I'm in Vegas, I'm at the Amaz!ng Meeting, I'm distracted by all the shiny flashy lights and all the strange people who want to talk to me, so you're all going to have to talk among yourselves for a while. Here are a few news items to prime the pump.
-
Don't read this one until after breakfast. It's the sad case of Ondrej Mauerova, a young boy kept imprisoned and tortured by a weird Czech cult. I don't even want to say any more about it.
-
In a less malevolent but even more catastrophic cult failure, Neil Beagley, a 16 year old Oregon boy, has died because his family only believes in "faith healing". He could have been cured with a catheter.
-
The Anglican church is about to be sundered by rabid homophobes. While it's always good to see another cult fall apart, it's not good to see the more vicious side isolating itself from more moderate influence.
-
Canadians have it good. Their largest Protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada, is having meetings where they talk about just giving up in the face of plummeting church attendance. How wise, and how Canadian.
-
Americans United is suing South Carolina over their state-sponsored "I Believe" license plate.
- Log in to post comments
He's a boy, so he's called Ondřej Mauer, not Mauerová. Surnames are gender-specific in Czech.
And... that's... all I want to say about the case. Oh man.
Something about a woman paster mourning the demise of "classic" Christian doctrines sets off my irony meter. After all, if "classic" Christian doctrines (one of which is the idea that a penis is a necessary attribute in a "spiritual leader") were restored, wouldn't she be out of a job?
We already know that prayer doesn't work. It might feel good, like eating a bowl of sugar, but, like a sugar diet, it isn't going to keep you alive. Yet we still live in the dark ages:
So, he was brainwashed to death. Because his family are a bunch of wack-a-loon cultists who have turned back the medical clock 2000 years and they crammed that crap into his head from a very early age.
It would take just a catheter. It's not even surgery. They just put a tube up your willy. It's barely uncomfortable, despite all the traumatic whining you hear out of some men...
And yet that couldn't be done. Instead, futile prayer was the answer. And, I'm sure, after his death they said it was "the Lord's will" and "he's in a better place."
No. He's dead and his parents killed him by filling his head with superstitious nonsense. They are to blame. They taught their child wrong.
And what's worse. They want respect for their barbarous beliefs. They don't want science in your school. They do want their religion. So they can infect your children with their medieval world-view. And they too can die of treatable illnesses, get pregnant for lack of contraceptives, and set our culture back to when women and black knew their place - under the lash of the white man.
These people, in their own way, are more dangerous than terrorists. We can see that danger clearly. But this insidious corruption of society by religion... Not as easy because we're socialized to respect religion, not hold its feet to the fire.
Wow, the formatting didn't work. Lying damn preview.
The Canadian one sounds like they're thinking of converting into Unitarian Universalists...
pffft... Anglicans. I LOL'd
That's apparently not quite as clear-cut as it seems. Deaconesses are mentioned in the New Testament.
Ah, more bloody news from the demented world of religion! Can you imagine a fictious headline: "Atheist runs amuck(no, not me), slaughters all in a local church who were praying to their god to protect them from the ravages of rationality." This will never happen because I adamantly believe that a sound intellect negates the ravages which religion causes in unsound minds. My mind is focused on the Mars Phoenix Lander and the Cassini spacecraft beaming back photos and data from Saturn and it's moons. I do not have the inclination to dwell on utter nonsense that religion requires. Science is so much more absorbing and conducive to soundness of mind.
Brayton has more on the freshwater case .
The investigation report is out.
It's estimated that the cult in Oregon has killed 30 or 40 of their kids over the last few decades. The toddler who died of a routine childhood infection could have been saved with a few bucks worth of antibiotics.
I doubt if they get many converts to their one church. Probably inbred as all hell by now.
Regarding the Anglicans, it's sad to me that homophobia is still so prevalent and even accepted that it's so divisive. Its power even seems to exceed some other prejudices. Although many churches preached the virtues of slavery in the 19th Century, there was, as far as I know, no international split of any major religious organization over the issue of allowing black people to be members or even be ordained.
Homosexuality, bisexuality, or being transgendered aren't choices any more than skin color is. Honestly, who would willingly subject themselves to a lot of hatred and discrimination? And yet it doesn't surprise me. A lot of religious people feel they're not complete if they don't hate someone.
This is a more detailed article on the Grail Movement freaks.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?in_article_id=183250&in_…
I wish there was a way to really get out the information to everyone worldwide that homosexuality isn't a choice. I know that there are some people urban dictionary calls "hoposexuals", who I guess are either "man-hating" straight women or gay dudes who still cavort with women from time to time for fun, but at the end of the day, they're still gay, or straight, or bisexual.
Is there some website we have somewhere with the research on homosexuality? If there's really, really, solid proof (not that I care, but we have to convince the other side), we should be slinging it around, right?
That, and the picture of the 90 yr old dude with the sign that says "75 years of being gay, but maybe it's just a phase I'm going through!"
Surely it's against the law for the Church of England to refuse to ordain a priest because he was gay. Any other employer who tried that on would be hauled up before an Industrial Tribunal quicker than you can say "Strike! Everybody Out!" Mind you, it should be equally against the law for the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to ordain a priest because she was a woman .....
What's the betting that, when the Church finally accepts that gays are human, they will claim that tolerance of homosexuality was their idea in the first place?
I, for one, hope the United church doesn't give up the Ghost (pun intended). They're a longstanding Canadian congregation and the one that spearheaded the gay marriage revolution in North America.
So I'd rather their brand of astounding social tolerance stick around in the name of Jesus, while the Catholics and the Baptists and the other fundie intolerants vanish into smoke.
Funnily enough, I just checked wikipedia about homosexuality, and apparently Africa was full of homo relationships both male and female, until the europeans stamped it out. So maybe their hatred of the gays is just historically relevant repression?
@Matt,
Do you mind? You missed me out! Some of us are asexual, you know!
I can't even fathom why Ondřej Mauer's relatives ate pieces of him - while he was still alive, no less. Reminds me of Hannibal Lector... it's interesting, though, that only the second article mentions the cannibalism. Why not the first?
They will have to pry my cold blue dick from my grasping hand before anybody sticks a tube in me.
@AJS
Sorry. there are just too many -sexuals today. Not that it bothers me one bit. But, when I started going to a men's feminism group at my school, we started talking about the whole acronym thing and it was like LGBTQLOLWTF etc etc. Our school changed it's office of gay and lesbian affairs to Rainbow because there were just too many different kinds of people.
But really, it takes all kinds. all kinds for what? I dunno, but it takes all kinds.
The one that really got to me was the one on the kid from Oregon. It's not as though this is the first time this has happened, even to this group, and the law may still protect this kids family.
The parents of the 15 month old, however, are being charged with manslaughter, and I hope they go straight to prison, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Matt:
A research synopsis you will be interested in is Born Gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation.
It is not open source so you may not be able to access it. If not, in a few weeks check the CMI/Homosexuality section of my personal embedded URL for a synopsis of "Born Gay". Born Gay, and my synopsis, includes evolutionary explanations for homosexuality.
Have a nice large kidney stone (or two) opt to "run" down that pencil-lead thin tubes in your body connecting your kidneys and bladder (or beyond that point) and then come back around and repeat that sentiment.
That's a clear example, in the area of religion, where Americans have done a great job.
I hope that they'll remain firm, and that more and more homosexual bishops will come.
Yesterday we had a procession of guys wearing dresses in our streets. There's some sort of religious congress here.
It was interesting to see how disconnected from reality these weirdos are. Didn't pay attention to the priest victims protesters.
OT, but on Ed Brayton's blog he has the released the findings of the investigation regarding John Freshwater.
The report shows the evidence that virtually all of the allegations against Freshwater were correct.
Word is that Freshwater will be fired tomorrow.
I don't understand the politics behind homosexuality not being a choice. I'm sure that in some cases it is a choice.
bunnycatch3r, I don't think you have a whole lot of choice about who you're attracted to. But I think it doesn't even matter. There's nothing wrong with being gay, even if you choose it. It's like choosing Coke over Pepsi (eww). I may not like Pepsi, but I don't care one bit if someone else drinks it.
Still OT, but there is no thread as of yet regarding the Freshwater topic-
It was far from just a bible on his desk that Freshwater had in his classroom-
He even had a HOVIND video in the classroom!! As well as other anti-evolution books.
He distributed anti-evolution handouts to the students, which he recollected at the end of classes.
He taught his students to use the code word "Here", which they spoke out whenever they came across something in their text that Freshwater felt didn't match up with his wackaloon (I love that new word) concepts about about creation. Example, when the text said radiometric dating, the class would say "Here"
Apparently, he has been teaching creationism for decades. The local high school principal insisted that her daughter not be assigned to Freshwaters' class.
The high school principal also said that they had to do remedial teaching to most of Freshwater's students because they lacked any understanding of scientific processes.
I give Freshwater an F for FIRED!
@Bunnycatch3r: A choice... Like if I went "Hey, from now on I will be a lesbian?"
I'm not sure that's how it works... To the VERY least it's influenced by your life experience or hormones or something.
Anyway, it's not very romantic.
bunnycatch3r@27 -
well, that depends on what you mean. If you mean actively taking place in homosexual activities, that would be a choice. But being homosexual is being *attracted* to others of the same gender. I have trouble believing that there are people who can really control who they're attracted to. I can't.
Because the cannibalism never happened. I live in Czech Republic, so I have heard quite a lot about this case. The article PZ linked is fairly accurate, the Metro one however... not so much.
Slightly less OT, but still about Freshwater-
It seems that he also used his science class as a pulpit to teach (preach?) that homosexuality is not a choice, it is a sin.
On this I give him a "D" for DICK
**WARNING** SHAMELESS OFF TOPIC SELF-PROMOTION ALERT!!!1!***
New Atheism for Dummies Part II
Part two in a series investigating the New Atheists
Richard Dawkins at Lynchburg Virginia, speaking at Randolph- Macon Womens College 2006
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner184.mp3
or download from http://acksisofevil.org/innerside.html
Podcast:http://www.radio4all.net/podcast.php/.xml?series=innerSide-scooter
The full report of the Freshwater investigation is out .
@30 Hi Michelle, I have a friend who decided to be a lesbian after over 20 years of marriage and raising children. Why? Women treat her better than men do. Bottom line I think is that people just want to be loved and to love.
@31, I don't know if she is "attracted" to women -- maybe she's not. Thanks for the clarification though.
"Americans United is suing South Carolina over their state-sponsored "I Believe" license plate."
Good to see airlines protesting against the religious number plates. I applaud both American and United on their stance.
Saiken@32 -
can you give us more information?
How (or why) did cannibalism get into this? Is there a story that talks about the incorrect reporting?
AJS @ 14: Surely it's against the law for the Church of England to refuse to ordain a priest because he was gay.
That's a question for a scholar of English law. Here in the US religious groups enjoy special exemptions from employment laws under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
So now we're gonna have anglican sede-vacantists? Fun fun fun.
I'm surprised there was no mention of women vicars and flying bishops.
Ah, asexuals (#17), my bête noire.
What about the "In God We Trust" license plate from Indiana I saw yesterday?
Aside from the irony of honoring your ultimate being on the ass-end of your car, this seems just as tedious as the SC plate.
Whether it is a choice or not is irrelevant to whther the government should be regulating whether two consenting adults can have sex, fall in love, marry, etc. And who someone loves should not be grounds for any kind of legal discrimination.
Asexuals? Feh!
I say - Fuck 'em
From what I understand, the homosexuality as a choice largely steams from the mindset of many closeted conservatives. They at least pay lip service to the idea that being gay is bad, and play out a primarily heterosexual life. So to make the claim that they are not homosexuals, they define it by the act of living as an out homosexual. Thus to them it is a choice.
bunnycatch3r @ 27: I don't understand the politics behind homosexuality not being a choice. I'm sure that in some cases it is a choice.
OK, the politics of this are that the fundagelicals believe that homosexuality doesn't exist other than as a sin and aberration, a conscious choice to defy the will of their god. Admitting that homosexuality exists as an innate characteristic beyond the control of the individual is just not possible under their worldview, so they deny reality as they do with many other issues.
Gay people are very much invested in the biologic determinism argument because it's easier to get political support as an oppressed minority than as a group which makes unpopular choices.
Saiken, PZ linked to two Mauer case articles. The Telegraph article refers to cannibalism in the title, subtitle and the URL, but not the main text.
Is it justified to blame this case on the cult? Psychopathy does not require religion.
I invite all you rabid poll crashers to my local News Paper, the Post and Courier, to crash a Poll on the plates.
"Would you buy an "I Believe" car license plate?"
With regards religions and the law in the UK, positions within churches and other religious groups may or may not be exempt from equal opportunity religion. For positions such as a vicar, priest, imam or rabbi then they can claim exemption. For support and ancillary staff they must comply with the law that forbids discrimination in employment on the grounds of age, sex, sexuality, race or religion. They only possible grounds they might have for getting around the law is their right to insist employees are sympathetic to the aims of the organisation that employees them.
There was a case a year or so ago in which the dioceses of Hereford was found to have discriminated against a gay man. He had been offered a job as a youth worker with the dioceses and was a practising Christian. Agter he had been offered the post, but before taking it up he had a talk with the Bishop who, on finding the man was in a permanent relationship, ordered the job offer be withdrawn. The grounds given were that the dioceses did not approve of unmarried people co-habiting or having a sexual relationship. The tribunal found in favour of the man and rejected the defence on two grounds. First at the time of job offer civil partnerships were not yet legal, and secondly the man's personnel arrangements were not a matter for the dioceses anyway.
Chimp, with 62 votes so far, I think we could skew that poll a bit.
Believe in what, precisely?
Churches, in a way, are private clubs and thus they control the criteria for membership without regard to laws about discrimination and equal access. If they say that a divorced person (or a married one) is not entitled to take part in their ceremony of marriage, then that's the way it is.
Of course, would-be-members are welcome to join a different club that will have them as fully functional members. I hope that the United Church sticks around to provide an alternative for those who want it. Amazingly, some of my gay friends are still religious. I kind of dropped out of the Anglican church when they announced that there was no place for women in the priesthood. When they changed their minds, I neglected to drop back in.... kind of like the Royal Bank of Canada. My mother and I went in and closed our accounts when they announced that they couldn't locate any woman qualified to sit on their board of directors. That was in the 70s. I haven't bothered to deal with them again, either.
(preacher voice)
"Homosexuality is a choice! It's a choice to...engage...in this...deliciously decadent lifestyle!"
-David Cross
Well here were my proposals for new plates.
Plus I support the plates because of the built in safety measures. I know who to avoid when driving. I mean, who wants to be caught behind a car that at any moment could be suddenly driver less because of the Rapture.
I say support the plates!
amk@46-
It is true that those at the bottom of all this needed no excuse and would perhaps have committed crimes anyway. However, I think that cloaking these crimes in religion means you have more people involved, people that otherwise would not have participated in crimes like this. And that can be a lot of people.
"Those who can Make You Believe Absurdities can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire
After reading the report on Freshwater, I think it's pretty clear he'll be fired. He's damaging these kids' education.
Didn't the Southern Baptists and the Southern Methodists form because of disputes concerning slavery?
RevBigDumbChimp @ # 47 I voted no and I see we are ahead. Crap, instead of "No, thank you", it should have said, "Are you freaking Serious"?
I would buy your plates; why don't you market them to fit over existing plates, to be put on and taken off when a good situation arises, as when you park your car in front of a church! The resulting scenario is just too numerous to laugh at!
I sincerely hope you are not inferring 'giving up' is a Canadian trait?
peter g
I haven't verified it but I hear that you can legally affix a small sticker to your plate as long as it does not cover the license number. Sooooooooooo you could in theory cover that stupid cross stained glass picture with anything you wanted as long as your number is left uncovered.
But the final design is not out yet, the one we keep seeing is the one that was proposed for Florida (also the one I used to make those).
Bureaucratus Minimis,
à propos this topic, because this is afterall Pharyngula, (and I'm Gay), I'd be very interested if some commenters have some interesting reading on this subject, or any thread this particular topic was discussed ?
Read with great interest Joan Roughgarden's "Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People"
I'm trying to get a clearer picture, that's all.
Bonobos and Chimps
bunnycatch3r @ 37: I have a friend who decided to be a lesbian after over 20 years of marriage and raising children. Why? Women treat her better than men do. Bottom line I think is that people just want to be loved and to love.
OK, I probably don't know your lesbian friend so can't speak to her particular circumstances. I can speak from personal experience as a gay man who has been married to a woman. Although I knew from an early age that I was attracted to men, homosexuality just wasn't a viable option for a man in a small town in the American South in the 1980's. I tried to do the "right" thing, the thing expected of me by society. I believed that love was transformative, and would "cure" me of my yearnings for other men. I really loved my wife, but just couldn't keep on living a lie.
That experience and mindset is very common among other gay men of my age and background. One of the best practical arguments for acceptance of homosexuality is that it saves all those nice straight women from going through doomed marriages. Nobody I knew undertook marriage lightly, or as a deliberate cover.
Yes, people just want to be loved, but sometimes love (agape) just isn't enough.
I wondered that too, but I suspect PZ knows us Canucks better than that. I think he meant 'how Canadian' in the sense that Canadians are leaving the church in droves with little fuss, in effect sayin, "This church thing just isn't working oot. Let's go grab a beer instead, eh?"
That or PZ was poking fun at your French speaking brethren up there in Frozen land. Damn cheese eating surrender monkeys.
:p
Thanks, Negentropyeater for the reference to Roughgarden. I was previously unfamiliar with her work. I'll leave it up to those here with serious, current biological knowledge to comment on her work.
I personally find the arguments of freedom, tolerance and equal protection to be more pure and bullet-proof than the victim arguments, but much harder to sell.
Should the "nature" studies be refuted or ignored, we're SOL. Also, I can see the fundagelicals making a special abortion exemption for gay, "devil-spawn" fetuses. Or worse, research in how to "cure" us (paging Dr. Mengele).
One anecdote does not an issue settle, but in my case bisexuality has felt like a choice.
I don't remember ever being anti-gay as such - some discomfort with the issue as a teenager that probably lead to some dislike but this was at the time that Aids reared it's head, so homosexuality became much more talked about and accepted.
But I've don't recall ever having a boy-crush or any particular attraction to men, either (and for what it's worth, I never had any gay friends - that I know of). It's only been in the last few year that I, through discovering fandom with the persuant slash and smut, have come to realist that "hey! that might be fun".
So ... that prolly means that I've always been bisexual, but I certainly haven't realised so until a high age.
Not that it really matters since it's all theoretical anyway ...
No, we don't have it so good here in Canada, or at least here in northwest Toronto.
Our local United Church is gone, but the buildings remain, and were picked up by a far more extreme church, the kind of church likely to call for "teaching both sides of the controversy". Or that might advocate faith healing, though they would have tough competition from the "spiritual healers" that infest the area.
There was actually an anti-evolution lecture given here (at a different church, I should say) a few months ago, featuring a traveling "expert" propounding the usual lies. That would never have happened with the United Church.
My guess is that if the UC were to go away, its parishioners would for the most part drift to slightly less liberal churches. Some might become essentially non-observant, but few would abandon religious belief.
Thirty years ago, fundamentalism in this area was a joke. The local Baptist minister would protest the school play, and one or two kids would get assigned alternate reading instead of, say, "The Catcher in the Rye". Now there are at least four fundamentalist churches within
a mile and a half. Five, perhaps, if we include all religions.
William Hyde
Damn cheese eating surrender monkeys.
Surrender monkeys? We wish. It'd save us a lot of trouble not to have to have a referendum on Québec secession every five years. Generally them francos is good times though.
That split amongst the Anglicans is in large part due to the influence of an US hyperchristian project calling itself the Institute on Religion and Democracy.
Helluva way to treat the poor Brits, especially after they took Britney Spears off our hands.
OH come on! They Speak FRENCH! Everyone knows that that means they are exactly the same. Just look at all those Spanish speaking people.
mandrake@38:
According to prosecution, in August 2006 the so-called "doctor" (suspected to be sect's leader) ordered Klára Mauerová to cut a piece of flesh from Ondřej's buttocks so the boy would consume it later. She refused though.
On the other hand, Ondřej's own testimony contradicts this, because according to him, this particular episode has never taken place.
This site contains plenty of related information, but only in Czech.
Since Czech Republic is one of the most atheistic countries in the world, this case about completely insane religious nuts thoroughly shocked local population. Czech people are not exactly used to seeing raving lunatics around.
Too true, too true. One of my good friends is a Mexican. He's generally an affable chap, though curiously, he does feel the need to remind us that he's "from chilly, not Mexico."
Duh. Yes, yes Miguel. Of course you're chilly (this is Canada), and of course this is not Mexico. Do all Mexicans feel the need to state the obvious so often?
Those crazy Mexicans!
I don't know exactly where you guys are going with your "spanish speaking people" and "french speaking people", I guess it's supposed to be funny ?
Sorry, negen, just making fun of people who speak in and of stereotypes. I think it started with wondering what PZ meant by 'how Canadian.'
I forget that tongue-in-cheekness is risky on the internet.
Believe in what, precisely?
Believe in Amurika, of course! It's like saying support the troops. It shows a device for Torture, and stained glass fer Christianity, two things all True Americans believe in. (end snark)
These plates don't really bother me, since anybody who puts up the money can get their own plate made. So far, they haven't discriminated against any group.
I'm more offended by Scarolina's "choose life" plate, because for each one of those the State collects $35 and passes it on to anti-abortion groups.
#24 I hope that they'll remain firm, and that more and more homosexual bishops will come.
......aaaggghhhh!
Brownian-
Ne rien.
Sorry i forgot to add my [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags
To me, this was the most mind-blowing revelation in the Czech case:
"Then came the bizarre revelation that "Anna" was not a 13-year-old girl, but a 34-year-old woman in disguise."
How the hell did she pull this off?
The Oregon case is truly tragic, two family members die in three months of illnesses that could be treated cheaply and easily! Pathetic and monstrous...
The Anglican thing is grimly amusing to me as well as appalling. General troublemaker, raconteur, and playwright Brendan Behan, while criticizing the RC Church during an interview, was once asked why he did not switch over to the Church of Ireland. His answer: "I'd rather belong to a church founded on the rock of St Peter, than one founded on the stones of Henry the Eighth." You'd think the Anglicans would be more sexually tolerant, as the whole raison d'etre of their church was Henry's wish to get jiggy.
A lot of African and Native American cultures were extremely tolerant of homosexual members, having small social groups and an egalitarian worldview. When the authoritarian colonizers came, they did their damnedest to stamp out this tolerance. Also, the Southern Baptists did separate from their brethren over the slavery issue.
Finally, I am surprised that our ever-vigilant Pee-Zed missed this item:
http://www.reflector.com/local/content/news/stories/2008/06/17/McMillan…
Gretta Vosper, a fellow minister who recently wrote a book called With Or Without God, as a prime example of what is wrong. Ms. Vosper, who disdains the title Reverend, said she does not believe in anything remotely Christian, let alone anything religious: not God, not the divinity of Jesus, nor the sacraments or the centrality of the Bible in Church life.
This is pretty much why the United Church of Canada is dying, if the cleric class doesn't believe in basic orthodox Christian teachings, there isn't any point as a layman to stay. For either you are a believer and cannot find spiritual fulfillment and leave for another church and denomination as the UCC serves no more purpose for you, or you too become skeptical about the claims of Christianity and leave the church, since it would serve no more purpose for you.
the only problem with the United Church of Canada dropping out, in favour of some of the more rabid examples of christianity, is that it is one of the only sane churches out there.
These people, in their own way, are more dangerous than terrorists. We can see that danger clearly. But this insidious corruption of society by religion... Not as easy because we're socialized to respect religion, not hold its feet to the fire.-Moses
Why don't you just get a law passed that will prohibit Christianity? This way you can arrest all members and get rid of them. Then your little world would be so much better.
Hey, better yet, just have their heads chopped off!
I bet that would make your life so much easier.
Of course, according to Obama, the crazy Christians are the ones with the guns! So you will need to arm yourself.
@60 Bureaucratus Minimis
Your experience reminds me of my own with religion. From birth on we're taught things which turn out not only to be total bullshit but are wasteful and destructive. Once liberated I have uncharacteristic chip on my shoulder.
I'll take over-reaction projection for 1000 Alex!
And once again Starbuck demonstrates that tyranny and violence are never far from the Turn-the-Other-Cheekers' minds.
Starbuck...
Go get an infection and refuse treatment. Please.
LL @ 77: Can you provide references for your contention that precolonial indigenous peoples of the Americas and Africa were homo-tolerant?
Eh, the funnymentalists have been with us Canucks a long time -- check out "Bible Bill" Manning, whose son is the certifiable Preston. With 1 in 4 of us professing no religion, however, they're going to be up against a lot of politely chilly stares in the future.
Personally, I kind of hope the United Church of Canada doesn't go away (and by the way, for the person who said they were becoming the UUs, well, they are the UUs, only they did it on their own quite a long time ago), for two reasons: First of all, the "oatmeal of religion" (thank you Robertson Davies) is another one of those nostalgic pieces of authentic Canadiana that we're in constant danger of losing to the hegemonic quasi-American monoculture, and secondly, my parents are nominally Uniteds and subscribe to their magazine, and I'd be mildly annoyed if I couldn't read the strenuous if extremely politely-worded doctrinal mudslinging (over imaginary mud, no less!) that goes on in their letters section. Given their Methodist heritage, should Uniteds drink alcohol, dance, or play cards? Find out in our next issue!
By the way, Brownian - Bon anniversaire!
Brownian, Rev. BigDumbChimp, faites attention, il y a des "mangeux de fromages" qui lisent ce blog.
;-)
mmm, cheese. with wine. yeah, the week-end is coming! a nice long one too, in Quebec anyway...
Don't worry, that's what I thought you were doing, "tongue-in-cheekness". Gee, I learned a new expression today.
*Rev. BDC scramlbles for an online translator...
Whew. Ok. Yeah I eat cheese too. OOOHHHHH you mean either French of Quebecian (sp?).
Hehe!
Ok forgive me but
Il était tout dans la plaisanterie.
man I hope that was right
"You'd think the Anglicans would be more sexually tolerant, as the whole raison d'etre of their church was Henry's wish to get jiggy."
I understand your thinking, and you are not totally wrong, but the split from Rome and the establishment of the Church of England is a bit more complicated than that. There was considerable agitation for such split well before Harry wanted his annulment. Ironically one of those who favoured a split from Rome was Anne Boleyn.
"mangeurs de fromages" yes, I know we have one of the most impossible languages for spelling. That's why we even have national ortographic competitions on TV.
//Why don't you just get a law passed that will prohibit Christianity? This way you can arrest all members and get rid of them. Then your little world would be so much better.
Hey, better yet, just have their heads chopped off!
I bet that would make your life so much easier.//
I totally see your point, because in the past atheists have always been the ones organizing heresy hunts and killing people for their beliefs...
Why don't you just get a law passed that will prohibit Christianity?
To deny you all the persecution you so obviously, desperately crave. Such snivelling!
Also, not that simple or your sort would have previously passed laws relegating non-christians to non-voting subjects with only True Christians(tm) allowed to hold citizanship.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects your right to believe in nonsense, just as it protects my right to not believe. And that's a GOOD thing.
This past Monday, Gene Expression reported on a couple of new studies, one in Sweden and one in the US. He linked to a Washington Post story about one of the studies:
Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains
The results of that study are awaiting publication. The Swedish results are online, but you have to pay to DL that report.
I guess now would be the time to admit my Canadian shame: je ne parle pas français. (Well, to be fair, I speak it as well as I speak Spanish and Swahili: very poorly, though I can sometimes get the gist of what's going on.)
Mais, bonne fête nationale du Québec, Philippe!
Happy breathaversary, Brownian!
BM@85:
Here is a good place to start researching tolerance for homosexuality in pre-colonial peoples:
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm
Oddly enough, Sir Richard Burton, the Victorian explorer/adventurer, amassed a huge collection of "pornography" and wrote extensively about sexual mores of the peoples he traveled among. A few years back, a compilation of his observations of sexuality was published in the U.S. under the title "The Erotic Traveler".
Rev. BDC, did you use Babel Fish? I'd love to know what it did with "mangeux", since it isn't a "true" french word, but a Quebecois expression, meaning "mangeur" -> "eater".
And regarding your clarification (none was needed, btw), while it is a grammatical disaster, it is still possible to extract your meaning.
Hell, I once had the job to convert a french web site to german, using nothing else but Babel Fish. And, no, I don't know the first thing about german, except what I learned from Indiana Jones flicks. I can still imagine the howls of dismay, or laughter, when the, German, end client got the *finished* product.
Admin Min,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
It's really well known actually.
I like the way you think, little buddy, real "outside the box" kinda stuff!
Public beheadings are widely seen as the precursor of the second coming of Christ, so this would be an excellent way to see whether all this Christian bullshit is true or not. I really think you're on to something here, time to head over to Guillotines R Us...
Québécois, (not Quebecian), with capital Q refers to the french speaking residents of Quebec, with small q, the language, quebec french.
"c'était une plaisanterie" (bien lourde)
I used http://www.freetranslation.com/. And sorry for the butchering. I knew it was going to be.
RBDC, I believe the term is Québécois, Quebecois, or Quebec(k)er. Which you use depends on whether you are speaking in French about any resident or native of Québéc (Québécois), speaking in English about francophone inhabitants of Québéc (Quebecois), or speaking in English about any resident or native of Québéc (Quebecker), though I tend never to use the latter (opting instead for the middle version), since it sounds a little too redneck Albertan for this Edmonton boy.
Those more knowledgeable may feel free to correct me.
Sorry for turning this into a French lesson, but thanks!
Merci beaucoup, muchas gracias, and asante sana!
Vote people!
Brownian, thank you. And from some of the comments' I'll assume it's your b-day, so happy birthday!
And, in case I forget next week, Happy Canada Day!
:-D
Another one for negentropyeater:
Gene Expression comes through again: Curing the gay, with a link to a story in Slate, which in turn links to an A href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0801566105v1">abstract at PNAS (again, you gotta pay to see the whole thing).
Oops, that'll learn me to preview anything with a link in it. Sheesh.
fixed PNAS link
Starbuck...
Go get an infection and refuse treatment. Please.
Naww.. I don't mind medical science. They have done a lot of good for mankind... and harm. But more good. I wouldn't refuse medical treatment for my wife, kids or myself.
That would be silly. If God didn't want us to have medicine, he wouldn't have made certian people LOVE helping sick and hurt people. See, Christians do think science has its good points as well.
(btw, it isn't science that is the trouble. it is humans.. just like religion, it is the people. It is always the people that cause the problems...)
Brownian #104, very well put!
And personnally, I prefer Quebecois (with or without the accents). I don't really like the sound of Quebecker. It's an aesthetic think, others might feel differently or find me finicky.
negentropyeater, are from/in Quebec?
Longtime Lurker (98) Thanks for that link. I'd already had a vague understanding of the points made in the link, but it was a fascinating read.
Though I have to admit, as a woman I wish they'd said a little more about women in some of the societies discussed. I'm curious to know if they had anywhere near the sexual freedom men did.
And as a bisexual women, I wish more modern studies looked at more of the spectrum than just straight people and gay men. I love reading the results when I find them, but I feel left out.
#80 - Starbuck, Hey, damn good idea. I want a law passed against christians in my state. Perhaps if stupid, fucktard christians are outlawed in Dumbfuckistan no more children will die for jesus.
If God didn't want us to sin, he wouldn't have made certain people LOVE sinning.
Right?
Also, not that simple or your sort would have previously passed laws relegating non-christians to non-voting subjects with only True Christians(tm) allowed to hold citizanship.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects your right to believe in nonsense, just as it protects my right to not believe. And that's a GOOD thing.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis
I certianly hope Christians wouldn't vote for such an idiot thing. Why wouldn't I want to take away your freedom?
You don't want to believe in God... Ok, that is your right (and I agree it is a good thing)..
But why when Christians make mistakes, get dupped, get over zealous, you instantly HATE them? There are a lot of Christians (atleast I hope so! because they are hard to see!) that are normal. They aren't off the wall crazy like you see so much of.
btw, you might be grateful that the crazies are christians, Christians do try to follow the laws. That is why they want to change some.. they don't agree. However.. what if the crazies where muslim? We know about that..
What if they were athiests? Crazy thought "There is no God, I do not care about anyone else..." Instant psycho.
I am not however suggesting that athiests are that way. I am saying crazies are.
Just a thought, eh?
As a minor footnote, I take offense to the comment of how giving up is "Canadian". We're not all just lazy Canucks you know.
#80 - Starbuck, Hey, damn good idea. I want a law passed against christians in my state. Perhaps if stupid, fucktard christians are outlawed in Dumbfuckistan no more children will die for jesus.
Posted by: Patricia
Well, I guess you can certianly try. But wouldn't that make you no better then the retarded Christians who try to get laws passed that you don't like? That would put you on an even level.
The crazy muslims and the crazy christians are no different.
And you keep giving christianity a free pass... like what these people do has nothing to do with religion.
We know better. Superstition is a poison in the mind.
Too confusing! Thanks to D.F. Wallace (Infinite Jest, in which radical Quebecois seperatists play an important role), we Real 'Mericans can now just use the term "Nuck" in any of those contexts. Thus, Nucks speak Nuck.
Disclaimer: I am only kidding. No offense to the fine and admirable and zesty francophonic inhabitants of Quebec is intended. That is all.
Starbuck, I can't find any coherent points in your post #116, so there's nothing to which I can respond. Come back when you're less...upset.
The crazy muslims and the crazy christians are no different.
And you keep giving christianity a free pass... like what these people do has nothing to do with religion.
We know better. Superstition is a poison in the mind.
Posted by: Steve_C
Superstition is silly and stupid, I agree. But Christianity isn't a superstition. And you going around saying it (although that is your right.. freedom of speech) doesn't make it true.
Ugh, me neither. It's just an awful sounding word to me. Even worse, many Albertans refer to la belle province as 'Q-bec' (the home of Q*bert, perhaps?) No insult is meant; I think they just read the 'Que-' part as if it were 'queue'.
This is way OT, but I've always wondered why Canadian French gets such a bad rap (most notably, often by Québécois themselves). After all, I don't speak the Queen's English, yet no one's ever accused me of not speaking 'true' English, even when I'm describing a balmy spring Chinook, reminiscing about Klondike days, or just playing shinny in my ginch near a slough.
Then again, I've a good friend from Ottawa via Montreal who doesn't even speak 'true' Canadian French but Joual, so maybe I'm a little too linguistically permissive.
Damn anthropology! It's so hard to romanticise pure languages (or ethnicities, or races) when you know such things never existed.
Sorry, Starbuck - no amount of stupidity I can imagine stoops as low as the deluded, idiot christians that here in Oregon allow their children to DIE for jesus. It's obvious that they cannot figure it out for themselves.
Starbuck, I can't find any coherent points in your post #116, so there's nothing to which I can respond. Come back when you're less...upset.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis
I am not upset. But I do take exception to the idea that all Christians are crazies. I am not one of them however.
Politically I am very constervative, but I am not an ass about it. Belief wise, I am a Christian, I read the Bible, I try to follow the Holy Spirit, I do USE my head.
I have been searching for a Church... can't find one.
I keep finding 1 of 2 kind all the time. The Church is either so watered down that you might as well not bother, or they are the "crazies"... you know the mindset, snake handler types. (btw, the snake handlers are stupid... "Though shall not tempt the Lord Thy God", they must have not read that part in the Bible.)
There are an aweful lot of people who act just like the pharasees of Jesus's day. Religious or not.
However.. I am actually in a pretty good mood today. I am taking my wife out to a steakhouse for supper... She loves steak.
Starbuck said:
Not so. Unlike religions, science does not, in and of itself, purport to tell people what they should do, and how they should behave.
Edited for Starbuck's sake.
Neither does your saying it isn't. You'd think we'd be stalemated, if the burden of proof weren't on your side.
Enter the FSM and the IPU. Superstitions? Myths? Made up fantasies? How is Christianity different, if it is?
Support your position and show your work.
The crazy muslims and the crazy christians are no different.
Apart from that "crazy Muslims" commit terrorism, honour killings, routinely carry out the death sentence for blasphemy or apostasy, subjugate women, etc., etc.
Crazy Christians are crazy, yes. This doesn't put them on the same level as Islamic fundamentalists, and I can't see why anyone would think that.
Fixed that for ya.
Sorry, Starbuck - no amount of stupidity I can imagine stoops as low as the deluded, idiot christians that here in Oregon allow their children to DIE for jesus. It's obvious that they cannot figure it out for themselves.
Posted by: Patricia
I agree with you Patricia, it's sad. So much potential.
I really don't understand, there is nothing wrong with going to a doctor.
What is it that makes Christianity not a superstition?
Considering what Christianity expects one to believe, I think that excessively credulous would qualify.
Superstition:
Anyone wanna take a shot at why Christianity does or doesn't qualify?
Obviously not a Catholic, then....
Enjoy your steak dinner tonight! (I'm in a good mood today too, seeing it's tyaddow's and my birthday.)
btw, you might be grateful that the crazies are christians, Christians do try to follow the laws. That is why they want to change some.. they don't agree. However.. what if the crazies where muslim? We know about that..
What if they were athiests? Crazy thought "There is no God, I do not care about anyone else..." Instant psycho.
BULLSHIT. Christian psycho doesn't just hear voices in his head, he hears "The Voice of God" and goes off shooting heathens. The atheist psycho hears voices and wonders who they are. Tells someone...he takes psycho to psychiatrist.
Just as likely as your scenario.
J -
Crusades. Witch burnings. The Inquisition. Pick up a history book.
You might be able to argue that their religion is a few hundred years behind.
sublunary, et. al.:
See my link posted at comment #22.
OUCH!
Quick somebody, help me. I've been 'dumbstruck'.
/headdesk
Brownian, you are right, there truly is some sort of inferiority complex at work regarding quebecois vs french.
It's partly brought about by the Language Nazis. While I do understand, and support to a point, the importance of preserving our language (after all, 7 millions francophones surrendered by over 300 milions anglophones), European french is not the only way to go. Languages evolve, just like species.
thx themadlolscientist, reading this, I still question why noncognitive differences in the infant environment would be more important factors than genetic predisposition.
It seems some scientists believe that they are going to be able to chemically select sexual orientation which I find very scary stuff.
If we have evolved as predominently bisexual animals, why wouldn't the factors be principally genetic ?
Saw that Prof MTH but don't have access to the article. I'm bookmarking your site and looking forward to your write-up!
Unlike Christians, who never did any of that.
Ok, well, they used to, until Jesus came back with New Testament, III: This Time I Mean 'Love Thy Neighbour For Reals,' Yo to clear up all the misunderstanding of the Bible among every fucking Christian who lived between, say 450 AD and the mid-eighteenth century.
You know what the difference between Christianity and Islam, J? In Europe, the Enlightenment stuck.
Crusades. Witch burnings. The Inquisition. Pick up a history book.
It could plausibly be argued that the Islamic aggression provoked the Crusades. Surprisingly few people were killed in the whole Inquisition, and the total number of witches burned in Europe is usually estimated at around 60,000. Pick up a history book.
Hardly compares to e.g. the complete subjugation of half the human race for centuries. So no, I think modern Islam is even worse than a few hundred years behind.
J@ 128
Really? Read some of the above posts to see the lie here. Fundamentalism is the same the world over - talking out of your backside is always crap and results in shit hitting the fan.
The death, by neglect, of children is different from blowing up yourself and others only in the eye of the (religious) beholder. To me it is all the same bullshit wrapped in doctrinal, verbal garbage.
Brownian. You said it.
Think of the sex changing frogs. Genetics allows for the variety to be influence by environment.
this study has already been mentioned but i just noticed that another science blogger has written about it.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/06/brains_of_gay_people_r…
Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for Christianity. I just think it's a whole lot less barbaric than Islam. Probably because, as Sam Harris has observed, the Bible is much more ambiguous -- and consequently better suited for cherry-picking -- than the Koran.
Phew! I take it back then, Christianity is nothing than a galvanising force of equality for men and women!
J, you've earned the prestigious honour of having written the dumbest thing on Pharyngula yet!
Well, maybe not quite yet....
Wow! A twofer! You've got both first and second place! We'll have to bring back Kenny just to give you competition.
If everyone shares more or less the same genetic predisposition to bisexuality, the factors that are responsible for variation in sexual orientation should be environmental.
On the other hand, if variation in sexual orientation was primarily genetic, homosexuality would be unlikely to persist in any noticeable extent since it would be selected against. (there are some models for selective explanations but none too convincing)
Obviously not a Catholic, then....
Enjoy your steak dinner tonight! (I'm in a good mood today too, seeing it's tyaddow's and my birthday.)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
No, not a Catholic. But my wife raised Catholic. But alas, she isn't one of them either. We went non-denomonational.
And thanks! I do love a good steak!
BULLSHIT. Christian psycho doesn't just hear voices in his head, he hears "The Voice of God" and goes off shooting heathens. The atheist psycho hears voices and wonders who they are. Tells someone...he takes psycho to psychiatrist.
Just as likely as your scenario.
Posted by: SteveM
That is paranoid babbling. Insanity is the same, Christian or not. I seem to remember several serial killers who were athiests. I am not advocating a lack of belief in God is what caused it. Someone hearing voices in their head and thinking it is God telling them to kill someone is just a severly deluded person. If you hear voices claiming to be God and it doesn;t follow the Bible, you best go see a shrink.
Crusades. Witch burnings. The Inquisition. Pick up a history book.
You might be able to argue that their religion is a few hundred years behind.
Posted by: mandrake
Ok, How about the Godless/lack of belief. Moa, Stalin, Pol Pot... This has been repeated ad nauseum..
/headdesk
Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp
Ouch.. headache?
And so the hysterics begin. You people really don't like it when anyone happens for any reason to criticize a group of predominantly brown-skinned people.
Compensating for something, Brownian? Were you in the KKK when you were younger, perchance?
Philippe,
nope, French, live in Spain, been to Quebec several times (got a good friend up in St Sauveur, such a nice place, but so fucking freezing cold in winter, I went there for new year once, I'd never been in such a cold place in my life, I think it must have been -40C, at least there was the "vin chaud").
Sure it is. It's all based on mythology. It's superstition and pointless.
The case of Neil Beagley further demonstrates how the mere act of believing something can be morally wrong--not because the belief is fallacious (fallibility is not immoral) but because of how one formulated the belief. A doxastic system that lacks truth seeking and/or error avoidance is an immoral doxastic system irrespective of the consequences of acting on the belief(s):
It damages one's character in 3 ways (the Argument from credulity)
1. Diminishes my own critical powers. as Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
2. Allows others to deceive me with no detection on my part.
3. Kantian universalizability----if nonevidentialist doxastic standards are universalized then "the corruption spreads to the town". (Prime examples are Bush's use of economic forecasting data, data on abstinence only education, and how Bush's general doxastic system contributed to the Iraq war.
Furthermore, the Neil Beagley case illustrates an important distinction applicable here that is often employed in Philosophy of Religion when debating the Problem of Evil. Critics of the free will theodicy note that there is a distinction between having the capacity to act and the right to act on a capacity. Even if free will is a capacity given to us by some deity it does not follow that we have the right to exercise that capacity in all possible ways. In the Beagley context, even if we have the right to believe whatever we want it does not follow that we have the right act on that belief in some circumstances. There are some circumstances whereby acting on our beliefs is morally wrong. One such time is when exercising our belief entails harm for others.
I quoted the above statistic wrong, by the way. The total number of executions of witches is estimated at around 60,000 -- not just burnings.
I know it's a lot of people, but compared with the whole population of Christendom over a span of hundreds of years, it doesn't amount to much.
To sublunary@113
"Though I have to admit, as a woman I wish they'd said a little more about women in some of the societies discussed. I'm curious to know if they had anywhere near the sexual freedom men did."
There has been a lot written about the role of women in pre-colonial societies- one good place to start is reading about the role of women in Iroqois society. A lot of these cultures had matrilineal social structures (it's a lot easier to prove maternity than paternity), and women had a lot of societal influence. The position of women in society tends to go down as the society becomes more authoritarian.
I also agree that the whole straight/gay dichotomy does not reflect the spectrum of human sexuality- to ignore bisexuals, furries, and multiple wetsuit/dildo fetishists is to oversimplify matters irresponsibly. I would jokingly blame this on the manichean world-view that has infected western civilization for the last millennium and a half.
Neither does your saying it isn't. You'd think we'd be stalemated, if the burden of proof weren't on your side.
Enter the FSM and the IPU. Superstitions? Myths? Made up fantasies? How is Christianity different, if it is?
Support your position and show your work.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
Sorry... I have tried to prove to many a athiest.. doesn't work. Their idea of proof is so high, you can't prove nothing. So nothing is what you get. I just now make statements (mostly opinions) and I require no proving on my side. I also ask for no proof from you. Because you can't prove anything either. Kind of like a stalemate.
I do love to read the athiests. They are quite humourus. Their words also drive my Faith In God deeper. They work so hard to prove the Bible is fake and God doesn't exist but to me they only confirm it. Funny huh?
J@151
you have got to be kidding.
Look, I'll criticize Islam just as much as Christianity - and, btw, there are a fair number of brown people who are Christians.
What bothers me is when Christians want to say "but no, *our* faith is reasonable, and would never be used for such a thing." Of course it has been. As has Islam, Judaism and probably every damn hierarchical religion since man first thought of it.
Pathetic actually.
From Starbuck:
Truer words for theistic proof were never typed.
i like to think that this blog is supposed to be a bastion of reason and as such i will undertake the sure to be unpopular task of defending at least SOME of what "J" has written.
let's say the craz-o-meter goes from 0 - 100. is it not possible that one group could be at 90 while another is at 100? they could both be amazingly crazy and amazingly dangerous with one still being more crazy and more dangerous.
You conveniently forget that terrorism, honour killings, and death sentences for apostasy do not slay many people compared to the total population size either.
No doubt your standards for evidence would be even higher, should a Hindu try to convince you of the existence of Shiva. By the way, you're wrong about the stalemate, since the burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove your Jehovah doesn't exist to not believe in him any more than you need to prove Shiva doesn't exist in order not to believe in him. (Five bucks says you won't even understand what this means. See below.)
If that's what the stupid find funny, then I guess so. Most other people (like the atheists here, the majority of them formerly Christians) find such reasoning compels them to abandon their unsupportable superstitions. But you stick to your guns man, or whatever. I don't care.
How can someone just let their child die when they could have been cured by a simple medical procedure? That sounds exactly like the kind of god I want to worship, one who loves killing kids, yep, sounds good to me. I love how god can cause people to lose all sense of rationale. I hope the parents get put on trial and go to jail. Pray yourself out of that one.
again,
what makes Christianity not a superstition? Is it because it has rituals? A structure? Priests?
That would make the beliefs organized, but not change the fact that they are irrational beliefs passed down by tradition.
How long has the human race been around? How many religions have existed, where populations were certain they had the truth? And what are the chances that *this* religion (whatever it is) is the only one that has ever been or will ever be correct?
Well, why didn't J just say so, instead of accusing Islam of sexism while implying Christianity was innocent of the same thing? (And he did indeed imply such a thing, otherwise he wouldn't have brought it up as a difference between the two.)
No doubt your standards for evidence would be even higher, should a Hindu try to convince you of the existence of Shiva. By the way, you're wrong about the stalemate, since the burden of proof is on you. I don't need to prove your Jehovah doesn't exist to not believe in him any more than you need to prove Shiva doesn't exist in order not to believe in him. (Five bucks says you won't even understand what this means. See below.)
I do love to read the athiests. They are quite humourus. Their words also drive my Faith In God deeper. They work so hard to prove the Bible is fake and God doesn't exist but to me they only confirm it. Funny huh?
If that's what the stupid find funny, then I guess so. Most other people (like the atheists here, the majority of them formerly Christians) find such reasoning compels them to abandon their unsupportable superstitions. But you stick to your guns man, or whatever. I don't care.
Posted by: Brownian, OM
I am under no obligation to prove God exists. If you don't want to. OK! I wish you would. But you have seen the words, and every athiest I ever met or talked to online claims to have read the Bible IN DEPTH! So, there is nothing I can do. You have heard the Gospel and read the Gospel, and you choose to reject it. Well, what is to argue?
You call me stupid, that's fine. I know it isn't true, and I will not prove it to you. You are already biased to the fact I am stupid because I believe in God. However, the Bible specifically calls you a fool. God calls you a fool, what do you think about that? Can you handle being called a fool by a being that you refuse to acknowlegde. You best hope beyond hope that you are right and the Bible is wrong.
Now, who was it introduced skin colour into the discussion? Oh, it seems to have been J! I wonder why?
You conveniently forget that terrorism, honour killings, and death sentences for apostasy do not slay many people compared to the total population size either.
You conveniently forget that I began by targeting modern Islam, and only subsequently were the witch burnings thrown up in my face.
I don't know enough history to do a body count comparison between between Islam and the Christianity of medieval to early modern Europe. However, the deleterious effects of religion go well beyond the body count. Their oppressive influences on society I usually find greatly more severe.
Certainly Islam is now the top of the pile in oppressive influence. If you want to show that Christianity used to be just as oppressive, you'll need to do more than cite the exceedingly rare witch burnings.
"any resident or native of Québéc"
[nitpick]There shouldn't be an accent on the second e.[/nitpick]
Now, who was it introduced skin colour into the discussion? Oh, it seems to have been J! I wonder why?
Because there must be an ulterior reason why an intelligent person like Brownian would commit the wildly misrepresentative and uncalled for attack found in post #149. "White guilt" seems to me the best explanation.
ok, let me put my disclaimer out there before i go any further. i think ALL religions are nonsense.
now...
which post # is that? i'm not asking that in a rhetorical manner. there are a lot of posts here and i've scanned back through and i don't see that implication.
Windy,
Why ? Did homosexuals not marry and have children in the past ? The vast majority of them most probably did, and lived a life in the closet, like so many of them still do today... And waht about in the future ? Won't they be able to marry and have children ?
Um....yeah?
Is that a trick question?
(By the way, the Easter Bunny calls you a fool, Starbuck! How's them apples!?!)
Well as I understand it from my SO who grew up in the the valley speaking Joual that other then pronounciation the actual language use has changed very little since Volaire so you can argue that it's purer (if you find pointless debates fun, as well I agree with you). But the pronounciation I think might be the thing, I think the "correct" spelling for the town name that gave Joual its name is much closer to Cheville (but I'm too lazy to double check right now).
I just have to be amused and impressed that the pronounciation of oui, has become I think the closest I can type it is wngh. A word that is nothing but vowels being pronounced with none whatsoever. You gotta love it. That poutine, and really good skiing.
My problem is that I understand a little bit of Parisian but can pronounce a little Joual but not an iota of the other way around. I usually have to appologise that I'm from Toronto.
Well, why didn't J just say so, instead of accusing Islam of sexism while implying Christianity was innocent of the same thing? (And he did indeed imply such a thing, otherwise he wouldn't have brought it up as a difference between the two.)
Another deceptive characterization. I clearly did not imply that Christianity is innocent of sexism. Rather, I implied it's not guilty of complete subjugation of women, which it isn't, and which Islam is.
God didn't call me a fool. God doesn't exist. Some man or men who wrote an archaic myth set up a double jeopardy in their dogma. Big deal.
You're not stupid Starbuck. Just deluded. You accept something to be fact for which there can be no evidence.
Two hundred quatloos on Brownian!
Steve_C @178
Well, technically there *could* be evidence. There just isn't.
I think about the same thing I'd think if Spiderman called me a fool.
Rev -
you know Spiderman? Cool!
However, the Bible specifically calls you a fool. God calls you a fool, what do you think about that? Can you handle being called a fool by a being that you refuse to acknowlegde.
And here is exactly the reason atheists call you (all theists) stupid. Yes, the Bible says we are fools for not believing. There is no reason to believe that those words are indeed the words of God. You believe they are the words of God without any evidence whatsoever.
"Can you handle being called a fool by a being that you refuse to acknowlegde?" We are being called a fool by a book, not a "being we refuse to acknowledge". The fact that you word the question that way is what makes you look like a fool to the atheist.
It could plausibly be argued that the Islamic aggression provoked the Crusades. - J
Well, only by someone so ignorant they don't know there were crusades against the pagans in northern Europe, the Cathars in France, and the Hussites in Bohemia. Maybe the Jews provoked the massacres against them which generally accompanied crusades against Muslims - and indeed, have recurred over nearly two millennia? By poisoning wells and murdering Christian children to add their blood to the matzos, perhaps?
Moreover, the Crusades are just the tip of the iceberg so far as Christianity's religious wars are concerned: as soon as they gained state power in the Roman Empire, Christians started murdering and torturing each other (and of course, everyone else) with abandon. Then there were the Catholic vs Protestant wars of religion, and the European conquests in the Americas, Africa and elsewhere - all justified to a considerable extent as bringing The Truth to the benighted heathen - just happening to kill or enslave millions of them along the way.
All three major Abrahamic religions are highly misogynistic - as indeed are most other religions. So far as Christianity is concerned, take a look at Paul of Tarsus's views on the proper subjugation of women, and the extent to which it is still practised today within many Christian sects and cultures.
No one is under any obligation to prove god exists. However when a person is claiming god does exist, but is either unwilling or unable to offer any evidence to support that claim it is reasonable to draw certain conclusions about the veracity of such a claim. Unless and until someone who claims god exists offers evidence to support that claim there is no need for others to treat that claim with any respect.
Patricia @ 137 Wow, I was almost tempted to say that I am tongue-tied, but nah, this insane crap from Starbuck is opening up the flood gates, but in this case it's a flood of demented shit that he will drown in with ritual evisceration. Holy shit Starbuck, if you had stated that christianity is not a cesspit then you would have lessened the oncoming responses. But to say that christianity is not a superstition, and to say it as a matter of fact and actually believe that this gutter religion with all it's demented rituals and insane dreck, only marks you as a cretinous deranged asshole whose imaginary god will never come to his aid, simply because there is no god or gods. When are you demented fuckheads going to realize that all this bullshit was made up by insane morons like yourself long before you were hatched by evolution? I'll say it again and again, let's see your fucking imaginary god; bring it down right now to smite us here on this site and prove that this shit exists. You just can't do it, can you? Pray as hard as you can till the shit comes out of your ears with your god. Come on, let's see your god.
Why ? Did homosexuals not marry and have children in the past ? The vast majority of them most probably did, and lived a life in the closet, like so many of them still do today... And waht about in the future ? Won't they be able to marry and have children ?
To throw in my paltry loose change on this subject:
I find that scientists are being deliberately obtuse on the matter of homosexuality. Environmental factors were hugely different back on the African savanna, and while you'd definitely get homosexual copulations, maybe it wouldn't be anywhere near as widespread as it is today. Even, for instance, the greater frequency of shaving in the modern world might count as a significant environmental factor. Why haven't I seen this mentioned before? PC-induced stupidity, I reckon.
Homosexuality isn't wrong even if environmental factors are important in causing it, so I don't see why scientists are so touchy about this.
J@172 I don't think so. I think there must be some ulterior reason why a declared atheist tries to make out that Islam is significantly worse than Christianity; and thatyour introduction of the topic of skin colour gives us a hint as to what that ulterior reason might be.
Starbuck (and you'll have to take it as a matter of faith) but I don't think you're stupid for believing in a god. I used that term because you expressed some kind of "I am impervious to reason; it only drives my faith deeper" argument, which is stupid.
For what it's worth, you'd better hope you're right about God, because you've got a number of very unpleasant lives ahead of you, according to Buddhist and Hindu cosmologies.
But, I'm sure you're not worried about living as a hungry ghost any more than I'm worried about zombie Jesus punishing me for all eternity.
Uncalled for? Misrepresentative? You wrote, "hardly compares to e.g. the complete subjugation of half the human race for centuries" which applies just as well to Christian history.
As for overcompensating for my 'white guilt', well, I'd have to be defending Islam for that to be the case (rather than merely pointing out that Christianity is guilty of each accusation you leveled at Islam), now wouldn't it?
Besides, the KKK doesn't usually let people who look like me in.
Whoa, Holbach, calm down. Yeah, it's infuriating, but there's no need to be violent about it.
Starbuck,
Don't hate the zenner, hate the zen.
Technically.
Well, only by someone so ignorant they don't know there were crusades against the pagans in northern Europe.
Ah, the Teutonic Knights, saving the Poles and Lugans from their poor Pagan selves.
Well, only by someone so ignorant they don't know there were crusades against the pagans in northern Europe, the Cathars in France, and the Hussites in Bohemia. Maybe the Jews provoked the massacres against them which generally accompanied crusades against Muslims - and indeed, have recurred over nearly two millennia? By poisoning wells and murdering Christian children to add their blood to the matzos, perhaps?
I knew that full well, but I wasn't talking about pagans, Jews, etc. I was talking about Islam, which has a history of military aggression in its own right. Islamic aggression in Eastern Europe is commonly cited as one of the chief reasons for the attacks on the Muslim holy lands.
Obviously Christianity isn't anywhere near free from blame. By citing facts which verify this, you're delving into irrelevancy -- or maybe just trying to show off?
As much as anyone knows God, yes.
J@172 I don't think so. I think there must be some ulterior reason why a declared atheist tries to make out that Islam is significantly worse than Christianity; and thatyour introduction of the topic of skin colour gives us a hint as to what that ulterior reason might be.
The crucial asymmetry being that I'm not misrepresenting anyone.
There are many ways that homosexuality could in fact be selected for. I don't want to go through them all, but even assuming that homosexuals never reproduced, they could provide an advantage to those they are related to, resulting in increased survival for their relatives. That's just one possibility, and there are many.
As for overcompensating for my 'white guilt', well, I'd have to be defending Islam for that to be the case (rather than merely pointing out that Christianity is guilty of each accusation you leveled at Islam), now wouldn't it?
You are defending it: from my claim that it's more barbaric than Christianity.
I wish PZ wouldn't do these mixed threads anymore.
It's even more difficult than following a conversation in a very crowded irish pub after 5 pints of beer. Can be a lot of fun, but generally not very constructive.
I guess the solution is : I need some beer !
Sounds good. I'm in!
J -
Personally, I would agree that fundamentalist Islam is exceedingly nasty and unfortunately powerful.
However, I really have trouble saying that any one religion is more or less barbaric than any other. It looks to me as if that's historically questionable.
Because you can't prove anything either. - Starbuck
Wrong. I can't prove that no supernatural creator exists, true. However, it is quite evident that no omnipotent and benevolent creator exists - the existence of any evil is quite sufficient to do that, let alone the vast amounts of suffering that have occurred and are occurring now. It is also highly unlikely that the evil God described in the Bible exists - the one who orders genocide and commits it himself, is insanely jealous and proud of it, and promises to torture people for ever. There's just too much good in the world for that God to be plausible.
Irrelevant? What the hell is wrong with you?
Since you seem to be suffering from some form of ADHD, I'll lay out the argument you made, and why such 'facts' are actually important points in refutation:
Your claim, in case you don't understand it, is that crazy Muslims are different than crazy Christians because Muslims do these things while Christians do not.
For this claim to stand, it has to be the case that Muslims do these things and Christians do not.
Many (myself included) refuted your claim by producing evidence that all of such activities have occurred on a widespread basis in the history of Christianity, and thus such a difference is temporal, and only by a few hundred years, and not due to any fundamental difference in the two religions.
To this end, none of the examples provided by Nick Gotts are irrelevant.
"I am under no obligation to prove God exists. If you don't want to. OK! I wish you would."
What?
"But you have seen the words, and every athiest I ever met or talked to online claims to have read the Bible IN DEPTH! So, there is nothing I can do. You have heard the Gospel and read the Gospel, and you choose to reject it. Well, what is to argue?"
The Bible is just a book. Or rather, several books from widely disparate sources cobbled together. So what?
"Obviously not a Catholic, then...."
They could be going out for capybara steaks, Brownian.
since when are capybara fish? For the Catholics I knew that was the only thing that didn't count as meat.
J,
The behaviour of Christianity has moderated over the past few centuries only to the extent that it has lost power. Yet even in the last century, it was a vital ingredient in making the Holocaust possible; and in this, born-again Christian George W. Bush has called for a Crusade, and assured us that God is on his side in invading Iraq. His cheerleaders (Robertson, Coulter etc.) have been even more open in calling for the persecution of non-believers and "sinners" such as gays. At best, it's clear you have an unacknowledged cultural prejudice in favour of Christianity; at worst, you're just a racist using hostility to Islam as a cover, as so many do.
nutria, not capybara, are considered fish by the Catholic Church, at least in Louisiana.
I've always been delighted at the exception in kashrut that considers fish as dairy, myself. Not that chickens have mammary glands any more than salmon do, but chickens are meat, and fish are dairy, so under that system, chicken and Swiss is right out, while a lox and cream-cheese is considered kosher (and delicious).
Not that I keep kosher myself; I'm just pleased to be the recipient of this culinary gift that escaped banishment under kashrut.
mandrake@204 Medieval monks certainly ate beaver on Fridays - er, yes I do mean the creatures that gnaw down trees and build dams! Evidently the study of cladistics was not part of the monastic curriculum.
It's funny when assholes all over the world fight each other over supposed holy books that describe the legends and mythologies of a small geographically isolated region of the world. All the Abrahamic religions trace the origins of their holy books in the backwater areas of the middle east, that to this day, are still useless and represent the dregs of geographically starved areas of the world. It's amazing to me that so many people invest so much of their lives on what some supposed jews did 3000 years ago, while others place theirs on the possibility of what one jew did 2000 years ago, while still others, go out of their way to indicate what some arab in another backwater place in the middle east did. What is the fascination with these largely legendery, mostly fabricated individuals from one corner of the world? Why is half the world killing each other over the minor discrepancies between these imaginary individuals? Ultimately, it's because the memetic power that some of these cobbled-together shitty stories have greatly influence the minds of the weak and feeble.
I think anyone who believes that their god actually speaks is the biggest fool of all...
Bear in mind that this applies to all religious and spiritual people around the world. It's not just the Abrahamic idiots, but any who deny themselves the power that empirical thinking has to offer, and instead, live their lives as ignorant pawns of society.
Need more beer to drown out that thought.
For this claim to stand, it has to be the case that Muslims do these things and Christians do not.
Wrong. All I require is that Muslims commit those acts with statistically significant greater frequency. Let's go through them one by one, shall we?
Terrorism: Has been carried out by Christians, but has always been a Muslim-dominated field.
Honour killings: Again Muslim-dominated. Not only in the modern world: Christendom has never had the idea in its head that a raped woman has shamed her family and should therefore be executed.
Blasphemy: Christendom used to punish blasphemy, so I'll generously offer a tie on this one.
Death sentence for apostasy: How many Christian ruling factions have explicitly and legally required all their citizens to embrace Christianity, under pain of death?
Misogyny: Do you know what a "burqa" is?
Here's another B -- what about the word "bigamy"? And hey, what about this:
...and call upon two of your men to act as witnesses; and if two men are not available, then a man and two women from among such as are acceptable to you as witnesses.
Much other stuff too. I think there can be little doubt about it that Islam is a greatly more misogynistic religion than Christianity. They're both misogynistic, yes; this doesn't make them equally so.
My (female) urethra totally sympathizes with that sentiment, but having experienced bladder catheterization in the hospital, I can assure you that the reality is nowhere near as awful as the anticipation of the event was.
At best, it's clear you have an unacknowledged cultural prejudice in favour of Christianity; at worst, you're just a racist using hostility to Islam as a cover, as so many do.
Or maybe I'm right and Islam really is more dangerous and unequivocally violent than Christianity.
I was addressing your hypothetical past environment where people evolved as predominantly bisexual. Why would homosexuals need to be "in the closet" in such conditions?
And, imagine that this bisexual society is something like the bonobo society. A bonobo that's mostly interested in the same sex might succeed in siring offspring, but it would make sense that it's reproductive success is on the average lower than a bonobo's that's interested in the opposite sex. Thus homosexuality will be selected against. That's all - it doesn't imply a value judgment.
Hopefully yes, but future reproduction doesn't explain why genetic predisposition for homosexuality would be common in the present.
Sorry J but that just doesn't wash. There is a tendency, especially among American Christians, to see the Koran as some sort of devil's brew of hatred while the Bible is a wonderful book which leads the faithful to be good and pure.
This is bullshit. I have Muslim friends who would put your 'love thy neighbour' into a whole new context. They see their lives as their one and only chance to serve humanity in all its manifestations regardless of race or creed and are among the most loving and accepting people on the planet (they're also biochemists, but we won't hold that against them).
My niece (an atheist) is engaged to be married to one of these dreadful, misogynistic, murderous people. Oh my, what should we do, kidnap her and find a nice Christian misogynist for her to marry with 15 other wives and 40 children?
EXTREMISM is the problem, and, IMHO, in America there is Christian extremism which rivals the worst Islam can offer.
The only thing which holds it in check is American law.
Nick Gotts - Love the beaver ref. especially as the first beaver dam to be built in Britain for centuries is now here
Love beavers!
So, lemme see if I got this right, J. Christianity is to Islam as raping a woman is to murdering a woman? Does that about sum it up?
Sorry J, but if you had said that Islam was currently more etc. etc. than Christianity, your point would have stood.
Nonetheless, if your claim is in fact the above, then I'll concede.
Point for point, you're okay until you get to the death sentence for apostasy. The first Christian ruler to impose it was Justinian I (527-565). The Inquisition and the Cathar Crusade, both already mentioned, also count.
As for sexism, burqas aside (BTW, ever seen a Mennonite or a Hutterite?), here's a list of anti-woman claims in the Bible. The same site has a similar list for the Quran, in case you think a pissing contest will be meaningful. Since you probably do, the SAB lists at least 304 sexist statements in the Bible, and 52 for the Quran.
Pick up a history book?
Ok then.
Sixty thousand Europeans, at least 75% of them women, executed for witchcraft between 1450 and 1750. That's 300 years. That's 200 executions per year. For witchcraft. Every year. For three hundred years. In a row.
Is that a lot? I don't know. Let's do a little basic number-crunching.
The population of Europe at the midpoint of the witch-hunting era - that is, in 1600 - was 78 million, not including Russia.
The current population of Europe, less Russia, is about 600 million.
So, if we apply the witch-killing rate of the European Witch Hunts to the present day, we get... lessee... sixty thousand divided by three hundred, times six hundred million, divided by seventy-eight million... gives 1,535 (rounded).
Imagine, then, if you will, 1,535 executions per year. For witchcraft. Every year. For three hundred years. In a row.
There have been 1106 executions performed in the USA since 1976. That's 32 years. That's 34 executions per year.
J, I think you're wrong to minimize the significance of the number of people executed for witchcraft during that era. It is true that these numbers, even when extrapolated to contemporary population sizes, can't come close to competing with the death tolls racked up by war and genocide in the 20th century, but that's not a fair comparison anyway. We're talking about the number of people who endured trial, torture, and executions in the name of superstition - not casualties of war. When viewed in the appropriate context, the numbers are decidedly non-trivial.
Matthew 5:22 (...) And whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Nutria? um, ugh.
I grew up in New Orleans, but have never eaten nutria.
Perhaps that is because my mother is from Mississippi. OTOH, her family used to eat squirrels. But nutria are more like rats.
Kseniya -
thank you. I wanted to say that but didn't have the stats.
Death sentence for apostasy: How many Christian ruling factions have explicitly and legally required all their citizens to embrace Christianity, under pain of death?
You really are seriously ignorant J. Why do you think Jews fled Spain and Portugal to take refuge in Muslim-ruled lands? Why were no Muslims left in those countries after the reconquest? What were the burnings of Catholics under Edward VI and Protestants under Mary I of England about? In fact, the Quran says Christianity and Judaism (and Zoroastrianism) are to be tolerated - although their adherents are not to be treated as equals. Muslim persecution has concentrated on "idol-worshippers", such as Hindus, and even more on groups viewed as apostates - as Muslims who have abandoned the faith (Bahais, Druse, Ahmadhis, etc).
Thanks Windy, I missed that.
I'd think if I were going to ask people to believe something outlandish, the first thing I'd say is, "You're not gonna believe this, but...". If I were then going to ask my audience to then go out and act on the regular populace according to those beliefs, I'd probably say something like, "People are gonna give you a hard time about preaching this lunacy, but they're fools until you get them to see the light." Of course, if I were to put it in a book, I'd couch it in some flowery, antiquated language, just for style.
Then again, that's just me. However, I'd really be surprised if you were to find me a significant number of cults whose leaders don't say exactly those things.
But yours must be the only divinely-inspired case of that, I guess.
Well then, here's a favour to ask next time you're praying to Dad; ask him not to sound exactly like every false prophet if he wants to convince those of us who use the brains He gave us. You'd really be doing the rest of us a solid.
Sorry J, but if you had said that Islam was currently more etc. etc. than Christianity, your point would have stood.
OK, we're now on the same page. There's no major disagreement between us.
I happen to think that the Koran is lethally less ambiguous than the Bible. So in my opinion, even old Christianity probably wasn't as bad as Islam. Though this is just a trifling conflict of opinion, which we needn't fight over any longer.
You really are seriously ignorant J.
Or -- perhaps it hasn't occurred to you -- maybe I hastily overlooked those points you made (some of which are good)? I'm probably wrong about the death sentence for apostasy. All of my other arguments stand firm. (As usual, you resume your tactic of focusing on one detail which I'm happy to concede, and acting as if you're sweeping the rug from underneath me.)
Snobby pseudo-intellectuals are awful quick to sling unfair charges of ignorance, I've noticed.
By the way, I linked to John de Ruiter since he's the nearest Messiah to where I live.
Doubt that he's the Messiah? He capitalises the word 'Truth' so that you know he's talking about the real Truth, and not the phony-baloney truth that the cult leaders in Bountiful perpetuate. Now why would he do that if he were just spinning tall tales that only he and his hundreds of followers believe?
(Okay, that was a trick question. He does that because he makes a nicer living being a Messiah than he did as a cobbler in Edmonton. Hey, how successful was Jesus as a carpenter, anyway? Just askin'.)
J @ 170
Which specific religion is the most criminal at any given time appears to be a function of the power it has. The more power, the more criminal behavior by religionists. If you want to get a glimpse of how Christianity behaved when it had lots of power, you can do so by reading the eight (soon nine) volumes of Karlheinz Deschner's "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums."
For vol. 8: ISBN-10: 349961670X; ISBN-13: 978-3499616709. Warning: Both language and contents are tough. The tomes come with extensive source references, annotations and glossaries. It's the stuff they never told you in Sunday school (and most certainly not in church).
That's an interesting idea. I am inclined to agree with you, though I can't claim any sort of certainty. If it is the case, I suspect that's partially due to the much more recent history of the Quran, but I suspect it's also due to the fact that many of Islam's adherents link the Quran with Arabic so strongly that it's not been translated anywhere near as much as the Bible (though I'm sure there's plenty in there that doesn't translate to modern Arabic all that well.)
@J #177: Another deceptive characterization. I clearly did not imply that Christianity is innocent of sexism. Rather, I implied it's not guilty of complete subjugation of women, which it isn't, and which Islam is.
I am genuinely curious how you reconcile your statement that Islam is guilty of the complete subjugation of women with the fact that there have been a fair number of female Muslim political leaders. How exactly, did Islam's complete subjugation of women not prevent the predominantly Muslim country of Pakistan (to give one example) from electing a female head of state?
Helioprogenus @ 209 You gave a good and concise synopis of how these shit religions are formed, and "greatly influenced the minds of the weak and feeble". This is the gist of it: unsound minds will always latch onto unsound ideas, but the problem is that they don't think these ideas are unsound until a rational person tells them that both they and their ideas are irrational, and even then they defend their ideas with even more insane crap. As a well known has said; "An empty mind is a recepticle for faith".
Exactly Holbach #232. As you can see from the arguments here about how Christianity is worse or Islam is worse, they're equally products of unsound minds and hallucinations. They're both responsible, along with all the other fantasies people call religion, for the spread of ignorance, and provites an excuse for intolerance, and people's wish to harm each other. They're all useless in the modern day. They do not help our society progress in any way, and the assholes who hold dear to these beliefs tooth and claw are just kicking and screaming their way to the inevitable. Eventually, their faith is going to be superceded by science, and they're useless arguments will be hilarious in retrospect. Unfortunately, before their archaic minds dissolve into the abyssal fountain of the universe, they're goal of spreading ignorance and irrationality will never cease. As for religious apologists, let it go people. Do you have such vigorous arguments for whether Manicheans and Zoroastrians are more ethical?
Freshwater will be fired.
Thanks Kseniya for the stats on witch burnings and hangings. :)
J- #156 - I take personal exception to your remark that the deaths of 60,000 witches "doesn't amount to much." And #170 - "exceedingly rare witch burnings". During an almost 20 year addiction to genealogy that would make a mormon blush, my mother found and documented our relationship to Mary Ayer Parker in the USA, and to the Nutters, Heuwitts, and Dixons of the Pendle Forrest in England. The deaths of that many women does amount to something!
The good christians that testified that Mary turned herself into a giant black hog were just as deluded and heartless as you are.
J @ 227 We are "snobby pseudo-intellectruals"? We are snobby true, but we are the real intellectuals because we can reason what you obviously can not. If someone insistently believes something that is not true and is reasoned with by his betters (snicker) to get the crap out out his head but ignores the blatant facts, then what the hell is that person called? A raving lunatic who cannot empty his demented mind of illogical crap. If whay you say is true that your imaginary god exists, then you should provide that proof and let us see it, another snicker, and then we have to accept it because there it is. My repeated analogy is proffered again; show me an orange and say here is an orange. Don't show me your empty hand and say here is your imaginary, snicker, god. No good. Let me see your god and prove to me that you may be my intellectual equal without the pseudo crap attached to it. Snobby? You bet I am, and proud of it because I can reason with an evolutionary brain that no imaginary ghost created.
The Mt Vernon school board voted 5-0 to fire him.
Amazing that we have seen nothing about this case in WOrld Net Daily since the roport was issued
What's this I'm reading? Deities? Where? Why would anyone think such things are real?
Sorry, but the idea that terrorism is primarily Muslim is incorrect. The Tamil Tigers aren't Muslims. The FLQ weren't Muslims, nor were the IRA, the Japanese Red Army, the German Red Army Faction, the Italian Red Brigades, Alpha 66 et al, the Order, the Jewish Defense League, the Weathermen, and a whole batch of others. The biggest single loss of life in an incident of terrorism prior to 911? The bombing of Air India Flight 182 in 1985, conducting by Sikh extremists. And a terrorist act conducting by a Muslim does not automatically make it the result of belief in Islam in any case. The first wave of Palestinian groups to engage in terrorism, including the PLO and its spinoffs, did so for primarily nationalist reasons, many of them having Baathist and Marxist ideologies at their core, not Islamic ones.
The real difference between Christianity and Islam? 700 years or so. Consider the history of Christianity and where it ended up 1300 odd years after its formation and its not hard to draw a parallel with Islam today.
The good christians that testified that Mary turned herself into a giant black hog were just as deluded and heartless as you are.
Whatever way you look at it, 60,000 deaths over a course of centuries doesn't amount to much. I wonder if more people have bled to death after being butchered by Islamic fanatics for stealing a loaf of bread.
This doesn't make me heartless or delusional. I'm simply realistic. Compared with centuries of outright enslavement of women (much worse than the latent misogynism in Christianity), 60,000 deaths really isn't much.
I am genuinely curious how you reconcile your statement that Islam is guilty of the complete subjugation of women with the fact that there have been a fair number of female Muslim political leaders.
Odd exceptions can be used to refute claims of general trends, can they? Your argument is just as absurd as using Obama as evidence that America couldn't possibly have been strongly racist.
I won't bother to go into the details. If you doubt that conventional Islam basically enslaves women, I suggest you do some research into the matter.
We are "snobby pseudo-intellectruals"?
More fundamentalist tactics. Read what I wrote and you'll see I only suggested that those making unfair accusations of ignorance might be "snobby pseudo-intellectuals".
from the yahoo article:
Other findings show that Freshwater taught that carbon dating was unreliable to argue against evolution.
Just another day misinforming children about the world they live in for the glory of Jesus. Oh please, teach me more about your morals.
Snobby? You bet I am, and proud of it because I can reason with an evolutionary brain that no imaginary ghost created.
Hilarious. Read my posts before responding to them. And if you have no reading comprehension ability, go back to school.
Gawds bollocks J! It doesn't amount to much?
*Dumbstruck* again.
And on what evidence do you base this certainty?
Azkyroth@245
See predictably anecdotal post @#37
I am genuinely curious how you reconcile your statement that Islam is guilty of the complete subjugation of women with the fact that there have been a fair number of female Muslim political leaders.
Odd exceptions can be used to refute claims of general trends, can they? Your argument is just as absurd as using Obama as evidence that America couldn't possibly have been strongly racist.
I won't bother to go into the details. If you doubt that conventional Islam basically enslaves women, I suggest you do some research into the matter.
So Islam "is guilty of the complete subjugation of women" and "basically enslaves women"... with the few "odd exceptions" where women serve as the heads of state?
Is it "complete subjugation" or is it a "general trend"? And what are you talking about with Obama and "America couldn't possibly have been strongly racist"? You complained earlier about others changing the timeframe and throwing witch burnings in your face. If you want to make a comparison to Obama, ok: Obama is evidence that modern America does not completely subjugate black people, nor are black people "basically enslaved".
Why don't you just admit that your statements were hyperbole? Is that so hard?
Helioprogenus @ 233 I have made up my mind, and I am sure you have done likewise, to keep hammering away at the religious retards, until, if we don't convince them that they are totally bonkers, then at least to expose them for the demented retards they are. Do you recall in the first Indiana Jones movie, the scene where the slimy arabs kidnapped his girlfriend and he went chasing after them, only to come out on a open bazaar with a huge arab with an equally huge scimitar waving it around with the intention of slicing Jones piecemeal. Jones looks at this filthy arab slime, and without any trepidation, whips out his revolver and drops the shit bag with one bullet. Now that is blatant reality! No time for the niceties of equal play against a foe, but just quick and definite dispatch to his heaven with seventy two Tasmanian Devils! This is the rule of debate that I would apply when reasoning with the demented religionists. My reason is superior to your insane crap as the bullet is superior to the sword.
Two more items of note with a comical touch: I have small booklets with the title, "What god Has Revealed To Man". When you open the booklet, you find that the pages are blank! Love it! I showed this to a religious friend (and also the video "A New Pope" which I e-mailed to him and did not think it was funny. But it was funny as we all know!) He did not think the booklet was at all humorous and was getting more agitated with the ensuing discussion on religion. My parting quip did the trick and I have used it on several occasions with other religionists. I said, "Hey, you had nothing to do with it; it's not your fault that there is no god." Needless to say that he did not speak to me for some time! What would I say if he had said, "Hey, it's not your fault that there is a god. Think about that. Lots of snickers!
J and Starbuck - Trot your god out in any biblical form of your choice, booming voice from heaven, speaking burning bush, comming from the clouds with choirs of angels, any of that - I'll believe again. My need for proofs is not impossibly high, it's biblical.
If your god shows up, not only will I go back to snake handling and speaking in tongues, but I'll demand that my great neices are never taken to a doctor again.
There you go, if you want to convert a heathen sinner I'm ready.
So Islam "is guilty of the complete subjugation of women" and "basically enslaves women"... with the few "odd exceptions" where women serve as the heads of state?
I take it you're referring to Benazir Bhutto, who was head of government of Pakistan (not head of state). Pakistan is a very moderate country by Muslim standards (and yet still has the death sentence for apostasy). There are exceptions to the "enslavement" trend, I won't deny it.
This doesn't change the reality that in most Muslim nations on the planet, men essentially own their wives.
Why don't you just admit that your statements were hyperbole? Is that so hard?
Because it scarcely is hyperbole. And at any rate, it's something that needs stating strongly.
J and Starbuck - Trot your god out in any biblical form of your choice, booming voice from heaven, speaking burning bush, comming from the clouds with choirs of angels, any of that - I'll believe again. My need for proofs is not impossibly high, it's biblical.
I suggest you learn how to read, pea brain. I'm not religious, as should be quite apparent from many of my posts in this thread.
Patricia @ 244 Please don't get Dumbstruck too often where it will render you too weak to respond! We need you and others like us to counter the likes of J and his demented ilk. In fact, why doesn't J send his god down to really dumbstruck us into silence! Can't be done, eh J? Maybe if you get the gift of "tongues", one of them might render us speechless, with awe!, at the power of the babbling incoherency. Oh, dear heavenly farter (sic), please go down and whip those pseudo-intellectuals so that they are at my level of dementia. Damn it, are you listening to me? You will not prevail J, because you lack the real condition to beat us: a rational intellect to rightly assume that we are the intelligent ones. Go and pray to your god for a change of venue, or better yet, brain.
there's probably a more well known and more elequent analogy but since i'm not aware of it, i'll make up my own.
if you're constantly battling dragons, you must start to think that every enemy that you encounter is a dragon.
i know, i know that was weak but maybe some of you will get the point. if you want to present yourself as the defenders of reason, you must be reasonable. i don't agree with everything that J has written but i think that some of it has some merit. however, J has written nothing (at least in this thread) to indicate that she/he believes in any sort of god. if i've missed it, please point me to the post and i will happily admit my error.
i know that dragons are not real. :)
Patricia: J called you, (and presumably me) a pea brain! And after all that time we wasted dissecting his miniscule mess of fecal neurons! What are we to do? We can't dissect any further or he will have nothing left to respond with!
In fact, why doesn't J send his god down to really dumbstruck us into silence! Can't be done, eh J? Maybe if you get the gift of "tongues", one of them might render us speechless, with awe!, at the power of the babbling incoherency.
Hey Holbach, guess what? I've been an atheist since I was a little kid. I haven't once indicated otherwise. You're talking shit.
If you're so intellectually vapid and superficial that you interpret any disagreement on Pharyngula as "Atheism versus Theism", then yes, I can understand where you're coming from. Some people are, after all, so thick-skulled that they would assume the claim "Islam is worse than Christianity" is tantamount to a defense of Christianity.
See, that's why I think science blogs should actually be about science. It keeps away the simple dimwits who don't know or understand anything interesting apart from that God doesn't exist.
It's funny you mention Indiana Jones Halbach, because I was thinking of the very same thing a few days ago. Well not that specific scene, but thinking ok, these fuckers are all going out of their way for a stupid religious icon with supposed powers, and in the end, their search proves their undoing. You know in Raiders of the Lost Ark, when everybody actively seeking the Ark gets totally burned to dust. That's what religion does to people. We just have to be active at hammering the concept until all these fuckers arguing religion realize they're just arguing fairy tales. They might as well argue whether Count Chukula is more powerful then Frankenberry or Cap't Crunch. It's a futile and useless argument, and they don't know when to shut the fuck up and let real discussion take place.
I've been trying to hammer the point home in my own little way for a few years now. You can go to my blog at agnostictruth.blogspot.com (don't let the title fool you either, I'm a full blown atheist, but as far as the truth is concerned, I feel it's agnostic because there is no valid way to define philosophical truth except accepting that it's forever an unreachable, but always an interesting argument) to see what I mean by it. The iron fist we use here to hammer these religious nut jobs was at first, one full of kindness, until I realized that it's like going up against a brick wall of horseshit. Why deal with the smell and pain of it all, when you can just hammer through it with the greatest weapon possibly known to mankind....reason. There are two things at work here, the "truth" and reason, which aren't mutually compatible. These fundies keep attempting to redefine truth outside of reason, to their own personal truth, when in fact, philosophically, we try our hardest to define truth through reason, empirical evidence, etc. The fact is we'll never know everything, but why would we ever want to? It's the exploration and discovery of the unknown that's our primary motivational and driving force as creatures. Not all of us of course, some people are happy droning their lives away believing in some imaginary crap, and wasting their petty existence navigating it based on faith. In the end, it's all a waste because they do not contribute in any way to our general civilization. They come and go like a virtual particle, never having directly influenced human affairs. Sure, we may not do so either, but at least we give ourselves the chance to expand beyond our craniums. These fucks can't expand beyond their own shell of ignorance and it wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't try so hard to make everyone else equally as ignorant. We can't stop pounding the hell out of these morons until every single one comes to admit that they're engaged in useless, futile endeavors and would be much better off scrubbing dirty toilets.
Gosh J, sorry, I can read. You can blame my first owner for that. He violated 1 Timothy 2:11 - 14. My current owner is just as lax, not only does he violate the same scripture, he never even paid the foreskins of 200 Philistines for me. 1 Samuel 25:39-43.
So ya J, I'm an uppity woman - but take comfort, I'm bound for hell straight away for not being modest, shamefaced & sober. 1 Timothy 2:9
Oh, not religious? Then I'll look forward to meeting you in hell J. I'll be the slut adorned in gold, with braided hair, swilling wine - and brazenly speaking to Holbach without permission from my owner. :)
(still waiting to get spanked by Holbach on "He'll fit right in")
J the problem is that you are making huge blanket statements and frothing at the mouth that they are unequivicably true. There are too many exceptions. Instead of a nice safe statement like "There are more frothing insane fundimentalists in the Muslim popluation then currently in the Christian population; and they are barbaric and heinous downright medeivel and should be stopped." To which we would have said yes, that seems to be as true as the sky is blue.
But there is not a single amoral, immoral, unethical, horrific, hienous act that Islam has done that Christianity has not. Yes that includes honour killings (although xtians preffered sending their ruined daughters to nuneries where they would be put to hard labour and beaten daily for the rest of their lives frequently ended by their own hands first opertunity I'm sure), female circumsison (tends to happen more in African splinter sects but it is happening now), wives and daughters as chattle, terrorism, genocide you name it they have done it.
Saying "Yes but the Muslims are worse!" is just splitting hairs, have you read about the ranches in Texas? How are those not the same only dressed in pastels and gingam?
And to think, they have the fucking balls to call us immoral. It almost makes you laugh.
*Passes Patricia the wine* Heh, and while you're uppity the whiskey over the fridge. *grins*
Oh, shite! Now I've over stepped my bounds.
SORRY! Bride of Shrek, I forgot, you are the official 'slut' of Pharyngula. Oops! ;)
I sure hope she feels like sharing the title, I wanna get some too!
;)
Whether or not Hollbach, or anyone else for that matter has anything interesting or not to say, it still kinda sounds like somebody here needs to be brought down a notch or two from their rather high horse.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/06/the_selfjustification_of_eli…
The Self-Justification of Elite Nerds
Category: Academia • Class Issues • Education • Politics • Society
Posted on: June 18, 2008 11:17 AM, by Chad Orzel
Perhaps the United Church of Canada has had a Monty Python moment and realised that religion is a nonsense? As in episode 18?
"ToastmasterGentlemen, pray silence for the President of the Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things.
There is much upperclass applause and banging on the table as Sir William rises to his feet.
Sir WilliamI thank you, gentlemen. The year has been a good one for the Society (hear, hear). This year our members have put more things on top of other things than ever before. But, I should warn you, this is no time for complacency. No, there are still many things, and I cannot emphasize this too strongly, not on top of other things. I myself, on my way here this evening, saw a thing that was not on top of another thing in any way. (shame!) Shame indeed but we must not allow ourselves to become too despondent. For, we must never forget that if there was not one thing that was not on top of another thing our society would be nothing more than a meaningless body of men that had gathered together for no good purpose. But we flourish. This year our Australasian members and the various organizations affiliated to our Australasian branches put no fewer than twenty-two things on top of other things. (applause) Well done all of you. But there is one cloud on the horizon. In this last year our Staffordshire branch has not succeeded in putting one thing on top of another (shame!). Therefore I call upon our Staffordshire delegate to explain this weird behaviour.
As Sir William sits a meek man rises at one of the side tables.
Mr CutlerEr, Cutler, Staffordshire. Um ... well, Mr Chairman, it's just that most of the members in Staffordshire feel... the whole thing's a bit silly.
Cries of outrage. Chairman leaps to feet.
Sir WilliamSilly! SILLY!! (he pauses and thinks) Silly! I suppose it is, a bit. What have we been doing wasting our lives with all this nonsense? (hear, hear) Right, okay, meeting adjourned for ever".
...but then again, I doubt it.
Completely off every topic in this thread: http://community.livejournal.com/cat_macros/4375303.html
J and Starbuck: You are Expelled! Ben Stein is waiting for you to take you to the asylum for a triple by-pass lobotomy!
I'm signing off for the night. Must rest my brain so that it remaims lucid and does not ossify from too much rangling with insipid minds that are further deadened with demented religion.
No, J. The way you insist on looking at it, they don't amount to much.
Got any numbers to show us on how many people bled to death in Islamic nations after losing hand for stealing a loaf of bread? That comparison is part of your rationale for trivializing the death toll of the witch-hunts.
So, Holbach-
How bout those Red Sox this year?
J: Actually, ignore that last request. I see where you're coming from, and a review of your comments shows that you weren't making any specific claims about the human cost of bread-theft.
What puzzles me, though, is your insistence on minimizing the death toll of the witch-hunts. Yes, those numbers are small compared to the death tolls of wars, famines, plagues, and the natural toll of accidents, infant mortality, and old age. But I think to view it that way is to miss the point entirely. We're talking about a very specific cause of death, and scaling it up to contemporary population sizes, and seeing what it would mean in those terms - that is, over 1,500 executions per year, for 300 years straight, in a Western world where even the nation with the greatest number of executions only terminates three dozen lives per year - and the results are utterly shocking. It seems odd to trivialize that view simply because Islam may have been just as bloody or worse.
(I do realize that it's not quite that simple, and to get a more accurate view of what those deaths meant, we'd have to establish the context a little more broadly - we don't really know what those 200 deaths per year represent as a percentage of the total executions performed for religious reasons during the same period... but I'm too brain-tired to go there now, that's for sure.)
Anyway, I certainly don't disagree with your main point. I'd rather live in a Christian country - ANY Christian country - than a Muslim country - ANY Muslim country - in today's world. I don't imagine I'd feel much different about that if I could pick my century, too.
Kseniya,
that's an argument based on ignorance.
You'd prefer to live in Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Nicaragua than in Malaysia, Morrocco, Turkey
Have you ever been there ?
Nope! You're right. I don't know what it's like to live there (or there, or there).
What, nothing good?
John Freshwater, the teacher who displayed a Bible on his desk in science class, supported creationism, and burned a cross into hsi stuents' arm, has been fired in a unanimous decision by the board of ed.
It's not as bad as you think it is, even for a woman. I lived in Malaysia and Morrocco, I loved it, had some expat woman friends, they loved it. My sister lived in Turkey and in Madagascar, no comparison. It was so much harddship in Madagascar, whereas living in Istanbul was almost like living in any other modern city, just a bit more exotic.
The only time in my life when I got really scared, like shiting in your pants, was in Ivory Coast, on a business trip, when we got car-jacked on the side of the road, by some kind of kids-gangsters.
Just be careful with what people say about muslim countries, as if they are all the same. There are the really fucked up ones, the not so fucked up ones, and the ones that are making good progress.
Especially as an expat, you'd be most probably so positively surprised with the quality of life you'd get in Kuala Lumpur or Istanbul compared to what you get in Boston.
Hmmm yeah I have fallen prey to the kind of blanket generalization and stereotyping that I usually try to avoid... I forgot for a moment that I actually don't know anything. ;-)
Re #274:
Oh looky, it's psycho-nostradamus-mabus again.
I thank god everyday that i am not religious. :P
From the first article:
Umm...how the fuck did they mess this up? Either Anicka is the world's greatest con artist, or the Czech authrorites are just clueless.
Oh scheisse... Mabus again. Where's a knight with a rubber chicken when you need one?
Back at #193, Brownian said:
Grunwald, baby! Grunwald!
J, I fully agree that Islam is horrific in many ways and even concede that currently more people of that faith appear willing to openly commit atrocities in the name of their beliefs than christians. But you took a poor path to that point and that's why people are jumping you and your arguments. And don't fool yourself into thinking that that kind of behavior is too deep beneath the surface in a large number of christians today. After Huckabilly, it's not too hard to imagine a charming preacherman talking his way into the White House. But what if behind the smile and jokes you've got the mind of a Hagee or Robertson or Falwell? As it is, we've got a couple hundred Regent and Liberty U. grads working in the current administration trying to curtail the rights of women, gays, and others.
Starbuck, belief in spite of the utter absence of evidence may be valued by your church or fellow superstitionists, but it's not going to earn you a dram of respect around here. As Carl Sagan said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Or, more succinctly: Put up or shut up. Until you provide some evidence, we'll think as much of your Jesus as you do of Krishna. Making decisions, especially important, life-shaping ones is best done based on evidence. Really. You should try it sometime.
J,
MADRE
Human Rights Watch
Amnesty International
Association for Women's Rights in Development
Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq
One Million Signatures Campaign (Iran)
Any of these would be happy for your (or anyone's!) support.
More at http://www.whrnet.org/
Kseniya@275, J at places too numerous to mention.
J, Kseniya shows us all what should be done when we've made an unconsidered or ignorant over-generalisation, which we are all liable to do: admit it, withdraw it, move on. That's class. Not easy, and I wouldn't claim to be the best at it myself, but you know what? The people whose respect is worth having, respect you for it.
I really think J wasnt treated very fairly by Holbach,his future wife Helio and Patricia above,he made some good points about Islam and Christianity,and really we shouldnt let this be a pissing contest who committed more atrocities,but I have to agree I dont usually visit places where I can be arrested for throwing chewing gum away or beheaded for someone sticking some H into my suitcase,and just ranting on and crying foul is just not a very constructive way of debating,and sends out the wrong message IMHO.
That doesnt change the fact tho that his attempt at triviliazation of the witch killings is really ludicruos,60.000 people killed,many burned(which is a rather unpleasant way to go),in the name of superstition,how can one try to relativate that?
When talking about religion, you have to go a little deeper than the headline. For example, in the United Church article, the writer goes on to quote, "David Giuliano, the Moderator of the United Church, said the title of the panel discussion was meant to be provocative -- not a call for the denomination's demise -- because the Church is living through a time of "chaos and confusion." He said one of the reasons for that confusion is that the Church has been pushed to the margins of society."
He said one of the reasons for that confusion is that the Church has been pushed to the margins of society - Agnos, quoting David Giuliano, the Moderator of the United Church.
Who is he saying pushed it? I'd say, rather, society has moved on, and a position that used to be near the centre is now on the margins.
Th thsts wn't vr gv p.
Jst whn thy strt t fl lk thy mght, fls lk PZ ttck nd str thm p gn.
H sn't hlpng scnc, nly hmslf. ftr ll, wh s h wtht ths blg? Jst nthr ssct Prf t thrd tr nvrsty.
[Kansas troll. Please ignore this twit, OK?]
@ Sci Ad ,No 284:
And what do you suggest we do smartipants? Roll over and die? Yeah thats worked well in the past hey....
//Just when they start to feel like they might, fools like PZ attack and stir them up again.//
WTF?
Of course not all Muslim are enslaved. Big fucking deal. You could have skipped over these slight exaggerations (which are exaggerations for good reason -- it's a point that needs stressing). But no, the discussion has been bogged down by a criticism of a few isolated sentences.
This sort of nitpicking is never applied when it's Christianity that's subject to attack.
@284 Concern troll alert!
Got any numbers to show us on how many people bled to death in Islamic nations after losing hand for stealing a loaf of bread?
They're not very good at collecting honest statistics in those parts of the world. But really, I don't think 60,000 deaths is much over a span centuries. About as many deaths were caused in (a random example) the Battle of Imphal, which the general public have completely forgotten about. I just don't think witch-burning is or ever was a big social problem on the grand scale.
Anyway, I certainly don't disagree with your main point. I'd rather live in a Christian country - ANY Christian country - than a Muslim country - ANY Muslim country - in today's world. I don't imagine I'd feel much different about that if I could pick my century, too.
That's the really essential point here, I think.
That would be true if I was a woman,for sure.
J@288 Didn't you notice that Kseniya has already retracted the statement you quote, it having been pointed out that living in, say, Turkey would be vastly preferable to living in, say, Madagascar?
Yeah Nick,Madagascar,or,say,the USA.....And regarding Turkey,Istanbul maybe,but you can get bombed to bits in a cafe there as well...
When I say that modern Islam is worse than modern Christianity, why do people feel it so essential to change the subject to the history of Christianity? Doing so only serves to cloud up the discussion.
The past is gone, no matter what you think about the respective histories of Islam and Christianity. We should be able to denounce Islam -- which really is a more savage and deranged religion than Christianity in the current world -- without having people like Nick Gotts muddy the water by pontificating on history.
J@288 Didn't you notice that Kseniya has already retracted the statement you quote, it having been pointed out that living in, say, Turkey would be vastly preferable to living in, say, Madagascar?
No, didn't notice that.
Sorry, Kseniya, I didn't mean to falsely attribute anything to you. I have to agree, naturally. Turkey is an extremely moderate country by Muslim standards. Indonesia isn't so bad, either.
@ J,No 292:
I guess people sort of tend to try and stay close to home,that is,look at the predominant delusion,sorry religion,in their own neighborhood.
You are right that the prevalence of Islam is a huge concern,esp.in regards to the fundamentalist version of it that gives birth to brainwashed kids that are talked into blowing up churches or cafes or embassies.
I myself see this rather pessimistic,they will easily outbreed the moderates or atheists,and it will only get worse in that part of the world,with repercussions for everyone on this planet.
Then again,nuking them is not the solution either.
Here's an intriguing article on why Sharia is bad for society. Here are the top ten reasons it gives:
- Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.
- Islam orders apostates to be killed.
- Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.
- Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
- Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.
- Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
- Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
- Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge--physical eye for physical eye.
- Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
- Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
And remember, that's just the pretty much universal stuff. There are bizarre interpretations of Islam abounding, e.g. the Taliban's war on chess and music.
There are bizarre interpretations of Islam abounding.
I mean bizarre interpretations which aren't universally imposed by Sharia.
The President of the Higher Education Board in Turkey, has spoken out about religious schooling this week, describing religious schools as poisonous. They lock children into Majors far too early as well as giving religious schools advantages over non-religious in bonus education points they receive.
The religious government has of course condemned him.
Generally they aren't really changing the subject when they start discussing the history of Christianity because, in general, the statement that modern Islam is much more barbaric than modern Christianity is only the beginning of the argument, and it continues into the argument that Islam cannot change, cannot modernize/secularize, cannot have a Reformation.
The reason Christianity's history is brought up is to combat that idea, and to combat the Christian revisionist history that often accompanies it. An obvious retort to the idea that a Christian would never commit (insert barbaric act here) is to point out that Christians at one point did, in fact, commit (barbaric act).
I realize others jumped the gun a bit in assuming that's what you were beginning to argue.
Dear sir at post 284:
What is this "scince" you advocate? Does it taste good with root beer?
Comments on Scumwater at Columbus Ohio newspaper blog.
OP:
"Many of the claims about Freshwater had already been well-debated, but the report details more than ever before how his teaching of intelligent design affected students. It says that students often had to be retaught critical concepts because Freshwater had so undermined lessons about evolution. (Read the report.)
What do you think? Does the report confirm what you already thought about the case or does it change anything about how you view Freshwater's actions?"
http://blog.dispatch.com/edblog/2008/06/science_vs_religion.shtml
Crazy Christians are crazy, yes. This doesn't put them on the same level as Islamic fundamentalists, and I can't see why anyone would think that.
Hm.
The Ku Klux Klan. Known death toll (modern era)--12. Estimated death toll: Thousands, lynching being a favorite method of murder.
David Koresh. 75 dead. Firebombing.
Jim Jones. 909 dead. Poisoning.
Timothy McVeigh. 168 dead. Bombing.
Northern Ireland (ex. Billy Wright). Thousands dead, perhaps as many as 40,000 injured. Mostly by bombs.
George Habash. Untold numbers dead from alliance with Palestinian terrorists.
William and Judith Krar. Arrested for possession of chemical weapons; plans in works to use said weapons on a major American city, and fake identification cards for the UN and the Pentagon. The death toll from ignition of sodium hydride could have easily been in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, depending on delivery method and destination.
And then there's the Army of God...
Paul Hill. Two dead. Shooting.
Eric Rudolph. Two dead. Over one hundred injured. Bombing, shooting.
James Charles Kopp. At least one murder, possibly four other shootings.
Shelley Shannon: Wounded at least one doctor through shooting.
/////\\\\\
But Christians aren't as inhumane as Muslims.
Right...
Helioprogenus @ 257 Almost forgot to applaud your post there! Good stuff! Keep up the battering with reason bludgeons against the demented religionists! I'll check out your blog site.
Aquaria@301 - Indeed, but I think you forgot:
George Bush and Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq - several hundred thousand and counting.
The Catholic Church's opposition to and lies about condoms (that they let HIV through) - impossible to estimate accurately, but probably in the millions.
Catholic opposition to abortion - try getting pregnant by rape in Nicaragua, then see if you think Christian oppression of women is so much more benign than Muslim.
And, going back just a few years to decades in history:
Serbs, Croats, Muslims all killing each other in the Balkans (the only difference between the three communities in Bosnia is religion).
Apartheid in South Africa, Biblically justified: the Dutch Reformed Church was the ideological core of the system.
Christian collaboration with fascism and Nazism in Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, German-occupied Europe - depends what share of the responsibility you give them, but by any reasonable count, well into the millions.
Christendom has never had the idea in its head that a raped woman has shamed her family and should therefore be executed.
Honor killings aren't just for raped women. They're for any sexual activity not approved by a patriarchal authority, be it husband, father, brothers, guardians, etc. And Muslims don't have a stranglehold on the market, either.
It wasn't until 1991 that Brazil outlawed a man from performing an honor killing of his bride if she turned out not to be a virgin on her wedding night, or if she committed adultery. Hundreds of women a year were murdered and their killers got away with it. Until 1980, a man in Columbia could kill his wife if she committed adultery. Law enforcement in both countries still leaves a lot to be desired when a woman winds up dead and a husband claims betrayal.
A few more predominantly Christian nations who tend to look the other way when it comes to honor killings by men, almost all of the murderers Christian:
Argentina, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Italy and Venezuela.
Christians in Lebanon and Palestine are known to have practiced honor killings.
Honor killings are rampant in India, which is predominantly Hindu. Thousands of women are murdered every year, usually over disputes about dowries.
This doesn't absolve the practice by Muslims, and I don't deny that a vast number of honor killings are done by Muslims. All I'm saying is that Muslims aren't the only ones doing this. It's a problem in many, many places, when even one is too many.
And also, let's not forget the St Barthélémy massacres, committed by the french catholics against the hughenots (and yes, I'm french so I refuse to forget how bloody those catholics may have been in our history !):
Starting on 24 August 1572 (the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle) with the murder of Coligny, the massacres spread throughout Paris, and later to other cities and the countryside, lasting for several months. The exact number of fatalities is not known, but it is estimated that anywhere from ten thousand to possibly one-hundred thousand Huguenots died in the violence throughout France.
Listen to this J, From 10,000 to 100,000 in a few months, not bad isn't it ? Simply because the Catholics couldn't stand the protestants. Ah, but the Christians are good people.
For more on the groovy details, if you'd like to refresh your memory on how the Catholics may have been bloody murderers,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew's_Day_massacre
O_o
J, by Order of the Uneven-Eyeballed Magistrate of the Court of the Grand Inquisitor, you are hereby forbidden to mention the deaths of Hypatia of Alexandria or Giordano Bruno, for any reason, in any context, said prohibition to be enforced in perpetuity.
Thanks, Nick. I was trying to keep my list short, but you provided really great examples of modern day Christian atrocities.
Let's not forget the serious impediment to stem-cell research here in America, consigning millions to death or needless suffering. And for what? To save some cells that might become life one day, but will most likely end up in the garbage?
BTW, in my french history book "Atlas historique, Stock", it gives an estimate of 40,000 fatalities in a period of 3 months, of which 5,000 on the first night alone, in Paris, on the 24 August 1572.
It's as if there'd been 12 x 9/11 repeating themselves throughout a territory of the size of New England or California during a period of 3 months, and only killing specifically one particular religious denomination.
Ah, but you know, those Catholics are really good people, they didn't do anything bad in the past, not like them muslims today.
Let me make it very clear : of all religious denominations, Cathos have done some of the worst crimes in history. That's all there is to it. It doesn't mean that, today, they are the worst religious denomination, far from it, but why should I feel the need to defend them, when anyway, they don't make any sense at all ?
And what about over a span of a few months ?
Aquaria@307 - good point on stem cells. They tried to do the same in the UK on hybrid embryos recently - we still have some Anglican bishops in our legislature, as of right! However, they were fought off, and to give credit where it's due, one of their foremost opponents was Lord Robert Winston, fertility expert and observant Jew (though I've seen a recent claim he doesn't actually believe any of the religious rubbish).
Wow, Starbuck almost makes me miss Kenny.
J, we get it, and we agree that Islam is a pernicious influence in world affairs (like all religions), but we also recognize that terrorism is merely a tactic for waging asymmetric war, utilized by numerous religious, ethnic, and ideological groups throughout history, and misogyny is rampant in all authoritarian societies ("honor" killings happen here in the States, we just use the term "domestic violence", and they are most certainly not confined to muslims).
Pick your fights more judiciously, and you will receive less scorn and derision.
George Bush and Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq - several hundred thousand and counting.
Yes, it was an incredibly dumb idea, but let's call a spade a spade: the vast majority of those deaths were caused by Muslims on Muslims.
A burglar who breaks into the house of a weird cult and for some reason accidentally gets them excited, causing them to start killing one another, should not be blamed for the resultant deaths. Unless, of course, you're so condescending that you think the responsibility of the actual murderers is only a secondary concern.
J, we get it, and we agree that Islam is a pernicious influence in world affairs (like all religions), but we also recognize that terrorism is merely a tactic for waging asymmetric war, utilized by numerous religious, ethnic, and ideological groups throughout history, and misogyny is rampant in all authoritarian societies ("honor" killings happen here in the States, we just use the term "domestic violence", and they are most certainly not confined to muslims).
You're deceiving yourself. Islam is undoubtedly more misogynistic than Christianity has been in practice for at least several centuries. (Can you point to any Christian countries in which it has been illegal for a woman to get into a car with any unrelated man?) And "domestic violence" among non-Muslims seldom consists of killing members of one's own family as punishment for their being raped.
J@312: It's more like, the burglar breaks in and kills the person keeping the weird cult under control and preventing them from poisoning the Kool-aid.
And are you forgetting 'the troubles' in Ireland, not to mention other similar episodes around the world? Shi'a and Sunni have learned at the feet of Protestant and Catholic...
Let me make it very clear : of all religious denominations, Cathos have done some of the worst crimes in history. That's all there is to it.
Bullshit. You're singling out the atrocities of the Catholics, without paying any attention whatever to those of the Muslims -- such as the Armenian genocide that was carried out by the Ottoman Empire, in which 300,000 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed.
As I said above, I don't know enough history to do a body count comparison. But I'm sure it's not as much of a cut-and-dry matter as you're supposing.
Anyhow, I refer you to my earlier comments on the deliberate changing of the subject from present-day Islam to the cruel history of Christianity. (Even if you're right, so what? History is gone for good.)
That remains to be seen. The aims were permanent US military bases, and control of Iraq's economy, and these may yet be achieved. It was certainly a heinous crime, which Bush says the Christian God told him to commit, and Blair says that God gave him the strength to participate in. If you embark on such a crime, you are responsible for all the resulting deaths. This does not in any way reduce the responsibility of the Muslim killers you refer to, but neither does their responsibility in any way reduce that of Bush, Blair, and their cronies.
If you embark on such a crime, you are responsible for all the resulting deaths.
Unutterable twaddle. That is basically a roundabout way of saying:
"I understand why you're viciously murdering one another, Iraqis! I deeply sympathize with your situation. The American and British forces have invaded your country, and that is why you are not responsible for murdering your fellow countryfolk. All the blame for your actions falls on the heads of the Americans and British."
That remains to be seen. The aims were permanent US military bases, and control of Iraq's economy, and these may yet be achieved.
And the American economy is on the verge of its worst recession since before WW2. To me it seems a pretty clear-cut issue that embarking on the war was a blunder of colossal proportions.
The ethics of invading a country in a bid to remove an evil regime isn't so obvious to me. Either side can be debated. This is a question I'm content to let the moral philosophers waste their time on. So my objections to the war are on practical rather than ethical grounds.
J, I said:
If you embark on such a crime, you are responsible for all the resulting deaths. This does not in any way reduce the responsibility of the Muslim killers you refer to
That is what I meant. You are clearly unable to argue without attributing to your opponent views they do not hold, just as the creationists do.
The ethics of invading a country in a bid to remove an evil regime isn't so obvious to me.
Since that was neither the professed aim, nor the actual aim, it is entirely irrelevant.
The blunder, if it was such, was that the neocons believed their own propaganda, and thought there would be little resistance. If the US elite manages to maintain permananent bases in Iraq and gain effective control of the oil industry, it will greatly enhance its power.
If you embark on such a crime, you are responsible for all the resulting deaths. This does not in any way reduce the responsibility of the Muslim killers you refer to.
That is what I meant. You are clearly unable to argue without attributing to your opponent views they do not hold, just as the creationists do.
The problem with that is, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Bush and Blair were responsible for the murders of Iraqis by Iraqis without taking responsibility away from the actual murderers. What you can say is that Bush and Blair were responsible for giving the insane fanatics the opportunity to slaughter one another. That I would agree with 100%. But the actual killings were done by the murderers -- not Blair and Bush.
Since that was neither the professed aim, nor the actual aim, it is entirely irrelevant.
Sure. But you can support something for reason X even though the professed reason is Y.
Anyway, I thought from the start that the invasion was a preposterous mistake. Let's not linger on this. There are various different grounds for objecting to the war.
You can't say that Bush and Blair were responsible for the murders of Iraqis by Iraqis without taking responsibility away from the actual murderers.
Yes you can. There is not a fixed quantity of responsibility to go round.
Anyway, I thought from the start that the invasion was a preposterous mistake. Let's not linger on this. There are various different grounds for objecting to the war.
The difference between a heinous crime and a preposterous mistake is vast. It has important practical implications, with regard to how to prevent a repetition. If one continually misunderstands the aims of those with power, as you do, one becomes their dupe, as you have.
The problem with that is, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Bush and Blair were responsible for the murders of Iraqis by Iraqis without taking responsibility away from the actual murderers.
"You can't say that Goering and Hitler were responsible for the murders of jewish Germans by Germans without taking responsibility away from the actual murderers."
sorry to godwin the thread, but J is being even more moronic than usual, and it even caught my eye just quickly perusing the threads (very, very busy of late!).
sorry, J, but the trials at Nuremberg rather disagreed with you about how responsibility can be shared wrt to murder.
We also have laws here dealing with shared responsibility for murder, like incitement and conspiracy.
or did you forget that?
and:
Even if you're right, so what? History is gone for good.
you've said this a few times now.
it's wrong.
or have you never heard the old phrase:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana
Hey,Fishman,welcome back ! :-)
As to J :
What I said here :
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/in_which_i_have_hurt_ken_ham…
@ No 322 :
You know Im just reading "the Drunkard's Walk",and in one chapter Mlodenov points out that knowing the past will not actually prevent you from repeating it,because small changes in the initial conditions will havesuch big effects on the end result(butterfly effect and all that).He was making the point with the info available prior to Pearl Harbor.
"You can't say that Goering and Hitler were responsible for the murders of jewish Germans by Germans without taking responsibility away from the actual murderers."
The difference being that they ordered the killing of Jews, whereas Bush and Blair did nothing to force the Iraqis to start killing their fellow Iraqis. Really, that kind of distortion is almost beneath even a creationist.
Yes you can. There is not a fixed quantity of responsibility to go round.
What Bush and Blair did was create a situation whereby Muslim fanatics were free to do what they wanted, which happened to consist of insanely massacring one another. That is what Bush and Blair should get the blame for, because it's what they actually did.
@ No 325 :
Yeah,never mind the lying to the UN and faking evidence,ignore the 4000 and conting american deads and the going on a million civilian casualties,all Bush and Blair did was give the muslims a chance to kill each other by removing the evil tyrant.Oh wait,we were his friend 10 years earlier,Rumsfeld was his best buddy,whatever happened?
where I can be arrested for throwing chewing gum away
You should be.
The difference being that they ordered the killing of Jews, whereas Bush and Blair did nothing to force the Iraqis to start killing their fellow Iraqis.
actually, that might not be accurate. Do you really know the actual state of affairs in Iraq? Besides the fact that the issue I was addressing was your reference to responsibility. You moved the goalposts.
Really, that kind of distortion is almost beneath even a creationist.
read: ad hominem of the poisoning the well variety.
conclusion, yet again:
J is pathetic.
Just a quick note to say that I'm retiring my use of this initial. Carry on.
Yeah,never mind the lying to the UN and faking evidence,ignore the 4000 and conting american deads and the going on a million civilian casualties,all Bush and Blair did was give the muslims a chance to kill each other by removing the evil tyrant.Oh wait,we were his friend 10 years earlier,Rumsfeld was his best buddy,whatever happened?
You're taking my comment out of context. It was about the deaths of Iraqis. The vast majority of Iraqis were killed by fellow Iraqis, and Bush and Blair did nothing to cause this apart from give them a chance to commit slaughter.
#329 - the real J - That really sucks. This fake J is a tedious asshat troll. :(
J and Starbuck seem to be the living embodiment of the once popular aphorism:
Religion is like a fart; mine smells okay but everybody else's smells awful.
MZ