The Reverend Paul Prather is a Kentucky minister, sometime blogger, and contributor to his local newspaper. He is also a whiner, has a stunted ability to think much beyond his limited world view, and is a caricature of the dwindling moderate Christian majority.
Recently he wrote an article entitled “New atheists embody the very things they hate.”
It’s his rant against this “new atheism,” a term that religionists wield against 21st century atheists like an epithet, much as Muslim jihadists use “infidel” or “kafir” for all non-Muslim Westerners.
The following are a few extracts from his misguided article which will serve as examples of theistic shortsightedness and myopic perspective of what atheism is all about.
“My objection to the new atheists isn't that they're atheists. It's that they strike me as hypocrites, which is the charge they unfailingly level, with mixed justification, against the religious. In opposing religion in the manner they do, they betray themselves as possessing the traits they profess to loathe.”
Hypocrites? Perhaps he thinks we DO believe in a god or gods when we say we do not? Maybe we say we are against intolerance for homosexual rights, and yet we really go out and try to make gays’ lives miserable? Perhaps we really DO reject the proofs of science deep down, and are just professing it to appear erudite? I don’t get it.
No, we, or at least I, don’t oppose religion per se, I oppose the product of theistic thought; that which impedes scientific progress, limits personal freedoms, uses belief to justify political extremism including theocracy, terror and war; and which seeks to enslave minds into a bronze age or 2nd century view of reality and morality that is defunct. Any religionists who do not subscribe to those things are not targets of my “opposition.”
“… they cherry-pick historical examples of religious wrongdoing while ignoring the innumerable instances in which the faithful have performed great acts of decency and charity.”
When acts of theistic decency have to be trotted out as a counter point to the acts of theist wrong doing in defense of religion it begs a cost benefit analysis. I’d proffer that if the evils wrought by religion are laid side by side with the contributions of religion to the advancement of civilization and human existence, that the evils would heavily tilt the scale. What benefits have been derived from religionist because of their superstition that counter acts 2000 years of Church inspired anti-Semitism, world wide terrorist bombings, the misrepresentation of the value of condoms in 3rd world nations, or the deaths attributable to intra-sect warfare through the ages? The good intentions of Mother Theresa?
“I wish these atheists would venture … into a seminary library. They'd find tens of thousands of volumes written by thinkers great and obscure across two millennia.”
No doubt. But careful examination of the contributions of theists in real world terms: i.e. science and medicine by notible theists like Gregor Mendel, Christian Barnard, Jonas Salk, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and other personages of faith were made INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing.
Look, this “new atheist” label that seems to have bruised the sensibilities and aroused the ire of the theist majority like Prather is simply a cover for religionists’ disgust with [fear of?] the fact that activist atheists have decided not to hide in the closet any longer. We no longer are content to be anonymous observers, standing idly by while religion drags civilization back into the Dark Ages, or destroys lives and minds. "New atheist" is theist code for: "Those uppity mouthy atheists who aren't content to hide from the Inquisition like the good old days; refuse to kowtow to the Christian majority; and who insist on using reason and science openly to make us look like the backward superstionalists that we are." To that extent they’re right. No hypocrisy here.
Look, this “new atheist” label that seems to have bruised the sensibilities and aroused the ire of the theist majority like Prather is simply a cover for religionists’ disgust with [fear of?] the fact that activist atheists have decided not to hide in the closet any longer. We no longer are content to be anonymous observers, standing idly by while religion drags civilization back into the Dark Ages, or destroys lives and minds. "New atheist" is theist code for: "Those uppity mouthy atheists who aren't content to hide from the Inquisition like the good old days; refuse to kowtow to the Christian majority; and who insist on using reason and science openly to make us look like the backward superstionalists that we are." To that extent they’re right. No hypocrisy here.
Rev. Prather’ s whole article: http://www.kentucky.com/2010/06/12/1303777/paul-prather-new-atheists-embody.html#ixzz0tkmOZZ10
60 comments:
We need more "New" atheists. At the same time we miss the "Old" atheists like Robert Ingersoll and Mark Twain.
“I wish these atheists would venture … into a seminary library. They'd find tens of thousands of volumes written by thinkers great and obscure across two millennia.”
They may have been thinkers, great and small, but they mostly produced apologetics and lies and obfuscations and sleight of hand & mind and attempts to control the minds of others. Where they failed, they often went in for burning and stabbing and terrorizing and waging war. That is the true measure of the scum who contributed to the seminary library.
PS: As Luther said, we need more "New" atheists. That is who is getting the word out and helping change minds into sane thinking.
Hi NE Bob,
Right, when I think about all the theologian great thinkers I just feel so bad that someone with such potential and opportunity to really make a difference in this life just squandered it by choosing to promote the mind games and mind control that religion is all about. It's pitiful and weak. The great thinkers that I really admire were often going against the status quo at great personal risk. Not only do I find their ideas enthralling, I also admire their courage and resilience too.
LaurieB
DH says: The Reverend Paul Prather is a Kentucky minister, sometime blogger, and contributor to his local newspaper. He is also a whiner, has a stunted ability to think much beyond his limited world view, and is a caricature of the dwindling moderate Christian majority.
DJ Says: Once again, when the "reason" fails, out comes the name-calling. The "dwindling moderate Christian majority" as you call it has shifted away from traditional brick-and-mortar churches but they haven't gone away. In the meantime, due to the huge successes of the "brights", the population of atheists in the USA have doubled, from virtually non-existent to a whopping almost none...
DH says: It’s his rant against this “new atheism,” a term that religionists wield against 21st century atheists like an epithet, much as Muslim jihadists use “infidel” or “kafir” for all non-Muslim Westerners.
DJ says: The "new atheists" are a lot different than the "old atheists". Perhaps you prefer the arrogant, self-serving term "brights", implying of course, that everyone else are "dulls".
DH says: Hypocrites? Perhaps he thinks we DO believe in a god or gods when we say we do not? Maybe we say we are against intolerance for homosexual rights, and yet we really go out and try to make gays’ lives miserable? Perhaps we really DO reject the proofs of science deep down, and are just professing it to appear erudite? I don’t get it.
DJ says: Of course they/you are hypocrites. You claim you don't believe in a god or gods, but you believe in the god of "nature", which you sometimes confuse with "science" (which is just one way of looking at the handiwork of the god of nature). You mean you actually support the goals of the Man-Boy Love Association? Taking some man's thing up the rear end is your idea of "natural"? "Proofs of science?" What proofs of science? Today's scientific "truths" are tomorrows scientific errors. That, they tell me, is the real beauty of science. That's what you want to base your life on?
DH: Any religionists who do not subscribe to those things are not targets of my “opposition.”
DJ: Gee, thanks, Hump. That's mighty magnanimous of you. Does this mean we are not all "caricatures" and in varying states of "delusion"?
I think you should be careful with your own terms. For example, I'm a Christian but I'm not a religionist. I'm adamantly opposed to all the things about religion that you listed. And according to the full article, apparently so is Paul Prather...
"INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing."
Sorry, Hump, but I have to disagree with you on that part. Yes, 75% of literalist theists claw at real science like kicking and screaming jackals with nothing else to do. HOWEVER, there is something to be said about the wonderful spark of intuitive reasoning which comes from the All(Not Yahweh-remember?). This isn't in spite of anything. If the person is not listening they wont hear a damn thing and just blithely go on their merry way. But if they ARE listening then real progress can be made in all areas of science a person is working in.
Even some gnostics get deaf from time to time, because of all the material responsibilities of their lives. So we're not completely immune to this.
Granted, our republic has been twisted now to the opposite side of the spectrum, but I wonder what would have happened if Plato had not been so inspired to write on the gnostic principles he did, among other things....
Be careful who you point your finger at. Not all theists are brainless because not all theists are literalists.
DH says: When acts of theistic decency have to be trotted out as a counter point to the acts of theist wrong doing in defense of religion it begs a cost benefit analysis. I’d proffer that if the evils wrought by religion are laid side by side with the contributions of religion to the advancement of civilization and human existence, that the evils would heavily tilt the scale.
DJ says: If you subscribe to all the anti-religious propaganda (especially the wild exaggerations of anti-Catholic propaganda from the French Revolution) you propbably think that the entire history of Christendom has been just one continuous genocide against non-Christians in one long, ongoing Crusade and Inquisition. Go Google it: look up the number of atheist/humanist sponsored charitable organizations. Then compare that to the number of religious-sponsored charitable organizations. Last time I looked there were seven (7) atheist/humanist charities compared to 1.2 million (1,200,000) religious sponsored hits. And you can really say that "the evils would heavily tilt the scales" with as straight face?
DSJulian - where do you get this complete nonsense from? By your posts, you show yourself to be extremely ignorant. I bet you have fun sitting at home making this crap up...LOL
DH says: But careful examination of the contributions of theists in real world terms: i.e. science and medicine by notible theists like Gregor Mendel, Christian Barnard, Jonas Salk, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon and other personages of faith were made INSPITE of their theistic superstition, not BECAUSE of it. Had they not extended themselves beyond the precepts of their religious indoctrination and the ignorant falsehoods of scripture, they’d have contributed nothing.
DJ says: That's just hogwash and you know it. Mendel was a monk in a monastery who was searching for God in the regularity of plant breeding and became the father of genetics. Copernicus was a monk in a monastery who was searching the heavens for God and founded modern astronomy. Other scientists have been inspired by their religious beliefs to help to contribute to the curing of diseases and other relief for the poor, like medicine, food, shelter, clothing, etc., and significantly, they found no conflict between their science and their religious beliefs. Many of them, like Alexander Fleming, acknowledged in their biographies the huge part their faith played in directing their paths toward their discoveries.
DH says: Look, this “new atheist” label that seems to have bruised the sensibilities and aroused the ire of the theist majority like Prather is simply a cover for religionists’ disgust with [fear of?] the fact that activist atheists have decided not to hide in the closet any longer.
DJ says: I thought he was being kind. Even some "atheists" I know are not comfortable with the new wave of in-your-face atheists calling themselves "brights". What has caused these kinds of reactions is that no one seems to be challenging the phony assertions and pseudo-scientific claims this new version of "naturalists" is using to fill the void that was left in their lives when they turned the God of their youth out of their lives. Christopher "don't call me Chris" Hitchens has, at least, really come out of the closet. Is that really where you want to hang your hat?
NewEnglandBob says: DSJulian - where do you get this complete nonsense from? By your posts, you show yourself to be extremely ignorant. I bet you have fun sitting at home making this crap up...LOL
DJ says: Just like I said. Once the "reason" fails, out comes the name calling. Do the research, Bob, and stop falling for the antireligious propaganda hook, line, and sinker and you will be surprised at what you will find.
Unlike the "naturalists" I don't have to make anything up. I don't have to pretend that if you stare into empty space long enough something will appear out of nothing. And then that something will miraculously evolve into a complex universe - all without any rhyme or reason or purpose.
Too much ignorance here from DSJulian.
The "Brights" organization have nothing to do with "New" Atheists. Go look at their web site and learn something, such as the opposite of "Bright" is "Super" for supernatural.
The "New" atheists is a label put on those who no longer sit and take the abusive crap from lying, manipulative religious like Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ken Ham, The Discovery Institute morons and the fucking clowns at Answers in Genesis. and other such scum. It is used to hide the fact that atheists are eating the lunch of the apologetics with facts and evidence and the scientific method instead of the woo based fear and nonsense from many religious.
Your comparison of number of charities is quite inane and stupid.
Your nonsense about history is just too stupid to even discuss.
Well, The level of gross ignorance and denial by Julian has reached a new level. Only 7 non-theist charitable organizations? LOL. Idiocy.
Your reference to Copernicus search for god is so inane as to be unworthy of furhter comment. Stop reading self serving apologetics sites that feed your preferred delusion & start reading secular books with genuine history and rreason.
Naturalists? void in their life when they turned out god? WTF are you talking about? I never believed in god/gods, and I am not a naturalist. You don't like "new atheists" because we have called you out on your delusion and it makes you uncomfortable The "old atheists"didn't bother, lest they be burned at the stake.
God of nature"? Stupidity. Does everything people accept as real or dismiss as fable have to have a god element associiatred with it? Can't you even imagine a life and intellect devoid of the concept of god/worship?
What.. I worship something called nature? I sacrifice to it? Pray to it? Ask it to intercede on my behalf? I embue it with supernatural qualities? I have a doctrine and dogma that credits nature with attributes that...oh fuck. Why bother. Julian.. you are this far [ ] from my dismissing you entirely.
I had at one time said to you that you are welcome here anytime because you represented what I had erroneously interpreted as a thinking Christian. I admit my error in that regard. You spout many of the the same nonsensical platutudes, falshoods, and evasions as a fundie.
This info is verifiable via a number of sites. I picked the first one I found. NONE of them mention god or religious pursuit being the inspiration for his work.
"Mendel's brilliant performance at school as a youngster encouraged his family to support his pursuit of a higher education, but their resources were limited, so Mendel entered an Augustinian monastery, continuing his education and starting his teaching career.
Mendel's attraction to research was based on his love of nature. "
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_inspired_Gregor_Mendel_to_conceive_his_own_theory_for_inheritance
Thus, Mendel entered a monestary and became a monk because his family couldn't pay for secular university. Discovery while in search of God?
Julian, you have no credibility here.
Congratulations, Hump. You have now graduated to being a militant atheist in my book.
Apres tu, Julian.
I'll let myself(and my reasoning and rational mind) out; no need to show me the door.
NewEnglandBob says: Too much ignorance here from DSJulian.
DJ says: One of the reasons the new atheists/brights/naturalists or whatever they are calling themselves this week are having so little effect is because they can't seem to keep their tempers and foul mouths in check. So anything constructive they might have to offer gets obscured by their ranting and raving.
"Congratulations, Hump. You have now graduated to being a militant atheist in my book."
I guess Angel doesn't understand. That is a GOOD thing to be.
Luther says: We need more "New" atheists. At the same time we miss the "Old" atheists like Robert Ingersoll and Mark Twain.
DJ Says: Mark Twain was a lifelong Freemason, which means he believed in God and an afterlife. Like many of us believers, Twain was adamantly opposed to the ills of religion, especially Christianity, the relgion. But that should not be confused with atheism. You might use Ingersol and Hume and Graves, but after that you'll have to dig pretty deep to find any atheists who weren't also Marxist Communists...
DSJulian, once again your ignorance abounds.
"...are having so little effect..."
The US has increased to 25% of people not believing in gods. It is the largest growing group, more than any religion.
Angel,
Hmmm.. I have always been a militant atheist. Ithought you understood that.
I hate to see you go. But I will not attribute to a god, a supernatural force, or a thinking senitinel being anything having to do with life, the universe, creation etal; nor will I allow disinofrmation to go unchallenged.
Juilian.. intersetingly, you seemed more angry than anyone else posting here.
BTW, you non-religionsts/Moderate Christians/ or superstitionalists/ or whatever you're calling yourself these days, seem awful animated and defensive considering atheists are having "so little effect." :) I'll chalk it up to your being in denial.
Quote by Mark Twain:
"I believe in God the Almighty.
I do not believe He has ever sent a message to man by anybody, or delivered one to him by word of mouth, or made Himself visible to mortal eyes at any time in any place.
I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less inspired by Him."
Julian Said:
" You might use Ingersol and Hume and Graves, but after that you'll have to dig pretty deep to find any atheists who weren't also Marxist Communists..."
Is that a fact? Well, here is a a list of a couple thousand atheists in history. Why don't you tell me how far I have to dig to find those who are not "communists" among these lists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
I've had it with your idiocy, and rediculous statements, Julian.
Great post, Hump!
"DJ says: One of the reasons the new atheists/brights/naturalists or whatever they are calling themselves this week are having so little effect is because they can't seem to keep their tempers and foul mouths in check. So anything constructive they might have to offer gets obscured by their ranting and raving."
.
.
Now that's just bullshit. LOL! You're saying that atheists should "play nice" even though religionists don't (they seem to have bully pulpits everywhere). An atheist should whisper even when a scream is warranted just so no one's feelings are hurt? LOL! That's wussy talk. LOL!
I doubt that anything an atheist says to a religious person (esp. an extreme, irrational nutjob) is going to have any "effect" (little or otherwise--if that is the goal) no matter what tone is used.
DH says: Your reference to Copernicus search for god is so inane as to be unworthy of furhter comment. Stop reading self serving apologetics sites that feed your preferred delusion & start reading secular books with genuine history and rreason.
DJ says: Really? Are you going to tell me Copernicus and Mendel weren't actually monks? That the majority of the first humanists weren't Christians? It is you who needs to stop listing to your own propaganda and start looking at the facts.
DH says: Naturalists? void in their life when they turned out god? WTF are you talking about? I never believed in god/gods, and I am not a naturalist. You don't like "new atheists" because we have called you out on your delusion and it makes you uncomfortable The "old atheists"didn't bother, lest they be burned at the stake.
DJ: See, you can't even be honest enough to admit where your moral code comes from. You have been as immersed in the religious morals of Western Civilization your whole life as any fundamentalist. You guys are just so transparent it's funny.
DH: God of nature"? Stupidity. Does everything people accept as real or dismiss as fable have to have a god element associiatred with it?
Can't you even imagine a life and intellect devoid of the concept of god/worship?
Of course I can imagine that. Like most children of the '60's I abandoned the God of my youth for the libertine life of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. Been there, done that. And like many of us who grew up, we realized the destructive course that was and we came back home. And I can fully appreciate that the default position should always be that of the agnostic or true skeptic. What Paul Prather was trying to get across to you is that Christians don't have any problem with unbelievers. What we have a problem with is this apparent willingness to accept the mythology of "nature" while denying what you call the mythology of God.
DH: What.. I worship something called nature? I sacrifice to it? Pray to it? Ask it to intercede on my behalf? I embue it with supernatural qualities? I have a doctrine and dogma that credits nature with attributes that...oh fuck. Why bother. Julian.. you are this far [ ] from my dismissing you entirely.
DJ: Of course you are. No one can challenge the self-serving Hump-God in his own temple - right?
DH: I had at one time said to you that you are welcome here anytime because you represented what I had erroneously interpreted as a thinking Christian. I admit my error in that regard. You spout many of the the same nonsensical platutudes, falshoods, and evasions as a fundie.
DJ: Once again, once the "reason" fails, out comes the name calling.
You see, Hump, it's just like Paul Prather said: if you really didn't give a damn about God you wouldn't be obsessed with Him. And just like any other fundamentalist, all you do is make wild claims without any evidence at all.
DH says: Your reference to Copernicus search for god is so inane as to be unworthy of furhter comment. Stop reading self serving apologetics sites that feed your preferred delusion & start reading secular books with genuine history and rreason.
DJ says: Really? Are you going to tell me Copernicus and Mendel weren't actually monks? That the majority of the first humanists weren't Christians? It is you who needs to stop listing to your own propaganda and start looking at the facts.
DH says: Naturalists? void in their life when they turned out god? WTF are you talking about? I never believed in god/gods, and I am not a naturalist. You don't like "new atheists" because we have called you out on your delusion and it makes you uncomfortable The "old atheists"didn't bother, lest they be burned at the stake.
DJ: See, you can't even be honest enough to admit where your moral code comes from. You have been as immersed in the religious morals of Western Civilization your whole life as any fundamentalist. You guys are just so transparent it's funny.
DH: God of nature"? Stupidity. Does everything people accept as real or dismiss as fable have to have a god element associiatred with it?
Can't you even imagine a life and intellect devoid of the concept of god/worship?
Of course I can imagine that. Like most children of the '60's I abandoned the God of my youth for the libertine life of sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll. Been there, done that. And like many of us who grew up, we realized the destructive course that was and we came back home. And I can fully appreciate that the default position should always be that of the agnostic or true skeptic. What Paul Prather was trying to get across to you is that Christians don't have any problem with unbelievers. What we have a problem with is this apparent willingness to accept the mythology of "nature" while denying what you call the mythology of God.
DH: What.. I worship something called nature? I sacrifice to it? Pray to it? Ask it to intercede on my behalf? I embue it with supernatural qualities? I have a doctrine and dogma that credits nature with attributes that...oh fuck. Why bother. Julian.. you are this far [ ] from my dismissing you entirely.
DJ: Of course you are. No one can challenge the self-serving Hump-God in his own temple - right?
DH: I had at one time said to you that you are welcome here anytime because you represented what I had erroneously interpreted as a thinking Christian. I admit my error in that regard. You spout many of the the same nonsensical platutudes, falshoods, and evasions as a fundie.
DJ: Once again, once the "reason" fails, out comes the name calling.
You see, Hump, it's just like Paul Prather said: if you really didn't give a damn about God you wouldn't be obsessed with Him. And just like any other fundamentalist, all you do is make wild claims without any evidence at all.
DH says: Well, The level of gross ignorance and denial by Julian has reached a new level. Only 7 non-theist charitable organizations? LOL. Idiocy.
Look it up. One idiot atheist tried to convince me the other day that the Young Men's Christian Association was a secular group because of their new "the Y" logo. Another tried to convince me that the American Red Cross wasn't a Christian cross because the legs were of equal length.
DH says: Thus, Mendel entered a monestary and became a monk because his family couldn't pay for secular university. Discovery while in search of God?
Julian, you have no credibility here.
DJ: From Wikipedia (not one person's Wiki answer with no citations at all):
Mendel was born into an ethnic German family in Heinzendorf bei Odrau, Austrian Silesia, Austrian Empire (now Hynčice, Czech Republic), and was baptized two days later. He was the son of Anton and Rosine Mendel, and had one older sister and one younger. They lived and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years.[3] During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener, studied beekeeping, and as a young man attended the Philosophical Institute in Olomouc in 1840–1843. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz, he entered the Augustinian Abbey of St Thomas in Brno in 1843. Born Johann Mendel, he took the name Gregor upon entering monastic life. In 1851 he was sent to the University of Vienna to study under the sponsorship of Abbot C. F. Napp. At Vienna, his professor of physics was Christian Doppler.[4] Mendel returned to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics, and by 1867, he had replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery.[5]
Besides his work on plant breeding while at St Thomas's Abbey, Mendel also bred bees in a bee house that was built for him, using bee hives that he designed.[6] He also studied astronomy and meteorology[5], founding the 'Austrian Meteorological Society' in 1865.[4] The majority of his published works were related to meteorology.[4]
What part of "as a young man attended the Philosophical Institute in Olomouc in 1840–1843. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz, he entered the Augustinian Abbey of St Thomas in Brno in 1843" and "Mendel returned to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics, and by 1867, he had replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery" did you not understand?
DH says: Thus, Mendel entered a monestary and became a monk because his family couldn't pay for secular university. Discovery while in search of God?
Julian, you have no credibility here.
DJ: From Wikipedia (not one person's Wiki answer with no citations at all):
Mendel was born into an ethnic German family in Heinzendorf bei Odrau, Austrian Silesia, Austrian Empire (now Hynčice, Czech Republic), and was baptized two days later. He was the son of Anton and Rosine Mendel, and had one older sister and one younger. They lived and worked on a farm which had been owned by the Mendel family for at least 130 years.[3] During his childhood, Mendel worked as a gardener, studied beekeeping, and as a young man attended the Philosophical Institute in Olomouc in 1840–1843. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz, he entered the Augustinian Abbey of St Thomas in Brno in 1843. Born Johann Mendel, he took the name Gregor upon entering monastic life. In 1851 he was sent to the University of Vienna to study under the sponsorship of Abbot C. F. Napp. At Vienna, his professor of physics was Christian Doppler.[4] Mendel returned to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics, and by 1867, he had replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery.[5]
Besides his work on plant breeding while at St Thomas's Abbey, Mendel also bred bees in a bee house that was built for him, using bee hives that he designed.[6] He also studied astronomy and meteorology[5], founding the 'Austrian Meteorological Society' in 1865.[4] The majority of his published works were related to meteorology.[4]
What part of "as a young man attended the Philosophical Institute in Olomouc in 1840–1843. Upon recommendation of his physics teacher Friedrich Franz, he entered the Augustinian Abbey of St Thomas in Brno in 1843" and "Mendel returned to his abbey in 1853 as a teacher, principally of physics, and by 1867, he had replaced Napp as abbot of the monastery" did you not understand?
(And the funny numbers in brackets are the footnote locations of the historical citations that are required for the accuracy of the real, peer-reviewed Wikipedia entries)
NewEnglandBob says: The US has increased to 25% of people not believing in gods. It is the largest growing group, more than any religion.
DJ: Do the research Bob... that group of "None"'s includes agnostics, Deists, and believers who no longer identify themselves with a specifc organized religious denomination. Atheists represent only 2% of that number, doubling from 1% ten years ago.
DH says: Angel, Hmmm.. I have always been a militant atheist. Ithought you understood that.
I hate to see you go. But I will not attribute to a god, a supernatural force, or a thinking senitinel being anything having to do with life, the universe, creation etal; nor will I allow disinofrmation to go unchallenged.
DJ: Angel, like me, thought you were a rational, reasonable person. Obviously you are not because once you are pressed with the facts, you have to resort to name calling. And as the Hump-God gets challenged, you have to respond by getting angry and accusing others of being angry. In the meantime your anger is being clearly demonstrated by your increasingly frequent spelling and other errors. You are becoming more and more like the God you say you reject, except you don't have the power to create anything...
NewEnglandBob says (quoting Twain): "I believe in God the Almighty.
I do not believe He has ever sent a message to man by anybody, or delivered one to him by word of mouth, or made Himself visible to mortal eyes at any time in any place.
I believe that the Old and New Testaments were imagined and written by man, and that no line in them was authorized by God, much less inspired by Him."
DJ: that means Twain (like many Freemasons of the Enlightenment) was a Deist, not a Bible-believing Christian. That does not make him an atheist. So you'll have to find some others. Go look at Hump's list. Start with the letter A. The first atheist whose name you'll actually recognize is Woody Allen, a pervert who married his adopted child. The next is Allende, Marxist former dictator of Chile. Is it any wonder these people reject religious morality? Are these really the values you want to embrace?
JULIAN..READ THIS.. IT IS THE LAST ENTRY YOU WILL BE RECIEVING.
1) THE ISSUE isn't whtehr mendel was a monk, you disenenuous fucktard.. you said he was "searching for god thru nature". I didnt debate his being a monk, asswipe. I'm sayingnthere is absolutly no evidence for your stupoid statement vis-s-vis looking for god in his fucking pea plantexperiments. .
2) NO COPERNICUS WAS NOT A MONK he was a canon of the church, for all intents an purposes an administrative post which he acquired thru his father I believe. ADDITIONALLY YOU SAID he was "looking for God in the heavens." You're either a damnable fool, or think we are. Theonly placeyou'd find such a stupid and insipid comment would be in a christian apologetics site. Tereis no historcal basids for it.
NOW..that said... I stopped reading your posts after that. You have exposed yourself for the typical chirstian liar, distorter of fact, rejector of reason, acceptor of bullshit Xtian platitudes, revisionist of history, and a damnable fool.
Get back on your meds because since you first stared posting here there has been a dramtic down turn in your level of intelligent discourse and increase in hyper religiosity gamebook bullshit.
Find someplace else to post whereyour statements WON'T receive intelligent scrutiny, and your delusional beliefs will be "respected." You're in the wrong place if you expect either from this blog.
Copernicus was a secular canon (kanonik), not a priest. It was basically a cozy job for sons of well-heeled families, which granted prestige and spare time, without the burden of ecclesiastical duties. The position was attached to a specific cathedral, in this case Frombork.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Copernicus.html
Although Copernicus was a canon, he had never become a priest. In fact on 4 February 1531 his bishop threatened to take away his income if he did not enter the priesthood, yet Copernicus still refused.
"At the University of Bologna, he [Capernicus] advanced his theory that the moon was a satellite of the earth. At Padua, he studied medicine.
He became fascinated by celestial motion and observed this phenomena with his naked eye. He then began drawing the positions of the constellations and planets to support his theory.
His uncle Lucas, the Bishop of Varmia, appointed Copernicus a canon of the Church, which provided Copernicus a stipend to study medicine and science. He held the position as a canon of the Chapter of Varmia in Frombork, a little town in the north of Poland, from 1510 until his death in 1543. There he led a busy administrative life which included the organization of armed resistance against provocations by neighboring Teutonic Knights.
His position allowed him to spend most of his time working out his theory.
http://www.polamjournal.com/Library/Biographies/copernicus/copernicus.html
No Monk, no "search for god in the heavens" just fucking reality and truth. This is what's called "documentation of corroborated fact."
If one is going to proffer something as fact.. back it up with corroborated evidence from independent sources or be forever condemned as a delusional religious buffoon.
But religionists never say "mea culpa". They never say "I erred, I am a victim of religious propaganda" because fact, knowledge of true history, and honesty mean nothing to them. Anything to promote Jebus; nothing to promote truth.
the NEW ATHEISTS are literally a DYING BREED....
btw HUMP
We have orders to EXTERMINATE you and your entire family if continue to talk about GOD and RELIGION the way *you do*
do you got the msg, you stupid little fucker?
DM,
whew..welcome back.
You're insane postings are a refreshing change from the failed attempt at logic from your fellow deluded religionist DSJulian.
In closing...please blow Jesus for us.
Thks
Hump
Hump said: "In closing...please blow Jesus for us."
LOLOLOL!!!
DM...DJ...DS...I'm getting a headache. LOL!
Why do religionists feel the need to make a laundry list of historic or prominent figures who may or may not have "believed" in god/s? As if that is all that is needed to "prove" god/s exist/ed. If every genius in the world was an atheist and every idiot was a religionist (or vice versa)--what would that have to do with whether any god/s actually existed/exist or not? There is always this tug-of-war over Twain, Einstein, et al.. But who cares what they "believed?" Show me the evidence--not lists of favorite poets, scientists and philosophers.
So far no religionist has provided any good evidence for the existence of god/s because there isn't any. But maybe DJ or DM has something the rest of the world hasn't seen yet.
THE HEAD OF THE INFIDEL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojR-XRt4rrA
Is America burning yet?
Rachelle.. OOps.. I see you caught my recommendation to DM.
I hope it's as good for him as it is for Jesus :)
Hump a militant atheist? What the flying fuck is this shit?
Of all the people who have made others scream their self to death on torture rack asabled in the name of god, of all the people who have caused others to die in mindless wars over the right god, of all people who have mutilated children in the name of mindless dogma, of all the people who held slaves and raped them with their gods approval, you dare come here and call Hump militant.
And for why? Because he puts words to the disgust and hopeless rage more and more people are feeling towards religion and their practitioners in general.
Christians, muslims, Catholics! The above is your heritage plain and simple. Hump drags the filth out in the daylight for all to see and you hate it. Shame on you. Shame.
Keep it up Hump. What you are doing is working.
DJ: Of course you are. No one can challenge the self-serving Hump-God in his own temple - right?
OK, I was gonna keep my big mouth shut until I read that one. That really pisses me off!
If DJ would have taken a few minutes browsing through this blog instead of looking up revisionist history he could have easily found times when I have disagreed with Hump. Not to mention NEBob or Tracey. I myself have even personally written DH with objections to things I have not agreed with.
The differences being
1) When we disagree we do not list our opinion as fact.
2) When Hump does not agree with our differences, we do not fake outrage and hurt feelings.
3) When we disagree we actually listen for constructive criticism and feedback as we do not believe that our opinions are infallible as they do not come from "on high" but from rational discourse and quiet reflection.
4) We do not stomp and pout when we can not come to an agreement or sway opinions we simply move on as adults should.
If you sir (DJ) are going to lie and obscure the truth for personal gain then do me and anyone else who cares about rational discourse a huge favor and GET OFF OF OUR BLOG!
zar
p.s. My apologies to NEBob and Tracey if I used your names out of turn.
Not a problem, of course, zarton.
Rasti , Zar ... Thank you.
Indeed we can disagree. But as Zar said..if your going to proffer something as fact, you'd damn well better beable to support it with corroborating evidence and stop simply demanding you're right.
This damnable jerkoff kept saying mendel and copernicus wwere "searching for god" in their experiments and observations of plants and the universe. Bullshit.
Thats christian apologetics at it's worst. Both men had purley rational and secular interest in tehir experinments and observations, as clearly cited by any source on either man.
and Copernicus was NOT a monk. The damn fool could see that if he just looked it up. I hate assholes who insist their brainwashing is fact when fact tells us otherwise.
I'll have none of it.
LOL! I can't resist. LOL!
DM said: "Repent and turn to God or be destroyed."
I'd rather be destroyed...esp if "heaven" meant living an "eternity" with people like you. LOL!
Happy Monday! :)
Oh Rachelle. If there was a heaven, DM would not be going. He would roast in hell for biblical sins like!
-judgmental
-proud
-vain
-gluttony
-sloth (being physically and emotionally inactive) if the dumb shit doesn't know what it means.
Some of which are part of the 7 deadly sins I believe. Oh deary me. DM is in trouble:)
Not mad though. Mad survives quite well within the biblical dogma.
And as a extra bonus. The word verification for posting this was "dumb".
rastifarian ... we need to develop radical new weapons against you lying scumbags....
Look, I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls and ignore them, but since Rachelle brought it up, I'll ask: could you at least delete or edit those DM rants that go on for more than two full screens?
DM - Daawww did I hurt your fundamental feelings?
And it's Rastifan, not rastifarian you inbreed.
Talking of Mark twain though, it does seem that the old atheists were much funnier. They did their work with funny remarks where as the biggest names today seem to do it with ridicule.
Maybe we do need more Old and New Atheists.
Simon,
Old, New...the more atheists the better for the planet.
The funniest atheist's line I ever heard was when christopher hitchens was on bill o'reilly right after jerry fallwell's death. He said:
"If they gave him an enema, they could have buried him in a match box."
Hump - He said that on another Fox program to. The anchorman was sitting there opening and closing his mouth like a fish stranded on land. I laughed like hell.
As a journalist wrote after that comment. In fundamentalist Christian America, I am sure some of the older TV sets short circuited:)
Hehe... yep. and you're right..it was Sean Hannity's show.. NOT O'Reilly. my mistake.
Post a Comment