Conversions to Christianity scheduled to sweep across the nation next Wednesday

PZ, as pleased as I am to hear that you are prepared for your religious conversion to Catholicism (that is, once the 13-minute proof of God's existence has been verified), you should be aware that your friendly local Catholic church will not "dunk" you. Roman Catholic baptism is by sprinkling, not immersion. Also, if you were already baptized at an earlier date, RC policy generally avoids re-baptism, just so you know.

The buggery, by the way, is not officially sanctioned (only semi-officially), so you should consider that an extra.

Not available in all parishes.

I was baptized with Lutheran holy water. Does that count, or will I need to get re-sprinkled?

Also, my god-parents are deceased. Can I get fresh ones?

This religion stuff is hard. I'm not sure if I'll be able to cope. And what if the God Ray and Kirk prove is Allah or Vishnu or something? I'm going to be completely unprepared.

I swear this is true (by which I mean, actual RC practice): a Lutheran baptism means you're good to go. No more sprinkling required. But here's the cool part: As a Catholic inductee, you can pick new godparents (for your RC confirmation rites). And the godparents thereafter have to give you nice presents on your birthday and at Christmas. (I think it's a church rule.)

Godparents: They're what's good about religion.

Or do you think I should arrange to watch it with a priest so he can bless me or shrive me or give me a cracker or hear my confession or bugger me or dunk me in a tank of water...

What do you mean "or"? A *real* priest would be doing all of those things simultaneously.

O Lord, please, I must find a gentle priest. Will he at least hold my hand for a minute before taking a swig of the wine and charging in?

Anglican holy water might count, but Lutheran? What, what, what?!

And about the crackers, the process of transubstantiation does not admit the transmorgrification of flavor. Although, from a marketing perspective, I always thought something like a bialy with a frank on a stick would work nicely. (Can't be a corn dog, because if it ain't wheat, it ain't real Jesus.) Anyway the priests could evangelize with a push cart. "Get your Jesus! Get your read hot Jesus on a stick!"

Crap, that's another 40 years hard time in purgatory.

If you opt for the buggery, just hope he's not too well blessed.

Prediction: Kirk Cameron will continue to be forgotten.

Crap, that's another 40 years hard time in purgatory.

I thought purgatory was more like a waiting room... I suppose that could be considered hard time, if the magazines are old and just consist of Highlights and Bass Fishing Monthly from the 70s.

"I look forward to racing towards my nearest church (which happens to be Catholic) at 1:13 EST 5 days from now."

I think from Ray Comfort's point of view, Catholic conversion is a conversion to a false version of Christianity. So if you accept his proof, I think you need to expend the effort to get to an evangelical or pentecostal type church. There you will be dunked. None of this wimpy sprinkling. What sins can that wash away?

And what if the God Ray and Kirk prove is Allah or Vishnu or something?

Yikes.

Daaaaaay gone,
Daaaaay gone.
Nightfall comin'
And me wan go ho-ome....
Daaaaay gone
I say Daay I say Day I say Day-ay-ay-gone
Dagon comin' and me wan go home

In case they try the banana argument again someone should take along a durian.

Recently, my favorite part of going to church, when obliged by familial concerns, is the eating of the Jesus; it's so visceral and violent. I don't think people take as much joy in the sensual aspects of religion, just the dogmatic and/or philosophical notions.

And not enough appreciation goes to the martyrs, who died violent deaths because they wouldn't conform with society; those peeps are dinosaur.

Hee hee hee. You make me laugh, PZ. The Aztecs made an absolutely lovely dish out of tomatoes, peppers and skin which can still be sampled as part of authentic Indios cuisine in parts of Mexico---though of course they have substituted pork.

In all seriousness, though, let me subject to you to a little mild chastisement. This IS an event. A major American television network is going to put the question of God's existence on the table, for discussion. This is unprecedented, in my experience, and I not only intend to watch, I've invited some good people to come over and share it with me. It seems to me that this is a good opportunity to draw attention to the prejudice against non-believers, inasmuch as the RRS folk have elected not to give their last names....and who can blame them?

So, those of us who care about freedom of thought and the free exercise of religion should probably take this seriously, and talk this up. Also, it's my opinion that Cameron and Comfort are NOT going to be using anything as nuanced as the ontological argument. Since they've also vowed they are not going to refer to scripture, that pretty much leads them with arguments from design, which brings them into collision with anyone who cares about good science. And, there are (ahem) a Host of such folk.

What's the bet that it is the rehashed version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

Have you ever listened to Comfort/Cameron? Any cosmological argument is too clever for them.

I suspect they'll bring out the Peanut Butter Argument. That's about their level.

"Comfort claims he can prove the existence of god in 13 minutes."

13 minutes!? I don't have 13 minutes to spare on a God-proof! If he can whittle it down to 8, I can fit it in a nice 15-minute block along with my 7-minute ab workout...

Lutherans are benighted heathens for most purposes. However, since they are Trinitarians, I do believe their baptisms are considered valid. You can't rebaptize anyone, even a prod.; it causes some sort of spiritual particle/antiparticle annihilation phenomenon. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not say what happens if you're baptized three times; I supect nobody has ever survived the process.

Lutheran Holy Communion doesn't count for Catholic purposes, so PZ is in the red for about 30 years of missed Easter communions. It could be fattening to make those up all at once; transsubstantatiated wafers are very high in calories. But confession is de rigeur before you partake anyway, so that would need to be step 1.

My advice is, have a list of sins made up well in advance, so you can avoid all that humming and hawing while you try to recall if you took the Lord's name in vain 25679 times or 25680 times. Catholicism has quite an extensive list of sins, some of which you might not even know are sins, so it's best to consult a Catechism before you try to draw up a list. You wouldn't want to have skipped the sin of presumption and have an incomplete absolution, which would in turn contaminate your first communion.

Of course, this is strictly amateur advice; any adoption of a major Christian religion should be conduction only with the advice of an experienced clerical professional. Offer not valid in Saudi Arabia or Alabama.

As a former Catholic I can tell you that there are actually several brands of wafer that are used in the mass(that's right, they make them in a factory). PZ, you have to find out where the church buys is Jesus wafers from. Some of them are like white bread and are kinda bland. Others are more 'whole-wheat' and have a nice nutty flavor (nutty as in cashews and chestnuts, but the pun was intended). One thing you may have to concern yourself with is the ritual fasting for one hour before getting to eat your very own slice-o-christ. Also, it's rude to pick the Jesus out of your teeth while still in church. Wait till you're ourside to scrape the savior out from between your bicuspids.

I, for one, would love to see PZ explain his post on spider sex to the priest during confession...

"Is it true that the cracker tastes like raw pork?"

No, it tastes like a bland cracker. (I ate them when I was too young to know better.)

I just hope the proof involves bananas.

PZ, I know you have mixed answers here, but having been baptized Lutheran you ARE good to go... but before you get what my daughter used to refer to as "holy chip and dip" you have to go to confession. I suppose you could just print out the blog and give it to the priest ;)

THEN you can start preparing for communion... and grok Christ.

I suppose you could just print out the blog and give it to the priest ;)

He'd call in an exorcist. And the penance would be inhumane. At least a barefoot pilgramage on foot, to Rome.

Hate to plug my brother's blog, ut did you see what the Republican candidates said about evolution???

Here:

http://matthewpiette.com/matthewpiette/index.php?option=com_content&tas…

Dan

Hey, we're trying to spring this blasphemous heathen from an eternity of hellfire here, Do you mind?

The 30% anti-evolution figure was a relief to most of us familiar with GOP politics. If asked beforehand, I'd have guess 5 or 6 would have said no.

Confession? I don't know if this might work:

"Father, I'm a busy man and you too, so I'll be brief: I have violated several times a day, during several years, at several degrees, all of the Ten Commandments of God and all of the Five Commandments of the Church."

Just thought I'd get this out there:
http://improbable.com/2007/05/04/big-name-peer-reviewer/

I didn't write it, you understand. It's just a Pharygulike thing.

They already had me at the banana.

To be honest, I'm surprised that there are any atheists left given that bananas disprove evolution and give compelling evidence that Jesus Christ is our personal saviour.

Wow. I'm quivering in my boots. I mean, they sure wouldn't make this big of a deal out of it if they were going to drag out the same apologetics I've been hearing for years. No sir. And he sure won't be firing off several variations of the same flawed argument -- we can expect one single, solid, coherent proof of the existence of God.

My only question is how I'll get by knowing that I can no longer have wild debauched orgies without Yahweh getting his voyeur on.

It's been posted a thousand times here, but it never gets old. Behold the atheist's nightmare!

Brace for bananas people!

What if they prove Allah or The Goddess or someone else than Tetragrammaton? Uh-oh.

Hmmm ... Now ABC is saying it will be on ABC News Now on May 9 at 2 p.m. and on Nightline at 11:35 p.m.

And a weekday during regular business hours is supposed to increase viewing over a weekend showing exactly how?

Oh yeah, and my nearest church is LDS. One more Mormon!

I suspect they'll bring out the Peanut Butter Argument. That's about their level.

Behold the other atheist's nightmare! I've got a peanut butter and banana sandwich with your name on it, PZ Meyejers! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

I find that banana argument rather appealing.

PZ, you are SO not getting a job with the Edwards campaign.

Meh ... Just another barely scientific blog post by PZ on what should be a science blog site.

Meh ... Just another barely scientific blog post by PZ on what should be a science blog site.

Yeah. Too bad there aren't other websites for you to visit.

"Is it true that the cracker tastes like raw pork?"

This is an interesting question given that according to many church dogmas the wafer physically turns into the flesh of Christ as you eat it and the wine turns to his blood. I think we can assume that the church is too cheap to buy special flavoring, so if it REALLY tastes like pork that would mean 1. It has really done what it was supposed to do or
2. the recipient is very suggestable.

I'm sure this will be compelling for the kind of person who thinks that C.S. Lewis had important things to say.

Recommended order:
confession
shrift
buggery
dunk tank
crackers and wine
blessing

...and then you're all sexually relieved, clean, fed, sanctified, and ready to take on the world. Or anything else, if you find it. :)

You all arent True Atheists.

I dont even know where or what denomination my 'nearest church' is.

Im just going to have to run to the middle of the street and start rolling around, talking in tongues. Good thing this interview didnt happen this week while I was home sick-- neighbors would just assume it was the fever and not take me to the nearest Biblo nest.

I heard (from very reliable sources) that the Big Guy is going to join them on stage and jam with them for a couple of tunes.

Clarence Clemens is God!?!

I can't believe it's going to take 13 whole minutes. It's not like their followers aren't routinely bowled over by arguments such as "My great aunt prayed to Jesus and her gout cleared right up", or "I opened myself up to Jesus and BANG there he was!" and "Bunnies!" And will it be 13 minutes with or without commercials?

sailor: according to many church dogmas the wafer physically turns into the flesh of Christ as you eat it and the wine turns to his blood

The doctrine of actual transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is called transubstantiation and is specific to the Roman Catholic Church (and a few other churches in formal communion with Rome). As a rule, Protestant churches reject transubstantiation in favor of consubstantiation, which holds that the transformation is symbolic rather than real. (There may be a few exceptions to this -- there are so many Protestant sects, after all -- but mainstream Protestantism rejects the RC doctrine.) At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church says that the "accidents" (that's the term) of bread and wine retain their physical characteristics despite having become the Real Presence (a synonym for transubstantiation) of Christ's body and blood. This is a convenient detail, since it means no one need doubt that Christ's body is being eaten and Christ's blood is being drunk just because the body tastes like a wafer (rather than like "the other white meat") and the blood tastes like an inexpensive house red. With all the loose ends tied into neat bows, the doctrine of transubstantiation is therefore as proven and as unassailable as any other religious doctrine. Really!

With two thousand years of practice, you can explain away almost anything!

Clarence Clemons isn't God, just one of the Three Most Important People in the World.

This is an interesting question given that according to many church dogmas the wafer physically turns into the flesh of Christ as you eat it and the wine turns to his blood.

Huh? That's about the dumbest thing I ever heard of. Anyway, as I recall, they taste like cardboard. I think they compress them out of recycled reconstituted crackers, or something. I dunno.

Zeno, Lutherans don't favour Consubstantiation, they have something called "Sacramental Union", which as far as I can tell is completely different from the Papist concept of Transubstantiation because it has a different name. Seriously, I think that's all there is to it, the nuances are very subtle and colossally boring. It's literally the body and blood, right, but not literally literally, because it's not actually, but it is, but it's not like that, it's different ... it's ... um ... spiritually different. Magic Man Done It.

My response to the McCain evolution question : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn-ZQBV_FRo

If you like it, please don't forget to rate, and comment. The more activity the higher the video goes the more people see it. Thx:-)

PZ, this is something specific to your field, so if you get a moment to review, I'd appreciate any feedback you might have. Well nice feedback. Friendly like.

"Is it true that the cracker tastes like raw pork?"

Depends on the church - some use a thin wafer that tastes like ...well a thin wafer... some use something that looks, feels, and tastes like day old wheat bread.

I would suggest sneaking in some foie gras to add to the bread - it goes well with the red wine.

@386sx

symbolically that is what the bread and the wine represent. personally i find it one of the least stupid things in catholic church dogma...

"In case they try the banana argument again someone should take along a durian."

A durian is large, spiky, and smells like socks. And it can kill you if it falls on your head. However, it is largely confined to portions of the world inhabited by Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims. Obviously, the durian is just one of yahweh's more unusual tools of smiting the infidels.

Rey, Ksenyia: "God" is a triunitarian entity composed of Christopher Walken, Burt Reynolds and Rutger Hauer. That pretty much goes without saying.

I would suggest sneaking in some foie gras to add to the bread - it goes well with the red wine.

That would be true -- but the sacramental wine isn't potable. Here's how it's made: First you take some Syrah grapes and put them in a dark, damp basement beneath some garbage until they mold. Then you use those the way you usually would to make wine, except for that you only recruit people with athlete's foot to do the stomping. After it's been aged in only the finest oil drums (sometimes with a decomposing body for that special piquant bite of feoter, and always with a few batteries), it is then steeped in gym socks for a week before being sent to true believers the world over.

Now, I've never seen this done, mind you, but it's the only way that I can account for the vile taste.

Thanks for the clarification, Ben. "Sacramental Union" sounds a lot like consubstantiation to me, but I would never doubt the ability of a diligent theologian to split a hairline distinction between the two. I imagine that a rousing debate on the eucharist among theologians of different sects could really get the blood racing. The excitement!

P.S.: The term "papist" is considered mildly offensive by most Catholics. Why I should mention this I don't know, since I'm pretty sure that I am exceedingly offensive to those who remain true believers.

Confession? Uh oh. I used to make stuff up for that. My friends and I would get together and make up sins. I confessed to, um, well... having a roll with a neighbor once (well, I did used to think about her when I was, uh, busy). Asked the priest if it was a mortal sin. He said no and I asked if it was if, uh, she wasn't looking my way at the time.

Was my all time best: 150 our fathers and 200 hail marys. When I was faking the 200 kneeling in front of the plastic virgin, I kept thinking how fine she looked in that blue robe. Damn, I was 13 after all.

Is this going to be a problem for my conversion this week?

Ironically, "papes" is my daughter's word for grapes. I guess what they're getting at is that Catholics drink a lot (of wine).

PZ said: O Lord, please, I must find a gentle priest. Will he at least hold my hand for a minute before taking a swig of the wine and charging in?

Fear not, PZ. I'm sure the priest will anoint your... err... you with oil beforehand.

Offtopic: Anyone have a link to Hitchens' appearance on Lou Dobbs? I missed the first part, but Lou was really pimping the book and seemed quite in agreement with CH. Is Lou Dobbs atheist, perchance?

*Added bonus: Hitch was sober and came off much better than on his Daily Show spot.

Back in grad school a friend of mine celebrate winning his case with the draft board by buying a tin of pretty good caviar. We couldn't find anything to eat it on until a Jesuit priest who lived in the same apartment house showed up with a box of unconsecrated communion wafers. I have had caviar on many occasions since then, but those wafers were even better than blinis. I don't know how good they are with the body of Christ, but they're perfect with fish eggs.

Point of order: The Papists have Transubstantiation. The Prods have Sacramental Union. (Some of 'em even use grape juice, may God have mercy on their heathen souls!) It's the Anglicans, the Via Media, who have Consubstantiation.

It is important to note, Dr. Myers, that it is not necessary to be an Anglican to be saved... but no gentleman would wish to do it any other way!

Comfort claims he can prove the existence of god in 13 minutes.

Banana explanation (1 minute)
Thumb sucking (1 minute)
Masturbation (30 seconds)

What's he going to do for the other 10 1/2 minutes?

Well, dang. I'll be on my way to Quito on the 9th. I won't have computer access, so I'll have to miss this scintillating debate, but I'll be sure to explain the banana theory to the turtles and the boobies of the Galapagos so that they can stop their reckless and wanton evolution! ;-)

Excuse me, Clarence Clemons IS God.

I can prove it in 6 minutes.

PZ, you know full well that theology and their proofs aren't about specific gods. Why, that would be like arguing about the cloth in the emperors clothes.

So after you are convinced that Darwinism is wrong and religion is right about how the world is run, you must still choose the gods that you fancy.

Since the teapot circling the sun is pretty cold and bitter by now, can I instead interest you in the FSM?

It is a yummy religion, easy to swallow, and you get to pick your own spices. It satisfies your romantic interests much better than buggering priests, you and your significant other can share it like Lady and the Tramp.

grok Christ

I don't think you are supposed to grok gods, they are holier than thou, larger than life, ... I guess incompressible is what I am looking for. ... um, yes, that must be it.

My co-wife's 8 y.o. grandson had his first communion last weekend. I suggested we get him a copy of "The God Delusion" as a present, but was overruled in favor of a dictionary (to help him with the words he doesn't understand in the science and nature books he's been devouring of late).

IUf I'd had time, I'd have tried to coach him to take a sip, swirl it in his mouth and say, "hmmm, fruity yet piquant. AB negative?"

symbolically that is what the bread and the wine represent. personally i find it one of the least stupid things in catholic church dogma...

I don't think it's supposed to be symbolic. I think it's supposed to be the real thing. Now do you think it's the least stupid?

I don't see why they don't just give them a slice of bread. It's not like they can't afford it or anything. I don't see what the big deal is about not giving them a real slice of bread.

Is it true that the cracker tastes like raw pork?

Damn, PZ. Now I've got to clean beer out of my keyboard...

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not say what happens if you're baptized three times; I supect nobody has ever survived the process.

(waves hand) I got baptized at least half a dozen times before I left the hospital I was born in. Evidently I was not all healthy and pink the first few days. Then they did it in church, just to be ceremonial I guess. Fat lot of good.

Lutheran holy water, though -- don't worry. It doesn't have to be holy water. It doesn't even have to be done by a priest, as witness what happened to me. (Nurses, mostly, in a heavily Catholic region.) Technically speaking, I could baptize anybody, with tap water. Crick water. Melted ice cubes. I'd just have to get the magic words right, and I know them in English and Latin.

Y'all better stay on my good side.

I don't see why they don't just give them a slice of bread. It's not like they can't afford it or anything. I don't see what the big deal is about not giving them a real slice of bread.

Never mind. I think I just figured it out. The wafer is meant to symbolically represent a real piece of bread, and that symbolic bread is really and truly in every sense of the word the flesh of a god once they eat it. I think I got that right.

The doctrine of transsubstatiation is that the wafer is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, even though it retains the appearances of a wafer. It's an exercise in pure Platonism. Although absolutely everything about the wafer appears the same, its essence is utterly different.

Personally, I regard this as a reductio ad absurdam for Platonism. But I think understanding the doctrine gives you a pretty good understanding of the essence of Catholicism.

"I opened myself up to Jesus and BANG there he was!"

Chicka-chicka wow-wow.
"Oh, Jesus! You're the King!"
(sorry, couldn't resist)

The doctrine of transsubstatiation is that the wafer is transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, even though it retains the appearances of a wafer.

Except that the wafer is meant to symbolically represent a real piece of bread. That's the hilarious part of it all. Lol, I can't get over how hilarious that is.

The RCC is clearly the most superstitous of the Christian sects. Between the saints and their body parts, the infallible chair, the wafer thing above, reliance on tradition no matter how wrong- It's no wonder Luther hadhad enoughand started the reformation. One wonders what took him so long.

Give me mainstream protestant religion any day. On most issues it at least pretends to be rational. Most issues.

I'm sorry, Hank says I can't watch Comfort and Cameron

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDp7pkEcJVQ

Give me mainstream protestant religion any day.

What do you consider 'mainstream protestant religion'?

Are you sure it's streaming from abc.com? Mark Spence, who put out the original press release, told me abcnews.com the other day when I got an email from him. I actually forgot to email you about this the other day.

Seems Comfort and Spence have different information about this altogether.

"reliance on tradition no matter how wrong"

Unless I'm mistaken, the Catholic Church doesn't insist on a literal interpretation of all of the bible's account, which does keep it from being the sect of christianity most incompatible with reality and science.

All I have to say is this: we need more ignoramus' to have access to major public media like this so that we can have more comment-fests like this. There are some real gems here, and if we can have this much fun with them, I can hardly imagine that *anyone* can take them seriously.

In response to MarVtin: I think that in reading that quote the way you are, you are talking about a vastly different entity that was Darwinism back when that was written. As it stands now, there is very little that he is addressing about it that is the same; most interpretations look at this now mostly as a social Darwinism critique, unless you want to interpret that passage as being completely scientifically inaccurate. I am a great admirer of Nietzsche, but lets not take his works out of context in service of some undefined goal.

Doctor Myers banned Fridriech Nietzsche at Pharyngula. Would you believe it? He will delete his opinin as soon as he wake up.

Atheist Nietzsche apparently ridiculed contemporary darwinism

And a troll discovers, to his delightfully disapproving surprise, that not all atheists are clones of each other. Who would have thunk it, from a bunch of freethinkers?

Look, troll, people can believe whatever goddamed nonsense they want to. But this is a blog run by a scientist for intelligent people. We have been over the reasons why evolution is a fact many, many times here. If you're too stupid to participate in the forum without committing intellectual vandalism, go peddle your tripe somewhere where they're buying it. You're not convincing anyone here.

Atheist Nietzsche apparently ridiculed contemporary darwinism

should have been italicized as well, of course...

I thought that Nietzsche was dead.

(a believer peeks her head in meekly....)

Thirteen minutes. Shoot. Too bad my own sins keep me busy 365/24/7.

Will he use a banana to prove God? 'Cause that time they did that before kinda reminded me of those priests, too.

After reading this comment thread I'm probably gonna need to go in for spleen surgery Monday anyhow.

And yeah, even though I believe in a spiritual realm and stuff? They kicked my blog outta the World Council of Churches anyhow. Didn't like the panties.

(Love on ya, PZ honey. Keep the faith.)

Until the debate starts, you can pass the time with a board game.

http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_C…

13 minutes seems a long time to wait for a punchline. But, if this is anything like the banana proof, it will be comedy worth waiting for.

I'm just really glad that some of you will be watching and commenting on this, so I don't have to. I don't think I could take it.

Hey, my peanut butter and banana sandwich just walked away from me! Come back, incipient life!!!

I will be going to this debate with about 50 other NYC atheists. We get to submit questions before it starts, so if anyone has any good questions ideas, let me know!

Note on the buggery: while optional, a reach-around + 50 hail Marys will get you through the gate faster...

I guess ABC realized it would need the extra time to do some creative editing in order to keep Ray and Kirk from embarrassing the network.

I will be going to this debate with about 50 other NYC atheists. We get to submit questions before it starts, so if anyone has any good questions ideas, let me know!

When did you (Cameron) decide that it was more worthwhile to be a con man and to impose your ill-founded beliefs, ill-considered, illegitimte beliefs on others than to make an honest living?

In other words, what got you into this ignorance-spreading, deceitful racket?

Follow up: what kind of advice do you give those coming up in your profession on how to succeed in the godcon game?

I saw exactly one of Cameron 's Left Behind series (thanks to a friend who subscribes to NetFlix, who rented it for the same reason I borrowed and watched it: morbid curiosity). Via several, long forgotten links, when I saw the "banana argument" a while ago. Skip the keyboard, I thought I would have to buy a new desk chair...To invoke a popular phrase, even among many atheists, "Oh. My. God!"

Borrowing from brando, another prediction: Comfort, Cameron, and the rest will be forgotten. Unless, of course, somebody makes a movie about them. Let's call it Breaking the Wind..

Clarence Clemens is God!?!

Posted by: Kseniya

There are people who doubt that?

OsakaGuy:

I will be going to this debate with about 50 other NYC atheists. We get to submit questions before it starts, so if anyone has any good questions ideas, let me know!

Q. Can you prove, using pure logic and everyday grocery items, why 1 John 5:8 (the Johannine Comma) should or should not be included in the First Epistle of John?

Q. Can you use a rutabaga to demonstrate which of the two creation accounts in Genesis, which of the four biographies of Jesus in the Gospels, and which of the two death stories of Judas (Acts and Matthew) are correct?

Q. Denying the Holy Spirit: is it or is it not an unforgivable sin?

What you want to be ready for is the taste of raw beef and copper. Plus gagging at the very least when you realize you've just committed cannibalism. At worst you're going to lose your lunch.

BTW, human flesh is red. Comes from all the blood vessels suffusing it.

Questions for Comfort:

"Do you have any idea what a wild banana looks like?"

"Can you explain God's purpose for Schistosoma?"

And the one that won't be aired: "Do you realize that your argument for God creating the banana also works perfectly to explain how well-suited a penis is for anal insertion?"

Carlie @95.
Carlie, you are the Devil and I command you to get the behind...., uh NVM.

I don't know who Clarence Clemens is. Does that make me an atheist or an agnostic? I don't know!

Zeno,

The Catholic Church norms baptism by immersion for adults. PZ will be dunked.

"I don't see why they don't just give them a slice of bread."

Probably the unleavened stuff keeps longer.

You're correct, Melanie, to point out that immersion is permissible according to Roman Catholic norms. It may even be trendy. (The newest RC church in my parents' neighborhood has a baptismal pool for immersion rites.) But it's not common in RC practice. I'll bet you that PZ's neighborhood Catholic church has just a simple baptismal font and uses the sprinkling or pouring of water rather than immersion. (And what's with this "PZ will be dunked" stuff? [My emphasis.] Are you really expecting a conversion?! Besides, as already discussed, PZ is the proud possessor of a canonically valid Lutheran baptism.

P.S.: Since the devil is in the details, let me point out that a valid Catholic baptism requires that the water actually touch the scalp, not just moisten the hair. That's one advantage that balding, middle-aged men have in converting to Roman Catholicism -- if they need baptism at all, that is. RC busybodies (of whom there are many) love to complain to their diocesan bishops that Father So-and-so didn't do baptism correctly, or didn't consecrate the host correctly, etc., etc. (And here I thought "every man a pope" was a Protestant slogan.)

Ah, so my flourishing head of hair is not only a sign of my virility, manliness, and youth, but is also a defense against accidental baptism?

This truly is the best of all possible worlds.

Carlie:
I think you ruptured my spleen.
=================================
Two
Four
Six
Eight
Time to transubstantiate

What do you consider 'mainstream protestant religion'?

American Baptists, Presbys, Methodists, Espicopalians, UCC, and many others.

the Catholic Church doesn't insist on a literal interpretation of all of the bible's account, which does keep it from being the sect of christianity most incompatible with reality and science.

There are many others as well not shrouded by years of dogma and superstition that do just the same. Tradition is just doing it like someone before you because they said so. You can read it for yourself.

Although you disdain tradition, Uber, you ought to realize that tradition is what assembled the Bible. The book itself does not contain a table of contents, so first it existed as a variable collection of traditional readings and eventually (by the early fifth century) it took stable form, adhering to a list that appears to have been promulgated under Pope Damasus. It stayed that way for over a thousand years, until Martin Luther and others decided to toss out some of the books (labeling them apocrypha) and thereby establishing a new tradition.

I'd add that it seems a bit perverse to try to rank Christian sects by supposed degree of superstition. Pretty much all of them believe in an invisible sky god who inseminated a Jewish virgin with a god man who died and came back to life. All the rest (young-earth creationism, rosary beads, immersion versus sprinkling, faith versus works) is window dressing.

PZ, relax -- the Mormons can baptise you after death.

I feel somewhat compelled to clear up a few points here:

The doctrine of actual transformation of the bread and wine into flesh and blood is called transubstantiation and is specific to the Roman Catholic Church (and a few other churches in formal communion with Rome).

Zeno--- I don't know if the Patriarchs of Moscow, Greece or Constantinople would agree with that. First, Orthodoxy does believe in transubstantiation, second, the Pope of Rome can un-excommunicate them all he wants, they aren't ALL going to lift the bans of excommunication against Rome.

Except that the wafer is meant to symbolically represent a real piece of bread. That's the hilarious part of it all. Lol, I can't get over how hilarious that is.

836sx-- not true. The bread in the Roman hosts are unleavened to be the same as the Passover bread, which is unleavened. In the Orthodox churches the hosts are leavened... the reason? Because now that sin has been destroyed, we do not have to flee and have TIME to bake leavened bread. In other words, the bread is allowed to rise because Christ rose.

Oh, and someone else stated that the host and wine become the body and blood of Christ when eaten. Also not true. Transubstantiation occurs during a special blessing by the Priest in all religions who believe in it. God is already present in the host when it's received by the communicant.

Melanie, PZ will NOT have to be dunked.He wouldn't have to be dunked even IF his Lutheran baptism was considered invalid. The Roman church believes that baptism, in order for it to be 'legit' must be done with running water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Dunking generally ISN'T done in Roman churches... One reason is the requirement for running water and the size and plumbing issues that involves in an emersion baptistery.

Thanks for clarifying that, Dorid. The Eastern Churches do seem to believe in an actual transformation during consecration, even if the nature of it is somewhat obscure. But how could it be other than obscure? I think I'll go back to counting angels dancing on the heads of pins.

I will be going to this debate with about 50 other NYC atheists. We get to submit questions before it starts, so if anyone has any good questions ideas, let me know!

My current favorite deep theological question: If God is omnipotent, can he create a rock so large that his falling and hitting his head on it would explain the profound change of personality he underwent between the Old and New Testaments?

Posted by: Kseniya | May 4, 2007 06:57 PM

"Daaaaaay gone, Daaaaay gone.
Nightfall comin'
And me wan go ho-ome....
Daaaaay gone
I say Daay I say Day I say Day-ay-ay-gone
Dagon comin' and me wan go home"

Six foot, seven foot, eight foot TEETH,
Dagon's coming and me wan go home

No, mister preacher man, I am not bananas,
Dagon's coming and me wan go home

Dagon comin' and me wan go home

All hail Conan the Destroyer!!!!!!

(There may be a few exceptions to this -- there are so many Protestant sects, after all -- but mainstream Protestantism rejects the RC doctrine.)

Luther himself is not mainstream?

I think they compress them out of recycled reconstituted crackers, or something. I dunno.

Flour and water, famously.

Unless, of course, somebody makes a movie about them. Let's call it Breaking the Wind.

:-D

No, mister preacher man, I am not bananas

:-D :-D

And the explanation of the difference between Catholic and Orthodox hosts... priceless. Too bad it doesn't work well outside of English.

PZ says...
"Comfort claims he can prove the existence of god in 13 minutes. We've been waiting millennia for this amazing proof. "

So Comfort is going to commit deicide on the 9th? That should be something to watch!

After all, as Douglas Adams wrote, concerning the Babel Fish and the non-existence of God:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

I'd add that it seems a bit perverse to try to rank Christian sects by supposed degree of superstition. Pretty much all of them believe in an invisible sky god who inseminated a Jewish virgin with a god man who died and came back to life. All the rest (young-earth creationism, rosary beads, immersion versus sprinkling, faith versus works) is window dressing.

This is simply not true. While I agree with your general premise the RCC is much more superstitous in nature than are the Protestant sects.

you ought to realize that tradition is what assembled the Bible. The book itself does not contain a table of contents, so first it existed as a variable collection of traditional readings and eventually (by the early fifth century) it took stable form, adhering to a list that appears to have been promulgated under Pope Damasus. It stayed that way for over a thousand years, until Martin Luther and others decided to toss out some of the books (labeling them apocrypha) and thereby establishing a new tradition.

Thats an awful simplistic view and not one that would establish a tradition as it is normally used. The books where voted in. Voting is not often a part of tradition. Traditions are a poor way of knowing the truth or finding it. In fact they can be a hindrance as many angles of Protestant scholarship have revealed when not burdenedby the cumbersome dogma of 'tradition'.

I'd add that it seems a bit perverse to try to rank Christian sects by supposed degree of superstition. Pretty much all of them believe in an invisible sky god who inseminated a Jewish virgin with a god man who died and came back to life. All the rest (young-earth creationism, rosary beads, immersion versus sprinkling, faith versus works) is window dressing.

This is simply not true. While I agree with your general premise the RCC is much more superstitous in nature than are the Protestant sects.

you ought to realize that tradition is what assembled the Bible. The book itself does not contain a table of contents, so first it existed as a variable collection of traditional readings and eventually (by the early fifth century) it took stable form, adhering to a list that appears to have been promulgated under Pope Damasus. It stayed that way for over a thousand years, until Martin Luther and others decided to toss out some of the books (labeling them apocrypha) and thereby establishing a new tradition.

Thats an awful simplistic view and not one that would establish a tradition as it is normally used. The books where voted in. Voting is not often a part of tradition. Traditions are a poor way of knowing the truth or finding it. In fact they can be a hindrance as many angles of Protestant scholarship have revealed when not burdenedby the cumbersome dogma of 'tradition'.

"There are many others as well not shrouded by years of dogma and superstition that do just the same. Tradition is just doing it like someone before you because they said so. You can read it for yourself."

My point was that you awarding the Catholic Church the "most superstitious" title was ridiculous on the grounds that it's not one of the churches that teaches that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago in six days.

Otherwise, I second what Zeno said.

And yes, the selection of the text found in a specific bible is a pure example of tradition, even by your own definition. A group of people telling you (all at once) what to do, read or think is no different than one person (at a time) telling you what to do, read or think.

Thanks for the question ideas guys, but unfortunately I didn't get a chance to ask them. I wrote a full report on the taping on the Richard Dawkins Net forums. Here it is (one photo inlcuded!)

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14055

My point was that you awarding the Catholic Church the "most superstitious" title was ridiculous on the grounds that it's not one of the churches that teaches that the Earth was created a few thousand years ago in six days.

I would chalk that up to simple ignorance more than superstition. Saints/Rosearies/etc are thesole province of RCC it's that form of superstition I was speaking about in particular.

You simply don't see as much of the superstition in Protestant churches.

the selection of the text found in a specific bible is a pure example of tradition, even by your own definition. A group of people telling you (all at once) what to do, read or think is no different than one person (at a time) telling you what to do, read or think.

This is absurd. A tradition as we are speaking about is not to be challenged because someone in the past said it was this or that. One person telling you something is exactly that- one person telling you something. He isn't pretending tradition somehow gives him privelege.

Uber,

Of course if you define superstition as "something that only the Catholic Church says" then yes, the Catholic Church is the most superstitious of all churches. But that's a rather empty exercice.

"This is absurd. A tradition as we are speaking about is not to be challenged because someone in the past said it was this or that. One person telling you something is exactly that- one person telling you something. He isn't pretending tradition somehow gives him privelege."

It seems like you have your very narrow definition there also. Because a group of people have selected a certain group of texts in the past, these texts are now considered, by most (if not all) christian churches, protestant above all, as being worthy of study while other texts are not. This selection is not challenged, christians don't often make their own selection from the original pool of texts, the selected texts are called "word of God" on the basis of that original selection. It has seemed to me that a lot of christians aren't even aware of the nature of the bible as a compilation of text out of a larger group.

That's tradition.

Because a group of people have selected a certain group of texts in the past, these texts are now considered, by most (if not all) christian churches, protestant above all, as being worthy of study while other texts are not. This selection is not challenged, christians don't often make their own selection from the original pool of texts, the selected texts are called "word of God" on the basis of that original selection. It has seemed to me that a lot of christians aren't even aware of the nature of the bible as a compilation of text out of a larger group.

We are talking two different ideas here. I find no real debate with what you typed above. My point was tradition is a poor way of knowing. Protestants generally are not relaint on it as a way of discussing issues. It's one of the reasons there are many varying sects. Each can make up their own mind. With catholics they are bound to tradition right or wrong and since tradition(ridiculously) is actually given merit they change very slowly even when demonstrably wrong. Like I said it's a poor starting point.

Of course if you define superstition as "something that only the Catholic Church says" then yes, the Catholic Church is the most superstitious of all churches. But that's a rather empty exercice.

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Proestant churches don't go around saying prayers to dead people and calling them saints. Protestants don't have bobbles for this saint or that saint. Protestants don't have to say a given number of this or that forwhatever reason.

If you equate ignorance with practiced superstition then we need a new word. Catholics incorporate far more superstitious activity than do the majority of Protestant churches. But I don't disagree that there is a good deal of it in both camps. It just appears the RCC really pushes it as part of their structure and on the other end it's more a result of it rather than an ingrained portion.

"Protestants generally are not relaint on it as a way of discussing issues."

Discussing theological issues in the traditionally determined boundaries of their religion, perhaps. Otherwise that's quite the overstatement.

"Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Proestant churches don't go around saying prayers to dead people and calling them saints. Protestants don't have bobbles for this saint or that saint. Protestants don't have to say a given number of this or that forwhatever reason."

That's exactly what I thought you were saying. Only now you're making a distinction between "practiced" superstition and what protestants do, which is still saying prayers to supernatural entities.

Discussing theological issues in the traditionally determined boundaries of their religion, perhaps. Otherwise that's quite the overstatement.

I don't see it this way at all. In virtually every church I have attended we have always been encouraged to find our own meaning in the readings. No constraint whatsoever. Priesthood of the believer. There are no boundaries. If you find yourself in disagreement with others you find a congregation who sees it in a similair manner. But your constrained by anything.

Only now you're making a distinction between "practiced" superstition and what protestants do, which is still saying prayers to supernatural entities.

As I stated above I didn't dispute the larger point and perhaps could ahve been clearer. The RCC has far more 'praticed superstition than the Protestants.

Zeno: I might add that the explanation for the eucharist is a bastardized version of Aristotle's metaphysics. (Bastardized, because Aristotle would have probably denied that one can actually produce prime matter.) I have heard it said that this was one reason that Galileo was considered a heretic; by adopting the atomist notion of matter (i.e. with "built in" properties and relations) he was denying the miracle of the eucharist.

Gerard Harbison: Actually, it is better understood in Aristotle's terms. Platonism doesn't quite work as far as I can tell, because being dead there's no soul and hence no essence involved, as far as I can tell.

Confession? I don't know if this might work:

"Father, I'm a busy man and you too, so I'll be brief: I have violated several times a day, during several years, at several degrees, all of the Ten Commandments of God and all of the Five Commandments of the Church."

PZ, you know full well that theology and their proofs aren't about specific gods. Why, that would be like arguing about the cloth in the emperors clothes.

So after you are convinced that Darwinism is wrong and religion is right about how the world is run, you must still choose the gods that you fancy.

Since the teapot circling the sun is pretty cold and bitter by now, can I instead interest you in the FSM?

It is a yummy religion, easy to swallow, and you get to pick your own spices. It satisfies your romantic interests much better than buggering priests, you and your significant other can share it like Lady and the Tramp.

grok Christ

I don't think you are supposed to grok gods, they are holier than thou, larger than life, ... I guess incompressible is what I am looking for. ... um, yes, that must be it.

Dagon comin' and me wan go home

All hail Conan the Destroyer!!!!!!

(There may be a few exceptions to this -- there are so many Protestant sects, after all -- but mainstream Protestantism rejects the RC doctrine.)

Luther himself is not mainstream?

I think they compress them out of recycled reconstituted crackers, or something. I dunno.

Flour and water, famously.

Unless, of course, somebody makes a movie about them. Let's call it Breaking the Wind.

:-D

No, mister preacher man, I am not bananas

:-D :-D

And the explanation of the difference between Catholic and Orthodox hosts... priceless. Too bad it doesn't work well outside of English.