…and this is a 
Another blithering apologist
Category: Kooks • Religion
Posted on: June 3, 2008 10:28 AM, by PZ Myers
I read these lame exercises in making excuses by theologians, and I don't understand how anyone can be foolish enough to fall for them. The latest example is by Edward Tingley, who babbles on painfully about how believers are the true skeptics, the true scientists, while claiming that the believers have a deeper, stronger knowledge than mere atheists. Yet nowhere in his ramble does Tingley ever give any evidence or rational reason to believe in his god or any god — in fact, he triumphantly declares that there is no evidence — god exists, but (I can scarcely believe he makes this argument seriously) he's hiding…hiding in such a way that only someone "muscled up with virtues" can see him. It's the Emperor's New Clothes argument all over again.
Even worse, how can we sense this evidence? We need to use a special instrument.
That instrument is the heart. "It is the heart which perceives God, and not the reason". "The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know". Pascal's reasons of the heart are meant to take over from an intellect that operates on hard evidence but has run out of it. "The heart has its order, the mind has its own, which uses principles and demonstrations. The heart has a different one".
It's all fluff and nonsense. Tingley doesn't have a skeptical or scientific neuron in his head, and it shows that he's trying to think with a muscle.
Jeffrey Shallit takes this pretentious airhead down a few more notches. Somebody somewhere is going to have to someday point me to some intelligent arguments for gods, because I've sure never found them. And I know, someone is going to complain that I always pick on the weak arguments…while not bothering to tell me what the strong ones are.
Politics
Comments
"Use your blood pump to perceive god"?
Define "heart".
Posted by: dsmccoy | June 3, 2008 10:32 AM
It's a little-known fact that the sinoatrial node not only initiates the heartbeat, but also acts as a receiver for communication with god. If you would just quit blocking god's transmissions you would see.
Posted by: Matt | June 3, 2008 10:37 AM
Actually, I know exactly what he means by heart:
"It makes me feel bad to think god might not exist,
it makes me feel good to think god exists,
I like feeling good,
therefore god exists."
Posted by: dsmccoy | June 3, 2008 10:38 AM
PZ~ "...someone is going to complain that I always pick on the weak arguments...while not bothering to tell me what the strong ones are."
There are no strong arguements. Ever. But the believers ALWAYS believe they have a strong arguement. And you've never heard it before. And if they can just tell you about their arguement, that surely you've never heard 1000x before, then you'll convert on the spot.
For instance, where do feelings come from? Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Why are waterfalls pretty? Why are cute puppies so cute? SEE! HA! Checkmate, Atheists!
Posted by: Deepsix | June 3, 2008 10:41 AM
It's pretty obvious that, if you need some special "instrument" to detect God, then I don't have that instrument. If God exists, then when he gets around to giving me that instrument, I will believe.
I have said many times in the past that, if God exists, then he created me as a rational thinking person, one who does not believe in things without evidence, and for me to believe in God would mean that I would have to ignore my God-given ability of rational thought. Not using the abilities that God has given me would be an affront to him, and would be a sin. Therefore, it is very clear that, if God exists, it would be a sin for me to believe in him.
Posted by: Pablo | June 3, 2008 10:42 AM
Homoerotic theology at its best.
Posted by: SC | June 3, 2008 10:44 AM
He's totally ripping off Stephen Colbert.
"I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart,"
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 3, 2008 10:47 AM
"It is the heart which perceives God, and not the reason."
Geez, God, send an e-mail. You're more techno-phobic than my grandmother.
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 3, 2008 10:47 AM
What if you get a heart transplant from a Muslim? Conversion time?
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 10:48 AM
@#5
Yet you will still be punished for not believing in him. You're screwed either way!
Posted by: Matt | June 3, 2008 10:50 AM
That's pretty impressive, I must say. I've heard people who claim to know what particular atheists are thinking before, but this is the first time I've seen one claim to know what every one of them is thinking, including the ones who don't exist yet.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 3, 2008 10:57 AM
And Pascal's heart made him feel so secure in his belief in God that he then went and made up the argument we now refer to as "Pascal's wager": act as if you believe in God just in case he's there. Really persuasive!
Posted by: Zeno | June 3, 2008 10:59 AM
What a name-dropping, arrogant, posturing humbug! The whole article ignores the clear evidence, form the existence of suffering, that the Christian God does not exist.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 3, 2008 11:00 AM
All he does is dance around how you can't prove a negative, mixed in with lots of ad-homs towards specific and generalized atheists. I don't understand wanting to read all of that, much less wanting to write all of that.
Posted by: namae ga nai nezumi | June 3, 2008 11:00 AM
I always find these apologetics devilishly helpful in proving whatever I feel like believing too. Usually it's Allah. I like to congratulate them for converting me to Islam. Sometimes, it's leprechauns or the flying dog from The Neverending Story, though.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 11:02 AM
Actually, PZ, you obviously have never read the bible. If you did, you'd understand all the strong arguments for G-d's existence...
Oh, man, couldn't say that with a straight face.
Really, I got that earlier over at Unreasonable Faith. Several times. It was really directed at the FORMER THEOLOGY STUDENT whose blog I was commenting on, but A+ for inclusivity to that commenter.
Posted by: wazza | June 3, 2008 11:04 AM
Having been exposed to multiple conflicting religions where the adherents all "feel the truth in their heart", I'm not impressed by Tingley's argument.
Posted by: Yoo | June 3, 2008 11:06 AM
Apart from trying to find arguments for the existence of gods, why is it a logical next step that if gods exist one should worship them? You might say I have a problem with authority, but why should I take more kindly to divine tyrants than earthly ones? If gods existed I suspect I might be even more anti-religion than I am in their absence.
Posted by: Ted D | June 3, 2008 11:07 AM
"Skepticism and theism go well together. By a "skeptic" I mean a person who believes that in some particular arena of desired knowledge we just cannot have knowledge of the foursquare variety that we get elsewhere, and who sees no reason to bolster that lack with willful belief."
That seems to be stretching the definition of skeptic even in the philisophical sense. Again saying that we simply cannot understand. Why can't we understand? Because it just doesn't make sense. That works for quantum mechanics, maybe.
side note: I wonder how it feels to "sense" god with ones heart?
A bit "tingley" perhaps? He he
Posted by: Serena | June 3, 2008 11:07 AM
ugh
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2008 11:08 AM
I've finally gotten around to reading Zimmer's "Parasite Rex," and it is becoming clear to me that the tapeworm is God's favored child.
Posted by: Jeph | June 3, 2008 11:09 AM
Good point, Yoo. I bet the terrorists who piloted the planes into the WTC and Pentagon "felt the truth in their heart," too.
Posted by: Pablo | June 3, 2008 11:11 AM
Here is an argument in favor of believing in a god. Think of it this way - the human is an extremely complex machine that has some similarities to a computer, but with feelings as well. Something similar to programming can happen - learning language is a good example. Now say we add program (meme) that while not based on objective truth can be very useful in the health and well being of the person who accepts it. There could be a good argument for accepting such a meme even if it has no objective basis in reality. A good example of this is a placebo. Does religion qualify? Well the obvious benefits are not too clearly shown, but it is the best argument that I can come up with, and if it beneficial to the religious, the secondary reinforcement would explain its extreme resistance to extinction in the face of evidence.
Posted by: sailor | June 3, 2008 11:13 AM
Dennis N
"What if you get a heart transplant from a Muslim? Conversion time?"
I'm sure I read a few years back that pig heart transplants may be the way of the future? What/who do pigs believe in?
Posted by: NRT | June 3, 2008 11:14 AM
Did PZ mean 'blathering' rather than 'blithering'? To an outsider it makes no difference whether it's The Church of the Blithering Idiot or The Church of the Blathering Idiot. Edward Tingley (Catholic priest?)is still one up on 'shrub'- at least he is not thinking from the gut.
What special instrument should I need to find god? I've got irony meters, neutronizers (hard-to-find surplus after ghost busters II), I've taken astronomy field trips and I know someone who knows someone who knows someone at CERN. Not to mention, I own a dissecting microscope. I think god is in seclusion trying to perfect his phlogistonic interferometer.
Posted by: Mothra | June 3, 2008 11:15 AM
By that definition, a skeptic wouldn't believe in god... some particular arena of desired knowledge (god)... who sees no reason to bolster that lack with willful belief (which is exactly what a theist is doing)... I'm so confused about his point.
He presumes too much. Why not ask any atheist around? We're generally the exact opposite. We look at the evidence, and then decide. We never shut up about that; all we ever talk about is evidence! This man is actually off his rocker.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 11:16 AM
I've always wondered why it's called apologetics.
Is it because those who do so feel the need to apologize for something so blatantly ridiculous that it has to be connived and twisted so it can be comprehended?
Kind of like that trinity/godhead, but we're still monotheists stuff?
I don't know, I'm just dancing on a pin, but I'm no angel!
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 3, 2008 11:17 AM
Wow, he really goes on and on and on about Pascal. Unfortunately for him, "lifelong seeker of truth" Pascal more or less gave up science and mathematics after his religious conversion:
"When he was not yet twenty-four years old, Divine Providence induced him to read pious books, and God enlightened him so much by this reading of holy works that he saw clearly that the Christian religion requires us to live only for God and to have no other goal but Him. And this truth seemed to him so enlightening, so necessary and so useful, that it put an end to all his investigations."
Whoopsie!
Posted by: windy | June 3, 2008 11:17 AM
Peter Porker, the Spectacular Spider-Ham?
Posted by: Ted D | June 3, 2008 11:19 AM
Hahahaha! God is there because I feel it with my heart... so...um, what happens if you have a heart transplant? What if the heart transplant is from a Christian? Is that instant conversion? Or will atheist blood reject it?
Posted by: Snitzels | June 3, 2008 11:20 AM
@11
I think even more impressive than reading the minds of future atheists is the way past atheists (including those who lived prior to Pascal's birth) somehow managed to "misunderstand" Pascal.
These phenomena of course are accomplished by the appendix. Which you'd recognize as being the time-traveling-thought-reading organ if you weren't blinded by godless science.
Posted by: unicow | June 3, 2008 11:20 AM
@ #25:
Fender Stratocaster. Though it's not so much "find" as "think you are".
Posted by: Moggie | June 3, 2008 11:28 AM
More tepid twaddle from the hyper emotional gushers.
Posted by: danley | June 3, 2008 11:29 AM
@32:
Infidel! True gods have Telecasters.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 3, 2008 11:31 AM
So let me see here, what I believe this guy is saying is:
1 I have no proof that god exists
2 I have no reasonable reason to believe that god exists
3 I feel that god exists
4 I want god to exist
5 You can not prove to me that god doesn't exist
6 Therefore god exists
Did I sum it up correctly?
Posted by: Drew | June 3, 2008 11:35 AM
I can't detect god because I have an aluminum foil vest.
...it matches my hat... =)
Cheers.
Posted by: Fastlane | June 3, 2008 11:36 AM
#32: Will Staropramen do if I can't find one of those?
Posted by: windy | June 3, 2008 11:38 AM
That one's easy:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-like-Scanning-Electron-Microscope/dp/0595492983
Posted by: SC | June 3, 2008 11:39 AM
#35, you should switch 3 and 4. 4 leads directly to 3.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 11:39 AM
@#36
Take off that vest and receive GAWD into your heart!
Posted by: Matt | June 3, 2008 11:40 AM
#34
I don't remember if it was a Telecaster or a Stratocaster, but I do remember it had a heart of chrome and a voice like a horny angel.
Posted by: NinjaDebugger | June 3, 2008 11:43 AM
Could not finish. That was some very bad writing.
It was like he plunked his cat down on the keyboard ten times and thought of words that began with the letters that appeared.
It was like he bought one of those magnetic poetry kits, and dumped it on the table, and said the resulting arrangement was good.
It was like he was a lone monkey when clearly a thousand were needed.
No, could not finish, and I admire those of you who could divine his attempts at appearing divine.
Posted by: ajani5 | June 3, 2008 11:43 AM
#38, the tags on that books are hilarious:
pseudoscience (43)
absolute lunacy (36)
cult (31)
comic relief (30)
fiction (30)
humor (17)
lol (16)
self published (16)
creation science (14)
classic crackpot (13)
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 11:45 AM
Even worse than a transplant, what happens to the poor people who get artificial hearts?
Posted by: Carlie | June 3, 2008 11:46 AM
I love it whenever an apologist for religion comes right out and admits that his god is inaccessible to reason and can only be discovered by trying really, really hard to believe--because that's pretty much what I try to tell them, too. I do find it amazing how few of them seem to realize that they've just admitted their faith boils down to self-deluded wishful thinking, however.
Posted by: H.H. | June 3, 2008 11:46 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 3, 2008 11:48 AM
#41
"I don't remember if it was a Telecaster or a Stratocaster, but I do remember it had a heart of chrome and a voice like a horny angel."
"I don't remember if it was Telecaster or Stratocaster
But I do remember that it wasn't at all easy
It required the perfect combination of the right powerchords
And the precise angle from which to strike!"
Meat Loaf is even better left-over after 15 years.
Posted by: Jason Failes | June 3, 2008 11:56 AM
I tried to read his spew but I am afraid of contacting CSE (Christian Spongiform Encephalopathy)
Posted by: Robert Estrada | June 3, 2008 11:58 AM
I can't detect god because I have an aluminum foil vest. ...it matches my hat... =)
Amateur! I have an aluminum foil codpiece. *Some* of us have our priorities straight!
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | June 3, 2008 12:00 PM
There are no strong ones, but there are difficult ones.
It's kind of like ID, they want to drag you into a lot of arguments over epistemology and the fact that science lacks "proof", and a whole lot of other issues that are irrelevant to the usual understanding of practice and practical knowledge of science. That way they hope that one will forget that if evolution were accused in court of causing life's variety, it would be found guilty beyond not only all reasonable, but also any lingering, doubts.
Likewise with the god arguments. The point is simply to confuse people by discussing everything except the single most important fact, that we have no evidence for god. You don't need strong, or even adequate, arguments, so long as you have difficult arguments that leave people thinking that one has to be "skeptical" about atheism--because the difficult arguments raised questions in their minds.
Then they can say that they're the "skeptical ones" (actually, in the ancient sense they're close enough, since both seem to deny "intersubjective soundness"). It wouldn't work if they left matters clear, so they don't.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 3, 2008 12:02 PM
PZ, you say: "Somebody somewhere is going to have to someday point me to some intelligent arguments for gods, because I've sure never found them. And I know, someone is going to complain that I always pick on the weak arguments...while not bothering to tell me what the strong ones are."
A few days ago I wondered if I would ever see arguments for god that "experienced atheists" would see as challenging. I came to the conclusion that it may take an atheist to invent a god and a religion that other atheists would find credible. I wondered if I could do it ....!
Would I? To my horror, I concluded that I would invent a new god and a new religion if it would earn me (say) a million dollars a year. That is how much I can be bought for! (I would make the excuse that it would divert from more destructive religions ... but that is a pathetic excuse, isn't it?)
Posted by: Barry Pearson | June 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Wow, we've got to nearly 50 comments, and still no Tin Woodcutter from Oz jokes...
Posted by: wazza | June 3, 2008 12:07 PM
My god detecting instrument is broken. :( All it can do is keep me in a living state. Stupid broken heart thingy.
Anyways, I could only read about 25% of the article before braincells started dying off in mass quantities. Kudos to you people who CAN read it and still keep a high IQ level.
Posted by: Ouchimoo | June 3, 2008 12:11 PM
The heart is mostly muscle - hence the term: "Muscular Christianity".
#32 and #34: I have a Squier Strat (fraud!) and a Yamaha Pacifica 12-string (loves teh jingle-jangle). Does that make me a polytheist?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | June 3, 2008 12:15 PM
Hmmm...
You call a Christian foolish and deluded. Am I correct?
And the Christian claims that God calls a person who say there is no God as a fool. And fools are usually deluded so that can be added as well.
There is no common ground here. This is an arguement that you will never solve. You can't convince a Christian to turn his back on God. (Atleast not very many anyways.)
However, there have been many athiests who converted to Christianity.
You point your fingers at Christians and mock them. From the comments I see on this blog, you hate them as well.
One would think that you would critisize muslims, buddhist, and any other religion as well. You don't. Perhaps it is because you don't see very much of them in your little part of the world. But I do see a lack of this where there are much more muslims. But then if you insult Islam, they feel obligated to saw your head off. Be thankful that Christians don't have that virtue.
You can hate Christians all you want, that is your right. You can deny God all you want, that is also your right.
But remember this, the majority of people in this country (atleast it is a close one) are Christians. Police, Doctors, Nurses, Firmen, Soldiers, Scientists (yes, some of them are!), Factory workers, Cashier workers, Salesmen, Managers, and all the other occupations and including people you meet in stores and in other public places, are Christians. They are all over the place. You meet some of them and actually like some of these people. You treat them with respect and they treat you with respect as well. Some you even might find attractive.
They are normal people. I am not talking about the crazies who drive everyone nuts. (i.e. tv preachers begging for money to do God's work)
Would you disrespect people you like and are attracted to in order to furthur your ideology?
Because on the athiest side of the arguement, you sometimes come off as the crazy Christians you rail against and mock.
Posted by: Starbuck | June 3, 2008 12:17 PM
I'd like to see him perceive with his heart something verifiable . . . like next week's winning lottery number.
Posted by: colluvial | June 3, 2008 12:18 PM
Dennis N,
The tags are great. Another wonderful element in the Mark Armitage story is found on the Creation Research Society's Board of Directors page, where his profession is listed as...
"Surgical Microscope Sales Rep. for Micro Specialist."
Posted by: SC | June 3, 2008 12:20 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 3, 2008 12:20 PM
The article could have been about half or a third as long; cut out some of the fluffy "atheists are smug meanies" paragraphs at the end of each section and the piece would have flowed a lot more nicely, I think.
Posted by: Beth B. | June 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Barry (#51) wrote:
It's been done or at least attempted. See "I met god the other day" by the Ragged Trousered Philosopher.
I've often thought a custom made religion that fit the evidence could eventually catch on and replace the insane, apocalyptic death-cults that currently dominate.
Posted by: jj | June 3, 2008 12:27 PM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 3, 2008 12:30 PM
The heart, Osborne!
Posted by: Jason J Brunet | June 3, 2008 12:30 PM
Damnitt, Starbuck is gonna take up another 30 minutes of my time now.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 12:31 PM
"You can't convince a Christian to turn his back on God."
Oh I don't know, it was the behavior of christians and the sheer lack of evidence that unbrainwashed me, so I guess you can convince a christian to turn his/her back on god.
Posted by: Snitzels | June 3, 2008 12:32 PM
One would think that you would critisize muslims, buddhist, and any other religion as well. - Starbuck
Liar.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 3, 2008 12:34 PM
For a Christian apologist, this is particularly weak and old and trite. You had a better apologist a few weaks ago; one who gave the ol' religion as myth and metaphor argument.
I don't hate apologists as much as you do and *do* like the metaphors and myths that legends, folk tales, and religious stories give us. One question I'd like to pose to apologists though is what relevance is it to the metaphor and myth of religion that people think the story is somehow real?
For example: Little Red Riding Hood is probably *the* quintesential story and the most universal metaphor about the presence of evil there is. For all Little Red Riding Hood can tell me about the nature of evil and corruption and the loss of innocence, I'd have to call myself a firm and devout "Little Red Riding Hood apologist". And yet, if I were to expect anyone to believe that at any time in earth's history there ever was a talking wolf who could dress himself in an old woman's clothes I'd be totally *nuts*. Why is being a religious apologist any different?
Posted by: woozy | June 3, 2008 12:35 PM
Re #65: I omitted part of the quote from Starbuck. It should read:
One would think that you would critisize muslims, buddhist, and any other religion as well. You don't.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 3, 2008 12:38 PM
@#51 Barry Pearson
I came to the conclusion that it may take an atheist to invent a god and a religion that other atheists would find credible. I wondered if I could do it ....!
How about the First Church of Provisional Truth? Kinda catchy sounding. Our religious text would be the sum-total of all current scientific thought. I'd have a tough time working in a deity though. Ooo, maybe the Incredible Shrinking God! Not one you worship, maybe more like one you outgrow.
How do I get this started?
Posted by: Betz | June 3, 2008 12:38 PM
"But remember this, the majority of people in this country (atleast it is a close one) are Christians. Police, Doctors, Nurses, Firmen, Soldiers, Scientists (yes, some of them are!), Factory workers, Cashier workers, Salesmen, Managers, and all the other occupations and including people you meet in stores and in other public places, are Christians. They are all over the place."
Can we add "Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us." --Tyler Durden
Posted by: Snitzels | June 3, 2008 12:40 PM
And I know, someone is going to complain that I always pick on the weak arguments...while not bothering to tell me what the strong ones are.
Isn't it obvious?
Shorter starbuck:
blah blah blah
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 3, 2008 12:41 PM
Oof. I thought Tingley's piece was the single dumbest thing I'd ever read, until Starbuck weighed in.
The belief in the Christian (or any other) god without evidence is indeed foolish and deluded.
The bible claims that hares chew their cud. So what?
Sorry. There's no common ground between those who claim the earth is flat and those who have evidence that it is spheroid. Not every problem can be solved by Kumbaya-ing your way to a fence and sitting on it.
FYI, you're about to be flooded with comments by atheists who were once Christians.
This one included.
And lots of Christians have converted to Islam. And many Muslims converted to Buddhism. And so on....
No, we mostly hate their actions, and particularly the evil ones.
You must be willfully avoiding reading the posts about Islam. Either that, or lying.
Well, the liars, anyway.
And why not? You deny Vishnu without a second thought.
Thanks for telling us what we already know. Perhaps you might write a paragraph or two on the colour of the sky.
See the comments made by Walton on this thread for a much less stupid way of saying what you just did.
Learn to spell 'atheist', 'further', and 'argument', and maybe we won't be so up in arms about Christians fucking up education for all.
Thanks for coming out, Starbuck. Now why don't you go back to the bench and learn from watching the big kids play.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 3, 2008 12:44 PM
In the heart? The heart? The same heart Jeremiah 17:9 tells us is, above all things, "deceitful" and "desperately wicked"? Or is this an entirely different heart? Do Christians have multiple hearts? Maybe the Doctor Who analogy is more fitting than we thought.
Posted by: falterer | June 3, 2008 12:46 PM
Shorter Starbuck...
Christians are NICE. You are MEAN! Watch out.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Starbuck, this talk about "hate" and "disrespect" for individual Christians is just a reflexive defense mechanism that lets you avoid dealing with the issues or considering what was actually written.
The theologian's argument is terrible: incoherent, loose with definitions, a plaint in place of any attempt at reasoning that could possibly sway the not already converted. This argument is what is being derided, and it deserves no respect. Nobody here hates the individual who wrote it. Unless I am wrong that hating an argument injures no one, no one has been harmed. Do religious ideas command respect, just because they're religious?
Posted by: CJO | June 3, 2008 12:49 PM
What about all the people with pacemakers? Will there be electrical interference with their connection to the almighty? Are they going to be damned to eternal hellfire as a result? Are they already in hell? (According to some theologies, "hell" is actually just the state of not having a connection with "god")
Posted by: amphiox | June 3, 2008 12:51 PM
Sure, there's always that motivation and Hubbard proved that the "there must be something more" meme can be grounded by the stupidiest shit imaginable (Thetans, space travel by customized Boeing 737's, intergalatic evil space lords, etc) and there are people who will believe and follow it. What I propose is something like Machavellian inspired philanthropy. I don't want to profit from it, I only want to see the current distructive bronze-age, goat herder based religions replaced and eliminated.
There's plenty of evidence some (maybe most) humans need "woo" and the desire to believe there is "something more" so might as well give it to them, but instead of a meme that is destructive and based on fear and injustice, we need to replace it with one that's something along the lines of what the Ragged Trousered Philosopher wrote.
I'm sure scientists with a creative writing flare could come up with something that is not contradicted by evidence and the "woo"-ist could be drawn to. We need to infect the population with a new viral meme.
Posted by: jj | June 3, 2008 12:51 PM
Just another way to call atheists and skeptics a bunch of quitters. When the going gets tough the tough get going. Jeez, this guy sounds like a high school football coach.
Hey, and you're all lazy. And stupid.
Oh, but we are very committed to being all of the above, so we have that going for us.
Starbuck,
You've made some false statements and I'm sure you will get those pointed out to you. But I will mention that there are more Christians who come to realize that there is no God than your claim of the reverse being true. You must be listening to the testimonies on TBN. Unbelievers are on the rise in this country which is an indication of the way this matter is trending. It just can't come soon enough for some of us.
Also, we don't hate most Christians we despise the ideology and the damage it does to people and our society. Kind of like Christians who hate the sin but not the sinner. Get it?
Posted by: Rick T | June 3, 2008 12:51 PM
Deluded, yes. Not all are foolish. Most just don't think their religion over. They compartmentalize it from rational thought. They're very good at analyzing other religions, so we know they're not stupid, but not their own.
That means nothing to us, since we don't use the bible as our guide to anything. Because the bible says atheists are fools does not make it true.
You can convince a Christian to deconvert. Most atheists in America were raised Christian. That's just statistics. If your point is: if they deconverted then they aren't "True Christians", well, if the atheist converts to Christianity, he wasn't a "True Atheist".
We don't hate them. As you go on to say, most people we deal with are Christian. Most people are nice DESPITE their religion. They overcome it and disregard it. I've never been stoned for picking up sticks on a Sunday.
We don't have that virtue either. Most people don't. Christians don't get a monopoly on morals or kindess. See this if you think we never discuss Islam. It just happens that, as you explain below, most of our time is spent amongst Christians. It's only reasonable that we discuss them the most. We're most familiar with them. They're the ones evangelizing to us, coming to this blog (you), and trying to decide public policy based on their religion.
Yes most people I know are Christians. I like them. I don't believe what they believe, but that's not important. The people I know don't let their religion run their lives. Like I said, they live their lives despite their Christianity. We do not "deny" god. You're framing us. We see no reason to believe in a god. We require evidence, and we've been shown none. As for Yahweh, he is logically inconsistent. Also, the bible is rife with errors and contradictions.
But sadly, those people get the most airtime, and are not denounced by moderates.
We are not disrespecting normal people. We do 2 things: we attack IDEAS or fringe kooks. We don't go around attacking normal folks. We do our best to reason with them.
That's your opinion. There's a variety of people in every movement. However, even at our most extreme, we are not denying gays' rights, burning books, denying condoms to Africa, or cutting people's heads off. We're... talking. Are we really so bad?
Posted by: Dennis N | June 3, 2008 12:51 PM
dsmccoy
Define "heart"
You all can't be so willfully stupid that you take him literally can you? Oh, I see that you can be that stupid. This is why I repeatedly wonder if it is possible for there to be any discussion at all. It seems futile, especially given the juvenile behavior here.
I thought the article by Tingley was dead on in it's criticism of atheism. Where he goes off is he reverts to dated language like "The heart has it's reasons" but the rest of it is very good. He also sums ups Pascal's arguments very well also.
But I truly find it hard to believe that no one here has any idea what is meant by the word "heart". So, little boys, set aside your games and be honest. Do you truly not know what is the referent in the phrase "The heart has it's reasons"? It should be obvious to anyone, I know what it means, do you?
Posted by: Brenda von Ahsen | June 3, 2008 12:51 PM
Falterer, it is extremely rude to refer to the bible when criticising apologetics. The bible is only to be cherry-picked when constructing apologetics.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 3, 2008 12:53 PM
"Please stop hating on Christians. Y'all should hate on those lousy Muslims instead."
Posted by: Citizen Z | June 3, 2008 12:54 PM
IANAT but I liked the essay PZ linked to by Tingley. In the "Refusing the Facts" section he says this:
"We are told we should face the facts. Well here they are: The only world in which strictly empirical evidence is the road that we should take in our views about God is a world in which God either shows himself by such evidence or simply does not exist. Those are the options that the agnostic and the atheist like, and it is because they like them that they never pay any attention to the further fact that accompanies these: God might await us down another road. There are three options, not two."
In my mind he is telling us all to avoid rigid thinking and not be locked into a particular viewpoint. We shouldn't limit our categories to either/or choices unnecessarily and be willing to examine other possibilities.
I also liked the "Settled or Seeking" section of Tingley's essay. He says.
"We agree about the virtues of science. It is a virtue to be reasonable, but the person who flees the above logic is plainly not reasonable. On the question of the way in which the truth about God might be found he is openly illogical, and Pascal is aghast at him.
There are only two kinds of people one can call reasonable: those who serve God with all their heart because they know him and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him. As for those who live without either knowing or seeking him . . . It takes all the charity of that religion they despise not to despise them to the point of abandoning them to their folly. (427)
Those are better categories than the a-words I have employed because it is never clear whether a self-confessed "atheist" or "agnostic" is settled or seeking."
Again just my own opinion as an ordinary believer who is not a theologian, it seems that many on this site have put a great deal of thought into their stances and I respect that. I suspect that some are still seekers and are not settled in their own minds and hearts.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | June 3, 2008 12:56 PM