I have arrived in Minneapolis, with a mere 3 hour drive to get home. However, I have also arrived home to a serious snowstorm, so I’ve been holed up in a hotel all night and am waiting for the stuff to clear a bit this afternoon. It’s aggravating.
And you guys have stuffed another everlasting thread entry with comments! Let’s start again.
This is a nice video that just keeps chugging along and also gives a glimpse of what it looks like out here in Minnesota right now. Except that I really, really wish I could get on a wonderfully civilized train and set off for home, instead of the barbarity of driving a car.
Well you know, they do say that Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
Moses keeps telling Pharaoh to let the Israelites
go from their bondage. Pharaoh refuses. Finally, according to the story, God comes up with a plan to break Pharaoh’s will. God sends an angel to kill all of the firstborn in Egypt. And we’re told this is exactly what happened. All through Egypt, mothers supposedly awoke to find their children dead.
Wouldn’t it have been easier to threaten to kill
Pharaoh? If he doesn’t respond, kill him. Suppose his successor maintained the bondage. Then kill that Pharaoh. How many Pharaohs need to be killed until one of them will listen and end the slavery? How do you like that plan? Isn’t that more humane than killing thousands of innocent babies?
I didn’t mention the reason why Pharaoh wouldn’t listen to Moses is because your sadistic monster of a god “hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” Real nice guy, that Yahweh. If there’s innocents to be killed, then Ol’ Yahweh’s up to his armpits in blood.
Which “group of people” are you accusing of “mak[ing] life harder on immigrants and poor people”?
OK. I couldn’t resist going back over there. I did resist commenting specifically to point out that Stephanie Z yet again repeated her lie. But I can’t resist quoting this from Greg’s latest comment:
Hilarious. It’s self-parody at this point.
Where is your source for this? There is a great deal of scholarship out there on these matters. And all of it must be carefully evaluated.
My source is my own careful evaluation of the scholarship on these matters: J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, Raymond Brown, Ched Myers, R.M. Helms, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman, Marcus Borg, Robert Price, off the top of my head. Whereas, you’ve got what you learned in Sunday school.
Jesus was the son of a carpenter from a backwater part of Judea. It makes sense that there would be no extrabiblical testimonies written about him in his day. But the fact that he has four accounts written about him, (including one by Luke who was not an eyewitness, but a physician who gathered the facts from people) speaks loudly about the reality of his person.
Apologetic garbage. What is your source for this crap, since you’re so intent on “careful evaluations”? The attributions of the canonical gospels to the named “evangelists” are spurious. Paul’s co-worker Luke did not compose the gospel with that name, and this is easy to establish on textual evidence alone. The fact that we have three additional accounts all based substantially for the basic outline of the narrative on the first, obviously symbolic and mythic/fictional account doesn’t speak at all about the reality of a historical figure; rather the opposite.
Plus, several of his disciples died rather than deny him. You don’t lay down your life for a belief in an imaginary friend.
You’re begging the question: if there was no such person, there were no disciples, just members of an apocalyptic sect. And yes, plenty of people throughout history have died in the name of imaginary entities. Anyway, Peter’s martyrdom, to which I assume you refer, is a lurid pious legend of the 2nd century, not attested to by any reliable near-contemporary source.
the Bible is the most well-attested ancient document from antiquity. We have original manuscripts and fragments going back even earlier than 50 years of the original.
We possess no autograph of any biblical text. Not a single one. You’ve been lied to. Better take that up with your Sunday school teacher.
Contemporary scholarship has corrected some of these “alterations” in favor of what was more likely to be the original.
Yes, and the criteria for what should be considered “more likely” to be “original” are often inconsistently applied and based on circular reasoning.
This is the breakdown I’ve heard. Only 5% of the New Testament’s text was in dispute, and in that 5%, there was nothing of real significance to change or alter the message.
There are over 30,000 manuscript variants. Most of these, indeed, are simple copying errors, but read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus to correct your erroneous belief that there are no variants “of real significance.”
The Jewish scriptures are fairly well attested as well. One of the concerns with the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls was that they would show that our working texts were not preserved correctly or altered. That was not the case. Instead, the Dead Sea scrolls affirmed the textual integrity. It was evidence that they have been well-preserved over the centuries.
Disasterously wrong. The DSS manuscripts containing biblical texts often disagree with the Masoretic text, sometimes agreeing with the Septaguint version, sometimes the Samaritan text, sometimes representing otherwise unattested readings. What the DSS showed, more than anything, is that, in antiquity, there was no “Bible” until very late, and that to talk about “original” texts and “final forms” is to make arbitrary judgements, based ultimately on modern religious sensibilities, not objective scholarship.
[…lame…]
It wasn’t that long ago that I learned this is hurtful to some. Since then, I’ve tried not to use it. Sorry.
you’re confused. The Gospel according to Luke is merely attributed to Paul’s buddy Luke by tradition. it’s not certain that he was the actual author, because the text was written anonymously.
do you know what the word “original” means? because as a matter of fact, we do not have any originals. the earliest copies of texts that we actually have are from decades after they are thought to have been written. and no two of them are identical. there’s more differences between the texts than there’s words in them!
you’ve heard wrong. let me repeat myself: there’s more differences between the earliest versions of the canon-texts than there’s words in them. and while a lot of them are the ancient equivalent of a typo, there’s also a large amount of alterations of meaning. not to mention that even though scholars have been working on figuring out what the original texts (which we DO NOT HAVE)said, there’s great disagreement about what is authentic and what’s a later addition/change. and most modern translated bibles do not follow these scholarly debates anyway, but rather translate the traditionally accepted versions.
uh…dude…fanatics die for their beliefs all the time. Heaven’s Gate cultists and Islamic suicide bombers also believe in the Real True Religion, since they are/were very willing to die for it as well.
I see that you also do no know what the word “axiom” means. An axiom is starting position from which to begin an argument. it is not something that you prove.
just because it is ancient fiction (and pretty easily proven to be so, since it steals a lot from older mythical stories), doesn’t make it not fiction. you’re doing that special pleading thing again. show some evidence that the Bible is more true about its supernatural content than the Book of Mormon.
this is a fallacy, based on your irrational conviction that for every problem, there’s only one “good” solution, and thus a magically “good” person would not have Free will*. In reality, unless you’re also omniscient**, even perfectly good people will have to make choices, and learn from the consequences of their choices. This also doesn’t explain why there are diseases and catastrophes: there’s better ways to teach a child responsibility than to murder their friends/pets. Especially when you’re an omnipotent, omniscient parent.
BTW, omniscience and Free Will are contradictions, too. either we have free will, or god knows everything. both simultaneously aren’t possible. and if they were, god could just make sure that only those people get born that would make the right choices anyway, thus avoiding a lot of unnecessary suffering.
except in the parts where he murders them, or tortures them, or uses them in a bet with the Devil…
God is a fucked up being; and in any case, promises of an afterlife don’t carry any weight unless you first give evidence that an afterlife is possible, and that it will be what you describe it to be, and not something else entirely (note: Pascal’s Wager is not a valid answer to this).
Mike, you’ve stopped having the discussion you said you wanted to have (i.e. showing us that your belief is based on rationality and evidence), and have slipped into promises of Pie In The Sky When You Die, and lots of special pleading.
You are miles away from showing yourself and your beliefs to be rational. As a matter of fact, it is becoming ever clearer that you simply believe because you want to, and because you don’t seem to have any knowledge at all of other religions, and the rest is rationalization.
—–
*incidentally, Real True Free Will doesn’t even exist, so it’s really not something that makes sense to use in an argument, to begin with
**which humans aren’t and were never meant to be, according to the bible: the only reason they can even tell good from bad is because they listened to the Serpent. God, actually did create mindless robots who obey everything anyone tells them, because they can’t know that obeying the Serpent is evil and obeying god is good.
Mike #495 wrote:
Spin-doctoring. What faith does, is commit the believer to becoming a spin-doctor, and figuring out how to reconcile their belief with any possible event or outcome.
Ask yourself what would have to happen, to change your mind? What could have been in the Bible, or in the world, that would have made you say that God doesn’t exist, or God isn’t good — if you’re already starting out with the assumption that He does — and He is — and your JOB is to always, always find some plausible reason why what happened, is only to be expected from a Good and Loving God? And the opposite, is also only what is to be expected, too.
Nothing. Your commitment to God is really a commitment to spin the results to make God look good.
There is a difference between looking at the evidence and deriving a conclusion, and having a conclusion, looking at the evidence, and seeing if they can fit together. Mike, they will always fit together.
Not because God is real and good, but because you are clever. And have a good heart, which doesn’t want to let “God” down.
What evidence do you have that this is the case?
When parents tell their children to do something or not do something, do the children turn into “robots, or beings unable to think or choose freely, or unable to really live or love”?
In a God who is incompetent, but willing to make it up to those he destroyed?
The Bible tells us that God causes and orders oppression.
And others suggest that God causes suffering and oppression so as to show off.
How about those terrible choices made because the chooser had no knowledge of the actual consequences?
If you can’t read God’s mind, how can you possibly know this?
If there’s no empirical evidence for any of it, why have faith in it at all?
But I would like to point out an unfortunate exception. On a recent thread, a commenter called “shonny” described Ben Stein as “a living argument for the Holocaust.” I, and a couple of other people, criticised him for this grossly offensive and tasteless remark. But he didn’t apologise (or even bother to respond), and the matter doesn’t seem to have been discussed further. – Walton
Walton’s quite right here, and it wasn’t the first time shonny has said such things (no, I don’t have a link, but I recall SC expressing well-merited disgust after one of them).
Gack, some type of blockquote failure in #506. The first sentence should be in blockquotes.
Mike,
On the subject of genocide, remember the famous story of the Walls of Jericho, often told in children’s books and Sunday School, of how Joshua caused the fall of the city of Jericho by marching round and round it with his priests, blowing their trumpets? Here’s how the bible describes the final moments:
That of course is where the Sunday School lesson finishes. All very rousing, epic stuff to be sure. But here’s how the story continues in the very next verse:
In other words, Joshua and his army carried out indiscriminate mass slaughter against all the inhabitants and even the animals of a city, including a presumably large number of unarmed women and children, at the express command of God. Odd that the Sunday School teachers don’t go just one verse further, don’t you think? Or perhaps not.
I remember that thread, and I think you did as well. I tried to find it when Walton referred to this more recent comment, since I think the problem is that shonny makes these comments very sporadically and on threads about a number of unrelated issues and they might individually go unnoticed. I thought that if I could show that it was a pattern, he might be banned. But I couldn’t find it, even after I spent quite a bit of time looking. If anyone can come up with the earlier incident(s), please link to them to bring this to PZ’s attention. (I think there should be a one-strike rule for comments like that, but that’s probably difficult in practice.)
I’m a computer science graduate with no formal training in philosophy. I can drop the lingo and just state it in plain English if you like.
When you say things like God is not a liar, that’s assuming a nature of God. You’re in effect turning God into a human, what David Hume would charge you with anthropomorphising nature. The great problem with doing so is that our personal traits don’t just exist, but are the product of millions of years of evolution. We are social creatures that have developed social traits, intelligence doesn’t exist ex nihilo but evolved gradually. Language is an evolved trait, communication is an evolved trait. How can we possibly put human nature as God’s nature when we know that human nature is a product of evolution, and moreso that it’s a product of being a social creature? That doesn’t fit with the idea of a single omnipotent, omniscient omnipresent entity.
The a posteriori necessity comes because whatever attributes we place to God we need to be able to justify. We can’t just say “God exists” and then think that means a god that can think or feel or interact inside time – these might be desirable traits for a god to have, but it’s not meaningful in any way to discuss them. This is why you need to show that such a being exists and happens to have the same properties that we evolved. Otherwise you’re just speculating and you have no basis for any rationality of your position.
Very well said, Sastra. That’s it in a nutshell. The outcome of so much spin doctoring troubles me. One trains one’s brain to function this way, and the consequences are not good. Even outside of religion, the brain continues to function in this crippled manner, thinking up excuses for joining the latest multi-level marketing scheme, shoring up prejudice against gays, and pasting a smile and a homily over difficult situations. Spin-doctoring teaches you to hide from yourself. Ultimately, it keeps you from growing up into a fully-fledged adult.
Joffan #483
I think you’ll find Mussolini got out eventually.
At least in the book I read he did.
Dear Brother Mike,
I did ask you politely earlier (erm… sorry about the ‘fuck off’ at the end) to go and witness on some other blog where you would cause less damage to my convert-the-atheist mission.
Now do you understand why?
With every one of your failed attempts to rationalize the irrational, the hole you are digging gets deeper. Many atheists on this blog know more about the Bible than 99% of Christians (evidently much more than you do). THAT IS WHY THEY ARE ATHEISTS! They took the time to sit down, read God’s Holy Word and attempt to understand how it originated and why, and to reconcile its myriad contradictions and plain nasty bits. And (HEY PRESTO!) their faith was punctured like a porcupine’s condom.
The bible is full of contradictions, it is terribly written, its sources are obscure, the seemingly coherent leather-bound book you clutch in your hand and use to beat your children, is simply a man-made collage of the least discredited texts. There is no infallibility, no completeness, no guiding intelligence above the level of Sarah Palin writing on her hand.
I did try to tell you your strategy was wrong. The only thing likely to persuade an unbeliever is an injection of irrational fear of death and punishment at moments when they are weak and suffering. Admittedly this is unlikely, but fear has always been the best weapon of the faithful. You are wasting your time trying to defend God and account for His excesses and cruelties. He doesn’t need the help of a credulous fuckwit. There’s no verse in the Bible that says: “Thou shalt make up palatable explanations for the terrible things I do and the suffering I inflict upon my Creation.” It is actually insulting of you (and blasphemous) to pretend to speak on God’s behalf. Nor should you promise love and compassion or any good thing. Such decisions are God’s to make. The best you can do is keep on smiling when the Big Guy smites you and your family wantonly and cruelly with disease and destruction, because at least you’ll have the security of knowing it is part of His wonderful plan for your life. Either that, or he just likes seeing you squirm on the divine griddle.
I suppose you may as well keep digging now that you’ve done full damage. It entertains the atheists and sharpens their arguments, even if your own sound increasingly like special pleading. You are fast approaching that good old squawk—”I know God is real because when I think long enough about him I get a funny feeling in my tummy”—which tends to precede the sign-off of a departing Prayer Warrior. Don’t forget to tell the atheists you are praying for them when you scuttle off to do more important things (like pull your head out of your ass) as there’s nowt so illuminating as condescension in defeat.
Then again, a few more shovels of shit and you might discover a brain and free will at the bottom of your hole.
Yours in sympathy for your foolishness
Smoggy Batzrubble
Missionary to the Atheists.
oh, I missed this bit earlier:
:-)
actually, I think I like “learning quickly” more than “gaining quickly”…
…does this knowledge make me look fat…?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/religion_adaptation_or_by-prod.php#comment-2263883
Still laughing.
Are you saying my dear friend Jadehawk, OM is a fathead? You take that back or…or…or…I’ll do something terrible to myself that I’ll regret later.
Smoggy,
Jadehawk said something terrible about herself and, in a fit of idiocy, I promised I’d do something painful stupid to myself. Could you or Floyd come by stately Himself Manor sometime in the near future? I feel a Prince Albert* would be appropriate.
*SWF
Here’s something I’m thinking of posting in the tranwreck thread at Greg’s blog.
The context is Stephanie criticizing the riff I stole from Blind Squirrel (here) and used there. (Without attribution, so far.) I insinuated that Greg had a drinking problem in much the same way that Greg seemed to many people to insinuate that SC was antisemitic, or at least carelessly appeared so.
I figure it might be appreciated more here, but feedback is welcome before I post it there. If I do. I dunno.
—
Stephanie:
You may be right that I was unduly vague in a way that couldn’t be checked out. I think that matters less than you make it out to, and the parallel mostly holds, for a couple of reasons.
One is that we have repeatedly asked you and Greg for specifics, and not gotten them. Instead we’ve gotten (from Greg) condescending dismissals about how he doesn’t need to cooperate with trolls like us. We don’t think we’re just trolling, and certainly weren’t when this thing blew up. We were raising serious issues sincerely, and we still basically are, despite the ongoing heatedness and snark.
You, Stephanie, have repeatedly made claims to the effect that we got the specifics that we asked for; Greg has recently acknowledged that we haven’t.
If you think it’s so easy to find the specific offending comments from SC, showing that she’s either antisemitic or easily mistaken by the purported “objective people” for such, please, by all means, point them out.
I’ve been over the thread about pissing on Henry Gee’s rug repeatedly, and I honestly can’t find them—except perhaps one, which Greg did quote, which I think he misinterpreted.
Here’s one crucial exchange that I think a lot of crap fell out of, where it appeared to several people that Greg was doing a Glen Beck, and to several others (including me) that he wasn’t doing it intentionally, but really stuck his foot in it:
When I read that, I literally gasped a little and said “oh, fuck.” Not because it’s obviously a bad thing to say, but because it was non-obviously a very bad thing to say at that point in the conversation. I knew it could be quite plausibly interpreted in very different ways, and guessed it would be.
To somebody who wasn’t following SC’s line of argument, and did not trust her, it could sound like SC was just being simplistically dismissive of subtle points of what Greg was saying, and that he was pointing out that she sounded bad. I don’t think that was the case.
To somebody who was, like me, it could sound like Greg was missing SC’s point and misrepresenting it; his statement was unjustified even as a claim about other people’s perceptions. Hence the subsequent request for specifics.
To somebody who didn’t particularly trust Greg, and was familiar with his multilayered, often ironic and snarky style, which his supporters here have pointed out, it could seem like a serious Glen Beck dick move—of course he’s not saying that, but reasonable people reasonably could think that. (Hence the subsequent outrage and demand for specifics.)
On one hand, Greg did indeed deny that he thought that—twice, even.
On the other hand, Glen Beck does that too.
And as several of Greg’s supporters have pointed out in this discussion, that’s a common sleazy tactic among antisemites and their ilk. As has been noted, that sort of rhetoric thrives on insinuation and plausible deniability.
And Greg didn’t just comment about a possible appearance of antisemitism—he talked about how “her commentary ” (note the vagueness) “together with this statement could lead some people to assume that you have some serious antisemitic issues to deal with“. (My emphasis, admittedly, but I found the phrase striking, especially in a context where SC was being painted as rather over-the-top kooky.) That could reasonably suggest to “objective people” that Greg is intentionally twisting the knife somebody he thinks deserves it, and who deserves no better treatment, such that the disclaimers might just window dressing.
Given the overall level of dismissiveness and snark from Greg and you and your ilk here, why should anybody who doesn’t already agree with you trust Greg or you not to pull a Glen Beck? We think that you’ve been rather evasive, and unfair, and maybe willfully so, justifying it with condescending dismissiveness toward us stupid trolls.
Now I realize that you think you’ve been fair and evenhanded, and only answered snarkily when spoken to snarkily—you think you’ve only “matched our tone” when provoked.
We honestly don’t think so. We think that all along, you’ve been more dismissive and snarky than we have, and that we’ve mostly displayed a serious engagement with the issues, which you haven’t. All along, we think, we’ve sometimes traded snark for snark, but we have also made points and arguments that have mostly gone unaddressed—some of them over and over. We’ve been arguing in good faith more than it appears to us that you have, and to us that’s an essential point of civility.
(For example, you and I had a little exchange where instead of addressing substantive disagreement, you resorted to telling me I should “grow up.” Then, and only then did I say that you should “have your condescending head examined”; I was trying to communicate, however snarkily, that I was matching your condescending tone, when you were being unduly snarky and dismissive . But of course you got bent out of shape, in a way that you apparently think I shouldn’t when you tell me I should “grow up.” Sorry, Stephanie, but it doesn’t work that way. If you tell me to grow up, when I don’t think that’s an appropriate response, I’ll tell you you’re nuts for thinking that that’s an appropriate thing to say to me. Maybe I’m wrong, and do need to “grow up,” but if you go there, that’s what I’ll do; that’s how dismissive snark works; don’t dish it out if you can’t take it. Likewise for Greg and his tortured puppy analogy. If he wants respect, he’s got to show a little respect.)
The request for specifics about what SC said that is so “antisemitic”-sounding is one of those things. That request is not going away, and your repeated claims that the point has been addressed sound like convenient revisionist history to us.
I for one have skimmed through the older thread repeatedly, rereading everything that seemed relevant, and I still don’t know what you’re talking about.
That makes it extremely annoying when you keep acting as though that’s a settled issue, and that SC is kook who deserved the condescending and dismissive treatment she got. (Not primarily in the above-quoted exchange, although I think that marked a turn for the worse.)
Especially since Greg raised the same specter in this thread, saying
He said that objective people might interpret things as low level but definite anti-semitism.
Sorry, but that sounds a whole lot like a Glen Beck insinuation to me, trying to make it sound reasonable and even justified to draw such a definite conclusion, without quite saying so.
If that is not what Greg meant to imply, and I give him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t, his phrasing was spectacularly poorly chosen. That is ironic for somebody who’s in the process of condescending about sensitivity to other people’s perceptions, while simultaneously marginalizing his own critics who sincerely see things differently. Quite a fuckup, IMHO.
I think it’s instructive to look at J.B.’s entirely reasonable response to my intentionally Greg-like comment about Greg’s possible drinking problem, which was meant to resemble his comments about SC’s supposed apparent serious antisemitic issues.
Note especially what J.B. chose to quote from me, to respond to:
Well. that’s exactly how many of us felt about the possible insinuation that S.C. might be “antisemitic,” or even appear to any reasonable observer to have serious antisemitic issues. Holy crap, Greg stuck his foot in it there, even if it was an accident, and even if people were a little paranoid to take it badly. (It’s not like Greg and you and DuWayne haven’t demonstrated a similar level of paranoia toward critics here, IMHO. Cut SC a little slack!)
We’ve known her for years, and we’ve know that she’s among the first to soberly drive the drunks home—er, to jump on antisemites, both at Pharyngula and on her own largely anti-racist anti-oppression blog. Opposing things like “antisemitism” (anti-ethnic Jewishness, really) is largely what SC is about.
IMHO, that’s a worse accusation—or insinuation, or apparent insinuation—than suggesting that objective observers might reasonably conclude that Greg has a drinking problem. I suspect that for most people here, racism is morally worse than alcoholism, and that goes double for anybody who knows and likes SC.
Notice how J.B. responded. J.B. didn’t bother to ask for evidence, much less specifics. J.B.—entirely reasonably, I think—immediately said that the insinuation was outrageous. Whether it was an accusation or an insinuation is not relevant. Whether I had specific evidence wasn’t immediately relevant either. I’d made an apparently below the belt, entirely uncivil statement, and I should fucking well take it back and apologize. If the insinuation was in fact justified, that’s my problem—implicitly, the insinuation was so outrageous that it could be assumed to be unjustified, and the burden of proof was squarely on me.
And I think that’s exactly right.
It’s true. Greg, I’m sorry for the over-the-top insinuation. (And J.B., I’m especially sorry for playing you that way; I hope you can understand why I did it.)
By the same token, I think Greg should have apologized to SC, who was not terribly paranoid to take his statement the way she did, and to be outraged, as J.B. was, vicariously, for Greg.
Greg should have quickly realized that however unintentionally, he’d Glen Becked SC in the minds of not only SC but several lookers-on. (This was pointed out to him by several people.)
But Greg chose not to do that, and instead Greg and some others chose to vilify SC even further, making her out to be a kooky troll who deserved no such sensitivity.
That had the effect of grossly compounding the fuckup. If your response to Glen Becking someone is to make them out to be a kook, that may suggest in the minds of “objective people,” who are looking on without appropriate context, that the person in question might in fact be a despicable kook of the sort in question.
Yikes.
In this thread, Greg has chosen to call SC’s response a tantrum.
I don’t think it was. It was very similar to J.B.’s response to me, with its outrage and talk about owing an apology, and I don’t think anybody’s suggested that that was a “tantrum.”
IMHO, what’s going on is that Greg fostered a misunderstanding, and instead of giving an appopriate apology, he amplified the offense with dismissive contempt.
I also think that what Greg and his supporters have been doing in these two threads largely amounts to an extended, slow-motion tantrum of sorts about not getting the respect and consideration they think they deserve, while dishing out scorn and contempt for their critics.
Dear Brother ‘Tis,
We are on our way!
Look out for our unmarked van with the giant model of a pierced penis on its roof.
But are you sure a Prince Albert is sufficient penance for your transgression?
At the very least I think you need an inverted Prince Albert with scrotal studs.
Even better might be the Queen Victoria, which guarantees a high collar, a glans that turns an attractive shade of mourning black, and the guarantee of complete chastity for the rest of your natural life.
I wouldn’t recommend the Princess Diana though. Not unless you want something killed in your tunnel.
Yours in genital decoration
Smoggy
Mike (#469)
Apparently your “we” doesn’t include, say, a Haitian woman dying of sepsis after having a limb or two crushed when her house collapsed and killed her children. Her suffering is just god doing good for the rest of us. Worse, if this woman’s agony is meant to be a message, it’s one so vague it would seem to be nothing more than the aftermath of the sort of impersonal natural disaster we would expect from a godless, uncaring world. What kind of loving god would murder and torture people for the sake of others’ worldly delight in ways that are more easily explained by god simply not existing? Fuck that. That’s evil and your willingness to excuse and praise a god who would do that is revolting.
Oh, so now he’s rescuing the people he maybe-did/maybe-didn’t put in need of rescue? Sounds like god’s incompetent as well as evil.
No, you consider his actions (rather, what you think are his actions) as good because you already believe he is good. Murdering an entire city including the poor whose neglect supposedly pissed off god in the first place is not “good.” Murdering the entire world except for Noah’s family and a few animals is not “good,” especially not when the guy doing it is omnipotent. Appealing to ineffability doesn’t work here because omnipotence means the dude has to have alternatives that don’t rely on the suffering and death of innocents.
Try tackling some of the dozen or so examples already given of how this continuity is a figment of your presupposition.
Your “evidence” can’t be told apart from confirmation bias and is thus useless.
I dunno, Paul — I’m not sure there is anything one can say at this juncture that would a) change the minds of anyone involved in this debacle, or b) lower the emotional heat of the discussion. I was following the exchanges for a while, but it just got so bizarre and insular and toxic that I had to quit reading for my own sanity.
Sadly, I have pretty much written off Greg at this point. I used to like his stuff, but his reaction in this whole mess has been inexplicable. Perhaps I’ll check back in on his blog in six months or so, but right now it’s just too toxic.
Nerd #499,
But that doesn’t work because you know very well that God (the one true God who created the universe with everything in it) only shows himself to those who presume that he exists (and have absolutely zero doubt about it).
The precise mechanism by which he shows himself has something to do with quantum tunneling in the 7th dimension of string theory.
So your strongest proof will come once you remove all of your creeping doubts, by concentrating on the lack of evidence, instead of constantly wishing for no result.
You can try, Paul, but by this time everyone, especially Greg, is too entrenched in their positions to admit to any wrong-doing.
Smoggy, I think I’ll stay with the simple, plain, straightforward PA. I’ll have enough trouble explaining to the wife why I had to have one without embellishments.
Maybe he just wanted to find a way to get more traffic / comments on his blog.
“Nature and nature’s law lay hid in night.
God said: Let Newton be!
And all was light –”
– Alexander Pope, quoted by David M.,OM
“It did not last; the Devil howling ‘Ho!
Let Einstein Be!’ restored the status quo.” – John Collings Squire
“God Rolled his dice, to Einstein’s great dismay:
‘Let Feynman Be!’ and all was clear as day.” – Jagdish Mehra
He’s made me drop his blog from my favorites.
Paul W.,
You rock. I’m touched that you’ve put so much thought into this, think what you’ve said is accurate, and absolutely think you should post it. I’m just…really and deeply touched. Nothing to add.
assuming for the sake of argument that there is a creator god, there is no possible way it could “love” us or care even the slightest what we do. If it does exist, it’s either malevolent or indifferent. – Mr.T
I disagree: it could just be interested in the game, running “cheats” or doing run-time interrupts occasionally (miracles) – or could just have left it running and forgotten about it when a friend called round or it’s parent called it down for supper.
When are people like Mike going to learn what an axiom is?
He knows what an axiom is. He just doesn’t wanna do it. Because like he says, “You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist any more than I can prove that he does.”
That and he probably thinks it would be letting in too much “devil thoughts” if he took up the axiom that god does not exist.
Tulse, ‘Tis,
Yeah. Well, sometimes I have to try, because after all, Someone Is Wrong On The Internet, dammit.
So I posted it there. (At least posting it here let me see a couple of typos and italic fails I’d missed in a quick preview.)
SC, no problem; glad you liked it.
All we can do is make a rational case based on evidence.
Oh okay, well the only case you have made for that so far is that you talk to invisible people that you don’t know if they’re lying to you or not! Otherwise you’re just explaining why it looks like there isn’t your god anywhere.
I don’t know whether anyone here reads Cranmer’s Blog, but on Monday this week he commented on Stephen Fry’s criticism of the RCC in the Intelligence Squared debate last year. I wonder whether anyone here would like to join in?
Comments re article “Stephen Fry on the Roman Catholic Church”
Ah, The Thread!
What can one say about The Thread?
Everybody, really, but especially (at the moment) Sastra, CJO, Paul W. and Smoggy:
*clenched-tentacle salute*
SC, you win in a sweep; fuck ’em.
23685
But 295 comments on his post.
And I bet you there’ll be more threads of this type to come…
Paul W, it’s good if probably tl;dr for many, but I suspect “We don’t think we’re just trolling, and certainly weren’t when this thing blew up.” is begging to be misinterpreted.
I’m just bemused that I was told to go away (presumably, not banned-as-such, but I shan’t test that) for parodying Greg’s rhetorical technique with him and his blog as the subject.
“All we can do is make a rational case based on evidence.”
Oh okay, well the only case you have made for that so far is that you talk to invisible people that you don’t know if they’re lying to you or not! Otherwise you’re just explaining why it looks like there isn’t your god anywhere.
I.e. all you’re doing is presenting the lack of evidence, and explaining why it’s a lack of evidence. (Except for the mysterious voices you hear.)
BTW:
If he had said “being seen/interpreted as” instead of “being,” my response would have been different, more querying. That’s potentially a subject that can be fruitfully discussed. I don’t, though, find it tricky not to be racist or antisemitic as I oppose stupid unfounded beliefs or the practices of organized religions.
Paul W, I think what you wrote is entirely understandable and makes perfect sense.
I also think that neither Greg nor Stephanie will understand a word of it.
Considering that the entirety of the discussion seems to be taking place in the echo chamber that is Greg’s ass – with both his and Stephanie’s heads inserted (and with room for DuWayne to cram his in as well from time to time) – it’s not that much of a surprise.
(No connection to anything being discussed, but I like it. Does mention trains…)
That’s why I suggested everyone simply lay off and leave him to his echo chamber. Him and his threadcops have made absolutely no effort to understand the points being made or even to attempt intellectual honesty (Stephanie Z continued to blatantly lie after being called on it multiple times).
I can’t in good conscience continue giving him incentive to continue trolling. So I refuse to even read the thread anymore, regardless of how wrong or dishonest several people on the internet are.
My prediction is that Greg/Stephanie’s response, if any, to Paul W. will be to say that of course they’ve pointed out exactly what they mean, and they’ve been entirely clear about it, and if anyone can’t understand that it’s the readers’ own fault for being so stupid as to not see the completely obvious beautiful shapes and forms within Greg’s Pollack-like barfing all over the webpage.
Well, they might not word it exactly like that.
KG #533
‘it’s parent called it down for supper.’
One of my favorite songs about trains:
Another train song sung by someone we usually don’t associated with the song:
I wonder what the rate of coincidence is among those who suffer from Dunning-Kruger and those who use tone as a pretext to dismiss and/or disengage from an argument.
Train songs, and not this yet? Sacrilege.
Yahweh may have been a boy…or was that just a Star Trek episode?
No I’m right, it’s an actual hypothesis (and has been linked here before), although I’m not really qualified to say whether the idea has any merit.
Mike, any response to my #371?
Carlie #547
That’d be my guess as well.
Paul w/o W #546
Agreed.
Opposing things like “antisemitism” (anti-ethnic Jewishness, really) is largely what SC is about. – Paul W.
This is the only point I wondered about in this admirably cogent and stunningly polite (I could never do that!) attempt to get some sense from the Ladenites, Paul. There is a distinction between “anti-ethnic Jewishness” and antisemitism, although it may not be relevant here (but if not, I’d just leave the parenthesised phrase out). If someone just had a prejudice that Jews are stupid, or mean, or spendthrifts, or too-clever-by-half, they would be guilty of the first, but not the second in the strict sense. The term “antisemite” was adopted by 19th century antisemites themselves, and it included, from that point and indeed long before it was named, belief in the Jewish conspiracy, for which point I refer you to That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Anti-Semitic among other possible sources. The “conspiracy” theme is what makes antisemitism a very specific form of racism, and what makes it possible for antisemites to believe that the Rothschilds and Trotsky were in league.
They gave him his orders down at Monroe, Virginia,
Saying, “Steve, you’re way behind time;
This is not 38, but it’s Old 97,
You must set her into Spencer on time.”
He turned around, saying to his black, greasy fireman,
“Just heave in a little more coal,
And when we reach that White Oak Mountain,
You just watch Old 97 roll.”
It’s a mighty rough road from Lynchburg to Danville,
And Lima’s on a three-mile grade;
It was on that grade that he lost his air brakes,
You can see what a jump he made.
He was going down grade, doing ninety miles an hour,
When his whistle began to scream;
They found him in the wreck, with his hand on the throttle.
He was scalded to death by the steam.
A message arrived at Washington Station,
And this is what it read:
Those two brave men who pulled Old 97
Are lying in Danville, dead.”
Oh, ladies, you must take warning,
From this time on and learn:
Never speak harsh words to your true loving husband,
He may leave you and never return.
(Or maybe this one, with the lyrics onscreen and trainwreck video…)
If that is what he’s doing, it’s repulsive.
CPP teased me about this in the past – that I didn’t appreciate the “game.” I did, but whatever – I’m not playing (even if I want/need to support myself through my blog, I’m not). Honestly, CPP called me “Salty Douche,” which I thought was funny, but I’m not using my blog to participate in this. I remember in Classics reading I think Pliny the Younger, who at one point faced a charge of alienating people, and responded that it was more important to him for people to respect him in the long run than like him in the short run. I don’t remember the context, and it/he may have been disgusting, but the general sentiment always stuck with me.
Let me explain why I came on here in the first place.
1) I did come on intending to present my views and understanding and attempt to defend them. I believed my beliefs to be fairly rational and built on evidence, so I wasn’t too worried. Rest assured that I know I’ve heard some good challenges here that will get me thinking. But part of my goal here was to continue my process of learning. I’ve been out of Seminary for five years and I was looking for ways to continue my exploration of some of these matters. Testing my answers to questions by putting them through the fire seemed like, and still seems like a good idea. So no regrets.
2) I also came on here because I hate the war; the war between Faith and Reason; Creationists; Atheists; Intelligent design proponents… Whenever I listen to the different sides, I am horrified by the lack of respect and the misrepresentation of arguments (on both sides). We have our cannons levelled at each other to the point that no one hears each other or gets anywhere. When I heard Dr. Myers talk about his experience of coming to an Intelligent Design conversation, and how poorly he was treated, it made me angry! My pipe dream is to one day see some of these scientist sit down in a room together in an atmosphere of respect, to talk through the evidence, and learn from each other.
I do thank many of you for the respectful manner in which you responded to my arguments. I certainly have significant holes in my studies in a number of areas. (And no Carlie, I have not done any indepth study of Hindu scriptures. I have read some of the book of Mormon, and read a few things, but most of my knowledge of other scriptures comes from a more general study of their faith and belief systems.)
But at the same time, I do have to say this. There is a lot of solid scholarship out there to explain (or dissect) the integrity of Scripture. In Seminary, we listened to a number of Arguments from different thinkers. The presentations I heard from scholars like N.T. Wright, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris seemed to treat the evidence fairly, and asked the tough questions. Because they believed that process was important. But they also followed the evidence to conclusions that I found very rational.
I guess, I’m wondering if you’d like me to stay on here, or if you’d prefer to send me home laughing at my back.
Smoggy, I know what you think. Don’t bother.
I guess if I have one final sermon for you, it’s this: please continue to believe in and practice the Scientific Method. And stay humble in that pursuit. Never be so certain of your position that you become deaf to legitimate challenges.
This is what the church did with Aristotle’s cosmology, and it was a huge mistake. Galileo’s theory challenged a worldview that had stood for well over a thousand years, so it was logical that there would be some resistance. But the church had allowed it to become so entangled in Aristotle’s cosmology that it became defensive and abrasive in the face of rational challenges.
We need more clarity and less blindness; more listening and less shouting. Then we can explore the truth together in a healthy way.
Let me know if you’d like me to continue conversing here.
Mike. aka. Fresh meat.
Nick,
Ugh. Good point.
The scare quotes and translation are because the term “antisemitic” is often used to refer specifically to either anti-ethnic Jewishness or anti-Jewish racism, even by Arabs, who are semites. (So calling them antisemites is ludicrous, unless you’re implying that they’re self-hating or something.)
I don’t know a good phrase that makes it clear what we’re talking about, and since the term is ambiguous and the actual categories overlap—some anti-Jews are racist toward all semites, hating Arabs too, but many specifically have it in for “Jews” in some essentialist sense—I dunno what to say except that I need to go walk my poor floppy-eared dog before she shits on the carpet and I have to squeeze her ears ’til she cries.
(Oh yeah and this… all those bad things? SC’s agin ’em.)
Press Secretary Gibbs mocks Palin’s crib note
Um…
Sven…
The wind is howling and the snow is blowing and…
it’s OK. You’re a true friend. Thanks.
Mike, I don’t know how long you’ve been hanging around reading here, but we (as the singular hivemind we so obviously are, ha!) don’t have any problems with Christians discussing theology. As I mentioned earlier, many of us come from very religious backgrounds and as such still have very close family members who are deeply immersed in religions of various kinds, so it’s not like we think Christians have cooties. The only real “rules” of engagement here go something approximately like this:
1. Have an actual discussion – don’t just spout points randomly without ever addressing how other people try to engage you on those points,
2. don’t get sidetracked into argument fallacies
3. CITE YOUR SOURCES, ALWAYS, and
4. Don’t get your feelings hurt if you violate any of the previous 3 rules and get ripped to shreds for it. It’s not personal, it’s about the validity and support behind your statements. And what seems like a pile-on is just the numerical result of the fact that there are dozens of regular commenters to only one of you.
From what I’ve seen in the years I’ve been reading and commenting here, those are the areas that most Christians fall into and then leave, claiming we’re meanies. Oh, and I guess the last one would be 5. Don’t waste all of our and your time by using arguments that have already been discussed ad nauseum, which is why I suggested Talk Origins as a starting point. It looks pretty rough-and-tumble, but there are underlying rules of civility that keep the focus on the topic at hand.
And don’t be hard on Smoggy. He is a category of commenting all unto himself. :)
The problem with Creationism and ID is that it’s non-science masquerading as science. How can scientists respect what is completely underhanded and motivated purely by religion?
They aren’t talking science, they are trying to undermine science, yet they are expecting equal treatment. How does that work?
I can only speak for myself but I don’t mind if you stay. Like I said earlier, compared to some of the believers we’ve had here you tend to be at least open minded and somewhat reasonable (though that’s faint praise). Some of us however would refer that you do less preaching and do more engaging in dialogue.
Also, don’t take the harsh language here too personally. The culture here is rough and takes some getting used to. I have found the high standards for evidence and reasoning more than make up for it.
Oh, fuck – I think it was Cicero.* Bleh.
*I have a complex relationship with Cicero, but I don’t like citing him out of context.
It’s yours now. I give it to you freely. Go forth and fight the good fight. Us squirrels like to stay in the trees and function as snipers whereas you don’t seem to mind a bar room brawl.
I’ll just sit here and watch while I preen my sniny pelt.
BS
If anyone needs a light-hearted laugh, check out Mooney’s “build bridges” post on scienceprogress from a few days ago. Read the comments. It’s not just those people he thinks we can build bridges to, but the people that are delusional enough to inspire that level of insanity. Mooney’s well on his way to joke status, with even his previous
Pharyngula trollstaunch defender, Orac, no longer defending his idiocy.There is a lot of solid scholarship out there to explain (or dissect) the integrity of Scripture. In Seminary, we listened to a number of Arguments from different thinkers. The presentations I heard from scholars like N.T. Wright, D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris seemed to treat the evidence fairly, and asked the tough questions.
Apologetics is not “solid scholarship,” but the practice of assuming a conclusion and then marshalling evidence for it while ignoring everything that is ambiguous, contradictory and troubling. The men you cite here are apologists first, and scholars second. If you truly wish to “explore the truth,” I recommend to you the books of the secular scholars* whose names I listed in my last comment.
*This does not mean “atheist scholar”. Most of the scholars I named are Christians of one stripe or another. But their methods are academic and in tune with the secular practices of anthropology, history and literary criticism.
Mike (#558)
Which says to me that you don’t understand evolution or creationism or science. Or politics, for that matter.
Why don’t you go take however long as you need to think about what answers you’ve gotten so far. If you feel like coming back, try introducing one concept at a time. Really take the time to explore that one concept before moving on to others.
We don’t “believe in” the scientific method. And we don’t need you to tell us to keep using it. It’s really insulting to “sermonize” this way, especially considering how many people here are professional scientists. (Not myself, but many others.)
Well, I don’t care either way, but you’re not making a dent on us, though we’re willing to consider proper evidence. I hope it’s at least clear to you now that what you consider evidence isn’t something we can honestly accept. And you’re not making a reasonable effort at challenging your own beliefs by presenting so many bad apologetics shotgun style, hence my suggestion at keeping a narrower focus.
Mike, it’s not what we want, it’s what you choose. This is a free-speech zone.
I note that you presented a claim which I critiqued and to which critique a response is pending.
Care to address my #371?
Incidentally, Rorschach, unaware of the context, immediately called me on the inappropriateness of the comment. Some echo chamber this place is!
BS
That is part of the scientific process. We question everything. Unlike religion.
How much of that is is from people who had a vested interest in making it correct for the program you were in, not true academic type studies? You may have had selection bias occurring, and the evidence isn’t as good as you think it is. For example, today I read an article in Skeptical Inquirer where they investigated a ghost story at a theater. Turns out all the stories were traced back to one man, and many of the published stories were just copied verbatim from prior stories. The reality was different than the ghost story. You need to be more skeptical as to the sources.
There are people who used to be scientists who are ID/creationist proponents. But the ceased being scientists since they ceased using the scientific method. They need to resume doing so for any dialog to occur. So, I doubt that will ever happen.
And Mike, proper scientific evidence is only found in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Creationist and ID sites are not scientific, and as a result are not considered valid scientific evidence.
Mike #558
If you’re referring to creationists/IDers, there can be no respect between us and them. Someone who not only lies about their position but lies about ours is not worthy of respect.
I’m not very familiar with Biblical scholarship. What little I have seen is more apologetics than scholarship.
Most of us follow the scientific method. Show us the evidence and we’ll consider your challenge. No evidence means no consideration.
We’ve been answering your comments for several hours now. I’ve seen little to suggest that you’re listening to us. You’re not shouting, but you’re not responding to what we’re saying.
If you want to talk to us, we’ll respond. If nothing else, many of us suffer from SIWOTI syndrome.
Seeing Impaired Squirrel at #565
How do you know when your pelt is shiny?
Paul (#566)
Did you catch ERV’s deliciously sarcastic post about that?
His pelt ain’t shiny
but it’s sniny as hell
It’s one of the nicer suburbs of Chicago.
Mike #557 wrote:
Yes, of course you’re welcome here. You’ve obviously already figured out that our “shouting” is partly an artifact of the size and diversity of the forum, and you seem to be able to pick out relevant points — or, at least, seem willing to seem like you’re able to pick out relevant points, and that’s fair enough.
I second Carlie’s suggestions at #561, and mention an idea someone else had, somewhere back a while: focus on just one good idea. When you throw out dozens of arguments and defenses, you get them back multiplied, and it’s just a noisy mess. What evidence for God’s existence do you think most compelling? If it’s a congruence of evidence, in what specific area?
Right now, you seem to have selected the Bible, but that’s a little problematic for atheists. Christianity could be false, and God still exist. That’s not really our sticking point. We’re not wondering what God is like.
Unless you think there’s something absolutely inexplicable about the Bible — something that requires a supernatural explanation — I’d abandon the Christian version of God for a more generic, less specific version. It might be easier, and more focused.
This is the biggest problem, those who talk about evolution and creationism / ID as being two different sides is taking a social controversy and translating that into a scientific one. There is no scientific controversy over whether life evolved, several lines of evidence all point to the same fact that life evolved and is still evolving.
As for the idea of a designer in nature, the idea has no current scientific merit. The arguments are not much more than “complexity, therefore designer”, arguing the negative against natural selection and therefore declaring God. It’s what we would call a God Of The Gaps argument. Take Behe’s argument for instance regarding irreducible complexity – he claims it one of the most important discoveries yet no-one in biology is buying it. Why not? Firstly that it doesn’t actually explain anything. Secondly that such structures have an evolutionary path – one discovered some 80 years before Behe published.
The reason why Creationism / ID carries no scientific weight is that there’s no science behind either concept and plenty of scientific evidence against both.
Newsflash: Laden is still clueless, and no one on his thread is addressing any of Paul W’s points.
It’s like watching a conversation where one person is trying to convince the other to change clothes because they’ve spilled soup all over themselves, but the soupy person will only talk about the collective agricultural exports of Latvia.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis is a reasonable place to start.
Here is something else sniny.
Faux News Poll, ‘What it the teabaggering movement about?’
Drop by and vote, it’s already been crashed by Wonkette, and you don’t have to register
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/think-tea-party-movement/
Fox News We lie, you correct
When I’m able to really laugh about this all, I want to start using “editor in another context” to defend any and all ineptitude. “As Chris Mooney’s editor in another context,…”
Seriously – what kind of incompetent blogger needs a fucking editor?
Though socially frowned upon, it would be an effective way of scraping together some spare change, particularly if, perchance, he had a drinking problem.
Aaaaaand I’m done. Allah willing.
SC, I sent you an email. Probably won’t have a chance to follow up any reply tonight though.
Pharyngula memes I’m embarrassed to admit go over my head:
* starfart
* sniny
Man, look at the sidebar:
1. Security Guards Stand By While Girl Is Attacked
February 10, 2010
2. Planned Parenthood Clinic Put on Probation After Sting
February 10, 2010
3. Gallup Poll: Most Dems Like Socialism
February 10, 2010 3 comments
4. Man Arrested for Discussing God at Mall
February 10, 2010 1 comments
5. AP: Jobs Bill Won’t Add Many Jobs
February 10, 2010 11 comments
6. New 9/11 Arial Pics … And Obama Wants KSM Tried Here?
February 10, 2010 21 comments
_ _ _ _
How can anyone take Fox News seriously?
/rhetorical
Irene the Clueless Ass:
Indeed.
Carlie (#580)
So… they’re all senile?
Maybe we should stop talking about Greg Laden’s Blog and instead discuss The Nursing Home, which, however much it might look like a thinly disguised GLB, would be a fictional metaphor for the larger community of atheist activists who fail at rational thinking.
I missed this the first time it came up, but since I’m the self-appointed fucking language police, I’ll make a friendly suggestion that it would be a kind gesture to think of an alternate word to describe said vacuous bloviating professor that does not rely for its meaning on the societal baggage of treating people with reduced mental capacities with scorn, segregation, and ill treatment.
What examples of misrepresentations of creationist arguments can you point to?
You have a free choice either way, but if you continue to committ logical fallacies and demonstrate essentialist presuppositions, we’re going to continue to point it out.
I realize that you are, backhandedly, implying once again that “science” is a religion that is maybe ignoring… something. Ironically, the best example you can think of is of a religion ignoring real science.
But there have been no legitimate challenges to science from religion. There can’t be; only science can challenge science.
It is religious presuppostion that continually refuses and ignores the legitimate challenges from science.
If you can show us where we have been “blind” or unclear; where we have been shouting and not listening, well, point it out. Be specific.
If the truth was that you have been fooling yourself, would you want to explore it?
I’ll second Carlie, who doesn’t need a “fucking language police” deputy, but who will get some back-up regardless: please, can we stop using derogatory terms for the historically oppressed/disenfranchised/powerless when trying to point out negative attributes or situations?
*Hands Carlie back her badge.*
Other than the fact that I’m a[n assistant] professor,…
No.
And this isn’t a game, and it isn’t a joke.
So… they’re all senile?
I was thinking more that person A, who I’ll call Saul U, is honestly trying to point out a problem that person B, who I’ll call Smeg, has wrong that will cause other people to wonder about Smeg’s grasp on reality and ability to clothe himself. Yet all Smeg hears is the word “food”, and goes off on a tangent without realizing or caring that he has soup all over himself.
* starfart – I can’t find the original, but starfart is a commenter username that is intriguingly onomatopoetic to his/her comments. Out of almost nowhere on a thread, starfart posted an enormous rant about problems with SciBlog commenting and how it impeded all manner of communication, that was explosive, incendiary, spectacular to watch, and sort of smelly. In a word, starfarty.
* sniny. Started as a simple typo by PZ, quickly became a new term in and of itself.
So, I find it curious that Greg hasn’t denied raping and murdering a 10 year old. I mean, I don’ think he did, but why hasn’t he denied it yet?
Owl:
And only religion can effectivly challenge religion, otherwise, what are we going to do with all these flaming swords, salt pillor transmogrifiers, assorting smite devices and pestilance technology?
Dear brother Mike @557 said: “Smoggy, I know what you think. Don’t bother.”
To which I say: PTL! someone who knows my thoughts! This is effin’ miraculous, given that I never have a clue what I think until after I’ve read what I’ve written.
Up till now I assumed only God knew my thoughts (and in my dark moments I’ve wondered whether that’s part of the reason why He’s such an angry old prick all the time), so it’s a comfort to have the guts of my mind spread thinly before the consciousness of another.
Well, brother Mike, given that you know my thoughts, you’ll also know that I’m probably a lot more like you than you think. And thus this little piece of smoggerel won’t come as any surprise to you.
——————————–
My brother in Jesus called Mike,
Has appeared on his biblical bike,
On the front its New Testament wheel
Is all sniny, with nary a squeal,
It’s a beatitudes’ dream,
Christ’s spilt blood makes it gleam,
And its rim won’t let anyone fall.
But the thing that makes Mike suffer sadly,
Is the OT wheel at the back, turning badly,
Cos it’s chiselled from rock ,
And has a brake set to lock,
So while Mike sits up high,
Others indiscriminately die,
Through God’s mad plan, deservedly mocked.
It may be that Mike’s a nice guy,
Even though his God lets Haitians die,
For no plausible reason at all
On account of some Edenic Fall
That was really God’s stupid mistake
(He put a lethal tree there, ferfucksake!)
Which is why I for one feel appalled.
I’m sorry Mike, I know how you feel,
Astride your bike with no seat and a mad wheel,
And a scriptural spoke up your arse,
Causing contortions verging on farce,
In sound logic and morality too,
For religion, your head, it doth screw,
Until any foul thing you’ll let pass.
Tell you what, Mike, imagine just briefly
Never having been told of God. Chiefly,
Imagine your mind as your own
Your consciousness the only throne
Upon which sit good, reasonable thoughts
Replacing all of the things you were taught
Of heaven and hell and the disowned.
Mike, this is your heaven right here,
It ain’t perfect, but there’s nothing to fear.
Don’t believe in original sin.
Your minds your own temple. Begin
To imagine how good it feels
To walk your own path, without the wheels. . .
Or the commandments. . . or HIM!
So, Paul, Greg has more in common with Glen Beck than we previously realized.
Snow everywhere! It’s just cold enough for it to stay. :-) It snowed several times today, including once when it was recrystallized snow – very fine-grained hail.
Also, I finished the package of potato/leek soup today, and had some more in the canteen (with more leek and less potato). Will buy more at the next opportunity.
No, because it would be the political end of both of them.
Huh?
Where is it mentioned in the Bible that he was actually condemned (it’s a pretty evident inference, but nowhere near spelled out), and where is any demon mentioned in this context?
Subthread won.
<anger>
Heh. I read “explosion” at first and thought of Rambo IV…
Then why, being omnipotent and not the pathetic little 12-year-old mountain-and-weather god that sent Noah’s Flood, doesn’t he just make us grasp that depth? Or why doesn’t he make us incapable of such a depth? Or why doesn’t he just teach us so we don’t need to see it ourselves – omnipotent as he is, he can convince us by definition?
That’s what you hope. Stating your hopes as facts is a logical fallacy.
Did he?
Isn’t this entire story just an attempt to make sense of a volcanic eruption that is impossible to understand if you don’t have full-blown knowledge of geology, plate tectonics in particular?
Isn’t this exactly the same as when Pat Robertson accuses the people of Haiti of having made a pact with the devil and now getting punished for it (unto the seventh generation)?
Yes, but you’re counting the hits and ignoring the misses. Look what kinds of morals are advocated by the books of 1 Kings or Judges or Joshua.
No, you don’t believe the entire Bible is true, because you aren’t capable of that much doublethink.
No, your claims about unity, consistency, and continuity are utter bullshit, as we have already demonstrated.
Dude, if you don’t have time to read what we write, you can’t comment on it. You – just – can’t. Is that so difficult to understand?
(…And then he comes blathering about mutual respect, doesn’t read what we write, and just glosses over it so he can unloads his staple apologetics on us. “Respect” my ass.)
And more at night than during the day.
The same holds for 14C. Obviously, the extra CO2 is coming from a source lacking 14C completely. That means it can’t have had any contact with the atmosphere in the last 60,000 years. Two possibilities: fossil fuels, or volcanoes. There hasn’t been a drastic increase in volcanic activity… while there has been a drastic increase in the burning of fossil fuels, for exactly the right value of “drastic” down to the tens of megatonnes of carbon or less.
Subthread won again. Welp, Nobel prizes can be shared, too…
And in the process of doing that, he kills some of us, as a means to an end?
You repeated your point instead of defending it. Have you no shame?
Pure pwnage.
The Samaritan text! That must hurt! :-D :-D :-D
And the PKK, the Kurdish Workers’ Party, has had suicide bombers, too (many of them female) – and they believed in the Real True Stalinism!
Ponder what this means: it means kamikaze actions can be performed by people who believe there is no afterlife!
All that’s necessary is that they believe there’s something worth killing and dying for.
That’s not only a very good point, it’s also one I had never noticed…
Very nicely put.
:-D :-D :-D
Sorry, I’m probably overinterpreting this when I imagine Sastra sitting there and having holy wrath, throwing bolts of lightning and pwnz0ring spin doctors left & right, écrasante l’infâme. “Spin doctor” is an incredible insult in Austria for reasons that have to do with an election in 1999.
Good point. Very good point.
Fear… and surprise. The two best weapons of the faithful have always been…
Sorry. I just couldn’t resist, having already resisted singing The East Is Read when expounding on the PKK (who weren’t even Maoists).
…Yyyyyeah. I thought of that a minute or two after submitting, and waited for you to notice so I could chalk it up to being adorably clumsy again. Or, uh, just clumsy. :-]
<smiling at Jadehawk, caressing her hair>But nooooo. And concerning what you called your “well-padded middle” a subthread or three ago (I bet you exaggerated), I spent most of today correcting my sister’s end-of-highschool mini-thesis (Fachbereichsarbeit) on in-, hyper- and parasomnias, which mentions that some of these diseases can disturb the metabolism and cause, uh, mass increase. If I remember anything correctly this late at night, it’s specifically sleep apnea, which is often caused by such things as an ostructed nose, which you have also claimed to have…
…and finally, do you really want to be quite as thin as me? I have no trouble finding all my ribs, except the first pair which lies deep under the collarbones… I can make a lot of noise by just banging my fingertips against my breastbone, because there’s nothing but skin, bone, and air there…
:-)
Cool, cool.
Have only read up to comment 534, and had to skip comment 523. It’s 02:36, good night.
strange gods @584:
starfart
*overwhelmed by cuteness*
Thanks, Carlie and Jessa!
<sigh> Spent about 2 hours to write 8 1/2 laptop screens. And still failed to catch up by about 60 comments!!!
Smoggy @595, if you’re trying to get me to idolise you, you’re going about it the right way.
Awesome.
(PS Mike, are you In Love With [Your] Car? ;) )
Spent about 2 hours to write 8 1/2 laptop screens. And still failed to catch up by about 60 comments!!!
Long ago I have given up trying to catch up. First I check the comments and see if they have “bacon” and then make a note if they don’t, and then go back and check if they have “beer”, and mark the ones for that, and then go back and double check the unmarked ones, and then read the marked ones.
OK, question for The Thread:
Is there anyone here who thinks that Francis Collins is not a scientist?
Is there anyone here who thinks that David Heddle is not a scientist?
As a more general question, is a scientist who is devoutly religious still a scientist? I do mean someone publishing scientific work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (both Collins and heddle have published in the past couple of years).
[I think there may be some problematic border cases who are no longer publishing in the actual scientific literature, like “ID” apologists and “creation” scientists, and Frank Tipler, but leave those to one side for the moment]
That was one epic poem dude…
I hate the word sniny. There- you may now attempt to silence me and excommunicate me from the echo chamber.
Not sure I need to know this, but is the editing for a blog or something else? If the former, have you considered what the posts must be like before the editing? *shudder*
Dear Brother John Morales,
I wouldn’t want you to idolize me because that might break a commandment and land you in the shit with the big guy. You are, of course, welcome to join my Church of the Eternal Blowjob and tithe generously.
No to both. I disagree with Heddle on a lot of things, but it would be silly to deny any actual science he does because of loopy beliefs.
Owlmirror #604 wrote:
Both scientists.
Yes, a devoutly religious scientist is still a scientist. I would argue, however, that they are being inconsistent, in that they ought to apply their scientific curiosity, skepticism, and rigor to their religious beliefs. They’re not taking their commitments seriously. Not to themselves, not to science, and not to their religion.
I’m torn on classifying devoutly religious scientists who do apply their science to their religious beliefs — and end up promoting pseudoscientific claims such as Flood Geology. I’m not sure if they’re bad scientists, or no longer scientists at all.
I suppose it’s also possible they merit the coveted title of mad scientist.
I haven’t dug into it, but my impression is that she is the editor for his stuff on Quiche Moraine.
Dear Windy,
I hate the word ‘sniny’ as well.
I also hate the word snit and the phrase ‘Snit on my face and tell me that you love me.’
I don’t have quite so much antipathy towards snit-snoveller and I’m quite fond of a big pulsing snaft, I love a good snag, and my girlfriend is a sneep (for all that she’s a pretty good sneila).
I suppose you want to get snot of me now.
Rutee,
As an idea how “not-alone” you are, the Skepticalscience.com webpage now comes as an iPhone ap:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html
And of course, to while away the time as your brother rants, there’s always denialist bingo:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php
Windy #606
Who cares what you like or dislike? 8-P
That was one epic poem dude…
I was referring of course to Rudyard Kipling’s “Gunga Din”.
“Tho’ I’ve belted you and flayed you, By the livin’ Gawd that made you, You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!”
I had a wife once who “hated the word ‘bucket'”. I had to call them ‘pails’ in her hearing. I was happy to it, though it strikes me as bizarro to this day.
Now, I would gladly do the same for windy and ‘sniny’ but the problem is I never know when she’s listening.
Where I live now everyone calls lunch boxes “lunch pails”. I can’t bring myself to do that. They’re shaped like boxes, not pails, dammit!
Owlmirror:
To answer your specific and general questions: yes.
In my experience, the degree to which you can be a scientist and be religious rests on two factors:
1) The particular area of science. My degree is in chemistry, and I have found that a lot of my co-workers are religious. The major holy books don’t make grand pronouncements about the behavior of molecules, so those who are religious can easily carry our their day-to-day tasks without encountering some sort of theological crisis.
2) The level of literalism they apply to their holy book. If one sees, for example, the Bible as literally true, they’re going to have problems in certain areas of science. But if they have a more metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, they can deal with the contradictions with a bit of theological hand-waving. Theistic evolutionists, for example. One can argue about the intellectual and theological honesty of moluding a holy text around a scientific finding, but as long as the holy text is not governing the interpretation of the results, it’s still science.
Of course, there’s still the issue of why some people can apply the scientific method to their work and not to their religious beliefs, but that’s a separate question.
Rudyard Kipling’s “Gunga Din”? An epic indeed, although my preference when it comes to epics is “Paradise Lost” (can’t think why).
I myself have written an epic poem documenting my personal battle on this blog with the dark forces of atheism. It’s called “Damned n’ Dirty” and I’ve just started on book 27.
That’s a lot of vulgar language there.
(I’m referring of course to J. D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye”.)
“I had a wife once who “hated the word ‘bucket'”.”
Yes, wives can be sensitive like that.
Mine hates the word “growler” (as in “Show us yer’ growler!”).
Marriage certainly improves the sensibilities (and the ability to hold in a fart until one is alone in the room).
damn it, I missed the only straight comment-count between 12345 and 34567.
Behold comment # 23456
Who cares what you like or dislike? 8-P
Statements like these could lead one to conclude that you are dealing with serious anti-fennougric issues.
“[I]n this way” apparently means sincerely.
Are you 8?
What else do you expect really? This is why the Chris Mooney school of bridge building is nothing more than vacuous rhetoric. It may be born out of good intentions, but like those who profess salvation through faith it fails to actually result in any meaningful action.
If you’re genuine Mike, then maybe it would be best not to just test out your arguments one after the other, but to sit and discuss one point at a time. It might be hard when there are ten people replying to you at once, I appreciate the position you’re in, but it does seem like little more than standard apologetic rhetoric when the same arguments are heard for the Nth time. It does make people suspicious of your motivations. Like those creationists who argue for “academic freedom”, such appeals to fairness are usually accompanied by some underhanded affront to the very principles they are professing to.
I was referring of course to the colloquial form of “epic”.
3. Epic
(adjective) Awesome, kickass, or otherwise positive. Can be used to refer to anything but is usually referring to a particular event or action. The most common usages are “epic win” or “epic failure,” and some prefer to type it in all caps.
About the parenthetical part: could you teach my husband that bit of manners?
@ SC and Paul W, and anyone else watching the Horror That is the Laden Blog:
I’ve been disgusted by this whole thing. Paul’s put in yeoman’s work, and he couldn’t be a more eloquent or logical advocate.
Here’s the hard truth that you can’t pretty up, and that you can’t say “gently.” Quite aside from Laden’s irrationality and mean-spirited bullshit, he’s a terrible writer. A very bad writer. A writer without any facility or grace. The way he strings sentences together leaves ideas feeling unconnected. His syntax and word choice are idiosyncratic to the point of obscuring his meaning. It’s not just that he’s not unusually eloquent, it’s that he’s objectively bad, and sub-par. He can’t even reach the level of communicating an idea clearly, even if the writing style is boring.
And he’s damned sloppy. His posts are riddled with misspellings and incorrect words (substituting homonyms for each other, etc.). Yeah, we all make mistakes on the Internet, but it’s like he doesn’t even try. There’s so much of it I find it actively distasteful.
I suspect that even when he might be trying to make a reasonable, non-offensive point, he creates blow-back because he’s so ham-handed as a writer that people can’t help but misunderstand him.
I suppose that sounds petty given how seriously offensive he’s been about SC – and he has – but someone had to say it. The dude cannot write, and he certainly shouldn’t be doing it as a hobby, editor-free.
Ladies and gentlemen, (and Floyd (and Smoggy too)), Mr. Wayne Newton…
I’m becoming less convinced that Laden is a poor writer/communicator and more convinced that the problem is closer to the origin – that even he doesn’t have any idea what he’s trying to say.
Smoggy, I know what you think. Don’t bother.
That makes me think that Mike is Smoggy’s sock puppet. (Because I’m really paranoid I guess.)
You said it, Josh (@#628). I agree 100%.
SC, and anyone else with an interest in the Grateful Dead, should go here and scroll down a bit to the slideshow vid. A beautiful “Attics” and some classic pics. (At -2:05 there’s a
sninyNew Years ticket from 1985–I have one just like it! My only NYE show.)Oh, there’s an article there, too, about business types with an interest in studying the Dead’s archives, which are going to UCSC. Looks interesting.
No. Go look through the archives for the series he did on his experiences in the Congo. Greg is quite capable of being clear, funny, and eloquent. The fact that he can write that way is a major reason why I am convinced he is deliberately concern trolling.
Maybe those have been edited by Sgt. Z.?
The god of the OT is an inept genocidal maniac.
Jericho was one of many genocides detailed approvingly.
None of these probably ever happened in reality. Biblical archaeology has proved much of the OT to be just stories, propaganda and mythology.
At the time Jericho was supposedly genocided, it was deserted. There were no walls standing to even fall down.
Same thing with the city of Ai. Ai in Hebrew means “ruins”. An odd name for a city. Yep, we live in Ruins right down the road from Brickpile. Archaeology shows it had been abandomed centuries before it was supposedly massacred.
Glad you’re back, Lynna; have some bacon. Has the upcoming diagnostic been fully funded?
Oh, the Dead article I linked above is, in fact, very interesting. There’s some sociology in there, not just business. If I were Robert Hunter I’d be a bit unhappy, but otherwise a good read.
Reading the starfart (via Jessa #598) sends me into a fit of laughter every time. It’s such a gem.
Speaking of axioms and antisemitism…..
John Gabriel,
My familiarity with this is only superficial, but…Damn if that isn’t an awesome way to put it.
on that note:
SC, did you finally get your freaking jar open? This is what I do with jars that annoy me.
FWIW, I was there at the session on civility. I had no clue when it happened that it would lead to all this strangeness.
Thanks everyone.
Carlie, thanks for spelling out some of the rules and expectations on this blog. Probably good advice for anyone coming in here. This being my first time, I was blown away by the amount of rebuttals and arguments. That likely made me just keep talking instead of responding in an appropriate manner.
Lol. I did start like 15 different topics. Rookie mistake. I’ll try to be more focused next time. But it looks like circumstances are conspiring against me to keep going for now. Plague has hit our house. My one year old and I have the flu, and my 3 year old has an ear infection. Plus, I’ve got some hefty work responsibilities for the next while.
But that may be for the best. We’ll let the dust settle. Maybe in a week or two, I’ll be back. A fresh start with a little more focus.
No offense Smoggy. It’s just that your comments to me continue to be the most puzzling.
sorry for leaving so many loose threads. Regards.
– Mike.
Well, there is talk on his blog about how we should be nice since he’s dealing with a death in the family. Maybe the guess about drinking is more or less accurate. Or sleep deprivation from the baby is killing precious brain cells.
Lynna,
Since you’re back (WB!) I wanted to tell you that your Idaho books arrived today. They are gorgeous! I know my mom will be pleased and surprised. I didn’t tell you before, but my grandfather was a park ranger for part of my mother’s childhood. She grew up camping and hiking in the Sawtooth range and Sun Valley areas. Your descriptions of the Idaho wilderness around the places that I remember took me right back to my own childhood.
Please thank your brother as well; he does marvelous work.
Confusing the religious is Smoggy’s
raison d’êtreraisin date (inside joke).PZ, spammer du jour using the ID “alberty788”.
Mike:
Yeah, right.
Maybe you could even respond to those who have responded to you, and who you have hithertofore ignored.
I shan’t be holding my breath, though.
@Mike
Oh, you poor, sweet thang. Darlin’, haven’t you figured out that Smoggy is affecting the persona of True Christian (TM)?
Have you ever ventured out in public, maybe to a pub, to have any sort of fun with real people Mike? Have you ever had a drink? Have you ever laughed without looking over your shoulder to see if god disapproves? Are you seriously so insulated that you don’t get what Smoggy is doing?
Dude, there’s a whole world of wit, irony, bitchery, and sarcasm out there, just waiting for you. And also fun. Join the land of the living.
@ ‘Tis Himself:
You won’t likely see this, ‘Tis, since it’s so far down in the thread, but please tell me the Advanced Steam Locomotive Project has a chance.
I know it isn’t true. I know we’ll never have fabulous steam locomotives again. But I want you to lie to me. Just make up a convincing story about how the next generation in locomotive technology will be steam-based, and that it will be glorious.
I’ll believe everything you say:)
/steam geek
Mike says he went to seminary (after other people had made seminary jokes) but he was quoting dime store apologetics (and claiming they were his own apologetics). Seems kinda odd. Just sayin…
I’ve got to say, I always found Smoggy a bit too try-hard. That it was so over-the-top when EdwardCurrent-like subtlety would make such a role perfect. I find it curious that anyone could mistake it, Mike have you ever watched The Colbert Report?
Kel, Smoggy is a counter-Poe.
‘Tis a rare talent.
I suspect that the Smoggy-fan-club might lean toward antipodean membership as well. Our idea of refined humour is Tim Minchin, after all…
Recursion FTL!!!
God watching over us:
http://eddirt.frozenreality.co.uk/index.php?id=599
Bye, Mike! Good luck dealing with the infections and work!
…
…
…
OK, is he gone? Let’s talk about him.
I think we overwhelmed and shocked the hell out of him, and he had a hard time coping with it in any other way than just regurgitating the various apologia he had seen and heard, and kept on repeating to himself. I don’t think he realized that we’ve seen all of them before, repeatedly, with bells on. He stayed civil (sometimes under the extreme duress of Smoggy being Smoggy), but I don’t think he realized that he was being rude in not addressing counterarguments. No, he had his apologetics and theodicy in his head, and by gum, he was going to type them out and post them.
I was a bit surprised to see the explicit formulation “This God is one who comes to Earth and commits himself to the redemption of the Human race. That is a story that I am excited to be a part of.”
It’s like he stepped out of one of Sastra’s musings on the implicit egotism of the faithful.
Posting on places like this have got to be daunting for that very reason. Met with an immediate surge of responses, some of them with varying levels of derision though still directly being able to take the arguments apart. I’m guessing it takes a lot to come and be able to do this, especially if someone is looking for honest feedback as opposed to just wanting to preach.
Owlmirror (#656)
I got the sense that he’d tried out his apologetics somewhere else and got his tail singed for his trouble, hence his constant reminders he wanted respect. I do wonder how he ended up here. At least if he’s bowing out on a pretext, it’s not one that attempts to lay blame at our feet.
I think the implicit egotism was even more apparent in his whole explanation of the Haiti earthquake. I mean, wow. I don’t understand how anyone can casually dehumanize other people like that, reduce them to the scenery of some morality play staged for one’s own benefit, without noticing it’s wrong. And he finds hope and meaning in it. The power of faith is foul.
As a lifelong atheist I don’t know what religious people might be told about ‘the other side’, so I was wondering about that – would he have been told that there are good arguments against religion, or would his teachers/church elders/whatever have simply lied and said that atheists just deny God without having any good reason to do so?
Yes, the heddles of the world tend to insist that all ‘real’ Christians have an indepth knowledge of scripture and are aware of all the apologetics and counterarguments to the logic of atheism, but I’d like to have that confirmed by someone whose agenda that doesn’t necessarily support.
Because if you’d spent your whole life being told something, and that that something was pretty much incontrovertible, it would probably be a surprise to have someone say, ‘no, it’s bullshit and here are ten good reasons why – bam!’
What!?!? No LFTR power plant option? Blasphemy!
When I was growing up almost all conversations of “you’re wrong” were followed by “and I’m right”. Since I was sheltered from basically anyone but other fundamentalists, it was easy to pick apart their arguments. Them being wrong about being right, they must also be wrong about me being wrong. That both of us could be wrong was not even an option.
BTW, thanks, A. Noyd, for your efforts @ the Causabon’s Book thread…you were brilliant, they (at least Sharon & dewey) were smug & supercilious.
Just how are SB bloggers chosen, anyway? By whom?
God must be angry with Melbourne , my little Golf swam through half a meter of water into the parking garage tonight.
I suspect it’s the AC/DC concert !
BS @ 570,
I did what ?
My (now rather distant) memories of an upbringing that generally encountered Baptist, Anglican, and United Church traditions are that the substance of the arguments was simply avoided entirely, in favour of focusing on alleged emotional reasons. As in, the claim is: folk reject the deity’s overtures ‘cos they don’t want to acknowledge their sin, or just because they’re angry or something. So I guess you could say it is, more or less, ‘lied and said they had no good reason’, except that I rather suspect most of those who passed on that picture of the world were mostly passing on claims handed to them, and which they to various degrees might have believed themselves, by virtue of avoiding thinking too hard about it themselves, and/or avoiding serious discussion with anyone from the other side who could have told them otherwise…
So as to the the lying part, yeah, but as you might gather from this, it seems to me it was a sort of group/institutional lie–no one quite actively says to themselves: ‘I’m just going to tell this huge howler, now’. Comes off as more like a sort of strategic intellectual laziness, a lot like the way a widely-backed propaganda line spreads through a larger culture: it’s repeated a lot (or at least so much as the subject comes up), and everyone hears it, no one thinks about it too much, and then they all just conveniently assume, because it’s the easy thing: must be true.
Talk about religion as opium for the people :
Pot found inside Jesus pictures
For some of the creationists, I’m not to sure this holds. Like the ones who have scientific training – it’s really hard to think that the likes of Jonathan Wells could possibly be that ignorant of the underpinnings of his own discipline. And faith healers like Peter Popoff who used a radio transceiver to have his wife tell him details he needed to know – it’s a bit hard to think that there aren’t at least a few who know better and do lie to themselves.
Maybe you’re right on account of intellectual laziness – and that could well be something that keeps the promotion of creationism over evolution. That there’s seldom a creationist who can actually articulate what evolution is, what evidence there is for it, and why it has strong scientific backing is something that should cause concern. Why aren’t creationists trying to learn all they can about evolution? It’s hard to ascribe anything other than malice to those preachers who scare children away from even learning about it. To tell them there’s controversy over the idea, that there’s evidence for creation, and that those who believe in evolution are just godless dogmatists who want to use Darwin to kill God. Which when I hear this rhetoric time and time again is the only way I can rationalise why so many people don’t even try to understand what evolution is as scientists understand it. They are being lied to!
No
Yes
But they’re not lying; they don’t know any better either. It’s nigh impossible to understand the amount of sheltering a lot of these people have, and the warped sense of what Biblical scholarship they have. Walk into your nearest Christian bookstore, browse through all the books, and then imagine how you would see the world if that was all you ever read.
Basically yes. Now add in a huge dose of learning that authorities know best. God is the biggest one, of course, to be followed unquestioningly. Even when he’s doing things that are obviously evil, they must be good, because he says they are. Next comes authority in the church, so if they say something, it must be true. It’s a pernicious mindset that makes them trust their leaders in all sorts of ways it shouldn’t.
What breaks my soft little heart is that so many of those pastors in authority positions take their role so seriously, and they try so hard to actually do “research” and find out what support there is for their beliefs (perhaps like Mike), but they never learned any skills for it so all their “work” is for naught. They don’t know how to pick out good from bad sources, they don’t know what to look for in a study to see if there is confirmation bias, they don’t even know how to discover new scholarly journals in the first place. They were never taught how, because their teachers at seminary were never taught how, either. It’s the blind leading the blind.
Then on top of THAT, add in that the Bible is very, very clear that you should view secular education with suspicion, because that is exactly how Satan will tempt you and make you lose your faith. To get the jackpot and go to Heaven and have God love you, you must be as a child in your faith. You musn’t look to the things of this world. You must believe without seeing. It’s all set up to actively discourage any learning that seems at all suspiciously critical. It’s perfectly insular.
I find that whole view really condescending, that if any thought we come up with hurts someone’s faith – then it must be Satan. So much for the belief in free will. I just want credit where credit’s due, I’m not really interested in playing out someone’s fantasy that somehow their inner torment is a microcosm between an omnipotent benevolent deity and a not-quite-omnipotent malevolent quasi-deity (having Satan and keeping Christianity monotheistic is really confusing), I’m just interested in the exploration of thought. If that happens to shake someone’s faith and lead to a violent inner torment projected as some grand cosmic struggle between good and evil – well that’s incidental.
It was advertised as a good, solid eight inches. I braced myself for it. In reality, though, it was barely two.
What? I’m talking about the Massachusetts snowstorm.
My early religious experience was conditioned by attending a school founded and still very closely connected to the church (anglican)RI lessons daily, extra holidays, rgular church services and morning prayers. None of it really ‘took’ but i was confirmed and took communion.
I really don’t remember ANY mention of the possibility of non-belief. I can’t recall any mention of atheism. My parents were not religious (or if they were they kept it from me)and so any faith i may have had just withered away. I really can’t recall that I became an atheist, I just realised at some point that I was.
I presume that Mike’s schooling was in the US and not religious in the same way, but perhaps he never encountered non belief at all until quite late on. That would be profoundly shocking I think
I think what has been proven here (and again) is that reason is often a poor tool of deconversion. If someone reaches the adult stage of the human lifecycle* and can carry these inane beliefs while still maintaining other house-keeping functions** they are compartmentalizers. They can hold conflicting worldviews in different parts of their heads simultaneously, and not just keel over in a drawer-soiling pile of anguish confusion. I am convinced that many people have brains that work this way…the contents of different hemispheres never cross the corpus callosum to shake hands. The boxes are mutually shut to each other. I don’t know why Mike felt a need to appear and apologize***, but I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t what one would call “intellectually honest”. Maybe Mike is a poor compartmentalizer, and occasionally finds his gorge rising when he contemplates reality and Jesus simultaneously. I think the best tool of deconversion in this case is an appeal to a mild degree of hedonism called “Take Back Sunday”– It goes like this. Sunday is awesome when you don’t believe in God. No more church! No more tithing! Sit around your house with your kids. Drink coffee. Read the paper. Maybe take a walk to the nearest playground, and watch your progeny hang upside down from their knees…or throw mulch at eachother, or whatever your issue are into. When the church across the street disgorges (finally) its grey and brown hordes blinking in the sun, smile and wave. If you are inclined to, anyway–if not, don’t. It’s your day after all and your face is yours to control. In any case, unloading the Jesus box relieves tension for those who compartmentalize poorly. If putting jagged, ill-fitting ideas into in your head hurts, stop it. Just stop. Its as easy as sleeping in on Sunday.
*I have relaxed expectations of the larvae.
**Feeding themselves, acquiring resources and mates, bearing offspring & cetera
***in the sense of presenting that lowest form of argument, the apologetic.
What passage is that specifically? I’m darn sure Satan doesn’t really come up after the Book of Job. I’m not saying that’s not the message, just vaguely annoyed that Satan has the truck he does in Christian Circles.
Also, am I the only one who thinks that tithing is an unfair claim to level when the donations aren’t considered mandatory in any sense and aren’t recorded?
Words to live by.
um, doesn’t she show up to
concern-trolltempt Jesus?I think it’s the bit in Timothy about science falsely so-called. Paul had a bit of a bad time with the philosophers in Acts 17 as well, as Jesus and Mo have pointed out:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/12/08/crowd/
am I the only one who thinks that tithing is an unfair claim to level when the donations aren’t considered mandatory in any sense and aren’t recorded?
What do you mean? They are recorded in most churches, because they’re tax-deductible. There are a few people who just drop random money in the collection plate, but anyone who’s serious about it uses the little envelopes with their name on it, and the church treasurer keeps track and sends donation summaries at tax time. That’s part of the payback you get from your tithe, that you can deduct it off of the taxes you pay to the evil secular government.
Rutee – will hunt down my Thompson Chain reference later on, I’m on the way out to work now. I think you’re right that Satan isn’t mentioned as much by name in the NT, but by tradition the bad guy being referred to is always him.
Quick! Jump over to the new thread!