On August 15,
The New Yorker published an article by Ryan Lizza asserting that Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann was influenced by "Dominionism", via fundamentalist theologian Francis Schaeffer and one-time Schaeffer student Nancy Pearcey. "Dominionism" as it is being used here, refers to Christian Reconstructionism, the idea that old-fashioned Old Testament Biblical Law should become U.S. law, a position usually associated with
Rousas John Rushdoony.
We have have met Nancy Pearcey before; amongst other things, she is a current ID proponent and Discovery Institute fellow. Back when it was still cool to cop to being a creationist, though, she was a longtime editor of the young-earth creationist
Bible-Science Newsletter, endorsed the idea that humans lived with dinosaurs, and was a coauthor of the first ID book,
Of Pandas and People. For documentation, see my 2006 PT post
Yet another version of the origins of ID and, for the publication of much of Pearcey's chapter of
Pandas in the
Bible-Science Newsletter, see my 2005 PT post
Why didn't they tell us?
Pearcey authored the 2004 book
Total Truth (forward by Phillip L. Johnson, remember him?), and Michelle Bachmann recommended the book, providing Ryan Lizza his link:
Francis Schaeffer instructed his followers and students at L'Abri that the Bible was not just a book but "the total truth." He was a major contributor to the school of thought now known as Dominionism, which relies on Genesis 1:26, where man is urged to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Sara Diamond, who has written several books about evangelical movements in America, has succinctly defined the philosophy that resulted from Schaeffer's interpretation: "Christians, and Christians alone, are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns."
In 1981, three years before he died, Schaeffer published "A Christian Manifesto," a guide for Christian activism, in which he argues for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe v. Wade isn't reversed. In his movie, Schaeffer warned that America's descent into tyranny would not look like Hitler's or Stalin's; it would probably be guided stealthily, by "a manipulative, authoritarian élite."
Today, one of the leading proponents of Schaeffer's version of Dominionism is Nancy Pearcey, a former student of his and a prominent creationist. Her 2004 book, "Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity," teaches readers how to implement Schaeffer's idea that a Biblical world view should suffuse every aspect of one's life. She tells her readers to be extremely cautious with ideas from non-Christians. There may "be occasions when Christians are mistaken on some point while nonbelievers get it right," she writes in "Total Truth." "Nevertheless, the overall systems of thought constructed by nonbelievers will be false--for if the system is not built on Biblical truth, then it will be built on some other ultimate principle. Even individual truths will be seen through the distorting lens of a false world view."
When, in 2005, the Minneapolis Star Tribune asked Bachmann what books she had read recently, she mentioned two: Ann Coulter's "Treason," a jeremiad that accuses liberals of lacking patriotism, and Pearcey's "Total Truth," which Bachmann told me was a "wonderful" book.
Ryan Lizza (2011). "Leap of Faith: The making of a Republican front-runner." The New Yorker, August 15, 2011.
Unfortunately, this is more than a little confused. Like shoes, communists, and ice cream, there are many varieties of crazy right-wing fundamentalist. They share many similarities -- e.g. "evolution BAD!", but they are not all identical. Amongst fundamentalists, some are explicit Calvinists and many are not, although Calvinism is widely influential throughout the fundamentalist movement. Amongst fundamentalists, some are postmillenialists, some are premillenialists. Amongst the Calvinist postmillenialists, only some of them are Christian Reconstructionists.
(Stop when you get a headache, but, roughly: postmillienialists believe that the Book of Revelation says the "millenium" already came -- i.e., God's kingdom began 2000 years ago with Jesus -- and it is up to believers to convert the world and create a Golden Age before Christ returns again; premillenialists belive the millenium is still to come, and when it does, Christ will return and rule the Earth.)
My sense of it is that premillenialism is clearly dominant over postmillenialism within U.S. Christian fundamentalism. I am less sure of the situation among conservative Calvinists. But, the major personalities associated with Christian Reconstructionism are well-known -- Rushdoony, Rushdoony's son-in-law Gary North (no relation to Oliver North of Iran-Contra and cable TV fame), and Howard Ahmanson (a major funder of the Discovery Institute, although apparently he has rejected some of the more radical positions of Rushdoony, see
wikipedia). The list does not include Francis Schaeffer or Nancy Pearcey, who are both, I would say, Calvinist intellectuals who are pretty mainstream within fundamentalism/conservative evangelicalism. Schaeffer and Pearcey overlap closely with a whole suite of fundamentalist intellectuals who share a very similar set of views -- Biblical inerrancy, antievolution and possibly young-earth creationist, but not insistent on a young-earth like the Henry Morris school, politically activist, culture warriors on all the traditional issues, etc. The suite of views is extremely widespread in U.S. fundamentalism -- for example, it describes most of the important personalities at the Discovery Institute, in the ID movement generally, at Biola University, Dallas Theological Seminary, etc. Apart from "conservative evangelical", I'm not sure there is a good common term for this large group, except perhaps "the Schaeffer school" or something.
Anyway, this group has been protesting the link Ryan Lizza made between Michelle Bachmann and the Christian Reconstructionists. Douglas Groothius, an unblinking, uncritical, straight-down-the-line fan of ID of Denver Seminary,
points out the lack of connection between Pearcey/Schaeffer and Rushdoony. The DI's Richard Weikart, writing at the
Pearcey Report website, makes similar points (while showing just how influenced he was himself by Schaeffer as a youth). And we have a series of freakouts from UD (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5, or heck,
just search UD on "Bachmann"...we know their favorite I guess).
So far, so good, in my opinion. Being a fan of Francis Schaeffer does not make one a dominionist or Christian Reconstructionist. Christian Reconstructionists deserve to be criticized, and those who flirt with the ideology need to be called out, but more generic fundamentalism is bad enough on its own to criticize, there is no point in making false charges. And those who make unsubstantiated links between the two are opening themselves up for pretty effective rebuttals, like
this one in the Washington Post.
However -- one subset of the counterarguments by Groothius and others is devoted to defending Francis Schaeffer from the charge of recommending violence to overthrow an allegedly tyrannical American government. Groothius
writes:
Third, the key Christian influences on Bachman are not Rushdoony and his followers, but Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer referred to Rushdoony's views on mandating biblical law as "insanity," and never sanctioned any form of theocracy. (The name "Rushdoony" does not even appear in the index of Schaeffer's five-volume collected works.) Schaeffer explicitly condemned theocracy in A Christian Manifesto (p. 120-1). Nor did he call for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe V. Wade were not overturned. Schaeffer rather explained various ways of resisting tyranny according to a Christian worldview and in light of church history. He saw "civil disobedience" (his phrase) as a last resort and did not stipulate any specific conditions under which it would be advisable in America. In fact, Schaeffer worried (on p. 126) that speaking of civil disobedience is "frightening because there are so many kooky people around." Further, "anarchy is never appropriate."
Now, this sparked a memory for me. Back when I was researching the origins of the ID movement, I read much of the commentary on the 1981
McLean vs. Arkansas case. After the creationists lost that case, various participants wrote various accounts. One of the notable ones was by old-earth creationist and Dallas Theological Seminary member Norman Geisler (
website /
wikipedia). Geisler was the guy who, at trial, admitted on the stand that he thought that, yes, he didn't think UFOs were aliens,
he thought they were demons instead.
Anyway, soon after the trial, he wrote his take on it in the evangelical magazine
Christianity Today. Geisler's account is interesting for several reasons -- for example, his argument for "equal time" for "creation science" is essentially identical to the later ID movement's arguments (and indeed, Geisler turns out to be a key figure in the origin of ID, he participated throughout the origin of the movement, and it is clear that from then to now he never saw much difference between "creation science" and "intelligent design" -- see especially his 2007 book
Creation and the Courts). But the article is also interesting for its conclusion, which invokes Francis Schaeffers just-then published book
A Christian Manifesto.
[...]
[I post the concluding few paragraphs for context, and so you can see Geisler getting worked up.]
The fact that "creation" may imply a Creator while "evolution" does not is no proof that the former is religious and the latter is not. Believing that there is no God can be just as religious as believing that there is a God. Humanists hold, and the Supreme Court has ruled, that belief in God is not essential to a religion (U.S. v. Seeger, 1964).
Fourth, scientific progress depends on teaching alternative models. There would be little progress in science if it were not for minority scientific opinions. Copernicus's view that the earth revolves around the sun was once a minority scientific view. So was the view that the earth is spherical, not flat. If no alternative models to Newton's law of gravitation were allowed, then Einstein's insights (and space travel) would have been rejected and scientific progress retarded.
That creationism may be a minority view among scientists today does not make it wrong, and certainly does not mean it should not be heard in science classes. (Arguing that it should be taught only in social studies classes is like telling someone running for Senate that he can present his view only to sociologists' groups, but not to political gatherings.) One of the most despicable examples of intellectual prejudice I have ever witnessed was when evolution scientists at the Arkansas trial claimed that creationism was not science and that creationists were not scientists. It reminded me of Voltaire's famous satire in which he described ants on one anthill looking at the different colored ants on another anthill and declaring that they were not really ants and that what they were on was not really an anthill.
John Scopes summed up well when he said, "If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything the whole country will eventually have only one thought, one invididual." I believe it would be (is) a gross injustice for the court to rule it unconstitutional to teach both sides of any issue. Although I would not go as far as some in these matters, one can understand why Francis Schaeffer in his recent book, A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, 1981), has called upon Christians to engage in civil disobediance and even use force to overcome the tyranny he sees implied in a negative decision in the Arkansas creation-evolution issue.
[p. 29 of: Geisler, Norman L. (1982). "Creationism: A Case for Equal Time." Christianity Today, XXVI(6), 26-29. March 19, 1982. Bold added.]
Now Geisler is not some random guy, he was and is a giant of conservative evangelical theology -- bigger than Groothius, frankly. If Geisler got this impression from Schaeffer's book, there is probably something there.
I happen to have Schaeffer's
A Christian Manifesto. The penultimate chapters are entitled "The Limits of Civil Disobediance" (chapter 7), "The Use of Civil Disobediance" (chapter 8), and "The Use of Force" (chapter 9). And the book contains a lot rhetoric about tyrannical government, reviewing the situation in communist contries and the like, but then applying the logic to the U.S., e.g.:
[Samuel Rutherford, a Presbyterian theologian, influential during the period of English history (1649-1660) when Cromwell and the Parliament overthrew the king and ruled a Commonwealth, see here and here; it was burnt after the Restoration of the crown] offered suggestions concerning illegitimate acts of the state. A ruler, he wrote, should not be deposed merely because he commits a single breach of the compact he has with the people. Only when the magistrate acts in such a way that the governing structure of the country is being destroyed -- that is, when he is attacking the fundamental structure of society -- is he to be relieved of his power and authority.
That is exactly the situation we are facing today. The whole structure of our society is being attacked and destroyed. It is being given an entirely opposite base which gives exactly opposite results. The reversal is much more total and destructive than that which Rutherford or any of the Reformers faced in their day.
[end of Chapter 7]
[pp. 101-102 of: Francis Schaeffer (1981/1982), A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, revised edition 1982) ]
What kind of things are destroying society? Well, abortion, as Groothius mentions, but also...you guessed it! Evolution! I won't type out the whole passage, but pages 109-111 are devoted to the then-ongoing
McLean case. Of the counteraction in the courts, Schaeffer writes, "Here is a clear case fitting Rutherford's criteria." (p. 109). On the next pages, he says,
The ACLU is acting as the arm of the humanist consensus to force its view on the majority of the Arkansas state officials.
If there was ever a clearer example of the lower "magistrates" being treated with tyranny, it would be hard to find. And this would be a time, if the appeal courts finally rule tyrannically, for the state government to protest and refuse to submit. This fits Rutherford's proper procedures exactly.
It is a time for Christians and others who do not accept the narrow and bigoted humanist views to use the appropriate forms of protest. [p. 110]
[...]
The people must act against tyranny by returning these issues to themselves. [p. 111]
[...Schaeffer reviews a Time poll showing that 76% of the public supported "teaching both theories", and says...]
Any election figure getting such a percentage would consider this a mandate. Surely, the Founding Fathers would have considered this situation to be tyranny. It would be appropriate to remember the Boston Tea Party of December 16, 1773. [p. 111]
Schaeffer certainly seems to be saying that something approaching secession is an "appropriate form of protest." Certainly the Boston Tea Party did not exactly lead to peaceful results. Now, Schaeffer does exhibit some signs of sense -- he carefully defines "force" as broader than "violence", to include, for example, nonviolent protest. And he clearly says these should be tried before rebellion.
But, Schaeffer also uses the word "tyranny" and associated rhetoric throughout the book -- dozens of times, I think -- and he also says at several points that if the government ignores protest, more extreme measures are legitimate. A few examples of extreme rhetoric:
Again we must see that what we face is a totality and not just bits and pieces. It is not too strong to say that we are at war, and there are no neutral parties in the struggle. One either confesses that God is the final authority, or one confesses that Caesar is Lord.
[p. 116, end of Chapter 8]
There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto himself. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution. The colonists used force in defending themselves.
[p. 117, beginning of Chapter 9]
[...]
The thirteen colonies reached the bottom line: they acted in civil disobediance. That civil disobediance led to open war in which men and women died. And that led to the founding of the United States of America. There would have been no founding of the United States of America without the Founding Fathers' realization that there is a bottom line. And to them the basic bottom line was not pragmatic; it was one of principle.
Please read most thoughtfully what I am going to say in the next sentence: If there is no final place for civil disobediance, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the Living God. If there is no final place for civil disobediance, then the government has been put in the place of the Living God, because then you are to obey it even when it tells you in its own way at that time to worship Caesar. And that point is exactly where the early Christians performed their acts of civil disobediance even when it cost them their lives.
[p. 130, end of Chapter 9. Italics and sentence repetition original.]
I think we can now see why even Norman Geisler, certainly no wilting flower of liberalism, wrote that "...I would not go as far as some in these matters" when discussing Schaeffer's book.
232 Comments
Mike Elzinga · 31 August 2011
Weren’t Adam and Eve given “dominion” before “The Fall?”
So why would God allow such craven idiots to continue to have “dominion” after they demonstrated that they were “irresponsible?”
Mike Elzinga · 31 August 2011
One of the more important points that emerge from Nick’s analysis is that nearly all forms of sectarianism are endless quagmires of suspicion and warfare; the very thing that the Founding Fathers aimed to avoid.
With something like 38,000 continuously splintering sects within Christianity alone, and with the continued splintering that goes on in other religions as well, it isn’t hard to imagine what would happen if one of these militant groups of sectarians got hold of the reins of power in the United States. Soon the entire world would be engaged in wars of the most vicious kinds we have seen historically among religions.
When considering the mutual suspicions and hatreds among fundamentalist sects here in the land of religious freedom, one would do well to go back through Christian history and consider all the intrigues that have taken place ever since the Council of Nicea.
Flint · 31 August 2011
Just ex-rectum, I'm going to conjecture that if we had some way of identifying all the people who oppose Obama simply because he's "black" and all the people who support Bachmann because she pounds her bible harder than any other candidate, we would find a nearly complete overlap in these voting blocs. I'm skeptical that Bachmann is bringing in many voters outside this set.
mrg · 31 August 2011
Mike Elzinga · 31 August 2011
I have occasionally wondered, in occasional daytime nightmares, if there might a strategy underlying the complete madness of the current Republican politics. And that would be to make politics so ugly, so repulsive, and so viciously dirty that rational, intelligent people – voters and potential candidates alike – will simply opt out of the process.
It is getting so expensive to run for political office that only the hidden gatekeepers with billions of dollars and well-organized smear tactics will get to determine who runs for any office. The wackier you are, the better chance you will have to win if only the wackos vote.
These extremist Right Wing groups are using the same tactics that the ID/creationists use against science. They’re cranking out all sorts of fake historians, fake economists, fake scientists, fake records of accomplishment, fake sociology, fake law, fake political science, fake institutions of learning.
In fact, take any subject that is well-studied and understood by anyone, and forms the basis of a halfway decent education consisting of objective sharable knowledge, and these extremists will have prepared a completely fake version of all of it. And then, with the most incredibly crass chutzpa, they accuse everyone else of doing exactly what they themselves are doing.
That’s really dangerous if they have discovered a huge market for this crap.
Ron Okimoto · 31 August 2011
My guess is that she no longer has much love for her fellow Dominionists at the Discovery Institute since having the bait and switch run on her during an election. Remember how Santorum had to look like he was flip flopping on the creationist issues when he started saying that he no longer supported teaching intelligent design during his failed reelection bid? I wonder what the IDiots reaction is when they find out that they have been had and that there isn't any ID science worth teaching to school kids? Every single IDiot rube legislator and school board has had the bait and switch run on them by the guys that lied to them about the science of intelligent design. It was less than a week after Bachmann made the mistake of claiming that she supported teaching intelligent design that the ID perps at the Discovery Institute were running bait and switch on her. The only IDiots that still support the ID scam are the ignorant, incompetent and or dishonest. If Bachmann starts pedaling the teach the controversy switch scam we will know that she is one of the dishonest ones and/or really incompetent. How sad is that? It probably doesn't matter since she was stupid or dishonest enough to support the ID scam in the first place.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8DvSOY0r1jrV-SzeCiMOibrnXTMnTPcA · 31 August 2011
Henry J · 31 August 2011
SWT · 31 August 2011
Nick Matzke · 31 August 2011
Nick Matzke · 31 August 2011
Paul Burnett · 31 August 2011
There was an accomodationist article in the New York Times a few days ago, "American Theocracy Revisited" - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/american-theocracy-revisited.html - which also makes Nick's case that not all fundagelicals are the same.
DavidK · 1 September 2011
"...
In his movie, Schaeffer warned that America’s descent into tyranny would not look like Hitler’s or Stalin’s; it would probably be guided stealthily, by “a manipulative, authoritarian élite.”"
So, "...guided stealthily, by “a manipulative, authoritarian élite.” Do I hear the Republicans answering this call? Perry, Bachmann, et. al anyone?
I believe there may be more of a threat to the stability of the United States from within than from without. We'll have to see if there's any rationalty left in the voters, or if the religious righteous will win out. Will we have more (failed) rain dances by the likes of an Ayatolla Perry?
Frank J · 1 September 2011
Article quoting Pearcey: "There may 'be occasions when Christians are mistaken on some point while nonbelievers get it right',...”
Now she's no St. Augustine, so I'm guessing that even as she was peddling the "humans lived with dinosaurs" thing she privately knew it was nonsense. But that the "masses" needed to believe it to behave (be saved?). Then at some point someone (Johnson?) told her that all one needed to do was promote unreasonable doubt of evolution, and the audience fills in the blanks with their favorite fairy tale.
Flint · 1 September 2011
The Jumbuck · 1 September 2011
Gee, the Darwiniacs are up in arms about a Christian running for President of Eagleland. According to cocktail party chat in places like Melbourne, it is a "fact" the the USA is already a Christian theocracy and Darwin-believers and rump rangers are shot for sport, but I think people here know that's true, but I digress. Your courtroom precedents kicking Jesus out of your public schools have empowered Christophobes worldwide. Kevin Rudd and his administration have all but banned Christianity from Australian life and the impetus to do it comes directly from American commie groups like the ACLU! If Bachmann becomes President, Christians the world over will rejoice!
DS · 1 September 2011
mrg · 1 September 2011
raven · 1 September 2011
raven · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
Richard B. Hoppe · 1 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 1 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 1 September 2011
Btw, for all of you who claim that "theocracy" is inherently anti-science, consider that the world's only true theocracy - the Islamic Republic of Iran - is also experiencing the greatest growth in scientific output:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20291-iran-is-top-of-the-world-in-science-growth.html
If only America could adopt Iran's pro-science approach. It is not too late. Only by bringing God back into science can such a revival take place.
mrg · 1 September 2011
SWT · 1 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 · 1 September 2011
Iran ENVIES the amount of scientific growth pouring out of this country. Most of their geneticists had to take such courses at the Azad University of Tehran to avoid military service, not to pursue the rigors of such inquiry. This claim is nonsense.
Do Americans have the free right to reject the theory of gravity or relativity as they see fit? Do they have the guaranteed right to explore personal theories of medicine and pharmacology without government interference? Yes, as individuals, they do. But they do NOT have the right to teach their individual discoveries in a public school science class WITHOUT REVIEW! That would be extremely dangerous, not to mention frivolous. Evolution has had 150 years of peer criticism leveled against it. It has withstood every attack and has prospered into our current understanding of modern biology. A better theory would explain more and lead to more advancement and discoveries in scientific (and not in political) circles. I await such a theory.
Most modern scientists recognize a Creator. What is NOT recognized are Biblical inerrancy arguments -- not for the last 200 years at least. Nutty Bachmann Turning Evolution Overdrive because of a literalist reading of the Bible, again, is just not a good example of the scientific method in action, and no one is fooled by her rhetoric.
DS · 1 September 2011
Flint · 1 September 2011
Hey, making up congenial facts to replace unpleasant real ones is a time-honored creationist tradition. It's rude to insult time-honored traditions.
Atheistoclast · 1 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 1 September 2011
DS · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 1 September 2011
mrg · 1 September 2011
dalehusband · 1 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 1 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 · 1 September 2011
I doubt your statistic. Pew Center statistics on belief of scientists (below) indicate a 33% belief in God and an 18% belief in a Universal Spirit or Higher Power, a "Creator" if you will. The Constitution declares that our rights derive from a "Creator" (not God/Jesus), and I am inclined to believe that they left it to the individual to decide on what that could be.
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
SWT · 1 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 1 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 · 1 September 2011
Today's Evangelical Religions are declining in intensity and number, just as they did in the 1840s, because of the high rate of "burnout". MegaChurches face foreclosure. This is due largely to people like Bachmann making a caricature of process to win affection from her base. Did you ever see how she spins the equal time argument? She would have high school students dictate and/or dismiss, with all of their perspicacity and dedication, in underfunded school laboratories, in an hour long science class, the tenants of biology.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 1 September 2011
I've just seen a good bit of material about Dominionism etc. at www.talk2action.org and it's not cheerful, particularly the activities and associations of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). These people have been politically active and influential, as evidenced not only by Rick Perry's recent Prayerapalooza, but in state and local legislation.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 · 1 September 2011
Iran is not "catching up" to a modern America in any way, shape or form. The average price for a 2006 laptop with a Gig of Ram running a crack of Windows 7 is about what you spend on Craigslist for a bruiser system with legit software. University students cannot speak informally to their teachers and the free exchange of ideas is impossible. Most Iranians who come to America need time to adapt to the amount of information available freely everywhere. They are catching up to where we were twenty years ago. They are in no way surpassing the West.
Honestly, Evolution is a theory, the best one we have to account for the forces that shape our biology. A better one will table it.
harold · 1 September 2011
Iran is a highly unusual society. Anti-Iranian propaganda tends to create a very false picture.
Persian civilization long predates Islam and Persian Islamic civilization was a major source of moderate ideals and proto-scientific knowledge during the medieval era.
The theocratic aspects of Iranian society are largely modern, and reactive to a (valid) perception that western powers, not least the US, harmfully interfered in Iranian affairs.
Iran also has not invaded another country in about 2000 years, and although Iran is often accused of supporting terrorism, it's worth remembering that virtually no known perpetrator of any Islamic-related terrorist act has been an Iranian, either nationally or ethnically.
I am not saying this to defend contemporary Iran. In fact, I consider Ahmadiejad to be one of the worst, most irresponsible political leaders in the world today; I don't see him to be any better than George W. Bush was. And obviously I condemn the many grotesque displays of medievalism and theocracy that Iran puts on, and, if it is true, the alleged detestable effort by Iran to increase, rather than decrease, the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons.
My point is not to defend that obvious flaws of Iran, but to suggest that fundamentalist Christianity in the US may be far more dangerous, partly because it is not particularly grounded in traditional values and is post-modern and nihilistic. I realize that someone will now get mad and ridiculously accuse me of "saying something good about traditional religion", but I reserve the right to state that modern reality-denying fundamentalism is, in some ways, even MORE potentially harmful than past versions.
As an aside, Joseph Bozorgmehr seems to have science and atheism mixed up, and also to mistakenly think that all pro-science people care about religion. It's true that I have no need for religion or the supernatural, and it's also true that I will never live in a state that forces me falsely pretend to believe in or genuflect to a religion, at least not while I have any capacity to resist. However, I strongly support the right of all Americans to follow whatever religion they want, as long as they respect the rights of others, and that obviously includes Islam. Iran is a sovereign nation. Obviously, I think they'd be far, far better served by being a nation with full freedom of religion (with a tradition of Islam), than by enforcing laws based on a particular religion. However, I'm not an Iranian citizen, and can't vote in Iran. How they run their country is up to them. My only hope is that we are sane enough to leave them alone unless they actually aggress against us. If they develop strong science, more power to them. Of course, they never will if they officially deny any major, massively supported theories. I hope they don't do that.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 1 September 2011
The September 1998, issue of The Chalcedon Report, the magazine of R.J. Rushdoony's foundation, was dedicated to Creationism. In his foreword to this issue Rushdoony explained that, in essence, if the Biblical story of a 6-day Creation were not literally true, then all of the Bible and all of the Christian religion are without meaning. Modernism, humanism, and education were, to Rushdoony, the enemies of the world.
That issue also carried an article about the literalness of 6 24-hour days of Creation by Rev. William Einwechter, who authored an article in another issue advocating the stoning of disobedient children.
dalehusband · 1 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 · 1 September 2011
Ultimately, those concerned with the need to teach mystic-free science classes in public schools need only ask themselves how long the Amish would last against the fifth armored cavalry. Bachmann doesn't get it. Science is not a religion. It is a necessity.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 · 1 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 1 September 2011
dalehusband · 1 September 2011
phantomreader42 · 1 September 2011
phantomreader42 · 1 September 2011
Any supporter of theocracy is a traitor, plain and simple.
phantomreader42 · 1 September 2011
Just Bob · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
DS · 1 September 2011
Sylvilagus · 1 September 2011
SWT · 1 September 2011
phhht · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
John · 1 September 2011
harold · 1 September 2011
Dave Luckett · 1 September 2011
As DS said, with his last post Atheistoclast has removed himself from the world of rational discourse. I copied his manifesto and pasted it elsewhere, for reference if I see his name around the traps. Any science blog he appears in should be warned, and if he's wearing sheep's clothing, it must be removed.
It is not my place to do it, but I think it should also be sent to the editors of the journals that have carried his papers. They are obviously lax in their peer review, but seeing something like that should be a wake-up call. The man's an antirational crank with an a priori agenda of destroying science, and this is behind everything he does. Let his own words indict him.
SWT · 2 September 2011
OK, I took a look at two of his papers earlier today -- not just the abstracts, but the entire documents. Bearing in mind that I'm a chemical engineer and not a biologist, my take-away from them is that they are not so much wrong as they are insignificant.* This doesn't look (to me) like a case of broken peer review, and it wasn't necessarily an editorial mistake to publish them; it's up to the editors to decide what constitutes a good uses of journal space.
What does look wrong, wrong, wrong to me are Bozorgmehr's claims that his papers represent in any way a challenge to modern evolutionary theory. And I do have to admit that his comments above do kind of creep me out.
*Were he not so much of an ideologue, he could have spun his core concept (that gene duplication doesn't always result in new function due to the tendency to preserve original function) into something much more interesting. However, to do so would require that he come to grips with the fact that sometimes gene duplication does provide a pathway to new function. I'd actually be interested discussing a possible collaboration with some of the actual biologists here -- or at least a discussion to determine if I'm on an original track or reinventing the wheel.
Mike Elzinga · 2 September 2011
Robert Byers · 2 September 2011
In short a conspiracy to overthrow the government is being suggested or am I wrong?
First as long as the institutions are maintained anybody for any reason can presume to power.
in fact it would be always said anti Christian liberal etc peoples out of proportion to the populace seek and gain office/institutions in America and then common agendas are put into place.
I don't know about any weird old testament agendas and suspect its simply about getting the right people in to do the right things.
There is always a a tone that motivated cHristians should be stopped from gaining power etc.
I think its all about a liberal press trying to help Obama.
Charges made against these groups if made against others ..well you know the drill..
By the way.
When man was told to have dominion over biology and so on it was before the fall. so it was not about killing or herding creatures.
it said birds and fish etc.
It was rather a command to discover and use the great principals of biology etc for man needs.
Never has this takjen place on earth,
We don't dominate biology as it was commanded.
I suspect we were too literally discover how to change creatures and control them for any reason possible.
since I conclude we were meant to populate the universe then I suspect we were to bring some creatures and change them for our own planets etc.
One must always remember the plan was eternal life in this universe.
Dominion had nothing to do with zoos or pushing them around.
It was a profound agenda to control biological adaptation and geological processes.
We are nowhere close.
Roger · 2 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 2 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 2 September 2011
DS · 2 September 2011
Well, Mike told you he didn't get it. Obviously, he still doesn't. Then again, what can you expect from someone who think that it would be better for his religion if everyone was an Islamic fundamentalist then if they simply didn't believe in his god?
THis moron obviously sin't going to take my advice, so I say time for the bathroom wall once again. Atheism is not the topic of this thread. Why should this retard be allowed to pollute this forum with his mindless, bigoted rantings? Oh well, at least if he does succeed in destroying science, he won't be able to post on the internet anymore.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlr-OwiHfZpiLbKDjY3p3_JFFvZY1tS-dM · 2 September 2011
DS · 2 September 2011
Joe wrote:
"What they do show is that molecular evolution - even the best examples of it - is extremely limited. I point out that gene duplicates remain as variations on the same biochemical theme: in creationist lingo they remain within the same “kind”. "
Wrong again. Wait, I have a reference that shows otherwise. From the abstract:
“Although many duplicates can subsequently become disabled by nullifying mutations, a few may also go on to diverge along a novel evolutionary trajectory.”
I think it is in a journal called Biosystems or something. I can get you the exact reference if you need it. Perhaps you should publish a rebuttal paper!
phantomreader42 · 2 September 2011
phantomreader42 · 2 September 2011
terenzioiltroll · 2 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 2 September 2011
https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b · 2 September 2011
DS · 2 September 2011
So genes have "kinds" now Joe? Well perhaps you could enlighten us as to exactly what a gene "kind" is? Do all genes of a "kind" have to have the exact same function? How different can they be before the become a different "kind"? Do they all have to have sequence homology? Is that nucleotide or amino acid homology? Exactly how different do they have to be to be a different "kind'? What if they are nearly identical in sequence but have different functions? What if they have very different sequences but the same function? Come on Joe, enquiring minds want to know. Creationist have never defined "kinds" adequately before, here is your big chance.
You do know that everything from bacteria to humans have hemoglobin genes don't you Joe? You do know that they display many different functions, including oxygen binding? Are they all one "kind"? You do know that oxygen binding hemoglobins evolved from other type of hemoglobin molecules don't you Joe? You know, the old gene duplication followed by divergence and determined by phylogenetic analysis thing again. YOu do know that we have understood these things for almost thirty years now don't you Joe? I can provide references, but you even disagree with your own papers, how likely is it that you will disagree with all others as well?
DS · 2 September 2011
Nick,
If you don't want this thread to degenerate into total chaos, you should bounce the terrorist troll now. Otherwise, this is what you can expect for the next fifty pages.
terenzioiltroll · 2 September 2011
harold · 2 September 2011
harold · 2 September 2011
dalehusband · 2 September 2011
Just Bob · 2 September 2011
mrg · 2 September 2011
Just Bob · 2 September 2011
Nick Matzke · 2 September 2011
DS · 2 September 2011
SWT · 2 September 2011
mrg · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
Just Bob · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
Just Bob · 2 September 2011
Still waiting, Dr. Joe. I'm so wanting to pray that prayer that's so innocuous that it can't possibly "injure anyone's beliefs" (even atheists? or does that substantial American minority not deserve any rights at all?).
Henry J · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
mrg · 2 September 2011
harold · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
John · 2 September 2011
SWT · 2 September 2011
Scopus
EXPORT DATE: 2 September 2011
Bozorgmehr, J.E.H.
An ancient frame-shifting event in the highly conserved KPNA gene family has undergone extensive compensation by natural selection in vertebrates
(2011) BioSystems, 105 (3), pp. 210-215.
Bozorgmehr, J.E.H.
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?
(2011) Complexity, 16 (6), pp. 17-31.
Bozorgmehr, J.E.H.
Natural selection as a paradigm of opportunism in biology
(2010) Journal of Bioeconomics, pp. 1-15. Article in Press.
SWT · 2 September 2011
Sorry, forgot to include DOIs ... sometimes I long for an edit capability ...
Scopus
EXPORT DATE: 2 September 2011
Bozorgmehr, J.E.H.
An ancient frame-shifting event in the highly conserved KPNA gene family has undergone extensive compensation by natural selection in vertebrates
(2011) BioSystems, 105 (3), pp. 210-215.
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2011.04.006
Bozorgmehr, J.E.H.
Is gene duplication a viable explanation for the origination of biological information and complexity?
(2011) Complexity, 16 (6), pp. 17-31.
DOI: 10.1002/cplx.20365
Bozorgmehr, J.E.H.
Natural selection as a paradigm of opportunism in biology
(2010) Journal of Bioeconomics, pp. 1-15. Article in Press.
DOI: 10.1007/s10818-010-9094-5
John · 2 September 2011
harold · 2 September 2011
SWT -
Oh, I get it - the third one is in Complexity and the title does imply that it is openly creationist nonsense.
Of course, it's only a disadvantage not to be on a major database if you publish honest papers.
Since "Complexity", unlike Biosystems, isn't easily searchable, one who so desires can publish whatever crap they want in it, and the reviewers at Biosystems may be none the wiser.
Atheistoclast · 2 September 2011
DS · 2 September 2011
So in other words, no, you have no idea what a "kind" of gene is. Thought so. Take my advice Joe, go away and fight with somebody else. You aren't going to convince anyone here of anything.
Atheistoclast · 2 September 2011
mrg · 2 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 2 September 2011
I just want to say that I do not approve of the teaching of creationism or ID in the classroom. In fact, very few creationists (real ones) actually want to see this happen. I am adamant that students must learn the basics of evolutionary theory - natural selection, mutation, migration etc.In this respect, I am no different to Matzke. However, the NCSE and its affiliated scientists are being disingenuous when they contend that modern evolutionary biology can fully explain the diversity and complexity of life and that it should be taught that this is the case. It is that which people like myself vehemently oppose because it involves promoting naturalistic philosophy, rather than observed science, in state education. We want to empower teachers to allow critical evaluation of the theory to be discussed whilst still teaching the fundamentals.
Just Bob · 2 September 2011
OK, got it. "Christian" prayers, and to hell with everybody else. Why am I not surprised?
Now, how would you like it if "the school boards as well as teachers, parents and pupils alike" are a majority Muslim, or Jewish, or Catholic, and the democratic majority (all it takes is 51%) in that community wants a specifically Muslim, Jewish, or Catholic prayer--perhaps one that has elements specifically contrary to Protestant Christian doctrine? Maybe "Allah is God, and Muhammad is His prophet." All of these are possible in the US; all the districts where I live are majority Catholic. Are you going to tell the Protestant Christian parents and kids to shut up--you're the minority, and this is a democracy, where the majority rules?
You know, I think the Constitution, with amendments, was specifically enacted to prevent a popular majority from persecuting minorities.
Just Bob · 2 September 2011
Oh, and I'm still waiting for that sample prayer that does not "injure anyone's beliefs".
DS · 2 September 2011
Joe wrote:
"They don’t have the same haemoglobin genes as we do - they don’t have red blood cells for a start. They are regarded as being “analogous”."
Wrong again. The hemoglobin genes are considered to be homologous, as in derived from a common ancestor. This is can be shown through the science of phylogenetics, you know, the field that you so ignorantly dismissed as being worthless. Here is a reference for you:
Hardison, R. (1998) Hemoglobins from bacteria to man: Evolution of different patterns of gene expression. Journal of Experimental Biology 201:1099-1115.
By the way, how is that rebuttal paper coming? You did read the Biosystems paper didn't you?
DavidK · 2 September 2011
I found this item from Americans United (au.org) interesting and I believe relevant to this discussion:
God And Galileo: Why People Who Believe The Universe Should Revolve Around Their Religion Are Dangerous
Robert Byers · 3 September 2011
rossum · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
dalehusband · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
dalehusband · 3 September 2011
rossum · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
prongs · 3 September 2011
John · 3 September 2011
John · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
rossum · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
Just Bob · 3 September 2011
"Do you really not think through this stuff before you post it?"
No, he doesn't. Remember, for him, bricks and mortar are completely useless until they're part of a house, a single wall is no better than no walls, and building anything without a scaffold is impossible. And anyone who can demonstrate differently is worthy of only contempt.
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
Just Bob · 3 September 2011
Oh, and where is that prayer that won't offend anyone?
harold · 3 September 2011
If there is anyone left who fails to grasp the authoritarian political motivation of creationism, read this carefully.
I’m not talking about whether or not they are “sincere” or what other motives they may have.
The authoritarian impulse is always there.
Here, in Atheistoclast/Joseph Bozorgmehr, we have a moderately unique creationist.
He’s more articulate, in his way, than most. He’s been more blunt at times, openly stating once who “the designer” is in in his mind. Although tragically hampered by his biases and distortions, he tries harder to learn something about science than most (although, of course, not as hard as many).
At the end of the day, though, look at what he has in common with all the rest. The authoritarianism. They're against "big government" if somebody else's children show up at school hungry and could use a ten cent bowl of oatmeal. But they're in favor of "big government" forcing somebody else's children to pray in a particular way, regardless of parents' wishes.
When you here creationism, always look for authoritarianism. It is nearly always there.
Just Bob · 3 September 2011
harold · 3 September 2011
Correction of typo -
When you
herehear creationism, always look for authoritarianism. It is nearly always their.Oops.
When you
herehere creationism, always look for authoritarianism. It is nearly alwaystheirthere.Finally.
dalehusband · 3 September 2011
John · 3 September 2011
John · 3 September 2011
rossum · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
DS · 3 September 2011
Dale wrote:
"I guess honesty about ANYTHING is something we should never expect from you. ((((SIGH)))) Nothing you said above is true."
Well what do you expect? He gets all of the science wrong. He disagrees with every paper ever published, including his own. Then he tries to tell all Americans how and where they should pray and what should and should not be taught in public schools. And all of this because he has a personal hatred of atheists. You would think that he would be more upset with people worshiping the wrong god than no god, but I guess that would make it too easy for everyone to see him for the bigot that he is. Maybe he should go somewhere where someone gives a shit.
DS · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
Mike Elzinga · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
dalehusband · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
Mike Elzinga · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
harold · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
Just Bob · 3 September 2011
And the ultimate irony is that the UK citizen, apparently in favor of Iranian-style theocracy for the US (but Christian, of course, not Muslim), including sanctioned prayers in public schools, is COMPLETELY IGNORING Jesus' very specific words about the proper time and place to pray, and His derogation of those who make a show of praying in public.
Just Bob · 3 September 2011
"The Government should not intervene in the affairs of individual public schools..."
Do you know why they are called PUBLIC SCHOOLS? It's because they're funded with PUBLIC tax dollars, from governments, including the federal government. That includes taxes paid, willingly or under compulsion, by citizens of ALL religions (and atheists). That gives the federal government a moral right, as well as legal, to make some rules for PUBLIC schools, including policies of non-discrimination against religious, ethnic, and racial minorities. Since they're all paying for it, they all have EQUAL RIGHTS. And the only way for government to respect EVERYONE'S religious rights is to stay the hell out of the religion business!
DS · 3 September 2011
Bozo Joe wrote:
"You forget that prayers are often held among others: i.e. collective worship. This requires some sort of organization - a time and a place."
Right. The time and the place is your tax free church. Keep trying to push it on others in public schools and you will lose that right, asshole. Besides, the bible expressly forbids the kind of bullshit you are advocating.
"Again, you don’t understand what religious worship is about. If teachers and students want to pray together then who are you to prevent them from doing so? Why do you insist that something that brings everyone together is so wrong?"
If people don't want to pray and worship together they are perfectly free to do so. If you keep trying to force people to do so when they don't want to, once again you will lose your own right to do so, asshole.
"Unfortunately, they do know I exist. I have even received an official letter from some evolutionary biologists regarding one of my articles. The likes of Joe Felsenstein, PZ Myers, Kevin Padian and Jerry Coyne know of me - and they are increasingly concerned."
ActUAlly, they are becoming increasing irritated. No one take you or your bigoted agenda seriously. You have no place discussing science with anyone. You are emotionally incapable of being objective where science is concerned. Your bigoted agenda has clouded your judgement. You have admitted so to everyone here. Just go away and stop irritating people who understand more about science than you ever will, asshole.
mrg · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
RWard · 3 September 2011
"...those who want to pray in public schools with their co-religionists should be allowed to do so, and that the space and time should be afforded to accommodate this need"
If you had ended with the comma we would be in agreement. Pray all you want as long as you don't disrupt the function of the schools. Government ought not to do anything to hinder or accomodate that activity. To do so would be support of religion by government. My taxes would be used to support your worship.
By the way, this thread is the perfect example of why these idiots should be allowed to post on Panda's Thumb and not banished to the BW. They're perfect advertisements for the silliness of their positions.
DS · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
BTW, Atheistoclast, you often screech about how you're going to upend the world of science in the name of destroying Atheism.
Yet, you can't name a single atheist you've convinced to abandon Atheism, nor can you name a single paper that references your inane papers. Why is that?
BTW, just because some scientists and professors think you're an annoying troll does not count.
phhht · 3 September 2011
DS · 3 September 2011
apokryltaros · 3 September 2011
Just Bob · 3 September 2011
"I think this whole thing should be resolved with a constitutional amendment based on a free and democratic referendum on the issue ..."
Don't you hate it when I and others keep throwing your own words back at you?
If what you're promoting is bible-based Christianity, then you can't get much more anti-biblical than a democratic referendum! Nobody votes in the bible, ever! Nor does anyone ever promote voting, or even suggest that such a thing would be a good idea. As Harold recognizes, your agenda is NOT promoting Christianity, it's promoting an authoritarian state with you (or those who recognize your "genius") in power.
And as I and others have pointed out already, your urging of public prayer, in a secular venue (public schools), is absolutely diametrically opposed to the plain words of Jesus. Since you're obviously working against the teachings of Jesus, then whom are you working for?
John · 3 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Dave Luckett · 4 September 2011
So, do we pray, or do we clean the toilets that the "righteous" have carefully ensured are as foul as possible, thus to encourage godliness? Decisions, decisions.
My stars, Bozo, you are a nasty little piece of work, aren't you?
SWT · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
SWT · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
SWT · 4 September 2011
dalehusband · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
dalehusband · 4 September 2011
dalehusband · 4 September 2011
John · 4 September 2011
DS · 4 September 2011
DS · 4 September 2011
From the Clarence Darrow thread:
"The bigoted and the ignorant are very sure of themselves. No business seems to be too important or too personal for them to undertake. One of their chief pastimes is the regulation of other people. They are willing to do anything to others that to them seems important. To compel all others to adopt their own views and ways of living is their aim. In fact, one of their chief sources of comfort and pleasure is making others unhappy."
I think that just about sums up bozo Joe and his bullshit.
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
phhht · 4 September 2011
mrg · 4 September 2011
I'm not sure Wrong-Way Joe has really much in the way of principles. He's just got a routine tuned to provoke people. If he figures out something that will provoke them more, he'll just retune the routine accordingly.
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Paul Burnett · 4 September 2011
phhht · 4 September 2011
Dave Luckett · 4 September 2011
Paul Burnett · 4 September 2011
Just Bob · 4 September 2011
Just Bob · 4 September 2011
PS: I've read the Bible. I'll say it again: Nobody votes in the Bible. Ever.
John · 4 September 2011
John · 4 September 2011
Just Bob · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
Atheistoclast · 4 September 2011
TomS · 4 September 2011
phhht · 4 September 2011
Well, Theistoclast?
You're full of hot air and magical claims about gods and miracles and stuff. I say, put up or shut up.
Either provide some unequivocal evidence for the existence of your gods which I can test for myself, or shut up with your delusional claims.
Your so-called omnipotent gods do not exist, Theistoclast. That is why there is no evidence for them: they are non-existent.
C'mon, Theistoclast, show me I'm wrong.
But you can't, can you?
John · 4 September 2011
Just Bob · 4 September 2011
phhht · 4 September 2011
You're so full of shit, Theistoclast.
You make big, maniacal claims about how you're going to wipe out atheism.
So do it. Destroy out my atheism, loudmouth.
Show me just one piece of unequivocal, empirical evidence that your gods exist. That will do the trick, blabber boy.
Avocados? Have some guacamole! Zebras? Lie on this fine rug?
But gods? NOTHING.
stevaroni · 4 September 2011
SWT · 4 September 2011
Shebardigan · 4 September 2011
I have a structure in my back garden that can easily serve as a stone altar. If Clastie will supply the half-tonne of wood, I will supply the barrels of water and the sacrificial beast (what with the water shortage, steers are readily available here, and I'm sure nobody above will be upset that it's not a "bullock").
He is then free to invoke his deity as specified in I Kings 18: 25-39.
If his god answers with fire, then we'll have a wonderful ol' Texas barbecue and his points will all be proven. Withal I shall happily suffer the fate of the unfaithful as delineated in I Kings 18: 40.
DS · 4 September 2011
phantomreader42 · 4 September 2011
Just Bob · 4 September 2011
"he has advocated policies that are contrary to the explicit teachings of Jesus..."
That would make him...gasp!...antichrist!
(And yes, the word is an adjective, meant to apply to any and all people who are anti-christ---working against the teachings of Jesus--like Atheistoclast. It's never used in Revelation as a noun. According to the Bible, there never was nor ever will be "the antichrist".
Henry J · 4 September 2011
Henry J · 4 September 2011
apokryltaros · 4 September 2011
Rolf · 5 September 2011
phhht · 5 September 2011
DS · 5 September 2011
Just Bob · 5 September 2011
AC has left the building, having declared victory over all of us and clasted a bunch more atheists.
DS · 5 September 2011
mrg · 5 September 2011
Science Avenger · 6 September 2011
Just Bob · 6 September 2011
KlausH · 7 September 2011
KlausH · 7 September 2011
Henry · 14 September 2011