Talk About Hate Speech
January 13, 2008 · By Matthew
I’m going to make this post in a nice point form format, to assist our visitor friends from Canadian Cynic’s echo chamber:
1)Irony is posting earlier this week about Warren Kinsella taking a Biblical verse out of context and then being accused of taking the atheist bible’s title out of context. (I truly did find this amusing) However, does this mean that you’ll all stop reading the Bible like it’s a legal draft now?
2)Irony is posting a story about a movie which suggests that evolutionists are, for whatever reason, refusing to deal or even tolerate other opinions on the origins of species and the universe and then having the movie/myself attacked for existing. I give you figure A (you have to scroll down to the 29 comments as of this posting to see the seething hatred…and even after my last sentence warned this would happen)
3)Irony is being accused of not reading the atheist bible (and even being told I have “no excuse”) when I’m actually a couple of days into this.
4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!
5)Even greater irony is that I might or might not need my other hand to count how many of the above-mentioned have read their own bible…
6)Irony is Dalton (who I honestly didn’t consider a troll in reference to yesterday’s post) actually backed out of our last debate saying basically that my argument was too complex to sift through. Quite the credibility gap there my friend. For the record though, I’ll happily debate you, but not on your exclusive terms.
7)Irony is that there are such “highly evolved” individuals whose first strategy is to delve into name calling and mischaracterization.
8)Irony is that these posters can accuse me of misunderstanding 19th century English, but Hitler…he knew better!
9)Irony is that after demanding my conversion and answers from me all Sunday morning, I will probably never hear from any of these people on this post explaining how their animalistic actions are probably the most convincing evidence of evolution that I’ve seen yet!
“6)Irony is Dalton (who I honestly didn’t consider a troll in reference to yesterday’s post) actually backed out of our last debate saying basically that my argument was too complex to sift through.”
Heh. Irony is Matthew failing to recognize the irony in Dalton’s polite dismissal of Matthew’s last and incomprehsible obfuscation.
Sorry, dude. You really don’t want to debate this stuff. You just want to proselytize. That’s fine. But don’t pretend you’re interested in discussion.
And yes, I have read your Holy Book. Many, many times.
Funny, when Dalton has nothing left to add to the debate, it’s Matthew’s fault for being too wordy. When Matthew has nothing left to add to the debate, it’s also Matthew’s fault for not babysitting Dalton’s fragile ego!
Fragile ego? I’m sorry…weren’t you huffing and puffing just a few moments ago about avoiding personal attacks and addressing substance?
So let’s do that.
You asked a point blank question in your last thread which apparently arose from your misunderstanding of Darwin’s title. Several folks responded, with a clarification.
Has your misunderstanding now been cleared up?
You seem to have forgotten this one:
10) Irony is thinking that Matthew understands what irony means.
No one disputes that you’re entitled to your own opinion - you’re just not entitled to your own facts.
So, Matt.
Those who suggested that you always avoid criticism, that you simply ignore valid points and move on to you next point - they were dead on, weren’t they?
*Intellectual dishonesty*
Dalton, I’m not obligated to respond to every comment you make here is what I’m saying. I do so when I feel it is productive to the debate — eventually though, you always go off the rails so I leave you be and let you calm down a bit.
As for the “response” I received, I certainly hope you’re not crazy enough to call one prof from the States, and about 30 angry, near-slanderous posts attacking me a “clarification”. I can argue from the book itself that Darwin’s title was very accurate, even in the “race” sense. However, let me be clear, I chose not to right now because I know it will not be a productive debate with you guys. Of course, I’ll probably be accused of running away now, so do as you wish. Try starting your own blog though and dealing with the type of demands you imply on me, then come back and talk to me!
You made a ridiculous claim, you challenged your readers to respond to it, they did (in spades), and now you’re playing all hurt and persecuted.
Do us all a favour and give the keyboard to Mommy. You are so out of your league here.
P.S. I have read the entire Bible (a work of largely fiction, not to be confused with non-fiction like Origin of the Species).
Have you read the entire Bible? Honestly now. Are you familiar with its attendant contradictions and inaccuracies?
“No one disputes that you’re entitled to your own opinion - you’re just not entitled to your own facts.”
Clarification requested: Is LuLu the unemployed actor or the nerd who can’t get a date?
Which part of my post (or most of the others for that matter) was “near slanderous”?
My, you are given to exaggeration, aren’t you?
“Of course, I’ll probably be accused of running away now, so do as you wish.”
As I predicted you would. Heh.
Well, we’ll see you again in a month or so, when you start another foolish creationist-themed thread, then run away from it.
How about c) none of the above, Aaron?
Now here’s one for you and try to keep up - do you have a point to make or are you just being an asshole? Or perhaps this is another case of c) Your point is that you’re an asshole.
Clarification requested: Is LuLu the unemployed actor or the nerd who can’t get a date?
Aaron, don’t you think these types of personal attacks are a little un-Christian?
Man,this site is garbage and the stink is almost unbearable.
Classic creatonist arguing style. The author posts nonsense and gets correctly called out for it. Then whines about personal attacks while completely disregarding all of the explanations and facts placed directly in front of them.
Rinse and repeat, the ignorance continues.
True irony? That the original post complained about people not being open minded, while closing his own mind off completely.
So, Matt. When can we expect a post to address your complaints about the comments in this post? (Without addressing any of them, no doubt.) Metablogging, I guess. How very post modern of you. You should start a blog entirely devoted to complaining about the comments on this blog.
Irony is actually somebody stating that his bible has been the same for the last 2000 years.
How many times has it been altered over the millenia and how many versions exist today apart from the original English language version - KJV?
What new ammended version will come next, and will that too have remained unchanged for 2000 years?
The scientific establishment claims as a strong point that it is open to changing in the light of new, reproducible evidence. On of the big crutches of the abrahamic religions is that they are perfect as written. But written when? Hmmmmmmmm
Is this the pattern here? Matthew makes an asinine post and requests comment - which he then either ignores or misrepresents as trolling? The stupid, it burns…
Although I must admit, the one where he bases his entire argument about Darwin’s Origin on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the title at least had the benefit of being so stupid as to be amusing.
Ah well. Back to PZ. For some intelligent blogging.
Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!
That’s kind of funny.
“4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!”
What the hell are you doing with a 2000 year old bible in your house? I hope it’s at least in a climate controlled room.
Dude, you should totally sell that 2000-year-old Bible on eBay. You’ll make a mint.
Is it autographed?
Hey Bob, nice to meet you.
Can someone fix the tabbing order on the comment form? It’s really freaking annoying.
The Atheist Bible? That’s beyone LOL, beyond “the stupid, it burns”, and even beyond “it’s like being bukkaked with stupid”. Wow, and I thought that people from the southern US were some of the dumbest in the world and that Canada had better schools because the way that they are financed is a lot better. My position on that has evolved. It took me a while to realize what he was even talking about.
(Dude, no one uses Darwin’s book as a bible. Evolutionary theory is based on evidence that has been gathered over the past 150 years. Yes, it’s a “theory” but ID is simply wishful thinking. I can wish that I could use leeches and arsenic to cure cancer but I’m sure that if you had it you would prefer to have a treatment that there is evidence of being successful and not that outdated stuff.)
[...] the presses! Commenter Bob takes us to school: I have read the entire Bible (a work of largely fiction, not to be confused with non-fiction like [...]
It’s not hatred, it’s ridicule. There’s a difference. Ironic, no?
Matthew, with all due respect - and I mean that quite literally - in your last post, you posed a challenge. That challenge was met a number of times in the comments you received. Would you care, now, to respond?
Oh man, where to start.
First and foremost, I’ve read your bible. Old Testament, New Testament, King James, all that crap. Second, I’ve read my ‘bible’ (and for those of you who haven’t, there’s a version online: http://darwin-online.org.uk/co.....ageseq=626)
However, this is not an atheist bible. At all. Not in the [i]slightest[/i].
Origin deals with evolution: evolution doesn’t deal with the issue of gods. For example, a hypothetical religion could say that a god influences all art we create, but doesn’t touch biology or evolution. If we were to give Origin to this person, it wouldn’t convince them of becoming atheist, would it.
It does clash with your religion, however. (Frankly because the teachings of your religion are incorrect).
“2)Irony is posting a story about a movie which suggests that evolutionists are, for whatever reason, refusing to deal or even tolerate other opinions on the origins of species and the universe and then having the movie/myself attacked for existing.”
Like someone said, it’s not hatred, it’s [i]ridicule[/i]. Because it’s [i]ridiculous[/i]. If I was to say that gravity is the act of God pushing stuff down towards the centre of a body of mass, I’d be ridiculed obviously - you cannot claim this is hatred. And if you can, then you need an English lesson, my friend.
“and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!”
Hot shit - people were saying that the Earth is flat for a quite a while, too. ;-)
“Irony is that these posters can accuse me of misunderstanding 19th century English, but Hitler…he knew better!”
Now this is just raw stupidity. So raw it’s bleeding.
For starters, like people have said, the term ‘race’ is not the term that you’re thinking of.
Secondly, as PZ Meyers from Pharyngular said;
“the logic is deeply flawed: if evolutionary theory did have undesirable social consequences, that wouldn’t be a valid argument against the truth of evolution.”
We all know that it’s not, but that point is moot. And if you dare accuse [i]us[/i] of being immoral by [i]your[/i] definition of the title, then I suggest you read your own bible. Something called the Old Testament - we’ll see who promotes genocide then, shan’t we?
“4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!”
This would have been relevant if I’d written a post where I’d misinterpreted the Bible’s title. I haven’t, so it’s not.
You know, Matthew, sometimes when people criticize you, it’s because you’re actually in the wrong. In those cases you should apologize and honestly try not to repeat the mistake. Your tactic of ranting about irrelevant things doesn’t help your case and only makes you look worse.
PS: You may wish to rethink the title of this post - or at least bone up on the meaning of “hate speech”.
While you’re consulting your dictionary, it might do to look up “irony”. While you’ve nailed the Alanis Morissette use of the word, you’ve rather missed its proper use.
You made an assertion. You were so wrong that it was laughable. Man-up, admit your error and move on.
Don’t play the victim. You’re not. And when you do, it only makes you like a whiner.
Also, when I tell you to stop lying for Jesus, I mean it. It causes more problems than it solves. And it tells me that your faith is a weak and worthless thing and cannot handle challenge.
Christians should be careful about recommending that people read the Bible since a close reading of scripture is probably the number one cause of atheism—ever heard of this guy Spinoza? By the way, I know the Bible very well myself. My Hebrew is pretty pathetic, but I can manage the NT in Greek and have.
Matthew, you may resent the scientists who refuse to consider your ideas about creation, but there really is a reason why they insist on dismissing them.
Evidence. Reproducible evidence. Evidence from multiple lines of enquiry.
Without this undemocratic emphasis on evidence, there would be no computers for you to use in your abuse of scientific results. That’s ironic.
Your challenge was met. Be man enough to engage the answers honestly. When you are caught Lying for Jesus, it puts all Christians in a bad light.
In the unlikely event that ID or creationism provide evidence for a creator, it will have to be evaluated on its merits.
4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!
Even greater irony, the Bible is not “almost 2000 years old.” Parts of it are reputed to be vastly older, written down from oral stories in the 10th Century before Christ.
So don’t act like you know it all. You don’t. You’re not even close.
7)Irony is that there are such “highly evolved†individuals whose first strategy is to delve into name calling and mischaracterization.
You got called on a load of crap. You’re either a liar or ignorant. You’ve continued to show you’re either a liar or ignorant.
In either case, the irony is on you as you went and blamed your misunderstanding of the title of book for some nasty abhorrent behavior. The more you defend yourself, the sillier you look.
I’d suggest you keep out of these debates. You’re not any good. You’re not even good enough to be bad.
PS - Use a spell checker. Blech.
it’s like being bukkaked with stupid
lmao
Matthew has not responeded with one single coherent answer.
Atheist bible? Too funny. I wonder if it says anything abnout the abomination of eating shellfish?
Not read the Bible? I have read every word.
Not read the Origin? I have read every word of that, too.
If we’re counting ironies, I think that a creationist accusing atheists of ignorance is a stellar one. There must, I suppose be ignorant atheists, somewhere; most of them I know are amply familiar with the Bible, unlike most of the christians I have met. And once upon a time, before Darwin and even for a short while after, there were non-ignorant creationists; but just try to find one today who has read so much as a couple of trade books on modern biological theory.
The Origin isn’t the “atheist bible.” Darwin wasn’t an atheist–at least, not when he wrote it, and it’s not clear that he ever was unequivocally committed to atheism.
Nor, I should point out, is the Origin the best place to learn about evolutionary theory. It’s a great place to learn something about the formative history of evolutionary theory, but science moves on.
This is, in fact, the biggest difference between the scientific and the theological mind: you accept things on authority–old, hoary, incoherent, bizarre and incredible authority–and you assume that scientists do, too. You assume that they read Darwin and then go out to do fieldwork, seeking in so doing only to witness to the greater glory of the Prophet C. Darwin. Not so. Nobody in science accepts things on authority, least of all the authority of a man who died a century ago and whose writings, consequently, though enormously important to the development of evolutionary theory, are badly out of date and contain many statements which later work in evolution has shown to be wrong. Darwin is no god or prophet, and he wrote no atheist, or evolutionist, “bible.” He wrote a great work of science, which set in motion a great deal of important scientific inquiry; he was wrong on many points, but on his central points, was astonishingly correct.
To take even a great mind like his as “authority” on all things would be insane. To take the various unknown writers, editors, redactors, scribes and translators of the bible on authority is–well–far, far more so.
Ignorant of your reference text? Not quite.
From Mark 16 16-18, we have one of the more recent edits to the Bible.
Based on this quotation ascribed to Jesus, all true believers should be able to heal by the laying-on of hands. This isn’t metaphorical or a parable. It can only be seen as hyperbole, a blatant con aimed at the gullible.
Even so, in my case you are sort of right. Like most Christians, I only read parts of it, back when. I likely never will get through Revelations. You?
You’re a couple of days into a 50 page pamphlet?
I hate to join in the beating when it’s to easy, but there are a few points I don’t think anyones made yet:
“2)Irony is posting a story about a movie which suggests that evolutionists are, for whatever reason, refusing to deal or even tolerate other opinions on the origins of species and the universe…”
No it isn’t. Most evolutionists (your term) are not trying to repress other ideas about the origin of species and the universe (despite the fact that evolution does not address cosmology). They are trying to prevent NON-SCIENTIFIC ideas outside of a SCIENCE class. There is nothing wrong with learning about other ideas at home or church or in a philosophy class. But restrict biology class to biology please.
“4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible..”
This is probably an over-generalization, but in my experience, all most every atheist I met is familar with the Bible, while the percentage is less for christians.
“7)Irony is that there are such “highly evolved†individuals whose first strategy is to delve into name calling and mischaracterization.”
Statements like these show just how little you understand evolution. Organisms are no longer described as more or less evolved than others. There is nothing about evolution that says we have moved beyond more primitive behaviors and motivations. Also, considering how name-calling by definition could not come about until the evolution of languages, it is sloely a human phenomenon that arose recently.
“8)Irony is that these posters can accuse me of misunderstanding 19th century English, but Hitler…he knew better!”
I was going to swallow my tongue and let the point slide that Hitler talked mostly in religous terms when justifing his atrocities, but I could not resist.
Anyway, I’m not trying to be overtly confrontational or insulting like some people, but just trying to help cover the bases in commenting on your post. The fact is, Matthew, you said some very silly things.
Come now, you love the fact that people are coming from Pharyngula to read your page. People are paying attention to you and you can’t get enough of it. But sic transit gloria pharyngulae, you will again fade into obscurity since no one really comes because they care what you have to say. They merely come to gawk incredulously at the silly things you write, and I’m sure they’re glad that you don’t disappoint.
Deeming ridicule and contempt as “hate speech”… I was going to say that’s ironic, but it’s not. It’s just plain dumb. The previous post was wretched enough, but this one simply compounds the amount of stupidity by several orders of magnitude to a level of profound ignorance that can only be describes as “invincible.”
b/c: described. Curse crappy WordPress and their lack of Preview function!
4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!
Yes, this is quite ironic, comically so.
Your hand must be like an abacus for you to calculate a number which is certainly on the order of 10^8 with a mere five fingers. I’d like to see that amazing appendage.
I did read and continue to read you Holey Scriptures and find them to be, you guessed it, full of holes.
As previous comments have indicated, you’re notion that non-believers are ignorant of the subtleties and nuances of Bronze Age superstition is a chief irony. The more so in light of your claim of being familiar with the subtleties and nuances of Darwin’s insight.
Please, then, inform us of the ways that others, like you, have misinterpreted the tenets of, ahem, “Darwinism,” as you call it. Give careful attention to not only the scope of its claims but also its limitations. You are encouraged to describe how his original ideas have been integrated into into the principles of modern biology and the changes that they have gone through during the last century and a half.
Personally, I would like you to hold forth on the actual mechanism that leads from an idea concerning how living things change over time to failed social and political viewpoints. And as always, show your work and list your sources.
This heathen baby-eater, along with others, wants to know.
Peace, man. If you can stand it.
Here here!
I’ll be fixing this issue over the next few days.
Thanks,
I’ve read of Your Bible, as you call it. I particularly liked the part where the prophet Elisha conjured two bears out of thin air to kill 42 children/youths (I understand the word is ambiguous in the original) for calling him a “baldie”. Thats Scorsese level storytelling right there.
And then there’s the giant grab-bag of bizarre laws and restrictions known as Leviticus, which proves to the reader that G-d suffers from OCD. Also, I’m convinced that Leviticus 11:10 exists because G-d wants to hog all the oysters and lobsters for himself. I know I would, were I Him.
As for your lamentable lack of scholarly erudition when it comes to either the works of Charles Darwin, or to the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, I can only reiterate the comments above. Based on as flawed an educational background, you cannot dismiss it, and certainly not on premises as flawed as the wording used by Darwin in the title.
Greg — As some wise person once told me long ago: “Preview is your friend.” Anyway, good to hear you’ll be adding that feature. I should go bug Scott to do the same thing.
The atheist bible? I didn’t know there was such a book. Could you point me to that? I’d really like to read it.
“3)Irony is being accused of not reading the atheist bible (and even being told I have “no excuseâ€) when I’m actually a couple of days into this.
4)Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!”
This is clearly directed at me, so I’ll respond.
Yes, I have read “your” Bible (by which I presume you mean the Christian Bible). In fact, not only have I read it, but I’ve read every English translation of it and have translated portions of it from the original into English myself. I probably know more about the Christian Bible than you do.
And yet, you still obviously have not read the Origin of Species (which is evidenced by the fact that you prejudicially call it “the atheist bible”). Yet, despite not reading it, you are willing to criticize it based on a misunderstanding of the title alone. And, no, reading an NAS pamphlet does not qualify you to criticize the Origin based solely on the title alone.
You seem to get your rocks off by calling other people “animalistic” and “closed minded”, but based on your behavior so far that seems to be pure projection. Instead of responding to the substance of the criticisms you’ve received (that you haven’t read the book, that you’ve misunderstood Darwin’s English) you have responded with a hissy-fit.
Matt said: I can argue from the book itself that Darwin’s title was very accurate, even in the “race†sense.
You cannot make that argument when you have not actually read the book. To paraphrase St. Augustine: If you talk through your ass, people will see that you are one.
I have read the Book. I was so impressed that I left the Christian Church.
Matthew:
Do you know there are many bibles? Do you know that ‘The Origin of the Species’ is NOT a bible? Do you know there is NO such thing as an ‘atheist bible’?
I have read many bibles. Please, look up what ‘bible’ means. One thing I’ve noticed about all the bibles I’ve read - they all (in so many words) say:
1) This is the ONLY written word of God.
2) There are NO OTHER written words of God and anyone who claims otherwise will suffer eternal torment (of some sort).
3) Herein are the SACRED WORDS of God and they are to be followed TO THE LETTER, NO deviation, EVER, or eternal torment (of some sort) will result.
4) Anyone who doesn’t believe 1,2, and 3 will suffer eternal torment (of some sort). (From there each one gets very creative on the torment issue, depending on the depravity of the respective authors.)
Since you feel so hurt and maligned, Matthew, I’ll give you a chance to feel all better about yourself. I issue you this challenge:
Demonstrate irrefutable, testable PROOF (Please verify the definition of PROOF) that YOUR ‘bible’ is THE BIBLE above ALL OTHERS.
Remember, YOU are the one making the claim. YOU are the one who HAS to SUPPORT your claim with EVIDENCE. The burden of proof is YOURS and yours ALONE. Until you actually DO support your claim with evidence, Matthew, you are just another mouth yaking away. All you have to do to be taken seriously by anyone, Matthew, is do the above.
Just that. That’s all. Right here. Right now. We, nay, the WORLD awaits.
Matthew?
Let me get this straight:
1) You proudly declare something that’s factually false.
2) People correct you on it.
3) You act like a jerk.
4) People are jerks back.
And this all proves the claim of Expelled that scientists oppress dissenting views? Are you such a baby that you think criticism and people debunking your claims counts as persecution?
You’re case in point why scientists don’t take creationists seriously in the first place: you’re quite obviously wrong on the facts in this matter, and yet even on this small and simple point, you seem prepared to make a giant fuss about it instead of admitting that you were wrong and moving on. How is anyone supposed to take away from that the idea that you are an honest debater or that you care about facts and evidence?
I see Matthew has run and hid under his 6000 year old rock, failing to answer any of the responses to his idiocy with even a shred of honesty.
How can you reconcile your supposed Christianity with your obvious pathological need to lie or at the least obfuscate?
Matthew,
It saddens me that my fellow anti-theists here are being uncivil, but I hope some of the message is getting through to you. Look at the comments from the likes of Barry Trask above, there are many valid points.
I _have_ read the bible. since I had my 12 school years in Israel I even studied the old testament in the ORIGINAL Hebrew and Arameic, as well as parts of the original language of the new testament. I have even peeked into the apocrypha, and I can tell you I have found very many contradictions. it’s impossible to read any of those with a reason-inclined eye and not see all the contradictions, inconsistancy, and mistakes in the basic understanding of the working of nature.
The bible stories are very nice myths, my people’s national morals and ideals are inspired by them, no less than the greeks still admire their 2000-2500 year old philosophers who believed in Zeus and the Scandinavians give homage today to Thor and his family. It’s very interesting to read as literature liturgics and mythology and anthropology, but NOT as historical fact. it’s just senseless to rely on those stories written in so many styles in every single book, edited, sorted, and selected through the millenia. Very few of those stories are echoed in archeological finds and writings.
I am not saying religion is a lie and you should ditch it (though a few would disagree, I’m very liberal about that). All I am saying is that the science of Evolution is one backed by hard evidence of many kinds (archeological, geological, genetic, etc), it’s impossible to dismiss it as “just a theory” if you start studying it. It’s as hard as denying the Earth revolves around the sun these days (and even the Vatican will agree today that it is). It takes no blind faith, it just takes the study of the evidence.
Next, calling Origin a bible is rediculous and hurts your argument. you are smarter than that, so get yourself better answers.
Finally, sunce I’m a member of the Jewish people and a sensible person, your silly idea of connecting WWII and Darwinism hurts me twice (actually more). If anything, the Nazi party was determined to use UNNATURAL selection so they remain the “best race”. That has nothing at all to do with biology or atheism, it has to do with hatered of others and criminal thinking.
The humans have only one race, by the way. the races in Darwins title, and I’m sure you know that, are reffering to the race of chimpanzees compared to the Wombat race, the Eagle race and so on. species of animals. people of different skin color and eye configuration are not of a different race, or there could be no “interracial” conception, other than like a horse and a donkey begetting a donkey (that’s a real example of an interracial merge, and a poor, sterile animal it is.).
I suggest you find some serious book to chew into, to “know thy enemy” if not for any other reason.
Hi Matthew,
You seem to be focused on the fact several people have not been polite towards you.
Having read most of the comments, there were people who were polite, and well lets face it you asked for it.
You stated you expected acid, you were so rewarded. You also asked for answers, and were provided with those as well.
I am looking forward to your responses to the answer, rather then the lack of politeness you faced.
so how about it?
the word race was nicely explained, the title of the book nicely explained. Please let us all see how your world view has expanded with this increase of knowledge.
And to reiterate a point, Origins is not a bible, it was a naturalists paper submitted for review. It was so strong and compelling an argument that it was a best seller in its day. It is the initial foundation of our modern understanding of evolutionary theory, but is not the end of it.
SO how about it? Can you own up to your misconception?
Can you share with everyone how your understanding has grown?
Matthew:
Don’t know why I was listed as Anonymous in #49. I would not challenge you anonymously. That’s just gauche. I am. Irrespective of societal labels, familial roles, or economic position, I am. You may call me Logician.
And, Matthew, I am still waiting for your answer. As, I would imagine, is every single other human on this planet. Make a name for yourself, Matthew. PROVE, with evidence, that YOUR bible is THE BIBLE, above all OTHER bibles EVER written.
Matthew?
P.S., did you look up ‘bible’, by the way? Clear on what constitutes a ‘bible’ now?
Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years!
Dr. Bart Ehrman, a well-known biblical scholar, wrote a book called “Misquoting Jesus,” in which he discussed biblical accuracy. By comparing old texts and translations, he showed where changes were made to push a particular doctrinaire view, and where simple errors of transcription and translation were made. IIRC, he noted that there are actually more errors in the Bible than there are words……
So much for the inerrant word of God.
As to reading a bible making one religious–well, as others have noted, often the opposite is true. Dr. Ehrman began life as an evangelical Christian but, the more he studied biblical texts, the less religious he became. He was, at last count, an agnostic. (Or, as he explained it to Stephen Colbert, “and atheist without balls>”
This is sad and sorry stuff. If your simple-minded ignorance about evolution and Darwin, followed by multiple ignoratio elenchi responses to challenges, represent what we can expect from a ‘conservative party activist’ in Canada, the Liberals have nothing to worry about.
“Dr. Bart Ehrman, a well-known biblical scholar, wrote a book called “Misquoting Jesus,—
Reviewed by Ben Witherington et al:
http://benwitherington.blogspo.....-bart.html
And by Dr Benjamin Wiker
http://www.tothesource.org/2_7_2007/2_7_2007.htm
Canadian Conservative Ad Network
Collection of ideologically conservative Canadian weblogs. This advertising hive contains high quality, high traffic conservative weblogs from across Canada. If you are interested in reaching an affluent and political engaged Canadian audience, then this hive is for you.
For more information on this particular hive (FAQ, membership requirements, etc) please visit this page or contact Greg Farries directly, (403) 634-8888, greg@mediablitz.ca.
Does driving traffic here, no matter what the reason, result in increased revenue, Mr. Farries?
“Does driving traffic here, no matter what the reason, result in increased revenue, Mr. Farries?”
Someone is sounding a mite envious. If you could be a little more specific on what annoys you, we’d be happy to oblige.
TTFN
I was taught the Christian bible at high school in religious knowledge classes by a Reverend. He taught it as allegory.
My atheism and belief in evolution comes from reading decades worth of the magazine New Scientist and looking at the behavior of those people who claim to be “religious”.
The statistics of the worth of prayer clearly point to how useless it is. Miracles never happen and God doesn’t fix anything.
Religionists believe that they don’t have to bother about “fixing” the planet while they are alive because everything is going to be cool when they go to heaven - something that is overall worse than just a few Muslim terrorists believing they will get their virgins by suicide bombing.
Ya, increased traffic means increased revenue…
What’s your point?
Hmm. Speaking of irony, since the Bible has probably created more atheists than any other book on the planet, I would have to say that it could quite reasonably be considered “the atheist’s bible” too. Thank you, Jesus! ;)
At one point in my life, I considered myself to be a Born-Again Christian, and I had never actually read the bible on my own. I simply became that way because I thought that’s what was good for me based on what I was taught from family and the church.
Then I read the Bible because I really wanted to understand all that I though I believed. Jesus Christ! This is what I was telling everyone I believed so much in!?!
Reason is so much more rewarding than faith.
“Even greater irony is that I can probably guess on one hand, probably even less, how many of these accusers have read my Bible — and mine’s been completed for almost 2000 years.”
I have read much of it actually, more closely than you it seems. I have confirmed the two separate creation accounts in Genesis, the disagreements in the Gospels on the family tree of Jesus, on the movements of the Holy Family at the time of Jesus’ birth.
That anyone can take this literally is beyond my comprehension.
Ya, increased traffic means increased revenue…
What’s your point?
That’s it’s a morally bankrupt business model to increase custom not by offering a quality product, but by compelling people who’ve been defamed here to defend themselves.
…it’s less morally bankrupt to attract attention by simply passing off extreme absurdity as careful thought, however. Though I’d like better labeling, myself. How about changing the name of this blog to “The Politic and Hot Sex Weekly?”
Oh Matthew?
I and the world are still waiting….
Really, we are. Lay it on us, oh enlightened one, or forever be branded just another mealy-mouthed religidiot.
Matthew?
Oh Matthew,
By the way, you ARE obligated to answer me. I know, with all the terrific responsiblity you have with judging books merely by their title that you have little time left, but hey, YOU’RE the one who wants to make a name for yourself.
YOU claim: YOUR bible is the ONLY book with ANY truth about the origins of mankind. That makes YOUR bible the ONLY true bible among ALL others. This EXTRAORDINARY claim REQUIRES justification. If you think it doesn’t, you’re wrong, period. Here’s your chance, handed to you on a silver platter.
Now, we have only TWO options here:
1) Either you are right and EVERYONE ELSE on this planet is wrong, or
2) You’re just another mealy-mouthed religidiot who is trying to inconspicuously pull your foot out of your big, fat mouth.
So far, Matthew, you have given no one ANY reason to suppose your knowledge is any greater than that of any other neurotic trying desperately to make sense out of the reality you must deny in order to believe in magical beings.
So Matthew, I will check back on you in 12, (twelve), (1/2 solar day), hours. If you have not responded, I will begin blogging all others who have spotlighted you that you are just another goof, a sad little trifle, a typical neurotic who unfortunately found access to a keyboard and is now back in custody of the nice young men in the clean white coats.
This is it, big guy, put up, or forever be branded.
Matthew?
Most curious.
Why would a logician, of all people, commit an inductive fallacy by using the Argument From Silence?
I’m tellin’ ya, schools these days…
Marsilio must be the one they call “The Perfesser.”
Welcome to The Politic. One Perfesser and five Gillligans.
Welcome to the Politic. One Perfesser and five Gilligans.
Makes sense, since this coconut-powered blog is the end result.
Marsilio must be the one they call “The Perfesser.â€
Actually, here at ThePolitic we’re all Thurston Howell the Third types: insanely wealthy from our Karl Rove commission cheques from the Trilateral Commission. Its been a very good month due to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the uncovering of George Soros’ funding of the Lancet study (another Karl Rove Mission Impossible Ethan Hunt Rubber Mask extravaganza) and the large advertising revenues from all those Canadian Cynic types pounding our site meter through the roof.
Thanks guys! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to catch a flight. Its really a black helicopter, not a plane (they’re easier to sneak past radar); we’ve got to go rig some US primaries and mess with international markets.
Toodles.
How about changing the name of this blog to “The Politic and Hot Sex Weekly?â€
We’d prefer to leave some good business models for you lefties to use. We’re feeling bad that your traffic’s down.
I note you did not allow the message posted at the twelve hour mark of your failure.
You are dismissed without further comment as just another mealy-mouthed idiot, Matthew.
As for you, Marsilio, do not attempt to enter conservations you cannot even begin to comprehend. You only embarrass yourself.
Sadly, this IS the best ANY religion can put forth. And you all wonder why we laugh at you idiots…