Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PZ open cut quote mines

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

PZ has a lot to say. I present some gems below for your education.

I’m sure that I have some irrational beliefs of my own. I have no idea what they are. It’s not holding irrational beliefs that makes you an idiot. It’s holding the irrational beliefs and demanding that those be imposed on everyone else.

Nobody has convinced me that God exists. That’s not going to happen.

Science is the answer. I’m sorry; you may be a very devout religious person, but praying is not going to solve the world’s problems. It never has.  We’re living in an enlightenment, which is fuelled by rational thinking and science. Science is the answer.

I’m buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett. There’s nothing we’re saying that Betrand Russell didn’t say. This is all the same old stuff. The only difference is that we’ve got the primal scream therapy of atheism. New atheists are the people who shout and yell a lot about this stuff. But it’s the same old stuff that atheists have been talking about for years and years.

Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant.  The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective.  If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. That’s the tolerance we’ll give them.

There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals.

I have to single out this man, whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. (PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)

Comments
DM: FYI, the topic of this thread was set in its original post; which is on Mr Myers' misbehaviour as summarised by AussieID through a cluster of clips [it seems taken form a radio interview and a speech]. In that context, it is objectors who have come in this thread and -- being unable to directly defend the blatantly indefensible -- have repeatedly sought to divert attention by any means fair or foul, including immoral equivalency tactics; the attempt to pretend that the remarks were clipped out of context in ways that changed their meaning or were inaccurate having manifestly failed, even though it would have been preferable if Aussie had used the "proper" academic conventions. But then, given the title he gave, maybe he was being willfully provocative; to make the point that clips like this are in fact tellingly true and revealing of the matter of substance, which those who want to strain at gnats while swallowing camels, will studiously avoid facing. This last problem includes yourself, so we can see for ourselves just why you now wish to resort to a turnabout false accusation in the face of being corrected for indefensible personal attacks starting with a bigoted ad hominem circumstantial and going downhill from there, and worse village atheist rhetoric, especially in the past day or so and as can be seen from 61 onwards, and again from 117 onwards. All of this in a context where you were in the first instance given opportunity to find out for yourself where you could go if your questions were genuine, this not being a blog on matters theological, save as a secondary issue to the scientific and worldviews questions that are its proper focus. As a further index of the temper and attitude of the man you are trying to defend by distraction and counter-accusation, we may sumamrise from the recent incident where he with confederates stole a communion host from a Catholic church, boasted about it, then proceeded to punch it with a nail, and dump it in a wastebasket next to a banana peel and some coffee grounds. (I am not a Catholic, but the attitude and intent revealed by this action are a warning to all who care about a civil society.) Here are his utterly and inadvertently revealing words on this:
IT'S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER! Category: Religion • Stupidity Posted on: July 8, 2008 8:05 PM, by PZ Myers There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion. Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity. Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn't eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it. This isn't the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker! Catholics worldwide became furious. Would you believe this isn't hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese: "We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it." We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated." Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further? . . .
Of course, just so, the mere burning of inconvenient books -- it's just some dead trees, right -- by the Nazis was not a direct attack against or murder of people [and BTW, the murders listed by PZM had nothing to do with either the Catholic church or the legitimate Christian faith, which emphasises that people may repent and be transformed so sin is exposed and corrected but the sinner is invited to turn back home to his Lord, people who are all made in God's image so that racism, too is an aberration]. Book burning just revealed the underlying attitude to the other, and built up the intensity of feelings of polarisation. It is in this context that the scriptures you so plainly despise, speaking with the voice of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount [the touchstone of biblical morality] counsel us solemnly:
Mt 5:21You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill, and whoever kills shall be [ac]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court.(E) 22But I say to you that everyone who continues to be [ad]angry with his brother or harbors malice (enmity of heart) against him shall be [ae]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the court; and whoever speaks contemptuously and insultingly to his brother shall be [af]liable to and unable to escape the punishment imposed by the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, You [ag]cursed fool! [You empty-headed idiot!] shall be [ah]liable to and unable to escape the hell (Gehenna) of fire . . .
In that light, DM, I earnestly counsel you to look on the attitude you have revealed in recent days here at UD, and call on you to amend your ways. For, attitudes that lead to intemperate and contempt-filled rhetoric [cf 61 ff and 117 ff and your most recent fulminations], lend themselves to a spiritual acid that eats away the mutual respect that is the basis for sustaining the civil peace of justice. Not to mention, what it does to our souls. So also, it is inadvertently highly revealing that, shortly thereafter this or another similar wafer was subjected to the willful desecration by PZM that was described above. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
"There’s nothing insulting in pointing out that a book someone mistakenly thinks promotes a good morality was actually complicit in enslaving millions of human beings, and in particular, his own ancestors." Well excuse me, but it is when you're completely wrong about said book.CannuckianYankee
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
KF at 129: "The time for silly rhetorical one-upmanship games and for polarising distractors based on snide caricatures and offensive ad hominems is over." I agree. Since you've hijacked this thread from quote mining to the grounds of morality, let's concentrate on that. 1: Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant? I don't. 2: Do you believe that the Bible is God's word? I don't. 3: Do you believe that the Bible is the Ground of Absolute Morality? I don't. 4: Do you even believe that there IS an Absolute Morality where that's defined as a morality that is A: Completely true. B: Clear enough to be beyond effective dispute. C: Complete enough so it doesn't have to be amended. My answer is no, but we can create a morality good enough to live by. I'd like to discuss all of those points, especially numbers 3 and 4 with you or anybody else. I'd especially like to invite all the people who claim that there IS an Abolute Morality to type it out right here where we can all get a look at it.dmullenix
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT
allanius: William Lloyd Garrison was a 19th century abolitionist and publisher, not a politician. He published “The Liberator”. Here’s a short bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lloyd_Garrison I recommend “All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery” by Henry Mayer for a longer biography. I see that Amazon.com has a dozen or so books with his name in the title although I see that one of them is a Topps trading card. I know that slavery was considered natural in the ancient world. That’s why I ended #120 with “Remember, once you assume the Bible is the work of men, all the problems vanish. Of course it contradicts itself, people do that all the time. Of course it has immoral passages – immoral people put them there. No surprises, no problems.” KF #122 “The above demonstrates that you are a willful Alinskyite slanderer; unwilling to consider the actual balance of issues on an important and controversial subject with many rekleant aspects and considerations across time, if you can find a handy way to play at distractive atmosphere poisoning games with it.” I’m trying hard to consider the “actual balance of issues”, but it takes two to debate and all I’m getting from you is indignation and slander. Try actually replying to one of my points for a change. “And of course, the above is a plain threadjacking attempt, since you have been repeatedly warned on the matter.” As I’ve said before, back in #3, I replied to the moderator’s misunderstanding of a Dawkins quote and in #33, you replied with four pages of dodgy philosophical meanderings about the foundation of morality that had nothing to do with the moderator, Dawkins or me. You also said that “materialism” has no foundation for morality, that it’s inescapably amoral, that materialism says that the “highest right is might”, and implied that jack-boots would soon be marching in torchlight parades and the secret police would be knocking on doors at 4am. Since no honorable man would allow this calumny to stand, you effectively hijacked the thread right there. I made a statement of fact – Dawkins meant this, not that, you replied with all sorts of totally off topic philosophics on morality and we were off. As I said before, if you want to see the hijacker of this thread, look in a mirror. KF at 123: After hijacking the thread from quote mining to morality, KF’s defense of his moral ideas isn’t doing too well so he calls the points I’ve made “intentionally distractive immoral equivalency slander” and “slanderous distractive misbehavior” and tries to get the thread back to quote mining. As soon as he quotes one of his previous posts, he goes right back to knocking his opponents and says there’s apparently an insistent attempt to distract our attention from serious, clear and present danger, by which I think he means his distortion of (and his own additions to) what PZ said in a radio interview. In #124, Upright BiPed says, “My own simpleton observation is that personal slander, and its normal accompaniment of other BS, becomes quite easy for bigots (in fact necessary) when the evidence against their ideology is as intractably strong as it is.” I’d say that KF is doing the best he can. KF at #125: Onlookers: Great post! A KF classic. KF quotes Bernard Lewis from a 1990 Atlantic article. The money quote: “The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .” Problem: Polygamy (Biblical Marriage) and concubinage were made déclassé by the Greeks and the Romans and the Christians merely copied their moral advances. Polygamy plainly embarrassed Paul, (you can almost hear him saying, “Just one wife, you hicks!” but he didn’t dare forbid it. Meanwhile, the Bible, as it existed in Paul’s day, was embarrassingly PRO polygamy. For instance, turn to 2 Samuel 12 1-8. The prophet Nathan was sent by the Lord to chastise David for killing Uriah the Hittite, one of David’s faithful soldiers, so David could cover up his adultery with his wife, Bathsheba. 2 Samuel 12:1 The LORD sent Nathan to David. 2 Samuel 12:7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.: Whoops! According to the Ground of Absolute Morality, the Lord gave Saul’s wives to David and he gave them to him as a reward! (I’ve actually seen apologists try to claim the wives were just more mouths to feed, not a reward!) Let me repeat that: GOD GAVE DAVID SAUL’S WIVES AS A REWARD!! Boy, this Biblical Morality is tricky stuff! Let me point out, by the way, that although the Bible records God’s approval of polygamy, God did NOT approve of David’s having Uriah murdered. He punished David and Bathsheba severely for this sin. He killed their baby. (2 Sam 13-19) But you know, this is starting to feel like shooting fish in a barrel. I’m just going to repeat that the “conscience-benumbed power elites” that Wilberforce (and all the other abolitionists) fought were, in fact, pious Christians defending the plain words of the Bible, and that slavery wasn’t in fact overthrown until the west subdued Christianity and put it under the thumb of secular government and that all the “nice” Biblical quotes don’t help when you’re trying to ground your morality in the Bible. As I’ve said, The only way you can separate them from the immoral verses is to use your own human judgment and when you do that, your morality is no longer absolute. Also, I know how Wilberforce felt, being, “subjected to every species of slander intended to make him shut up”. Oh, and congratulations on your Scotch heritage. What’s your name, by the way? I’ve given you mine and judging by the “Meet Mathgrrl” thread, it’s all right to “out” someone, so why not tell us who you are? KF at 126 I think everybody who is familiar with your work knows that you take any opposition to your word as a personal insult which is typically followed by accusations of immoral behavior. Sorry, you’re wrong there too.dmullenix
June 23, 2011
June
06
Jun
23
23
2011
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Mike: Why do you insist on an ill-instructed "noview"? Are you so desperate that we not look at what PZM did, as is captured in the original post? Have you taken even ten minutes to examine the context of the discussion here? Do you knot know the history of the dual covenant theology of nationhood and government under God? Have you been so willfully robbed of your history? Do you not even know the context of the commandments cited by Paul from Moshe once in the narrative, the Israelites had been delivered through the hand of God from oppressive slavery? Do you not know what tyranny by usurpation or invasion is, as opposed to just government under God? Have you ever heard of the doctrine of interposition by lower magistrates in defense of the civil peace of justice, when a ruler has turned tyrant? Let me enlighten you from what your Congress proclaimed in calling days of prayer and thanksgiving in 1775, 1776 and 1777 (and take time to read the Dutch DOI of 1581): __________________ >> May 1776 [over the name of John Hancock, first signer of the US Declaration of Indpependence] : In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day. December 1777: FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”[i.e. Cites Rom 14:9] [Source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287 & II, pp. 309 - 310.] >> __________________ Wake up, man! The time for silly rhetorical one-upmanship games and for polarising distractors based on snide caricatures and offensive ad hominems is over. Your ilk has gone too far. And if you cannot see that you need to at least distance yourself from what has been done above, that is all too revealing of a want of character. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
"2Therefore he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them]." So, were Americans wrong in revolting against the British crown?mike1962
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
"Do not ever do the like again, but then I have no doubt that you would hardly dare do in person what you so lightly did through the safe distance of the Internet." You are wrong KF. Sadly so. They would relish in the opportunity, and hope the largest number of others could witness it. People do what profits them. The lie is that they give a shit what happended to slaves two thousand years ago. It is the ideology of today that is being protected.Upright BiPed
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
F/N to DM: I hope you now understand just how deeply and unjustifiably offensive and in utterly poor manner your ad hominem circumstantial is. Do not ever do the like again, but then I have no doubt that you would hardly dare do in person what you so lightly did through the safe distance of the Internet. However, your grossly outrageous misbehaviour makes it plain to all who are serious and sober onlookers just what sort of character we are up against here, including in the face of what appears to be a sock-puppet, MG. So, take due notice, with a terrible weight of history behind it: on this hill, we stand, cost what it may. You and ilk shall not pass.kairosfocus
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Secondly, I have often found this 1990 remark by prof Bernard Lewis to be highly illuminating on the blame game tactic so beloved of Alinskyites who want us so worked up over their favourite demons that we are too clouded and polarised to think carefully about what our would-be rescuers are up to:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty -- not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . . In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it [--> and the proper name at this point is "Christendom"] is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
A part of why Bible-believing Christians were in the forefront of that struggle to reform and liberate is this, from what a certain president of the USA so unjustly dismissed as an obscure epistle by Paul:
Romans 2:6-8 Amplified Bible (AMP) 6For He will render to every man according to his works [justly, as his deeds deserve]:(A) 7To those who by patient persistence in well-doing [[a]springing from piety] seek [unseen but sure] glory and honor and [[b]the eternal blessedness of] immortality, He will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and self-willed and disobedient to the Truth but responsive to wickedness, there will be indignation and wrath . . . . 2:14When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law. 15They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] [a]decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving [b]thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them] 16On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to [c]the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts).(A) Romans 13 1LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God's appointment.(A) 2Therefore he who resists and sets himself up against the authorities resists what God has appointed and arranged [in divine order]. And those who resist will bring down judgment upon themselves [receiving the penalty due them]. 3For civil authorities are not a terror to [people of] good conduct, but to [those of] bad behavior. Would you have no dread of him who is in authority? Then do what is right and you will receive his approval and commendation. 4For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, [you should dread him and] be afraid, for he does not bear and wear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant to execute His wrath (punishment, vengeance) on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath and escape punishment, but also as a matter of principle and for the sake of conscience. 6For this same reason you pay taxes, for [the civil authorities] are official servants under God, devoting themselves to attending to this very service. 7Render to all men their dues. [Pay] taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, and honor to whom honor is due. 8Keep out of debt and owe no man anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor [who practices loving others] has fulfilled the Law [relating to one's fellowmen, meeting all its requirements]. 9The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet (have an evil desire), and any other commandment, are summed up in the single command, You shall love your neighbor as [you do] yourself.(B) 10Love does no wrong to one's neighbor [it never hurts anybody]. Therefore love meets all the requirements and is the fulfilling of the Law.
The implications of this for reforming and liberating society should be plain, as I discuss here. And even more patently, these are central controlling principles that shape a proper reading of the text as a whole, i.e. to read scriptures that regulate and ameliorate behaviour that is rooted in hard-heartedness -- cf Mal 2:16 on "I hate divorce" and Matt 19:1 - 6 on God responding to the hardness of men's hearts while calling us to reform and repentance [as already pointed out and ignored or hastily brushed aside by DM in his determination to poison and distract the thread] -- as commanding or commending such, is scripture-twisting. Prof Lewis, of course, as a Jew, is very familiar with the sins of Christendom and its apostasies such as that species of idolatrous political messianism known as National Socialism -- and yes, this was a LEFT wing ideology. But, he is wise enough to recognise that there is a softening effect of the gospel in this civilisation that has opened the way to liberation, reformation and improvement, especially once the Bible -- the book DM would so smear and besmirch -- was put in the hands of the ordinary man, and called the ever so often Machiavellian power elites to the bar of morality and justice. Above, I cited the case of Wilberforce, who was a capital example in point of calling conscience-benumbed power elites to heel on precisely the slavery question, starting with the low hanging fruit, the kidnapping based trade. He was subjected to every species of slander intended to make him shut up in the face of the abuses and sins of the day, precisely as DM and his fellow Alinskyites would have us silenced in the face of the sort of rising tide of danger that PZM's ilk represents today. Sorry, Bibles in hand, and on the well-warranted confidence in the truth and in the reforming impact of the gospel it teaches, we will take our stand, on this hill, and if necessary fall here "for wee bit hill and glen." For, there are some "Proud Edward[s]" in our time that need tae be "sent homewards tae think again." And FYI, proud and disrespectful mockers, that G in my name that you and your ilk so lightly play scornful games with is there because the self same blood that stood on that hill courses in my veins. A name that is a war cry. For good reason. DM et al, don't you ever underestimate the grim resolve we have to stand in the face of your patently wicked agendas. (And my Ashanti, Irish and Indian bloodlines grimly concur with my Scottish lineage on this.) Our civilisation and our liberty are at stake, as PZM so plainly let the cat out of the bag on. The line is drawn in the sand, and we are going to stand here, for liberty and civilisation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
allanius (121): "In the ancient world, slavery was considered natural and even necessary. To say “slavery is immoral” is to apply modern (or Postmodern) rules to an ancient context." OK, so the Bible was approving of slavery in an ancient context so we can't apply the "immoral" label to it. Therefore we shouldn't be using the Bible for moral guidance at all because it was set in an ancient context. If you shouldn't apply modern rules to an ancient context then you shouldn't apply ancient rules to a modern context.Grunty
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
My own simpleton observation is that personal slander, and its normal accompaniment of other BS, becomes quite easy for bigots (in fact necessary) when the evidence against their ideology is as intractably strong as it is. The two are in direct proportion.Upright BiPed
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Onlookers: When we are confronted with intentionally distrac tgive, immoral equivalency slander, the first thing is to make sure we do not allow ourselves to be distracted from the issue that is on the table. For, it would be folly indeed in the face of serious peril to distract and embroil ourselves over a dead issue, while a clear and present danger is in front of us. Which is precisely what DM is hoping to achieve by his slanderous, diwstractive misbehaviour. Here is my remark on the significance of PZM's assertion in the Original post, as was promoted to a separate post (the onward links are there):
PZM: >>Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. [ --> deny, deny, deny . . . ] The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. [ --> And, what does the bloody history of the past century at the hands of atheistical regimes tell us on this?] What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. [--> translated, we will censor the public square and the culture's sense of what knowledge is on a priori evolutionary materialism as we have institutional power to do and if you object to the imposition of ideological censorship on origins science, we will come down on you like a ton of bricks, even threatening to hold your children hostage, on the excuse that you can have your little fantasies in quiet and that's "freedom" enough for you; don't you dare expose our censorship of science and science education] That’s the tolerance we’ll give them. There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science [--> translation: they are exposing the use of misleading icons of evolution to indoctrinate the public and school children, starting with Haeckel's frauds, cf the Google Books result here] in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals. [--> the bland denial of what one is about to do . . .] I have to single out this man [--> in context, plainly Jonathan Wells], whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. ([editorial comment, OP:] PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)>>
You will note that, there, those who are ever so eager to rebut and dismiss points raised by ID thinkers have been conspicuously silent int eh face of this case. [The ratio of visits to comments is highly revealing.] And, here, there has been an insistent attempt to distract our attention from serious, clear and present danger. We should note this first of all and foremost, in any serious addressing of matters. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
DM: The above demonstrates that you are a willful Alinskyite slanderer; unwilling to consider the actual balance of issues on an important and controversial subject with many rekleant aspects and considerations across time, if you can find a handy way to play at distractive atmosphere poisoning games with it. And of course, the above is a plain threadjacking attempt, since you have been repeatedly warned on the matter. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
“They desperately want the Bible to be moral, and yet it is obviously advocating things that are immoral and the brain starts to stutter right there.” You don’t say! Please prove to us, based on ancient texts—not Wilberforce and Garrison, who, in case you didn’t know, were 19th century politicians—that slavery is immoral. And when we say “prove,” we don’t mean ranting, insults, misdirection, or even smug preening. In the ancient world, slavery was considered natural and even necessary. To say “slavery is immoral” is to apply modern (or Postmodern) rules to an ancient context. Come on, Mullenix. Prove to us that you know something about ancient history and are not just a Postmodernism sock puppet. Show us the ancient writers, from any tradition, who condemned slavery as “immoral.” In fact, show us that you know what the word “immoral” means. (Hint: mores.)allanius
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
CY: There’s nothing insulting in pointing out that a book someone mistakenly thinks promotes a good morality was actually complicit in enslaving millions of human beings, and in particular, his own ancestors. The juxtaposition is designed to make him confront the contradiction: “I claim that the Bible is the source of all morality, yet it approved of the kidnapping and enslaving of millions, which was grossly immoral.” The personalization is designed to drive the point home: “Some of those millions were MY ancestors!” The sad thing is that most Christians (and believers in general, I don’t want to single out Christianity here) can’t face it. They desperately want the Bible to be moral, yet it is obviously advocating things that are immoral and the brain starts to stutter right there. “Having engaged in discussion with KF for several years now I would have to say … that he is first of all not one to take offense at any slight deviation from good manners.” Just a second while I pick my jaw up off the floor. Ah, that's better. Did you read #88 in this thread? “KF once accused me of an ad hom because he claimed that by disagreeing with him I was implying that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and was therefore attacking his person.” People who discuss almost anything with KF invariably wind up being accused of “…tossing out red herring after red herring led away to a forest of strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems awaiting some firebrand rhetoric to set ablaze, bitterly polarising and poisoning the atmoshpere.”, to quote him in # 70. Christian belief in the authority of scripture is really quite tragic. The mental and moral gyrations apologists go through defending the Bible shakes my confidence in the human race. Look at that CARM website, look at your own attempts above. Nobody has said the Bible thinks slavery is a good thing – if you’re a slave. But THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY SAYS YOU CAN OWN SLAVES ANYWAY! It tells you where you can get them and gives you some pointers on how you must treat them. Some things are pretty good – you can’t put out an eye or a tooth. But you can beat them to death, so long as they survive the beating for a day or two. THIS IS EVIL, YET THE BIBLE SAYS YOU CAN DO IT! You’re in the same position as Wilberforce and Garrison. You’re holding up general passages from the Bible and your opponents are holding up specific passages that explicitly contradict them. That’s not a winning combination. Wilberforce only won because Britain had outlawed slavery centuries before for secular reasons and he was arguing against slavery in a land far, far away. Garrison’s outcome is more common – he lost and slavery was only ended when the Bible believing slave owners started a civil war to protect their Biblical mode of living and then lost that war. Remember, once you assume the Bible is the work of men, all the problems vanish. Of course it contradicts itself, people do that all the time. Of course it has immoral passages – immoral people put them there. No surprises, no problems.dmullenix
June 22, 2011
June
06
Jun
22
22
2011
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
David, That you can't see how your own words in 61 are inflammatory is beyond me. You said them knowing full well KF's background. If I were KF, I would have seen them as quite insulting, and I probably would not have had the grace nor patience in dealing with them in the manner he has done. What would make this insulting is the fact that you know certain things about KF (implied in the very words you used), which would benefit you in the rhetorical nature of your statement, such that it was intended to personalize KF's beliefs regarding slavery as they relate to his religious beliefs and which are grounded in scripture that you apparently despise. It then becomes a personal attack, which justifiably can be shown to be ad hominem. Had you said the same words to me, not knowing my race or background; they probably could not be construed as such. However, in that you acknowledged your awareness of KF's background and race, the statement WAS personalized. It's not the personalization alone that makes it ad hominem though, it's the implication. The implication is that KF as a black man should know better. That's what I would find insulting. Maybe you didn't intend it in that way, but clearly offense was taken justifiably. Having engaged in discussion with KF for several years now I would have to say (not having met him face to face, but having read much of what he's stated here as well as his personally linked writings) that he is first of all not one to take offense at any slight deviation from good manners. And when he does take offense, it is not without good reason, which he painstakingly uses not for a personal vendetta, but as an opportunity to further educate; which is what he has done here. That you are part of the subject of that education should not be seen as retribution but as KF's attempt to gracefully sway you towards future actions that will avoid doing the same thing. I think the wise thing to do would be to take his teachings to heart and learn from them. Of course you believe you are right. That's fine. I think you can find many forums online where there's hoards of people who agree with you. It should be obvious to you that this is not one of them. Your further indulgence in demonizing Christian belief in the authority of scripture is also insulting and really quite silly, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them ad hominem. I think others here have done a fine job in setting the record straight that the Bible does not condone slavery. That you can "quote mine" a few passages from scripture to support that contention is really of no consequence. The number of passages that prove you wrong far outweigh the one's you've been able to find. Here's a few more: “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34). Hard to see how being a slave to sin could be bad if being a slave (i.e., in bondage) is a good thing. "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—" (Romans 6:6) Of course the only context in which the Bible explicitly states being a slave as a good thing is in reference to being a slave to the Lord. In that we have a choice. Here's some more: "Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem." (Ezra 9:9) God offers comfort to those who suffer. The Bible has been a source of comfort to those who suffer throughout Christian history and even before. He heals the sick and frees those in bondage. This act would be quite meaningless if being sick or in bondage to slavery were good things. "Everyone was to free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female; no one was to hold a fellow Hebrew in bondage." (Jeremiah 34:9) "But afterward they changed their minds and took back the slaves they had freed and enslaved them again. 12 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 13 “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I made a covenant with your ancestors when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. I said, 14 ‘Every seventh year each of you must free any fellow Hebrews who have sold themselves to you. After they have served you six years, you must let them go free.’[a] Your ancestors, however, did not listen to me or pay attention to me. 15 Recently you repented and did what is right in my sight: Each of you proclaimed freedom to your own people. You even made a covenant before me in the house that bears my Name. 16 But now you have turned around and profaned my name; each of you has taken back the male and female slaves you had set free to go where they wished. You have forced them to become your slaves again." (Jeremiah 34:11-16) So Egypt was the land of slavery. Interesting that God brought the slaves to freedom. Why would he do this if slavery was in His view a good thing? Clearly the ones condoning slavery are not God, but human beings. Does God allow slavery? God allows a lot of sin, but He doesn't condone any of it as a good thing. He in fact condemns it. If you would prefer God to judge everything we do as human beings, I'm afraid neither you nor I would survive. God is merciful with us as he is with those he frees from slavery. In the proper context it is quite difficult to see any other interpretation when we place scripture within its proper historical context; which is why scripture itself was the applied basis for morality, which led to the abolishment of slavery in Great Britain. That effectively happened long before it took place here in America. So contrary to your own beliefs, scripture can be and has been applied as a basis for morality.CannuckianYankee
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
It's pretty funny, I think, that in another thread I was accused of obsessing over MathGrrl. kairosfocus, you must have struck a nerve somewhere.Mung
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
KF, thank you for finally telling us which of my words upset you so. “this from 61: ‘That must have provided a lot of comfort to the pius and enterprising Christian slavers who purchased your ancestors and transported them across the Atlantic, to die in the cane fields without ever seeing their loved ones again . . . ‘” I thank you for making that identification because I wouldn’t have spotted it in a million years. Nothing in it is a red herring, a strawman caricature, an ad hominem, firebrand rhetoric or polarizing and atmosphere poisoning. They’re just good points and you’re reacting just as you always do when an argument goes against you. As for your balancing texts – no better than CARM’s. “If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die.” Yep, the Israelites knew darn well that slavery was evil – for them. They were very touchy about enslaving members of their own tribe: You could only keep an Israeli slave for 6 years, any relative could redeem him at any time, etc. (That’s for male Israelis, of course. You could keep females forever.) Hence, it’s not surprising that they come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who kidnaps a (male) Israeli and enslaves him. But enslaving someone who’s not a member of your tribe? Well, as Lev 25:44 says, “…you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.” i.e. from non-Christian African nations, like the ones your ancestors were kidnapped from. Regarding those fine anti-slavery Christians such as Wilberforce and Garrison: just who were they fighting? Who were Wilberforce’s opponents in the slavery debates? Who burned William Lloyd Garrison’s newspaper to the ground and chased him through the streets, trying to lynch him? Why … they were Bible believing Christians, every one of them. And they had a lot more and a lot better arguments from the Bible than Wilberforce or Garrison ever had. Neither of them won any arguments using the Bible. As for the communist regimes, they proved that atheists can be just as immoral as theists. They're gone now and we're back to all the slaughtering being done by the religious.dmullenix
June 21, 2011
June
06
Jun
21
21
2011
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
MG: Pardon my having to be directly corrective again, as I also have to anticipate the turnabout tactic your side is ever so prone to use as though it is proof by accusation. I need to correct,even knowing that here and elsewhere, I am likely going to be abused for it. Only when the message finally gets though that the sort of atmosphere poisoning tactics have been exposed and only further reveal a dangerously uncivil Alinskyite agenda by the evo mat advocates, will there be a point where this will stop. remember, I saw pretty much the same from the communist agitators of my youth. I know what eventually stopped them, and it is probably going to be the same this time around. So, I will now speak my piece. First, your drumbeat repetition of an adequately corrected claim does not magically transform the falsehood into truth. Second, I repeat, just above [and linked onward to 62 on in response to 61 etc], I have pointed to a very specific example of an ad hominem circumstantial. Note my self-reference there . . . it is not an accident in passing, it responds to this from 61: "That must have provided a lot of comfort to the pius and enterprising Christian slavers who purchased your ancestors and transported them across the Atlantic, to die in the cane fields without ever seeing their loved ones again . . . " [BTW, DM has been so exposed to a one-sided selection of texts by today's Village Atheists that he does not know of the context of God working into a culture and dealing with men as they are, through the same hardness of hearts principle by which God is recorded in Mal 2:16 "I hater divorce," but in dealing with men as they are not as they will be softened through the gospel, he regulates divorce in the law, as Jesus points out in Mt 19:1 - 6, and I have already pointed onward to the discussion of the irresponsible, rabble-rousing moral monster thesis. So, let us look at a couple of balancing texts, as a corrective to atmosphere poisoning circumstantial ad hominem, noting that this is exception for UD not the pattern or focus for the blog:
If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you. [Deut. 24:7. Cf. Lev. 24:22: "You are to have the same law for the alien and the native born . . ."] and The law is good if one uses it properly . . . [it] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders [KJV: menstealers] and liars and perjurers - and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. [1 Tim 1:8 - 11] or Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you - although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. [1 Cor 7:21 - 23.]
These were precisely key texts in dealing with the low-hanging fruit, the slave trade, as led by Evangelical Christian Wilberforce et al. This whole side issue is an ad hominem circumstantial, designed to drag the discussion in the UD context into a dilemma [answer and you feed a malicious stereotype of Design thought, ignore and atmosphere-poisoning proceeds apace], and I have pointed to 62 on where it was already specifically and adequately answered (NB: I gave an onward link above to a discussion where the above texts were cited and discussed. I deem the above adequate for the fair minded onlooker, and will regard onward attempts to go off on yet another poisonous tangent as willful distraction.) In addition, I provided a linked and excerpted disucssion of the nature of the fallacy in question. Your pattern above, regrettably, is just like the pattern in response to adequate answers given on other subjects for several months now. So, pardon us in our conclusion that -- on months of evidence -- you are not behaving like a reasonable participant in the give and take of a real discussion. And so I must again point out -- painful as it will be to hear it, lancing a boil is painful -- that willful, drumbeat repetition and recycling of a false and damaging claim in the teeth of adequate correction is improper. On evidence over 3+ months, this has unfortunately been a pattern with you. Please, do better than this. (A suggestion, if you are going to be serious: clip or summarise what I gave as my example -- one among several BTW -- of an ad hominem laced strawman, led off to from a red herring distractor, and show how this is not an example of: (i) distractive tangent from the OP and even the initial incidental issue, (ii) unjust caricature, (iii) ad hominem circumstantial.) GEM of TKI
kairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, I don't think additional comments from me on this topic will further the discussion or result in resolution of the issue. I will simply point out, once more, that you have not provided specific quotations from material written by dmullenix that supports your claim that "DM is of course tossing out red herring after red herring led away to a forest of strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems awaiting some firebrand rhetoric to set ablaze, bitterly polarising and poisoning the atmoshpere." I've elucidated this one simple point as clearly as I am able. I hope you will take some time for introspection and do the right thing. The floor is yours.MathGrrl
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Onlookers: MG is now being dismissive in the teeth of highly specific examples drawn from a specific linked exchange at 61 and 62. If she cannot or will not recognise an ad hominem circumstantial when she sees it by described and linked concrete example in the context of a definition already supplied, that is telling. Sorry, but this is yet another patent example of her willful refusal to be corrected, having made an unjustified accusation laced with -- you guessed, subtle ad hominems against the undersigned. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
F/N: the underlying rhetorical tactics being used, from Alinski's Rules for Radicals: _______ >> 5. "Ridicule [--> and more broadly, personal attack] is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." . . . . 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." >> _________ This needs to stop, MG, MF, DM, et al. NOW.kairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
I will be direct:
Thank you, that will help resolve the issue.
refusal to click and read links in context on your part — starting with 62 on, on 61 etc above:
I did not refuse. In fact, I made it clear that I re-read the discussion from that point and was unable to find any statements by dmullenix that supported your claim. I note that you have refrained, again, from providing such quotations yourself. Unless and until you do so, I and any other onlookers are logically justified in concluding that your assertions are without merit. Given the emphasis placed on civility here, it seems that you owe dmullenix a public apology.MathGrrl
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
MG: I will be direct: refusal to click and read links in context on your part -- starting with 62 on, on 61 etc above:
[Onlookers, note DM's fallacious ad hominem circumstantial appeal inter alia to my heritage as an Afro-Caribbean, Jamaican AND a professed Christian . . . one who is also qualified in and concerned about science as an educator also; all in the onward context of distractions from the serious matter in the OP]
. . . with reasonable understanding expected of an educated person on your part does not constitute failure to adequately substantiate a claim on my part. Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, That was a fair number of words, but no direct quotations of anything dmullenix actually wrote that supports your claim that "DM is of course tossing out red herring after red herring led away to a forest of strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems awaiting some firebrand rhetoric to set ablaze, bitterly polarising and poisoning the atmoshpere." Could you please document an ad hominem and a strawman perpetrated by dmullenix? If not, common courtesy would dictate an apology and retraction.MathGrrl
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
F/N: Notice, onlookers, the ad hominem circumstantial [here in the form of well-poisoning and atmosphere poisoning via the genetic and/or guilt by association fallacies . . . ] is an ad hominem, and the context of that has been addressed above. I see no good reason to keep going in circles to try to persuade those who on track record will never be persuaded but will insist on drumbeat repetition of what is false, has adequately been shown to be false and what they know or should know is false, so let the above stand as record as an expose of what is again going on.kairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
MG: Pardon starting with a personal aside, but on track record, your reports of what you find to have been demonstrated or not demonstrated are not particularly credible to informed onlookers. I would point out, again, from 62 above in response to 61 above, that to pull away from a blog thread discussing inter alia:
Atheists tend to be politically liberal, fairly tolerant. [ --> deny, deny, deny . . . ] The tolerance part is that there’s no question that nobody is going to deport creationists. Nobody is going to shut down the churches. Nobody is going to do anything like that. [ --> And, what does the bloody history of the past century at the hands of atheistical regimes tell us on this?] What we want to do is put things in a proper perspective. If you want to believe that in the privacy of your home, if you want to get together in church and talk to people about this, yes, that’s perfectly reasonable. [--> translated, we will censor the public square and the culture's sense of what knowledge is on a priori evolutionary materialism as we have institutional power to do and if you object to the imposition of ideological censorship on origins science, we will come down on you like a ton of bricks, even threatening to hold your children hostage, on the excuse that you can have your little fantasies in quiet and that's "freedom" enough for you; don't you dare expose our censorship of science and science education] That’s the tolerance we’ll give them. There are some of the people in the intelligent design movement who are incredibly nasty, awful, and misrepresent science [--> translation: they are exposing the use of misleading icons of evolution to indoctrinate the public and school children, starting with Haeckel's frauds, cf the Google Books result here] in ways that I cannot forgive. This is not about demonizing the individuals. [--> the bland denial of what one is about to do . . .] I have to single out this man [--> in context, plainly Jonathan Wells], whom I consider the most contemptable, despicable, cruel, and vicious evil liar in the creationist movement today, yes, he’s a nasty, nasty person. ([editorial comment, OP:] PZ has never met or talked with this ID proponent.)
. . . to try to inject as a smelly distraction -- aka red herring [and here there plainly is a shoal of these led away to a forest of strawman caricatures . . .] -- the Village Atheist level debates over the ill-informed, atmosphere-poisoning and rabble-rousing God of the OT as a moral monster thesis, is distractive and given the actual balance of the theology, it is led away to a caricature soaked in a poisonous misrepresentation, ready to be set alight with incendiary rhetoric -- which is doubtless going on elsewhere as we speak. And, that is enough for a reasonable onlooker. I do not now count the sort of shenanigans that are going on in the attack blogs that target UD and some of its contributors as more than fever-swamp rhetoric. Enough already, on yet another distraction from a serious enough subject in the OP that is conspicuously not being addressed on the very sobering merits. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
F/N: Onlookers, cf 61 and onward with the exchange just above.
As an onlooker in this thread up to this point, I just re-read the exchange and I see nothing that would support your claim that "DM is of course tossing out red herring after red herring led away to a forest of strawman caricatures laced with ad hominems awaiting some firebrand rhetoric to set ablaze, bitterly polarising and poisoning the atmoshpere." Could you please point out even one ad hominem in one of his or her comments in this thread? If not, the rules of civil discourse require you to publicly retract your accusation.MathGrrl
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
F/N: Onlookers, cf 61 and onward with the exchange just above.kairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
DM: I have more than substantiated the point, in particular on your well-poisoning tangent at 62 above, note as I posed as a F/N just above. Compare your focus in 61 with the theme set in the OP; if you have time, skim through the thread above to see how it repeatedly goes off on tangents that are poisonously laced. (Does the light-bulb now go on? It should.) Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 20, 2011
June
06
Jun
20
20
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply