Anti-Christian Leader Speaks at Sierra College
P. Z. Myers, a self-avowed "godless liberal" and perhaps America's most militant opponent of Christianity and organized religion, spoke to a receptive audience of about 100 students at Sierra College in Rocklin last Friday. Sponsored by the Secular Student Alliance, a campus student organization, Myers gave a blistering critique of his opponents and encouraged young atheists to be much more outspoken in opposing all forms of faith. Myers thrust himself into the spotlight when he encouraged his followers to steal consecrated communion hosts - which are held as the body of Christ by Catholic Christians - and mail them to him, so that he could "show (them) sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. . . treating it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse . . . presented here on the web." His followers did so, and on July 24 2008, billing it as "The Great Desecration", Myers wrote that he had pierced what he called the "g**damned cracker" with a rusty nail and thrown it in the trash. The incident sparked a number of copycat desecrations on YouTube, which have since been removed for violating YouTube rules against hateful and bigoted content. Myers' presentation, entitled "A Few Things I've Learned About Creationists", consisted of a numbered list of words and their dictionary definitions, which he tied to specific individuals he has debated over the years. Flashing the definition of the word "pretentious" on the screen, he called creationist Geoffrey Simmons "ignorant", and ". . . the very definition of ignorance. They should put him in the dictionary." Flashing the word "obtuse", which he defines as "more than stupid", he named evangelist Pat Robertson, whom he called "an explosion of stupid." Christian apologist Ray Comfort was tied to the word "sleazy", and other Christians were decribed as "crazy" and "lunatics". Myers went on to bash religion in general, likening it to "organized crime", and on a personal level, akin to "playing dungeons and dragons" - i.e., a non-rational hobby that someone can do in their home, but should not consider scientific or rational in any way. He said that a disproportionate number of biologists are atheists because this field alone tells us "who we are". Myers specializes in the study of cephalopods. Before inviting students off-campus for beer, an apparent tradition of his, Myers told the Sierra College audience that they should be more militant and disrespectful toward religious people. When one student suggested that "we're not going to change peoples' minds by dissing them", Myers replied: "I disagree", and suggested that "we have to disrespect (as a starting point)". Being gentle is passé, he feels: "It's a lot more fun to be a ferocious tiger. Everyone should try it."
|
Welcome!
Change Location:
Karen Killebrew went through a sort of midlife career change and came out of it a satisfied and …
The senior project problem
What to do about senior projects? That’s …
An ex-Round Table Pizza employee was set to be arraigned Friday on charges …
The curse of the Sports Illustrated cover may have just been expanded to …
|
Birdstrike can be contacted at belzor@psyber.com
Belzor; sounds like a D&D game player.
Let me guess..he is a devout member of the Obama faith.
This guy sounds extremely ignorant himself!!!!!!!!
"Flashing the word "obtuse", which he defines as "more than stupid", he named evangelist Pat Robertson, whom he called "an explosion of stupid." Christian apologist Ray Comfort was tied to the word "sleazy", and other Christians were decribed as "crazy" and "lunatics"."
That sounds about right. Do you have any problem with it?
If disrespecting someone for their personal beliefs is "intelligent" and being a "ferocious tiger" is fun. I guess I will have to remain an unintelligent lamb that has no fun.
If I can respect your rights not to believe, why can't you respect mine to believe?
Lets hear the intelectual answer.
Thanks for the picture of Myers. It looks good in my dictionary next to the word "fool."
whatnext - Your eight exclamation points reveal who's "extremely ignorant."
Deja_View - Christian Founders?
So Birdstrike what is the story here? Our country was founded on religious freedom....and if Mr Meyers upsets you, perhaps you can might living in a country that is much less tolerant....
I find this guy obnoxious. The "fool" has a point, though I think he goes about it all wrong. I agree that we need to speak up to end religious interference in our affairs. Get religion out of government for example. We will never be a free people as long as the bonds of ancient superstition keep us from moving forward as it has for thousands of years. We are endangering the lives of our young by fighting religious wars. A dream from thousands of years ago says that a tribe of Semites can turn on their brother Semites, threatens the very existence of the world. Look how Islam behaves, cruel and medieval. Look at the Christians and their end of times mentality which some in powerful places use as an excuse to bring on the "rapture" and Armageddon. What do they care?
Born_Here - "Intelectual?" I think the word you're trying to spell is "intellectual."
We should respect other people's religion, but only in the same way that we respect my aunt's opinion that her dog is 'almost human'. Once a person reveals their private beliefs in public, the public is invited to ridicule them.
Sounds like a secular fundamentalist. Fundamentalism, regardless of its brand is intolerant, eschews gentleness and advocates militant confrontation. People of good will can find ways to get along without always agreeing.
I love all the details deliberately left out of Crackergate to make PZ look more 'GRRR Christians! GRRRR'. Crackergate came about because a guy in a church returned to his seat with a host, people attcked him and threatened his life because they thought he was stealing Jesus. This ridiculous event became international news. In response to show nothing should be sacred like that, PZ Myers simultaneous "defiled": a cracker, a copy of the God Delusion, and a Koran.
But of course it's much easier to label him Anti-Christian if you leave out those sorts of details isn't it?
ThosPayne,
I suppose you have never made a spelling or typing error? If it makes you feel superior to correct my small error in a public forum, you sir are a small and petty person. The fact that you can turn a spelling error into a personal attack is outlandish, it shows the true flaws in your character.
Born_Here,
It seems you don't understand the irony and hypocrisy in your statement when you perpetuate that your opponent can't have an "intelectual" answer when you yourself fail to provide one. This is what we call in the Internet a "fail". Further, you seemed shocked that an internet user would mock your spelling mistakes...on a blog of all places! You obviously haven't been on the Internet long, have you?
Azz_from_oz,
I did not make a statement, I asked a question. But rather than give a dignified responce and overlook an error you and Thospayne have chosen to engage in character assault. I am sure that you must sleep well at night because you’re tired from your days of teasing handicapped people, taunting the overweight, chastising the ugly, or correcting someone’s spelling or typing errors. But hey if you and he want to be "ferocious tigers" then I will accept your challenge. But will you stand toe to toe with someone to insult them I doubt it, as the ferocious tigers are more like cowardly lions. I pity you sir.
"If I can respect your rights not to believe, why can't you respect mine to believe?
Lets hear the intelectual answer."
Born_Here, The answer is that PZ and most people like him do respect your right to believe. Of course. It's just that when people let unverifiable beliefs influence others, through politics and proselytizing, then they are doing too much. They expect others to take their unverifiable beliefs seriously, and that we do not respect. Nor should we have to.
As for "militant atheist", I really abhor the framing. It's like calling a gently Lutheran priest militant because he talks about his beliefs. "Militant" would be someone who uses arms or advocates violence, and the notable "militant" atheists, e.g. Dawkins and Myers, do not advocate violence in any shape or form. Call them polemic, but militant they are not.
RCG, "3. You may not ... discloses private or personal matters concerning any person." "4. You agree not to knowingly give out any private information about other users. Users who engage in the behavior of continually trying to guess other user's private information may be banned and their account and contributions removed. ~ Terms of service
Paying attention KUD?
After a history of treating atheists as subhuman by religionists, I have no problem with Myers taking a vocal stance against superstitious nonsense. Being to nicy nice can lead to tolerance of bad ideas and bad ideas do not need to be tolerated or respected.
He in no way says that you cannot practice your religion. Nevertheless, us vocal atheists should be free to criticize what we see as sloppy magical thinking. And please, keep your religious ideas out of government and schools. I don't want my family poisoned by your nonsense.
@ whatnext This guy is not ignorant, he just espouses views different than you are used to. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, Prof. Myers has a lot of knowledge.
And I believe Myers repeatedly says that BELIEFS are to be disrespected, not people. If someone say to me that they can fly, I have no requirement to respect that belief, in fact, I would ask for proof and possibly mock it if no proof were given. However, the person claiming to fly deserves the same respect I grant to anyone who has no previous shown the need for disrespect. Do you see the difference?
While I do not always agree with Myers, I feel he is right to allow religious beliefs to be shown in the light of reality. If your beliefs look foolish or outright ridiculous when held up to reality, that is not Myers' fault. That is when you change your beliefs to fit reality, rather than the other way around... It is also the point where I get to say, "That belief deserves no respect."
P.Z. is far from ignorant. This blog post about his speech is just poorly written and presents a very biased view.
The rational among us do need to be more outspoken. We're all free to believe as we chose; though we can't ignore the reality that belief in magical beings in the sky (or wherever your myth believes they are) has a significant impact on all of us. I for one am not at all happy that so many of the political leaders in this world believe in end of the world prophesies. These nonsensical and ignorant beliefs just can't help but have an impact on decision making.
When I stopped believing in the tooth fairy, I was far less excited about losing a tooth. Perhaps when the irrational masses stop believing that the end of the world is coming, it's inevitable and that it is a good thing ... we'll all be just a little safer and even a bit more focused on taking care of the world and each other. That's my experience anyway.
P.Z. is far from ignorant. This blog post about his speech is just poorly written and presents a very biased view.
The rational among us do need to be more outspoken. We're all free to believe as we chose; though we can't ignore the reality that belief in magical beings in the sky (or wherever your myth believes they are) has a significant impact on all of us. I for one am not at all happy that so many of the political leaders in this world believe in end of the world prophesies. These nonsensical and ignorant beliefs just can't help but have an impact on decision making.
When I stopped believing in the tooth fairy, I was far less excited about losing a tooth. Perhaps when the irrational masses stop believing that the end of the world is coming, it's inevitable and that it is a good thing ... we'll all be just a little safer and even a bit more focused on taking care of the world and each other. That's my experience anyway.
Born_Here,
Does your hypocrisy know no bounds?! You attack us for attacking your character (which, if you actually read what I said, I did no such thing) only to attack our character with such outlandish statements that we enjoy "teasing handicapped people, taunting the overweight, chastising the ugly". Do you honestly believe that correcting someone's spelling mistake is on par with those activities. You are pathetic (and this is my first character attack at you) and you need to either grow up, or learn to think. It may be both in this instance, it honestly wouldn't surprise me.
P.S. Yes, in fact I do stand toe-to-toe arguing (not insulting, as I will leave that area to your expertise) people when they engage in the same activity with me. Nice attempt at trying to understand someone who you plainly don't understand.
bjornostman - I think one can be militant without advocating violence. FYI, I have seen Prof. Dawkens start a lecture by saying (and I may be paraphrasing a bit): "I don't want to talk to you about atheism today, but I will talk to you about militant atheism." And then went on to describe how he agrees and applies the characterization. I'm certain you and I would agree that Prof. Dawkins is not a advocate of violence.Your definition of militant advocacy, that it requires supporting violence, I believe is unwarranted. After all, militant "pacificism" is not an oxymoron as "violent" pacificism would be. (And no, desecrating a cracker is not violence, Catholic belief not withstanding)
I personally describe myself as Chris Hitchens does as an "anti-theist", which semantically may be interchangable with militant, but I agree with his definition that an atheist is "someone who might well wish (religion) were true but can't bring themselves to believe it" for whatever reason. He doesn't wish it were true and niether do I.
In this country we, as militant, anti- or just plain athiests, do in fact respect the right to have a religious beflief. We have a vested interest in doing so to safe-guard our right to have that same freedom. However, we are under no authoritative admonishment, constitutional or otherwise, to respect those irrational religious beliefs, no matter that they may be a deeply held and personal.
Religion should never, ever be free from criticism.
Myers doesn't tell people to disrespect Christians, he tells them to disrespect Christianity. He particularly tells people to disrespect the type of Christianity that insists the world was poofed into existence in a week by The Big Guy In The Sky 6000 years ago and insists everyone else believe this as well. He wants people to disrespect the folks who don't want gays to get married because The Big Guy In The Sky thinks what gays do in bed is icky.
Birdstrike may think that creationists aren't "ignorant" and "more than stupid." I couldn't tell from his rant how Birdstrike feels about creationism. But those of us who work with science do think that creationist are "crazy" and "the very definition of ignorant." Ray Comfort is sleazy. He posts lies about evolution on his blog (for instance he claimed evolution says the two sexes evolved separately in each species), acknowledges corrections to his lies, and then repeats the lies a week or two later. That's sleazy. Anyone who came across Pat Robertson's explanation for the Haitian earthquake has to agree that he's ""an explosion of stupid."
You can believe anything you want to believe. But if your beliefs can be shown to be irrational, don't whine if people like Myers don't respect your beliefs. Birdstrike is whining because Myers is a big meanie for not respecting beliefs. Too bad. Have beliefs worthy of respect and they'll be respected. Believe in stupid stuff and rational people will disrespect them.
As I stated above, I do not respect superstitious beliefs. I may respect the person with those beliefs or I may not, it depends on their acts. I will not respect them if they force their beliefs on me or use them to treat others like they are some how lesser beings. Like Pat Robertson's treatment of the Haitians. Or the gays. So I do not respect Robertson's beliefs and I also do not respect Robertson.
"The atheist does not say 'there is no God' but he says 'I know not what you mean by God; I am without your idea of god'; the word 'god' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. The Bible god I do deny; the Christian god I disbelieve in, but I am not rash enough to say there are no gods, as long as you tell me you are unprepared to define 'god' to me." ~ Charles Bradlaugh
Birdstrike,
I would find this an example of free speech. I think people of faith, would have nothing to fear or perhaps they should be looking at their faith and not at someone else's speech.
In the people that can push the "Button" there is one thing in common and that is a deep belief in Fundamental Christianity. They believe that they are doing God's will. I understand that but I don't condone it. Religion in all it's forms should be removed from public office, the military and our schools. How many of you are good with Scientology having a strong presence on UC Davis' campus? They have their own building and easy access to young formative minds.
My favorite word in this context: militant.
That's those people with guns, killing others.
So how are those atheists militant?
Calling groups of animal rights activists "militant" indicates the use violence.
So where are the violent acts of the atheists?
If you can't use words, don't write.
By the way, does anyone even notice the absurdity of calling the piercing of a cracker "hateful and bigoted"?
As for the creationists: They are trespassing.
The way the world came to be, the way man came to be, and to a great extent the question of what man is, lie in the realm of science today. Maybe also philosophy, if you are generous.
Religion has nothing to offer there and all their assertions are simply wrong.
Willfully remaining ignorant to the truth, after being reminded that the own position as held does not align with the facts, is very much the definition of stupid. Which is what those preachers in the presentation do.
They deserve their labels.
To close with a question: Why should we have respect before other people's beliefs?
If this belief can't stand up in the light of observable truths it's worth nothing.
If this belief can't stand up in the face of rational arguments it's worth nothing.
If this belief can't face differences of opinion and the mocking that comes with a position of power then it isn't worth anything and dangerous on top.
Respect isn't necessary. Tolerance is more than enough.
Woliff,
No, you missed it: It's okay to "disrespect" beliefs - vehemently, if necessary. But the "New Atheist" storm-troopers are disrespecting peoples' right to seek the truth on their own. They disrespect both the person AND the belief. That's hate.
Again: Going off on religion is one thing; Going onto private property, entering a worship ceremony and profaning the most sacred item there is NOT intelligent debate. It's reptilian-brained thuggery.
By the way, if you or anyone else would like me to explain to you how P.Z. is unscientific about religion, e-mail me (belzor@psyber.com). I doubt that you're interested, but the offer is there.
President James Madison objected to state-supported chaplains, prayer in Congress, and to the exemption of churches from taxation. Founding father Thomas Paine was even more outspoken.
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason and more contradictory in itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests. But so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here - or hereafter." (Age of Reason, 1794)
Wow, Thos - You found an "unbeliever" amongst our nations Founders! Not easy to do, is it?!
Even the LEAST religious Founders - Benjamin Franklin, for instance - recognized that a Higher Authority was the lynchpin of our entire system of government.
So-called "enlightenment" thinking was in the air at the time. Unfortunately it led only to Nietzsche, Marx and Hitler.