The Mormons have this arrogant practice of posthumous baptism — one of the motivations for their huge genealogical libraries is to help them go through the old records, find the names of dead people, and ‘convert’ them to Mormonism. It’s silly and pointless, but it can also be insensitive and offensive, such as when they start baptizing Jews killed in the Holocaust.
So here’s brilliant reversal: convert dead Mormons to…homosexuality. I love the idea. It really doesn’t matter what their sexual orientation in life was, it doesn’t even matter if they were raging homophobes…death changes a lot of things, so let’s simply declare them to have found joy in same sex relationships in the afterlife.
I hope there is an official roster being maintained somewhere. I’m pretending that Brigham Young is a squealing poofter right now, having a wild party with Joseph Smith, dressed in a dusting of sequins and nothing else. That’s an image the elders of LDS need to keep in mind when they’re playing their sanctimonious games with the memory of other people’s revered dead.
I hereby posthumously convert Joseph Stalin to Catholicism.
As I understand it, the Mormon practice involves baptism by proxy. Finding a few gay and lesbian religious/political activists to perform something equivalent… is left as an exercise for someone less straight than I am.
@Kobra
And I hearby declare Hitler to be a Christian. Oh wait…
Yes, death changes a lot of things but it has no effect on the lessening of religion,as there are so much more of the living dead to perpetuate that insanity
Then Abraham said to him, ‘If your brothers do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone were to rise from the dead.'”
Orson Scott Card isn’t dead yet. Dammit! Hurry up and die.
Wikipeida:
Card was attending Mormon worship service in California on June 29 2008 when a letter from President Thomas S. Monson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was read out, asking all active members to “do all you can” to support the California Proposition 8 (2008) by “donating of your means and time…to preserve the sacred institution of marriage.” In response to that letter, Card began a series of articles as part of his regular column in the Mormon Times “to address, one by one, my compelling secular arguments in favor of giving permanent heterosexual pairings a monopoly on legally recognized status in all societies”.
Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are hereby granted full status as Mormons.
Now that that’s done…
Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are hereby granted full status as homosexuals.
Billy Graham will be so proud.
Goddamit PZ. Now I can’t get that image out of my head.
Thanks a lot.
Ahh, come one guys – Stalin, Reagan, Nixon, you’re all thinking too SMALL!
I hereby convert Jesus Christ to ATHEISM, with all the rights and privileges thereby afforded.
Better.
It’s not enough to “convert” them to homosexuality. They must be permanently sealed in marriage, too. Gay marriages. This will cause no end of trouble in their afterlife.
And what can they say? “You’re making all this up?” Oh, really. If they point a finger at people inventing stories, where do the rest of them point?
BRILLIANT!!!! Perverse, diabolical, and BRILLIANT!!!
The LDS Church used to get so many requests each year for Hitler’s baptism that they requested their members stop it so that the Jewish people would dislike them less. I know people that have put clauses in their will that they not be baptised into the LDS church after death
Raise you one on that, – Jehova, God, and Allah have herewith shed their shackles, and are henceforth confirmed atheists.
Love. It.
This whole concept is giving me the spins…tell me I am asleep having one of those bizarre “this seems real” dreams…
Oh, wait, the Mormons thinking they’re qualified to legislate marriage definitions…
I must.. wake… up… and go pee
Hey, where are all the Mormon trolls?
Don’t be shy! I just took some Nyquil and I don’t have long to fight before I fall asleep.
OMG, you really need to put coffee-spew warnings at the beginnings of some of your posts!
By a strange coincidence I was talking about this very thing a little earlier tonight. I favor the idea of baptising their living members into other religions, by proxy. Hell, surely it’s more fair to meddle among the affairs of the living than the dead, it’s just cowardly to claim those that aren’t around to fight back.
Declaring their dead to be homosexual is good too. And by yet another strange coincidence, I’m about to head off to somewhere where I will most likely be among many of the more festive sexuality (if anyone finds that offensive, I apologize, I’m just trying to inject a little levity into this, I’m sure there are many dreary homosexuals as well, it was just a play on the word gay, really).
If I gave them enough alcohol, I’ll bet I could get some to.. er.. “baptise” themselves in the names of others.
I don’t have the time to make the joke that’s just waiting to be made about how they would anoint one another, I have to go pack now.
We could posthumously make Jesus gay, but honestly how many 33 year old charismatic Jewish virgins were there 2000 years ago? The messiah obviously loved the mangina.
There has to be a ceremony, or else it’s no good. I say hold it at your favourite gay bar with drag queens to stand in for the deceased. Preferably all dressed as Cher.
As a gay ex-mormon who participated in baptisms for the dead when I was churchy, I find this especially amusing.
Better pray for your sin
Better pray for your sin
Cos the Gay Messiah’s coming!
Anything keeping the mormons from baptising people BEFORE they die? If not, we could all be mormons right now and NOT EVEN KNOW IT!
Clearly Brigham Young was a gay liberal atheist.
Hey! Can we get all the deceased members of the Westboro Baptist Church in on this too?
I find it most sickening when Mormons (or any Christian for that matter) says they will “pray for me”. They most often do this immediately after they have lost an argument or feel they’re about to get pwned by logic, and it’s almost as predictable as the sunrise. They might as well be saying “I’ll think about you while I jack off tonight.” It’s insensitive, offensive, and definitely disgusting.
But PZ, you just don’t understand. Mormonism is Christ’s one *TRUE* church on the face of the earth and all these dead people are just clamoring to be part of the club in the eternal waiting room. It’s the mormon’s duty to make sure they all have a chance to marry a bunch of wives and rule their own worlds a-la Populous.
@25: Nothing is sacred.
In related news, Jehovah is now a masochist.
@26:
Well now that you’ve said that…
I don’t think we really need a ceremony to convert dead Mormons to homosexuality. A simple notice in Out Magazine should suffice. It could be a regular feature.
Mormon leader Gordon B. Hinckley died Sunday night at age 97, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced. [January 27, 2008.]
Being a fully qualified atheist, I declare in all honesty:
As he was when born and so he is in death, Gordon B. Hinckley shall forever more be and shall always be an atheist.
Being unqualified to bring to Gordon B Hinckley the special blessing of gay pride, I can only attest to the gayness of his picture here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/27/obit.hinckley/index.html
However, as a special gift to President Thomas S. Monson (current mor(m)on (the worship of moroni, moronist would seem appropriate also) prophet), I declare Him to be an atheist, although, lacking good standing at the present time. None the less, President Thomas S. Monson is an atheist as he has no god with him. [Presented here to Thomas S. Monson – pre-posthumously]
#26 They might as well be saying “I’ll think about you while I jack off tonight.”
Ah, the traditional one-handed prayer. When done in public, prayer, like masturbation, is only for show.
I actually have participated in the baptism-by-proxy. It’s one of the few things faithful teenage Mormons CAN do in the temple–as you don’t go through the full rites of initiation until you are ready to go on a mission (19 for the guys, 21 for the women) or get married.
Here’s what happens. You basically get dressed in a white (and very ugly) polyester jumper and when your turn comes, you wade out into the baptismal font, where a missionary (usually) or a member with elder status (anybody who has been a missionary) dunks you about twenty times for and on behalf of So-and-so-who-is-dead. Generally they can rip through the entire contents of a small European village in a few minutes, and you barely have time to breathe between dunkings. Then you go into the next room over, where two guys then confirm you on behalf of all the people you got dunked for.
Of interest: You are only dunked for people of the same gender, as far as I remember. I remember getting dunked for a lot of Mary Elizabeths but no Johns or Toms or Geralds.
Now it seems deeply weird, but then…I never questioned that this was anything but necessary for their redemption in the afterlife.(The Mormons also believe that the baptisms are in parallel to the dead being taught in the spirit world, and that the dead person still has the agency to accept the baptism and teachings.) Apparently God takes his paperwork very seriously–although not so seriously that you can’t have your descendants come in and do it for you. If only the Washington DMV worked this way. “Honestly, officer, I was waiting to die so my grandkids could get my license for me.”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that one. I always found the whole posthumous baptism rather disgustingly disrespectful. Of course, the people are dead, but one would expect that their memories deserve something…
The genealogy thing has always intrigued me, but literally inheriting people’s reputations after they’ve died seems extremely cheap.
Turnabout is fair play.
#26: You know, I have a suspicion that the “I’ll pray for you” schtick might actually be one of the oldest evangelical customs in Christianity. I don’t believe it’s recorded anywhere in Scripture, but it’s certainly extremely old, because no Christian I’ve talked to (most of whom actually do read the damned book) seems to know where it comes from.
“I’ll pray for you” makes a lot more sense when the religious climate is filled with strongly-culturally-affiliated tribal deities and you’re trying to push a form of monotheism which you’ve bastardized out of somewhere else. We atheists think it’s a stupid thing to say, but your average polytheist of circa 100 AD would have interpreted that as a very generous gesture. For someone to say, “I’ll pray to my god for your well-being” is equivalent to making your concerns into their own.
I suppose this betrays one of their thoughts, that atheism is just another religion, and can be combatted using the same tactics.
I’d think of the Mormons while masturbating but honestly: it kills the mood.
Why not convert LIVE Mormons to homosexuality?
It seems as though if this is the Mormons are being “silly and pointless” while also being “insensitive and offensive”, that doing the exact same thing to them would likely have to fall into at least one set of those same descriptions.
@38: With all their wives, chances are that one will be a trap. :P
Look, it’s simple- all you have to do is posthumously molest their inner child. After all, everybody knows child molestation “causes” homosexuality.
Or don’t you believe Ted Haggard?
Shonny at 13
I thought about doing those guys too, but I decided against it. I mean, there is, at least, a reasonable chance that some Jesus character actually existed. Not the son of any deity, of course, but I have little problem with his existence. The others are simply fictional, and I don’t think you can convert fictional characters. On the other hand, a gay, atheist Batman….. possibilities….
Kel at 19
I suspect you are right, after all, why else would he hang out with 12 guys wearing dresses?
Hey, I just had a thought….
You know Christians are always saying that Darwin converted to Christianity on his deathbed? Well, they may be right – they just didn’t mention he had to die first before they did it…..
Swine!
Many holocaust victims received ‘baptisms for the dead’ while still alive. They don’t actually make sure someone is dead before performing the proxy baptism. After all – it is the still small voice (the Holy Ghost) who tells Mormons who requires a ‘baptism for the dead’. Would the Holy Ghost be wrong?
So what do you sprinkle on someone’s head to baptize them as gay?
Does the absence of anything being sprinkled on someone’s head make them a default atheist?
Dude! What do you think the “Agenda” is all about?
Mormons will be the first to fall. They’re weak.
“Dude! What do you think the “Agenda” is all about?
Mormons will be the first to fall. They’re weak.”
Seriously. A pina colada, 2 episodes of “Sex and the City”, and Cher’s Farewell Tour DVD.
And they’re like putty in your hands.
Orson Scott Card has a new “Ender” book coming out.
Do not buy it.
Brigham Young was ALWAYS such a butch leather boy.
I’m glad you freed him from the the multiple wives he never wanted and the lifestyle he found so repulsive.
I like this talk of conversions and gay marriages by proxy, but why stop there? Why not plural gay marriages?
I vote for glitter.
Meh… if there is indeed an afterlife, I hope raging homophobes don’t get rewarded with all that fun buttsecks after they die.
But I’m all for getting Mormon knickers in a twist, so whatever does the trick.
MMM, Brigham Young with 27 husbands instead of wives!
All you’d have to do is somehow make it a shoddy multi-level marketing scheme. If there’s one thing Mormons (the Utah ones, at least) can’t resist it’s a MLM scam.
As some shyster says an episode of The Simpsons “It’s not a pyramid scheme, it’s a trapezoid scheme!”
“All you’d have to do is somehow make it a shoddy multi-level marketing scheme. If there’s one thing Mormons (the Utah ones, at least) can’t resist it’s a MLM scam.”
Oh no you DIDN’T just say that!!
I never really knew anything about Mormons until I befriended a 63-year old husband and father of four (and grandfather of 14) who came out of the closet after seeing “Brokeback Mountain”. Since then I’ve gotten the inside scoop on all the weirdness.
And sure enough, he got caught up in a couple of MLM schemes after his divorce (poor guy really had next to nothing after dutifully tithing to his nazi church for 35 years).
There really does seem to be a correlation between swallowing mormon doctrine and believeing in MLM scams.
Somebody should write a book.
“As some shyster says an episode of The Simpsons “It’s not a pyramid scheme, it’s a trapezoid scheme!”
I love the Diana Ross cover of “I’m caught in a love dodecahedron”.
It never really made the charts.
I stopped reading the series after Xenocide. It seems like there’s some unwritten rule in science fiction that every book in a series has to have half the quality of its predecessor.
Nice one. Having just been converted to homosexuality by the wit and charm of this website, I hereby announce my campaign to spread this new gospel of True Love.
Join me, pcarini et al. We shall have a well funded campaign (thanks to Hollywood and pop music sales), real youth appeal (“you guys are sooo boring. Let’s party”) and articulate spokesmen (no eg.s needed). Door to door evangelism is a must.
If homosexuality were a religion, it would win hands down. This seems to be how the Church of Morons thinks the world works. Funny that the early xians were pretty down on any sort of marriage. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, a character has an interesting argument about how sexual othodoxy and repression is related to political conservatism (keep ourselves pure, comrades, and focus on our Great Leader and the Cause).
Anyway, let’s get this campaign going. Anyone want to take this idea and run with it?
Fairy dust
lol.
Ender’s Game was sublime, but I fear reading any of his other stuff as to not dilute my opinion of the writer.
I’ve got the impression that LDS members are actually quite aware of the offense their retroactive ‘baptising’ can cause, and usually take good measures to avoid offending living relatives. I don’t remember exactly how, but I had the steps described for me by a believer. As a non-believer, I think the practice is quite harmless.
Something I find more disturbing about Mormons is that they insist that a person is ready for confirmation at age 8. They skip the senseless baptism of infants, but have confirmation much earlier instead. Naturally, a child that age shares most opinions with their parents. Other churches have confirmation around 15, and I’d say even that is too early to have a reasoned opinion about why we are here.
“Ender’s Game” was the only worthwhile book in the series that I’ve read, and I now regret buying any at all. I will buy no more of Card’s works.
So Speaker For The Dead not worth reading?
You’ll need a new limerick PZ to counteract an old one:
An atheist missionary at work.
http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2008/06/god-converts-to-atheism.html
Good idea! But who will be the bride?
Also, http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2131 .
This baptism for the dead thing does actually serve a purpose–for the living, of course. It’s an excuse to round up the teenagers and monopolize their time, and lets them see a little bit of the inside of the temple so that hopefully, they’ll get horny for their temple passes and funny underwear.
Oh, and during the “millennium” (which starts after the rapture and armageddon, i.e. any minute now), the baptized dead people will come flying back down to earth and help fill in all the genealogy records, so that every person who was ever born all the way back to Adam and Eve will be baptized.
Why not go the whole hog? Declare that, through divine revelation most glorious, we have indisputable knowledge that all mormons that have ever lived and died are now gay, paired in loving homosexual marriages, blessed by the lord their god, having anal sex every day.
Yeah! How do they like them apples?
Ol’ Brigham before his demise
Bred with females of every size
Now post-humous conversion
Via PZ’s subversion
Has replaced them with hunky dead guys.
Here’s a plan. Convert all Mormons past and present to Islam. Make them all by default Muslims. This is instant and universal coverage with no obligation to them, the converted.
There is no opt-in, but they may opt-out. Opting out involves going to a local mosque and denying that Muhammed was a prophet… to an imam’s face.
Seems that Beth, #66 has a good point (“an excuse to round up the teenagers and monopolize their time”).
This just reminds me of the best part of being atheist: the humour (brit spelling, I’m in England and speak English!).
I’m not sure there’s a specific reason why but you have to admit it, we do have the funniest ideas.
Posted by: Rick R
Of course not! a dodecahedron is a PLATONIC solid. Duh.
The other option to deal with the pro-Prop 8 group is to stop recognising the marriages of straight couples. Refer to them as girlfriend/boyfriend, ‘life partners’, or other such terms, and refuse to be corrected by their insistence that they’re husband & wife.
(This was on some blog I read this morning but I can’t remember where)
So, the idea is to make them posthumousexuals?
As an amateur genealogist, I must say that the LDS baptisms are the most useful thing to come out of any religion since sliced bread and fishes. Since members are expected to locate their ancestors and baptise them, they provide the records to enable this. You can go to your local LDS church, and access records from all over the world for free. Nothing is asked for, and nothing given. No proseletysing either. It’s a wonderful resource, which would cost millions to replace.
So, yes, it’s absolutely crazy, but shhhh! Leave it alone. Disrespectful? If it worked, definitely, but meh…
@70
I suspect that the ones who tend to question religion are the more intelligent and clever people.
See #73. :P
I have no problem with this, since if folks cared to understand what occurs in regards to baptism for the dead, one would know that mormon doctrine states that the baptism is an offering, not a forced commitment for someone else. So you can all offer homosexuality, atheism what ever, and the dead (if one assumes an afterlife, which you don’t have to of course) can chose to accept or reject that offering. I agree for PR sake baptizing certain people is not a good idea.
Most baptism are done for FAMILY members, so not for other peoples revered dead. Mormons officially will not baptize certain holocaust victims (although zealots will still do it), unless the request comes from a direct line descendent.
As for declaring dead mormons gay, you all have been beat to that punch by D Michael Quinn, check google books for Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans By D. Michael Quinn
I have yet to baptize anyone queer, but about a year ago I was flying back from speaking a speaking engagement and I had a stopover in SLC. My connecting flight ended up being ‘Air Mormon’ with probably at least half of the seats kids who were going out on that missionary gig they do.
I ended up sitting next to two boys who were apparently fresh from their indoctrination… er training and were heading to CA to start their mission. The one next to me starts up a conversation with me that was only 98% transparent. And I really was not in the mood to be subject to some junior-mormon-scout proselytizing. I let him go on with the ‘how about those Sacramento kings’ crap until he started hinting about religion, by which point I had planned what I’d say:
Me: “Tell you what, I am going to save us both a lot of time.”
Mormon kid: “What do you mean?”
Me: “Well, I’m a gay physician who works at a women’s health clinic that focuses on lesbian, transgender, and reproductive health care two days a week in San Francisco. I just came back teaching medical students about queer health care. I’m a pacifist socialist, a hard atheist, and my boyfriend works for Planned Parenthood.”
Mormon kid: “Ha ha ha.”
Me: “No, I’m serious.”
Mormon kid: “Really?”
Me: “Really.”
The funny part is the kid kind of shrugged his shoulders and was totally chill after that. (I was sort of expecting him to crawl into his buddies lap.) I even lent him my Wired magazine and gave them most of my bag of mini-snickers and trail mix. Apparently even whack nut religious teen-aged boys are pretty easy with the right snacks.
Jimminy Christmas #26,
Insensitive? Offensive? What are you, a primo-wuss? For crying out loud, just ignore it. Don’t let your little heart go all a-flutter over it. Odds are you’re an American–we are still world leaders in at least one category–the percentage of our citizens who are sissies and get offended so easily.
Oh, and don’t worry, I won’t be praying for you. Don’t give what is holy to a dog, no pearls before swine, etc.
Feynmaniac @ #56:
“Children of the Mind” is something of an exception to that rule. Personally, I see those three books (Speaker For the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind) as one large book, as I read them in sequence. (Not sequins. I’m not a dead Mormon.) Xenocide was fairly dull, but how many books have exciting middles?
I think of the Ender saga as having three components: Battle School (Ender’s Game, Ender’s Shadow); Speaker (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind); and Shadows of Tom Clancy (all of the rest).
Heddle, please, don’t pray for me either.
Jimminy, just tell them you will think about them rationally and evidence-based in return.
NickG @ #77:
Most of the Mormons I’ve dealt with (which basically means those that have knocked on my door) have been reasonably respectful, and not overly pushy. Mission or no, they seem to be less inclined to holy-roller-ism.
Heddle: “Insensitive? Offensive? What are you, a primo-wuss?”
No just appropriately offended by the condescension and insult implied by ‘praying for’ someone.
And given that he probably lives in the US which is a country in which religion often trumps human rights, I think the implied offense is more than simply insulting. A couple of weeks ago, the Mormon church’s money paid for propaganda that succeeded in getting a slight majority of the voters in California to decide that my husband and I do not deserve the same rights and privileges of a heterosexual couple. That’s not only insulting but threatening, intimidating, and repugnant.
So feel free to abstain from prayer for me and I will make sure that I don’t think of you when I am having butsecks, K? Of course that is a win-win for me.
heddle,
“I’ll pray for you” addressed to an atheist in the course of a religious argument is, in most cases, clearly intended to offend: it’s a smug declaration of the personal superiority of the prayer over the prayee. If you’re too stupid to see that, blame your ludicrous belief-system.
As Dyan @22 alluded to Rufus Wainwright had a much more appropriate idea (Maybe best with earphones if at work)
Although, come to think of it, maybe better not with the corpses.
When people would tell me they’d “pray for me,” I used to automatically say “thank you.” I was responding to the good will that was presumably behind the words, and not the technical part. But of course, I’d make distinction between someone just expressing good wishes in their own idiom, and someone who knew I was an atheist, and so they were making some kind of a point.
I don’t say “thank you” anymore, though. Instead, I reply with “I hope you have a really nice day.” For one thing, it doesn’t feel so hypocritical, as if I’m endorsing prayer as efficacious. I’m re-translating the meaningless religious ritual into meaningful secular terms, as a better model. I can also, depending on how the offer was expressed, change my tone from one of sincerity to a slightly mocking “one trite cliche deserves another,” and express my point right back at them. And, finally, it’s a neutral enough response that it’s hard for them to take offense. It sounds gracious — especially if they’d been expecting or hoping that I would make a fuss. And unless they’ve been very bad indeed I probably would prefer they had a nice day. No skin off my nose. My wishes are no more likely to make anything magic happen than their prayers, but we both believe that the other one exists.
Nick Gotts,
Oooh, you called me stupid, and my beliefs ludicrous–now, just like Jimminy Christmas, I am offended! My self-evident right as an American not to be offended has been violated! Just you wait to we have Canadian-style tribunals! Gosh, now I have the vapors! Woe is me!
I reckon the idea is extremely cool,and sure to get the mormons all hot under the magic underwear !
This has to be the biggest lie in the history of mankind.
Not only is it not a sacred institution in that collection of bronze age sheepherder stories called the bible,but it has a up to 50% failure rate in todays society,and grossly ignores the reality of attractions happening in the real world.
What a fool….Educate yourself before writing!
Mormons don’t “convert” anyone by doing baptisms for the dead.
What’s behind this practice.
John 3:5 No man can enter heaven without having been baptised. Baptism is an earthly ordinance.
Those who die without baptism are stuck right?
Remedy:
1 Cor. 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptised for the dead?
Clearly there was an ancient practice of doing baptisms for those who passed on without having been baptised while on earth. It’s in everyones New Testament. It did not originate with Mormons. It does not convert them to Mormonism. Nor are these names added to the rolls of the lds church as members.
People can accept or reject this in the afterlife.
If anyone believes it’s all hooey then whats the difference.
If people want to pray for my soul, do a dance, spin three times, jump into a pool of jello, for my soul, then so be it.
I may think they are misguided but I would appreciate the effort. It’s all harmless.
The jews don’t have any special claim to all jews. We’re all descendants of Adam and Eve, and therefore, we are all family, or cousins so to speak.
It seems there are alot of peole in this country who 1-don’t want to allow Freedom of Religion or 2-Freedom to participate in the democrat process.
Grow up you whiney boobs!
ajarizona
@ajarizona: Thing is, the book your quoting is a load of tiresome, mythical bollocks and making dead Mormons gay is hilarious.
This has to be a record….88 posts until the first lunatic showed up LOL
@ajarizona—Llaauurraa, is that you?
What a fucking stupid thing to say.
So the Jew can accept or reject this in the afterlife? The Atheist?
The Buddhist?
oh shit! DUCK!
BOOOM!!!
BOOOM!!
Non-sequitur and irony meter all at the same time.
Son of a bitch. It’s costly to keep replacing these things with the economy like this.
heddle,
Reading comprehension’s not one of your strong points, is it? I left open the possibility that you were not too stupid to see that “I’ll pray for you” in the circumstances mentioned is intended to be offensive.
Nick,
judging from heddle’s comments at Ed Braytons site there is not much hope here for him to see any reason….
We’re all descendants of Adam and Eve – ajarizona
That’s a myth, mor(m)on. The people who wrote it, unlike professional conman Joseph Smith, have the excuse that they couldn’t have known any better.
/sigh
Another stupid meaningless comment that completely misses the point.
Better yet, how about posthumously gay marrying Mormons? Match up random same-sex pairs from their list of dead Mormons, hold a mass wedding ceremony, and declare the pairs husband and husband or wife and wife. It should be binding too, since I’m pretty sure gay marriage hasn’t been declared illegal in Heaven (unless someone would like show me Heaven’s constitution).
A revolting artifact which someone bought a neighbour’s child was some sort of rainbow-coloured plastic my-little-pony/unicorn/pegasus creature whose belly was a sieve which sprinkled very fine glitter, probably intended to be fairy dust. The ghastly stuff got everywhere and stuck tenaciously to everything. It couldn’t even be washed off/out easily. So her baby brother’s largely bald head spent a long time being sparkly, despite repeated bathings.
I haven’t noticed any (new) homosexuality accruing to anyone touched by the glitter but that could just be because there was no ceremony and no magic words of power were said in the correct foreign language.
clinteas@94,
Oh, I know. I just enjoy poking him with a stick whenever he shows up and mouths off here.
ajarizona,
I think we’re saying it’s obnoxious, not illegal. Similarly, heddle, I believe it’s clear Nick Gotts was trying to offend you by calling your belief system ludicrous. All we’re doing is pointing out that saying, “I’ll pray for you” is equivalent. You’re free to say it, just don’t pretend you’re being nice by doing so.
Personally, I think the utter ridiculousness of some of religious belief is one of the better aspects of religion generally. Special underwear? The idea that crackers spontaneously turn to flesh? I’d go to religious services, but I’m afraid I’d probably be laughing too hard through most of it.
Nomad (#18) is right.
Don’t wait for them to be dead, perform rituals for the living. Also against their will!
Benjamin Geiger (#81), I’ve been in the cult. You can’t even begin to know…but would you like links? Here, tell it to these people, about how nice the morg is: http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/w-agora.php3?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery
You read those posts and read the stories then tell me how nice the morg-bots are.
Or how about, “The Miracle of Forgiveness” by Spencer W. Kimball. He was a prophet. His word is always the truth and it’s god’s words speaking through him. I say this because there are now apologetics who say that sometimes the prophets speak as a man. Nope. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, but they had to save face somehow after Breed ’em Young blathered on about there being Quakers living on the moon. Anyway, he said that it is better for a woman to be killed than to be raped without putting up a fight.
And if you like that, you’ll love this:
http://www.exmormon.org/blacks1.htm
And my most special morg quote EVAR?
“When the Brethren speak, the thinking has been done.”
And I’ve got to add, it was special genius on the part of Joseph Smith to name his angel, “Moroni”, and get people to accept it. I mean, given that how can you not picture John Cleese as Smith in a Fish Called Wanda-type scenario?
Laws, what asses we used to be, on earth, about these things! We said we’d be always heterosexual in heaven.
“Does a chap of twenty-five stay always twenty-five, and look it?”
“If he is a fool, yes. But if he is bright, and ambitious and industrious, the knowledge he gains and the experiences he has, change his ways and thoughts and likings, and make him find his best pleasure in the company of people above that age; so he allows his body to take on that look of as many added years as he needs to make him comfortable and proper in that sort of society; he lets his body go on taking the look of age, according as he progresses, and by and by he will be bald and wrinkled outside, and wise and deep within.”
“Babies the same?”
“Babies the same.”
Laws, what asses we used to be, on earth, about these things! We said we’d be always young in heaven. We didn’t say how young–we didn’t think of that, perhaps–that is, we didn’t all think alike, anyway. When I was a boy of seven, I suppose I thought we’d all be twelve, in heaven; when I was twelve, I suppose I thought we’d all be eighteen or twenty in heaven; when I was forty, I begun to go back; I remember I hoped we’d all be about thirty years old in heaven. Neither a man nor a boy ever thinks the age he has is exactly the best one–he puts the right age a few years older or a few years younger than he is. Then he makes that ideal age the general age of the heavenly people. And he expects everybody to stick at that age–stand stock-still–and expects them to enjoy it!–Now just think of the idea of standing still in heaven! Think of a heaven made up entirely of hoop-rolling, marble-playing cubs of seven years!–or of awkward, diffident, sentimental immaturities of nineteen!–or of vigorous people of thirty, healthy-minded, brimming with ambition, but chained hand and foot to that one age and its limitations like so many helpless galley-slaves! Think of the dull sameness of a society made up of people all of one age and one set of looks, habits, tastes and feelings. Think how superior to it earth would be, with its variety of types and faces and ages, and the enlivening attrition of the myriad interests that come into pleasant collision in such a variegated society.”
– Mark Twain, Extract from Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/cptsf10h.htm
That made me LOL !
Then again,I can pretty much see John Cleese in any scenario….
Kobra @ #1:
Wasn’t Stalin originally baptized Catholic? Or was it Orthodox?
Your mighty Overload @ #42:
The Dark Knight doesn’t really seem the church-going type, though I may have missed something. And come on, what about Robin? How am I the first to mention Robin in response to this? Guy goes around in tights and leather/rubber with a young man who used to be an acrobat. This does not sound liek the actions of a straight person. Of course, Batman’s never been well-adjusted, few superheroes are.
Autumn @ #45:
I liked the suggestion of glitter, though there are some other less sanitary options. And the first thought that popped into my head for atheist baptisms was some kind of dessicant, silica or some such, to counteract the water.
Andres Diplotti @ #73:
WIN!
davem @ #74:
Except that since they screw around with the records after these phony baptisms, the database is inaccurate in reflecting the beliefs of the deceased. How much will such records be trusted in the future if they falsely say every person ever born was a devout Mormon?
(on a related note, my fingers and my brain are both telling me that the word “Mormon” has one “m” too many) :P
You know… there just might BE a Biblical justification for this project, giving it a divine imprimatur.
God’s admonition to Adam and Eve that they should “be fruitful and multiply” can easily be interpreted to mean that they should “be homosexuals, and do arithmetic”.
Got the facebook group made!
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35879227901
Just thought I’d point out, in France it’s legal to perform post-humous marriages, and civil unions between those of the same sex are legal. Any French people here interested in performing the ceremony on behalf of some Mormons?
Posted by: clinteas, “This has to be a record….88 posts until the first lunatic showed up LOL”
Oh, now heddle is really gonna be insulted.
And I hereby nominate Nomad at comment 18 for a Molly Award.
On the news this morning: a farmer standing in his field was hit by a stray bullet from nearby woods; the bullet crashed into his cell phone which was in his breast pocket of his overalls. Just a bruise. He said that his god told him to move it from his lower pocket. And who says that reason is overcoming abject nonsense?
PZ – Rather than blog about core christian principles such as the reality of guilt and that it can only be removed from a person by the atoning death of Jesus, you take shots at easy targets like mormons and catholics. That makes you no different than main stream Christianity, that also finds their practices ridiculous.
And… So? They’re inoculated against this kind of thing. They are THE ONE TRUE RELIGION and you’re just the hateful minions of evil who they will overcome.
Now, give them bad press, they get bent. But this… Meh.
bob,
is it PZz’s fault that mormons and catholics are,as you put it,easy targets? It is their obvious lunacy and unhingedness from reality that make them easy targets,and there is nothing wrong with mentioning those facts….
And as far as what you call “mainstream christianity” goes,Im not so sure that that mob is in any way a very well-defined entity in the first place,and much has been said about so called moderates enabling the extreme positions of fringe religionists by turning a blind eye to them…..
bob @ #112
That’s cause their practices ARE ridiculous… DUH.
And just like other mainstream christians, I pee when my bladder is full… what’s your point?
@CrypticLife (re: comment #100)…that’s one reason I try not to attend church any more. The true believers get all upset when you snicker during the service, and gales of laughter is “right out!” I do attend at Xmas if I have to (at home with family…isn’t worth the grief from my mother to spoil the holiday). I can stand it once every few years, but haven’t gone any other time for years.
But then, I find most ceremonies hysterical. I’ve attended a few of my husband’s Masonic ceremonies, and only by digging my nails into my palms can I not start giggling maniacally.
They do indeed, create a database of ‘temple ordinances’ (the ones who’ve been baptised posytumously). But the database of the original extractions is still available separately (and on the interweb too), and you get to see the original records in their temples. No-one outside the LDS looks at the temple ordinance database.
Well, ‘cept that I rather expect he also find the practises of ‘mainstream’ Christianity ridiculous.
Me, I guess I find them incrementally less so, on average. Maybe. Depends on what you count as ‘mainstream’, I guess. If the AOG is ‘mainstream’ (32 million members, baby), I’m a lot less sure who wins in the whole bigger freakshow contest… But regardless, really, when the difference is between (a) praying to an invisible sky fairy and trying to extract useful contemporary wisdom out of a millenia old book populated with talking snakes and odd sex-specific rules on headgear, and (b) doing the same while also praying explicitly to said sky fairy’s eternally virgin Mom while the guy at the front of the church wears a slightly more outre frock, well…
Sorry, my assumption was that by pointing out these absurdities, you might be making an assertion that this is what Christianity is all about, which is not so. Based on your response to me, I can see that was a wrong assumption. I ask you to forgive me.
AJ, by ‘mainstream’, I am talking about core beliefs that are shared by most serious Christians – for example, the ‘Gospel’ message that is preached by well known evangelists like Billy Graham. He doesn’t carry (and drop!) statues, declare dead unbelievers to be Christians, etc.
@bob #112you take shots at easy targets like mormons and catholics. That makes you no different than main stream Christianity.
————-
Catholics aren´t mainstream??? 1.2 billion of them might disagree.
bob,
Billy Graham is a loathsome antisemitic bigot and proven liar, as shown by the declassified Nixon tapes released in 2002. His chief preoccupation is sucking up to the powerful, including, bizarrely, the North Korean dictators Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-Il.
Also, while such statistics are notoriously unreliable, there are probably around 1 billion baptised Catholics in the world. By what possible criterion is the Catholic Church not part of “mainstream Christianity”?
bob @ #120:
Billy Graham, wasn’t he a spiritual advisor to anti-semite and known felon Richard Nixon? Was Graham the one who said “Almighty god does not hear the prayers of a Jew” or was that some other nutjob bilking the faithful for money and political gain?
Rev BigDumbChimp – I would say that Catholicism has its own “stream”
phantomreader42 – yeah, thats the one.
phantomreader42 @ #105
I agree with you completely on the geneaology thing. Those records are wildly inaccurate, and not just for the reason stated. Anyone can enter info, and there’s no quality control. I’d say at least half (if not more) of the people who “work on their family history” write down any bit of hearsay as pure truth, and then, when entered into the LDS info, it gets propogated, accurate or not. My dad’s been working on our family for around 30 years, and he won’t put a name into his personal records without hard evidence; usually documents like wills, tax records, land grants, etc. I spent a lot of time in the basements of courthouses as a kid, but it means I’ll vouch for his info any day. Dad won’t go near the LDS records for so much as a lead. The software they’ve produced for tracking family relationships, however, is brilliant.
phantomreader42: PS: of course, I disagree with your “nutjob bilking the faithful for money and political gain” accusation
Nick Gotts @ #123:
By the standard fundie nutjob criterion of “I am the one and only True Christian™ who has ever lived!!!!!!!!1111eleven!!”
Which is also the same criterion by which the Pope declared all non-catholics “not True Christians™”.
Really, anyone who tries to cite a christian majority as evidence of anything should be beaten over the head with how much of that percentage they’d declare as “not a True Christian™”
Heh. Perhaps the point is, they’re not True Christians™… I dunno… I get a little lost in this Complex Theology stuff…
Seriously, the point I’ll happily repeat is: the lot of them are loons. Some of the Catholic and Mormon lunacy is somewhat more amusingly videogenically hilarious (which is especially nice for the web), but it’s all lunacy. Even if Graham *weren’t* on record (a propos of this thread’s subject) as having said some lovely ‘AIDS may be my magical deity guy’s punishment to homosexuals’ stuff (something he has, at least, gracefully recanted and apologized for), he’d *still* be a loon, pretty much the same as anyone who makes their living convincing people there’s a magic man in the sky who hears them when they talk to him. It’s nice the self-described ‘mainstream’ can actually see that Catholicism and Mormonism are wacko, but let’s face it; that’s just because it’s not, specifically, *their* lunacy. So they’re okay (with minor doctrinal quibbles) with the threefold deity that creates the world, then has one of its manifestations ‘sacrificed’ at a specific juncture in the iron age to redeem the sins of its subjects, dies for three days, comes back to life… That’s all good… But y’know… The posthumous baptism and crying statue stuff, that’s just *silly*…
I’ve been busy inducting LIVE Christians into atheism for some time. When they are dead it’s too late. This way when they die and discover there is no afterlife THEY WILL KNOW IT’S ALL MY FAULT.
Every time one posts on any bulletin board or makes a public statement they get added to my list.
Yes Falwell, the reason you didn’t get to heaven is because I converted you to atheism when you were alive. But look at the bright side, you’re not in hell either.
Are you listening Donahue? Forget about Heaven, you’re not even going to make Limbo – there’s no afterlife for you at all.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
I always think it’s so cute when some member of a some sect of christianity thinks THEY are the sane ones, and all the other sects are “fringe” offshoots.
It’s absolutely adorable!
@ Quidam
Not to be all nit-picky and stuff but:
Go ahead and wrap your head around the problem with this logic… ;)
bob @ #128:
What part of that accusation do you contend is inaccurate? Did Graham not receive large quantities of money from his followers? Did he not gain access and influence with powerful people? Did he not acquire all of this by manipulating people, such as by threatening eternal damnation or claiming to be a representative of the almighty? Or do you just not like me ridiculing him for this? The man’s an antisemite and a fraud who sucked up to corrupt politicians and dictators. He deserves ridicule, he has earned it through diligent work in the field of public asshattery. Though admittedly there are other evangelists who far exceed his qualifications here.
@phantomreader42:
asshattery, 4tw!!! MD would be proud!
Celtic_Evolution
That is cute. It reminds me of when one group of uber-rational, just-the-facts-ma’am atheists think some other group of uber-rational, just-the-facts-ma’am atheists are wrong on, say, (so many choices here!) animal testing. They’re so adorable when they disagree!*
—-
*As long as no one gets offended. It’s very bad when someone gets offended. There is almost nothing worse than someone being offended.
CalGeorge
I will never, EVER read anything by this man ever again. Ever. And I am an avid reader. Fuck him.
Every Christian sect considers themselves the “mainstream” — the standard by which to judge True Christianity. Unlike those other groups which distort God and misunderstand the Bible in order to reflect their own human prejudices and weaknesses, they allow God to be God. They go back to what Christianity really meant, what Jesus really intended. They are on a search to discover God. Not form him in their own image — like those other so-called Christians.
The Catholics say it about the Protestants, and vice versa. The Mormons say it about the Lutherans, the Lutherans say it about the Calvinists. The Fundamentalists say it about the Unitarians, and the Unitarians are very sure to say it about Fundamentalists.
The “core christian principles such as the reality of guilt and that it can only be removed from a person by the atoning death of Jesus” are ludicrous nonsense to people in other religions — religions which, of course, clearly fail on multiple levels, if we were to ask bob. Who, as a self-defined “mainstream Christian,” could be anything from an Episcopalian to a Jehovah’s Witness.
The Mormons and Catholics are coming in for specific attention because they have been inserting themselves heavily into the political process. Their beliefs are not really any loonier than those of the “mainstream religion.” Blood sacrifice to remove the “stain” of “sin” makes no sense on the secular level.
And I am sick and tired of people equating mocking religion or punishing the religious for introducing sectarian rules into secular law with not allowing people to have their “religious freedom.” There is no freedom to remain above criticism. Especially if you’re making an ass of yourself, in multiple ways.
I was going to push Jesus for gay conversion. But well, he’s a confirmed bachelor who only hangs around with his close 12 friends.
I was too late.
heddle-dum @ #136
It does? Really? Interesting…
So let’s see…
Absurd credulous wing-nut death-cultist thinking they are less crazy than other absurd credulous wing-nut death-cultist because of differences in the details of the observances of said credulous absurdity is the same as rational, intelligent people disagreeing on actual tangible issues that matter?
Wow… I guess I’m missing that. You run along and think about that one, junior…
By the way, is “uber-rational” supposed to be an insult? Can I refer to you as “uber-irrational”?
heddle #136 wrote:
Not a very good analogy, I think, because atheists who disagree don’t argue that the other side isn’t really atheist. They do argue that the other side isn’t being reasonable, but an individual being unreasonable doesn’t automatically conflict with his being an atheist. It’s not a world view: atheist opinions on secular matters run the gamot. Just because someone holds one correct conclusion (there is no God) doesn’t mean that everything else they believe in ethics, politics, or economics is automatically right or else they’re no atheist. And if the reasons they don’t believe in God are bad ones, no initial credit for being an atheist at all.
Theist sects, on the other hand, do believe that proper understanding of God will hold everything else together, and bring all conflict in line. To outsiders, there are Christians who are for and against abortion, the death penalty, female ordination, and universal salvation. Only insiders can and often do insist that no, there are no disputes among “Christians” on these matters.
Well, no, I didn’t say it was the same I said it reminds me. You do grasp the difference?
You see, I understand the point. And I see the parallels:
1a) Two Christian sects
1b) Each believe the bible to be a sufficient source of revelation
1c) Cannot agree on whether or not to baptize infants.
2a) Two groups of uber-rational atheists
2b) Each believe that the scientific method leads inexorably from data to a conclusion
2c) Reach vastly different conclusions
And the reason is the same in both cases: irrational presuppositions.
Yes, but only when used in a mocking manner.
Well sure, but what if I am offended?
———-
* Are you Raven? Anytime I see the term death-cultist my Nixplanatory filter fires that it is Raven. If you are not, I may have to tweak its universal probability bound.
@ Heddle-dum #142
I think I’ll just borrow a quote:
“Truly, you have a dizzying logic”.
Am I the only one picturing RuPaul prancing through a cemetery with an aspergillum full of glitter singing “Dominate, Dominate, you are all gay now!”
Are you saying they aren’t christians?
#144
“Am I the only one picturing RuPaul prancing through a cemetery with an aspergillum full of glitter singing “Dominate, Dominate, you are all gay now!”
I’ll take a wild guess and say yes, until you posted it you were indeed the only one with that thought in mind.
Each believe that the scientific method leads inexorably from data to a conclusion – heddle
Here’s where you go wrong, halfwit. Very few atheists (I will not say none) are ignorant or stupid enough to believe any such thing.
1) One or both sides may be ignorant of some of the data. One of the functions of argument is to correct such ignorance, so the two sides are closer to arguing from the same data.
2) In many cases, some of the “data” is disputed.
3) Any given set of empirical data rarely if ever determines a unique conclusion, as most scientists are well aware. Specifically, such conclusions are likely to depend on multiple assumptions, some of which may not have been made explicit. Making assumptions explicit is another of the functions of argument.
4) Many of the issues on which atheists disagree are matters of values, not of facts. Values can be rationally criticised, but not rationally determined.
Incidentally, halfwit, scientific rationality is primarily a characteristic of socially embedded procedures, or institutions, not of individuals.
Many Muslims believe that all are Muslim at birth; all belong to Allah, and only indoctrination by parents would ever make a child be any other than the one true religion.
(Sort of like how some think that their language is the only natural language and have even isolated children from any conversation to determine what language the children begin speaking.)
Therefore, when anyone changes their religion, say from Judaism to Islam, that is a reversion, not a conversion. Only Islam to another religion is conversion, and may be punished with death.
Bob,
Ah, so just redefine the word ‘mainstream’ and/or ‘Christian’ and your arguments works…..
Also, PZ doesn’t just take on Catholics and Mormons. He also takes on the Evangelical Christians that wish to put creationism in schools. Before you say that isn’t mainstream, 60% of them favored replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether.
Heddle
Why do you meddle with us atheists, knowing that we can morph you into a gelatinus mess of worthless crap? We are omnipotent because we have reason on our side; all you don’t have is an imaginary god making believe it is in your head and driving you insane. All religions are pure insane bullshit who spout insanities but will never bring forth their imaginary gods to kick the crap out of us. And what proof do you have? The bible? That insane puke of the demented morons who wrote it years ago to subdue your ilk into walking zombies that are lower than slime mold on the evolutionary scale. Why is it that if your head was cut off all ideas of a god would also be severed?
Holbach
Yes and it has served you so well! Especially you–your posts read like those from the captain of the Oxford Debate Team. Your IQ, power of reason, eloquence, and superior rhetorical skills come close to causing my monitor to burst into flames. I wish I could be like you, at least for a day, to see the world with such clarity, a clarity that only reason and an intellect such are you possess can provide. Sigh.
Heddle –
Your last post was lame and you’re just making a futile attempt to distract us from the fact that you’re wrong. Eat a dick.
…says the man who believes this:
http://www.sebts.edu/prospective_students/what_we_believe/articles_inerancy.cfm
Heddle @ 152
If you were like me you would not be in your current state of insanity. Even to be like me for one day would erase all those years of self-induced insanity that has accrued up to this time. But seriously, you could never be like me, for you are afflicted with demented religion which is difficult to dislodge and will eventually cause you to go mad. You haven’t got a prayer and your imaginary god is as mad as you, for it resides in your demented brain.
Katherine,
Wrong? Wrong about what? What was being disputed?
Eat a dick? Is that the best you can do? Is that where a vaunted rationalistic approach gets you? I somehow had higher expectations.
heddle –
I know you are but what am I?
What wondrously irrelevant rhetoric will you now regale us with… “Yo’ Mama” jokes?
heddle
It took you less than 25 posts to completely lose your mind? That’s short even by your standards.
You were rightfully taken to task for spewing forth a completely inane and irrelevant comparison (#136), which was dutifully dispatched by myself, Sastra and Nick Gotts… and to which you have still not put forth any redirect that would convince anyone otherwise.
Celtic_Evolution
That question is too zen for me. I’ll have to guess. Um.. you yam what you yam? Like Popeye? Other than that, I don’t know how to respond.
heddle-dum @ #159
just adorable, heddle
You really think you are quite clever, don’t you? I think you really need to re-assess your desire to engage here… you’re out of your league, based on what I’ve seen form you so far…
By all means, feel free to continue to do so… I for one will enjoy the bloodbath…
Celtic_Evolution
Ah no, it wasn’t dispatched, although I understand the collective bargaining approach to declaring an argument defeated. Sastra didn’t like the analogy, which is fair enough. You didn’t actually post a rebuttal–referring to a post isn’t the same as addressing it. And NG’s response was so full of holes I ignored it. But if you want we can discuss NG’s response–let me know quickly–I have an University Curriculum Committee meeting in one hour.
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews
Come on heddle, answer my points if you can. “So full of holes I ignored it” is really about as lame as you can get.
Which uber-rational atheists claim that the wrongness/goodness of animal testing is a conclusion derived from the scientific method?
heddle-dum prattles on:
As one who clearly believes he has never had an argument defeated, and as one who builds his thought process on principals of godly infallibility, I can understand why you wouldn’t recognize when your arguments are defeated… but let me assure you, they most certainly were.
How noble of you… unfortunately, you deciding to re-phrase his statement as if we wouldn’t know the difference is absurd, considering we can merely scroll up a few posts to see that what he actually said. And it was not that he didn’t like it, but that it was, in fact “not a very good analogy”, ie, wrong. And then he goes on to precisely describe why. So what, in your demented world, constitutes a rebuttal if not that?
Again, nice attempt at retelling history. What I did was point out to you the ridiculousness of your piss-poor analogy. Thus clearly contradicting or opposing your sentiment. Again, you do know what a rebuttal is, right?
Typical response. I don’t like the way it’s worded, so I’ll ignore it. So go on, genius… point out for all of us all of the “obvious holes” in Nick’s rebuttal. I for one await it eagerly… and oh yes, there will most certainly be debate on the topic. I will not simply ignore your drivel out of hand, regardless of how “full of holes” it continues to be.
*shudder*
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.
-Tom Lehrer
Heddle @ 159
Since you have alluded to cartoonish commenting, I wish to offer an apt description by my good friend, Bugs; “Boy what a maroon!” You should note that Bugs was the creation of a more rational mind than yours, for he has given credence to a character that is able to detect dementia in the human species that also makes up things that are worthy of cartoonish creation. With all this literate abuse you are suffering at the hands of mere mortals, why don’t you get your imaginary god down here to kick the crap out of us? You have as much chance in bringing down your god as I have in moving to the Andromeda Galaxy.
I recall a phrase from college(class of ’72): “A quivering mass of mindless jelly.”
Well I’ve been concentrating on converting their women into sluts, and so far, it’s going great:
http://www.sportsbybrooks.com/pole-dancing-mormons-make-push-for-olympics-20992
Notagod @31:
and
(snip)
…
I like your thinking, or what I think is your thinking. Looked at properly (and taking a page from the Catholic Church), all religious people of any faith whatsoever, are really Lapsed Atheists.
Well, OK.
In providing explanations about how intelligent rational people can reach different conclusions, Nick made four points, viz.,
1) One or both sides may be ignorant of some of the data. One of the functions of argument is to correct such ignorance, so the two sides are closer to arguing from the same data.
2) In many cases, some of the “data” is disputed.
3) Any given set of empirical data rarely if ever determines a unique conclusion, as most scientists are well aware. Specifically, such conclusions are likely to depend on multiple assumptions, some of which may not have been made explicit. Making assumptions explicit is another of the functions of argument.
4) Many of the issues on which atheists disagree are matters of values, not of facts. Values can be rationally criticised, but not rationally determined.
Let’s address these in terms of the animal testing debate which flares up here, on occasion. Let’s assume atheist rationalist A is for animal testing, and atheist rationalist B is against it.
Point 1. This suggests that if they just pool their data, they might be able to agree. Well–I’ve seen that debate on here and one side or the other must be secreting their data, for I’ve seen no evidence of massive shifts in opinion. I don’t think there is any evidence that if you put A and B in a room and have them both unravel and present each piece of data at their disposal there would be any movement. Do you think Hitchens was for the Iraq war because he has data you don’t possess, or was he missing data you possess? Does Maher deny the germ theory because he has data you are missing or because he lacks data you possess? In any event the solution to a lack of consensus seems darn right trivial! Share your data, folks! It’s not sporting to keep data to yourself.
Point 2. We can handle this by recursion. The dispute over data likely means, by point 1, that the two sides have different data about the data (metadata.) Share the metadata.
Point 3 Insufficient data might lead to the wrong conclusion, but the evidence-based algorithm of rationality should lead intelligent people to the same wrong conclusion. But Nick is on to something here–the deviation is actually not based on insufficient data but different assumptions. How do we know which assumptions are right? Well, if they are rational assumptions (based on data) we again appeal to recursion. Let’s share the data about our assumptions. After we work that out, our conclusions should align. But if the assumptions are not based on evidence, if they are (may it never be!) irrational “feelings,” (I don’t care, I just think animal testing is wrong!) then we’ll never reach a consensus. Because of–irrational presuppositions, just like I stated.
Point 4. “Values” are the same as irrational assumptions. We have them, but they are not data driven. (If they are, then let’s pool the data and we can adopt the same rational values. Wouldn’t that be a trip?)
The bottom line is that some people just feel in their hearts that animal testing is wrong, and some feel it is right. What Nick called values, and he was right. But values are irrational–people cannot provide the data that are the basis for their gut feelings on the ethics of animal testing. It’s an irrational presupposition–just like a religious presupposition.
That was my argument, and the data fit my model.
Unless… have you guys reached a consensus on animal testing? Libertarianism? Gun Control?…if so, I stand corrected. If, instead, you disagree as much as different Christian sects disagree on doctrine, then I stand by my argument.
———-
Celtic_Evolution
I know–it’s that damn tenure system. What were they thinking?
Holbach
Geez, if my god is imaginary how could I possibly call him/her down here to kick the crap out of you? Goodness–Joe the Plumber could have seen the illogical aspect of your request.
How the hell are rationality and a statement of what you can do with a male genital organ related?
Man, you have some things to learn.
And several of the ‘values’ fundies waaaah about are ‘values’ which they attempt to justify with completely untrue notions.
Stop confounding the issue, and get to eating that dick.
I really don’t think there’s any morphing going on, Holbach, unless it happened well before heddle’s posts here.
However, heddle, this balsa-wood lie is uproarious:
What a f’in dodge that is! You mean you weren’t suggesting it was directly comparable, just stating a matter of your personal firing of neurons?
ROTFL!!!
In life I’m straight, but if somebody wants to posthumously transform me into a lesbian, well, I wouldn’t object to coming back to try it out. ;)
Yipes! I really don’t think I want to see heddle attempt an answer at that question!
*runs*
This is a little childish. First of all, Mormons don’t believe that you are “converting” anybody with posthumous baptism, so somebody has lied to you. They are giving the “person” on the other side the possibility of accepting Christ, based on the Biblical understanding that baptism by water is required and combining that with the understanding that spirits can’t get wet. There is no idea of force or guaranteed acceptance by the dead person, nor is it noted anywhere that this person is now a Mormon.
I don’t quite understand the Jewish antipathy to the proxy baptism. It is almost exactly analogous to saying a prayer or a special mention of a person in any religious or non-religious frame.
Mormons truly believe that it is necessary for everyone to have a chance at this. They truly believe it is voluntary whether or not for the dead person to accept it. They are truly remembering the deceased when they do this. The Shoah was an immense tragedy, but does it give the relatives and other co-religionists the right to demand that the Mormons send the holocaust victims to hell, in their understanding?
Atheists piling on top of this cluster makes it even more confusing and amusing. Do the Jewish people think this prayer is true and accurate? Do atheists? I’m pretty sure most of the last don’t, but it’s fun to act childish and feel superior to somebody else.
I hope you don’t offend any Mormons with this act, though. They might get it declared immoral and illegal, since you are trashing their deep and heartfelt beliefs about all of humanity. Somehow, that seems the same as the misperception that they are mocking the Shoah.
I can only imagine what fluid should be used for the baptism…
Pontius Pilate x Jesus anyone?
Heddle @ 172
Good grief, that is exactly the point I am making. The comment is not metaphor, irony or anything related to sense, but blatant ridicule to show how senseless your belief is in an imaginary god. Of course this imaginary god is not going to come down and kick the crap out of us because it does not exist but only in your unbalanced mind in which anything is possible. And since you have alluded to plumbing, your mental plumbing is not only installed wrong, but is backing up and festering your brain into madness.
True Bob? Calling True Bob. You’re good at coming up with scenarios for this kind of thing, I remember.
Oh there you are, no 169.
I do wonder about the jihado 72 virgins thing. Imagine if you get there and they’re the same gender as you. Shit, eh?
It would be nice to have a gay parade where everyone was dressed Mormon-style (they used to bicycle through my neighborhood, and the shirt, slacks, and haircut were like a uniform so I knew exactly who they were even when I was a child), with the magic underwear (optional), each couple paired, and each pair would chant the name of a departed Mormon member who is now inducted in to the “Holy Homosexual Mormon Temple of the Quivering Sphincter”. They could even be posthumously married to another dead Mormon of the same sex.
I am intrigued, myself, by Heddle’s gambit, here, however. As it rather seems to follow that you may assume generally that where there is disagreement there is irrationality. I’m assuming perhaps she/he/it wishes therefore to imply thereby that so long as people disagree on anything, it is hypocritical of them to criticise rather more demonstrable and glaring irrationalities elsewhere… Or at the very least that she/he/it is free to equate their arguments when they do… Tho’ this has been somewhat skated by with some amusing hedging about how the one merely ‘reminds’ he/she/it of the other…
I’m intrigued primarily because this rather ‘reminds’ me of a certain creationist gambit: that since there is some disagreement on finer points of natural history and evolution, it is perfectly valid to throw the whole thing out and suggest the magical sky guy done did it… Indeed, apparently, doing so puts you no further behind, and never mind the masses of evidence that shore up the largely undisputed core of what you just discarded.
It just ‘reminds’ me of this, of course. I wouldn’t quite equate them. But I have to wonder aloud if the same basic error is at the heart of much of the modern apologia for religion: we go from the observation that certain aspects of life certainly aren’t much about the rational at all (indeed, much of what motivates us to live at all is simply innate–biological drives that don’t arrive ‘rationally’ to us from any argument we ourselves consider**) to the conclusion that, apparently, no argument is intrinsically more rational or, indeed, in any other way more likely to get you to the truth–than another.
This does not follow. In case anyone’s wondering.
Oh, also, Heddle, if any of this is lost on you, you may look to one of your assumptions from your first riposte, here. I rather doubt you’ll find a lot of people on this blog or in this world in general who really think the scientific method leads inexorably to anything, certainly not in the hands of anyone individually–the larger story of acquired knowledge may or may not be a different matter. The point is: empiricism and rationality are tools, not guarantees in and of themselves.
Put another way: use the evidence, think things through, try not to fool yourself, you *might* get it right. Make shit up and then insist you didn’t, convince yourself you or someone else really heard a voice in your head, it’s a lot less likely to get you there.
**Explaining them through the lense of natural history is rather a different matter. That is to say: you do not say: A and B, thus I shall now breathe.
heddle:
As far as I know, there is even disagreement among atheists as to whether Stilton is yummy or tastes like sweatsocks, and whether the Yankees are the greatest team ever or a bunch of overpaid poseurs. Golly, if atheists don’t agree on everything, we’re just like the Christians!
At least we worked it out so that atheists all wear the same uniform…
To be less flip, yes, I do think there are useful pieces of empirical data that can be brought to bear on the issue of animal testing (for example, because primates have cognitive abilities similar to homo sapiens and a close genetic relationship, many people are convinced it would be arbitrary to treat them less well than humans who possess more limited cognitive abilities, like the profoundly developmentally delayed).
But what any of this has to do with not believing in a sky fairy is a bit beyond me.
BubbaRich:
And alien abduction conspiracy nuts truly believe that they have had extraterrestrial equipment shoved up their bum. Sincerity of belief is no warrant for its truth, and no reason not to ridicule it.
Yes, sometimes it is fun. (And no one is suggesting that Mormon efforts will really convert dead Jews, just that it is tacky to do so for victims of the Holocaust.)
Yeah, or they might take it out on gay people…oh…wait…
I agree with the criticism of Mormon genealogical connections. Their collection of records is priceless, and finally, partially, available to the public, but the results posted online are largely repetitive, unreferenced gibberish. And how soon will it be before they include the gay conversions? So far the software won’t allow same-sex marriages/partnerships, either.
No, your strawmannish argument was that atheists are deriving answers to these questions using the scientific method. Science does not claim to be a method for deriving values, religion does.
heddle-dum…
and away we go…
Well, all that means is that you have a decidedly poor sampling, as I’ve seen it happen on several occasions. And secondly, do you not see th irony in your own inference that in order for it to exist, you must see evidence of it? Just take that premise a little bit further… go on… you can do it.
How can you be in the field of academia, as you purport to be, and make this statement? The only reason you would come to that conclusion is that your own unquestionable beliefs have led you to assume this completely false position. And furthermore, if that statement is true, how on earth do you account for the enormous contingent of former theists who are now atheists… myself included… there must have been movement in there somewhere. What an awful argument.
First of all, do you think anyone with a modicum of rationality and intelligence would be unwilling to rethink or change his position on this topic or any other if presented with convincing and compelling data? Your supposition that this is not the case is again derived from an overload of religious dogma and theocratic stubbornness even in the face of evidence.
Erm… yeah… fairly common practice. Not only is the sharing of data within the context of debate common, it is expected and required. Disputed does not mean “secret” or “hidden”. It’s not (usually) just a simple matter of one side not sharing all the data with the other… that’s not what is meant by “disputed”. There are many ideas, theories, principals in science that can be, have been, and continue to be, disputed… you think it’s simply just a problem of not everyone having access to the same data? I know you’re not that thick… then again… maybe you just truly don’t understand the scientific process… I’m beginning to think more and more that this is in fact the case.
This might be the single dumbest assertion you’ve made so far. But again, is completely rational in a world where knowledge comes from starting with the answer, and working your way back. That statement right there cinched it for me… you are about as unfamiliar with the scientific process as a person with your apparent level of intelligence can be. How disappointing.
Complete drivel, and once again, an argument made by someone who’s entire worldview is built on a foundation that’s only proof of existence, personally, is “a feeling”. And this again supports the tired old argument that value systems must be driven by something greater than simple human evaluation of right and wrong based on the data. You are just wrong. In the example of animal testing, I can certainly make my decision of whether or not it’s right or wrong based on data and ONLY data. Everything about the process can be evaluated and measured… the process, it’s effects on the animals, both physiologically and psychologically, the empirical data derived from the testing, the value of that data, etc, etc… on and on… ALL of this is data, and it is all I need to make a rational value judgment. And additionally, this data can be used by both sides of a rational disagreement as to the real, actual materialistic merits of said testing.
So, holding that up against the comparison made originally in this thread, what DATA is being used to drive the discussion comparing the levels of insanity between different sects of chrsitianity, and what are the real, actual materialistic merits of said debate? None…. long story short, this makes your comparison invalid and completely inane. Like we’ve already said.
I find it decidedly tacky and more than a little interesting that you would go out of your way to put your academic standing on display here… as if it gives your arguments added weight or credence. It doesn’t.
shoot… I didn’t realize how long that post had become… I should have broken it up… apologies.
heddle #171 wrote:
Not quite. Values are not “irrational,” I think, but non-rational. And it’s not necessary for any atheist (unless maybe they are ‘uber-rational’) to insist that rational discourse will always lead to one perfect solution. Secularists (such as humanists) with a scientific approach should not deal in or strive after Perfection or Utopia, but look for the close-enough and as- good-as-we-can-for-now (just as science doesn’t claim Ultimate Certainties, but working models open to revision.) Even people who agree on the facts, and share similar values, might weigh conflicting values differently.
There is unlikely to be one perfect way of being “right” on every moral question. However, keeping the discussion on level ground, focusing on common goals, and striving after reasonable solutions, is the best means we have of gaining some consensus.
I would argue that religious presuppositions are neither non-rational (like values) or even irrational. Despite the emphasis often placed on faith, most religious beliefs are reasonable inferences grounded in evidence and experience. People don’t just believe there is a God, or that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, “for the heck of it” or even “because they feel in their heart that it’s true.” They’ve reasoned their way to their conclusion (sometimes using their “gut feelings” as evidence for the factual truth of their religion.)
So moral arguments which reduce to arguments over religion and God — who has the right religion, who interprets scripture correctly, who understands God the best — are not like ethical arguments over values. They are arguments over facts. With a sinister twist, because they can’t be resolved through objective investigation using evidence and reasoning in this world. There are built-in limitations regarding this world, and unlimited possibilities involving spiritual worlds.
It is difficult enough to change someone’s mind on a fact issue. Granted. But persuading someone that the real problem is that they don’t understand God — but you do — adds in a complication that’s more than difficult. It is one thing for one of your scientific colleagues to say that your conclusion is wrong. That argument may be very hard to resolve. But you do not want to deal with a scientific colleague who argues that your conclusion is wrong because you have been blinded by the devil. That’s shifted the dispute into another dimension.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned this. For a long time there was a lot of speculation about the long time unmarried Steve Young (direct descendant) quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers. Enquiring minds want to know. TPFD.
Heddle, we are unworthy of Your Godly intellect. Your self perceived brilliance blinds us. How can you inflict Yourself so on mere mortals?
Maybe we can help you out. Which way did you come in?
Something tells me only one person is going to enjoy your contribution to the curriculum meeting.
Anyone remember what Heddle’s a professor of? Depending on what he’s a professor of, I doubt he’s going to be more than the irritating little godbot gadfly he is.
#188- “shoot… I didn’t realize how long that post had become… I should have broken it up… apologies.”
None needed. I enjoyed every word.
Anyone remember what Heddle’s a professor of?
Physics, I believe.
Yes. From his blog: “I am an associate professor of physics at Christopher Newport University.”
Bubba Rich #177 wrote:
We atheists do not believe that people’s religious beliefs deserve a special respect and exemption from offense — but the Mormons do believe it. I’ve no doubt that Mormons have the best of intentions regarding the Proxy baptisms, but they’re aware that, for whatever reason, the Jews find it insulting. That’s for them to work out. We’re simply pointing out the inconsistency.
As for offending Mormons by proxy baptisms into homosexuality — well, that is supposed to be offensive. And stupid. It’s mockery. We’re pointing out the inconsistency of a religious organization intruding itself into secular politics, and then demanding that their religious beliefs be off limits to criticism, and entitled to respect. Sectarian faith beliefs should not shape laws for people not in the sect.
You come onto secular ground, you’re going to be judged on secular ground. “Proxy baptisms” indeed.
heddle@171,
First, let’s deal with what you implicitly concede. In #147, I contested your claim that atheists “Each believe that the scientific method leads inexorably from data to a conclusion”
My response was:
“Here’s where you go wrong, halfwit. Very few atheists (I will not say none) are ignorant or stupid enough to believe any such thing.”
Since you have not contested this, presumably you concede that your original claim was false, and, since it is so obviously false, either stupid or a deliberate lie. Your caricature of atheists as believing that they are completely rational is just that – a breathtakingly inane misrepresentation. Many atheists, including most of those here, believe that rationality is the only path to the discovery and correction of error, but they know very well they themselves are by no means exclusively rational beings.
Now, to your responses to my four reasons why it is errorneous to believe that “the scientific method leads inexorably from data to a conclusion”.
1) One or the other side may be ignorant of some of the data.
The start of your response:
“This suggests that if they just pool their data, they might be able to agree. Well–I’ve seen that debate on here and one side or the other must be secreting their data, for I’ve seen no evidence of massive shifts in opinion.”
In your usual cowardly and dishonest fashion, you’re trying to shift the goalposts: I said nothing about sharing of data leading to “massive shifts of opinion” – for the very good reason that there are (at least) three other sources of disagreement. However, changes of opinion certainly do occur on Pharyngula as a result of one party presenting data the other was unaware of. I mention two small cases here, which I recall because they are recent and I was involved.
a) I suggested that two of our semi-regular Catholic-fascist trolls, “Piltdown Man”, and “Loudon is a Fool” were the same person. Owlmirror pointed me to evidence that one lives in Texas and the other in the UK. I replied something like “You’re clearly right.”
b) John Morales suggested that the term “antisemitic” should refer to prejudice against Arabs as well as against Jews. I disagreed, pointing out the historical origin of the term (it was invented by a 19th century antisemite to refer to his own views about Jews), and the fact that “Semite” is itself a term from 19th century racial pseudoscience. He conceded the point.
I’ll break the comment here, as otherwise its length will be excessive.
Katharine
Astoundingly, heddle is a professor of Physics… his website is an exercise in theocratic apologetics… he rails against YECs but can’t take his own logical arguments to their obvious logical conclusions… by all accounts he’s a living testimonial to Pascal’s wager. Play the middle, just in case.
He’s your basic highly educated christian who has been so brainwashed by his religion that he is unable and unwilling to accept the irrationality of continuing to hold to bronze-age myths. He’d fit right in at the DI.
I’ve always been intrigued by what happens to staunchly religious folks once they are exposed to high doses of education. In my experience, most of the time they quickly see the silliness and complete contradictory nature of religion, as well as its total lack of evidence for existing in any way, shape or form. However there are some, like heddle, here, who simply can not accept that revelation and will not have their entire belief system and worldview negated, regardless of how much evidence they are faced with. For these people, a lot of time seems to be spent in constant debate and argument, in an endless search to converge their science and their faith without one destroying the other, and they end up relying on tired arguments and false assumptions about the nature of knowledge.
On some level heddle knows his knowledge betrays his faith… but if he just twists it and re-interprets it a bit, it can still fit. Don’t take scripture literally… in fact, you can pretty much toss out anything in the Bible, except of course for the very existence of god… funny that…
Anyone remember what Heddle’s a professor of?
Oh that’s just disturbing. It’s a pity there’s no way of harnessing the energy generated by his cognitive dissonance; he could probably power a small car on his own.
Interestingly, heddle does have a nice entry on his blog regarding the war on christmas, which dovetails nicely into the discussion we are having on the same topic on another thread on this space.
They are the words of a seemingly rational, reasonable, intelligent person… right up until the last paragraph when he just needlessly falls right back into the god-botting, almost as if the rationality of his argument up to that point couldn’t stand on its own without a little groveling and deference to the mighty sky fairy (heddle, that post would have stood just fine without that last paragraph… think about it)…. see if you can’t find the synergy between that entry on his blog and the very description I gave in my post #198 above…
Heddle’s practice of physics is not effected by his religious beliefs, since he classifies them as being similar to values, and not special data which need to be incorporated into science theories. If people can successfully compartmentalize their religious views from their practice of science (or math or plumbing), then there is nothing to prevent them from being excellent scientists, mathematicians, or plumbers, with no inconsistency.
The inconsistency then may be in
1.) how they are classifying religious claims
and
2.) their failure to apply scientific analysis to them, as hypotheses which should not only be consistent with the evidence, but derivable from it.
I’ve been disagreeing with heddle for years, I think, but I’ve always found him polite and reasonable. I have no problem accepting that he’s probably a fine scientist and academic. I also respect his position on the separation of church and state, and against creationism. I’m guessing that he comes here because he’s interested in the relationship between science and religion, and he’s honest enough to realize that it helps to get opinions from the other side. I think he has a difficult balancing act to handle, though.
Response to heddle@171, continued:
From this point on, I will use your chosen example of animal experimentation. I note first that there is a range of positions here, from “No animal experimentation is ever justified”; to “Humane considerations should never prevent any animal experimentation”. Most people, including most atheists, will take an intermediate position.
2) Some of the data may be contested.
You responded that this can be dealt with recursively: compare metadata. Now, the data relevant to the question of animal experimentation concerns:
a) How much animal suffering and premature death is involved in specific types of experimentation.
b) How much benefit, of various kinds, is likely to be obtained from specific types of animal experimentation.
For both (a) and (b) there are various kinds of relevant data. For (a), there are scientific studies of animal neurophysiology, behavioural response to noxious stimuli, “revealed preferences” for particular environments, and probably others. There are also informal accounts of the conditions under which animals are kept, the procedures they are subjected to, their response to the experimenters and so on. There are legal documents concerning current regulations and their enforcement, statistics about the number and type of experiments performed, training manuals, decisions of ethical committees, and so on. For (b) the situation is still more dificult, as we must judge likely future benefits on the basis of (i) Past benefits, themselves subject to dispute and counterfactuals (if we hadn’t injected chimpanzees with HIV, how much if at all would our ability to treat it have been set back – or advanced); (ii) Plans and hopes of currently active scientists.
For each of these types of data, metadata might include the amount of detail available in the source, the quality of the publication (in the case of scientific data), the reputation of the author(s) including any grounds for imputing (or denying) bias, and the relevance of the data to the question itself (e.g. which neurophysiological and behavioural similarities and differences between humans and the experimental animals bear on the amount of suffering the latter undergo). In many instances, the metadata themselves could be disputed – so we have to go to metametadata, to metametametadata, and so on indefinitely: so there is absolutely no reason to expect your recursion to bottom out.
Your pretence that disputes about data can routinely be resolved is exposed as an absurd canard.
3) Data do not uniquely determine conclusions: the conclusions drawn typically depend on assumptions, some of which are not explicit. Here I quote your complete response, because it is so revealing:
“Insufficient data might lead to the wrong conclusion, but the evidence-based algorithm of rationality should lead intelligent people to the same wrong conclusion. But Nick is on to something here–the deviation is actually not based on insufficient data but different assumptions. How do we know which assumptions are right? Well, if they are rational assumptions (based on data) we again appeal to recursion. Let’s share the data about our assumptions. After we work that out, our conclusions should align. But if the assumptions are not based on evidence, if they are (may it never be!) irrational “feelings,” (I don’t care, I just think animal testing is wrong!) then we’ll never reach a consensus. Because of–irrational presuppositions, just like I stated.”
There is, of course, no such thing as an “evidence-based algorithm of rationality”. Faced with any given question to which factual evidence is relevant, there are in general an indefinite number of rational steps that could be taken, and no procedure for determining which should be tried first.
Second, we may well not be aware of the assumptions we are making – indeed, we cannot possibly be aware of all of them. Argument with someone who disagrees may make some of them explicit – one reason it is useful.
You make the same claim about recursion with regard to “evidence-based” assumptions as about disputed data. It fails for exactly the same reason: there is no reason to suppose that the recursion will bottom out.
You then appear to assume that the only other form of assumption is an “irrational presupposition”, a “feeling”. This is perhaps a side-issue, but these are not of course coterminous. I may hold an “irrational supposition” simply because I was taught it, explicitly or implicitly, and have never questioned it. Once it is brought to my attention, I may see that it is unwarranted. This phenomenon underlies many scientific advances (e.g. the relationship between space and time in the case of special relativity, the fixity of species in the case of evolution).
Returning to your “irrational presuppositions” takes us on to point 4. Once again I will break at this point to avoid excessive length.
He is prone to jumping on people for some joke or offhand comment that he has misinterpreted and to accusing people of making stuff up (his ‘too good to be true’ file). I wouldn’t call that “polite and reasonable”. In fairness, I guess heddle gets pounced on and misinterpreted a lot too, but usually not by the same people.
Celtic_Evolution #198,
Actually, they don’t like me very much.
Actually, I was a PhD physicist before I was a Christian, not the other way around.
I would say that that is a fair comment.
I really don’t understand how religion can survive in a mind like that. Considering the mental faculties one imagines one would need to possess to understand University-level physics, the wall he’s managed to erect between his faith and his capacity for analysis must be a substantial one indeed.
Still, I can honestly say I don’t understand religious belief in anyone, having been fortunate enough to dodge the bullet of indoctrination as a child. If Heddle was brought up in an insanely pro-woo environment it’s going to be a lot harder for him to allow himself to think in a manner that might lead him to a point where, one day, he can’t rationalise for his faith any longer.
Balancing act indeed.
Grr. I can’t find the thread on which there was a long discussion with heddle about this. As I recall, when the conversation turned away from his own research and toward other fields of research, he went into wild contortions to argue that the Chicago Statement I linked to above was fully compatible with a scientific, evidence-based approach. Cringeworthy.
Heddle wrote:
Well, there goes my theory about his childhood indoctrination being responsible. How on earth one goes from PhD physicist to christian is beyond me – theism of some sort I could imagine, but christian?
Response to heddle@171 continued
4) My point was: “Many of the issues on which atheists disagree are matters of values, not of facts. Values can be rationally criticised, but not rationally determined.”
Your response:
“”Values” are the same as irrational assumptions. We have them, but they are not data driven. (If they are, then let’s pool the data and we can adopt the same rational values. Wouldn’t that be a trip?)
The bottom line is that some people just feel in their hearts that animal testing is wrong, and some feel it is right. What Nick called values, and he was right. But values are irrational–people cannot provide the data that are the basis for their gut feelings on the ethics of animal testing. It’s an irrational presupposition–just like a religious presupposition.”
First, you fail to draw the distinction between “irrational” and “non-rational”. Something is “non-rational” if it cannot be rationally justified; it is “irrational” if its negation or opposite can be justified on rational grounds. Values in general are non-rational, but holding particular conjunctions of values can be irrational. For example, if I hold simultaneously the values that non-human animals should be treated with the same respect as people, and that preserving human life should be given priority over everything else, my values are not just non-rational, but irrational.
This goes to a more general point: values cannot be rationally established, but they can be rationally criticised. One way to do this is to point out their incompatibility with other values (generally, in conjunction with facts – we can perhaps imagine worlds in which the two values I mentioned above are compatible, e.g. because both human and non-human life can always be preserved by prayer). Another way is to point out the likely consequences if the proposed value were generally adopted. Its proposer may not have thought through the consequences. A third is to note that the proposed “value” is in fact internally incoherent (“We ought to be evil”) or vacuous (“We ought to be good”).
So, contrary to what you want to claim, values are not in general “irrational”, and rational argument concerning them is possible – andindeed, routinely happens. Nonetheless, we are agreed that there can remain differences in values that are unresolvable by rational means.
However, to get to your final dishonesty, such values are not the same in general as religious “presuppositions” – if by that, you mean religious beliefs. First, as implied above, the rational approach to values does not regard them as to be held on “faith”, but subject to criticism and revision. Second, many religious beliefs, particularly in the Abrahamic religions, are factual and not value claims: there is a God, Jesus was raised from the dead, God dictated the Koran to Mohammed, there is a “soul” which survives human bodily death… Many other religious “presuppositions” which are value claims depend on these factual claims being true if they are to escape vacuity: that we should obey God’s commands is vacuous if there is no God.
I conclude that you set up a caricature of what atheists were supposed to believe, then knocked it down, in a futile attempt to show that disputes between atheists on non-religious matters undermine the claim that athiesm itself is a rational position. The caricature is so absurd that it is almost impossible to believe this was done honestly.
Heddle, catch the game last night? Lookin’ good this year…
From the post in heddle’s link (my word, man, you’re more prolix than Orac):
Heh. For a good laugh, read those sentences and then the Chicago Statement.
Baptist!
Sven,
I want to believe, but the offensive line makes me very nervous.
Wowbagger,
Me too. That’s why I’m a Calvinist–there’s no other explanation apart from brain damage.
Well, if we’ve got any papist trolls lurking about they’re probably going to show up and prove that they hate your sort more than they hate ours.
“Papist Trolls” is another good band name.
heddle:
Well, the point wasn’t that you, the person, would fit in at the DI… it’s more that you, as an intelligent scientist that still embraces christianity, would seem to be someone they’d look to.
But, based on your link, point taken. The DI is truly a haven of miscreants anyhow… you’re better off (and you probably already know that.)
Then it must indeed be the brain damage. ;)
K @ #101:
Unless you can demonstrate that the horror stories in your link are representative of Mormons in general (not the leadership; rank-and-file Mormons), I stand by what I said.
Only if you change “a bit” to “enough to make Reason weep.”
Brigham Young, L Ron Hubbard,
I now pronounce you Husband and Husband. You may now start demanding money from each other.
Ooohh, I wanna baptize dead Republicans into the Green Party!
Holbach – You win at heddle #172 – of all the asinine answers I’ve seen a christian moron give, that one is the gold medal standard.
Holy fucking shit. This is so fucking funny. I mean, I bet those dead mormons are really fucked up because some gays have posthumously said they are guy too.
I call first on Gay Marriage for the Dead!
I believe that the “Catholics and Mormons are Easy Targets” crowd needs to be reminded of THIS.
Top THAT, Pope Benedict and Mr. Holy Hinckley!
Err… don’t we have enough *clergy* here to ordain, bless, and give over to all official hoo-haw?
We’ve got the High Holy Father of All BigDumbChimps, some young wannabe whipper snappers that follow the FSM, pirate snotnoses! I think an odd Unitarian or two. And then me. Popess of POEE, and ordained pagan priestess of two sects/now atheist blesser of no one.
And what about you glitter and fairy dust covered gays? Those people want blessing. I say, let’s give it to them.
Golly gee. The dissertations are coming hard and fast on this thread. PZ, please limit comments to 500 characters. Please. Not for my sanity but for yours also.
I see the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are still around. They should surely be involved in this fine initiative to save dead Mormons from the toils of homophobia!
Anyone remember what Heddle’s a professor of?
I think he’s an astronomer.
He believes in the Anthropomorphic, fine-tuned universe which was created just so we could be like we are, where we are. Since we found massive amounts of frozen water on Mars, I’m not sure to his current argument for our ‘Privileged Planet’ that used to included a water sub-argument. I also forgot what happened to his argument when we found a universe full of organic molecules.
Back to what I can remember of his silly argument, he refuses to see that given any set of consistent starting conditions a predictable universe that would have different laws, but that’s not the insurmountable barrier to the formation of a life-supporting universe he asserts. He further refuses to recognize that, based on those laws, it’s perfectly possible for this universe, different than ours, to support life that would be, well, different than ours but perfectly consistent with the laws of the different universe.
He’s a classic case of someone who is smart, but unable to let go of his religious beliefs, actually begins to suffer from schizophrenic-like rigid-thinking: “it can’t be true, therefore it is not true”
BTW, I consider the belief in the Christian God to be a form of weak mental illness. It’s so damn improbable. No, I lie. It’s fucking impossible without violating everything known, or even reasonably imagined, about the goddamn universe, including it’s history, that it’s just crazy.
They can’t convert Joseph Smith to homosexuality; I already converted him to surfing.
Dr. Bad,
So what have you got against gay surfers?
Having argued with him for years, I really believe he has a mind case of schizophrenia and I think his statement is useful in refining/supporting my world-view that he is schizophrenic. I can’t prove it, obviously, so I don’t claim it as fact.
But every-time I see his rigidity, his privileged planet argument and his inability to accept any conflicting data and incorporate it into his incredibly flawed argument that flows from this irrational, rigid world-view…
And, yet, is (or was) a successful scientist…
I just keep coming back to ‘high functioning schizophrenic’ as best explantion to fit the data. And, the best things is, even if it’s not true, it is a useful model by which I can predict the pointlessness of engaging in any kind of argument with him.
So, now, I just ignore him. And his silly arguments. It’s like trying to argue with the guy who pushes the shopping cart downtown. You can tell him all day long there isn’t a CIA implant in his head. He’s just not going to believe you. No matter how calm and rational you are.
:::
Ooops. I did a terrible job of editing my post #227. Oh well.
Holbach @167:
heddle @172:
Holbach @180:
Note too that heddle makes his comment in apparent total disregard of the his own holy book. Of course, “why don’t you get your imaginary god down here to kick the crap out of us?” is essentially Elijah’s challenge to the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). How unfortunate for said prophets that Joe the Plumber wasn’t there to point out how illogical Elijah was being. It might have saved them being rounded up and killed when Baal failed to show.
noncarborundum,
You surely don’t expect a Christian to know much about the Bible? Excessively close study of that work seems to have been what set half the atheists here on the road to reason!
Nick Gotts:
QFT!
I’m joining Flatlander in his mass resignation campaign despite the backlash I may get from family and community. I’m taking some famous people with me who have by means of deep channeling and spurious visions called to me and beseeched me to UNDO their baptisms.
It seems they were up in heaven after their deaths, having a good ol time with fellow statesmen and celebrities and then all of a sudden they were whisked away by a team of grey gander Mormon Malitious Men into the Mormon heaven where they were forced to dine on fatty food and watered down koolaid while sitting on folding chairs for endless hours, and all the while old geezers droned on and on in weepy monotone voices.
Appalled at the tedium of Mormon heaven and the fear that theyd actually been cast into hell, they came to me in a dream, yea verily, a night vision and begged me to remove their names from the Mormon temple rolls and membership. I cannot sit by and leave people I love and admire to wallow in such mushroom soup covered blandness as exists in the Mormon heaven.
So in additon to my own resignation, I’m resigning for and in behalf of:
Benjamin Franklin
John Denver
Mother Theresa
Princess Diana
Gregory Peck
Marilyn Monroe
Audrey Hepburn
Walt Disney
The leading cast of “Wizard of Oz”
and
Jim Henson
I now have the necessary details to have their names removed from the church records. I will be adding their resignations to my own with the huge Exodus movement that many are participating in. Even if the church doesn’t follow up and recognize it, the symbolism of it makes me proud as punch.
Now when my ex boasts that he did the temple work for some obscure British royalty he claims is in his blood, (and who wants to claim those inbred freaks as relatives?) I get to boast to my grandkids that I UNBAPTIZED the likes of my previous list. Take that Wilford Woodruff!!!!
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archi … 20340.html
Ben Franklin came to me in a special vision, surrounded by none other than a bunch of french babes with powdered bosoms, and he said, “Ye olde broade, get thee hence to the offices of Greg Dodge and get me the hell out of this Mormon Heaven so I can get back to defiling these French Babes!!!”. Who am I to deny my favorite statesman his eternal wish?
Then Marilyn Monroe swayed her lovely size 14 hips into the dream, kissed ol Ben on the head and said, “Do me toooo!” but I’m pretty sure she meant to undo her too, but if I buttered my bread on that side, I’d do her too. But i don’t. Anyway, I consider it an honor to unbaptize that lovely woman.
And before I could say “My Fair Lady” Audrey Hepburn came in and also gave Ben a kiss on his gout sweated forhead and said in her lovely lilting voice, “Guvnuh, buy a posey?”… then she stammered and caught herself and sat gracefully beside my bed and with her long slender fingers she reached out a cool hand and touched my arm, and then she said, “FOR GAWD’S SAKE GET ME THE HELL OUT OF MORMON HEAVEN!!! THEY DON’T HAVE A SINGLE THING TO DRINK UP THERE!!!”.
She waved away like a dream and in came John Denver and he’d re-written “Annie’s Song” and replaced it with “Dana’s Song” and he sung it to me, even the high parts. I couldn’t deny him the right to go fly away from Mormon heaven and find some good pot in the Telestial Kingdom where most of the good folks I know are going to be having a massive party.
Jim Henson was right behind him and I just couldn’t resist my favorite puppeteer in the whole world. Would the creator of two of our favorite GAY Sesame Street Puppets Burt and Ernie, (or as my kids knew them, Ert and Bernie) want to spend an eternity in the kind of heaven that would deny foam rubber the right to happiness and blissful marriage? I think not! He was genuinely greatful and allowed me to fondle his beard.
Gregory Peck was more careful as he drifted in, very dignified and quiet but equally determined to beseech me to undo his baptism as well. I sat up in my bed in awe of how tall and hansome he still is, even after being dead over a decade, but that’s some fine bone structure and he’s held up well. He’s just too good for something as trite and silly as Mormon Heaven. I am happy to undo his work and consider it an honor.
The cast of the Wizard of Oz then skipped in, arm in arm. Toto was with them but since the Mo’s hadn’t done his baptism he had been having a great dog life in the Telestial Dog kingdom where he was allowed to bite wicked witches and piss on the emerald green rug whenever he wanted. They seemed to have had time to practice their song and sang in unison, “We’re off to be De-baptized, La la la,la la la, la la la la.”. It’s catchier in person. I’d heard that the wicked witch of the East was actually a former politico for the Republican party but even with that grave sin, I believe Mormon heaven is too henious a punishment. I took the whole kit and kaboodle, especially the kaboodle.
Finally, Princess Diana and Mother Theresa came together. This time Mother Theresa had been restored to her more youthful body and had grown tall and svelt, yea verily, upwards of 4′ 9″ and came to the hip of the lanky Di. Quite a pair those two. They both couldn’t stop telling dirty jokes and were quite the potty mouths but after some laughs and girlish giggling we got down to business. They nearly jumped on the bed with glee when I told them it was just a matter of weeks before I unbaptized them. They’re pretty excited because as you all well know, Single women in Heaven are assigned to greasy old prophets and geezers with dry ol’ sacs and nasty halitosis. It ain’t pretty. I was happy to do it for them.
That pretty much brings me back to the present. Whoo wee, it’s a busy day when you go about undoing the Lord’s work.
Feel free to choose your own celebrities but these folks have come personally to me and asked me to do their work, for time and all eternity. I dare anyone to prove they didn’t.
SAMPLE RESIGNATION LETTER
NOTE: BEFORE you send a resignation letter, be sure to read The Process and the Instructions
http://www.mormonnomore.com/.
“It seems there are alot of peole in this country who 1-don’t want to allow Freedom of Religion or 2-Freedom to participate in the democrat process.” -ajarizona
It never ceases to amaze me how creationists and wingnuts always think “Freedom of Religion” means freedom from criticism and then, as ajarizona does, ironically think that their “Freedom to participate in the democrat process” gives them carte blanche to force us through legislation to live under their inane “moral code”.
That’s what religious brainwashing does to a person’s reasoning abilities.
I love this! I was discussing this very topic with my Republican brother-in-law (who voted for Obama this year!) over a beer on Thursday night.
Brigham Young was totally a bear!
Hey, anybody else convinced that the white substance sent to several Mormon temples came from some evangelical fundamentalist? I mean, it’s just not the gay rights groups’ style.
I hereby commend Charles Manson and Joseph Mengele to Mormon baptism by proxy. They’ll fit right in! And may they share a large house together in Mormon heaven.
BTW, why is it that the Mormons do not allow non-members in their temples? I’m told that it is because of the pagan dancing in the nude. Yuck!
If you think that baptizing the dead is strange, they will also marry a live person (spinster, “confirmed bachelor”) to a dead person (who of course has been properly baptized).