[irrelig]Chuck’s sources: Q, the Earliest Gospel by John Kloppenborg and Jesus: According to the Earliest Witnesses by James Robinson
Leighton’s source: unknown, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say Wikipedia
For this episode, we discuss the hypothetical document Q, theorized to explain the near-verbatim similarities found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. We give some brief history about the theory and then quickly delve into what the Q community, which very likely was early, rural, and Galilean, had to say about the teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
And although we’re a little late to the party, we take a moment to discuss the very serious issue of Elevatorgate.
87 Responses to “107: Q”
Good episode. Learned a lot, from Leighton even. I have a question for Leighton. Could he elaborate on the “dry humid air” of Egypt?
God realized that by killing all the adulterers he was wiping out his supply of voyeur pornography. That’s why he started killing the guys who were advocating abstinence and started protecting his porn stars (aka adulterers).
Chuck, I think the real question is: Why was RW uncofortable in the elevator in the first place.
There is an assumption being made by her and others that men are rapers, and that women are always possible victims and they have to think and act smart at all times to avoid being rape.
What is lacking is any kind of skeptical review of data regarding rape, especially rape by strangers. RW had something like a 0.2 percent chance of being raped by EG, so why was her discomfort level so high to start with and why make it such a huge issue.
RW had no reason to feel threatened, at all. The statistics don’t bare out her thoughts or feelings regarding the motivations of EG who apparently was attracted to her and wanted to get laid consentually.
Put the idea of male privelage aside and look at the issue. Women are afraid of being raped because they have been cowed into thinking all men rape. This isn’t so. And RW is only drawing attention from area in which women DO have to be careful, namely, the people they know and step-family members. Why contribute to the sense women are under siege when the average woman would need to live something like seven lifetimes to experience being raped by a stranger.
I wonder how uncomfortable a woman should feel in a situation that has a 0.2% chance of rape?
I know that when I walk down a dark alley at night the first thing that comes to mind is not the relative rarity of nighttime muggings per capita in the city, nor am I likely to be comforted much by those statistics at that moment, nor would I find helpful someone telling me that my worries are unfounded because such muggings are so rare.
Watson expressed that EG’s activities made her uncomfortable, and advised men not to do it. I take Watson at her word and can understand why, in a confined space with a single exit in a strange hotel in a foreign country at 4 in the morning, she would reasonably feel uncomfortable.
Therefore, her advice is sound: don’t proposition a woman in these circumstances (remember, EG just left a bar, a location in which such activities are commonplace and stand a better chance at being reciprocated). Chances are, you’re going to make the woman very uncomfortable and that means at the very least, you’ve just decreased your odds of getting fucked — which, seeing as you’re at an atheist/skeptical convention, probably weren’t that good in the first place.
Well, crap. I thought I left misogyny far behind when I left Mormonism. And now you’re all telling me that atheists are misogynists too? Screw this! I’m switching teams.
So feelings are facts now, or just when pussy is involved? If a Christian feels threatened and persecuted by atheists, do they have the right to demand atheists subjugate themselves or act differently?
Should atheists have to register with some kind of registry like sex offenders do because the majority of Christians believe atheists are the cause of every social evil (though statistics say otherwise) and might ‘feel’ uncomfortable around them?
Or, let us tweak the situation just a tad. Lets make EG black, and RW problem isn’t that he’s just a male, it’s because he’s a black male and his blackness is making her uncomfortable, we both know black men can’t help raping them some white women.
In any context where you don’t throw RW a bone and allow that she automatically made the man’s motivation rape, her ‘advice’ becomes completely nonsensical. The fact people can make a case to themselves that her advice or discomfort was reasonable only shows how pervasive the whole men-are-rapers stereotype is prevalent in society. It needs to stop, and those in the skeptical community should at least be aware that RW was/is irrational in her stance.
Or, at least ask yourself, would her reaction be reasonable if a woman made a pass at RW in the elevator that night?
Gthnk – I think it would help your argument if you had any clue what RW:s actual stance was.
gthnk, this is where you reply with – “yeah good point Ptah”.
Drew Carey once said that there is a school in the Midwest that considers any unwanted attention as sexual harassment. He quips, “Shit, that’s every advance I make. If it were ‘wanted’ I would be getting laid once in a while.”
That seems to sum up the problem.
Hrm, no. I watched her youtube vid, and listened to her explanation of the event and the fallout on the SGU podcast.
Whatever her unease is, whatever she found to be creepy about EG is rooted in an irrational sense that she is a possible victim of rape at any moment, and if she is raped, others will tell her it’s her fault.
Her solution to her unfounded insecurity is to have men change the way they approach women in such a way as to be as harmless and reverent to the feelings and the thoughts of women who use arbitrary and irrational criteria in deciding which stereotype they will opt for.
When applied to other areas it’s racism, bigotry and plain prejudice. None of the things Chuck mention has any relevance to the fact women think strangers will rape them in the first place.
Gthnk, it seems you’ve changed every variable except the ones that matter.
But you’ve convinced me with your manly logic and reason that women are simply emotional and have no business feeling uncomfortable when propositioned alone in an elevator in a foreign country at 4am. Watson can be dismissed as just one more typical hysterical female. It’s not common courtesy and minimal social skills she’s after, it’s to dictate to men how to behave based on her irrational female fears.
A word to the wise: Watson’s advice will actually help you get laid. I imagine that outside of skeptical-atheist conventions and other nerd gatherings, this advice would not be necessary, nor would it be misconstrued, nor would it even be an issue.
Gthnk, can’t say I blame you. I have the same problem.
Whenever I try to listen to listen to the Skeptic’s Guide, I fall asleep and then dream up shit that never happened.
Excellent episode! I would like more like these please!
gthnk, your way of thinking will get you maced one day, whether you are an actual threat or not. You cannot appreciate that sexual violence is something that happens in 1 in 6 women in the US, so any situation that doesn’t have exit options (like an elevator) would make women wary, and that the only think you should actively do in an elevator is keep yourself from farting.
*thing. apologies for the typo
Chuck – what do you know about that? I mean, you’re happily married since – what? – fifteen years. I assume you haven’t been straying from the path all that often…
Now, if Leighton had some advice I’d be willing to listen to that.
Seventeen years. Has dating changed that much in the meantime?
Everyone has prejudices based on their past experiences. In the case of a previous attack by a dark skinned male it is surely reasonable to feel uncomfortable alone early in the morning with someone of similar looks. I’m not saying that RW has been attacked, I’m just showing that prejudice is totally different to racism and many different media are responsible for these feelings.
I think Ms Watsons’ request is very reasonable. I made a YouTube video that explains why.
http://youtu.be/I-bR87KAU3M
Okay, this is the last fucking word on this “elevator guy” shit.
A) Ms Watson has every fucking right to Vlog (or whatever it’s called) on whatever she wants.
B) The short paragraph of an aside that she made about the “Elevator Guy” should have indeed been a welcome hint from a lady to the socially awkward gents out there. She was trying to help you idiots get laid, for shit’s sake! why are people so hostile about this.
C) Being followed into a hotel elevator at 4 in the morning would certainly put me on guard and I’m a guy. I dunno no stats on “elevator rape”, but I do know people have been beaten and mugged in elevators. If a guy followed me into an elevator at 4 in the AM, I’d have my hand on my trusty 9H drafting pencil fully prepared to go Joe Pesci on his ass or die trying. And that whole business about how there’s a call button in the elevator is bullshit. Lots of people leaving hotel bars at 4 AM naturally slump against the back wall or corner. It’d in all likelihood be “elevator guy” between her and the buttons.
D) Ms Watson also has every fucking right to boycott Dawkins books and refuse to go to his lectures and encourage others to do so. It’s free speech.
E) Why Dawkins (who, if I’m not mistaken plays C3PO) took time out of his busy life to post comments about that short aside is puzzling, tone deaf and kind of out of character with his usual positions. However, I for one am not going to boycott him over this issue. I think he has too much of value to say and I’ve been really fucking educated and improved by his work.
So in sum, it’s really easy. Watson was right. Dawkins was wrong. Dawkins is otherwise fucking brilliant so don’t boycott his ass if you don’t want to. Do if you do. Boys, if you want girls to fuck you, listen to their helpful hints. You might be surprised.
The End.
“Have we started again?” –Monty Python, Cannibal Sketch
Eh, I question the basis for her fear and the damage that underlying issue causes in general. When women can’t feel safe walking down the street at night to the store, alone, then whatever the underlying issue is is adversely effecting women.
No one is saying RW doesn’t have the right to speak, boycott and any of the crap you guys seem to be attributing to me.
That said, if RW had stated she was afraid of being mugged or beaten (both outcomes are much higher than rape, and it’s 25x more probable for men iirc), then there wouldn’t be an issue. However, if you need to live seven life times to come close to even the possibility of being raped by a stranger, taking umbrage at being asked out by someone socially inept shouldn’t be a issue.
I have already seen pascal’s invoked as a defence. But hey, if you want your women cow eyed and afraid to move about freely, continue to preach the lie women are vulnerable to wanton rape and that an assault lay behind every corner. The real issue is much worse, that of being raped by someone you know rather than someone you don’t.
I’d rather my daughters show caution with the boys they know than be afraid to walk to the store on a hot night and grab a slushy – after all, her boyfriend is much, much more likely to rape her than a group of boys hanging out in front of the store at 11 pm.
And, btw, there is a difference between saying RWs fear’s are irrational vs. she shouldn’t use caution or be wary.
In any case, it seems you like your women scarred and beaten down by an instilled hyperbolic and ever present fear of men.
Preferrably, yes.
But if I can’t have that, at least I want them to consider themselves “my women”.
Let’s get back to laughing at religious idiots. Good idea? If not your on the wrong web site.
Chuck, are you aware of any studies that examine the physiological effects of the spiritual high (I think you call that the burning sensation) that compare the attainment of those “feelings” between groups participating in spirtiual/religiousactivities (listening to a sermon, praying, singing a hymn, etc.) versus secular activities (watching a movie like Brian’s Song, listening to a motivational speaker, experiencing great art, etc.). Also, would like to see the breakdown of such a study amongst people who identify as “religious/non-religious.”
If you can find such studies, those would make interesting fodder for future podcasts.
“In any case, it seems you like your women scarred and beaten down by an instilled hyperbolic and ever present fear of men.”
When did you stop beating your wife, gthnk?
Dear Leighton,
You literally overuse the word “literally.” Sometimes, you literally misuse it. You should literally work on that.
Literally.
These long breaks between shows are super sucky.
*sigh*
I miss you guys!!
And God did say unto them, “Wash your balls!”
“Elevatorgate” is a huge embarassment to the skeptic/atheist movement.
Everyone needs to take a step back, take a deep breathe, and realize that Dawkins is right. With all the horror that presently surrounds us in the world, simply being made “uncomfortable” doesn’t compare.
“Elevator Guy” did nothing wrong. In fact, if some nerdy guy hadn’t awkwardly asked a woman out sometime in the past, then you wouldn’t exist.
And what about Dawkins? I say it’s OK to be a dick if your first name is Richard.
Let’s restore some sanity and credibility to the skeptic/atheist movement.
I think this whole “Elevatorgate” thing brings up another VERY important issue: Why are there not more truckdrivers in the atheist/skeptic movement?
C’mon people! We should be asking ourselves what we can do to be more welcoming to those who drive big rigs for a living. Just who do you think transports all the materials that were used to build America? Who do you think transports all of the food you eat everyday? When you look down on a trucker, you are treating another person merely as an object towards fulfilling your material desires.
It really makes me feel uncomfortable to go to atheist events where I’m the ONLY truck driver.
Too often, we truckers are seen as uneducated inbred rednecks first, and as humans second. I can assure you that I got my GED, and my parents are at least second cousins.
Please, expand your awareness, and start inviting any truck drivers you meet to go to the next athiest/skeptic event!
I want to tell you about how I was treated at the last atheist convention I went to:
When I pulled up to the parking lot in my 18-wheeler, a man yelled at me and told me that deliveries were in the rear of the building. I explained to him that I was there for the convention, and he rolled his eyes. As I was walking in, I could overhear people complaining that I was taking up eight parking spaces.
Next, someone shouted at me, “Hey there buddy, do you have enough wheels!” I can’t even begin to find the words to explain how uncomfortable I felt at this moment. Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, someone else shouted, “That’s a big 10-4 there good buddy!” Honestly, it’s been at least a few years since I’ve used a CB radio, and I never EVER used the 10 code when I did.
Throughout the convention, I couldn’t help but notice that people had trouble looking me in the eye. There eyes continually wandered down to look at my large Kenworth beltbuckle with my name on it. C’mon people, haven’t you ever seen a belt buckle before? Just because I have an extremely large beltbuckle, what do you expect me to do, try and hide it? In an enlightened society, I should be free to dress the way I want to.
Now then, I realize that we truckers can’t always tell when we’re being idolized or objectified. I mean, when I’m passing a car on the Interstate, and a kid puts his arm up in the air and pulls on an imaginary cord, is he idolizing me and wants me to honk my airhorn, or is this kid objectifying me and mocking me and my profession? To those of you who think that this is not a problem, I just want to say that your attitude hurts people more than it helps.
Thanks for paying attention to the plight of me and my fellow (male, female, transgender, gay, straight, bi, and asexual) truckers.
Keep on truckin’
PS, if you mention my post on your next podcast, I’ll send you both Peterbilt trucker hats with your names on them, (BTW, “Chuck” is no problem, but I’ve looked in several truck stops and I can’t find one with the name “Leighton” on it, so I’ll have to send you one that has the name “Lee” on it instead… I hope you’ll understand.)
Keep on truckin’
Earl, you you suck chucks dick while your kissing his ass. Trucks should be banned. They are too big and get in the way when I’m trying to weave through the traffic at high speed. Truck drivers are not smart, that’s why they drive trucks. They are also lazy, often sitting down for the entire day.
Lunds, you’re lucky I’m too stupid, lazy, and drunk right now, or I’d write something really nasty back to you.
I’m sure Rebecca Watson and her coalition of feminists will come to my aid.
I think I’ll start calling myself the “Skeptrucker”…
earl, glad you can take a joke. welcome to the skeptical community. test complete….
back to you chuck.
well done earl. welcome aboard
Thankyou Dingo and Lunds,
I don’t know if this link to Skeptchick’s calendar will work, but I’ll try it.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-imjNseQ2-qA/ThUaxZ5bmiI/AAAAAAAAAYI/0C0RFjk4OuQ/s1600/skepchick-750×573.jpg
Anyone else find the caption to Rebecca’s photo ironic? The caption reads: “Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” – Albert Einsein
Next time this photo is used, I think they should change the caption to: “I guess you really can blame a guy for trying.” – Elevator Guy