Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Colson Declares War
Jebus. Colson's doing his damnedest to get the baptists all riled up, and some poor mild-mannered atheist geek is going to get beaten to death by the followers of the "Prince of Peace".
[Chuck Colson] "Today with neo-atheism, it is all-out war," Colson said, noting Richard Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion. We are under a vicious attack by neo-atheists. Christians have got to be able to speak up and give a reason for the hope that is within us," Colson stressed.
"All-out war", "vicious attack". Just what the heck is he talking about? Atheists write a few books that point out that his nifty little magical happy-fantasy-land has no evidence to back it up, and that it's really, incredibly insane to legislate and govern a country based on belief in a magical happy-fantasy-land, and we are all painted as being "vicious" and in need of an "all-out war" to be waged against us by these selfsame magical-happy-fantasy-land believers.
[Chuck Colson] "Never do anything in your ministry that Jesus would not do," he urged the pastors. "Pray to be high-minded, not petty."
You know, because Jesus always said to go to war with those "vicious" folks that don't agree with you.
Colson's a tool, but he's a dangerous tool. There are a lot of folks who listen to him and think that he's got a direct line to Jesus.
Yes, yes. It is insane. But it's still dangerous.
Be careful out there. This is shaping up to become the Crazy Years.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
I don't think there's much There there.
As entertaining as the Internet Tough Guy pissing contest in this comment thread has been, I don't think there's much to be said there. War metaphors aren't the sole domain of the religious. As PZ Myers said, It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. Is it not violent when he does it?
Still, I'm surprised that when Vox Day linked to this discussion, he managed to refrain from mentioning how much Real Ultimate Power he has.
Intellectual Dishonesty
Why in the world haven't you attempted some kind of response to a rejoinder you got your butt kicked in? http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/issues07/063107/faith.html You rail on Colson, but, apparently, concede to having no footing. Hmmm.
Chilliwacked
Heheh... You just can't stand it that I'm ignoring you, huh "Dr." Coats? That just cracks me up!
I'm not ignoring you really. It's just that your "rejoinder" to my original post was so incredibly insipid and block-headedly ignorant that I'm having a hard time justifying to myself the time it would take to fisk it.
Why the heck did you wait an entire year, anyway?
Regardless of what you might think, no one outside of Chilliwack reads your column - except when you say something sufficiently inflammatory that the keywords are picked up in Google News searches. It's not that they like your writing, or agree with your opinions, it's because you have said something really stupid.
I'll get to your little year-late "rejoinder" when I get to it - you'll just have to be patient.
Heheh... Funny, funny old life this is turning out to be! :)
Ahhhhhh...
Name calling. The passe crutch of the inarticulate. Let's face it. You are angry. And if you "didn't just agree", you'd put the loaded gun to your temple and spin the cylinder.
I Hate To Say This But...
Bring it, bitch. I'd love it if a Bible Thumper threw down on me. I'd wreck their shit in an Old Testament hurry.
The thing about Wingers that pisses me off more than ANYTHING else is their assumption that the rest of us are all pussies. I would relish the opportunity to demonstrate the erroneous nature of that assumption.
-T
Spare me
"Atheists are less violent."
"Atheists are less likely to start wars."
"Religious people, particularly Christians, are violent."
"Religious people, particularly Christians, are more likely to start a war."
"Religious people, particularly Christians, are more prone to commit acts of criminal violence."
Vox Day is right - you TALK like pussies. Until someone calls you on it and then you puff out your chest. This means either you would, A.) Melt away like snow in July, or B.) Show how big a lie the "non-violence nature of atheism" is.
Quite frankly, I can't tell whether A. or B. would be the case. While officially atheistic governments are responsible for more wartime deaths in the 20th century than all the "religious wars" of the previous 19 centuries combined*, you guys sure aren't capable of sustaining your own population levels, a fact which speaks volumes about atheists.
*According to Amnesty International. Dispute the claim with them.
I know, I know..."But those deaths weren't in the NAME of atheism!" However, since as many of you atheists claim religion produces a view of the world that allows for violence such as the Crusades or Inquisition to be justified in cultures dominated by religious belief, so too must atheism produce a view of the world that allows for violence such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution or the Killing Fields to be justified in cultures dominated by atheism. (Oh, I can't wait to see one of you TRY to weasel out of this one! lol!)
Volunteer Weasel
You, like many people, even a lot of people who call themselves atheists, misunderstand the point of atheism. The point isn’t just to not-be-religious, the point is to be RATIONAL.
Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, whoever you want to nominate as the totalitarian poster child of atheism, were NOT atheists of the sort we’re talking about here. What they were was people who wanted to replace the chains of religion not with mind-freeing individual reason but with a DIFFERENT mental chain, a FAITH of another type ... whether a personality cult or the cult of some sort of supposedly glorious social movement. All sought to destroy individuals – individual minds and individual reason.
You were right to draw a line between two radically different modes of thought, but you got the location of the line – and what stood on either side of it – wrong. The actual line has individual reason and freedom of thought on one side, and religion and state-sponsored unreason on the other.
History’s supposed “atheist” tyrants opposed religion not because they wanted to replace it with reason, but because they wanted to replace with another type of unreason. They wanted to remove the chief competitor for control of their victim’s minds, and create unthinking, uncritical slaves.
I (and others on this site) speak of atheism here-and-now instead of reason and freedom of thought because it’s shorter and punchier, but also, and mainly, because religion IS the current most powerful enemy of reason and freedom of thought in the U.S.
Fundamentalist Christians and “intelligent design” proponents appear to literally hate modern science and science education, but probably no more than did Joseph Stalin, who championed Trofim Lysenko and his non-rational view of evolution and plant genetics. As a result of the failure of Lysenkoism to live up to its false promises, millions starved in the USSR. IDers, given their way, would wreck American science education and medical research, and so much more, in the same way.
Stalin saw religion as a danger because they sought the same ends: total control of the minds of victims. He would have instantly recognized the goals and methods of the ID lobby.
Just as Stalin was, religious fundamentalists are the enemy of reason and freedom. Look at the strategy of ID proponents – is it to put the idea out there and let it survive on its own in the arena of free scientific debate? Or is it to use the power of government – school boards, courthouses, local legislatures – to FORCE it on others? On other people’s kids?
Any person striving for a society that championed reason and individual freedom of thought would see BOTH Stalin and ID as his/her natural enemy.
...
There’s a side-issue in your claim that should be brought out, and I’ll spotlight it by referring to the classic Paul Newman/Robert Redford movie “The Sting.”
Despite the happy camaraderie of grifters depicted in the movie, I’ll bet professional con-men are never so friendly and trusting of each other. I’d be very surprised if there is any such thing as “community” among that dishonest group.
If you saw the movie, recall that the “mark” in The Sting was not a cop or an honest citizen, it was another CRIMINAL – the point being that the natural enemy of a criminal is not simply law enforcement, it is also other criminals.
But clearly, both gangster Doyle Lonigan AND the slyly lovable characters depicted by Redford and Newman would be feared by honest, hard-working citizens.
You want the enemy of your religion to be anti-religion. What you conveniently fail to admit is that one major enemy of your religion is all other religions. The religious band together now to finger atheists as threats only because on some level you’re all afraid the jig is up, and you’ll lose control if the flock of victims begin to awaken.
To those of us hoping and working for a rational world, you and all the other religious – as well as Stalin, Pol Pot, and every other parasitic, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-reason force – are the same group of con-men, and have equally destructive effects on our lives.
The enemy of a predator is not the prey animal, but another predator moving into the same limited territory. But the enemy of the prey is ALL predators.
Standing on the other side of the line from Stalin, we’d be dissidents fighting for safer, freer lives. Standing on the other side of the line from Pol Pot, we’d be subversives fighting for life itself. Standing on the other side of the line from Hitler, we’d be freedom fighters waging a hidden war to end a murderous dictatorship. Standing on the other side of the line from slavery, we’d be abolitionists and underground railroad guides.
Here and now, in this current GROWING social movement, we stand on the other side of the line from religion. Here and now, we call ourselves atheists.
But that’s hardly all we are. We use the word partly for the focus it provides, but also partly because it’s all some people can understand.
It’s natural for you to compress us into the same group as your other enemies. But that’s because you don’t really think about these things, as you don’t really think about so many other things. If you did really think about this stuff, you wouldn’t be what you are.
And that’s what scares me about you, and why I want people like you – no different to me than any dictator or slaver or social/governmental predator – to have as little control over my life, and the lives of the people I care about, as possible.
I don’t want to be prey for the religious. But atheist as I am, I don’t want freedom just for myself. No, worse for you, I want an end to the blind social system that has for ages blithely given you – and Stalin, and so many identical others – the power to prey on people like me.
Only a fundamentalist...
..leftist winger could come up with your kind of twisted "logic". At least some of the past atheists had the balls to own up to their extremist worldview and not try to fluff us with palaver. In "Confessions of a Professed Atheist", 1966, Aldous Huxley said, "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption… For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom...".
There was, at least, one honest-minded atheist. Those of this website, on the other hand, appear to be more like you.
Awww...he called us a bad name.
Wonder what a "fundamentalist left winger" is supposed to be? Hmm. I guess I'll just have to take my extremist world view that is based on, you know, verifiable reality, and go cry over being called bad names.
Sheesh. I'm used to a better quality of troll.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Finally!
Your worldview that's "based on verifiable reality"...ah, yes! I'm overwhelmed! Why didn't any of the rest of us base our thoughts on that!?! Whoa! Great thinking! And your proof, of course, is so obvious and deeply rational that 96% of the world population has been convinced of it, right?
You guys have finally gotten something right, however. "Left-winger" is about as bad a thing as anyone could ever be called. And the fact that you hold to a fideist atheism in the teeth of many of your rats jumping ship is nothing other than fundamentalism. Nomenclature is a fine thing when it fits so exquisitely.
Bingo.
Um, yup. There's rationality for you, Colonel, Christian and everything. Let's not even get into them there 'furrin' belief systems.
"Left-winger"? Let's see, would that be the 74% of the US population who don't think that President Bush is doing a good job? Just how are you trying to define your terms, here?
*Sigh* "Colonel" - I thought one had to have some grip on reality to advance to such a real rank in the military. Or are you just granting yourself the title?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Actually...
...that would be for the worse numbers for the "congress" currently occupied by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/index.html
Despite the mainstream media, most Americans still do actually get it.
And that would be...
...for the Congress which is effectively 50/50, so the blame goes pretty much equally for both parties, eh?
But look at W's polling nubers, or what people think of the war...no dodging there, Americans really do get it.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Yep.
It is why the War On Terror is still the watershed issue. Americans do get it. Pelosi is otherwise.
You must be guilty of in-breeding...
If you read a bit more you would know atheism may well be at its lowest ebb, academically speaking, than at anytime in the past 150 years. It simply isn't held in respect. I'm not speaking here of community college wanna-bes, but of the greatest luminaries in the academy. Particularly among physists there is no longer room for it. So much is this the case, that poor Geoffrey Burbidge went blubbering down the hall about his colleagues, "Everyone is going off to join the Church of Christ of the big bang."
Despite the comments of your stuck-in-geo-centricity prop, no one here is claiming that counting noses equals truth. But you attempted to arrogate to yourself "reality". The point is that your reality is aweful small and you've convinced nearly no one. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but to attempt to, de facto, claim in your elitist fashion "reality" under such circumstances is a bit of a chuckler for those of us not in-bred.
I wish I were able to challenge you to a shooting contest. Quick draw, bench-rested, trap, or any other way. Since I didn't grow up in a leftist hothouse, I've actually touched a firearm before.
Finally, you haven't the teeth to bite the head off of me or any thinker. You flatter yourself.
Love the assumptions.
I know, you think that everyone who is an atheist is some kind of commie-hippie leftover, right? Fits neatly in your little world view, does it?
Actually, I'm a lot more libertarian than I am liberal, and I know the same is true for Brent and a number of others here. And you might be able to outshoot me - at 49, my eyesite and reflexes aren't what they used to be. But I've owned and shot guns for over 40 years, and get to the range at least twice a month for 200+ rounds (typically) through my carry pistols, not to mention long guns, black powder, et cetera, so you might well be surprised.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
I appreciate it...
Thank you for your clear, unabrasive reply. You're right, I may have misjudged you. I didn't build my assumptions from here, but from the "Daily Kos". I was evidently wrong, and I apologize.
I could enjoy dialoguing with you. It would help if you could refrain from assuming an aristocratic mindset--something not integral to libertarianism. My worldview is no smaller than yours; in fact my concept of an open universe would tend, I would think, to enlarge it.
I'm like you, at 47 (not quite the "kid" Fox tried to derogate me to), I'm not as quick with a gun or anything else as I once was, and most everything hurts. I should own stock in Bengay. Alas, the older I get the better I was.
Um.
Col, skip over my post below for a minute and go directly to Jim's underneath. I didn't mean to push him down the page so much, and his reply preceded mine. He deserves first read.
The Kid
Responding to several posts, above and below:
I'm coming up on 55; you might still be a kid to me. :D
I'm curious, truly, about what you mean by "an open universe."
Actually, regarding what Jim says below, I don't always fit the model for "liberal" either. I've posted thoughts on other blogs about how dopey I think tattooing is, and you'd think I was Dick Cheney's evil twin all of a sudden. I said something I thought was mild and humorous on a feminist blog once and some of the commenters made me out to be the Woman Hater of the Universe. It’s always a shock to believe you’re a nice person, amiable and funny and “liberal,” and yet find yourself waaaaay on the other side of the line from someone else’s sudden angry redefinition of it.
Guns, eh. I can take 'em or leave 'em. I'm in favor of people owning them (good conservative), but at the same time, several of the gun owners I've known personally were not completely trustworthy (evil liberal). Some of the cowboys I grew up with were fairly light-hearted about safety. Could be my trust gateway is set too high. I had to take a hunter’s safety course way back when (good conservative, with venison barbecue scent), I don’t see why every gun owner shouldn’t do something equally proving (ooh, evil America-hating liberal) – although I wish it wasn’t the damned government that oversaw the tests (um, uh, libertarian?).
My opinion about people generally parallels something Spider Robinson once wrote: Every member of the human race is an asshole, and we expend great amounts of time and energy attempting to be mistaken for a non-asshole by others. My own take on it is that most of us – including me – are hopeless doofuses, and we spend too much time and energy attempting to hide that fact from OURSELVES.
Einstein said many times that he was NOT religious. I have my doubts that he turned into a nice believer in later life, but I’ve known authors who got a bit mystical in their late careers, so I can’t be certain. I can, though, imagine a natural progression of fear at aging and loss of faculties that can account for muzzy faith near the end of life. Hard to see how godders could be proud of such testimonials, though.
Colonel, it’s incredibly rare that Christian blog flamers apologize. I gotta say that you impress me a lot more than you did. That takes a flexibility I’m not used to seeing in Christers. (And yeah, I can guess that you don’t care much about my opinion. I still mean it.)
Reading some of your previous comments, though, you continue to seem intellectually flat to me. I note your quoting of Huxley, and using pompous phrases like “the greatest luminaries in the academy,” and they both hint at a disturbing showiness wallpapering over ... something else.
As to atheism being at its lowest ebb, heh. According to the polls, articles, studies, etc., I’ve read, it’s very much the other way ‘round. Where I live, the rivers freeze with ice yards deep. In the spring, you can drive by the river one day and see solid sheet ice, the next day a bank-to-bank wreckage of jagged frozen blocks jammed up against each other, the day after an open waterway with floating icebergs already thinning out.
Where I think we are with atheism in the US is that second day. The religiosity is still very much in evidence – in fact, it’s ragged and jagged and dangerously powerful – but the thaw is evident if you know how to see it. The fact there can simultaneously be THREE (four?) best sellers on atheism on the market is no fluke.
As one indicator, I think I’m seeing the religious right lose ground slowly on one of their pet hates – the gay marriage thing. Resistance will hang on in the south for decades, but I’d bet good money the final chapter of the whole thing has been all but written. The godders lost; they just don’t know it yet. All the rhetoric about wrecking the institution of marriage is just whitewash over the real core of the issue: fairness. And eventually Americans will see it in terms of fairness, and approve it.
(Of course, this is all assuming history doesn’t eventually report that George Bush and his gang of cutthroats destroyed America during this time, and the pieces of it are already falling. If that happens, just about every American value is up for grabs, and we might still see nasty pogroms enacted in our lifetimes against atheists, gays, and others. The conservative hate, and the governmental mechanisms to enable it, are already out there – the question is, do they dare to throw American principles aside and let it off the leash?)
You say you could enjoy dialoguing with Jim. I’d probably enjoy talking to you too. But ...
Honest dialogue is like mixing paint. If I come into the thing with black, and you come into it with white, both of us should leave a teeny bit grayer. Two intelligent people simply can’t talk honestly and openly with each other without both coming away with some new thoughts, new perspectives, new windows opened in their minds. That’s what communication IS – not just talking to, but MIXING WITH that other person, a little bit. Opening your barriers and letting some of them in.
We tend to think, each of us, that we have had some interesting and valid observations occur to us during our lifetimes. I believe one of the reasons why fundies come across so often as insultingly arrogant is because they totally repudiate this idea. If you don’t have their same blind faith, your entire life experience is not simply invalid, it is NOTHING to them. They’re not interested in your ideas, your mind, your individuality. They come into it with pure white, and they leave with pure white; you and what you have to offer may as well not exist. They won’t let you in.
This poisonously closed mindset is one of the hallmarks of today’s religious conservatives. In a way, the subject of argument is almost irrelevant to them – they respond to EVERY new idea with instantaneous rejection of the idea and instantaneous vilification of the person who advanced it.
Anyway, just some thoughts ...
Methinks...
Thank you for your reply, Hank.
Actually, I said I was a theist; why do you make me out to be a Christian?
I realize I don't know either of you well, let alone personally. Perhaps I wish I did. But from what I've seen in your posts, I don't think dialoguing with you will be as honest as it would be with Jim. You speak ex cathedra in nearly every paragraph, representing a mindset more calcified than I have seen in almost any "fundy". It seems my earlier comment about left-wing fundamentalists could apply to atheistic fundamentalists as well.
As to atheism's ebb, I'm speaking of the academic world. The popularist world is also lapping up stuff like The National Enquirer. But the fact is that the debate I mentioned to Jim is a lop-sidedly trend happening all over North America. Theists from California to the east coast have been mauling their counterparts. As one of the judges of the debate when atheist Antony Flew got pummeled said, "The evidence is such that I'll have to start thinking about my own life."
As for Einstein, it had nothing to do with his sentimentality nor his age. It had to do with looking through the telescope with his colleague, Heisenburg, and seeing the universe was expanding along the lines of relativity. He realized, then, perhaps to his dismay, that the universe began to exist. Hence, no way out but an open universe.
Methinks all of the worst things you accuse the Christians of, you exemplify, Hank, to several orders of magnitude. I do appreciate your response, but I am an extremely busy man. I cannot dialogue with just anyone. I would be happy to interact with you from time to time, as I would be with Jim, but I have other important things to do as well.
Hope the sun is shining as bright where you are as it is here. I'm wishing that I could shove all the important things aside and go golfing today.... But alas....
One more time ...
There. Are. No. Such. Things. As. Atheist. Fundamentalists.
To be a fundamentalist, there has to be some original holy book, a text from which the faithful have strayed, and a group of people who decide to cleave back to what they perceive to be the original meaning of that holy book.
Guess what? No atheist holy book! Wow!
There might be activist atheists. There might be fervent atheists. There might be outspoken atheists. There might be defensive atheists. But there aren't any fundamentalist atheists.
Hey, I didn’t inject “fundamentalist” into American religious debate, and define it to mean what it means. It was the nice Christians. And I guess they (you) are welcome to redefine it however they want, but redefining it to mean something like “atheists are every bit as closed-minded and hidebound as WE are” hardly seems a wise choice.
Oh, yeah. In the United States of Hank, we have Hankisian mottos on our money, and dozens of Hank churches in every town, and a Pledge of Allegiance that goes "... One nation, under Hank ..." and serious incursions of Hankisms into every public meeting, and EVERY elected official professes to be a Hankist (because they can’t get elected otherwise), and a president who injects pious Hankistry in every public speech. Plus, we get to call the anti-hankists evil idiots on the national airwaves, and nobody can even IMAGINE that this is not okay.
Yeah, Col, I'm just exactly as bad as the nice Christians ... or "theists," if you prefer. Oh, wait, sorry, I’m “several orders of magnitude” worse. Silly me.
Anthony Flew? Wha—? ATHEIST Anthony Flew?? He’s the best you could come up with to make your point?
You’re an extremely busy man. And yet, you find time to seek out this little place, and come in and whack at the residents. You’re welcome, of course; I’m not in charge here. But ... Hmm.
Trying
...to keep this a dialogue, Hank. Why are SO angry?
As to a fundamentalist, again, you seem to me (sorry) not as interactive, but just as an ex cathedra shouter. It simply is, because you say it is dammit! :-) In fact, Webster allows otherwise; Fundamentalism: "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". You, it appears to me, express strict and literal, even dogmatic, adherence to your atheism and principles derived thereby. Therefore, you are a fundamentalist. But don't worry, that's not a bad word. It only means you're not hypocritical; i.e. you hold to the fundamentals of something without wishy-washing around.
Antony Flew was considered the world's foremost philosophic atheist of the late 20th century.
I see you wearing a western hat. I grew up on horseback, driving cattle and shooting rattlesnakes. Do you hit the saddle? Ranch? I wouldn't mind getting out and punchin' a few cows these days....
Good one.
Segregationist to black man, circa 1950s: "Why are the negroes so ANGRY? I just don't get where all this ANGER is coming from." Then he pats them on the head and says "Don't worry, what you are is not a bad thing, it just means you're not capable of thinking outside your narrow little world."
"Therefore you are a fundamentalist." Gosh, I feel honored. Is there a certificate?
...
I was a cowboy for a number of years: grew up with rodeo cowboys in Texas, worked on ranches, drove draft horses for 8 years, packed mules in the wilderness, rode a few bulls.
Saddle Time
Sounds like you've done more than me. I've been off the farm for almost 30 years now.
When we were quite young, my brother did a week's worth of the Santa Fe trail on muleback with a bunch of old hands; kind of an Ole Settlers Roundup thing. He said the mule's gait was quite different from a horse. I suppose one of my very few claims to fame is that my great uncle rode with Bill Cody in the Wild West Show.
Look, Hank, I don't want to fight. I've attempted to respond to some of your data on an informational level, but I don't want to make you angry. I'm sorry if I've crossed the offence line with you. I have so much to do I can't get it all done, and you have a book to write. Probably neither of us can waste much time. Like I said, heck, I'm not even going to get to golf and its a glorious day outside!
Col.
Agreed
Truce.
And I apologize for being harsh with you.
The Ranger
I am intrigued by your western days. I've no real desire to ride a bull (whether smarts or sissyness, you decide), but the other stuff calls to me. I grew up a stone's throw from the Texas panhandle; my dad died in Amarillo.
Personally, I think they should bottle horse sweat and leather.
Thanks for your note. Best wishes.
The Col.
I still love this version...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Kissing Hanks Ass
I just watched this vid for the second time. Well worth the 7 minutes. Thanks Jim. That was too funny.
"If you kiss Hanks ass, he will give you a million dollars. If you don't he will kick the shit out of you".
So many metaphors...so much irony...I wonder your religious kook trolls would even get the symbolism?
I am surprised no one commented on this. Maybe you and I share the same warped sense of humor?
You poor bastard...
You poor bastard, Dirk, I hope for your sake you don't share my twisted sense of humor. Really, you're much too young to be SO angry. ;)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Worse than you think
My sense of humor is probably worse than you think. I just found the Cadaver Calculator on PZ's site. I just had to try it. My dead body is worth $3800. I also sent this to a friend in the Philipines. He claims to be able to have people killed for about $200 each. There might be some other miscellaneous expenses (shipping, refridgeration, customs payoffs etc...) but, it could turn out to be quite a lucrative business opportunity. Much better than my normal EAC activities like killing puppies, that is.
Inflation.
$200 ? Yeah, that sounds about right. I used to know people who could arrange for someone to get whacked on the 'east side' (East St. Louis) for $50, 30 years ago. Accounting for inflation, and the opportunities presented by organ-legging, there's still a fair profit margin for the young entreprenuer...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Unapologetic.
Col.,
I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, and move forward from this point. I hope you'll understand that when someone shows up here and starts kicking sand around, they're likely to be greeted with something other than open arms. I got my fightin' out of my system in my youth, but that doesn't mean I won't defend myself.
Daily Kos... yeah, a lot of people make assumptions about that. I'm very progressive in some respects, fairly libertarian in others, and downright conservative in some ways. I'm certainly in the minority as far as RKBA (Right to Keep and Bare Arms) is concerned, but not as much as many people think.
Now, I am unapologetic about my opinion that there is no God, and that I think a rational view of the world around us supports that conclusion. We can thrash that out all you want. Further, I think that it is in the entire country's best interest if we maintain a strict separation between church & state - a secular government, if you will. I'm perfectly willing and able to discuss these issues in a civil tone - after all, most of us atheists are used to dealing with a larger culture of belief, and it's likely that I have more close friends and family members who are people of faith than you do who are non-believers. In other words, I've got plenty of experience with this, whereas often the religious people who show up here via Vox Day's prodding (or from elsewhere) have little or no experience in talking with people who are not religious. I think that by and large, you'll discover that atheists come in all flavors, politics, and cultural backgrounds - just like the believers. We're really only different in that we don't have a belief in God(s). Yes, there is some correlation between level of education and lack of belief, but some of the smartest and best educated friends I have are religious.
That get things off on a new foot suitable to you?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Separation of Church and State
Free speech, and all those freedoms... that's what I love about your country. A person's inner life should be of no concern of the State.
Europe, it seems, is swinging the other way. But it's swinging towards your side, Jim.
Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”
I'd like to know if you and the others think about this.
Perjorative.
Jeg, my own thoughts on it run along the following lines:
You can believe any silly-assed thing you want, from geo-centrism to that your poodle tells you which scotch you should drink. But I tend to think that what is taught in schools should be secular science. I note the language you quoted, and much of what else I see on that site, tends towards the perjorative on this. I don't see where "Darwinism" is an ideology - rather, the theory of evolution first formulated by Darwin seems to be well established science, not unlike any other accepted scientific theory. It's not an 'ideology' to teach Newtonian physics, or standard chemistry, so why say that teaching evolution is? Answer: because someone has an agenda, and is trying to control the debate through the way the issue is phrased.
Oh, and I agree with you about freedom - and that's one of the things I truly fear about the rise of a theocratic impulse here.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
"what you and the others
"what you and the others think about this," I meant.
Certainly
So...are you using Bengay too?
I do think dialogue can be productive. It simply has to come from the mind, not the shoulder.
As to education, I think it tends to be what one is educated with. An interesting observation having nothing to do with theism is that a significant majority of literature professors are (political) liberals, whereas among mathematicians the majority goes to the conservatives. Right-brained/left-brained based? Discipline based? Environment based? My point is that education, per se, has little to do with it. The stuff of that education is much more to the point.
Perhaps one could refine the question a bit more. How does raw intelligence plot the curve? For example, the most researched philosopher of the 20th century was a theist (Bernard Lonergan--the only living man to have philosophers from all over the world convene simply to discuss his thought). Probably the most celebrated scientific mind was that of Einstein, who jettisoned atheism in later life.
It ultimately is based very largely on the fact-set one is exposed to--or bothers to seek out. I was present for a 4-hour debate once where Canada's most renowned atheist, Dr. Henry Morganthaller, faced off with philosopher Bill Craig. It was embarrassing. Craig literally beat the daylights out of him. (Not just my opinion, voting was 551 to 129 pro-Craig at a secularist university.) I later found out that it was the third time they had debated; after the first, Morganthaller threw his notes away. He was beaten all three times. Was Craig smarter? I don't know. Was he more educated? Probably, with two earned Ph.Ds, one in England the other Germany. But Morganthaller is one of the brightest minds around, too. What really made the difference was that Craig had done his homework and simply presented a factually overwhelming case.
Just as I hold to an open cosmos, I also hold to an open mind. I trust anyone that is as level-headed about the 2nd Ammendment as you are can do that as well.
Not as much as I should be.
Not as much as I should be - which is to say, I need to be more active than I am at present. But in the capacity of care-giver I'm in, anything more than my morning 2 mile walk is a luxury.
I do tend to agree with you vis-a-vis education, but would say that the inculcation of religion is so deep in our culture that it is difficult to avoid from the earliest years of childhood. You're familiar with the Jesuit maxim in this regard, I'm sure.
Raw intelligence? I don't trust the very notion that it can be determined at this point. Too many variables according to culture, too many different models of what 'intelligence' actually is. My own IQ has been tested variously with about a 20 point spread. At the upper reaches, even the common testing breaks down because there isn't a sufficient statistical model. And I've seen too many claims about what Einstein believed or didn't believe late in life to trust any of them.
I can't imagine sitting through a 4 hour debate such as you describe. Sounds incredibly dull. But then, I've only got a smattering of college philosophy, and have little interest in reading either arcane theological treatise or refutations of the same, I must admit. As I've said before, I am a bad atheist - I've not read extensively any of the works of the current crop of 'neo-atheists', to use Colson's formulation above.
You might find this post and subsequent discussion from two weeks back of interest.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Admiration
I meant to say something the other day during our interchange, but I got sidetracked diagloguing with Hank. (Maybe the over-the-hill thing affects my ability to mentally multi-task, too.) I wanted to acknowledge your labor of love for your mother-in-law. Some of the things said on this site about theists are, in my considered opinion, uninformed. However, I sadly admit that many theists (not all) fail to exhibit the same level of compassion and commitment that you are. In this, they are hypocritical in my view. Their worldview, if they are from the Jewish or Christian streams of theism, dictates behaviour that they simply aren't living up to. I ruefully find this even in my own life from time to time. At any rate, kudos on this aspect of your life. It's something I can deeply respect.
Col.
Hidden point
I have another atheist friend who is the full-time caretaker for his aged mom-with-Alzheimers. Whatever good behavior or morals one has MAY be learned in church, but CAN be learned elsewhere -- and ultimately the propensity for moral behavior is innate to our species. What this means is that churches and religions -- and the Ten Commandments -- have zero causal connection to goodness. Those who claim they do, who claim that you can't be good without their religion, or that people without their religion must be BAD, are simply lying. This caustic falsehood is one of the frequently-overlooked evils of religion.
SO Angry...
Col.,
First, thank you. The full understanding of my decision to be a care-giver can perhaps best be found here.
That said, it also provides something of an insight into my view of theists, and touches on why I have mockingly used your "you're SO angry" meme several times in comments over the last day or so. Because, in truth, I *AM* angry - angry that people who will not uphold even the least of Christ's mandates ('to care for the least among us') would nonetheless feel it within their right to pass judgement on me and mine, angry that those who proclaim to be governed by the will of God nonetheless seek dominence over man, angry that those who claim to follow the Prince of Peace are so eager to proclaim war on the non-believer. In part, I am an atheist because I cannot believe that anything resembling a just God would allow such hypocrisy in his name, would not strike down with bolts from the sky those who so blaspheme. The only conclusion I can draw is that there is no God, and we must create the meaning in our lives, apart from what the local Shaman says.
I live my life to make sense of the world around me, as I see it, as my intelligence and education allow me to understand it. And yet, for this I am often condemned by those who wear the mantle of religion, told that I am the one who is somehow wanting, dictated to in how my country's politics will function, even while I so clearly see their lack of compassion, their failure to abide even the pretense to hold to their religious precepts.
Angry? You bet your ass I'm angry. And anyone with even the slighest modicum of decency would be angry as well. And yet you, and others who profess themselves believers, feel free to come here and make fun of us, because it makes you feel morally superior.
(/rant)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Vicarious Suffering
You may be surprised to hear that there are very few things in your rant that I disagree with. Theists, as I mentioned in my former note, are far too frequently hypocrites. For this, I can only say, "I'm sorry", fully realizing that in no way assuages either your feelings or those of the One theists claim to believe in. Your "rant" has much in it that many (most?) theists should hear but can't/don't/won't. In good theistic fashion, then, I guess my reply here is to be somewhat of a pashal lamb and suffer on behalf of those like-minded to me by bearing your rant. We fully deserve too much of it. Unlike the vicarious suffering of theism, I understand the complete inadequacy of my apologies to you for what theists have done.
When I asked Hank why he was so angry, it was because (1) I was trying to honestly dialogue without that kind of vitriol, and (2), because the header of this site says you not angry. Had I read your last posting first, I would have understood your position more empathetically. For this, again, I apologize.
I imagine anyone that came to a site that lambasted the things they held most dear might respond in kind. In fact, sadly, I have. I would be lying if I said being called a kook or an ass-kisser or a prick or watching a video that distorts my position didn't rouse my darker side. Nonetheless, you are correct in how the Nazarene would have likely responded other than I have. He towers and we bungle.
Of course, in the Hebrews' history, God did, in fact, obliterate people who caused such stumbling blocks to others. The terse and acidic book of Amos preludes the Assyrian campaign and razing of Israel in a way that is not bedtime reading. Further, the people who thought of themselves as God's folk were told, "My Name is blasphemed because of your very behavior." So, a second time, this go around by Babylon in 586BC, He destroyed them again.
One would think that we (I) would learn. It is a sad thing that I and others have affected the viewpoints of our neighbors so adversely. I will strive to learn from what you and Hank have both written, and attempt to not let you down by letting my own position down.
-Col.
Not surprised.
No, not surprised. At least not very much, now that I'm getting a sense of where you're coming from. As I've said, many of my friends are people of faith, and for the most part share your opinions in this regard. Frankly, they likely wouldn't remain my friends were it not so. Such behaviour and attitude is fine with me, even if I draw different conclusions about whether or not there is a God from the available evidence.
Where I get my dander up, get angry, get pissed, is not because there are believers per se - I don't just go through life angry. It's where I am condemned by those believers who pay no attention to anything other than whether you are a member of their club, and who seek to impose their values, their will, on everyone else...when they don't even live up to their own professed faith to start with.
We see too much of that, in society at large, and certainly in a forum like this. I realize that when someone comes in here and finds their belief challenged, mocked, or denigrated, they're likely to respond with a certain level of hostility. That's a perfectly human response. But remember, you came here...I didn't just show up on Vox Day's site and start raggin' on religion. To a certain extent, it's like someone who is a ravin' fundy walking into a gay leather bar and getting ticked off that there's evidence of homosexuality. Don't be surprised when the regulars/locals respond to your hostility in kind.
I hope you see where I'm coming from in this regard. I'm of the opinion that in the long term, the world would be a better place without religion. But in the meantime, I'll be more than happy if the bulk of the religious are *thinking* people, such as yourself. On this I tend to disagree with those who say that religious moderates are more dangerous to the republic than the wild-eyed nuts. Because I can talk to someone like you - I do it all the time in my other relationships.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Twice
Thanks~
This is the second time you've referred to Vox Day. I don't think I had so much as even heard of him before, so I went to his site. Honestly, I didn't spend a lot of time there trying to figure out much about him (its font is too difficult to read for eyes that could use some kind of ocular Bengay). Who is he, and why is he such a big deal?
-The Col.
Apologies.
Col.,
Vox has occasionally decided to wage holy war on us heathens here, sending his minions forth to call us nasty names and troll. In all honesty, I pay him little attention and less mind, though Brent occasionally crosses swords with him. Just a taste from his front page, which I won't link to:
That's pretty much the usual, from what I've seen and the general tone of folks who show up here and say they came because of something they saw there. This particular thread was picked up by him a day or two after it got started (see this comment), and since you seemed to be a follow-up to that in responding to Hank, I figured that you too had come via Vox. Since that's evidently not the case, you have my apologies.
(Basically, it looks like you wandered inadvertantly into a bit of a feud...and got shot at by me and Hank.)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Understandable
Nope. Never heard of Vox before; or if I have it was in passing and wasn't something that had stuck with me. In fact, it irks me that he would use the kind of verbiage that he does and thereby discolor other theists. Haven't seen anything of his interaction with this string, either, though I'll look it up after I post this.
No, I don't do much of this kind of thing on the net. This inaction with you and Hank is the most I've ever done. My days are pretty full, although I do surf some at night, often about WWII aircraft.
Didn't know I was in any kind of crossfire. Probably a good way to get myself shot, huh? Thanks for letting me know.
It's like a gnat buzzing around...
Fair enough. Like I said, I don't usually devote much attention to Vox, and had to go digging a bit to find his site and pull up the quote I used. But he does carry some weight in right-wing circles, I gather, and is fairly obnoxious in his behaviour. When his trolls show up here, I treat them like a gnat buzzing around: an annoyance to be slapped aside, and not given much thought otherwise. As I said, my assumption was that you were one such. I'm honestly glad that you said something to get me to reconsider, because I do feel that there is value in real communication across this divide; those of us who really think about these matters have more in common with one another than either of us have with the outliers who only emote and blindly follow charismatic leaders (who are empowered by making the divide as broad as possible).
Now, I'm of the opinion that when I'm dealing with someone rational, time is on my side, since I see the position of atheism being more rational and that they'll eventually come around. ;) (But you probably see the same thing going the other way, in support of your position.)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Makes sense.
Ah...now I'm understanding, too, why you have both responded the way you did. I admit, I got things off on the wrong foot, but couldn't figure out why, thereafter, you didn't seem to talk on a head-level rather than a bellicose one. It makes sense now.
I'm surprised to hear you say he has sway with the right; one of the few things I read on his site was how he described himself. He considers himself a libertarian--not always what I would think of as conservative, but then I haven't read any of his content to be able to judge. In fact, I'll give you an "ignorance target" you can shoot at or make fun of if you will; I didn't even know what a "Troll" was until I read it in one of your first replies and looked it up. I still thought they were those homely, dog-breathed things under bridges somewhere.
I do apreciate getting it cleared up, as I wouldn't mind dialoguing from time to time on a thinkers' level. As I told Hank, I am busy (more than one career and a family), so I can't devote as much time as I have been for the past few days. Nonetheless, I would like to keep lines open.
As for convincing, a position of agnosticism would be something I could understand one taking, however I don't think I personally could ever, under any frame of mind, be a thoroughgoing atheist.
Again, thanks for clearing things up.
Ahem.
Okay, that just knocked my little wanna-be rant above into the dirt. Very well said, Jim!
Troll alert
He's not worth it, Jim. Just some prick kid with a need to be noticed. "Dinna fash yersel."
But I do always love hearing that argument "It has to be true, otherwise why would so many people believe in it?" Like if we took a poll and found that a majority of people believed the sun revolved around the earth, it would automatically rearrange the solar system.
Very true...
...but it was a slow Sunday night here, and I hadn't nearly had as much fun as usual in biting the heads off Christian babies.
Oh, check out that first link, if you didn't get to see it over at PZ's place. Now, there are some seriously twisted trolls...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.