Comments by Shuggy

51. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240117 by Shuggy on August 30, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Thanks, Brosheiesq. I think it was the contradiction between "was/were" and "Nothing" that threw me off the scent. "If there was nothing" would imply past condition. English is not a straightforward language.

You don't hear the name "present unreal conditional sentence" every day, but you them every day. "If you were the only girl in the world and [if] I were the only boy...."

Here's a curly one. Should the second "was" be "were" too? "Because if there were Nothing there would be Nobody to ask why there were Nothing."? I think not, because after the first Nothing the condition has been made real.

52. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239968 by Shuggy on August 30, 2008 at 4:32 pm

68. Comment #239960 by ChicagoMolly

Why is there Something rather than Nothing?

Because if there was* Nothing there would be Nobody to ask why there was Nothing. The (weak, I think) anthropic principle.

What a silly-billy question.

Indeed.

*were?

53. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239605 by Shuggy on August 30, 2008 at 2:35 am

And the ultimate ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing?

I seem to remember that RD deals with it in TGD but I can't find the reference. I would like to ask some metaquestions about it:
1. Does there have to be a reason?
2. What would an answer look like?
3. What kind of answer is "Because something that is not something conjured something into existence"?
4. Doesn't the previous answer imply that God is not something, i.e. does not exist?

54. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239595 by Shuggy on August 30, 2008 at 1:39 am

All right!!! Down the toilet I'll go then ;)

Reminds me of the mondegreen,

Glory be unto the Father
and unto the Son
and into the hole he goes!

Hang on! There is no Purgatory!

I wonder what they did with all the people who were there when they abolished it?

55. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239580 by Shuggy on August 30, 2008 at 12:17 am

What is the problem here, haven't they heard of cremation, which is superior and cheaper to burial anyway?

What, contribute to global warming? Over my dead body!

I might as well now tell the story of Father Murphy in the dentist's chair.

"And did y' hear, Father, that Bridget O'Flaherty's been behaving like a prostitute?"

The priest fainted.

When he came round he said, "What did you say?"

"Bridget O'Flaherty's been behaving like a prostitute."

"Oh, thank God, I thought you said a Protestant."

56. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #239566 by Shuggy on August 29, 2008 at 11:48 pm

We will no doubt hear it asserted that Darwin dealt a death blow to religious belief.

That, it should be said, is quite untrue. What it dealt a death blow to was one very poor argument for the existence of God, namely the argument from design.

Or rather, it dealt a death blow to the idea that the argument from design made God necessary. With hindsight, Rabbi Sacks may call the argument from design "one very poor argument" but when the Beagle sailed it was the main argument, and considered compelling. It is only thanks to Darwin that he can call it "very poor".

In fact none of the most important truths can be proved: that right is sovereign over might, that it is better to be loved than feared, that every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, that peace is nobler than war, forgiveness greater than revenge, and hope a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate.

All noble sentiments in general, but all with particular exceptions. The God of the Hebrew scriptures seems to disagree with all of them at some time or another. They can't be proved because they aren't universally true at every time and place. Exploring the exceptions is an interesting excercise.

The Bible forbids cruelty to animals. This is the polar opposite of the view of Descartes, that animals lack souls and therefore can be used as we will.

Not quite polar. Evolution demonstrates that we are not a separate creation from animals but related to them in the same way we are to our cousins, only (much) more distantly. The biblical view says we are fundamentally different from them and our considerations take absolute precedence over theirs. Our duty to them is only one of "stewardship".

The believer might wonder, ...
The believer might mention other mysteries ...

Rabbi Sacks is having a bob both ways, flirting with the argument from design without either embracing it or rejecting it. These questions are amenable to the scientific method, and may well be answered quite soon. What will he do then? Find a narrower Gap to put his G-d in?

he might cite the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people.

Is this really any more mysterious than the curious paradox that a colourless liquid like water, spread sufficiently thin, generates rainbow-coloured patterns?

57. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #239084 by Shuggy on August 29, 2008 at 3:15 am

50. Comment #238410 by decius on August 28, 2008 at 5:49 am

The word "spiritual" implies acceptance of the existence of incorporeal entities like the soul. All available evidence favours monism over dualism, therefore I treat declarations of "spirituality" with the same contempt that I reserve to all unsubstantiated claims rooted in wishful thinking.

I'm not sure that it does imply that. Where do you put Einstein's God, and isn't it only human to express ideas like the appreciation of art and being in love, and what music makes us feel, in terms of incorporeal entities, or at least words like "spiritual"? How about incorporeal entities like memes and memeplexes? Being human involves interacting with a host of incorporeal entities. As computer programmes progress to higher and higher levels, they behave more and more like incorporeal entities. Why else do we swear at them?

58. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239062 by Shuggy on August 29, 2008 at 1:36 am

75. Comment #239006 by robotaholic on August 28, 2008

Everyone thinks O'Bama is a good speaker...well I don't! He sounds like a preacher all the time...srsly has anyone else ever noticed it?

In the US, anyone trying to sell anything sounds like a preacher all the time - snakeoil, informercials... I first put 2 2 together when I heard the shill at Seaworld San Diego for Shamu the Killer Whale.

59. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239057 by Shuggy on August 29, 2008 at 1:22 am

...of earth history, each small change enabling a species to the rigours of it's (sic) environment - the struggle for survival through natural selection leading to the survival of the fittest.

doesn't properly unravel the last three ideas; struggle for survival; natural selection; survival of the fittest. It should read more like

...of earth's history, each small change adapting a species to the rigours of its environment - the survival of the fittest of each generation by natural selection leading to more highly adapted species that diverge from each other in different environments eventually leading to new species.

Only a small part of the story but what can you do in one paragraph?

I can't believe it was only the apostrophe or half the greengrocers' signs of the English-speaking world would have blacked-out parts.

60. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #236638 by Shuggy on August 25, 2008 at 12:54 am

429. Comment #235916 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:14 pm

I think that it's probable that there was a preacher from Nazareth

Well there's an internal contradiction right there. Nazareth is in Galilee (around what is now Lake Tiberius) but Bethlehem is near Jerusalem in Judea (now part of Palestine). There was confusion between a sect, the Nazarenes or Nazarites (followers of Nazar, perhaps?) and the place, Nazareth. But "of Nazareth" has passed into the folklore along with everything? else about Jesus.

61. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235858 by Shuggy on August 23, 2008 at 9:10 pm

I am currently reading Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman, and in part of it he goes into an analysis of just how much of early Christianity could possibly have heard the word from original eye witnesses, based on the growth rates and geographic distribution. Basically, all but a tiny group got it second, third, forth, etc. hand, with the whisper game mutating the message all along (this was before the writings we have copies of today).

This assumes that there really was a historical Jesus who lived early in the first century of whom there were "original eyewitnessses". But like (other) urban legends, if you trace them back, they have no beginning. The one about the man who wakes up after a night of pleasure to find the woman gone and WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF AIDS written on the mirror in lipstick can be traced back to the Plague (with blood instead of lipstick). We know that many elements of the Jesus story have been grafted on from other religions. Why not all?

62. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235855 by Shuggy on August 23, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Would it be intellectually dishonest to say "Many people find evolution to be compatible with a belief in a divine being (creator even), but the evidence is against the timescale given by a literal reading of the bible"? Every element is literally true, one is just keeping silent about "But I find their belief to be unsustainable". This is very close to RD saying he was not teaching atheism, he was teaching against Creationism.

The thing is that if kids (or adults) can get to understand evolution (and perhaps only then), the next step is to see that this makes God unnecessary, and it is another step to see that if you need not believe in God, you logically ought not to.

If you tell them at the outset that they'll have to abandon God before they can understand evolution, they won't be prepared to take that first step.

63. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235851 by Shuggy on August 23, 2008 at 8:41 pm

247. Comment #235421 by Mitchell Gilks on August 23, 2008 at 2:54 am

Comment #235395 by Shuggy

You need a far better grasp of evolution...I am baffled that you could accept it when you think it states that specific animals sprout ad hoc limbs...

I didn't of course. I was referring to evolution by natural selection over the usual large number of generations, in answer to somebody mocking the very idea of fish being able to fly. Of course the limbs are ad hoc. Everything in evolution is ad hoc. Evolution has no conception of present or future function because evolution has no conception of anything.

Flying fish have adapted already existing appendages over thousands of generations to preform an additional function. Their fins that have been reshaped by natural selection were already in existence. Anything that is shaped by natural selection necessarily must already be in existence in order to be shaped.

This is, ahem, a red herring. Evolution shapes, encourages, discourages and vetoes. I'm not sure if the fins grew from the finless precursors (Amphioxus, anyone?) by mutation or just some lesser variation, but change in function is so basic it hardly needs special attention, when we're talking to, or rather at, someone who doesn't seem to have the beginning of a clue about evolution.

64. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235401 by Shuggy on August 23, 2008 at 1:38 am

209. Comment #235367 by cerebate on August 22, 2008 at 10:45 pm

... A child stands up and says he doesn't read about evolution because he fears it would cause him to stop believing in religion. ... what do you'll think would be an appropriate response? (bearing in mind this is a child we are talking about).
a. Stick to the if religion contradicts science discard religion.
b. Point out that other religious folk somehow manage to make their religion compatible with science (while suppressing the urge to talk about how stupid this is)
c. Move on?
d. Other options?

d. Something like "Let's look at how we come to believe things. (Maybe a good teacher would elicit the next responses:)
Many things our parents teach us, and they're usually right.
Some things our parents teach us, like Santa Claus, we learn that they don't really believe, and we stop believing them too.
Some things we grow up to find our parents were mistaken, and that can be sad, but it's necessary.
Some things we find out for ourselves ... (elicit: reading, experience, etc.)

Now, how can we learn about how the earth was made, and how life came about? ... etc.

If this weren't a TV programme and you had a lot of time (and weren't in the school system), I guess with "I don't read about evolution because I fear it would cause me to stop believing in religion", you'd ask something like: "Well now, what would happen if you stopped believing your religion?"

65. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235395 by Shuggy on August 23, 2008 at 1:21 am

200. Comment #235350 by Mitchell Gilks on August 22

Fish don't ... sprout appendages for any reason,

You (and the troll whom I will not feed) can't have seen flying fish. I have, caught on moonless nights using torches, to which they are attracted. Their membranous wings (extended pectoral fins) enable them to glide for many metres, after getting up speed using the extended lower lobe of their tail. It is perfectly clear how and why they evolved, and since they are tropical, they may well be among the remarkable adaptations that led Darwin to the fact of evolution.

If the selection pressure continues, there's nothing to stop them from evolving aerial propulsion and becoming able to fly as far as they like (as mammals and reptiles did, several times), but that probably won't happen.

And they're delicious.

66. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235243 by Shuggy on August 22, 2008 at 3:41 pm

22. Comment #235003 by Richard Dawkins on August 22, 2008 at 10:58 am

I tried to persuade those children to abandon their belief in CREATIONISM. That is NOT the same as persuading them to become atheists. I was scrupulously careful to do no such thing.

That's a fearfully difficult distinction to draw, when these people regularly chant "I believe in one God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, maker of all things visible and invisible. By him all things were made, and without him was not anything made that was made." In their book, God is the Creator and the Creator is God. This way of thinking is simply incompatible with a scientific worldview.

67. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234594 by Shuggy on August 21, 2008 at 5:48 pm

"Davis..." US District Judge Richard Smoak recounted in his ruling "...went so far as to lift the shirts of female students to insure the letters 'GP' or the words 'Gay Pride' were not written on their bodies."

How far did he lift them, I wonder? Far enough to ensure that the words did not encircle their nipples? And if they had been wearing those messages concealed on their persons, what business was that of his? I suspect that their shirts were not the only items of clothing that got lifted.

68. A flea we missed?

Comment #232348 by Shuggy on August 18, 2008 at 1:48 am

Deviating on to the topic for a moment, I was wondering if there would be any mileage in writing our own pseudofleas to parody the other fleas. I'm thinking "The FSM Delusion", "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is not Great" etc. We could create Delusion Confusion.

It might not be necessary to write the books, just create the covers and write some blurbs and reviews.

69. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #228388 by Shuggy on August 12, 2008 at 2:08 am

45. Comment #228030 by Sargeist on August 11, 2008 at 10:15 am

The documentary I saw recently was pretty forthright in its depiction of pagans jumping around naked, in fields, in hotel rooms, harassing young impressionable police officers from the mainland. I didn't like the bit with the big man made of twigs or whatnot, but the rest of it seemed pretty good.

I hope you saw the 1973 documentary narrated by Christopher Lee, not the 2006 documentary narrated by Ellen Burstyn.

70. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #228378 by Shuggy on August 12, 2008 at 1:29 am

20. Comment #228277 by Darwinorlose on August 11, 2008 at 6:14 pm

When I was a young lad I had read a story about Muhammed's pet cat. Apparently when it was time to pray Muhammed found that his cat had fallen asleep on the sleeve of his robe. Instead of disturbing the cat he cut of the sleeve so that his cat could sleep undisturbed. I was very touched by that story.

Curious. In China, the same story is told about Emperor Ai of the Han dynasty and his male lover, Dong Xian, and as a result same-sex love is known as "The Love of the Cut Sleeve". I wonder if a link can be traced, or it's just minds thinking alike? Elsewhere it might be just told as a story of lateral thinking.

Do they have no guide-dogs in Saudi Arabia? Guide-cats? Or do the suppression-of-vice-promotion-of-virtue people break white walking sticks over their knees too?

71. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224001 by Shuggy on August 3, 2008 at 11:36 pm

I don't know when I'll see the show, but I can't wait to learn how the behaviour of HIV-infected prostitutes in Kenya demonstrates natural selection.

Totally agree with Sarmatae1 and memphis matt about US "documentaries". Saw one about ancient machines, taking the claim that Heron of Alexander (?) built a chariot that could levitate in a temple seriously. They spectulated that it could be done with lodestone, using a small high-tech hovering globe (fast-acting feedback adjusting the magnet strength) to illustrate. No mention of the centuries of technology required to get from one to the other.

72. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220698 by Shuggy on July 28, 2008 at 11:29 pm

The trouble is that the church will say "it's not Us" (that's the Papal Us) "who are banning contraception, but God." (God will change His mind when the Church sees it's not in the Church's best interest to uphold the ban.)

73. A Holocaust Denier Hits Manhattan (And Hearts Hitchens)

Comment #220678 by Shuggy on July 28, 2008 at 9:22 pm

11. Comment #219193 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on July 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm
A fantastic article by the Hitch
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/20/books/bk-144

1) there were no gas chambers or extermination camps on German soil, in other words, at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald;

Well there certainly was, and is, a gas chamber at Dachau - I've been inside it - but as they readily admit, it was built at the end of the war and never operated.

As a gay man, I wish the total number of the Holocaust - TWELVE million - was given more often. It's rather like the way the US death toll in Iraq is given, not the much greater total when you include all the Iraquis.

74. Bush Bureaucrats at Dept. of Health and Human Services Redefine Contraception as Abortion

Comment #214223 by Shuggy on July 20, 2008 at 2:17 am

Does this mean I can sell an egg as chicken?

75. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212289 by Shuggy on July 17, 2008 at 1:23 am

prettygoodformonkeys

Much more use to analyse it (no pun intended) and reach everyone: sacrilege accomplished, no wrong done, and let catholic scientists wrestle with their faith, in reason and in science.

But it wouldn't change anything. The Mystery of the Eucharist means that no mere physical analysis would ever reveal anything but a cracker. Only some hypothetical "spiritual analysis" would reveal the Real Presence, and that s.a. would be no different from the Eye of Faith that they use to see it already. (What would you standardise a RealPresenceometer™ with, except another cracker - The "Shroud" of Turin?)

76. The Return of Religion

Comment #212281 by Shuggy on July 17, 2008 at 1:07 am

Cthulance:

God has fled, but he is not dead. He is biding his time, waiting for us to make room for him.
Translation: God is on the lam. Behold the lam of God!

Oh, I laughed out loud! Really. How do you say "I laughed out loud" now that LOL means "weak upturning of the lips"

77. 'Condoms won't change HIV rates'

Comment #212231 by Shuggy on July 16, 2008 at 9:31 pm

It's in bold because the person above you didn't close his bolding.

Well, I tried. I used /b and /em in angle brackets. Any other ideas?

78. 'Condoms won't change HIV rates'

Comment #212106 by Shuggy on July 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Uganda had turned around an HIV prevalence rate of 29 per cent, reducing it to six per cent in 10 years, using a program that included abstinence for unmarried Ugandans, monogamy within couples and condoms issued only to married couples, he said.

Maybe it did include those, but the bit that worked was "zero grazing" - one partner at a time, rather than multiple boy/girlfriends. The importance of this is that the virus is most virulent soon after transmission, so putting a gap between partners reduces transmission. Sadly, the programme was abandonded and HIV rates are rising again. (see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17963 )

79. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212087 by Shuggy on July 16, 2008 at 3:29 pm

198. Comment #211459 by black wolf on July 16

Shuggy,
you post prompted me to look at the German Wikipedia article that's supposed to deliver an explanation. Well, it doesn't (that would have surprised me). It takes 800 words to explain that it's a mystery, and who and when explained best that it's a mystery, who made up new words and concepts to tell us it's a mystery and so on.
They have dug themselves into such a deep hole that they can't even see the surface anymore. The essential treatise is supposedly the 'Mysterium Fidei' (http://tinyurl.com/7yb7), in which Pope Paul VI declares that any treatment, handling and examination of the mystery that is a danger to belief is false. It should deepen the mystery and spiritual unity of those who believe it, and it's basically wrong to try to understand what it is they believe in.
In other words, it's made-up stuff, and don't you dare say that, because it's really important that you don't.

Thanks very much for that, black wolf. I went to the encyclical and when I reached this:

11. To give an example of what We are talking about, it is not permissible ... to concentrate on the notion of sacramental sign as if the symbolism - which no one will deny is certainly present in the Most Blessed Eucharist - fully expressed and exhausted the manner of Christ's presence in this Sacrament; or to discuss the mystery of transubstantiation without mentioning what the Council of Trent had to say about the marvelous conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ, as if they involve nothing more than "transignification," or "transfinalization" as they call it; or, finally, to propose and act upon the opinion that Christ Our Lord is no longer present in the consecrated Hosts that remain after the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass has been completed.

12. Everyone can see that the spread of these and similar opinions does great harm to belief in and devotion to the Eucharist.

- I felt like Homer at the end of the couch gag (second only to the "evolution" one) in which we back away from the Simpsons on the couch up and away from Springfield, the US and the earth, until the entire universse becomes a particle in an atom of the DNA of the one hair on Homer's head.

[HOMER]WAOW![/HOMER]

------------------

After writing that, I found this.

15. First of all, We want to recall something that you know very well but that is absolutely necessary if the virus of every kind of rationalism is to be repelled; it is something that many illustrious martyrs have witnessed to with their blood, something that celebrated fathers and Doctors of the Church have constantly professed and taught. We mean the fact that the Eucharist is a very great mystery�"in fact, properly speaking and in the words of the Sacred Liturgy, the mystery of faith. "It contains within it," as Leo XIII, Our predecessor of happy memory, very wisely remarked, "all supernatural realities in a remarkable richness and variety of miracles." (4)

Relying on Revelation, Not Reason

16. And so we must approach this mystery in particular with humility and reverence, not relying on human reasoning, which ought to hold its peace, but rather adhering firmly to divine Revelation.

"The virus of ... rationalism"!! I wonder if RD and Paul VI could ever speak intelligibly to each other.

80. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211438 by Shuggy on July 16, 2008 at 2:53 am

On an earlier thread on this topic, I asked

Can someone, perhaps a recovering Catholic, explain just how a consecrated wafer differs from an unconsecrated one these days? They used to believe in a literal change: the bread and wine actually turned physically into flesh and blood, once they were safely inside the recipient's body where no-one (in those days) could examine them. Then when that got ridiculous, it became "transsubstantiation": they retained their outward "accidents" (their physical and chemical properties) but changed their Aristotelian "essence" so they were really flesh and blood though we couldn't see it. Now I think they're leaning towards "transsignification" which is an even more immaterial change. But can anyone express that in words that won't make my head explode?

Before PZ or anyone else claims that what the RCC claims does not take place, wouldn't it be a good idea to know exactly what it claims does take place?

irate atheist:

Are you seriously suggesting that we - in any way - kow-tow or tug our forelocks to the people that brought us the Inquisition and, more recently, child rape on a large scale.

That isn't quite fair. The church itself did not bring child rape, nor did the priests rape the children because they were priests, but in spite of being priests. The peculiarities of being a priest may give them unusual opportunity and predisposition, but the church didn't intend that. The church is HIGHLY culpable for protecting the priests and itself at the expense of the children, but the unfortunate worshippers aren't to blame for that.

And it isn't exactly tugging our forelocks to refrain from tricking them out of something they value in order to commit indignities on it (and by implication, in their eyes, them).

81. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #211425 by Shuggy on July 16, 2008 at 2:11 am

Kyrie Ellieson:

'I would not even believe in the Gospels were the Holy Church to forbid it.'"

So? Who says Christianity is what the Gospels say it is, and not what the "Holy" Church says it is? You?

82. Fury at funeral songs ban

Comment #211419 by Shuggy on July 16, 2008 at 1:55 am

A friend of mine committed suicide. He was estranged from his religious family, but they took him back for the funeral and the unctious minister (it was some peculiar sect) talked about him "passing away" and "underneath are the Everlasting Arms" etc. (As people came in they played "Light My Fire" - he was to be cremated - and a Trekkie friend finished by making the \// sign and saying "Live long and prosper.") I was the only one to refer to his manner of death and tell him* how angry I was at him for doing that to us. I'm proud to say that when I finished there wasn't a dry eye in the house.

*A figure of speech (apostrophe) common at the most atheist of funerals.

83. Periodic Table of Videos

Comment #210543 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 7:13 pm

The videos on some of the trans-Uranic elements will be over almost before they begin.

84. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210537 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Mitchell Gilks:

I regret my comment about "killing the english language".

I wouldn't, Mitchell. An example like this:

Second you are killing me softly when you talk about coherence and intelligibility imagining you leaning to SOOOOO complicated evolution tree as an evolin.

draws you in with the Carly Simon (?) reference, but as you go on, it becomes crazier and crazier, reaching a kind of hysterical climax with "evolin", which is not just not a word, but gives little clue what word or even what kind of word it might be.

85. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210528 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Richard Feldmann

What's the difference between clearmind and hitler? Hitler killed people, and clearmind kills the english language, coherence, and intelligibility.
Nice post, MG. That last sentence was gold.

I'm still trying to work out if it breached Godwin's Law, though.

86. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #210167 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 3:25 am

dhweaver

"Remember the Shakers"

Hopefully the Quakers follow in their footsteps to extinction.

You should look more into the Quakers. Of all Christian sects (and many self-professing Christians would deny that Quakers are Christians), they have the least dogma and the most attachment to rationality. They brainwash their kids least.

(Of course I mean the liberal, meeting-house attending, silent Meeting for Worship holding, clergy-less Quakers - not the conservative, church-attending, liturgical, clergy-ordaining, Quakers, of which Richard Nixon is the most famous example.)

87. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #209969 by Shuggy on July 13, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Kyrie Elieison

Catholicism and Christianity are two completely different philosophies. Lumping them together is intellectually dishonest.

Christians and Buddists both wash feet. A person has ears and elephants have ears; does that make a person an elephant?

Dunno about intellectually dishonest, but that's the most intellectually sloppy argument I've seen for a long time. Catholics recite the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one father, maker of Heaven and Earth...and in his only begotten son...who for us mortal and for our salvation" etc... Sure sounds like Christianity to me. How do YOU define Christianity so that Catholicism is not part of it?

Even Satan believes in God and Jesus and uses scripture from the Holy Bible; that doesn't make Satan a Christian.

No, it makes him a Christian fiction (like God and Jesus - not so odd when you consider that Gollum believes in Frodo).

88. Pope confirms sexual abuse apology

Comment #209693 by Shuggy on July 13, 2008 at 3:04 am

Banzai:

Jesus said, "Don't stop children from coming to me!

Oh, a modernist. An older generation knows "Suffer little children to come unto me." Seems strangely fitting, these days.

89. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #209687 by Shuggy on July 13, 2008 at 2:31 am

Can someone, perhaps a recovering Catholic, explain just how a consecrated wafer differs from an unconsecrated one these days? They used to believe in a literal change: the bread and wine actually turned physically into flesh and blood, once they were safely inside the recipient's body where no-one (in those days) could examine them. Then when that got ridiculous, it became "transsubstantiation": they retained their outward "accidents" (their physical and chemical properties) but changed their Aristotelian "essence" so they were really flesh and blood though we couldn't see it. Now I think they're leaning towards "transsignification" which is an even more immaterial change. But can anyone express that in words that won't make my head explode?

90. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #209684 by Shuggy on July 13, 2008 at 2:17 am

I've just come from the thread about the guy who's going to automatically send out "I told you so" emails after the Rapture from people who've been Raptured to those of us who haven't, and it strikes me how madly diverse, not to say incompatigable (well, obviously not, because there's no such word, and I can't think what the word is) the different branches of Christianity are. Nearly half of Christians believe with PZ that "It's only a goddamn cracker!" (but they're too polite to say so) and those who believe it's got Jesus in it, don't, in general, believe in the Rapture (instead, they believe the dead go to Purgatory to be cleansed of their sins, so most people will eventually reach Heaven, but babies don't go to Limbo any more...). A further large segment don't believe in either the cracker or the Rapture.

So it occurs to me that when people start telling us what we've got to believe, based on what the Bible says, we should ask whether they believe in the Cracker (Matt 26:26-28) or the Rapture (1 Thess 4:16-17), and then trouble them about why they don't.

Exit left, singing "We are not divi- i- ded, all one body wee, one in faith and doctrine - "

91. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208514 by Shuggy on July 11, 2008 at 2:07 am

Dear Prof. Bruininks

I write in support of the right of P Z Myers to express ridicule at "transubstantiation". This is a legitimate expression of freedom of speech, and perhaps not as obviously, freedom of (and from) religion. It is not hatred to tell people that they are behaving foolishly - it may be benign, saving them from further folly.

Prof. Myers in no way interfered with the freedom of Roman Catholics to believe that a consecrated wafer in some sense has become the body of Jesus, which seems to be the point at issue. He did say that is not the case, but freedom to believe anything necessarily involves freedom not to believe it, and hence to proclaim one's disbelief.

Nor can there be any legitimate restrictions on the tone in which that disbelief is expressed, though that seems to be an important part of the objections to Myers' column.

Thank you for your attention,

..., New Zealand

92. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #208131 by Shuggy on July 10, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I've just come from
the thread about the persecution of PZ Myers for ridiculing transubstantiation (and yes I'll write when my email is working again) and it strikes me how madly diverse, not to say incompatigable (well, obviously not because there's no such word, and I can't think what the word is) the different branches of Christianity are. Nearly half of Christians believe with PZ that "It's only a goddamn cracker!" (but they're too polite to say so) and those who believe it's got Jesus in it, don't, in general, believe in the Rapture (instead, they believe the dead go to Purgatory to be cleansed of their sins, so most people will eventually reach Heaven, but babies don't go to Limbo any more...). A further large segment don't believe in either the cracker or the Rapture.

Exit left, singing "We are not divi- i- ded, all one body wee, one in faith and doctrine - "

93. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207476 by Shuggy on July 9, 2008 at 11:23 pm

It all illustrates how you can convince people of any silly nonsense in the name of religion, because part of the essence of religion is the shutting down of the critical faculties.

At the same time, some of you are ridiculing these notions without understanding them. Stealing unconsecrated wafers is just stealing. Consecrating the wafers - saying the right words over them - is supposed to bring down some kind of spiritual energy (think of electricity) into them. Only a consecrated person can do it. A young priest once explained to me how before he was ordained he would practise saying Mass (they call it "dry mass") but that after he was ordained he could feel the spiritual change happening.

As Frazer explained in The Golden Bough 118 years ago, people concoct a ritual (often ritual eating) and then make up a story about why they do it. That is clearly what happened here. But it's obvious from the solemn tone in which they tell the story, you'll never convince them of that.

For some reason I don't find the eating as bizarre as the Adoration of the Host - putting a consecrated wafer in a golden lantern-like Monstrance so people can look at it through the week and think it's Jesus.

94. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #207430 by Shuggy on July 9, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Steve Zara

When you join in with a group (such as Catholics in a mass) you are basically agreeing to play by their rules. Even if the rules are silly, it is rather rude to break them once you have agreed to join in. If you don't like the rules, don't join in.

But only a small (and decreasing number) of adults choose to join the RCC. The vast majority were indoctrinated as children and absolutely not given any choice in the matter. I agree that they could just leave, but I think those in that position are better placed to mind-phuck them like this.

95. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #207425 by Shuggy on July 9, 2008 at 7:01 pm

But what if the Rapture is accompanied by an Electromagnetic Pulse (the way the Resurrection was, hence the Shroud of Turin...) that prevents the letters from being sent?

96. IT'S A GODDAMNED CRACKER!

Comment #206985 by Shuggy on July 9, 2008 at 3:51 am

Given what they believe, I have a soupçon of sympathy for them. But surely this has happened before, and can't they desanctify/de-activate/deJesusicate the wafer? (I have in mind something like what they do to CDs before they let them out of a library.)

What do they imagine the Jesusness in the wafers does next if they don't deactivate it? Go down the S-bend? They whole cannibal symbolism of the transubstantiation business is too bizarre to contemplate with all one's brain turned on.

97. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #206963 by Shuggy on July 9, 2008 at 3:07 am

ansu:

This been probably has been said before but i really hope some one hacks that rapture letter site and send all the letters one of this days.

Non christian friend: hey, i recived a letter from you saying that you have been raptured... how come you are still here?
Chrisitian friend: Uh - Oh

It will make some chaos and then end this stupidity of these rapture letters.

It does seem to me they haven't thought it through. They assume that everyone who sends them a letter will be Raptured? And who plans to be Left Behind (at risk of losing their heads) to send out the letters? Or have they got it on automatic? What is their Rapture Detector? Could it be some kind of Dead Man's Handle - if they don't push a "No Rapture Today" button, the letters go out? (Well, I went to http://www.raptureletters.com/, and I was right: "How is this accomplished, you might ask. It's a dead man switch that will automatically send the emails when it is not reset.")

Teratornis:

Is your conceptual position really so weak that you feel you must wish for someone else to resort to criminal behavior to censor someone who disagrees with you?

I just saw it as a pleasant thought experiment, and I can't see how it amounts to censorship. Sabotage, yes. Now I know how it works, I can ethically wish that some day they forget to re-set the switch....

98. New Zealand man sells his soul to 'Hell'

Comment #204011 by Shuggy on July 4, 2008 at 3:05 am

eclampusvitus

Of course, the market rate for souls is $666.

US dollars, I assume?

99. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202196 by Shuggy on July 1, 2008 at 3:03 am

"Faith school" is a contradiction in terms. Schools exist to teach facts (including the facts of art and literature), how to find them out and and how to think about them. If they teach fairy tales as facts, and especially if they teach unquestioning belief in fairy tales ("faith"), they are betraying their purpose.

(Not sure if I agree with that 100% myself, but that's where my logic leads me. Discuss.)

100. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #197369 by Shuggy on June 21, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Comment #195164 by Bonzai on June 17, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Comment #195127 by atkinson on June 17, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Consider that part of a gay man's body that exhibits the greatest increase in size upon viewing an attractive man .
If you have an erection just because you see an attractive woman, assuming you are a straight man, then I would think you are very unusual.

You missed Atkinson's drollery, Bonzai: