Interestingly (and amusingly, for me anyways), the following sequence of events has occurred.
1. PZ Myers, a writer for a science and evolution blog wrote a post ridiculing Catholics that attacked a man for taking a cracker from Communion and instead of eating it took it home. Webster Cook was threatened by local Catholics, denounced by Bill Donohue, and in response the church now has armed guards ensuring no more crackers are held hostage. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php The man was forced to give back the cracker due to threats on his life.
PZ Myers also issued a challenge for someone to bring a cracker from Communion into his hands and promised he would not back down from, giving back the cracker I guess.
2. The Catholic League has issued a call to well, do something. I'm not entirely sure what but it seems like to persuade someone above PZ Myers to either threaten his job or at least censor the blog post. Read here: http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459
It is a far cry from rioting over cartoons, but it amuses me nonetheless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, PZM is really a jerk, isn't he?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I suppose it's the metaphorical equivalent of kidnapping Christ, so I understand the outrage, although it sounds like it was not done by someone attempting to "kidnap Christ", but someone simply wanting to explain his religion.
Is the anger equivalent upon, say, breaking a cracker? or vomiting it up (by mistake)? How does this not happen a lot or is there something particular about this case? It does seem like a bit of an overreaction, regardless of the metaphorical implications.
Also, the person who wrote the Fox article has big issues with writing:
quote:Webster’s friend, who didn’t want to show his face, said he took the Eucharist, to show him what it meant to Catholics.
Lawl, journalism.
Also, I love the armed guards at the church. Is it really that serious a problem? I understand the implications, but this must happen all the time.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
People need to grow up. You can buy these crackers online. Sending death threats and claiming that Webster's actions were "beyond hate speech" is just plain ridiculous. It seems like idolatry.
That said, I can't think of motive much douchier than trying to piss people off (which is exactly what PZ is trying to do).
Posted by Lostinspace (Member # 11633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: People need to grow up. You can buy these crackers online. Sending death threats and claiming that Webster's actions were "beyond hate speech" is just plain ridiculous. It seems like idolatry.
That said, I can't think of motive much douchier than trying to piss people off (which is exactly what PZ is trying to do).
Not that I am defending the Catholic faith but the believe that the host(cracker) transforms during the few moment in preperation for communion. So what you buy online would not be the same as what you would get by going into a Catholic church and taking communion (at least in the eyes of the Catholic church).
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Point taken. That still doesn't justify the reaction.
EDIT: Not that you were saying that it did.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Wow, PZM is really a jerk, isn't he?"
Of course, when you consider that people were threatening to kill both the kid, and responded to his words by threatening to kill him, I'd say his reaction was somewhat justified.
After all, they seem to care more about a cracker that they literally destroy by eating more than the lives of these human beings.
And from the perspective of someone who is fairly certain that cracker isn't a human being, it's both an absurd, horrifying reaction, and one that screams the danger of psychopathic inquisitional killers coming dark age style.
Because, you know, not eating the cracker is "beyond a hate crime."
Bill Donahue said:
"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ."
I can. Intentionally causing harm to actual human beings. Trying to get them fired, and threatening their lives.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Myers is a jerk all the time. So maybe there is a bigger audience for this story, but his being a jerk isn't new. He's a devotee of Richard Dawkins and co. with the belief that constantly going on and on about the supposed stupidity of religion is valuable.
It seems to me that this this cracker issue should have been dealt with as a private matter between the church and this individual.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Have you read Dawkins?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd say his reaction was somewhat justified.
It's somewhat justified to encourage people to either break vows they've made (if a Catholic takes the host for desecration) or to encourage people to lie by omission to take it, because a very small percentage of people have sent threats?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: And from the perspective of someone who is fairly certain that cracker isn't a human being, it's both an absurd, horrifying reaction, and one that screams the danger of psychopathic inquisitional killers coming dark age style.
In the dark ages [sic], host desecration was more of a mob riot kind of thing. The current reaction from even the most enraged emailer is nothing compared to the medieval perspective on things.
As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. If he's hosting his threat? promise? on a university webpage, the Catholic League is well within their rights to ask it be taken down, as that sort of thing is generally prohibited by the Code of Conduct. If he were to post it on a private webpage, I'd still think he's a jerk, but he wouldn't be breaking an agreement he signed.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. If he's hosting his threat? promise? on a university webpage, the Catholic League is well within their rights to ask it be taken down, as that sort of thing is generally prohibited by the Code of Conduct. If he were to post it on a private webpage, I'd still think he's a jerk, but he wouldn't be breaking an agreement he signed.
1. PZ can be a jerk. No question.
2. His goal, as far as I've been able to determine, has never been to win converts.
3. His website is specifically not hosted by his University.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Ah. If it isn't then I'm less irritated. I got the impression from the second article that it was. My bad. Carry on.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: Ah. If it isn't then I'm less irritated. I got the impression from the second article that it was. My bad. Carry on.
The second article is by the Catholic League. And they aren't very familiar with things called "facts". (Note: I'm referring to the Catholic League, specifically their president and seemingly sole-member, Bill Donohue, not Catholics as a whole or even a majority.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: The current reaction from even the most enraged emailer is nothing compared to the medieval perspective on things.
As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. ...
I think he's aware that the current reaction is nothing compared to the Middle Ages, thank goodness for that. However, it seems clear to me that this particular action is not intended to win converts.
It is not even aimed at Catholics, rather for atheists it is to highlight the absurdity of the situation by essentially "trolling" people and thus make comparisons between Catholics and say, rioting Muslims with cartoons. (He makes this comparison with a visual pun)
There is a common argument in atheist circles that the majority of religious people are moderates and do not in fact hold their beliefs very strongly. Thus if we just ignore them, eventually their belief will just die without any real confrontation.
This is partly an attempt to illustrate that while this may be partially true, there are still enough people in positions of power to say post armed guards to protect a cracker, make threats on people's lives, and post amusing press releases.
His mockery not a message for Catholics, its a practical joke for the non-religious to be amused by.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:OK. So?
I though you were interested in facts. So I provided some.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:OK. So?
I though you were interested in facts. So I provided some.
You were presenting it as if it means something other than the school prefers to make it clear that they aren't associated with PZ's blog. Because they aren't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You were presenting it as if it means something other than the school prefers to make it clear that they aren't associated with PZ's blog. Because they aren't.
No, I wasn't.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You were presenting it as if it means something other than the school prefers to make it clear that they aren't associated with PZ's blog. Because they aren't.
No, I wasn't.
You seemed to be then.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then be specific - you said I was implying something "other" than the school wanting to be clear that they aren't associated with Meyers immature rants. What was that "other"?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then be specific - you said I was implying something "other" than the school wanting to be clear that they aren't associated with Meyers immature rants. What was that "other"?
I have no idea. That's why I asked "So?" To which you replied cryptically that I like facts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You thought I was implying something, but had no idea what it was?
How strange.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is the word "cracker" to describe a white guy offensive to anyone?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Scott, I've been mulling over the double meaning of the title for a while now.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've never heard it used except as a joke, so not to me.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: The current reaction from even the most enraged emailer is nothing compared to the medieval perspective on things.
As to this guy, he's a jerk, and his approach isn't going to win him many converts. ...
I think he's aware that the current reaction is nothing compared to the Middle Ages, thank goodness for that.
My comments on the Middle Ages were in response to 0Megabyte's hyperbole. Host desecration narratives are really quite ugly, usually ending in pogroms. Comparing this situation to the "dark ages" falls into my own private version of Godwin's Law.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"It's a ship that goes through the gate. Gateship. Well, I thought it was clever."
Anyways, I've never heard of it. Wikipedia informs me that it is a term mostly in use in the southern United States.
Separately, PZ Myer's post is littered with the word "cracker" and it certainly takes on a new strange meaning if you think of cracker as a pejorative word for a white Christ, if he were white as commonly depicted anyways. It almost pains me to say I didn't know about that pun. I've been mostly holding back from puns having to do with eating or biting.
EL: Hold on, I didn't catch that the first time. I thought you were talking about sacrilege in general, but there are *actual* narratives on cracker desecration from the dark ages?
Do you have a link or something where I can read this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I note that Dag is exhibiting exactly the behaviour of moderate Moslems who say they understand why people riot over cartoons: Pointing out how rude the offender is being, while studiously ignoring the death threats sent in by the extremists of his own faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I haven't said anything about understanding the people who issued death threats. I haven't commented on them at all here. That's not ignoring them. I've commented on them with a different group of people. Not here, though.
I have very good reason for that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That's not ignoring them.
Yes, it is, actually.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it's not. Read the next two sentences.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Accusations of host desecration was commonly used to inspire pogroms
Hmmm, thats less surprising. Those seem more like false accusations used as an excuse to burn Jews rather than actual reliably documented events of cracker theft (which would have been surprising and interesting).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, but the point is that it was a reliable way to inspire Christians to screaming murderous hatred. Obviously it would almost always be a false accusation, why would a Jew even care about the communion wafers? Unless he was literally starving to death, or something, and you'd think there would be easier things to steal.
quote:No, it's not. Read the next two sentences.
I did. Not being a member of whatever other group you are venting your full outrage and disgust with your co-religionists at, I can only judge by what I see here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I did. Not being a member of whatever other group you are venting your full outrage and disgust with your co-religionists at, I can only judge by what I see here.
And what you saw here included a statement that I have not refrained from noticing or recognizing the death threats.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did not know that. Must have made a diverting change from blood libels. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
...and witchcraft!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I msut say I have absolutely no idea which statement you are talking about there, unless it is your simple denial in your 11:34 post. In any case, what I see is that you
a) State that Myers is a jerk for - oh teh noes - posting on his blog. b) Say nothing about the death threats.
Can we maybe have some sense of perspective here? The serious issue is that death threats have been made. That someone stepped on the toes of your religion in his blog is completely unimportant in comparison.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: In any case, what I see is that you
a) State that Myers is a jerk for - oh teh noes - posting on his blog. b) Say nothing about the death threats.
Again, conveniently leaving off that you have seen here in this thread my statement that I have commented on this elsewhere. You said you read that statement.
quote:The serious issue
Talk to the OP, who described this as amusing, not serious.
Do you honestly wonder why I'm not going to discuss condemn death threats that I haven't even seen at a board you frequent?
Were someone to defend those threats, I would respond. No one has.
People have, however, defended PZM here.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nobody had defended him at the time you made your 'jerk' comment.
quote:Again, conveniently leaving off that you have seen here in this thread my statement that I have commented on this elsewhere. You said you read that statement.
Again, what should I care about what you write where I can't read it?
quote:Talk to the OP, who described this as amusing, not serious.
Since when do you hide behind Mucus instead of taking responsibility for your own posts?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nobody had defended him at the time you made your 'jerk' comment.
Not true. The opening post found the whole idea amusing. That might not be an explicit defense, but it is a favorable statement about the correctness of PZM's actions. No such favorable statement has been made about death threats.
quote:Again, what should I care about what you write where I can't read it?
I didn't say you should. However, you now know that your statement that I am ignoring the death threats is wrong. you knew this after my first post on the subject and decided to continue to discuss it.
quote:Since when do you hide behind Mucus instead of taking responsibility for your own posts?
I'm not hiding behind Mucus. And I haven't ducked responsibility for my own posts. Instead, I attempted to explain why I have addressed particular aspects of this situation here and not others.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That might not be an explicit defense, but it is a favorable statement about the correctness of PZM's actions.
It could just as well be taken as a favorable statement about the death threats.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If one didn't know Mucus, perhaps.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your 'jerk' comment was clearly far out of proportionality for such a weak 'defense' as is made by merely saying the story is amusing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So are you just going to keep making up new objections to my participation in this thread, or will you simply accept that I pretty much never comment on any aspect of a situation, that the relevant importance I assign to a topic is only one of many factors that determine what I do choose to comment on, and that the existence of a person on this board that makes frequent comments about wanting to subject me to forced reeducation is another factor I use to make that determination.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I will indeed object until you acknowledge that PZ Myers is a victim, not an oppressor, in this story.
Further, your comment is in itself a defense of the death threats, in that it distracts the attention, making a victim look like a bully.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I will indeed object until you acknowledge that PZ Myers is a victim, not an oppressor, in this story.
I did not call him an oppressor. I called him a jerk, and I stand by that. He's soliciting people to disrupt religious services either by explicitly violating vows they've taken or by implicitly representing to those distributing Communion that they've taken those vows. And he's doing it with the stated intention of pissing off Catholics.
That's comfortably into the "jerk" category.
He is a bully. He happens to be facing bullying, too, but that is not incompatible with being a bully oneself.
quote:Further, your comment is in itself a defense of the death threats, in that it distracts the attention, making a victim look like a bully.
Bull.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Bull.
Well, I guess that is the point where the conversation for all practical purposes ends. Good day to you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, I guess that is the point where the conversation for all practical purposes ends. Good day to you.
Conversation ended when you lied about what I was saying. you've quite simply refused to respond to any explanation about why I have made the decisions I have about what to post here, so it's clear you didn't care a bit about having a "conversation."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that most people will recognize that, no matter what their personal beliefs are, elements and symbols of other people's beliefs need to be respected. I would never desecrate the Koran, for example, because being a civilized human being, I recognize that it has worth to other civilized human beings. And for the sake of civilization, I show respect to things that other people hold sacred even though I don't consider them sacred.
I expect the same sort of civilized behavior from others when it comes to things that I hold sacred.
Really, this is kindergarten civics, isn't it?
The death threats aren't warranted, no matter what. Not even if there was an intentional act of desecration and mockery.
NOW...PZ Meyers is a jerk. He does not convince me that his opinions should be treated with anything but scorn.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm not really sure how Myers can be considered a victim. Mr. Cook was the one who took the Eucharist from the mass and received the original volume of death threats. In that sense Cook is definitely a victim. Myers observed the reactions to Cook's action and has decided to incite more reactions of the same type. He may be a victim in the strictest sense but I don't feel that is the sense in which you were using the word.
EDIT: In response to KoM. I'm a slow poster Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Glad that's over with.
And now:Clowns.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think that most people will recognize that, no matter what their personal beliefs are, elements and symbols of other people's beliefs need to be respected.
Well, I am not 'most people', to be sure; but I don't recognise any such necessity. If a belief is not backed up by credible evidence, then I give it no respect no matter how dearly held it is. That is because I respect (by default - such respect is easy to lose) the person, instead, and expect them to use their dang brains, not hide behind "You gotta respect my belief!" I don't gotta, except of course where moderators enforce a public facade, and I won't. Show me the evidence, and I will respect that. If you have no evidence, be quiet.
Edit: Well, 'be quiet' is too much to expect. Let me instead say, "Count on no respect, nor even silence about my disrespect, from me. Unless you're on a forum I don't care to be banned from, that is."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So annoying people at a parade is taboo, but entering private property to steal sacred items for the purpose of desecration in order to show your disrespect is to be encouraged?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So annoying people at a parade is taboo, but entering private property to steal sacred items for the purpose of desecration in order to show your disrespect is to be encouraged?
I doubt KoM would object to this individual being asked to leave and being arrested if he refused.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
KoM, if this is so important to you, why let the silly ToS of one blue/yellow themed forum stop you?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What stealing? Communion wafers are handed out freely, like cookies. It is then the recipient's property, to dispose as he wishes, presuming of course compliance with the law and no harm to others. What private property? The church is a private organisation, but when it gives out a standing invitation to the entire public to come in, it can hardly complain if people accept the invitation.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think I'm going color blind. This forum looks gray/yellow to me Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
me too, but I always thought it was *supposed* to be blue.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: KoM, if this is so important to you, why let the silly ToS of one blue/yellow themed forum stop you?
In the first place, it's grey/pale yellow. In the second place, what would I have to gain by going out of my way to show disrespect? It's not as though I feel a need to actively go around saying to people "You are stupid, I disrespect you, woo! Ph34r my disrespect!" What would this accomplish other than getting me banned?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Church does not give a standing invitation for the entire public to receive communion. Communion is distributed for a specific purpose to specific people who have vowed to honor that purpose. That we generally take on trust that a person who comes forward is one of those specific people does not make it less reprehensible to pretend to be one of those people.
Would "obtain by fraud" suit you better than "steal"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:That is because I respect (by default - such respect is easy to lose) the person, instead, and expect them to use their dang brains, not hide behind "You gotta respect my belief!" I don't gotta, except of course where moderators enforce a public facade, and I won't. Show me the evidence, and I will respect that. If you have no evidence, be quiet.
It's really not about evidence, KoM, but collective emotional value.
Recognizing others' sacred cows-- and treating them with respect-- is a demonstration of the social adult. It is a sign of a mature intellect and a cognizance of one's place in culture. Even though I don't believe in the Catholic communion, I respect my fellow adults' feelings for it as something worthy and valuable in their lives. Because I love them-- not the communion wafer, or the religion behind it-- I keep my objections to their religion on a level that is a bit higher than the childish prankishness that Meyers and those who emailed him death threats exhibit.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is true that the original cookie-stealer is apparently a bit of a troll, yes. Still, when the response to trolling is death threats, I feel that outrage over the trolling is a little bit misplaced.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's really not about evidence, KoM, but collective emotional value.
Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: KoM, if this is so important to you, why let the silly ToS of one blue/yellow themed forum stop you?
In the first place, it's grey/pale yellow. <snip>
As you can see, we've already had that conversation.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It's really not about evidence, KoM, but collective emotional value.
Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
But adults *are*. Now what? I don't see why it's so difficult. I can respect that fact that although you are very vocally against anything that I find truly important, you seem to value certain things (granted, I'm not quite sure what they are, but I figure I'll handle them as they come), and because I think that deep down, you are ultimately a decent and hard-working person who's fairly intelligent, I don't go around insulting Norway or Atheism. So why is it so hard to show a modicum of respect to me in spite of my weird, proof-lacking beliefs?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The Church does not give a standing invitation for the entire public to receive communion.
Technically, yes, but not in practice. There is no explicit statement made that the Eucharist is only for those who have made the appropriate vows. Only practicing Catholics and other who happen to know a bit of Catholic theology would know this.
My grandfather had a Catholic funeral mass and many of his non-Catholic family members went up to take the Eucharist. There was an awkward moment when I was being encouraged to go up by some of these non-Catholic family members and I explained that it would be offensive to Catholics for us to do so. They acted like I was nuts and shrugged it off and went up anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Technically, yes, but not in practice.
Actually, there often is an explicit statement, either vocal or written in the program. I know this doesn't always happen, as your example attests, but it often does.
Moreover, the original taker did know. And now that Meyers has advertised how upset Catholics are because of this, it is clear that he knows and those potentially responding to his request know.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Although this is one of the things I would consider common knowledge, there is actually an explicit statement in the printed material that is usually at the doors or handed to you when you enter - either a program or the missalette that is present in just about all Catholic churches.
You were correct in not going up to take Eucharist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
How do you feel about desecrating graves?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, some interpretation of my posts to catch-up with:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Talk to the OP, who described this as amusing, not serious.
I described it as amusing, that does not mean I said it was not serious. There are many things that I find both serious and amusing at the same time and much of dark humour or satire is closely tied to (or even requires) serious issues.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Not true. The opening post found the whole idea amusing. That might not be an explicit defense, but it is a favorable statement about the correctness of PZM's actions. No such favorable statement has been made about death threats.
To clarify, I do think PZ Myers is being a jerk. I also find it amusing.
The English makes it difficult to convey the right nuance, but there is a phrase in Cantonese in Stephen Chow films that does, "oi yunsherng lei" roughly translated as "I appreciate and enjoy your presence in this world and what you're doing, even if it is not quite what I would do."
Since that reference would not be relatable to most people, I could also relate it to House. House is a jerk. However, the world is a better place with him in it and he would be less effective at what he does if he were not a jerk.
How you would translate that kind of idea into a strict binary correctness schema is up to you.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think that most people will recognize that, no matter what their personal beliefs are, elements and symbols of other people's beliefs need to be respected.
I respectfully disagree. I think most people do not recognize this. Specifically, I suspect a fair number of people brought up in a Western culture dominated by religion will recognize that elements and symbols belonging to *major non-extinct beliefs* need to be respected.
However, even in the West many people do not respect elements or symbols of religions that are minor OR extinct. Many will snicker at the idea that photos can capture a piece of one's soul and should be avoided or the idea that John Frum (cargo cult) will return and usher in a paradise. We can pose jokingly with staues of Greek gods at the museum and write and enjoy movies such as 'Dogma'.
If we move outside the West, this becomes even more clear. There is a very large portion of Chinese society that feels free to think that Christianity is simply superstition and its symbols are not worthy of any more special respect than say "Journey to the West" which is famously parodied.
To make this distinction clear, most people will recognize that people holding what they observe to be silly beliefs should be respected as fellow humans. Most people will not respect the actual symbols of those silly beliefs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Many will snicker at the idea that photos can capture a piece of one's soul and should be avoided or the idea that John Frum (cargo cult) will return and usher in a paradise. We can pose jokingly with staues of Greek gods at the museum and write and enjoy movies such as 'Dogma'.
I think most people would say that deliberately taking a picture of someone who said, "Don't take a picture of me; it's against my religion to allow it!" would be rude.
Where adults recognize a valued belief, they try to make accommodations for it.
Posted by Lostinspace (Member # 11633) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: What stealing? Communion wafers are handed out freely, like cookies. It is then the recipient's property, to dispose as he wishes, presuming of course compliance with the law and no harm to others. What private property? The church is a private organisation, but when it gives out a standing invitation to the entire public to come in, it can hardly complain if people accept the invitation.
You are wrong here the Catholic church does not openly invite anyone to come and recieve a host (cracker). Yes they invite all to attend their services but they do not practice an open Communion. You must have your first communion through a Catholic Church and be a practicing Catholic to be invited to recieve the host.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I think most people would say that deliberately taking a picture of someone who said, "Don't take a picture of me; it's against my religion to allow it!" would be rude.
Thats actually a good example. Most people would not deliberately take a picture of a person in that circumstance. However, most people that actually really wanted to take a photo would simply take the picture behind their back and not confront them about it. To make this concrete, I've been to a decent number of temples which display the sign "No photographs" which really just becomes "No photographs while someone is around that actually cares" for the majority of people.
Those are actually examples of respecting the person, but not respecting the belief.
(This is someone tangential to what PZ Myers is doing, in this case he's neither respecting the person or the belief, just to make that clear)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that taking pictures in places where one is asked not to is an example of rude and self-centered behavior. Also disruptive and possibly destructive if there is a flash or particular artwork.
I would never consider taking such a picture whether it were a religious space or a museum.
You and I have very different ideas of courtesy, Mucus.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most people would not deliberately take a picture of a person in that circumstance. However, most people that actually really wanted to take a photo would simply take the picture behind their back and not confront them about it. To make this concrete, I've been to a decent number of temples which display the sign "No photographs" which really just becomes "No photographs while someone is around that actually cares" for the majority of people.
I'm glad I don't know the people you've gotten this impression from.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm glad I don't know the people you've gotten this impression from.
*shrug* You made a statement about "most people", not "most people that you know." I'm just making the correction.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You and I have very different ideas of courtesy, Mucus.
You and I have very different ideas of language. Most people enjoy spicy food. That does not mean I enjoy spicy food myself. Most people display the behaviour indicated. That does not mean I necessarily perform the behaviour or consider it courteous. What it does mean is that "most people display the behaviour indicated."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: What it does mean is that "most people display the behaviour indicated."
Do you have some evidence of this? It certainly has not been my experience. I recently spent a lot of time sightseeing in churches and museums and, by far, most people seemed to be obeying the rules.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I only have my personal experiences in temples and churches, I have not as of yet encountered a survey indicating how many people sneak photos in places they are not supposed to or do I really think such a survey would exist for the obvious reasons.
However, a little bit of googling shows this thread in which 3 out of the 6 people participating publicly admit to giving into the temptation to perform the practise. Very unscientific, but there you go.
I would also note that this is strongly related to my aforementioned clause of most people feel that "*major non-extinct beliefs* need to be respected." I suspect that the people that go to the churches that you mention have a much bigger personal investment in the beliefs surrounding churches than for the temples that I am thinking of.
In other words, it is unsurprising to me that tourists would pay greater respect to beliefs that are somewhat similar to their own rather than those that are relatively alien.
Edit to add: Here's another example.
quote: Officially, no photographs are allowed. However, most of us managed to sneak a photo or two when the guards are looking away. Apparently, this is due to the problem the government had with camera flash, but if you're using high ISO speed and no flash, then it is okay.
[ July 11, 2008, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Well, that's my point - it is about evidence. Adults should not be emotionally attached to ideas they cannot show evidence for, and I have no respect for those who are.
How do you feel about desecrating graves?
It's under control, man - I can stop any time I like.
Private property protected by law. Done. No respect required. Although the belief "There existed a person that I cared about, and this is a memorial to him" is generally fairly well backed up by evidence anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As is the belief, "there's a ceremony performed every day, attended by millions of people each week, and many of those people care strongly about one of the elements of that ceremony" is also fairly well backed up by evidence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I rephrase. "There existed a person I cared about" is two statements: One of fact, about the existence, and one of feeling, "I cared". The fact is verifiable, so I respect the feeling. The death threats arise from a similar double statement:
a) Statement of fect: The cookie is the flesh of Christ. b) Feeling: I care deeply about the flesh of Christ.
The first statement being utterly without evidence, I could care less about the feeling.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Oy. The Catholic league wants more security for the Republican National Convention because it's about 150 miles from Myers' home.
quote:a) Statement of fect: The cookie is the flesh of Christ. b) Feeling: I care deeply about the flesh of Christ.
It seems like your straining a bit to make sure the proposed analogues don't match. Couldn't you say:
a) Statement of fact: The cookie exists b) Feeling: I care deeply about the cookie
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm just sad this thread isn't about the Hatfields and McCoys.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(kat, I had the same thought.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Oy. The Catholic league wants more security for the Republican National Convention because it's about 150 miles from Myers' home.
That, along with "King Kong Theory of Creation" really just prolongs my amusement Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:a) Statement of fect: The cookie is the flesh of Christ. b) Feeling: I care deeply about the flesh of Christ.
It seems like your straining a bit to make sure the proposed analogues don't match. Couldn't you say:
a) Statement of fact: The cookie exists b) Feeling: I care deeply about the cookie
Fair enough. Let's try this:
a) The reason I cared about [person X] was [good things Y from our relationship]. b) The reason I care about the cookie is that it is the flesh of Christ.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
More accurately:
a) The reason I cared about [person X] was because I believe [Y from our relationship] were good things. b) The reason I care about the host is that I believe it is the flesh of Christ.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To get that to run in proper parallel, you need this change:
The reason I care about the host is that I believe doing [what it was] to the flesh of Christ is bad.
Again, there are two statements: One of fact [things Y happened] and [the cookie is the flesh of Christ] and one of feeling [Y were good] and [doing X to the flesh of Christ is bad]. If you cannot show that X really happened to the flesh of Christ - that is, you can show that X happened to the cookie, but not that the cookie is the FoC - then no respect for the badness. Conversely, if you were unable to show that Y happened - for example, the father buried under your gravestone might be fictional - then no respect for the goodness either. But I'd hold that to a much lower standard of proof, people that we care about being much less extraordinary than the body of creators of the universe, and thus requiring less extraordinary evidence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
Not all others. He has great respect for the feelings of parade-goers, for example. He just disrespects people who disagree with him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
I notice that as soon as you are convinced my approach does not have an internal inconsistency, you go instantly into attack mode with the ad hom. Would you like to edit that post to something that's not a personal attack?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that your respect for the feelings of others is so shallow.
Not all others. He has great respect for the feelings of parade-goers, for example.
a) Those preachers shouted at me. b) I dislike being shouted at.
The factual claim has strong evidence - there's a YouTube video of it! - so the emotional claim gets my respect. Further, loud noise is a clear aggression/dominance signal in primates, a preliminary to attack. That's measurable harm right there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I notice that as soon as you are convinced my approach does not have an internal inconsistency, you go instantly into attack mode with the ad hom.
This has nothing to do with being unable to find an internal inconsistency in your approach, but rather having now gotten a reasonably complete explanation of why you don't respect others' feelings in certain situations. Now that I have that, I feel on strong grounds making the comment I made.
Had I found an internal inconsistency, I would not have made that statement (most likely). Because, in that case, you wouldn't be presenting a consistent yet shallow and mean-spirited approach to respecting others' feelings.
quote:Would you like to edit that post to something that's not a personal attack?
No. You have stated broadly that your approach in determining whether someone going out of their way to emotionally hurt others is acting poorly is to subject others' feelings to an evidentiary examination based on your particular views of evidence.
I think my opinion about that approach is valid and correct.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've got one for you KoM:
a) At negligible cost to me, I can avoid causing distress to people because of their cherished beliefs (the cost and distress are easily evidenced) b) I don't care, and I cause it anyway
Applies to Myers's call to steal the wafers. Not only disrespectful of the beliefs, but uncivil and mean.
May apply to some degree to other behaviors, like being careful not to give any impression of respect for beliefs one believes are mistaken.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But we've already established that I have no respect for the people being targeted, so why should I care about distress to them, other than purely tactical considerations like their ability to retaliate in kind? And if I felt that they were an active danger to civilisation, I might even go out of my way to cause such distress, just to focus their energies on something other than their active dangerousness.
quote:Now that I have that, I feel on strong grounds making the comment I made.
Well then, we have here
a) KoM's respect for others is shallow by my definition b) I think that's bad.
The factual claim being well grounded, I am clearly bound not to disrespect you for the emotional statement. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You don't care if you cause needless distress to other people who haven't earned your respect (in your opinion)? Then, in my groundless, unevidenced opinion, religion was invented for people like you, KoM.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Whatever. A minor nitpick: Religious people do not fail to earn my respect, rather they manage to lose it. Respect is the default.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I've got one for you KoM:
a) At negligible cost to me, I can avoid causing distress to people because of their cherished beliefs (the cost and distress are easily evidenced) b) I don't care, and I cause it anyway
Applies to Myers's call to steal the wafers. Not only disrespectful of the beliefs, but uncivil and mean.
May apply to some degree to other behaviors, like being careful not to give any impression of respect for beliefs one believes are mistaken.
I think Myers is trying to cause distress to the people he believes are behaving poorly in response to this incident - those who call it a hate crime or kidnapping, or who have harassed this kid, called for his expulsion, and threatened his life.
He certainly doesn't have any particular regard for the beliefs of common Catholics, but I think he views their offense more as collateral damage.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Were you referring to say Buddhist or Taoists shrines where they ask that you not take pictures? Just curious. I personally always refrained from taking pictures there even when alone.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
A week or 3 ago someone from Hatrack posted a link to this list of fallacious arguments. I took the time to read through all of them and since than I have enjoyed being able to recognize when they crop up in all areas of life.
On a semi-related note, this thread has reminded me of the importance of clear, simple, unassuming statements.
Carry on.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The ones that I'm sure about were usually Buddhist temples although I'm sure Taoist shrines were included.
Although not a temple, the link to the Terracotta Museum was partially out of personal amusement. Unlike the account presented, by the time I got there four years after, the guards had probably given up. The 'no photographs' sign was still there, but with no guards, practically *everyone* was taking photos, whether SLR cameras down to cellphone cameras, white or Chinese.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote: But I thought his original post was severely misguided. It’s not a matter of freedom of speech — PZ has every right to post whatever opinions he wants on his blog, and I admire him immensely for his passionate advocacy for the cause of godlessness. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. And there’s a huge difference between arguing passionately that God doesn’t exist, and taking joy in doing things that disturb religious people.
[snip]
I think there is some similarity here. It’s an unfortunate feature of a certain strand of contemporary atheism that it doesn’t treat religious believers as fellow humans with whom we disagree, but as tards who function primarily as objects of ridicule.
[snip]
It seems to me that the default stance of a proud secular humanist should be to respect other people as human beings, even if we definitively and unambiguously think they are wrong. There will always be a lunatic fringe (and it may be a big one) that is impervious to reason, and there some good old-fashioned mockery is perfectly called for. But I don’t see the point in going out of one’s way to insult and offend wide swaths of people for no particular purpose, and to do so joyfully and with laughter in your heart.
I'm glad he took the time to articulate this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do think there's something to be said, as a tactical measure, for making people froth at the mouth and totally over-react to minor things. It makes no difference to the hard core, but there are presumably people out there who are just barely believers, who might be swayed into
a) Examining what they really believe about the crackers b) Considering whether they want to be on the same side as the mouth-frothers and death-threat-utterers.
I observe that someone has now lost her job over this, for using a work email to send death threats.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Having read his post, I appreciate the measuredness of his response. I think his parable is flawed, however, at least in the telling.
Alice had something she valued highly. Bob believed she should not value it highly. So Bob destroyed it. For her own good.
In this case, I don't believe any of this (the original theft of the communion wafer; Myers' subsequent boasts) is being done with the good of the harmed in mind, KoM's protestations notwithstanding. I think its motivated by simple cruelty and a joy from feeling superior; the thrill of being able to hurt someone who can't hurt you back.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In fact, theists can hurt us, and do, every day. Read, for example, this. One way of getting oblivious bullies notice that others exist, and make room for them, is to shove an elbow up their nose. It's hard to ignore someone who is hitting you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
More info:
quote: MnIndy: Do you see a parallel between this case and the furor in Denmark (and later the Islamic world at large) over cartoonists' depictions of Mohammed? It seems unlikely that these Catholics would take kindly to being compared to Islamic extremists, but death threats over the fate of a host suggests it's not an unfair characterization.
Myers: Of course! Both are demands that quirky sectarian peculiarities be given undue respect by those who don't believe in them. Furthermore, the majority of the email I'm receiving is making it explicit: they are telling me that I should not abuse their sacred icon, but that I should instead go do something sacrilegious with the Koran.
...
The idea that Jews, for instance, want to steal consecrated wafers as an element of evil Jewish rites has been circulated fairly often, as a preliminary rationalization for oppression.
Curiously, many (but still a minority) of the email messages I have received have 'accused' me of being Jewish, addressing me as "jew boy" or "liberal pinko jew."
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think its motivated by simple cruelty and a joy from feeling superior; the thrill of being able to hurt someone who can't hurt you back.
I think it's motivated as a response to the original assault and death threats against Webster Cook.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In fact, theists can hurt us, and do, every day. Read, for example, this. One way of getting oblivious bullies notice that others exist, and make room for them, is to shove an elbow up their nose. It's hard to ignore someone who is hitting you.
I don't see why that type of logic applies to group dynamics.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh? Theists hurt atheists and minority religions every day through sheer obliviousness to our existence. So, make them aware of the said existence by poking them. It's a bit like Gay Pride parades: People may object to having assless chaps shoved in their noses, but at least they won't be able to ignore a large subset of the population anymore.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I observe that someone has now lost her job over this, for using a work email to send death threats.
Good.
quote:Considering whether they want to be on the same side as the mouth-frothers and death-threat-utterers.
Just don't be surprised that people consider, often, whether they want to be on the same side as mouth-frothers like PZM.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Amending my previous statement: after reading more background I don't ascribe the same motivations to the young man who took the wafer (Cook) as I do to Myers. I think Cook was probably making a statement, or was perhaps a victim of circumstance; I think Myers is being a bully.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do feel there is a difference between, in effect, "Nyah-nyah-nyah" and "I'm going to kill you for that".
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think Myers is being a bully.
I think he's being a jerk, but I think to be a bully you have to actually have some sort of power over the subject of your bullying. He's mercilessly and insultingly making fun of a belief held by group of people in a blog. That's not exactly a threat to anyone who doesn't choose to read it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I think Myers is being a bully.
I think he's being a jerk, but I think to be a bully you have to actually have some sort of power over the subject of your bullying. He's mercilessly and insultingly making fun of a belief held by group of people in a blog. That's not exactly a threat to anyone who doesn't choose to read it.
I don't even see how what PZ said could be construed as a threat. Despite what some people have said, if a random person had come into my Catholic church when I was young and got in line for the Eucharist, he would have received it and been able to walk out without anyone noticing.
He didn't tell anyone to disrupt a service. He didn't say he was going to run in and steal one. He asked if anyone could score him one, he'd show what desecrating it would really look like. That's it.
Not while in a Catholic church. Not in a parishioner's house. Just privately, and post it on his website that people are free to look at or ignore.
And again, he's talking about doing things to a cracker. It's just mind-boggling to me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I agree. I was using a very loose definition of threat.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he's talking about doing things to a cracker.
Ground zero is just a bunch of stones and a hole in the ground.
It might as well be a latrine... right?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I did see porta-potties there that last time I was there. Just peeing on the ground would be a health issue.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:he's talking about doing things to a cracker.
Ground zero is just a bunch of stones and a hole in the ground.
It might as well be a latrine... right?
If you could hand out tiny ground zeros that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat, then sure.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Scott,
I'm not even sure I understand where you're going here. Would it have been better/worse/equivalent for PZ to ask someone to go relieve themselves on ground zero? Still just sounds like someone being a benign jerk.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not while in a Catholic church. Not in a parishioner's house. Just privately, and post it on his website that people are free to look at or ignore.
None of the attributes you just listed are at all relevant to the harm Catholics think he would be doing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:None of the attributes you just listed are at all relevant to the harm Catholics think he would be doing.
What would the actual harm be? Isn't this matter between the person who desecrates the host and God?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which would be, to Catholics, a harm.
I get that you don't believe any of this. But I don't believe you don't understand why people who do believe this might have a serious problem with it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Which would be, to Catholics, a harm.
I get that you don't believe any of this. But I don't believe you don't understand why people who do believe this might have a serious problem with it.
Having a problem with something is different from harm.
I see how Catholics have a problem with it. I do not see how Catholics are harmed by it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I understand people having a serious problem with it. I just don't understand how they are harmed. I consider harm to be something that is measurable, even in a theological sense.
For instance, if they had a sacred duty to protect the Eucharist (which I understand that they do) and they were accountable for its desecration (which I understand they would not be if they were unaware or unable to stop it), I would recognize at least a perceived harm.
But it seems like what PZ is advocating is that someone commit an act that is roughly equivalent of the "blasphemy challenge" - another stupid stunt with only one potential victim - the one who performs the stunt. And most of the complaints I've seen have expressed little concern for the eternal soul of the one who does this, rather it's all people who seem to take personal and institutional offense.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Having a problem with something is different from harm.
I see how Catholics have a problem with it. I do not see how Catholics are harmed by it.
I said Catholics think he would be doing harm. I didn't say they necessarily think he would be harming them.
Of course, he is doing harm to them, and he's intending to do it.
If someone scattered a cremated relative's ashes, and I gathered them up and made a web page of my using them as kitty litter, announcing my intention to make that person upset, I think most people would view that as my having harmed that person.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Having a problem with something is different from harm.
I see how Catholics have a problem with it. I do not see how Catholics are harmed by it.
I said Catholics think he would be doing harm. I didn't say they necessarily think he would be harming them.
Of course, he is doing harm to them, and he's intending to do it.
If someone scattered a cremated relative's ashes, and I gathered them up and made a web page of my using them as kitty litter, announcing my intention to make that person upset, I think most people would view that as my having harmed that person.
I would agree with you, if you could hand out tiny cremated relative's ashes (all the same person, mind) that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would agree with you, if you could hand out tiny cremated relative's ashes (all the same person, mind) that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat.
I think I get a little piece of this. At the time of transubstantiation, people imbue the host with the same direct personal attachment that you might imbue the ashes of your relative with. Just as those ashes are both a bunch of carbon molecules AND your grandfather, they see the host as both a cracker AND Christ. The pre-transubstantiation crackers are no more sacred than is the carrot your grandfather ate the day he died.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I still am not sure that I see significant harm though. Desecration of one's relative still involves the theft/abuse of a finite resource. The Catholic church can produce an effectively infinite quantity of the Eucharist. If there were a fountain that poured out a constant stream of the ashes of my grandfather to whomever wanted some, I don't think I'd be as concerned about what someone did with their personal sampling of the ashes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would agree with you, if you could hand out tiny cremated relative's ashes (all the same person, mind) that cost $1 a box that people routinely eat.
Pretty much what Matt said. You can't buy them.
quote:I still am not sure that I see significant harm though. Desecration of one's relative still involves the theft/abuse of a finite resource. The Catholic church can produce an effectively infinite quantity of the Eucharist. If there were a fountain that poured out a constant stream of the ashes of my grandfather to whomever wanted some, I don't think I'd be as concerned about what someone did with their personal sampling of the ashes.
We're not worried about running out. In the analogy I made, the person scattering the ashes is done with his relative. I actually picked that aspect on purpose to provide that particular parallel.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In the analogy I made, the person scattering the ashes is done with his relative. I actually picked that aspect on purpose to provide that particular parallel.
True. But the ashes were once a person, so I could understand harm caused to the relatives.
There are simple tests to determine if the Eucharist is or was a person.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:There are simple tests to determine if the Eucharist is or was a person.
But they believe it is Christ in a physically undetectable form.
I'm trying to understand harm from the perspective of Catholic theology, not as physically demonstrable. To me it still seems a bit like being offended that someone admits to masturbating - committing an individual sin against God, not one to which other church members are parties.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:True. But the ashes were once a person, so I could understand harm caused to the relatives.
Which should provide all you need to understand why someone who believes the Eucharist is the body of Christ might be harmed.
quote:There are simple tests to determine if the Eucharist is or was a person.
Really? Name one that proves that transubstantiation has not taken place.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Side thought: I get most of the conversation so far. Where the train goes off the rails for me is the desecration part. I mean, presumably the cracker becomes a Chunk of Christ and then a Catholic would normally eat that. This is what, literally and metaphorically being "one" with Christ?
Now when someone steals it and tortures this Chunk of Christ, say with a butter knife, what is the belief about whats going on? Does that mean Christ is feeling pain from a rich margarine spread in a different way than he would if he was chewed up, digested, and excreted? And why doesn't he do anything directly about all these people biting on him if it hurts?
And does he actually feel pain now, being omnipotent and all after having resurrected out of human form and back into deity form?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Really? Name one that proves that transubstantiation has not taken place.
Wow. You don't know how science works.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm guessing that the essence does not suffer the indignity of digestion and excretion.
As for torturing the host, I'm not sure that this is actually a doctrinally possible endeavor. My guess is that this is answered the same way that spontaneous natural abortions are handled - God works it out.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Really? Name one that proves that transubstantiation has not taken place.
Wow. You don't know how science works.
No, you don't understand what transubstantiation is. The fact that I understand science is why I know there's no scientific test for transubstantiation.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Really? Name one that proves that transubstantiation has not taken place.
Wow. You don't know how science works.
No, you don't understand what transubstantiation is. The fact that I understand science is why I know there's no scientific test for transubstantiation.
There are plenty of tests for transubstantiation if transubstantiation claims to make the cracker no longer a cracker.
If transubstantiation does not claim to do that...then it's just a cracker.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'm guessing that the essence does not suffer the indignity of digestion and excretion.
Right, but if it is the case that the essence manages to run away before digestion, why not just run away from a stolen cracker? Why do it the slow way and have humans do something about it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are plenty of tests for transubstantiation if transubstantiation claims to make the cracker no longer a cracker.
If transubstantiation does not claim to do that...then it's just a cracker.
Your "then" clause does not follow from your "if" clause.
quote:Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before. In Greek it is called μετουσίωσις (see Metousiosis).
"Substance" here means what something is in itself. (For more on the philosophical concept, see Substance theory.) A hat's shape is not the hat itself, nor is its colour the hat, nor is its size, nor its softness to the touch, nor anything else about it perceptible to the senses. The hat itself (the "substance") has the shape, the colour, the size, the softness and the other appearances, but is distinct from them. While the appearances, which are referred to by the philosophical term accidents, are perceptible to the senses, the substance is not.
When at his Last Supper, Jesus said: "This is my body",[1] what he held in his hands still had all the appearances of bread: these "accidents" remained unchanged. However, the Roman Catholic Church believes that, when Jesus made that declaration,[2] the underlying reality (the "substance") of the bread was converted to that of his body. In other words, it actually was his body, while all the appearances open to the senses or to scientific investigation were still those of bread, exactly as before. The Church holds that the same change of the substance of the bread and of the wine occurs at the consecration of the Eucharist.[3]
Because Christ, risen from the dead, is living, the Church holds that, when the bread is changed into his body, not only his Body is present, but Christ as a whole i.e. body and blood, soul and divinity. The same holds for the wine changed into his Blood.[4] This belief goes beyond the doctrine of transubstantiation, which directly concerns only the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
In accordance with this belief that Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and continues to be present as long as those appearances remain, the Catholic Church preserves the consecrated elements, generally in a church tabernacle, for administering Holy Communion to the sick and dying, and also for the secondary, but still highly prized, purpose of adoring Christ present in the Eucharist.
Again, I get you don't believe in it. But saying scientific tests can disprove transubstantiation is like you can prove there's not an invisible person standing at the foot of your bed because you can't see it.
I've used this analogy before to help explain it:
quote:Catholics believe that the observable attributes of the bread are accident, and that the actual substance of the bread is transformed into the entire being of Christ during consecration (body, mind, and spirit).
But without all the background, this explanation makes little sense except as background knowledge.
A very loose analogy would be when Moody transformed Draco into a ferret. The ferret was entirely different physically than Draco, but was still him. This would be a case of the accident changing but the substance staying the same.
Transubstantiation during consecration is the reverse - the accident stays the same but the substance changes.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"Again, I get you don't believe in it. But saying scientific tests can disprove transubstantiation is like you can prove there's not an invisible person standing at the foot of your bed because you can't see it."
What I'm saying is there are no scientific tests that prove that the Eucharist cracker is anything other than a cracker.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What I'm saying is there are no scientific tests that prove that the Eucharist cracker is anything other than a cracker.
I agree with that statement. But you said something more, too: that this means the consecrated host is not anything more other than a cracker.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What I'm saying is there are no scientific tests that prove that the Eucharist cracker is anything other than a cracker.
I agree with that statement. But you said something more, too: that this means the consecrated host is not anything more other than a cracker.
Correct.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I demonstrated - a demonstration you seem to have utterly ignored - that the conclusion "there is no difference between a non-consecrated host and a consecrated host that can be detected by science" can be true AND transubstantiation can be true.
The former does not falsify the latter.
Edit: And this is true because the statement "there is no difference between a non-consecrated host and a consecrated host that can be detected by science" is actually PART of the belief of transubstantiation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To bring this full circle, I contend that my ash-gathering-and-kitty-littering would be harmful to the ash-scatterer even if I only (successfully) pretended to gather the ashes, and actually used the remains of last night's charcoal for my kitty litter. Edit: this is not the principle I harm I see occurring if PZM successfully gets a consecrated host. But it is the harm I think he is intentionally setting out to commit.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The former does not falsify the latter.
Nothing can falsify transubstantiation, which is why it should be ignored.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nothing can falsify transubstantiation, which is why it should be ignored.
This whole side discussion started in response to your saying this:
quote:True. But the ashes were once a person, so I could understand harm caused to the relatives.
Can you truly not understand the harm caused to someone who believes in transubstantiation?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Nothing can falsify transubstantiation, which is why it should be ignored.
This whole side discussion started in response to your saying this:
quote:True. But the ashes were once a person, so I could understand harm caused to the relatives.
Can you truly not understand the harm caused to someone who believes in transubstantiation?
I truly can not.
I can understand offense. I can not understand harm in this case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's very sad. So you think the relative in the fake ash scenario is not harmed?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's very sad. So you think the relative in the fake ash scenario is not harmed?
We're not talking about the ashes of a human being. We're talking about crackers.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In fact, theists can hurt us, and do, every day. Read, for example, this. One way of getting oblivious bullies notice that others exist, and make room for them, is to shove an elbow up their nose. It's hard to ignore someone who is hitting you.
I did, and I find his brand of bullshite worse than the majority of religious ones I have been exposed to, to be honest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's very interesting, since in fact the link is religious 'bullshite'. It's just not the Christian variant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's very sad. So you think the relative in the fake ash scenario is not harmed?
We're not talking about the ashes of a human being. We're talking about crackers.
Neither is Dags, in the fake ashes scenario.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's very sad. So you think the relative in the fake ash scenario is not harmed?
We're not talking about the ashes of a human being. We're talking about crackers.
Neither is Dags, in the fake ashes scenario.
But he is, because somewhere in his hypothetical there exists actual human ashes. In the actual scenario, there are only crackers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Scott,
I'm not even sure I understand where you're going here. Would it have been better/worse/equivalent for PZ to ask someone to go relieve themselves on ground zero? Still just sounds like someone being a benign jerk.
I was attempting to show that the emotional attachment some Americans feel toward Ground Zero was equivalent to the attachment some Catholics feel for the eucharist.
As it would be crude and disrespectful to find someone taking a dump on stones from ground zero, claiming, "They're only stones!" it's equivalently disrespectful to treat the eucharist in an equivalent manner, saying, 'It's just a cracker.'
Obviously, it means something more to some people.
Do you think that showing respect for what other people believe/attach emotion to is valuable to society?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Do you think that showing respect for what other people believe/attach emotion to is valuable to society?
Not necessarily.
Showing respect for peoples' right to believe/attach emotion to what they like, I think, is the important thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Do you think that showing respect for what other people believe/attach emotion to is valuable to society?
Not across the board either, it has to weighted against other things that are valuable to society.
For example, I happen to think that the cartoons of Mohamed in Denmark, the mockery of religion in 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', and films such as Dogma though all potentially offensive (indeed, proven to be offensive to what specific people believe/attach emotion to in at least the first and latter cases) perform a valuable role in society.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: To bring this full circle, I contend that my ash-gathering-and-kitty-littering would be harmful to the ash-scatterer even if I only (successfully) pretended to gather the ashes, and actually used the remains of last night's charcoal for my kitty litter. Edit: this is not the principle I harm I see occurring if PZM successfully gets a consecrated host. But it is the harm I think he is intentionally setting out to commit.
I was wondering about that too, the people that are sending death threats and anti-Semite slurs probably would not wait for a thorough investigation if PZ Myers indeed simply *pretended* to obtain a Chunk of Christ. Indeed, such an investigation would be inherently difficult short of interrogating each and every Catholic receiving a cracker and attempting to ascertain if they lied about consuming it and instead sent it off by FedEx or UPS.
Interestingly, it would illustrate PZ Myers's point even more clearly if he used a "fake" Chunk of Christ rather than a "real" Chunk of Christ, so yes, I do wonder about this scenario.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Interestingly, it would illustrate PZ Myers's point even more clearly if he used a "fake" Chunk of Christ rather than a "real" Chunk of Christ,
How so?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, at the most superficial, he is currently trying to provoke a disproportionate response, illustrating the level of anger, emotional attachment, and protectiveness certain Catholics feel toward what his core audience sees as well, simply a cracker.
Now, if he wanted to ramp up the response even more, he could simply get a cracker via a Catholic. No doubt that would work to dial it up a notch. But imagine if he simply got a box of crackers, pretended or even implied that it was a real Chunk of Christ, provoked a major response, and *then* revealed that the crackers were just fake.
He would get the same response until he revealed the truth, but it would be seen by his core audience as even more disproportional. i.e. "Not only are these people overreacting over a cracker, but its not even a "real" Eucharist! They can't even tell the difference" There is also the bonus that he doesn't have to get a Catholic in trouble if the source was revealed.
Thats a superficial analysis without taking into account what detailed response he may be trying to get from the non-religious, but it suffices to illustrate what I am brainstorming/hypothesizing about the situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But imagine if he simply got a box of crackers, pretended or even implied that it was a real Chunk of Christ, provoked a major response, and *then* revealed that the crackers were just fake.
it would underscore even more what a jerk he is if he did that - it would make it clear that his only interest is in pissing people off, and that he's a liar to boot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
From your POV indeed, but you have to accept that other people may view his motives differently.
Of course, you don't even have to accept that. Even if his only motive is to be a jerk and cause pain to Catholics, I think this scenario would be even more effective at accomplishing just that. Whats better than getting people fired over a cracker? Getting people fired over a "fake" cracker.
[ July 18, 2008, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Whats better than getting people fired over a cracker?
Becoming their friend, making yourself and your ideas valuable to them, and theirs valuable to you.
Mutual cooperation and trust despite ideological differences.
You know-- civilization.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You do realize that was a question based on the motive presented in the previous sentence, right? I'll remove a space to make it painfully clear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I know. But you, KoM, and Javert seem to be defending Myers' approach to different degrees.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Myers does have a clear reason for what he says and does: he actually believes that his description of desecration is aimed at puncturing the power of a belief that needs puncturing, and that this is so important that it needs to be confronted in the style of a sort of dramatic intervention.
Now, you and I both clearly agree that nothing so important is at stake here that it’s worth even hurting anyone’s feelings. But I think you would have to agree that it’s not always wrong in principle to hurt someone’s feelings by a demonstrative act: sometimes the act is justified by the importance of expressing the cause (for instance, burning a communist flag during Poland’s independence movement probably sincerely hurt the feelings of dedicated communists and Soviets, but it would have been a powerful and important symbolic act as well).
In that sense, what’s going on here is a judgment call on what measures are worth it for what cause, not a violation of any absolute principle against hurting feelings by symbolic acts.
Read the rest of that article to get a more complete idea of why some of us may feel that what he's doing may be defensible, from his perspective, even if it goes beyond what we personally may feel appropriate.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I will agree, I'm not sure I see the harm it does Catholics for someone to desecrate the host. I do see the offense it causes, and if I were Catholic (in addition to being offended) I would worry about the harm that person was causing their own soul. But I haven't seen any Catholic say or imply that this person is actually harming the body of Christ in any way, so I don't know what harm they could say they were getting from it ... unless you want to call offense "harm". Perhaps that could be better explained?
I don't know that I respect all religious symbols and objects that are precious to other people, but I do respect other people and their feelings. This is probably why I don't worry about disrespecting Greek gods and goddesses - there aren't really any people living that I'm going to offend by doing so.
I don't understand why this simple respect for other people's feelings wouldn't be enough to prevent decent people from mocking or desecrating things that are sacred to others, with an intent to annoy or hurt or anger them. And if you aren't a decent person, well, you don't deserve my respect either. Not that you deserve death threats - but if you spit on me, I might be justified spitting on you.
(No I wouldn't. That would be against my religion. )
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is probably why I don't worry about disrespecting Greek gods and goddesses - there aren't really any people living that I'm going to offend by doing so.
Wrong. (Scroll down to the second post and third posts.) And I may note in passing that his religion is a lot more appealing to me than Dag's or kmb's. It is in the same category as Lisa's, in that it makes an appeal to historical evidence. I do not agree with either Lisa or comrade Hicks on what the historical evidence shows; but it is a point that can in principle be settled, if only by constructing a time machine and going back to see. Religion that depends on internal states of mind, indistinguishable from hallucinations, is much more hateful to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do not agree with either Lisa or comrade Hicks on what the historical evidence shows; but it is a point that can in principle be settled, if only by constructing a time machine and going back to see.
How does this not apply to my belief as well?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because, as I understand it, the reason you believe the Bible over the Elder Edda is not a weighing of which witnesses are more reliable, who has an axe to grind, and so on; but rather, you have prayed and meditated, and rest your belief ultimately on the resulting state of mind. In the case of kmb, it's even worse; as I understand her, you could go back and demonstrate that the crucifixion did not in fact take place, and it would not matter to her. So my hierarchy of appeal-to-evidence would go something like this:
Brad Hicks, Lisa: This is the account given in [Source X]. I find it credible because (Lisa) there is massive error-checking in the copying procedure or (Hicks) it is attested by multiple independent witnesses.
Dagonee, BlackBlade: This is the account given in [Source X]. I find it credible because I have tested the prayer methods outlined in it, and they produce [Y state of mind].
kmb: This is the account given in [Source X]. It doesn't matter whether it's credible or not; I believe [whatever it is kmb actually believes] anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, so you are speaking out of complete ignorance about why and how I formed my beliefs, then.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am speaking from what I have read of your explanations on this forum. That is my only source of information about you. If you would like to correct my misapprehensions, the 'Reply' button is right over there. If you would like to continue flaming me, the wild Internet is that-away. Take your choice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you get to make inaccurate statements about me and then create an implied burden on me to reply and correct your error?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are wrong. Man up and admit it. Or just stop making false statements about me.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you get to make inaccurate statements about me and then create an implied burden on me to reply and correct your error?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are wrong. Man up and admit it. Or just stop making false statements about me.
KOM said this at the beginning of his post:
quote: Because, as I understand it, the reason you believe the Bible over the Elder Edda is not a weighing of which witnesses are more reliable, who has an axe to grind, and so on
So if he is wrong, and has misunderstood it, it would be nice if you could please correct him with the accurate information. I know it would educate me.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you get to make inaccurate statements about me and then create an implied burden on me to reply and correct your error?
You correct him, and then everyone sees that he was wrong, and his credibility goes down a bit.
You don't, and it looks like you are tacitly admitting that his description is accurate, if unflatteringly phrased.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So if he is wrong, and has misunderstood it, it would be nice if you could please correct him with the accurate information.
KoM didn't explain where he got that erroneous understanding from. So I don't know what error it is I need to correct other than the conclusion - and I've corrected that already.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You correct him, and then everyone sees that he was wrong, and his credibility goes down a bit.
You don't, and it looks like you are tacitly admitting that his description is accurate, if unflatteringly phrased.
I don't understand this attitude. I corrected him already.
What you seem to be suggesting here is that one can blackmail someone else into writing a statement about what and why they believe simply by making stuff up about that person. I don't know about you, but that would be a lengthy task for me.
And I clearly can't just summarize it, since I'm dealing with someone who claims to have formed this opinion based on my posts here.
KoM is wrong about my beliefs. They are just as historically verifiable as the other sets of beliefs he listed in that post. The matter is clarified.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:So if he is wrong, and has misunderstood it, it would be nice if you could please correct him with the accurate information.
KoM didn't explain where he got that erroneous understanding from. So I don't know what error it is I need to correct other than the conclusion - and I've corrected that already.
I have been told by many a Christian that they believe because they prayed and they felt they received an answer. I don't think it would be a large jump to guess that you, a Christian, might feel the same way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have been told by many a Christian that they believe because they prayed and they felt they received an answer. I don't think it would be a large jump to guess that you, a Christian, might feel the same way.
But it would be a large jump to name me by name as feeling the same way based on that "guess" in order to label my beliefs hateful to you.
I know an atheist who wants to put "religionists" in camps to forcibly reeducate them. Is it a large jump to guess that you, an atheist, might feel the same way?
My beliefs and the reasons I hold them are complex, based a lot of different things. I'm not going to be goaded into writing a lengthy response because KoM can't keep his reasons for condemning theists correctly categorize by name.
The same settle-in-principle method KoM lauds for Hicks and Lisa also applies to my beliefs. The end.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What you seem to be suggesting here is that one can blackmail someone else into writing a statement about what and why they believe simply by making stuff up about that person. I don't know about you, but that would be a lengthy task for me.
If a poster gets in the habit of making things up, then soon, no one care what that poster wirtes, because everyone knows they make stuff up.
But yes, KOM's claim would have been stronger had he quoted the bit he was thinking of for those beliefs.
quote:And I clearly can't just summarize it, since I'm dealing with someone who claims to have formed this opinion based on my posts here.
Maybe KOM's misrememebring or misinterpreting something. Maybe you have expressed yourself poorly. Saying "You're wrong, but I can't put into a post why" is pretty weak.
quote:KoM is wrong about my beliefs. They are just as historically verifiable as the other sets of beliefs he listed in that post. The matter is clarified.
Oh, I guess you can summarize.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe KOM's misrememebring or misinterpreting something. Maybe you have expressed yourself poorly. Saying "You're wrong, but I can't put into a post why" is pretty weak.
Except I did post "why" in at least as great a detail as anything KoM said.
What do I need to do, hack Hatrack so the letters will be blinking and take up half the screen: "The same settle-in-principle method KoM lauds for Hicks and Lisa also applies to my beliefs."
The principle objection I have with your posts on this subject is that you are allowing untrue statements about a person to place a greater explanatory burden on the one whose views are being misstated than the one doing the misstatement.
KoM said X. I said not X. Why assume the one who spoke first is correct because I didn't say "not X, because of A, B, and C."
quote:Oh, I guess you can summarize.
That's not a summary. That's a conclusory statement. They are different things.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not have time to search through Hatrack threads more than a year old, so I am quoting from memory here. But I recall that we were at one point discussing the Bible as historical evidence, and I gave the Elder Edda as a source likewise containing some historical facts verifiable from the evidence - indeed, the existence of a tribal migration from north of the Black Sea to southern Scandinavia is more strongly supported than the existence of a Jewish heretic preacher named Joshua - and some unverifiable (by current data; a time machine is different) supernatural events, like the magic attributed to Odin. I then asked why you believe the Bible, but not the Eddas. As I recall your reply, it was that you had prayed and meditated, and had received an answer from / made contact with / communed with the Biblical god.
I may be misremembering this. I may have misunderstood your reply. Your reply may have been incomplete. I do not think any of these scenarios needs to involve an accusation that I am lying or making things up.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hang on, perhaps I see the problem. You are correct that the events surrounding the crucifixion could be verified by time machine. But that is not the distinction I am drawing between you and Lisa. I am referring to the reason you believe in your respective sources absent that time machine. Lisa believes in the efficiency of error-correcting codes. You, to the best of my knowledge, believe in the efficiency of prayer as a method for divining truth. In the absence of a time machine, Lisa's "verifiable in principle, believed without support from mental states" appeals to me more than your "verifiable in principle, believed due to prayer", which in turn I prefer to kmb's "unverifiable, believed just because".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You are correct that the events surrounding the crucifixion could be verified by time machine. But that is not the distinction I am drawing between you and Lisa. I am referring to the reason you believe in your respective sources absent that time machine. Lisa believes in the efficiency of error-correcting codes. You, to the best of my knowledge, believe in the efficiency of prayer as a method for divining truth.
I would really, really like it if you would just stop talking about why I believe what I believe, KoM.
There are grains of truth in what you say, but it's not correct. The errors are significant and go to the heart of your criticism of my belief system. Explaining it would be enormously time consuming, and the only purpose it would serve is to give you a way to more precisely define why my beliefs are hateful to you.
You think I'm wrong, regardless of the details. Fine. Say that all you want. But stop saying "Dagonee believes X because of Y." Because you're almost always wrong when you do that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
KOM, I believe you are conflating Dag with another poster. I think BlackBlade, although my memory of who was who in the Elder Edda conversation might be off. But whether mine is or not, I'm quite sure yours is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have certainly had this conversation with BlackBlade, yes. But I believe I have also had it with Dagonee.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If it was the recent conversation, it was Tres and BlackBlade.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As I say, this was more than a year ago.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Explaining it would be enormously time consuming, and the only purpose it would serve is to give you a way to more precisely define why my beliefs are hateful to you.
Well, Dag, if you are unable or unwilling to explain why you believe something, then you'll just have to deal with me making a best guess based on what you are willing to say. My best guess, at the moment, is that you don't actually have anything better than kmb's "just because", but are unwilling to admit it. Such is life.
Now that my memory has been jogged, I recall that this is also where our previous conversation along these lines ended up: You stated that you were unwilling to explain any further, that it was too complex for me to understand, and that the conversation was over as far as you were concerned. I drew the same conclusion I outlined above, and the thread ended. There may or may not have been a degree of huffiness involved.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, Dag, if you are unable or unwilling to explain why you believe something, then you'll just have to deal with me making a best guess based on what you are willing to say.
Why do you have to make a guess? Why can't you just accept that I don't owe you an explanation and, in the absence of that explanation, you are simply ignorant of my reasons?
Especially in light of an explicit statement that the guess you have made is wrong.
I can come up with a best guess as to why you can't accept that. It's unflattering.
Should I share it, or should I just accept that I don't know why you won't do that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, the problem with debating this with you (well one problem) is that you tend to consider "able to be understood by KoM" as a condition of existence.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, the problem with debating this with you (well one problem) is that you tend to consider "able to be understood by KoM" as a condition of existence.
That is untrue. But I do consider "some sort of evidence exists" to be a condition of my believing in an entity. You have repeatedly, over several threads each stretching into hundreds of posts, passive-aggressively refused to give even the slightest hint of any such evidence.
Let me give an analogy: Suppose someone wanted to convince me of the existence of Great Cthulhu. "Well," I say, "why do you believe in Great Cthulhu?" And the reply is "Your mind is incapabale of understanding the full glory and terror that is a Great Old One; the merest glimpse of that entity will make you screamingly mad." "All right," I reply, "I shall do my best to avoid getting any glimpses. What places should I avoid? Oh, and you didn't answer my question." Lather, rinse, repeat. Whether or not I can understand the full extent of Great Cthulhu is not relevant to my conviction in its existence. Don't blather on about madness; show me the city R'lyeh, waiting to rise again from the oceans. Then we can discuss the extent of my understanding. Existence first.
quote:Why do you have to make a guess? Why can't you just accept that I don't owe you an explanation and, in the absence of that explanation, you are simply ignorant of my reasons?
Why should I? If it is a subject I care about at all, even if only enough to post about it here as a means of procrastination, then I make my best guess to the facts in light of the evidence available. If you choose not to make all the evidence available, that's your business; I see no reason for that to constrain what subjects I may or may not have an opinion on. If I'm wrong, meh, whatever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But, KoM, I don't want to convince you of anything. I want to contradict you when I think you are wrong - if only to be on record - but I don't care a bit what you believe.
The matter of your "Existence first" rule is of no consequence to me. You can make whatever rules you want to make for what you believe. Don't expect me to have to play by your rules, though.
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
quote:
quote:Why do you have to make a guess? Why can't you just accept that I don't owe you an explanation and, in the absence of that explanation, you are simply ignorant of my reasons?
Why should I? If it is a subject I care about at all, even if only enough to post about it here as a means of procrastination, then I make my best guess to the facts in light of the evidence available. If you choose not to make all the evidence available, that's your business; I see no reason for that to constrain what subjects I may or may not have an opinion on. If I'm wrong, meh, whatever.
Think about this for a minute KoM. You are engage in motive speculation against someone. You then demand that he provide evidence that you believe will support that speculation. Do you not see the glaring problem?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But, KoM, I don't want to convince you of anything. I want to contradict you when I think you are wrong - if only to be on record - but I don't care a bit what you believe.
Yes, I know, you've made this clear at tedious length. Generally, though, to show that someone is wrong, a better claim than "you don't understand" is required. What's more, all your actual contradictions somehow manage to take the form of a defense for believing in your god; all, of course, completely without any intent to convince anyone of anything. I must say I think you protest too much.
What's more, not only do you not give a reason for me to believe; you aren't even able to give any reason for why you believe, unless you count "just because" as a reason. I note, in the previous thread we had on this subject, I repeatedly made it clear that I wasn't seeking a convincing argument, I was seeking the argument that had convinced you. You had none to give.
quote:You then demand that he provide evidence that you believe will support that speculation.
I demand nothing. Dag can do as he likes. I am merely saying that if he does X, I will continue to do Y.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I demand nothing. Dag can do as he likes. I am merely saying that if he does X, I will continue to do Y.
Yes, you are making the blackmail transaction explicit.
"Give me the explanation I want or I will continue to say untrue things about you."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I do not believe they are untrue.... "I will continue to speak truth as I see it."
Hmm, that sounds like something Dag could say ... about religion....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
But your sight of that truth is in direct contradiction of the express statements of the only person with firsthand knowledge of what the truth actually is.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
If you are talking about what he believes, then you kind of have to take his word for it when he says you are wrong about what he believes.
If you want to believe that he is inconsistant, because his posts lead to a conclusion that he rejects, then you can argue that.
But then you at least have to post what he said that contradicts if you want to be taken seriously.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The last half page or so kinda makes me wish this forum had an explicit rule against speculating on the motives of other posters.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The last half page or so kinda makes me wish this forum had an explicit rule against speculating on the motives of other posters.
I bet I know why you wish that...
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
But your sight of that truth is in direct contradiction of the express statements of the only person with firsthand knowledge of what the truth actually is.
Indeed, but such statements, as you must well know, are not the only factor to be weighed when judging what is true.
quote:If you are talking about what he believes, then you kind of have to take his word for it when he says you are wrong about what he believes.
But now we are discussing why he believes what he believes, and that is a point where even a sincere statement may be mistaken; what's more, Dag refuses to say anything intelligible at all, except the refrain of "Wrong! Wrong!" so I've got nothing to take his word for.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I know. But you, KoM, and Javert seem to be defending Myers' approach to different degrees.
I'm not sure why thats relevant. I was proposing why Dagonee's model of PZ Myers as well, just a jerk, would be motivated to use a fake cracker.
Then you followed up with a proposal that would seem fairly contradictory with that model. Why would a jerk want to make people their friends, live in harmony, and promote a fairly glowing and optimistic view of civilization?
Of course, I don't believe that a simplistic model of PZ Myers as just a jerk and that "his only interest is in pissing people off" is sufficient to describe what is occurring here.
Similarly, I could consider Catholics to be "just jerks" and endangering human life to boot in giving a reason for why the Church opposes condoms in Africa. However, this model would not have sufficient accuracy to really describe how Catholics feel about the situation and predict how the policy may change and be affected.
Of course I still *disagree* with whatever more complicated motives that Catholics may have for this policy, but I don't pretend that "being jerks" is enough to describe whats going on.
But in this specific hypothetical, both models (PZ Myers being simply a jerk or a more complicated model) seem to agree on effectiveness of a fake cracker, which I think gives the possibility of a fake Chunk of Christ desecration worthy of some consideration and potential amusement.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: I don't understand why this simple respect for other people's feelings wouldn't be enough to prevent decent people from mocking or desecrating things that are sacred to others, with an intent to annoy or hurt or anger them.
Do you *literally* don't understand or is that just some hyperbole?
Run through two scenarios: 1) American military tortures Muslim POW by desecrating Koran in front of him to hurt and anger him to get information 2) South Park or Dogma depict religion in a satirical fashion to annoy people of those religions and provide entertainment for others
When you hear about these scenarios, do you literally think something like "Whats going on? I have no idea why someone would do that. I cannot understand their reasoning or emotions pushing them to such acts?"
Or more likely, do you really actually understand why simple respect for people's feelings is not enough to prevent people from these acts but simply *disagree*?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Indeed, but such statements, as you must well know, are not the only factor to be weighed when judging what is true.
Ah, so you're calling me a liar, intentional or otherwise.
Factor that into your calculation of what my possible motives might be in not writing the thesis you demand in order to stop saying untrue things about me.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
You're ALL liars!!!
But Jesus still loves you.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Run through two scenarios: 1) American military tortures Muslim POW by desecrating Koran in front of him to hurt and anger him to get information 2) South Park or Dogma depict religion in a satirical fashion to annoy people of those religions and provide entertainment for others
When you hear about these scenarios, do you literally think something like "Whats going on? I have no idea why someone would do that. I cannot understand their reasoning or emotions pushing them to such acts?"
Well, I worded my comment the way I did for a reason. I said, "I don't understand why this simple respect for other people's feelings wouldn't be enough to prevent decent people from mocking or desecrating things that are sacred to others, with an intent to annoy or hurt or anger them.
Okay, so in your scenarios, I do understand the reasons for #1. In that scenario their offensive actions are not solely to anger others for their own amusement. But this is not really what this whole thread is about. No one is trying to torture Catholics for purposes of national security. I believe you are the one who said back on the first page that this mockery was really just "a practical joke for the non-religious to be amused by."
Which leads to #2. This type of thing is exactly why I used the phrase "decent people" in my post. Meaning, people who care about other people. And no, I don't understand why a decent person would want to anger or offend others just for entertainment. I mean, I've heard the reasons - I guess - they find it funny. But I don't understand that. I don't find it amusing when people make fun of fat people either. Which is why people who make fun of others that are different from themselves, for the amusement of people who ARE like themselves, do fall squarely in the category of "jerks" to me.
And lest anyone misunderstand, let me add that the response is entirely out of proportion, and of COURSE death threats are worse than whatever what's-his-name did to provoke them.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I've heard the reasons - I guess - they find it funny.
Did you miss the article I linked adjacent to your previous post? There are reasons beyond just being a jerk or being funny.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Actually, yes. That came in while I was typing mine.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Along with two other extras thrown in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My goodness, evangelicals are annoying!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Okay, so in your scenarios, I do understand the reasons for #1. In that scenario their offensive actions are not solely to anger others for their own amusement. But this is not really what this whole thread is about. No one is trying to torture Catholics for purposes of national security. I believe you are the one who said back on the first page that this mockery was really just "a practical joke for the non-religious to be amused by."
You misinterpret me, I'm simply trying to figure out your use of the word "understand." You seemed to claim that while you knew the *reasons* why someone would mock religion faith, you did not *understand* it. I'm trying to investigate what this exactly means, not make a point about the PZ Myers issue.
So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you would understand someone mocking Christianity in order to torture a Christian but that you do not understand someone mocking Christianity for their own amusement. Is this correct?
quote: I mean, I've heard the reasons - I guess - they find it funny. But I don't understand that. I don't find it amusing when people make fun of fat people either. Which is why people who make fun of others that are different from themselves, for the amusement of people who ARE like themselves, do fall squarely in the category of "jerks" to me.
I guess this is the crux of the issue. You don't find it amusing when people make fun of fat people, but do you "understand" it?
Furthermore, how about ethnic stereotypes (Rush Hour), class-based humour (Fraiser), height (movies with Schwarzenegger and De Vito), or intelligence (Talking to Americans)? Would you also claim that you do not understand any of these examples of in-group/out-group (for lack of a better word) humour?
Additionally, would you claim that the writers of Dogma and South Park are indecent people solely due to their participation in such humour?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed. It is very fortunate that Hatrack doesn't contain anybody whose religion might possibly lead to irrational behaviour. Why, we might have long, passive-aggressive threads in which people refused to answer questions about why they are right, but nonetheless insist on the correctness of their beliefs!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I find the letters especially amusing. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. (metaphorically, not literally)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Indeed. It is very fortunate that Hatrack doesn't contain anybody whose religion might possibly lead to irrational behaviour. Why, we might have long, passive-aggressive threads in which people refused to answer questions about why they are right, but nonetheless insist on the correctness of their beliefs!
I don't insist (or even desire) that you believe the correctness of my beliefs. Nor do I take any delight in mocking yours. What you are calling passive-aggressive (assuming you mean me*) is merely passive.
*And giving such a good example!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, a whole lot of comments in there from people absolutely ignorant about what they're mocking. One example:
quote:Surely Catholics will be able to tell if the wafer is consecrated or not. In fact this whole thing has been about just that claim, that there is a difference. Well if there is, Catholics presumably will be able to tell. After all if that wafer really is the body of Christ it will not be the same as just an ordinary wafer.
So come Catholics, tell us. Is that wafer consecrated or not ?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: comments in there from people absolutely ignorant about what they're mocking.
It's more fun that way. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Honestly, would you really approve if the people doing the mocking *were* better informed as to properties of a Chunk of Christ? I would have thought that you would prefer people to stop mocking rather than simply upgrade the mockery.
On a related note, MattP and I were trying to figure out some of these properties back on page 3 with no real answers, if you could shed some light on that, that might be helpful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't "approve" but I would find it less tedious.
It would help if you could learn a little Aristotle as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Honestly, would you really approve if the people doing the mocking *were* better informed as to properties of a Chunk of Christ?
No. This is an additional criticism.
quote:I would have thought that you would prefer people to stop mocking rather than simply upgrade the mockery.
I figured I've covered the bases on that other criticism.
quote:On a related note, MattP and I were trying to figure out some of these properties back on page 3 with no real answers, if you could shed some light on that, that might be helpful.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Can you clarify.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: I didn't mean that property, Dagonee's Moody and Draco analogy covered that pretty well. It is actually kind of prerequisite for the side-discussion about the possibility of a "fake" cracker.
Dagonee: The questions at 9:05, July 17th and a guess by MattP shortly after, and a response to that at 9:17.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, I don't know the answer to that. Sorry.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:You misinterpret me, I'm simply trying to figure out your use of the word "understand." You seemed to claim that while you knew the *reasons* why someone would mock religion faith, you did not *understand* it. I'm trying to investigate what this exactly means ...
I'm not sure I can explain better ... I meant that I had heard the reasons and that my brain is capable of processing them, but I do not understand why a desire to make fun of people would not be overridden by a basic respect for people and a (what I thought was common) desire not to hurt people. I don't like hurting people. I don't understand why some people do. Meaning, I guess, that I don't feel the way they do or think the way they do, and it's hard for me to understand why their feelings and thoughts are so different from mine that they would lead to exactly opposite actions. I cannot imagine having a desire to hurt someone's feelings.
Well, that's not entirely true. I've had my feelings hurt before and then had a desire to hurt back. I usually try to refrain, though. Is that it? Has this man had his feelings hurt by Catholics believing that the Eucharist is the body of Christ? Hurt badly enough to want to hurt them in return? That I can understand. I don't approve, but I understand.
Or perhaps he has had his feelings hurt in general by religious people not tolerating his lack of faith, and he is striking back at all Catholics. Rather primitive, I think, but I suppose I understand that.
But I don't really buy that he's been hurt by people's belief in the Eucharist. I think his inability to understand why some people might believe in something he cannot see is so incomprehensible to him that he no longer considers them humans of the same species as he is, and no longer considers them worthy of any respect. I do understand thinking the belief itself is crazy. But having a desire to hurt people just because they believe that, that's what I don't get.
quote:So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you would understand someone mocking Christianity in order to torture a Christian but that you do not understand someone mocking Christianity for their own amusement. Is this correct?
Well, almost. I would understand the reasons behind torturing a Christian for national security. I even understand that the beliefs of Christians might seem funny or insane to some, and that among themselves they might want to mock them. But in this case they're not just mocking Christians for their own amusement - they're mocking Christians by trying to hurt them and then laughing at the pain. People who enjoy the pain of others make me sad.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)