PZ Myers. 2005 Aug 08. Warning: this weblog is run by an atheist. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/warning_this_weblog_is_run_by_an_atheist/>. Accessed 2008 Nov 20.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, August 08, 2005
Warning: this weblog is run by an atheist
I am getting a great deal of angry email because I scorned religion in a few posts this weekend. Some people seem to be surprised to learn that I don't share any of their religious beliefs. Allow me to clarify and pass on a few suggestions if you feel the need to complain.
- I do not think most religious people are bad. Quite the contrary; I think most people are decent in spite of their religion. I have a higher opinion of most religious people than you may think, while having a lower opinion of religion than you can imagine.
- Don't try to tell me that the only way to enlist religious people to aid the cause of reason is to keep atheism in the closet. I say the only way for decent people to get over their anti-atheist bigotry is to make them aware that their neighbors and teachers and postal workers and plumbers and carpenters include freethinkers with a wide range of views…that don't include bowing to imaginary beings.
- Also, don't try to tell me that we atheists must make common cause with sensible religious people. We try. We get along better with the dominant Christian majority than they do with us. Perhaps, instead, those sensible religious people should see atheists as allies who will readily point out the parasites and scam artists and demagogues within their faiths.
- Please don't lecture me on how to be an atheist. The uninformed biases of the religious on how atheists are supposed to be are about as relevant as the opinions of white people on how the Negro is supposed to behave.
- To everyone who was compelled by my contempt for D. James Kennedy and his ilk to write and tell me that he is not representative of your faith: how many of you good Christians have taken the time to condemn these hating bibliolators and ideologues of the Religious Right in letters to your congressman or even conversations with your minister? It's easier to berate that outsider atheist than to police your own, is it?
- Don't damn the messenger who tells you your house of god is a den of thieves and liars. Clean up your mess.
There. Now if I can be comfortable with your belief that I'm going to burn in Hell, you should be able to cope with my belief that your god-bothering nonsense is a steaming heap o' BS. If not, there are plenty of less prickly weblogs out there.
P.S. Those of you sending me all the evangelical crap and signing me up for Christian mailing lists…you are really wasting your time.
- Kick ass and well said!
-
Once again you demonstrate why this blog is one of those I visit every time I am online. Thank you, and keep it up.
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:07 PM
-
Time spent arguing with the faithful is, oddly enough, almost never wasted.
— Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:08 PM -
Please don't lecture me on how to be an atheist.
I would be absolutely fascinated to learn some of the particulars of that one.#: Posted by Ron Sullivan on 08/08 at 04:13 PM -
PZ, you'll never be governor of Minnesota if you keep this up ... unless perhaps you take up pro-wrestling first and start dressing like a queen on 'roids.
In 2005, it's mere habit for many of us to ignore the incessant fungelical fingerpointing regarding, e.g., the incontrovertible role that secooler humanoids play in destroying the fabric of our society by promoting popper abuse in kindergarten sex classes etc. etc ad nauseum.
Ironically, the baseball bat is most necessary for the science-sympathetic appeasers of religionists who robotically warn us that any presentation of evidence that a Christian might be intentionally misleading his/her target audience is "counterproductive."
Don't you understand, PZ? YOU'RE ALIENATING THE RUBES!, is what these spin-consuming weaklings continually remind us. Implicit to the "strategy" promoted by these cowed speak-no-evils is the view that Christians are so stupid and/or hardwired that they will never never never ever question what any preacher says unless their religion is first praised as the greatest freaking thing that ever existed in the universe.
And what evidence do these cowardly religion-coddling appeasers have for their view that the vast majority of American Christians are irredeemably stupid robots incapable of feeling shame when their preacher is LOUDLY, REPEATEDLY AND INCONTROVERTIBLY called on his/her bullcrap?
None. Zilcho. NADA.
The problem is that the lazy pathetic power-worshipping media in this country refuses to take ignorant preachers to task for their lying bullshit. There is a way to fix that problem, of course. But it requires that people start using their mouths for other tasks besides kissing the mostly white asses of loud-mouthed ignoble charlatans who call themselves Christians.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:16 PM -
1. Why should one have to define oneself in terms of what one is not: "atheist". One doesn't have to define oneself as "undead" "a-nazi" or "a-massmurderer."
2. To make up for the nasty emails from those who didn't learn the difference between a hypothesis and a theory:
I Love your site. XOXOXO#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:24 PM -
I would be absolutely fascinated to learn some of the particulars of that one.
No, you really wouldn't. Suffice it to say that many otherwise upstanding folk have an odd laundry list of things atheists MUST believe.
I find it tiresome just explaining the notions of weak and strong atheism, and how it relates to agnositicism. I try to avoid the "Then you must believe that rape and murder is good" people. -
PZ, you got a great deal of angry e-mail because you made a throwaway comment at the end of this post that was of such appalling ignorance that some "thoughtful Christian" people couldn't resist making a sincere plea to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater," instead of simply dismissing it as a rhetorical flourish. You, then, instead of laughing your own comment off as simply throwaway rhetoric of the sort one sees as blogs, continued to belabor the point. Thus you received a lot of stupid comments from others.
I mean, please, some comments on religion are worthwhile, and some stuff belongs in the High School "I just discovered atheism" department.
No, there's no reason to lecture you on how to be an atheist, but try to, at least, pay lipservice to the anti-stupidity faction of which you claim to be a member.#: Posted by Constantine on 08/08 at 04:44 PM -
My two comments in the previous comment thread address how I feel about your confrontational rhetoric.
#: Posted by Matthew Goggins on 08/08 at 04:52 PM
- Thanks, Constantine
-
Well, so much for setting up an ecumenical front of opposition to fundie nonsense. The Catholics (most recently 1950) and the Mormons (1930) both officially stated that they saw no conflict between the sciences (biology, geology, etc.) and their religious beliefs. They both take the position that these are issues for scientists. If you got them involved you would have some major conservative religions involved to highlight that the creationism is just sectarian religious teachings in disguise.
You might get them involved in an ecumenical effort to keep science classes limited to science, but only if scientists take the lead and keep it ecumenical. Catholics, Mormons, etc. can work together but it takes conscious effort to avoid antagonizing their partners with unrelated religious issues. Atheists would need to make the same efforts. Without an ecumenical effort by all parties you won't get religious leaders to participate. In other social issues there have been successful ecumenical efforts and there have been failures where religious differences prevented joint work to solve a social problem.
Don't expect direct leadership by religious groups. The Catholics and Mormons have already said "not my problem". They don't want to get involved with issues of science. On a theological basis they already have massive disagreements with the fundies. The creationism issue is just one more.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 04:58 PM -
PZ is an atheist? Oh, fuck, I had no idea.
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:14 PM
- Haha, you rock, PZ.
-
I would enjoy reading the more entertaining and uninformed emails you get on this topic, and other topics for that matter. Please consider posting them, anonymously if necessary.
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:19 PM
-
rjh
"The Catholics and Mormons have already said "not my problem". They don't want to get involved with issues of science."
How does this conclusion square with a recent barely intelligible but undeniably science-related and almost surely Discovery Institute-scripted pronouncement by one of the most powerful Catholics on earth?
Answer: it doesn't square.
"You might get them involved in an ecumenical effort to keep science classes limited to science, but only if scientists take the lead and keep it ecumenical."
Let me add another "only if" : only if those scientists who take the lead and keep it ecumenical are LOUD REPETITIVE and INCONTROVERTIBLE in their denouncement of their fellow Christians as intentional liars trying to shove their particular religious views down the throats of others.
Thus far most of the self-identified Christian scientists with public microphones are far too generous and unacceptably vague when it comes to stating what the fxcking problem is.
When will Harold Varmus -- a man who has the ear of the New York Times and various other media outlets -- launch into a clear concise take-no-prisoners attack on the Discovery Institute, its mentally disturbed founder. Howard Ahmanson, and the rotten charlatans who work there?
Answer: never.
Why?
It's not in Varmus' nature.
But it's also not in Eugenie Scott's nature. Is Eugenie Scott not our most publically visible "defender" of evolution?
Something to think about.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:30 PM -
Is that lower case steve from Panda's Thumb? The notoriously bored master of the one sentence snark?
Have you come here to watch us bring down the property value of science?
If so, EAT YOUR HEART OUT!!!! (<-- all caps and extra punctuation just for you, babe)#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:36 PM -
you made a throwaway comment at the end of this post that was of such appalling ignorance that some "thoughtful Christian" people couldn't resist making a sincere plea to "not throw the baby out with the bathwater,"
You aren't getting my point here. That wasn't a throwaway comment, nor was it made in ignorance. I sincerely and without apology consider a tree or a blade of grass of far greater importance than any stack of bibles; I also have much respect for those deists who feel the same way, even if they do believe in a god. If I were the proselytizing sort, I'd sit you down and explain why it is appalling ignorance to think otherwise.
And if the Bible is a baby, it is one codawful ugly fanged lizardoid monster baby, and I think we should not only throw it out with the bathwater, but maybe we ought to chop it up first and make sure the garbage disposal is powered up before we pull the plug and let its grisly bits swirl down the drain hole.
But that's just me. Atheist, you know. -
You've got it partly right, GWW.
I think the scientists who are Christian are an asset to our endeavor, and I want them front and center to show that evolution and theology are independent from one another. They are the religious people who have not allowed dogma to turn their brains to mush.
But I think they ought to be standing arm-in-arm with the huge number of freethinking scientists, as well. Instead, they're treated like the deformed hunchback who has to be kept in the attic, while the pretty theistic brother is kept prominently in the public eye. It's a skewed picture we're presenting, and it's not honest. -
Perfect!
And I thought that last bit was the most moving part of your post.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:56 PM -
Nomally, I'm generally of the "let's all just try to get along" school, but as an atheist, I do get mighty sick of hearing how atheists ___________________ (fill in the blank with your favorite anti-atheist canard) by people whose heads are so far up their behinds they think the sky is brown. Atheists belong to the last minority group that's it's OK (heck, it's encouraged) to openly discriminate against and vilify. So, you go, PZ!
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:57 PM
-
PZ wrote, in an earlier article:
A single tree is a greater marvel than the thousand bibles that could be printed from its pulped-up trunk; if we mulched every Bible published to foster the growth of a single blade of grass, we'd be the richer for it.
Then follows with this:
I think the scientists who are Christian are an asset to our endeavor, and I want them front and center to show that evolution and theology are independent from one another. They are the religious people who have not allowed dogma to turn their brains to mush.
Fascinating approach you have to seeking out allies in your endeavor. Well done.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 05:57 PM -
You aren't getting my point here. That wasn't a throwaway comment, nor was it made in ignorance. I sincerely and without apology consider a tree or a blade of grass of far greater importance than any stack of bibles.
yeah, well, bibles being what they are have "noise" in their god-message and trees and blades of grass are AFAWK unadulterated "as god made them", using evolution. of course, there's always that silly possibility their DNA has been tampered with. -
Hysterical. Someone says "if you don't stop believing your own eyes and instead believe everything in my magic book, then you are an immoral person and you will suffer the worst imaginable torture for eternity... and you'll deserve it! The book itself says so!"
Respond with "what a load of bullshit," and they're outraged at your rudeness.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:14 PM -
"maybe we ought to chop it up first and make sure the garbage disposal is powered up before we pull the plug and let its grisly bits swirl down the drain hole."
Heavens! This is almost as shocking as that Ted Zeppelin song about sympathising with the devil.
Bobby! Suzie! run straight home! I'll be there as soon as I let Dr. Myers know how deeply he has wounded me with his insensitive comments. Until then, pray deeply that the Lord leads Dr. Myers from the path towards eternal damnation which surely awaits his tortured godless soul.
Dr. Myers, surely you realize that many people in the United States care very deeply about their religious beliefs and don't enjoy having their beliefs questioned by logically contradictory "skeptics" who lack a moral foundation for their worldview (i.e., you).
We don't demand that you become a Christian (although it would be nice, especially if you admitted to my friends that it was me who converted you). We only demand that you keep your opinions to yourself. The fact that a historical accident has led to our particular religious beliefs being favorably advertised on your currency, in your courts, and in the daily prayer for our country recited in our nation's hopefully failing public school system surely does not merit such vitriol as the above pronouncement.
Were it up to me, I would make it a crime to say the things you say. Of course, it's not up to me. It's up to my congressmen, a fellow Christian, who is drafting such a bill as we speak. Will it pass? I pray that it will but who can say?
In the meantime, why must you engage in activities which divide our family? We try very hard to teach our children the difference between right and wrong. If they know that they can do whatever they want without fear of going to hell, what is going to keep them from sniffing glue, fornicating with each other, and driving drunk like the gays do?
So please, Dr. Myers, try to be more considerate. For our children's sake.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:20 PM -
"Fascinating approach you have to seeking out allies in your endeavor. Well done."
And whatever you do, PZ, don't ever say that you didn't enjoy watching James Cameron's "Titanic" -- that is one of the most popular movies ever made!!!!!#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:22 PM - Lee does not seem to be aware of the possibility that one can disagree most vigorously with the opinions of another while still respecting their existence as human beings. Finding that the best place to shelve a Bible is inside a woodchipper is not the same as thinking that's where a Christian belongs.
- Thelma! Surely you don't allow little Bobbie and Suzie to read this cesspit of sin!
-
Hey christians--your bible says we atheists are fools. If your book doesn't respect us, why should we respect it?
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:33 PM
- GWW, I don't see the relevance of your comment. It seems to me Lee was pointing out that "You're stupid and I hate you" is not a great way to start a working relationship. What's popularity got to do with it?
-
I don't recall our book saying a whole lot about modern atheists per se.
GWW, what was the point of your last comment? It seems that Lee was pointing out that "You're stupdid and I hate you" is not a great way to build a working relationship. What's popularity got to do with it? -
PZ wrote:
Lee does not seem to be aware of the possibility that one can disagree most vigorously with the opinions of another while still respecting their existence as human beings.
Oh, don't worry. I am fully aware of the possibility - it's simply that we approach the idea of vigorous disagreement in different ways. Surely you recognize that possibility?
Finding that the best place to shelve a Bible is inside a woodchipper is not the same as thinking that's where a Christian belongs.
Hehe. Just as people can hate the sin, but love the sinner. You have the language of the true believer nailed down. Now to the wall with you.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:47 PM -
What about us wishy washy agnostics? Can we tell you how to be an atheist?
GWW: Titanic? Give me a break. It's popular for the same reason Coca Cola is popular - marketing.#: Posted by John Wilkins on 08/08 at 06:51 PM -
Thelma, I am glad to hear that your children will understand your arbitrary sense of morality through lies and fear rather than any sort of knowledge or respect. I'll bet that they are high on speed and/or pregenant by the time that they are fourteen with that kind of moral foundation. Hell maybe the little cabbages are tweekers already! The back of a bible is a great place to cut lines and the back pages roll sweet blunts!
btw: are you Southern Baptist or Church of Christ?#: Posted by on 08/08 at 06:52 PM -
Only if I'm allowed to tell you how to be an agnostic.
Hey, that's the same reason Christianity is popular! -
I've always been fond of the quote from Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason"
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.
More wood for the fire?#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:03 PM -
How many ways are there to say "I don't know?" Sure, go ahead and tell me, you atheistic commie scum...
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 08/08 at 07:09 PM
-
That wasn't a throwaway comment, nor was it made in ignorance. I sincerely and without apology consider a tree or a blade of grass of far greater importance than any stack of bibles;
I thought the sentence in question ought to be carved in marble and put somewhere prominent. It was one of the most beautiful, moving, inspiring things I've read in my life. This is not hyperbole. I actually came close to weeping when I read it, partly because it was the most succinct statement of my own sincerely held religious beliefs I've seen in some time, and partly from sheer envy that I hadn't said it myself.
Though it decried the bible, and though PZ is an atheist, it was not an exclusively atheist statement. In slightly more archaic language, it would have fit seamlessly into the Sermon on the Mount, both in tone and in meaning.
I think anyone who whines about that "throwaway comment" has a numb soul. Agree with it or don't, but if your religion prevents you from seeing the beauty and truth in the statement, then your religion is broken.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 08/08 at 07:11 PM -
"GWW, what was the point of your last comment?"
It was a joke about the lengths one might go to avoid offending the sensibilities of "potential allies."
PZ isn't running for President. He's expressing his own sincere opinion. How often do you suppose politicians do that?
Try stepping away from PZ's efforts to counter and/or cripple the intelligent design propaganda machine.
Let's look at the mainstream media. Did Jon Stewart "hurt his cause" when he appeared on Crossfire and called Tucker Carlson a "dick" and mocked Carlson's ludicrous get-up? Did Jon Stewart "alienate potential allies" when he made those comments?
Or did Jon Stewart inspire and energize people who were otherwise compelled to keep their feelings about stupid assholes like Tucker Carlson to themselves?
I don't claim to know the answer.
But I sure the hell am tired about hearing from people who do claim to know the answer and who advocate gently kissing the butt cheeks of powerful liars and their script-reciting rubes without any evidence that such a "strategy" is productive.
Let Chuck Krauthammer pursue that strategy. Those with tender sensibilities can march behind Harold Varmus. There are multiple flanks waiting to be activated and stifling the most pissed off supporters -- who also happen to be among the most honest and articulate -- seems more than a bit premature.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:17 PM -
Hey christians--your bible says we atheists are fools.
Jesus said
Whoever saith, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (Matthew 5:22)
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:18 PM -
Sure, slam intolerance and the fundies with their cartoon religion. All the best there. But enough already with the caustic assault on all religious faith connected with the Bible. That faith isn't the crutch for intellectual dolts you take it for. If you're bothered that it lacks a solid proof, then read some skeptics and know that your beliefs in inductive reasoning, freedom, other minds, and a mind-independent physical world lack rigorous proof, too. All of us, atheists included, go beyond piss-ant reason and rely constantly on leaps of faith in endorsing the basic tenets and methods in our world view.
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:25 PM
-
Jebus, I prefer Matthew 6:5.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 08/08 at 07:29 PM
- Are seriously going to claim that Jesus or Matthew was worried about atheists ca 40ce? Man, that's goofy.
-
"All of us, atheists included, go beyond piss-ant reason and rely constantly on leaps of faith in endorsing the basic tenets and methods in our world view."
There's that red meat smell again. Frankly, I'm quite full at the moment.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:35 PM -
GWW wrote:
Or did Jon Stewart inspire and energize people who were otherwise compelled to keep their feelings about stupid assholes like Tucker Carlson to themselves?
Good point. I'm sure everyone has noticed the amazing transformation in the media (especially cable news) since Stewart's takedown of Carlson. We can only hope the scientific community has similar success against the dogmatists looking to invade the science classroom.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:39 PM -
Careful, Lee. No sense depleting our nation's vital disingenuousness reserves.
#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 08/08 at 07:47 PM
-
Chris wrote:
Careful, Lee. No sense depleting our nation's vital disingenuousness reserves.
No worry Chris. Depletion may not be possible as long as this blog stays in existence.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 07:54 PM -
"I'm sure everyone has noticed the amazing transformation in the media (especially cable news) since Stewart's takedown of Carlson."
Nothing like sarcastically attacking a strawman.
"Depletion may not be possible as long as this blog stays in existence."
<<fart noise>>
((((((smell)))))
^^^^^^^^ waving in Lee's direction ^^^^^^#: Posted by on 08/08 at 08:20 PM -
GWW wrote:
Nothing like sarcastically attacking a strawman.
Yes, when you presented the poorly stuctured analogy, it was the best I could do. If you could up the quality a bit, perhaps I could give the strawman a brain.
As for your IBS, you might try not swallowing everything offered just cause it looks good.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 08:30 PM -
"perhaps I could give the strawman a brain."
Doubtful. But stick around. You're sort of cute.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 08:46 PM -
So I went down to the nursery and asked the fella there for the "Miracle Bible Mulch" I'd heard so much about but he said he was not aware of any such product. Maybe some day...
+++
The job of men of reason is harder than those who can assert unproveable religious dogma. I contend that someone who cares about these issues should consider learning as much as possible about the role of magic and belief in the history of the world, and why so many people are frightened without the Sky Buddy to cling onto: they'll fall off the planet without the glue of irrational beliefs. Why? Why can't they let go and trust the universe? Why do they insist their creator is a male, that Eden was shut down because a couple of kids wouldn't behave: what is the function of such outlandishness? Can we assume that because such beliefs are held that they have some irrational function--if so, what is it? To use simple put-downs "they're morons" or what-have-you tells us nothing.
I think instead of waiting to be described by fundies, a reasonable person who doesn't embrace three thousand year-old tribal myths might attempt to describe heaven without god and hell without the devil: let's call it earth.
+++ -
GWW wrote:
stick around. You're sort of cute.
Well garsh. First sweet bowel music, then sort of flattery. Should I be expecting half-dead flowers next? You atheists sure know how to flatter a girl.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 09:10 PM -
P.S. Those of you sending me all the evangelical crap and signing me up for Christian mailing lists…you are really wasting your time.
**exist out of the christian mailing lists**
I just thought you'd get a kick out of them... ;)#: Posted by on 08/08 at 09:47 PM -
Uh, so I should cancel that bulk order of Jack Chick tracts that I sent to your office!? ;)
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 09:56 PM
-
#34338: steve — 08/08 at 05:19 PM
I would enjoy reading the more entertaining and uninformed emails you get on this topic, and other topics for that matter. Please consider posting them, anonymously if necessary.
EY: I second that PZ... I also think you are right on about athiests and freethinkers needing to come out of the closet. It's really appalling that politicians have to claim religion in order to be elected. -
Excellent comments PZ! I have no patience for believers. They should understand that faith is a matter of unjustified belief (a Kierkegaardian leap if you will), rather than a verifiable claim. Huh? What? The big bang is a testable hypothesis! Huh? evolution is also a testable hypothesis! god's existence? what about Harry Potter's existence or the Starship Enterprise? Grow up! God is simply one character among many in a fascinating piece of literature. Nothing more. Celebrate truth over psychological comfort. Cheers!
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 10:02 PM
-
Those of you sending me all the evangelical crap and signing me up for Christian mailing lists…you are really wasting your time.
yeah, and i got some Dembski spam today. wonder if it came from a lurker here ... . i did the right thing: bounced the e-mail, and promptly wrote a blog entry. -
Oh, black boy, you did not just say that Star Trek is fiction did you!? Star Trek is real, real, REAL! How else could they possibly know where Scotty was born, eh!?
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 10:09 PM
-
I work in the nursery industry, and am fascinated by your bible mulch idea. How might I sign up to receive your literature?
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 10:10 PM
-
... am fascinated by your bible mulch idea
yeah, just imagine the business possibilities: Christmas trees tagged with In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God .... -
" I say the only way for decent people to get over their anti-atheist bigotry is to make them aware that their neighbors and teachers and postal workers and plumbers and carpenters include freethinkers with a wide range of views."
And maybe one day they'll even allow us to marry! and adopt children!
(whisper)yes, I know we can already . . . but don't tell them . . .(/whisper)
But honestly, PZ, what is this unreasoning prejudice against "codawful ugly fanged lizardoid monster bab[ies]"??
And where is that post about the library of human evolution hiding? I can't find it anywhere on site . . .
*blog update!* -
Kudos to Thelma Richards. Really good parody. I knew I was in the presence of a master as I read it, and this was amply confirmed by the later poster who *took it seriously*!
And thanks, PZ, for being an unashamed atheist.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 10:44 PM -
That wasn't a throwaway comment, nor was it made in ignorance.
Well, generally, I take such sentiments as the LGFers who opine about what they'd like to do to the Koran. I just expect it less out of an ostensible liberal intellectual. And it was made in ignorance, because the statement is, itself, an ignorant one. In all seriousness, generally the "Bible in a woodchipper" comments are best left to the kid who, after being dragged to confirmation by his parents, suddenly discovers atheism and starts expressing such sentiments.
And, of course, no good was done by the "well-meaning" Christians who decided to use your statement as (a) an evangelism opportunity or (b) a chance to tell you how much they "weren't like" the people you decried, in the hopes that it would make you seem more favorable to them... but "pleading reasoning" isn't called for when someone makes such an appalling, ignorant statement as yours. Like the guy who tells Jewish jokes at a dinner party or utters the "n-word," he needs public reproach or at least awkward silences and coughing to express that this sort of thing just isn't done. Yes, no amount of reasoning is going to get you to change, but a public reproach may at least make it clear that such sentiments are unacceptable, at least to educated audiences.#: Posted by Constantine on 08/08 at 10:47 PM -
PZ: You're quite a good counter-puncher (certainly useful in the classroom, I'm sure) and seem to believe that science will answer all questions given enough time (including the creation of the universe and life). However, I'm curious as to what you believe in in terms of a moral code. As an atheist, what is your good?
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 11:07 PM
-
What's being good? That's a loaded question. The thing with atheists is that being good doesn't go hand in hand with the fear of God. It's got more to do with simply using your brain.
#: Posted by on 08/08 at 11:53 PM
-
I also find it odd that non-fundies often seem to consider criticism of fundamentalism much worse than fundamentalism itself, even though the fundies themselves repay that consideration with calling non-fundies hell-bound fake Xians, atheists in disguise, etc.
As to how we ought not to throw the (metaphorical) baby out with the (metaphorical) bathwater, those who make that complaint have a hard time separating the two, and often act as if the baby comes with the bathwater, and that it would be wrong to separate them.#: Posted by on 08/08 at 11:54 PM -
constantine, why should irreligioists respect religionists? They don't respect us. A president of the United States notoriously said that non-believers could not be moral, and his views are widely endorsed by American believers.
Then Lyons pops us with a reference to the widespread belief of believers that no one would or could be moral without the threat of eternal punishment.
Well, both of you, I take you at your word. I do not believe people like you have any internal controls and are never moral because you think moral behavior has any intrinsic value.
I listen to Christian sermons (on radio) nearly everyday. The easy assumption of ALL these preachers that people who are not saved are inferior does not lead me to think that they are admirable and to imitated.
It leads me to despise these hypocrites, poseurs and frauds.
Why should righteous atheists get down in the mud with these pigs?#: Posted by on 08/09 at 12:06 AM -
What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. You're not skipping around the blogosphere sending harassing emails to THEM and signing THEM up to atheist mailing lists.
People who are that hateful and vindictive to someone just because that someone has a different belief system should worry about their own souls first.#: Posted by Drunken Lagomorph on 08/09 at 12:07 AM -
Constantine, you've stated that you feel the bible-mulch comment was "ignorant," even "appallingly ignorant". You're trying to imply that your reasons for that assertion are obvious. They are not.
The quote you're objecting to is:
"A single tree is a greater marvel than the thousand bibles that could be printed from its pulped-up trunk; if we mulched every Bible published to foster the growth of a single blade of grass, we'd be the richer for it."
The implication of this quote is that the Bible is contributing nothing positive to our lives. Its net effect is zero or negative.
Now tell us why you think it's ignorant. Is it based purely on the idea that Bible-based religions are doing more positive than negative?
A supported argument will carry far more weight than repetitive assertions and comparisons to childishness. -
Once again, thank you, Constantine.
This
I also find it odd that non-fundies often seem to consider criticism of fundamentalism much worse than fundamentalism itself...
is false. -
PZ:
you are sharp-tongued, blunt, straightforward, and dead on. Were Mt. St. Helens not erupting, Pharyngula would be my home page. (Gotta get my daily fix of steaming volcano). It is certainly one of my daily reads.
One quibble, though, about the "lizardoid" monster bible baby: I spent the last week on the California coast enjoying, among other things, spotting lizards near hiking trails. I think you owe collective lizardkind an apology.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 12:28 AM -
I guess you also wouldn't accept the idea the Bible is important in the lives of actual human beings--insofar as they make it important--as a positive value. (When you attack the things someone believes in, you can actually cause him/her pain. Maybe you think that pain is acceptable or due, in some medicinal sense, but y'all have a strange way of going about it.) The fact that there are some actual moral lessons in there--which were even totally novel when the thing was written. The fact that some people sometimes do need reminders about what moral behavior can look like. Oh well.
You seem to have this bizarre idea that the Bible or a religion can do something. Like any other ism, religion doesn't do things. People do things. -
But Karen, collective lizardkind is a paraphyletic assembly, so not natural. PZ needs to apologise to nothing that is not natural...
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 08/09 at 12:37 AM
-
i can sometimes stop a conversation cold by saying that whoever is right, me based on my observable evidence, or they, based on their faith, they’re in a win-win situation. if they're right, God is real, then someday they can stand in the gateway and say “i told you so”. if i’m right, then neither one of us will ever know.
and they smile, usually a “have i just been slimed?” smile and walk away.
meanwhile i’m taking advantage of every single second i have, while they fritter away their time waiting for something.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 12:55 AM -
Trouble is, tony g, you may both be wrong...
http://www.cthulhu.org/#: Posted by John Wilkins on 08/09 at 01:37 AM -
Cameron, Constantine:
I think you two don't understand the key point in question, and so you keep begging the question. PZ and the rest think that the Bible is at best useless, and at worst a book filled with hate and cruelty and nonsense. You might disagree, and think that the Bible is a sublime book filled with sound moral guidance. But at least recognize that there's a disagreement here. Why did PZ say what he said? Because he thinks the Bible is not a good thing. There should be no mystery about this.
And given that this is a substantive point of disagreement, I can't imagine why Constantine would insist that PZ's remark was "made in ignorance" and "unacceptable... to educated audiences". Are there some well-known facts that PZ is neglecting, facts that straightfowardly disprove the claim that the Bible is no good? And why the comparison to racist and ethnic bigotry? Again, I can't imagine what you are getting at. (Do you have a similar problem with the claim that the Qur'an is no good? The Tao Te Ching? The Communist Manifesto? Dianetics?)
A few related points:
Just because something is important in the lives of human beings doesn't mean that it's actually valuable. It's very easy to come up with examples of detestable things occupying first place in people's lives -- people dedicate themselves to all sorts of ugly and contemptible pursuits. So the mere fact that people cherish the Bible does nothing at all to vindicate its status as a valuable feature of the world. (This obvious point holds no matter what you think of the Bible)
Some things are so abominable they need to be attacked. Naturally, this can pain those who cherish the abomination in question. And, to be sure, their pain matters (at least much of the time), and this should be taken into account by any responsible and mature moral agent. But the fact remains, some things need to be attacked. (Again, it's very easy to come up with examples). Consequently, just because attacking the Bible causes people pain doesn't mean the Bible doesn't need to be attacked. (This also holds no matter what you think of the Bible)
Finally, I'm curious as to the "totally novel" moral lessons found in the Bible. And of course, we should bear in mind the obvious point that novel moral lessons aren't necessarily good moral lessons.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 02:33 AM -
"Don't damn the messenger who tells you your house of god is a den of thieves and liars. Clean up your mess."
I think the idea might be that if the church becomes corrupt enough then Jesus will be forced to return to clean out the temples as he supposedly did last time
As for your idea that you could as well turn all Bibles to mulch, that is a fundamentalist view not too different from relgious fundamenatlists who have at some points decided that eveything *but* the Bibles (or Qurans) could just as well be burned. The Bible is important as part of human culture and history whether you believe in God or not.
Now if the coice was between the last straw of grass or the last Bible it would be different. Grass is necessary, unlike religion. But if you think every straw of grass is so important that it can't be cut down I'd hate to see your lawn.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 02:48 AM -
Oh my lack of god! This from Thelma Richards:
...the path towards eternal damnation which surely awaits his tortured godless soul.
We don't demand that you become a Christian (although it would be nice, especially if you admitted to my friends that it was me who converted you).
Were it up to me, I would make it a crime to say the things you say.
In the meantime, why must you engage in activities which divide our family? We try very hard to teach our children the difference between right and wrong. If they know that they can do whatever they want without fear of going to hell, what is going to keep them from sniffing glue, fornicating with each other, and driving drunk like the gays do?
Ok this HAS to be a joke, right? I am only on the first page of commentary and I am already spluttering. Please tell me that when I read on my suspicions of satire will be confirmed.
If not satire, then we have a great example of a certain religious mindset. One that I hope, actually I know, isn't representative of the religious people I know. Where to start with a demolition?
Look at the stated aims of this person, she wants to convert you, and she wants you to tell her friends! Why? This is self aggrandisement of the worst and most pernicious kind. "Look at me! Look at me! I have converted an atheist!", she wants bragging rights. For this person, religion is a smart car or fancy lawn ornament to be shown off to the neighbours in order to make them feel inferior.
She wants your ideas and the expression of them to be made illegal. Why? Because she is clearly a terrified individual who cannot stand challenge or question when it comes to her tiny outlook.
As for her ridiculous screed on "ethics", I offer the works of Kant, Hume, Nietsche, Russell and many others.
Mind you I want to meet those drinking driving, fornicating, glue sniffing gays. They sound like they get to go to the good parties!*
*Ok so I don't think drink driving and glue sniffing are good ideas. The fornicating should be done with adequate protection, and if those gay guys and gals want to do their thang too, all good.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 02:54 AM -
"Fascinating approach you have to seeking out allies in your endeavor. Well done."
Any "ally" that expects tolerance for his/her own beliefs, but can't get over the idea that someone strongly disagrees with them, isn't much of an ally.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 03:31 AM - Louis, I enjoyed Thelma's parody. "Ted Zeppelin" and "driving drunk like the gays do" were a couple of clues.
-
Louis,
erm, yes, Ms Richards's comment was a joke; and a very good one at that. Like many of the best jokes, it deviates only slightly from reality. -
Cameron wrote:
I guess you also wouldn't accept the idea the Bible is important in the lives of actual human beings--insofar as they make it important--as a positive value.
I am curious Cameron. Do you support or oppose the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in the science classroom?#: Posted by on 08/09 at 05:31 AM -
Jenny wrote:
Any "ally" that expects tolerance for his/her own beliefs, but can't get over the idea that someone strongly disagrees with them, isn't much of an ally.
Don't go into politics.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 05:35 AM -
However, I'm curious as to what you believe in in terms of a moral code. As an atheist, what is your good?
You really shouldn't have asked that. It's one of those questions that gets me angry. It assumes that the religious have a source for a moral code that atheists lack.
First, the Bible is not a moral document. It is a hodge-podge of old myths, and many of the ideas expressed in it are simply evil. All you have to do is look to your nearest conservative televangelist and you can see that its teachings are corrupt.
Second, I and other atheists are human beings who have been brought up in a culture of cooperation. I base my morality on empathy and fundamental, universal ideas like the Golden Rule...exactly as do good Christians. -
It is possible to seperate a belief in a divine being from a belief in the infallibility of the bible. The bible is a many times translated, much revised, book. As a book it is an interesting historical document. I don't go quite as far as PZ in condemning it as having less value than a blade of grass, but I understand his sentiment.
However, a belief in the infallability of this book is even sillier than a belief in a divine being. Even we atheists acknowledge that should evidence present itself, bona fide miracles for example, for the existance of a divine being we would reconsider our beliefs. However, I am at a loss as to what evidence could be presented to convince me the bible is divinely inspired.
Conflating an attack on the belief in the infallibility of the bible with an attack on the existance of a deity is a mistake. PZ did not, with the statement under contention, attack the existance of a deity.
Now I don't intend to put words in PZ's mouth. In no way am I suggesting that PZ doesn't hold similarly strong opinions about the existance of a diety. However, taking offense at a comment about the usefullness of the bible, and claiming that the comment concerned the existance of a diety is setting up a strawman. It seems strange to me that PZ's statement of atheism is apparently less offensive than expressing an opinion about a book.
Personally, even as an atheist, I think there is some value in the bible. Whenever I get really depressed a quick re-reading of Ecclesiastes really picks me up. There is nothing like reading nihilism written by people without flush toilets.
Cheers,
-Flex#: Posted by on 08/09 at 06:42 AM - I've been doing my morning blog rounds and I can already tell this particular post is going to be pretty damn popular around the blogosphere. Good work!
-
Why can't forthright atheists and "moderate" religious believers be allies against creationism/ID while at the same time stating their thoughts honestly? The believers lay down the condition that we have to pretend that we don't think the holy scriptures are worthless, whereas we state that we don't care if they believe in the truth of these worthless scriptures as long as they put some effort into explaining to their fellow creationist believers what is wrong with literal interpretation of said scriptures. That seems like a basis for an alliance to me.
In other words, the "moderate" believers should try to talk their fellow believers into interpreting their scriptures the way they do -- as metaphors and parables. Good luck, though! The result of such endeavors usually seems to be that the "moderates" get condemned to hell along with the atheists. Hm ... another basis for an alliance, perhaps.#: Posted by sort of buddhist on 08/09 at 08:20 AM -
I wish to state that I don't consider the Bible only good as mulch -- I think that it's a good addition to a collection of historical curiosities and oddities. But I agree that it's far from The Final Truth about Life, the Universe, and Everything, which is what it is advertised as.
As to the Bible containing worthwhile moral lessons, I wish to ask: which ones?#: Posted by on 08/09 at 08:30 AM -
Undoubtedly the Word would make great mulch--every seed would know just what to do. But how about a proactive stand--how many trees went down to stick a bible in every hotel/motel room in the country? Stop it!
#: Posted by on 08/09 at 09:16 AM
-
sort of buddhist wrote:
Why can't forthright atheists and "moderate" religious believers be allies against creationism/ID while at the same time stating their thoughts honestly?
Hate to break the news to you, but I don't think moderate religious believers, which represent a significant bloc of voters in theis country, see the miniscule atheist population as necessary allies. Their natural allies are people of all persuasions (including sort of buddhists and skeptics) who think that religion doesn't belong in the science classroom.
While the true believer ranting I see here on this blog may make for higher site visits, I don't see that it would move any moderate religious believer to ally with your causes, only one of which seems concerned with science.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 09:36 AM -
PZ Myers is my hero!
And Thelma Richards, too!
#: Posted by on 08/09 at 09:52 AM -
You dissed D. James Kennedy?
That's the most Christian thing anyone's done on the 'net in weeks.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 10:04 AM -
Cameron is violently opposed to teaching ID in sceince classrooms. I guess you could present ID as an example of pseudoscience. I just think hurting people's feelings for no good reason is bad. If you, say, worshipped a teddy bear, I wouldn't steal it and burn it just for shits and giggles.
oh screw it -
Moral Code?
Go read Jefferson. In Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson made the case for getting the Bible out of school curricula -- it was terrible for teaching reading (which is why it was used), and it had lots of nasty stuff in it that kids shouldn't read, like incest, and baby killing.
And, Jefferson drolly added, with the Bible out, there would be time to teach morality instead.
Either fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, stand-up comedy wasn't bit in colonial America. Jefferson had to stick to government.
("class." Heh.)#: Posted by on 08/09 at 10:15 AM -
Cameron wrote:
Cameron is violently opposed to teaching ID in sceince classrooms. I guess you could present ID as an example of pseudoscience. I just think hurting people's feelings for no good reason is bad.
That was my assumption - that you didn't support the teaching of ID in a science classroom - I just wanted to make sure. So has the empathy and compassion of PZ and others here convinced you they would make good political allies in the effort to keep religion out of the science class?#: Posted by on 08/09 at 10:16 AM -
#34365: Cameron — 08/08 at 06:42 PM
I don't recall our book saying a whole lot about modern atheists per se.
Duh, dude, it doesn't say a whole lot about anything less than 2000 years old. Perhaps you could explain why its pronouncements about previous generations of nonbelievers doesn't apply to the modern variety.
The Bible does, however, tell us that God committed, advised, approved or condoned, genocide (including the unborn), slavery, polygamy, human sacrifice, etc.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 10:34 AM -
So has the empathy and compassion of PZ and others here convinced you they would make good political allies in the effort to keep religion out of the science class?
I'm going to hope that we could have a more useful conversation if we weren't using this kind of forum.
Baseyian (and others), your comment presupposes at least 2 wrong notions. One, that all people who care about the Bible read it literally and uncritically, in particular, without any consideration of the historical context in which it was written. (For example, it would be wrong to assume that genuine monotheism is in play thoughout.) Two, that the New Testament doesn't overrule the Old in many aspects--that's kind of the point of the whole thing.
Ok, next angry quotation? -
Cameron wrote:
I'm going to hope that we could have a more useful conversation if we weren't using this kind of forum.
Ah, an optimist. I like your style.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 10:53 AM -
#34421: John Lyon — 08/08 at 11:07 PM
PZ: You're quite a good counter-puncher (certainly useful in the classroom, I'm sure) and seem to believe that science will answer all questions given enough time (including the creation of the universe and life). However, I'm curious as to what you believe in in terms of a moral code. As an atheist, what is your good?
Oh geez, a presumptuous, ignorant question about morality.
I believe that genocide, human sacrifice, and slavery are wrong, in spite of the approval or condonement of these practices in the Bible.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 11:06 AM -
Oh geez, a presumptuous, ignorant question about morality.
Why is it ignorant? If you're not familiar with a-theistic ethics as a discourse, such a question seems like a reasonable starting point.
The next time someone mocks your religion as backwards and based on superstition, I suggest you tell the Dennis Pragers of the world that they're making you look bad.
They don't listen to us either. I've tried. -
#34492: Cameron One, that all people who care about the Bible read it literally and uncritically, in particular, without any consideration of the historical context in which it was written. (For example, it would be wrong to assume that genuine monotheism is in play thoughout.)
I'm not sure what assumption you think I made, or how you justify that from my posts, but I guess you are saying that slavery, polygamy, genocide (including the unborn), and human sacrifice used to be OK, but they aren't now, but you still want to hold up the Bible as containing good morality.
Two, that the New Testament doesn't overrule the Old in many aspects--that's kind of the point of the whole thing.
Have you actually read the book?
Matt 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Since 'taking candy from a baby' is considered morally unacceptable, I will now cease arguing scripture with you.#: Posted by on 08/09 at 11:25 AM