Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Thanksgiving: Made for vegetarians Previous entry: Bill Sparkman’s death ruled a suicide

You’re not fooling anyone with this stunt, Banana Man

ReligionScience

Fundamentalist Christians believe that Satan is a real being, and that he is always around, dogging people and tempting them to sin.  They teach that one must always be on guard against Satan’s trickery.  The Bible calls Satan, amongst other things, the father of lies, implying that Satan invented dishonesty.  So you would think that said Christians would reject deceit as a recruiting tactic, seeing the use of deceit as falling for one Satan’s tricks. But on the contrary, they love deceit.  As I’ve written about before, they seem to prefer it over straightforward proselytizing, because lying to people to get their attention feels dangerous and exciting, and if your lies are successful in gaining someone’s attention for a time, then it can make you feel very clever indeed.  Almost as clever a liar as Satan himself!

You can see that self-congratulation for the cleverness of their deceit written all over this creationist scheme to distribute copies of “The Origin of the Species” that has a forward by Ray Comfort where he spews ignorant creationist crap and accuses Darwin of starting Nazism.  The idea is clearly to “trick” people they perceive as “disciples” of Darwin and the “religion” of secularism by giving them what the fundies mistake for a holy text for atheists.  This makes their deceit less clever and more, as Laura Miller notes, deeply pathetic.  After all, to dupe someone, you have to have some understanding of how they tick.  Treating people like they believe “The Origin of the Species” is an inviolable holy text to deceive them is about as likely to work as trying to lure college students to a witnessing invent by highlighting that there will be square dancing.

The plan, innocuously named “Origin Into Schools,” was announced this September in a video featuring Kirk Cameron, a former television child star who co-founded a ministry called Living Waters with Comfort. There’s something almost pitiable about the way Cameron crows over the scheme; he truly seems to find it ingenious. He points out that the University of California at Berkeley cannot prevent the action because “their own Web site” dictates that “anyone is free to distribute noncommercial materials in any outdoor area of the campus.” “Besides,” he gleefully adds, “what are they really going to do? Ban ‘The Origin of Species’? That would be big news! Especially when their own bookstore sells it for $29.99!”

As Miller notes, under those rules, straightforward religious tracts will also be permitted, though Cameron makes an excuse about why they have to attempt deceit, by falsely claiming that Berkeley bans religious displays.  The claims that Berkeley tightly monitors nuts who show up at campus trying to push religious tracts on people was amply disproven by a story you might have heard lately—-remember how Phillip Garrido, the guy who kidnapped and held Jaycee Lee Dugard for years, was caught?  That’s right.  He was on campus handing out pamphlets, and the Berkeley police were concerned, not because of the pamphlets, but because the two little girls with him seemed broken and malnourished.  Hard to sneak that one by people. What Cameron’s lies demonstrate is that fundies have to lie to their own when engaging in tactics that involve lying to others. 

By the way, even if Berkeley was super interested in censoring religious materials, all they would have to do is censor certain editions of “The Origin of the Species”.  Surely Bible-thumpers who are constantly arguing about this edition of the Bible over that can grasp that. 


With glaring holes in their excuses like this, one is left to wonder what the motivation for this stunt is.  Well, I think it’s easy to understand if you think about how creationists like Cameron and Ray Comfort think of “The Origin of the Species”, and of evolutionary biology.  They don’t really understand what a scientific theory is, which is a result of willful ignorance, not genuine stupidity.  We know this because four chapters have been removed from the edition that they’re handing out.  Comfort claims that it was an oversight, but we know how free he feels to lie, and the four chapters removed are the ones where Darwin marshals the evidence for his theory.  So Comfort clearly understands how evidence works in science, but he wants to reposition scientific writing as something closer to theological wanking by making it sound like a bunch of evidence-free bullshit spinning.  Comfort claims the “error” will be fixed in future editions, an easy claim to make since I doubt there will be future editions.

No, the reason they’re doing this is because they believe that “Origin” is a holy text for atheism, and it gives them pleasure to “blaspheme” it.  They “prove” that this is indeed blasphemy by gauging how much they annoy the liberals, which is always and above all other things the most important motivation for wingnuts of all stripes.  What they fail to understand is that scientists, atheists, and a hodge-podge of reality fans aren’t annoyed because this stupid book makes us uncomfortable—-I’ve tossed books I’ve had more affection for in the trash because I spilled coffee on them on accident, all without flinching because I don’t think of books as sacrosanct—-but because we genuinely fear what will happen to our society if fundamentalists succeed in their War Against Non-Stupidity.  Indeed, I may have to reconsider my assumption that Ray Comfort isn’t stupid.  He’s just smart enough to realize that evidence is a damning difference between his bullshit and real science, but he’s still so incredibly stupid as to not realize what an ignoramus he is. 

The Living Waters Web site reveals Comfort to be obsessed with goading atheists, specifically Richard Dawkins, who is featured in almost as many of the site’s videos as Comfort is and whom Comfort has challenged to a public debate. (Dawkins has refused on the grounds that Comfort is an “ignorant fool,” but some negotiation appears to be ongoing.) Dawkins nicknamed him “Banana Man,” after Comfort used the handy snacking features of the fruit to argue for intelligent design. Comfort recently sent Dawkins an anonymous “gift basket” containing his edition of “The Origin of Species” plus a banana, and said, with regard to the proposed debate, “I think I can smell English chicken.”

The notion that Dawkins—-who made a documentary of himself debating religious people about their supposed subject of expertise, which is their own religion—-fears debating Ray Comfort about biology is nuclear level stupidity.  Comfort and Kirk Cameron made a video arguing that the perfection of the banana is evidence of design.  They couldn’t have picked a worse example, because the bananas they were eating—-the same kind you find at the store—-are dramatically different from the wild bananas that humans first discovered.  The banana as we know it, like many fruits and vegetables, was dramatically changed over time through the very selection process described by Darwin.  Human beings were the natural force that induced the selection, tossing out bananas we didn’t like and growing only the ones closer to the goal, until we got the banana we have now.  Wild bananas and the bananas they claim god created look very different indeed.

Perhaps the most clever trick that creationists come up with altogether is this “won’t debate me” crap.  It’s such an easy sham to perpetuate.  Make yourself so unpleasant, so crazy, so impervious to reason that no one in their right mind would want to spend two minutes talking to you, much less have to treat you with enough respect to get through a so-called debate with you for an entire hour.  And when someone has a normal, human reaction to a blathering fool, which is to distance themselves, you declare victory.  Because “winning” isn’t about being right so much as being the last man standing, I guess. 

It’s telling that they’re going after Dawkins.  I don’t think that’s an accident, and I don’t think it’s strictly because Dawkins is a scientist and an outspoken atheist.  It’s because they know that the belligerent gallivanting around and being an asshole really isn’t Dawkins’ style.  I know!  That’s not what you’ve heard!  But if you actually listen to Dawkins debate others, you’ll see that he takes a soft-spoken, reasonable attitude towards his opponents, and he prefers to treat them with respect and the assumption that they’re willing to have an honest conversation.  Now, I realize that’s not the “respect” that a lot of religious people think of when they think of respect—-the “respect” we’re used to showing religion is tip-toeing around the religious, so as to not trip up uncomfortable contradictions so that they aren’t put in a position of questioning their delusions.  But all through the documentary “The Root of All Evil?”, Dawkins tends to strike a balance between not hiding his honest observations, but not really getting up in anyone’s face about it, either.  He simply states his point and lets the religious person react.  To my mind, that’s a greater show of respect, because the assumption is placed out there, whether the person deserves it or not, that they are capable of an honest conversation.

But Comfort has made it abundantly clear that he is not capable of such a thing, and that he intends to piss all over it.  I don’t blame Dawkins for not wanting to deal with it, either.  But desire not to waste your time with fools and fearing an honest conversation are totally different things.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12:05 PM • (146) Comments

Aren’t Kirk’s fifteen minutes of fame up yet?

Comment #1: Blue Jean  on  11/25  at  12:30 PM

It’s the fundys lying that convinced me to support gay marriage.  I’m a fairly mainstream Protestant, and when my church (the PCUSA) began arguing about issues like Gay marriage and GBLT serving as elders I prayed and thought a lot about it. But when I saw the hatred and LIES on the side of the anti’s that clinched it for me.  No cause that relied on lies and hatred could possibly be Godly or what Christ would do. 

The same thing with creationism and the other pet causes of the religious right wing.  They rely on lies and promote hatred.  There’s no way that’s what Christ taught and their cause can not be Godly….

Comment #2: Woodrowfan  on  11/25  at  12:46 PM

Yes, Kirk’s 15 minutes are up and that is why he is clinging desperately to religion like an alcoholic clinging to a bottle.  His “god” is the only person telling him how wonderful he is now.

Comment #3: BadKitty  on  11/25  at  12:48 PM

I almost hate to mention it, but Cameron has something correct in his quote that you have wrong:  the title of the book is The Origin of Species, not The Origin of the Species.  It’s a really, really common mistake.

Though I guess it’s proof that the book isn’t quite the “holy” text that Cameron thinks since so many people get the title wrong.  wink

Comment #4: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  01:00 PM

Sadly Kirk isn’t going anywhere. He was the STAR of the movie version of the Fundie Bible Left Behind. He will be the closest thing fundies have to Jesus for a good long while no matter how much he fails at life.

Comment #5: Cerberus  on  11/25  at  01:02 PM

I was annoyed that Miller ended her piece by suggesting that creationists and scientists have developed a “symbiotic” relationship.  Um, no.  Creationists use the fight against evolution as a fundraising tool.  There are no scientists, including Dawkins, trying to make a living off of refuting creationists.  I’m about 99% sure they would all be much happier if the creationists just went away.

Comment #6: carovee  on  11/25  at  01:02 PM

I’ve tossed books I’ve had more affection for in the trash because I spilled coffee on them on accident, all without flinching because I don’t think of books as sacrosanct.

By this criteria, I guess my holy book is The Bad For You Cookbook since I kept it long after my cat peed on it.  (I kept it in a plastic bag, not just sitting around being stinky.)  I’m not quite sure why—probably because at one point it seemed like the damn cat was trying to pee on everything I owned and I didn’t want to throw away yet another pee-stained book—but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Comment #7: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  01:06 PM

The Banana Man is hilarious.  I wish I could meet Ray Comfort just to ask him why oranges, the most delicious fruit, are so poorly designed.  The sad thing is that Comfort has no idea that the bananas we eat were designed - by humans.  Wild bananas have tougher skin, are riddled with seeds, and taste awful unless you cook them.

Comment #8: bananacat  on  11/25  at  01:09 PM

“It’s the fundys lying that convinced me to support gay marriage.  I’m a fairly mainstream Protestant, and when my church (the PCUSA) began arguing about issues like Gay marriage and GBLT serving as elders I prayed and thought a lot about it. But when I saw the hatred and LIES on the side of the anti’s that clinched it for me.  No cause that relied on lies and hatred could possibly be Godly or what Christ would do.”

In Michigan, the self-proclaimed Godly supporters lied up and down about our shameful constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and woman, saying in public that it wouldn’t change things like cities and universities being able to offer domestic partnership benefits if they chose. It was plainly obvious from the text that it would in fact do so and that the courts would have to rule that way, but away they went. They aren’t stupid, so they were either lying or were completely indifferent to the truth.

I’m an atheist, but even I know that the 10 Commandments are supposed to be pretty important and that they mention lying, (reminder for out right wing friends: the commandment seems to be against it) but are silent about gay marriage.

Comment #9: witless chum  on  11/25  at  01:10 PM

I guess pineapples are proof that God actually hates us and wants us to starve to death or something.

Comment #10: Menshevixen  on  11/25  at  01:12 PM

The banana thing is so stupid it burns.  I wish I had something more insightful to add but its just so very stupid that my mind can’t wrap around the reality that some people believe that.

Comment #11: semi_factual  on  11/25  at  01:16 PM

carovee-

Make that 100%. I am in biological sciences and we despise creationism and long to be able to ignore them, but they keep threatening the future of biology knowledge in their country which has an impact on not only the qualifications of new people for this field (which includes medicine), but also a host of social issues like the bullshit arguments against abortion, safe sex education, gay marriage, and most importantly things like vaccines and stem cells.

Biological ignorance promoted by charlatans like Cameron are destroying us as a nation and their attempts to undermine the basis of science threaten even more.

If they went away or at least became less powerful politically, every scientist would pop a bottle of champagne and look forward to never hearing from them again.

I mean, why would scientists want to hear the ignorant ramblings of the ill-informed, they have freshmen and science reporters for that.

Comment #12: Cerberus  on  11/25  at  01:17 PM

Coconuts! Coconuts are proof than not only does God want us to go hungry, he wants us to die of thirst! And insufficient rum!

Comment #13: MarinaS  on  11/25  at  01:22 PM

Woodrowfan: thanks for that. It makes me happy to be reminded from time to time that a lot of religious people are decent, thoughtful and intelligent.

Comment #14: MarinaS  on  11/25  at  01:25 PM

Not a very smart plan on the part of the creationists—I doubt any open-minded person who reads both the book and the creationist intro will come away persuaded by the intro and repulsed by the book.  Our side has a powerful home-field advantage if it comes to open, rational debate.

Comment #15: rea  on  11/25  at  01:28 PM

Not to mention coconuts.

This has always bothered me: the fundie need to make God not only stupid like a human, but in fact, stupider than the fundie asshole attempting to describe how God works. During the Middle Ages, scientific exploration was encouraged in the Islamic world because for every amazing scientific discovery that broadened the world and made the whole of creation that much more vast and intricate, it brought glory to Allah: in other words, God is amazing because every discovery humans make are just a tip of the iceberg of the whole of creation. The more complex and interconnected we see things like math, microbiology, chemistry, physics, etc are, the more we can esteem God for the amazing work that went into this universe. If that means we were evolved over a long period of time rather than sprung from dust fully formed, then it’s a small price to pay for having a more powerful deity.

Apart from the obvious drawback of the discomfiting feeling like there’s someone/thing out there smarter than you, and that you may have a few of the details wrong… the problem with taking the broad view on the nature of creation is that it really puts a dent in the concept of a petty, jealous God who demands constant worship, narrow-minded obedience, and primitive constrictions on things like diet and clothing choices (etc). The binary concepts of heaven and hell, and the very nature of the soul simply cannot stand up without a very simplistic, primitive concept of God which is not reflected in the complexities of the Universe that are wonderful and terrible and nuanced. And since American religion uses hell like a fucking security blanket to rope people into services and tithing, having people really think about how this spiritual thing they feel translates in the broader sense to the greater world around them and how that does or doesn’t fit with some of the primary tenants of a musty old book.

So, hysterically, they declare that all science, rather than bringing glory to God, is in fact a work of the Devil. So all of the amazing detail in the universe: photosynthesis, DNA, the ability to evolve plants like bananas into something edible and convenient… these are all in fact the work of The Devil. God created simple stupid earth, and all of the amazing details in the patina are in fact not part of amazing intelligent God, but part of The Devil, who I suppose is somehow more intelligent than God.

Comment #16: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/25  at  01:31 PM

Mighty Ponygirl’s point @ 16 is great.

I was thinking the other day that part of the whole fundie-creationist appeal is that they can pretend the Bible has all the answers and that the world isn’t a big complicated place that we don’t know nearly enough about.  For all their talk of faith they don’t seem to have much of it, just a lot of fairy stories and cognitive dissonance.

Comment #17: semi_factual  on  11/25  at  01:42 PM

I still don’t understand how this works? So, it’s like a bunch of militant atheists are handing out their sacred text, and people interested in converting to atheism read it, and see about how Darwin caused Hitler, and then thay say “Oh man! Hitler was bad! Maybe Jesus is the answer?” Is that how it works?

Comment #18: Seebach  on  11/25  at  01:47 PM

I was annoyed that Miller ended her piece by suggesting that creationists and scientists have developed a “symbiotic” relationship.  Um, no.

Truly. The word they’re looking for is “parasitic”. Like Dawkins says in the intro to “The Greatest Show on Earth”, for scientists the whole creationist debate thing is like you were going to teach your class about the wonderful Latin language, all the poetry and culture of the Romans, and instead you’re stuck debating the guy at the back at the class who’s seriously suggesting the Romans never existed.

Comment #19: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  01:48 PM

Semi_factual, you reminded me of a conversation I had with my mormon now-ex-parents. My father was going on and on about how horrible the world is, and how he felt “called” to move to Utah to “be among the Saints.” All I could say to him was, “Dad, for someone who claims to have so much unshakable faith, you sure are afraid of everything.”

The reason fundies are so afraid of education and knowledge is because deep down, in their unconscious minds, they know that they’re full of shit, that their entire system is a house of cards. If they do actually learn something about the world around them, they’ll be confronted with evidence that their system - and hence, their entire lives - are not only worthless, but harmful to society. There’s a reason why there is a correlation between higher education and atheism/agnosticism.

I agree with Mighty_Ponygirl. What is so horrible about a religious person just relaxing and admitting, “I don’t know for certain, you don’t either, but hey! Look at the world around us! Isn’t that just so cool how things evolve and fit together? Imagine if it were created by a higher power. What a cool, intricate system! Wow! Hey, let’s go get ice cream.” If people would just take a deep breath and relax in the knowledge that our brains haven’t evolved to comprehend the truly macrocosmic, society would have a lot fewer problems.

Unfortunately, the system feeds upon itself; it’s a snake swallowing its own tail. Religious people in closed-off societies shun higher learning, or only allow higher learning from their own institutions (BYU, Bob Jones), which makes it easier for them to stay closed-off from reality. They preach fear of the outside, become more closed off, and then they breed the next generation to be just like them. And then they all vote. And fuck it up for the rest of us. See, this is why we can’t have nice things in America!

Comment #20: Keori  on  11/25  at  01:58 PM

Cool!  Free copy of the “Origin of the Species.”  Well almost free - the fee is your labor involved in ripping out the intro.  So, almost free ...

Comment #21: Richard Goblin  on  11/25  at  02:05 PM

Wild bananas have tougher skin, are riddled with seeds, and taste awful unless you cook them.

Among other things, this whole banana deal shows a fundamental lack of understanding what fruit is.

What is the point of fruit?  What function does it serve the plant?  The answer: seed distribution.  An animal comes by, eats the fruit, and goes on its way.  The fruit is digested, the seeds are ... err ... dropped off, and a new plant grows.  The basic definition of fruit is seeds packed in sugar.

“But the bananas (and grapes) in the supermarket don’t have any seeds in them!” you say.  Well, how did that happen?

Comment #22: Thlayli  on  11/25  at  02:07 PM

And missing four of the key chapters, Richard Goblin: the ones with the evidence (see above)!

Comment #23: seeker6079  on  11/25  at  02:09 PM

Thanks, Amanda, for promoting the bitter, starchy, seedy truth about wild bananas, which remains too arcane a fact for my taste.  What is it about this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/e/eb/20080601130629Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg

that suggests human-hand handy?  Good gobstopper.

Comment #24: Ranylt  on  11/25  at  02:11 PM

And unlike my useless busted link, Mighty Ponygirl @16 was breathtakingly effective.

Comment #25: Ranylt  on  11/25  at  02:23 PM

@2

“It’s the fundys lying that convinced me to support gay marriage.  I’m a fairly mainstream Protestant, and when my church (the PCUSA) began arguing about issues like Gay marriage and GBLT serving as elders I prayed and thought a lot about it. But when I saw the hatred and LIES on the side of the anti’s that clinched it for me.  No cause that relied on lies and hatred could possibly be Godly or what Christ would do.”

That’s what convinced my Grandma. She’s an 84 year old Texan in the Methodist church and daughter of a preacher; recently held a benefit at her condo in support of the local housing anti-discrimination proposal (which I think passed). Her father did instill a strong sense of indignation at inequality in her though - he was active in desgregation in 1930s Texas which took some serious stones.

I grew up in the PCUSA and am surprised how much my parent’s church has progressed in the past 15 years. Recently went w/ them to an Easter service and noticed a few same-sex couples and an interracial couple in the congregation, and the pastor’s sermnon mentioned that god is not necessarily a male. Won’t reconsider my atheism but it’s nice to see this type of thing. Compared to my in-law’s church especially - went to their Easter service last year at the local Baptist church and it creeped me the fuck out.

@9
“In Michigan, the self-proclaimed Godly supporters lied up and down about our shameful constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and woman, saying in public that it wouldn’t change things like cities and universities being able to offer domestic partnership benefits if they chose. It was plainly obvious from the text that it would in fact do so and that the courts would have to rule that way, but away they went. They aren’t stupid, so they were either lying or were completely indifferent to the truth. “

Even my fundie cousin couldn’t vote for that amendment because it outlawed civil ceremonies, although it didnt’ change his mind on marriage. I was approacehd by one of the petition people for that amendment and her dishonesty enraged me: “Don’t you think the people deserve to have it up for a vote? You don’t have to agree with the rule to sign it. It doesn’t outlaw civil ceremonies, just defends the anctity of marriage.” Something about bestiality too.

“I’m an atheist, but even I know that the 10 Commandments are supposed to be pretty important and that they mention lying, (reminder for out right wing friends: the commandment seems to be against it) but are silent about gay marriage. “

If I remember correctly, there are two sets of commandments, and the one that is actually referred to as the “ten commandments” in the O.T. deals with wierd rituals like oberving the festival of weeks nad redeeming the first-born and not boiling a kid in it’s mother’s milk.

Comment #26: Jimmy  on  11/25  at  02:26 PM

Comfort recently debated youtube atheist extraordinaire Thunderf00t.  Frankly, I couldn’t watch the whole thing, or even half of it, but Tf00t did an excellent job explaining what evolution is, how it works, and the evidence for it.  He has far more patience than I ever will.

Comment #27: themann1086  on  11/25  at  02:30 PM

Just read the Wiki article on bananas.  There is a line of thinking that due to the lack of diversity in the breeding of the cavendish (yellow) banana, it will not be a viable commercial product in 20 years because of disease.

Let Cameron think about that for a bit.  He’d better start looking for a new fruit…

Comment #28: bouj  on  11/25  at  02:32 PM

OT, but the ads on the front page are autoplaying!!!!

Comment #29: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/25  at  02:38 PM

“But the bananas (and grapes) in the supermarket don’t have any seeds in them!” you say.  Well, how did that happen?

That’s easy. It’s a miracle. Since nature and evolution would require the presence of seeds, seedless fruits can only be a direct act of creation by God.

Maybe that’s what they mean in the Bible by “the fruits of the Holy Spirit.”  Now let’s go check the English Muffins for images of Jesus or Mary on them.

Comment #30: Lymis  on  11/25  at  02:40 PM

These kooks came to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo last week to hand out 1000 copies of their version of “Origin of Species.”  No incidents reported, but there was this quote from the Living Waters rep in the local paper: 

“ ‘As you would expect, it was a mixed reaction from the students,’ Peek wrote. “The atheists/agnostics were more or less cordial and respectful to us. For the most part the students were interested and were happy to receive the free copy of Origin of Species. Some students accept the book and rip out the introduction, he wrote in an e-mail to The Tribune.”

And bravo for those students!! I hope they did it right there in front of the fundies faces! Somebody noted in the online comments section of the SLO Tribune that there were parts missing from Darwin’s text. The usual nuts wrote in claiming “I didn’t come from no monkey” and “I just know what the ‘Truth’ is and you’ll find it in the Bible.”  My favorite is when they say: “I’ll pray for you.”  Save your breath.

Comment #31: Hornet  on  11/25  at  02:41 PM

This has always bothered me: the fundie need to make God not only stupid like a human, but in fact, stupider than the fundie asshole attempting to describe how God works.

I always want to ask fundies why their God is so tiny when the universe is so huge.  If God only knows and understands the things that you yourself know and understand, I think that’s pretty much the definition of making God in your own image.

Of course, as soon as you ask them a tough moral question (like, “Really, you think a woman should die rather than be allowed to end a pregnancy that endangers her life?”) they start talking about God’s mysterious ways, which they were claiming they understood completely just 10 minutes before.

Comment #32: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  02:48 PM

hohoho - they’re gonna be so surprised when they go to hell.

I gotta say, I’m a pretty live-and-let-live person and I believe you should be able to decide your own rules for behavior (within reason) but, gosh darn it, once you have those rules, you really oughta follow them.  They’re called “principles” boys, get some.

Though I’m dying for the report where the disguised fundies get attacked by local fundies incensed beyond reason that some guy is handing out the “atheist bible.”

Comment #33: shade  on  11/25  at  02:50 PM

The usual nuts wrote in claiming “I didn’t come from no monkey” and “I just know what the ‘Truth’ is and you’ll find it in the Bible.” My favorite is when they say: “I’ll pray for you.” Save your breath.

One thing I’ll concede about our local trolls: no matter how sexist or racist or anti-choice or anti-LGBT they are (and boy, some of them are all of the above), I have yet to see one stupid enough to come here and try to promote “intelligent design,” let alone creationism.

“Bananas” pretty much describes the mentality at work with Xtian fantasists like Ray Comfort.

Comment #34: Gracchus.  on  11/25  at  02:53 PM

My favorite is when they say: “I’ll pray for you.” Save your breath.

It annoys me that the fundies have basically turned “I’ll pray for you” into a synonym for “fuck you” because now even when people say it at appropriate moments (like, say, when you or someone in your family is seriously ill), people wonder if they really mean it or if they’re saying, “Fuck you, you fucking heathen.”

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  02:57 PM

I’m sorry, I just love the two google adds that just appeared:

Loading…
Sexed up atheism- Dawkins
Pantheism adds in celebration of Nature, Universe, Life
www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm

Jesus Fish v. Darwin Fish
new book about religion vs. science in today’s society

Yeah, um, work it Dawkins.  You’re all sexed up and all.

Comment #36: Ismone  on  11/25  at  02:58 PM

I wish they would give Voyage of the Beagle away it is a far better read.

Comment #37: John Rove  on  11/25  at  03:16 PM

Aside:

I know people are kidding about the how-did-seedless-bananas-and-grapes-happen thing, but if anybody’s interested in the question, there are some good answers to be had at a blog called James and the Giant Corn. (Grapes) (Bananas)

Comment #38: mr_subjunctive  on  11/25  at  03:16 PM

Perhaps the most clever trick that creationists come up with altogether is this “won’t debate me” crap.  It’s such an easy sham to perpetuate.  Make yourself so unpleasant, so crazy, so impervious to reason that no one in their right mind would want to spend two minutes talking to you, much less have to treat you with enough respect to get through a so-called debate with you for an entire hour.  And when someone has a normal, human reaction to a blathering fool, which is to distance themselves, you declare victory.  Because “winning” isn’t about being right so much as being the last man standing, I guess.

When Fundagelicals complain that biologists won’t debate them and when Nice Guys® complain that women won’t date them they’re basically speaking the same language.  Both sets of goons have a deep investment in creating or worsening the situations they claim to be reacting against.

I don’t have much faith that men like Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort are credulous enough to buy into their own baloney.  Cameron and Comfort aren’t the intended targets of the ideas they push; they themselves are the pushers.  The market they sell to is a bifurcated one: it consists both of potential converts (citizens of Berkeley, in this case) and of potential converters (passers-out of pamplets and the like).  The system within which Cameron and Comfort operate and which they are intent on preserving is one in which both converts and converters are don’t exist for any other purpose than to play out prefabricated roles which have been formulated elsewhere. 

Lots of relationship gurus, like the Rules Girls and R. Don Steele, make huge capital out of set-ups like this.  They make no secret of the fact that what they offer people is strict confinement to a stereotypical role: the selling point is that the role is predictable and narrow enough that an insecure person would naturally feel comfortable in it.  When you’re only permitted a limited number of actions or responses to problems, there’s less chance you’ll go wrong—-that’s the suppostion, anyway.

Fundagelicals and relationship gurus all tend to work in the same way, and the subcultures they set up tend to share the same structure.  Somebody situated high up in the clouds settles the question of what the doctrine is, after which the doctrine’s intended targets either assimilate the doctrine or don’t, with the provision that the assimilators of the doctrine are thenceforward accounted responsible for leading the non-assimilators into the fold (or of boinking them no later than on the third date, in the case of the Nice Guys®). 

The leaders of the Fundie pack can’t afford to have their bastions of atheistic wickedness (like Berkeley) get caught up in an enthusiasm for old-time religion any more than Batman could afford to have Gotham City turn into Centerburg.  (Or, for that matter, than R. Don Steele could afford to turn guys like George Sodini into men who might appeal to women.)  They’d all lose their followers, their access to cash flow, their reason for being.  Of course they don’t want their disciples to be too successful, at least not too successful at their stated objectives (bringing sinners to Jesus, fighting crime*, nabbing dames).  They’re not interested in solving problems but in perpetuating them.  They’re not interested in laying conflict to rest, they’re interested in keeping it alive.  Which is one reason for the hostility of demeanor which they cultivate in themselves and inculcate in their adherents.

*Batman is the exception here: as a world-class neurotic, he occupies all the positions on the board at once.

Comment #39: bekabot  on  11/25  at  03:26 PM

I have yet to see one stupid enough to come here and try to promote “intelligent design,” let alone creationism.

Yes, but we did have a troll who was really stupid about biology, although I don’t know if he was actually a creationist.  Remember Austin somethingorother on an anti-abortion rant?  He insisted that hormonal birth control acts as a contraceptive for women with regular cycles, yet manages to regulate the cycles of irregular women while still allowing them to get pregnant.  He also knew nothing about plant reproduction, and didn’t realize that pollen is plant sperm and seeds are embryos.  He thinks that plants make seeds asexually, and then seed can be fertilized by something extra, but they don’t need it to germinate.  I’m still laughing about that one.

Comment #40: bananacat  on  11/25  at  03:28 PM

Perhaps the most clever trick that creationists come up with altogether is this “won’t debate me” crap.

It’s of a piece with the way Obama is “afraid” to address the “controversy” over whether he is a citizen. And the claim that the hot chick down the hall is afraid of losing control of herself in the face of their mighty manliness.

Comment #41: RickMassimo  on  11/25  at  03:34 PM

Yes, but we did have a troll who was really stupid about biology, although I don’t know if he was actually a creationist.  Remember Austin somethingorother on an anti-abortion rant?

Missed that one—pretty funny. But I’m talking about someone coming on here spouting Comfort’s brand of nonsense. Has anyone here spotted a proud dinosaur rider in the comments? Or perhaps one of them might overcome their shame and come out of the creationist closet—this would be a good thread for it.

Comment #42: Gracchus.  on  11/25  at  03:40 PM

There’s a great youtube video take-down of Cameron & Comfort’s INFALLIBLE(!!!!11!!!) Darwin plan. I believe it’s called “The Origin of Stupidity”; it’s a woman with long blonde hair (in case there are multiple videos with the same title). I’d find the link, but youtube destroys my computer and I don’t have time for the whole hard reboot bullshit right now. raspberry

We all already know how stupid this idea is, but the video is hilarious anyway.

Comment #43: julian  on  11/25  at  03:44 PM

Gracchus, I WISH I was a dinosaur rider!

Comment #44: julian  on  11/25  at  03:44 PM

Gracchus, I WISH I was a dinosaur rider!

Well, yeah—I don’t dispute that it would be ten kinds of awesome. But how does the old poem go? “If wishes were dinosaurs, rides would be free ...”

Comment #45: Gracchus.  on  11/25  at  03:51 PM

Dinosaurs are fine to wish on, sure, to ride, certainly.

Just don’t date ‘em: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnYAKAQd9Zg

Comment #46: seeker6079  on  11/25  at  03:54 PM

Gracchus, I suspect that we haven’t had (m)any creationist trolls because we rarely have posts relating to evolution and creationism, so it just never comes up.  But if you probe a typical troll on any basic biological or scientific subject, it’s not that hard to find someone who is extremely stupid, possibly as stupid as Comfort and other creationists.  I predict that a lot of trolls would even turn out to be creationists if you asked them about it.

Comment #47: bananacat  on  11/25  at  03:54 PM

I think it’s pretty cool that the DNA in Cavendish bananas, seedless grapes, and navel oranges figured out ways to convince humans to cultivate them, since they can’t reproduce by themselves.  Clever molecules…

Comment #48: MikeEss  on  11/25  at  03:58 PM

“But if you probe a typical troll on any basic biological or scientific subject…”

...sorry, I’ll leave the troll probing to someone else…

Comment #49: MikeEss  on  11/25  at  04:00 PM

During the Middle Ages, scientific exploration was encouraged in the Islamic world because for every amazing scientific discovery that broadened the world and made the whole of creation that much more vast and intricate, it brought glory to Allah: in other words, God is amazing because every discovery humans make are just a tip of the iceberg of the whole of creation. The more complex and interconnected we see things like math, microbiology, chemistry, physics, etc are, the more we can esteem God for the amazing work that went into this universe.

Mighty Ponygirl @ 16: And it’s not just that they have to create a god who’s stupider than they are. Their god also has to follow the rules of their religion. A powerful creator-god responsible for the beautiful complexity of the universe as explored through math and science and critical thought is not in the book, and if it’s not in the book, they want no part of it. Literal interpretation of the Bible gives them a series of rules and steps they can take to ensure their salvation; if the creation of the world came not through a six-day creatathon by the Almighty but through eons of evolution laid in place by a creator deity like a galactic row of dominoes, that means that everything else in the book can also be questioned and requires critical thought for interpretation.

Scientific evidence supporting the theory evolution: blasphemy. Knowing in their hearts that God carefully laid out dinosaur bones and beetles in amber in the various strata to throw off paleontologists and test our faith: Biblically defensible and thus the unequivocal truth. Kind of ballsy to hold the Almighty to the words of a book they wrote themselves, but I suppose that’s just their way.

Comment #50: ACG  on  11/25  at  04:04 PM

“Perhaps the most clever trick that creationists come up with altogether is this “won’t debate me” crap.  It’s such an easy sham to perpetuate.  Make yourself so unpleasant, so crazy, so impervious to reason that no one in their right mind would want to spend two minutes talking to you, much less have to treat you with enough respect to get through a so-called debate with you for an entire hour.  And when someone has a normal, human reaction to a blathering fool, which is to distance themselves, you declare victory.  Because “winning” isn’t about being right so much as being the last man standing, I guess. “

And here I thought trolling was an internet phenomenon.

Comment #51: heresiarch  on  11/25  at  04:05 PM

all of the amazing details in the patina are in fact not part of amazing intelligent God, but part of The Devil, who I suppose is somehow more intelligent than God.

And belief in the devil is extremely pagan.  If God is all powerful, why can’t God squash Lucifer like a bug?  How is it that the devil can run around and do bad things/get humans to do bad things while God is presumably unaware of what’s going on and unable (or unwilling) to do anything about it?  The pagans believe(d) in fallible gods that aren’t all knowing or all powerful.  The Christian belief that God has His hands tied (for some inexplicable reason) is exactly the same concept.

Also, much of the devil/Lucifer story is from the apocrypha.  Christians who put a lot of stock in the devil are basing their beliefs on religious texts that are so full of shit even Christian leaders have largely refused to include it in the Bible.

Comment #52: keshmeshi  on  11/25  at  04:09 PM

Mighty Ponygirl: I think a lot of the hostility towards science from religion can only be understood politically. Fundamentalism is an anti-modernist movement which seeks to retain the old hierarchies and power structures in the face of modern egalitarian impulses; much of the reason it’s popular with dictatorships.

At the same time, religions need to navigate the political waters as well to remain relevant in the face of the opportunities presented by modernism, be it technology, individual freedoms, or economic well-being. To that end, religion has to soften itself to appease the masses, and go along with the populist impulses. In the case of the old Islamic and Christian monastic traditions, the church provided a safe place for intellectuals to gather, and the production of technological wonders through the application of science made the patron governments of those religions powerful and indebted to them. In this modern era though, universities have replaced religious institutions as safe havens for intellectual thought, made all the more free by secular freedoms from church dogma.

Even the most airy-fairy religion must eventually make truth-claims about the universe to remain relevant to our lives. As science improves, it allows us to subject those claims to closer scrutiny, and discredit specific claims put forward by religion. Having lost the intellectual battle to secular universities, churches are free to pander to the anti-modernist crowds, and insulate them from the work of “Godless Academics”.

Comment #53: Left_Wing_Fox  on  11/25  at  04:10 PM

“Kind of ballsy to hold the Almighty to the words of a book they wrote themselves, but I suppose that’s just their way.”

...no, no, no!  Everybody (and Kirk Cameron) knows that God personally whispered to King James each and every word to put in the bible…in archaic English and everything…

Comment #54: MikeEss  on  11/25  at  04:11 PM

I always want to ask fundies why their God is so tiny

This reminds me of some fun I used to have when I was young and interested in being provocative for its own sake. I used to say something deliberately blasphemous (and usually profane) just to watch the religious people of my acquaintance literally leap back from me in horror. They’d always say they stepped back so as not to get hit by the lightning bolt headed my way. I’d ask them why they thought an omnipotent god would have such bad aim.

Then again The Flood killed all those innocent animals. And Bananas. So maybe Collateral Damage is indeed a holy concept!

Comment #55: benvolio  on  11/25  at  04:21 PM

It’s too bad about those missing chapters.  I was thinking it was cool that they were saving broke college kids 30 bucks.

Hey, I have to get a $120 baking text for next semester.  I will happily accept a polemic on the evils of white flour and refined sugar if someone wants to give me a copy for free!

Comment #56: Leely  on  11/25  at  04:24 PM

Those bananas look good.  like, satisfying.

Comment #57: Ms Kate  on  11/25  at  04:30 PM

Literal interpretation of the Bible gives them a series of rules and steps they can take to ensure their salvation; if the creation of the world came not through a six-day creatathon by the Almighty but through eons of evolution laid in place by a creator deity like a galactic row of dominoes, that means that everything else in the book can also be questioned and requires critical thought for interpretation.

My favorite theist (you all know who) had a great post about a trip he took to the Middle East where one of the group was literally confronted with evidence that everything he’d been told was wrong:  they showed him an 8,000 year-old wall in Jericho when he’d been raised to believe the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

The money quote:

The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe—the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life—crumbles into meaninglessness.

Comment #58: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  04:31 PM

the pastor’s sermnon mentioned that god is not necessarily a male.

I’m still completly weirded out by the rather small-minded concept that God would have a gender at all, when it predates the creation of humans and all animals known to have a sex. Seriously. Amoebas don’t have a gender, neither do stars, or planets. Plenty of things, living and non-, don’t have genders.

It annoys me that the fundies have basically turned “I’ll pray for you” into a synonym for “fuck you” because now even when people say it at appropriate moments (like, say, when you or someone in your family is seriously ill), people wonder if they really mean it or if they’re saying, “Fuck you, you fucking heathen.”

Why did you feel it necessary to drag your complete lack of empathy for the non-religious, and inability to understand simple courtesy, from another thread into this one? “I’ll pray for you” in the case of the fundies is an entirely different case of “fuck you”, admitedly a worse one than the one we complained about in the other thread, but they’re still both basically a ‘fuck you’, or at least an ‘I don’t care about your pain I will make this all about myself and score Nice Guy/Gal points’.

If, as a friend or family member, you have a need to pray for me to reassure yourself as I go into surgery, you can do so without having the gal to announce it to me to gain brownie points.

If you are trying to help reassure me as best you can when you can’t really do much besides hope, you can *ask* me if it’s okay to pray for me, rather than just announcing you’re going to do it without asking for permission.

How is this so fucking hard to understand

Comment #59: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  04:33 PM

Thlayli, there’s a great “Go, Diego, Go” cartoon where Abuelo needs to plant strawberries, but there are too many to carry.  The ‘animal rescuers’ use Green Iguana to eat up all the strawberries, take Green Iguana to Abuelo’s farm, and then, well, Green Iguana’s gotta go!

We saved that episode, for the utter jaw-dropping denouement.

Comment #60: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/25  at  04:33 PM

It’s too bad about those missing chapters.  I was thinking it was cool that they were saving broke college kids 30 bucks.

Eh, you can get the 150th anniversary edition on Amazon.com for $6.95.  If college students can’t figure that out, they probably shouldn’t be in college.  wink  Unless their professor specifies an edition that they absolutely have to use, which always strikes me as an a-hole thing to do when it comes to books that are in the public domain.

Heck, I got the e-book for free online, so you really don’t even have to spend money on it if you have a computer or a handheld.

Comment #61: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  04:48 PM

Gracchus, we’ve had a few drive-bys from time to time, people who try to make angry jokes about how we’re exactly what happens when you believe you came from monkeys, but they’ve been vanishingly rare.  Far more often are wankers trying to suggest our bad attitudes come from the legality of abortion, which is at least closer to the truth, in that we are uppity bitches because we’re free.

Comment #62: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/25  at  04:48 PM

Why did you feel it necessary to drag your complete lack of empathy for the non-religious, and inability to understand simple courtesy, from another thread into this one?

Yes, BlackBloc, by criticizing the fundies for poisoning the entire concept of praying for someone, I was really saying it’s all the fault of atheists for complaining about it.  You really got me there.

Comment #63: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  04:50 PM

Also, like catgirl said, you get those trolls all over the place at PZ’s blog.  Trolls are somewhat permanent fixtures.  The ones that show up from time to time are obsessing over every post.  They latch onto certain bloggers that epitomize, in their eyes, everything they hate.  So our resident trolls tend to be a mish-mash of racists, homophobes, sexists, and people who think that sex-ay young people are out to destroy them with our hipster ways. Jesse’s to blame for that last group of trolls.  They’ve been here since the beginning of Pandagon, grinding their teeth in anger over these smarty pants youths.  That almost a decade has passed since then hasn’t changed that perception.

Comment #64: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/25  at  04:51 PM

The bible has got trickery, lying, and deception aplenty and it’s often rewarded if it’s for a good cause. See Jacob taking Esau’s birthright or Shiphrah and Puah, the midwives of Egypt.

Condemn the creationists for being assholes, not for being hypocrites.

Also, WitlessChum, the ten commandments don’t prohibit lying, they prohibit perjury.

Comment #65: Babieca  on  11/25  at  04:55 PM

Sorry, they’re assholes and hypocrites.  They want to hang the 10 Commandments in schools; one of those commandments is not bearing false witness.  Lying while witnessing is an overt breaking of that commandment.

Comment #66: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/25  at  04:57 PM

@59
“I’m still completly weirded out by the rather small-minded concept that God would have a gender at all, when it predates the creation of humans and all animals known to have a sex. Seriously. Amoebas don’t have a gender, neither do stars, or planets. Plenty of things, living and non-, don’t have genders. “

That never made sense to me either, but then again the idea of gods never made a whole lot of sense to me either, at least after the age of 8 or so. 

If you draw little cartoon eyeballs with little cartoon eyelashes on non-living objects, they become female. Leave out their eyelashes and they are male, of course wink

Comment #67: Jimmy  on  11/25  at  05:00 PM

Yes, but we did have a troll who was really stupid about biology, although I don’t know if he was actually a creationist.  Remember Austin somethingorother on an anti-abortion rant?

Even Austin, as big an idiot though he was, was not a creationist. Part of the centerpiece of his argument was that, because abortion is a relatively new technology, we humans have not evolved to consider babies worth protecting until they are actually born, and this is a limitation of the human mind caused by our evolutionary history that we should seek to overcome, as the line between a fetus and a baby is arbitrary.

The funny part of that is that, in that limited sense, he’s right—we *aren’t* evolved to have nearly the concern for fetuses that we do for born babies—but it never occurred to him either that there may be a good reason for that, or that it really doesn’t matter because if a full-grown adult was totally dependent on parasitizing your body for its survival, we call that “vampirism” and stake them in the heart… no fictional treatment of vampires rhapsodize about how humans *have* to give of their own blood to keep the poor innocent vampires alive, yet when women have to give of their own flesh and bone, literally, to keep embryos alive, all of a sudden they have to or it’s MURDER!

Anyway, the fact that they are using a plant that was, in fact, created by intelligent design to advertise for intelligent design, and yet they have not realized that the intelligent designers were HUMAN, is utterly hilarious. I would also like to know why the intelligent designer hated hyenas so much. The poor things give birth THROUGH THEIR CLITORISES, always to twins, one of whom then kills the other one. And since the hyena is an animal there’s no question of original sin there. I guess that God just really, really hates hyenas.

Comment #68: Alara J Rogers  on  11/25  at  05:07 PM

So our resident trolls tend to be a mish-mash of racists, homophobes, sexists, and people who think that sex-ay young people are out to destroy them with our hipster ways.

That reminds me of one of my all-time favourite trolls here: the deranged anti-choice guy who called everyone who disagreed with him (including Keith Olbermann!) “hipsters.”

I really should head over to PZ’s place now and then, if that’s where the creationist trolls try to argue their case. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the entertainment value in your resident trolls, but creationists take it to a whole new level of stupid.

Comment #69: Gracchus.  on  11/25  at  05:12 PM

Yes, BlackBloc, by criticizing the fundies for poisoning the entire concept of praying for someone, I was really saying it’s all the fault of atheists for complaining about it.  You really got me there.

What you’re not getting is that the fundies did not poison anything. “I’ll pray for you” is a “fuck you” even in what you called an “appropriate setting”, and it would have been even if fundies had never existed. The fact you’re still oblivious to that is the demonstration that you don’t get at all what’s offensive about it to atheists. Hence, lack of empathy,

Comment #70: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  05:13 PM

Can I just ask: Why Berkeley? Why a school where there’s a pretty good chance that the student you’re trying to give your Origin of Species to not only has already read it, but owns a copy or two?

The funny part of that is that, in that limited sense, he’s right—we *aren’t* evolved to have nearly the concern for fetuses that we do for born babies—but it never occurred to him either that there may be a good reason for that, or that it really doesn’t matter because if a full-grown adult was totally dependent on parasitizing your body for its survival, we call that “vampirism” and stake them in the heart… no fictional treatment of vampires rhapsodize about how humans *have* to give of their own blood to keep the poor innocent vampires alive, yet when women have to give of their own flesh and bone, literally, to keep embryos alive, all of a sudden they have to or it’s MURDER!

Oh but the fetus has a speshul relationship to its mother don’t you know. Anyone can give blood to a vampire, and if no one does, tough luck. (Joking aside, I kind of want to read that story.)

Comment #71: Rebecca  on  11/25  at  05:14 PM

I guess that God just really, really hates hyenas.

Well, since we already know God hates gays, the fact that female hyenas fuck each other with their large clitorises might have something to do with it…

Comment #72: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  05:16 PM

I used to have a Jesus fish AND a Darwin fish w/ legs next to one another on my car.  Got a few odd looks and comments…

Comment #73: Woodrowfan  on  11/25  at  05:18 PM

Why Berkeley?

A: Because that’s where Godlessness comes from.  It’s the stereotypical campus of dirty elitist hippies.  This wasn’t a religious event, it was Jeebus performance art.

Comment #74: Kyso K  on  11/25  at  05:19 PM

What you’re not getting is that the fundies did not poison anything. “I’ll pray for you” is a “fuck you” even in what you called an “appropriate setting”, and it would have been even if fundies had never existed.

You’re right.  I absolutely do not understand why the religious equivalent of “you’re in my thoughts” is so offensive to atheists that it needs to be stamped out everywhere.  Can you maybe present an argument other than “it just is!” because I honestly don’t get why it’s so offensive for me to say that offering to pray for someone is not an automatic insult on the level of calling them an asshole.

Comment #75: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  05:19 PM

Evolutionists are reluctant to debate evolutionists because creationists usually “win” formal debates. In formal debates, there is usually a set time limit for each side to make their statement and/or rebut their opponent. Creationists like this set-up as it takes them far less time to tell a lie or distortion than it does to explain it.

If it takes one minute to tell a lie and three minutes to debunk it, there is no way the evolution supporter can keep up. Audience members at an evolution debate walk away wondering why science has no explanation for all these things, when its really a question of not having time to explain. Do a Google search for “Gish gallop” for more.

The rules of a formal debate also provide a patina of legitimacy for Creationists. “We had a debate! Just like real scientists!”

Comment #76: BunBun vonWhiskers  on  11/25  at  05:20 PM

Hey, don’t be hatin’ on square dancing?

Comment #77: weirdnoise  on  11/25  at  05:22 PM

Though I have to say, BlackBloc, you’re reminding me of why I usually end up not criticizing religious people as much as I’d like—there’s always someone like you to come along and tell me that I’m not criticizing them enough and if I don’t say that offering to pray for someone is the equivalent of calling a Mexican person a wetback, I’m clearly The Enemy.  So it’s usually easier to leave out that criticism so I don’t have to deal with flak from both sides of the question.

Comment #78: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  05:23 PM

Sorry, they’re assholes and hypocrites.  They want to hang the 10 Commandments in schools; one of those commandments is not bearing false witness.  Lying while witnessing is an overt breaking of that commandment.
Comment #66: Amanda Marcotte on 11/25 at 03:57 PM

Not bearing false witness is clearly an injunction against perjury, not lying. See Deut. 19: 15-21 for a full explanation of the commandment, which spells out how the court is to handle suspicion of perjury and what the punishment is to be.

I can see where it could be confusing, given how Christians use the word witness, but if you see the commandment in context there’s really no question.

Comment #79: Babieca  on  11/25  at  05:37 PM

Can I just ask: Why Berkeley? Why a school where there’s a pretty good chance that the student you’re trying to give your Origin of Species to not only has already read it, but owns a copy or two?

It’s part of their overblown Crusader fantasy: “We are taking the fight to the very heart of the enemy, the place where they indoctrinate their children with the Unholy Book of Darwin.”

Cal is their Mordor.

Comment #80: Gracchus.  on  11/25  at  05:42 PM

That reminds me of one of my all-time favourite trolls here: the deranged anti-choice guy who called everyone who disagreed with him (including Keith Olbermann!) “hipsters.”

It’s too bad I missed that one!  I can just imagine him yelling at those damn kids to get offa his lawn in between pressing his F5 key, waiting desperately for someone to respond to his comments.

Comment #81: bananacat  on  11/25  at  05:47 PM

Mnemosyne: Let me guess, you also are a bit wary of criticizing misogynists on feminist blogs because sometimes the feminist posters will call you on the privileged shit you’re still pulling? And that makes it easier to just not comment because then you don’t get flack from both sides, right? Why should you take it from masculinists and other assorted misogynists if the feminists are not going to bend over to kiss your ass for doing so?

“I’ll pray for you” is what you say when you want to make this all about you and your damn faith and how fucking virtuous you are, when we’re the ones on the operating table. If you need to pray only for yourself, for reassurance, we don’t need to know about it. If you’re trying to be helpful you can *ask* if we want your help. It’s a question of consent. If this was about us, not you, you wouldn’t be forcing your beliefs on us.

Comment #82: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  05:50 PM

Not bearing false witness is clearly an injunction against perjury, not lying. See Deut. 19: 15-21 for a full explanation of the commandment, which spells out how the court is to handle suspicion of perjury and what the punishment is to be.

I can see where it could be confusing, given how Christians use the word witness, but if you see the commandment in context there’s really no question.

Not even a meaningful minority of Christians adhere to that interpretation so all you’re arguing is that they’re hypocrites, assholes, and ignorant of the meaning of their own holy texts.

Which is to say, no surprises here.

Comment #83: Dan  on  11/25  at  05:54 PM

In the previous thread for instance you put forward the strawman of your grandmother saying “Is it okay if I pray for you?”, showing that you didn’t get it AT ALL. That’s completly different than her just coming and authoritatively saying “I’ll pray for you”. I would be really pissed about the second, not at all about the first. And probably I’d bite my tongue and say nothing even with the second, because obviously we’re not supposed to have any feelings at all because we’re just infidels.

If your nice grandmother came and told me “Is it okay if I pray for you?” I’d say “No thanks, I do not need it. However if it reassures you in this time of need, you can go ahead and pray for your own peace of mind.” There, that’s all good because she *asked* and did not *presume*. And if I learned later she *had* prayed but had not made it a fucking *show* for her own benefit, because she was scared or anxious, that would *also* be alright.

Now don’t get me started on “God bless you”...

Comment #84: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  05:55 PM

Who knew that F5 was reload?  I am ex DOS type: I just hit CTRL-R.  I am, I confess, unevolved.

Comment #85: seeker6079  on  11/25  at  06:08 PM

If you’re trying to be helpful you can *ask* if we want your help. It’s a question of consent. If this was about us, not you, you wouldn’t be forcing your beliefs on us.

I’m sorry, did you just say that a non-hostile person saying, “I’ll pray for you” to you is just as bad as being raped?  And you’re accusing me of speaking from a position of privilege?

Comment #86: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  06:08 PM

All right.  Since there’s a major derailment going on, I’m leaving the thread so it doesn’t turn into yet another rehash of what a terrible person I am.  Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow USians!

Comment #87: Mnemosyne  on  11/25  at  06:17 PM

You’re not a terrible person, Mnem. You’re just shocking unwilling to deal with your privilege.

” I absolutely do not understand why the religious equivalent of “you’re in my thoughts” is so offensive to atheists that it needs to be stamped out everywhere”

Ah so you’ve gone from deliberately misrepresenting our arguments to outright lying.  Wonderful.

Care to point out where ANYONE said prayer must be stamped out everywhere? (nah, running away with more strawman is easier).

Blacbloc nailed it (and you ran from it, of course, because once again you didn’t win):  The problem is not that someone prays for the atheist.  The problem is telling them you’re praying for them.

If talking to yourself is something you feel is actually going to help this person, but you already know they don’t agree, then why tell them you’re praying for them?  Why not just say “you’re in my thoughts?”

Because – you expect thank you cookies.  You want that person – who you know does not care about your desire to talk to yourself – to thank you for your “kindness”. 

Prayer is a selfish, self-centered activity.  Telling people you’re doing it for them, as if that makes a lick of frigging difference to anyone but you, is a “fuck you” to atheists.

Comment #88: Gypsy Lee  on  11/25  at  06:35 PM

And post #86 confirms what someone else said yesterday - you’re dishonest instead of addressing your privilege. It’s sad and pitiable, coming from such a commenter as you.

Comment #89: Gypsy Lee  on  11/25  at  06:36 PM

BlackBloc has an attitude, Bless His Heart. 

/Old, Mean Christian Lady

Comment #90: Sour Kraut  on  11/25  at  06:45 PM

Berkeley = Sodom to fundies.  It’s been synonymous with hippies for decades now.

When “I’ll pray for you” is used in the context of “I truly care about you” there’s no problem.  When it’s used in the context of “I hate everything you stand for you godless heathen reprobate” it’s a different matter.  Context is all.

The proper response in that latter situation is “don’t bother praying for me, pray for yourself first.”  Remind them of the parable of the mote in the eye.

Comment #91: liberalrob  on  11/25  at  06:55 PM

Dawkins on debates:

I don’t do formal debates, because formal debates where you have two people up on a stage in equal status, and each of them is given 20 minutes to give their point of view, and then 10 minutes for a rebuttal, or whatever, that creates the illusion that you really do have here two equal points of view of equal scientific standing. And so I took the advice of [evolutionary biologist] Stephen Jay Gould, when he was still alive, who would never debate creationists, for exactly that reason. I actually telephoned him and we talked about it for quite a while, and agreed that that should be the best policy.

Comment #92: Liz212  on  11/25  at  07:01 PM

<i>”Not bearing false witness is clearly an injunction against perjury, not lying. See Deut. 19: 15-21 for a full explanation of the commandment, which spells out how the court is to handle suspicion of perjury and what the punishment is to be.”<i>

“Shall not bear false witness AGAINST thy NEIGHBOR” 
So presumably perjury to acquit your neighbor, or to convict a foreigner would be OK?

Comment #93: jefft452  on  11/25  at  07:02 PM

I’m sorry, did you just say that a non-hostile person saying, “I’ll pray for you” to you is just as bad as being raped?

Aaaaannnnd… /end_thread.

No, I never said it was as bad as being raped. God you’re an ass.

Comment #94: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  07:08 PM

From NPR’s Morning Edition on 11/24 regarding On the Origins of Species:

...Popular history holds that the church’s condemnation of Darwin was immediate and universal. Endersby says it’s not that simple. For example, Endersby says Darwin sent a copy of his book to one of the leading members of the Church of England, the Rev. Charles Kingsley.

Kingsley wrote back to Darwin: “It’s just as noble a conception of God to think that he created animals and plants that then evolved, that were capable of self-development, as it is to think that God has to constantly create new forms and fill in the gaps that he’s left in his own creation.” Clearly pleased with this comment, Darwin included it in future editions of On the Origins of Species.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120692695

Comment #95: NobleExperiments  on  11/25  at  07:17 PM

On this whole—I’ll pray for you business—for sincere Christians I know, it is a way of saying, I care about you, and since I believe in prayer and believe it is the most powerful way to fix things that are wrong in your life, and I want those things to be fixed in your life, I am going to do my utmost to do that for you.

For those who don’t believe prayer works, we engage in similar reassuring behavior—you’ll be in my thoughts, (((internet hugs))), I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you—and there is some value in that.  It is communicating to the person, just as the sincere I’ll pray for you, the I’ll pray for you that assumes that prayer works, communicates, that you care about them, that you want them to be happy, that to the extent you have to power to make things better for them, you will do so, and that you want them to know that you care enough about them that their troubles occupy your time. 

For those who think that thinking about another person’s problems or offering a simulacrum of physical contact are completely unhelpful, and a way for the person who offers to do so to feel better about themselves instead of to really fix things for the person to whom that sentiment is communicated—well, they may well be right.

Comforting other people is really hard.  In any circumstance.  People are so different—I’ve known people who want to be left alone to work it out, and not have it brought up at all, people who want to talk it out and simply be listened to, people who can take comfort from advice or another perspective—and that is by no means an exhaustive list.  And yeah, when I was religious, I tried to stay away from telling people I would pray for them unless I was pretty sure they were of a religion and temperment that would make such statements a genuine comfort instead of a slap in the face or a way for me to feel like I was making things better when I in fact was not.  It is not for me to tell other fellow heathens how to react to the “I’ll pray for you” statements, particularly of the fuck you variety, so I won’t.  But what I *choose* to do, with regard to such statements that I feel are heartfelt, is to realize that from their cultural context and their belief system, they mean to communicate to me that they will do everything in their power to make things better, that I am *worth* that in their eyes.  That communication may be meant to make themselves feel better, but it may honestly be meant to make me feel better.

Comment #96: Ismone  on  11/25  at  07:53 PM

The technique they seem to use is to try to break down your morale and stamina for resistance by conspiring with each other; networking.  At the point that they think they’ve broken you down enough, they then move in for the kill—attempting to make you repent so as to convert you.

Comment #97: scratchy888  on  11/25  at  07:55 PM

Fundamentalist Christians believe that Satan is a real being, and that he is always around, dogging people and tempting them to sin.

The bar you’re setting for Christian fundamentalism is about to hit the ground.

Comment #98: Lesly  on  11/25  at  08:03 PM

Ismone: When I need to be comforted, or when I want to comfort people, my natural inclination is to go for the hug. My girlfriend when she’s depressed shies from any physical contact at all. It goes against all my instincts but if I need to comfort her I *must* simply refrain from getting huggy. I need to leave her some space.

Does the fact that my hug is sincere makes it okay that I invade her personal space? No. In fact she let me know quite forcefully the first time I did.

Now imagine a world where 80%+ of the population hugs *all the fucking time*, in sickness or in health, and think of yourself as someone who is very protective of her personal space but has to clamp down for politeness reasons every time someone invades her personal space when they’re sad, and that’s how some of us atheists feel every day with regard to ‘I’ll pray for you’, ‘God bless’, etc etc etc.

Sure my first feeling when I tried ‘the hug’ the first time my gf was upset was a pang of rejection, but I didn’t let it be *all about me* and I saw her POV and changed my attitude. She’s the one who gets to choose what upsets her, not me. So why am I out of line for saying I do think ‘I’ll pray for you’ is something that rankles me, even if it’s not the passive aggressive fundamentalist type?

Comment #99: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  08:08 PM

Physical contact is different than speech, though. 

And I don’t think you’re out of line for saying it rankles you, but I think it is something people can honestly differ over, like Mnem did and I do.  And I definitely agree that it is insensitive/privileged/self-centered for anybody to assume that others will find their conventions appropriate.  Things just seemed to get a little unduly harsh after that, from my perspective.

Comment #100: Ismone  on  11/25  at  08:18 PM

Physical contact is different than speech, though.

Sort of a tautology there. The question is more whether the incomfort that one person if feeling is different than that of the other, and I have to say that that line of inquiry seems to lead to dangerous grounds of either of us minimizing the discomfort the other might feel.

I can understand how physical contact can seem worse to some, since women have to put up with unwanted physical contacts all the time, so they can relate better to the discomfort that my gf would have. In contrast, the religious platitudes tend to be a somewhat rehearsed script that most people find comfort from, and mostly don’t interpret deeply (just like most people ask “How are you?” without any expectation you’ll answer back… I know, since I was the weirdo who always replied truthfully to that question when I was younger because I didn’t get it was just a scripted rhetorical question). Still it bothers me.

Comment #101: BlackBloc  on  11/25  at  08:35 PM

true- if they went for Hitchens we would eviscerate them.
If you have time there’s a 4 (?) part debate with Hitchens and Stephen Fry (who I adore - Hitchens not so much) taking apart a catholic bishop and a member of Parliament - it aired on BBC recently. God I love the UK.
Would it ever air in the US? Very very doubtful :(

Comment #102: Danica Lefse Queen  on  11/25  at  08:50 PM

<i>Do you want a ba-nana?
Peel it down and go m-m-m-m
Do you want a ba-nana?
Dees banana for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoGuoXuLmsk

Comment #103: Wareq  on  11/25  at  08:54 PM

very nice website

http://www.buykamagra.com
http://www.viagracialis.com

Comment #104: bathingap3  on  11/25  at  09:05 PM

I think you’re right about their eagerness to debate the decorous Dawkins, as opposed to, say, Christopher Hitchens.

Comment #105: DonnaDiva  on  11/25  at  09:37 PM

I would pay to see Christopher Hitchens throw up on Ray Comfort’s shoes.  After cursing the name of Mother Theresa, of course.  We could put it on Pay-Per-View.

Comment #106: Captain Bathrobe  on  11/25  at  10:05 PM

@68 (and @71, while we’re at it):

The funny part of that is that, in that limited sense, he’s right—we *aren’t* evolved to have nearly the concern for fetuses that we do for born babies—but it never occurred to him either that there may be a good reason for that, or that it really doesn’t matter because if a full-grown adult was totally dependent on parasitizing your body for its survival, we call that “vampirism” and stake them in the heart… no fictional treatment of vampires rhapsodize about how humans *have* to give of their own blood to keep the poor innocent vampires alive, yet when women have to give of their own flesh and bone, literally, to keep embryos alive, all of a sudden they have to or it’s MURDER!

Actually, there is a movie a bit like that.  It’s called Perfect Creature, and it’s pretty good if you’re willing to except a movie about vampires that falls well outside both action and horror genre conventions.  It’s mostly a drama about a society in which vampires serve as a priesthood for humans who voluntarily give their blood in exchange for the vamps’ charitable/clerical service.  (Except they’re running out of vampires, and kinda don’t know why they haven’t been able to make more, and one of them has gone crackers, and…well, that covers it up to the first spoiler alert.)  To the extent that it can be read as religious allegory, the most obvious one would be that it’s the most sympathetic treatment of the Protestant reformation evar.  Alternatively, in light of your comment, it good be read that we have TWO classes that must be supported by the labor of others at all possible costs: fetuses, and priests.

Comment #107: Byronic Commando  on  11/25  at  10:18 PM

Ok, BC, there’s *accept*, and *except*, and you’re an idiot.  Moving on.

Comment #108: Byronic Commando  on  11/25  at  10:20 PM

Google ad below my post: “Angst and Evolution.”  Man, I have so much of both of those.

Comment #109: Byronic Commando  on  11/25  at  10:22 PM

It wasn’t just the muslim world where science as an exploration of the creator’s bounty was prized; the $^#$%# jesuits have an observatory that does world-class astronomy, and used to do serious research in other fields as well.

Creationism and intelligent design and all the anti-life crap that goes with them are blasphemy, imo. (And as a lapsed episcalopian I think I get to say things like that.) These people are taking the great book of the universe, and the brains that their deity ostensibly gave them, and the best thing they can think of to do with both is to spray-paint potty words on as many pages as they can reach. (Almost literally in the case of this particular dumb stunt.)

Comment #110: paul  on  11/25  at  10:28 PM

I’m hearing you BlackBloc, and my point about physical contact being different has to do with the idea that our bodies are our own, but at least in our current society, we have no freedom from the speech of others.  Physical invasions are considered more severe than speech, even if that speech is v. privileged and condescending.  I happen to agree with that, and I’m guessing you probably do too.  That said, I’ll pray for you really can be used as a put down.  A writer I like, William Ian Miller, once posited that while in honor cultures, the idea was to boast about yourself as much as possible, Christians turned that on its head by being as visibly humble as possible.  Which is really a form of boasting.  So they changed the sort of boast instead of really changing the game at all.  That sort of *show* of piety/loving your enemies is rather common. 

And I’m still getting the sexed up atheism ad.  Google really wants me to go buy dawkins a drink or something.  And be pantheistic.

Comment #111: Ismone  on  11/25  at  10:42 PM

when women have to give of their own flesh and bone, literally, to keep embryos alive, all of a sudden they have to or it’s MURDER!

Well, sure. Women wouldn’t have embryos if they didn’t have sex, which makes them filthy sluts who damn well ought to sacrifice for the special snowflake created by the sacred sperm. What’s unclear about that? smile

Comment #112: benvolio  on  11/25  at  10:57 PM

When Fundagelicals complain that biologists won’t debate them and when Nice Guys® complain that women won’t date them they’re basically speaking the same language.  Both sets of goons have a deep investment in creating or worsening the situations they claim to be reacting against.

Know what you’re up against—and it ain’t human!

Comment #113: scratchy888  on  11/26  at  12:11 AM

So why am I out of line for saying I do think ‘I’ll pray for you’ is something that rankles me, even if it’s not the passive aggressive fundamentalist type?

Eh, just roll with it. Tell them “You do that” and walk away. Or “Good—it’ll keep you out of trouble.” Or if you’re truly pissed, maybe just “Fuck you.” The point is, just get it out of your system, walk away and get on with your life.

Comment #114: Bitter Scribe  on  11/26  at  12:18 AM

Oops HERE’S THE URL concerning those who set out to make relationships worse, so that they can blame you for the results, and score public points for their endeavours.  It pays to understand why some people are so anti-intellectual.  They don’t think they can win on that turf.  But the turf that feels natural to them is that of the regressive consciousness.  We all have it—but we don’t all exploit it to form an ideological system!

Comment #115: scratchy888  on  11/26  at  12:28 AM

Rebecca@#71,

Have you read Octavia Butler’s Bloodchild?

On one hand, it’s her “pregnant man” story, but it’s much deeper and more subtle.  The Tlic are a bigger, stronger, alien species who protect and provide for humans, who in turn bear the Tlic’s young, so they’re basically the stereotype man to the humans’ stereotype woman.  However, if a particular human doesn’t want to bear the young, there’s another human to step into hir place, so it’s not a perfect analogy.

Comment #116: Blue Jean  on  11/26  at  12:29 AM

Damn!  Try this one:  http://home.iprimus.com.au/scratchy888/SHAMANISM_NIETZSCHE.htm

HERE’S THE URL concerning those who set out to make relationships worse, so that they can blame you for the results, and score public points for their endeavours.  It pays to understand why some people are so anti-intellectual.  They don’t think they can win on that turf.  But the turf that feels natural to them is that of the regressive consciousness.  We all have it—but we don’t all exploit it to form an ideological system!

Comment #117: scratchy888  on  11/26  at  12:30 AM

On the adoption of “I’ll pray for you” to mean “fuck you”:

This is a fantastic idea, and we should steal it.  Shopping Spree style.  Let’s start saying “I’ll pray for you” as a direct substitution for “fuck you,” with no change in context or sentence structure whatsoever. As in “I’ll pray for you, asshole!” Or “I’ll pray for you and the horse you rode in on!”

In addition, we could also start using “fuck you” as a legitimate expression of sympathy:

“Things are just so hard right now, what with my divorce, and my dad’s cancer, and being laid off.”

“I’m so sorry, Sheila.  Is there anything I can do?”

“No, I don’t think so.  But thank you for asking.”

“Let me know if you think of something, ok?  In the meantime, fuck you.”

And…SCENE.

Comment #118: Byronic Commando  on  11/26  at  01:44 AM

BlackBloc, #99:

Now imagine a world where 80%+ of the population hugs *all the fucking time*, in sickness or in health, and think of yourself as someone who is very protective of her personal space but has to clamp down for politeness reasons every time someone invades her personal space when they’re sad, and that’s how some of us atheists feel every day with regard to ‘I’ll pray for you’, ‘God bless’, etc etc etc.

Ha!  This strongly reminds me of being an introvert, entertainingly enough.

Comment #119: XtinaS  on  11/26  at  05:53 AM

no, that would be coconuts:

“I guess pineapples are proof that God actually hates us and wants us to starve to death or something.”


there’s nothing inherently wrong with a belief in creation, if that makes you happy. to suggest it, and “intelligent design” have any basis in science is another matter entirely. really, really, really believing something is true doesn’t, by definition make it so (if that were the case, chris cross would still be on the charts, he isn’t). again, if believing in them makes you happy, good for you. however, stop trying to insert them into the science classes in public schools.

what’s really sick, sad and pathetic is that, in order to rationalize their belief in the irrational, the fundies attempt to shove it down everyone else’s throats.

look, if your faith is that shaky, that’s your problem, stop trying to make it mine.

Comment #120: cpinva  on  11/26  at  06:21 AM

A creationist who isn’t consciously lying to you is unconsciously lying to him/herself.

Comment #121: MS  on  11/26  at  06:37 AM

If talking to yourself is something you feel is actually going to help this person, but you already know they don’t agree, then why tell them you’re praying for them?  Why not just say “you’re in my thoughts?”
Because – you expect thank you cookies.  You want that person – who you know does not care about your desire to talk to yourself – to thank you for your “kindness”.

Actually, there are nice people who just don’t know how else to comfort someone, because sometimes there’s NOTHING you CAN do.

That’s where the whole God thing comes from anyway—the world is fucked up, so wouldn’t it be nice if there was a benevolent diety up there who had a plan?  Who loved us and was only letting us suffer to learn a lesson and would step in if we weren’t strong enough to handle it?  Who we could cry to for help, just like crying to mommy when we were small?

Yes, there are way too many people looking for gratification and violating Jesus according Matthew, but when a Christian cares about something and can’t do anything, sometimes they offer to pray b/c that’s the only thing they can really do.

I’d really like it if at least in America we could have enough respect for our fellow citizens that we’d ASK first.

As for the hypocrites who use “I’ll pray for you” as an attention getter or a curse?  Jesus already answered them: they’ve already received their reward.  No heaven for them.

Comment #122: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/26  at  11:29 AM

It always amazes me how small and impoverished their view of their God is. One thing that it never seems to occur to them is the obvious extension of their literal creation.

A God who can create the Universe in six days doesn’t need to create a shiny new world right out of the box, with two people in it and two of every animal. That same God would be perfectly capable of creating an Earth that is billions of years old, with evolution in full swing, dinosaur bones in the ground, and everything else going on.

And he could have done it last Tuesday, with all our memories in place.

Once they’ve decided on a special creation, I’ve never understood why they have to even question, much less argue, the world that science investigates? Whatever physics or biology discovers, that’s obviously what God made happen.

Once again, it’s transparently obvious that what they say they believe and what they actually believe have only a nodding acquaintance.

Comment #123: Lymis  on  11/26  at  01:23 PM

As reluctant as I am to bring up the “I’ll pray for you” thing, I think the reason it irks people so much is it seems like a good way to dismiss what you’re saying.  It’s kinda like saying “You’re wrong and I’ll pray that someday you’ll understand that I’m actually right.”  When the people at my church pull that on me, I feel like they’re implying that my atheism is some sort of silly phase.

Comment #124: leedevious  on  11/26  at  01:46 PM

“I’ll pray for you” is what you say when you want to make this all about you and your damn faith and how fucking virtuous you are, when we’re the ones on the operating table.

Well BlackBloc, it really depends on the person and the context.  If you are dealing with a person who (1) sincerely believes in intercessory prayer, and (2) especially if this is said in a community where everybody essentially shares the same set of religious beliefs or the person saying it comes from such a place, then they probably really mean that they will petition their god, gods, devas, what have you to help heal you.  And they really think it will make a difference.  This is really just a form of magical thinking - trying to take control of a dangerous world using ritual, language, etc.  This person may not be a doctor (so he can’t use medicine to help you), may have no money (can’t help you pay for treatment), but at the very least he or she can do something that could help.  THink of it a s form of “white magick.”

I think it’s nonsense, but can generally tell when someone is being sincere.

Other times “you’ll be in my prayers” is just a regional variation of “you’ll be in my thoughts.”  This is probably a linguistic holdover from when intercessory prayer was taken more seriously.

Again, I generally tell when this is just a turn of phrase.

A fundie, when they say “I’ll pray for you” is inverting this formula - insinuating that your state of grace/holiness/what have you is deficient because they have to pray for it.

Being able to tell the difference is a matter of paying attention to the context and developing empathy for your fellow humans.

Comment #125: Richard Goblin  on  11/26  at  02:03 PM

Oh fer fug’s sake. I work at UC-Berkeley, and this dumbass can line up at the Sather gate entrance with the Moonies, the LaRouchies, the Falun Gongers, several other breeds of fundies and the old Chinese guy who stands on a pickle bucket for eight hours a day with big sign denouncing the New World Order™, chanting “happy happy happy!”

(No kidding: http://www.dailycal.org/article/19455/faces_of_berkeley_happy_man_bearer_of_less-than-ha )

There’s no shortage of comic relief in Berzerkley! Come on over, Comfort, we’ll point and laugh at you too!

Comment #126: Joe Max  on  11/26  at  02:37 PM

Richard: the point is if they cared about me, truly, they would know or *ask* whether it bothers me to use it. The reason why they feel entitled to use ‘I’ll pray for you’, even if they are the nicest people ever, is that their belief system is privileged. You say yourself “if they are in a community where everyone shares that belief”, i.e. if they live in a Christian-dominated society. Saying “I’ll pray for you”, like “Merry Xmas” to everyone regardless of what their faith may be BECAUSE you feel everyone around you MUST be Christian is an expression of that privilege.

(Oh, and just in time to harp about the ‘War on Xmas’ too.)

Comment #127: BlackBloc  on  11/26  at  02:38 PM

...the problem with taking the broad view on the nature of creation is that it really puts a dent in the concept of a petty, jealous God who demands constant worship, narrow-minded obedience, and primitive constrictions on things like diet and clothing choices (etc).

In other words, Mr. Fundie, you want me to believe that the entire 100 billion light-year wide Universe and the tens of billions of galaxies in it was popped into existence in one long weekend by the petulant penis-god of a prehistoric tribe of Levantine goatherds who had never traveled more than ten miles in any direction from the place they were born. Is that it?

Comment #128: Joe Max  on  11/26  at  02:48 PM

The reason why they feel entitled to use ‘I’ll pray for you’, even if they are the nicest people ever, is that their belief system is privileged.

Absolutely.  The sincere are still parochial and unaware that others worship differently or not at all.  They *know* it, empirically, but they live in a world of privilege and don’t think about it.  If you tell them, “That’s okay, I’m an atheist.”  they’d probably apologize, or at least be flustered.

Since praying is supposed to be a good thing, it’s hard to understand why someone would be so upset by it.  If you don’t believe it works, what harm are they doing?

Same for “Merry Christmas” in the traditional sense.  Wishing someone joy on Dec. 25th isn’t a bad thing.

But there are more than enough fundigelicals out there now who have co-opted the phrase so it’s not only just a kind, unthinking saying from privilege, but is an out and out assault

“Merry Christmas” now means “Worship Christ or else I’ll whine that I’m being discriminated against!!!!”  Just like those assholes tried to co-opt the flag and patriotism, when the first thing they did when their candidate lost the election (to a black man, no less) was start whining about secession and illegitimate governement and ignoring the feds.  The fact that the “patriots” and the “Christianists” overlap doesn’t help matters in the slightest.

Comment #129: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/26  at  03:57 PM

The reason why they feel entitled to use ‘I’ll pray for you’, even if they are the nicest people ever, is that their belief system is privileged. You say yourself “if they are in a community where everyone shares that belief”, i.e. if they live in a Christian-dominated society. Saying “I’ll pray for you”, like “Merry Xmas” to everyone regardless of what their faith may be BECAUSE you feel everyone around you MUST be Christian is an expression of that privilege.

Please.  Not everything is about privilege.  I know people from the Deep South who are non-religious who still say “you’re in my prayers” only because it was the phrase in common use.  (Granted privilege may have been why the phrase was in common use, but that is another discussion all together.)  I’m an atheist and I still say ‘goddammit’ (the origin of which is ‘god damn it’ - a request/demand that god actually condemn something) out of habit.  I am not really imploring some imaginary sky-being to smite something or asserting some sort of religious privilege that I cannot actually claim.

I remember that I used to get annoyed when I started working at Legal Aid DC when members of the African American community (particularly older women) would always say ‘god bless you’.  Sure many of them were religious, but what they were really saying was just ‘thank you’ in their particular idiom.  Besides, how much privilege does an older African American woman who lives in Anacostia really have over a white, male attorney who lived in Woodley Park?

The same thing goes with ‘vaya con dios’ - it’s just a phrase that means ‘good bye’ not an endorsement of the existence of a supreme being.

On the other hand, people who believe in intercessory prayer tend to have one foot firmly in (what Jean Gebser would call) the mythical structure of consciousness, where as you and I probably live mostly in the rational structure of consciousness.  If someone who believes in intercessory prayer says that they are going to pray for your cancer to go away they are living out their belief structure.  This belief structure may be privileged (christian in a predominantly christian society) or not (muslim in a predominently christian society).

Absolutely.  The sincere are still parochial and unaware that others worship differently or not at all.  They *know* it, empirically, but they live in a world of privilege and don’t think about it.

Not everyone can be as cosmopolitan as you, Caren.  Some people are quite parochial.  So check your class privilege at the door.  Often times someone operating in the mythical structure of consciousness really is just bartering with their gods for your health and well being and not about shoving those gods down your throat.  It’s pointless and silly, but it is not a malevolent assertion of privilege.  But then again, I’ve noticed that most people who sincerely believe in intercessory prayer or white magick tend not to be in a privileged position in society.  This is the opposite of white evangelical asshats who are in a privileged class, but who don’t really believe in intercessory prayer (in my experience).

Comment #130: Richard Goblin  on  11/26  at  05:07 PM

Most neo-nazi skinhead thugs aren’t exactly in a position of privilege in society either (though the white collars of other groups like National Alliance are, more often than not). That’s why they take and exploit their white privilege when and where they can find it. And, of course, whine that they are entitled to more because they should be above non-whites.

As for class privilege, there used to be a time during the first stirrings of the labor movement when if you were working class you were the most likely to be anticlerical and a freethinker, compared to the bourgeois. I’m tired of this bullshit idea that atheism is the province of the well to do. If anything, the fact that poor people now have to fall back on religion is a demonstration of how low the Left has fallen since then, that it does not seem to be a viable alternative anymore to people’s suffering, and they need to turn to these opiates.

Comment #131: BlackBloc  on  11/26  at  06:03 PM

Okay, I’m an atheist who finds it very touching when people offer to pray for me when I’m in bad straights. This is probably because I find it novel as I’m in the peculiar position of being a third-generation atheist and I’m actually not inundated by theists in that particular way.

Praying is not actually doing nothing. It is a dedication of some amount of time and feeling. I am pleased that—when there are no practical steps to be taken—my friends will take time and feeling for me.

However, I could easily feel otherwise. It would be respectful of people to ask. And—again because I’m a third-generation, outspoken atheist—usually I find that people *will* ask. The evangelical Christians I’m friends with are quite aware of the bludgeon that their faith can be and they don’t want to wield it injuriously. That’s why I’m friends with them.

People seem to have transmuted the original example a bit. The original example was not about a stranger or friendly acquaintance who is using “I’ll pray for you” as a linguistic convention to be nice. It was about someone who is close to you—someone who knows that you are an atheist—and someone who presumably there’s some tension with about religion.

I’m happy to have my evangelical friends pray for me all day long, but if my mother-in-law prayed for me, I’d probably have to bite back my growl. She’s been more than clear that our atheism is “just a phase” and has tried repeatedly to get my husband to go to church. If she were to pray for me, I’d be pretty pissed. If, on the other hand, she were to *ask* if she could pray for us, I’d be over the moon because that would mean that—suddenly—she was taking us seriously. It was fairly clear to me that the original “pray for you” example was meant to be taking place between two people with this kind of relationship.

My personal line is heaven/hell stuff. It is actually very wounding to me for people to suggest that my dead relatives are in heaven or hell or any other kind of afterlife. Afterlifes are a very pretty concept, but *I don’t believe in them*. This doesn’t generally cause me any angst (I’m unfussed by not having an immortal imaginary bit), but in the context of a recently deceased relative, saying “you’ll see them again in heaven” is really just causing me to think “OH GOD I’LL NEVER SEE THEM AGAIN.” That should be obvious, and it is unkind.

However, there are obviously many people who are upset by offers of prayer, and I’m sure there are many people who are not upset by wishes of reunion in heaven. It’s only polite to assume that not all people you encounter are theists, and that non-theists may have different reactions than theists, and thus to ask before you err.

Comment #132: Mandolin  on  11/26  at  06:55 PM

Oh fuck off, Richard Goblin.

There are sincerely nice people who say “I’ll pray for you” because everyone they know is Catholic and it’s a Catholic thing to say.  It honestly never crosses their minds that someone might be an atheist or Jewish, even, and that is living in a world of privilege.

If you mention to these people that you’re not a theist or Muslim or Jewish or whatever, they won’t be offended nor will they be scared.  It’s just that it doesn’t cross their minds before they say it
They understand what they do affects others—oh, but you mean this?  Right now?

Yes.  This.  Right now.  And the failure to be aware of how your personal beliefs are not the same as others is privilege.

Comment #133: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/26  at  11:11 PM

Re: the god of the Fundies is small.

I generally put it this way: The primary claim of young-earth creationism is that God is less imaginative than George Lucas.

(For those keeping score at home: 6000 years vs. >1000 generations, 1 planet of life vs. 1 chock full galaxy)

Comment #134: The Erl  on  11/27  at  01:23 AM

On creationism: The whole rapture culture the young earth thing comes from is the origin of “to be good is to piss off liberals” notion now endemic to conservatism. They act like real world trolls, because they pretty much are real-world internet trolls and have been for their entire life.

On the eternal debate carried over from last thread: It is amazing how every single visibility battle on the planet needs a Privilege 101 lecture all over again. From the top, privilege is just a thing we all have of one variety or another, it does not make us bad people to benefit from it or to have it, because it’s pretty much impossible to lack all privilege. A great example of this principle is transexuality. Anyone not trans is cissgendered and has cis privilege. They will not have to face things that trans people do and take those things for granted. However, very few trans people can avoid having male privilege at some point in their life. Either they are a flavor of transmen and have male privilege these days (a threatened male privilege but male privilege nonetheless) or they are transwomen and had male privilege growing up and thus benefits stemming from that, though they lack contemporary male privilege.

It’s not a value judgment, it’s a statement. The system is such that you received the following benefits not reserved for group X. In terms of the unending atheism prayer debate, the privilege is a society where religion is expected and which the atheist is always made to feel like an outsider and where those wishing to offer comfort feel free to assume a level of religiosity upon the one they are comforting.

This privilege is most manifest in the fact that people are getting upset to have this pointed out to them. But, they cry, I never used to have to think about this, can’t I just assume what I did before?

The emotion captured by that statement is textbook privileged response. Something invisible is now visible. There is a privilege one has that one is aware of.

Whether or not that says anything about our character is entirely in how we adapt to that information. On its own privilege just is. Otherwise everyone would be like the Calvinists believed, evil at birth, because privilege is rather unavoidable of some form or another.

So everyone on the but, but, but side of the fence. Take a deep breath, redo your Privilege 101 lessons and remember the transformation you needed the first time you discovered your white privilege or maybe your male privilege or your heterosexual privilege or your cis privilege or your etc, etc, etc…

Comment #135: Cerberus  on  11/27  at  04:10 AM

I don’t do this very often but…post 16 was great.

From what I understand, every living thing on this planet evolved from a simple common ancestor (or several) some 3.8 billion years ago. 3.8 BILLION YEARS! God is that old, and much older - maybe significantly older than the universe itself.

These creationists actually think they can fathom such a being, and they dare to sneer at scientific efforts to understand our world and the origins of all life. What a pathetic, withered mindset some of them have.

Comment #136: Nil  on  11/27  at  04:28 AM

He said to them, ‘Even you—don’t you understand? Can’t you see that nothing that goes into someone from outside can make that person unclean,
because it goes not into the heart but into the stomach and passes into the sewer?
And he went on, ‘It is what comes out of someone that makes that person unclean.
For it is from within, from the heart, that evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder,
adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly.
All these evil things come from within and make a person unclean.’

As a person of faith, I believe there is more than enough evil inside me that I don’t need to worry about outside temptations as much as I need to worry about what comes from inside me.  I also know that there are real ills in this world - pretty much the same ills that plagued Jesus’s time: hunger, disease, injustice, violence, inequality.  If you are going to take a pass on fighting actual ills for fighting something you think is the ‘root cause’ of some of those ills, you better have rock-solid cause-effect evidence.  Otherwise, you need to focus on the actual ills.  People should spend less time pointing out the splinters in others’ eyes and focus on their own.

I heard on NPR about a CoE bishop who upon reading Origin, or another evolution related book around the time of publishing, thought that a God that set up a system whereby the species we have today resulted from evolution is a more powerful God than one who made every species as they are. Link:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120692695

Many Christians seem to want ‘proof’ of what we believe, which I feel is a misplaced want.  If there were definitive evidence proving what I believe, I would not want it, as it would destroy my faith and make it knowledge.  Knowledge and faith are different - I don’t have faith the sun comes up every morning, I know it to be true.

Comment #137: winstongator  on  11/27  at  08:58 AM

“Merry Christmas” now means “Worship Christ or else I’ll whine that I’m being discriminated against!!!!”

Yeah, and I really hate the bastards for doing that

Comment #138: jefft452  on  11/27  at  11:19 AM

And the failure to be aware of how your personal beliefs are not the same as others is privilege.

No, you’re talking about ignorance.  ‘Privilege’ requires that you are embedded in the power structure.  One can be quite aware that people have other beliefs and still exercise their privilege.  Take every last white evangelical who knows that there are Muslims, and wants to keep Muslims in second class status.

Oh fuck off, Richard Goblin.

How articulate you are.  The power of your argument here has really persuaded me.

Comment #139: Richard Goblin  on  11/27  at  01:11 PM

No, you’re talking about ignorance.  ‘Privilege’ requires that you are embedded in the power structure.  One can be quite aware that people have other beliefs and still exercise their privilege.  Take every last white evangelical who knows that there are Muslims, and wants to keep Muslims in second class status.

Privilege is far-reaching. The ability to get by in society without knowing that other beliefs exist means that your belief is the one on top of the pyramid.

Comment #140: Rebecca  on  11/27  at  06:56 PM

not boiling a kid in it’s mother’s milk.
Comment #26: Jimmy on 11/25 at 01:26 PM

Okay, this is the second time this “funny” commandment that I guess people think no one follows is mentioned on Pandagon.  Like the not mixing clothing fibers one.

It’s the basis of the idea of kosher separation of meat foods from milk foods.  The way it’s phrased suggests it’s actually based on some form of respect for animals.  Other kosher rules about how an animal is to be slaughtered also seem designed to minimize the animal’s suffering, though they’re not perfect in that regard, obviously.

“God hates shrimp” is also a kosher rule—no shellfish.  There are people who do follow these rules today, very carefully.

I’m still completly weirded out by the rather small-minded concept that God would have a gender at all, when it predates the creation of humans and all animals known to have a sex.
Comment #59: BlackBloc on 11/25 at 03:33 PM

Uh, their book tells them man is made in God’s image.  That’s why.

“Shall not bear false witness AGAINST thy NEIGHBOR”
So presumably perjury to acquit your neighbor, or to convict a foreigner would be OK?
Comment #93: jefft452 on 11/25 at 06:02 PM

Since other biblical laws make a distinction between people in your tribe and others (like the rules against making tribespeople your slaves), this might not be an erroneous interpretation.  It’s okay to say that the other tribespeople over the hill eat their young, because it’s okay for you and your tribespeople to hate them.

Comment #141: oldfeminist  on  11/27  at  09:46 PM

The way it’s phrased suggests it’s actually based on some form of respect for animals.

Actually, the only reason it was mentioned in the first place is because it was a practice of their Philistine neighbors to do so in their worship of their gods, which of course made it an abomination in the eyes of Jahweh.

Comment #142: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/27  at  11:48 PM

There are people who do follow these rules today, very carefully.

I was not aware that the existence of some people who attach intense importance to a set of rules makes them not-silly. I believe I owe my friend that plays World of Darkness an apology for calling his LARP rules-of-prestige dramallama argument with the Regional Storyteller stupid. Someone gets more experience for officially being involved with the larp and setting up the venue, even though a different person is actually hosting it and doing all the work. And something about XP for donated canned food. I don’t fucking know. it was stupid.

Because LARP is stupid. and kashrut is stupid. I say this as a jew. It’s stupid.

Comment #143: karpad  on  11/28  at  01:05 AM

Karpad:  “I was not aware that the existence of some people who attach intense importance to a set of rules makes them not-silly.”

Of course not.  I’m not saying that kosher rules are sensible.  I think the just-so story that they were developed for actual health reasons is as bogus as the sympathetic magic email I’ve seen going around recently that says that e.g. tomatoes are good for the heart because they have four chambers like a heart (not least because tomatoes don’t all have four chambers by any means).

But because Christianity is privileged, the biblical rules Christians choose to follow are treated as if they make sense while other rules not followed by Christians are posed as implicitly silly. 

I’m pretty sure no one who’s trying to appeal to the masses would say “if you follow the rule about homosexuality, that’s as silly as following the rule about honoring the Sabbath day,” or compare it to the rule against idolatry, because that would offend a lot of Christians who do think you’re supposed to honor the Sabbath day and not worship idols.  Yet all of those rules are in Leviticus.

If someone wants to appeal to non-Christians, they might want to avoid mocking Jewish practices. 

Or they might not.  It seemed to me that some who find this funny might not realize it is a Jewish practice and might offend people they didn’t mean to offend.

Comment #144: oldfeminist  on  11/28  at  08:40 AM

If someone wants to appeal to non-Christians, they might want to avoid mocking Jewish practices.

I don’t think it’s so much mocking Jewish practices as saying “These Christianists want us to follow one abomination-law in Leviticus, but none of the others.”

Comment #145: Rebecca  on  11/28  at  11:06 AM

All this talk of fruit (bananas, pineapples, cocounuts) combined with the sheer asshattery displayed by so many people who worship my God is making me long for a Mai Tai. A very strong Mai Tai.

Comment #146: stonebiscuit  on  12/01  at  03:04 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.