The California Aggie

A classic example of defining a debate by its tone, rather than the merits of the arguments. "This scientist was, like, so totally mean to Christians, of which I am certainly not one. Anymore. Therefore, his arguments are invalid, and he's equivalent to nutjobs like Ray "bananaman" Comfort."

Obviously this columnist is not much of an atheist yet, because she, like the majority of believers, has not understood the difference between pitiful contempt and hate. Real atheist don't 'hate', that is the xian way. We see the xians for what they are, superstitious killjoys. To hate them is like hating a brick.

Madeline wrote: "Christians may refer to themselves as a "flock," but they aren't sheep. It takes courage to say you believe in something that can't be proven. When scientists formulate hypotheses, they are vulnerable to critique, and they must conduct research to remove all doubt. Religious believers must deal with the same vulnerability, but with the knowledge that they can never prove the existence of a God. Religion takes bravery." With respect to Christians, (Christ-cult delusionists), I'm afraid that you seem to be unable to differentiate 'courage' and 'bravery' from gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, irrationality, willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, credulity, lies, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity. Madeline wrote: "It seems like scientists and Christians could see the struggle to follow one's convictions as a common ground, not a schism." Absolute codswallop. Scientists SEEK 'truth'. Christians are foolishly certain that they are in POSSESSION of 'truth', in the form of the myths, superstitions, fairy-tales, fables, and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and peripatetic, militant, marauding, murdering, genocidal goat-herders... along with later embellishments and midrashic scriptural updating spurred by 'modern' (2,000 years ago) Hellenistic philosophical thought (Stoic, and Cynic, mainly). That is what we call STUPID. Religion represents a series of roadblocks smack-dab in the middle of the path to knowledge. >>> “Any intellectually honest person will admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. Religious believers do not…. an average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse.” ~ Sam Harris

The New Atheism is nothing but a long series of circus performances (see DuckPhup stringing together long chains of invectives just for the emotional effect). One can state their nonbelief and criticize belief just as effectively without the New Atheism's frat-boy antics. If you don't believe in a god or Gods, the truth of your claims doesn't change no matter how often you climb on top of the back of an elephant and scream it while juggling bowling pins in a court jester's outfit. The New Atheism judges its utility based on how offensive it can be. I'm sorry, folks. But that sounds a lot like too many of the religious people I know. I think I'll pass on that.

First of all, last time I checked, I haven't heard any cases of Atheists blowing up abortion clinics. Second, hate is a very strong word for you to use as your title, when in fact at no time did Meyers say he hated religious people. What you fail to understand, is that this "hate" that "you" felt is something that you have personalized and interpreted in the wrong way. The "hate" as you put it, that atheists have for religion, is something that you in fact probably share. A simple analogy would be, a starving child has a can of food in front of her. Her father tells him that opening the can is a Sin, and her mother wants to tell her child, that all she has to do is open the can and eat. So now, who do you "hate"? Why does the father want to can to remain sealed? I can't hate either of them. The situation just makes me sad, and uneasy, and it makes me feel like I need to cry out INJUSTICE and let the world know about this ridiculousness, I feel I need convince the mother and the child that there is no Sin, and to live and be free from that bastard of a father. That's the "pity, hate, contempt" that you thought you felt in that room. Like the earlier comment said. Real atheist don't have time for hate. Real unadulterated hate is something that can only be manifested by dogma. That kind of hate I am proud to say is something Atheist's are not capable of. I am not going to apologize for Meyers use of language, you're an adult, and for you to take great offense at something that really wasn't meant to be directly offensive to you is strange to say the least. Ear muffs! The key here is patience! As a new Atheist you are probably trying to find a nice spot in society that doesn't separate you too from you former religious self. Meyers is old, he's a scientist, sometimes it's hard to talk to people who can't seem to grasp concepts that you learned in middle school science class. It frustrates Atheist, and sometimes you need a little humor to vent the frustration. Trust me no one is getting kicked in the testicles.

Great article! These odd atheists in the comment section are just proving her point. Angry people sound silly.

"Angry people sound silly." That's your comment? Profound. I think you have brought an unspeakably intelligent concept to this debate. Herman, it's close minded attitudes like yours that make Atheist cringe at the thought of carrying on an intellectual conversation with anyone who dismisses an opposing viewpoint as "sounding silly". Again you misinterpret, we aren't angry, we just pity you for your self imposed ignorance. We are sad to see you just plug your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalala" when someone has an idea different from your own. But you are right Herman, this conversation is silly. Only YOU can open you eyes and unplug your ears, and make sense this "silly" world around us. I really hope you can.

Okay, first off: just because something doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean it takes courage to believe it. See Asch's conformity experiments. Second, professing a ridiculous belief as if you completely believe it is a common form of gaining status for humans. See this article on Professing and Cheering. And if it is courageous to believe in things with no evidence, then in order to be as brave as possible, shouldn't we all pick the most ridiculous, least-supported belief to adhere to, in order to be as brave as possible? The problem is, you've started from your conclusion (it's okay to believe in Christianity) and worked backwards to a justification (it's brave to believe things with no evidence). Had you started from the justification, you wouldn't have ended up at Christianity at all. You failed the bottom line test.

Okay, apparently links in HTML aren't allowed, so here's the three links I put in there: Asch's conformity experiements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments article on Professing and Cheering: http://lesswrong.com/lw/i6/professing_and_cheering/ bottom line test: http://lesswrong.com/lw/js/the_bottom_line/

"Religious believers must deal with the same vulnerability, but with the knowledge that they can never prove the existence of a God. Religion takes bravery." That is about the most stupid quote I have ever seen.

You don't know the difference between science and religion? Religion starts with a conclusion and science starts with questions. Religion has crept into our daily culture carrying along its lack of critical thinking. Hard to believe people can be scammed by such stupid and obvious scams that we see every day. You need to look up the definition of the words 'bravery' and 'courage'. If it takes courage to believe in a myth or the scientific method, then what words would you use for someone who risks life and limb to save someone's life in a fire or any number of acts of bravery? It didn't work to sit around and watch the right wing religious extremists take over the U.S. for the last 30 years, they just feel more and more justified to dismantle the Constitution and bring in their form of Sharia law. So, yes, atheists need to stand up and push back against backward thinking and move everyone into the 21st century. If we use more critical thinking we will reduce racism, sexism, money scams, health scams, and environmental destruction.

'Myers accused creationists of having "knee-jerk reactions [to science] that shut down any intelligent response." Yet when asked how he reacts to creationists in his evolution course, Myers joked about being tempted to "kick them in the balls." Myers can't see that he's stooped to the same level as a group he calls "stupid."' After Myers has his initial reaction he explains to his students why evolution is science and why creationism isn't. I'm a professional economist. Whenever I hear someone saying, for instance, that the country should return to the gold standard I get an initial urge to grab them by the collar and yell at them for being stupid. However I don't do this. Instead I explain the reasons why in the 1930s every Western country abandoned the gold standard and why it would be a definitely bad idea to go back to it.* Myers does the same thing when he is confronted with creationism in his biology classes. *Here's a practical reason for not going back to the gold standard. Assuming a gold price of $1,000 per ounce the total value of all the gold ever mined is estimated at $4.5 trillion. In the US there's more than $8.3 trillion in circulation or in deposit.

"Many Christians are not creationists." Wrong! All Christians are creationists. They may or may not be *young earth creationists, but they are creationists. A creationist, by definition believes that God created the world and the life on Earth. Name ONE Christian who does not believe that. "It takes courage to say you believe in something that can't be proven." Nah, it takes gullibility and strength in numbers. Courage is reserved for those who are actually facing opposition and persecution. But then again, Christians feel persecuted, so maybe it takes courage because of that delusion "I grew up Methodist, but now I'm an atheist." I do not believe you. You sound pretty much like a Christian, not an atheist. It takes courage to be an atheist in the US where we have whopping Christian majority. "Scientists come from many different spiritual backgrounds. To characterize them all as ignorant is offensive and halts the scientific process." a. He did not do so. b. Calling out the ignorance of the "spiritual" or the "relgious" accelerates scientific progress, it most certainly does not halt it. This is because religion is superstition based on no evidence. And there is nothing quite as important in science as evidence.

Hello there. Might I suggest you do the following before you consider writing about atheism ever again, ever: * Learn what a "creationist" is. * Learn what "courage" is, and try to see that saying that "it takes courage to believe in something that can't be proven," is at best woefully devoid of context and at worse sheer idiocy. * Develop a sense of humor and try to understand there's a difference between PZ Myers saying that he's "tempted" to punch creationist students in the balls and, say, Scott Roeder being "tempted" to shoot abortion doctors in the head. Hint: PZ's students still have their testicles; George Tiller no longer has a head. * So you might want to learn the meaning of the word "extremist" while you're at it, too. * Look up the difference between the words "tenant" and "tenet". Clue: a tenant rents a property or room. Good luck with all that! Pete

I was raised a devout Christian. I have not forgotten what it was like to believe in God. Nonetheless - I much prefer the style used by PZ Myers to that used by, for example, Chris Mooney. It is far better to face a sincere disagreement than a huge pile of squirming amorphous sophistry. Likewise, it is better to know that someone considers you foolish or ignorant, than to have them tell you sweet little lies.

I guess Methodists don't read the Gospel of John. 25Jesus answered, ‘I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; 26but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. 27My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. It's not an insult; it's one of the oldest metaphors for Christians.

Militant, adj. fighting: engaged in warfare: using violence: militaristic. Don't try to excuse it with weaselly scare quotes. "Militant" is not an adjective that applies to PZ Myers. Call him outspoken, even strident if you like, but there's nothing violent or militaristic about his methods.

This is an opinion piece? It's just a string of largely unrelated declarative sentences, on par with an eighth grade English essay. It has neither imagination, substance, nor bite. Maybe you should stop worrying about how big a meanie P.Z. Myers is, and concentrate on becoming a better writer.

Professor Myers linked to this article, ensuring a torrent of intellectually circumscribed comments from his vapid koojas. My advice to them: if you all are going to share a brain, then at least get one that works.

"Look up the difference between the words 'tenant' and 'tenet'. Clue: a tenant rents a property or room. Good luck with all that!" Did you correct your fellow noxious mediocrity shonny when he/she/it wrote 'sensored' for censored on PZ's blog? "First of all, last time I checked, I haven't heard any cases of Atheists blowing up abortion clinics." No, but atheists Stalin and Mao killed 60,000,000 between them, which is far more than any Christian pope, prince, potentate, or clinic shooter.

I should add the caveat that not all of Prof. Myers' fans are vapid koojas/noxious mediocrities/etc. Some of them are decent, which I found out from interacting with them.

Well, yes, R O'Brien, I did come here via Pharyngula. Contrary to what you and others seem to believe, that doesn't mean we're all part of some "hive mind" that swarms around doing PZ's bidding. We're all individuals ("Yes, we ARE all indivduals.") I find plenty to disagree with at Pharyngula too, especially the comments section. Tiny little difference, though: I wasn't responding to a comment to a blog entry here, but a putative piece of journalism. I think it's reasonable for me to point out her tenuous grasp on the tenant/tenet issue, *in addition* to the other more substantive problems with her piece. But I admit, you got us on the Stalin/Mao death tolls. I mean, who can forget Mao's famous "Great Leap Forward to Atheism" slogan, and Stalin's "Kill a Counter-Revolutionary for Darwin" campaign. Sigh. They were tyrants who killed (and caused untold suffering) in pursuit of their ideology, part of which included the espousal of atheism as a way of countering other, rival ideologies. They weren't, first and foremost, atheists who took their atheism to murderous ends. Get the difference? Find me an example of anyone who claimed to kill *in the name* of atheism, and you might have the germ of the beginning of a hint of a point worth making.

I enjoyed this! Typo aside, you are a strong writer. I'm an atheist and a microbiologist. I've never understood why so many atheists believe that to be non-religious, you have to be anti-Christian. These atheists are really proving your point. I don't know if it's sad or hilarious. Let's go with hilarious.