Home » Antony Flew, apologetics, atheism, Blog, General, Jesus, literary apologetics, scientism, Secular Humanism, theism » PZ Myers to Review my Collection of Short Stories on Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, and Mother Teresa!

PZ Myers to Review my Collection of Short Stories on Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, and Mother Teresa!

I have just been notified that PZ Myers is going to ‘review’ my short story collection, “Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, and Mother Teresa Go to Heaven.” !

Apparently he stumbled upon my press release announcing my release of this collection.  If you want to check out the collection and follow along for yourself, here’s a link on this site to buy it.

This represents the second time that Mr. Myers- ever the gentleman- has stumbled upon this ‘vile and repulsive apologist’ and once again he has revealed himself to be the fine gentleman that he truly is, proving- along with the many commentators just how civil the other side is.  They really do show just how moral you can be without God, don’t they?  My hats off to you all.  😉

There was a another time that I appeared on Mr. Myers blog, in the comment section, too.  I mention it because in that case even the atheists wandered around in confusion, wondering how to redeem their position.  Incidentally, that centered around Richard Dawkins, too.  Maybe one of these days the man (Dawkins) will face up to his scholarly laziness and print some kind of retraction or something.  Anyway, this prompted a short story in response at the time, which was compiled into one of my other recent short story collections.  Maybe PZ Myers can pick that one up and review that one, too.  🙂

Here is a link to that one:  “Polite Company and Other Short Stories.” (It’s the second story that was inspired by the comments about my position stated on PZ Myer’s blog.  If I recall correctly, the story provides a link to that entry.)

Too funny.  Just too funny.

edited:  have checked out the comments on PZ’s post.  Is it too much to ask for people to actually read something before they comment on it?

Share

69 Responses to PZ Myers to Review my Collection of Short Stories on Richard Dawkins, Antony Flew, and Mother Teresa!

  1. I don’t have an e-book reader, so I can’t read your book, unfortunately. I am looking forward to PZ’s “review,” though. It should be his typical vulgar, asinine, clueless, hatemongering tripe and worth a chuckle or two.

  2. I’m very interested in your stories, and can’t wait to see your impression of how that smug atheist reacts when he stands before his Maker. But I have one question: what if your stories turn out to be wrong? Won’t you face eternity in hell?

  3. Hi John,

    I gather from your comment that you haven’t actually read my stories yet. Your question as it stands is too broad. What particular thing about them being wrong would send me to hell? I don’t imagine a particular could be given until they are read.

    Particulars are important. For example, if one of the things I’m wrong about is the existence of ‘hell’ than obviously if I’m wrong about it, I won’t face eternity there. 🙂

    Moreover, let’s remember… they are stories. Did I give you the impression somewhere, or did someone else give the impression, that being wrong about fictional accounts, or what happens inside fictional accounts, will get one into ‘hell’? Here again, I need particulars.

  4. Is it me or is this more than a little creepy? It’s sort of like Real People fanfiction, and it’s hard enough to be in-character for a fictional character, let alone a real person. Indeed, I’d say it seems to me it would simply be putting words into the mouth of a charicature in order to make a point. Is the addition of real names not just a cry for attention?

  5. Ah, Jeron. So you read the stories?

  6. I fail to see how a comment on the creepiness of Real Person Fanfiction would be illegitimate without having read this specific instance of it. In any case, there are several quotes at Amazon.

  7. Since you haven’t read the stories you actually have no idea what you’re talking about, and it shows. How can you possibly know if it fits in the category of “Real Person Fanfiction” until you’ve actually read them? We may consider whether or not it is ‘illegitimate’ after we have determined that the characterization is fair and reasonable.

    Be a good fellow and inform yourself before commenting. It just makes you look bad if you don’t. Or, I suppose you could be a good free thinker and wait until PZ finishes his reviews and tells you what to think. At any rate, you bring nothing to this conversation but an opinion without information. So what’s the point?

  8. Considering the original message is an opinion piece on your part about the merits of PZ Myers and his forthcoming ‘reviews’, I find your dismissal of another’s opinion more than a little hypocritical.

    I do not agree with mr. Myers on almost any issue, so I have little reason to wait until his ‘reviews’ are finished. In fact, I think I should be offended at your casual stereotyping there, for which you have absolutely no basis. I am in fact not even an atheist!

    I stand by my point that, just as I am strongly opposed to fictional versions of Him talking about things that are not in fact from the bible, and I am no less incensed about the same being done to Mother Theresa or Anthony Flew; In fairness, Richard Dawkins does not deserve such treatment either, despite his loathsome writings.

    A little civility couldn’t hurt here, sir.

  9. Uh, your opinion is uninformed. Why should I take it seriously?

    I am not being uncivil to you. If you want to see uncivility, head on back to the PZ Myer’s thread. If you think anything I said is even close to his remarks and those of many of the commentators, then I would suggest you abstain from the Internet. 😉

    I am simply pointing out a fact you do not dispute: you haven’t read the book, so you can’t possibly know what you’re talking about. “Fictional things” “not in fact from the bible” ? How can you possibly know that? Brief excerpts that are a tiny fraction of the total text?

    You are welcome to your opinion, of course. I don’t have to take it very seriously, though. Or, to put it another way, I’ll give someone else’s opinion about the same amount of respect they give mine.

    In my book, its pretty disrespectful to come to the blog of the author of the work in question, admitting full well that you haven’t read the book and your entire knowledge is based on an excerpt and the ravings of a man like PZ Myers who will obviously be hostile and unfair in his characterizations, and then criticize the work.

    Sorry, but I think pretty much any author would feel the same way, and most impartial bystanders would agree.

    Show me the courtesy of actually reading the stories before expecting your opinion to be treated seriously and I’ll treat your opinion seriously. Why should I react to charges that you yourself don’t even know for yourself are valid? That makes no sense at all.

  10. You clearly have not taken my response seriously, as you seem to neglect to take into account all but one or two lines in it, in favour of insinuating more things about me.

    I did not come here from Mr. Myers thread (I was not aware he has a forum, in fact) – I am not interested in expletive-filled atheist tirades, thank you.

    It seems you are under the impression that my reference to fictional versions of the Lord and the bible were in fact referencing your stories, which they did not. Indeed, I made no reference at all to specifics of your stories at all. You may note the language convention I used : ‘Just as…’ – in other words, I am affronted by atheist abuse of christian figures as mouthpieces of nonsense, and I would be a hypocrite not to follow this logic through to theist publications. That you wish to take offense at that innocuous statement is your right, of course.

    Your blog, incidentally, is open to comment and does not stipulate that the commenter must conform to a list of prerequisites. Indeed, my original comment was to point out the creepiness of the RPF genre, of which this is unambiguously a part (this is clear from even the pithy quotes on the Amazon page, let alone more extensive quotes elsewhere.) and did not contain any disrespect to either your person or anything in your book specifically.

    As an author of two religious publications, I can relate to some extent that negative reviews can hurt; it is however equally true that negative comments on blogs – even mild ones like my own – are to be expected, and not nearly as damaging. I would suggest saving the wrath of the author scorned for those who would critique your work in print, rather than on the internet.

    I concede that there is a small chance that your stories fall outside the RPF genre; Those sections I have read do not seem to reflect on this, though, and I already have several doctrinal issues with it that I might discuss at a future time.

    Again, I make a call for civility – at least for discussion’s sake. Agree to disagree, as some have said.

  11. Jeron, I’m taking no offense to anything. Nor do I find your remarks damaging, or unexpected. I’m just sitting here thinking my time is best served reacting to feedback from people who have actually read the work in question. It’s really as simple as that. How you perceive this position as uncivil is beyond me.

  12. PZ’s first review is in, and boy is it exactly what you’d expect! Here’s an excerpt:

    “Heaven is apparently a land of petty accountants and full-time voyeurs. Everything is logged, and even thoughts the celestial autocrats disapprove of will count against your record. And before you are allowed admission, you will be excoriated for every trivial ‘offense’ — and what is the example of a horrible damning offense Horvath gives? Looking at a woman. Just looking at one of those evil creatures.

    “These stories, by the way, take misogyny for granted. All of the guards are awe-inspiring male non-humans, all of the interviewers are handsome young men—one might infer a bit of an obsession on the part of the author in placing beautiful young men in positions of authority everywhere—and these men are always smiling benignly on people who give the right answers.”

    “Petty accountants” and “voyeurs” and “misogyny!” Oh, my!

    His “review” is nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even qualify as criticism. It’s nothing but another opportunity for him to vent his rage and bigotry and throw around a whole bunch of baseless accusations.

  13. lol I’m with you, Jason. Hey, I just posted a separate thread on his review of Mother T. Can you repost your comment there? I am thinking maybe some folks will want to retort to you, and that’s where they are most likely to go (I think)…

    Thanks man.

  14. One important difference between PZ Myers and the author is that Myers does not head every blog entry with a request for money. It kind of shows the sort of ‘morality’ that God inspires in his acolytes.

  15. Seriously? That’s what you’ve got? What a joke.

  16. Spoken like a man defending his gravy train. But not very gentlemanly.

  17. lol that’s some thin skin you got there, fella. Not very gentlemanly? Did you seriously just come from PZ’s thread and come over here and the best you could offer was that lame statement and then when you were called on the waste of bandwidth that it was you take offense? The idea of a PZ-bot lecturing anyone on civility is just hilarious; about as funny as you thinking you contributed something of substance and expecting to be taken seriously when your first comment is nothing more than an insult.

    You people are hilarious. Just hilarious.

  18. Ha! If anyone who compares this blog with PZ’s and think THIS blog is lacking in civility and such, then their standard is so screwed as to be ridiculous.

  19. Nope, just stating facts.

  20. heh heh we know how this ends though, don’t we, EB?

    Atheist: “You are a f’ing pig swine, a vile piece of excrement, dishonest, vapid a$$ who sucks the —- off of —– and are a disgusting pile of s***, and oh by the way, you’re an f’ing imbecile to believe that kind of fairy tale childish tale, you know, if I were standing before God I’d say you know what I did last night? I f’ed your mother, and tonight I’m doing that to you.” [One may here insert other phrases one has seen in this one article by PZ and its thread of comments alone.]

    Theist: “That wasn’t very nice.”

    Atheist: “Oh! You are soooo mean! I’m hurt! That wasn’t gentlemanly! I thought you were a Christian! This is why I don’t believe in God! If you weren’t all such big meanies I’d happily go to church! booohooohoooohoooo please stop picking on me booohooohooo!”

    Gee, I haven’t seen that a million times.

    But maybe we’re wrong. Maybe J_Brisby repudiates the vitriol that he left before coming here to offer his extremely insightful observation that Christian ministries often rely on donations whereas atheist ones do not. You know, like Dan Barker’s Freedom from Religion Foundation. Oops! That’s not a Christian ministry! Well, I guess that theory is shot to poop. lol

    http://www.ffrf.org/donate/

    Well. Richard Dawkins would never allow his name to be associated with that, right? He’s got ‘morals.’

    http://richarddawkins.net/pages/donate

    Huh. And for a minute there I almost thought J_Brisby had ‘facts’ that actually meant anything in the scheme of things. Turns out, it was a joke, but he/she didn’t realize it was.

    Sorry J_Bris. I will give you credit. Unlike the others you at least had the courage to come over here and talk to ‘my face.’ But don’t think that means I’m going to let you get away with leading with silly insults and then feigning hurt when you get called on them.

  21. I’m suddenly curious. Has PZ ever solicited donations for his causes and interests? What will google say, I wonder.

  22. Nail on the head SJ.

    Frankly considering how gas prices are today, anyone who complains about shelling out 3 bucks only deserves to be laughed at.

  23. Atheist: “You are a f’ing pig swine, a vile piece of excrement, dishonest, vapid a$$ who sucks the —- off of —– and are a disgusting pile of s***, and oh by the way, you’re an f’ing imbecile to believe that kind of fairy tale childish tale”

    Say, that’s not bad. Mind if I borrow it?

    oh, wait, there’s no need, just remove the quotemarks.

    I’d add: “Why do you keep hitting yourself?” but that would be redundant, er, too.

  24. That is an extraordinary martyr complex you’re nursing there. But there’s a reason why making fun of you is such an effective tactic…you might want to put some thought into what that reason might be.

    Meanwhile, you are correct…Dawkins’ foundation does indeed solicit donations, just like you do. I’d recommend making sure your tax papers are all in order though.

  25. No martyr complex. Just stating a fact.

  26. Just for fun, go ask you fundamentalist Protestant friends how many of them think Mother Theresa (or Pope John Paul II for that matter) IS in heaven now. I think you will find many of them will offer a much different answer (even if they haven’t read those Jack Chick exposes).

    But that just means these fundies are not real Christians, right?

  27. Sorry, hje, I’m not a fundamentalist protestant. As it happens, I have no fundamentalist protestant friends. But when I find one, I’ll ask him.

  28. Fair enough, I’m perfectly happy letting people read what you’ve written and decide for themselves whether you’ve got a martyr complex or not.

  29. You’re clearly beyond all those simple labels now. So let me tell you what they told me in church when I was a kid: she is NOT in the good place (why: because she was a Catholic, not a real Christian, QED).

  30. That seems to be an underlining theme to atheistic attitudes (and reasoning) – they never got past childhood. 😉

  31. Well, hje. Is there a reason why you’re sharing this? Does it take away from one of my points, somehow? You’re here in response to a story, you realize, so maybe you should try to nail down the proposition you think I’m defending before we go further.

  32. EB: Au contraire. I’m just telling you what *adults* tell kids. Kids imagine everyone (and their dog) goes to heaven. But it’s the adults that decide who does and doesn’t get into their exclusive afterlife club–and then develop an apologetic to support their prejudice.

  33. Anthony:

    Not to put a too fine a point on this. You are judging through your fiction who is and is not worthy of heaven–or deserving of hell (and I have to admit, C.S Lewis did it much better in The Great Divorce). In doing so, you reveal your view of God, who seems in many ways to be all too human.

    There are Catholics who think Protestants are unworthy of eternal bliss (no sacraments), and Protestants that think that Catholics are not fit for the Elysian Fields (’cause they worhship Mary)–and they both can’t be right. But they could both be wrong.

    I’m guessing your no fan of Universalism (because that would mean that God has absolutely no standards).

  34. It’s ‘adults’ who find out what something ACTUALLY says for themselves. In other words discoverying the truth with their own eyes and effort. ‘Children’ just mindlessly ridicule anyone who don’t accept a view they never really gave much thought to.

    And neither has anything to do with age, or on what side of the theological line you’re on. I suggest you think about where you’re at.

  35. So, you read the story, did you, hje?

    You will have no arguments from me about Lewis ‘doing it better’ with the Great Divorce. My allusion to it wasn’t accidental, and I certainly hope that people will pick up that book and read it. It was formative. Nor is this story the only place an allusion to TGD exists.

    I still don’t see why it really matters in this conversation that there is diversity among Christians on these issues. You’re raising the point, why? You don’t actually know what I believe. It was a story. Do you think the point of the story was to give my views on who goes to heaven and who doesn’t? You read the story, you tell me.

    Then, since it was ME who actually wrote the story, perchance I’ll tell you if you’re right. 😉

  36. EB: And with that, you have judged me and found me wanting. So much for “Judge not, lest …” If I want that kind of abuse, I could hang out at Ray Comfort’s site where they believe judging others is an imperative.

    So are you saying that the adults at my evangelical Protestant church were right about Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, JW’s, etc., because they had figured out the truth for themselves? Completely sola scriptura? Which had to be true, because they were a Bible-believing church.

  37. So it’s just a story?–like Harry Potter? Well in that case, OK. I had assumed it was intended to be didactic–but if it’s just for amusement, no bigeee.

  38. Ha! A complaint about judgement from someone whose been judgemental since the very first post(not that the verse you quote actually means how you’re using it). Rich.

    And I’d suggest you find out what the Bible ACTUALLY says about what it takes for salvation. Then see if your question is answered.

  39. I have no fundamentalist protestant friends. But when I find one, I’ll ask him.

    yes, you wouldn’t want to be accused of having an uninformed opinion now, would you.

    LOL

    man, you’re a laugh riot.

  40. hje, nothing is ‘just’ a story, but that doesn’t mean its didactic, either. It can have a point, and also be for amusement. Also, the ‘point’ can be merely to raise issues for thought and consideration, without trying to draw a particular conclusion.

    Of course, you read it, so you see what I mean about things to think about.

  41. “man, you’re a laugh riot.”

    I’m simply hilarious, actually. Simply.

  42. EB: Ah, the standard conservative gambit. Project unto others … I know you are, but what am I. Then repeat phrases like “rich,” “so predictable,” “that’s hilarious.” Those phrases shield you from any and every criticism–and they settle every argument.

    And I know what you mean–a real true Christian should judge others (what Jesus says and what he actually means apparently are two very different things). So it really means: “Judge others, lest you be judged yourself.”

    I’m guessing I know more about what the Bible says than you can even imagine. It’s reading the Bible that gets people thinking skeptically (like, wow, angels *can* mate with human women and give rise to offspring).

    BTW, what end do you bring. The end of time?

  43. Anthony:

    As I said to EB, retorts like “you’re a laugh riot” or “hilarious” cannot be overcome by any amount of reason or argument. Strong magic indeed.

    And if you believe that–now that is funny.

    Adios amigo, you can have the last word. Or should I compose it for you??

  44. “Those phrases shield you from any and every criticism–and they settle every argument.”

    I’ve got a bigger word for it – ‘hypocritical’.

    “And I know what you mean–a real true Christian should judge others (what Jesus says and what he actually means apparently are two very different things). So it really means: “Judge others, lest you be judged yourself.””

    Bwahaha! I wonder if someone says ‘I could eat a horse.’ or ‘Great job.’ is a sarcastic tone, would you honestly think the meaning of said phrases in context is the same as the literal meaning if someone just cuts-and-pastes them. Hilarious (and you’ll notice I gave a response to your criticism before saying this).

    “I’m guessing I know more about what the Bible says than you can even imagine.”

    I’m guessing whatever you know didn’t make it past Sunday School.

    “BTW, what end do you bring. The end of time?”

    Depends. If we’re playing Call of Duty it’s the end of killstreaks. For discussions it’s usually the end of irrationality. 😉

  45. EB: You would like to think that it ended at Sunday School, I actually spent four years of undergrad preparing for seminary. Reading the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.

    As for ending irrationality, maybe you can rationally explain the divinely-ordained genocide of the Canaanites, young and old, men and women, animals to boot. Keep in mind that God is typically described as being unwaveringly pro-life.

  46. “You would like to think that it ended at Sunday School, I actually spent four years of undergrad preparing for seminary. Reading the Bible in Hebrew and Greek.”

    If you say so. Though from your questions and use of quotes I have my doubts (or at least on your grades).

    “As for ending irrationality, maybe you can rationally explain the divinely-ordained genocide of the Canaanites, young and old, men and women, animals to boot. Keep in mind that God is typically described as being unwaveringly pro-life.”

    And this is why I have my doubts. Because I’d think the very basic principle of ‘wages of sin is death’ would be known to someone who attended seminary school (or just read the Bible). What’s the difference between the Canaanites, and God bringing a flood, or simply sentencing all Mankind during the Fall? What makes the Canaanites so special, when it just shows consistency to the theme – we’re all guilty of sin and rightly we all deserve death; so be thankful for His mercy and the way out He took the trouble to provide (when He didn’t have to).

    So I think the fact God is actually described as being ‘just and holy’ (which should be known to a seminary student ;)) addresses your question pretty adequetly.

  47. EB: Sure you can attack my academic credentials. That’s cool if it makes you feel smarter.

    Pretty standard explanation for a major theodicy (they deserved it, even the babies, because of original sin). And so, will the slaughtered Caananite children be in heaven or hell? I mean, really, if it’s all about original sin, then why shouldn’t they deserve death and eternal torment? If that’s what it is all about, then why shouldn’t God send every human zygote, embryo, fetus, child that dies straight to hell? Would you say they don’t deserve it, that eternal torture would be an injustice to inflict on an infant or child? What difference does it make if they haven’t reached some magic “age of accountability?” Are they less guilty by your logic? How about the mentally disabled, do they get a pass? And how about devout Jews that died in Hitler’s gas chambers, did they go from the frying paper to hell fire because of their lack of faith in Jesus? If not, then why not by your logic?

  48. So you weren’t honestly interested in a rational explanation, were you? You just wanted to give an emotionally charged rant about ‘Hell’ in it’s entirety that has absolutely nothing to do with rationality or logical consistency.

    You asked why the Canaanites deserve what they got. If you studied like you said you did, you wouldn’t need to ask such a question – because everyone deserves what they got (especially a society that promotes open prostitution and pedophilia like Canaan did). You, me, Horvath, Meyers, etc. Seems when the Bible says ‘everyone is guilty’ you don’t seem to understand what is meant by ‘everyone’.

    Where exactly everyone is sentenced, well that’s a seperate matter. And frankly isn’t relevant to the issue. So if all you have is objection on purely emotional grounds, just be honest about it rather than pretend you’re being motivated by rationality.

  49. You, me, Horvath, Meyers, etc. Seems when the Bible says ‘everyone is guilty’ you don’t seem to understand what is meant by ‘everyone’.

    feel free to torture yourself with fantasies of guilt.

    atheists? now WE get to actually enjoy life, because we aren’t hampered by erroneous notions of irrational guilt.

    There is no soul to worry about, there is no afterlife.

    C’mon and join the party before it’s too late!

  50. So you consider yourself perfect Ich?

  51. EB: Standard mode of diminishing an opponent: claim that they are irrational–because of emotion! Sorry, we’re not Vulcans, and emotion is an essential ingredient of human intellect.

    Now if you empathized, then you would understand that I struggled with such questions for years–but I concluded the answers were neither satisfactory nor rational. Instead you argue that it is irrational to even question why God should order the killing of babies. Yet, it seems a reasonable guess that you believe abortion is murder, but if God ordains the slaughter of a pregnant woman–no problem, because we are all guilty. Sure, that sounds like a rational argument to me.

    And is it rational that the invading Israelite army got to keep Midianite virgin girls as plunder (but only after slaughtering all of the men, little boys, and non-virgin women)? And this happens only after the Israelite soldiers were reprimanded for NOT killing everyone–the virgin girls seem to have been a begrudging concession to manly needs.

    If stories like this don’t bother you, I think they should. They are morally repugnant–and yes, that is a much an emotional as a rational response. Unfortunately the same scenarios have been repeated many times and places by self-described godly men that *believed* they were doing God’s will (see treatment of Bosnian Muslims).

  52. Perfect? So why do we have to be perfect? If my dog is not perfect (and he isn’t), do I have a obligation or right to torture or kill him because of his imperfections? I forgive and love him unconditionally.

    Yet the version of God you embrace is entitled/obligated/driven to torture reanimated humans for eternity for a lack of perfection. Of course you will immediately say that God is forgiving, but that forgiveness is completely contingent on a accepting a particular set of beliefs and acting in particular ways. And if, for instance, you were born in 3rd century Mesoamerica–that was not an option.

  53. “Standard mode of diminishing an opponent: claim that they are irrational–because of emotion! Sorry, we’re not Vulcans, and emotion is an essential ingredient of human intellect.”

    True. But it’s not exactly the most reliable indicator of truth by itself.

    “Now if you empathized, then you would understand that I struggled with such questions for years–but I concluded the answers were neither satisfactory nor rational. Instead you argue that it is irrational to even question why God should order the killing of babies. Yet, it seems a reasonable guess that you believe abortion is murder, but if God ordains the slaughter of a pregnant woman–no problem, because we are all guilty. Sure, that sounds like a rational argument to me.”

    I struggled as well, and deemed such answers perfectly rational and satisfactory. See the unreliability in subjective personal feelings now?

    And of course you are entirely misconstruing what I actually said. I never said questioning why God would order the killing of anyone was irrational in itself. I said – the answer is readily (and numerously) provided and is completely rational and consistent in it’s message.

    God’s the sovereign judge. We’re all guilty. Thus it’s only by His grace we’re allowed to live as long as we do (to say nothing about redemption), and the amount of time given is entirely His perogative as sovereign judge. These are all facts within the Biblical explanatory that go to your question. If you don’t like them, then admit that you don’t accept them entirely because you don’t personally like them. And don’t be surprised if others don’t share your feelings.

    “And is it rational that the invading Israelite army got to keep Midianite virgin girls as plunder (but only after slaughtering all of the men, little boys, and non-virgin women)?”

    Heh,. So your complaint was that they were entirely without mercy, and NOW it’s that they were merciful? Sounds like there’s no pleasing you.

    “If stories like this don’t bother you, I think they should. They are morally repugnant–and yes, that is a much an emotional as a rational response.”

    Why should they? Not like there’s some objective Law for what is right and wrong and thus an ultimate Lawmaker, right? Why that would give logical evidence to support the Bible, which we see you reject on purely emotional grounds. Hmmm, objective evidence or subjective emotion? Such a tough decision.

    Have you read Horvath’s blog on Atheist’s Jumping Out of a Bottomless Pit, by the way?

    “Unfortunately the same scenarios have been repeated many times and places by self-described godly men that *believed* they were doing God’s will (see treatment of Bosnian Muslims).”

    And sadly for your argument such differences are as different as a legitimate police officer giving a traffic ticket compared to some schmuck with a fake badge pulling people over. One obviously has the legitimate authority to perform such acts while the other obviously doesn’t.

  54. “Perfect? So why do we have to be perfect? If my dog is not perfect (and he isn’t), do I have a obligation or right to torture or kill him because of his imperfections? I forgive and love him unconditionally.”

    That’s kind of like a con, or murderer just saying to the judge ‘Well I’m not perfect, but why should that get me sent to prison?’. Did they ever teach that God is ‘holy’ in any of those seminary classes? And as such won’t allow sin in His presence? Or did they ever cover that God gave us a way to be pardoned at the cost of torture and death to Himself? Which sounds like pretty sincere love and forgiveness to me.

    I’m honestly wondering what they did cover in your classes. Or were you just not paying attention as your strawman caricatures would suggest.

    “Of course you will immediately say that God is forgiving, but that forgiveness is completely contingent on a accepting a particular set of beliefs and acting in particular ways.”

    Actually just contingent on a belief and acceptance. “…not by Works” and all that. Heaven forbid if someone has the cure for a torturous and fatal disease at personal cost, you have to go through the trouble of actually saying ‘Yes, I accept’.

    Noooo a REAL loving person would just give it anyway and violate free will, whether a person is too lazy to make the small effort of consent, or even just personally rejects the cure and spits and insults the one giving it. Yeeeah, THAT makes sense.

  55. EB: “Not like there’s some objective Law for what is right and wrong and thus an ultimate Lawmaker, right?”

    It’s called empathy–I understand that others want to be treated like I would want to be treated. You can even see glimmers of it even in non-humans.

    “I struggled as well, and deemed such answers perfectly rational and satisfactory. ”

    I guess we have different standards of what constitutes a rational explanation.

    OK, I’m bored now. Good bye and thanks for all the fish!

  56. “It’s called empathy–I understand that others want to be treated like I would want to be treated. You can even see glimmers of it even in non-humans.”

    Under Atheism it’s actually called ‘a chemical reaction’. Of course your ’empathy’ is akin to someone a hundred years from now calling the Allies barbaric savages for invading Berlin, while missing the facts of Germany being the aggressors, or just the Holocaust. Obviously less sympathy is aroused when one actually knows all the facts behind the act.

    “I guess we have different standards of what constitutes a rational explanation.”

    About as different as the nutty standards of ‘civility’ that seem to be popping up.

  57. Really don’t see the point in either the stories Anthony wrote or the discusion of them. Might as well discuss stories about what hobbits like to eat based on what’s written in The Lord of the rings.
    It would be just as factual, there is as much non-fiction in the good old babble as The lord of the rings trilogy. In order for Anthony’s stories to have any relavence at all, even an insi little tiny morsel, you would have to show some evidence of your sky daddy. After some evidence is available then write some story, until then its just a joke.

  58. Sounds like something you should take that up with PZ. I’m not the one who initiated discussion of my stories. I don’t need to wait until ‘evidence is available’ before I write a story. That’s silly and incoherent. Someone can write a story whenever and however they want. Philip Pullman has no evidence of the existence of a ‘subtle knife’ yet he went ahead and wrote the story, anyhow. It’s not a joke, its a story. If there is a joke, its PZ deciding to invest the time and energy into ‘discussing’ them. I mean, its a joke on the basis of your reasoning. Thus, you should turn yourself around, head back over to his blog, and tell him. As for me, I welcome the discussion of ideas, and as it happens, since you, like so many other people posting about it haven’t done me the courtesy of actually reading the stories before mouthing off about them, the stories are as much about evaluating ‘evidence’ as it is about the existence of a ‘sky daddy.’ (That one by the way is a real zinger. I never heard it put that way. Very clever of you. You free thinkers sure know how to be original)

    In simpler terms, you think the stories are about the existence of God, but that is because you haven’t read them for yourself and instead are lapping up whatever PZ spoon feeds you. Just like a good lil’ free thinker.

  59. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Oh man, I can’t breathe.

    I can’t stop laughing either. Dear me, just so funny!
    Irony…the best comedy there ever was…

    You, sir, are dire. I don’t get how you can talk and breathe at the same time, cos of your cognitive dissonance. Typing must be a nightmare, one letter at a time, thinking the thought, then writing it down. You can’t do two things at once, can you? Unless they are polar opposites. Like criticising free thinkers for following the opinions and ideas of someone else while doing the exact opposite.

    You even admitted to sucking up someone else’s work in the hopes of inspiring those to read them. What is wrong with you? PZ Myers and everyone who ever comments on his blog are the coolest, open-mindededest, wittiest and more importantly, individual people I’ve ever been privy to read.

    And the civility bollocks is just that, bollocks. They are lovely people when treated with respect, intelligence and kindness. When barraged by insipid and boring, rhetoric-spewing godbots, misogynists and the like, they rise up and polish their fangs on the idiots. And its highly enjoyable. More so than your torture porn.

    I dont know why I’m defending them to you, they wouldn’t care less what you think. But I just can’t stand by and not laugh out loud at the blatant hypocrisy you show.

    Thanks for the laff. P.S. did you know all your winking smileys are actually rather creepy?

  60. *yawn*

  61. “PZ Myers and everyone who ever comments on his blog are the coolest, open-mindededest, wittiest and more importantly, individual people I’ve ever been privy to read.”

    I’m surprised there’s actually internet connection in the rock you must live under.

  62. Hey, under his rock even the smileys that come with a blog theme are my design. My suggestion would be to leave him be, EB. He’s not a rational person. He’s only here to make pot shots, nothing more. Remember, in their mind, a ‘pot shot’ is an argument we should take seriously: http://sntjohnny.com/front/5-greatest-challenges-to-christianity-that-apologetics-cant-answer-part-1/1354.html

  63. Heh. True, and pot shots are the only things anyone has made. At least they’re following PZ’s example consistently; though given he seems to have read the stories and they haven’t, makes PZ’s review a bit more pathetic.

  64. What passes for “rationality” here is pretty ridiculous, but I guess that’s just because I’m one of those wacky nuts who think words should have actual meanings. Rationality involves analyzing facts, using logic, and coming to conclusions that are defensible through reasoned debate. You aren’t rational, you’re pathetic, groveling authoritarians who want to believe that a sky father loves you (but that you are worthless and don’t deserve it) and that all the answers you need are in a book that only the people you agree with have interpreted correctly. That speaks of some serious psychological issues that you should probably look into. At the very least you could own up to it and not pretend to be something you’re not. If you really believe that you are rational, come over to pharyngula and debate sometime. Don’t get confused by bad words, though, and pay attention to the actual logical flaws in your beliefs (they are legion). PZ’s review and the comments are a perfect example. Yes he’s a bit crass at times, but he points to some serious problems in the beliefs underlying these stories, problems for which you don’t have a solution so you laugh off the criticism and pretend it is nothing but fatuous vulgarity.

    Also, your hemming and hawing about tone while presenting your smug version of faux-civility is making me nauseous, so tone it down. Folks like you always claim that there is some bizarre, contradictory standard for civility at pharyngula. Either you’re lying for the sake of your simpleton followers or you’re as thick as they are. Here it is: bad words don’t matter. Intentions and actions do. The fact that you speak in a civil matter is meaningless to us because we know that you are fantasizing about our torture in hell. PZ and the pharyngulites have the decency to speak to you honestly. If they think you’re an idiot they will tell you, in no uncertain terms, why they think that. You on the other hand, defer to “civility” as a dodge, and your followers seem to eat it up. Meanwhile, I happen to think that
    writing simplified puppet versions of real, living, complex people to live out some sort of fantasy where it turns out you were right all along(!) is far ruder than me telling you to shove something up your rear.

    And no, I’m not spending a dime on your book before criticizing your opinions becasue 1) they are hardly unique and 2) I can’t imagine that they vary wildly from the themes provided in extensive quotes and summaries available online. Stop trying to scam people into giving you money, you are a pathetic salesman. Luckily for you, I guess, there are doofuses ready to scoop that stuff up.

  65. “Rationality involves analyzing facts, using logic, and coming to conclusions that are defensible through reasoned debate.”

    This from the man who came here in response to A STORY. lol

  66. If you want to belittle your own work that’s your own business, but I was responding to one of your commenters in regards to the whole “rationality” thing.

    You say it’s just a story, but it’s not a story that was begging to be told. There is nothing compelling or interesting about the plot or characters (I assume, put the stories up for free and I might bother to read more of your drivel), it’s pure evangalism through puppet atheists and agnostics. That kind of “just a story” “just asking questions” “just playing devils advocate” prevaricating indicates a spineless propogandaist woefully lacking in intellect. The kind who would rather debate against figments of his imagination than actual people.

  67. What? You didn’t find people posting on the three threads in question that didn’t say that if they were in the same position, they would have done the exact same thing? In the latest review of the Dawkins story, PZ dismisses my account of Dawkins’ behavior while others say that they think he came off exactly as they would have done. ‘Puppet atheists’? Sure. Those are my plants, I suppose. Embedded on PZ’s blog to make my point. 🙂

    As for… ‘nothing compelling’ and ‘drivel’ that is obviously nothing more than your opinion. As such, it is countered adequately with, “Sorry, I disagree.” No further word necessary.

  68. Actually most of the comments seem to be pointing out how internally inconsistent and nonsensical your story is. A few have stated that NOT ONLY is it those things, but it also offers an uncompelling version of heaven such that your hell still seems preferable to an eternity of grovelling. Somehow you’ve woven that into some sort of praise, but I just want to make it clear that it is nothing of the sort.

  69. And almost all of those comments haven’t bothered to even read the stories in question, but just swallow what’s being biasly fed to them. As such they’re rather unthinking “criticisms” are being met with the same level they’re opperating on – ‘Nope, you’re wrong.’ (only with much more dignity and civility).

    And nothing more is needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*