I have noted that tone and context are somewhat subjective in prior posts. While the writer does have the ability to guide the tone and context in any piece whether you find it funny, offensive, believe it to be true or false depends on your own filters and experience that makes up those filters. I posted two PZ Myers' links.... here and here. The first post was an opinion piece written by Myers and posted on his blog. I happen to agree with the content of the topic however it did result in the following conversation on Facebook:
- Face Book User: Kevin? You do realize that by pasting and applauding these inane rantings you become the exact person you rail against day after day; right? Myers "thoughts" are equivalent to an atheist "Chick Tract".January 2 at 10:06pm ·
Kevin Dudley I love PZ and I agree with this post. If you can give an example as to why he is wrong... I would be happy to discuss that.
January 2 at 10:09pm ·
Face Book User I know you love him, Kevin, it's rather obvious. His errors are legion, he's the atheist equivalent of Kirk Cameron.
January 2 at 10:13pm ·
Kevin Dudley I disagree. He is a biologist who has a pretty good understanding of how life begins and evolves. Kirk Cameron is an actor (has been) who knows nothing and pretends to know something. If I have to bank my future on someone it will be the likes of PZ and not the likes of Cameron or any other theist.
January 2 at 10:17pm ·- Face Book User
Well . . . 1) If Myers is correct, you have no "future". 2) Kirk Cameron is an actor . . . much like someone else I know . . . yet that someone else has the intellectual ability and educational background to judge Myers understanding of how life begins as , "pretty good"? Seems like a stretch to me, that is unless a certain someone has a biology degree I don't know about. Why should I believe one actor over another, Kevin? 3) Myers uses oversimplifications and bombastic language designed for the pulpit, he's not "setting anyone straight" he's building strawmen and hacking them down in front of a friendly crowd . . . much like Cameron and Comfort.
January 2 at 10:35pm ·
Kevin Dudley
PZ states and accurately that there is no evidence for the existence for god. I have plenty of future without a God. There is absolutely no evidence that there is more after you die and the threat of hell does not govern my actions. Myers has and is willing to debate his stance with any theist. He does not just play to a friendly audience. This post was merely an expression of opinion but he has posted many others with evidence, citations, and peer reviewed research. What has the theist community put out? What is the evidence for God. I dare say there is none. Just because it is not explainable does not mean god did it.
Myers, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Barker are all men that I agree with and will stand on their court any day. Unless there is evidence to the contrary presented, I believe God and all Gods are myths. They deserve no more consideration than Santa Claus.
January 2 at 10:58pm ·
One of My Children: Personally I'm willing to ignore Kirk because his conversion was based entirely on Pascal's wager. A line of thought filled with so many fallacies as to be laughable. If that's the best he could reason, find evidence, and sort information, then he truly isn't qualified to provide 'truth'. PZ Myers actually has education in his field and provides evidence. I'm willing to take a biology professors word on biology and science. Call me crazy.
January 2 at 11:54pm ·- Face Book User
Kevin? I have nowhere declared that your behavior should take into account future punishment, I have not attacked your worldview at all. I'm very sure that you came to your intellectual holdings through reasoned clarity. I have not claimed that just because something is not understandable = therefore - God. All I have said is that Myers is a very poor spokesmodel for atheism. Having read dozens of books on the subject, been to many lectures and explored countless discussions in the atheist/theist arena, it's safe for me to declare Myers rantings as buffoonery. Agreeing with someone does not mean that they are good representatives of a given cause . . . agreed?
January 3 at 5:55am ·
Kevin Dudley Agreed and not agreed. I don't see him the same way you do. Maybe it is because we use different filters
The second post was much more terse:
- facebook Friend II
And I suppose we should stop eating in restaurants out of fear that the kitchen crew forgot to wash their hands?
The fear of exposure in this instance came from a person distributing the wafers, not parishioners drinking from a common chalice. Please do your homework and check your sources before proceding to malign what we already know you don't believe. You demand that of your dissenters, right? http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/ny-church-delivers-he patitis-a-scare-12536232
Partaking of the chalice is optional since Catholics believe the fullness of Christ exists in the wafer alone. Catholics who don't want to "swap fluids" already have the option of abstaining. In this case, clearly, it was stupid for an ill person with unclean hands to distribute Communion. As a Communion Minister at my own parish, we can't/don't serve when ill; we always thoroughly wash and sanitize our hands before serving; and during the swine flu scare last year, the diocese removed the common chalice and the holy water from the common fonts.
Now that I've said my peace, I'll go back to observing my "silly rituals."
January 4 at 8:41pm · ·1 person
Good Friend:
I was going to post a reply yesterday but decided to wait and think it over. Facebook Friend II has done a wonderful job of posting some of my original thoughts about homework and maligning.
You know I am not one to believe in "God" as ascribed in organized religion. I respect your convictions and enjoy for the most part reading your well thought out discussions.
However, this current thread smacks of Tea Party, Palin, Right Wing playground tactics used to dehumanize. Disingenuous and totally unexpected from you to resort to name calling while trying to express your view.
January 5 at 9:05am ·
Kevin Dudley
The CNN link to the article does not discuss the delivery method. Does your minister require the use of food service gloves? What percentage of your parish shares from the same chalis?
While I will acknowledge PZ Myers made an assumption it was a natural assumption considering the traditionally practiced ritual and again the CNN article did not discuss the delivery method.
In the broader context in the name of religious freedom Rabbis in New York have recently been under fire for performing circumcisions in a method that exposes the infant to mouth to genital contact. Many infants have contacted hep infections and staff infections for what? An imaginary or unprovable claim of salvation?
In other communities in America women/ girls are forced in to marriages (many plural). All in the name of ritual and tradition. The point of my link is that religion is not benign.
I appreciate your passionate rebuttal however and I am aware of where you stand on matters of your faith.
.... Hey Facebook user.
January 5 at 9:09am ·- facebook Friend II
Kevin, did you click on the ABC News link I provided? It clarifies that it was the wafer and not the chalice that was the problem. PZ Myers had made reference to the chalice.
No, my particular parish does not require food service gloves. I don't know of any parish that does. We take other precautions prior to serving, though.
We have five chalices at each Sunday Mass: the priest drinks from the main one at the altar; the extra ministers use the other four to serve a section of the congregation. I would say it's about 50-50 in each section as to who partakes and who doesn't. Many of the older generation doesn't drink from the chalice because they weren't brought up to do so. Having the laity receive from the chalice wasn't the norm prior to the church reforms in the 1960's. Many children don't drink from the chalice because they don't like the taste. Diabetics often refrain as well. Anyone who is concerned about the spread of disease has the right to refrain from either the wafer or the chalice. It's that simple.
I've always known that you don't believe in God and are not religious. I can respect that. I always enjoyed our thought-provoking conversations when we worked together. I am struggling to understand, though, why the philosophical position of atheist ... of saying to oneself "I don't believe in God" ... spills over into attacks on people who do. Yes, I've read your disclaimers that what you post is not particularly faith-promoting and that it's not about other people. I get it; you're articulating your views. I just didn't anticipate that "not faith-promoting" = "faith-attacking" so much of the time. My mistake, I guess. As someone who does believe, reading or skimming through the frequent insults becomes tedious and maddening.
January 5 at 7:41pm · ·
Kevin Dudley
facebook Friend II, I will acknowledge that the word I used, "silly", was harsh and the speed to post the article was rash. However CNN was a reliable source for the article.
My question is how do you draw the line between challenging religion attacking it. It is my experience if you draw a line between a piece of doctrine and its absurdity you are considered an attacker by a theist. Help me understand where than line exists.
January 5 at 7:52pm ·- Facebook user
facebook friend II has articulated very well what I was getting at the other day, Kevin. I'll add my .02. PZ is a purveyor of a particular flavor of bombast that is exceedingly distasteful to a great many on both sides of the aisle. He is quick to ridicule and harsh in his technique, he seeks not to foster understanding but rather play a game of one-upsmanship against those who believe. When I read any text authored by Meyers or his ilk I'm instantly jaded and read his thoughts from a completely defensive posture. Facebooking his blog as often as you do serves to label you a member of his camp. That's not the Kevin I know.
January 5 at 8:09pm · ·
Facebook Friend II
CNN was a reliable source; however, you posted it via PZ Myers blog. His language framing the article was inaccurate. His bias compromised the accuracy.
You posted awhile ago on your own blog that the tone of a written piece is subjective in the mind of the reader. I disagree. Tone is a function of a writer's word choice. If it weren't, we couldn't distinguish between seriousness, hyberbole, humor, sarcasm, irony, farce, or other literary constructions. To answer your question with a question: why does a question about a religious doctrine or discipline have to come loaded with insults? Raising a question about religion isn't offensive. Saying that you disagree with a doctrine isn't offensive. Saying that you think a doctrine is absurd isn't offensive. Attacking the people who practice it is. Maybe it's a difference between a discussion of the ideas and maligning the people who freely choose to participate in them.
("Silly" really isn't the harshest word you could have used; I've seen worse in PZ Myer's blog. You use him a lot as a source.)
I admit, now, I might not have put it up had I looked at the details of the situation and I believe the PZ made a rush to condemn Catholics. I also enjoy the friendships of the folks that entered into the Facebook conversation on the two posts. I also learned from the conversation that occurred as a result of the posts.
PZ Myer's is nearly as prominent in the atheist community as Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. He has a Phd and is a prominent speaker on the atheist circuit. When I post from him it is not with the intent to offend but because he articulates my views and I see him as an authority in many of the topics he posts on including the creation debate and the origins of life. He is a professor and well regarded in the scientific community. He is also a militant atheist who calls the religious establishment on their crap.
The the question becomes when is one attacking someones beliefs. In what ways and in what situations is it appropriate challenge someone's beliefs. Is the direct and sometimes terse statement of your beliefs an attack? Is there anyway to walk the line in the middle and still make it clear that you think that someone is full of crap. I think in light of the recent violence in Arizona and the resulting calls for civility (which apparently have been ignored) it is a good time to evaluate our interactions. Do we know the difference between asserting a well researched opinion and ginning up the masses. Is someone right only because you agree with them?
