« Edwards Says 18,000 Die Each Year from Lack of Health Coverage | Main | Monday Night "24" Thread -- What is the Deal With Jack's Dad ? »

The Media and their Derangement Syndromes

Stuart Elliott writing at the New York Times has a bad case of Iraq War Derangement Syndrome. He must be so consumed all things bad in Iraq, he's getting delusional:

No commercial that appeared last night during Super Bowl XLI directly addressed Iraq, unlike a patriotic spot for Budweiser beer that ran during the game two years ago. But the ongoing war seemed to linger just below the surface of many of this year's commercials.


More than a dozen spots celebrated violence in an exaggerated, cartoonlike vein that was intended to be humorous, but often came across as cruel or callous.

For instance, in a commercial for Bud Light beer, sold by Anheuser-Busch, one man beat the other at a game of rock, paper, scissors by throwing a rock at his opponent's head.

In another Bud Light spot, face-slapping replaced fist-bumping as the cool way for people to show affection for one another. In a FedEx commercial, set on the moon, an astronaut was wiped out by a meteor. In a spot for Snickers candy, sold by Mars, two co-workers sought to prove their masculinity by tearing off patches of chest hair.

There was also a bank robbery (E*Trade Financial), fierce battles among office workers trapped in a jungle (CareerBuilder), menacing hitchhikers (Bud Light again) and a clash between a monster and a superhero reminiscent of a horror movie (Garmin).

[snip]

Then, too, there was the unfortunate homonym at the heart of a commercial from Prudential Financial, titled "What Can a Rock Do?"

The problem with the spot, created internally at Prudential, was that whenever the announcer said, "a rock" -- invoking the Prudential logo, the rock of Gibraltar -- it sounded as if he were saying, yes, "Iraq."

I think it's time you took a few days off, Stuart.

Sister Toldjah has a few comments on Stuart's piece and also notes that Emma Span at the Village Voice is not pleased with the fact that Colts' Coach Dungy and owner Jim Irsay thanked God for their success.

POSTGAME: Colts owner Jim Irsay takes about 10 seconds to mention the tornadoes in central Florida before going into full gloat mode. I guess that was nice of him. "There's an awful lot of shining glory up here, even more than last time, but we're giving it all to God," he says. Tony Dungy then says he's proud to be a Christian coach, and to show that he could win "the Lord's way."


Are you there, God? It's me, tornado-ravaged central Florida. I know you're busy and all, but when you're finished helping out the Colts' defense, do you think you could give us a hand over here? Thnx!

Ah well. Congratulations to the Colts; time for the Bears to go home and wonder why Jesus doesn't love them.

Huh? Um...Emma, it's obvious you have some serious issues with hatred and resentment toward God and Christians, why else would you write something so hateful and offensive. The Bears lost because Jesus doesn't love them? Just because things didn't work out the way the Bears' coach and the players may have wanted or prayed for doesn't mean that God doesn't love them. Where did you get this disturbed idea that God is to give you everything you want in order to prove He loves you?

And Emma Span is not the only one in the media with such a distorted and disturbed view of God and Christians. First, let's review what real God loving, Christian men are like:

Coach Tony Dungy:

"I'm proud to be the first African-American coach to win this," Dungy said during the trophy ceremony. "But again, more than anything, Lovie Smith and I are not only African-American but also Christian coaches, showing you can do it the Lord's way. We're more proud of that."

Colts owner Jim Irsay

"Now there's an awful lot of shining glory, even more than last time up here," Irsay said. "But we're giving it all to God again because that's what got us here ... sticking together and believing that we could, and I know God has looked after us on this journey and bonded us into such a tight family."

These are really humble, kind, and classy men - from all accounts, they are true Christian men.

Compare these two real life Christian men with how CBS's show "Criminal Minds", which aired immediately after the Super Bowl, portrays a Christian man. Last night the show's twisted criminal mind was a voyeuristic, split-personalitied "Christian" man who killed those he declared sinners in the most sick and vomit-inducing ways, all in the name of Jesus.

I don't think there is a better illustration of the differences between what real Christians are like and how the media portray Christians than the juxtaposition of Coach Dungy's and Jim Irsay's comments with the "Criminal Minds" sick and twisted portrayal.


Comments (63)

"Huh? Um...Emma. it's obvio... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Huh? Um...Emma. it's obvious you have some serious issues with hatred and resentment toward God and Christians, why else would you write something so hateful and offensive."

Sarcasm in never wasted on you Kim (hint, that was sarcastic).

I was raised Catholic and s... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I was raised Catholic and still believe in Catholic principles, though I consider myself an athiest. I thought the comment about the Bears wondering why Jesus didn't love them is hillarious. I have nothing but respect for Dungy and Isray proclaiming their faith, now. But the fact is that had the Bears won, Lovie Smith would have also thanked God for the victory. Sometimes people confuse God granting you the tools to win with God doing the work for you...and not just anti-Christians to hear some of todays athletes talk.

Brainy435, Emma's ... (Below threshold)

Brainy435,

Emma's remark may have been an attempt at humor, but underneath that "humor" is a lot of contempt toward Christians that is common within the media.

Emma needs to listen to Gar... (Below threshold)
rivlax:

Emma needs to listen to Garth Brooks' fine song, "Unanswered Prayers":

"Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers
Remember when you're talkin' to the man upstairs
That just because he may not answer doesn't mean he don't care
Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers"

Kim, I conceed that point. ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Kim, I conceed that point. The idiotic comments about God and the tornado victims demonstrates that well. I just happened to like the one line. A lot of remarks I hear nowadays are about how God helped a certain team to win and I think people, even some of the people saying it, take that far too literally. Believing God gave you gifts YOU used to win is one thing, but believing God himself took time to help you beat someone is the height of vanity.

Kim, I don't think... (Below threshold)
Clay W. Ginn:

Kim,

I don't think that Criminal Minds was portraying Christians badly at all. Gabriel makes clear near the beginning of the episode his disgust of people using religion as a reason to commit crimes. I think that it was remarkably well done in portraying this as a single deranged individual and not an indictment on the Christian community as a whole.

And I don't think that Dungy was saying that God helped them to win. I think that he was commenting on the fact that he and Lovie Smith are both Christians and put faith above football. That's where Emma Span missed the boat. I really don't think that God cares who won the Super Bowl, but about the character and witness of the men who coached and played in it. That Dungy said that on what could be the world's biggest stage is pretty heartening for all of us who follow Christ.

Brainy, I'm interested to l... (Below threshold)

Brainy, I'm interested to learn the Catholic principles that an athiest believes in. Really, honest question.

Again, liberals are hiding ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again, liberals are hiding behind sarcasm and artistic liberty and misuse of religion to bash Christianity. The liberals know fully well that they will be safe and sound bashing christianity, the US etc... But they will surrender to the radical Islamists. That 's why you see liberal leftists coming out demonstrating against Bush, the US, and the Iraq war. But they won't dare coming out against the terrorists beheading American.

Again, liberals are so predictable.

Face it, Kim, there are man... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Face it, Kim, there are many contemptible Christians around today, whose words and actions are in diametric opposition to the actual teachings of Christ. I have no doubt that many who call themselves Christians today, perhaps even yourself, would heap scorn and ridicule on Jesus if he showed up today, spreading all that radical, leftist peace, love and tolerance BS.

Many who are not locked into the rigid, myopic and intolerant modern Christian fundamentalism get a chuckle when they see someone suggesting that God plays sides, and that maybe He just gave the Colts the edge because...well, why would He? If you can accept the "thank you Jesus" praise, then you've also got to wonder why He had in for da Bearss. It's an all or nothing deal. If He's for one side, why is he against the other?

And using an article by a reporter from the Village Voice to represent the "media" Sheeesh! Next thing you know you'll be suggesting The Washington Times is some new voice of authority. Oh, wait a minute, I guess you already... do.. that.

wavemaker, just because I d... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

wavemaker, just because I do not believe in God doesn't mean I can't value principles like honoring you mother and father, or...you know...not killin' people. I think it is better to follow those principles because I can see how they make for a better world rather than because some ephemeral figure told me I should.

But the fact is that had... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

But the fact is that had the Bears won, Lovie Smith would have also thanked God for the victory.

and rightly so. In Christian faith, you give God thanks for everything. There is no confusion here.

"The liberals know fully we... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"The liberals know fully well that they will be safe and sound bashing christianity, the US etc... But they will surrender to the radical Islamists."


Q. What do you say to a Muslim with his arm all the way up a camel's rump?
A. "Having car trouble?"

Who here thinks that almost... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Who here thinks that almost every athlete talks like God himself runs patterns with them on the field after every game?

Now, who here thinks it's absolutely ridiculous to think that if there is a God, he cares about who wins the Super Bowl?

Now who here thinks Kim is wound as tight as the NYT reporter who heard Iraq in every third word last night?

groucho,Face it... (Below threshold)
PeaceLoveAndTolerance:

groucho,

Face it, Kim, there are many contemptible Christians around today, whose words and actions are in diametric opposition to the actual teachings of Christ. I have no doubt that many who call themselves Christians today, perhaps even yourself, would heap scorn and ridicule on Jesus if he showed up today, spreading all that radical, leftist peace, love and tolerance BS.

Yes, and most of them are left/liberal "Christians". I have no doubt that those on the left who think they are Christians would heap loads of scorn and derision on Him who said "Go and sin no more" to an adultress/fornicator/homosexual. Where is His tolerance? Oh my. The left would have you believe that you have to tolerate the sin along with the sinner. Not so, according to Christ. You love them, show them compassion, etc., but at the end of the day you still say "Go and sin no more".

The "peace, love and tolerance" as espoused by the modern left has precious little in common with the teachings of Christ.

No, groucho, I'll save my scorn for those who corrupt His teaching and those who pick and choose which of His teachings to apply and which to ignore.

Emma's remark may have been... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Emma's remark may have been an attempt at humor, but underneath that "humor" is a lot of contempt toward Christians that is common within the media.

Posted by: Kim Priestap at February 5, 2007 03:25 PM

Hahahaha. Kim Priestap knows what Emma is thinking??!!?!?! That's hilarious. These right-wing nut jobs get loonier by the day.

Tell us, Kim: how long have you known Emma? What's the extent of your friendship? You poor, poor republitards....

"Last night the show's twis... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Last night the show's twisted criminal mind was a voyeuristic, split-personalitied "Christian" man who killed those he declared sinners in the most sick and vomit-inducing ways, all in the name of Jesus." Kim

Why waste your time on liberal Hollywood crap when you can get the real thing. Kim go to the below and make a donation.

http://www.armyofgod.com/POClist.html

C'mon.... CBS... See *BS*..... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

C'mon.... CBS... See *BS*... 'nuff said.

She was actually ripping of... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

She was actually ripping off a old comedy routine from a comdiean I can no longer remember. The line went something like "Ever notice how athletes always thank God for their success? You never see them blame God for their failure. 'We were doing OK until Jesus made me fumble. Yeah, he hates our team.'"

I wasn't bothered by the coaches comments and I thought the reporter was a bit over the top in her critique of his comments. No, I'm not a Christian--like Jay Tea I'm a "born again Agnostic".

Hmmm......you can tell much... (Below threshold)
Linn:

Hmmm......you can tell much about the character of someone by how they address others.

Most liberals here seem to have it in for Kim. And of course they don't refute specific points she makes, they simply personally attack her. The disrespect is quite blatent.

Frankly I think that anyone that uses personal attacks over and over again like this group should be banned.

I have no problems with differing opinions, but the peraonal attacks are simply inappropriate. And they continue them because they know they can get away with it.

wavemaker, just because ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

wavemaker, just because I do not believe in God doesn't mean I can't value principles like honoring you mother and father, or...you know...not killin' people.

Which, ironically enough, were ideals and principles that either did not exist or were not widely taught until Jesus, the Son of God, arrived on the scene. (You can add the word "love" to that list, too.) Would we have any of those principles be with us today w/o Jesus? Could somebody else have come along and said the same stuff and not been the Son of Man? Hard to say. Even harder, though, is to deny these ideals as not coming from God. I suspect you're more of a non-practicing Catholic who's a bit ticked at the Church, than you are an atheiest; a true atheiest would have no morals. no sense of right and wrong, etc. So if you honor the principles that you describe (honoring thy mother and father, not killing, not cheating, stealing, etc.) then you do believe in the teachings of God.

Linn, she personally attack... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Linn, she personally attacked someone (two people, actually) as the point of this post. Perhaps you have a point in other threads, but you are way off base in THIS one.

Are you all talking about m... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

Are you all talking about me yet? I come in here for attention so dammit, start TALKING TO ME!!!!!

b435: just because I do ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

b435: just because I do not believe in God doesn't mean I can't value principles like honoring you mother and father, or...you know...not killin' people.

P F: Which, ironically enough, were ideals and principles that either did not exist or were not widely taught until Jesus, the Son of God, arrived on the scene.

So the ten commandments weren't given until Jesus was on the scene? Hmmm, I seem to remember that story going a bit differently...something about some Hebrews and a mountain, maybe?

Oh by the way the principle... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh by the way the principles of filial piety and against murder were not new religiously, either in Jesus' time or Moses'. Hinduism, for one, espouses both.

Yo brainy, relax man, I onl... (Below threshold)

Yo brainy, relax man, I only axed a question. Not reiterating what Peter F. already said, the Ten Commandments are not "Catholic" principles, they are Christian principles -- and the reason why I asked was because you used the word Catholic, not Christian.

One doesn't live by these principles because one thinks "some ephemeral figure told" one to. Some argue that human beings are "hard wired" with an innate moral compass -- the intuitive sense of right and wrong -- that differentiates us from other beings (and evidences the existence of God). It is even a subject of scientific research.

But we digress.

Linn and JimK, if you can't distinguish the difference between Kim's commentary and your own (and others') attacks on Kim, you're beyond rational dialogue.

But that's not why you're here either, is it?

Anyone see Law & Order frid... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Anyone see Law & Order friday night? It had an Ann Coulter-like character and I thought I was going to be nauseated, but actually they made leftwingers look TERRIBLE. Especially radical college students and their leftwing profs.

AND it got in some excellent points about embryonic stell cell research that showed there is no evidence it will "cure" anything and that even IF (IF) it did it is YEARS & YEARS away.

Yahoooo!

LoveAmerika Enemagrunt... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

LoveAmerika Enemagrunt

It's clear from your post that you've been sucking on Scracrap's used Depends...so much so that you've got brown eyes..

puke,Thanks for el... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

puke,

Thanks for elevating the discourse.

One more thing, Peter,... (Below threshold)
mantis:

One more thing, Peter,

a true atheiest would have no morals. no sense of right and wrong, etc.

You're way off. Ignorance and indoctrination, etc.

"But that's not why you're ... (Below threshold)
JimK:

"But that's not why you're here either, is it?"

WTF? Oh please...enlighten me. Please tell me all about why I'm here. I'm sure it'll be nothing but "rational dialogue."

Kim's personal attacks on the authors quoted in her piece were more vitriolic than what *I* personally wrote about her. One was justified - The NYT reporter is in fact completely crazy. The other was completely off the wall and I said so. But please don't try to pretend she took the high road here, or that you know anything about why I'm *anywhere* much less here.

P.S. - I'm not Linn. If you have something to say to me, say it to me. If you have something to say to Linn, say it to Linn. I had the courtesy to address you individually and not lump you in with anyone else. Perhaps you can do the same.

Tony Dungy lost his son to ... (Below threshold)
Langtry:

Tony Dungy lost his son to suicide after years of trying to help the young man get help for his depression.

Jim Irsay lost a sister to a car wreck when she (and he) was a teenager. Her name (IIRC) was Roberta, and I remember her because there is a plaque at my High School alma mater commemorating her and the scholarship her family started in her name at Regina Dominican High School in Wilmette, Illinois.

In each case, the families deep Christian and Catholic faith sustained them through the darkest of times. And yet Dungy and Irsay are supposed to "Shut Up!" when it comes to acknowledging how faith helped them survive, let alone prosper?

Peter F"a true ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Peter F

"a true atheiest would have no morals. no sense of right and wrong, etc"

You are an ignorant ass. You may depend on some sort of "teachings" to get your sense of morals, but your statement above is lunacy.

Morals are not incompatible w/ atheism you ignorant fool.

But hypocrisy sertainly goes hand-in-hand w/ a helluva a lot of Christians. Are you sure you're exempt?

Sheik Yur Bouty So... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Sheik Yur Bouty

Sorry Shake, but when LA I posts his usual liberals and lefties are commies crap, I can't resist. He's got to be the dumbest enemagrunt that ever just barely passed the test. And w/ his repetitive ignorance, one wishes that someone else had had the slot for legal immigration.

You leftyz always leave me ... (Below threshold)
Tim:

You leftyz always leave me scratching my head. This is a privately owned team who's owner and coach choose to believe in a higher power. It's part of their freedom of religion and here you are griping about it. What a bunch of losers you and the Village voice are.

Oh, I didn't mean Linn -- I... (Below threshold)

Oh, I didn't mean Linn -- I meant Maggy.

Is that your attempt at rational discourse, Jimmy?

So you've admitted that her commentary on Elliot was fair, but you're saying that her comentary on Emma was over the line?

HUH?

She quoted her directly, and her commentary was a fair criticism of Emmas (absurd) comments. One says things because they reflect one's point of view or state of mind. Her statements reveal a point of view or state of mind that ridiculed Christian faith. If she had said the same thing about the jewish or muslim faith, would you be less or more eager to defend her?

So the ten commandments ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

So the ten commandments weren't given until Jesus was on the scene?...

Nope, didn't say that. But the commandments were widely disobeyed or not even followed in the way God had intended them to be. (Heck, how many prophets/messegngers did God go through who weren't listened to by the people before Crhist arrived? Lots. :-) I guess what I'm trying to say is the commandments, important as the are, didn't radically change or have nearly the same impact on the world before Christ's arrival. He gave them power, meaning, substance.

(I'm not being very clear, maybe, and I'm sorry about that. Little trouble articulating this thought that I have.)

Hey ePuke, if you can't add... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Hey ePuke, if you can't address me in a civil manner then don't address me at all. I really don't give a flying fuck what you have to say.

That Colts coach has more c... (Below threshold)
Jo:

That Colts coach has more character in his pinkie finger than all of the world's liberals combined.

I know the christianity comments made the lefties want to vomit, which of course made the comments all the more delicious.

But the commandments wer... (Below threshold)
mantis:

But the commandments were widely disobeyed or not even followed in the way God had intended them to be.

And after Jesus there was no more lying, theft, murder, adultery, jealousy, dishonoring god & the sabbath, etc? Well, at least your warped view of human history extends to after Jesus as well as before.

(I'm not being very clear, maybe, and I'm sorry about that. Little trouble articulating this thought that I have.)

No, I think I read you loud and clear. You're keen on Jesus. And atheists have no morals. Gotcha.

mantis,You claim P... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

mantis,

You claim Peter has a "warped view of human history" and yet you sure have a warped view of what Peter said.

Hmmmm.

On which part am I off?... (Below threshold)
mantis:

On which part am I off?

mantis:Just when I... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

Just when I'm beginning to think you might have the decency and humility in you necessary to hold a relaxed and open conversation--even one in which I am admitting to some sense of humbleness in not being able to articulate my thoughts clearly--all you did was to go act like a petulant, self-righteous, know-it-all, condescending ass in return.

I think you're interesting, reasonably intelligent person, and I don't have the contempt for you as some others here do; I will listen and read what you have to say. But when you respond so simplistically and so contempfully? Forget it, that makes you no better than trollish asses like ePuke.

Oh, and for the record: I don't believe true atheists exist (that is in the classic immoral sense of the word, which was, perhaps, my too subtle point to brainy); I think most everyone has a sense of right and wrong. (Some say that comes from God; others believe it's "hard-wired" into us. I say God.) Without too much explanation, I think brainy might be more of a practical atheiest. But to just bandy about and proclaim yourself as an atheiest as he did is, IMHO, not being true and exploring the real depths of or giving definition to one's beliefs.

And don't bother responding, I won't be checking back at this thread. I've said my peace.

I will listen and read w... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I will listen and read what you have to say. But when you respond so simplistically and so contempfully?

Oh, I'm sorry, but when you categorically declare that all atheists, a category in which I place myself, are without morals, I may be inclined to disagree in kind. Ah yes, you then clarify that there are no "true" atheists. I suppose that can only mean that those who consider themselves atheists are too dim to know what they believe. That explanation is equally condescending and worthy of scorn.

And don't bother responding, I won't be checking back at this thread. I've said my peace.

That's too bad, I was hoping to hear what a "true atheist" is. If it is at all an honest definition, I'll bet I qualify.

Actually, I really liked th... (Below threshold)
FD:

Actually, I really liked the coach when journalists wanted to corner him by the fact that he was african-american. And he was constantly replying that he was human first.
This shows that the color problem was in the eyes of the journalists. This is just a man, who did an amazing work to bring his team there.
Congratulations to him.
Regards.
FD
Real Estate, Pre-construction, Condominiums and Condo-hotels in Miami

"I guess what I'm trying to... (Below threshold)

"I guess what I'm trying to say is the commandments, important as the are, didn't radically change or have nearly the same impact on the world before Christ's arrival. He gave them power, meaning, substance. "
Peter F.

What Peter was attempting to say was that Jesus fulfilled the Commandments. The early commandments are all about "you do bad you get bad stuff happening to you". It's the evolution of morality. It's a pain-reinforcement thing at first. How do we learn bad from good when we're kids? Our parents beat us when we did bad, lol (and rightly so), kids learn best that way. However once a person is mature enough, positive reinforcement comes.

The final evolution is to be moral because you WANT to. That was the point of Jesus' "Golden Commandment". His "Golden Rule", per se, wasn't exactly a new commandment, but lumping all of the old commandments into two easier to follow and understand commandments.
1: Love God before yourself.
2: Do to others what you wish others to do to you.

THOSE are true Christian Commandments. As I said, the old Testament Commandments were still valid, Jesus just boiled things down into an easier to remember equation that will still have people behaving as they should, not because of negative reinforcement, but because they WANT to, because they LOVE to.

wavemaker, I did not take o... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

wavemaker, I did not take offense, I was attempting to be humerous...tone does not translate well on the net. I was educated in Catholic schools K-12 and attended church regularly for most of those years, so my principles are undeniably Catholic and not just Christian. LOL, I was even one of those poor altar boys...though luckily I was never hit on by a priest.

As for "One doesn't live by these principles because one thinks "some ephemeral figure told" one to." I'm sure that is true for you, and for most Christians. But from my experience, that's not true for a good number of believers.

mantis:<... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

mantis:


Oh, I'm sorry, but when you categorically declare that all atheists, a category in which I place myself, are without morals, I may be inclined to disagree in kind. Ah yes, you then clarify that there are no "true" atheists. I suppose that can only mean that those who consider themselves atheists are too dim to know what they believe. That explanation is equally condescending and worthy of scorn.

Anyone who declares themselves as an atheist is ignorant and, typically, a hypocrite to boot. Atheist tend to ridicule the religious for believing in something (that God exist) which they cannot prove in a scientific manner. All the while, an atheist believes in something (that God does not exist) which they cannot prove in a scientific manner. I'll gladly entertain your proof of a negative if you have it. Although, if you're not completely ignorant, you'll understand that it's a nearly impossible task (proving the negative that God does not exist).

In mantis' defense, morality is certainly not solely the domain of religion. Religions have their own moral codes but a moral code does not necessitate a belief in some higher power.

Mike, I realize that I am o... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Mike, I realize that I am only an ignorant hypocrite, but maybe you should STFU. I have never ridiculed anyones religious beliefs....well, there is Scientology, so OK I guess I have. Regardless, I do not believe in God, because the concept of God and most of the bible does not make sense to me. However I am painfully aware that there is no way that humans know as much as we think, and I could be wrong. Hopefully one day I'll know one way or another.

It's ridiculous to to draw parallels between someone refusing to believe something because it can't be proven to exist and someone believing something because it can't be proven NOT to exist. In this fashion I can claim to worship Zrongar the Antaries who lives on the distant planet of Praf in the Redarnax galaxy, looks like Barny and pees vodka. Don't you DARE question my beliefs until you've combed all of existance and can PROVE beyond a doubt the Zrognar does not exist.

If they had been Hindu, Mus... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

If they had been Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or someother faith or lack therof, I don't think these same people would be bitching about this. (others might, but that's another topic)

There are a lot of people out there who get really bent out of shape over any expression of Christianity -- you know who they are, the people who, when you point out the bad behavior of another group, scream out "but, but, the Christians are worse!" (whether they are or not). They seem to want to take the 1st amendment to mean that they get to go through life without all those icky Christians getting Jesus on them.

It's because people don't like being preached at; they don't like other people disapproving of them. However, in the case of Christianity, they also blame them for all of other people that they think do not like us (Europe, for example). Toss in all of the moralizing conservative politicians who keep trying to pass laws that make these same people's heads explode, and no wonder people start freaking out.

This sort of crap is getting out of hand. I would not identify myself with any particular religion, so I don't have any personal axe to gring. However, I see people out there today who can look at someone who really isn't any different from themselves and break into gibbering apoplexy simply because that person professes to be a Christian.

Get over it. Most Christians are not bigoted fundamentalists who want to legislate your behavior, any more than most atheists are amoral Christian-hating hysterics.

I have a lot of good friends who are Christians, Nice people who don't preach at people; in fact, they're not likely to even mention it to anyone. But word gets out in an academic environment, so frequently other students who spend so much time on their high horse talking about tolerance and peace and human dignity feel free to treat them like shit. A

brainy435:<blockquot... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

brainy435:


Mike, I realize that I am only an ignorant hypocrite, but maybe you should STFU.

Although I didn't assert that you were, you've seized the opportunity to make the case yourself. Congrats!

If you are capable of reading, you'll notice that I did, in fact, speak in generalities ('atheist' not brain435, 'tend' not always).

I'll make make my point another way...

There are 3 states of knowledge:
+ knowing something to be true
+ knowing something to be false
+ not knowing

How is it that you know the statement 'there is no God' to be factually true ? Since you didn't offer any, I can only conclude that you have no conclusive proof that the statement is true. I have no conclusive proof that the statement is false. That leaves us with only one choice left - we do not know.

brainy435:


In this fashion I can claim to worship Zrongar the Antaries who lives on the distant planet of Praf in the Redarnax galaxy, looks like Barny and pees vodka. Don't you DARE question my beliefs until you've combed all of existance and can PROVE beyond a doubt the Zrognar does not exist.

Same point. I don't have any proof either for or against Zrognar's existence; thus, the state of my knowledge on the matter is - "I don't know" (i.e. I'm agnostic to Zrognar's existence).

Permit me another example....

Did you brush your teeth this morning ?

I don't have anything that would constitute proof that you did. (You don't believe in God because you don't have any proof that he exists). However, that doesn't mean that I something that would constitute proof that you didn't brush your teeth (atheist). I don't have any proof either way - whether your brushed or did not brush (agnostic).

To say that you are an atheist, you are saying that you have knowledge that proves it (the existence of a higher power - God) to be false. I'm simply saying that you don't have that knowledge (or have not shown it).

Anyone who declares them... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Anyone who declares themselves as an atheist is ignorant and, typically, a hypocrite to boot.

How am I ignorant or hypocritical, exactly?

Atheist tend to ridicule the religious for believing in something (that God exist) which they cannot prove in a scientific manner.

I don't. I like religions, and religious people, generally.

All the while, an atheist believes in something (that God does not exist) which they cannot prove in a scientific manner.

True. Anyone who claims they can prove the existence, or lack thereof, of a supreme being, is full of shit.

I'll gladly entertain your proof of a negative if you have it.

Not interested in trying to prove negatives.

In mantis' defense, morality is certainly not solely the domain of religion. Religions have their own moral codes but a moral code does not necessitate a belief in some higher power.

So as an atheist I can have morals, but I'm still ignorant? What am I ignorant of?

mantis:<... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

mantis:


How am I ignorant or hypocritical, exactly?

Again.. note the generalities. ('atheist' not mantis, 'tend' not always)

If you don't see hypocrisy in an atheist ridiculing religion on the basis that it believe something of which the religious have no scientific evidence then I can't help you.

Stating that one is an atheist implies that you believe that something is not true. To believe that something is not true typically requires some knowledge that proves that something to be false, demonstrably so.

mantis:


What am I ignorant of?

Are you saying that you have proof that this something (that god exist) is false ? Or are you ignorant of what you're actually saying when you state that you're an atheist (that you have knowledge of the following statement to be false - 'God exist' ?)

If you don't have that proof, you're relying on faith (belief without proof)... just, in this case, in the non-existence of God rather than the existence

Again.. note the general... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Again.. note the generalities. ('atheist' not mantis, 'tend' not always)

Umm, no. You wrote this:

Anyone who declares themselves as an atheist is ignorant

No "tends" there. That is a categorical assertion, and since I had just declared myself an atheist, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that I was an object of that assertion.

If you don't see hypocrisy in an atheist ridiculing religion on the basis that it believe something of which the religious have no scientific evidence then I can't help you.

I do see that hypocrisy, and since I don't do that I can suppose it does not apply to me. Can't say the same about the ignorance remark.

Stating that one is an atheist implies that you believe that something is not true. To believe that something is not true typically requires some knowledge that proves that something to be false, demonstrably so.

Incorrect. I don't believe in things I've seen no evidence of. I don't need to prove a lack of evidence, it is apparent. If some evidence of God comes along, I'll consider it. I won't hold my breath, though.

Are you saying that you have proof that this something (that god exist) is false ?

No, I already said the opposite. Pay attention.

Or are you ignorant of what you're actually saying when you state that you're an atheist (that you have knowledge of the following statement to be false - 'God exist' ?)

By your logic all religious people are also ignorant, since they cannot prove that God exists. So everyone is ignorant, if I understand correctly.

If you don't have that proof, you're relying on faith (belief without proof)... just, in this case, in the non-existence of God rather than the existence

Gee, thanks for defining that for us. I never claimed to have proof, I claimed what I believe, based on the available evidence.

mantis:<... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

mantis:


No "tends" there. That is a categorical assertion, and since I had just declared myself an atheist, it doesn't take a genius to deduce that I was an object of that assertion.

_Mike_:


Atheist tend to..

Apparently it does take a genius to read what was written.

Re-read my above post. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are three states of knowledge (true, false, and unknown) since you keep insisting that there are only two (true, false).

mantis:


By your logic all religious people are also ignorant, since they cannot prove that God exists. So everyone is ignorant, if I understand correctly.

Hurrah! Everyone IS ignorant. The matters on which we're ignorant differ. You demonstrated your ignorance on the states of knowledge by declaring yourself an atheist and then saying that it was impossible to know that God does not exist. If you don't know, you're agnostic. If you know that God does not exist, you're atheist.


Apparently it does take ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Apparently it does take a genius to read what was written.,

Then I guess I'm a genius. Here's what you wrote:

Anyone who declares themselves as an atheist is ignorant and, typically, a hypocrite to boot. Atheist tend to ridicule the religious for believing in something

Atheists are typically hypocrites, tend to ridicule the religious, and are ignorant, no qualifier. If you meant something other than what you wrote don't blame me. All I have is the evidence at hand.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are three states of knowledge (true, false, and unknown) since you keep insisting that there are only two (true, false).

I insisted that? Where?

If you don't know, you're agnostic. If you know that God does not exist, you're atheist.

So everyone in the world is agnostic because they can't prove the existence of God, or lack thereof? I'll have to refer you to the wise words of Vizzini: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Ooops, that was Inigo talki... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ooops, that was Inigo talking to Vizzini.

Damn, I agree with mantis. ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Damn, I agree with mantis. Mike, I don't know if you're being intentionally dense to preserve your argument or not, but your quote unequivically called those like mantis and myself, who had described ourselves as athiests, as ignorant. You appear to be deliberately misreading what you yourself wrote and proscribing remarks to mantis and myself that we never said. I made it clear that I do not believe in God because what I know about God at this moment doesn't convince me that he exists. mantis made the same argument. That puts us both squarely in the "don't know" category that you claim we don't acknowledge.

You wrote a post that outright called me and mantis ignorant, and in the face of that being thrown back at you are claiming you never said what everyone can plainly see you did say. Frankly, you're coming across like a dem.

To make maggysturn happy I ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

To make maggysturn happy I will talk about her so she will not fill left out--magg' you are a SOB--is that good enough? Happy now?

On the off chance that you ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

On the off chance that you come back Peter, this is for you.

lol great toon, mantis.... (Below threshold)

lol great toon, mantis.

Ah, mantis understands the ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Ah, mantis understands the power of both a true sage, and that of Iocaine.

So then which troll here has six fingers on one hand?

Perhaps you were trying to ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Perhaps you were trying to figure out how to work in Vizzini's line about:

never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line

I'm sure you can work that into some BDS rant. Just remember what happened to him after he started laughing.

I'm sure you can work th... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'm sure you can work that into some BDS rant.

You obviously have me confused with someone else.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy