John Priess shows up to bring it back from the dead. Must be the blogging version of a resurrection event – I can see the obvious attraction for the Christian-types out there to return the dead to the living. Works on a savior, works on a communion wafer, works on a blog thread… the theme is ridiculous, but at at least it’s consistent.
No one here is tempted to see
ExpiredExpelled.You, though, need to read:
http://expelledexposed.com/
Who wrote it ,PeeZee?
Church history?
I guess you skip over the whole inquisition thing?
C’mon.
You come to the site and lie, demonstrating your ignorance, and getting all persecuted and shit. But, I guess the martyr feeling is one you gravitate toward.
Then, you toss out Expelled! *jazz hands*
FUCKING EXPELLED!
and you think you should be taken seriously?
that’sfunny!
Actually, that was originally the winning entry of John Scalzi’s
LOLCreationLOLCreashun contest:http://scalzi.com/whatever/?m=20071120
John Preiss wrote:
I usually use
Church Historyfiction andwriters from past centurieslies.There. Fixed it for you.
So You guys know all the answers, WOW amazing. So we all just popped up one day through some molecular whatever that you do not even have a clue.
GOD BLESS YOU GUYS
We also believe that you can make it to Heaven because of ignorance
Obviously, we don’t have all the answers, John. But we do have the most important one:
not god
Cram that in your jesus-hole – with walnuts.
We also believe [in]
that you can make it toHeaven because of ignorancefixed.
looks like you need a permanent editor? You might consider hiring one.
This idiot makes me miss Kenny.
I was about to comment that JP is even dumber than Kenny. But Kenny is still with as KKing.
Make that “with us as KKing”
Did anyone tell the ‘cracker kidnapper’ that those around him considered the wafer to become the Body of Christ?
If they did, then why in the name of tolerance would he kidnap a ‘rather flat, pasty, and starchy’ part of the Body of Christ?
If they didn’t someone needs to send the celebrant back to Roman Ed.
As for the ‘lets play with the crackers’ theme, I thought that kind of childishness from profs went out of style in the 60s – it saddens me to find out that some things never change.
what is matter ?
If you think that matter is the basic fundamental of our reality then ‘cracker worship’ can’t make sense.
Catholics believe that matter is a creation from a greater reality, created for consciousness – us.
In effect, we say that we are seeing through matter to that fundamental reality much like Buddhists believe the world is an illusion.
Christians think there is a deeper reality and they call the fundamental reality – God.
The answer is to thoroughly study what exactly matter is, and ask whether it is fundamental, and if not, where does it comes from and what is it for, and what IS the fundamental reality.
Catholics partaking of the eucharist have this idea in mind which is an aid in prayer and worship.
Prayer and worship is about transcending our physical world to ‘tune into’ the fundamental reality.
Not 10 invisible dimensions, not string theory, not parallel universes, not many worlds but a ‘being of love’ as the fundamental reality. A reality that created us, and a reality that we will return to when we cease to be in this physical creation.
Yes, crackers, we already know you’re crackers, you don’t have to keep pointing it out.
Catholics believe that matter is a creation from a greater reality, created for consciousness – us.
You are arrogant little fuckers, aren’t ya.
a ‘being of love’ as the fundamental reality
Have you read your own book? Seriously. That petulant, genocidal, misogynist monster is love? Stay the fuck away from me.
GOD BLESS YOU GUYS
“Fuck you” right back atcha.
being of love
Oh, that’s just tragic. When the hell did the papists decide to go all New Age?
I remember someone commenting (buggered if i know where) on the direction that society in general was going – away from the strictly delineated sectarian concepts and toward a sort of fusion where it’s okay to believe in both traditional concepts and ‘alternative spirituality’ like crystals and astrology.
This sort of sickening, limp twaddle is – I guess – illustrating the point the poster made.
Well, I thought e=mc^2 => m=e/(c^2).
Thanks, Albert.
That’s mass, John, not matter. Matter has mass, but they aren’t synonymous.
John Morales,
that would be mass?
tm, excuse me for referring to Wikipedia. Saves me typing.
Matter
In science, matter is commonly defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed, not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields, which are not usually considered to be matter per se (though they may contribute to the mass of objects).
Mass
[] is a fundamental concept in physics, roughly corresponding to the intuitive idea of how much matter there is in an object. […] In everyday usage, mass is more commonly referred to as weight, but in physics and engineering, weight means the strength of the gravitational pull on the object; that is, how heavy it is, measured in units of force. In everyday situations, the weight of an object is proportional to its mass, which usually makes it unproblematic to use the same word for both concepts.
So, yeah you’re right, but so am I. You’re quibbling semantics.
Just wait – with the standard of ‘tard troll we’ve had here over the last week or so, some cretin is going to come along and point out that the atheists on this blog are anti-semantic…
How dare you threaten to quibble semantics! Hitler was an athiest!!!11!!!
So, yeah you’re right, but so am I.
Your bolded text says that mass and weight can be interchanged, not mass and matter. So no, you’re wrong.
You’re quibbling semantics.
That’s a stupid and ignorant charge — semantics is meaning.
And John, you’re doing the same thing that Craig did in the other thread — dissing me for simply providing a correction; it’s quite anti-intellectual and childish.
tm, your contention is that, in everyday (natural) language, mass is not functionally synonymous with matter.
I’m not going to argue your interpretation, but you’ve not convinced me otherwise.
You can, of course. Not that there’s any point to it, but you can.
tm, you think I’m dissing you for correcting me; I think your correction is irrelevant to my (jocular) point.
Fine, but I think you’re going to have a hard time establishing the epistemological verity of your value judgement.
tm, your contention is that, in everyday (natural) language, mass is not functionally synonymous with matter.
My “contention” is that the m in e = mc^2 stands for mass, not matter. It’s not like this is at all controversial. Then you tried to use Wikipedia citations to show that mass and matter are interchangeable when they show no such thing. In fact, they directly contradicted you: “not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields, which are not usually considered to be matter per se (though they may contribute to the mass of objects).
you’ve not convinced me otherwise
I don’t have any obligation to convince you of anything. You made a mistake — presenting a formula that refers to mass, not matter, when the subject was matter. You then tried desperately to defend your mistake when it pointed out to you, despite the fact that you must know that you know very little about physics and its terminology. You’re wrong, anyone who knows anything about the subject knows you’re wrong, anyone who can read can see you’re wrong. If you’re “unconvinced”, that’s your problem.
I think your correction is irrelevant to my (jocular) point.
I think you’re being an ass. I corrected your silly mistake. So did clinteas. Because of that mistake, your joke falls flat. And then, like a childish little insecure twerp, you absurdly accused me of “quibbling” for simply pointing out that m stands for mass, not matter. Such a mistake is not one that anyone not grossly ignorant about physics would make. Grow up and admit you made a mistake and a false accusation. Or don’t, and simply be a dishonest ass, not much different from Uriel.
Well, technically>/i>, truth machine is right and I’m not gonna dispute any further.
Caveat: truth machine is right, given the joke I made is taken literally.
Nonetheless, I retract.
Q: What is matter? A: I dunno.
That’s progress. But you quoted a Wikipedia article that told you:
tm, the joke was flat – I get it. I was basing it on a demotic, colloquial sense. When I raised semantics I was literally referring to the commonly-understood sense of words.
It’s retracted.
I’ll go further: yes, mass and matter are different concepts.
I can hardly be clearer than that.
When I raised semantics I was literally referring to the commonly-understood sense of words.
And it’s quite commonly understood that the m in Einstein’s equation refers to mass, not matter. It was no quibble to point that out.
I can hardly be clearer than that.
No, that’s quite clear. Congratulations.
tm, thanks. Can we give this a rest*?
* another feeble joke (rest aka invariant mass). It’s 2019 here and I need more than 3 hours sleep per night; I must labor for a living.
We also believe that you can make it to Heaven because of ignorance – John Priess
I guess that’s why you have so carefully preserved yours.
Sir,
I only wanted to ask you a question: if it is only a cracker, why the big deal? If Catholics are so crazy, then why do you stoop to their level with inciting them?
Posted by: Jonathan | July 17, 2008 8:53 AM
Again, someone who hasn’t been paying attention to who’s made a big deal out of everything. Or, someone who’s being intentionally dishonest. Hmm, wonder which.
JOHN PREISS said: “This is My Body, This is my Blood”. The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years the Bible was put together around 397 A.D. There was a Church before a Bible. The Catholic Church. Ma Jeff were did your soul come from?
ME SAY: I don’t have a soul. I have chemical reactions and electrical impulses dancing around the synapses in my brain which will all STOP when I reach brain-death, which they have for all the other billions of humans who’ve died since we first emerged from the swampy ooze. Still, maybe your God programmed me to say that.
Also I kind of like that notion of God being a state of ‘being’ rather like the Buddhist notion of reality being an illusion, except that it doesn’t explain why Catholics believe in Hell. Is Hell part of that state of being, or separate to it, or does it not exist? I personally call that state of being nature-evolution, the two being intertwined and almost synonymous, with some funky malleable rules to guide it (ascertained by nice clever people called scientists).
To Joseph Gassner: Do Catholics actually believe the waifer [cracker] is the living body of Christ or just a representation of it? I don’t see how kidnapping the waifer is akin to spitting in the Dali Lama’s face. Incidentally, I’m sure the Dali Lama would take a far more compassionate, understanding and serene approach to someone spitting in his face than many of the more vocal Catholics have to the waifernapper.
“So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.”
I certainly hope you weren’t seriouse about this retardedness. While we’re at it we might as well desicrate indian burial grounds after all they’re just bones. Right?
I certainly hope you weren’t seriouse about this retardedness.
A bit late to the party, troll.
While we’re at it we might as well desicrate indian burial grounds after all they’re just bones. Right?
Wrong, as he has explained, moron. They’re fucking crackers, they’re meant to be eaten, they aren’t unique and won’t be missed, there’s no lasting damage .. all quite unlike desecrating Indian burial grounds.
P.S. Indian burial grounds have archaeological value, and we wouldn’t want to mess them up for archaeologists in the far distant enough future where people no longer any special feelings about their dead ancestor’s bones.
Can we give this a rest*?
You always have the option of not continuing.
John Preiss @1373 bleated:
John, do you honestly think no one here has ever tried that? I know you have issues with scholarship and all but a little research on this site will reveal that many are former theists. I was raised a Baptist, but got over it. If your god is real, then it knows exactly what would convince me and where to find me, right? I’ve been waiting forty years for the message.
I am surprised to see that you realize the first complete bible was assembled in the fourth century. Perhaps you can explain how we know what the original documents said and that the current texts are accurate. Here’s a clue: This very comment has been revised; perhaps you can post the original version for us. After all God is on your side.
This problem stems from the inability of some materialistic people to grasp spiritual reality. Brutish people such as Paul Myers are only capable of thinking in physical concepts because they are unable to rise above the physical level of common animals. They exist as animals only, and consequently can think only on the basis of their animal/physical senses. A blind brute such as Myers cannot see beyond the surface of things. To appreciate the spiritual worth of the Holy Eucharist requires a spiritual aptitude which is out of his reach. Only with the intelligence of the soul can a person see beyond the surface and perceive the Spritual Presence within the Holy Eucharist.
That has got to be some of the most self-gratifying, conceited tripe I have ever read.
Yeah, buddy, just keep telling yourself that by believing god is in a wafer, that makes you deeper and smarter than the rest of humanity.
So much Spiritual Love coming from GoldenLantern — we can see what a high plane s/he operates on.
Well stupidity is another plane of existence I guess.
GoldenLantern’s bulb appears burned out @ 1437:
Spiritual Reality? Obviously some new use of the word ‘reality’ that I’m unfamiliar with. Is it related the the reality of UFO abductees or bigfoot or possibly the flat Earth? Perhaps my soul is damaged or missing entirely since I’m unable to detect what GoldenLantern sees so clearly and easily. The emperor still looks naked to me. How long before we abbreviate the Courtier’s Rely to just CR?
I love you! This whole thing is absurd… the church is getting SO ridiculous! PS isnt eating the body of christ worse than walking around with it in a pocket?
sac·ri·lege -noun 1. the violation or profanation of anything sacred or held sacred.
2. an instance of this.
3. the stealing of anything consecrated to the service of God.
I for one do believe in the true presence of Jesus,Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the consecrated bread & wine.
One day all will know this truth and be very sorry for having committed this sacrilege and blasphemy.
I for one do believe in the true presence of Jesus,Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity in the consecrated bread & wine.
One day all will know this truth and be very sorry for having committed this sacrilege and blasphemy.
blah blah blah
Only with the intelligence of the soul can a person see beyond the surface and perceive the Spritual Presence within the Holy Eucharist.
People! Don’t take the brown acid!!!
I wonder if they think this publicity will aid them in their quest to accumulate followers.
To bring Back Matt’s point, “This guy went to the service of Church he didn’t belong to for the sole purpose of doing something he knew would be interpreted as spiteful and insulting. How’d you like it if you invited me into your house and I pissed in the coffee pot?”
It is about the death threats, those people are nuts. But whenever you go and intentionally try to piss people off, the crazies come out to play. It is to be expected.
Next, I heard he is going to do some Mohammed comics in a Dutch Paper.
I hope people continue to challenge the old system, but at least be ready for the results of your actions! Until we can figure out a way to contain the crazies, you have to watch your back.
PS- My family is “Catholic” (I gave that up when I reached the age of common sense- to quote Carlin), but I am quite sure they have no intentions of calling and giving this guy a Catholic Faw-twa (or what ever)
Has there been any discussion on validating your theory scientifically? What tests are you running on the cracker to verify that it does or does not have any different physical properties than a nonconsecrated cracker prior to eating it (I did not read what means of “desecration” you thought worked best)? This to me, would reveal that you are just professing a belief and have no true interest in science or the scientific method. Now if you could produce scientific evidence that the cracker was different, that would be much more interesting than this whole discussion, IMHO.
Concerned Catholic
p.s. A Catholic would NOT expect to see a difference, but what do we know!
Two things come to mind. First, I am extremely concerned that God’s Justice may fall hard upon this poor confused soul. Who knows what his life story holds that has made him so bitter and filled with hatred as he is. Second thing that comes to mind is the state of Saint Paul’s mind and actions prior to his conversion. What horrors against the Body of Christ was he guilty of? What horrific offenses issued from him – so horrific that Jesus Himself came down from Heaven to confront him! What Meyers is professing he is ready to do, if taken to completion, could just be the pivotal point of his life. The horror of what he does might be too much for his soul to bear. As were Saint Paul’s, Meyers eyes may suddenly be opened to the depth of his own blind hatred and it may be the cause of his conversion. None of us can point the finger at this guy as all of us are guilty of desecrating the Body of Christ in a multitude of ways. The physical abuse of the Sacred Host is not the only way to profane Christ. Actually, that might be one of the most forgivable as a person who does such a thing cannot possibly understand what he is doing. We, who are accusing him, are guilty of the worse sin as we profess to be Christians and yet, how many times a day do we hurt Christ in each other? How many times do we offend Jesus in each other every day? If from the cross, Christ asked the Father to forgive those who put Him on that cross (meaning all of us) then we too are called to forgive Meyers, for he truly does not understand the gravity of his action.
Are you nuts? IT’S A CRACKER.
Oh? Does it involve metric tensors in some way?
As a recovering Roman Catholic (yes, the worst of the worst) and presently an agnostic (for lack of a desire to be labeled a practitioner of any one particular religion or belief system), I find this entire situation a reaffirmation of my decision to leave the Catholic Church permanently.
I grasp that the devout Catholics and Catholic officials believe without any doubt that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ (which in itself is grossly disturbing as it is consumed by Catholics en-masse on a daily basis – doesn’t that technically make Catholics cannibals by their own belief?), and therefore is sacred.
However, the act of removing the wafer from the Church by someone who does not believe it is the body of Christ is simply that – removing a wafer (or cracker) from a building.
Because Webster is clearly not a devout Catholic, but rather a curious bystander, he did nothing wrong.
Oh wait. That was logic. I forgot we were talking about Catholics – never mind – he’s going to Hell.
And apparently I’ll be going there now too.
Thank God.
First, I am extremely concerned that God’s Justice may fall hard upon this poor confused soul.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
I have a lunch meeting scheduled with George Orwell and Albert Einstein upon my arrival there. I don’t think they’d mind if you tagged along.
I have a lunch meeting scheduled with George Orwell and Albert Einstein upon my arrival there. I don’t think they’d mind if you tagged along.
Can I cater?
Luckily i can turn of the horrormovie, close the fairytale book, and log of the crazy internet world and get safely and soundly back to the real world. In a peacefylly Scandinavian country where mental illness is treated, not organized.
What I am curious about is what happened to the cracker after it was returned? Surely after being in this guys possession you wouldn’t give it to someone else to eat. Would you?
So that leaves either some kind of disposal or some kind of storage.
Now I’d doubt they went through all that trouble to turn around and throw it in the garbage…so I am guessing maybe a funeral a burial.
On the other hand, they may have just set it aside in some kind of holy storage, maybe in a little box on a bookshelf somewhere where 2000 years from now someone may claim to have found Jesus’ burial box.
I like what Darryl ^ says about what they do with the cracker. None the less, If people are going to get THaT offended of this peace of baked wheat then they really need to get a life and stop being faithful to the Imaginary.
I like what Darryl ^ says about what they do with the cracker. None the less, If people are going to get THaT offended of this peace of baked wheat then they really need to get a life and stop being faithful to the Imaginary.
I haven’t read through any of the comments, and I’m sure this was addressed already, but replace “it’s just a cracker” with “it’s just a piece of cloth”, referring to the American flag.
I dunno exactly what Catholics believe in terms of what happens to the cracker when it enters your body, but for Protestants, it’s a *symbol*. Yes, it is just a cracker, but it is what it symbolizes that you are desecrating when you say you want to take pictures of broken wafers. First Amendment rights give you the right to do that, but know that it isn’t “just a cracker”. When you do things like break wafers, you are defiling a symbol that many people hold dear, which is fine, but just know that is what you are doing.
It’s much like flag burning. You can’t say, “it’s just a piece of cloth”. The fact that you don’t understand that it’s a symbol (albeit one that you think is ridiculous) is kind of troubling.
True. But there’s a difference between… a symbol of superstition and a national/freedom symbol.
He should sell the eucharist on Ebay back to the church and openly admit that the proceeds will be donated to the scientologists. that’ll fix ’em.
Golden Lantern,
Seriously, dude – what are you on? Are they handing out smack at communion these days?
Don’t trip and blog, man.
My simple point is that if you have a belief that matter is the fundamental basis of reality then you are going to view the world one way. You may be wrong.
If you think 1 + 1 is 3, then you can be as rational as you like, but being rational from that wrong belief, will tell you 2 + 2 is 6. I am challenging you’re fundamental beiefs. i think they are wrong.
It’s got nothing to do with new age. Quantum physics has been around for the best part of a century.
If you are going to ignore it you are no better than the creationists who ignore paleontology.
Two or three generations ago, the advantage of atheism was thought that you didn’t have to retreat into other realms to explain and describe our reality. it was thought that you could do it by sudying ’cause and effect’ through science.
Well science has moved on and basically invalidated that idea. All the scientists now, both religious and secular are retreating into talking about 10-13 dimensions, multiverses, parallel worlds and string theory etc.
If you have the default atheist belief of matter and our physical laws (observable in this universe) as the fundamental reality then i think you are on the losing side.
Your beliefs, to my mind have been invalidated by science.
Now that may upset you, but that is not my purpose.
Don’t bogart that joint abucs
Adrian,
if you are simply a chemical reaction and electrical impulses i ask you to consider when man will be able to create consciousness and life.
In computer simulations we can build virtual worlds with all the laws needed for a stable environment.
We’ve only been at it for 30 to 40 years but already we have the situation of people logging onto these ‘real time’ computer worlds where they can interact in a variety of ways in an instant from all over the globe.
programming is become more and more advanced and getting closer to our own experiences.
We can also build 3 dimensional holograms and interface with the nervous system via ear implants and much more.
Where will we be in another 30 years or 300 or 3000 years ?
If life is simply a matter of wiring and electrical impulses then it is a foregone conclusion that man will create this new consciousness first in a computer environment.
We have all the ingredients there – memory, brain/CPU, wiring/programming.
To think that we can’t one day do this is to say that consciousness is more than wiring and electric impulses.
But if we can logically look forward to the day we can do this, then we have to accept the possibility, the rational possibility, it also has already been done for us in some form.
It is simply an exercise in logic.
In that future position, should we ‘save’ consciousness into our world who ? everyone ?
what becomes the criteria for that ?
Should we intervene ?
what would be the purpose for life ?
Would we value the idea that these created beings have learned the rules of our programming ?
All these questions arise when we create consciousness – that will be the reality – if you hold to the view that life is simply a chemical reaction and electronic impulses.
Christians have always held the view of a deeper reality than the physical that we interact with. Other cultures too have come to this conclusion.
this idea may be paradied by those who wish to ridicule it, but many of us think that it remains the best scientific explanation for existance.
The big Bang theory was first proposed by a belgian Catholic priest early last century. I have absolutely no problem with that, but like Father Georges Lemaitre believed, it is only part of the story.
The idea of equal and opposite forces, measureable and repeatable interacting on everything was first put forward by the very religious Isaac Newton, but like him i think there is more to the story.
The idea that the earth goes around the sun was first put forward (in the modern west) by a Polish monk – Nicolas copernicus, but like him i think there is more to the story.
The field of genetics was founded by an Austrian monk – Gregor Mendel, but like him i think there is more to the story.
i think atheists have taken part of the story and attempted to make that the whole of the story.
i also think modern science is showing that the limited view of atheists is wrong.
shorter abucs and crackers:
science changes, therefore god.
blah blah blah
No, not at all MAJeff.
That would be a silly way to argue.
But science has swung around against matter as the fundamental basis of reality.
Once that basic belief has been taken away, a lot of the prejudices against a deeper reality with intelligence also are taken away.
It is not a proof. It is a starting point.
The ‘observer effect’; Bell Inequality Theorem proof; and the prepondarance of the laws of physics to be purely mathematical rather than mechanically physical (for me)point to an intelligence in that deeper reality.
Hopefully one of the other prejudices, (i.e. that religious people are ‘scientifically challenged’) will also dissappear. A full history of the development, funding and teaching of modern science should also dispell that prejudice.
http://www.bottomlayer.com/
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
What?
*FRACTAL WRONGNESS DETECTED*
Quantum mechanics is not a magic wand. Sorry.
Religious people may or may not be ‘scientifically challenged’. However, those who argue that incoherent untestable religion is exactly as good as testable science are indeed ‘scientifically challenged’. Since religion is not science.
Those who argue …….. i am in agreement.
Quantum mechanics is not a magic wand ……. i am in agreement.
Science is not religion ……. i am in agreement.
But science has swung around against matter as the fundamental basis of reality.
What?
OK, if you look at Bell’s theorem, observer effect, uncertainty principle, zeno paradox effect matter does not behave as a physical neutral entity.
It is affected by the fact of observance – that’s a big problem for materialism, and it jumps in and out of existance and across physical space at faster than the speed of light.
Matter is observed to blink in and out of existance. Where does it go ? what makes it come back ? Why does it follow a statistical pattern of movement when it comes back. that is, its re-appearance position can be guessed at by probobilities. It is a possibility (although extremeley unlikely) that it can re-appear on the other side of the galaxy at the next instance.
Matter is seen to work under mathematical concepts, not physical mechanistic concepts.
Matter follows mathematical rules not physical materialist rules. This is observable in the science labs.
Lets take one example of the many – the idea that we cannot know both the position and momentum of a particle. And there is a mathematical inbuilt relationship between the two. The more we know of one, the less we know of the other. But why, and how, does a particle know, and why should it care what an observer knows about it’s location or space. My knowledge of it should not directly effect the nature of that partilcle – but it does.
That is, somehow matter and our consciousness are linked. it sounds crazy, but that is the scientific results.
Einstein didn’t like this. He postulated a famous experiement where if we froze matter to a temperature just before absolute freezing point, we would ‘know’ that the momentum of the particles was just about zero. According to him, and what you would expect, the particle should slow down and be clearly visable under a microscope. Under the non material view, the particles should suddenly spread out and undertake an undefined position, simply because we ‘know’ about the matters moment.
a few decades after his death, we got the know-how to freeze matter to such a temperature.
we looked in the microscope and crazily enough, the particles, at the calculated temperature seemed to spread out and be in many different places at once. It didn’t make sense.
It still doesn’t if you have a materialistic view.
There are many such experiments where the materialistic view, to my mind, has been invalidated.
Hence the idea of hidden dimensions, multiverses, parallel worlds etc and a rush to keep materialistic determinism alive.
As far as i can see, science is not on the side of the materialist.
That is was why i stopped being an agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node72.html
http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node79.html#SecBellIneq
So the behavior of matter at very small scales is weirder than we had ever imagined. So what? And what are we contrasting “materialism” against? Because I strongly suspect that the answer is, as always, “makingshitupism”.
So what ? so the prevailing material view is scientifically on the outer.
What are we contrasting materialism with ?
well there’s lots of ideas. I would argue from the scientific concepts above that the deeper reality has intelligence and works with the idea of consciousness built into our laws.
But it’s an open question.
i simply wish to register my view that materialism is wrong.
depending on where you go from there will affect how everyone sees ‘matter’.
Which part of any this explains, cogently, that a) there’s a god, or b) even if there is a god, that that god is the one described by your religion and not one of the thousands of other belief systems that have existed? Or a completely new god unconcerned with whether or not he’s believed in?
Well for a) i think mainly it’s the link between laws of physics and consciousness
for b) i don’t make any claims at all.
I wrote an article about PZ. Here it is.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/876525/the_great_communion_cracker_caper.html?cat=40
It has an recipe for communion wafer pork sandwiches.
PZ Myers previously said this about the Quran:
“You know, there is a tradition around here, one that I’ve practiced for a few years: overwrought sanctimony must be met with disrespectful insolence. So I’m thinking of picking up a cheap copy of the Qu’ran. And I’m thinking … what to do, what to do. It will, of course, be something in the privacy of my home, with my very own copy — none of this public vandalism and veiled threats to people who believe. It will just be a demonstration of my right to treat my property as it deserves and of my opinion of this silly book.”
So, when it comes to Islam he is against “public vandalism and veiled threats to people who believe.” But when it comes to Catholicism then public vandalism and veiled threats are fine it seems.
That is an interesting contradiction.
It also raises another interesting point, which is whether a consecrated host obtained by deception is actually the property of the person who obtained it. I can see no sensible argument that it is. So, Mr Myers together with his other offences is inciting fraud and theft and the destruction of others property.
And some folks think this fellow is fit to be a Professor? Hmm.
It is just a cracker paul.
Get over it.
I noticed you failed to mention the death threats and attempts at expulsion and firings on your side.
Another amoral cracker freak who cares more about a cracker than a real person.
crackers:
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Instead of presenting information that we already know about, and in no way consider bothersome, why not construct an argument that actually supports your position? In other words, one that is fully fleshed out.
That the universe is not only “stranger than we imagine”, but, “stranger than we can imagine”, is in no way supportive of your position, I’m afraid. And you are either completely ignorant of modern materialism, or you are intentionally setting up a strawman by arguing against ideas that no materialist has held for decades.
Here, take up your argument with Victor Stenger:
Basically, just ’cause weird shit happens is no excuse to demand it equates to god. As wide as the gaps in our understanding are its far better to fill them with ‘we’re working on it’ than it to turn to ‘god’ and stop trying.
Basically, just ’cause weird shit happens is no excuse to demand it equates to god.
Basically, weird shit is all they got.
No MAJeff
They steal weird shit from real scientists and claim it as their own.
Oh, and the Anglican church (which doesn’t believe in Transubstantiation,
Actually, that’s not true. Anglicanism is sufficiently fuzzy on what actually happens during Mass to allow all shades of opinion from Zwinglian memorialism through various forms of real presence to a belief in transubstantiation that is identical to that of the Catholic church.
However, the act of removing the wafer from the Church by someone who does not believe it is the body of Christ is simply that – removing a wafer (or cracker) from a building.
That isn’t the Catholic understanding. There are strains of protestant belief that hold that Christ’s presence in the elements requires the belief of the communicant, so the Christian receives the body of Christ, and the heathen next to him gets a piece of bread. In that framework, absconding with the bread would be rude, but not otherwise sinful.
To a Catholic, the elements become the most precious body and blood at the time of consecration. So if the Catholics are right, our bread absconder is profaning the body of Christ, independent of what he happens to believe.
Of course, if the Atheists are right, he did just walk off with a bit of bread. That’s certainly rude – if you are invited to someone’s house and they pass around a plate of biscuits, it’s hardly polite to stuff some in your pockets for later. Taking someone’s biscuit with the intent of showing it to your friends saying “look what a crappy biscuit I got at Dave’s house” is doubly rude. Doing it to make some kind of political point about free biscuits? Still rude.
Now, we could have an interesting discussion about the legal status of the bread that may or may not be Jesus. If it’s a gift from the church to the communicant, he is legally entitled to take his property away and do whatever he likes to it, however offensive that might be to anyone else. I’m not sure that that’s really the case, though – if I invited you to dinner at my house and placed a plate of food in front of you, I’m not at all sure that you’d be legally entitled to shovel it into a doggy bag and leave. I don’t think I’m giving you a plate of food when I serve you dinner, so I suspect that communion elements could be in the same position. If you eat it, it’s yours. If you don’t, it’s still mine, which makes walking off with it theft (albeit a very trivial one until you include the body of Christ angle).
Hi MAJeff, This discussion is still going on. If it was just a cracker I don’t think you could talk about for days.
From someone as scientific as you claim to be, I find it very surprising that you have to revert to name-calling in order to make a point. Calling Catholics who believe in the real presence of the Eucharist “demented fuckwits” IS hate speech and is hardly going to prove a point. If you don’t believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, why can’t you let those who believe, believe in peace? Maybe because you feel attacked at the fact that we say we have Absolute truth which contradicts your beliefs and lifestyle, and so you are determined to prove us wrong? If this isn’t the reason, then why don’t you attack the Protestants, or better yet, I suggest you try pulling the same thing with Muslims and see how they react.
And just to clear things up, even if you do succeed in getting someone to steal a consecrated Host, and you do succeed in desecrating it, that doesn’t disprove anything the Catholic Church teaches. All it will prove is that you are intolerant of other religious beliefs.
Sally
Try reading some of the other posts before you post.
People are quite tired of people posting the same drivel that has been dealt with hundreds of times.
You don’t have the first clue what the real issues are.
Maybe because you feel attacked at the fact that we say we have Absolute truth which contradicts your beliefs and lifestyle, and so you are determined to prove us wrong? If this isn’t the reason, then why don’t you attack the Protestants, or better yet, I suggest you try pulling the same thing with Muslims and see how they react.
Another lying sack of shit who’s spouting off without knowing either the details of the incident at hand or the history of the site she’s spouting bullshit on.
So, Sally, do you enjoy making a fool out of yourself by showing off how little you know?
It’d be good if there was some sort of pop-up disclaimer that tells people something like: ‘This is a long thread – please read all the comments before posting to ensure your ignorant and poorly-thought-out blather has not been posted already by someone of similar diminished mental capacity and, subsequently, refuted many times over by the more perceptive. Thank you.’
Sally, I’m embarrassed for you. Just because one of your less-gifted co-religionists sent you a frantic email urging you and everyone else on the parish mailing list to defend The Faith™ on some blog you’d never heard of before today doesn’t mean you should do it without at least trying to work out what is going on first.
Here’s a hint – if you’re a good catholic you should listen to the pope. Has he said anything about this yet? No. Why? Because he’s not stupid (I’m sure you’re aware they don’t give that hat to just anyone) – and he knows a losing battle when he sees one.
Hi MAJeff,
I have some interesting infor on Eucharistic Miracles on my site http://www.johnpreiss.wordpress.com. Have you heard of these so called crakers turining into Blood or Bleeding or showing the face of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
If you are a Baptist it is just Bread and Wine (grapejuice)
stop spamming john
They’re all fakes. Because, first of all, I am not your “Lord and Savior”.
And second of all:
I. Do. Not. Turn. Into. Wafers. And. Wine.
Never.
Ever.
I am now an entirely incorporeal entity. No body. None whatsoever.
I have some interesting infor on Eucharistic Miracles on my site http://www.johnpreiss.wordpress.com. Have you heard of these so called crakers turining into Blood or Bleeding or showing the face of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
woooooooooooo….the magic man is back.
Why do those pictures of jesus always look like a white dude from the Renaissance and not a swarthy Middle Easterner?
Paul,
You have deeply offended me as a Catholic, and I prayerfully ask that you return the Eucharist to someone at a local Catholic Church. Enough is enough. You have said you would not offend people from other religious groups this way. Even if you don’t believe that the Eucharist is sacred in the same way we do, please stop doing what you’re doing for our sake. There are many, many Catholics out there who are reading what you are doing and are deeply saddened. Is there ever a good reason to disrespect so many people? It seems that you aren’t concerned with disrespecting God, but what about the rest of us?
You must reason through this, and see that what you’re doing is wrong, and end this.
In Christ,
Della S.
Hi there!
Welcome to Pharyngula. A commenter will be with you shortly, with your order of snark, insult, cephalopod fetish, biological weirdness, random conversation, and/or intelligent discussion.
Please note that our policies have changed: Pharyngula can no longer accept any complaints by proxy. If the Almighty and Perfect God wishes to complain about any alleged potential or actual mistreatment of any cracker into which he may or may not transubstantiate, he will have to do so in person, directly to the one performing this alleged mistreatment.
Thank you, and have a great day!
Good thing you closed that really long comment thread, eh, PZ? ;-)
You kill one, and another grows back in its place.
Truth Machine,
Wow, for a truth machine you seem to have abandoned most of your critical mind. I was creating an argument by analogy, we don’t desecrate Indian burial grounds because these grounds hold a deeply sacred sentiment to a particular group of people and to do so would be morally wrong, even if you don’t agree with someone’s beliefs such an action is pointless, meant to deeply offend a large group of people; really it would just be stupid. You’re counter example to the analogy fails, while crackers can be eaten it seems particularly odd to take a cracker that you had in your mouth, send the crackers through the mail, desecrate them, film it to irk some catholic zealots; why not just eat the crackers when the priest gives it to you? They are after all meant to be eaten. If you can’t see my argument then you, sir, are a moron who can’t grasp a simple critical example. Really what Myers is advocating here with the last paragraph is pointless theist bating, if you plan on persuading theists by these methods, through ridicule and mockery then you have abandoned the rational method of argumentation and the scientific method of critical reflection all together in favour of mere sophistry and showiness with little intellectual substance at all. I’ll stick the former two options thank you, it seems more intellectually modest and less pointless energy and time spent agitating theists. As you can probably tell I still have high hopes for the scientific method and rational argument, maybe I’m the only one on this thread who does after all.
Yes, Rayzer, you are so very, very special. Good on you, dude. So what about that idea of subjecting a consecrated communion wafer to scientific analysis? Is that out-of-bounds? How about mixing in one instance of the Host in with a pile of unconsecrated wafers, and seeing if the frequency with which the priest who consecrated it could determine which one was consecrated exceeded that which could be expected by chance alone? Is that out-of-bounds, too? They seem like valid applications of the scientific method.
A claim has been made: A wafer that has been consecrated is profoundly different from one that has not. Is this claim falsifiable? If not, then why are we even talking about “the scientific method”?
I never said a wafer that has been consecrated is in fact profoundly different from one that has not, I’m an atheist after all. I do however find the whole idea of stealing wafers that have been consecrated and desicrating them in a public spectical in order to agitate catholics to be profoundly wrong, it accomplishes nothing and is pointless. Read my post again.
Rayzer,
Yes, PZ is intending to offend. No-one disputes that. But by highlighting the catholic over-reaction to his threats, he’s shone a light upon a belief system – revealing that, not only do they believe in magic, but they believe a cracker subjected to magic is more important than the well-being of actual human beings. It’s the 21st century – not the 1st; something like that deserves to have attention brought to it.
Which is what he’s done. He’s upset a few people – but how often can you criticise, or even comment on, religion and not offend at least one person?
And I disagree with your analogy of burial grounds – the burial grounds are significant because of what can actually be shown to be present – not what is made so by a subjective decision. A burial ground is special because of what’s actually there – it’s not because someone pointed at it and declared it special.
“and I prayerfully ask”
“Prayerfully”. Ha! Brilliant.
Here’s an interesting notion. Since many of the objectors don’t seem to point out any actual damage that host desecration supposedly does (perhaps because God is tougher than that, or because they don’t really believe in it), and that the only damage here is to certain religious people’s feelings, then perhaps to avoid undue anguish, you should just not pay attention to any of this. You’re not losing anything that isn’t completely replaceable. Ignore the big bad professor, and he’ll go away.
Or pay attention. You might learn something.
Rayzer said:
“An acquaintance of a noted Greek philosopher once lamented, “They deride thee, O Diogenes!” Unperturbed, the philosopher replied, “But I am not derided.” Diogenes, who lived from 410-320 B.C., understood that truth, if it is truth, can never be truly harmed by mockery, ridicule or derision …. nor can those who promote it. Falsehood, on the other hand, will easily wither under intense and finely focused disparagement. Thus, ridicule and mockery have long been employed as legitimate devices for distinguishing fact from fallacy.”
Indeed, such was the regard for ridicule and mockery as an intellectual tool in ancient Greece, there was even a god named after it:
“MOMOS (or Momus) was the god (daimon) of mockery, blame, ridicule, scorn, complaint and stinging criticism. He was expelled from heaven for ridiculing the gods.”
And while highlighting the long history of ridicule and mockery in my own country, Great Britain, I offer you this:
“Ridicule is the best test of truth.”
— Lord Shaftesbury (1621-1683)
Of course, if mockery and ridicule was our only weapon, you might have a point. An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy, after all, but it can only be charged as such if nothing else is offered; no new information, no argument or evidence.
I notice that you haven’t really made argument, either. Assertions carry very little force, even rhetorically, and while asserting that we have abandoned rationality and critical reflection, you haven’t offered any compelling reasons why anyone should accept your view.
I suggest that you actually do some research about the historical relevance of mockery and ridicule before charging in here and pretending that you are a bastion of the “rational method of argumentation and the scientific method of critical reflection”. That I have my doubts about, to be honest.