A Whole Lot About Mostly Nothing

Oh my. Lovely.

You get the feeling that they are genuinely surprised to find that Catholics are attaching far more importance to the descration of the Eucharist than, say, the desecration of a Rosary. They seem to have reeled a bit at the volcanic response. Now they are getting their footing and realizing this *really* ticks off Catholics and so, like eight year olds, they are enjoying being in (they think) the position of saying, “Take one step closer and I’ll torture your cat!”

I won’t mince words. Myers is an evil man. (I won’t go that far, but he is an asshat of the first water and engaging in evil acts.-ed) And as evil men, particularly evil intellectuals, tend to be, he is also a mad man as are most of his acolytes and followers. One need only read Pharyngula to know this. Not all atheists are driven mad by their atheism. Many are quite respectable human beings. But those who make it their raison d’etre tend to be made crazy by it. That’s the tragedy of sins of the intellect. They don’t just make you stupid. If you persist in them, and particularly if you persist in them to this degree, they make you crazy.

(snip)

The hatred breeds lies like, “I’m just exercising freedom of expression”.

No. You are committing theft, vandalism, and incitement.

Or else you lie and say, “Unless Catholics can prove the Eucharist is actually the Body and Blood of Christ and not a worthless cracker, I’m just guilty of being rude.”

No. Catholics are under no obligation to prove that in order to show that you are guilty of theft, vandalism and incitement.

(snip)
Yet another demented lie to cover up your naked act of aggression is to play the victim:

It’s just so darned weird that they’re demanding that I offer this respect to a symbol that means nothing to me.

The answer to this lie is that *nobody* is demanding Myers offer respect to the Eucharist. He’s blasphemed the Eucharist on his blog off and on since forever. Catholics are free to disagree with him, just has he is free to disagree with them. That’s the first amendment in action and I, for one, am glad to live in the land that is not Canada where even demented professors whose careers are stuck in Wilbur Weed Boxtop Diploma Mill can have a voice in the public square, if only to serve as a warning to normal people of what hatred of God can do to the human mind.

(snip)

Myers’ logic is that of Kristallnacht, punish all Catholics everywhere with theft, vandalism and incitement because of the (alleged) actions of a couple.

OoohWEE!! Read it all. Wonderful.

ALSO, a a great round-up at The Daily Kraken.

Kevin Jones also thinks PZ is an asshat and deserves reprimand, at least.

UPDATE: Somewhat interesting combox exchange at Mark’s with some of the more lucid Pharyngulites.

It is instructive to note that even these calmer people toss out “challenging” questions -as if no one has ever thought of them before- and are then directed to consult proper Gospel commentaries.  And guess what?  All they do is re-phrase the question, and suggest that our lack of actual response indicates sure evidence that the Church is bogus.

In part cause he says that he absolutely intends to follow through on his desecration.

The man reminds me of a rabid homophobe who has secret homosexual tendencies.  The more he raves at the object of his secret obsession, the safer he feels.

Minnesota Indy interview (full of softball questions.  The comments are typical, though tjswift is hilarious.

Anchoress.

Cartago Delenda Est.

Frances Beckwith here and here.

Catholic League news release.

Fox News on the original foofaraw that got PZ’s panties all in a bunch.

Washington Times.

Fr. James Martin in America.

Then PZ went and posted all the public information on a couple of lintheads who sent him evil threatening e-mails.  PZ ended up taking them down, because his sycophants went crazy on the lintheads.  PZ re-wrote the post, with this classic quote:

It is most definitely not intended to incite harassment. I do not want you to be dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk. For one thing, we can’t be certain that an innocent’s account hasn’t been hijacked; for another, we’re supposed to be better than that.

Res Ipsa Loquitur.  They cannot be better; philosophically, logically, they are acting exactly as they should; with malice and venom.  PZ knew that was going to happen, and he simply didn’t care.  Orac, another ScienceBlogs writer, took PZ to task on this idiotic action of his with great charity:

What on earth did you expect, P.Z., posting the e-mails and the entire headers?

Clearly you didn’t think things through.

Posted by: Orac | July 14, 2008 4:57 PM

But he did.  PZ is a sanctimonious, hypocritical asshat, a fundamentalist prophet of the Church of Atheism, but he is not stupid.  He knew what would happen.

Anyway, there is more, much more, more than one could possibly care to stomach over at Pharyngula, but those can be searched for by others.

I for one, am very curious to see exactly what he does to commit sacrilege to the Eucharist.  Not for any real harm that can come to Christ; I am confident that He can take care of Himself.  No, I am more curious to see how it further illustrates PZ’s consistent, pathological hatred (that word is used carefully) of religion, particularly Christianity.

(link). . .and Dawkins runs to his aid. (Beckwith claims that Pharyngula has been taken down, but as of the time stamp on this post, that is incorrect. PZ is still blathering full bile ahead.)

Mark Shea says it best:

The guy’s a bag lady screaming at the traffic–on the Minnesota taxpayer’s dime. Tell me again what the hell any of this has to do with science?

All this has spurred on a perfect storm of imbecilic comments (from BOTH sides) all over Myers’ pestiferous blog.  More than I have ever seen.  Illiterate commentary espousing violence from putative Catholics makes for a lousy witness (not that PZ would ever actually pay attention to a witness example, but that doesn’t absolve us from the responsibility to try), and the sanctimonious responses from Myers’ Sycophantic Horde is no better.

And that’s all I’m going to say on this. Res ipsa loquitur.

Seems that Obama is considering expanding the faith-based initiatives started by GW Bush. Right now, this is the ONLY thing about Obama that I can stand. I still won’t vote for the guy, though. However, what might cause me to vote for the Obamanator is the possibility of watching noted atheist moron PZ Myers’s head explode, as the committed Democrat will have to hold his nose and vote for a politician that -in terms of lip service, at least- is in favor of expanding aid to religious institutions.

He’s still proposing an expansion of Bush’s faith-based initiatives — he’s going to be handing out billions of dollars to religious organizations. It’s nice that he’s specifically saying there will be restrictions, that the money can’t be used in programs that discriminate, and it must be for secular purposes, but he’s still propping up a religious middleman between government aid and the people, and that’s a tool that will be used to proselytize indirectly, even if they don’t simply flout the rules. This is a bad idea.

Well, it’s a bad idea only when you’re an atheist nutjob who sees radical religious conspiracies under every collection plate. WHEN will this bearded blowhard come to terms with his fear of God? If he will simply admit that he is terrified that his Lutheran upbringing was possibly correct, then he can come to terms with it like a good Freudian misfit, and live his life out in fearful quiet in the wilds of Minnesota.

Ain’t likely.

So, as a consolation, I do get to see him become agitated about this Obama/faith-based initiative sop to the religious of America. Twill be amusing to watch PZ get all atwitter about this. NOTHING else at this point is worth paying attention to in this wretched election year.

On the left, Richard Dawkins. On the right, PZ Myers (picture brought to you from the Sixth Circle of Dante’s Inferno.)

(They are) curiously limited. (They are) mechanic(s) of the brain. (They have) cut it to pieces with (their) scalpels and found no soul. Therefore there is none. Like the Russian astronauts who circled the earth and did not see God. It is the empiricism of the mechanic, and a mechanic is only a child with superior motor control.

-Dr. Sam Weizak from Stephen King’s Dead Zone.

I mean, gut-bustingly so.

But here’s the funny part:  It is Pythonesque in its approach.  Meaning, it’s poking fun at both science and religion.

Now, the ironic part is that the Brights just don’t get what it’s really about.

Look, you fools, go re-watch the first part of the video, before the rap.  You clowns are being schooled.  The rap then schools both camps.

Mark Shea has a great takedown on this.

If I could find a way to host videos on this blog, this is the first one I’d put up.  It’s devastating.

via George Will.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.  (This is a surprise?  -ed.)

• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

• People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

The comment surely designed to make the Pharyngulites haul out their straw-man army is this one: ” The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion.“

Wow.  What a bombshell.  (/irony)

Will continues:

Brooks’s data about disparities between liberals’ and conservatives’ charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” Brooks, however, warns: “If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”

“You cannot give what you do not have.”  But liberals believe exactly that.  Take from others so that this may then be given to others.

Pony up, Kos, Myers and The Goracle.  Charity, as they say, starts at home.  Show is what it means to give of one’s needs, and perhaps the rest of us will listen to your clarion-call of Bigger Government Will Solve Everything.

Furthermore, Messers. Myers/Dennett/Dawkins: Put your money where your mouth is.  Show us how being committed, humanist atheists results in a more charitable, giving and loving culture.

A cold day in hell, and so on.

Ray Kurzweil wants to live forever, and claims that he will be able to do so after the upcoming “singularity’ occurs. He states that soon, we will be able to replace most if not all of our organs, and then after that, digitally “download” our consciousnesses onto computers, so that in the event we keep ourselves downloaded, we can live forever. Currently, he takes over 180 vitamins a day to prolong his life (so damned many pills, he has to hire help to manage which pills to take when) and sees a Denver-area physician once a week for longevity treatments. This physician charges $6000 per visit.

Somehow, some way, we all yearn for the unreachable, the immortal, the divine. There is that impossible desire within each of us for that level of perfection that cannot be achieved here on earth.

Aquinas taught many. many moons ago that this yearning for a perfection that we cannot know from experience here on earth shows that there must in fact be a God; how else can we explain this inexplicable yearning?

Kurzweil feels this. But as a committed rationalist, he must pursue his arid vision of digital immortality, and he sinks ridiculous sums of money into that pursuit.

What a tragedy it shall be for the man when he finally does die, sees that the old Manichean dualism is but a sham and a freeway to waste and misery.

(The title comes from a Larry Niven novelette of the same label and can be found in his short story collection Tales of Known Space. I recommend it without reservation. A scientist thinks he has the secret to unlimited power by harnessing the potential found in a quantum black hole. Of course, the man loses control of the forces he is manipulating and they destroy him. A timeless tale. Kurzweil is re-living it as we speak.)

(WordPress is being idiotic, so there are no links available for this post. I will either post actual URLs you can copy and paste, or you’ll have to Google particular names.

Not that you need to, you’ve seen them before)

I have actually mixed the Kool-Aid, took a good look at it, poured myself a glass, held it to my lips and taken a taste.

I cannot drink it. The lack of nutritional value, combined with the overwhelmingly bitter odor of almonds prevents me from swallowing the Dawkobot Kool-Aid.

I’ve watched Richard Dawkins lecture (http://www.glumbert.com/media/calltoarms). I’ve watched him debate with a liberal theologian from the Anglican Church (http://www.glumbert.com/media/dawkinsbishop). I’ve read some of his latest screed as presented at a speech in Wisconsin. (http://www.madison.com/tct/news/27676

Without question, the man is a brilliant biologist like his fellow Kool-Aid imbibers PZ Myers and Larry Moran. He is also a witty, incisive speaker. There is much to be admired about the man in terms of scientific intellect. Much the same may be said about his fellow thinkers Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris. They are all bright men in their correct fashion.

But as philosophers, they are all frightfully and dangerously amateur and misled, and as proponents of public policy, they are as ominous in their idealism as the worst Torquemada or Hitler.

As for the realm of philosophy, I cite Dawkins from his most recent article listed above:

Dawkins joked that he’s not absolutely positive there is no God. “Only in the sense that I’m not absolutely positive there is no large china teapot in orbit in the solar system.”

No one can actually disprove the existence of a celestial teapot, he said, “which means we all technically have to be agnostic about the teapot. But in practice we are all ‘ateapotists,’ ” he said to laughter.

He is, in his snarky upper-class British twit fashion, poking fun at religion by reciting a variant on the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The short version of this long-useless argumend against the existence of God is that we an imagine any sort of nonsense -unicorns in our backyard, flying spaghetti monsters, teapots in orbit- and to simply imagine them, while perhaps difficult to disprove, is insufficient to prove that they DO exist. Since the likelihood is so minimal as to be non-existent, we are safe in assuming that they in fact do NOT exist.

The debunking of this argument however, is really quite simple. In each case of the unicorn, or the spaghetti monster, or the orbiting teapot, the creator of the myth in question is dealing with constructs already very familiar to the human psyche. Each is made up of ideas that we as humans have already experienced.

But in the case of the Creator, of an all-powerful, all-good, perfect being in God, we are talking about a construct that is alien to our experience. There is nothing in our experience that is all-powerful; certainly nothing that is all-good, and perfection doesn’t even exist in nature (ask the high-speed photographers if they can capture the perfect “King’s Coronet” that is possible at the instant after a drop of milk falls into a perfectly still bowl of milk. It is possible, but it has never been captured on film.). Despite this lack of experience, our collective souls yearn for it, and on some level therefore must have experienced it. When else but before the fall?

Dawkins himself in his talk with the Bishop of Oxford (which is, by the way, an almost absurdly polite and deferential conversation. Both antagonists hold to their native positions, but are unfailingly polite and understanding of the other) admits that there must be some form of “other”, similar to what Einstein hinted at, but he refuses to admit this is God, or that religion in any way leads to this “other.” I have suggested elsewhere that Dawkins was having second thoughts about his atheism. I wish I’d had access to his talk with Oxford at the time. I still believe I am correct, but as CS Lewis was too stubborn to admit to Catholicism due to his traumatic upbringing in Ulster, so too Dawkins out of stubborn habit will never admit to the existence of what even his ossified conscience is hinting at.

Regardless, Cambridge, Morris and Toronto biologists need to stick to what they know, and keep the hell out of philosophy. They have shown themselves to be abundantly unqualified.

____________________________________________________________________________________

As for acting as framers of public policy, the Dawkobots take their orders from Richard Dawkins, and those orders are disturbingly Orwellian.

There is no such thing as a Catholic child, there are only children of Catholic parents, Dawkins said. “I think it is a form of child abuse to speak of a 4-year-old child as a Catholic child or a Protestant child or a Muslim child. There is no such thing as a Protestant child. There is no such thing as a Muslim child.

Meaning, of course, that such horrible practices as forming the faith of one’s child ought to be outlawed. He has signed a petition at one point that advocated exactly this, but later repudiated it for fear of a backlash amongst the more rational of his sycophants (an oxymoron, I know. . .but let it lie for now).

Mark Shea has characterized Dawkins as evil, not just stupid. I have to disagree. Dawkins is stupid- dangerously so- in terms of philosophy and public policy.

But no man is inherently evil. He may believe in evil practices, but that does not make him the devil.

Though come to think of it, this sort of logic gives Hitler a pass as well.

See if you can spot the logical flaws in this (I cannot find to whom this should be credited. Google “Atheist’s creed” and you get dozens of equally illogical variants):

An atheist’s creed

I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality.

We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.

I’ll update this later with my own observations. Right now, grading takes precedence over dismantling idiocy.

So, here we go:

 I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.

Time is now, apparently, a measureable construct.  Which is highly debatable:

Time does not refer to any kind of “container” that events and objects “move through”, nor to any entity that “flows”, but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz^[6] and Immanuel Kant,^[7][8] holds that time is not itself some thing and therefore is not to be measured.

Yet, the atheist “believes” that time is a measureable construct.

But wait!! More intense fun awaits!!

 I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;

How exactly does one believe that only reason and evidence and the mind are the only tools to be used?  For that matter, what IS the Mind?  What IS reason?  And how do we know that these are the only tools around.

A statement of faith is CERTAINLY needed here.  But it presents an inescapable and insoluble conundrum.  The atheist must use an article of faith -the antithesis of reason, according to the MRTs- to prove the existence of reason.  1 does not equal 0, yet 0 must equal 1.  This is a logical impossibility.

Further.  If reason, evidence, and “the mind”(again, a very nebulous concept) are the only means of reality, where do emotions fit in?  The mind, you say?  How, exactly then, do you measure these constructs?

Where is the evidence?

At this point, the atheist usually changes the subject/raises his voice/constructs the strawman or some other ad hominem argument/leaves the room/goes to pout.

 I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,

If this were true, you would not state the need for a belief.

  but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

Like.

HELL!!!

Visit any atheist website you like, and you will find NO exchange of ideas.  You will instead find a clamorous echo chamber where the atheist and his followers repeat their mantras to one another, and deride any opposing viewpoint as heresy.

Delicious and highly ironic stupidity.