When the Moon is in the 7th House…

| 136 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

We’ve all seen ID advocates bristle at the suggestion that ID is no different than astrology, Holocaust denial, UFOlogy, or any other pseudoscience. Why declare ID wrong before it even gets out of the gate? How dare we tar them with that brush!

In my mind, the biggest danger that ID poses to the world is the threat of making satire redundant. Check these guys out:

http://www.BenevolentDesign.com/

It’s an ID site run by people called the Christian Guardians Fellowship. It begins with the header, “EVOLUTION THEORY IS A MONUMENTAL HOAX.” At first glance, you’d think it’s just more of the same old stupidity, but there’s a neat twist. They have a new and superior method for proving Intelligent Design. And that method is… wait for it… astrology.

It would take way too long to go through all of the silliness on that site, so I’ll just cut to the good stuff:

The Gospels tell us that before Christ was born, three wise men from the East (called Magi) knew that the world’s Savior was about to be born.  The three Magi were very knowledgeable and understood that a new star would appear in the sky and the star would mark the Savior’s birthplace.  The three Magi saw the new star, made a lengthy journey and followed the star, found the baby Jesus, paid homage and gave Him gifts.

The reason we remind you of all this is that we believe the Gospels are telling us the Magi were good men, and they were knowledgeable in astrology.

That’s right, the Magi were astrologers.

[…]

You must be wondering what has any of this to do with Intelligent Design?

We talk about all this because we have discovered a way to disprove Darwinism by using good astrology, and we have improved Intelligent Design by using good astrology.  The astrology we are using is the astrology of the Three Wise Men who foretold of the Bethlehem Star and successfully followed it to Christ’s birthplace.  The Three Wise Men were MAGI and their special form of astrology is called Magi Astrology.

Magi Astrology is so different from any other form of astrology that 95% of Magi Astrology contradicts other forms of astrology.  The beauty of Magi Astrology is that it disproves Darwinism and proves Intelligent Design.  Magi Astrology helps to move Intelligent Design to the very high level needed so that Intelligent Design can make accurate predictions about genetics, the weather, and other areas that presently baffle scientists.

I just don’t know what to say. I hope, at the very least, that these people are giving the Discovery Institute some serious ulcers. I can see it now: Hey guys, we’re glad you’re advancing the faith and all, but you’re really not supposed to talk about Jesus in conjunction with Intelligent Design. And what’s this about Magi… planetary alignment… astrology!? Oh crap.

It gets better though. Read on:

The reason any parents can have fabulously talented children is that God designed it that way.  God designed the world such that the alignment of the planets on a day someone is born helps the person to have certain talents and abilities.  Some alignments of the planets are more helpful than others.  And different planetary alignments help the babies in different ways.  For example, when Mars and Venus are aligned exactly together in sky, the baby will have great athletic ability; when Venus and Mercury are aligned exactly together in the sky, the baby will have a great mind.  (See footnote two.)  These are some of the many principles of Magi Astrology.  And it is why some parents who have no athletic ability themselves can have children who become great athletes.

If Magi Astrology really works, then Darwinism does not work. 

Darwinism is based on the premise that parents who have the greatest ability to survive have this advantage because of their genes and they will usually pass on this advantage to their children because the children inherit the parents’ genes.  But if parents cannot pass on such advantages to their children, then Darwinism cannot work.

Apparently they believe that if the planets are infusing you with useful traits, then this means you cannot also be inheriting them. (Or, I suppose, they believe it’s God who’s giving you certain traits by smiting you with His mighty planets.) Why this automatically should contradict evolution is beyond me, but I’m not even going to try to straighten these guys out.

The truly sad thing is, there’s nothing about this nonsense that in any way contradicts ID. Remember, ID is supposed to consist of one thing and one thing only: empirical evidence that some features of living things were “designed”. Well, these people think they’ve got that evidence. And since ID advocates refuse to construct any theory concerning the mechanisms of design, the natural history of Earth and the biosphere, or the motives of the unnamed designer, they cannot in good faith claim that the Magi Society people are somehow out of bounds. They belong in the Big Tent too, right along side the YECs, geocentrists, and Raelians. Good work ID movement, good work. P.S. Whoever can find the silliest, most ridiculous claim on that site (on any of the pages hosted there) gets a free pitcher of Protostome Pilsner.

2 TrackBacks

Making satire obsolete from The Ziggurat of Doom on March 17, 2005 12:56 PM

Wow. Every time I think the anti-Darwist "Intelligent Design" movement can't get any sillier... ... it trumps itself. That's right. This website completes the trifecta of superstitious bullshit: Fundamentalism, argument-by-blind-assertion, an... Read More

William Dembski points out, indavertantly, why intelligent design (ID) is bad. I’m predicting that Bush and Benedict XVI will play much the same role in the distintegration of evolution (i.e., the ateleological materialistic form of it that cu... Read More

136 Comments

It’s March 17. This site is two weeks and one day early, right?

I don’t know if it’s the silliest, but it’s very silly. Follow the link through to the Stock Market Compass site they run, and it hits you smack between the eyes:

“TRADITIONAL FINANCIAL ASTROLOGY IS DISAPPOINTING”

You don’t say. Apparently, this is because true financial astrology must take into account:

Planetary Geometry including the declinations Heliocentric Astrology including the latitudes Chiron The four major asteroids Planetary Synchronization

Otherwise you’re just mucking about, obviously.

That said, I think their currency birth charts take the biscuit.

Hmm…reminds me of the “jesussave.us” site, which most of you took to be a real site when it was an obvious hoax. I think you folks should do a write-up of this site

http://www.geocities.com/dickieattenborough/

…because it is obviously true. Or maybe the DI should write a nice satirical piece on it to show just how idiotic Darwinism can be!

The REALLY good stuff is the financial analysis software they offer through one of the links they provide. The thought that anyone would invest a penny, much less their savings, on the advice of these wackos makes my stomach turn.

Garret Wrote:

Hmm … reminds me of the “jesussave.us” site, which most of you took to be a real site when it was an obvious hoax.

Um, these people aren’t joking. They sell books. If it’s a hoax, it’s the most expensive, elaborate, and subtle one ever.

I think you folks should do a write-up of this site

http://www.geocities.com/dickieattenborough/ …

… because it is obviously true.

Well it’s obviously not true, nor is it particulary funny or clever.

Creationism has long since passed the point where I can be sure of the difference between satire and sincerity. Do I infer correctly that Garrett is saying Magi Science is an obvious hoax?

I think the correct inference is that Garrett is saying that “Darwinism” is idiotic because sometimes some people guess wrong about whether creationists are being satirized deliberately by others, or inadvertently by themselves. Or whatever, it doesn’t matter, “Darwinism” is idiotic.

But then again, maybe Garrett is writing a brief parody of creationists, and learning just how impossible this is to do.

I agree that Magi Astrology is an improvement on Intelligent Design creationism, in the same way that Superman was improved when his creators allowed him to fly instead of merely jumping great distances.

IDers may bristle at some comparisons, but I think comparison to vitalism is spot on.

This highlights the fundamental error behind the concept of the Discovery Institute. The DI is based on the idea that a sophisticated presentation which hides the obvious religion can disguise christianity enough to sneak past the constitutional guards. The flaw is that the loud entourage of scientifically daft people proclaiming jesus will certainly tip off the guards off. For this reason, it’s only a matter of time before a case establishes that ID is creationism combined with jargon and evasion, and impermissible in science class.

[blockquote]If Magi Astrology really works, then Darwinism does not work.[/blockquote]

Since we know p -> q also means that ~q -> ~p we know that this site at least got one thing logically right. Since “Darwinism” works, therefore Magi Astrology does not work. That sounds correct and true to me. It is amazing what you can prove when you don’t have to stick to science!

I think that one of the problems is that these lunatics have to be dealt with. If you ignore them then they are unopposed when they preach their garbage. if you deal with them you infer ligitimacy to their argument.

I am at a loss as to what we can do. The evidence exists. This is not like the ‘does god exist’ argument. Evolution is FACT, and it has been proven over and over again, and reinforced over and over again. From what I have seen and read there is no room for argument over the ligitimacy of evolution.

Yet here we have supposedly educated individuals spewing garbage. It really makes me worry about the survivability of our species.

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

No I will not reveal my identity. Your “scorched earth” policy discourages a civil discourse as you seek to ruin the careers of your critics. I’m not ready to be a martyr for truth yet.

Evolving Apeman Wrote:

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

Since the bulk of the immature rhetoric comes from Creationist trolls I’m not sure I see your point.

No I will not reveal my identity. Your “scorched earth” policy discourages a civil discourse as you seek to ruin the careers of your critics. I’m not ready to be a martyr for truth yet.

You should put “truth” in quotation marks when you lie like that.

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution?

Not with integrity. I’ve looked.

Feel free to start your own-they’re free and you can maintain a pseudonym. I’ll link to any site of intergrity from mine.

a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution

To the best of my knowledge, there is active debate and investigation (the two are closely related in science!) about the mechanisms of evolution. Morphological analyses sometimes disagree with molecular analyses, there is debate as to the levels where selection might take place (from genes up to clades) and what sort of contribution each level might involve, there’s disagreement about the meaning of nearly every new finding and experimental result.

But of course, all of this is legitimate science. It’s how progress is made. No scientists are making claims known to be wrong, because they have no reason to do so. If you wish to read NON-scientists making claims known to be wrong for the excellent reason that their faith cannot tolerate facts, the internet will cheerfully provide you thousands of these. Have fun!

Are there any blogs out there that take a critical look at the illigitimate and unscientific claims of Evolution? As a well published scientist I find this site full of immature rhetoric.

I would have thought that a “well published scientist” such as yourself would know the correct spelling of “illegitimate.” I guess that shows what I know …

As worthy of ridicule as these “ID advocates” are, isn’t this post unfair to the real ID advocates.

Take someone like Behe. He’s a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he’s of a different stripe than these fellows.

”…we have discovered a way to disprove Darwinism by using good astrology.”

What’s wrong with you people? It’s GOOD astrology. I will be studying it in depth so I can introduce my Astronomy students to GOOD astrology next semester!

Michael Finley:

If you read here long enough, you’ll see that Behe and Dembski get a great deal of column inches, while the likes of Gish and Hovind get almost none. And this is the case because Behe (and to some degree Dembski) ARE legitimate scientists or related (math), presumably know how to search and understand the literature (though Behe has claimed not to be able to find any of the many thousands of articles that existed at the time he said he couldn’t find them). They are also considered dangerous because they are the tip of the Wedge, people with actual degrees out there at the state of the art fighting with desperation (and tons of obfuscational jargon) to force scientific reality to meet the requirements of their faith.

And the disturbing thing these people illustrate is that knowledge and education are not necessarily proof against sheer blinding faith. Knowledge and education in the hands of the faithful are used just as any other tool, to justify and support the faith whatever it takes. In this regard, they are no different stripe. Creationism is the ineradicable sine qua non for ALL these people, the only difference is their chosen targets of distortion and misrepresentation.

Michael Finley Wrote:

As worthy of ridicule as these “ID advocates” are, isn’t this post unfair to the real ID advocates.

Take someone like Behe. He’s a degree holding, peer-review published (though not necessarily articles concerning ID) scientist. However wrong scientifcally his arguments may be, you must admit that he’s of a different stripe than these fellows.

Sure, I wouldn’t want anyone to think that these Magi people represent “normal” IDists. But when the term “ID” gets hijacked by weirdos, the “normals” have only themselves to blame. This sort of thing is a direct consequence of the “Big Tent” strategy, in which the ID movement tries to gather all anti-evolutionists, no matter how different, together under one banner for political clout. If you pursue a strategy like that, there’s no way to keep the real freakazoids from joining in. (The Raelians, for example, have come out in favor of ID, much to our amusement and the irritation of the DI.) Part of getting things right is being clear on what’s not right. If your attitude is “anything goes”, then just look at who you’ll attract.

It appears that ID is starting to become the catch-all for any crazy anti-evolution idea that one comes up with. It’s the term of choice for cranks of all stripes. And it’s the fault of people like Behe for running a PR campaign like they have yet failing to be clear on just what ID is and isn’t.

And the disturbing thing these people [allegedly ‘legitimate’ scientists] illustrate is that knowledge and education are not necessarily proof against sheer blinding faith.

‘Those people’ only illustrate this claim if (if! if! if!) you assume that they behave the way they do because they have blind faith. I question that assumption.

Personally I am convinced they are merely small-time fame whores who crave attention and an easy way to get that attention is to peddle pleasing lies to frightened and ignorant people with a well-documented penchant for gobbling those lies up. It’s a way of making a little bit of money, too.

People with blind faith don’t run around trying to present matheamtical proofs that their deity exists. That’s what people with crises of faith do.

The intellectual difference between Behe and Dembski and creationist trolls like DaveScot and Charlie Wagner (a self-proclaimed agnostic) is not readily discernable. In fact, the latter are arguably more dedicated to their cause than Behe and Dembski. Certainly they are less cowardly when it comes to throwing their ideas into the crucible.

I am confused.

The linked to site on BENEVOLENT DESIGN says:

This is a website of the Christian Guardians Fellowship.

The Christian Guardians Fellowship is a worldwide organization of Christians who have joined together to protect Christianity against all who assault it, especially atheists who believe in Darwinism.

However at the bottom of the page:

© 2005 by The Magi Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Magi Astrology is a trademark and service mark of THE MAGI ASSOCIATES, INC. Magi Society is a registered trademark of THE MAGI ASSOCIATES, INC.

Follow the page’s Link to our magisociety.com website link and one goes to the Magi Society’s page on “magi astrology.” This appears to be a rather extensive website selling booking and computer programs with astrological “explanations” of a great many major news stories of the last few years. And for any who claim that this is not a real site, the books appear on Amazon complete with claims to be from this society.

Now here is the strange bit:

The Magi Society was founded in 1625 by a small group of Shao Lin monks. The society is now a worldwide organization and has produced three of the most important books ever published on astrology. The primary purpose of the Magi Society is to continue to conduct scientific research to improve and expand our knowledge of astrology and to teach it to our members and the world. The Magi Society is also dedicated to helping bring about a universal acceptance of the validity of astrology. The Magi Society has taken on a leadership role in the battle against opponents of astrology.

Among astrological organizations, the Magi Society’s members are the best educated. At the present time, most of the society’s members are college graduates. The percentage of the Magi Society’s members that have post graduate degrees is more than three times that of the national average.

As evidenced by the extraordinary research that went into our first three books, and the vast new knowledge of astrology revealed in our books, it is obvious that all of the Members of the Board of Governors of the Magi Society are among the very best scientific astrologers in the world.

Now I have my doubt about their claim of the age of the organization. But the thing that is confusing me is in the previous page they claim to be Christian and in this page they claim to be a centuries-old Chinese group formed by Shao Lin monks which is not exactly what one would expect from a “Christian” organization. Is this some kind of “big tent” Christianity that includes people that almost no one would call “Christian”?

– Anti-spam: Replace “user” with “harlequin2”

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 3, column 539, byte 1004 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

GWW:

You go to your church and I’ll go to mine. I’ve read too much of Dembski’s nonmathmatical preaching, his witnessing his faith in Christ, to think it’s all a put-on for the sheer adulation of it. I accept that he and Behe are sincere believers, who are using their own specialties like any other believer, as a tool to buttress their faith. People with blind faith in fact DO run around preaching that faith with whatever tools and knowledge they have to hand. That particular faith is a particularly pushy and intolerant flavor, and those pushing it hardest are not those having a crisis. On the contrary, doing so is inherent in the doctrine itself.

However, I do agree that the intellectual difference between these guys and our forum trolls is both insignificant and irrelevant. In fact that was my point – that knowledge makes no difference to faith. Otherwise competent scientists like Behe and knuckle-draggers like davescot share common ground in matters of faith, a land where evidence is irrelevant, integrity is lost, and (in the wonderful words of Russell’s lyrics) “lying’s a virtue when you’re lying for God.”

chingachook

I would have thought that a “well published scientist” such as yourself would know the correct spelling of “illegitimate.” I guess that shows what I know …

If that sort of thing bugs you, go check out Dr. GHs post where he gets all misty over affronts on “seperation” of church and state.

The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor does this author believe it is even related to the validity of the Bible.

That is freaking hilarious.

How do the morons at the IDEA center know that the age of the earth is not related to intelligent design theory? Doesn’t at least one awesomely powerful alien being have to be older than the first life forms on earth for intelligent design theory to work?

What if the earth and everything in it including our memories was created by an intelligent designer last week for the purpose of proving to another intelligent designer that it could be done? If that were true, I think it would have some bearing on the validity of the Bible. I wonder if Casey Luskin can prove to me that it isn’t true. Actually, no I don’t.

Yeah, I was wondering if this page would come with a pitch for money. Yes, indeedy, it’s the “members only” section spiel. Kind of like porn pages.

Cheers,

David Heddle makes a good point. Spelling on this site has been rather uniformly lousy. I suggest a hypothesis: When the software doesn’t permit editing after posting, no amount of proofreading will permit errors to be noticed until after they are posted.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 195, byte 195 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

I forgot to mention that it was NOT I who used your name for ridicule, I meant to apologize only for my childish remarks about “clubs” and “showing off.” Just to make it clear.

Sorry AGAIN for my double post! When will I learn.

Katarina:

Apologies accepted. Thanks for noticing that I have yet to resort to name-calling or similar behaviour. I got your point perfectly, but I still think that it is erroneous.

And as to the three-year-old who stole his parents’ computer and wrote under that unfunny name, rest assured that I never thought it might have been you. It simply didn’t look like your style.

I hope this is not a double post…

Katarina:

Apologies accepted. Thanks for noticing that I do not use the “argument by name-calling”.

I understood your point right from the start, but I still think it is erroneous. Faith is an integral part of what many of us are; as such, it clearly cannot be checked at the door as a raincoat. However, it should not be used as an argument in a scientific discussion (i.e., “this is so because my faith tells me so!”).

If someone does try to use faith as if it were part of the evidence, that someone is not doing science. This may sound like a blanket statement to you, but it is not an attack on faith; merely an attack on a misuse of faith.

And rest assured that I never for a moment thought that the three-year-old who stole his parents’ computer and posted that pathetic joke on my name was you. You don’t sound like the kind of person who would do that.

I’m glad our argument is resolved, and from your most recent comment, I think we are on the same page, after all. My position is, and remains that faith should not be used as an argument in a scientific discussion. Anyone who uses it to justify a scientific claim should be challanged on those grounds, on this site, or any other.

…and of course, it was. Damn!

By the way, I just noticed that the above mentioned 3yo seems to be the same juvenile who every once in a while posts messages faked as coming from Great White Wonder.

Emanuelle said:

I said nothing about how theists chose to define themselves

No. You didn’t. I did. And not being a believer in theism I was probably in some error. My purpose here is not to objectively decide who’s terms of self-definition are true, or more true, or most true, or marginally true, or more likely to be true; but to try and establish the grounds for some little mutual understanding. I’m perfectly willing to accept that all parties’ self-definitions are more or less rationally true within the a priori assumptions of the philosophical system within which they define themselves. I’m trying to be objective, in the sense of not taking sides.

I believe my definition of agnostic has validity from my point of view. I see atheism and theism as co-relative points of view. They are ineluctably joined at the hip. They are opposite assertions of the particular question “do you believe God exists?” The question only allows for two positions. An agnostic is one who refuses to assert a position based on the uncertainty of his knowledge. As a literal translation of the Greek “without certain knowledge”. Creating a multi-valent array of positions by comparison with the question “do you know that God exists” is a nice piece of sophistry, but I don’t see it as bringing much clarity. As far as I can tell, anyone who makes the assertion that they know that God exists or not is still stating an opinion or belief, not presenting absolute proof that their position is an objectively verifiable fact.

Emanuelle said:

I said nothing about how theists chose to define themselves

No. You didn’t. I did. And not being a strict believer in theism my definitions probably would be unsatisfactory to many theists, just as you find my understanding of atheism differs in variously defined ways from yours. My purpose here is not to objectively decide who’s terms of self-definition are true, or more true, or most true, or marginally true, or more likely to be true; but to try and establish the grounds for some little mutual understanding. I’m perfectly willing to accept that all parties’ self-definitions are more or less rationally true within the a priori assumptions of the philosophical system within which they define themselves. I’m trying to be objective, in the sense of not taking sides.

I believe my definition of agnostic has validity from my point of view. I see atheism and theism as co-relative points of view. They are ineluctably joined at the hip. They are opposite assertions of the particular question “do you believe God exists?” The question only allows for two positions. An agnostic is one who refuses to assert a position based on the uncertainty of his knowledge. As a literal translation of the Greek “a-, without, lacking; gnosis, certain knowledge”, and as my best understanding of the term as it was used by the Greeks before it got all tangled with theology. Creating a multi-valent array of positions by comparison with the question “do you know that God exists” is a nice piece of sophistry, but I don’t see it as bringing much clarity. As far as I can tell, anyone who makes the assertion that they know that God exists or not is still stating an opinion or belief, irregardless of the degree of certitude they profess. I can see it as a way of distinguishing degrees of belief (or dis-belief, if you will) within the community of atheists, but I don’t see its applicability to the greater question.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archi[…]/000308.html

luminous beauty:

Get this: practically no thinking atheist claims to know for a fact that god{s} do not exist.

This dismantles your nice theory ab ovo. Say what you want, but if atheists don’t claim knowledge but mere unbelief any remark to the contrary is a misrepresentation.

Please go and read what real atheists say, instead of imagining what they should say according to your definition. I already gave you a link to a very good primer on what atheists say and don’t say; I suggest you try it.

Since “your understanding of atheism” is not based on the real things that atheist thinkers have written and said… what is it if not a fantasy?

Just for a record - I happen to be an atheist, and I definitely WOULDN’T say that I KNOW for a fact that god doesn’t exist. I am an agnostic in the sense that I don’t have the knowledge (and I don’t even particularly desire it), but an atheist because I don’t have the belief. Plus, maybe a hint of antitheist, since I find world without god to be more compelling and more “right” than world that would include god (depends on specific god, really).

Marek14,

I am happy to hear that you too wouldn’t say that you know for a fact that god doesn’t exist. I am sorry for misrepresenting any atheist position. I wouldn’t expect anyone whose position is that of not-knowing, yet not-believing, to challange anyone whose position is that of not-knowing, yet believing. Since neither is really in the position to KNOW. That was really my point all along, but I really did not intend to misrepresent what it means to be an atheist, it was just an accident.

Yes, Emanuele it is a fantasy. It is just that. It is only my subjective personal observation and opinion bouncing harmlessly off your formidable fortress of knowledge of atheist thought.

I’m glad practically no thinking atheist claims to know for a fact that god(s) do not exist. My florid and untrustworthy, fantastical imagination might make me suggestible to wager that such an individual would bear an uncanny resemblance to a certain JAD. Wait…I think I might have.…I might have seen…uh… something.….…uh.….……no…uh.…no, I guess not. Darn, genius is hard.

I just can’t shake the inkling, though, that there is some latent irony in the idle unfounded speculation that without thinking theists who do believe in god(s) there would be no thinking atheists DISCLAIMING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF MERE UNBELIEF. (I’m sorry, I thought it might be just stupid enough to be clever.) (Too stupid? OK)

I kid. Really. I don’t want you to think I’m in any way attacking the basis of your..ah, er.…unbelief system. (I’m sorry, again)

I’m going to have to stop, now. I can’t think seriously anymore. What’s happening? (I truly am sorry)

Yes, Emanuele it is a fantasy. It is just that. It is only my subjective personal observation and opinion bouncing harmlessly off your formidable fortress of knowledge of atheist thought.

I’m glad practically no thinking atheist claims to know for a fact that god(s) do not exist. My florid and untrustworthy, fantastical imagination might make me suggestible to wager that such an individual would bear an uncanny resemblance to a certain JAD. Wait…I think I might have.…I might have seen…uh… something.….…uh.….……no…uh.…no, I guess not. Darn, genius is hard.

I just can’t shake the inkling, though, that there is some latent irony in the idle unfounded speculation that without thinking theists who do believe in god(s) there would be no thinking atheists DISCLAIMING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF MERE UNBELIEF. (I’m sorry, I thought it might be just stupid enough to be clever.) (Too stupid? OK)

I kid. Really. I don’t want you to think I’m in any way attacking the basis of your..ah, er.…unbelief system. (I’m sorry, again)

I’m going to have to stop, now. I can’t think seriously anymore. What’s happening? (I truly am sorry)

luminous beauty:

I’m sorry if you need to nurture your little fantasy of what atheists write and say. Out in the real world, there are atheists who have written and said at length what they think, records of their thoughts exist, and anybody not intellectually lazy or in bad faith would have had very little difficulty finding out. You have failed even to acknowledge the primer on atheist thought that I gave you.

You prefer to dismiss real atheists in favour of a very convenient fantasy you pull out of your preconceptions. Sorry if you see this as a low blow, but this attitude is exactly the same displayed by JAD and DaveScot in regard to the Theory of Evolution.

GWW Wrote:

A couple points: post 21014 is not mine. This is the second time my ID has been hijacked and the second time I’ve pointed it out. 

Will the powers-that-be remove that users posting privileges immediately?  That would be fair and reasonable.

I’ve deleted the comment and banned the IP address.

Since the topic of conversation has gone far afield of the original post, I’m going to go ahead and close this thread. Ginger Yellow wins the free pitcher of Protostome Pilsner, this based on the fact that hers was the first entry I saw, and I’m too lazy to read the whole thread. Enjoy!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Steve Reuland published on March 17, 2005 10:14 AM.

Torquarator bullocki was the previous entry in this blog.

Genes contribute to religious inclination is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter