Pharyngula

Posted by: MH | November 18, 2008 7:49 AM

Urgh, from just the first testimonial:

"I believe in God because he is not only the creator of all lfe, he is also interested in each and every human life and passionately loves every single human being, even those who seem the least lovable - even those who hate him or mock him."

Even those he allows to be tortured and starved to death, and those who will be in pain all their lives due to some disease which he supposedly created, right?

The site's homepage says:

"Read the stories of normal everyday people who aren't stupid, and haven't been brainwashed, but will talk honestly and openly about their experiences of the true and living God!"

Most of the testimonials I've read do sound like the authors are very much stupid and brainwashed.

(Y'know, that would be the perfect proving ground for Poe's law)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 18, 2008 7:50 AM

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.

um hummm

Posted by: clapton_is_god | November 18, 2008 8:01 AM

It seems to be the religion as consoler issue with a lot of these (mainly female) commenters.

Posted by: clinteas | November 18, 2008 8:02 AM

Campbell or Progresso? Avoid MSG !

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

I've just entered a really obviously ridiculous story about why God is real, in which I repeatedly mention the lack of evidence for God (and then dismissing this inconvenient fact in a really pathetic manner).

Even thought it was patently absurd, I'm pretty certain it'll get through.

Posted by: DuckPhup | November 18, 2008 8:11 AM

Aw... I get to look at the same kind of crap in the local newspaper.

Letter: Free speech or blasphemy?

(in part...)

Too many things have happened in my lifetime to ever cause me to believe God is a myth. Just one example:

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

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

The Atheist Bus is the longer one.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 18, 2008 8:14 AM

The Atheist Bus is the longer one.

*snicker

Posted by: Michelle | November 18, 2008 8:20 AM

@#11: ...yea, I guess that God is what makes the meds work. My, how blind I have been!

Doctors and science never get the deserved gratitude from these wackos...

Posted by: BaldySlaphead | November 18, 2008 8:24 AM

Here you are...

Note the bit about editing. Have you seen the TXTspk garbage on there?

Many thanks for your submission to There Probably Is...!

We will check your submission and reserve the right to edit it for spelling, grammar and general readability. We hope that's ok with you.

Please ask your Christian friends to join in with sharing the Good News of Jesus to a world ready to ask questions!

God bless,
yours in Christ,
Rev. Evan Cockshaw
There Probably Is ... !

Submit your story about God

Name * Dave Faring-Hughlar
Age * 37
Location * Swindon
Email * dFaring-Hughlar@xxxx.co.uk
Phone
Brief Biography I am a 37 year old man from Swindon who likes obscure pop music like Cliff Richards, Paul Myers, Eugenie Scott and Dick Dorekins.

I try to go to church at least four times a day, but sometimes I only manage one.

I am big and fat and like laughing at good jokes and all the local children call me 'Mr Jolly', which is funny, because I am a bit lonely, really.
Submit your story
I believe in God because it is simply to difficult to believe that life could come about by any other means.

Many years ago, when I was at school, I believed that evolution was real on acount of it being based on facts and evidence. However, when I was older, I met a man at a Cliff Richards concert who explained that you didn't need facts or evidence, you just needed to put your faith into Jesus. He explained how Jesus loves me and died for my sins. I am not a stupid man, and I said to him, 'Where is your proof?' and he showed me the Bible. I took the Bible away and read it and even though there's no proof whatsoever that the Bible is genuine, it's words made me feel a bit less lonely and so I committed to Jesus.

You can keep your facts and evidence. Jesus is the real deal.

How did you hear about There Probably Is...? via a fiend

Posted by: Ploon | November 18, 2008 8:27 AM

I believe in God because...

Someone is responsible for my life being such a stinking mess and it sure ain't me!

Posted by: josh | November 18, 2008 8:30 AM

I think you'll find the reason the poll was already about half atheistic is because the respondands are British. Look at the locations of the positive testimonials and it'll give you an idea where most of the sites traffic is coming from.

Posted by: Andrew Bolton | November 18, 2008 8:31 AM

Well then I believe in Batman, because he's the protector of Gotham!
The logic seems perfect.

Posted by: quantum cephalopod | November 18, 2008 8:32 AM

I believe in god because I ain't no monkey-man.

Posted by: llewelly | November 18, 2008 8:34 AM

By the way folks. Don't forget to submit your story.

Posted by: llewelly | November 18, 2008 8:41 AM

> Well then I believe in Batman, because he's the protector of Gotham!

Posted by: Christophe Thillc | November 18, 2008 8:44 AM

I believe in Winnie the Pooh because he's just great. Also, the book I read taught me that I can be like him, ie nice and helpful to my friends, curious and inquisitive, and that it will make me a slightly better person. I couldn't be good without it, you see, because you can't understand goodness by yourself, you have to see it defined for you in a book. And, by the way, this book does exist, and a great number of person have read and liked it. So, yes, there's no doubt for me that Winnie exists, somewhere. The fact that he doesn't interfere with my life is one more proof, because he's too polite to be intrusive.

Posted by: Avenel | November 18, 2008 8:47 AM

I submitted a "I do not believe in gods or goddesses .." story. It won't show up, but it may annoy the editor.

Posted by: Geoff Rogers | November 18, 2008 8:50 AM

Current standing:
No!
626 83.8%
Yes
108 14.5%
Not Sure
13 1.7%

I'd say it's been Pharyngulated.

I believe in God because I am a fucktard, and people like me wouldn't be viable organisms if He didn't exist. After all, if it wasn't for His constant intervention, I'd surely have done something so stupid as to render me a candidate for a Darwin Award...

Did I get that right?

Posted by: Masks of Eris | November 18, 2008 8:50 AM

We need your stories please. We're not after weirdo's or wacko's or people prone to peppering their everyday speech with the words "Hallelujah!" or "Let me bless you with this annointed oil!".

By their works shall ye know them indeed.

(I wouldn't let these people edit anything "for spelling, grammar and general readability"!)

Posted by: Paul R | November 18, 2008 8:51 AM

When I first found this site this morning (UK time) it was about 93% in favour of God with around 100 votes. I emailed the link to PZ, then set about Pharyngulising it myself. By the time I got bored it was a much more even 52% against god. Glad to see it's been hit by the rest of you guys now. :)

Posted by: SDyuaa | November 18, 2008 8:53 AM

Are we doing fake submissions? Here's mine:

I believe in a loving god because the belief comforts me and I don't want anyone to take away my comfort. He may not be able to save lives and heal amputations, but he is all-loving and that is enough.

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

hoping that the more useful sensible testimonies will come in too and rise to the surface in time

With all due respect, reverend, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 18, 2008 8:58 AM

The poll is missing an important option: who cares?

As Stanislaw Lem pointed out, if god exists, nothing follows from that premise. It does not follow that we owe it anything, since by definition, if it is omnipotent, then everything is already as it wants it to be.

-jcr

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 18, 2008 8:59 AM

Rev. Evan Cockshaw #38,

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

I thought that's what you wanted. After all, why else would you put this on your front page:

I believe in God because he is not only the creator of all lfe....

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 9:01 AM

I believe in God because he is the creator.

That they think this is the question is pretty odd. It suggests that the question of the existence of god really doesn't occur to them.

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: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 9:02 AM

I'm not coming here and being rude about what you believe. I would kindly ask you to show us the same courtesy. That's all.

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

Posted by: John | November 18, 2008 9:06 AM

Rev. Cockshaw?

"Cocksure: Feeling perfect assurance, sometimes on inadequate grounds."

Are you a poe?

Posted by: Scepticus | November 18, 2008 9:07 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: AndromedasWake | November 18, 2008 9:09 AM

Well, I just swung by and saw a nice 87% majority in favour of rationality. Strangely, after refreshing the page I can no longer see the poll. I guess that's because "The truth is most of the population of the world believe in God!".

Though I imagine cowardice also played a part.
Andro

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 18, 2008 9:12 AM

Rev. Cocksure, so what you are only really interested in is lots of confirmation bias. Got that, dishonest to the end. Especially when you consider that your festering beliefs are still the state religion in this country with representatives in the second chamber affecting all of us. It is us Atheist who need to 'hit' back as we have had to put up with your interference in our lives for long enough. Over 2000 years of evil in the name of your god and still counting. See the article by the UK RC bishop the other day, where he claimed that educated people are ruining the RC church by questioning? That just about says it all about the endarkenment named religion. Believe your silly little stories if you haven't the wit to see through the man made BS that is religion, but stay out of my life and the government.

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

I believe in god because the bible says that he has created man in his image. This must be true, because god likes wars, floods, burning up cities, plagues, etc. And so does most humans! Isn't it wonderful?

Posted by: mus | November 18, 2008 9:16 AM

from the site: The poster campaign by a group of atheists and part funded by the author Richard Dawkins has been really very succesful, in some ways at least. Raising 10 times more than the £11,000 originally hoped for they will now be placing posters all over the UK. We'd like to say 'Thanks Dicky'!!!

Uh... wha??

Posted by: Rebecca | November 18, 2008 9:17 AM

Keywords: 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

Wow, you sure as hell don't want us there, do you?

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

I just enjoyed a big bowl of stupid mixed in with my morning pumpkin granola.

Posted by: freelunch | November 18, 2008 9:19 AM

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on how atheists are annoying believers by reminding them that they don't believe:

At the same time, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., has hit at least nine states in the past year with billboards that look like they're made of stained glass but say "Beware of Dogma," "Imagine No Religion," or -- coming soon -- "Reason's Greetings." The group also advertises on the liberal radio network Air America. One spot features Ron Reagan, son of the former president, who signs off: "Ron Reagan, lifelong atheist. Not afraid of burning in hell."

In seeking the spotlight, the movement risks a backlash. Some Christians find the billboards deeply offensive, especially at this time of year. In recent weeks, press releases from the religious right have accused atheists of "mocking" and "insulting" Christmas. In rural Chambersburg, Pa., one Christian group responded to an "Imagine No Religion" billboard with a giant sign of their own, asking: "Why Do Atheists Hate America?"

They note that in a big speech on faith last summer, Mr. Obama called for "Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim, believer and nonbeliever alike" to work together. It isn't often that politicians specifically mention nonbelievers, they say.

Posted by: TSC | November 18, 2008 9:22 AM

Cat fight on pharyngula. Groooowl. Therefore, god exists.

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

They appear to have taken the poll down, at least I can't find it!

Posted by: DuckPhup | November 18, 2008 9:26 AM

Cockshaw's site might turn out to be useful, in a sense. After being allowed to percolate for a couple of weeks, the entire content ought to be suitable for submission to FSTDT... en masse.

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

On this topic about why people believe in the mystical imaginary sky fairy, let us not forget the over 900 people that were suffering from their delusional beliefs that killed themselves in Guyana 30 years ago today, because they "believe". Why do all these idiot groups seem to come from the US? (Jim Jones, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Scientology and all those other strange cults)

Posted by: Moses | November 18, 2008 9:29 AM

Of course the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. Just ask the hard-core "good Hindus." They'll set you straight...

Better, yet, I'm looking forward to the day Focus on the Family" doesn't exist. They laid off 202 more yesterday. That, over the past three years, means they've laid off just under 600 of somewhat over 1500 employees during the past three years.

Burn Dobson, burn!

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | November 18, 2008 9:31 AM

Come on guys, this has to be a joke. "Evan Cockshaw"?

Please.

I mean, he does sound as though he's rather cocksure he'll get into heaven, but...

Posted by: Steve in MI | November 18, 2008 9:35 AM

Funniest. Site. Evah.

The opening graphic scored a coffee spray, but it was well worth the time it will take to wipe down the monitor. The slideshow opens with a renaiassance painting of a muscled, seductive model - obviously Michelangelo's Adam from the Sistine chapel with the Pythonesque god figure removed. The caption asks the reader to consider what's "missing from life" in a picture like this.

I submitted a testimonial, but I don't expect that it will be among those that they highlight. :-)

Apparently "me, a few chilled bottles, and a long weekend" wasn't the answer that the authors were looking for.

Posted by: freelunch | November 18, 2008 9:38 AM

Cat fight on pharyngula. Groooowl. Therefore, god exists.

Cats don't believe in Ceiling Cat, they believe in themselves. They only let you make comments about Ceiling Cat to humor you -- much like they let you clean their cat box or feed them.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 9:40 AM

I call Poe on Martin from West Bromwich. It's the "there 4" that does it:

there is acually no posibiliy that this world could be made by a human being not 1 man could make a single plant from no thing not even from chemicals so there 4 the big bang thoery can't be true... there 4 i have come 2 the conclusion that god him self is real

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

Rev. Cockshaw,

Congratulations on figuring out where the traffic arises from, and your politeness is appreciated.

However, note that your religion likely holds that atheists are evil and going to hell. It probably spreads this message on a regular basis. If you are Christian, it also promotes the message that atheists cannot be good citizens of the US and specifically undermines US science education and research. Given that, a little website mockery is a bit minor, don't you think?

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 9:45 AM

He's real, check out his new church

... a Wikipedia page entirely written by Cockshaw himself: I'm surprised that such blatant self-promotion hasn't been summarily deleted.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 9:51 AM

Rev. Cockshaw:

I'd like you to answer a question honestly...

If you saw that your "poll" results were heavily skewed in the direction that favors your belief, and you even knew it was because members of a religious website community came and caused those results, similarly... would you have taken down the poll? You already know the answer...

Now ask yourself how completely dishonest you are willing to be in the name of your religion? And then ask yourself, if that's what you're willing to do, is it really the right thing to do? And then connect the dots between your religion and the need to be dishonest to support it...

Don't come here and lie to us about your honest intentions... you're not looking for honest feedback... you're looking for views that support your own. Don't you get enough of that at church?

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 9:54 AM

Cryptic, he's British. C of E types don't say much about Hell (although they'd probably say they believe in it if pushed) and they rarely if ever trot out the "you can't be a good citizen if you're atheist" line.

British Christianity is summed up very well in that website: all subjective I-just-know-God-exists anecdotes about how you used to do drugs/sex/the occult before God told you it was bad. I've been there myself. Reading that site brings back the taste of weak orange squash.

Posted by: clinteas | November 18, 2008 9:56 AM

@ Missus Gumby,

Holbach,is that you??

Posted by: Matt Heath | November 18, 2008 9:59 AM

Cryptic, he's British. C of E types don't say much about Hell (although they'd probably say they believe in it if pushed) and they rarely if ever trot out the "you can't be a good citizen if you're atheist" line.

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 10:02 AM

You pop up real proof, not pathetic anecdotes, and we'll evaluate it.

This is the problem - and is the point which drives the fundamental wedge here between believers and nonbelievers. Religion is not about objective empirical proof. If there were unequivocal empirical evidence in favour of the existence of a particular God or gods, then self-evidently there would be no atheism, and no dispute between religious sects about which God or gods exist. So repeated demands for "proof" are pointless and vacuous.

Empiricism and reason can only take a person so far. 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. We have a number of third- or fourth-hand written accounts, but beyond that, we can't know for certain what Jesus did, what he taught, or even whether he existed. So normal academic methods simply don't give us an answer to the question.

Faced with this paucity of evidence, people's reaction depends entirely on their character. Those people of a sceptical character - ranging from the doubting disciple Thomas, to the intellectual atheists of today - refuse to believe such an extraordinary claim without unequivocal evidence. And this is understandable.

But as Christ said to Thomas, "You believe because you have seen; but blessed are those who have not seen, and yet still believe." What the Christian faith asks people to do is very simple: to put their trust in Christ despite the lack of unequivocal proof.

It's rather like this. Imagine that you are standing on the edge of a dark abyss. You can't see the bottom. But you are with someone who you trust deeply, and he tells you to step out into the abyss, trusting that you will land safely in soft ground. He can't offer you proof of this, and you can't see with your own eyes that there is soft ground at the bottom of the abyss. But he asks you to simply let go of your doubts and trust him. That's what religion is like. And if you are of a sceptical or wary mindset, you're unlikely to trust your friend enough to step over the precipice - which is why belief and unbelief cannot be reconciled, even though either can be held by a rational person.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 10:03 AM

Celtic_Evolution @99,

Maybe Rev. Cockshaw doesn't like it when his poll is not Evan.

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

Muwhahahahha- way to rate all of the testimonies, pharyngulites.

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

Moses (of all people) @ # 85, Of course the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. Just ask the hard-core "good Hindus." They'll set you straight...

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 think that the Hindu superstition, although different in observance & doctrine, probably isn't that different from Xian superstition, compare to Buddhism, or Taoism. It seems to me that they are both generally polytheistic, but the Xians, more so than the Hindus, engage in Kathenotheism.

Of course the big thing that they have in common is the suspension of rational thinking.

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

I would believe there is more out there than science has yet examined/explained/quantified. - Philip P.

Of course there is, as I think all scientists would agree. There'd be little point in being a scientist if everything was already known, would there? What has this to do with religion?

Posted by: TX CHL Instructor | November 18, 2008 10:11 AM

The poll appears to be gone now.

Posted by: clinteas | November 18, 2008 10:12 AM

Walton @ 107,

But you are with someone who you trust deeply, and he tells you to step out into the abyss, trusting that you will land safely in soft ground. He can't offer you proof of this, and you can't see with your own eyes that there is soft ground at the bottom of the abyss. But he asks you to simply let go of your doubts and trust him. That's what religion is like

Yeah,pretty stupid,is what religion is like really.....But then again,so was your example

Posted by: Brachinus | November 18, 2008 10:21 AM

It's interesting when members of an overbearing majority act like a disenfranchised minority.

Rev. Cockshaw, you say your site was a response to the atheist bus ads? What on earth do you think those ads were a response to?

We live in a society where you literally can't sneeze without someone talking about God. To be an atheist in America or England is to be constantly bombarded with pro-religion messages -- some very subtle, some downright blatant -- in every walk of life.

And when a bunch of atheists decide to do something very small-scale in response, posting some ads on buses, you feel so threatened by it that you construct an entire website to respond?

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 10:22 AM

Emmet Caulfield at #114: Yes, I won't deny that belief in leprechauns is perfectly possible in principle. However, there are two points of distinction between that and Christianity:

(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.

(2) Also, a belief in leprechauns has no major consequence for one's lifestyle or ethical choices. I therefore feel quite comfortable being equivocal about the existence of leprechauns; they might exist or they might not, but it doesn't really make any difference to me. Not so with religion.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 10:24 AM

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

Well "despite the lack of any evidence" would be more accurate. But even with your formulation, what it's asking them to do is be stupid.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 10:27 AM

Oh, and they've put up a snotty "Thanks Dicky!" message now. There goes their pretence at courtesy.

Posted by: Jason Failes | November 18, 2008 10:29 AM

Walton @ #107,

That was satire, right? Poe's Law makes it difficult to tell.

Emmet @ #114 already devastatingly pointed out that the evidence-doesn't-matter-I-have-faith approach works equally well for any invisible being(s), and completely removes any non ad populum reasons why anyone would choose Jesus over, say, Dionysus.

What I would like to comment on is your all-too-apt metaphor, getting people to jump into a deep and evidently deadly abyss for no good reason. (To complete the metaphor, you see other people jumping, and never hear from them again.)

It brings to mind kids dying while their parents pray (and while evangelicals push anti-stem cell legislation), dead snake-handlers, meaningless wars, sexism, racism, and homophobia.

Why are we doing these stupid, dangerous, deadly things?

Oh, because of faith. Jump in the hole.

You want us to jump?

You go first, and send us word.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2008 10:32 AM

The ancient people (Aryans) who moved into India & who destroyed the Indus Valley civilization

There's little if any evidence for that, incidentally. The Indus Valley civilization seems to have cut down more forest and used more water than that region was able to sustain.

Incidentally, who's Dyaus Pita again, he of the could-not-be-more-Indo-European title? Krshna?

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 10:36 AM

Lotus #44 wrote:

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".

Yes, that's just it, isn't it? Most of the testimonials I read were exactly that: testaments to a useful product that "works" to help you with problems. It's not that people believe in God: they believe in themselves, and they look for what benefits them. When it gets right down to it, God "working in my life" is nothing more than the equivalent of explaining that it's easier to cope with things when you view it all in a comforting framework. You're reassured that you're important, and everything is going to turn out fine. The universe cares about you.

And then, somehow, they manage to describe this as thinking there's "something out there bigger than myself." A large, indifferent universe is something "bigger than ourselves." They don't want something bigger: they want the universe personalized and brought down to the level of a doting mother figure.

But how is any of that relevant to the serious question of deciding whether God exists or not? It isn't -- because it doesn't matter to them if God exists. They believe, very much, in belief.

Posted by: MH | November 18, 2008 10:39 AM

An interview with Evan Cocksure which I'm sure you'll enjoy:

astrophysicist is pioneer missionary in West Bromwich

Posted by: co | November 18, 2008 10:45 AM

"There's a huge positive dialogue going on between science and faith, and anybody who thinks science has written off faith really hasn't done their homework very well. I enjoy doing that and do a lot of debate and discussion work around those issues. And I find that when I say to people that I have a degree in astrophysics, it opens a huge number of doors which allows us to discuss things much further."

*cough, cough* Well, there you have it, folks. I suppose we'd better re-do our homework and try to get a better grade on it.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 10:49 AM

Guys, I'm really not quite sure why you're behaving like this. You want to make the case that those of us with a sincere christian faith are hate mongering bigots, but we're not the ones currently chatting on this blog slagging off and offending individuals who have never done anything to harm or hurt you. I've not said a bad word about any of you and yet you've poured out a huge amount of hatred towards me.

Perhaps it would be wise for you to step back and think clearly about what you're saying and what you're doing. You might spot the irony.

Best wishes!

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

Perhaps it would be wise for you to step back and think clearly about what you're saying and what you're doing. You might spot the irony.

Great. Why don't you explain---in astrophysical terms, if you prefer---the honesty in taking down the poll when its results were perhaps antithetical to what you'd wanted?

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

#136

Don't forget Scientology. We know exactly who invented it and when (very recently, actually, so the historical sources haven't degraded as much), so that's even better evidence, right?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 18, 2008 10:55 AM

Richard Harris:

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

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

Which comment struck you as the most hateful, Rev? I can only see criticism, pertinent questions which you have conveniently omitted to answer, and a dig or two at your name.

Posted by: Auntie Em | November 18, 2008 10:56 AM

I Wanted to call Poe-nannigans on 'Evan Cocksure, but it turns out that he's really real (at least acording to the C of E news-sheet):

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=31792

One for the nominative determinism file?

Posted by: Ploon | November 18, 2008 11:00 AM

Me no understand. Why put up poll if only want people agree? Why spam if no agree? Why no reflect true belief if answer no?

A pity? No. A sham? Yes. Another priest/preacher showing himself to be an empty cassock, adding nothing at all to human discourse.

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

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?

Erm, presumably you find out after your death?

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 11:03 AM

The comments here have become vicious and invective-filled, and for no very good reason. This is the CoE, not Westboro Baptist Church we're dealing with.

There is a very big difference between voting honestly in an online poll, and thereby incidentally skewing the results towards the natural biases of Pharyngula readers, and maliciously wasting the time of the people compiling the website by submitting hoax stories. By submitting hoax stories, you may well be overwhelming the resources of the website's owner. If you succeed in breaking the site, or forcing the site to close, then I would say that it comes very close to suppression of a legitimate (if misguided) opinion. It certainly counts as bullying tactics. It isn't very much different from a denial of service attack.

Are we simply going to prove that we have enough numbers to kick the Lichfield Diocese off the web? Not very clever, I'd say. It is certainly childish and vindictive, and damages the reputation of this website. It makes you absolutely no different from the stupid, infantile, fundie trolls we get here.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:05 AM

Walton @ #153

Erm, presumably you find out after your death?

Presumably? Where's the evidence for that presumption?

Posted by: Richard from Red Deer | November 18, 2008 11:07 AM

The good Rev.Cockshaw is sparing our feelings by not engaging our questions since we would no doubt be devastated by the weight of careful reasoning, logic and...and...

Nah, he's got nothing.

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: Ka | November 18, 2008 11:08 AM

Walton # 142:

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.

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

Bernard Bumner @ #155

There is a very big difference between voting honestly in an online poll, and thereby incidentally skewing the results towards the natural biases of Pharyngula readers, and maliciously wasting the time of the people compiling the website by submitting hoax stories.

That's the point, Bernard... they're ALL hoax stories.

Posted by: Paul Browne | November 18, 2008 11:10 AM

OK, something went awry again, so here is one last attempt to get the link right;-)

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: ennui | November 18, 2008 11:11 AM

Walton---I agree that none of us directly perceives 'objective reality' due to the filters of our senses and brain. The best we can do is intersubjectivity while admitting that we could be wrong. This is what Science is---a process of subjective observation, hypothesis, experiment, and inference. What makes it intersubjective is the idea that the observations, experiments, and data should be subject to peer review, repeatability, and logical criticism. These processes lead us to 'accept' certain ideas, which are only a provisional approximation to objective reality.

The problem with faith is that it has no such process.

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

@ Christie # 161

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...

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 11:14 AM

I notice that the Mr Cockshaw's disrepectful reference to Professor Dawkins ("Dicky") is still on the front page of his website. How christian. Again, a christian mind exposes itself in its true colours.

I suspect the reason Mr Cockshaw used the snide contraction of RD's name is nothing but pure jealousy. Jealousy of Professor Dawkins' intelligence, eloquence, fame, wealth and everything else that comes with his world-class intellect.

Posted by: 2-D Man | November 18, 2008 11:17 AM

to constrain one's epistemology to the narrow bounds of empirical observation and logical inference leads to an incomplete and imperfect view of reality.

Erm, presumably you find out after your death?

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

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

Posted by: Armchair Dissident | November 18, 2008 11:20 AM

Guys, I'm really not quite sure why you're behaving like this.

Step away from the internets. No-one is "behaving" like anything other than normal internet commenters. This may not be the "more tea vicar", but no-one hear has even vaguely approached the arrogant condemnation metted out by the clergy in the pulpits or the broadsheets. You're not a martyr. Stop pretending you are.

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

Erm, vicar, they said you were wrong.

but we're not the ones currently chatting on this blog slagging off and offending individuals who have never done anything to harm or hurt you.

ROFLMAO. You found an atheist blog, blithely started spouting nonsense, and you were called on it. You provided not one shred of evidence to back up your position, and all of a sudden you're offended! Christians really are thin-skinned.

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,

Wrong. You took the poll down because you're a CofE vicar: a charlatan with absolutely no useful function in society (*that*, incidentally is an insult. As a UK taxpayer, I despise the CofE). The poll results clearly and accurately reflected the views of the visitors to your site. You just didn't like them. Which is pretty much how the CofE has treated every poll that shows that are descending into obscurity whilst retaining unwarranted political clout.

Posted by: Alexis | November 18, 2008 11:23 AM

I didn't see any poll. Do you think someone who didn't like the results might have pulled it down? Nah...that would be bearing false witness. Definitely a non-x-tian thing to do.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 11:25 AM

That's the point, Bernard... they're ALL hoax stories.

No.

Many of them are simply the intellectually disjointed ramblings and wrong-thinking miscomprehensions of people with a fervent need to share their religiosity with the world. They are all wrong. However, that is very much beside the point.

The point is that we aren't meant ot be in the business of closing down silly websites just because we disagree with them. That is just bullying.

Crash the poll, tell the organisers they are wrong, send them disbelief/deconversion stories (which they will ignore, I'm sure), but don't just try to break their website with your own fiction. If we simply shut them down then we don't win the argument, we just provide them with another story to illustrate how badly behaved those on the atheist side of the argument are.

It is a lazy stereotype that theists like to throw around, and I can see no reason to satisfy it...

Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 18, 2008 11:28 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." What the Christian faith asks people to do is very simple: to put their trust in Christ despite the lack of unequivocal proof.

Trust someone who doesn't have evidence in his favor. I don't trust people blindly.

It's rather like this. Imagine that you are standing on the edge of a dark abyss. You can't see the bottom. But you are with someone who you trust deeply, and he tells you to step out into the abyss, trusting that you will land safely in soft ground. He can't offer you proof of this, and you can't see with your own eyes that there is soft ground at the bottom of the abyss. But he asks you to simply let go of your doubts and trust him. That's what religion is like. And if you are of a sceptical or wary mindset, you're unlikely to trust your friend enough to step over the precipice - which is why belief and unbelief cannot be reconciled, even though either can be held by a rational person.

Analogy falls apart if we don't have this trusted friend who has reason to know what's at the bottom of the abyss.

Posted by: Stuart | November 18, 2008 11:29 AM

Now, I don't believe in God. I'm an atheist.

I also don't believe in being a total dick for no good reason. There's no need for the abuse going on on that website from some of you guys. You should be ashamed, really.

Posted by: E.V. | November 18, 2008 11:30 AM

Bernard Bumner:
Bernie, if you didn't catch the facetious lead in then you are a humorless crank. I was Joking. You're being an ass.

Your opinion is valued, but the condescending tone is, shall we say, a little off-putting. Incidently, I'd be a little more discerning with the" Fuck You"s, Bucko. You come off as hot headed and irrational.

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

I'm thinking the dear reverend is getting all red and puffy under his dog collar, now that he's been called on several sins he committed in connection with his website and the poll, not to mention all the bearing of false witnesses here. Do you think he'll go confess and ask for absolution now (do they do confession in the CofE?). Nah, neither do I.

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: Sastra | November 18, 2008 11:32 AM

Christie #161 wrote:

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.

Good question, and a much too brief answer:

Because the method and process involved in arriving at belief in God is sloppy, intellectually dishonest, and focused the needs of the believer -- and yet it is promoted as wisdom, humility, and character. This has two unfortunate results. It allows dogmatic beliefs to flourish with no way to check them -- and dogmatic certainty is dangerous, particularly when it's coupled with ideas of perfection, obedience to authority, and world separated into simplistic divisions of Good and Evil. And, second, it creates and villifies outsiders -- especially those outsiders who have exercised more rigor and caution in their methods. If eagerness to confirm one's prejudices and make one's beliefs unfalsifiable are seen as the "beginning of wisdom," then it is going to be difficult to draw lines in reasonable places, so that faith doesn't go "too far" and get out of rational control.

Most people do not think that, if someone doesn't believe in God, then kudos. They think that person who doesn't believe in God lacks wisdom, humility, character, and the ability to love. And, if we're lucky, they just stop at feeling very, very sorry for us.

Posted by: E.V. | November 18, 2008 11:35 AM

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

Do you think the Right Reverend will catch the absurdity?

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

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

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.

Posted by: Karl withakay | November 18, 2008 11:37 AM

Much like Pascal's false wager, most of the posts on that site are reasons to follow and practice religion, not reasons to believe in God. It's mostly circular logic that presupposes that God exists.

I don't suppose all the ones who post about what effects belief in God by themselves and others have in the world realize that those effects of belief are independent of the existence or non-existence of any god. Belief is a very powerful tool that doesn't require the belief to be correct in any way.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 18, 2008 11:38 AM

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

This is the point in the cartoon where the anvil drops on his head.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 11:39 AM

Hey, Miss Prism - I like your brothers take on the summary of the Bible. I might use it in a sermon one day! Thanks! :-)

Posted by: Jon | November 18, 2008 11:40 AM

Reverand,

The poll results were pointless the moment the first person voted, regardless of whether or not the polling software is so poorly designed that it allows people to vote multiple times.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 11:42 AM

(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.)

Irish mythology is about as well-recorded as Biblical "history", including 11th century copies of 6th century accounts of 3rd century happenings. There is no more reason to believe the Bible than the Tuatha Dé Danann. Belief in the sí, including leipreacháin and mná sí (pl. of bean sí or banshee), was widespread in Ireland until the early 20th century, despite pervasive Catholicism. Indeed, one of my own grandfathers, a pious Catholic, earnestly claimed to have seen a leprechaun and to have heard a bean sí.

In contrast Similarly, the Christian faith Irish mythology claims that Jesus Oisín lived, and died and was resurrected in a specific Roman province Ireland, within a specific historical timeframe, under and met a named Roman magistrate Christian missionary (whose existence is corroborated by extraneous evidence);

There. Fixed.

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

Says who? if you believe in leprechauns/Jesus, it has such consequences, but not if you don't.

I therefore feel quite comfortable being equivocal about the existence of leprechauns Jesus; they he might exist or they he might not, but it doesn't really make any difference to me. Not so with religion leprechauns.

Your comfort level with a proposition has exactly zero bearing on the truth of that proposition.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 11:43 AM

Bernard:

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.

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?

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.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 18, 2008 11:48 AM

Bernie, if you didn't catch the facetious lead in then you are a humorless crank. I was Joking. You're being an ass.

Fair enough. I missed it.

But, Concern Troll has become a pretty fashionable debate-bomb. It pisses me off, because it is an easy way of derailing valid points.

Your opinion is valued, but the condescending tone is, shall we say, a little off-putting. Incidently, I'd be a little more discerning with the" Fuck You"s, Bucko. You come off as hot headed and irrational.

You should have seen what I originally wrote...

Really, a Fuck off was simply my way of indicating mild displeasure. My eyeballs weren't popping, and the vein on my head was nearly invisible. It is a good illustration that t'Internet can be a blunt instrument in conveying the intention behind a piece of language.

As for being condescending; never my intent (other than in my reply)...

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

Gah! God messed up my html. Here's the link.

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

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

LMAO!!! It was pointless before we skewed it. Online polls are useless because they don't have a random sampling. They show absolutely nothing. That's the point of skewing them.

Don't take this personally. One of our hobbies is to go crash online polls to show how useless they are (it's actually funner than it sounds).

Posted by: Sauve | November 18, 2008 11:52 AM

I stopped when the first one I read was 'I believe in God because when I was raped at knife point at the age of 13...'

Didn't bother reading any further.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 11:54 AM

"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 (though do note that Sussex is hardly a good UK university!).

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 11:57 AM

SEF, oi - there's nothing wrong with Sussex. It counts two Nobel prizewinners among its staff, and has particularly strong chemistry and evolutionary biology departments.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 12:01 PM

Walton #182 wrote:

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.

The problem I see here is that you're going back and forth between atheism and theism, and blurring them together.

With atheism, "God" is the symbol or metaphor which stands for the Known and the Unknown. It represents our sense of mystery, the good things we value, our happiest experiences of love, and the ideas we want to live by. It's no more real than Santa Claus -- but, like Santa Claus, it's associated with very real things in the world.

With theism, God is neither a concept, nor the shorthand for a concept, but an actual Force, Energy, or Being which is Mind-like. It doesn't just live in our thoughts, it exists "in spiritual essence" (whatever that means.) God drives the universe in a direction it determines, for the best result and purpose, using will as power.

This isn't "mystery" or "the unknown." We may not know exactly what it is, or how it works, but it is definitely tied to human-centered concerns and ideas like Good and Evil. And we understand what God "must be like" by looking at our human experience with how we think, how we feel, and how we deal with other people. A God that is too "impersonal" is no God at all.

we should acknowledge that God, in a sense, exists.

There's a sense in which "God" "exists," and yet atheism is true. God becomes a cosmic Santa Claus -- no, not literally real, but figuratively real. Ending up with a God which is figuratively real is not really a victory over nonbelief. I think it's just being pretty darn clever with words.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 12:02 PM

Shorter Walton: solipsism therefore Yahweh.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 12:04 PM

and has particularly strong chemistry and evolutionary biology departments

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 12:08 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.

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. You've even stooped as intellectually low as picking on my name. I think the last time that happened I was about 6 years old.

Now come on. Have your free speech, write your blogs and chat on your forums. But talk about your beliefs, don't just bully and pick on individuals you've never met. I've done nothing to hurt any of you, I've been as polite as I can manage, and yet you persist in this silliness.

I am sure you must have more meaningful things to do now than make people miserable. No? Well if not, then perhaps that says just a little bit too much about you than you would care to admit.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 12:09 PM

do they do confession in the CofE?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 18, 2008 12:13 PM

Rev., Ok personal attacks(?) aside.

What did you expect from an on-line poll? That people on-line wouldn't vote on it?

On-line polls are inherently worthless. You have no control over who votes on them.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 12:14 PM

Evan Cockshaw denies that his job is to dumb-down Christianity to make it relevant to young people. - From the interview at http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news.aspx?action=view&id=734&usg=__7qeXxjVYOGiTkS9wapaQDalngSA=.
I'm sure that's true: his job is to dumb down young people to make them susceptible to Christianity.

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 12:15 PM

Sastra: The problem I see here is that you're going back and forth between atheism and theism, and blurring them together... With atheism, "God" is the symbol or metaphor which stands for the Known and the Unknown. It represents our sense of mystery, the good things we value, our happiest experiences of love, and the ideas we want to live by. It's no more real than Santa Claus -- but, like Santa Claus, it's associated with very real things in the world... With theism, God is neither a concept, nor the shorthand for a concept, but an actual Force, Energy, or Being which is Mind-like. It doesn't just live in our thoughts, it exists "in spiritual essence" (whatever that means.) God drives the universe in a direction it determines, for the best result and purpose, using will as power.

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't arguing that God exists solely as an abstract concept in the minds of human beings, or as a metaphor or symbol - that would, as you say, merely be atheism with a slight semantic variation.

Rather, let's run with the Sun comparison. As I said, early people worshipped the Sun as a deity. They saw that it provided them with light and heat which they needed to live; and since they did not have the capacity or breadth of perception to understand the Sun's true nature, they instead do what humans often do with concepts beyond their understanding - they anthropomorphised it, ascribing to it human qualities which they could understand. We can now see that it does not appear to possess such qualities; but this does not mean that the Sun does not exist. It merely means that our forefathers could not fully understand its true properties.

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.

Posted by: Kamikaze189 | November 18, 2008 12:16 PM

I'm surprised more people haven't come out in this guy's defense. All he's done is made a website. Sure, it's kind of silly and pointless, but he's not picketing funerals. He even seems to be quite friendly, albeit wrong about religion.

Let the man have his website and leave him alone. Nobody on this site likes it when trolls come on here, do they? And yet those same people would then go troll another website? I call shenanigans on your hypocrisy.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 12:17 PM

Mr Cockshaw. Concerning your latest post:

TOUGH

... get used to it.

Maybe turning the other cheek is not in the christian lexicon any more?

And another thing, you started it with your insult of professor Dawkins. Good grief, you have such a short memory.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 18, 2008 12:17 PM

I know I'm late to this particular party, but:

Walton @ 107:

It's rather like this. Imagine that you are standing on the edge of a dark abyss. You can't see the bottom. But you are with someone who you trust deeply, and he tells you to step out into the abyss, trusting that you will land safely in soft ground. He can't offer you proof of this, and you can't see with your own eyes that there is soft ground at the bottom of the abyss. But he asks you to simply let go of your doubts and trust him. That's what religion is like. And if you are of a sceptical or wary mindset, you're unlikely to trust your friend enough to step over the precipice - which is why belief and unbelief cannot be reconciled, even though either can be held by a rational person.

Here's (another) problem with this analogy: in the religion version, who is the "trusted friend"? Religion itself (or Jesus)? Then you're simply begging the question, trusting faith because faith tells you to trust it. That's not rational.

In the non-religion version, I know my friend. I have years of experience from which to evaluate his honesty, intelligence, and reliability, and can weigh those along with whatever the supposed benefit is of jumping into the abyss. But you might as well be telling me that Harry Potter is there telling me to jump into the abyss.

Or is the "friend" in your analogy the church itself? Then I'd say you fare even worse. If a "friend" was urging me to risk my life based on arguments as riddled with logical fallacies as those used by churches, I'd stay put thank you very much.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 12:21 PM

@ MissPrism #234:

That's research (done in one vaunted period) and not undergraduate study (of someone probably even attending in a different period, judging by stated age). There's a difference.

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 18, 2008 12:22 PM

Cockshaw @ # 231, "I've done nothing to hurt any of you,..."

Yes you have. By spreading your silly superstitious nonsense, stopping people from thinking about things rationally, you hurt us all. It may even be worse than this. If you are a moderate believer, you help provide the anti-intellectual environment in which extremists can occupy their perverted place.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 12:23 PM

To answer the above question about the poll - it was just a bit of nonsense anyway. I wasn't exactly trying to do anything worthwhile or meaningful.

The site's been up just a few days. I threw it on as a nothing more than a bit of space filler. But if you're just going to come and vote over and over again then it's even more pointless.

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 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.

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. That means games, colouring, food, fun, music.

If you want to say that I'm a worthless individual and that the CofE is something to be hated and a burden on the taxpayer (by the way - we don't receive anything from the government!), then please first at least speak to the people we actively and practically love and support.

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.

I'm not trying to get any medals from any of you, but I do wish you'd open your eyes a little and stop being quite so full of hatred and anger towards someone you have no clue about.

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

Reverend Cockshaw,
Why have you ignored the repeated requests for your justification of theistic belief? If your belief is not ridiculous then please enlighten us with your explanation.

You instead focus on the mocking posts, surely you are capable of turning the other cheek? I think that is a quality a good Christian is supposed to have?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 12:26 PM

Manjappa@164,
Good point.

Posted by: SEF | November 18, 2008 12:27 PM

What we actually need to see is the evidence that Evan Cockshaw ever genuinely understood and could properly use his specific area of science (ie what his own publication record is like for a start, although even that isn't entirely reliable as an indicator). Or whether he shows any genuine science aptitude in general at all, regardless of field, rather than being a rote learner (which is the norm for all humans, with thinkers being very much the exception).

His website (as well as his religion) argues against him having any such ability.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 12:28 PM

I'm not engaging with your questions about my beliefs because I respect the purpose of this website. This website isn't set up for broad discussion about my beliefs it is set up to be a blog from a biologist and people commenting on his views.

all I have tried to do in engaging with you is to ask for the same level of respect.

and on the Dicky quip - I've apologised for that and removed it already.

Posted by: Karen | November 18, 2008 12:29 PM

I submitted my entry explaining my belief in the FSM. I don't expect it to show up.

Walton
Why does my trusted friend want me to jump into an abyss? Are we being chased by a hungry bear? Or is it just a trust experiment? If there's a bear chasing us, I say we step aside at the last moment and let the bear plunge into the abyss. If we eventually hear a very soft thud and faint growls emanating from below, and my friend says, "See? I told you there'd be a soft landing; it's safe to jump-let's go!" I'd say, "Are you nuts? There's a hungry bear down there!"

If it's just a trust experiment, no thanks. My response would be "You go first, then crawl back up and let me see what shape you're in."

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 12:30 PM

Rev. Evan Cockshaw @231,

Evan, I agree that some of the attacks on you have been juvenile, but I don't see much that could really be considered very personal; nobody is forcing you to stay. If you jump into a shark-tank while bleeding, you get bitten. Let me assure you, this is nothing compared to the feeding frenzies that creationist trolls are subject to.

To help you understand what's gone wrong here, you did a few things: 1) getting your knickers in a knot over the atheist bus ad when there's an order of magnitude more religious advertising; 2) the "wrongly believe" clause in your initial post here was smug and invited scorn; 3) the "Dicky" reference seemed disrespectful to some people who reacted negatively to it; 4) taking down the poll, and failing to address the question of whether you would've taken it down if a Christian group had voted en masse, made you seem cowardly, dishonest, and hypocritical; 5) you misinterpreted the message we were trying to send, which is "online straw-polls are meaningless"; 6) you censor comments on your own site, but demand to be heard respectfully here, which is hypocritical.

HTH

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 18, 2008 12:33 PM

@241: "Let the man have his website and leave him alone. Nobody on this site likes it when trolls come on here, do they? And yet those same people would then go troll another website? I call shenanigans on your hypocrisy."

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.

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!"

He wants to participate in a discussion of atheism, but without all that tedious business of allowing the other side to present its arguments. That's what attracted PZ's attention in the first place. There must be hundreds of thousands of church web sites that don't claim to be addressed to the general public, and we're not bothering them.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 12:34 PM

Hmmm, I don't think I agree with that I'm afraid.

I'm not asking to be heard respectfully here - just as a human to be afforded the same respect anyone deserves anywhere.

I've not engaged with everything posted here simply because there's been far too much - as I think someone else commented too.

And I'm only hanging around because I am still receiving spam from you lot on the site and to my inbox. Some of it has been incredibly offensive. I am also sticking around on here because of the personal attacks being made about me personally on here. If it were you, I think you might want to say something about it too.

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

I don't see the survey.
Do you have to submit a story to see it?

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 12:37 PM

Celtic_Evolution

if all that had happened is what you say, that it was all going on here, then that would be fine. but you lot started spamming my site and my inbox with quite a lot of abusive content. So I was rather forced over here to see where it was all coming from.

I didn't come looking for a fight, and I haven't got a martyr complex. All I was saying was give me a break - I'm actually trying to love people in lots of ways, without the need to always be ramming Jesus down people's throats. But perhaps you can't see that.

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 18, 2008 12:41 PM

I don't think Cockshaw has even the slightest clue of what real anger and hatred is. It certainly is NOT the act of making a couple of juvenile puns out of someone's last name (although it seems the juvenile pun is turning out to be increasingly accurate).

Asking someone to justify their baseless claims is NOT anger and hatred, my smug and arrogant friend. Of course, when you believe in all-seeing sky fairies and reanimated 2,000 year-old corpses, I suppose it's easy to get confused about the usage of words and their meanings.

How dare you try to play the victim when you're busy victimizing others with your lies. You should be ashamed of yourself.

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

Alright Mr. "Cock"shaw,

You are arguing hopelessly with the same illogical useless, illogical bull"cock" as most do in their sad attempts at religious reasoning.

I think that the first half of your last name (on your screen name at least) says enough about you as it is...nuf said....

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 18, 2008 12:43 PM

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.

No, the idea of Abraham as the founder of monotheism is a legendary one, which has difficulty finding support in actual history (see my comment #186). Monotheism was a late development.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 12:45 PM

Cockshaw:

I'm actually trying to love people in lots of ways, without the need to always be ramming Jesus down people's throats.

This is a joke, right? You've seen your own website, haven't you?

If you are getting submissions to your site that are truly "abusive", that is certainly a shame, and is certainly not my intent, or the intent of most of the participants and regulars here. But I have honestly not seen anything that reaches the level of "abusive" within this thread, Rev. Picking on your name (which incidentally hasn't been done since the early posts on this thread) is juvenile, but hardly qualifies as "abusive".

Emmet Caulfield outlined above for you the reasons why you have been taken to task on this thread... and I think they are valid, and have thus far not been answered or addressed by you.

Don't feel bad... where that kind of behavior is concerned, you are in good company.

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: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 18, 2008 12:47 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 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.

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. That means games, colouring, food, fun, music.

If you want to say that I'm a worthless individual and that the CofE is something to be hated and a burden on the taxpayer (by the way - we don't receive anything from the government!), then please first at least speak to the people we actively and practically love and support.

And that is wonderful work. My wife and myself donate a good portion of our free time to charity.

My question is do you then make these people whom you are no doubt helping listen to a sermon about your religion?

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 12:49 PM

I am also sticking around on here because of the personal attacks being made about me personally on here.

Can you give examples of what you consider to be "personal attacks". The numbers of a few posts should suffice. This is the Internet. Thick skin required.

Some of it has been incredibly offensive.

If you consider the above to be "personal attacks", it seems like you have a very thin skin. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the threshold of what you consider "incredibly offensive" may be similarly low.

Bear in mind that, from our perspective, you're in the afterlife-peddling business and promote the notion that belief without evidence is superior to belief based on evidence, two things that many of us consider immoral and corrupt. You shouldn't expect any more respect here than a self-confessed fraudster.

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

Cockshaw:

WEll I was refering specifically to these comments: No idea how to do quotes on here: "Wrong. You took the poll down because you're a CofE vicar: a charlatan with absolutely no useful function in society (*that*, incidentally is an insult. As a UK taxpayer, I despise the CofE)."

Yes... that is indeed a sharp and pointed criticism. Abusive? Come now...

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 12:52 PM

I would conclude that there is really no such thing as "objective reality". Reality is what we perceive it to be. - Walton

Drivel. Walton, if a rabid dog bites you, get yourself vaccinated as quick as you can. Otherwise, you're going to die a particularly horrible death, because the dog was real and the rabies virus is real. If you were right, the victims of such bites could just refuse to perceive them and they'd be fine.

Still, at least now I understand how you manage to remain a believer, in God and in "libertarianism", in the face of all the evidence. You think you, Walton, create the universe as you go along.

Posted by: raven | November 18, 2008 12:54 PM

evan collateral damage and martyr:

All I was saying was give me a break - I'm actually trying to love people in lots of ways, without the need to always be ramming Jesus down people's throats. But perhaps you can't see that.

Evan, stop digging your hole deeper.

We in the USA just came through an 8 year nightmare brought to us by the Haters, Liars, and Killers for Jesus crowd. People are angry because the country is wrecked and heading downhill, that recession-banking failure-war thing.

At this point, anyone claiming to be xian can get lumped in with the fundie Death Cultists and get blamed for it.

Try to think and address the substantive points directed your way. Don't expect 300 million mad as hell people to automatically assume you are some benign moderate xian. We've all dealt way more with the other kind, malevolent extremist bigots, and rather involuntarily at that.

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

Rev Cockshaw, I commend your efforts to help the poverty stricken people of West Bromwich. Just don't expect us to not criticise your beliefs because of your good deeds. And if your motivation to help the poor is not just to alleviate suffering, but to prey on the vulnerable in order to spread divisive beliefs, do expect us to be angry.

Posted by: Paul R | November 18, 2008 12:58 PM

@The Rev #251

Erm, the CofE doesn't get any money from the government? Well, technically that's true, but the fact that you don't pay taxes does mean you get government assistance at my expense (I'm a UK tax payer).

Let's be open and honest here.

Posted by: Tomecat | November 18, 2008 12:59 PM

Walton: And if you are of a sceptical or wary mindset, you're unlikely to trust your friend enough to step over the precipice - which is why belief and unbelief cannot be reconciled, even though either can be held by a rational person.

You must have different kinds of friends than I do, because if my friend knew it was safe, he or she would just jump in & yell back to say "I'm OK, come on down!". They wouldn't push me to go first, like a royal food taster...

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

C'mon Rev. we're waiting...

I hardly think that PZ would mind you sharing your reasons for belief here.

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

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

question: why?

Posted by: Kagehi | November 18, 2008 1:04 PM

Walton..

I would argue that love and beauty exist, for instance.

Derived ***entirely*** from experience, and therefor "is" material, since different experiences alter the physical framework from which the definitions of love and beauty are derived. In fact, both can even be so badly distorted that you and me would find someone else's version completely incomprehensible. So, this is hardly a valid example of something "outside" the world. You have it entirely backwards. Without the world **and** personal experience of it, the two can't exist.

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;

Umm. Well, no it doesn't. Our personal "taste" in it is conceptual, in the sense that we become "used to" a particular type of music, and everything else becomes "noise", but the basic principles of how the sound effects us are based on very precise mathematical models, and if a note falls outside of the "acceptable" range of values, it automatically sounds either dissonant, or disconnected. I.e., we either find it to be out of place, and not part of the music, or we find it contradictory to the overall pattern, and disruptive. Its not even something we can, based on what I have seen about it, "unlearn", its hardwired into the brains auditory system, as a means to differentiate between unconnected noises, and things like speech, where the sounds follow, one after the other, in a clear pattern, and where breaks and gaps "provide" the dissonance or tonal qualities that tell us a) someone just spoke a new word, or b) someone else is speaking.

Just because you don't have a "clue" how or why someone is derived from, or connected to, the material world, doesn't mean you get to make up just so stories about how its somehow "different", and therefor science can explain it, and you need "other ways of knowing". Nor is it valid to "dislike" the answer, and therefor insist there is one you like better, because its more "personal", which is the other argument I see a lot. "Well, science *can* explain X, but I just don't like the explanation, it doesn't explain me *precisely*, so what is really going on is some fuzzy thing in the corner." Ugh! Its like someone arguing that science can't explain the sand pile in their own yard, because its a "unique" sand pile, and has a different configuration from any other sand pile, and they just don't like the generic, statistical, physics based, arguments, which describe how sand piles "in general" form, and why the frack they all look similar. Just makes you want to bang your head against your desk until you are too stupid to see what the problem with those arguments are.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 1:07 PM

SEF@229,
At least when I was there (some time ago), Sussex also had a fine reputation in astrophysics. There's no reason to believe Cocksure didn't get a respectable science degree from a respectable university. He can still be a religidiot.

Posted by: Scott B | November 18, 2008 1:10 PM

Sorry Walton@182, still nonsense.

The Sun does have the properties we ascribe to it through scientific methods - whether we're here to do so or not. It's the pseudo-properties ascribed to it by its worshipers that fail to exist. Unfortunately for them, those properties don't exist while they're believing, either.

The problem with the whole god concept is that there's no evidence. Earlier, E.C. rewrote some of your text showing that its reasoning applied equally well to leprechauns, to which you pointed out that there's "better evidence" for Christianity. Sorry, but you're wrong there, too.

The evidence is quite weak that Jesus even existed. There's no evidence ''at all'' outside of Christian scripture, and what's in that scripture is pretty limited. Two of the gospels are rewrites of the first, the fourth one is too late in time to be independent corroboration. Even the epistles fail to corroborate some key points in the story.

It boils down to indoctrination - most

Posted by: E.V. | November 18, 2008 1:12 PM

Sorry Matt7895,
Stephen Roberts said it much better:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 1:17 PM

"You took the poll down because you're a CofE vicar: a charlatan with absolutely no useful function in society."

Vicars and other religious leaders are very useful, and fulfill important functions -- when they concern themselves with practical, worldly, humanist values: helping the sick, the poor, the hungry. Of course. We honor them for that. Human to human.

Whether or not they are 'charlatans' depends on several things, I think. First, whether God exists. And second, whether they know that -- or ought to know it.

Judging just by the level of reasoning on the website (which is probably unfair), a reasonable person ought to figure out that no, there's "probably" no God. God is simply a psychological crutch, and religion is a useful prop on which to hang reasonable philosophy, reasonable ethics, and reasonable behavior. They can stand on their own, of course -- but it's easier to work with God, because it shortcuts a lot of work in reasoning.

Just please do tell them that, if they hear God's voice telling them to slaughter the infidels, they should not obey even if it is God. Telling them they shouldn't do it unless it really is God, and it almost certainly is not God, doesn't help much if you've already put emphasis on personal experience with God, and therefore conflated feelings that "God is there" with the fact that God must, therefore, indeed be there.

Posted by: MH | November 18, 2008 1:22 PM

Oh and Rev Cockshaw, on the 'upsetting' scale, how does a few people making fun of an adult's name compare to telling a child that if he doesn't do certain things he is going to roast in Hell for all eternity? Don't you think the latter is many orders of magnitude more offensive?

Posted by: Matt7895 | November 18, 2008 1:26 PM

Indeed, that is one of my favourite quotes, E.V. But I wanted to write it out in my own way, instead of just coping all of it.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 1:29 PM

Oh no! Holbach has finally managed to chew through the straps!

Now, if Bob C shows up, our poor Reverend will eat his words. Yes, it can get worse...

;)

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

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.

I would use the 'Indo-Europeans' rather than 'Aryans' due to the negative connotations of the term.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Is it that the Indo-Europeans shared a common mythology with the people from Mesopotamia and that when they invaded northern India they brought this mythology with them ?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | November 18, 2008 1:34 PM

Walton:

Dang, it, son! I wrote a long reply to you in another thread before I realized you were so wrapped up in this one that you'd probably never get back to that conversation.

I confess I've only skimmed the arguments here, but it seems as if you're advancing the idea that "God," as a concept, is a shorthand for some real, but poorly understood, pervasive universal life force... that we're simply personifying this force in the same way that Apollo-worshipping ancient Greeks personified the Sun.

OK, let's work with that idea: Historically, belief in the supernatural (broadly) and theism in particular have been humanity's self-narrative for explaining phenomena they could not explain in physical terms. As we have come to physical understandings of more and more phenomena, supernatural explanations have fallen away (just as now that we understand the physical nature of the Sun, we no longer believe in a god-driven chariot of fire in the sky).

Now, let me suggest that "God" is, rather than a personification of a real-but-poorly-understood universal life-force, instead an umbrella concept for everything about the universe that we don't yet have physical explanations for. That it, I'm suggesting an analog to Clarke's Third Law on the order of "Any sufficiently poorly understood natural phenomenon is indistinguishable from supernatural," followed by the idea that we lump everything "supernatural" (in the foregoing sense) together and call that "God."

In this formulation, "God" does, as you suggest, stand for "real" things... but the atheist position would be one of confidence that all as-yet unexplained phenomena have physical explanations, even if we haven't learned them yet. This confidence is not based on blind faith, but on the consistent, progressive increase, throughout human history, in evidence that the universe is governed by physical laws, along with the total lack of any evidence to the contrary. That is, if "God" consists of what we don't have physical explanations for, then every scientific discovery makes "God" a little smaller... and the logical conclusion is that "He" will ultimately disappear altogether.

And so, if it's true that once we know all that we can know, we will know there is no God, isn't it reasonable to just "flip to the end of the book" and start living without God right now?

Posted by: Holbach | November 18, 2008 1:39 PM

Rev Evan Cockshaw @ 139
There is no irony in anyone who insanely believes in anything that does not exist, so that this condition is truly attributable to insanity. You only have to prove that your imaginary god exists and the yoke of insanity will be lifted and will be rescinded both in reality and in apology. Since the blatant proof will never be offered by you or anyone of same affliction, then you will be forever branded as insane and an apology will be rendered moot and useless. Your imaginary god will be the only rescue from a perpetual life of insanity, which means that you will also die in that state.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 1:41 PM

It's his website, and it may be covered with logical fallacies. It does seem to be. Discuss that with him, argue it,

He hasn't indicated any willingness to discuss it or argue about it. All he's done is whinge. Discussion and argument we can handle, but naked whingeing invites scorn. IMHO, the opprobrium has been extremely mild by Pharyngula standards.

but abusing the site doesn't do anything but waste his time and yours. Kind of like when a troll comes on this website.

Quite different. Pharyngula is targeted at liberal atheists interested in science, not Christians. Even so, intelligent, thoughtful Christians who make a half-reasonable case get heard and argued with. Even rabid fundagelicals, though they are ridiculed, lampooned, and insulted, are very rarely banned.

Evan Cockshaw, OTOH, included metatags that targeted us, inviting our attention, but only our passive attention. Christians contribute their moronic drool, so he doesn't have to create any content himself, and atheists are expected to read it, without having any way of responding. Now, tell me again, who's interested in dialogue and argument and who's not?

The chink in the armour was the online poll. His fatal flaw was to leave a way for us to say what we think in a way that he didn't expect. So, when we indulged in a little harmless poll-crashing fun, he came here, not to engage with us -- which was clearly never his intention -- but to whinge about it: (paraphrasing) "how dare you mean atheists come and take the piss out of my propaganda piece", "how dare you not lap up gallons of vacuous drivel", "how dare you make me do some work today filtering user-generated content".

Frankly, if he'd had a tither of Internet horse-sense, he would've just silently shut the poll down, worked through the stuff that people here submitted for a day or two, and kept the nauseating righteous indignation to himself.

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

Sorry to flog a dead thread, but for me this just demonstrates that theists and atheists have different meanings for "to believe in God". When you say you don't believe in God, they think you mean you don't trust him or have faith that he loves you, blah di blah. When you ask them why they believe in him, they tell you all the things he's done to earn their trust and faith. They don't even realise you're talking about whether or not the guy *exists*.

Always say "believe that God exists", not "believe in God". It's just unnecessarily ambiguous.

Posted by: MissPrism | November 18, 2008 1:59 PM

Oh, come on, SEF. Many of those "much of a muchness" universities provide excellent teaching and research opportunities for undergraduates, particularly in newer subjects like genetics or space science. The lack of snob value and accumulated historical capital, more than any deficiency in quality, keeps their entrance requirements lower than Oxbridge.

My own degrees happen to be from institutions with international reputations, but if I thought for a second that I was superior to a Sussex graduate because of that I'd deserve to be slapped about the head with a blue-ringed octopus.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 18, 2008 2:02 PM

@Miss Prism, but does our blue ringed friend deserve it, I think not.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 2:03 PM

SEF,
You have offered absolutely no evidence for your contention that Sussex is not a good university. The criteria mentioned in the wikipedia article are those which determine how much government funding a university gets: external assessments of research and teaching quality, department by department. Now it's possible that the wikipedia article is full of lies, but given that, as you say, universities compete, is it likely all the others would just let these lies go? Now, do you have any actual evidence for your claim? If so, now's the time to produce it. If not, now's the time to STFU.

I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about in your last paragraph - but then I don't keep a mental record of all the disagreements I've had with people. Care to elucidate?

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

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.

Poor kid believes in god because his parents hated him/her:

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Posted by: Ray | November 18, 2008 2:09 PM

Howdy Folks,
I know I'm late to the party, but here's my $.02

While I don't agree with Rev. Cockshaw's religious beliefs, I don't see why anyone needs to personally attack him or make fun of his name. As another commenter said, his humanitarian works (granted they are self described) sound commendable. I don't think I'd invite him to tea, but I would hardly paint the man himself as an incarnation of evil. Religious institutions in general seem to become evil while gaining/perpetuating worldly power but I try not to generalize to the individuals who are part of them.
I don't understand the urge to vote more than once on any internet poll. I think that there are enough people who read this blog to skew almost any poll without resorting to repetitive voting to show the pointlessness of the results.
I understand why the poll was taken down by the Rev. if it wasn't representing a one person one vote result. 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.
The people commenting on Rev. Cockshaw's website may be wrong, silly, whatever but I don't see where they could be described as insincere. Posting your own story making fun of them could be amusing in its own way (I don't believe there is any intent to damage his website) but why bother? I don't think we are going to sway anyone there by that action.
Anyway, just a few thoughts that hit me while I read through the comments here.

Cheers,
Ray

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 2:22 PM

Christie:

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.

Christie, again... I need to ask you to look around you at the reality... this is NOT an "equal opportunity attack" issue. When, in the entire HISTORY of christianity, has it ever been simply content to just "live with" people of dissenting views? You are missing the entire point of our need and responsibility to rail against religion. You are operating from a faulty position whereby there exists some "live and let live" scenario. Do you not know enough about christianity's (and other religions, for that matter) history, both modern and ancient, to know that this is NOT the position of religion?

What I disagree with is the attitude that there needs to be some war waged between science and religion.

As I've said countless times before, if religion would simply stop insisting itself upon, and imposing itself onto science, there would be no need of any confrontation between science and religion. The two, in and of themselves, need not ever intersect, and science is perfectly happy to allow religion its goofy beliefs and fantasies right up to the point where religion insists upon being given equal footing in the scientific realm. Now tell me... which side is the cause if this problem? And the issue isn't that religion insists itself upon science, it further imposes its morals and world-views on society and politics. Have the last 8 years in the US shown you nothing?

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?

I think you're asking the wrong side that question. Ask gay people in California that question...

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 2:25 PM

Christie @336

Live and let live is the principle to which most here aspire.

The point is that religions pay lipservice to this principle but don't embrace it. What people here object to for the most part is the insinuation of religion into government and the unwillingness of the religious to differentiate between their religious beliefs and secular reasoning when it comes to civil rights, legislation, and both government and private services.

I've no desire to exercise control over what another person believes, if that were even possible, but I do expect them to keep their sanctimony out of my bedroom, my classroom, my courtroom, and my hospital.

Posted by: spacecataz | November 18, 2008 2:28 PM

Wow, the Rev. is a wuss. We should throw his site to the 'chans and see how he holds up then.

Seriously, Cockshaw, you're playing the victim here, but you've done NOTHING to defend your point. You're practically trying to flood this site with your tears rather than engaging in the same intellectual discussion that you so fiercely demand.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 2:33 PM

SEF@338,
In which comment do you claim to have offered evidence that Sussex is not a good university?

Posted by: Chris P | November 18, 2008 2:36 PM

Holy cow - the diocese of Lichfield. I went to school with the Bishop of Lichfield - Jonathan Gledhill. I even rowed with him in the same boat.

It was a streamed grammar school and he was in the "arts" side so he missed out on a full science education.

I think his father was in the clergy too. Our religious knowledge teacher definitely taught the bible as allegory - Rev Joe Preston - known as Holy Joe.

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrgghhhhh.

Chris P

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 18, 2008 2:40 PM

Sastra # 346

Agreed... vote-botting is dirty pool, and I certainly don't advocate anything that could intentionally cause DOS attack results, etc...

Besides, it's generally not necessary... our sheer numbers are more than enough to overwhelm most polls to get the point across about the pointlessness of internet polls...

Posted by: Richard Harris | November 18, 2008 2:52 PM

Feynmaniac @ # 319

I would use the 'Indo-Europeans' rather than 'Aryans' due to the negative connotations of the term.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you are saying. Is it that the Indo-Europeans shared a common mythology with the people from Mesopotamia and that when they invaded northern India they brought this mythology with them ?

Yes, more or less.

From Wikipedia:

Aryan is an English word derived from the Sanskrit "Ārya" meaning "noble" or "honorable". The Avestan cognate is "Airya" and the Old Persian equivalent is "Ariya". It is widely held to have been used as an ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians. Since in the 19th century, the Indo-Iranians were the most ancient known speakers of Indo-European languages, the word Aryan was adopted to refer not only to the Indo-Iranian people, but also to Indo-European speakers as a whole.

There is evidence of an Indo-Aryan language in Mesopotamia around 1500 BC in the form of loanwords in the Mitanni dialect of Hurrian, the speakers of which, it is speculated, may have once had an Indo-Aryan ruling class. At around the same time, the Indo-Aryans associated with the Vedic civilization, which dates back to the same period. They are sometimes called Vedic Aryans because it is believed that they brought the Vedas to the Indian subcontinent after the Aryans migrated into that region (this theory is contrary to the Out of India Theory). In ancient India, the term Aryavarta, meaning "abode of the Aryans", was used to refer to the northern Indian subcontinent.

Since ancient times, Persians have used the term Aryan as a racial designation in an ethnic sense to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians. In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." However, many of these usages are also intelligible if we understand the word Aryan in its sense of "noble" or "Spiritual".

Posted by: ennui | November 18, 2008 3:25 PM

In my second post on this thread, I called him 'Cocksure.' I've never been more ashamed. All I wanted was an answer to my question, and I thought that using this pejorative might goad him into giving one. And now his wife is crying in her crumpets. I am so insensitive!

People---all he wanted was a little respect for the irrational, unsupported beliefs of his flock, and the ability to make argumentum ad populum statements. Oh, and whine endlessly. And to say that we're wrong. Is that so much to ask?

I feel so ashamed. Why can't we all just get along?

Posted by: scrabcake | November 18, 2008 3:30 PM

I saw this and thought,"oh no...here they go griefing some guy who just wants to help His community to reaffirm their faith. Why can't you guys just leave people alone...you're just giving them more ammo."
Then, I saw the metatags. The good reverend wants atheists to come to his site, so he can prosthletize, as if the only reason we're atheists is that we haven't heard enough Christians talk about what Jesus means to them. As if we haven't been in tragic and difficult situations or admired the beauty of nature or been in a situation there believing in the existance of a giant caring cosmic daddy would have made dealing with the world so much easier. As if he thought that if he could only preach to atheists,they'd magically see the light and be born again.
The reverend isn't angry because the population of pharyngula visited...he's angry that we're not living up to his fantasies. He's angry because we're a bunch of complicated humans and not a one-dimentional boogeyman.
So, rev, you deserve the griefing-- let that be a lesson! :)

Posted by: Big Dave | November 18, 2008 3:38 PM

Couldn't see a poll. Submitted this:

I don't believe in God because there is no reason too. The Bible appears to be the only evidence for this God. Given its terribley self contradictory nature; racism; bigotry; rape and incest of innocents; factual innaccuracy; messages of hate to non-believers and the alterations and mistranslations it has seen over the years, it is not to be trusted. So why believe in God?

Further, people's experience isn't evidence, otherwise you would have to conclude all religions are equally valid, given the personal experience and conviction of the believers all over the world. This cannot be the case, given that all the religions can't be ture.

There is actually more historical evidence for Mohammed than there is for Jesus. But I wouldn't want to go believing in him either.

You're all welcome to your beliefs. The atheist poster campaign should realy say "There almost certainly is no God" (for one cannot disprove his existance in the same way as you cannot disprove Allah, Thor, Zeus, Horus or any of the other deities that have been produced from cultures all over the world).

There probably is no God. There probably are no pink unicorns (or white ones for that matter).

Given that religion is basically determined from one's upbrining, I suspect most people here believe in God because they were brought up to believe. You are all atheists to most religions. I've just gone that one god further. Take care, think for yourselves.

Posted by: Richard from Red Deer | November 18, 2008 3:59 PM

Here is the quote from the Reverend

"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"

I do find it rather annoying that the textbook case involving a Christians response to a skeptical inquiry into the assertions of the religious beliefs often deteriorates into a complete change of subject involving the feeding of children and the bringing of happiness through play into the lives of the unfortunate.

Why do you think this has a bearing on the criticism of religious belief since the one has not a thing to do with the other?

It is telling that you qualified your remark by opening with the phrase "intellectual arguements aside" since I do not believe you have presented any as yet in response to the criticisms herein.

Posted by: Pablo | November 18, 2008 4:53 PM

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.

One thing I find amusing is how hard it is to distinguish the "fraudulent accounts" from atheists from those apparently seriously submitted from theists. Except, of course, that those from atheists are actually coherently written.

Isn't that Poe's law? That you can't distinguish serious theist comments from intentionally goofy stuff?

Posted by: Robert M. | November 18, 2008 5:03 PM

"It is simply to provide a place to present our experiences of the true and living God"

And of course the true and living God happens to be the god of _your_ culture. How incredibly naive.

"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"

If a Pagan told you she experienced the Great Goddess and Horned God, would you assume that Christianity is false, or that she merely interpreted her experience according to what she already believes. If the latter, why do you not apply this reasoning to yourself?

Robert Morane

Posted by: dahduh | November 18, 2008 5:08 PM

Cockshaw #38:

...all I ask for is the same respect.

Posted by: Pablo | November 18, 2008 5:18 PM

My newest theory is that they are so used to babbling on about god this and jesus that, with no challenge whatsoever, that, whenever anyone does ask them to actually think, they don't.

In other words, no one has ever challenged the Reverend to justify or rationalize or explain anything he says, does, or believes.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "calling his bluff"

Posted by: Someone from West Brom | November 18, 2008 5:37 PM

I have seen the work Evan does in west brom first hand, and yes i have a brain and can think for myself. He does not con or deceive people into becoming Christians, but seeks to help those that nobody else will go near. That can not be a bad thing.

You also ask for proof or facts that God exists. I studied philosophy of religion and therefore the arguments for the existence of God. All you can conclude is that it is down to each individual person to decide what they believe. But at some point everybody needs to decide. To simply deny that Jesus existed at all is non-sense you might as well right off any historical accounts. (although i hear some people are trying to say now that the holocaust didn't happen). If someone could show facts to prove God existed then there would be no need for faith. I guess the only advice i could give is to ask God yourself genuinely if God exists. Then i guess you will have your answer. No one can decide for another person, everyone must think it through for themselves knowing ALL the options and then decide what they believe.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 18, 2008 5:48 PM

Yeah the choice is superstition and make believe versus reality.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 5:51 PM

guess the only advice i could give is to ask God yourself genuinely if God exists.

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 18, 2008 5:53 PM

"To simply deny that Jesus existed at all is non-sense you might as well right off any historical accounts."
There is absolutely zero evidence that a historical Jesus Christ existed, except for what is written in the bible. There is absolutely no record of such a person having lived or been executed, even though the Romans are well-known for having kept extremely detailed records of everything they did, especially executions. There is no mention of Jesus by any of the major Greek or Roman historians living at the time. We have scores of written records of many other historical figures who existed two thousand years ago. We have none of Jesus except for the self-validating bible...which is to say we have none.

"I guess the only advice i could give is to ask God yourself genuinely if God exists."
Hahahah. You can't be serious?

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 5:56 PM

No one can decide for another person, everyone must think it through for themselves knowing ALL the options and then decide what they believe.

Either God exists or he doesn't, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of reality. Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster Exist? Does Ra exist? Does Odin exist? Does Apollo exist? Does Bigfoot exist? Does Santa exist? These are not personal questions, these are positive indicators of reality. Ra doesn't exist for the Ancient Egyptians and no-one else, his existence is external to belief. What makes the Judao-Christian deity any more tangible than the pantheistic entity known as Brahman?

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 5:59 PM

Nick Gotts at #289: Drivel. Walton, if a rabid dog bites you, get yourself vaccinated as quick as you can. Otherwise, you're going to die a particularly horrible death, because the dog was real and the rabies virus is real. If you were right, the victims of such bites could just refuse to perceive them and they'd be fine.

You misunderstand me (which is my fault; my last few posts weren't my most coherent). Obviously I'm not seriously arguing that we choose what is real by choosing what we perceive. And to an extent I was talking nonsense in arguing that there is "no objective reality"; I just wanted to throw that idea out there to see whether it stood up to examination.

But it is arguable, in a certain sense, that we each experience our own personal universes, and that we mould them subconsciously according to our pre-existing beliefs, expectations and general paradigm of perception.

A good example (which was discussed earlier in a different context) is those people who have religious visions or near-death experiences. It's not my intention to discuss whether these are psychological delusions or real manifestations of the supernatural; I haven't investigated them and I'm not qualified to discuss the topic. But the relevant point for my purposes here is that, among all the people who have such experiences, most report visions or encounters with the God or gods in which they already believe (or which is prevalent in their culture). A Christian having a vision or NDE is unlikely to see visions of Vishnu, or Zeus. Why? The nature of the phenomenon itself (whatever it may be) is not different. But we filter it through our own perception and our own understanding of the universe.

My contention, and general belief, is that there is a God - a universal, living force which drives the universe - which is beyond human understanding, and which each culture accordingly perceives in different ways, according to its own context. For those of us raised in the Abrahamic tradition, the cultural roots of our faith are in a nomadic desert civilisation; and those desert nomads perceived God in a certain way because that was all they could understand. Other cultures and traditions have very different images of God; and some (such as Hinduism) ascribe many different faces and identities to God. But we're all talking about the same, universal God.

The Bible - which, unlike some other religious texts, has never claimed to have been dictated directly by God - is flawed, because it was written by fallible human beings recording their encounters with the divine, encounters which they understood only imperfectly. And the teachings fit into their cultural context; which is why we need not follow every moral injunction in the Bible.

But I do think religious teachings reveal something deep - some limited insight into the reality of the divine. For instance, where Christ remarked "Before Abraham was, I am," (evoking one of the names by which God identified Himself to the Israelites), was He not perhaps hinting at the mysteries of the pan-dimensional nature of God - God being outside time, and therefore experiencing all times and all places simultaneously?

Posted by: Wowbagger | November 18, 2008 6:01 PM

Someone from West Brom,

The bible is full of stories of god interacting directly with people - he spoke to Noah, to Moses, sent angels to save Lot and his family - and then turned his wife into a pillar of salt; similarly, Jesus performed many miracles while people looked on.

Surely the best way for god to ensure our salvations (which you'd think would be what he wants, since he's good and all) would be to continue with the occasional miracle, lecture and/or burning bush.

Why do you think god suddenly chose to stop acting in such a way as to make his existence unambiguous?

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 6:03 PM

Someone from West Brom:

To simply deny that Jesus existed at all is non-sense you might as well right off any historical accounts.

OK. Provide your canon of contemporary historical accounts. Actually, even if you could (and you won't - you'll do exactly what everyone else of your ilk does) it wouldn't get anywhere near close enough to provide the divinity of the biblical character.

i hear some people are trying to say now that the holocaust didn't happen

It's time for you to crack open a history book or two. People have been denying the Holocaust since WWII. It is not a recent phenomenon. Why didn't you do your research before you posted here?

Posted by: Walton | November 18, 2008 6:06 PM

Either God exists or he doesn't, it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of reality... These are not personal questions, these are positive indicators of reality. Ra doesn't exist for the Ancient Egyptians and no-one else, his existence is external to belief. What makes the Judao-Christian deity any more tangible than the pantheistic entity known as Brahman?

That's exactly the notion that I'm trying to challenge. I'm arguing that, in this context, existence is not a binary quality; it's a false dichotomy to claim that each of these, individually, either "exists" or "does not exist". Rather, I'm arguing that the Judeo-Christian deity, Brahman, Ra, and most other deities you might care to name are hazy, limited and flawed human perceptions of the reality of the divine, something which is inherently beyond our understanding. To argue that they simply "do not exist" in any sense beyond human imagination is, with respect, closed-minded. I choose to believe that there is a force of life which drives the universe - albeit that it is locked in constant battle with the forces of evil. Admittedly, this thesis is empirically untestable; but it is consistent with observed reality (since it explains both good and evil in the universe), and circumvents the logical flaws inherent in the constraints of conventional/orthodox theistic belief.

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2008 6:11 PM

"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is - in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree - it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime- the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt." [Mark Twain, "Reflections on Religion"]

Moreover - why no mention of DNA in the bible? Atoms? How about an explanation of Advance of perihelion of Mercury's orbit? That would have been some pretty convincing information that a deity should easily be able to put in his special book. Instead, nothing compelling. Ancient fantasy. Ignorant garbage.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 18, 2008 6:15 PM

I feel just a little bit sorry for Rev Cockshaw, who being British and Anglican is probably not much aware of the US religious culture. Raven @ #291 explained it very well; I urge Rev Cockshaw to read and reread that post.

He's being lumped together with a very nasty bunch of people, and I suspect that he doesn't *entirely* deserve it. He may be woolly-minded and fluffy, and very naive in expecting his site to have anything at all useful to say to atheists. But, ya know, he's no Fred Phelps. He seems kindly and polite, and hasn't threatened anyone with hellfire.

Rev: I urge you to come to grips with the company you're keeping. You asked for this interaction, and you got it. A lot of people here are VERY pissed off with religion at the moment, and if you keep up at all with US politics you will soon learn why.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 6:18 PM

something deep

What I think is being discussed here is Deut 23:13 - god's preferred method for the disposal of solid bodily waste. Expressly ordained to help god avoid treading in the stuff!

Heh heh. You couldn't make it up could you? Well you could if you were a bronze-age goat herder.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 6:20 PM

Walton,
There is simply no evidence for the existence of any sort of deity whatever, nor any reason to believe in one. To say that is not closed-minded, just truthful. The simplest hypothesis is that THERE IS NO "DIVINE". If that hypothesis is true, and there is absolutely no reason to believe it is not, then Allah, Thor, Ra, etc. etc. simply DO NOT EXIST. Exactly the same way as leprachauns and werewolves DO NOT EXIST.

You give the game away when you say you "choose to believe". It's wishful thinking, Walton, plain and simple. If I "choose to believe" I'm immortal, it's not going to make the slightest difference: I'm still going to die.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 6:22 PM

Saying Christianity is a fairy tail

Posted by: windy | November 18, 2008 6:26 PM

Rev. Evan C. wrote:

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.

You "believe"? Got any evidence? Remember that thing about bearing false witness...

phantomreader42:

And finally, oh horror of horrors, people made fun of your name. Yes, such unendurable agony it must have been. I'm sure no one's ever made fun of "Dicky" Dawkins' name. Oh, wait, YOU DID!

Good rant :) The ironic thing is that in #178 the reverend to his credit admitted that he had done just that, and in #231 he complains about people stooping "as intellectually low as picking on his name"! Short memory, I guess.

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 18, 2008 6:29 PM

wow i am surprised by some of the comments about my post.

I notice that no-one has responded to the good work that I have personally seen Evan doing, i.e. helping people who need help.

Posted by: CJO | November 18, 2008 6:30 PM

To simply deny that Jesus existed at all is non-sense you might as well right off any historical accounts. (although i hear some people are trying to say now that the holocaust didn't happen).

Absolute bullshit. Setting aside the execrable dishonesty of trying to tar skeptics in one area with the brush of anti-semitism and holocaust denial and the despicable cowardice of using the holocaust as a debating point at all; setting aside the obviousness of the historical situation with regard to 20th century events versus those in antiquity and the necessarily different standards we apply in each case, there simply are no historical accounts of the life of Jesus.

The gospels are theological fictions, and they bear all the marks of such. They were never supposed to be read by the intended contemporary (Jewish) readers as biography or history. It's the (Hellenized) gentile and modern imagination that has caused them to be delusionally read in this way. The passage from Josephus in Antiquities is an interpolated forgery, and the brief description of Roman Christianity in Tacitus is a) probably derived from confessions by captured Christians (likely obtained under torture), and, as such, merely describes the movement, the existence of which no one denies, and the beliefs of its adherents, and b) has likely also been 'touched up' by those ever-so-honest early Church Fathers. A good clue leading to b) is that Tacitus, a highly placed imperial secretary, gets Pontius Pilate's title wrong. Seems unlikely.

So fuck off, illiterate moron. You don't have any idea what history is, why it matters, or what others' motivations may be for taking an honest look at the meager facts and determining that Jesus was never anything more than a mythical figure and a fantasy of triumph and redemption for a beleagered people. But please keep believing it, since you weak-willed scum are always telling us you'd be psychopaths if you didn't think your savior was coming back, any minute now, for the last 2000 years.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 6:31 PM

I notice that no-one has responded to the good work that I have personally seen Evan doing, i.e. helping people who need help.

Flaunting one's charitable work is not a badge of honour to be worn proudly on one's metaphorical sleeve. Get over it.

OK, Mr Cockshaw does wonderful charity work. Happy now?

Now perhaps you will answer our questions, or are you not aware of the biblical precedent on your part to do so?

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 6:35 PM

miracles do still happen today and God does still work

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 6:39 PM

Ah, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. We win! Tadaa! (And from one so clued-up on philosophy. Methinks someone is breaking the 9th commandment here.)

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 6:41 PM

Someone from West Brom #390 wrote:

I was also very respectful to the fact that at the end of the day it is up to each individual to decide and yet some of the responses, like those i mentioned, completely lack any kind of intellectual level.

"It's up to each individual to decide?" As opposed to what? This sounds so open and warm, but it doesn't mean anything. All sides can say it. Technically, everything is up to each individual to decide. You can go with what the experts say, you can do with the reason and evidence, or you can go with your gut feelings. Were you just announcing that you didn't have a gun to anyone's head? That's nice, but we didn't think you did.

If you've been following this thread at all, you've noted that we've been severely critiquing the intellectual level of the reasons people give for believing in God. Most of them appear to simply use belief itself as a prop for personal therapy. The philosophical arguments against the existence of God -- which some of us have been putting forth -- are very strong. None of our views are going to make it onto the website. Not a chance.

And yet you have the cheek to write "everyone must think it through for themselves knowing ALL the options and then decide what they believe." Yes. There's 'nonbelief' over there on the bus slogan, and then a lot of really bad reasons to believe over here. And people who try to tell you that we're wrong are being rude. Debate is rude. Criticism is rude. Critique is rude. Niceness is a sign of being right.

I notice that no-one has responded to the good work that I have personally seen Evan doing, i.e. helping people who need help.

That's because it's got nothing to do with the issue. Are you saying atheists couldn't do good things? No. Are you saying that if you found out that atheists do good works -- or that Mormons do, or Wiccans, or people in some other religion you don't believe in -- do good works, then by golly you're going to renounce Christianity, because clearly only people with proper theology are capable or motivated to do good things? No.

So how is it any sort of point? Nobody is attacking the good reverend's kind heart.

Posted by: Someone from West Brom | November 18, 2008 6:42 PM

holbach @406
Firstly i have not actually expressed any of my own personal view of whether God exists or not, i stated that every must decide for themselves. As i said though if you want proof i would suggest that you genuinely ask God yourself and watch out for a reply. If God doesn't exist then what time have you wasted?

Posted by: Wowbagger | November 18, 2008 6:43 PM

Someone from West Brom wrote:

post 381, miracles do still happen today and God does still work, that is what the website Evan set up is trying to report. But it is new and will take time. Take the example of one young lad that Evan worked with. He had just come out of prison, was on drugs, regularly stole and became a Christian (not i might add because of anything Evan said, he was very much an atheist, he told Evan he had become a Christian because of a book he read and an experience he had). He is now not on drugs, does not steal and does anything he can to help his local community. I understand the image some people have of religion but is this story really that bad?

That is a positive, uplifting story, and is indeed a testament to how people can change.

But how is directly attributable to god? I mean, specifically your god? There are people in every culture who have 'found' your god - Yahweh - but then there's those who found Allah, Vishnu, Thor, Marduk, Wotan, Ahura Mazda, Shiva, Kali, Quetzlcoatl etc. - and each god has had the same impact on them.

Someone who turned to Thor for help, and was helped, clearly wasn't turning to Yahweh. He's made it pretty darn clear in the bible that he's not keen on the competition. So he wouldn't have helped a person praying to some other god.

So, how were the people turning to the other gods helped?Are you saying that all the gods are real and equally valid?

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 6:46 PM

As i said though if you want proof i would suggest that you genuinely ask God yourself and watch out for a reply.

Either God exists as a force in the universe of he doesn't. It's not a personal question, it's an objective claim on reality!

Posted by: Someone from West Brom | November 18, 2008 6:48 PM

I mentioned the good work thing, because a few people on here said Christianity was evil and that Evans life was meaningless, i was arguing against this, i did not say non-christians are not capable of doing good. I was pointing out that Christians are capable of doing good.

Posted by: Rev. Evan Cockshaw | November 18, 2008 6:49 PM

Dear all,
this is my final post on here because I don't want to get hammered any more by you lot to be honest. I've worked my socks off today, as I do everyday, and in all honesty I just don't have the time to give you the answers you keep asking me for. I wish I did, truly I do, but I just don't. So all that will happen is you will keep saying "why don't you answer the questions!" and so on, and in your eyes I'll just keep 'avoiding' the question etc. I'm not doing that, but I'm an honest hardworking man who's been working non stop since 7am this morning, and it's not 11.30 at night. I'm tired and I've got a busy week. So sorry if I can't stay here all week and chat. I'm not trying to whinge - I'm just being honest about my human limitations. There is a world outside the internet you know.

In terms of the website I've created, let me just say this to you. I've not created it as a personal site. I've created it on behalf of a much larger church organisation. So singling me out for the criticism is a little bit unfair. The testimonies are from other people anyway and that is the purpose of the site.

It ISN'T a site which aims to provoke online discussion, anymore than the bus poster campaign is designed to provoke discussion. It is purely an attempt to honestly present the other side of the coin to the atheist poster campaign happening in the UK which says "There's probably no God! Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!". We think it's fine for Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association to have this poster campaign. That's what freespeech is all about. But we don't agree with it's statement and so we use freespeech too to present the reason why we don't agree.

As an astrophysics student I debated long and hard with many people, from many different backgrounds. I learned one thing - when people come to a discussion with a preformed conclusion discussion wasn't going to happen, just a fruitless argument. And in that I include myself. I'm never going to be convinced by an atheist that God doesn't exist, and likewise a convinced atheist isn't going to be convinced that He does (although a lot of you seem to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and his noodly appendages! I wish my God had noodly appendages cos they sound like a lot of fun!). Anyway, I'm honestly accepting the fact that if I were to begin to try and convince you on here it would really be a truly fruitless task. That's all. And I know full well in saying that a lot of you will want to say "aha! He doesn't have any useful arguments to offer! What an idiot!". Well, ok. Say what you will. To be frank, I really dont much care right now. For me, philosophy has little to offer this debate. That's why I created the site that I have. It isn't about discussion and philosophy you see. It's about normal everyday people saying "Hey look, I know you don't think God exists, but these are my experiences, and it's because of these that I believe in God still today!"

Some of the testimonies, for sure, have been less than I expected and are just circular arguements. I accept that, but hope in time there will be some genuinely useful testimonies from people who want to say "Look, this happened to me, and I can't explain it any other way other than God existing. Call me an idiot if you like, but that's what I believe. Ok!"

From that all we expect people to do is weigh up for themselves what makes more sense to them.

We're honestly not hate mongering bigots. We're just normal everyday people who don't agree that God doesn't exist. And it's not because we've bought into lots of philosophical arguments but because geuninely we have experiences in our lives which fit with the idea of a God interacting with us in some way.

the stuff I've written above about doing good work and stuff was in no way meant to be a whinge or an avoiding of tough questions. It was simply in response to a few people's posts saying what an obviously nasty and useless person I am. I don't think those comments were necessary, fair or in any way useful. I thought that highlighting how I do actually contribute to society in a meaningful way might help. Obviously I was wrong.

I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom for atheists to have poster campaigns saying there's no God. but as I agree with that, I hope you too can agree with our freedom to have websites which say "hey, we don't agree with that".

That's all we're doing here, nothing more. I ask you simply to respect it even if you don't agree with it.

you may think that this has all been in good humour and that I deserve everything I've got here today, and maybe I do. But to be truthful my wife has gone to bed this evening dreadfully worried that we're going to end up with a letterbomb or something from some hatefilled atheist. Maybe she's being naive about that, but please understand the impact of the nastiness you've engaged in today and the impact it's having on real people with real feelings. This banter you've enjoyed today has genuinely made someone else incredibly unhappy, and I don't think that is what any of you intended, but it is unfortunately the outcome.

I am not personally responsible for all the ills of religion as you see it. I leave you now in peace and will go to bed praying for God's blessing upon all of you. that won't mean much to most of you I'm sure, but it is my only way of ending this with love and peace.

yours sincerely,
Evan

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 6:51 PM

If you do not choose to believe yourself then that is your choice and your reality. For those who choose to believe that is their choice and their reality. - Someone

Tripe. Unutterable tripe. Either God exists, or he doesn't. And we don't in general "choose to believe". Did you sit down and say to yourself "OK, now I'm going to believe in God"?

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2008 6:54 PM

"I was pointing out that Christians are capable of doing good."

"With or without [religion] you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 6:55 PM

I am not personally responsible for all the ills of religion as you see it. I leave you now in peace and will go to bed praying for God's blessing upon all of you. that won't mean much to most of you I'm sure, but it is my only way of ending this with love and peace.

Posted by: Holbach | November 18, 2008 6:56 PM

Someone from West Brom @ 404
Your last sentence is profoundly insane. "For those who choose to believe, that is their choice and reality". The first part is a no brainer, but the second part is the epitomy of irrationality. So if I choose to be Mencken, then I will certainly be the real H L Mencken? I may think and say I am Mencken, and this makes me Mencken? I may try to get you to believe and accept that I am Mencken, and you will most assuredly tell me that I am not and am probably insane. And yet when you tell me that you believe and talk to an imaginary god you expect me to believe this and proclaim you blessed and holy? Are you mad? Only an unsound mind mired in religious insanity can formulate such madness and never be concerned with the results of that very derangement. It is a fact that insane people do not realize that they are insane and therefore have no concept of what constitutes reality or soundness of mind. did your imaginary god make you this way or was it the wayward process of thoughtless evolution? Ask your imaginary god for the answer and get back to me. I wait with bated breath and baited vitriol.

Posted by: scottb | November 18, 2008 7:04 PM

But to be truthful my wife has gone to bed this evening dreadfully worried that we're going to end up with a letterbomb or something from some hatefilled atheist.

This is one of the worst divergences from reality I've seen in a long time. You claim to spend all your time doing charitable works but you might want to read a newspaper once in a while.

See if you can find the "atheist letter bombers" stories...

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 18, 2008 7:07 PM

Reverend. Two requests before you go:

1) Please don't pray for me or anyone else here. It's condescending and insulting for you to sploog your mentally-masturbatory jism all over those who don't believe in your fairy tales.

1) Take your wife to a qualified doctor or therapist. You make her sound like she is extremely high-strung and in need of medical assistance. Getting this upset and delusional over a couple of posts on an Internet blog is not healthy behavior.

Posted by: Someone from West Brom | November 18, 2008 7:09 PM

The FACT remains that we both believe that we are right and that that our reality is the real one. That is what i am saying. You are confusing a persons perception of reality with the truth. I guess when you die you will know the truth if i am right, or not if you are right because you will cease to exist, or maybe you will be reincarnated. Its your choice though, and until you die it is your reality. People thought the world was flat until someone changed that perception of reality. Until Jesus comes back or the time you die, whichever comes first, your perception of reality can not change unless you decide to change it.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 7:10 PM

Werd Nick, that "I'll pray for you" line is nothing more than condescending garbage in order to take the moral highground. Why do any of us need to be prayed for? We don't, it's just that Reverend Cocksure wants to condemn our behaviour in the nicent possible manner. "I can't judge your behaviour, so I'll let God do it".

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 7:17 PM

The FACT remains that we both believe that we are right and that that our reality is the real one. That is what i am saying.

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2008 7:22 PM

"The FACT remains that we both believe that we are right and that that our reality is the real one."

Baloney. It's not a 50/50 proposition.

Every time a deity is proposed to explain some natural phenomena, like say, the rising of the sun, fire, disease, etc., those propositions have been shown to be wrong. It's not belief. For centuries, materialism and the scientific method have proven their superiority over magical notions of mysterious ghost beings controlling the universe.

Posted by: Holbach | November 18, 2008 7:27 PM

Someone from West Brom @ 411
You suggest that I genuninely ask god (note the lower case as my regard always for this nonsense) myself and watch out for a reply. And engage in the very insanity for which we excoriate you and your insane ilk? And since this imaginary god does not exist, then what time have I wasted? The waste is the mind put to such useless and insane mutterings to imaginary crap. Just think; your life has been a wasted pile of insane rantings to nonexistent crap, and you will die in the same state with a wimper to your god, and you will pass away without a prayer and your imaginary god will die with your insane brain. When you do die ask your god to come down and beat the crap out of us in physical form so that we can benefit from the real flesh pounding on real flesh. Can you do this? Come on, your imaginary god can do everything for you, whether you are alive or dead. Wow, some god. Wow, some bullshit.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 7:28 PM

Emment Caulfield #438:

Don't forget the jitter-bugging zombie saints. I'm sure they were important. And I bet they put on a cracking act too!

Posted by: Son of a Nonymous | November 18, 2008 7:29 PM

"you attack the lack of substance on being able to prove there is a God, and yet offer no substance to the fact there is not a God."

First No True Scotsman, then Pascal's Wager, and now Russell's Teapot. Pretty much hitting the illogic trifecta here.

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2008 7:30 PM

"Neither deities nor magic are not necessary to explain anything. This has been shown throughout the centuries."

Correction:

Neither deities nor magic are not necessary to explain anything. This has been shown throughout the centuries.

Posted by: Someone from West Brom | November 18, 2008 7:34 PM

i never said it was logical, i said it was true! I hope one day you will open your heart and realize this.

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 18, 2008 7:35 PM

SFWB, please take a while to consider you are the one who believes in such things as human-headed chickens with serpents tails. You don't know what I'm talking about? Well, I suggest you actually read the bible and discover exactly what is written there.

If you are not all that conversant with the biblical bestiary, I'll enlighten you tomorrow.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 7:36 PM

i never said it was logical, i said it was true! I hope one day you will open your heart and realize this.

"Surely the greatest sign that God isn't omnipotent is the ineptitude of those who represent Him." - Kel

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2008 7:39 PM

"i never said it was logical, i said it was true!"

How do you know it's true without logic, reason, and evidence? How do you know you're not deluding yourself. That statement is completely delusional!

And stop with the mysterious language of "opening hearts". Let's all use concise terminology. An open heart would rapidly depressurize rendering its owner unconscious, with brain death following shortly after.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 7:42 PM

And stop with the mysterious language of "opening hearts". Let's all use concise terminology. An open heart would rapidly depressurize rendering its owner unconscious, with brain death following shortly after.

Posted by: Alex | November 18, 2008 7:48 PM

#457

For sure Kel. They hijack the language by inventing terms that are mysterious. They love explaining their "truths" and their "facts" with this mysterious language. I'd love to compile a complete list.

sin, soul, heaven, open heart, hell, angel, demon, god, salvation, savior, prayer, miracle, blasphemy, blood of the lamb....and on and on and on.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 7:51 PM

It's funny to see someone actually take the Colbert approach to reality.

Posted by: ggab | November 18, 2008 7:54 PM

Sorry I'm late.
I was mailing out my weekly batch of atheist letter bombs.
Did I miss anything?

Seriously, what the hell was that?
I want to feel good about the charity work he does, but why does he have to spout off that kind of bile?
I wonder who convinced his wife to fear the hate filled immoral atheists?
He can rub his prayer across my sweaty taint.

Posted by: windy | November 18, 2008 7:56 PM

I notice that no-one has responded to the good work that I have personally seen Evan doing, i.e. helping people who need help.

Has Evan or any of his crowd felt the need to address the good work Dawkins and the BHA are doing in other areas before putting up a response to the "probably no God" campaign?

PS. Now the site is set to redirect incoming traffic from Pharyngula to google.co.uk. Classy.

Posted by: Holbach | November 18, 2008 7:59 PM

A.N Other @ 460
You have but to prove that your imaginary god exists, simple as that, as I can prove I have a twenty dollar bill in my pocket. What is the problem? Here is my twenty, where is your god?

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 18, 2008 7:59 PM

A.N.Other @460

The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is no less fallacious for being presented in 10 points and with the conclusion dangling like a limp penis dribbling santorum onto the carpet.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 8:03 PM

Question. If the universe exists without God - from whence did it come?

Posted by: John Morales | November 18, 2008 8:06 PM

A.N.Other [nym] @460:

Atheists like to make claims to rational thought

Also, in that straw man argument, conflating theism with metaphysics is just plain silly. The latter has no need for the former, yet the former is based on a non-rigorous version of the former.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 8:09 PM

bsk #470 wrote:

Are you sure about that? :)

Sure -- because the best thing about any ideology is the people. Christians are better than their nasty theology. Look at how they take what's at face value a pretty ghastly, creepy story about sin and blood atonement and damnation and blithely come up with the encapsulation that it all means "God is LOVE!"

They sure as hell didn't get that from what's written. They got it by spinning what's actually written through their own ordinary niceness and modern enlightenment values, picking out what makes sense and ignoring or somehow twisting the rest. That's intellectually dishonest -- and it can lead to some dangerous results -- but it's a good idea to remind ourselves from time to time that good intentions aren't everything -- but they're something.

Posted by: Happy Trollop | November 18, 2008 8:09 PM

The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is no less fallacious for being presented in 10 points and with the conclusion dangling like a limp penis dribbling santorum onto the carpet.

Emmet Caulfield @469: Mollyworthy.

Posted by: Monado in Toronto | November 18, 2008 8:29 PM

You crashed their poll! It's down due to a mysterious surge in traffic exposing a software flaw.

Happy travelling! Give yourself some weekends off to recover.

Posted by: Ben Edmans | November 18, 2008 8:40 PM

Wow, best discussion I've seen for ages...shame the Rev. didn't lay his cards on the table about his own belief.

Some really interesting insights into the nature of the religious response- I liked the "standing on the edge of a pit and being asked to jump" analogy. It struck me that maybe the reason for our differences in opinion are that atheists respond to the god question in an intellectual manner and xians in a social manner - that is, they judge a belief based, not on reason and evidence, but on whether they trust the person who claims it- using social skills instead of intellectual ones. It should be noted that this is perfectly adequate 99% of the time, but the wrong way to respond to this question - a "misfiring" of an evolved instinct, like Dawkins' explanation of moths circling into candle flames.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 9:00 PM

Ben Edmans #481 wrote:

It struck me that maybe the reason for our differences in opinion are that atheists respond to the god question in an intellectual manner and xians in a social manner - that is, they judge a belief based, not on reason and evidence, but on whether they trust the person who claims it- using social skills instead of intellectual ones.

Studies in neurology have shown that, when viewed through brain scam imagery, different parts of the brain light up when different types of questions are asked: social questions and responses are dealt with in a different area than rational questions like math. I'm not sure if this is just a hypothesis on my part, or whether I actually read a study, but I think that they once showed that religious questions evoked activity from the emotional, social center of the brain.

This would account for why so many theists consider the question of God's existence the way they consider whether they ought to trust in a friend, or stay true to their principles, or something else relationship-related. They hear "does God exist?" and they respond as if they were asked "do you want to accept God?" They're not processing it like a fact to evaluate as true or false. They're processing it like an offer to consider accepting -- from someone.

Theists usually don't say "I chose to believe my authority figure." They say "I chose to believe God." They conflate their feelings about God with God itself.

If so, I'm not sure whether this is cause, or effect.

Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 18, 2008 9:03 PM

when viewed through brain scam imagery

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 9:09 PM

There was an interesting study that Michael Shermer mentioned in Why People Believe Weird Things, and while we think that the reason other people believe is because of things like emotional reasons, we think that our own beliefs are based upon evidence. It seems we put far more credulity into our own ability to assess evidence than others.

How many of these believers will say it's faith, then point to the bible as a historical account? Maybe they have faith it's a historical account, but the reason it would seem for their beliefs is that the evidence (the account of the bible) points to their beliefs. If you take away any means to transmit the meme, you have nothing. So while they appeal to emotion, use apologetic techniques like pascals wager, and justify it all with faith, in the end they base their beliefs on evidence just like the rest of us.

Posted by: Ben Edmans | November 18, 2008 9:15 PM

Sorry, "more than"

Posted by: Ben Edmans | November 18, 2008 9:17 PM

Sorry, "more than"

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 18, 2008 9:24 PM

How do you respond to someone who just values these things differently (less) then reason and evidence?

That that's unreasonable. :^)

(Not my idea. Was first brought up by a medieval philosopher.)

Posted by: Holbach | November 18, 2008 9:31 PM

Ben Edmans @ 481 and 481
A close reading of your comments leads me to suspect that there is a tinge of religion and mysticism couched in indirect inquiry. Are you an atheist, agnostic, or as yet undecided as your manner of compromise seem to suggest?

Posted by: Ben Edmans | November 18, 2008 9:41 PM

I'm "almost definitely" atheist. Maybe this is off the topic, but seems to me that knowledge isn't so important to everyone. A lot of people put more emphasis on their subjective experience and relationships with people. I would point out that several philosophers of science e.g. Arthur Koestler have drawn attention to the non-rational elements found in the scientific process, such as the ideas from earlier philosophy that inspired Newton and Kepler.

I believe the scientific method really is the only method for determining objective truth and the sciences can be used to further human happiness and progress - "enlightenment and emancipation". The mysticism may be due to the fact it's 2.40 am here and the Red Bull is just starting to wear off ;-)

Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 18, 2008 9:54 PM

several philosophers of science e.g. Arthur Koestler

Ah, the well-known and respected rapist! Of course, that doesn't mean his ideas can't have any validity, but I don't think they were that profound. No-one, I think, denies the non-rational aspects of arriving at new ideas: what's important is that irrationality is excluded from the winnowing of true (or usually, still possibly true) ideas from false - and this is far more a social than an individual process.

Posted by: Ben Edmans | November 18, 2008 10:09 PM

That's right. And the social nature of the process is where difficulties can creep in. I don't know if anyone's in social science, but it certainly seems like trying to obtain objective truth about humans is vulnerable to fads and interests.

I would like it if Pharnygula criticised postmodernists as much as religionists - they may be equally damaging to science and progress, and they are harder targets.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 18, 2008 10:19 PM

Koestler was an anti-Darwin neo-Lamarckian, possibly worse than a mystic and parapsychologist.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 10:24 PM

I would like it if Pharnygula criticised postmodernists as much as religionists - they may be equally damaging to science and progress, and they are harder targets.

Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2008 10:33 PM

Ben Edmons #488 wrote:

How do you respond to someone who just values these things differently (less) then reason and evidence?

As Kel says, by pointing out that they're being inconsistent. When people who espouse conclusions they don't agree with (ie "gay people are more violent than straight people") use that technique, it's not okay. They want to see the support, the reasoning, the evidence -- and "gut feelings" are not considered valid. Using a 'cheat' when it's supporting the things they want to be true is them going against their own values.

I would like it if Pharnygula criticised postmodernists as much as religionists - they may be equally damaging to science and progress, and they are harder targets.

I agree -- though the particularly silly forms seem to be becoming less popular than they used to be. When folks like Steve Fuller try to argue that 'creationism is just another world view" they get slapped pretty hard here.

Postmodernism is a two-edged sword for the religious. They get to have their "own way of knowing" and argue that "everything is faith" at the cost of not being allowed to say those with "other ways of knowing" or who believe anything on faith are wrong. Relativism is supposed to be where godlessness leads. Not Theism.

I really like the website Butterflies & Wheels for my dose of enlightenment response to philosophical and cultural relativism. Ophelia Benson is marvelous.

Posted by: Ben Edmans | November 18, 2008 10:34 PM

Look back at Walton @239 etc. Seems to be some inspiration from postmodernist language, at least.

Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 10:43 PM

The only person on here who seems to be post-modernist in philosophy is someone called "I am so wise".

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | November 18, 2008 11:09 PM

#460 Posted by: A.N.Other on November 18, 2008 at 7:49 PM:

Ok, here's something to ponder:

[ponder]

Atheists like to make claims to rational thought, free thinking, clearmindedness and so on. Logical coherence is commonplace in the arguments of a rational atheists nomenclature.

I don't speak for atheists, actually, but I'll play along. For the record, simply claiming to be an atheist doesn't make a person a clear, rational thinker. However, I've noticed a strong trend that people who are clear, rational thinkers very often are atheists.

1. God does not exist! There is no proof, no evidence, nothing coherently logical to grab hold of.

That's not how I would say it, but I think it is a general gist of the idea. But more specifically, the evidence that does exist quite clearly does not require a creator, and is rather damning if there is one.

2. The universe exists. There is plenty of proof, plenty of evidence, plenty of logically coherent stuff to grab hold of.

Yeah, matter - something you can grab hold of. However, there are those that will argue, probably for arguments sake, that we can't even be sure the Universe exists. Of course they might be wrong.

3. Conclusion. The universe exists without God!

That was rather an abrupt jump. I doubt many reach that conclusion so simply. They take into account all the written records ascribed to a creator that we know to be wrong and extrapolate the likelihood that most of those written records are wrong. Thus, we can eliminate those gods written about throughout most of recorded history... certainly they can't all be correct. In fact, the vast majority must, by process of elimination, be wrong. So we are left with a handful of ideas and concepts that might be god, left floating deisticly in the void (I made up that word...).

4. Question. If the universe exists without God - from whence did it come?

Probably, most atheists don't bother with that. Those that do specialize in esoteric theoretical physics. Things like string theory and stuff. [/pondering] I don't worry about what came before the universe and where the universe came from. That's knowledge that may forever be unavailable to us. Or we might figure it out tomorrow. But I'm not asking that question. It's like asking how many pink unicorns can fit in the trunk of my car - it's a pointless question.

5. Conjecture. Hmmmm. Not sure yet, but it must have something to do with the laws of physics being able to create it - universe/big bang or multiverse or steady state or ... it's in the laws of physiscs somewhere - we'll find it.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the current laws of physics. It could be that the universe is one of an infinite supply of universes, all with their own unique set of physics - and we have this one. We may never find out. We're OK with that - not having that answer. Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Trying, even if we never get that particular answer, may provide answers to many other exciting questions we can answer, and we may be able to eliminate many, many possible alternatives (like, say, some sort of omnipresent creator).

6. Problem: Aren't the laws of physics all contained within the known universe and space-time continuum? If so, how can they be responsible for creating that which contains them?

I may have mentioned in pondering point 5 that the laws of physics may not be the same inside as not inside our universe. It maybe there is nothing but our solitary universe. It maybe there are two universes: ours and a mirror universe. It may be there are an infinite number of universes, all pinched off from the rest by some sort of singularity - we call ours the Big Bang. In all that, there is little reason to assume our laws of physics are anything special or extend somehow to some sort of multi-verse. Perhaps our laws of physics only make sense here and now. The rest of there and then are different.

7. Conjecture: Well, they must have existed OUTSIDE the space-time continuum as we understand it. Before anything material existed, or anything at all, there must have at least been the laws of physics.

Why do you assume an atheist would assume this? It isn't a logical conclusion. What if it is the specific shape and structure of this universe that sets our specific laws of physics in motion? I mean, it's possible that what we consider the laws of physics are somehow extended across all of existences, our universe and any others, but is it necessarily so? I can't support your conclusion here.

8. Evidence to support conjecture? Er ... none.

Why, look at that, you don't support your own supposed conjecture either. That's because it is a straw man. That being so, we can abandon your logic chain - the links are broke, starting at about pondering point 4, actually.

9. And that's a logically coherent, evidence based conclusion then, that God doesn't exists and the universe does all by itself? Yes?

No - it isn't.

10. Er, well, sort of. Ok, no... But we don't like tricky stuff like this, we just like slagging off nice people who believe in God!

OK, I have to admit, there is a strong appearance that the denizens of this forum do, in fact, enjoy slagging off nice people who believe in God. That might be a bit of confirmation bias, however, as readers conveniently skip the less exciting messages that do not slag "nice people who believe in God" to read the juicy bits.

So, you lost me at pondering point 4. I tried to play along - and even stuck around to the end. You lost me anyway.

John B. Sandlin

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | November 19, 2008 12:01 AM

#182 Posted by Walton on November 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM

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

OK, here you're short changing the people of 4000 years ago. They were every bit as intelligent as we are today. Possibly more so. What they lacked was knowledge. A God could easily have provided useful knowledge even then, in the bronze age, or earlier. What they lacked were the mathematics to explain the universe - but how many today actually understand the math.

My version:
1. In the beginning, the universe was void and without form. 2. Upon my word a big booming bang and energy like fire filled the void. 3. It began to grow, and as it grew it cooled. 4. I saw it was good and let the ages unfold. 5. When I saw it was time, I spoke again and disturbed the universe, causing the lights you call stars to form. 6. I saw it was good, and let the ages unfold. 7. After many such ages, I spoke the words that seeded your Sun and your Earth, and the wandering lights you see at night, and they grew. 8. I saw it was good, and let the ages unfold. 9. ...

Would that have been so hard for people four thousand years ago to understand? A real god would have gotten the details right, and done so in a concise yet dramatic fashion. Obviously, I'm not a god.

John B. Sandlin

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | November 19, 2008 1:04 AM

#385 Posted by Walton on November 18, 2008 at 6:06 PM

That's exactly the notion that I'm trying to challenge. I'm arguing that, in this context, existence is not a binary quality; it's a false dichotomy to claim that each of these, individually, either "exists" or "does not exist". Rather, I'm arguing that the Judeo-Christian deity, Brahman, Ra, and most other deities you might care to name are hazy, limited and flawed human perceptions of the reality of the divine, something which is inherently beyond our understanding. To argue that they simply "do not exist" in any sense beyond human imagination is, with respect, closed-minded. I choose to believe that there is a force of life which drives the universe - albeit that it is locked in constant battle with the forces of evil. Admittedly, this thesis is empirically untestable; but it is consistent with observed reality (since it explains both good and evil in the universe), and circumvents the logical flaws inherent in the constraints of conventional/orthodox theistic belief.

OK, I hope this question doesn't come off as sarcastic or patronizing - because I certainly don't intend to be:

What, exactly, is it that causes you to believe in this deistic universal force of life? Perhaps I'm genetically deprived, somehow, and don't automatically grok what every believer does, but I don't know what there is to our existence that cries out so persistently there must be a god. The only reason I tried so hard to believe when I was younger is my family believed, and friends, and so many others, that I thought I was the lone lost soul unable to believe. For a while I held on to a more deistic belief, but eventually I gave up all such beliefs - and even stopped defining myself by what I believed, or didn't believe.

So, in all honesty, I want to know: What it is you experience, what you see or hear, or whatever, that brings to you this faith? I don't get it.

The Holy Bible of the Christians is an interesting collection of books, with many contradictory stories, and references to other, older religions that were ever so carefully edited around so as to leave the lessons and laws, but removed the other deities. But one thing it is not is an authoritative source of how the world was created, and who, really, is God? So, if all those things I followed to try to believe like the other Christians leaves me no support for a God, what support is there?

John B. Sandlin

Posted by: John B. Sandlin | November 19, 2008 1:50 AM

#390 Posted by "Someone from West Brom" on November 18, 2008 at 6:16 PM

wow i am surprised by some of the comments about my post.Saying Christianity is a fairy tail, saying it is a matter of make believe versus reality.

You're on an atheist blog. A liberal atheist blog. A godless, ...; You should think about your expectations a moment. Really, that should have been exactly what you expected.

Before it was said that Christianity preys on the weak and vulnerable.

Bilking fortunes from the old and weak; yeah, I see where folks might get that impression. Not just about Christianity, but confirmation bias allows you to believe Christians are singled out.

I mentioned philosophy of religion because that studies the greatest Philosophical thinkers of all time and not from any religious point of view, especially not Christianity.

Understand that you are not the only one to study Philosophy. Anyone that's been to University has probably done so. Any one that went to a Liberal Arts school has probably done so thoroughly. I seldom mention my several semesters of Philosophy, or of Theology, or of the other course work I've completed. I don't wish to argue from authority, or try to imply authority in my arguments. I hope my arguments stand on their own merits.

I was also very respectful to the fact that at the end of the day it is up to each individual to decide and yet some of the responses, like those i mentioned, completely lack any kind of intellectual level.

Many here don't find such respect admirable. It might be considered naive, in fact, to expect such from a blog by a godless liberal. I don't get to decide for myself that the sky is green, the sun yellow, or that the Earth is made of marshmallow fluff. Whether there is or is not a God might be a personal choice where one's faith is concerned, but that doesn't make God any less a fairy tale for adults.

I notice that no-one has responded to the good work that I have personally seen Evan doing, i.e. helping people who need help.

What, exactly, does his good works have to do with the topic at hand. Do you know exactly how much "Good Work" I do? How would that affect your perception of my arguments if you did know? Being humane to another human should be the norm regardless whether there is a god or not.

John B. Sandlin

-- I'm not an atheist - I just look like one when I argue.

Posted by: Penny | November 19, 2008 3:16 AM

Getting links from here diverted to google - why? It's not like we can't enter 'thereprobablyis' to find the place.
And when you do, you also find a 'christianmums' forum where the good reverend also takes part (as 'Gurney').

You won't be surprised to find that the prayers from other posters that the reverend can find a way to stop the 'attacks by a huge bunch of atheists' doesn't seem to have worked...

Posted by: RickrOll | November 19, 2008 3:28 AM

Walton at 385:
If an Intelligence were to suffuse all of the universe (something which some think plausable, but remains completely speculative), it would be neutral, not dualistic.
In fact, Evil is by its very nature highly volatile and self-destructive, because selfishness and the spread of ignorance is the name of the game; therefore if Evil were to be the dominant force, we would be unable to recognize it as such becasue we would be fed lies and delusions pertaining to the character of our local deities. Maybe Satan doesn't exist and Yehweh is just an incredible douchbag? That seems very plausable, doesn't it? Maybe it's just some aliens screwing with bronze age goat-hearders/mystics?
How could we possibly tell, one way os the other if things are what they appear by invoking Scripture? There are an awful lot of empty garuntees there, ins;t there? But all of it, down to even the aliens, is not provable, and thus void.

Posted by: a.n.other | November 19, 2008 4:28 AM

Some people on here have not acted with integrity, sabotaging a poll for example! Sending in false submissions. And these are just the things some people on here have admitted to doing, i wonder what else has been done? That is not something done to encourage debate and free thinking but the act of an extremist!

Posted by: a.n.other | November 19, 2008 5:28 AM

This is extreme as it is not normal behaviour, and wow once again another stereotype 'religion involves violence and extreme persecution', i think it is fair to say that both people who believe in a God and those who don't have both done this!!!

Posted by: A.N.Other | November 19, 2008 6:09 AM

*cough*

COMMUNISM

*cough*

Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 6:28 AM

You do understand the difference between communism and atheism right?

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 19, 2008 6:40 AM

*cough*

Christian Crimeline

*cough*

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 19, 2008 7:39 AM

Rev. Cocksure has a new YouTube video for ThereProbablyIs.com on his blog at ChristianMums.

Very easily parodied if anyone is that way inclined.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 19, 2008 8:43 AM

Cocksure (see, I am doing it again so obviously my argument has no merit) says

"But to be truthful my wife has gone to bed this evening dreadfully worried that we're going to end up with a letterbomb or something from some hate filled atheist."

You really are a little godshite aren't you, and yes, that is a deliberate insult and about all you deserve. After all, why would your wife think it likely that atheists would send you letter bombs. Unless of course she is another of the deluded who believe that only the god botherers can be good and who has been filled with fear about the godless. Wonder who did that to her, you and your fellow god botherers, perchance. Plus, whenever someone starts a sentence or statement with 'to be truthful', the one thing that can almost be guaranteed, is that they are being anything but.

Ever heard of any atheists sending letter bombs to anyone? Didn't think so, unless of course you know different. If so, pray tell, we are all eyes and hears for the links.

Ironically, PZ has and continues to receive death threats and hate mail from god botherers for his audacity in criticising religidiocy and its excesses. If I was your wife, I would be far more worried about letter bombs from fellow god botherers, who are from a different cult to yours, than any coming from atheists. The only 'bombs' you are ever likely to receive from us are verbal ones, but then you god botherers are very good at conflating criticism with extremism. Project much?.

And enough with the good works already, for it has no relevance to the existence or otherwise of god or gods. Additionally, even the religious based organisation running day centres, drug rehab centres and the like, that I have been a volunteer at in the UK over the last few decades, have been kept going, not by god botherers, but by the largely godless and agnostic volunteers. By the way, we do it not to curry favour with some mythical sky fairy so as to gain 'salvation' but because we feel for our less fortunate fellows and because it was, by our own selfish godless amoral world view, the right thing to do. The golden rule and all that, a principle that religions falsely try to claim as their own.

Posted by: Pablo | November 19, 2008 9:13 AM

So when no letterbombs or other physical threats show up in their mailbox, will his wife perhaps change her views about the threat of atheists?

Posted by: Pablo | November 19, 2008 10:14 AM

Sorry, John, that was meant to be a rhetorical question.

Of course she won't.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 19, 2008 10:24 AM

http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=19

Posted by: enchilada | November 19, 2008 10:27 AM

Hey guys, methinks you atheists protest too much - what you so worried about? Why the need to needle? You want respect, earn it ... immature, spiteful reaction is really rational, eh?

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 19, 2008 10:31 AM

Pable, I reckoned you probably meant it rhetorically but thought it worth highlighting her likely response anyway.

After all, in their book, it's all win/win. If good happens that is god showing his love for the religidiot while if bad happens that is also god showing his love by allowing the religidiot to develop and learn from it. Or some type of twisted logic along those lines anyway.

What's that saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. God botherers sure like being foooled.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, Kot, OM | November 19, 2008 10:36 AM

Yet another idiot who fails at history because they only looks at the surface.

sheesh

KoT

Posted by: Jason A. | November 19, 2008 10:37 AM

Rev. Evan Cockshaw said at #419:
"my wife has gone to bed this evening dreadfully worried that we're going to end up with a letterbomb or something from some hatefilled atheist."

Yeah, I'm so sick of hearing about all those atheism-driven train station bombings, and med clinic arsons, and mail bombings.
Oh wait, that doesn't happen, does it?

So where has your wife got the idea that it happens? It wouldn't be from you and your religions dishonest portrayal of atheists as immoral and hateful, would it?
You have only yourself to blame for your wifes fear.

Posted by: Holbach | November 19, 2008 11:04 AM

bernard quartermass @
What were you like before you took to religion? I'll not pass judgment here, but I hope that previous life was a normal life.

Posted by: Sastra | November 19, 2008 11:11 AM

Jason A #551 wrote:

So where has your wife got the idea that it happens? It wouldn't be from you and your religions dishonest portrayal of atheists as immoral and hateful, would it?

Maybe, but, to be fair to the wife, her husband wasn't just being reamed out by people who are atheists: he was being reamed out by people on the internet. That's got its own share of urban legends and scare stories -- and they're not all false.

When you're online, you can't really be sure of who and what you're dealing with. People lie. And I think there's good evidence that at least some of the folks who hang out regularly online don't have all their marbles, so to speak. Possibly true even on Pharyngula. Lurid tales of people who cyberstalk or send computer-killing viruses or go off the deep end and do something violent or criminal to "someone they met on the internet" probably get bandied around the general public more than stories about mean atheists -- who are usually depicted in popular imagination as grumpy or snotty (as if those were bad things!)

bernard quatermass #552 wrote:

Of course, NOTHING happened. Nothing. Not even in my drug-addled, sleep-deprived nougat of a brain. NOTH-ING.

To someone who has committed themselves to putting a positive spin for God on everything, your experience would probably be interpreted as "but when you were in need, you REALIZED that you wanted and needed God! Praise the Lord! You found your God-shaped hole! By not filling it, God just wanted to make the fact that there IS a hole there even more obvious. A miracle!"

That's why that silly test to "ask God to reveal himself to you" is worthless. If you don't bend over backwards and contort yourself in knots to find some way of confirming that God answered -- well, then, the problem is clearly you.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 19, 2008 11:20 AM

Look at how terriby intolerant those evil atheists are

(thanks to Emmet Caulfield for the site)

Posted by: Desert Son | November 19, 2008 11:32 AM

enchilada at #545 posted:

Hey guys, methinks you atheists protest too much - what you so worried about? Why the need to needle? You want respect, earn it ... immature, spiteful reaction is really rational, eh?

Welcome to Missedthewholeunderlyingpointofthediscussonville. Population: You.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Sastra | November 19, 2008 11:44 AM

enchilada #545 wrote:

You want respect, earn it ... immature, spiteful reaction is really rational, eh?

There are a lot of people -- especially religious people -- who really, really hate cussing. I suspect they live lives where it's seldom encountered, either personally or online. It jumps at them like a blow.

So if you use a swear word while making your rational argument, they shut down. If you use an insult while addressing their weak points, they shut off. Game over. You lost. They can't deal with you anymore. Because if you had a legitimate case, then you'd be nice about it. You weren't. So you don't.

This attitude is, of course, over-sensitive, wheeny-whiney, childish bullshit. But it's common. Sometimes it's simply being used as a rhetorical play or fallacy, a kind of "gotcha." Other times, there really does seem to be some sort of genuine belief that harsh words automatically make someone wrong. You find it with both conservatives and liberals (particularly with the "everybody get along spiritual but not religious" types I think.)

It's what I call the "Style over Substance" Argument. A politely worded and gently flattering defense of totalitarian fascism is more persuasive than an expletive-laden and faintly insulting counterargument for human rights and freedom. Sometimes even to someone who otherwise considers themselves a human rights activist. They skid on the surface of things, and mistake that for a sign of what's underneath. They accuse the other person of being too 'ego-driven,' when the real problem is that they can't separate the needs of their own ego from careful consideration of the facts and reasoning. Someone insulted them. That's now got to be the focus.

Of course, many people will also call perfectly calm and civil atheist discourse "shrill" and mean, but I think more people have this knee-jerk reaction to swearing. It's one reason I seldom use cuss words in my own posts: I've been burned too often by people who used it as an excuse to shift the argument from its substance, to style. I try not to give them the easy handle to grip. It's usually one of the first things they do when they realize they're losing. "It's not what you're saying, it's you and your hostile attitude. You swore, and now we're going to talk only about that."

Posted by: Alex | November 19, 2008 11:47 AM

Wow. This thread still going? More (un)convincing pleas (not)proving deities exist I see.

So basically the proofs are:

I believe it's real; I believe it should be real; I can't point to anything empirical for the purpose of showing others what I believe; Therefore, my god exists; And all the other deities throughout the expanse of time, well, they were never real in the fist place.

Hmmmm.

Posted by: Carlie | November 19, 2008 12:30 PM

"But also know that we do still love you, as does God, whether you like it or not."

= "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on", in godly language. Got it.

Posted by: Alex | November 19, 2008 1:31 PM

"But also know that we do still love you, as does God, whether you like it or not."

1. But also know that we do still love you

This does not matter to us. It seems it matters more to you. Why would civil discourse cause you to be concerned about loving us? This is a part of what the religious, especially xtians don't seem to understand - it sounds very trite and condescending. It adds no value to the discussion or the weak arguments that were presented by you either.

2. as does God

This is drivel. You have nothing empirical to show that a deity exists, or that such a creature can love, or that it loves anyone of us personally. This comment sounds like, again, you're saying it to make yourself feel more confident in your irrational, unsupportable belief that your deity exists - and that you are nodding to it in recognition. Kind of like you want an "attaboy" from other xtians and your deity for saying such a useless comment to those who don't think deities are real.

3. whether you like it or not.

Again, foisting unto someone something that you are sure they probably won't respect or appreciate is just another annoying manifestation of xtian hubris. By saying such things, you are clearly inviting the ire of those who disagree with you on the matter, but you do it anyway for the sake of getting in the last jibe. It makes you all seem very small in character, and very weak in the mind.

In parting, may Odin cast his eternal grace and love on your life so that you may know he is the one true God.

See what I mean?

Posted by: Walton | November 19, 2008 1:49 PM

Sastra: The trouble, of course, is that this doesn't mean that there are no arguments or conflicts. Reality doesn't really bend to wishes and expectations. Instead, it means that there are no empirical, rational means to resolve differences of opinion, so the only thing left is force. The exact opposite of what they were hoping.

"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." - Lily Tomlin.
;-)

Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 4:21 PM

Post-modernism denies the possibility of objective truth- which we have been defending for the past 500 posts.

*outside art where it has a legitimacy

Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | November 19, 2008 7:30 PM

Just so we all understand each other, "...the inadequacy of the average human mind" is so because of the inadequacy of the average educational and information dispersal systems.

That and a stupifyingly gigantic dose of fashionable superstition, on which many are hopelessly addicted.

Posted by: Aquaria | November 19, 2008 11:56 PM

I've said it before, and I'll doubtlessly say it infinite more times before I die, that the theist (particularly Am. Xtian) idea of respect for their beliefs is to prostrate yourself before their feet and cry, "O, thank you for exposing a worthless idiot like me to your utter correctness and superior wisdom! Please punish me for disagreeing with you!"

It's the only thing they want to hear. Otherwise, the non-believer is "militant," "angry" or "extremist."

IOW, they are exactly like the megalomaniacal sadists (s) they worship.

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 6:02 AM

How about the following common argument for the existence of God? (Not being a physicist or cosmologist, I can't judge the accuracy of the premises, so please correct me if any of them are wrong. But the line of reasoning itself is, as far as I can tell, formally valid.)

(1) Our universe is governed by certain physical laws and constants.
(2) Our universe had a finite beginning (approx. 13.7bn years ago).
(3) If the laws and constants which govern our universe were slightly different, the universe would not be able to sustain life, and might well consist entirely of (a) hydrogen atoms or (b) energy.
(4) Therefore, the fact that the universe is set up so as to be able to sustain life is very fortuitous for us.
This requires an explanation - and the two logical explanations are:
(a) that there are a large number of different universes, and we happen to live in the one which happens to be capable of sustaining life as we know it; or
(b) our universe was established by a designer who created it so that it would be capable of sustaining life.

The obvious problem is that this is a "God of the gaps" argument; we don't know how our universe came about or whether there are other universes, so we simply posit God as an explanation in the absence of a non-supernatural explanation. This, obviously, is in general a silly line of reasoning; if we were ignorant of space and astronomy, for instance, we could equally well argue "Our Earth may be the only planet that exists; it is set up so as to support life; ergo, there must have been a benevolent designer." And this would, of course, be wrong.

But the difference is that, as I understand it, because our perception and frame of reference is necessarily limited to our universe and its material laws, we cannot ever know what lies outside our own universe - making it purely speculative. It seems to me, then, that since empiricism cannot ever provide an answer, it's not inherently irrational to posit God as an explanation.

(Apologies if I'm talking nonsense - I really don't know much about physics, and so I might well have completely misunderstood the relevant facts.)

Of course, since this is empirically untestable and completely speculative, it provides no solid reason to believe in God, as opposed to believing in the "other universes" hypothesis. Which is where recorded accounts of supernatural events come into play. As I've said before, Christianity stands or falls completely on the question of the historical reliability of the Gospels - which is something that in principle is testable and falsifiable, albeit that we don't have enough evidence to judge it at present.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 6:55 AM

But the line of reasoning itself is, as far as I can tell, formally valid.

It's a collection of not unreasonable statements in ordinary language; it's at most an informal argument; it's certainly not a formal argument. A formal argument is formally valid if it correctly applies the formally defined rules of inference of the logical calculus used, resulting in a situation where the conclusion is true if the premises are true. Calling this a "formally valid" is like calling Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire a "legally binding contract". It makes no sense whatsoever.

The obvious problem is that this is a "God of the gaps" argument.

Yes, and it's as banal and vapid as every other such argument.

...because our perception and frame of reference is necessarily limited to our universe and its material laws, we cannot ever know what lies outside our own universe

You have to define what you mean by "universe". With one definition, the notion of "outside the Universe" is meaningless, tied to our intuitive notions of "inside" and "outside", and simply nonsensical. The other alternative is "our universe" as being one of many in a multiverse. The problem is that there are many different multiverse theories based on different mathematical frameworks. In their respective contexts, universe would have a defined meaning. Without knowing the details, one cannot say whether one universe is detectable from another: it would depend on the particular theory.

Really, this is a problem with armchair science cum philosophy cum speculation. It's fun and I love to do it myself, but informal and loosely defined concepts and reasoning are poor tools for discovering truth and generating new knowledge. That's why we have the scientific method and use mathematics.

since empiricism cannot ever provide an answer

An unwarranted assumption.

it's not inherently irrational to posit God as an explanation.

A non sequitur.

Christianity stands or falls completely on the question of the historical reliability of the Gospels.

In the absence of Christianity, such a collection of mutually inconsistent stories about a god-man with magical powers, not corroborated by historical evidence, would be a mere archaeological curiosity about the mythology of the peasants of primitive Palestine.

Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 7:08 AM

If the universe had a designer and only one configuration would lead to us, then the designer didn't have a choice when creating the universe. Without choice, there is no omnipotence. Therefore the designer can not be God.

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 7:29 AM

It's a collection of not unreasonable statements in ordinary language; it's at most an informal argument; it's certainly not a formal argument. A formal argument is formally valid if it correctly applies the formally defined rules of inference of the logical calculus used, resulting in a situation where the conclusion is true if the premises are true.

My apologies - of course I know that, and originally intended to phrase it in terms of a formal argument, but got carried away. How about if it were put this way:

(1) (premise) I live in the Universe.

(2) (premise) I am alive.

(3) By 1 and 2, the Universe can sustain life.

(4) (premise) If the physical laws of the Universe were different, it would not be able to sustain life.

(5) (premise) This Universe is the only universe.

(6) By 4 and 5, it is highly improbable that our Universe can sustain life.

(7) By 3 and 6, we live in a highly improbable Universe.

Of course, this is the limit of reasoning: the conclusion that our universe is highly improbable does not necessitate a belief that God exists. And premise (5) is open to challenge by those who believe in multiple universes.

Posted by: SC | November 20, 2008 7:40 AM

I've always thought that one of the sillier arguments. The belief that the universe was designed to be hospitable to us simply ignores our puniness in a vast cosmos, much of which is not hospitable to life. It also ignores the fact that we arose very recently

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2qezQzfgIY

and that our appearance and form result from chance planetary events. Given this (in addition to all of the other problems with the creator argument), how is it reasonable to posit a creator who had life/us in mind?

I'll also note once again my problem with the use of terms like "governed" by laws:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/oh_no_now_dinesh_dsouza_is_aft.php#comment-1129027

Posted by: ennui | November 20, 2008 9:30 AM

Christianity stands or falls completely on the question of the historical reliability of the Gospels - which is something that in principle is testable and falsifiable, albeit that we don't have enough evidence to judge it at present.

All cosmology aside (and Walton seems to propose a new one on a frequent basis), even if the bible were proved to be historically true, Jesus was the "son" of a creator god, and I were facing a million-degree gulag for not worshiping it, I would not worship it. My knee would not bow, my tongue would not confess, that Jesus is 'massa.' Because I am not a slave.

If I am going to worship anything, it will be knowledge and not power, and it will not be done under threat. I would attempt to study the phenomenon called god, to understand the sources and mechanisms underlying its power, and if possible, to limit that power. I am not a monarchist.

So Walton, what is it that you want this god to do for you? Tell you what to do? Make you happy? Give your life purpose? Reinforce your own sense of morality? What is it you seek in the life of Christ that the life of the mind cannot provide? Get off the plantation.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 9:37 AM

Walton,

How about if it were put this way...

No. A formal argument is a formal argument.

That is pseudo-formalism that mixes semantics and syntax. For an argument to be formally valid is a purely syntactic notion. The following is a valid formal argument in (several logics including a typical formulation of) classical propositional logic: A, A∨B → C ⊢ C

The following is (loosely) one of many possible interpretations: A="I am in Siberia", B="I am in the freezer", C="I am cold". The point is that the validity of a formal argument has a precisely defined technical meaning; no amount of clarification of an informal argument is going to make it formal or formally valid.

Leaving aside the proof theoretical part of the validity of an argument, one must still demonstrate that the particular model of that argument that one proposes corresponds to observable reality: that is the purpose of empirical evidence in science. Such thought experiments may be enjoyable and enlightening and a lot of other things, but in order for them to be acceptable in a scientific sense, they must be grounded in evidence. For example, it is not obvious that the bald premises "if the physical laws of the Universe were different, it would not be able to sustain life" and "this universe is the only universe" are true or even experimentally verifiable.

Semantically, the premise "this universe is the only universe" plainly contradicts the conclusion "we live in a highly improbable universe". You can't stipulate that a die is one-sided, then assign a non-zero, non-unity probability of it coming up with the value 6. Either its single face has the value 6 on it, in which case the probability of it coming up six is identically one, or it does not, in which case the probability of it coming up 6 is identically zero.

In other words, speaking of the probability of the existence of "this universe" requires that there are other universes with their own probabilities of existence. You can either have "the universe is unique" or "the universe is (im)probable", but not both.

Even if the entirety of the argument were not fractally flawed, i.e. if we simply stipulated the conclusion that "we live in a highly improbable universe", it would tell us precisely nothing. It's like trying to infer something from the probability of winning the lottery after you've lodged the cheque from the lottery company for 20 million. This argument is no less foolish than "I won the lottery, therefore god exists".

Posted by: Tulse | November 20, 2008 9:41 AM

"The Universe can sustain life" is only true in an infinitesimally small part of it. The vast majority of the Universe is, well, nothing, trillions of cubic light years of nothing, and nothing that is close to as cold as it is possible to get. There is no place we know of outside of our own infinitesimally tiny smudge of matter called Earth where life of any sort could survive. Far from being "sustaining", the Universe is deadly to life as we know it except for our tiny corner of it. To think otherwise is astounding hubris -- it would be like a bacterium that had fortuitously survived on the inside lid of a full bleach bottle thinking that the bottle was created solely for it.

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 10:05 AM

Argh.

I admit it, I'm really not bright or educated enough to evaluate this question properly. Presumably very few people are.

The difficulty is that everyone, every single human being on Earth - regardless of their level of education - has to decide for themselves which religion, if any, to follow. (To simply copy one's family or community, without thinking and questioning for oneself, is intellectual dishonesty.) So this is not just academic discourse; we're talking about an issue fundamental to all human existence.

Yet very, very few people - and I am certainly not among them - are educated to a sufficiently high level in physics, mathematics, cosmology, philosophy, logic, comparative theology, world history, and all the other knowledge that one needs in order to properly understand all the arguments from every perspective. And even those who are sufficiently educated still don't have any answers, because there just isn't any concrete empirical evidence.

Politics is much easier than religion, because in the world of politics one can use empirical observation and evidence to test how well one's beliefs relate to the real world. So the choice of political ideologies is relatively easy; but the choice of religious beliefs is not. How the hell am I supposed to choose which faith, if any, to follow when there just aren't any clear facts, and I can't follow a substantial proportion of the arguments?

How depressing. Why can't life just be simple?

Posted by: Holbach | November 20, 2008 10:35 AM

Nick Gotts @ 588

Wow, nice to see someone quoting Don Marquis! I like him, and also his good friend in literature and life, Christopher Morley. A good bio of Don if you have not read it:
"O Rare Don Marquis" by Edward Anthony. I've read it three times from my local library and am still hunting for it in used book stores. Good stuff, "archy" and all!

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 11:14 AM

Walton @593,

I think you're being a little hard on yourself. You're plainly articulate, intelligent and interested in learning. I don't often agree with you or even engage with you because I find it very frustrating to argue with someone who often appears to be obtuse, to think in black and white terms, and to lack clarity in reasoning. But, none of these things mean that you're stupid or ignorant.

Clarity in reasoning doesn't come at all naturally to people. I first realised this when I had to teach programming and later when I had to teach logic. We forget that we once didn't know something, or once thought in a different way, and teaching has these lightbulb moments of "hey, I remember when I thought like that". Truth is, we naturally draw conclusions in a very messy associative kind of way, rather than "thinking things through". Even when we think things through, our reasoning is beset on all sides by unstated assumptions, muddling of syntax and semantics, and a dozen other non-obvious problems.

For my part, I think most people (including you) have grossly overcomplicated faith, religion, god, and theism precisely because of these monsters in the brain that muddle our thinking. My axiom is that assertions about reality require empirical evidence. This axiom is extremely simple and absolutely consistent with all useful human knowledge. "Faith" is simply the denial of this axiom and is consistent with an awful lot of stuff that's transparent bullshit: if one can make assertions about reality without evidence, then any particular evidence-free assertion is as good as any other. If Yahweh, why not Xenu? Why not Ba'al? Why not leprechauns? Why not alien abductions? All bullshit.

I've ended up finding it very difficult to understand why anyone with a modicum of intelligence doesn't simply reject "the god hypothesis" out-of-hand. Childhood indoctrination and the learned habit of compartmentalising the particular religious tradition we've grown up with make one belief system, uniquely, seem more plausible, but by any objective standard, it can't be and it's not: it's bullshit too.

I have faith, er, I mean confidence ;o), that you'll realise that pretty soon: you appear to be heading in the right direction.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 20, 2008 11:17 AM

Walton @ #593:

The difficulty is that everyone, every single human being on Earth - regardless of their level of education - has to decide for themselves which religion, if any, to follow. (To simply copy one's family or community, without thinking and questioning for oneself, is intellectual dishonesty.)

And yet the intellectually dishonest way is the way the vast majority of the human race makes this decision. Mindless conformity is the NORM for religion, not the exception. And it seems the few who are searching for religious answers themselves in an intellectually honest manner tend to end up abandoning religion. Religion actively discourages intellectual honesty, by positing a tyrranical imaginary friend who tortures people without end for asking honest questions.

Walton again:

Politics is much easier than religion, because in the world of politics one can use empirical observation and evidence to test how well one's beliefs relate to the real world.

It is clear, from empirical observation and evidence, that Barack Obama is neither a Muslim, nor the Antichrist, nor an immigrant of any kind, nor involved in a vast Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. These facts, however, do not have any effect at all on the right-wing nutjobs who continue to assert all these things.
It is clear, from empirical observation and evidence, that every time Reaganite "trickle-down" voodoo economics has been tried, it has failed. Again, the facts have not had any effect on the True Believers.
It is clear, from empirical observation and evidence, that the word "socialism" has a definition, and that that defintion bears no resemblance to the way the word is used as a bludgeon and a bogeyman by right-wing nutjobs. Again, the facts have not had any effect on the True Believers.
It is clear, from empirical observation and evidence, that deregulation tends to lead not to a Libertarian utopia, but to quite a variety of abuses. Again, the facts have not had any effect on the True Believers.
Of course, this all supports my thesis that the Republican party has turned into a cult. :)

Walton:

How the hell am I supposed to choose which faith, if any, to follow when there just aren't any clear facts, and I can't follow a substantial proportion of the arguments?

Why do you need to choose one? Are you actually capable of CHOOSING to believe something, in the abscence of evidence, even if it is obviously false or logically incoherent? (well given your political ideology...) Even if you CAN twist your brain in knots and force yourself to believe absurdities, why should you?

If you want to follow the arguments, you could take the time to actually LEARN something. The trouble is, religion tends to be actively opposed to learning. And there's a good reason for that. The facts don't support the dogma, so people who bother to learn the facts tend to abandon the dogma, leave the religion, and stop giving their money to preachers in return for nothing.

Posted by: Jason Failes | November 20, 2008 11:46 AM

Almost to the letter:

http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=32

(Damn I've spent three days reading all these posts. Time to see what's new on Pharyngula)

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 11:50 AM

And it seems the few who are searching for religious answers themselves in an intellectually honest manner tend to end up abandoning religion. - What about C.S. Lewis? While he was guilty, at times, of sloppy thinking - and his famous "trilemma" is simply wrong - he can't really be accused of blind adherence to family or community tradition; he was an atheist from his teens until becoming a Christian in young adulthood (which is what made him a much more effective apologist than most, because, unlike most religious people, he understood the mindset of the sceptic and the search for evidence). Or how about the physicist, Anglican priest and apologist John Polkinghorne? Don't get me wrong - you're undoubtedly right that most people in the world do, indeed, follow their family's or community's beliefs (whether theistic or atheistic) like sheep; but I would question your claim that all, or even most, of those who think seriously about religion reach an atheist or agnostic conclusion. (Of course, this has no bearing on whether religion is actually true or false; that would be a fallacious appeal to authority.)

Religion actively discourages intellectual honesty, by positing a tyrranical imaginary friend who tortures people without end for asking honest questions. - That depends on which religion and which branch thereof, but I see your point.

It is clear, from empirical observation and evidence, that Barack Obama is neither a Muslim, nor the Antichrist, nor an immigrant of any kind, nor involved in a vast Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. These facts, however, do not have any effect at all on the right-wing nutjobs who continue to assert all these things. - True. And they are idiots. To clarify, I wasn't asserting that most people constantly think rationally about their political views and measure them against empirical evidence. Rather, I'm just pointing out that it is at least possible to do so, and to make political arguments based on facts, empiricism and logic, rather than wild speculation and personal preference.

The trouble is, religion tends to be actively opposed to learning. - This is a sweeping, and generally untrue, generalisation. The Anglican Church in which I was brought up certainly isn't opposed to learning; nor are the best elements of most world religions. It's true that among the most hardcore fundamentalists, religion seems to be linked to anti-intellectualism and a distaste for rational thought and the acquisition of knowledge (other than scriptural knowledge); but it's certainly not true that these sentiments characterise religion as a whole.

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 11:57 AM

Holbach: I'll repeat here as I have several times before, that if I was a supreme being and one of my creations questioned my existence, I would be down in a flash and kick the crap out of it. Why isn't this being done? Because there is no god.

Or because God has given people free will, rather than governing as a cosmic tyrant and smiting those who disobey?

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 12:05 PM

SC at #602: I apologise, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Social interaction is not my strong point and I'm currently feeling tired and depressed. I was being genuinely honest about how I feel (which, seemingly, was a mistake). And for the record, I do concede the relative weakness of the argument which I put forward.

And I have no intention of making this another thread about politics; I mentioned politics only as a comparator.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 12:16 PM

Walton:

Or because God has given people free will, rather than governing as a cosmic tyrant and smiting those who disobey?

Standard christian response... except, Walton, this would only hold true as a valid point if the bible didn't hold an account of the countless times god did decide to intercede throughout biblical verse. So what happened? Did he just decide to stop trying after the bible was written?

You can't use that old canard, I'm afraid, and get away with it here, sir...

Posted by: Missus Gumby | November 20, 2008 12:39 PM

Oddly enough, a catholic bishop (I think) in the UK has recently been grumbling in the press about exactly what Walton doesn't think is happening. He has been complaining that education is emptying the pews in his churches - his beef is that a healthy intellect goes against everything the church stands for.

And let's face it, the catholic church is actively campaining against stem cell research. It's rather good to know they are now afraid of an educated population.

(I just found the article about the bishop with the anti-intellectual gripe:

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Bishop-blames-intellectuals-for-church.4688452.jp

Posted by: Dave | November 20, 2008 1:01 PM

When I try going to the site now I get a Google UK page?

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 1:26 PM

Emmet Caulfield #610: Once again I apologise. I had no intention of "mowing down" anything. I was simply raising a couple of issues which arose from someone's post. I don't understand what part of it was "bleating woolly-headed stupidity"; it wasn't even an argument in favour of religion, just a quibble with a couple of minor points.

I know some people here don't believe this, but I'm an honest - if sometimes incoherent, woolly-minded and wrong - seeker after truth. And I'm very sorry if I come over otherwise. As I've said, social interaction isn't my strong point.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 1:58 PM

Walton @615,

It's immensely frustrating to have someone say "I believe V, W, and X, therefore Z seems reasonable" and, after meticulous and total demolition of V, W, and X, have him/her continue to rationalise Z! It's some V', almost indistinguishable from V, or some new fallacy pulled out of his/her ass like "but Y believed Z". You do this all the time.

Nick Gotts, for example, has on occasion meticulously deconstructed the reasons you've given for something, then on the next thread, you start off restating exactly the same damn thing again, like you've learned nothing from what he's said or just ignored him. It's like there's simply no getting through to you. That's the "freight-train" I'm talking about. It's like you're not reading anything people write or it's not registering in your brain.

I suspect that your reasoning is exactly backwards, you're scrambling around for premises (and anything will do) to justify cockamamie conclusions instead of seeking sound conclusions from real evidence.

In all honesty, it would be funny, or at least easily dismissed and therefore tolerable, if you gave the impression of being a complete fucking moron like Teno Groppi, but you give every impression of being articulate and intelligent. When stupid people don't understand something, that's OK, they're just stupid and we can't all be rocket scientists, but when smart people seem to be impervious to reason, it's exasperating!

I'm sorry if I was hard on you, but I see no sign of making the tiniest impression on your thinking, which makes me think I've just wasted my time. I'm not getting an afterlife, so time is valuable to me ;o)

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 2:25 PM

Nick Gotts, for example, has on occasion meticulously deconstructed the reasons you've given for something, then on the next thread, you start off restating exactly the same damn thing again, like you've learned nothing from what he's said or just ignored him. It's like there's simply no getting through to you. That's the "freight-train" I'm talking about. It's like you're not reading anything people write or it's not registering in your brain.

Just to clarify, are we talking about God or about libertarianism? The two have nothing to do with one another, and, indeed, the majority of libertarians (in my experience) are atheists.

I suspect that your reasoning is exactly backwards, you're scrambling around for premises (and anything will do) to justify cockamamie conclusions instead of seeking sound conclusions from real evidence.

To make things clearer: on the issue of the existence of God, I am to a considerable extent playing devil's advocate. In real life I tend to argue from a Christian perspective with my atheist friends, and from an atheist perspective with my Christian friends; because I believe that this kind of adversarial dialogue is the best way to eliminate weak or incoherent ideas and arrive at the truth. So when I put up an argument which is a poor one, and which is subsequently ripped to shreds, I'm not expounding said line of reasoning because I truly and wholeheartedly believe it with every fibre of my being; rather, I'm arguing it as an experiment, to see how convincing the counter-arguments are. The reality is - as I've occasionally made clear - that I have serious doubts, and don't really have a clear or coherent religious viewpoint. Rather, I'm trying to find such a viewpoint by discussing things with people. So yes, I'm starting from a conclusion and working backwards; but I'm doing so for the transient purposes of debate, not because my thinking is really that sloppy or because I'm completely intellectually dishonest.

The reality is that, as I said, I'd like there to be a simple answer; and it's depressing that there isn't one. I know many Christians and many atheists, and some people of other religious backgrounds - and many in both camps are good people, educated and rational, and worthy of my respect. It's not a case of all the intelligence and sanity being on one side (though I appreciate it might seem so to those who are regularly exposed to the lunacy of fundamentalism). I would much prefer to live in a world where one ideological camp was full of good, decent, enlightened and rational people and had all the good ideas, and the other was full of idiots and lunatics; it would make it a lot simpler to find out the truth and to guide one's lifestyle. As it is, I'm basically grasping at straws.

In contrast, my political views are genuine and heartfelt - and, as you can tell, I can justify with much greater coherence and certainty why I believe in libertarian conservatism than why I (might?) believe in God.

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 2:27 PM

(Sorry about the long and meandering posts. I apologise if I'm irritating some people; but I'm only trying to explain my motivation.)

Posted by: Holbach | November 20, 2008 2:40 PM

Missus Gumby @ 611
How apt your comment on the bishop's lament that education is the cause of empty pews. Most people benefit from a good education as long as they have the intellect to reason out the trash and recognize it farther along. Walton is one who seems to not have benefitted, or at least taken heed of a good education. It was Wendy Kaminer who wrote: "An empty mind is a receptacle for faith". And a sure-fire pew clearer.

Posted by: Holbach | November 20, 2008 3:00 PM

Missus Gumby @ mine @ 623
Correction: The last line should read "and a sure-fire pew filler".

Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 3:34 PM

Kel at #584: I think you made one mistake in your analogy. Your premise (5) should have been simply "The Earth is the only planet." (a premise which we know, empirically, to be untrue)

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 3:53 PM

Just to clarify, are we talking about God or about libertarianism?

No, we're talking about critical reasoning skills that you evince, which appear to be the same on both topics.

the majority of libertarians (in my experience) are atheists.

Proving that atheism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for rationality.

On the rest of it, you sound like you're trying to find a club to join, rather than decide on the truth or falsehood of a colossal compound proposition like "A unique tri-omni god exists, it is Yahweh, Jesus is his son (sorta), he monitors what 6.5 billion people do with their genitals, etc.", which, to any rational person, is every bit as patently absurd as leprechauns. Truth is determined by evidence, not wishful thinking. No evidence for god(s)? No god(s). It is that simple.

it would make it a lot simpler to find out the truth and to guide one's lifestyle.

And winning the lottery would make life simpler too. If you want simple, just become a Catholic, let the Pope tell you what's right or wrong, and go down to the Church every week and join in the contemptible sniveling, fearful groveling, and self-deceit. Truths are not decided by who, or how many, people hold them. The truth of a proposition is the correspondence between it and evidence. Nothing else.

In contrast, my political views are genuine and heartfelt

Heartfelt? I prefer rational and evidence-based any day.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 4:24 PM

Emmet Caulfield @ #629

Truths are not decided by who, or how many, people hold them. The truth of a proposition is the correspondence between it and evidence. Nothing else.

Spectacular. Say hello to the newest quote for my quote-board collection in my office. With due credit given, of course.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 4:41 PM

Thus spake Celtic_Evolution:

Spectacular.

Thank you. I'm glad you like the sentiment, but I have to admit that I made a mistake: the "people" should be deleted or moved before the comma, otherwise removing the parenthetic clause between the commas leaves "... who people...".

Doh!

Posted by: SEF | November 20, 2008 5:19 PM

What a lot of thread! Not quite crackergate central but still ...

@ Walton #603 (since it looks unaddressed in the posts after it):

What about C.S. Lewis?

2. He's a rubbish apologist, regardless of your apparent hero-worship of him. I find you lacking in the ability to discern good from bad - just as you are with logic.

Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 5:25 PM

He's a rubbish apologist, regardless of your apparent hero-worship of him.

Erm, what hero-worship? Please read my post again; I specifically conceded that the "trilemma" - touted as his strongest argument - is in fact wrong.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 5:32 PM

As I always say, the best type of pedant is the self-correcting pedant.

Guilty as charged :o)

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2008 5:36 PM

@ Walton -

Erm, what hero-worship? Please read my post again;

I wouldn't go so far as to claim your post was indicative of hero worship concerning Lewis. I know you were just giving an example... but let the record show that it is a very bad example, as it is fairly clear from the various biographies and stories surrounding Lewis, as SEF pointed out, that he was not ever really an atheist. It's not clear that there was ever a time when he fully rejected the idea of god or gods as completely false, and his own writings on the subject bear that out. He was merely an angry doubter... at most an agnostic.

And, he really was a bit of a nutter... some believe he got lost in his own imaginary worlds and in fact goes so far as to get personally angry with one of his own fictional characters in the Narnia series (Susan), and ultimately writes her completely out of the series, owing her "lost faith" to materialism.

I always found it interesting that Lewis himself painted Susan as the intellectual, most intelligent of the four siblings, and it is her he chooses to ostracize, ostensibly for those very traits.

Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 5:44 PM

Got to love the field of apologetics. A whole line of pseudo-intellectual discussion that exists for the sole purpose of justifying irrationality.

Posted by: Holbach | November 20, 2008 6:59 PM

Doesn't it dawn on the rev (lower case, as in revile) Cockshaw and Walton, that they are being crucified on this site and as yet have received no invisible aid from their imaginary gods? No invisible aid from invisibles to help their creations on earth from the wrath of their betters? You are alone, and no amount of prayer and babbling will ever avail you. You will die just as disillusioned as you lived, lying in your graves being eatened by indifferent worms, and your god will die with your brains from which it came. To have hope in religion, only to be abandoned by it and the heartless hand of reality.

Posted by: windy | November 20, 2008 7:25 PM

Yes, that's a good point, and I've seen it made against the Fine-Tuning Argument before. God is a disembodied intelligence which is not dependent on any physical conditions at all. The angels in heaven are, presumably, also disembodied intelligences, "spiritual beings," who can exist without oxygen or other physical necessities. They don't need any special environment.

And presumably our souls won't either once they are "with God". By the premises of the fine-tuning argument, God created an environment that was LESS friendly to intelligence than his/her/its own.

Of course, my real problem with the Fine Tuning Argument is its unstated premise: "human life is objectively important." If you leave that premise out, the argument goes nowhere. It's dead before you start, because you need that premise in order to "derive" the conclusion: human life is objectively important.

Some people pull out the "God would have been just as happy with intelligent dinosaurs" argument at this point. Of course they forget that dinosaurs would likely end up with a completely different social and moral system. And it would have been tough to crucify a T-Rex.

Posted by: Arthur Frundwick | November 20, 2008 10:24 PM

I believe in God because many people in positions of trust during my
childhood told me that God was the explanation for all the world, over
many years and in tones of authority and seriousness.

I believe in God because facts about the world told to me repeatedly
and authoritatively by my childhood superiors, and reinforced through
frequent repetition by peers and authority figures in adult life, are
a fundamental part of my adult world view and are very uncomfortable
to examine even in light of evidence against them.

I believe in God because many human experiences of wonder and awe that
have a profound impact on our senses and emotions are overwhelmingly
asserted in our culture in terms of a connection with God.

I believe in God because my adult brain is very adept at holding
contradictory beliefs in order to satisfy my conscious mind that
established patterns of thought and behaviour are somehow consistent.

Posted by: Arthur Frundwick | November 20, 2008 10:27 PM

I believe in God because many people in positions of trust during my
childhood told me that God was the explanation for all the world, over
many years and in tones of authority and seriousness.

I believe in God because facts about the world told to me repeatedly
and authoritatively by my childhood superiors, and reinforced through
frequent repetition by peers and authority figures in adult life, are
a fundamental part of my adult world view and are very uncomfortable
to examine even in light of evidence against them.

I believe in God because many human experiences of wonder and awe that
have a profound impact on our senses and emotions are overwhelmingly
asserted in our culture in terms of a connection with God.

I believe in God because my adult brain is very adept at holding
contradictory beliefs in order to satisfy my conscious mind that
established patterns of thought and behaviour are somehow consistent.

Posted by: SEF | November 20, 2008 10:40 PM

@ Holbach #650:

Read Arthur Frundwick's last paragraph (in any of the triplicated posts!) and engage your own brain.

Posted by: Holbach | November 20, 2008 10:57 PM

SEF @ 653
I have carefully read that last paragraph three times, and I concluded that he is affirming "that established patterns of thought and behavior are somehow consistent" with my belief in a god- the last part my interpretation and conclusion. Am I misinterpreting his statement? Either you point this out to me or let Arthur confirm mine or his meaning. I may be wrong and will freely admit to it upon the correct meaning.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 20, 2008 11:07 PM

WOW, what a fun thread, every time I come back there are another couple of hundred posts. Though admittedly, a lot of them are the usual patient, mostly :), teachers trying to educate Walton. But sadly, apparently failing to make any progress.

My final contribution before I go to bed as it is after 4AM here in Bristol:

For believers to rely on the Anthropic Principle displays a level of ignorance of the logical conclusion of what being truly omnipotent means.

Maybe there are other universes that have different cosmological values with their own 'intelligent' life positing the anthropic principle to rationalise their belief in a fairy at the bottom of their cosmic garden :)

Posted by: Kel | November 20, 2008 11:26 PM

I could quote the whole sentence and bold it, but that was just my impression. It seems like nothing more than a parody in order to get passed the reverend censorall.

Posted by: Arthur Frundwick | November 20, 2008 11:36 PM

@ Holbach #655:

> I concluded that he is affirming "that established patterns of thought and behavior are somehow consistent" with my belief in a god

The paragraph makes a different claim: "my adult brain is very adept at holding contradictory beliefs in order to satisfy my conscious mind that established patterns of thought and behaviour are somehow consistent."

In other words, the belief in god is one of the "established patterns of thought and behaviour" among many others; and it is the adeptness at holding contradictory beliefs that allows my conscious mind to be satisfied that all those myriad established patterns of thoughts and behaviour are consistent.

Posted by: Arthur Frundwick | November 21, 2008 12:04 AM

@ Kel #656, @ Sastra #660, and others:

I present it less as parody and more as what I think is an *honest* answer that could be given, while still actually addressing the question "why do you believe in god". It is not intended to belittle, but only to explain.

Posted by: Patrick | November 21, 2008 4:25 AM

The very name of his website 'thereprobablyis.com' displays uncertainty. There probably is? Oh he of little faith. I thought they were SURE he existed.

Posted by: Holbach | November 21, 2008 6:57 AM

Walton @ 666

Your search for the truth is delusional as you are seeking something that does not exist, and your path will lead you nowhere. How many examples of your useless quest are needed to impress upon you that your continual embracement of an imaginary god is devoid of all proof? You have been commenting with mostly atheists on this site for some time who have earnestly tried to show you that gods are created in the human brain and can easily be removed with sound reasoning with all the obvious facts available. Most of us have been in the same situation as you are currently, have sloughed off vestiges of religion and have been the better for it. I am totally dismissive of people who insist on believing nonsense which reason clearly shows to be both unnecessary and harmful. We have made the transition from a religion dominated life to one free from all such superstitious nonsense. We were able to do so, and yet you are not capable of even considering the alternative. I have no doubt that you are a decent person, but I would never associate with you because of your restrictive ideas that are counter to reason. I doubt if you will ever wake up to reason, and you will no doubt live your remainging life in the shackles of religion. I have no pity or empathy for you but only ridicule which is duly rendered to all minds that are free to choose reason but decline to do so.

Posted by: Kel | November 21, 2008 7:46 AM

if you hadn't, why would I bother spending hours every day on this site?

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 21, 2008 8:24 AM

I take Walton's answer at its face value, as an honest one, he's in the process of getting rid of many preconceived ideas and delusions that he had (what he calls finding the truth...).

Unlike what Holbach believes, getting rid of these delusions is not as simple as "chosing reason". Ah, if only it were that simple ! It's a bit like getting rid of an addiction, it will vary greatly depending on the individual, his own capacity most probably due to some genetic predisposition, and the level of the severity of the problem ie the amount of brainwashing received. So it's a long process of opening up one's mind, becoming gradually more and more skeptical to the preconceived ideas one had dogmatically believed in, critically confronting them to real evidence...
With some people, it just goes very fast, it crumbles like a castle of cards, with others it takes much longer.
For instance, I can say that with all the reasoning in the world, I still haven't managed to conquer my fear of death and my wishful thinking, my hope that there might be something after I die, which means I never managed to completely kill the whole thing and will probably remain an agnostic until I die.

Posted by: negentropyeater | November 21, 2008 12:14 PM

Holbach,

1.I didn't suggest that drug addiction and religious endoctrination were comparable.
2.the hope that there might be something after I die is not a result from childhood, but has been growing as I get older.
3.I feel quite comfortable with being unable to conclude. Would there be any benefit in my life if I forced myself to conclude one way or another (assuming I could)?

Posted by: Valerie Hoyle | November 21, 2008 8:20 PM

I am an Atheist. "Religion is implausible", said my 16 year old daughter 7 years ago.. to Mormon missionaries appearing at my door and trying to get me to go 'back' to the Mormon church. Yeh, RIGHT. My other daughters said to me, "Well it took you long enough to figure it out then." When I stopped going.... I said, "Oh I had figured it out BUT didn't seem to be able to make the break.. So I started drinking coffee, having some nice red wine, smoking ciggies etc... Then I had a reasonable excuse.. BUT now I don't need one...
I find this page hilarious... as well as informative...don't know why I hadn't found it before..
Thing is... when you leave a religion, a social group or whatever.. you are left just with yourself and if you are lucky, some members of your family...but it can be a lonely process.
Valerie