Pharyngula

Posted by: Carpworld | November 18, 2008 7:50 AM

Reading the one that starts (weirdly):

I believe in God because ...My daughter Sarah died after a long battle with cancer

it's sad but clear that her real answer, as often seems to be the case, is that she believes because the alternative would simply be too painful to accept. Much as i wish people could just accept the truth I have no problem with belief like this. The danger is that it's the sharp end of the wedge.

Posted by: Ploon | November 18, 2008 7:58 AM

The mind boggles. Could you try and come up with worse answers?

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 18, 2008 8:01 AM

I like how the added an exclamation mark to the No! answer in the poll. Is that supposed to "prove" that atheists are short tempered or something like that?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 18, 2008 8:04 AM

Looks like the sort through submissions before posting them.

we'll see....

Posted by: clinteas | November 18, 2008 8:07 AM

From the "About" page on that site:

This website has been put together by the Evangelism and Outreach Team of Lichfield Diocese in order to present an opportunity for individuals to explore the other side of the debate arising out of the Atheist Bus and Poster campaign.

This site is an attempt to simply present real people's stories of their faith in God through Jesus Christ as expressed in modern day Chrsitianity.

Spelling errors...check
Logical fallacies....check

Yup,looks authentic christian !

Im just wondering what the atheist bus is....

Posted by: Ploon | November 18, 2008 8:12 AM

The Atheist Bus is the longer one.

Posted by: BaldySlaphead | November 18, 2008 8:13 AM

"Im just wondering what the atheist bus is"

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

Seems to have put the willies up a few people!

Posted by: Larry | November 18, 2008 8:16 AM

#11 Those stories just leave me absolutely breathless. The writer of that letter should simply try god next time and leave out the medical care part and see how far s/he gets. Not to mention why god isn't praised for the divine gift of the staph infection in the first place. I'm sure it was given with all the love with which it was taken away (ignoring the excellent medical care, of course).

Teh stupid! It burns.

Posted by: Carpworld | November 18, 2008 8:21 AM

DuckPhup> obvious i know but i can't resist doing the true version:

In 1999, I was hospitalized with a severe staph infection. I'd never known such horrible pain, and while I received excellent religious care, and the strongest prayers available, all of that would have been useless if modern medicine had not intervened. Science literally saved my life, and nothing and no one will make me believe otherwise.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 18, 2008 8:25 AM

I believe in god because...{mind goes blank, again :)} thinks 'this thinking is hard'
...
...
...
...
Nope, got nothing. Come on people, somebody help me out here.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | November 18, 2008 8:30 AM

I didn't know what I believed
I thought perhaps I was deceived
By Satan, but I felt relieved
To see through the façade.

I opened up the Holy Book
At random, to a page and took
A skeptical and doubting look
But there, of course, was God!

That's all there was; I took a chance
And gave the Holy Book a glance
Then saw the Truth and took my stance
Because I'm not naïve:

You think perhaps I misconstrue?
You think my thoughts have gone askew?
They couldn't print it if not true--
And that's why I believe!

Posted by: MarkW | November 18, 2008 8:31 AM

I think I'll submit a "I don't believe in gods because..." story.

Posted by: Mikael Hiort af Ornäs | November 18, 2008 8:31 AM

@John Phillips, FCD: Pick your choice ---> god

BTW, when I voted, the "No!" bar had increased in size to about 81% of all votes :)

Posted by: Mikael Hiort af Ornäs | November 18, 2008 8:33 AM

Hmm... the link doesn't work. Here http://www.abbreviations.com/GOD

Posted by: mayhempix | November 18, 2008 8:38 AM

Brainwashed and clueless about it in England...

"I believe in God because ... my parents not only told me who Jesus is but demonstrated what it means to be one of his followers."

I mean what more proof could one need?

Posted by: IST | November 18, 2008 8:43 AM

That poll has either been crashed pretty hard already or they missed their target audience. I can't picture the creators of the poll being happy with an 84-15 loss... Now I just have to submit a story... just can't decided between a disbelief story and a pile of complete and utter rubbish. Since we won't be able to distinguish between our intentionally moronic fake stories and the real ones, maybe I'll stick with disbelief.

Posted by: Father Nature | November 18, 2008 8:46 AM

I believe in god because...

My pastor told me that if I didn't, I'd go to hell and burn forever. My goodness, who wants that?

Posted by: andyb | November 18, 2008 8:48 AM

i also believe in sauron because he built barad-dur and it says so in the lord of the rings.

unfortunately, after submission, they say they cannot use every story. this suggests they actually selected the drivel on the front page. incredible.

(85% no, now)

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 8:50 AM

Hi there,

as the creator of the site let me just explain.

you're right - many of the testimonies coming in right now are not that helpful. But I'm being kind and honouring people who've submitted stuff for now, hoping that the more useful sensible testimonies will come in too and rise to the surface in time.

the site has only existed for just over 1 week, so it's very early days.

My purpose here is very simple. I believe in God, and in the face of the atheist campaign saying "there's probably no God" to stand up and say, "actually, I don't agree, and this is why". It is simply to provide a place to present our experiences of of the true and living God so you can read them if you want to and think "Maybe there is! These people have experiened something, maybe we shouldn't write it off so soon!".

Can I ask please that people from here stop submitting stupid submissions. It's taking up my time and I've got better things to do. I don't go around atheist websites harranguing them for what they wrongly believe to be true, and all I ask for is the same respect.

Thanks!

Rev. Evan Cockshaw

Posted by: phil | November 18, 2008 8:51 AM

8:50am EST

No! 85.4%
Yes 12.9%
Not Sure 1.7%

Probably not quite the response they were hoping for.

Posted by: Tim | November 18, 2008 8:52 AM

Submit a story?, bad enough to subject my eyes to the drivel long enough to vote!

Posted by: Lotus | November 18, 2008 8:55 AM

It's amsuing how some of them seem to be unable to differentiate between "God helps people" and "Having a belief in God helps people". When I was a kid having a belief in santa made my life a lot better, that doesn't make Santa more likely to be real. It's not like faries in some cartoon where if we all believe enough they'll be real. Seeing believing in god making people behave in a different way isn't the same thing as proof for a god.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 8:56 AM

In addition, it would be slightly false to judge the site just yet as I've only had a few days to work on it. I am busy with a full time job doing other stuff. There is plenty still to do on it, such as sorting out the diocesan link and such like.

Maybe you guys can find something better to do with your important time! ;-)

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | November 18, 2008 8:59 AM

OMG UR BREECHIN TEH CONTRACT!!!!

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 18, 2008 9:00 AM

@Mikael Hiort af Ornäs: I know a guy named Guy, so a Guy On Drugs I could believe in :). But probably more accurately, Generator, Operator, Destroyer or Guardians Of Darkness seems to fit the bill here. After all the former lives up to the claims of his followers and the latter fits the behaviour of many of his followers.

Posted by: ennui | November 18, 2008 9:01 AM

Hey Rev. Evan Cockshaw:

Why not use this thread to tell us why you believe in god? How good is your answer?

I believe because... I see god in every rainbow, sunset, and on the face of every child! ... My parents believed ... Science is hard ... I'm scurred o' dyin' ... You can't be good without god ... life would be pointless otherwise ... prayer really works! Really! ... etc.

Posted by: clinteas | November 18, 2008 9:01 AM

Yay,party time !!!

I don't go around atheist websites harranguing them for what they wrongly believe to be true

Ahem,Rev.Cockshaw,

thank you for clearing this up for me,I never knew I wrongly believed....Good to see the usual christian self-centered smugness at work once more !
So let me get this straight,youd rather not have any reality-based,rational people posting on your site? Fair enough,maybe you should put up a disclaimer stating that.

Posted by: Paul R | November 18, 2008 9:02 AM

Awww, has the Rev Cockshaw spat the dummy? The poll has been removed. Heh heh heh. :)

Posted by: Paul Browne | November 18, 2008 9:06 AM

If you are all keen on helping out the British Humanist Association (the backers of the Atheist bus campaign) you could do a lot worse than make a donation to their >.

The fund is to employ a campaigner who will work full-time to co-ordinate campaigns to oppose the current expansion of faith schools in the UK and to enable state-funded schools to become secular.

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 9:06 AM

as the creator of the site

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 18, 2008 9:08 AM

LOL....the poll has been removed! Bad arguments are still there however.

This is almost as good as The God Poll .

Posted by: Paul Browne | November 18, 2008 9:09 AM

OK, something went awry in my last post, so here it is again.

If you are all keen on helping out the British Humanist Association (the backers of the Atheist bus campaign) you could do a lot worse than make a donation to their campaign against faith schools at http://www.justgiving.com/faithschools.

The fund is to employ a campaigner who will work full-time to co-ordinate campaigns to oppose the current expansion of faith schools in the UK and to enable state-funded schools to become fully secular.

Posted by: Paul R | November 18, 2008 9:12 AM

@Rev Cockshaw,

You claim not to go around harranging atheists for what they believe, however a quick look at the headers of your site suggests that you are actively trying to get us there. The use of the following meta-keywords seems to indicate that we are indeed your target audience:

"Richard Dawkins, God, Jesus, Christianity, Atheism, Atheist Busses, atheist, atheist bus, atheist poster, probably no God, Church of England, Church, meaning of life, deism, theism, agnosticism, agnostics, agnostic, The God delusion"

Posted by: FastLane | November 18, 2008 9:15 AM

I think randomly copying submissions and changing 'god' to 'allah', 'Zues', 'Odin', etc. will be fun.

Someone write a script, wouldja? =)

It would make it far more interesting.

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 9:17 AM

The following came up when I tried to access that website from work:

"This Websense category is filtered: Potentially Damaging Content."

Ahh good old websense looking out for my well being.

Posted by: ennui | November 18, 2008 9:18 AM

Still waiting for Cocksure to answer his own question. Oh, and Cocksure, make sure to dumb it down for us dullard atheists, please.

Posted by: spence-bob | November 18, 2008 9:18 AM

Maybe you guys can find something better to do with your important time! ;-)

Funny - I was about to make the same suggestion to you, Reverend.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 18, 2008 9:20 AM

Can I ask please that people from here stop submitting stupid submissions. It's taking up my time and I've got better things to do. I don't go around atheist websites harranguing them for what they wrongly believe to be true, and all I ask for is the same respect.

Thanks!

Rev. Evan Cockshaw

Oh really. Then why say this on the paragraph right before

My purpose here is very simple. I believe in God, and in the face of the atheist campaign saying "there's probably no God" to stand up and say, "actually, I don't agree, and this is why". It is simply to provide a place to present our experiences of of the true and living God so you can read them if you want to and think "Maybe there is! These people have experiened something, maybe we shouldn't write it off so soon!".

You may not "go to atheist websites" but you are promoting a website for just that purpose. What's the point of having that website if not to try and convince those who know you are wrong?

Posted by: Ploon | November 18, 2008 9:25 AM

I'm not coming here and being rude about what you believe

Ahem. We don't believe. I think that's the whole point. Ah, just another religionut whose imagination is so limited that he can't imagine that there are people who have no need to believe, so whatever they say must be based on some "belief" (which belief is treated "courteously", implying some virtue on the side of the religionut, because actually he thinks our "belief" is silly and not worthy of respect, but he forces himself to be courteous. Which, without a belief in god, he obviously wouldn't be able to, because he would be amoral, just like us).

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 9:26 AM

Rev. Evan Cockshaw,

All your base are belong to us.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 9:27 AM

Here's one I've abridged slightly:

I believe in God because... I... my life... my life... me me... me personally... my life... my life... me... I... I... my youth... my dream job... give me... I was completely wrapped up in myself and my unmet emotional needs, and once God started to fulfill those needs I was able to look outside myself... me... I...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 18, 2008 9:28 AM

Poor Rev. Cockshaw, upset in finding out that not everybody agrees with him. Remind anybody of someone else?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 9:30 AM

Can I ask please that people from here stop submitting stupid submissions. It's taking up my time - Rev. Cocksure

Well, that seems a pretty good reason for doing it. While that's taking up your time you won't be telling children stupid lies, at any rate.

Posted by: kampar | November 18, 2008 9:34 AM

Posted by "Godwin":

I believe in God because ...He's answered my prayers to the specifics countless number of times.I talked with Him this morning!God is an incredible promise keeper.He has kept all His promises to me.I have tasted Him and can say that God is GOOD!

Okay - which one of you was that ... ?

Posted by: Kitty | November 18, 2008 9:36 AM

He's real, check out his new church

Posted by: Who Cares | November 18, 2008 9:38 AM

I'd like to call a Poe on the website.

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2008 9:41 AM

Mr Evan Cockshaw (not going to use Reverend, as I think it does you no credit).

Here is the first sentence on your site: "The truth is most of the population of the world believe in God! Here you will find the stories of ordinary people who explain why they believe so you can think for yourself whether there really is or not."

How on earth do you expect to think for themselves when your site only has stories from people who BELIEVE? If you really wanted people to think, you would allow stories from NON-BELIEVERS too.

I know you don't want people to think (thinking is anathema to religion), but at least you could try to be honest about it.

Posted by: Avenel | November 18, 2008 9:43 AM

Reverend Cockshaw,

This site, unlike yours, allows both sides. You claim we are wrong, pony up the evidence. We're all rational people here. You pop up real proof, not pathetic anecdotes, and we'll evaluate it.

I know my submission to your site was not rude, or stupid. It was purely rational.

Posted by: Philip P. | November 18, 2008 9:50 AM

I realize I'm yelling into a black hole here (and the fact that I am therefore standing in a vacuum further complicates matters :P ) but I would like to just mention that there is at least one Christian in the world (myself) who is embarassed by other believers that use circular logic or non sequiturs as arguments for the existance of God, the divinity of Jesus, etc.

My own faith comes from a combination of my logical understanding of the world, my own personal experiences, and yes, the organized faith I belong to. To actually define God and Their role throughout history or just within my life would be a rather large task to undergo myself. Knowledge (reliable knowledge, for the sake of argument here) passed down makes it easier to grapple with the concept of a being that is said to be infinite.

I suppose had I been raised in a different part of the world I would be a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist instead, because at the core I would believe there is more out there than science has yet examined/explained/quantified.

And with regards to my own personal experiences, this is why I don't really act as a witness to anyone. I'm never going to write an email to PZ Myers saying "Well this, this, and this happened to me in my life, and it proves to me that God exists, so it should prove it to you as well." There is no logic to that argument, I know this.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 9:51 AM

Religion has been around long enough for those of us with rational minds to understand the god meme really serves no useful purpose. Indeed, even the biblical character of jesus confirms one need not be a christian to be a good person - the 'good Samaritan' of the parable could not possibly have been one.

Religion (and its followers) has had it all its own way for thousands of years. And now should I choose to ridicule christianity, or any other religion for that matter, in whatever way I want, I will not be stopped. The time has come to expose the slack-jawed excrement that is faith and those mind-screwed numpties who proudly profess it.

So... two questions for Evan 'Cocksure': If one conjoined twin is a christian and the other is not, where do they both go after death? And why does your god hate amputees?

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 18, 2008 9:55 AM

There's not one single rational evidence based argument for one's belief in God on that site ?
What a big surprise !

Posted by: DuckPhup | November 18, 2008 9:58 AM

Hmmm... somebody with Wikipedia editing credentials ought to add Westboro Baptist Church to the Affiliations section, and Landover Baptist Church to the External Links.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 10:01 AM

Holbach,is that you??

Nope.

Who is Holbach, and why would I be mistaken for him/her?

Posted by: Armchair Dissident | November 18, 2008 10:03 AM

From the Rev:

I'm not coming here and being rude about what you believe.

No, you're coming here being a dishonest priest from a dishonest organisation that demands too much political power. Diddums to you. From your site:

This website has been put together by the Evangelism and Outreach Team of Lichfield Diocese in order to present an opportunity for individuals to explore the other side of the debate arising out of the Atheist Bus and Poster campaign.

Quit with the crybaby winging. You have seats in the house of Lords. You have billboards up in every church in the country. You run "Alpha course" adverts on buses, you have a dedicated programs on the BBC, and you're upset over *1 poster*.

You've been provided with ample opportunity to "explore the other side", and ample tax-payers money to do so. Grow up.

Posted by: clinteas | November 18, 2008 10:04 AM

Missus Gumby,

this :

The time has come to expose the slack-jawed excrement that is faith and those mind-screwed numpties who proudly profess it.

was very Holbach-worthy...A commenter here...

Posted by: JH | November 18, 2008 10:06 AM

The site's dumb, of course, but that thing on the front page where you can rotate the authors and find the popular ones based on the enlarging of the name is pretty slick.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 10:09 AM

Empiricism and reason can only take a person so far. As regards the Christian faith belief in leprechauns, the only conclusion we can reach, based solely on known fact and rational inference, is that we simply don't know whether Christ was a divine being who was resurrected from the dead leprechauns are magical beings with pots of gold. We have a number of third- or fourth-hand written accounts, but beyond that, we can't know for certain what Jesus did leprechauns do, what he taught how much gold they have, or even whether he they existed. So normal academic methods simply don't give us an answer to the question.

Equally valid.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 10:10 AM

clinteas:

was very Holbach-worthy...A commenter here...

Thank you. I feel honoured! And should the occasion arise, there's lots more where that came from. Heh heh.

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 10:11 AM

@Walton: Your comments are very often a bit tl;dr. Have you considered registering your own blog if you've got things that long to tell the world?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 10:17 AM

Richard Harris@113,
No the "Aryans" spoke an Indo-European language, not an Afro-Asiatic one. Their pantheon was related to that of the Greeks and Romans. For example, Indra (the chief deity in the Rig Veda) clearly corresponds to Zeus/Jupiter, and Krishna to Dionysus/Bacchus.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2008 10:21 AM

The poll hasn't reappeared. I think comment 80 nails it: not only is the argumentum ad populum a logical fallacy, but its very premise ("the truth is[,] most of the population of the world [...]) would have looked a bit silly had the poll stayed up!

Comment 33 wins the thread.

I know a guy named Guy, so a Guy On Drugs I could believe in :). But probably more accurately, Generator, Operator, Destroyer or Guardians Of Darkness seems to fit the bill here.

Tssss.

Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | November 18, 2008 10:24 AM

Phillip P at 98;

You say you base your faith on your own experiences and logic, yes?

I assume that you feel that you could be, nay probably are wrong on parts of your logic (as are we all from time to time)? Do you consider yourself to be a philosopher, scientist, or any other kind of specialist on the natural world?

I assume the answer will be "no" here.

If that is indeed the case, why do you choose to follow the directions of an organisation which offers nothing in the way of proof over a dynamic, self-correcting body of evidence which is mutually supportive and is a product of the finest minds that have ever existed?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 18, 2008 10:25 AM

Also, a belief in leprechauns has no major consequence for one's lifestyle or ethical choices.

Shiiit. Have you seen people in the depths of a pot of gold binge?

Posted by: ennui | November 18, 2008 10:28 AM

@ Walton---The default position for any rational person must be skepticism, not credulity. Otherwise, where do you draw the line on what you will believe? Your desire to reify the unseen and untested and unsupported will ultimately lead you to deny any sort of objective reality. You will live in a dream world of ghosts and goblins and unicorns and underpants gnomes.

With faith, there is no test for falsity, and everything (even logical contradictions) must be true.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 10:31 AM

Out of interest, Walton, what would you do if your trusted friend told you to kick a puppy? Or harass women going into Planned Parenthood clinics? Or vote to take people's marriage rights away?

Posted by: Yer Mighty Overload | November 18, 2008 10:33 AM

MissPrism at 82

That were funny as hell - and so true.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 18, 2008 10:39 AM

As Dyaus Pita translates as "Sky Father", I'd expect that he's a conceptual descendent of whatever Proto-Indo-European sky god who also became Zeus pater and Iuppiter (Jupiter).

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 10:42 AM

Walton wrote:

(1) To the best of my knowledge, there are no major written accounts, dating from a known period in recorded history and claiming to have been compiled from a number of different eyewitness testimonies, of people who claim to have seen leprechauns. (I could be wrong about this, as I personally haven't studied the history of leprechaun mythology.) In contrast, the Christian faith claims that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected in a specific Roman province, within a specific historical timeframe, under a named Roman magistrate (whose existence is corroborated by extraneous evidence); and it presents several accounts which, while not themselves written by eyewitnesses, do purport to have been compiled from eyewitness accounts, and do genuinely date back to the late 1st-early 2nd centuries AD (though the exact dating and provenance are hotly disputed among scholars). So while neither is backed by unequivocal proof, there is somewhat better evidence for Christ than for leprechauns.

OK... so replace leprechauns with any of the popular Greek gods of old... that should meet your requirement of written accounts and eyewitness testimony... there... any more valid now?

Posted by: Avenel | November 18, 2008 10:46 AM

The problem with your analogy, Walton, is that the person asking you to jump off the cliff isn't your friend, she's a con artist, a huckster, a shill. The truth is that the pit is in fact, a pit, filled with a quagmire of bigotry, hatred, and irrationality.

Posted by: spence-bob | November 18, 2008 10:51 AM

I'm not coming here and being rude about what you believe.

Begging your pardon, Rev, but that's exactly what you did when you said you don't visit atheist websites to mock what they wrongly (your word, not mine) believe to be true.

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 10:53 AM

The default position for any rational person must be skepticism, not credulity. Otherwise, where do you draw the line on what you will believe? Your desire to reify the unseen and untested and unsupported will ultimately lead you to deny any sort of objective reality.

I think the issue here relates to our conceptions of "reality" and "existence". Existence is not necessarily a binary property; it's IMO too simplistic to assert that a thing either exists or does not exist. There are different types of "existence" beyond the merely material and physical; and to constrain one's epistemology to the narrow bounds of empirical observation and logical inference leads to an incomplete and imperfect view of reality. I would argue that an element of subjectivity is not just possible, but positively essential, in a proper understanding of reality.

At one extreme, the chair on which I am currently sitting undoubtedly exists, in a physical sense. It has measurable physical properties which can be analysed in a laboratory; and even if no human being perceived the chair or knew of its existence, it would still exist, in a purely material sense.

But this is not necessarily the only type of "existence" which is possible. I would argue that love and beauty exist, for instance. They are not tangible or quantifiable physical phenomena which one can see, touch or analyse in a laboratory. And they are also subjective; if there were no human beings to perceive things as beautiful, then beauty would not be a property of those things, and beauty itself would therefore not exist. It is not a material quality, nor an objective one. But I would contend that it nevertheless exists.

Or how about music? Music, as a concept differentiated from mere "sound" or "noise", does not exist in a physical sense. But it exists in a conceptual sense; because it is self-evident that a piece of music is, in our perceived universe, something different from, and greater than, the sum total of the notes which compose it. The same for other abstractions: "society" is not a material physical phenomenon, but rather refers to the patterns created by human beings and the complex web of interpersonal relationships which connects them.

And to return to the example of the chair: while the chair, as an object, has an objective material existence independent of human perception, this is not necessarily the only sense in which the chair exists. The chair qua concept - the identification of a physical object, consisting of four legs and a seat, with the concept of "chair" is, inevitably, a subjective matter of human perception. In other words, if there were no human beings to perceive the chair, then while the object would exist in a physical sense, it would not, in a conceptual sense, be a chair; it would be nothing more than a purposeless lump of matter. The concept of "chair" would not exist, and therefore the chair itself would not exist.

It's rather like the old question "If a tree falls and no one's around, does it make a sound?" In a physical sense, the falling of the tree still generates vibrations in the air; but it does not make a sound, because there are no human beings there to perceive it.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I'll come to a conclusion eventually. :-)

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 10:54 AM

Walton #107 wrote:

What the Christian faith asks people to do is very simple: to put their trust in Christ despite the lack of unequivocal proof.

And, once you're "put your trust in Christ," what is it supposed to look like if He lets you down? If it turns out that you're wrong -- there is no God, and Christianity is not true -- how do you find that out, so you can self-correct and change your mind?

This is where I see the real problem here. The faith isn't being placed in Christ or God: the faith is being placed in the individual. They're making a personal commitment to become a spindoctor, and from henceforth turn every event, every experience, into something that is going to "confirm their faith."

You pray and get what you want? God is strengthening your faith. You pray and don't get what you want? That's because God is strengthening your faith even more. God is not infallible and constant. The believer is infallible and constant.

The leap of faith is not like the analogy you describe. It's like someone offering to make you incapable of error. All you have to do -- the little leap you have to make -- is keep saying "yes, this confirms what I already believed" -- no matter what.

You're going to find your trust supported. As you're falling. If you land on soft ground. If you land on hard ground. Or even if you end up crippled for life -- because now you really need God, and that's how He showed you. You were not wrong! You could never, ever be wrong! God exists just as you thought, or God exists even more than you thought before.

If someone has taken that little leap of faith, the chance of finding out that they've been wrong is now equivalent to the chance of God being wrong. That's a problem: if you care about truth.

If you really just wanted to be sure of something -- well, then it worked.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 10:55 AM

Cockshaw @ #139

Thanks for the sermon, Rev... really not interested.

You've been asked a few very pointed questions here, namely my own at #99.

If you can answer that honestly, I'd be willing to engage in a dialog further. Since that's not going to happen... you can just go back to preaching to those who actually want to be told what to do and how to do it.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 10:56 AM

I took the poll down because it was clear that the site generally is being multiply spammed by you lot. I didn't believe it reflected the true beliefs of visitors to the site either way, for or against, but had been very heavily weighted by a few individuals repeatedly voting for their own view.

A pity really.

Posted by: Moggie | November 18, 2008 10:59 AM

#105:

The C of E is a broad church and the rev seems to be from the evangelical wing. Those guys are usually happy to reach for the fire and brimstone. They do serve the fire and brimstone with tea and cake though.

Cake... or death?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:02 AM

Cockshaw @ #148

First, you need to brush up on your definition of "spammed".

Second, putting up a poll and having it responded to is wrong in what way? Except that the results were not what you wanted to see....

So, you can HONESTLY say that you would have similarly taken down the poll if the results were skewed in a direction favorable to your beliefs? Truly? Even if you knew it was done by a religious website community? Answer that honestly, Rev... and remember... Jesus knows when you're lying... and lying is a sin...

Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 18, 2008 11:03 AM

"But as Christ said to Thomas, "You believe because you have seen; but blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe." "

And as I'd like to add:
"And for those blessed ones, I have a wonderful opportunity for getting rich quick, which I'll reveal to them for a very modest fee."

Certainly not the best thing Jesus said (or is said to have said). But to err is human.

Posted by: co | November 18, 2008 11:03 AM

I didn't believe it reflected the true beliefs of visitors to the site either way, for or against, but had been very heavily weighted by a few individuals repeatedly voting for their own view.

Ah. Given that every person has a weight of +1 or -1 to his or her belief on any given subject (std. deviation---or whatever measure of spread you'd like---of zero), you'd have a point.

Who are you, though, to tell me that my belief is of the same weight of a random net-surfer? Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!

Most polls, online or not, are worthless. We've just shown that. There was simply the added bonus of slagging on some people who used ganz falsch reasoning.

Posted by: True Bob | November 18, 2008 11:07 AM

I believe in god because it's allowed on license plates.

No, not really. I believe god is an idea and nothing more.

Posted by: Christie | November 18, 2008 11:07 AM

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but here's what I don't understand - why is there all this bickering about the existence of God anyway? If someone wants to believe that God exists, more power to them. It's a 'free country' as they say. And if someone doesn't believe, kudos. There's no argument between religion and science - religion studies "why" and science studies "how." Now, literal creationists might get a little pissy at science, but screw them - they're a radical subset of Christianity. Evolutionary theory is supported by the Catholics, Protestants, Batptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists, and members of the United Church of Christ... need I go on? Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you're Anti-science, and vice versa. I wrote a post on this recently... Religion v. Science

Posted by: BaldySlaphead | November 18, 2008 11:07 AM

@127: Yeah, and they've got it hopelessly wrong too.

"Raising 10 times more than the £11,000 originally hoped for"

Um, no, it's 20 times more than the £5,500 originally hoped for.

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21 2008. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Posted by: Manjappa | November 18, 2008 11:08 AM

Nick Notts #120:
I agree with Richard Harris. Too much is made out of common IE languages and gods. The the priest centric culture of Vedic India is that of West Asia.Of course, I'm not interested in non-hereditary medicinal men of Celts. For that matter all those nature gods became irrelevant anyway in Hinduism(A tragedy I suppose). IE were not the only Steppe/Cenrtral Asian population to spread their language and ironically to lose their cultural identity.

Apologies for irrelevant post.

Posted by: Carpworld | November 18, 2008 11:10 AM

Evan, discussing our opinions of religion on this and other blogs can hardly be compared with the actions of a vastly wealthy, privileged, multi-national organisation that uses it's political power to not only spread intolerance, ignorance and bigotry but to have it signed into law.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 11:11 AM

Walton #142 wrote:

There are different types of "existence" beyond the merely material and physical; and to constrain one's epistemology to the narrow bounds of empirical observation and logical inference leads to an incomplete and imperfect view of reality.

Of course. But this line of argument is going to support atheism, not theism.

Look at the categories of non-physical "existence" you invoke.

Emotions
Evaluations
Concepts
Ideas
Abstractions

Are any of those things "beings?" Are they invisible energy forces with magic sparkles? Are they persons who can love and feel, and make choices, change their environment, and relate to others?

It's the atheists who claim that God is an abstraction. It's a concept, a way of feeling, an idea like "liberty" which has been personified and made into a symbol like that figure of the woman Liberty falling out of the top half of her toga. We extract bits and pieces of our experience and emotions which have something in common, and turn them into broader concepts. The concepts are not literal things in themselves, that float around in some other reality. They're patterns of experience, arranged and condensed for easy reference.

God is not supposed to be an emotion, an evaluation, a concept, an idea, or an abstraction. That's what the atheists say it is. It's supposed to be a Spiritual Person which has emotions, which judges, which conceives of things and creates them.

You can't say God is real just like the number "5" is real -- but it's like a number 5 which loves you, and cares about you, and maybe can go for a walk with you, somehow.

Posted by: Christie | November 18, 2008 11:11 AM

Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 18, 2008 9:05 AM Let me just cut to the chase and post this link to all the arguments I've ever seen for the existence of a deity: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Evan, If you have a new one, go for it. -jcr

My web filter at work refused to let me go to this link because it is flagged as "occult"... LOL

Posted by: co | November 18, 2008 11:13 AM

Christie's blog:

The reactions within cells take billions of years to occur without a catalyst - so it's not like it was easy for life to occur spontaneously.

Christie, kudos on studying biology, and everything nerdly. And kudos on having the guts to post about it. However, you need to study up on catalysts and cellular processes if you think that slow, catalysis-limited reactions are what any origin-of-life positers are contemplating.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 11:16 AM

Fuck off, E.V.

I'm a regular here as much as anybody. Don't try to brush away my concerns with a lazy flick of the hand. If you really can't see the difference between crashing a poll, which I heartily support, and stomping all over some insignificant website, then you aren't being very intelligent.

Posted by: raven | November 18, 2008 11:17 AM

In seeking the spotlight, the movement risks a backlash. Some Christians find the billboards deeply offensive, especially at this time of year. [My note. So tough cookies, who in the hell cares and why should they.] In recent weeks, press releases from the religious right have accused atheists of "mocking" and "insulting" Christmas.

The atheist bus and other ads have been amazingly effective. We are saturated with god babble along with the occasional murder and occasional defective country wrecking president like Bush from the Haters, Liars, Killers Morons for Jesus crowd.

Then someone puts up a few billboards and they go fruitbat crazy again. They can dish it out by the trainload but can't take a teaspoon's worth of propaganda.

Ironically, the greatest creator of atheists are humanoid toads like Hagee, Falwell, Kennedy, Robertson, Dobson and the like. When xian becomes synonymous with fruitbat crazy dumb wingnuts, who would want to be one?

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 11:18 AM

Dear Missus Gumby,

thank you for pointing that out about my comment on "Dicky!". It was meant to be humourous, but I can see that it could be taken as disrespectful.

I have removed it. I meant no offence to anyone.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:21 AM

Bernard...

Read the posts... and read the author's own statement on his reason for creating the site... and who he's targeting. And also take into consideration the action of removing the poll because he didn't like the results. I think it's more than acceptable to counter abject dishonesty by mocking the "witness testimony" process. And I don't think it's up to you to act as the "moral authority" to say otherwise.

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 11:25 AM

OK, I'm now going to try and reach a conclusion based on my earlier line of reasoning.

I would conclude that there is really no such thing as "objective reality". Reality is what we perceive it to be. Even observable material objects, like chairs or the Sun, don't actually "exist" in any objective sense. If there were no human beings to perceive it, there would still be a flaming ball of gas at the centre of our solar system; but it would not be "the Sun", because the Sun qua concept is a matter of human perception, and possesses the properties that we ascribe to it.

The Sun is a good example, in fact. Early people worshipped the Sun as a deity, and understandably so. Many of them ascribed anthropomorphic personal characteristics to the Sun, sacrificing animals to appease it and conducting ceremonies in its honour. They, with their limited knowledge of the universe, did not have the understanding of the Sun's nature that we have today; but they could observe the fact that it provided them with warmth and light, and, to try to make sense of this, they tried to understand the Sun in terms that made sense to them.

Similarly, "God" is the shorthand we use for a concept which is fundamentally beyond our limited understanding - for the force of good, simultaneously natural and supernatural, personal and impersonal, which drives the universe. We can't understand the true nature of God, so we ascribe to Him anthropomorphic characteristics, so as to reduce Him to a concept which we can understand. And don't forget that most of the major religious traditions stem from a much more primitive time. If the Genesis creation myth, for instance, were any more scientific or sophisticated than it is, the people of the time would not have had the means to understand it.

So I would assert that just as we do not seek to live our lives by the creed of early Sun-worshippers, but yet do not deny that the Sun exists and that it gives us light and warmth, so too, while acknowledging that the Hebrew Bible (and the scriptures of most other faith traditions) stems from a primitive and unsophisticated era and that it should not be taken literally as a picture of God or as a guide to morals, we should acknowledge that God, in a sense, exists.

Posted by: Hauntedchippy | November 18, 2008 11:26 AM

I've noticed the poll has magically disappeared. Obviously someone is upset by the way it was going.
Good thing I voted earlier.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 18, 2008 11:28 AM

Sastra:

It's the atheists who claim that God is an abstraction. It's a concept, a way of feeling, an idea like "liberty" which has been personified and made into a symbol like that figure of the woman Liberty falling out of the top half of her toga.

At the pro-marriage-equality rally this past Saturday, I saw a fellow walking around with a sign portraying Liberty and Justice locked in a passionate embrace. It went over well.

Addendum to my previous note about "El Shaddai": it is doubtful that Abraham né Abram was a historical figure, and people in the nebulous period he might have inhabited were far more likely to be polytheist and/or henotheist than monotheist. Even if you knew Yahweh was the supreme god of Israel, just over the border, Chemosh was the supreme god of Moab.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 11:29 AM

For the record,

the number of votes on the poll clearly outstripped the number of unique site visitors from today.

that means individuals were repeatedly voting for their chosen view, rather than just once. Hence I took it down. You'd managed to skew the results making them pointless.

Posted by: Sabazinus | November 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Funny how ads on buses force the religious to suddenly shout from rooftops their strong "beliefs." Why the need to continutally show this? Is the faith that weak that a simple ad on a bus can erode the foundations of a belief system? I'd like to hope so.

Posted by: Samphire | November 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Age:

Post-Bronze

Who am I?

I am a gullible, self-regarding twerp who believes this enormous, wonderful and, for the most part, unknowable universe was created just for me.

What do I believe?

I believe in God because I am intellectually inadequate and am unable to think for myself believing only in things which make me feel happy. I have serious trouble with reality.

I haven't studied the Bible to any great extent so do not understand how the idea of God evolved from the vicious psychopath of the Old Testament to the loving personal God most Christians believe is portrayed in the writings of St Paul through to the much later gospels. I ignore the re-emergence of the thoroughly weird theology set out in Revelation, a book written by someone I would not wish under normal circumstances to have to sit next to on a bus.

I know what I believe is true because God answers my every prayer. However, I do also admit in secret that I have no way of knowing how different the world would be if I stopped praying. I am told that it would be exactly the same but who knows? Certainly not my imaginary sky fairy.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 11:32 AM

MissPrism:

Ms Gumby, I found it particularly amusing that the "Dicky" comment comes from someone named Reverend Cockshaw. People who live in stained-glass houses...,

I also notice Mr Cockshaw self-aggrandizes with the appellation 'Reverend'. I am quite sure there is nothing about him to be revered. Especially when reading the childish knee-jerk reaction concerning the atheist bus adverts section on his website.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:34 AM

dammit, dammit, dammit...

blockquote fail.

*headdesk*

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 11:36 AM

Walton #153 wrote:

Erm, presumably you find out after your death?

Not much rigor in that kind of test, is there? The Church of the Subgenius guarantees salvation or "triple your money back." They boast that there's been 100% satisfaction and no complaints -- so far.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 11:36 AM

...I think it's more than acceptable to counter abject dishonesty by mocking the "witness testimony" process. And I don't think it's up to you to act as the "moral authority" to say otherwise.

No, no, no. You're missing the point.

I'm not worried about mocking the testimonies. I'm not worried about engaging the Rev. on the comments section of this blog, or by writing to express distaste at the website and the contents of the website.

I was worried, when I wrote the original post, that people from this site might break the website via malicious submissions (and in a semi-organised manner). That simply becomes an exercise in throwing our collective weight around - bullying. It also looks a bit like censorship or supression of ideas.

If there is something that I do believe in, then it is the right to express opinions, no matter how foolish they may seem to me.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard of intellectual conduct than we have come to expect from theists.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 11:37 AM

Haha, Samphire, that's well composed!

My brother, whose brain I greatly envy, says that the God of the Bible is clearly drunk. The Old Testament is the aggressive "Come on then! I'll fight the lot of yoush!" and the New Testament is the "You're my besht friend" he comes out with five minutes later.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:39 AM

Cockshaw:

You'd managed to skew the results making them pointless.

The poll was useless before we got there...

What have we learned today about the internet, Rev?

Posted by: Badger3k | November 18, 2008 11:39 AM

Walton @ 142. Come on - this has to be a Poe! It starts out with a new-agey "other kinds of knowing" type argument, then goes on to the "love exists" argument. Seriously?

Although to be honest, I did like the admission that "love" (etc) exists in a "conceptual" sense, but you left out (I believe) that such concepts have no objective reality. Sure, if there were no humans around, the word "chair" would not exist even while the object did. Unless there was intelligence of some sort to recognize the differences, even the idea of "something to sit on" would not exist. But, again, the object itself would. It's really just an argument over semantics. I am not aware of anyone, atheist or not, who would dispute that gods exist in the conceptual sense - clearly people do conceive of such things. The issue at dispute is whether there is any evidence to point to an objective god, and so far the "pro" side has presented none.

When talking about gods, all you have is the conceptual sense, and not an objective one. This post-modern argument seems to be an admission that without human beings around, gods would not exist.

ps - regarding the historicity argument, you really need to read a bit more on textural & higher criticism, as well as archaeology and history. Despite some claims, there is far more evidence that Julius Caesar existed than there is for Yeshua (assuming that the hypothesis that Jesus was a title or name change does not bear out), and that if you accept evidence for miracle claims and the like from this Jewish fellow, you need to explain on what evidential grounds you deny the claims of every other civilization (Roman emperors have done miracles, so has Asclepius, Pythagoras and Buddha, to give a few examples).

Posted by: E.V. | November 18, 2008 11:41 AM

#200:
After that very modulated response, I am willing to consider your point.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 11:43 AM

Samphire:

the loving personal God

What? Someone who commands infinite punishment for finite misdemeanours cannot possibly have even a mustard seeds worth of love in them. This New Testament punishment revelation is the very definition of pure hate. By comparison it makes the Old Testament God look but slightly ticked off.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 11:47 AM

Feel free, Rev. Cockshaw, but please provide a link to his website in the order of service that week. I'm sure your lecturers taught you that it's not nice to present other people's ideas as your own.

Posted by: cristopherallen | November 18, 2008 11:49 AM

Why the debate over whether or not God exists? To me it seems important b/c of all the hurtful things people do in the name of God, thus making the question viable.

As a child of 6-8 years old, I had a neighbour-kid named Eddie who's father was a Babtist Preacher (and his mom was a rather large[read rediculously obese]housewife) who taught Eddie that going poo was the work of the devil. I wonder if anyone can guess what comes next?

Outside the front door of these Lovely Christian's house was stationed a pickle-bucket eternally filled with dirty water in which floated several pair of soiled kid's underpants. Eddie would periodically go into fits, clenching his hands to both his backside and front while running in circles, moaning and crying with the discomfort of an obstructed exctratory system. He did this at school, around the nieghborhood, and at home.

The few times I actually witnessed him go into the bathroom to do his thing, he would wail and scream with pain (it really MUST be the work of the devil, doncha-know), and I remember even at the time feeling both repulsed by and incredibly sorry for him. (Why was I hanging around? B/c there were only two other kids in my "nieghborhood", which was very rural.)

I often wonder what other types of abuse this kid had to endure, how he grew up, and what has become of him. But really, my guess is he's got his own little wifey now to pop out his progeny so's he can bring-em up just like he was. A frightening thought, but not an unlikely or uncommon happenstance.

Please remember, this kid's dad was a Preacher! Aren't families supposed to trust preachers around young people? (rhetorical)

Posted by: Avenel | November 18, 2008 11:50 AM

Sorry, Walton, but 'love' and 'beauty' are just labels we attach to chemical reactions in the brain. I love my wife because her presence releases endorphins in my brain. I find the Book of Kells beautiful for the same reason. 'Beauty' is not postulated as having a measurable effect on the universe, it's purely a personal esthetic, a label for things I like.

Dieties of all stripes are postulated as having visible, measureable effects on the universe. So, show us the evidence.

Posted by: Nick | November 18, 2008 11:51 AM

My comment:

"I believe in God because one day, in my moment of deepest despair, he spoke to me. He told me that my troubles, my worries, my problems were as nothing on the scale of worlds. That I could find peace, and release from torment, should I follow him. And I did! Glorious Kali will drown the world in blood, and and all men shall be equal in their suffering before the God of the End! Praise Kali, the living, eternal god!"

It won't go through, but I figured it was important for Cocksure to know that people believe in other gods, too.

Posted by: Jason Failes | November 18, 2008 11:52 AM

rev @ 188:

"individuals were repeatedly voting for their chosen view"

Which really means that you don't know how to design an online poll at all, making it even more meaningless than it would have been otherwise.

Don't blame nasty atheists for your lack of skill.

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 18, 2008 11:54 AM

Nick Gotts, No the "Aryans" spoke an Indo-European language, not an Afro-Asiatic one. Their pantheon was related to that of the Greeks and Romans. For example, Indra (the chief deity in the Rig Veda) clearly corresponds to Zeus/Jupiter, and Krishna to Dionysus/Bacchus.

The point that I was trying to make is that Hinduism really isn't that different fundamentally from the Abrahamic religions, because they are related.

Blake Stacey, I believe it's "El Shaddai" who is the "El" you're looking for.

Yes,El Shaddai sounds right. The word El is simply god, but as most of the people in the Middle East were polytheists, there was a term, such as Shaddai, to indicate which one. So El Shaddai was 'god of the mountains' & Abraham worshipped that one as the only god, according to my recollection. The Hebrews maintained a monotheistic belief system from then on, although some of them deviated from time to time.

Certainly, these religious ideas have also infected Buddhism & Taoism at a further remove.

But as they're all nonsense, without a shred of evidence, they keep changing their doctrines, & split into sects that sometimes survive, sometimes disappear. Look how many different sects there are in Xianity! You'd think that the believers would question how their god-thing could let such a mess evolve, but that presupposes that they could think rationally about such matters.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 12:00 PM

"Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw"

I was going to call Poe on someone having such a blatantly stupid name, but apparently he's real and is one for the Bad Astronomy guy to explain away (although do note that Sussex is hardly a good UK university!).

(Realised too late that the last link was missing a close quote.)

PS This thread is also moving far too fast to keep up with it!

Posted by: E.V. | November 18, 2008 12:02 PM

Bernard:
Thank you for the clarification. I know that Concern Troll has become a tool fashionable to use against any dissenters. I thought my lead-in was tongue-in-cheek enough to diffuse any actual concern troll bombing. Evidently it wasn't -my bad.
"Back off!" will suffice as a first warning. A primary "Fuck off" just begs for escalated retaliation in my region of the world. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 12:03 PM

Mr Cockshaw, I notice you have removed the 'Dicky' reference to professor Dawkins on the front page of your site. Why? After all, you have kept the smarmy, nose-thumb "We'd like to say 'thanks'!!!" insult at the end of the same paragraph. Like you, we know when we are being slighted - did you not think one of us notice it?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 12:08 PM

Unless of course you wish to express that opinion on the good Rev. Cockshaw's site and it disagrees with his own...

Are you catching on yet?

Oh no, I understand. The Rev. wanted a nice PR/recruitment website, and is now ex-pharyngulating the honest results of an online non-poll.

Actually, he probably genuiunely believes that we have unfairly biased the results. Which is also amusing. It is often the reaction of would-be web pollsters when their expectations are disappointed.

I am unconvinced from your arguments that Rev. Cockshaw has gotten anything other than exactly what he deserves... and I'm certainly not going to be made to feel guilty for supporting that notion.

I'm not trying to defend the Rev. Certainly not. Clearly; he wanted one thing, and got another. Even clearer is that he is now trying to take the moral, and intellectual high ground. My only concern was that some commenters might inadvertantly hand it to him.

My only concern - based on the magnitude of previous responses from the Pharyngula readership - was that a commenter-organised flood of testimonies would overwhelm the site. Part of the problem is the gap between my starting to compose nmy original message, and the time/place it appeared on the comments.

Posted by: Moses | November 18, 2008 12:08 PM

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 18, 2008 10:08 AM

The ancient people (Aryans) who moved into India & who destroyed the Indus Valley civilization were closely related to the Mesopotamians. They carried the same god concepts as Abraham, who worshipped El ******, (I've forgotten the name - it meant the god of the mountains), as the only god, but historically there were always other gods creeping in & out. The Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu, & Shiva can be viewed as different aspects of one god. Where exactly does one draw the line between minor gods, & angels, cherubims, etc.?

I wasn't aware that being "flip" required a scholarly discussion, that I was talking about ancient migratory patterns of various ethnic sub-populations, or beliefs in a religious tradition that actually pre-dates the history of man, and even the earliest forms of the Abrahamic God Tradition which, I think fairly to state, didn't arise until 1600BCE in its more recognizable form.

:)

And the name you were looking for is probably El Shaddai. There are others. Izer. Eli. Etc. Etc. Etc. Also, while it is commonly accepted that Shaddai should be translated as "Mountain" it could have been taken from the name of a city "Shaddai" or it could be a mistranslation/mis-transcription of many other possible concepts. That's the problem with those ancient language religious texts. They're so poorly preserved and so full of transcription errors that they can be pulled in many directions. All of them equally valid.

Anyway, time to pick out carpet. Have fun.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 12:10 PM

I think we've got enough to criticise about the man without bringing university snobbery into it, particularly if said snobbery is inaccurate.

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 18, 2008 12:13 PM

Samphire @ # 193, "I haven't studied the Bible to any great extent so do not understand how the idea of God evolved from the vicious psychopath of the Old Testament to the loving personal God most Christians believe is portrayed in the writings of St Paul through to the much later gospels.

I don't think that the bugger's changed its spots. It's just got different P R.

I ignore the re-emergence of the thoroughly weird theology set out in Revelation, a book written by someone I would not wish under normal circumstances to have to sit next to on a bus.

Yes. Consider the rather nasty ending of the New Testament... Revelation 22:

13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Yes, that must've been written by a really nasty bit of work. (For those who aren't familiar with the bible, those are its final words.)

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 12:15 PM

Guys and girls. Just so that you are aware, you have really taken this thread and your atheism to the lowest limits I've ever encountered.

Leave atheism out of it. Atheism is no guide for living, or for conducting debate.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 12:16 PM

Cockshaw @ #231

Nice speech. Now, other than having your name being picked on (and honestly, I'd think you'd have thicker skin by now over that sort of thing... how long have you had that name?), how is anything we've claimed about you incorrect? And how does calling out your dishonesty make us evil? You can cry foul over the name-bashing if you want... it's juvenile... yeah. But the rest of it? It sounds to me like you're somehow demanding our respect out of hand? Is that it?

Remember, Rev... you set up the site and the metatags, YOU are the one that targeted us with that site...

Posted by: Matt7895 | November 18, 2008 12:16 PM

Mr. Cockshaw;

I see nobody here making fun of your name. I do see people who think you are a hypocrite. You say you encourage people to think about god, yet you only present opinions from one side.

Stop playing the victim.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 18, 2008 12:17 PM

The point that I was trying to make is that Hinduism really isn't that different fundamentally from the Abrahamic religions, because they are related.

What do you mean Hinduism and Abrahamic religions are related? I believe Hinduism and Judaism arose independently.

There are clear similarities between the two. I think this speaks more to human nature and to why some religions fail and others succeed.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 12:19 PM

Welcome to the internet. Leave your ego at the door, and please don't trip over all the diversity lying around. There's a lot of it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 18, 2008 12:22 PM

We have hit a new low with this thread? What a lack of perspective on the part of Rev. Cockshaw. Our debate here has been very civilized for us. Minor little flames, but nothing major, and even a bit of humor into play. I detect a sense of we don't agree with him, so we must be wrong somehow. The old godbot problem. Everyone must agree with them. Not the case Rev. Cockshaw.

Posted by: Rieux | November 18, 2008 12:22 PM

Here's my submitted testimony:

Name
Adlai Populum

Age
50+

Location
Chelsea/Liverpool (not WBA)

[...}

Brief Biography
I am a statistician.

Submit your story
I believe in God because, as this site kindly indicates, "The truth is most of the population of the world believe in God!" That cinches it for me: get with the winning side, I always say.

Next year I may support Man U.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 12:23 PM

Now... as for Kamikaze189 @ #241...

Let's hear it, E.V...

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 12:24 PM

Matt #242: there have been a few name jokes if you scroll up. The Pharyngulites have, however, shown unusual sophistication in calling Rev. Cockshaw "Rev Cocksure" rather than just "Rev Cock," so they're one up on the good Rev. and his "Dicky" Dawkins quip.

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2008 12:26 PM

Hatred and anger? Are you lying for Jesus?

Posted by: raven | November 18, 2008 12:28 PM

evan the martyr being clueless:

why you are attacking me so personally I really don't know. I'm a normal guy, married, with kids with my wife cooking tea right now. But she was on here earlier reading through this stuff and she is really hugely upset at how nasty you have been towards me personally.

Ummm Evan, this must be your first time on the internet. It is always this way and this thread is quite polite considering the norm.

evan:

You want to make the case that those of us with a sincere christian faith are hate mongering bigots,

raven:

Well, here in the USA the most annnoyingly visible xians are, in fact, hate mongering bigots who lie constantly and kill occasionally. Something we see every day.

To be sure, the fundie Death Cultists are a minority of xians and not well regarded by the majority, mainstream protestants, catholics, and many evangelicals and pentacostals. The majority rarely speaks up or does anything although they did vote out their representatives, the Theothuglicans this time around.

Wrecking and impoverishing the country was not a great move on the cultists part, bad PR.

You have yet to address any of the substantive points directed your way. Instead you are just babbling like any other brain dead god bothering troll.

Try to say something interesting and intelligent. If you can, which is looking doubtful right now. You can start by explaining why the fundie Death Cults destroyed the USA and then are dumb enough to be surprised when people end up despising them. Polls show that a majority of the US population are sick and tired of them, including mostly other xians.

Posted by: becky ws | November 18, 2008 12:28 PM

Having looked at the testimonials, I am actually quite saddened by many of them, but especially the one by Laura, aged 20:

"I believe in God because he has saved my life by showing me hell!
When i was thirteen I was raped at knife point, and that started my downward spiral. Through the following years I battled with so many things, abbusive relationships, suicide attempts, eating disorders, drugs, soliciting, self harm, the list goes on.......
I had met two youth workers through my troubled years and they indirectly saved me, they told me about church. ....
Most things didnt change over night, but through the support of my church and God I managed to pull my life back on track...."

Just sounds like someone very messed up, who met some nice people and through friendly support, was able to turn their life around. Nothing to do with 'god'. What's even sadder is that this person will now ascribe their turning their life around to divine help, not to their own strength and the love of fellow humans.

Posted by: george | November 18, 2008 12:30 PM

I posted this:

I believe in God because it is so much easier to believe what people tell me than to think for myself. I was once a heathen; my thoughts got in the way of my salvation. As soon as I stopped thinking about all of the contradictions and logical fallacies involved with believing in an omniscient and omnipotent God and just learned to love him as he was described to me by those ancient books and my parents, my faith became indestructible. To those of you who keep thinking rather than "knowing," do yourself a favor and just believe in Him!

Posted by: MH | November 18, 2008 12:32 PM

Rev. Cocksure. We pointed out that your poll was worthless, and that the "There Probably is a God Because" stories on your site are logically fallacious. Big deal.

If you find our criticism of your Bronze Age myths upsetting, don't read the comments. Nobody is forcing you or your wife to come here. I presume you believe that you possess 'free will'?

Posted by: Jason Failes | November 18, 2008 12:33 PM

Rev @ 231: This must be your first day on the internets if you think that playing the my-feeling-are-hurt card will *decrease* the amount of criticism headed your way.

Also, I think that every time your name was mentioned it was in the context of determining if you were a Poe's Law case, ie if it was a clue that your website was religious satire rather than religious promotion (religious promotion is often so absurd that it is difficult to differentiate from satires of religion).

The one exception was when someone pointed out that you weren't really in any kind of position to call someone else "Dicky".

And none of this changes the fact that you have been ignoring the very relevant questions asked of you here, in several posts.

You, sir, are a professional fraud, and the nature of your fraud is protected by law and even enshrined in government.

On top of that, you are dishonestly running a badly designed and utterly pointless website, the sole purpose of which is to draw even more people into your scam.

A few choice words are the least that you deserve.

In a sane world, you would be in jail for massive fraud.

How does it feel lying to kids and taking old peoples' money for a living?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Cockshaw @ #251

I don't need to be here doing this job. No one forced me to come here. But I came, and I work by butt off to help other people less fortunate than myself.

Wow... that's quite the martyr syndrome you've developed. You know, you could achieve the same lofty and commendable goals without the religion part attached to it. Don't try to conflate the two for us, if you don't mind.

Secondly, I really have a hard time accepting your "persecution" complex here... PZ started a thread discussing your website, we began a debate, and you came in of your own volition and decided to engage us in the debate. Did you really think that would happen without us questioning your honesty and asking you to show us why we should accept anything you say? I mean honestly, Rev... do you think if I went to a religious website the posters there wouldn't try to get me to see things their way? Of course they would... and the last thing I would do is get offended when they did!

Posted by: Paul R | November 18, 2008 12:36 PM

@Rev Cocksure #148,

I'd say the poll was very accurately showing the views of your visitors. It's just the visitors weren't exactly what you wanted. But then again, given the Meta-Keywords you used, are you at all surprised?

You have no-one to blame but yourself.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 12:39 PM

SEF, you said Sussex was not a good university, and then that it was not a good university for space science, and now that it is not a good university for space science undergraduate teaching, all without any evidence at all, except the existence of Rev. Cockshaw's degree, which while surprising is only one datapoint. Stop digging and apologise to the non-existent ghost of John Maynard Smith.

Posted by: Tulse | November 18, 2008 12:42 PM

For those of you wishing to criticise the work I do, just bear in mind that intellectual arguments aside I've moved into one of the most deprived areas in the UK and we actively love people who live almost wholly love-less lives.

Reverend, no one is mocking your humanitarian work. But that's what it is, humanitarian -- its value is in the assistance it gives to other people, not to God. Everyone here agrees that, in many circumstances, religion can be a motivation to do good things. But a) that is irrelevant to whether religious beliefs are actually true, and b) religious beliefs are also often a motivation to do bad things as well (see Prop 8 in the US).

So telling us you help people may make us think more highly of your personal ethics, but it isn't an intellectual defense of your religious beliefs. (And, just to note, I too work at a charity, so I also help people, even though I'm an atheist.)

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 18, 2008 12:43 PM

Feynmaniac @ # 244

What do you mean Hinduism and Abrahamic religions are related? I believe Hinduism and Judaism arose independently.

There are clear similarities between the two. I think this speaks more to human nature and to why some religions fail and others succeed.

Yes. But it was the Aryans who invaded northern India & took their beliefs with them. These beliefs eventually were modified by influences of the native peoples & general evolution over time & place, as with all other religions.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 12:44 PM

Mr Cockshaw, if you want to see persecution you only have to look in the archives on this site. PZ has had several death threats - by christians no less - check them out. Our arguments against you are nothing in comaparison.

Also, you seem to think charity is only in the realm of the religious. Not so.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 18, 2008 12:46 PM

Rev. Cockshaw, if you expect us to apologize, we will do so only after you apologize for all the grief your religion has caused, including wars, witch trials, etc., over the years. Otherwise, I suggest you just stop posting. You are only digging youself in deeper and the first rule of holes is to stop digging if you are in too deep.

Posted by: Kamikaze189 | November 18, 2008 12:46 PM

Screechy Monkey @ #265: "You seem to be confusing the expression of a contrary argument with trolling. Most Pharyngulites don't object to theists who are willing to honestly engage in discussion; it's the drive-by, AiG-quoting nimwits who just want to preach at us and ignore all rebuttals that annoy us."

It isn't "contrary argument", in my opinion, to go onto his website and enter fake accounts. That act fits my definition of trolling.

"Mr. Cockshaw's website is one gigantic argumentum ad populum, with or without the poll. It loudly proclaims 'The truth is most of the population of the world believe in God!'"

It's his website, and it may be covered with logical fallacies. It does seem to be. Discuss that with him, argue it, but abusing the site doesn't do anything but waste his time and yours. Kind of like when a troll comes on this website.

Posted by: Carlie | November 18, 2008 12:48 PM

Ah, I see Tulse has beaten me to it...

This year so far we have fed hundreds of literally starving individuals and families who have fallen through the benefits net and find themselves with no food and no means of food. That's just one thing we do.

Are you saying that without your belief in God, you would not help people who need it? That your religion is the only thing that compels you to give aid to your fellow men and women? That indeed, you would not do good for goodness' sake, but only because of the threat of hellfire if you didn't? I surely hope not. As Tulse said, your charity is indeed a good thing, but it has nothing to do with whether there is a God. And if your charity is dependent on you believing there is a God watching and/or that the person accepting the aid listen to you talk about that God, then it has a rotten core indeed.

Posted by: Avenel | November 18, 2008 12:49 PM

So, Walton, you're making essentially a 'god of the gaps' argument? For ancient peoples, 'god' filled up the 'what we don't know about the sun', and now that we know what a sun is and (mostly) how it works, there is no room for 'god' there. So with your 'god'. It fills up what we don't know about the universe, but with every bit our our deepening understanding, gets squeezed into an ever shrinking space.

Posted by: lurker_above | November 18, 2008 12:50 PM

thereprobablyis.com

probably is? O ye of little faith!

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 12:52 PM

Rev. Cockshaw, you complained about the "hatred" in comment 139 and the comment you claim you were specifically referring to is number 179. It's a miracle of prophesy!

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 12:55 PM

Walton #239 wrote:

I am arguing that God, for us, exists on a similar level. He, as the will and force for good which drives the universe, is simply beyond our limited human understanding. Thus, just as those early people took the Sun, a reality beyond the scope of their perception, and reduced it to a more limited concept which they could comprehend, so our varied religious traditions represent limited human attempts to make sense of the true nature of God. The Bible is flawed, therefore, because it consists of the writings of fallible human beings who tried to make sense of their encounters with the divine. And this is why much religious doctrine doesn't appear to make sense; because it represents a flawed, imperfect human conception of something which is beyond human understanding.

If God is "beyond human understanding" then it should probably be left alone (per Wittgenstein). But it's not supposed to be beyond what we can understand: on the contrary, God is very familiar. It's recognizable. It "makes sense" of the world for people. It could hardly do that if it was some vast, abstruse, unintelligible Unknown.

If we follow through on your analogy with the sun, God would lose the anthropomorphisms completely. Just like the sun, God does not think. God is not a person. It can't recognize values, and is indifferent to human events and well-being. It's inert and impersonal. Now there's a problem. You've got "God" -- but who cares? It's turned into "the universe." Or maybe "reality." And you have to start from scratch to work at personalizing it and infusing it with Cosmic Meaning (and not just meaning to us.)

"Force and will for Good" is an anthropomorphism. It makes God human-like -- brings God down to our level of comprehension, makes God like ourselves. Just as your own mind is a disembodied spirit, God is a disembodied spirit. Just as your own thoughts can move your body just by an act of will, so God moves things in the universe by acts of will. And God likes what we like.

Except, of course, our minds are not disembodied spirits, and we don't move our fingers by psychokenetic power. And God didn't evolve and develop its likes and dislikes in order to mate, survive in an environment, and relate within a group-dwelling species. No, God's values exist as they are, for no reason, and no purpose, and before there was anything else but God. Just the way God can be "male" even though there is no female God.

On a personal note, I should mention that I wasn't raised as a Christian, or in any religion. My family were "freethinkers" -- and my concept of God was as a kind of Life Force, an energy which runs through all things and knits them together with Love. Or something.

I no longer believe in that, but I rejected that version of God by a careful analysis using science and rational reflection. The more complicated Gods with more attributes -- such as the God of the Bible -- fall away if that one falls away.

So my basic arguments are, as you can probably guess, for a very basic kind of God. Least Common Denominator God. There are even more flaws -- and points of attack -- when you start getting specific. Or silly. Or wicked.

In which case, arguments that some versions of God are silly or wicked, but maybe God is much better, and much vaguer, than that, don't really impress me. If the only way to 'rescue' the concept of God is to turn it into Mystery and call into question everything that exists, it looks like a rescue attempt for a failed hypothesis -- and not like something you would conclude if you started out without it.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 12:55 PM

For those of you wishing to criticise the work I do, just bear in mind that intellectual arguments aside I've moved into one of the most deprived areas in the UK and we actively love people who live almost wholly love-less lives. This year so far we have fed hundreds of literally starving individuals and families...

We do a wide range of work with children and young people who have lived in the worst kinds of poverty and we aim first of all to love them and give them a happy and good time...

Rev., Taken at face value, this more of an indictment of the UK social security system than it is a commendation of the Church.

The church does some good charity work, but that doesn't exempt it or you from criticism of your beliefs, PR campaigns, or working-practices.

...we don't receive anything from the government!

Other than charitable tax status? Government-funded recruitment centres schools and educational institutes?

I'd happily pay for the worthwhile - listed - buildings and churches, but I don't want to support any religion. Personally, I strongly object to many of the archaic and unnecessary deferences paid by the judicial and governmental machinery to your notional State religion.

Still, you have unrealistic expectations if you expect any internet dialogue to be entirely civil. The readership and commenters of this site represent a cross-section of society, with various degrees of tolerance and/or patience, for your views. They will approach any discussion or argument with varying levels of hostility or reserve.

Don't attempt to plead for civility in discourse whilst tarring everybody with a broad brush, ignoring polite questions, and misrepresenting the views of many.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 12:58 PM

@ MissPrism #272:

you said Sussex was not a good university

Stop digging

Posted by: benji | November 18, 2008 1:01 PM

I feel that the answer choices are very limited, and it would be embarassing for me to chose one. In fact, they do not ask about belief, but knowledge. The absolutes yes and no are not options when you talk about knowledge of the existence of God, because we can't know for sure. The semi-grey area "not sure" seems on the other to describe someone who is almost sure, but not quite.

Thus where is the valid option for us all, which would be the other grey area : "God's existence is very, very, very unlikely, and therefore it's not worth considering it as true without further proof"?

Posted by: Matt7895 | November 18, 2008 1:02 PM

Mr. Cockshaw says he is getting abusive submissions to the site. For the record, here is what I submitted:

"I do not believe in god for the same reason I do not believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus or the easter bunny. There is no evidence for any of these characters, so the logical and rational position is not to believe in them. Christians are atheists too, about the thousands of other gods that humanity has invented over its history. I just go one god further."

Is that abusive?

Posted by: raven | November 18, 2008 1:03 PM

PZ has had several death threats - by christians no less - check them out. Our arguments against you are nothing in comaparison.

More than that. My estimate is that at peak traffic times, PZ gets several hundred hate emails a day with several being death threats. This is per day!!!

Because of course, xianity is a religion of peace, love, and tolerance.

I'm inclined to believe Evan is probably a benign moderate xian. He just doesn't realize that in the US they have become somewhat invisible while the malevolent, extremists have tried with some success to destroy our American civilization and head on back to the Dark Ages.

I've said for a while now that the fundies would do some serious damage to the religion. The backlash is here and about what one would expect. People don't like being poor, they don't like their country and freedoms destroyed, and they aren't crazy about their friends and kids coming home from wars maimed for life or in a box.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 1:06 PM

SEF, how do you define a good university and in what way does Sussex fall short of those standards?

And enough of the snide "your issues" bullshit. Let's have a PROPER flame war and show Evan what rudeness on the internet really looks like. Go jump in a volcano!

Posted by: Dark Matter | November 18, 2008 1:08 PM

Are they on to us or something? I can't find the poll or a link to it anywhere...

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 18, 2008 1:11 PM

Rev Cocksure, I played with your name in one of my posts, though it wasn't a play on the cock part, but in the shaw part, i.e. cocksure, as most religidiots are. And yes, that label is deliberate and, from experience, accurate.

However, like a lot of religidiots, you always manage to get one thing wrong and that is your statement "But talk about your beliefs". See we DON'T believe. I know many religidiots have a hard time understanding this, but again, we DON'T believe so there are no 'our' beliefs to talk about. Now if you were to say "But talk about your lack of beliefs", fine, we would agree with you, but you never seem to grasp that, unlike religidiots, we don't need to believe to live a 'good' life.

As to your good works, big deal, before my health collapsed I spent most of my spare time working with the homeless, substance abusers etc. etc. for no money. Much of it with various religious organisations doing the actual work like counselling, helping sort out benefit problems etc.. While the religious members looked down their noses at us godless doing the actual valuable work with clients while they made tea. Nothing wrong with making the tea, but how that equates to feeling superior to the godless giving up their spare time without thought of any reward other than the satisfaction of helping people, I'm not sure.

But then again, unfortunately, most xians don't actually get the real point of the parable of the good Samaritan. So does that make me a better person than you, as the implication of your post is that you should be allowed your little foibles regarding xianity, ignoring the cost to society, because of all the good work you are doing. But surely it is your obligation by your own beliefs that you do such things. I on the other hand, being a godless amoral atheist, have no such obligation yet still chose to spent my spare time doing such things.

However, I am glad that you are doing something useful with your life, hopefully if it minimises the time you have to fill people up with garbage or abusing children with your propaganda.

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 18, 2008 1:16 PM

Oh no! It looks like you lot with your anger and hate-filled comments have gone and run off the poor Right Reverend. With the extreme level of abuse directed at him (asking him to justify his beliefs? Picking on the CofE?? FOR SHAME, people!), I'm surprised the poor bugger lasted even this long.

Well, at least he'll have some fodder for his next sermon. Maybe he can tell the poor starving people of West Bromwich (speaking of them: why did God put them in that terrible situation to begin with?) how the evil and terrible atheists hurt his wittle feewings.

Posted by: Holbach | November 18, 2008 1:18 PM

clinteas @ 103 & 110
Your complimentary comments has compelled me to return after a spell of being away, computer problems, and just taking a break from blogging.
And Missus Gumby @ 116:
Your honored comment is warmly noted, and I should add that clinteas is one who recognizes worthiness in those who love to do battle with those cretins of self-inflicted insanity, namely, religion. Welcome to the fray!

Posted by: Samphire | November 18, 2008 1:25 PM

I admit that I did comment on the Reverend's name in a private email to him but only to copy him in on a funny story I have been aware of for some years and which always makes me laugh. I don't suppose he would mind if I copied it here:

"Dear Reverend Cockshaw,

What a marvelous name you have for someone whose whole philosophy, I assume, is based around faith rather than certainty. It reminds me of a letter once written by the British Ambassador to Moscow during the Second World War to his colleague Lord Pembroke at the Foreign Office.

6th April 1943

My Dear Reggie,

In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish Colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.

We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.

Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr,
H.M. Ambassador

If you can weave the story into your next sermon I shall be happy to donate £10 to your favourite charity.

Regards"

Now we have had our little bit of fun couldn't we show to Evan that we are really quite nice people by contributing to his charitable works? Christmas is coming up, after all.

I'd be happy to donate £20 to get the ball rolling if Evan would give us an address to which to send the cash. I leave it to Evan to come and tell us in a few days time how generous we have been.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 1:27 PM

how do you define a good university

One of the simplest ways of telling how good a UK university is used to be by the sort of 'A'-level result offers they routinely made (though a couple of universities are so high ranking that they previously had their own entrance exam system!). Universities requiring something like 4 A grades were the most selective because they could afford to be. Those taking in people with just 2 C grades etc were those who couldn't afford to be selective. However, this was ruined by the government lowering 'O'-level/GCSE and 'A'-level standards so far that they were virtually giving grades away for free.

Getting back to the real point though: Evan Cockshaw's unevidenced faith in his religion and his naive belief that his internet poll could mean anything worthwhile (even without Pharyngula people voting on it) and his selection of what passes for argument in favour of (a particular) god which he expects to impress site viewers, etc etc all argue against him being noticebly scientific in reality. Having checked out that he wasn't simply making up a silly fake name but genuinely did exist as a person with a checkable background (hence my particular choice of links rather than wikipedia), I was merely commenting that even his degree didn't have much provenance given its source.

It's a matter of statistical probability rather than any sort of guarantee that all or no people from Sussex Uni would be good/bad. Very much like the way not all polls are alike in accuracy / reliability! Although, even a bad poll (eg those on the internet) might accidentally come up with a correct result once in a while. You'd just never know without checking it against a more reliable measure.

Posted by: Paul Johnson | November 18, 2008 1:31 PM

I believe in God because one time when I was at a party I took like 5 hits of acid and that helped me see the light. Most people believe in God because they just "know." This is logically fallacious. Anyone should know that lol. I believe in God because after taking that acid, he talks to me everyday, literally. Sometimes he wakes me up when I'm late for class or tells me where I left my keys, or tells me what spices would go well in my soup. Some people say I'm crazy or that I went insane after those hits of acid. I say, I might be crazy, but at least I'm crazy for Jesus! Yeehaw!

and then where it says: how did you hear about There Probably Is...?
i wrote: GOD TOLD ME LOL

alright now your turn to spam the hell out of their submission box

Posted by: CJO | November 18, 2008 1:32 PM

As regards the Christian faith, the only conclusion we can reach, based solely on known fact and rational inference, is that we simply don't know whether Christ was a divine being who was resurrected from the dead... So normal academic methods simply don't give us an answer to the question.

This has been adequately addressed, but that "normal academic methods" struck me. I just read a bit by John Dominic Crossan in his The Birth of Christianity that I thought was quite good. He juxtaposes the account in Luke of the annunciation to Mary with the conception of Augustus by Apollo as related by Suetonius. His point, in a nutshell, is that many who employ "normal academic methods" are quite comfortable treating the divine nature of the emperor as nothing but imperial propaganda, but insist upon erecting a fence around questions pertaining to Christian articles of faith and taking the same line as Walton here.

Crossan: "It is not morally acceptable to say directly and openly that our story is truth but yours is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally acceptable to say that indirectly and covertly by manufacturing defensive or protective strategies that apply only to one's own story." (my emphasis)

Now, vis Walton's original comment, I'm not saying that "normal academic methods" have given us an answer with regard to the divinity of Jesus, I'm saying that it's illegitimate to claim that those methods are simply incapable of providing an answer unless you're willing to extend that incapacity to any and all claims of the supernatural.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 1:37 PM

SEF,
Further to my #305, from wikipedia:
"Sussex is a leading research university, as reflected in the 2001 national Research Assessment Exercise. All subjects at Sussex were rated as either grade 4 or 5, recognising research of national and international standard respectively. Over 90% of staff are researching at this high level, the majority in areas of international excellence.

In respect of teaching quality, 13 of the 15 subjects assessed under the current teaching quality assessment scheme have scored 21 or more points (out of 24), with Philosophy and Sociology achieving the maximum score."

In other words, you're full of it. You make an offhand comment that turns out to be wrong, but you just can't let it go and admit you were wrong. Pfft.

Posted by: CrypticLife | November 18, 2008 1:40 PM

Rev. Cockshaw,

Can I ask please that people from here stop submitting stupid submissions.

Does this mean you will continue to allow those from elsewhere to submit stupid submissions? Or are you saying some of your legitimate submissions are stupid?

I agree with you, though, that atheists should probably not submit fraudulent accounts. It's just that many of the stories are so hilarious, it's hard to resist getting in on the fun.

As for the supposed nastiness of the comments, the worst it seems is calling you "Cocksure", which is pretty mild. Other than that, the comments have at least a germ of substance to them -- people really do wonder whether you're being honest when you solicit opinions with specific content and don't show any opposing content. I think you might be able to ameliorate this with a link from your website to an atheist website with a note that you're only showing one side of the story. You don't need to pick Pharyngula, given your feelings about it probably aren't particularly warm.

Sorry about confusing your beliefs if you don't subscribe to the ideas about hell, etc. It's so hard to keep up with various Christian denominations and what they subscribe to.

Posted by: Voltaire Kinison | November 18, 2008 1:43 PM

I'm still laughing at Ploon's" The Atheist Bus is the longer one" remark.
Comeback of the year.
Excuse me, I have to go feed cute starving puppies...

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 1:54 PM

from wikipedia

See #97 as one example for why it's dangerous to trust wikipedia implicitly. So we can add unevidenced faith to your belief in authorities (which you'd already demonstrated on another thread, where you falsely accused me of doing the bad thing which you yourself were actually guilty of doing and then threw a strop when I outed you for it).

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 2:02 PM

ekcol is right. And the fact that I said roughly the same before and it was lost in the dogpile on the vicar doesn't make him or her any less right.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 2:03 PM

@ MissPrism #329:

I'm not talking about space science as being a new fake subject, but meejah studies and homeopathy and the like!

Again you're missing the point of it being only a statistical probability requiring a more direct test of the individual concerned - as I already suggested might plausibly be provided by his own publication record (in astrophysics) for a start.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 2:05 PM

John Phillips - I should have known better than to suggest any form of cephalopod abuse on this site!
Box jellyfish?

Posted by: Christie | November 18, 2008 2:07 PM

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:13 AM You're new here, aren't you? Do you really think it's just a simple matter of belief vs. non-belief, and that's why we fight against it? Do you live in the real world? Spend some time here reviewing the content, and the comments, and then you might get an idea of why we take such issue with religion. And stop pretending that if we would just leave the religious alone they's leave those who aren't religious alone. Catch up with reality, dear...

No, I think it should be. That's the point. What gain is there by attacking - and I do mean BOTH sides attacking each other, viciously? Attacking the reasons why someone believes in God is useless. The 'religious' are not right either - they're just as bad if not worse. But in the end does it matter who started it? Both sides need to learn to live with each other. Now, I don't disagree with the post (you're still allowed to make fun of other people - and some definitely deserve it), and I don't disagree with a majority of the discussion - you post a religious comment on an atheist board and you are asking for it.

Don't get me wrong - I am very much against Intelligent Design, Creationism, and whatever else is spewed by the angry, radical right. My boyfriend believes that I will go to hell, and it is very upsetting to him to think about that. But he, and I, believe that people have the right to choose their beliefs and, for whatever reasons, if someone chooses to believe in God they can do so. Judgement in Christianity (in biblical theory, anyway) is not our job - it's God's.

What I disagree with is the attitude that there needs to be some war waged between science and religion. Waging war begets what exactly? More war. That's it. You don't need to show that believing in God is stupid - if you feel that way, that's fine. I don't believe in God, Buddha, or whatever you want to call him/her/it/them. But that doesn't mean we should attack the intelligence of people who do - does that make us any better? So we're not amoral because we're godless - we're just pompous asses who think we know better than everyone else. How does that help anyone? All it does is rally the other side to launch a counter assault.

Is it too idealistic to think that we might be able to live in the same country and 'get along' well enough to respect each other as individuals? Maybe I do need to 'catch up with Reality', then...

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 2:11 PM

You have offered absolutely no evidence for your contention that Sussex is not a good university.

For your new-fangled version of rating universities (and note the inherent dodginess of it being a government-sponsored scheme!) you'd still have to show what the situation was at the time in question (which is currently a matter of guesswork based on his age in the absence of knowing his actual admission year). None of which would trump checking his own personal form for science, since it's still only a probability game.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 2:24 PM

Christie #336 wrote:

Attacking the reasons why someone believes in God is useless. The 'religious' are not right either - they're just as bad if not worse. But in the end does it matter who started it? Both sides need to learn to live with each other.

I gave a brief response in #195, but I'll ask a question:

Does truth matter to you?

It does seem to matter to a lot of religious people. At least, that's what they say. They have it, and atheists clearly don't. And there's more of them, than of us.

The only real strength we atheists have, is in the force of our rational arguments -- our reasons. But we're not supposed to use them, because it makes a big deal out of nothing. And besides, people won't like us. They like atheists much better when we don't use our arguments. That's why they don't like us. We argue.

Plus, of course, that part where we don't believe in God.

Not that it matters to anyone.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 18, 2008 2:25 PM

@Miss Prism. what have you got against innocent members of the animal kingdom. You get stung by a box jellyfish, your fault as you are in its environment. Pick on something your own size, perhaps a Fred Phelps :)

@Christie, we are not the one who started 'the war' against science, nor are we the ones trying to impose a theocracy on all. If all religidiots just kept their beliefs to themselves and their fellow believers, none of us would really care. We would still think them delusional, but hey, live and let live and all that. However, they are the ones constantly attacking the secular. As an example, look at what is happening in the UN. You have the Saudis heading a committee that is trying to make simply criticising religion against human rights. Seen any atheist trying to do the reverse to the religious. All we want is for them to keep their religidiots beliefs to themselves and not try to force me to kowtow to their religidiocy. Without being constantly on our guard against the religidiots we would soon end up in theocracy. However, unlike the religidiots, who really do love themselves a bit of heathen burning for all their talk of having changed, we use logic, rational argument and ridicule.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 2:29 PM

When, in the entire HISTORY of christianity, has it ever been simply content to just "live with" people of dissenting views?

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 2:34 PM

Ray #337 wrote:

Crashing a poll where we outvote the silliness with sheer numbers is fun and I've joined in lots of times, but a few people voting dozens or hundreds of times is just not sporting.

I agree. As has been discussed elsewhere, "crashing" is supposed to be like "crashing a party." Not breaking stuff down with some wicked little program doing multiple votes. And the excuse that "they should know enough to put up security to keep me out" has never impressed anyone. Well, at least, not me.

Posted by: AlanWCan | November 18, 2008 2:39 PM

I posted this one. What do you think odds are they'll publish it?

"I believe in God because who else would create the botfly Dermatobia hominis, to lay its eggs in a human host, so beloved of the creator, where they hatch and develop as larvae crawling into the happy victim's eyeball, causing blindness sepsis, and a great deal of pain and misery. All part of His Holy Plan. Or the Ichneumonidae, wasps with such tender loving maternal care that they inject their brood directly into the flesh of caterpillars paralysed and so preserved alive to act as a foodsource for the hungry emerging larvae. SIDS of course shows our creator's love for us, the silent death of newborn infants. As well as the host of other gifts: AIDS, cancer, leukaemia, and of course God's great love for amputees, maintaining their de-limbed status. Halleleuia!"

Posted by: Chris P | November 18, 2008 2:45 PM

The school could not have been too bad at biology because another guy rowing in the same boat was Dr Mike Painter, consultant in communicable disease control and an expert on Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease.

This guy isn't relying on prayer for a solution to Bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

Chris P

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 3:09 PM

AlanWCan:

larvae crawling into the happy victim's eyeball

Pah! A stroll down Lovers Lane compared to the wonder of god's own Candiru. Google it if you are not already familiar the Candiru's particular expression of god's comforting magnificence. However, if you do, be prepared to do some extra-strength teeth clenching. And the clenching of all your other bodily parts too.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2008 3:27 PM

What do you mean Hinduism and Abrahamic religions are related? I believe Hinduism and Judaism arose independently.

There are clear similarities between the two. I think this speaks more to human nature and to why some religions fail and others succeed.

There might be some influence on Canaanite religions (including the earliest stages of Judaism) by the Hittite religion: some say Yahwe seems to have started his career like an Indo-European weather god, standing on a mountain, making rain, and making thunderstorms. Having an Indo-European language and religion, the Hittites had such a god* -- though his name, Urhi-Tessup, comes from a completely different language of the region...

* Imagine Abraham buying the cave of Machpela and a weather god from Ephron the Hittite ;-)

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2008 3:35 PM

Oh yeah, what I forgot to mention: I've been told this blog has 60,000 visits per day. That translates into a lot of readers who don't need to vote multiple times to change the results of even very large polls. We've done it on plenty of occasions (check out the category "Pointless Polls").