When anti-reason inspires terrorism

I've been pondering a possibly-related point. There was an article in the UK Sunday Times Magazine by one Dennis Sewell, rehearsing some of the arguments in his book The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics.

I don't think Sewell has anything new to say. He was actively promoting the Creationist/ID position, under a pretence of impartial commentary. He was basically rehashing the Darwin-caused-Hitler spiel, with a very large helping of the Columbine massacre.

It struck me that, since the whole concept of "we should help Evolution along" is part of the anti-Darwin litany, we ought really to be blaming the antis for putting ideas into the nutjobs' heads in the first place.

"They remind us that those who would have us abandon reason on religious grounds do not always stop at words, and it is always worth opposing them."

Those who would have us abandon reason are always worth opposing.

Dan Brosier said: Those who would have us abandon reason are always worth opposing.

The creationists have long since gone beyond words. Below is an old post detailing some of their direct action activities.

The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can.

This is, of course, exactly the behavior of zealots who long ago forgot what the Christ in Christian stood for. These days, fundie is synonymous with liar, ignorant, stupid, and sometimes killer.

http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.]
As usual the truth is the exact opposite. The creos have been firing, beating up, attempting to fire, and killing scientists and science supporters for a while now. They are way ahead on body counts.

Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists.

I've discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire.

There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I'm keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 12 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who.

If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list.

I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution.

2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton)

1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet)

1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin)

1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist)

1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian)

1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas)

1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas)

1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland)

Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski

Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists.

Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while

Up to 12 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers.

And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

My list is already out of date. So far only two science supporters have been beaten up and only one killed.

The Oklahoma State legislature tried to do something to Richard Dawkins and O. University because Dawkins gave an invited talk there. Probably they are trying to find Oxford on a map and wondering why Dawkins lives in Mississippi.

A group of fundie Death Cultists of the Adventists are trying to fire the La Sierra biology department and then purge the other 15 Adventist colleges. The biologists are on the chopping block right now but the cultists have denied any culinary interests, pointing out that the Adventist church encourages vegetarianism.

The number of secondary school science teachers harassed, outright fired, or threatened into quiting is unknown but probably quite large.

And we all get death threats on a routine basis. I've long since lost the ability to pay any attention. The record holder is most likely PZ Myers who, IIRC, has gotten as many as 100/day. One kook was crazy enough that the police in two countries were notified. Not even going to count all the stolen Darwin fish.

Hate and violence are never too far below the surface of religious fanaticism. And sometimes right on the surface.

Slightly off topic. If you replace "special theory of relativity" with "origin of species". This cartoon describes so many of the IDiots.

raven said: Not even going to count all the stolen Darwin fish.

Salman Rushdie: The Fatwa 20 Years Later
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=saA3gi9h-M4

This is not about origins but if I may.
First this Rushdie guy deliberately said the most hateful thing possible in public about Islam.
Yes to free speech and yes to physical security for speech.
Yet in real life malicious provoking is just immoral and dumb.

If he had written a book about Jews, Blacks, Gays, Women with like malice he would be destroyed as a author.
North America shakes today the intent of establishment control over speech and ideas.
To say the religious people, of any species, are the ones censoring and punishing and prowling about looking for, offensive or perceived offensive or whatever speech is to misunderstand the times.

I am constantly attacked about my opinions and words though I say what I say with conviction and justice and kindness.
Doesn't matter to the liberal dominance of the day.

Words and ideas matter. Hateful expressions matter but in the end if a nation's people's do not have the freedom of speech/expression then they are not just not free but opposition to bad ideas and actions will be stopped by the bad guys who tend always to gain power.

A good way to stand for freedom of speech is by overturning the censorship of creationism in public institutions.
Otherwise there is no credibility to pointing fingers at others.

Robert Byers said: First this Rushdie guy deliberately said the most hateful thing possible in public about Islam. Yes to free speech and yes to physical security for speech. Yet in real life malicious provoking is just immoral and dumb.

I am constantly attacked about my opinions and words though I say what I say with conviction and justice and kindness. Doesn't matter to the liberal dominance of the day.

[quote]
[Rushdie] deliberately said the most hateful thing possible in public about Islam.
[/quote]
No he didn't. It wasn't hateful, it wasn't even that offensive.

Basically all he did was have a Satan-like character claim that he had written part of the Koran. It is not even clear to me that within the fictional dream sequence narrative we are suppose to accept this claim as true. After all, Satan does traditionally lie on a frequent basis.

Before you go making pronouncements that something is so offensive that it is reasonable to expect people to be killed over it, why don't you actually, you know, learn something about what you are saying instead of making stuff up.

I am so tired of people making stuff up.

RBH said: Now, this thread is not going to turn into a Byers-fest. I got the one response ex officio; more will go to the bathroom wall. Thanks, folks.

Robert Byers said: A good way to stand for freedom of speech is by overturning the censorship of creationism in public institutions.

wikipedia Satanic Verses: [edit] Basic narrative See the complete text of Tabarī's account below There are numerous accounts reporting the incident, which differ in the construction and detail of the narrative, but they may be broadly collated to produce a basic account.[1] In its essential form, the story reports that Muhammad longed to convert his kinsmen and neighbors of Mecca to Islam. As he was reciting Sūra an-Najm[2], considered a revelation by the angel Gabriel, Satan tempted him to utter the following lines after verses 19 and 20 ("Have you considered Allāt and al-'Uzzā / and Manāt, the other third?" These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.) Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt were three goddesses worshipped by the Meccans

Robert Byers said: This is not about origins but if I may. First this Rushdie guy deliberately said the most hateful thing possible in public about Islam.

And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

Not ToE per se but not far off: Melinda Morton.

Raven -

As far as I can tell, Michael Korn is still at large and it is very difficult to get a picture of him. Google doesn't seem to produce much except a couple of 2007 articles saying that he is "being sought". The name is quite common, which adds to confusion. I didn't search very hard and don't have immediate access to LexusNexus or anything of that sort.

The double standard in this case is amazing. A student who sent his professors and colleagues skull and crossbones images in the post Va Tech environment, in almost any other circumstances, would quickly have been arrested, put into court mandated therapy, charged with a crime, and touted as a terrorist in the media. And that's assuming that the student was non-Muslim; if a Muslim student did something similar, it would be the leading story in the national news for days.

However, if it's a "Christian" of sorts attacking evolution, a mealy-mouthed blurb from the university (endorsing "debate", LOL) and a wink from everyone else seems to be what happens.

In fact, Michael Korn's latest activity in his Amazon account is a review of a religious book (which he condemns for not being literalist) a few days ago http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2YYX9BVQLY8KO/ref=cm_rna_own_review_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R317D3DX4853VL

Obviously, profiles can be updated or not, at will, but his claims that he is in Denver.

Robert Byers said: I am constantly attacked about my opinions and words though I say what I say with conviction and justice and kindness.

but his claims that he is in Denver.

W. H. Heydt said: ...in a prior thread (Byers) claimed that using "BCE" is illegal. When asked for the citation of an actual law to that effect..you waffled. Therefore, I'm asking again: Please cite an actual law (or legal ruling) making the use of BCE illegal or withdraw your claim.

Paul Burnett said:

W. H. Heydt said: ...in a prior thread (Byers) claimed that using "BCE" is illegal. When asked for the citation of an actual law to that effect..you waffled. Therefore, I'm asking again: Please cite an actual law (or legal ruling) making the use of BCE illegal or withdraw your claim.

"When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis." - CONSERVAPEDIA (EDITING) COMMANDMENTS #4, http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

W. H. Heydt said: I'll grant you that both Burnett and Byers both begin with "B", but if you're answering for him, it's still a clean miss.

Paul Burnett said:

W. H. Heydt said: I'll grant you that both Burnett and Byers both begin with "B", but if you're answering for him, it's still a clean miss.

That was a joke, son. (Conservapedia's a joke around here.)

Paul Burnett said:

W. H. Heydt said: I'll grant you that both Burnett and Byers both begin with "B", but if you're answering for him, it's still a clean miss.

That was a joke, son. (Conservapedia's a joke around here.)

W. H. Heydt said: Speaking of which, in a prior thread you claimed that using "BCE" is illegal. When asked for the citation of an actual law to that effect..you waffled. Therefore, I'm asking again: Please cite an actual law (or legal ruling) making the use of BCE illegal or withdraw your claim.

I suggest that in any future responses to Byers we use the BCE designation and give the date. I"m sure he will turn us all in to Homeland Security.

By the way. it is both illegal and immoral to teach creationism in U.S. public school science classes. Byers loses either way.

DS said: I suggest that in any future responses to Byers we use the BCE designation and give the date. I"m sure he will turn us all in to Homeland Security.

Dan said:

DS said: I suggest that in any future responses to Byers we use the BCE designation and give the date. I"m sure he will turn us all in to Homeland Security.

So should we list the current year as negative 2009 BCE ??

DS said: I suggest that in any future responses to Byers we use the BCE designation and give the date. I"m sure he will turn us all in to Homeland Security.

stevaroni said: Why should it be BC/AD in the first place? It's widely accepted that good ol' Dionysius Exiguus got the date wrong anyway, and, using the rule of Herod as a reference, Jesus was probably born in either 6BCE or 5BCE anyway. So BC/AD is already wrong, and we should rightfully just call it BG or GC for Gregorian calendar years.

According to the standard calender we now use, July 29, 1900 was the day that King Umberto I of Italy was assassinated by Gaetano Bresci of Patterson, NJ (a bit of dirt about New Jersey that I was unaware of). Many people were born on that day.

Regarding BC and AD: In my rural South Indian school (Founded by Lutherans, under Christian management) the teachers said AD stood for, I am not kidding, After Death! In many parts of India that is how it is still being taught!

I learnt the correct expansion Anno Domini in a etymology and usage column by William Safire in NYT. He was very proud that as a speech writer for Nixon in the White House, he was instrumental in slipping AD in the date engraved in the plaque carried by the Voyager spacecraft. He was crowing how the scientists and technologists did not realize the religious foundations of the abbreviation and he was able to get it past them atheists.

It was mindbogglingly petty. Them scientists actually put together a spacecraft that is traveling to the edge of the Solar System and still beeping messages some 25 years after launch. And here is this small minded jerk who thinks he is so smart because they did not realize the religiousness of AD.

To think he was actually in the White House with some ability to influence the POTUS is scary.

I tried to find the reference to the column by Safire. Looks like the plaque he was referring could have been the one left on the Moon by Appolo 11 astronauts and not the one carried by Pioneer/Voyager space craft. Anyway he was very proud of that "achievement".

I wonder how they will feel if the IDiots actually achieve something.

stevaroni said:

Why should it be BC/AD in the first place? It's widely accepted that good ol' Dionysius Exiguus got the date wrong anyway, and, using the rule of Herod as a reference, Jesus was probably born in either 6BCE or 5BCE anyway. So BC/AD is already wrong, and we should rightfully just call it BG or GC for Gregorian calendar years.

A perfectly rational suggestion, but the expression "Gregorian calendar" is usually taken to mean "day and month dates calculated according to the Gregorian calendar". The year numbers for the Julian and the Gregorian calendars are actually the same - well, almost. And any large-scale convention is difficult to change, especially where there are many sovereign authorities. Consider English spelling, that proverbial intractible. The small change represented by BC=BCE/AD=CE is generally accepted among historians now, and it does at least have the virtue that it explicitly states that it is only a convention.

Dave Luckett said: The small change represented by BC=BCE/AD=CE is generally accepted among historians now, and it does at least have the virtue that it explicitly states that it is only a convention.

harold said: According to the standard calender we now use, July 29, 1900 was the day that King Umberto I of Italy was assassinated by Gaetano Bresci of Patterson, NJ (a bit of dirt about New Jersey that I was unaware of). Many people were born on that day.

Was there one? When did the adjustment "no leap year for 00 years except those where the first two digits are also divisible evenly by four" come in?

The "no leap year for 00 years except those where the first two digits are divisible eactly by four" was the Gregorian innovation of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Only Roman Catholic countries took the innovation on board straight away, leading to an increasing divergence between the Gregorian reformed calendar and the Julian original.

England and its colonies (including what's now the USA) introduced it in 1752, when eleven days were omitted, jumping straight from Wednesday 2 September to Thursday 14 September. The Russian Federation only adopted it after the Revolution of October 1917 (which, according to the rest of the world, took place in November!).

So the only places where there was a 29 February 1900 were Russia and those places that had not yet adopted the Gregorian calendar?

Dave Luckett said: The year numbers for the Julian and the Gregorian calendars are actually the same - well, almost.

Robert Byers said: First this Rushdie guy deliberately said the most hateful thing possible in public about Islam. Yes to free speech and yes to physical security for speech. Yet in real life malicious provoking is just immoral and dumb.

My apologies RBH - didn't see your post about no Byers responses until after I posted. Please remove the above.

W. H. Heydt -

The rules for leap years are fairly common knowledge.

The Russians or anyone else using a Julian calender in 1900 would have still recorded a July 29, as well as experiencing as day that was designated as July 29 by the Gregorian calender, even if they didn't call it that.

Those who would have us abandon reason are always worth opposing.

Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM. Posted by News Intern Aaron Pickus. An employee at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in downtown Seattle, received threatening e-mails last week, according to an SPD incident report. The employee, identified in the officer's narrative as the Institute's Vice-President, Steven Buri, says in the report that they occasionally receive e-mails from people who disagree with the think tank's theories and call the staff "stupid." Three e-mails this week, however, were turned over to the police after Buri became alarmed by a specific line: "You've been warned a******. Shut the f*** up or die." The report states that Buri is concerned because the Discovery Institute is a research group that deals, in part, with Intelligent Design. He believes that the threats were directed at the entire Institute and not any specific staffer. Repeated calls for comment to the Discovery Institute and Buri have not been returned. ---Slog News and Arts, Crime Section: "Threats Against Discovery"

ravilyn sanders said, of Nixon speechwriter William Safire: To think he was actually in the White House with some ability to influence the POTUS is scary.

Every year Cody's - the place in Berkeley that was bombed - puts out a table highlighting (and giving a discount on) "banned books." Typically they focus on books which are or were the targets of homegrown (U.S.) attempts at censorship, not what other countries ban. These include the "classics" of banning attempts such as Mein Kampf and Huck Finn, but there are usually some entries from the past year too.

I always found it interesting to go by during that week and see just which books from the last year were the targets of left- or right-wing attempts at censorship.

Kudos to Cody's for continuing their strong (and monetary - in the form of discounting) support of free speech long after being bombed for it.

FL wrote:

"And that would include abandonment of reason on the part of evolutionists."

Absolutely. Now all you have to do is provide evidence that an "evolutionist" is responsible for this threat and we will all be more than happy to oppose them. Maybe we should report them to Homeland Security!

Of course, that is not likely to be the case, since ID is practically dead at this point. Why threaten someone on death row with death? More likely it is yet another hoax by the DI since they have so much time on their hands.

And that would include abandonment of reason on the part of evolutionists.

stevaroni said: using the rule of Herod as a reference, Jesus was probably born in either 6BCE or 5BCE anyway.

raven said: The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can.

FL said:

Those who would have us abandon reason are always worth opposing.

And that would include abandonment of reason on the part of evolutionists.

Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM. Posted by News Intern Aaron Pickus. An employee at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank based in downtown Seattle, received threatening e-mails last week, according to an SPD incident report. The employee, identified in the officer's narrative as the Institute's Vice-President, Steven Buri, says in the report that they occasionally receive e-mails from people who disagree with the think tank's theories and call the staff "stupid." Three e-mails this week, however, were turned over to the police after Buri became alarmed by a specific line: "You've been warned a******. Shut the f*** up or die." The report states that Buri is concerned because the Discovery Institute is a research group that deals, in part, with Intelligent Design. He believes that the threats were directed at the entire Institute and not any specific staffer. Repeated calls for comment to the Discovery Institute and Buri have not been returned. ---Slog News and Arts, Crime Section: "Threats Against Discovery"

FL

FL said:

Those who would have us abandon reason are always worth opposing.

And that would include abandonment of reason on the part of evolutionists.

Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:12 PM. Posted by News Intern Aaron Pickus. (drivel...) —Slog News and Arts, Crime Section: “Threats Against Discovery”

Oh wait…the article doesn’t mention anyone or the motive.

Good old FL, paranoid as usual. You need to hook up with Bobby up in canada. the writer of this letter could just as easily been someone who gave money to the DI to do REAL research and found out he got scammed. Or did the polce this guy who's wife he was sleeping with? lots of other possibilities.

DS said: FL wrote: "And that would include abandonment of reason on the part of evolutionists." Absolutely. Now all you have to do is provide evidence that an "evolutionist" is responsible for this threat and we will all be more than happy to oppose them. Maybe we should report them to Homeland Security! Of course, that is not likely to be the case, since ID is practically dead at this point. Why threaten someone on death row with death? More likely it is yet another hoax by the DI since they have so much time on their hands.

FL,

As harold said, violence is violence. We (or at least I) agree its not more warranted when directed at creationists than it is directed at mainstream scientists.

But I am interested in knowing whether you think a threatening letter sent to the DI is really a comparable terrorist act to bombing Cody's. Because you're drawing that comparison.

I think you should be far more outraged about the bombing than the letter. The fact that you appear to be more outraged about a letter sent to someone you agree with than you are about a bombing of a liberal bookstore reduces my opinion of you as a person.

It also reduces my opinion of you as a Christian. An immoral violent act is being discussed, and instead of repudiating it you use it as an opportunity to point out the mote in someone else's eye. Booo!

FL said:

Oh wait…the article doesn’t mention anyone or the motive.

Let's see now. Somebody leaves death threats and hate speech against the Discovery Institute--and specifically tells them to "shut up", which means he is aware of and doesn't like the DI's specific claims regarding origins. But you can't figure out a motive here? You're unable to even figure out that somebody who is opposed to the DI's message (and clearly is even opposed to DI staff being ALIVE unless they "shut up") would most likely be a person who believes in evolution??? Good grief folks!!

FL said:

Oh wait…the article doesn’t mention anyone or the motive.

Let's see now. Somebody leaves death threats and hate speech against the Discovery Institute--and specifically tells them to "shut up", which means he is aware of and doesn't like the DI's specific claims regarding origins. But you can't figure out a motive here? You're unable to even figure out that somebody who is opposed to the DI's message (and clearly is even opposed to DI staff being ALIVE unless they "shut up") would most likely be a person who believes in evolution??? Good grief folks!!

But I am interested in knowing whether you think a threatening letter sent to the DI is really a comparable terrorist act to bombing Cody’s.

"They remind us that those who would have us abandon reason on religious grounds do not always stop at words."

"Natural SELECTION!!!!!! God d**n it's the best thing that ever happened to the earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms...but it's all natural!!! YES!" ---Eric Harris, co-star of the Colombine Bloodbath (he was the gunner with the words "Natural Selection" emblazoned on his T-Shirt.)

FL,

So your answer is no, you don't have any evidence at all. Got it.

All of your bluster about cleaning house is misguided. Of course, there are those who believe in evolution who are capable of immoral behavior. However, historically creationists and religious extremists threaten scientists far more often than the other way around. It is far more likely that those who embrace irrationality as a life style will advocate and commit violence than those who embrace knowledge and empiricism. If there is any house cleaning that is needed, it is much more necessary in mosques, cathedrals, and churches than in research laboratories.

Anyway, no one said that they didn't take the threat seriously. We just pointed out that without any evidence, placing blame is premature.

Long story short, clean up your own evo-house first before pointing fingers.

FL said:

Oh wait…the article doesn’t mention anyone or the motive.

Let's see now. Somebody leaves death threats and hate speech against the Discovery Institute--and specifically tells them to "shut up", which means he is aware of and doesn't like the DI's specific claims regarding origins. But you can't figure out a motive here? You're unable to even figure out that somebody who is opposed to the DI's message (and clearly is even opposed to DI staff being ALIVE unless they "shut up") would most likely be a person who believes in evolution??? Good grief folks!!

Three e-mails this week, however, were turned over to the police after Buri became alarmed by a specific line: “You’ve been warned a******. Shut the f*** up or die.”

Can someone show me the part of the Bible where Jesus says to make death threats? Seriously? Because I can't find it.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Both believers and non believers can and do have murderous impulses, but only believers can think that an omnipotent God told them to kill.

There's that old bit about "If God is dead, everything is permitted," but as far as atheists are concerned nothing is permitted since there is nobody to do the permitting. Indeed, realizing you're on our own is the basis of any morality for grown ups. You do, it's your fault.

Christians and Muslims, at least the many irrationalists among them, can permit themselves anything since they imagine they are following the commands of an all-powerfu being who transcends morality. Of course there are lots of moral monotheists, but religion is nevertheless a perpetual incitement to immorality, and things don't get any better if you think of a situation, polysyllabically, as a teleological suspension of the ethical.

I learnt the correct expansion Anno Domini in a etymology and usage column by William Safire in NYT. He was very proud that as a speech writer for Nixon in the White House, he was instrumental in slipping AD in the date engraved in the plaque carried by the Voyager spacecraft.

In my rural South Indian school (Founded by Lutherans, under Christian management) the teachers said AD stood for, I am not kidding, After Death!

Matt Young said: Why on earth would a nice Jewish boy like Safire think it was cool to get Anno Domini on a plaque?

Nope, I got AD in my US Lutheran School. I don't recall if it was actually perpetuated by the teachers; it's been far too long to recall details, but I definitely remember hearing this definition.

That is got AD=After Death.

Just nit picking but, yes, the plaques were on the Apollo Lunar Modules.

Voyager (V-ger of Star Trek: The Movie fame)had (has) a gold plated disk. No words, only a drawing of a man and woman, the dish antenna (both at the same scale), a diagram of the solar system and a diagram of a helium (or was it hydrogen?) molecule. It also has audio recordings of various things.

All pretty amazing - really.

Indeed that’s true, for those who abandon reason don’t always stop at words. However, it’s also equally applicable to you evolutionists, atheists and skeptics too. You’ve got NO natural immunity in that area, trust me. You got NO halos atop your Darwinist noggins. You haven’t always “stopped at words.” You ARE as capable of death threats–of “anti-reason”–and of doing “more than words”–as any other set of humans. So Eric, you seriously need to understand that your own evolutionist side of the fence must clean up their own house first on this issue, BEFORE trying to point any fingers at creationists. Anything less is pure hypocrisy on your part. ****** There’s a reason why death threats, whether they be aimed at Dover’s Judge Jones or the staff of the Discovery Institute, are normally reported to the police. You take them ALL seriously. You don’t look for excuses to minimize death threats merely because the target is Non-Darwinist. You should know better than that. You took it seriously when Judge Jones said he received death threats, right? So take it equally seriously when the DI staff reports to the police that they’ve received death threats. Can you do that guys? ****** Long story short, clean up your own evo-house first before pointing fingers. To help you, here’s a reminder from a famous evolutionist:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And [FL has] no evidence these threats came from "evolutionists". What a liar for Christ you are. Who murdered the abortion doctor? An "evolutionist". Nope. Theist basketcase. You're a liar and a fool, FL. And a mite paranoid.

Stanton said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: And [FL has] no evidence these threats came from "evolutionists". What a liar for Christ you are. Who murdered the abortion doctor? An "evolutionist". Nope. Theist basketcase. You're a liar and a fool, FL. And a mite paranoid.

Either FL really is paranoid (as evidenced by the time he ranted about evolution allegedly worshiped as a god and that science classrooms are really a kind of church), or he just likes to pick fights with his lies. Or both.

Richard said: Just nit picking but, yes, the plaques were on the Apollo Lunar Modules.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: I admit, I can't figure him out. I think he's really passionate about what he believes, but really, really stupid. His reasoning ability seems to be non-existent.

raven said:

Not ToE per se but not far off: Melinda Morton.

Not familiar with that one. Explain if you want.

Dan said:

DS said: I suggest that in any future responses to Byers we use the BCE designation and give the date. I"m sure he will turn us all in to Homeland Security.

So should we list the current year as negative 2009 BCE ??

What's wrong with this FL fellow? Making a huge issue out of what may have been a case of hate mail. So what? Imbalanced, psychotic or otherwise unpredictable people can be found in all walks of life - and we all agree that it is must unfortunate when such things happen.

Takes an FL to make that into a case of evil evolutionism against lilywhite creationism.

As far as I can tell there isn't any 'evolutionist house' that needs cleaning up.

FL said: So Eric, you seriously need to understand that your own evolutionist side of the fence must clean up their own house first on this issue, BEFORE trying to point any fingers at creationists. Anything less is pure hypocrisy on your part.

What’s wrong with this FL fellow? Making a huge issue out of what may have been a case of hate mail.

Anyone dumb enough or crazy enough to send death threats needs to figure out first who is going to feed their cats while they are doing a multi-year prison sentence.

As Rolf says, I don’t think its our house that’s out of order.

via Pigeonchess.com: “Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?” August 23, 2008 Creationist nut-job Tom Willis (Creation Science Association for Mid-America), apparently without a sense of irony, accuses evolutionists of being Nazis/communists (or at least fellow travelers of the Nazis and communists) and concludes from this that it might be a good idea to (amongst other possibilities) round up evolutionists and put them in forced labor camps. Other options include torturing recantations out of evolutionists, forcing them to wear identifying signs or plaques, or perhaps forced relocations to Antarctica (or Mars).

*Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps.

That’s like saying, “What’s wrong with Kitzmiller’s Judge Jones? Making a huge issue out of what may have been a case of hate mail.” Work on it, Rolf. Work on it. ******

Let’s see now. Somebody leaves death threats and hate speech against the Discovery Institute–and specifically tells them to “shut up”, which means he is aware of and doesn’t like the DI’s specific claims regarding origins. But you can’t figure out a motive here? You’re unable to even figure out that somebody who is opposed to the DI’s message (and clearly is even opposed to DI staff being ALIVE unless they “shut up”) would most likely be a person who believes in evolution??? Good grief folks!!

That’s the correct focus. NOT “creationists”, but “anyone.”

FL said: There's a reason why death threats, whether they be aimed at Dover's Judge Jones or the staff of the Discovery Institute, are normally reported to the police. You take them ALL seriously. You don't look for excuses to minimize death threats merely because the target is Non-Darwinist. You should know better than that. You took it seriously when Judge Jones said he received death threats, right? So take it equally seriously when the DI staff reports to the police that they've received death threats. Can you do that guys? ****** Long story short, clean up your own evo-house first before pointing fingers.

FL wrote:

"That’s the correct focus. NOT “creationists”, but “anyone.” This thread originally focussed on pointing the finger at creationists. That’s what was wrong."

Then why did you start pointing fingers at "evolutionists"?

Funny how we damned evolutionists provide links to back up our statements but FL can’t produce squat for evidence that the threat against the DI was from an science supporter.

FL said: That's the correct focus. NOT "creationists", but "anyone." This thread originally focussed on pointing the finger at creationists.

raven said:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

I don't think Jesus had email. They did have swords though. Can't say I think too much of the family values in that passage either.

FL wrote:

"So how many more funerals do you need to help you understand that evolutionists can be as violence-prone (in word or deed or both) as any other group of humans??"

So, what's your point? That those who believe in science are human? Even if you could prove statistically that those who believe in evolution are more prone to violent behavior, (which you can't), so what? You still have to deal with the fact that evolution is correct. No one ever claimed that everyone who believes in evolution is perfect. You can't start pointing fingers and then blame others for doing so.

If it turns out that the e-mails are from some outraged homosexual, will you condemn all of them as well? If they turn out to be from some outraged spouse, will you condemn all spouses? If they turn out to be a hoax, will you condemn the DI?

Why are my comments being censored?

FL said: Hey, you've ALREADY got an evolutionist mowing down his fellow Colorado high school peers in broad daylight after proclaiming his drooling love for Darwinian natural selection, and even boasting "I am the natural selector!"

FL losing on body counts: Hey, you’ve ALREADY got an evolutionist mowing down his fellow Colorado high school peers in broad daylight after proclaiming his drooling love for Darwinian natural selection, and even boasting “I am the natural selector!”

FL going off the rail: So how many more funerals do you need to help you understand that evolutionists can be as violence-prone (in word or deed or both) as any other group of humans??

FL said:

Funny how we damned evolutionists provide links to back up our statements but FL can’t produce squat for evidence that the threat against the DI was from an science supporter.

Hey, you've ALREADY got an evolutionist mowing down his fellow Colorado high school peers in broad daylight after proclaiming his drooling love for Darwinian natural selection, and even boasting "I am the natural selector!" (We normally label such behavior "anti-reason" and "terrorism", by the way). So how many more funerals do you need to help you understand that evolutionists can be as violence-prone (in word or deed or both) as any other group of humans??

FL,

The only instance you cite of violence by 'evolutionists' is Columbine?

Harris & Klebold were highschool students. I would bet a dollar that neither of the two could define evolution.

Now Fundamentalists on the other hand.... How many heretics, pagans, and atheists were burned at the stake in the name of the Christian God? Were you to regain power today, how many more would you kill?

I believe that FL is referring to Pekka-Eric Auvinen the 18 year old gunman in Finland who killed 8 students and his principal. Of course as usual it seems FL didn't bother to actually look up his reference. The guy claimed on his Facebook page to be motivated by hate and rage, not evolution.

Good ol' FL - providing more evidence against his own argument rather than for it.

First of all, I'd join everyone here who has said that the incident should be taken seriously. I have just learned that a good friend is being harassed by a former student and I know that will be taken seriously too. (not a science person, and otherwise non-germane).

That said, I think that it is time to actually look at this "story". The article cited by FL is the only story I can find on either Yahoo! or Google.

In fact, it is discussed more in science blogs like PT. For that matter, there does not seem to be any comment in the DI's web site either, at least according to the search engines and as of this timestamp.
Neither could I find a story about this threat in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, CNN nor Fox News sites.

So what we have is a single story from a weekly Seattle newspaper. One thing that FL neglected to mention is his subtle editing to give Aaron Pickus an authority he likely has not earned. The story, http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/10/threats-against-discovery identifies Pickus as an "unpaid intern".

That of itself certainly does not discredit the story, however the footnote Fl "missed" in his post does, IMHO: *The incident report's author helpfully describes Intelligent Design as an "alternative to Darwinian Theory."
.

Whether that refers to Pickus or his source, is in my mind, unimportant. This looks to me like a ham-handed attempt on the part of someone connected/supporting the DI to get some sympathy press. I submit that until there are follow ups in the reputable press, that we use FL's fertilizer on our flower beds.

dpr

So basically, FL's argument is that since accepting the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily make people perfect, violence by creationists is okay.

And on top of that he has no actual examples of imperfect behavior by people who actually understand the theory of evolution (although plenty must exist).

henry said:

raven said: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (snip)

Is this a death threat? I am not aware of any minister, or church, or denomination which advocates death threats, not to mention using this passage to support such a teaching. If there are, they would be outside of orthodox Christianity. The context of this passage is Jesus commanding his disciples to preach the kingdom of heaven [v. 7]. His message would cause divisions within families, some members would love Him , others would hate Him. (snip)

Just Bob said: Now, what I desperately need to know (so I don't end up in Hell) is WHICH parts are literal and which are metaphor, or hyperbole (like the above), or poetic license, or explanatory myths for the pre-scientific. And what is the rule you go by to determine literalness (so that as I read, I can apply the literality filter)? Surely there must be such a rule or test, not just what a particular sect likes.

Ravilyn.Sanders said:

Also AD = After Death was not confined to India? That is interesting. I assumed it was folk etymology at work there.

It's what I was taught when I was a kid. I wonder if there was a common source, or whether it was independent origination. In my own work (and bear in mind that I am not a Christian) I use BC and CE. To me, BC is an historical comment, not a theological one, and I like the fact that BC and CE both have two letter. BCE has always seemed a bit long and unbalanced to me.

I believe that FL is referring to Pekka-Eric Auvinen the 18 year old gunman in Finland who killed 8 students and his principal.

On November 7, 2007, Auvinen showed up at his own school, Jokela High in Tuusula, Finland, with a small-caliber handgun. He proceeded to massacre seven fellow students and the school headmistress, wounding ten others, before shooting himself. On a website, it was later learned, he described himself as an "anti-social social-Darwinist," declaring that "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." ---David Klinghoffer, "Slouching Towards Colombine: Darwin's Tree of Death", 04-20-2009.

Hey FL, why no answer about what parts of the Bible are literal, what figurative, and how to make that distinction?

Why is the sword figurative, while the days in Genesis are literal?

A witch hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic, mass hysteria and lynching, but in historical instances also legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials. The classical period of witchhunts in Europe falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1700, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 100,000 executions.[1]

Poverty and lack of education make families susceptible to accusations, and willing to follow pastors who proclaim the Biblical injunction of "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." The fast spread of evangelical Christianity, paired with traditional beliefs, has contributed to the roughly 15,000 alleged cases of "child witchcraft" in Nigeria. About 1,000 of those children were killed. "When communities come under pressure, they look for scapegoats," Martin Dawes, a spokesman for the United Nations Children's Fund. "It plays into traditional beliefs that someone is responsible for a negative change ... and children are defenseless."

Explain to us again why we should abandon a working scientific theory simply because you're saying that a handful of deranged individuals misused a misunderstanding of Evolutionary Biology as excuses for murder and mayhem?

If that's so, then how come you aren't calling for us to abandon physics or chemistry, when both have been used to develop nuclear weapons, explosives and poisons?

If we took your misbegotten "logic" further, FL, we should first abandon Christianity, instead. After all, Christianity has inspired people in the 20th and 21st centuries, alone, to commit murder, vandalism, promote racism, disenfranchise entire populations, protecting child molesters and rapists from justice solely for the sake of maintaining the status quo, as well as inspire people to wage war and commit cultural genocide.

Well, FL?

FL wrote:

"So, the point remains. Don’t point fingers of “anti-reason” and “terrorism” at creationists until your evolutionist house is swept clean."

That isn't the point. If you think that it is, then you cannot point fingers at any "evolutionist" until you can guarantee that no religious zealots or bigots ever commit any acts of violence. That's just insane. The real point is that all bigotry should be opposed and all violence should be resisted. If everyone waited until everyone else was perfect, then the bigots and zealots would be free to do as they please without opposition.

And PT has never tried to inspire anyone to do anything "inappropriate". Why do you always have to make things up? Now that is inappropriate. Give it some thought.

DS said: And PT has never tried to inspire anyone to do anything "inappropriate". Why do you always have to make things up? Now that is inappropriate. Give it some thought.

Of course insane people do insane things, for insane motives. So, how do you discriminate between what is insane and what is not, then? Why, by asking whether the motive be rationally assessed.

Did Auvinen see himself as an agent of "natural selection"? No. In the haunted labyrinth of his mind, he was replacing natural selection, which he thought had failed. Is it conceivably possible that his murders might have actually advanced the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution? No, of course that is not possible. Did his actions have any application under that theory? Only in that they ensured that his own traits would not be inherited, which is intrinsically irrational. Was the insane hatred that caused these killings directed against any rationally delimited group? No. Auvinen simply killed whoever he could, and then himself.

In other words, no rational reason can be led for Auvinen's acts. He was insane. He did an insane thing. The same line of reasoning applies to the Columbine shooters, and to random killers generally.

Insanity causes many killings and other acts of violence. Paranoid schizophrenics are often motivated by aural or visual hallucinations that they take to be divine messages. Nobody counts these acts as "religiously inspired", despite that. The acts are manifestations of insanity, and no more.

But there is another class of crimes - genuine hate crimes against specific persons or groups for rationally assimilable reasons. When religious extremists firebomb premises or assault or murder people, they are striking against beliefs that can be stated in favour of other beliefs that can be stated, and against a group that can be defined as their ideological opponents.

Their actions are not random, not insane. They are providing rational reason for other bookshops not to carry the material they object to. When they assault or kill workers in clinics that offer termination of pregnancy, they are motivating others to avoid working in such clinics. Those are rationally assimilable reasons for the actions. Their perpetrators are therefore not insane. They are responsible for their crimes.

If there were people who firebombed fundamentalist churches or killed creationists because they thought it would prevent the teaching of creationism, then they would be as culpable. But to the best of my knowledge, there are no such people. Churches are firebombed, occasionally. I know of no case where this has occurred for any other than sectarian or racist causes.

But I would go a little further. Most Christians would recoil in horror at hate crimes, and would urge that Christianity itself cannot be held responsible for them. I would actually accept that. Where a Christian group unequivocably denounces the crime and states that the perpetrators have departed from the company of Christians and the teachings of Christ, I would hold them guiltless. The same for Muslims who denounce their own criminal extremists.

The same for those who accept evolution. If ever a hate crime were committed to promote evolution or suppress creationism, then I would expect those who accept evolution to denounce it in round terms. If they did not, they would be culpable. I know of no such crime, but if there were one, I condemn and revile the criminal responsible, and trust that he or she meets the full force of the law.

Mind, the denunciation must be unequivocal, as above. It isn't good enough to "distance" oneself. Mealy-mouthed haverings won't do. It isn't acceptable to imply that the crime, though distasteful and regrettable, is excusable or justifiable in any sense. Any group or person that follows that line or anything like it shares in the guilt.

That's where FL gets off. He hasn't denounced, in unequivocal terms, sectarian hate crimes against ideological opponents. The best he can come up with is "you do it too", which we don't. Hence, he shares in the guilt.

If you happen to believe Hoppe’s OP was aimed more at religious people in general, then the point STILL remains: Don’t point fingers of “anti-reason” and “terrorism” at religious people until you non-religious skeptical people get your own non-religious skeptical house swept clean.

FL said:

Funny how we damned evolutionists provide links to back up our statements but FL can’t produce squat for evidence that the threat against the DI was from an science supporter.

Hey, you've ALREADY got an evolutionist mowing down his fellow Colorado high school peers in broad daylight after proclaiming his drooling love for Darwinian natural selection, and even boasting "I am the natural selector!" (We normally label such behavior "anti-reason" and "terrorism", by the way). So how many more funerals do you need to help you understand that evolutionists can be as violence-prone (in word or deed or both) as any other group of humans??

FL said: So, the point remains. Don't point fingers of "anti-reason" and "terrorism" at creationists until your evolutionist house is swept clean.

FL said:

On November 7, 2007, Auvinen showed up at his own school, Jokela High in Tuusula, Finland, with a small-caliber handgun. He proceeded to massacre seven fellow students and the school headmistress, wounding ten others, before shooting himself. On a website, it was later learned, he described himself as an "anti-social social-Darwinist," declaring that "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." ---David Klinghoffer, "Slouching Towards Colombine: Darwin's Tree of Death", 04-20-2009.

Hmmmm. Another evolutionist, just drooling with hot puppy love for his Darwinian Natural Selection. Go figure, baby!!

David Klinghoffer is a controversial author and essayist, and a proponent of intelligent design. He is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, the organization that is the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. He is also a frequent contributor to National Review and a former columnist for the Jewish weekly newspaper The Forward, to which he still contributes occasional essays. Klinghoffer is a practicing Orthodox Jew who has written a spiritual memoir about his journey from Reform Judaism to becoming ba'al tshuva (Hebrew, a newly religious Orthodox Jew).[1] In his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus, Klinghoffer theorizes that Jewish rejection of Jesus allowed Christianity to separate from Judaism and become a multi-ethnic religion. Christianity was thus able to achieve a dominance in gentile Europe that would have been impossible for Judaism to attain. To Klinghoffer, this changed world history, because Christianity was able to serve as a bulwark against the spread of Islam into Europe.[2] Klinghoffer has published a series of articles, editorial columns, and letters to the editor in both Jewish and conservative publications seeking to promote opposition to Darwinian views of evolution.[3][4][5] Larry Yudelson has responded, in a piece directed at Klinghoffer, that rabbinical Judaism has accepted evolutionary theory for more than a century, and that Judaism has never rejected science.[6] Yudelson also charges that Klinghoffer is paid to promote his ideas by his employer, the Discovery Institute, which Yudelson identifies as a Christian think tank that is funded by organizations that seek to promote a "Christian-friendly world view."[7]

Insanity causes many killings and other acts of violence.

Just Bob said: Hey FL, why no answer about what parts of the Bible are literal, what figurative, and how to make that distinction? Why is the sword figurative, while the days in Genesis are literal?

harold said: ...it is my habit to act rather assertively when it comes to disputing incorrect stereotypes of the mentally ill. I realize that you didn't intend or promote any such stereotype! I still thought I'd comment though.

Explain to us again why we should abandon a working scientific theory simply because you’re saying that a handful of deranged individuals misused a misunderstanding of Evolutionary Biology as excuses for murder and mayhem?

Dave Luckett said: That's where FL gets off. He hasn't denounced, in unequivocal terms, sectarian hate crimes against ideological opponents. The best he can come up with is "you do it too", which we don't. Hence, he shares in the guilt.

No, the point remains that you say this after a 20-line exercise in finger-pointing.

FL said:

Explain to us again why we should abandon a working scientific theory simply because you’re saying that a handful of deranged individuals misused a misunderstanding of Evolutionary Biology as excuses for murder and mayhem?

Actually, I never asked you in this thread to abandon evolutionary biology at all. That's not the request on the table, Stanton. My response here is ONLY about maintaining honesty and even-handedness WRT who you point the finger of "terrorism" at. Make sure your side of the fence (evolutionist, non-religious, etc) is swept clean, before pointing at the other side of the fence (non-evolutionist, religious, etc).

henry said:

raven said:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

I don't think Jesus had email. They did have swords though. Can't say I think too much of the family values in that passage either.

Is this a death threat? I am not aware of any minister, or church, or denomination which advocates death threats, not to mention using this passage to support such a teaching. If there are, they would be outside of orthodox Christianity. The context of this passage is Jesus commanding his disciples to preach the kingdom of heaven [v. 7]. His message would cause divisions within families, some members would love Him , others would hate Him. The civil government has a legitimate use of the sword, which is to punish evildoers. Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

FL said: ...

On November 7, 2007, Auvinen ... proceeded to massacre seven fellow students and the school headmistress, wounding ten others, before shooting himself. On a website, it was later learned, he (Auvinen) described himself as an "anti-social social-Darwinist," declaring that "I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection." ---David Klinghoffer, "Slouching Towards Colombine: Darwin's Tree of Death", 04-20-2009.

... FL

FL said:

No, the point remains that you say this after a 20-line exercise in finger-pointing.

Absolutely right. You guys needed a finger pointed at you to help you understand where you are going wrong regarding this particular thread. I think some of you -- maybe you too, Eric? -- had NO clue that people claiming a belief in evolution, athiesm, and/or skepticism were perfectly capable of death threats in word, deed, (or both), just like any other set of humans.

You guys really need to understand that you're no better in terms of the issue of "terrorism" than whatever side (creationism, religious people, etc) the OP was supposed to be targeting. Hence the need to clean one's own house first.

To be honest Eric, YOU should have been the one to point this problem out to your PT comrades. You could have done it from Page One. Why didn't you? FL

FL said: I think some of you -- maybe you too, Eric? -- had NO clue that people claiming a belief in evolution, athiesm, and/or skepticism were perfectly capable of death threats in word, deed, (or both), just like any other set of humans.

To be honest Eric, YOU should have been the one to point this problem out to your PT comrades. You could have done it from Page One. Why didn't you?

FL said: Absolutely right. You guys needed a finger pointed at you to help you understand where you are going wrong regarding this particular thread.

I think some of you -- maybe you too, Eric? -- had NO clue that people claiming a belief in evolution, athiesm, and/or skepticism were perfectly capable of death threats in word, deed, (or both)...

Fair and evenhanded, FL?

Bullshit.

Stripping away a group's ability to point out wrong-doings simply because you lump a less than a handful of deranged individuals with "evolutionists" is as fair and evenhanded as stripping away the ability of African Americans to vote simply because their ancestors were denied the ability to vote.

Is there any source besides klinghoffer for this alleged "darwinist" position of kliebold and harris? I can't find anything on google.

In actuality, Auvinen noted his hatred and anger as the primary motivation for his rampage. Further, toxocology reports showed that Auvinen, who had been taking heavy anti-depressants (serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor) and had been treated for years for violent psychological tendencies.

Glad to see that you and others are willing to repudiate violence, Eric. Me too.

Now, it's time for you to repudiate anti-creationist and/or anti-religious bigotry and anger as well....even if the bigotry and anger is manifested indirectly and via implication.

You don't get to presume, or assume, or insinuate, or imply, or pretend, that any other people group (not even the Muslims!) are any more capable of irrationality and hence capable of terrorism than good ole White American Evolutionists.

And if you choose to make that presumption anyway, then be prepped for a few folks to call you out on it. Your house contains as much glass as mine, and it's easy to google up reminders if you need them.

FL

FL said: But did you do the same googling and searching for additional factors WRT the Cody's bomber? Did you run a psych profile on him? Did you even check to see if he was Muslim or not? Nope, I'm fairly sure you didn't.

FL said: And if you choose to make that presumption anyway, then be prepped for a few folks to call you out on it.

FL said: Glad to see that you and others are willing to repudiate violence, Eric. Me too. Now, it's time for you to repudiate anti-creationist and/or anti-religious bigotry and anger as well....even if the bigotry and anger is manifested indirectly and via implication. You don't get to presume, or assume, or insinuate, or imply, or pretend, that any other people group (not even the Muslims!) are any more capable of irrationality and hence capable of terrorism than good ole White American Evolutionists. And if you choose to make that presumption anyway, then be prepped for a few folks to call you out on it. Your house contains as much glass as mine, and it's easy to google up reminders if you need them. FL

nmgirl said: so, is calling [FL] an IDiot hate speech or the truth?

FL said: That's another reason why the OP is severely flawed. You were willing to go look up Auvinen to see what additional factors (along with his belief in evolution, which is a clear factor) played a part in his terrorism. You really don't like admitting that he carried a clear belief in evolution like Eric Harris did.

But did you do the same googling and searching for additional factors WRT the Cody's bomber? Did you run a psych profile on him? Did you even check to see if he was Muslim or not? Nope, I'm fairly sure you didn't.

You were willing to accept simplistic labeling and implications from the OP, with no further googling or searching for other factors WRT the Cody's bomber, because you evolutionists were certain that you yourselves were not the intended target of that OP's particualr labeling and implications. Which is why Chuckdz correctly called you guys out on your bigotry. FL

FL,

Glad to see that you and others are willing to repudiate violence, FL. Me too.

Now, it’s time for you to repudiate anti-EVOLUTION and/or anti-scientific bigotry and anger as well.…even if the bigotry and anger is manifested indirectly and via implication.

You don’t get to presume, or assume, or insinuate, or imply, or pretend, that any other people group (not even scientists) are any more capable of irrationality and hence capable of terrorism than good ole White American Fundamentalists.

And if you choose to make that presumption anyway, then be prepped for a few folks to call you out on it. Your house contains much glass than mine, and it’s easy to google up reminders if you need them.

so, is calling you an IDiot hate speech or the truth?

Even though most of us aren’t interested in you or your “religion”, we can still profile you.

In all the time you have been taunting and mocking here on PT and other blogs, have you ever once made the slightest effort to understand science instead of constantly misrepresenting it and mischaracterizing its implications?

DS said: FL, Glad to see that you and others are willing to repudiate violence, FL. Me too.

Now, it’s time for you to repudiate anti-EVOLUTION and/or anti-scientific bigotry and anger as well.…even if the bigotry and anger is manifested indirectly and via implication. You don’t get to presume, or assume, or insinuate, or imply, or pretend, that any other people group (not even scientists) are any more capable of irrationality and hence capable of terrorism than good ole White American Fundamentalists. And if you choose to make that presumption anyway, then be prepped for a few folks to call you out on it. Your house contains much glass than mine, and it’s easy to google up reminders if you need them.

FL,

You disappoint me. You had your chance to repudiate all that stuff and you didn't. Why is that FL? Can't follow your own advice?

As for your biology classes, you really don't have any excuse for not knowing any better now do you? Of course, as has already been pointed out, you have been absolutely wrong about everything that you have posted here. I guess biology is not the only class you slept through.

What university did you go to? Jesusology Tech? Christ's College? Liberty University, where admitting being a liberal will get you expelled?

From what you've said in your previous postings, it would suggest that either your science teachers were profoundly incompetent morons undeserving of even a papercut, or you deliberately forgot everything you learned in those classes.

That’s an important point to remember for ALL instances of terrorism, including Cody’s bombing referred to in the OP. When you discuss terrorists, you may well be talking about people whose anger and violent bent stems from a constellation of causes, NOT just a simplistic label like “anti-reason”.

That’s another reason why the OP is severely flawed. You were willing to go look up Auvinen to see what additional factors (along with his belief in evolution, which is a clear factor) played a part in his terrorism.

You really don’t like admitting that he carried a clear belief in evolution like Eric Harris did.

But did you do the same googling and searching for additional factors WRT the Cody’s bomber? Did you run a psych profile on him? Did you even check to see if he was Muslim or not? Nope, I’m fairly sure you didn’t.

You were willing to accept simplistic labeling and implications from the OP, with no further googling or searching for other factors WRT the Cody’s bomber, because you evolutionists were certain that you yourselves were not the intended target of that OP’s particualr labeling and implications.

Which is why Chuckdz correctly called you guys out on your bigotry.

Poor chunkdz. Even FL can't get his name right.

nmgirl said: Is there any source besides klinghoffer for this alleged "darwinist" position of kliebold and harris? I can't find anything on google.

The Darwin-> Hitler thread seems to be closed.

Too bad, John was just about to explain how the fact of evolution is wrong, because Charlie Wasn't A Nice Man, Therefore Jesus.

wikipedia, On The Jews and Their Lies, written by Martin Luther: Luther advocated an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews either by religious conversion or by expulsion: "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..." "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..." "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..." "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..." "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..." "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..." "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants." "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs." [34]

John 8:44 The Children of the Devil 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

FL said: Biology class (college prep), high school. Got a "B." Same for Physics class and Chemistry class. University class, (my hometown universtiy), Biology 150, "Evolution." Got a "B". Same university, Intro Astronomy. Same university, Intro Geology. Same university, Intro Chemistry. Same university, Intro Anthropology (and later, Anthropology of Religion, Magic, and Witchcraft class. Hey, it was a required class, so I took it.) Got a "B" for all of them. Also took Statistics, which is not a science but it comes in sorta handy on occasion. That's that, folks!

Surely you got me pegged, dude!!

raven said: Another notorious anti-semite was a Jewish guy named Jesus who founded a religion called Xianity... (snip)

Dave Luckett said:

raven said: Another notorious anti-semite was a Jewish guy named Jesus who founded a religion called Xianity... (snip)

Raven, let's not go overboard here. Jesus was unequivocably Jewish, as you say. He observed the Jewish feasts and festivals, he knew the Jewish scriptures through and through, and went directly to them when asked what was important. He can't, in all reason, be described as an anti-semite, although he did unleash some astonishing diatribes against certain Jews. These reflected internal Jewish politics, though. Now, the Gospel writers, that's a different matter. They were antisemitic. Christianity, once it distanced itself from Judaism, was always strongly prone to antisemitism, as Luther's screed lamentably attests. But Jesus was not alone its founder, and he at least should not be tarred with the same brush.

Just Bob said:

Just Bob said: Hey FL, why no answer about what parts of the Bible are literal, what figurative, and how to make that distinction? Why is the sword figurative, while the days in Genesis are literal?

Oops, I guess that should have been addressed to Henry. How about it, Henry?

And yet, Genesis' account of God magically poofing the heavens, earth and all the things contained within them into existence within 6 24-hour days without any physical evidence whatsoever, should be taken as literal.

Yeah, right.

Yes, it's the inconsistency that gets me. henry's perfectly happy to say that context tells him that "sword" is metaphorical, but he absolutely refuses to refer to context in the case of Genesis.

Being called "a scholar and a gentleman" by henry inclines me to think that I should use more obscenities and personal abuse.

Now, it’s time for you to repudiate anti-creationist and/or anti-religious bigotry and anger as well.…even if the bigotry and anger is manifested indirectly and via implication.

Dave Luckett said: Being called "a scholar and a gentleman" by henry inclines me to think that I should use more obscenities and personal abuse.

henry said:

Just Bob said: Hey FL, why no answer about what parts of the Bible are literal, what figurative, and how to make that distinction? Why is the sword figurative, while the days in Genesis are literal?

When a verse is taken out of context, it becomes a text for error. Thus, there exists cults which quote from the Bible, but twist the meaning to suit their own purposes. The mention of a sword [v 34] can't be a literal one, given the context. A sword cuts things so the intent in this passage is the cutting up or division of families. Jesus is sending his disciples to preach so He is prepping them on what to expect.

Dave Luckett: Now, the Gospel writers, that’s a different matter. They were antisemitic. Christianity, once it distanced itself from Judaism, was always strongly prone to antisemitism, as Luther’s screed lamentably attests. But Jesus was not alone its founder, and he at least should not be tarred with the same brush.

wikipedia John and antisemitism: Darkness and the devil In several places John's gospel associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. This laid the groundwork for centuries of Christian characterization of Jews as agents of the devil, a characterization which found its way into medieval popular religion and eventually into passion plays[citation needed].Other parts of John's gospel associate salvation with the Jews, and link darkness with the world in general. Like the other gospels, it makes many references to the Jewish scriptures. John 8: 37-39[6] ; 44-47[7] say: Jesus speaking to a group of Pharisees: "I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father. They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? He who is of God hears the words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is you are not of God."

SWT said:

Dave Luckett said: Being called "a scholar and a gentleman" by henry inclines me to think that I should use more obscenities and personal abuse.

I know your comment above isn't serious, but I have to say that this is one thing henry got right: you are a scholar and a gentleman. I very much appreciate the depth of your knowledge, the clarity of your expression, and your amazing civility.

There are no such thing as biblical literalists. Anyone following an OT lifestyle these days would be doing multiple life sentences in prison.

There are also innumerable contradictions throughout both the OT and NT. Whenever one is chosen the other is ruled out.

So in reality, everyone quote mines and picks and chooses. This works well in the sense that it keep the streets from becoming crowded with dead bodies and people from selling their kids on ebay as sex slaves as it says to do in Exodus.

But the xians are inconsistent. They will ignore the parts like Deuteronomy which says disobedient children are to be stoned to death, eat shellfish and pigs, wear mixed fabrics and claim Jesus really didn't mean one should wave a sword around and hate your family. And then claim an ancient myth about the universe which wasn't even taken seriously as reality 3,000 years ago, has to be true because it is in some magic book.

As to how one tells the metaphors, myths, and allegory from what is literally true. There are no universal criteria so people just guess and then fight wars about it.

No one would give a rat's ass who believes what except that certain malevolent cults are attempting to impose their guesses on the rest of us, a course of action intended to create a New Dark Age of Xian theocratic Dominionism.

raven said: There are no such thing as biblical literalists...(snip. Read the whole post, it's very good.)

What’s the can’t-go-wrong rule for determining what is literal and what figurative?

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise." ---David L. Cooper

Are the “doors” in the “firmament” in Genesis literal or figurative?

If they’re figurative, why aren’t the “days”?

FL wrote:

"So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other."

So then choose already. Deny the Bible, if it makes claim contrary to reality. Or deny evolution, if you choose to ignore reality. No one cares. Do whatever you want.

What you can't do is force anyone else to choose between the two, since you have absolutely no justification for which parts of the Bible to take literally, except your interpretation. Context is not an objective criteria. Never was, never will be.

Clean your own house first FL. Once you have convinced every different Christian sect and denomination that your particular interpretation is correct, then you can demand that they all ignore reality. Until then, piss off.

Thanks FL, that's what I thought. It's the context--and the "proper" interpretation of the context is whatever YOU say it is. For the life of me, I can't see how the context of Genesis makes the days literal and the doors figurative. ("Windows" in some interpretations--and how about "fountains of the deep"--are they figurative too?)

Morning and evening? Why does that make it literal? One of the oldest poetic metaphors is to express a long time as a single day or year, e.g. "the dawn of an age," "the twilight of his reign," "the autumn of life," etc. Hmm... I wonder if there are any time-of-day=period-of-years metaphors elsewhere in the Bible? You would know, wouldn't you, FL? Better check on it, because you wouldn't want to be caught being wrong about something in the Bible!

Hey, notice that YOU used a metaphor? In insisting on the length of a day, you used a "penny" as part of a day!

FL lying again: FL wrote: “So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.”

So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

FL said: So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

Stanton said:

FL said: So you have to choose. Believe the Bible or believe the evolutionists. One or the other.

In other words, you're saying that the Pope and the majority of all Christians are not actually Christians. So tell us, FL, when did you develop the ostensibly blasphemous ability to decide who can and can not be a Christian, in spite of what they say? Was it a graduation present to celebrate your "B" in Biology?

Constant Mews said: Only a fool or a liar would claim that Christianity demands a literal reading of Genesis. Only a fool or a liar. Which are you, FL?

“If you’re talking about the “windows and floodgates” of Gen. 6:11, that phrase is clearly figurative.“

Well, FL, let's apply your rule about context to Genesis, and see where it leads us.

What is a day, in the literal sense? Astronomically, it's one complete revolution of the earth, but plainly the writer of Genesis wasn't thinking in those terms. From our ordinary point-of-view, it is the period from one sunrise to the next, or from one noon to the next, or one sunset to the next. That is, from the moment the sun is in one position in the sky to the moment when it next most closely approaches that position. That's a day.

But that word is also very often used figuratively, often to mean an indeterminate period. "It wasn't like that in my day"; "Our salad days, when we were young and green"; "school days"; "the day of the triffids", and so on. The figurative use of the word is so commonplace as to be almost unnoticeable. The same for "morning" and "evening".

So how do you know that the figurative is not intended in Genesis 1? Context, you say. Well, all right. Here's some context for you: Genesis 1: 1-13 inc. For the first three days of the six you say creation took, there was no sun. The sun and the moon were created on the fourth day, according to Genesis.

How can we understand "day", "evening" and "morning" if there is no test of whether it is evening or morning or daytime? In the literal sense those words describe the apparent course of the sun, and where the sun is in the sky. What can the word 'morning' mean with no sun to rise? How are we to understand 'evening' with no sunset? Plainly, we cannot understand these words literally. A day without a sun to rise to the zenith, decline and set is no day such as we experience. We must resort to the figurative meaning. Hence, the writer of Genesis was using the word 'day' in a figurative sense.

That's context for you, FL. Looking at the words around the text, to see what they say, too. You say that the days in Genesis 1 can't be figurative. I look at the same words, the same material, and say that they must be, from context.

No doubt you remain of your own opinion. But that isn't the point. The point is that I have used context to arrive at an interpretation the direct converse of yours. So maybe this idea of context isn't a magic filter that tells you which bits of Scripture to take literally, and which bits to take figuratively. Maybe it's even possible that there are different interpretations of Scripture, and the ones that differ from yours might actually be respectable.

If you can get to that point, rather than resort to your usual tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating your opinion, only louder, there may be hope for you.

Xians had a similar argument centuries ago. John Weslayan said if they gave up hunting and killing witches, they would have to give up the bible.

A few brave souls said, "so what, sounds like an easy choice."

1. The Europeans* gave up killing witches anyway.

2. Nothing happened to xianity except the number of people they killed for no real reason went down.

*Xians still hunt down and kill witches by the hundreds or thousands. These days it is mostly in the third world.

Hey, FL, here's an on-topic question for you (not that I'm expecting you to answer or even read it)

Do you think it's just for a religious leader to proclaim a death sentence on a person, worded in a way that allows that leader's followers to interpret that proclamation to also (attempt to) murder anyone and everyone involved in any way with said condemned man, solely because said religious leader found the condemned's use of a particular legend to be (blasphemously) distasteful?

I am a bit conflicted about the statement that "Only a fool or a liar would claim that Christianity demands a literal reading of Genesis. Only a fool or a liar".

I presume that this is only true because our current understanding of geology and cosmology. This understanding was not available 2000 years ago so people then took Genesis and everything else literally.

However, I guess that what applies to Genesis, applies to everything else.

Our current understanding of biology and genetics etc tells us that virgin birth, resurrection, and ascention into heaven are not possible since they violate well established principles.

Having said that. Would the original statement "Only a fool or liar..." not apply to all of the Bible and not only to Christianity but to all other religions that are based on holy books?

If a holy book has no miracles, and more and more of it can only be taken figuratevly because of the advance of science - what makes it holy then? Why religion at all?

I guess I am following Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett here.

Well, the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension could have happened miraculously. We have no physical proof of them today, but then we wouldn't. No proof now is not evidence that they didn't happen--it just makes them seem less likely (requiring a non-demonstrable miracle).

A 6,000 year old Earth (and universe), separate creation of "kinds" of life, a universal flood, etc., even if they were miraculous, would have left clear evidence observable today (unless a deceptive god hid it all). It was the absence of such evidence--and much evidence to the contrary--that began to cast doubt on the Genesis creation, and eventually relegate it to the status of metaphor, or just plain prescientific myth.

Thanks Just Bob.

Not sure what a "non-demonstrable miracle is". If you can't demonstrate that it happened would it not be a non-event? If you proved it happened but don't have a mechanism then it is just something requiring more study. But if you find a mechanism, then it is not a miracle.

Clearly - you can't demonstrate that something did not happen but you can show that it is highly improbable. In this case, the current understanding of biology etc makes such things as the virgin birth and others highly improbable.

If we continuously reduce passages in the Bible or other holy books as highly improbable based on our understanding of nature then again - we would regress to the 'God of the Gaps'.

I guess where I am heading with this is that if only fools or liars claim that Christianity demands literal reading of Genesis - or any other passage of the Bible then what do Christians demand to be read as literal and what not nowadays? If it all depends on the advance of science, if science is the context to determine what to read literally and not, then.......I am afraid that the only way to keep holy books holy is by doing what FL does - accept no figurative language or at least come up with arbitrary, limited, allowances when it would be 'perverse' to not do so.

I can see how science in the 20th and 21st century can lead inexorably to a dismissal of all things supernatural.

Some people will continue to hold on to notions of the supernatural but it will be in spite of science. And these notions would be on par to Astrology, Flat Earthism, Conspiracy Theories etc. They would all be highly improbable notions.

Would it not?

Richard said: I am a bit conflicted about the statement that "Only a fool or a liar would claim that Christianity demands a literal reading of Genesis. Only a fool or a liar". I presume that this is only true because our current understanding of geology and cosmology. This understanding was not available 2000 years ago so people then took Genesis and everything else literally. However, I guess that what applies to Genesis, applies to everything else. Our current understanding of biology and genetics etc tells us that virgin birth, resurrection, and ascention into heaven are not possible since they violate well established principles. Having said that. Would the original statement "Only a fool or liar..." not apply to all of the Bible and not only to Christianity but to all other religions that are based on holy books? If a holy book has no miracles, and more and more of it can only be taken figuratevly because of the advance of science - what makes it holy then? Why religion at all? I guess I am following Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett here.

Constant Mews said: Quite correct. It is the advance of science which makes possible an understanding of the universe that contradicts the various claims of the various religions man has put forward to explain his internal "intuition to the divine." A century or two ago this would not have been possible. But FL would have us return to those dark times.

Stanton said:

Constant Mews said: Quite correct. It is the advance of science which makes possible an understanding of the universe that contradicts the various claims of the various religions man has put forward to explain his internal "intuition to the divine." A century or two ago this would not have been possible. But FL would have us return to those dark times.

Do remember that Darwin and his scientific cohorts and peers lived a "century or two ago." I'm thinking you mean the Middle Ages, when the Church had a literal cottage industry of torturing, executing and manufacturing heretics victims.

Clearly - you can’t demonstrate that something did not happen but you can show that it is highly improbable. In this case, the current understanding of biology etc makes such things as the virgin birth and others highly improbable. If we continuously reduce passages in the Bible or other holy books as highly improbable based on our understanding of nature then again - we would regress to the ‘God of the Gaps’.

Raven

I would think that the issue has to do with science because science is what provides the rational, verifiable, alternative model vis-a-vis religion.

Two thousand years ago there were atheists but I suspect they did not have the alternative models other than a suspicion that nature could be understood rationally and was amenable to study.

Although we are the most religious of the Western countries our religion-ness pales in comparison with non-western countries. And it is the 'secular' spirit (no pun intended)that has kept religion(s) at bay from the Government.

Still - why the USA is so religious compared to other Western countries is rather puzzling.

In regards to the NT - science has been able to detail the provenance of the NT texts and has been able to corroborate and falsify some details in the NT. Overall, science has been able to show that the NT is no different from any of the other holy texts - specifically, there is nothing there to indicate a supernatural origin, inspiration, involvement, or that any of the miracles are any more miraculous than those in other texts, etc. So in that sense, science has shown that the claims made on behalf of the supernatural aspects of the NT are very probably not true or at least unremarkeable compared to other literature of the time. Would not this count as some sort of falsification?

Those who believe in the supernatural nature of the holy books, in the case of the Bible the OT and NT, do so in spite of science.

No?

Richard said: In regards to the NT - science has been able to detail the provenance of the NT texts and has been able to corroborate and falsify some details in the NT. Overall, science has been able to show that the NT is no different from any of the other holy texts - specifically, there is nothing there to indicate a supernatural origin, inspiration, involvement, or that any of the miracles are any more miraculous than those in other texts, etc. So in that sense, science has shown that the claims made on behalf of the supernatural aspects of the NT are very probably not true or at least unremarkeable compared to other literature of the time. Would not this count as some sort of falsification? Those who believe in the supernatural nature of the holy books, in the case of the Bible the OT and NT, do so in spite of science. No?

FL said: Becauuse when you look at the text and the context (as you should with all Bible verses...

And so say I. The NT is as good as most ancient historical sources, which is to say, not particularly good, but you use what you have. Cross-checking it against other sources shows some apparent errors and omissions, but also confirms quite a few facts. More importantly, the general consensus is that while the NT is wrong in some details and is manifestly biased, it fits rather well with what is known of Palestine under the Romans in the first decades of the first century CE, and there is good reason to think that its sources were earlier written texts quoting Jesus in the original. Indeed, a fragment of one of these actually exists.

But I think attention should be drawn to this idea of falsifiability. It's impossible to falsify the statements that Jesus was born to a virgin, that he was resurrected, and that he ascended into heaven. You can say that it's unlikely, and I'd agree, and ask why you think it has to be likely. You can say that these events are outside the order of nature, and I'd agree, but shrug and say, "so what?", because that's what a miracle is. You can even say that other holy books retail other miracles, and the response is the same. You can't falsify a miracle by noting that there were other claims of miracles. That isn't evidence. It doesn't follow.

But the Genesis account, now that's falsifiable in detail. The species were not created separately, they diverged from earlier forms. The time scale was billions of years, not six days. The evidence for that is enormous and unimpeachable, and to accept that evidence is necessarily to reject statements contrary to it.

I think there's an important difference between the two.

Exactly!

And I should have written "non-replicable" instead of "non-demonstrable."

I guess there are miracles (one virgin birth, one resurrection, etc.), and there are MIRACLES (creation ex nihilo of an entire universe, local biosphere, et.).

The former might leave no physical evidence; the latter would leave mountains of it (unless the creator is deceptive).

Just Bob said: I guess there are miracles (one virgin birth, one resurrection, etc.), and there are MIRACLES (creation ex nihilo of an entire universe, local biosphere, et.).

Those who believe in the supernatural nature of the holy books, in the case of the Bible the OT and NT, do so in spite of science. No?

I'll state outright that I've been an atheist for 50 years, so naturally the fundies will reject anything I say out of hand. But try this:

Grant that God exists and indeed created everything.

Stipulate that God is not a malicious liar who set up false appearances just to trick lots of people into damning themselves to Hell.

Then we have two accounts of creation. One (actually three variations) in a book, which, even if we grant that it was "written by God" or dictated or something, has indisputably gone through many human hands (translations, mistranslations, selective expurgation, etc.), until it got to us.

The other is the "book" of the natural world--the entire universe--which tells a very different creation story about how God Did It All.

Now which is more likely to be incorrect (or to have accumulated errors over the centuries): stories written and rewritten by a couple hundred generations of very fallible humans, or God's own handiwork?

Hey FL,
How are you doing with finding (non-literal) metaphors in the Bible in which a day or part thereof represent a much longer period?

Here, I'll help you with a couple of obvious similes:

Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Just Bob said: Hey FL, How are you doing with finding (non-literal) metaphors in the Bible in which a day or part thereof represent a much longer period? Here, I'll help you with a couple of obvious similes: Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Eddie

Perhaps it is just a matter of semantics, perhaps I used the term incorrectly, but what you called "Textual analysis, good old fashioned historical study, cross checking with other contemporary texts" I was lumping into the term Science. Maybe I shouldn't have. But the point was that the NT, OT and all other Holy texts are open to rational analysis.

Saying that I am deifying science by claiming that it can say something about the veracity or improbability (not whether it is false) of NT stories implies that there is something about the NT that makes it exempt to the reach of science (archaeology, etc).

Would this not be similar to the claims of Creationists that Natural Selection accounts for micro-evolution but not macro-evolution? Is this not postulating some arbitraty barrier?

What is the basis for accepting a miracle as a fact?

In regards to ancient atheists, perhaps the word atheist was a bit too strong. I am sure that even in ancient times some people had recognized some shamans and priests as charlatans and figured the whole enterprise was hokus pokus. However, they would not have had an alternative model.

Most of the Jews did not buy off on the NT stories/claims - even when some of the claims involved things like bringing people back from the dead, walking on water, etc etc. Most Jews were not impressed by it. I figure the reason was that 'false prophets' probably claimed to be able to do the same.

Just Bob said: Hey FL, How are you doing with finding (non-literal) metaphors in the Bible in which a day or part thereof represent a much longer period?

Richard said: Eddie Perhaps it is just a matter of semantics... but what you called "Textual analysis, good old fashioned historical study, cross checking with other contemporary texts" I was lumping into the term Science.

Eddie

Of course I don't believe the definition of Science is a matter of semantics or a matter to be voted on. If I gave that impression then I chose my words wrong.

The point I was trying to make is that the NT, OT and all the other holy books are open to rational analysis. I was assuming, mistakenly as you point out, that Science included those subjects you listed.

So when you said I was deifying Science - it did not make sense to me. Now that you have clarified the terms Science I can understand your statement better.

However, those subjects you listed can help shed light on the veracity or improbability of claims made in the NT, OT and holy books. Do they not?

Dave Luckett said: Well, FL, let's apply your rule about context to Genesis, and see where it leads us. What is a day, in the literal sense? Astronomically, it's one complete revolution of the earth, but plainly the writer of Genesis wasn't thinking in those terms. From our ordinary point-of-view, it is the period from one sunrise to the next, or from one noon to the next, or one sunset to the next. That is, from the moment the sun is in one position in the sky to the moment when it next most closely approaches that position. That's a day. But that word is also very often used figuratively, often to mean an indeterminate period. "It wasn't like that in my day"; "Our salad days, when we were young and green"; "school days"; "the day of the triffids", and so on. The figurative use of the word is so commonplace as to be almost unnoticeable. The same for "morning" and "evening". So how do you know that the figurative is not intended in Genesis 1? Context, you say. Well, all right. Here's some context for you: Genesis 1: 1-13 inc. For the first three days of the six you say creation took, there was no sun. The sun and the moon were created on the fourth day, according to Genesis. How can we understand "day", "evening" and "morning" if there is no test of whether it is evening or morning or daytime? In the literal sense those words describe the apparent course of the sun, and where the sun is in the sky. What can the word 'morning' mean with no sun to rise? How are we to understand 'evening' with no sunset? Plainly, we cannot understand these words literally. A day without a sun to rise to the zenith, decline and set is no day such as we experience. We must resort to the figurative meaning. Hence, the writer of Genesis was using the word 'day' in a figurative sense. That's context for you, FL. Looking at the words around the text, to see what they say, too. You say that the days in Genesis 1 can't be figurative. I look at the same words, the same material, and say that they must be, from context. No doubt you remain of your own opinion. But that isn't the point. The point is that I have used context to arrive at an interpretation the direct converse of yours. So maybe this idea of context isn't a magic filter that tells you which bits of Scripture to take literally, and which bits to take figuratively. Maybe it's even possible that there are different interpretations of Scripture, and the ones that differ from yours might actually be respectable. If you can get to that point, rather than resort to your usual tactic of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating your opinion, only louder, there may be hope for you.

henry said: Exodus 20:8-11 tells us that everything was made in six days and that the seven day week is based on the Creation week.

Exodus 20:8-11 tells us that everything was made in six days..

raven said: Do you have a point or are you just babbling?

henry said: Exodus 20:8-11 tells us that everything was made in six days and that the seven day week is based on the Creation week.

Dave Luckett said: How do you know that the word is not used figuratively there, too? We have already investigated the original context, and shown that there is good reason to think it might have been so used. Do you think that the writer of Exodus - said, without direct scriptural authority, to be Moses himself - was unaware of that fact?

eddie, you might not have understood the context of the argument.

To henry (and to FL, to whom the argument was originally made), the authors of Genesis were (a) inspired directly by Almighty God, and (b) their words must be taken literally.

I do not accept either of these, but for the purposes of this argument I deny that the one follows from the other. I am not ignorant of the scholarly consensus on the provenance of that part of the text, but I am taking it from where henry and FL are. There's no point in arguing with them about step (a), ie provenance. To them, Genesis is the Word of God, period. Contending otherwise, and considering cultural or literary context, however reasonable, would simply run on to the rocks of dogma.

They are, however, willing, at a stretch, to concede that although all scripture is the Word of God, some scripture must be taken figuratively. It is therefore the further step to (b) that I am attacking as unjustifiable. If some scripture is taken figuratively, why is it absolutely necessary to take the Genesis account(s) of creation as literal?

You appear to agree that Genesis need not be taken literally, and that even the P source might not have meant it to be, completely. I quite agree, and further, find it difficult to summon up your certainty that the word "days" was meant literally, even by P. I would echo your "who knows?" I doubt that there is sufficient evidence of P's state of mind to that for sure. After all, nobody has the least idea of who P was, and even the most subtle and learned of scholars has only the words of the text.

But the point is this: unless you are, like henry and FL, an uncompromising literalist, you have no quarrel with me, nor I with you, and I would very much regret the appearance of one.

But the problem today, and in this particular thread, eddie, is not whether or not the original author thought the priestly poetry he composed himself was literally, word for word true.

The problem is that there are Christians today, in this century, who claim that the English translation of the Book of Genesis must be read word for word literally, under pain of eternal damnation, despite the fact that Jesus never made any such requirement for salvation.

And then these same literalists also demand that this same English translation of the Book of Genesis is to be the only tool that can be used by scientists to do science, again under pain of eternal damnation.

Having said this, eddie, I would think you should rephrase your argument.

27. Comment #422717 by Roland_F on October 9, 2009 at 8:48 am from R.Dawkins.net: A proper translation of Genesis 1-3 provided from Hector Avalos ("The end of biblical studies"): When Elohim began to shape the heavens and the dry land – the dry land being formless and empty and darkness on the face of the waters and the breath of Elohim blowing over the waters – Elohim said: “ Let there be light”. So no creation from nothing. Beside light before stars of course and all the other nonsensical statements following.

Psalm 82, NIV I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' 7 But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

Dave Luckett said: You appear to agree that Genesis need not be taken literally, and that even the P source might not have meant it to be, completely. I quite agree, and further, find it difficult to summon up your certainty that the word "days" was meant literally, even by P. I would echo your "who knows?" I doubt that there is sufficient evidence of P's state of mind to that for sure. After all, nobody has the least idea of who P was, and even the most subtle and learned of scholars has only the words of the text.

Dave Luckett said: But the point is this: unless you are, like henry and FL, an uncompromising literalist, you have no quarrel with me, nor I with you, and I would very much regret the appearance of one.

eddie, I am not trying to persuade you, or me, of anything, and certainly not of the literality of Genesis. For that matter, I am not really trying to persuade FL or henry. What I'm trying to do is to expose them for everyone to see.

It's one thing for them to claim that Genesis is the Word of God. It's quite another for them to claim that it cannot be taken as metaphorical, and that its language must be remorselessly literal. The Bible's language is often metaphorical, and they can't deny that. To claim that they can be certain of what is metaphorical and what is not, is to claim that they are infallibly right. It is therefore not only scripture for which they claim infallibility - it is for themselves. If they make this claim, their spiritual arrogance, hubris, and overwheening pride must be plain to anyone.

On the other hand, if the unlikely happens, and they can bear to admit the possibility that they might be mistaken, then they admit the possibility that the creation stories in Genesis are non-literal accounts. This means that other accounts (eg, an ancient earth with commonly descended life) are admissable.

Of course, I know perfectly well that they won't do that, for that would require a certain degree of humility. But I am sure that you, being rational, would not fall into the trap of insisting that you must be infallibly right in your interpretation of the words of an unknown writer, 2500 years on.

eddie wrote:

"It’s a bloody creation myth. In a creation myth God can do what He likes."

Exactly. So there is no reason to reject science. Why would a myth prevent us from studying and understanding the natural world? Why on earth would anyone reject all of the findings of science for something that was never meant to be a scientific explanation in the first place? Why would someone rob such a beautiful story of all meaning and significance in order to force everyone else to agree with their interpretation of the story? Why would anyone want to force anyone else to choose between their myth and reality? Most religious people who value the bible have already figured this out, the few who haven't can only drive rational people away from their irrational religion.

Dave Luckett said: ...stuff I mostly agree with...

metaphor - the aplication of a word or phrase to an object or cocnept it does not literally denote, in order to suggest comparison with another object or concept, as in " A mighty fortress is our God".

allegory - 1. a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another. 2. a sympolic narrative. 3. emblem.

The RandomHouse College Dictionary, 1984.

eddie, I live in Perth too. Tuart Hill. We are having an argument over the back fence, which is in this case situated somewhere in mid-west USA.

What would Genesis be a metaphor for? You proposed one yourself: that the Universe is not the product of divine warfare, but of positive will, exercised in peace. Genesis is also a metaphor for the following ideas: that humanity is not an accident or a byproduct, but that we are as much a part of the Universe as the rest of creation; that sexuality and gender are not only a means to reproduction, but to companionship; that knowledge entails responsibility; that actions have consequences; that control over nature entails stewardship as well as exploitation; that independence entails individual responsibility. And others.

I believe that these metaphorical meanings are the real point of the stories, and that those who insist on literality cripple their true meaning. I'm pretty sure that P would have agreed with me, but if he wouldn't, stuff him. He doesn't own the meaning of the stories. I do!

All of the examples you gave can be - and have been, and are - taken as being metaphors, even if they were real events. Romulus and Remus metaphorically mean that Romans were commonly descended, and were given to fraticidal conflict. (The latter, at least, was only too true.) Gallipoli is a metaphor for Australians, just as 1776 is to Americans - with not quite the same meaning, but not far off. They have metaphorical meaning. A thing with a metaphorical meaning is ipso facto a metaphor.

And the beer is on the ice.

raven said: Calling fundie xian Death Cults hate groups is overly redundant. One minor example is Tom Willis, a creationist leader in the Kansas area. He is a moderate whose proposal involves rounding up scientists and killing them in slave labor extermination camps. Not very biblical, more like mid-20th century. Rushdoony, father of xian Dominionism wanted to kill 297 million US citizens and start over. The Rapturists want everyone to die along with the earth but they are too lazy and incompetent (so far) to do it themselves. Instead they keep calling for a Deity mediated genocide. It's a good thing we haven't discovered UFO aliens. They would undoubtedly be added to the To Kill lists.

via Pigeonchess.com: “Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?” August 23, 2008 Creationist nut-job Tom Willis (Creation Science Association for Mid-America), apparently without a sense of irony, accuses evolutionists of being Nazis/communists (or at least fellow travelers of the Nazis and communists) and concludes from this that it might be a good idea to (amongst other possibilities) round up evolutionists and put them in forced labor camps. Other options include torturing recantations out of evolutionists, forcing them to wear identifying signs or plaques, or perhaps forced relocations to Antarctica (or Mars).