Sunday, March 11, 2012

Quote of the Day/Sunday Sacrilege

"Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that 'as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,' my point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Batshit) on talk radio yesterday pushing his new book "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"

Sure, it's well known that Inhofe manages to disprove both evolution and intelligent design at the same time, but it's important to remember that this fucking idiot is a United States Senator. A large group of people within this country -- or at least within Okahoma, which is only nominally part of the civilized world -- voted to send a man who regularly rattles off comically insane conspiracist nonsense based on the tenets of a 2,000-year-old fairy tale to the seat of governmental power as their representative.

Ignore science. Trust in ancient magic. And dumbshits like James Inhofe.

That's the message.

Again, for the cheap seats -- they've got nothing. Unfortunately, though, there are always going to be those who don't see it that way. The one hope we have is that they'll soon very likely be demographically extinct.


lakelady said...

it gets even worse - he's the ranking member of the Senate committee on the Environment and Public Works. People like this sometimes make me wish there were some sort of education requirements (especially in the sciences) that had to be met before running for office

Unknown said...

Inhofe is scheduled to appear on Rachel Maddow this upcoming Tuesday.
We'll see...

agrazingmoose said...

Honestly, I cannot wait until they are demographically extinct.

Shame on me.

Anonymous said...

hmm... 2000-year-old fairy tale?

So, what year is it?
And, why does most of the world acknowledge THAT year?
A lot of fairy-tales from back then sure have left some great archeological findings that corroborate those said stories...
If your wrong, you better like the smoking section.
And, if I'm wrong, I got every thing to gain. =)

Chez said...

You're making two arguments, Anonymous. One is that reality is subject to democratic consensus, meaning that if a large enough number of people believe something it automatically makes that belief true. The other is something called Pascal's Wager. Both are argumentative fallacies. But then again your entire belief system proves that the logic center of your brain is fucked, so it's worthless to even get into it with you because you're an idiot.

Speaking of which, it's "you're" -- as in "you are" -- not "your." Go back to elementary school. Preferably one that teaches evolution.

Mimi said...

Thank you for setting Anonymous straight. What a tool.

Sammi said...

Just a quick note from a fan and an Oklahoman.
I apologize. I promise there are a couple of us fighting for change around here!

Chez said...

You know, I pick on Oklahoma for the obvious reasons. But I drove through the state just two months ago and it's really beautiful in places and the people I met were damn nice.

TheReaperD said...

"The one hope we have is that they'll soon very likely be demographically extinct."

That, in one sentence, sums up why they are so batshit crazy. I'm confident that they fear irrelevancy and powerlessness far more than they fear death, however.

brink said...

Pascal's wager is kind of cute, though. I actually used it earlier tonight as a way to say I don't really care about anyone's religious beliefs until it's used as an excuse to be a dumbass and to remind myself to be tolerant until it becomes threatening to the planet and free will.

Kind of like, "Goosefraba..." until James Inhoffe shows up.

Of course not everyone who believes in God has an automatic inability to reason and respond with logic. Think Martin Luther King Jr., for one.

It's unreasonable to think we can't and do not benefit from basic religious tenets as a society. I think Progressives sometimes legislate according to certain principles that are no doubt sensible and fact-based, but not without spiritual guidance from very distinct religious doctrines according to compassion, or empathy and charity, or "my brother's keeper."

You could argue human nature is evolutionary, but it's not a given that belief in God disqualifies you from evolving spiritually, intellectually, and culturally.

You might see religious beliefs as a hindrance, but it's a constant reflection of the power of mankind's evolution every time it is questioned.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I graduated from college. What about you? I just don't mind making simple, dumb mistakes - it's part of my nature.

But you, you sounded a little defensive like usual. Yeah, sounds like your side of the fence isn't much fun.

And Chez, I'm one of those Christians that actually believes in evolution. I don't feel the need to sacrifice my faith in the face of scientific evidence (like dinosaur bones and old clay jars in caves).

Author F. Scott Fitzgerald once said,
"The test of a first-rate intelligence
is the ability to hold two opposed ideas
in the mind at the same time,
and still retain the ability to function."

Hey, maybe you can apply to be an editor. I heard they are always hiring.
Or do the spell check and/or grammar check for me - I didn't bother.

paleotectonics said...

Not just Oklahoma. Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa are every bit as nuts. I have family trying to tunnel out of NE, where (D) Ben Nelson is slightly to the right of Fr. Coughlin, and the whole Keystone pipeline controversy has nothing whatsoever to do with environmental impact, you know, "God provided the aquifer for us white people and we can't possibly hurt it because god", but with the Not In My BackYard, I Got Mine Fuck You crap.

Abstitutely scary, if TX were to try to secede, I wonder if NE, OK, KS, and MO would try to go with 'em.

And yeah, they are all pretty places, and people you'd love to have as neighbors. But get them in the voting booth or in a church and some seriously messed up philosophies come flying out.

Mary Beth said...

Doesn't everyone get all the science they need from the first 22 pages of the bible?

Chez said...

Not defensive at all, actually, Anonymous. And very familiar with the Fitzgerald quote. I think you're misapplying it, using it as an appeal to authority, and figuring it somehow let's you off the hook, though. The reality is that faith that flies in the face of evidence is nothing more than obstinacy and stupidity.

Oh, and I'm having a fucking blast, actually. Thanks for concerning yourself with that. Now run along. The adults are having a conversation. : )

Chez said...

I'll edit myself since I typed this comment out on my phone and it was subject to autocorrect. "Lets" not "let's." Apologies.

Chez said...

And that's a very thoughtful comment, Brink. I certainly appreciate it. But I simply disagree. I think that faith-based religion as it's stood for centuries is exactly that -- a tired and thoroughly debunked hold-over from an era when people knew nothing about anything and therefore had to fall back on magic to explain the universe.

There's nothing at all wrong with searching for deeper meaning in our lives and accepting that there's some true mystery out there. But to bring it all back to supposedly holy books from millennia ago is just silly.

brink said...

Some of the best people I've ever known believed in Jesus. Some of the worst people I've ever known did too.

It's not really all that profound, but that's pretty much where I'm coming from.

Chez said...

Here's the thing, though: You could say that about anything or anyone. Substitute any word for "Jesus." And if you know good people and bad people who adhere to it, doesn't that make the belief irrelevant anyway?

VOTAR said...

A friend of mine who advocates various conspiracy theories (9/11 was the work of the CIA, etc.), once tried to convince me his arguments are valid by quoting the following: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." ...That's right, to assert the validity of his argument, he offers the famous deduction of a cocaine-addled fictitious character in a detective novel written by Arthur Conan Doyle.

It's interesting that the Fitzgerald quote is offered up as some kind of evidence that it is perfectly okay to claim to be a christian while also accepting the theory of evolution (nevertheless, it isn't). These are just quotes by authors of entertaining fiction. Much like the subject matter actually being debated here, the bible.

Anonymous 4:54 cannot hold both views; the dogma of either view does not make room for the other. One cannot claim to be "a christian who believes in evolution." This just makes them both a hypocrite, and a blasphemer. If the bible is the infallible word of god, there is no tolerance for adjustments or new interpretations based on modern knowledge. If it can be modified, truncated, replaced, or cherry-picked to suit one's needs, it is not the infallible word of god.

Anyone can believe anything they want, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You can decide to believe that the earth was created by Marduk from the remnants of the dead body of his grandmother Tiamat (the Sumerian version of Genesis that predates that other, Semitic version of fanciful fiction, that far too many people these days inexplicably cling to as "The Truth.") Ancient philosophers and shamans can be forgiven because people didn't have any way of knowing any better. But when people like Senator James Inhofe -- a person uniquely empowered to turn his personal superstitions into enforceable national policy -- says such outlandishly stupid things, it's no longer just sad, it's dangerous.

Anonymous said...

Listen kid (Chez) - I'm older than you, so you can use your little put downs for someone else.

I apply the quote however I want... I love the fact that as I've gotten older in life that things don't have to be so black and white. I love the gray areas in life - it's where things get fun. I don't have to have an answer for every thing, and I am perfectly comfortable with the mysteriousness and that life sometimes hands us questions that we can't answer. (Definitely not for you!)

So, as for my faith, I don't have to have evidence because I see this as God's way of giving me/us the freedom to choose. As a matter of fact, I know that God is going to make it very difficult to believe without seeing ... kind of like the faith-first conundrum. The catch is that after you have genuine faith, you start to see the evidence in your own life. Hence, why I believe.

So kid, run off and edit this again. I hope I gave you something to work with.

Chez said...

Well gosh, I guess I'll need to go crawl away and lick my wounds because you sure put me in my place.

First of all, I wasn't implying that you were a child -- only that your belief system may as well peg you as one. Do you also still believe in Santa Claus? I know a lot of kids think he's real and judging by your earlier argument that would make him real or at least a faith in him worthy of serious consideration, would it not?

You're entitled to believe whatever you'd like. (You're also entitled to courageously argue your points from behind a curtain of complete anonymity.) But don't think for a second that the facts back you up -- and if you argue from any point-of-view but a fact-based one, you automatically lose.

And I still maintain that your first comment was shockingly stupid.

JohnF said...

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

Neil deGrasse Tyson (roughly 100x smarter than James Inhofe)

Chez said...

I don't think you're being fair.

Tyson's about 1,000x smarter than Inhofe.

Jester said...

To be fair, God didn't specify where those seed times and harvests would be taking place in a hundred years:


Because it'll be too hot to grow anything but sand and scrub in Kansas and Oklahoma.

On the positive end (for Inhofe's descendants), though, Kansas and Oklahoma will look more like the Holy Land than ever.

Anonymouse said...

Um Voltar... Catholics believe in evolution. Actually since the 60's. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory was originally developed by a Catholic Priest/Physics dude. Furthermore according to Catholics, only select parts of the Bible should be viewed as the word of God, with much of it, allegory.

I guess one could claim that Catholics aren't Christian (which I hear a lot but don't quite understand), but aren't Roman Catholics the largest denomination?

kanye said...


Sure...big city, pot luck dinner, basketball league, send your daughter to private school Catholics.

But not those orthodox, Opus Dei, we-still-take-mass-in-Latin, now everybody go put on a hairshirt Catholics...aka, 5/9ths of the current Supreme Court.

Their belief system stopped evolving about five minutes after First Council of Nicaea adjourned.


long time, no you been?

Anonymous said...

One more because it's way past my bedtime...

I chose to remain anonymous because I love the way you are so crude and angry when you don't know who it is, and that person disagrees with you. Oh, your so much nicer when you know who it is.

Yes, I believed in Santa Claus for a very long time. The real question is Chez, "Why did you say Merry Christmas?" Since you are not a believer, leave my Jesus alone. Wouldn't borrowing my Jesus for a feel good holiday and presents make you a hypocrit? How do you explain celebrating CHRISTmas to Inara? Oh, I guess she too believes in Santa.

JohnF ... "And the good thing about science is that it's true..." I guess you still see the earth as the center of the universe or that the earth is flat, and did you get the memo that phlogiston isn't real. Don't worry buddy, sometimes science gets it wrong too.

One more Chez, the FACT is that I had a great dream last night (no, you weren't in it). I can't prove it to you, but it happened. It is a fact in my life just like my faith.

Glad I can help bring a little life to this blog little buddy.

Chez said...

You really can't spell, can you?

Please, I cannot stress enough how much I'd love for you to keep these kinds of comments coming. They're 18k gold.

JohnF said...

I can't believe you're submitting such pathetic examples and pretending you've made a viable argument. Such careless foolishness on your part actually reinforces the position of science immeasurably.
Yes, science sometimes get things wrong, of that we can all rest assured. The distinction between science and faith is that science does not rest on its laurels. Science does not blindly cling to apocryphal information in the face of all available evidence. When better evidence presents itself, the science community doesn't stick its collective head in the sand.
Scientists are smarter now than they've ever been. The greatest scientist of 1000 years ago would seem like a simpleton next to Richard Feynman or Stephen Hawking (Or Neil deGrasse Tyson).
The Scientific Method works. New theories are proffered every day, but scientists don't hold these to be Laws until they've been proven. Peer review, experimentation, consensus. That's how it's done.
All the examples you gave were from an earlier age, where science was considerably less advanced than what we have now. These examples have all been discounted for centuries.
These nonsense theories were all dreamed up long ago, and are considered bunk by all credible scientists. Science got smarter, and relegated these hogwash ideas to the dustbin of history.
The same thing should happen to religion. It worked OK for a while, back when nobody understood the way nature or the cosmos worked, but it's really about time to put away childish things.

Anonymous said...

...focus on the tiny details when you have nothing else. It will at least make you feel better about you'reself (there - you happy? =)

FabMax said...

I chose to remain anonymous because I love the way you are so crude and angry when you don't know who it is, and that person disagrees with you. Oh, your so much nicer when you know who it is.

Since it's established now that you are nothing but a troll...

Since you are not a believer, leave my Jesus alone. Wouldn't borrowing my Jesus for a feel good holiday and presents make you a hypocrit?

Your Jesus? Does he do tricks? If I borrow him for a birthday party, does he come with his own make-up, wig and props? Does he do balloon animals?

L. said...


Ahem, I love the Louis CK quote regarding God and environmentalism:

"People get angry at environmentalists because they think they're slowing down the economy and creating restrictions, and a lot of these people are Christians. A lot of these people are very devout Christians. And that's such a confusing thing to me that if you believe that God gave you the Earth, that God created the Earth for you, why would you not have to look after it? Why would you not think that when he came back he wouldn't go 'WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DO?!? I GAVE THIS TO YOU MOTHERFUCKER, ARE YOU CRAZY?!? THE POLAR BEARS ARE BROWN! WHAT DID YOU DO TO THE POLAR BEARS?!?'"

Also, the Anonymous comment at 11:09PM reminds me of something I noticed this past holiday season. I kept seeing "Keep CHRIST in CHRISTmas" bumper stickers when driving, so I came up with a few of my own:

- Keep X-mas X-treme [with picture of dude in sunglasses skateboarding]
- Keep X-mas X-cellent [with picture of dude shredding on a guitar]
- Keep X in X-mas [Picture of Charles Xavier]
- Keep X-men in X-mas [Picture of any of the X-men]

Chez said...

Don't sweat it, John. At this point our anonymous friend is trolling. Nothing more. The stupidity is endlessly entertaining so we can all be thankful for the laugh.

Chez said...

And yes, with that, I am happy. That'll do, anonymous. That'll do. : )

Anonymouse said...

Kayne...what exactly are you claiming? That the official stance of the Catholic Church doesn't represent the values of its members? Like its some kind of sneaky way of forcing Evangelical values on America?!? On certain things, such as contraception, I will agree that the official position doesn't face the reality of most Church members. If the Supreme Court, arguably overrepresented by Catholics currently, was dominated by the positions of the Church, then why is abortion, executions, invetro-fertilization, and any number of things that the Church takes a strong stance against allowed by our highest court.

I'm not arguing that there isn't different liberal and conservative wings of the Catholic Church. But to make the argument that every Catholic follows the extreme hardline position, against the official stance of the Holy See (even more hilarious that Sotomayor is a carbon copy of every other stereotype you have about Catholics) is insulting to Catholics. It is further insulting to the folks that dedicated their lives to the law. I don't always agree with the courts but if you examine all three branches, the Judicial is a hell of a lot more respected in my mind then the other two.

The Church's position in evolution is clear cut. The Church's work in astronomy and physics is historically well known. Hell the world's oldest observatory is still in use in the Vatican.

I'm not saying the Church is perfect or that it even represents my values. I don't get your overall point. Maybe I am missing something...

TheReaperD said...

"When better evidence presents itself, the science community doesn't stick its collective head in the sand."

Well, actually, they do. But, when the evidence becomes so overwhelming that they have no way of refuting it, they will finally swallow their pride and admit they were wrong and accept the new theory. I definitely agree that the willingness to change is what separates scientists, as a whole, from religious people, as a whole, (this trait is not unique to christians, sadly).

"leave my Jesus alone" (emphasis mine)

This says everything we need to know about you. You're an arrogant hypocrite that believes that you are wise and everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong and no amount of evidence will change your mind. It reminds me of my grandmother after she had her stroke.

Could there be a god? Who knows? Certainly not a group of politicians that compiled a book around 1600 years ago using the writings of a bunch of nut-jobs written centuries earlier.

kanye said...


Sorry, I meant to get back to you earlier on and all.

Every single thing that you've said here is wrong: Wrong on fact and wrong in conclusion.

Evolution: The Church has never affirmed Evolution. The Church has no official position on Evolution. What it does have is a 150 year history of funding research with the express intent of scientifically disproving Evolution; to no avail, of course. The Church's current, unofficial stance is one of "evolutionary creation". In other words, things moved along not because of natural selection, but rather were pushed along by the finger of God. That's not Darwinian evolution...not by a long shot.

Roman Catholicism is not the largest denomination in the U.S. More than twice as many Americans identify as Protestant than Catholic.

The Supreme Court: There are currently six Catholics sitting on the Court, five of which (Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) openly identify as strict, obedient Catholics. That being common knowledge, I assumed that you would know to which five of the six I was referring. I guess not, but now that you do, you can go ahead and unpaint all that Justice Sotomayor hilarity. While you're at it, why don't you just go ahead push aside whatever stereotypes you believe that I hold.

Catholics are arguably over-represented on the Supreme Court: Arguably, my ass. On a strictly proportional basis, the Supreme Court should consist of four Protestant, two Catholic, two religiously unaffiliated and one-of-something-else justices. Catholics are currently over-represented by 300%. But that's far too facile a reading to draw accurate conclusions. We have to consider just what kind of Catholics these justices are: One mainstream, five fundamentalist. According to my sources, aka, my great-aunt, Harriet, the percentage of American Catholics who identify as strict observants is around 10%, and the majority of those are first generation immigrants. As a percentage of the general population, we're talking about 2-1/2%. That's an over-representation rate of 4000%. Not exactly the kind of thing one hopes to see in a representative government.

...then why is abortion, executions, invetro-fertilization, and any number of things that the Church takes a strong stance against allowed by our highest court[?]: Where to begin? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..” Learn what that sentence really means and you'll understand that the high Court doesn't “allow” anything.

Let me leave you one last thing to chew on, again, courtesy of great-aunt Harriet:

“In America, most Catholics, aren't.”

That oughta go over well.