Criminals on evolution

Scientology gets much better celebrity endorsements.

Great post! I always say to people I meet that say there are no athiests in fox holes - that there are no athiests in prison. During Vietnam I was a confinement specialist - Military Policeman. I met some of the worst cretins in my life during that period, they all made some kind of rationalization for they're behavior, they all found religion when they're cases came up for review. I now realize many of them were suffering from PSTD. But at the time they were commiting some of the most unbelivable offences - rape, robery, assault, shooting, killing, wife beating, and child abuse. My take was a dangerous person is a danger to society - throw them away! Oh, I still feel the same way, but I got stabbed while I was a guard, my own little PSTD perhaps.

I don't recall that Dahmer's finding Jesus did much for him in prison.

Odd, since in prison he was probably surrounded by people similarly proclaiming their own new-found Judeo-Christian awareness - all full of brotherly love for their fellow sheep, so recently called back to the flock.

Unless it's somehow possible to proclaim that you've found religion and not mean it...

Those are not exactly stunning celebrity endorsements for Christianity. But I especially love the repeated comments about how evolution and Darwinian theory "cheapen" life. Might I remind the Christians as to just how many people have been summarily murdered in the name of Jesus Christ and God? Can you say "Crusades"? How about the Salem Witch Trials? Even both World Wars were influenced by religious bias. And, when you get right down to the gritty details, most gang members were raised by deeply religious parents. Many serial killers came from "good Christian families". How about abortion clinic bombings? I'd really like to see a comparison of murders committed by people of religious upbringing versus those committed by the godless. I'm betting that, even after you factor in the much lower numbers of the godless, you'll find that per capita, Jesus lovers turn out to be far more violent.

I don't recall that Dahmer's finding Jesus did much for him in prison.

It did OK for Paris Hilton.

As science is under assault from religion today like it hasn't been since the day of Galileo-mad dogs are exactly what we need, if that is the word for people who call a spade a spade.

Even both World Wars were influenced by religious bias.

Isn't that a bit of an understatement?? The Nazi Germans (a bunch of religion-addled christians with a psycho leader who kept ranting about jebus and god almost as much as George Bush does) tried to wipe out the jews. And, no matter how you slice it judaism is a religion.

I've always been amazed that the faithful have managed to so effectively disown nazism. Since there's really nothing that defines "jewishness" except religion (jewish "culture" is religion, as is jewish "ethnicity" as is "zionism" - they're all the same steaming pile of abrahamic woo) WWII looks tremendously like a religious conflict to me.

Then, consider that Hirohito was officially a god although, apparently, not a very powerful one! The various buddhist sects of Japan were able to wrap their brains around supporting what amounted to attempted genocide against everyone except Japanese.

Of course Hitler and Hirohito and their advisers were power-mad wankers who probably only saw religion as a political tool for motivating the troops. Which is good because it meant they never had to rationalize the theology of a bunch of good catholic nazis entering into a world-domination treaty with a country led by an actual non-christian diety.

That's largely irrelevant when you consider that their followers probably did at least somewhat buy the whole divine purpose nonsense. But in the post-war attempt to paper the whole madness over, it has become much easier to pretend that Hitler and a handful of bad actors kinda managed to do all that on their own and that religion had nothing to do with it. What a load of bollocks.

Ummm, PZ, you can make better arguments than this. Or do you
really want a list of celebrity psychopaths who are atheists
and who believe in evolution? I'm not sure about the evolution part, but Pol Pot wasn't exactly known for being devout. And I'll bet there have been more than a few killers who thought they were more "evolved" than other people.
There was the famous case back in the 30's, that Hitchock fictionalized in "Rope".

lysa, I imagine that religious upbringing has *no* effect on
psychopathy. There *is* some evidence, there was a paper
in Behavioral and Brain Sciences a while back, that cultural attitudes about selfishness play some role in weak psychopathy but that extreme psychopathy is probably endogenous.

They're really bringing up Dahmer the serial killer? No joke? Despite it having absolutely nothing to do with evolution? Geez. I guess theists are totally shameless. Think of any random bad occurrence, no matter how irrelevant or flat-out contradictory, and there's a theist somewhere out there saying that it is evidence against atheism. Hurricane Katrina? Goddamn atheists! 9/11? Those goddamn atheists again!

"Are these the best celebrity endorsements of Christianity around?"

You mean there is a scale?!

Marcus, do realize that the state religion of Japan is Shintoism, not Buddhism.

Cyde Weys, you are mistaken. The blame for Hurricane Katrina resides with the fags. (For the sake of people who do not know my orientation, this is a joke.)

Ummm, PZ, you can make better arguments than this.

He has made better arguments than this. It's still amusing.

Whatever happened to the universal human ethical standard that most people live by? Treat others how you want them to treat you.

Janine: As if they make any distinction?

Cyde Weys: I am afraid you are right. Lesbian or atheist, either way I am a beast.

Marcus, do realize that the state religion of Japan is Shintoism, not Buddhism.

Yes. The shinto obviously didn't complain, but the buddhists had to think things over. So the leader of the predominant sect - the Nichiren, I think it was, came up with an appropriate justification for attempting genocide in China.

Buddhism generally gets a pass when there's a good session of religion-spanking going on. But it shouldn't. It enjoys power and privilege, proffers stupidity, and occasionally deals in violence - just like virtually all the others. Granted, buddhism is less chock full of justification for war than most of the current crop of religions, but it's the same stupid bullshit under the wrapper.

I don't recall Colson complaining when Time Magazine let Behe write Dawkins' mini-profile for the Time 100 list. Turnabout is fair play.

I wonder if Paris sees Jesus' image in her piles of coke.

jewish "culture" is religion, as is jewish "ethnicity" as is "zionism" - they're all the same steaming pile of abrahamic woo

You are quite the ignoramus, aren't you? My Jewish "ethnicity" has nothing to do with "abrahamic woo", and the Nazis killed many atheists identified as Jews. And many aspects of Jewish culture are no more "religion" than Italian culture. As for Zionism, while it is currently justified religiously, it wasn't always -- originally the homeland was going to be in Uganda. And the religious justification is bogus -- there is a sect of ultra-orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism because the Jews are supposed to wander until the messiah comes, and that was once a mainstream view. And American Jews didn't care about Israel until the 6 day war, when it became a central part of U.S. foreign policy. Religion can't be separated from politics because religion rots the mind, and therefore is used to manipulate people for political ends.

I don't recall Colson complaining when Time Magazine let Behe write Dawkins' mini-profile for the Time 100 list. Turnabout is fair play.

But Colson is a member of that segment of humanity that doesn't value fairness.

Whatever happened to the universal human ethical standard that most people live by? Treat others how you want them to treat you.

See above. It isn't universal -- this is a nonsensical myth. Who wants other tribes to steal their resources and rape their women?

Ummm, PZ, you can make better arguments than this. Or do you
really want a list of celebrity psychopaths who are atheists
and who believe in evolution?

Ummm, you seem to have missed the point entirely. It isn't PZ who is making an argument for or against something based on who believes it.

#14, there is something that always bothered me with calling the golden rule the universal human ethical standard.
First, if it's universal, it can't be human. Second, there are many examples that just don't work with the golden rule : to name one, I might enjoy being sodomised...

A number of people have pointed out that "do unto others as they would have done to them" might be a better rule, although Kevorkian's practice of that caused him some trouble ...

#25, a better, but more difficult rule. The ability to think for a while the way others think is not a very common human characteristic.

Note that the rule isn't reciprocal, which is supposed by some to be inherent in "human nature". It's also a positive rule that can't be sensibly followed -- I'm not about to give you all my money, no matter how much you want me to. The negative rule "don't do unto others what they don't want done to them" is somewhat better but lets criminals off the hook. Basically, these rules are naive tripe that don't address the real complexities of human moral judgments.

Whether it's truth or urban myth, I don't know:
When a new prisoner arrives holding a bible, the guards and inmates know they have a child molester to play with.

I remember when all this first happened. I heard how he claimed he did what he did because, "He had thought there was no one to answer to." This goes directly to the weak thinking and loose morals that these people are claiming for themselves. Of course there was someone to answer, the whole of the time. How about the people you are freakin' killing and eating? How about the families of the same? How about to society in general? How about just not being an enormous effin' prick?

The idea that these things are fine if there is no God, but are bad if there is one shows the cookie-jar ethics for what they are. Why not steal a cookie from the jar? Well, because if mommy catches you, you'll be punished. This is not morals done for the sake of what is right, or for the benefit of our fellow man, but morals for self gain and preservation. Selfishness as a central key to your moral code.

One last thing. The reality is, was that Jeff baby was in Bible class way before he was caught for these murders, so, "The Word" did zero for him in the real world. It was only after he was caught that he act as if he was suddenly surprised with the truth of, "The Word." This is classic cookie-jar morals 101. Interviews with his father also show Jeff had a screwed-up life for years even without his knowledge of his sons murderous ways, and Jeff always, according to his father, found someone else to blame for his actions other than himself.

The idea that these things are fine if there is no God, but are bad if there is one shows the cookie-jar ethics for what they are. Why not steal a cookie from the jar? Well, because if mommy catches you, you'll be punished. This is not morals done for the sake of what is right, or for the benefit of our fellow man, but morals for self gain and preservation. Selfishness as a central key to your moral code.

What this is, is sociopathy. In place of the normal social indoctrination that induces a strong internal sense of right and wrong, the fear-based indoctrination produces only adherence to external restraint. This is captured by "If there's no God, how can you say that something is right or wrong?" People who ask this really don't know, they can't conceptualize morality as an internal compulsion because they lack it.

truth machine writes:
You are quite the ignoramus, aren't you? My Jewish "ethnicity" has nothing to do with "abrahamic woo", and the Nazis killed many atheists identified as Jews.

Oh, dear. Why is it that abrahamic woo expects to be cut such slack? It's OK when I tee off on the christian idiots, or the muslitards, but as soon as judaism comes up, it's "lock and load" time. Let me pre-emptively state (since that's the next ploy) that I am not an anti-semite; I am equally contemptuous of all religion. And further, pre-emptively, judaism is not a "culture" or an "ethnicity" distinct from its religious aspects - no matter how much its practitioners wish it was.

The Nazis killed lots of people who were mis-identified as jews. What's your point? They were a bunch of idiotic, insane, religion-addled, vicious killers who killed basically anyone that they felt like. But, consistently, religion (and homosexuality - which is a religious proscription) were what they targeted.

And many aspects of Jewish culture are no more "religion" than Italian culture. As for Zionism, while it is currently justified religiously, it wasn't always -- originally the homeland was going to be in Uganda.

Many aspects of "jewish culture" are not religious? Perhaps a few of the recipes - but the recipes are largely defined by religious dietary restrictions. Or were you talking about the history - a history largely defined by religious "history" and bearing minimal resemblance to what historians have been able to piece together? Or were you talking about the self-identification as a cultural group - a self-identification that is nearly entirely defined based on religious practices and myths?

Zionism - who cares where the holy land is - is based on the notion of a homeland for jews, right? Sure, there's the old question of god having given the jews title to a parcel of land in the middle east but the entire idea of building a nation around a religion is... duh... religion.

I always find it fascinating when someone pokes jew-woo, and immediately gets flamed to a crisp for it. Because, basically, jew-woo says the jews are a separate culture. Or that they have a "long history." (duh? who doesn't?) Or that the religion should not be confused with the political movement. That's flat-out ridiculous, though, because each of those elements: culture, history, zionism - is defined largely in terms of religion.

Put differently: don't tell me gefilte fish is "part of jewish culture" without admitting that it has something to do with jew-woo's ridiculous dietary practices. I.e.: religion. Nobody'd eat that crap unless they thought god wanted them to choke it down.

I'd rather be an ignoramus than thin-skinned and defensive.

Oh, dear. Why is it that abrahamic woo expects to be cut such slack?

What part of "atheist" are you too fucking stupid to understand? I'm a Jew. I'm an atheist. You're a moron.

What part of "atheist" are you too fucking stupid to understand? I'm a Jew. I'm an atheist. You're a moron.

You cannot be an atheist and a Jew simultaneously. Judaism requires belief in a deity which goes against the basic idea of atheism. For someone who's quick to call other people morons, you appear to have a difficult time seeing this very obvious contradiction.

You cannot be an atheist and a Jew simultaneously.

Another moron.

Judaism requires belief in a deity which goes against the basic idea of atheism.

Regardless of what Judaism requires, being a Jew does not require any such thing.

Another moron.

It's totally awesome of you to insult people who haven't insulted you.

Regardless of what Judaism requires, being a Jew does not require any such thing./

Jew = someone who practices Judaism

Here, for you ignorant idiots, are some facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who practice Judaism and have a Jewish ethnic background (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people.

You can insist on your circular definitions all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are many secular Jews -- people with Jewish parents, names, features, speech patterns, and/or cultural practices or preferences who are not religious, believe in no deities, attend no services, aren't bound by Jewish religious law, do not practice the religion of Judaism. As I said, there are aspects of Jewish culture that are no more religious than Italian culture. There are people who have never set foot in Italy, or Ireland, but who self-identify and are identified as Italian or Irish, and the same is true of many Jews. You can deny these facts all you want, but it just makes you an idiot.

Put differently: don't tell me gefilte fish is "part of jewish culture" without admitting that it has something to do with jew-woo's ridiculous dietary practices. I.e.: religion.

I guess you never eat pea soup on thursdays, since that has something to do with christ-woo's ridiculous dietary practices. Or "semlor" for Lent. In fact, don't tell me that there's such a thing as "Swedish culture" without admitting it's all mostly christ-woo or pagan-woo, i.e. religion.

It's totally awesome of you to insult people who haven't insulted you.

Liar: "For someone who's quick to call other people morons, you appear to have a difficult time seeing this very obvious contradiction."

Jew = someone who practices Judaism

Wrong, you stupid fucking moron, there is no such equation. Only some Jews practice Judaism. From

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Jew

1.one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.
2.a person whose religion is Judaism.
3.a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

jew-woo's ridiculous dietary practices

I didn't get my taste for lox and bagel from religion, idiot.

I never understood the point of conversion stories from people who have a track record of making really stupid choices in life. You'd think christians would want "celebrity endorsements" from people who have a reputation for good judgment in other areas.

I wonder if morons like Brandon and Marcus would claim that no atheist speaks Yiddish. They might want to think about what the word "Yiddish" means.

truth machine writes:
What part of "atheist" are you too fucking stupid to understand? I'm a Jew. I'm an atheist. You're a moron.

You're a real master of rational argument.

Ok, so you're a "jew" and you're an atheist. That's fine. Officially I'm a "lutheran" and I'm an atheist, too.

But since you define yourself as a "jew" maybe you can tell us what a "jew" is without tying it to religion. That would be interesting and it would support your argument more than simply hurling poo poo at my head and shrieking like an enraged ape.

But since you define yourself as a "jew" maybe you can tell us what a "jew" is without tying it to religion.

I gave you references, dumb fuck, references that you should be expected to be familiar with before making cretinous ignorant blanket claims about all ethnic/cultural Jews being part of "the same steaming pile of abrahamic woo". Don't complain to be about flinging apeshit, asshole.

Here ya go Marcus,
If your mother was a Jew then your a Jew. Doesn't matter what you believe in.

In the future two minutes with google might prevent you from making moronic statements.

Marcus, why go on arguing about this? On this occasion, truth machine is quite simply correct and not even saying anything controversial. If you want to criticise Judaism as a body of supernaturalist doctrine, go ahead, but there are many Jews who do not practice Judaism or believe in anything supernatural. "Jew" (as a noun referring to a Jewish person) is not simply analogous to "Christian" or "Muslim".

You're a real master of rational argument.

Yes, I am. That I'm a Jew and an atheist logically falsifies the claim that all Jews are religious.

Ok, so you're a "jew" and you're an atheist.

No, you dishonest asshole, I'm not a "jew", I'm a Jew. You don't get to put scare quotes around the word just to avoid being wrong by fiat. I'm an atheist, and a Jew by the primary definition in the dictionary.

truth machine writes:
I didn't get my taste for lox and bagel from religion, idiot.

Of course not. Of course not. Take a deep breath...

So are you defining "jew" as "people who eat lox and bagel"?? Because if that's how you define "jew" then I'm a "jew" too, in spite of the fact that I'm of Norwegian/Irish extraction.

windy writes:
I guess you never eat pea soup on thursdays, since that has something to do with christ-woo's ridiculous dietary practices. Or "semlor" for Lent.

I hate peas, and I have no idea what "semlor" is.

These are cultural practices that are influenced by religion, right? But you can't say someone is part of a "culture" because they engage in those practices. Or are you saying that every time I eat chili I'm a little more Texan? I had spaghetti last night; did I just become "italian"?? No.

It's amazing to me, like I said, how people foam at the mouth if you turn over the rock of jew-woo. Why are we expected to cut judaism so much slack? It's as if judaism has been promoted to be simultaneously:
- a religion
- a nationality
- a culture (whatever "culture" is...)

What's going on, simply put, is that its members are very strongly indoctrinated with a group-identity that is - at its core - religious. Some people want to deny that because of the congnitive dissonance of being "atheist" yet defining themselves in terms of a religion. It gets them upset, as it upsets "truth machine." That's really a shame because if the cognitive dissonance hurts it's not my problem.

I wonder if morons like Brandon and Marcus would claim that no atheist speaks Yiddish. They might want to think about what the word "Yiddish" means.

Of course I wouldn't claim that no atheist speaks yiddish. Conversely, are you claiming that speaking yiddish would make me a jew? Of course not. Hey, I'm not the one who's trying to self-identify as an "atheist" member of a religion. Maybe if you stop trying to be a contradiction within yourself you'll be a little happier.

Marcus, why go on arguing about this?

Because he's an asshole, a deeply intellectually dishonest person.

So are you defining "jew" as "people who eat lox and bagel"??

Uh, no, retard.

Of course I wouldn't claim that no atheist speaks yiddish.

So there are atheists who speak Jewish (translation of "Yiddish"). That's a hint that Jew and Jewish aren't necessarily religious. There's a huge dose of culture and ethnicity that you ignore simply because it doesn't fit your thesis.

truth machine writes:
Because he's an asshole, a deeply intellectually dishonest person.

Excuse THE FUCK me? "intellectually dishonest"!?! ME!? Listen, you whining puke - I'll put up with you shrieking abuse and name-calling but if you're going to claim I'm intellectually dishonest you'd better put your cards on the table. HOW AM I INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST you little quiff?

Them's fighting words. Back them up or tap out.

It's amazing to me, like I said, how people foam at the mouth if you turn over the rock of jew-woo.

Fucking asshole. I subscribe to no woo. But you practice the same argumentation techniques as the IDiots who insist that Stalinism is atheism and Naziism is Darwinism. I'm done with you.

HOW AM I INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

Ask windy, Jim, and Russell. That you deny it just reinforces it.

Hey, I'm not the one who's trying to self-identify as an "atheist" member of a religion.

Here's a fine example. Despite the fact that I am not the member of and do not identify as a member of any religion, and I offer references that confirm that "Jew" does not necessarily imply religion, you claim that I self-identify as a member of a religion. And, despite the fact that I am a "strong" and "proselytizing" atheist, you put "atheist" in quotes. That demonstrates that you are a deeply dishonest and disgusting little puke.

So there are atheists who speak Jewish (translation of "Yiddish"). That's a hint that Jew and Jewish aren't necessarily religious.

Ok, you're forcing me to do my research. It's the language the Ashkenazis speak, right? And "Yiddish" means "Jewish" because the Ashkenazis were jewish, right? So are you saying that you're a "jew" if you speak yiddish? What about all the people who consider themselves jews who don't speak yiddish?

That's ridiculous. That'd be like saying I'm a Roman because I learned Latin in high school. I'm not a Roman. Nor am I any less of Norwegian extraction because I don't speak a word of Norse.

Obviously this is an emotionally sensitive topic for you because it touches on your self-definition.

The Wikipedia entry on "jew" is pretty good and has a very clear opening couple of sentences. It points out exactly what the issue is, here - that the ethnicity and religion are deeply entertwined. Personally, I go a step further and would say that they're so deeply entertwined as to be the same thing - which you obviously and respectfully disagree with. But you're not making any arguments, you're just shrieking "asshole" at me, so I'm not achieving a lot of enlightenment here.

My point, if you recall, was that jew-woo followers often demand special treatment because the culture and the religion are so deeply entertwined. It makes it easy for them to say "respect my culture" when what you're trying to do is disrespect their religion. In fact, your reaction, your abuse, and your attempts to shift the discussion are exactly the kind of thing I am talking about.

So are you saying that you're a "jew" if you speak yiddish?

No, I'm not saying that, RETARD. I'm not sure which is more severe, the dishonesty or the stupidity, but now I really am done with this piece of shit.

Ok, I just have to address this:

And "Yiddish" means "Jewish" because the Ashkenazis were jewish, right?

No, you stupid fucking cretin, it means "Jewish" because that's what it means -- "1875, from Yiddish yidish, from M.H.G. jüdisch "Jewish" (in phrase jüdisch deutsch "Jewish-German"), from jude "Jew," from O.H.G. judo, from L. Judaeus (see Jew). The Eng. word has been re-borrowed in Ger. as jiddisch."

Dumb fuck can't even do the simplest sort of "research".

truth machine writes:
Fucking asshole. I subscribe to no woo. But you practice the same argumentation techniques as the IDiots who insist that Stalinism is atheism and Naziism is Darwinism. I'm done with you.

Challenged to present how I am being intellectually dishonest, you tap out. Just what I expected. Maybe someday you'll learn that yelling "asshole" at people is not a substitute for argument.

If I were, in fact, making ridiculous arguments like the naziism == darwininsm argument, you would have been able to fairly easily demolish me. All you'd have had to do is present an argument that the state of being a jew generally has nothing to do with being a member of the jewish religion. I think that'd be a really hard argument to make, but you had your chance. I even threw the word "generally" in there because I'm not really an "asshole" like you say I am.

truth machine writes:
No, I'm not saying that, RETARD. I'm not sure which is more severe, the dishonesty or the stupidity, but now I really am done with this piece of shit.

Well, maybe if you spent less time flaming and more time constructing a rational argument, this poor retard would get your point.

Making oblique and incoherent arguments and then accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty for not understanding them is, um, dare I say - intellectually dishonest?

You're the one who dragged Yiddish into the discussion - you must have been trying to make a point by doing so. Make me understand.

now I really am done with this piece of shit
Oh, that's right, you're flouncing out of the room in a huff. Never mind.

Challenged to present how I am being intellectually dishonest, you tap out.

Uh, no, fucking retard. If you notice the time of that posting, it' a minute after you issued your challenge -- I wrote it before I saw that. I responded to your challenge in #53.

Just what I expected.

You have such a strong expectation that your beliefs will be confirmed that you bend all evidence confirm them, you intellectually dishonest shithole.

Ok, I guess I wasn't done, again -- there's so much crap spewing out of that hole. But the supply seems endless, and I'm not Hercules. Ta ta.

truth machine continues to flounce out the door:
You have such a strong expectation that your beliefs will be confirmed that you bend all evidence confirm them, you intellectually dishonest shithole.

No, that was based on your past behavior. You appear to be capable of hurling abuse but incapable of constructing or maintaining a rational argument. So, when I challenged you to support your accusation that I am intellectually dishonest, I expected that you'd respond by name-calling and then flouncing out the door.

In fact, you've been entirely predictable. If I were to boil your entire argument in this discussion down to the substantive points you've made, it would basically be:
you're wrong, asshole. and you're a liar, too. nyaah!

Despite the fact that I am not the member of and do not identify as a member of any religion, and I offer references that confirm that "Jew" does not necessarily imply religion, you claim that I self-identify as a member of a religion.

Uh, yeah, you're the one who said you were a "jew" unless I'm mistaken. So you're self-identifying as a member of a religion. You offer some weird back-asswards argument that the fact that the language Yiddish means "Jewish" means that jewish has nothing to do with the religion... Uh... I can't even make sense of your ravings, frankly.

And, despite the fact that I am a "strong" and "proselytizing" atheist, you put "atheist" in quotes. That demonstrates that you are a deeply dishonest and disgusting little puke

I was putting "atheist" in quotes to match your usage, you fool - referring back to your:
What part of "atheist" are you too fucking stupid to understand? I'm a Jew. I'm an atheist. You're a moron.
brilliant argument by vigorous foot-stomping.

Look, if you'd said something like "I am an atheist from a jewish background" we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because that'd be like me saying (accurately) "I am an atheist who was raised in a Lutheran family." What you're trying would be like me claiming that:
I am a lutheran atheist
That'd be just dumb.

It's not my fault that a culture and a religion have become so intertwined that it's impossible to tease them apart. You can see the tremendous confusion it causes. Unfortunately, that confusion often translates to demands to give jew-woo extra slack because "it's culture."

The last time I got into this particular woo it was with a friend of mine who was insisting that his dietary restrictions are "cultural" not "religious." Uhhh... it's a cultural artifact that is entirely based on religion...? That kind of argument plays backwards and gives you weird things like that popular cultural artifacts must therefore be religious and consequently americans worship ketchup.

Russell Blackford writes:
Marcus, why go on arguing about this? On this occasion, truth machine is quite simply correct and not even saying anything controversial.

I have to admit I'm reluctant to walk away from this particular argument because of how it turned into poo-flinging and screeching. My usual response to that kind of behavior is to dig in and not reward bad behavior.

With respect to whether truth machine is saying anything controversial - you're right. And that's exactly my point. It's just widely accepted that judaism can be either a culture or a religion depending on which is most convenient to it at the time. I feel that's pretty bogus, obviously.

In dealing with woo, there are a couple of these weird intellectual gaps where big gobs of woo are given a "get out of jail free" card. My other favorite example is buddha-woo. Lots of Americans are familiar with the 1970's imported "we are all one..." Watts/Suzuki nebulous buddha-woo, but very few are familiar with Nichiren. Consequently, I've noticed that when atheists are poking the woo-woos, you sometimes get this disproportionate slack cut for the buddha-woo because "it's soooo peaceful" etc. You know, like his holiness the Dalai Lama who is - arguably - a deposed theocratic totalitarian despot who claims to be a reborn incarnation of a supernatural being. Of course he wants his country back from China - "It's good to be the king" as Mel Brooks would say. But when you poke at the buddha-woo or the jew-woo you sometimes get these disproportionate reactions. Witness truth machine's little meltdown.

If you want to criticise Judaism as a body of supernaturalist doctrine, go ahead

And, of course I do....

but there are many Jews who do not practice Judaism or believe in anything supernatural. "Jew" (as a noun referring to a Jewish person) is not simply analogous to "Christian" or "Muslim".

Therein lies the rub. The definition of "Jew" is so intimately entertwined with the supernatural that I have never yet seen anyone able to tease them apart. And, frankly, it annoys the hell out of me that I'm expected to - it's not my job to tease apart the ludicrous details of any woo in particular. As Dawkins says - it's not his problem to understand fully the details of "leprechaunology." People keep asserting that there is this thing called being "Jewish" that has nothing to do with religion, but when you drill down into it, it's got everything to do with religion, somewhere, down at its core.

So - for example - was Sammy Davis Junior "Jewish"? He wasn't part of the "culture" but converted to the religion.. See how confusing it gets? Hey, it wasn't my clever idea to build a culture around a religion and then try to insist that they're somehow separate!!!

I am - seriously - not merely arguing this point for the fun of it. It's a fascinating topic to me because it goes right down to the roots of whatever we consider cultural identity.

This business of declaring a faith to be a cultural identity is a great social hack. In fact, it looks like we're going to be dealing with it all over the place in the future. I know a lot of "catholics" in Europe who would probably say that they're "atheists" but are from a "catholic" culture. It's a nice dodge - now you can't make fun of them for being faith-addled wootards, it's a "culture" and thus is deserving of respect.

See where it's going? And maybe now you'll see why I don't cut that argument a lot of slack. Yes, I know I'm in the minority on this topic. But if you think about it, you may realize that I have a point.

Jim@44, you're not necessarily Jewish if your mother was. My grandparents self-identified as culturally Jewish, even though one was a CoE preacher. One of their daughters still identifies that way: the rest of us are full-blown atheists.

I suspect you'll find that if your ancestors and relatives were treated like crap for centuries because of what they believed in, you'll label yourself with the same label out of a sense of solidarity *even if you no longer believe what they did*.

Oh, and Marcus, things become `cultural' if a lot of people have done them for a long time. Christmas is not especially religious in most of Western Europe: it's cultural (and actually predates its cooptation by Christianity, dating back to Roman times (Solis Invicti) and perhaps earlier).

So it's quite possible for things to be both cultural and religious, and even for the same word to be used to label both concepts. Judaism isn't the only example, either (although the others are not common in the Western world).

One can't outshout people who have their own insistent mental dictionaries.
Is there a kill-file program that works with Opera?

Is truth machine lobbying to be banned?

I never really took notice before... but it realy seems it's what he wants.

Sheesh, yet another Pharyngula thread reduced to futile flamery.

You guys put Heddle, Fafarman, & JAD to shame.

Put a cork in it, willya?

Oh, and Marcus, things become `cultural' if a lot of people have done them for a long time. Christmas is not especially religious in most of Western Europe: it's cultural (and actually predates its cooptation by Christianity, dating back to Roman times (Solis Invicti) and perhaps earlier).

Yep. But the older form of christmas that the christians coopted was also a religious holiday.

This topic has gotten me so confused that I just spent the last hour on the phone with one of my best friends (who cheerfully described himself as an "agnostic pantheistic jew" - arrgh!) getting schooled a bit on the topic of "jewishness." Now I am more confused than I was when I started. :) He did point out that there are a lot of celebrations that are based on historical events (e.g.: Purim) which are different from holydays. (I used the words "celebration" and "holiday" very carefully in the preceeding sentence) His argument was that those celebrations are part of "jewish culture" as well, and are separate from "jewish religion." OK... I can almost buy that. But when I asked him about Sammy Davis Jr it stumped him pretty good...

In talking with Dan I realized what a big part of what's making this topic difficult for me is that I've been thoroughly trained to avoid stereotyping. It's tempting to say things like "jewish culture is one that respects learning, and cleverness" but that's a stereotype and I'm leery of stereotyping.

With respect to my being a "lutheran atheist" the key point is that I don't feel that I have a sense of thousands of years of history stretching back - I have a relatively short runway, there. My friend's response was interesting; he says that he knows that a lot of it may be complete B.S. but that he feels connected to thousands of years of past, in a deeply personal way that he cannot possibly detach himself from. (My paraphrase)

So I'm left more confused than I was when I started. Now all I have to do is remember to ask people "are you culturally whatever, or are you religiously whatever?"

Yeah, go sit in a corner. You're all getting a time-out.

There is something about truth machines comments that make his detractors lose many iq points. He was completely correct and stating something not even controversial.
But he does need to tame the insults back.

I am sorry, but seriously, I have to side with 'truth machine' on this, and with PZ's statement about it. Our culture is *steeped* in Christian mythology. By the logic of some people here this means we can't both "act like them", which includes going to Christmas parties, or anything else connected to it, without being Christian. Hell, I sometimes go to one of those Highland Games, listen to bagpipes and even wore a kilt. Obviously I must be some closet believer in the goddess Daana, and secretly worship Morgan la Fae in my basement (kind of hard without a basement, but heh, since the logic here is already bad, why not go one worse). True, Jewish faith and Jewish practices are not *quite* as separated from each other as a whole lot of others, but that's beside the point. You might as well accuse someone of being Japanese, because its impossible to **separate** Manga, Anime and liking Ninja weapons and Samarui swords from "being" Japanese. Now, it might be bloody silly for me to claim to "be" Japanese, but that's beside the point.

Lets put it another way. Someone claiming to be an Atheist Jew is a ****good thing****. As I posted on Greta Christina's blog, this is a sign of rational change. I look foreword to the day when some rare Christians I have heard say, "I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I believe he was just a man and its unlikely that there is a God.", call themselves **Atheist Christians**. Not only will it piss off other Christians way more than it seems to cause Jews a problem for one of them to make such a claim, but I honestly thinks that, if doing such a thing wasn't so unacceptable and unimaginable, we would find ourselves with "way" more people on our side than we can currently even imagine.

This is a bad thing why? Because it pisses on your desire to shove everyone into a, "Nuts because they are X, unlike us!", category, meaning you have to find out what they think before pigeon holing them properly? Sometimes I think some of the religious wackos that show up here are way to accurate when they make certain accusations about the behavior of some people on here, even if they are wrong about 99.9% of everything else.

Gee-Whiz, ...we were having a perfectly nice time talking about the morals of a man who killed and ate his victims, often while having sex with their dismembered body parts, and then things suddenly got ugly in here.

1. one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite.

You know, if people would just take to consistently using "Hebrew" for the above group and reserving "Jew" to the religious adherents, it would solve so many stupid arguments...

Although it's worth noting that the definition above ultimately has its roots in religion.

"I look foreword to the day when some rare Christians I have heard say, "I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I believe he was just a man and its unlikely that there is a God.", call themselves **Atheist Christians**."

This is the closest I've found.

http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2007/10/musings-on-religionles…

You get the celebrity endorsement you pay for. Bono used to identify as a Christian, back in the day, but nothing recent. They got Bob Dylan for awhile, but he went quiet on them. I'm guessing Christians aren't willing to shell out the cash. Too many televangelistic mouths to feed.

He was completely correct and stating something not even controversial.
But he does need to tame the insults back.

I think not -- Ranum deserves far worse than I dished out. How would you like to be told that you self-identify with a religion when you don't, and be accused of "woo" when you're a lifelong crusader against woo, just because the accuser cannot tolerate linguistic facts that go against his thesis?

You know, if people would just take to consistently using "Hebrew" for the above group and reserving "Jew" to the religious adherents, it would solve so many stupid arguments...

The stupid arguments come from dishonest assholes who insist that "Jew" only has the meaning that fits their thesis ... arrogant assholes who insist that someone who self-identifies as a Jewish atheist is actually an "atheist" who is "self-identifying as a member of a religion" -- that's a blatant lie that even you can recognize as such.

Although it's worth noting that the definition above ultimately has its roots in religion.

Not entirely. "Jewish" is to some degree an ethnic designation like "Arab". Etymologically, the term "Jewish" relates to Judea, which is a geographic region.

There is something about truth machines comments that make his detractors lose many iq points.

No, Ranum's IQ points were lost before I ever commented; see #7:

Since there's really nothing that defines "jewishness" except religion (jewish "culture" is religion, as is jewish "ethnicity" as is "zionism" - they're all the same steaming pile of abrahamic woo)

It's this idiotic and ignorant mass insult -- that all Jewish culture and ethnicity is "abrahamic woo" -- that I reacted to. Ranum is an asshole and an ignoramus who knows virtually nothing about Jewish culture (beyond gefilte fish) or Jewish ethnicity (the phrases "looks Jewish" and "has a Jewish name" are apparently unknown or meaningless to him) yet feels free to make such blanket statements. And then he continually claims that I self-identified as a member of a religion, when I of course did no such thing, making him either the king of intellectual dishonesty or stupid beyond fathoming.

This statement, "I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I believe he was just a man and its unlikely that there is a God," could have come from the pen of Jefferson or Adams. It takes a liar like David Barton to build an argument in support of the claim that the USA was founded as a Christian Nation, or even on strictly Christian principles. How easily such an argument is discredited, and yet those predisposed to believe it will ignore the facts and repeatedly trumpet the claim from sea to shining sea. I wonder if Lying for Jesus has passed Hating for Jesus on the list of Favorite American Pastimes?

Is truth machine lobbying to be banned?

I never really took notice before... but it realy seems it's what he wants.

I've read PZ's list of people banned and the grounds for banning them, and I don't fit any of them, so perhaps your "seemer" is broken.

Argh, stupid crappy sciblog software:

Is truth machine lobbying to be banned?

I never really took notice before... but it realy seems it's what he wants.

I've read PZ's list of people banned and the grounds for banning them, and I don't fit any of them, so perhaps your "seemer" is broken.

Ranum is an asshole and an ignoramus who knows virtually nothing about Jewish culture (beyond gefilte fish) or Jewish ethnicity (the phrases "looks Jewish" and "has a Jewish name" are apparently unknown or meaningless to him) yet feels free to make such blanket statements.

I should amend that -- he now knows more than just gefilte fish because he spent an hour talking with a Jewish agnostic friend. And now he's "confused" because what his friend told him didn't jive with all his biases and misconceptions and dogmatism. It must be tough to get through life when he's subject to such severe cognitive dissonance.

I know a lot of "catholics" in Europe who would probably say that they're "atheists" but are from a "catholic" culture. It's a nice dodge - now you can't make fun of them for being faith-addled wootards, it's a "culture" and thus is deserving of respect.

Here's another example of how Ranum is an intellectually dishonest idiot and asshole. People say they're atheists generally are atheists. Why, then, would anyone want to make fun of them for being faith-addled wootards, when they aren't? Ah, but he knows better -- even though they claim not to believe in deities he just knows they are "faith-addled". Clearly it is Ranum who is "faith-addled".

Snort. Yeah, he is our version of the Rights, "Atheists are just angry at God, because no one can possibly be alive and not somehow believe in God." Its the flip side of the same argument, that you can't, "be even vaguely associated with some idea that arose from religion, without being a member of that religion." Got to wonder, does he pray to Venus/Aphrodite every time he goes to vote? After all *democracy* must be *derived* from Greek/Roman religion, and its impossible to ever separate them. lol