Pharyngula

Posted by: Krikkit One | January 6, 2009 7:50 AM

They managed to spell it M-e-y-e-r-apostrophe-s? I'm impressed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 8:00 AM

Rev., consistency from the deluded would be nice. But, in my experience, very unlikely to happen. My guess, one is cut/paste, and the other was their idea of PZ's name is spelled.

Posted by: Rob Clack | January 6, 2009 8:04 AM

Shame you only made #7. Must try harder!

Posted by: Archaneus | January 6, 2009 8:08 AM

You know, as much as I know enforcing a ban of religion doesn't work, sometimes it's really a tempting idea...

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 8:12 AM

Wow, that list is a real lol of minor complaints. If they saw Jesus up on that cross they'd be saying "that jew suffers nothing compared what we have to go through"

Posted by: Sioux Laris | January 6, 2009 8:13 AM

While I can forgive them for their misguided attempts to do evil - out of misplaced and irrational fears and misguided attempts to gain power - to people like myself, I will not be giving the proverbial inch to them on any issue, in any way, ever.

People like this are so entirely in the wrong - by which I mean they are working against their own happiness as well as others - that, until they show they slimmest thread of humanity in either action or word, they can be opposed without internal debate: they are not only insane but uncreative in their insanity.

Without resorting to violence - a habit most of them are uncomfortable with unless masked in uniformed "patriotism" - they will lose. And they be all the better, especially in their own eyes, for having lost.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | January 6, 2009 8:16 AM

Well, I, for one, am duly pissed!
(...I didn't even make the list!)

Posted by: Kobra | January 6, 2009 8:20 AM

I deserve to be on the list. I mean, my website banner features me stabbing Jesus in the throat with a fucking katana!

Posted by: Richard Harris | January 6, 2009 8:22 AM

It's blindingly obvious that religions have evolved from primitive mythologies, or crazy delusions, or cons.

Anyone who believes in stupid nonsense, such as Christianity, is therefore either stupid, crazy, or brainwashed.

Posted by: Richard Harris | January 6, 2009 8:24 AM

Oh, I missed out, ignorant.

Posted by: Todd | January 6, 2009 8:27 AM

I SO want to get on that list.

Posted by: Kobra | January 6, 2009 8:30 AM

@22: You, me, and Cuttlefish, too. :P

contact@christianadc.org - Use this email address to request inclusion.

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | January 6, 2009 8:37 AM

"CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian"

I think they mean "hysteric" Christian standard.

Posted by: Tualha | January 6, 2009 8:42 AM

The one I love is where they're complaining about pro-Proposition 8 signs being stolen and people being assaulted for their beliefs. Because of course we all know that good Christians would never treat atheists that way.

Posted by: j.t.delaney | January 6, 2009 8:46 AM

Next to the Jack Black reference, I think my favorite from the list is #4, where they think the bible has been banned in Colorado by some recent anti-discrimination legislation(see: http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?Open&file=200_01.pdf .) You see, by not allowing them to persecute others in their down=home folksy old fashioned ways, they are the ones being persecuted!

"Why Lord, why?!"

Posted by: Shaden Freud | January 6, 2009 8:49 AM

INSTANCE #2: Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin Is Attacked Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, came under sharp attack by some in the mainstream media because she self-identifies as a Christian.

Wait, what? All four candidates on both tickets self-identify as Christians!

Posted by: alex | January 6, 2009 8:52 AM

o, the terrible cross they must bear.

Posted by: CS | January 6, 2009 8:52 AM

How about this:

"BONUS INSTANCE: Senator Grassley's Abuse of Power

US Senator Grassley, a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has demanded the financial records of a number of very prominent conservative, evangelical broadcast ministries. The demand was based on Grassley's concern that these ministries are not spending their contributions properly. Grassley has admitted his concerns were in part driven by media accounts."

Posted by: Schmeer | January 6, 2009 8:53 AM

Can we actually get some lions? I think that would really move things along. If they are going to wave their persecution complex in my face, I could at least do my part to give them some perspective as to what constitutes persecution.

Posted by: Jeanette | January 6, 2009 8:56 AM

"INSTANCE #6: Religulous the Movie

Bill Maher released a very shallow, pseudo-intellectual documentary entitled Religulous. The movie did not cover any new intellectual ground. It simply raised the old attacks on the faith. Maher studiously avoided being fair and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals."

Spot the oxymoron.

Posted by: CrypticLife | January 6, 2009 9:03 AM

Wow, let's see, off the top of my head for atheist-bashing in 2008 I come up with Libby Dole's efforts towards political disenfranchisement, Kieffe & Sons advertising that atheists should leave the country, and that crazed councilwoman in Illinois screaming at a testifying atheist that he shouldn't be allowed near children. Oh, and of course the movie that compares atheists to Nazis.

If their list of "Christian-bashing" passes as persecution for them, I'd love to see what they think of the 'atheist-bashing' list. Hypocrites.

Posted by: dave | January 6, 2009 9:10 AM

they're the ones who treat everybody else like 2nd or 3rd class citizens. unbelievable

Posted by: Kristinmh | January 6, 2009 9:10 AM

Their reasons for concludibg Obama's not Christian:

1.Doesn't hate people of other faiths
2.isn't a biblical literalist
3.Is OK with gays
4.Is OK with abortion
5.Once praised the sound of the muslim call to prayer as being "pretty" (seriously)
6.Is "associated" with black liberation theology (or OMG he's black!!!!1!)
7.Has no Christian "testimony" - or doesn't feel compelled to talk constantly about his relationship with Christ

Their list actually makes me feel better about him. He's a prettu cool guy. PZ, you ARE in good company.

Posted by: Billy Sands | January 6, 2009 9:21 AM

The christian taliban must feel their control slipping

"A Biology Professor from the University of Minnesota, Paul Zachary Myers, recently desecrated a consecrated communion wafer from a Catholic Mass. Meyer's has also asked people to steal the Eucharist for him in order that he might desecrate it and display it on his blog."

Ever thought of something like the blasphemy challenge where people desecrate crackers in a variety of amusing ways?

Posted by: Craig | January 6, 2009 9:30 AM

I'm sorry. I read these threads, over and over and read their complaints, their lies, their whining and claims of victimhood, and I always refrain from commenting because there's only one thing I think of as a response - there's only one response that fits, only one response they're worthy of... but it just doesn't add to the discussion.

Fuck 'em. That's all I got. That's all I have for them.

Fuck them.

Posted by: Mike K | January 6, 2009 9:37 AM

Didn't that list make all of you feel happy? First I laughed, and then started smililng because I realized how miserable someone has to be, to complain about minor inconveniences/annoyances like that (to be clear, I'm not smiling because they are miserable, but because I am not).

How insecure are the people at cadc?

Posted by: strangest brew | January 6, 2009 9:40 AM

Typical xian fantasy working overtime and scraping the barrel to illustrate their hysteria...

The Senator Grassley's Abuse of Power gripe is a veritable gem of Christian hypocrisy...

Do they not want to know where the money goes?...no obviously not because deep down they know that it is spent on more then the expenses incurred preaching the jeebus con...

Cannot expect god fearing stalwarts of the mythology to only eat drink and travel the way the rest of us do...they need fine cuisine and expensive drink tabs at the out of state lap dance 'n' hooters international club and the latest gas guzzler to get there...this preaching is a sore trial to the body...a few home comforts and the odd hooker..is that to much to ask for oh lord? ....then some politically motivated bunny wants to check the books...how inconvenient..it might give Christianity a bad name...cos they won't understand!

Posted by: Bart Mitchell | January 6, 2009 9:43 AM

I posted to digg

http://digg.com/arts_culture/Top_Ten_Instances_of_Christian_Bashing

Jump in and bash in the new year!

Posted by: Brute | January 6, 2009 9:48 AM

Seems as if the "Community Organizer" has a Messiah Complex also.....much like Palin & Bush.........

"If you want to change the world, the change has to happen with you first and that is something that the greatest and most honorable of generations has taught us, but the final thing that I think the Moses generation teaches us is to remind ourselves that we do what we do because God is with us. You know, when Moses was first called to lead people out of the Promised Land, he said I don't think I can do it, Lord. I don't speak like Reverend Lowery. I don't feel brave and courageous and the Lord said I will be with you. Throw down that rod. Pick it back up. I'll show you what to do. The same thing happened with the Joshua generation."

"Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go. We've come a long way in this journey, but we still have a long way to travel. We traveled because God was with us."

"Thank God, He's made us in His image and we reject the notion that we will for the rest of our lives be confined to a station of inferiority, that we can't aspire to the highest of heights, that our talents can't be expressed to their fullest."

"They took them across the sea that folks thought could not be parted. They wandered through a desert but always knowing that God was with them and that, if they maintained that trust in God, that they would be all right."

"As great as Moses was, despite all that he did, leading a people out of bondage, he didn't cross over the river to see the Promised Land. God told him your job is done. You'll see it. You'll be at the mountain top and you can see what I've promised. What I've promised to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. You will see that I've fulfilled that promise but you won't go there."

"Keep in your heart the prayer of that journey, the prayer that God gave to Joshua. Be strong and have courage in the face of injustice."

"God Bless You."

- Barack Obama
Selma, Alabama

Posted by: Anna | January 6, 2009 9:50 AM

So if a significant percentage of Christians are apparently of the opinion that they have become a second-class majority, who do they think are the first-class citizens?

Atheists? Gays? Reptilians?

Posted by: Miguel | January 6, 2009 9:55 AM

Of all whinging mimophants, xian cultists must be the whiniest.

Posted by: The Petey | January 6, 2009 9:56 AM

My take on the gay marriage ban is this...

If people were going to try and strong arm churches into blessing these unions - I'd be dead set against it. The government has no right to tell a church it needs to marry two people. The fact that 2 people can go before a CIVIL servant and be granted CIVIL rights that cost thousands to have done independently - it is a CIVIL issue.

I would even support a measure that barred the government from performing any marriages and relegating the word "marriage" strictly to the churches. But then all unions would be civil unions in the eyes of the government. The name changes, tax status, health insurance coverage, all of it would be part of the civil union. The act of the clergy praying over it would be nothing but the blessing - no legal significance at all.

I don't think the "religious" would go for this. Because it's ultimately NOT about protecting marriage, it is about denying the civil rights of marriage to gays.

And THEY are the persecuted?

Posted by: Psychodigger | January 6, 2009 9:56 AM

Aww, awe the poow wittle chwistians hurt because someone doesn't agree with them?

I saw a picture in the newspaper today of one if the Israeli soldiers currently battling it out with the other religious zealots in the Gaza Strip, saying his prayers whilst standing on top of his fucking tank!
If that image doesn't encapsulate the extent of the madness, I don't know what does. But, like many of you rightly pointed out on this and many other occasions, they don't want to learn, and they don't want to see the evidence slapping them in the face.

Fuck 'em indeed.

Posted by: Raytheist | January 6, 2009 10:03 AM

This nonsense is from the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission... so, who commissioned them to this task?

And their "7 Reasons Why Barack Obama is not a Christian" seems rather defaming to me. (It's linked from the article PZ linked to) I guess it's typical to whine about others doing the very thing they are caught doing.

Posted by: Lycosid | January 6, 2009 10:08 AM

Time to go Levi Johnston on their daughters, and give fake names.

Posted by: GregB | January 6, 2009 10:12 AM

Obama doesn't hate gay people and he want science, not dogma, to be taught in our science classes. Therefore he must not be a Christian.

Hey Christians! Look up the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Posted by: Tony | January 6, 2009 10:16 AM

How much do you want to bet that this "Xtian Anti-Defamation Commission is really just one wanker with a Bill Donohue complex?

Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | January 6, 2009 10:19 AM

Brute @57

"I don't feel brave and courageous and the Lord said I will be with you. Throw down that rod. Pick it back up. I'll show you what to do."

And lo, the Lord gave us aerobic exercise! Hallelujah!

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 6, 2009 10:27 AM

Brute@57,
Wow! Barack Obama is a Christian! Hold the front page!!!1!one!!

Where, in this unsourced screed (no, saying he said it in/wrote it from Selma, Alabama isn't giving a source), do you see evidence he has a Messiah complex? I'm guessing it's in the paragraph beginning:

"Be strong and have courage, for I am with you wherever you go."

Now the "I am with you" could be a reference to himself, but it could also be, could it not, quoting what God is supposed to have said? If there is a written source, that might tell us. If it was spoken, hearing it might tell us. So, where exactly did you get this? When we know, we'll maybe be in a position to judge whether your claim is justified.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 6, 2009 10:36 AM

I see the Brute troll is defecating in the living room again.
Once trolls pass a certain age it's virtually impossible to housebreak them.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 6, 2009 10:39 AM

"According to 'research' we 'conducted', we think Obama isn't Christian enough, making him completely not a Christian at all. The mighty and powerful Oz has spoken."

Hey, I can do research like that right now: According to my trained eye and advanced reading abilities, as well as my capabilities for conducting deep study and data mining ON THE FLY, I have determined the CADC to be a group of busy-body malcontents angry that they're losing hearts and minds, and with nothing better to do than to make meaningless pronouncements in an attempt to garner any semblance of respect and power they can to push their doltish and insipid ideology.

I think I'm going to start my own defamation detection service for religious entities so I can make all kinds of money off of thoughtful "research".

Posted by: 60613 | January 6, 2009 10:42 AM

My new favorite oxymoron: "Christian Intellectual".

I also find it highly amusing that this dude charges "Only $75" to distribute any release to his "selected" outlets.

I still want to know how I can sell my soul to the devil and enrich myself by promulgating hatred and stoopidity. Think this guy will tutor me?

Posted by: BlueIndependent | January 6, 2009 10:51 AM

I must say I find their description for #6 very interesting. Apparently Bill Maher talked to all the wrong people, "...and did not allow for legitimate Christian answers from any leading Christian intellectuals." That's odd. So I have to be Bill Donohue before any secularist is allowed to ask a question? Oh wait that's right: Catholics aren't Christians. Forgot that little detail. Anyhow, so I have to be some little Napolean like Hagee, who proselytizes to many millions, before a secularist is allowed to ask a question? I can't just go ask a weekly churchgoer? Are weekly churchgoers too stupid? Do they have a considerable lack of intellectual depth, as the description seems to indicate?

Posted by: Pat | January 6, 2009 10:56 AM

Wow, it's news to me that the Bible has been banned in Colorado. Not that I am a fan of banning books of any kind. Well, now, if they could just pry the Dobson gang and F**k-us on the Family out of Colorado Springs, this state just might be worth living in again.

Posted by: Matt Heath | January 6, 2009 10:57 AM

Mothra@#86: Splitters!

Posted by: dinkum | January 6, 2009 11:00 AM

Mothra (#86), that's a damn fine point.

After all, when one is resolved to Fuck 'Em, one must ensure that the proper 'Em is /are being Fucked, because proper, righteous Fuck 'Ems are true investments, and must not be wasted on trivial ..

...ah, fuck it. Fuck 'Em All.

Posted by: Sarah | January 6, 2009 11:03 AM

I noticed that the Senator from my state, Grassley, was the bonus instance on this list. That makes me happy. He's been digging into the financial records of a lot of evangelicals who broadcast their crap on television.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | January 6, 2009 11:05 AM

Billy Sands, it has already been done. Have a look here for a sample;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq_XZuF6Vsk&feature=related

There are many more if you care to look. Initially, after complaints from catlickers like Donowhore youtube removed many. However, when others complained about the removal they relented.

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | January 6, 2009 11:06 AM

Perfect example of the danger of replacing proofreading with automated spellcheckers.

Spellcheckers are the work of Satin!

Fixed that for ya.

Posted by: Brute | January 6, 2009 11:07 AM

Well, I for one am certainly glad that the "Man of The People" Obama has decided to send his kids to a private school that only charges $29,000.00 per year as opposed to one of the tawdry public schools available that the rest of us are forced to send our children to.

No religious "indoctrination" for his kids.....no sir.

About the Religious Society of Friends:

The Religious Society of Friends was originated by George Fox (1624-1691) during a period of political upheaval and social change in England. The established churches, Catholic and Anglican, were at a low ebb at this time, caught up in conflicts and preoccupied with forms and power struggles rather than religious witness. Neither provided much help to the victims of upheaval in a violent century, and so there were thousands of "seekers" who were looking for something that they could believe in and that would give meaning to their lives.

Quakers first established schools in England to provide their children with a "guarded" education, one that protected the children from the influences of the larger society.

Quaker Values:

The Quaker belief that there is "that of God" in each of us shapes everything we do at Sidwell Friends School.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 11:13 AM

Is EricA the homophobic turd back as Brute? Their obsessions and styles are similar.

Posted by: Alex | January 6, 2009 11:14 AM

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

May the lord bless you and keep you, may he make his face shine on you and be gracious to you. May he lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | January 6, 2009 11:16 AM

Alex, fuck you too.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | January 6, 2009 11:19 AM

the rest of us are forced to send our children to.

Forced? Hey, pony up the cash and you can send your kids to private school, too.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 6, 2009 11:22 AM

....until they [Christians] show they slimmest thread of humanity...

The problem is that Christianity despises the humanness of those it professes to love. When you spend 99% of your time castigating the evil wickedness and absolute depravity of the flesh and mind it doesn't help to end the rant with "have a nice day" or "piece be with you" or "but we love you."

"Humanity" becomes slaughtering the multitude to save the souls (I was soooo tempted to write soles) of the chosen few - and the various tribes can't agree on who the chosen few are so better to slaughter em all and let god sort it out. Anybody believe that Jesus would be a Christian today? Anybody believe that he wouldn't make the CADC list for the things that he would say against the doctrines and hypocracy?

Posted by: Matt Heath | January 6, 2009 11:22 AM

brute@#99: You're bothering to hate on the Quakers? It's a religion for people who find the Unitarians too strict and conservative.

Posted by: The Petey | January 6, 2009 11:23 AM

Leave it to a fundy to take something LITERALLY that was meant to be figurative.

I really don't think Obama was trying to say he was one of the prophets from the Old Testament. I think he was quoting scripture to show a point about having faith in god to see someone through a struggle.

ME thinks Brute dislikes Obama and is attributing the messiah complex to him out of that disliking. If this isn't the case, then every clergyman and everywhere who has ever quoted scripture akin to these quotes to illustrate a point ALSO has a messiah complex; meaning that MOST of the world's clergy are insane and megalomaniacs. Actually, that seems to fit.

Posted by: The Petey | January 6, 2009 11:26 AM

Posted by: mothwentbad | January 6, 2009 11:21 AM

Jesus Christ, these fuckers need to shut their hypocritical fucking mouths.

if they shut their mouths they'd suffocate

Posted by: Denis Loubet | January 6, 2009 11:32 AM

It's great that they're so Jesusy. It's like that time when Jesus suddenly stood up straight, threw down his cross, and said, "It's time for this crucifixion to stop, and for me to get the respect I demand!" And he made all the Roman soldiers vanish in puffs of screaming flames with a wave of his omnipotent hand, did the same to the onlookers that had failed to help him, with a muttered "Fuckers.", and flew off to heaven.

Or maybe I read that part wrong.

Posted by: raven | January 6, 2009 11:35 AM

These clowns, the CADC, and the Catholic league are the reason that Xianity is on the downhill slide. When xian becomes synonymous with stupid, crazy, lying, and violent, who would want to be one?

Xians make up 78% of the population in the USA. Pretty hard to be a persecuted minority when you are actually a persecuting majority.

The CADC are just fundie wingnuts with a grandiose sounding name and too much time and not enough brains. Polls show the majority of the US population, mostly other xians are sick and tired of these morons.

Posted by: Rudy | January 6, 2009 11:44 AM

I must have missed the wafer thing. PZ, that was really tacky and adolescent. This is the only thing on the list that really counts as "Christian bashing".

It is a little ironic, of course, that nearly all denominations of Protestants, including all of the fundamentalist ones, would agree that it's just a cracker. But it is beyond rude to take to encourage people to send you ritual objects to "display" as crackers. Did you really do that??

Would you feel the same if, say, Rush Limbaugh burned a Koran, or if someone deliberately destroyed a Hopi Kachina out of animus toward native Americans? Bigotry is bigotry;
anti-Catholic bigotry has a long history in the US.

It's just a cracker to me, too, but so's the kachina just a doll. I would still treat it with respect if I were given one.

Posted by: Billy C | January 6, 2009 11:49 AM

Out of politeness to my parents, I attend Sunday School at their evangelical church while visiting them. One Sunday the text was some bit about being persecuted for the faith which prompted the discussion, "How do Christians face persecution today?"

Their conclusion? (1) Television shows and movies do not have enough Christian characters; and (2) the pace of everyday life makes it difficult to find time to pray and read God's Holy Word.

It occurred that (2) might be a smaller problem if they spent less time monitoring (1). It also occurrs to me that if Christians feel persecuted by (1) and (2) they're not really going to put up much of a fight when we Illuminati decide to make our move.

Persecution? Wimps.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 11:50 AM

Rudy, your whole diatribe has been thoughly discussed. Type in Crackergate to the search engine and see that we had 30,000 posts on the subject. The conclusion. You are wrong, and you are asking for special privelges for the cracker.

Posted by: BobC | January 6, 2009 12:02 PM

According to research into President Elect Obama's own statements about faith, and an examination of Obama's position on moral issues, CADC has determined that by any biblical and historic Christian standard, Barack Obama is not a Christian, although he claims he is a "devout Christian."

I hope this convinces Obama that sucking up to idiots accomplishes nothing.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 6, 2009 12:08 PM

He should have inrterviewed someone like Bill Craig or N.T. Wright or Planti[n]ga - Facilis

Then, instead of the plain stupid, he'd have got the fancy stupid.

Posted by: Jadehawk | January 6, 2009 12:15 PM

Rudy: context is everything. PZ didn't just randomly desecrate a cracker. it was a response to the abuse received by a Catholic who brought a friend with him to church and who wanted to show a wafer to that friend. the guy has received death-threats and was attacked by his congregation!

besides, the desecration of the cracker included the desecration of "the God Delusion" as well as pages from the Koran, if I remember correctly.

Posted by: Ian | January 6, 2009 12:19 PM

INSTANCE #4: Colorado Law Criminalizes the Bible

SB200, a Colorado state bill recently signed into law, criminalizes the Bible. Section 8 of the bill entitled "Publishing of discriminative matter forbidden" makes publishing the Bible illegal because it contains anti-homosexual passages. This is part of a larger effort to criminalize the expression of certain opinions and beliefs.

What? Have they actually read SB200? Article 1 reads:

The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that nothing in this act is intended to impede or otherwise limit the protections contained in section 4 of article II of the state constitution concerning the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.

I guess this is yet another instance of Lying for Jesus.

Posted by: Facilis | January 6, 2009 12:28 PM

@Redhead

As if we would believe a godbot who can't show evidence for his deity. At what point will you quite lying?

Posted by: the petey | January 6, 2009 12:36 PM

So, which tone does Facilis @ #135 project most:

"I know you are but what am I?"

or

"I asked first?"

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 6, 2009 12:38 PM

Did anyone else find it funny that they lump together different strands of christianity? Whining over Bill Maher being disrespectful of the Pope; catholic. And then whining over sane people being disrespectful of Palin; evangelical protestant. At least Jack Chick can keep these strands separated.

Remember the good old days when they would denounce each other as being anti-christian and would, at times, wage war against each other. Perhaps those days were not so good.

Posted by: mr.ed | January 6, 2009 12:39 PM

When these good folks get into a pinch, they usually want a "smart Jew lawyer" to get them out of it.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 6, 2009 12:46 PM

Facilus, the concept of god is not needed in science. The concept is not needed to explain anything. Whether god exists or not is immaterial. Therefore, scientists need not have to prove or disprove the concept of god. It does not enter into anything.

But for the likes of you, the concept of god is the center of everything. Therefore, it falls upon people like you to show that the concept of god is needed.

Is this unequal? Yes it is. But you are the one making the claims of the necessity of god.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 6, 2009 1:05 PM

Facilis the Child Murderer Sympathizer Defender Worshiper (see here),

According to you, (1) A divine being created the universe and (2) He regularly intervened (intervenes?) in human affairs.

Why would an all powerful being need to interfere in his creation? Did he mess up and needs to fix things? Also, you'd think if (1) and (2) were true there would be an abundance of physical evidence. Surely a universe with an all powerful being that intervenes in events would look very different that one that doesn't have such a being. Yet, you can't produce a shred of evidence.

Why would an powerful being even care if some mere mortals believed in his existence or not? Furthermore, why would he give them such a hard time by playing this divine game of hide-and-go-seek?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 6, 2009 1:09 PM

Rudy,

Would you feel the same if, say, Rush Limbaugh burned a Koran

You moron, if you actually did your research you'd have known that PZ also desecrated a Koran.

Posted by: CJO | January 6, 2009 1:11 PM

You asserted earlier that "all assertions must be supported by physical evidence" .I asked you to provide physical evidence for that assertion and you were not able. I won't start providing evidence for my assertion until you start providing evidence for yours

Don't be dense. "Must" or "should" in an assertion obviously denote a value judgement. If you assert that X exists, you should be able to point to something, anything, uncontroversially resident in the empirical world that we can agree provides evidence for the existence of X.

If I assert that you should do Y, we're in different epistemic territory, don't you agree?

Prissy little word games don't absolve you of any responsibility to support your preposterous claims, they just make it all the more evident that you can see that they are preposterous and not worth defending.

Posted by: Rudy | January 6, 2009 1:21 PM

OK, I get that the context of the "cracker" incident is broader than I thought; and no sane person (or sane Catholic, I hope) thinks the Eucharist wafer is more important than a real person. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, and all that.

Being *actually* disrespectful to a host is supposed to help a person wrongly accused of being disrespectful... I just don't see it. If that student *approved* of PZ's stunt, I'd feel a little (not a lot) better. And insulting Muslims helped how, exactly?

It seems an obvious point, but you can't desecrate The God Delusion. Nobody thinks it's sacred. Adding it in just seems sophomoric.

Maybe this extreme situation called for this kind of guerilla theater on PZ's part. And good for him for helping the student. But I wonder if the consciences of the congregation were changed at all by PZ's antics?

Posted by: The Petey | January 6, 2009 1:24 PM

#150 Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | January 6, 2009 1:13 PM

And come on. It's not like the preaching against homosexuality has ever led to the assault or murder of gays and lesbians unlike the physical assaults of poor innocent Christians who have been attacked for simply being against Prop 8.

The hate-mopngers were actually FOR prop-8.
Not that I live in CA, but seeing my right to marry there stripped away makes sort of a sticker about it.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 6, 2009 1:28 PM

Posted by: Rudy | January 6, 2009 1:21 PM

It seems an obvious point, but you can't desecrate The God Delusion. Nobody thinks it's sacred. Adding it in just seems sophomoric.

Not so obvious to you. One of the most common charges atheists have heard in recent years is that atheism is a religious belief and that Richard Dawkins is the atheist pope.

Posted by: Paul | January 6, 2009 1:34 PM

@Rudy, 151

How about you take a step back and read what you're saying?

There's no problem with burning TDR, because nobody calls it sacred (btw, please tell the religious that, they like to accuse all atheists of worshipping Dawkins/Darwin/Satan). However, desecrating the Eucharist or the Quar'an is off limits because some people find them sacred.

Ever killed a bug? Why are your sacraments more important than the sanctity of ALL life held sacred by some religions? Do we all need to stop eating beef because Hindi believe cows are sacred?

It's called special pleading. Your religion is not a special snowflake.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 6, 2009 1:45 PM

I find it funny that Christians continue to label atheist as "angry", as though it were without cause. Yet, this list of "Christian basing" includes what? A musical, somebody swearing, and a movie. This is discrimination?

How would they feel if a presidential candidate said "I don't know that Christians should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic". Replace Christian with atheists and that's what George H.W. Bush said during his 1988 presidential campaign. Or how about if surveys continued to show that Christians were the least trusted minority in the country? Or if people were saying that you continuing to say that one can't be moral and be a Christian?

How can you simultaneously say that the US is a "Christian nation" and claim to be discriminated against? There is a disproportionate number of Christians in both the House and the Senate. 43 of the last 43 presidents have been Christian. The new president is a secret Muslim Christian. This hardly seems like the experience of a downtrodden people.

Yeah 17 centuries ago you guys were fed to lions, but since then YOU have generally been the discriminator and not the discriminatee.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 6, 2009 1:52 PM

Janine, New moniker? I missed the whole thing. Dang.

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield, OM | January 6, 2009 2:00 PM

Facilis @135,

I think Nerd of Redhead made a slight mistake when he said "all assertions must be supported by physical evidence", since there are assertions (tautologies) that are logically true independent of reality. What I would've said instead is that all existential claims require empirical evidence. That is, if you say "X exists", then it is up to you to provide evidence for that; the default position must be that X is assumed not to exist until there is evidence that it does. To waive this requirement is to admit, by default, the existence of all things that may be imagined to exist and require the "disproof" of them: leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, orcs, and goblins, etc.

The onus is on you, so if you have empirical evidence for god(s), let's have it. Otherwise, your god "exists" only in the same sense as naiads and dryads: as an imagining, make-believe.

Posted by: Jeanette | January 6, 2009 2:02 PM

The Petey @63: I very much like your idea. Governments never should have gotten into the business of granting and withholding special privileges to consenting adults signifying official approval or disapproval of the mix of genitals involved.

Posted by: Brute | January 6, 2009 2:03 PM

"The Spacelab has been up in heaven for how many years?
Have any reports about seeing god, or having god over for some Tang ever been sent down to us?
child speak/"

Hmmmm..................

Looks like Obama believes in the mythical "man in the sky" fairy tale also. He seems to hold the "God Dellusion"; Same as Palin.........

"One Obama leaflet features photos of Obama praying with the words "COMMITTED CHRISTIAN" in large letters across the middle. It says Obama will be a president "guided by his Christian faith" and includes a quote from him saying, "I believe in the power of prayer."

"A second leaflet, which like the first doesn't mention the Muslim rumor, includes photos of Obama with his family and a caption that says they are active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It explains how as a young man Obama "felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/

Posted by: Alex | January 6, 2009 2:10 PM

Emmet @163

I would add to that the requirement that pointing to ancient texts about such things as deities does not constitute evidence.

Even if that poisonous book the bible contained detailed information about DNA, orbital paths of planets, atoms and particles, germs, or electrical theory - which admittedly would be a strong case for superior knowledge way back then - it still does not constitute evidence for deities.

Posted by: The Petey | January 6, 2009 2:12 PM

@ Jeanette #165

Even if the government stopped calling it "marriage" I would be ok with it. The hate mongers than would be forced to show their true stripe in that it is NOT about protecting the sanctity of marriage but it is about NOT granting gays and lesbians the same respect for their relationships.

Th e3 catholic church is the only denomination I am aware of that "respects the sanctity of marriage" because they refuse to marry divorcees. If marriage were so sacred - why do christians get divorced. ANY christian who has been divorced and claims to be against gay marriage out of the respect for sanctity of the institution is a mother fucking hypocrite.

I REALLY want to see these same people get up and support a proposition to outlaw divorce in order to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 6, 2009 2:16 PM

Whom is Brute addressing?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 2:18 PM

Poor, poor, Brute. Obama was elected and he just doesn't know what to do. All he can do is run around and talk trash, and sound like a complete idiot. Maybe he just needs to sleep for the next four years. Why don't you start hibernating today?

Posted by: CrypticLife | January 6, 2009 2:23 PM

Facilis, if you're willing to back off on the evidence requirement, you really need to answer my two-MONTH old comment on your blog answering your "counter-challenge" where I hypothesize Jesus' twin brother as an explanation for the alleged "resurrection". I dashed off the response in only a few minutes and had forgotten I'd made it.

There is, incidentally, some evidence that Jesus had a brother named James.

Or perhaps you're too busy making snide empty comments here?

Posted by: Alex | January 6, 2009 2:30 PM

OT

I Found this at AU.org.

"Troubling Times: N.Y. Newspaper Promotes Creation Museum During Special Arts & Leisure Weekend"

I think the NYT needs a Pharyngula bomb.

Posted by: mayhempix | January 6, 2009 2:36 PM

"Substantially more Americans believe in angels than in evolution." - Barack Obama

Poor Brute doesn't seem to understand that this is a factual observation, not an acknowledgment of agreement.

I for one will be looking at Obama's deeds and actions and so far he has appointed credible and highly qualified scientists in key positions. I would bet money on the fact that he wholeheartedly supports evidence based science teaching in school including evolution.

Posted by: CJO | January 6, 2009 2:44 PM

There is, incidentally, some evidence that Jesus had a brother named James.

Not really. (Idiosyncratic explanation for "the brother of the Lord" business available on request)

But if you're looking for a body-double for a resurrection hoax, why not Judas Didymos ("Twin") Thomas, the self-same disciple Thomas, to whom is attributed the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, and who was called the twin brother of Jesus by 2nd Century Egyptian Gnostics?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 2:57 PM

Emmet, we're on the same page. I've been on enough committees over the years to realize that getting an idea on the table for others to chew over is important.

I think somebody got spacelab, carried up/landed the in shuttle's bay, confused with skylab, that was launched with one of the last saturns, and which has gone to the great fireball in the sky.

Posted by: frog | January 6, 2009 3:06 PM

The best part is the projection. They're the fucking Christian Anti-Defamation League! They can't even leave the name to a historically defamed groups, but have to pretend that they were the victims of 1500 years!

What disgusting nit-wits.

Posted by: Rey Fox | January 6, 2009 3:31 PM

Re: Proposition 8: Let's not forget that proponents of Prop 8 are trying to nullify the same-sex marriages that happened over the past year, including that of my cousin. So yes, when Christians are having their actual marriages under attack, then maybe we can talk. Until then, they can go fuck themselves.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/12/19/state/n150241S64.DTL

The item about Obama in that list just tells me that the Christ-bashing indeed needs to increase. We might as well have the fun they're accusing us of having. If we don't, then we'll still get these whinge-fests, which are really all about marginalizing anyone who disrupts the privileged position that religion has in the public square (and thus really all about marginalizing atheists), but we won't even have the solid position of being out and unapologetic that we have now with Dawkins and others.

"So if a significant percentage of Christians are apparently of the opinion that they have become a second-class majority, who do they think are the first-class citizens?"

The monolithic entity known as The Enemy, of course. Anyone who argues for separation of church and state couldn't possibly be a Christian. If you were to get them drunk, they might just come out and admit that it's the Jews that they really can't stand.

By the way, whatever happened to Dana Jacobsen? Seems like a cool gal to me. I suppose it's more fuel for the fire of "ESPN is biased against Notre Dame", but I see nothing wrong with that. Winningest college football program in the country, loved by millions of assholes partly for their tenuous Irish connection but mostly because they win a lot, has their own TV deal and special consideration by the BCS and an institution supported by the friggin' Catholic Church? I agree, fuck Notre Dame. I've enjoyed their recent football flailings immensely. Fuck Touchdown Jesus. Fuck...well, maybe not Jesus, he strikes me as one of the less odious characters in the Bible. Fuck the Bible. There, that's getting to the heart of the matter. Fuck the truncheon they use.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 6, 2009 3:33 PM

Alex @ #179,

It's especially strange given the new relationship between the NYT and Scienceblogs (in case anyone hasn't checked out the right side of his or her screen lately) and the solid review of the four books ("Four Stakes in the Heart of ID" or something) that the AU post links to - and which I somehow managed to miss completely when it appeared. Shows a lack of coordination.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 6, 2009 3:38 PM

Take some time and read through, I think you'll see Christians being persecuted is real.

There are humans being persecuted around the globe for all kinds of reasons. Is yours a special case? Do you stand up against persecution based on sexual identity and preference with equal zeal? Do you stand up for the rights of Palestinian civilians not to be slaughtered? Just wondering.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 3:42 PM

Brute, most of us recognize that to get elected to public office in almost all of the US, especially for higher office, candidate must publically proclaim belief in an imaginary deity. It doesn't mean we like it, but that is not going to change anytime in the near future. Some of us are mature enough to realize that carping repeatedly about it just makes us sound bitter, so we avoid doing so. Personally, I'm more worried about what a candidate does once in office.

Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 6, 2009 3:48 PM

Take some time and read through, I think you'll see Christians being persecuted is real.

I heard a couple of good Christians* just this morning on an AM radio station chortling over the Palestinian animals in Gaza getting their just deserts. And they were not talking dogs and cats. Animals? Really? You do know that 80% of the "animals" being killed and maimed are civilians, including women and children, that are trapped by poverty and persecution don't you? Children. Really.

*this is a part of the host's shtick so I'm not guessing here.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 6, 2009 3:49 PM

Kevin do you know the whole story?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 6, 2009 3:50 PM

Real Christian persecution exists all over the world.

True enough, and it's horrendous that Christians are killed for their beliefs and affiliations, even if they've been on the doling out end of death for a large percentage of the last two millennia. (It's horrendous that anyone is killed for their beliefs, but what's a salvationist religion without unbelievers to demonise?)

But what the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission is complaining about isn't persecution: it's criticism and parody. (That's the problem with the martyr complex that Christianity and other faiths engender: you become so busy looking for examples of persecution to validate your faith that you'll see getting the wrong change from the cashier at 7-11 as 'proof' of your Christ-like nature.)

And lastly, thanks for the whine but if you people weren't so fucking self-centred and really cared about all the lost sheep you'd be writing a blog about all real religious persecution, now wouldn't you?

Posted by: ctygesen | January 6, 2009 3:51 PM

Thank you Kevin.

Your concern is noted.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 3:53 PM

Kevin, coming to hosts blog and calling him out on something is disrespectful too. Gee, you just committed a grave crime against Pharyngula, so we must do to you as your fellow cat-o-licks did to PZ. Good old golden rule in action. {/snark}
Or maybe you need to tone it down a little. We don't give a hoot about your uninformed opinion.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 6, 2009 3:55 PM

I haven't seen one critique of Mr. Obama's, Mr. Biden's or Ms. Clinton's publicly avowed religious beliefs in the lot.

Open your eyes then, fuckwit. Try googling 'Obama' and 'religion' in the search box at top left of this blog, you fucking troglodyte.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 6, 2009 3:56 PM

I dare say that that the majority of the contributors voted and or supported Barry Hussein for President of the United States,

Why are people so fucking hung up on his name? Really a lame tactic that displays a certain mindset.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 6, 2009 3:58 PM

You must be new here.

Is that directed at me?

Posted by: jimmiraybob | January 6, 2009 4:00 PM

...you fucking troglodyte.

Once again the poor innocent troglodyte has his character besmirched by association. Talk about your persecution.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 6, 2009 4:03 PM

Barack Obama, as a Christian, stupidly believes in myths and fairy tales. There you go. Now STFU. - SC, OM to Brute.

Seconded.

BTW, who the fuck is "Barry Hussein"?

Posted by: frog | January 6, 2009 4:04 PM

Brute: Whoa! Wait a minute......are you saying, (writing), that Obama is lying when he publicly states his religious beliefs just to capture votes?
Are you writing that he would compromise his integrity to satisfy his political ambitions? Sort of egotistical and self serving, wouldn't you say?
Are you certain that you don't want to retract that statement?

I know this may be hard for you to understand, but not everyone is an intellectually dishonest propagandist continually attempting to convert everyone, come hell or high water.

I understand that for people in the evangelical milieu, it may seem that way -- it's about "winning souls". But that is pure projection. In short, we're not all scum-bags -- it's just you and your cohorts that are worthless excuses for minds.

Posted by: Alex | January 6, 2009 4:06 PM

That's final proof that these people have no fucking sense of humour. Or honesty. Or persecution, for that matter.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 4:08 PM

Brute, you have warped the argument. And truly, any atheist would have to hide behind a facade of belief to get elected president these days. That's just the way it is. Hopefully this will change in the future.

I have no true idea of how much Obama believes or disbelieves. And quote mining him convinces me of nothing. I just know he shows signs of intelligence lacking in both his opponent and predecessor.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 6, 2009 4:17 PM

Brute, you lying racist moron, had an atheist comparable to Obama in terms of evident political skills and views had a chance of winning the Presidency, doubtless many of those here would have voted for him. There wasn't one. So they voted for the best alternative. Got it now, fuckwit?

Posted by: Brute | January 6, 2009 4:35 PM

Nerd,

"And truly, any atheist would have to hide behind a facade of belief to get elected president these days. That's just the way it is."

You have such high standards.....I applaud you.

I seem to have created quite a stir among the Obama sycophants.....I'm so ashamed.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 4:41 PM

Brute, no you are just a troll out for a little fun. In politics, I never say "not that guy" without looking at the opponent. Because the opponent may be even worse.

As to Obama's god beliefs, I have never met the man, so I have no idea what they are. But his politics are much better than his opponent and predecessor. You don't get that, but then you are an ignorant troll.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 6, 2009 4:48 PM

I haven't seen one critique of Mr. Obama's, Mr. Biden's or Ms. Clinton's publicly avowed religious beliefs in the lot.

FAIL
That's only because you haven't been doing your research. From this site,

The Obama Failing

So let's be clear here: I despise Obama's faith. I think it has the potential to be a major hindrance to any accomplishments of an Obama administration, and I worry that it would further promote the desecularization of our government. If Obama is elected, I will not be a cheerleader, but a constant critic.

Why I will never vote for Barack Obama

If a liberal Democratic politician wants to buy into the foolish idea that Christians can't accept evolution, that it's a good thing that more Americans believe in this insane nonsense about angels than in science, then he has lost my vote. I won't even get into the rest of his paean to the silly goblins of faith.

There is also a blog post titled "Obama's religions is the problem". I'd keep going, but then I think my comment would be held in moderation for some many links. I think you get the point anyway.

Do some research before you make claims.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 6, 2009 4:58 PM

Do some research before you make claims. Feynmaniac, to Brute

Come now, Feynmaniac, Brute's a conservative! Paying attention to the facts would be against his principles.

Posted by: Rebecca | January 6, 2009 5:03 PM

Reading that list gave me a flashback to my parochial high school. Once one of the pastor-teachers was talking about the persecution of Christians in contemporary culture (this was the 80s) and the example he gave was people staring at him and his family when they bowed their heads to pray over their meals at restaurants. How awful for them! To have their attention-begging behavior noticed, oh dear! I wonder what he thought should have happened--everyone else in the restaurant, overcome by the sight of their holiness, should have asked him to lead them in prayer, perhaps. This was the same guy who wouldn't let his children celebrate Halloween because it was "papist"...or pagan...or both. Persecution of persons of any faith--or of no faith--is reprehensible, but for American Christians persecution=not getting their own way 100% of the time.

Posted by: Hambydammit | January 6, 2009 5:15 PM

What a crock. Does anyone else notice how Christians elevate the art of equivocation to heights most politicians wouldn't dream? I mean... really? Mocking is the same as persecution?

I'm a big believer in using the correct words, and let's be honest. A fifteen percent minority with one representative in Congress is flatly incapable of persecuting the ruling majority.

Posted by: Kevin Camp | January 6, 2009 5:42 PM

Nerd of Redhead: Calling someone out on something is not disrespectul. Notice I didn't say anything about Bill Maher's skewering of the Catholic church over the way it handled the sex abuse scandal. You could argue that say he's "just being a dick" is disrespectful language, and you would be right, so I apologize.

gwangung: I never said that disrespect equalled persecution. You will notice that I did not try to say that the idiots who wrote the "top 10 christian bashings" list were in any way right. They are morons and they don't speak for anyone other than themselves.

To the people who wondered if I know the whole story behind him throwing the Eucharist in the trash: no I didn't, so I googled it. The people who threatened the student in Florida were wrong for doing so. But that doesn't justify what Professor Myers did. He was trying to stick up for someone else who was being disrespectful by being disrespectful himself? Trying to teach tolerance by being hateful? Sorry, I don't get it.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 5:49 PM

Sorry, I don't get it.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 6:02 PM

Kevin is being entirely disrespectful to others by saying that non-Catholics have to abide to Catholic tradition. How is it any different to a Muslim saying that women dressing in miniskirts is disrespectful to Allah? (I believe the phrase is "dress them like whores")

Just how far does one have to go to be 'respectful' to a culture / tradition they don't adhere to?

Posted by: Facilis | January 6, 2009 6:04 PM

In science, the burden of proof is always on those making the claim.

I suppose this claim requires proof in itself.

So the burden of proof is upon you to demostrate evidence for your imaginary god.

And the burden of proof is on you to prove I have the burden of proof.

Now either show the physical evidence for your god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians and professional debunkers, or acknowldege you have no proof and should shut up.

Why must the evidence be physical?Please demonstrate that it must be.

The negative can't be proven, which is why nobody but the reigiots like yourself keep asking for that.

Read this (its written by an atheist) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html His conclusion

I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa.

Posted by: Facilis | January 6, 2009 6:07 PM

In science, the burden of proof is always on those making the claim.

So the burden of proof is upon you to demostrate evidence for your imaginary god.

Now either show the physical evidence for your god that will pass muster with scientists, magicians and professional debunkers, or acknowldege you have no proof and should shut up.

The negative can't be proven, which is why nobody but the reigiots like yourself keep asking for that.

I know the myth of "you can't prove a negative" circulates throughout the nontheist community, and it is good to dispel myths whenever we can. As it happens, there really isn't such a thing as a "purely" negative statement, because every negative entails a positive, and vice versa.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 6:10 PM

Facilis, you are a liar and bullshitter until you provide evidence for your imaginary god. Your avoidance in doing so tells everything an intelligent person, and the people who are regulars here are highly intelligent, needs to know about your relationship to the truth. There is none. Now, you can recover some integrity by acknowledging you have no evidence for your deity.

Posted by: raven | January 6, 2009 6:12 PM

stacy being dishonest:

Real Christian persecution exists all over the world. I write about it every day over on The Voice of the Martyr's Persecution Blog at

Well, that is true worldwide. The xian anti-defamation kooks were referring to the USA. A country where 78% of the population is xian and where they persecute groups on a daily bais. Lately it has been the democrats, liberals, atheists, Moslems, gays, scientists, and MDs.

The main group persecuting xians in the USA is .....other xians. Xian sectarian warfare has a long, very bloody history and died out in N. Ireland a whole 8 years ago. Nowadays they don't fill the streets with blood and bodies because the majority of the population is sick of religious violence and the government took away their armies and weapons.

Although the USA still has a current problem with homicidal religious terrorists, the xians and occasionally moslem fundies. Sectarian xian violence today in the USA is mostly at the level of lies, accusations, excommunications, insults, and general bigotry and discrimination.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 6:15 PM

Facilis, fundamentalist Xians are some of the worst minds out there. Get of your high horse about religion and face reality. You are making a hash of whatever your point is for posting here.

Posted by: Neuroskeptic | January 6, 2009 6:19 PM

"If there is no God,no creator, no afterlife, no higher purpose, then why is human life more important than a cracker?"

That's an exact parallel to the old, and famously rubbish, "Who caused the universe" cosmological argument for God. The refutation is "Who caused God?"

Who made human life good? God? - then who made God good? If there WERE a Creator, how would that make any difference to how important human life is?

Either human life is important, Creator or not, in which case, atheists are fine. OR, human life is only important because the Creator says so, in which case "important" and "good" are defined by what the Creator says are good, but this leaves it unexplained why the Creator, or his judgement, should be taken as important or good.

If you want to believe in God, go ahead, I'm sure you have your reasons. but if you come to Pharyngula of all places, this is what happens...

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 6:23 PM

fundie atheist impression

How do you do an impression of something that doesn't exist?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 6, 2009 6:24 PM

Facilis are you actually proud of that website? It looks like I tried to make one. That is a dire insult, and meant to be.
Why are you wasting your time here when you could be fixing that full of bullshit mess?

Posted by: Don't Panic | January 6, 2009 6:27 PM

ctygesen, you almost killed me with:

So, which tone does Facilis @ #135 project most

"I got bupkis!"

Posted by: Facilis | January 6, 2009 6:29 PM

@Emmet

What I would've said instead is that all existential claims require empirical evidence.

That is, if you say "X exists", then it is up to you to provide evidence for that; the default position must be that X is assumed not to exist until there is evidence that it does.

To waive this requirement is to admit, by default, the existence of all things that may be imagined to exist and require the "disproof" of them: leprechauns, fairies, unicorns, orcs, and goblins, etc. .

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 6:36 PM

Kel, #259

Well put. I always find it difficult to answer that particular question, because to me it pertains to the sort of obvious understanding of the world that everyone has (or, at least, they should have - I suspect those asking it to be obtuse rather than ignorant); being asked it is much like 'why do we like things that taste nice?'

Posted by: Facilis | January 6, 2009 6:38 PM

Why'd Steve_C link me to Expelled? I haven't seen the movie.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 6:41 PM

If you found out tomorrow that there was no God, would you kill yourself? If you answer no to this, then you should understand why we value life.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 6:49 PM

Well put. I always find it difficult to answer that particular question, because to me it pertains to the sort of obvious understanding of the world that everyone has (or, at least, they should have - I suspect those asking it to be obtuse rather than ignorant); being asked it is much like 'why do we like things that taste nice?'

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | January 6, 2009 6:51 PM

Facilis #266

Why'd Steve_C link me to Expelled? I haven't seen the movie.

You made the statement that Richard Dawkins was in Expelled. Steve_C's link wasn't to the movie but rather to a website called Expelled Exposed.

If you can't keep up, take notes.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 6, 2009 7:06 PM

Facilis the Child Murderer Sympathizer Defender Worshiper (see here ),

I do think there is a fair bit of evidence. However Redhead is being overly anal about limiting what kind of evidence I can produce. I was just having fun at his expense

Fine, what's your evidence?

Posted by: ifeelfine72 | January 6, 2009 7:49 PM

This is the CADC's effort to create an enemy where none really exists. Its kind of hard to rally the troops when there is nothing to rally around.

Posted by: Brute | January 6, 2009 8:34 PM

Fine, what's your evidence?

I hope it's better than auras. Or not - that was funny.

Yes, that was funny.

Feynmaniac,

This is probably pointless as you seem to have a bias toward religion in general, but here it goes..........

The evidence is everywhere; look around you. Your life is a miracle. A new born baby is a miracle. The existence of the solar system, the galaxy.....the Universe is a miracle. A seed germinating growing into a 100' tall tree is a miracle.

Atheism relies on the premise that nothing can become something without some sort of intelligent intervention.

This computer was designed and built by an intelligent Being assembling numerous components in a systematic fashion to create a working, functioning device.

Do you actually believe that something far more complex as the processes involved to create and maintain the human body, a "system" that initiates and completes millions of functions every second simply came to being without some sort of plan, blueprint or thought process?

Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 6, 2009 8:38 PM

I spotted a couple of typos in the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission's (CADC) statement. Here's a corrected version:

It is time for the non-Christian bashing to stop and for non-Christians to no longer be treated like second-class citizens.

There - it's more accurate now.

I forgot who said this, but given a Christian fundie's perspective, even Jesus would be unacceptable: He's from the Middle-East, he's anti-organized religion, and he's a Jew.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 8:42 PM

Your life is a miracle.

A new born baby is a miracle.

The existence of the solar system, the galaxy.....the Universe is a miracle.

A seed germinating growing into a 100' tall tree is a miracle.

Atheism relies on the premise that nothing can become something without some sort of intelligent intervention.

This computer was designed and built by an intelligent Being assembling numerous components in a systematic fashion to create a working, functioning device

Do you actually believe that something far more complex as the processes involved to create and maintain the human body, a "system" that initiates and completes millions of functions every second simply came to being without some sort of plan, blueprint or thought process?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 8:45 PM

Brute, massive fail. Show physical evidence for god (the designer) that will be confirmed by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine origin, or get off the designer bit. Put up real (not witnessed like you did) evidence. Welcome to science. Not for wimps or liars.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 6, 2009 8:48 PM

The CADC failed to detail that before PZ's actions, the kid in the crackergate incident was threatened with violence and expulsion, and was almost lynched by the church congregation. For what? Trying to show the Holy Eucharist to a curious friend. Where was the CADC when this happened?

Posted by: Kevin Camp | January 6, 2009 8:52 PM

Kel: Well put. No, I didn't need you to answer that, I was just curious what your response would be. Also, as to the analogy about flag-burning, there is a slight difference. If you go and buy a flag yourself, or otherwise ethically obtain it, and then burn it, then that is perfectly acceptable. However, if you steal the flag from the capital building, or take a flag that was given to you by someone who cherished it, with the understanding that you would take care of it, and then you burned it, that would not acceptable.

Posted by: John Morales | January 6, 2009 8:57 PM

Brute:

The evidence is everywhere; look around you. Your life is a miracle. A new born baby is a miracle. The existence of the solar system, the galaxy.....the Universe is a miracle. A seed germinating growing into a 100' tall tree is a miracle.

"Miracle" is a synonym for "ordinary".
Quotidian things are miracles.

So... What word do you use for putative impossible events that contradict our understanding of nature and of causation?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 8:59 PM

However, if you steal the flag from the capital building, or take a flag that was given to you by someone who cherished it, with the understanding that you would take care of it, and then you burned it, that would not acceptable.

Did you read all the posts on those threads? There are about 30,000 - you must be a very fast reader.

The crackers were not stolen, taken from someone who cherished them, nor given to him by anyone who expected him to 'take care of it' - not in the sense you mean, anyway. IIRC, a former catholic who had kept a cracker obtained during his/her pre-rational days sent it to him knowing full well what he was intending to do with it.

Besides, 'cherished'? Please remind us exactly what is supposed to happen to the cracker after the magic religious ceremony?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | January 6, 2009 8:59 PM

Kel #289

Why is it that those who say the universe needs a cause in order to exist, but the cause they posit for the universe doesn't need a cause?

It's called special pleading and is a logical fallacy.

Posted by: Brute | January 6, 2009 9:00 PM

Do you consider it a miracle that when you're holding a pencil in your hand and you let it go it hits the ground*?

No; however, the process allows gravity to exist is a miracle.

Wowbagger/Kel,

Another question:

As an Atheist, (I assume you are an Atheist), how do you differenciate between right and wrong? What is the basis of your moral code?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | January 6, 2009 9:06 PM

As an Atheist, (I assume you are an Atheist), how do you differenciate between right and wrong? What is the basis of your moral code?

Ever heard of the Golden Rule, also called the ethic of reciprocity? The concept predates Christianity.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 9:12 PM

Brute wrote:

No; however, the process allows gravity to exist is a miracle.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

If absolutely everything is a miracle then a miracle is, in and of itself, worthless. If every second rock on the Earth was made out of gold do you think humans would value gold as much as they do?

how do you differenciate between right and wrong?

The exact same way you do, for the most part - as a result of learning and socialisation.

The difference is that I know that morals/ethics are the result of thousands of years of human social evolution (i.e. we learned not to be horrible to each other because it meant we had less chance of being killed out of retribution), while you think yours are commanded by your god.

What is the basis of your moral code?

I don't know if it has a 'basis', as such. Pretty much comes down to the 'golden rule', as it is known.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 6, 2009 9:15 PM

Brute,

This is probably pointless as you seem to have a bias toward religion in general, but here it goes..........

If you can indeed provide good evidence I would change my mind about the existence of God. Can you say the same?

The evidence is everywhere; look around you. Your life is a miracle. A new born baby is a miracle. The existence of the solar system, the galaxy.....the Universe is a miracle. A seed germinating growing into a 100' tall tree is a miracle.

Please go get a dictionary and look up what 'evidence' means.

Do you actually believe that something far more complex as the processes involved to create and maintain the human body, a "system" that initiates and completes millions of functions every second simply came to being without some sort of plan, blueprint or thought process?

So in order to explain something as complex as the human body you assume a creator even MORE complex? This doesn't solve the problem, it only raises an even harder problem to solve.

Also, this is simply an argument from personal incredulity. Very complex processes contain arise without any plan or blue print (see Rule 110 ).

Oh, and did you see #230 where I provided you examples of people criticizing Obama's religion?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 9:22 PM

Is my Moral Code valid?

Biblical moral code is partially good, partially bad. For example, if you are wearing a cotton/polyester shirt by strict biblical codes we must stone you to death. Bad. The bible condones slavery. Bad. It is too much only be nice only to our group and treat everybody else badly. Bad. The words of Jesus tried to make the nice more universal. Good. Paul was terrible to women. Bad. (Don't think atheists haven't read the bible, as reading the bible in total is often the first step toward atheism.)

Posted by: John Morales | January 6, 2009 9:24 PM

Brute:

Is my Moral Code valid?

The question you should ask is "Is my Moral Code ethical?"

If you're a Christian, I'd say no.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 9:33 PM

I really am interested in this Atheist belief system....seriously.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 9:39 PM

I really am interested in this Atheist belief system....seriously

First thing you need to do is acknowledge the truth - that it isn't a 'belief system'. We simply lack belief in gods. That does not mean that atheism, in and of itself, replaces religion as a system of belief.

and my views are opposite of everyone on this thread

That's a big problem. Do you murder people? Do you torture kittens? If you don't then your views are not the opposite of everyone on this thread.

What you also you have to do is realise that most atheists, for practical purposes, live our lives in almost exactly the same way as the majority of Christians do - the only difference being that when we're asked 'do you believe in God?' we answer 'no' rather than 'yes'.

The very idea that atheism makes for an unhappy, immoral, hate-filled lifestyle is one of the worst lies perpetuated by the fearful religious out there, those are so offended that we can live our lives differently from theirs and still be content.

Don't, as they say, believe the hype.

Posted by: ctygesen | January 6, 2009 9:48 PM

how do you differenciate between right and wrong? What is the basis of your moral code?

Gosh! Wherever would we be without God?!?

Do you really think that as much as 25% of the USian population has time to wallow in existential despair?

Posted by: Bachalon | January 6, 2009 10:15 PM

Brute, you do know that the only thing 100% universal among atheists is a lack of belief in god?

There is no single belief system common to every atheist. Each of us is unique in that regard.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 10:26 PM

Who made up those rules?

Humans. Same people who wrote your bible - but they, being unsophisticated regarding such things, just didn't understand why we shouldn't murder, so they decided to make up a god to have told us not to. Just like they said 'don't eat pigs' - not because their god said not to, but because (IIRC) spoiled pork contains nasty bacteria. They didn't understand bacteria either, but they knew they had to find a way to keep people from dying.

Suppose I happen to believe that murdering people is alright? Are you judging me?

Yes. You would be wrong because you go against what is historically good for the future of our species; the sense of which we have retained.

Suppose I don't happen to comply with the golden rule....suppose I don't give a damn what others do to me so in turn I can do unto others as I wish?

It would depend on what you're doing to them. If you're sending them flowers thinking they wouldn't like it then I don't care. But if you want to rape, bash or murder them then you are (once again) acting in a way that is historically detrimental to the future of the species. I have a predisposition to want to stop you.

You seem to espouse that morals and ethical behavior is whatever you happen to think it is or should be.

To an extent that is true. But what I feel is moral and ethical is the result of thousands of years of human social evolution and is as hardwired into me as not eating meat that smells funny. Thing is, it's hardwired into you, too - you just don't realise it, preferring to believe that you choose not to do it because your god told you not to.

So, I've answered some of your questions; here's one for you: Would you, if your god appeared and told you that not only is it okay for you to rape and murder people, but that he wanted you to rape and murder people, would you do it?

Posted by: Mena | January 6, 2009 10:33 PM

Brute, if the only thing stopping you from killing people and torturing kittens is that you think that you will go to Hell you are one scary human being. Get help NOW!!!

Posted by: Kevin Camp | January 6, 2009 10:43 PM

Nerd of Redhead: If it was given to him by a Catholic, then the Catholic was wrong. But Prof. Myers is not blameless either. Since when is receiving goods that you know were stolen (or at the very least, acquired under false pretenses) in any way ethical?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 10:46 PM

And you have the audacity to describe the beleifs of creation held by Christians (and numerous other religions) a fairy tale?

Posted by: John Morales | January 6, 2009 10:47 PM

Brute, one's morals are what one does and how one adjudges others' behaviours, not what one professes to believe.

Who determines what is ethical and unethical?

One difference is that us infidels take ownership of our personal decisions. We are knowing morally free agents.

True believers lack moral freedom, because they supposedly must always act in accordance with the precepts of their religion regardless of their own inner feelings, but they have the (false) comfort of thinking they avoid responsibility for their moral choices.

An infidel has the freedom to do what they genuinely think is the right thing, based on their own understanding, and will not accept an action (e.g. stoning a victim) as moral merely based on other's opinions.

And, just as importantly, an infidel has the freedom to improve their morals over time, as they gather experience and knowledge.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 10:49 PM

Not a scientist, an Engineer; and I do know that anything that is built is designed.....it doesn't simply "materialise" without thought and planning.

So far, according to your doctrine, "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" a speck smaller than an atom (which contain all of the matter in the universe) exploded. The dust collected and as this dust collected it formed the Sun and this planet. From this lifeless rock everything from a duck billed platypus to a rose to a human being randomly "evolved" accidentally......a rock became a tree? Sounds supernatural.........

And you have the audacity to describe the beleifs of creation held by Christians (and numerous other religions) a fairy tale?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 6, 2009 10:52 PM

Kevin, one theory is that the cracker is a gift (forget the fictitious strings), and once the position of the person is their property. If it was theft at all it would be considered petty theft and the statute of limitations had run out. Quit trying to find fault, there none, except between your ears. We reached out consensus during the 30,000+ posts of Crackergate, and we will not change our minds at this time. You are beating a dead horse.

Posted by: Bachalon | January 6, 2009 10:55 PM

Brute wrote:

Not a scientist, an Engineer; and I do know that anything that is built is designed.....it doesn't simply "materialise" without thought and planning.

Ah, there's the problem. You should read through Myers' book list

Why do you think your engineering background gives license to comment on biology?

So far, according to your doctrine, "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" a speck smaller than an atom (which contain all of the matter in the universe) exploded.

First of all, that's not doctrine (but nice try there. Atheism is not a religion). Nothing exploded. It was more of an expansion. I'm not a physicist, so I will suggest that you actually read up on what it says and not what you want it to say for straw man purposes.

The dust collected and as this dust collected it formed the Sun and this planet. From this lifeless rock everything from a duck billed platypus to a rose to a human being randomly "evolved" accidentally......a rock became a tree? Sounds supernatural.........

Are you stupid? No one thinks that a rock became a tree. I half think you're just trolling. And evolution isn't "random" it's undirected.

And you have the audacity to describe the beleifs of creation held by Christians (and numerous other religions) a fairy tale?

Please. You're one to talk.

Posted by: Kel | January 6, 2009 11:03 PM

Ahhh Brute. If you are going to argue that the science is absurd, it would really help if you actually understood what you are arguing against. I'd advise you to go and read about the theory of evolution, read about abiogenesis, read about star and planet formation, and read about the big bang, before trying to argue it's all false. If only you knew how embarrassing you look trying to argue what you don't know.

As for atheism, where does it say that atheism is indoctrinated science? It seems like you are doing a grave disservice to your fellow Christians who actually use the same scientific explanations as you are alleging are atheist, not to mention painting all atheists under a brush that simply does not apply. Science is a way of understanding the reality we live in, atheism is to do with belief in a god. They are not the same, and you are being disingenuous for equating them.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 11:08 PM

Brute,

I'll ignore the fact that you've chosen not to answer my question about morality - because by doing so you're admitting that you're wrong and we're right, and you're fully aware of that.

And you have the audacity to describe the beleifs of creation held by Christians (and numerous other religions) a fairy tale?

You feel that all belief systems are equally valid? You weren't just born to Christian parents and brought up to believe in their relgiion? That's very interesting.

Exactly how many of them did you study in detail before you made the decision that Christianity (and the one particular sect of Christianity from the 38,000 there are) was the correct one?

Posted by: ctygesen | January 6, 2009 11:17 PM

@ Kevin Camp

But Prof. Myers is not blameless either. Since when is receiving goods that you know were stolen (or at the very least, acquired under false pretenses) in any way ethical?

When is it ethical to engage in campaigns of public vilification, harassment and intimidation?

When is it ethical to deliberately inflame and incite intolerance against a person or a group, creating a situation in which violence becomes a recognizable threat?

On the flip side, when is it ethical to refuse to follow the instructions of a uniformed police officer? Say you were being told not to videotape what was about to happen?

When is it ethical to trespass on private property?

There is no equivalence between what PZ did and the behaviour of the believers who sparked this powder keg to begin with. Adjust your ethical compass.

@Rudy

But PZ's stunt was tasteless and disrespectful, and not likely to change any minds.

Like Kevin, you disingenuously strip PZ's actions from their context. Disrespect was the point of the exercise.

And PZ's "stunt" did change at least one mind. I went from "somebody else's problem", to "you talkin' to me?"

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 6, 2009 11:23 PM

Rudy wrote:

But PZ's stunt was tasteless and disrespectful, and not likely to change any minds.

'Tasteless'? Well, taste is subjective; it mightn't be to yours, but to say that means he shouldn't do it because you don't like it is another thing entirely.

'Disrespectful'? Of course it was. That's the whole point. Those particular Catholics thought the cracker is more important than the law, Webster Cook's physical well-being, his future and, his (and PZ's) life. People who think like that need to be disrespected, because their values are contemptible.

'Not likely to change any minds'? Way wrong on that one. Read some deconversion stories sometime. One of the things that prompts believers to start doubting is if they realise that it's possible to disbelieve and act on that disbelief. One of religion's greatest lies is that, secretly, everyone really does believe but pretends not to; such an act of brazen sacrilege may well start people thinking about their beliefs.

Not to mention that many Christians - Catholics included - pointed out how disgusted they were with the Catholic League's actions. A truly introspective Christian would have to wonder whether their religion really was the truth they're constantly told it is when their co-religionists can act in such ways.

What it did, if nothing else, was make people think about religion. And that's how many former religious come to atheism - because they started thinking instead of believing. It's all about the fence-sitters.

Posted by: Danny M | January 6, 2009 11:58 PM

It does not seem to me any less possible that God created the universe than the possibility that the universe just blew up into being by itself. There is more than one way to make a vehicle run. We chose gasoline, but there are other ways. Just because we can prove that a car can possibly run on gasoline does not make it intelligent to claim gasoline is the only way to run a car. Just because we can see how a universe may have came into being, does not mean it is the only way possible, or , does not mean it happened this way and not another. To say emphatically that the universe came into being without a Creator does not add up to me. And christian should get persecuted in america, then the real ones would be the only ones left claiming to be christians. They are persecuted heavily in certain areas of the world though.
I just do not understand how people emphatically state "There is no God.", without closing their eyes. It seems to me if their eyes were open then they would maybe say "I do not believe there is a God.". There is a difference. I do not believe the earth is billions of years old, but hey, i could be wrong. There seems to be lots of evidence supporting a really old earth, and it would not contradict the bible, i just have my suspicions. There are things other than blind make belief that draw people to trust in God. Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean people are stupid.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 7, 2009 12:03 AM

Danny,

You're once, twice, three times barely coherent.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 7, 2009 12:08 AM

Wow. The evidence of the earth being over 4 billion years old. There is no evidence for any gods. Theists really need to learn to be brief. Why do stupid arguments need to be so damn long?

Posted by: Bachalon | January 7, 2009 12:15 AM

Danny M wrote:

I just do not understand how people emphatically state "There is no God.", without closing their eyes. It seems to me if their eyes were open then they would maybe say "I do not believe there is a God.". There is a difference.

That says more about you than it does about anyone making that statement. There is indeed a difference, but that's neither here nor there. You don't get to define atheism for atheists.

Why do so many believers exhibit this lack of imagination?

I do not believe the earth is billions of years old, but hey, i could be wrong. There seems to be lots of evidence supporting a really old earth, and it would not contradict the bible, i just have my suspicions.

Nothing could about it. You are wrong.

There are things other than blind make belief that draw people to trust in God. Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean people are stupid.

So, why do you believe?

You're not doing well so far.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 7, 2009 12:22 AM

Danny M

Your coherence (or lack thereof) is more the issue than whatever caused the triplication.

It does not seem to me any less possible that God created the universe than the possibility that the universe just blew up into being by itself.

Which might be okay except that, when you're dealing with scientific explanations for something, you're obliged to take the most parsimonious option. Inviting a god of any sort to the party makes everything far more complicated, by virtue of having to explain where said god came from. If there's equal chance of either, we take the one without god.

And christian should get persecuted in america, then the real ones would be the only ones left claiming to be christians.

Do you want to try writing that again? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

They [Christians] are persecuted heavily in certain areas of the world though.

There are Christians persecuting people around the world, and in the USA. What's your point?

I just do not understand how people emphatically state "There is no God.", without closing their eyes. It seems to me if their eyes were open then they would maybe say "I do not believe there is a God.".

Well, that comes down to the definition of God. I feel there is no 'God' as defined by the broader Judeo-Christian belief system; that isn't to say I consider it impossible for any other gods to exist. But Yahweh? Heck, no. No chance whatsoever - unless it's far different from how they've defined it in the bible and the supporting material.

I do not believe the earth is billions of years old, but hey, i could be wrong.

Why not? The only reasons not to are religious. Would you trust the bible if it said the sky was really green, even though your eyes tell you it's blue? To people who understand, doubting the age of the earth is like saying the sky is green.

There are things other than blind make belief that draw people to trust in God.

But that is true of every religion - but all religions cannot be true. They can, however, all be false.

Just because you do not agree with it, does not mean people are stupid.

True. But the reasons people give for believing in what we don't agree with often are. And they are treated as such.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 7, 2009 1:02 AM

"The problem of putting a big bang there is that it answers nothing....". So maybe that reasoning should not stop you from considering a creator.

Except that the big bang does answer something: It explains the many observations made by astronomers of the behavior of the stars and galaxies expanding away from each other; it explains the temperature of the universe; it explains many, many cosmological observations.

You seem to think that science brings all answers and that you should not except or consider things outside of science. But without philosophy we would not have found the scientific method.

True, but it was a very skeptical philosophy; a philosophy that specifically rejected religious dogma insisted on evidence, repeated and observed and argued over, and sometimes, falsified by new observations.

Science is not God, stop treating it like it were.

No one is, nor is anyone suggesting that it ought to be.

I would suggest that you stop using science as an excuse not to consider God.

It is exactly because science is not permitted to examine God that science rejects God. And I mean "permitted" in several senses, there: If God exists, he isn't allowing himself to be examined; if he doesn't exist, there is nothing to examine, and it is the broader philosophy of science which does not permit examining the nonexistent.

If God offered any evidence for his existence, science would certainly examine it.

Posted by: Bachalon | January 7, 2009 1:05 AM

Danny M wrote:

I do think the earth is older than most church people say, and I do think that it is younger than most other people suggest.

The problem is that you are wrong. What do you know that thousands of geologists, the people who spend their working lives studying that sort of thing, don't?

You seem to think that science brings all answers and that you should not except or consider things outside of science.

Do you even know what science is? It's not some body of conclusions to picked over and assembled into whatever picture you want.

It's a method of knowing, of finding out about the world around us. The best method, as a matter of fact, for weeding out the false.

But without philosophy we would not have found the scientific method. I mean really, think about it. Science is not God, stop treating it like it were.

Sorry, who does this? Yes, a lot of people hold the scientific method in deep respect, but who actually worships it?

It has it's place. I would suggest that you stop using science as an excuse not to consider God.

Nice equivocation there. Do you have a real suggestion? Is your god really that weak?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 7, 2009 1:06 AM

CRAP! I last looked in at #258. That's a lot of back reading.

I'm baking cherry & pumpkin pies today... damn trolls only love the smell of batshit.

Posted by: Kel | January 7, 2009 1:18 AM

Don't make the mistake of thinking the choice is between Yahweh and nihilism. Just remember how many other concepts for the divine there have been throughout history. Everything from tribal animalism, to the pantheistic eastern religions, to spirit worship, to polytheism, to monotheism, to deism, to alien worship - all with many different forms of the divine to each one. Jesus is just one of thousands upon thousands of concepts of god that have come and gone in the history of the earth.

And if we are doing nothing more than speculating on the unknown, what about the infinite possibilities of what could lie beyond this reality. It could be an infinite number of types of possibilities that humans will never even conceptualise, and infinite combinations inside each of those infinite possibilities. The simple fact remains that we don't know and in almost all likelihood we can't know.

So what makes one belief more likely than another? If the choice is between an infinite number of combinations and the material, I'll take the material as I know the material exists. The only thing that will make Jesus any more plausible than the karmic wheel is (and here comes that dreaded word) evidence. Otherwise you are just stabbing in the dark, and stabbing in a particular direction because you see other people stabbing in that direction and relying on one of them to know something.

Posted by: Danny M | January 7, 2009 2:21 AM

Owlmirror "It is exactly because science is not permitted to examine God that science rejects God."--- The issue isn't that SCIENCE rejects or accepts God. When i ask why someone does not consider a creator, they say science is not permitted to examine God. But we did not use science to examine morals. We didn't want people to steal from us and murder us so we said these things were wrong--according to an earlier post, very abreviated and in my own words. We used no scientific method to come to that conclusion, but yet we all still agree to it. People are ok with examining things without using the scientific method until you say the word creator. Why?
Owlmirror "Except that the big bang does answer something: It explains the many observations made by astronomers of the behavior of the stars and galaxies expanding away from each other; it explains the temperature of the universe; it explains many, many cosmological observations."--- And you see, this is 'one' of the reasons i like to talk with people i disagree with. thank you.
Bachalon---- I had to look that word up. 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says.
Do you think i am trying to deceive you?
Kel---Even though i do believe it's Jesus. I am talking about a creator, period.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 7, 2009 2:48 AM

But we did not use science to examine morals. We didn't want people to steal from us and murder us so we said these things were wrong--according to an earlier post, very abreviated and in my own words. We used no scientific method to come to that conclusion, but yet we all still agree to it.

Actually, we do use science for this - the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Cultural Anthropology are social sciences which deal with how humans - including humans from different cultures, past and present, behave. A significant proportion of our understanding of morals and ethics (and their development) comes from studies in those areas.

When i ask why someone does not consider a creator, they say science is not permitted to examine God.

Who says this? Anyone who tells you that is a liar. If there was any evidence for God (or any other deity for that matter) it would be considered. But everything that was once considered evidence for supernatural beings (e.g. the sun, the moon, stars, comets, rain, thunder, lightning, earthquakes, the diversity of life on this planet) has been found to have a completely natural explanation.

People are ok with examining things without using the scientific method until you say the word creator. Why?

But the things that are being examined outside of science are abstract concepts. They can't have physical impact on the world. If your God exists as he is defined by your religion (Christianity) then he affects the physical world by answering prayers and performing miracles. This would leave evidence we can find. But no-one's found any.

Do you think i am trying to deceive you?

Probably not intentionally. But doing what you're doing gives us that impression that you are, since deception is standard behaviour for creationists and we're unsure whether you're genuine or not.

Posted by: John Morales | January 7, 2009 2:57 AM

Danny M:

Which ever one it was that laughed at my spelling, i'm insecure enough without having some rude person make fun of me

Posted by: Danny M | January 7, 2009 3:05 AM

Wowbagger--- (Post 349 "It is exactly because science is not permitted to examine God that science rejects God.")---
"doing what i'm doing".--- I do not understand how having a conversation about a creator would lead someone to think i was trying to deceive them. My main point is (that the possibility of a creator is worth examining. And just because you can not use the scientific method on something does not make it a worthless examination.)
All the branches of science you brought up about morality, i do not think those have anything to do with why people don't look for God. It always seems to come down to the scientific method as to why they do not consider a creator. But the method does not explain math either i dont think. (My opinion is that the method is solid. The method is correct but incomplete.)

Posted by: Matt | January 7, 2009 3:05 AM

But we did not use science to examine morals. We didn't want people to steal from us and murder us so we said these things were wrong--according to an earlier post, very abreviated and in my own words. We used no scientific method to come to that conclusion, but yet we all still agree to it. People are ok with examining things without using the scientific method until you say the word creator. Why?

That is dishonest. Whether or not we *should* do something is completely different from a question of existence. This is the difference between an 'is' and an 'ought'. So yes, morals are arrived at by consensus, without evidence or the scientific method. This is because they aren't 'true' in any meaningful sense. They are simply what people have agreed upon to regulate society. Also in this category are things that are poorly defined, like

"My dad is the coolest!!"

or

"The church is great!!"

Anything that actually exists can be shown to be so by the scientific method, though only with some uncertainty. Add onto this that your god is unfalsifiable, and your position is indefensible. But questions of falsifiability aside, you haven't given any evidence at all.

So stop conflating moral arguments with existential ones, and give the damn evidence...or admit you are wrong.

Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009 3:18 AM

Matt-- you want me to admit i am wrong, or admit that there is no creator. Nothing any body has written here would make me be able to say that there is no God. Yet i just ask you to consider. I don't want you to admit nothing to me, it would be wortless except to my ego. Things written here may give me the ability to say there may not be a god, but not tha there is no god. You want me to prove something that you yourself would say can't be proven even if it were so? That is what's dishonest. And i would think it would be obvious to an atheist that it's dishonest.
Me on the other hand, i just want you to consider a creator. To me, one can not consider a creator without considering no creator. And one can not consider the non existence of a creator without considering the existence of one.

Posted by: Kel | January 7, 2009 3:23 AM

Me on the other hand, i just want you to consider a creator. To me, one can not consider a creator without considering no creator.

Posted by: Janine, Bitter Friend | January 7, 2009 3:25 AM

Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009

Me on the other hand, i just want you to consider a creator.

Most of us have considered one and passed on it. Please ask us something new. Something that other like you have not demanded of us dozens of times.

Posted by: John Morales | January 7, 2009 3:32 AM

Danny M:

[1] Nothing any body has written here would make me be able to say that there is no God. [2] Yet i just ask you to consider. [3] I don't want you to admit nothing to me, it would be wortless except to my ego. [4] Things written here may give me the ability to say there may not be a god, but not tha there is no god. [5] You want me to prove something that you yourself would say can't be proven even if it were so?

--
* well, for certain varieties of god. The Christian one has contradictory attributes claimed for it, so that particular one can't exist.

Posted by: Bachalon | January 7, 2009 3:38 AM

Danny M wrote:

It cant be tested.

That's the thing: a lack of conclusive disproof doesn't make belief and non belief equally reasonable.

If someone came to you talking about Allah in the same way you're talking about Jesus to us, would that convince you? If not, why do you think that would work on us?

Whenever religion has made a claim about the world, that's almost always turned out to be false. Genesis? False. The Flood? False. It's track record is pretty slim which is one of the reasons why you'll find a lot of skepticism here.

Posted by: Matt | January 7, 2009 3:46 AM

Like, if i prayed for an earthquake, and it happened, that still does not prove a God.

Not proof by itself, no. But why don't you give a demonstration, and I promise you, if you could consistently display this power, and only when you pray to *your* god, I will be paying a lot more attention. Positive evidence builds up over time to convince us, whereas a disproof is only required once. Now lets look at the history: Christianity has had 2000 years, give or take, and yet cannot produce one miracle except in anecdotal situations. Every other religion also has these same anecdotal miracles, and frankly, they aren't convincing. It also doesn't have any other evidence amounting to more than

'some guy who has a similar name to our holy man was a rabbi, at one point.'

Since supposedly miracles do occur(according to the bible), and since I'm guessing you think you have your own evidence, lay it on the table. I promise I wont laugh.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 7, 2009 3:48 AM

Me on the other hand, i just want you to consider a creator. To me, one can not consider a creator without considering no creator. And one can not consider the non existence of a creator without considering the existence of one.

I assure you, I have indeed considered a creator, and that is why I am now an atheist.

Let me see if I can convey this...

It comes down to definitions, perhaps: How is God defined?

Some definitions of God exclude God being a person. This includes the idea that God is love (an impersonal emotion), or God is the universe and everything in it, with no consciousness or personality (Pantheism), or God is some specific thing (the sun is God; the earth is God; etc)

I would have no problem acknowledging that the thing that is being called "God" exists (the universe is real; the sun is real; the earth is real; etc), but I find this to be an equivocation: First of all, if God is not a person, then worship is pointless; second of all, many (not all) religions do have God as a person. Finally, calling an acknowledged impersonal thing "God" is merely a matter of personal preference. Since my preference does not run that way, I am free to reject that particular definition.

If God is defined as being a person, we run into a problem similar to that first posed by Epicurus centuries before Jesus was allegedly born:

All examples of persons that we know of communicate directly, unless they suffer from some defect. Either they are not aware that someone is trying to communicate with them, or they don't know how to respond (defects of knowledge), or they cannot communicate for physical reasons (defects of power), or they are bad-tempered or indifferent, and refuse to communicate solely because of mood or temperament (defects of benevolence.

God does not communicate directly. Thus, even if God exists, God has one or more of the defects listed above... and I think that I am justified in saying that a defective being, even if it were indeed real, is not what I would call God.

Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009 4:03 AM

When i was a kid someone showed me differnet places in the bible (promises etc.) It was about money and faith. I feel like it has been used selfishly..but.. I did what it said, and asked God for 20 dollars, and thanked Him for it every day...to myself and no one knew. And about a week later i was coming out of court and stopped at the traffic signal. Someone from a car or two behind me got out of his car and come to my window and put a twenty dollar bill in my shirt pocket and so i had money for the offering plate. I told you it sounds like B.S but i swear to God it happened.
Then a little time passed and i got really screwed up on drugs. I really did try to stop but i COULDN'T. He saved me.
You see, to me i have proof. But it serves for no proof when it comes to telling other people.
But anyway there is stuff in the bible that Jesus said and i just acted on it and He did it.
Then the drugs thing... it was God.
good night everyone, i'll be back in a day or so, but i gotta sleep for work.

Posted by: Hi Danny | January 7, 2009 4:16 AM

atheist------Loosing? I thought we were all winning. No one enjoys argument anymore unless they think they are winning. I know what the score is.

That's great, Danny, tell yourself that.

I'm trying to be nice here, and I'm telling you as kindly as possible: you are making no sense.

It's possible that I could be converted to Christianity. It's possible! I acknowledge this possibility. I don't know what my future holds.

But I know this for sure: I could never be converted to Christianity by someone who doesn't understand why it's obvious that the big bang happened, or who doesn't understand how we know for certain that the Earth is billions of years old, or who doesn't understand the incontrovertible evidence that humans evolved from other apes.

When you say you doubt these things, you are telling me something, very clearly. You are saying "I cannot be bothered to do serious research, and I cannot be bothered to learn about the truths of the natural world around me." It is reasonable for me to assume, then, that you don't know what you're talking about when you say "Jesus is God."

Take my advice.

Or don't, it's your loss.

Posted by: Matt | January 7, 2009 4:21 AM

I still have my vodka test running. It's now been weeks since I set the challenge for God to turn my water into vodka... it's been several weeks and nothing has happened.

Be patient. The free energy change associated with that kind of miracle is a bit high. God has to couple it to the oxidation of souls in hell to make it a favorable reaction.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 7, 2009 4:28 AM

Someone from a car or two behind me got out of his car and come to my window and put a twenty dollar bill in my shirt pocket and so i had money for the offering plate. I told you it sounds like B.S but i swear to God it happened. Then a little time passed and i got really screwed up on drugs. I really did try to stop but i COULDN'T. He saved me. You see, to me i have proof. But it serves for no proof when it comes to telling other people.

My uncle was diagnosed with lung cancer early 2008. Almost everybody on my mom's side of the family, including the in-laws prayed really, REALLY hard that he would somehow recover. He passed away December 31, 2008, at approx. 10:00 am.

Your story of the 20-dollar bill is just coincidence, not an act of God. The addiction, probably, but I'd credit that more to your personal willpower, or perhaps a simple transference of the addiction to another medium, such as religion.

Posted by: Hi Danny | January 7, 2009 5:21 AM

Actually someone randomly gave me money once too. It was just a dollar. And I hadn't been praying for it. Maybe they had just watched Pay It Forward for all I know. I didn't ask.

This is not unheard of.

And if you look like you're low on cash, like you haven't eaten lately, or like you don't have a place to stay, it's rather more likely to happen.

I know because I've given money, unsolicited, to people who looked like they could use it more than me. Only once have I given out a $20 bill, when I was a little bit drunk and had just watched a movie about poverty. I doubt that guy was you, Danny. But it happens.

Posted by: DaveL | January 7, 2009 6:47 AM

Danny,

How sad it must be to live in a world where it's easier to believe there's an invisible being in the sky doing Jedi Mind Tricks for your benefit than it is to believe a stranger would care.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 7, 2009 7:04 AM

Reviewing this thread, we have an interesting contrast between three among the theist approaches to arguing with atheists regularly encountered on Pharyngula:

The slippery: Facilis, who claims there is evidence for God, but carefully avoids saying what it is.

The obnoxious liar: Brute. (Yes, I realise he's toned it down, but until he admits and apologises for the early lies, I will continue to regard him with contempt.)

The "Well I think this and you think that": danny m, who is neither slippery nor obnoxious, but does not seem to realise there is a difference between informed and uninformed opinions.

All these are common types; rarest of all is the informed, intelligent and straghtforward, although they do appear occasionally.

Posted by: Aquaria | January 7, 2009 8:14 AM

So Danny thinks prayer works.

When I was out of work in the early 90s and couldn't find a decent job to save my life, I didn't pray for a good job, I pounded pavement (and worked some crap jobs) until I got one. Or I would have waited out the economy. You see, that's the difference between me and a godbot: I knew why jobs were scarce: The economy sucked, for a lot of reasons. It had nothing to do with some invisible space god. I also knew that sitting on my ass and praying for a job would have me living on the streets.

When I finally understood that I'm a sufferer of chronic depression, I didn't pray for a cure. I went to the doctor, and got on anti-depressants. An imaginary friend on a cloud didn't give me depression because he had some fucked up notion of "testing" me; depression runs through both sides of my family. I just happen to live in a time when science has figured out some ways to combat it.

When my brother complained about a health problem, I didn't pray for it to go away. I urged him to go to the doctor, and it turned out he had cancer. He's alive now, thanks to science, not some imaginary sky friend. If it weren't for millions of hours of research by thousands of scientists, he might have been diagnosed with another kind of cancer, and treated in a way that would have been detrimental to his form of it. Prayer didn't--and couldn't--save him. It was science that saved him.

When I was divorced, I didn't pray for a boyfriend or new husband. I hung out with friends, and got active in things I cared about. Eventually, I met someone I could tolerate having around more often than not. Okay, so it was love and all that, too, but there are lots of people I love that I can bear only in small doses (Hi, Mom).

Over and over again, wishful thinking, aka prayer, did jack shit to improve my life or get me anything I wanted, or help those I love. Getting off my ass and doing something was a lot more reliable.

Posted by: SEF | January 7, 2009 8:25 AM

the cracker is a gift (forget the fictitious strings)

Posted by: SEF | January 7, 2009 8:32 AM

@ Danny M #363:

It always seems to come down to the scientific method as to why they do not consider a creator.

One deconvert recently posting here, Dan Silverman, didn't have science playing any part in his deconversion. The whole of reality is against religions being true. Science is merely the icing on the cake for finding out what really is true instead. There were atheists long before there was a decent quantity and quality of science. Eg The Bible mentions their existence - though only in order to dishonestly attack them of course.

You've already admitted your profound ignorance on many things. What you're being dishonest about is in pretending your ignorance doesn't matter when it does matter (and in other circumstances you would be fully aware of that, eg in consulting/hiring any sort of expert). If you took the trouble to educate yourself, you'd find out why your "proof" of god by coincidence and confirmation bias is no such thing. You're apparently the sort of person who could convince themselves they had a viable gambling system too. It's those and other very common human flaws which have led you to believe foolishly in stuff which isn't true, eg your god.

Posted by: Brute | January 7, 2009 9:10 AM

Good morning. Where were we.........

Interesting case study............

I find it rather curious that the majority of the participants in this thread passionately defend their belief system, (a belief in nothing?).

You see, I entered your "church" (gathering place) and attacked your philosophical doctrines and many objected as strongly as the CADC, (whatever that is) has to a perceived attack on their spiritual beliefs.

Is it possible that you, (collectively), have more in common with the religious fundamentalist than you thought? You felt threatened within the confines of your "church" and lashed out?

Posted by: Matt Heath | January 7, 2009 9:30 AM

referred to him as "Barry Hussein", which only racist turds doracists turds and the relentlessly sarcastic (like at Wonkette). I'm fairly sure is the former, though.

Posted by: SEF | January 7, 2009 9:33 AM

A correction: not all intelligent and or rational people necessarily reject the idea of a creator.

Honesty is the most important factor. All religious people absolutely have to be dishonest about their religion/religiosity - the more religious, the more dishonest. That comes about because reality (and any other religion!) contradicts the religion. The most honest among the religious, such as the modern type of Unitarian who admits to merely wanting there to be a sky-daddy and doesn't claim to really know anything about its properties (and who, consequently, fails to persecute rival religionists for having different rituals) or the modern type of Buddhist (rather than the original god-believing but ignoring type), being barely religious at all.

Intelligence is what allows an honest person to work out by themselves and very quickly that religion is bogus. Education (in terms of real life as well as in academia) is what pushes a person of lesser intelligence to eventually work out that religion is bogus (possibly only when specifically directed towards the key contradictions by other people). But honesty is always essential to the process. Eg the ones who've worked out religion's bogosity but who decide to run the show for their own more immediate benefit (instead of imaginary future benefit), by still calling themselves religious, are also dishonest.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 7, 2009 9:47 AM

Brute,
"Scumbag" and "fuckwit" are purely descriptive terms in the case of a lying racist moron such as yourself.

Posted by: Don't Panic | January 7, 2009 10:15 AM

I'm confused by the "random guy gave me $20, therefore God" argument. How is that supposed to work? I mean, doesn't it violate the whole "Free Will" aspects of God's inscrutability? If he/she/it is free to muck around with one person's mind to get them to hand a stranger $20, why not go whole hog and simply twist everyone's head to "believe in (a single unified) God"? Save them all from the fiery pit and all.

Really, the concept of free will is so inviolate that this can't be done to save everyone from an eternity of torture, but to prove to one guy God is willing to make some other random person into a meat puppet long enough to have them fork over $20?

Posted by: Rudy | January 7, 2009 10:59 AM

I said PZ's stunt was tasteless and disrespectful, people answer by saying that taste is subjective, and it was *supposed* to be disrespectful! And besides, what the folks in the congregation did, was way worse!

I'm glad that these Pharyngula folks agree with me about the Cracker affair.

Confusingly, they write as though they are arguing with me :)

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 7, 2009 11:06 AM

Rudy,
Don't be stupider than you can help. You completely ignored the context, and made clear you considered being disrespectful was a bad thing.

Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009 11:11 AM

I don't ever ask God for money, much less 20 dollars. And i asked for a week not my whole life.
And anyone that knew anything about addiction would not say that my will power saved me.
I'm just telling you that i have prayed for things and gotten them. You can pray for your vodka to overfill or whatever if you want. I have no desire to ask for that when i already know He does practical things for me.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 7, 2009 11:15 AM

You see, I entered your "church" (gathering place) and attacked your philosophical doctrines and many objected as strongly as the CADC, (whatever that is) has to a perceived attack on their spiritual beliefs.

Way not to respond to any of the contents of the criticisms. Also, you leave out the fact that you were shown to be wrong about no one criticizing Obama's religion.

Is it possible that you, (collectively), have more in common with the religious fundamentalist than you thought? You felt threatened within the confines of your "church" and lashed out?

Is it possible that your description of us it is merely projection?

Also, Blake's Law

In any discussion of atheism (skepticism, etc.), the probability that someone will compare a vocal atheist to religious fundamentalists increases to one.

As with Godwin's Law, the person who compares the atheist to a religious fundamentalist is considered to have lost the argument.

I also don't think anyone felt "threatened" by any of your comments.

I'll have to remember those two in the event I happen to debate with another 11 year old.

Sigh.... now you're complaining about insults. Are you actually going to respond to the substance of any of the comments?

Posted by: Brute | January 7, 2009 11:30 AM

Feynmaniac,

Also, you leave out the fact that you were shown to be wrong about no one criticizing Obama's religion.

I already addressed this.......

As with Godwin's Law, the person who compares the atheist to a religious fundamentalist is considered to have lost the argument.

What kind of nonsense is this? Internet use law made up by some kid in 1990? Please.....

Come on....you seem to be a rational adult. I expressed interest in your theological opinion. We are discussing the existance of God which deals with theology. Whether you like the word or not, you do possess a theological opinion.

(Stimulating discussion by the way).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 11:44 AM

Brute, either loose the attitude or go away. You are discussing nothing, just attempting to ridicule with your feeble mind.

Posted by: MH | January 7, 2009 11:49 AM

Why is it that retards can't quote properly?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 7, 2009 11:58 AM

What kind of nonsense is this? Internet use law made up by some kid in 1990? Please.....

No, it was made by Blake Stacey , and you comments add further evidence to his law.

I expressed interest in your theological opinion. We are discussing the existance of God which deals with theology. Whether you like the word or not, you do possess a theological opinion.

My theological opinion is the same as my opinion on unicorn husbandry.

Also, can you please use quotation marks in your comments to make it easier to read?

Posted by: Brute | January 7, 2009 12:04 PM

But people like yourself indicate we will rot in hell if we don't accept god/creator.

Nerd of Redhead,

I thought that you don't believe in hell, (or heaven) so why do you care what they think? Why so touchy?

I think that the New England Patriots are a wonderful football team.....maybe you don't. What does it matter?

No one is forcing you to believe in anything...... Your Atheisim is evidence of that. You're free to believe whatever you want to.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 12:13 PM

Brute, we have to put up with that shit from society as whole because we are a minority. But this this an atheist site, so godbots like yourself need to loose the attitude in order to be polite-and usually don't. And the attitude I explained is implicit in your statments. If you want to discuss, quit trying to ridicule, and ask honest questions. We will either respond to your attitude with attitude of our own, or to your honest questions with honest answers. Make up your mind and live with the consequences.

Posted by: CJO | January 7, 2009 1:27 PM

Imagine your reaction if PZ had taken the only known copy of a lost treatise on mechanics by Archimedes, and burned it. It is, after all, just a piece of paper (or parchment).

In your investigation of the context, you obviously missed the sheer density of utterly failed analogies in the comments expressing concerns similar to yours. Pray tell, what does my reaction to the wanton destruction of a priceless, unique object have to do with the disposal of a smidgen of stale cracker of no distinction and negligible value?

Go back and read more crackergate, seriously. Everything you are feebly trying to say has been said, and been shown to be bullshit.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 1:38 PM

Rudy, you have expressed your opinion. We hear you but don't, and won't, agree with you. Now, what are you options?
You can keep harping on it, and get attitude returned for your attitude,
Or, you can accept that we have heard your concerns, and it is time to move on.
Your choice.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 7, 2009 1:52 PM

Imagine your reaction if PZ had taken the only known copy of a lost treatise on mechanics by Archimedes, and burned it. It is, after all, just a piece of paper (or parchment). - Rudy

No it isn't; it contains important historical information. The cracker is just a cracker, which was intended to be destroyed. See the difference?

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 7, 2009 2:09 PM

So, it's being disrespectful the way writing cuss words on a Mormon temple would be (though not illegal that way; well, make it the sidewalk outside). - Rudy

Hey, that's a good idea! Given the Mormon lies and bigotry over Prop. 8, I think "cuss words" (what a quaint expression!) on the sidewalk outside every Mormon Temple in the world are called for.

Posted by: Rudy | January 7, 2009 2:21 PM

Knocksgoat,

Quaint indeed, I've got two kids, and I have developed a terrible habit of cleaning up my formerly colorful language :( Even the internet doesn't seem to fix it.

I strongly agree with your emotion about Prop. 8.

Posted by: Danny M | January 7, 2009 2:28 PM

And what's up with all this cracker talk? Why does anyone care that someone did something to a cracker?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 2:38 PM

Danny M, we know all about the petition. Ever hear of the Steve petition? Only signed by scientists name Steve or a reasonable variant thereof, and it backs the theory of evolution in its entirety. Guess what, the Steve petition has more signatures than yours, including Nobel Prize winners. And guess what would happen if all other scientists signed the Steve petition. The numbers would be overwheming in favor of evolution. And the list your scientists reads like a who's who of failures.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 7, 2009 2:41 PM

Uhg. Failed to proofread... again.

Posted by: StuV | January 7, 2009 2:55 PM

www.discovery.org

You must be new here.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 7, 2009 3:06 PM

That is a puzzling thing to say: if the arguments were so compelling, why not just repeat them here?

Will this cracker thing ever finish?

IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER 1000+ comments

Fresh Cracker 1500 + comments

The Great Desecration 2300 + comments

There are a few more threads with 1000+ comments dealing with this. Quite frankly I think anything that could be said has already been said multiple times.

Posted by: Danny M | January 7, 2009 3:29 PM

A thousand scientist saying something that is contradictory to what 500 scientist say does not make the thousand correct. Science is not a democracy.
As for the people having a religous axe to grind, that may or may not be. In a lot of cases I think it probably is. But I think it's true for a lot of people on the other side of the argument also. Just because someone is not willing to believe in God does not mean that he is dead wrong. Sometimes it makes a huge difference and other times it does not.
Noble prizes, they have been known to give stuff like that to dictators. I think Al Gore got something like that, a noble peace thing or something, I don't really understand what war he stopped but whatever.
All I am saying is-- You say these scientists are quacks, other people say they are not. But I am subject to ridicule for questioning the Darwinian theory for evolution? Look, I don't know who the better scientists are, but at least I see what they wrote. In my opinion, you have no scientific process without careful consideration. So when I hear people mock these scientist because they stated what they stated, it makes me question why.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 7, 2009 3:41 PM

erm Danny.

Watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

You may learn something. I'm crossing my fingers.

Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009 3:46 PM

What the hell is a troll?

Posted by: Steve_C | January 7, 2009 3:51 PM

Danny. You contradict yourself without even knowing you've done it.

A scientist standing up and saying "I believe in Unicorns." doesn't make it a scientific idea. It's not even worth noting.

A scientist standing up and saying I've found a herd of Unicorns on a small island in the North Sea... could be.

Posted by: ctygesen | January 7, 2009 3:52 PM

@DannyM

And that tells me something.

And you're telling us that you don't understand science. Start with Behe. Read what scientists not-on-the-DI-list have said about his work.

Read the transcripts of the Dover trial where Behe admitted on the stand that he didn't follow current scientific developments.

Read the peer reviewed studies in reputable journals that have demonstrated the soundness of Intelligent Design.

Oh wait...

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 7, 2009 3:52 PM

A thousand scientist saying something that is contradictory to what 500 scientist say does not make the thousand correct. Science is not a democracy.

Right, exactly. Science is based on the evidence.

Evolutionary biology has the evidence. Evolutionary biology wins.

All I am saying is-- You say these scientists are quacks, other people say they are not. But I am subject to ridicule for questioning the Darwinian theory for evolution? Look, I don't know who the better scientists are, but at least I see what they wrote. In my opinion, you have no scientific process without careful consideration.

Again, right. Evolutionary biology follows the scientific process; those who "question" (or more accurately, deny) evolution don't. How hard is this to understand?

You wrote: "I see what the ["ID" proponents] wrote".

Did they write anything based on evidence?

Probably the first thing you did was to try and see what was wrong with the scientist. More than likely you never stopped and thought, hmm, I wonder if there is anything to it.

Oh, I've wondered if there was something to it. And then I see what the argument is, and it's just an argument from ignorance; a flat-out denial based on assertion.

And those are the good arguments. Some of them are even dumber than that.

Posted by: Kel | January 7, 2009 3:54 PM

On that list
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

A thousand scientist saying something that is contradictory to what 500 scientist say does not make the thousand correct. Science is not a democracy.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 7, 2009 3:59 PM

Danny. Just watch the video I posted the link to. Watch the whole thing. THEN comeback. It addresses everything you've brought up, essentially.

Scientists signing a letter isn't science. It's propaganda. You're right science isn't a democracy. Letters mean nothing. Research is everything. They have NONE. ID isn't science.

Posted by: Danny M | January 7, 2009 4:01 PM

Actually, some people here have written some thoughtfull replies, so my last post i guess doesn't apply to all of you.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 7, 2009 4:04 PM

They say, "Hey, let's look at darwinian evolution again." And your response is, "No! No I will not look at the darwinian theory again to examine it, because there is no proof for creation." That really does not make sense.

No Danny M, sorry. Its the fact they aren't bringing anything new to the table. It is the same rehashed and debunked canards over and over. Yes sometimes there is a new twist (IC for example) but its the same thing over and over again with no actual empiricism involved. There is lots of talk about the holes in the theory but they have nothing that fills those holes.

ID and creationism in many ways are just a constant attack on evolution with nothing to offer in return.

There is absolutely zero evidence that backs Creationism nor Intelligent Design, just lots of wishful thinking and hand waving.

If they want to be taken seriously

and I'm repeating myself here

THEY NEED TO OFFER UP RESEARCH THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS THE CURRENTLY ACCEPTED RESEARCH TO BE WRONG. And beyond that, disproving a date, or a small thing in DNA or other minutia does not take down the whole theory as it is supported by multiple fields with hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers.

Posted by: danny m | January 7, 2009 4:14 PM

Cool, a real live scientist in the room!

There was a time when only a few people believed in evolution. The amount of people in the evolution group doesn't impress me.
That reminds me of the church people who told me not to cuss cause it's wrong. I say, "Why is it wrong, where does the bible say that?" They say, "Every preacher will tell you it's wrong. They can't all be wrong."
Yeah right, that's what everyone thought when the catholics tried to rule the world in the dark ages. They told everyone what the bible said and didn't permit people to see for themselves. Majority means crap to me.
I'll look at that thing but not right now. I'm going to hang with my wife. You guys take it easy. She says no more blogging for now. See you later and just say no to trolling.

Posted by: StuV | January 7, 2009 4:47 PM

There was a time when only a few people believed in evolution. The amount of people in the evolution group doesn't impress me.

Fine. Forget the numbers. What about the EVIDENCE?

Posted by: Kevin Camp | January 7, 2009 5:08 PM

Kel: It was acquired under false pretenses because when you receive communion, you receive it with the understanding that it is to be consumed immediately and not taken out of the church. Therefore, to receive communion and to not consume it immediately, but to instead take it out of the church would be acquiring it under false pretenses regardless of what you plan to do with it afterwards. Suppose someone came to me and said "Hey, here's a FSM poster that PZ Myers gave me. When he gave it to me he said it was very important to him, but that I could have it if I would take good care of it. You can have it and I don't care what you do with it." Would it be right for me to tear it up and throw it in the trash in front of a bunch of people? I don't think so. It wouldn't be illegal and it wouldn't be persecuting him, but it wouldn't be the ethical thing to do either.

Also, in case I wasn't clear:
I don't think that Christians are "persecuted" in this country any more than I think white men are discriminated against.
I do consider what Prof. Myers did Christianity bashing.
I don't think he should go to jail or receive threats for it.
I don't think anyone is a terrible person if they don't believe in God.
I do wish we could all just get along.

Posted by: CJO | January 7, 2009 5:22 PM

It was acquired under false pretenses because when you receive communion, you receive it with the understanding that it is to be consumed immediately and not taken out of the church.

Dealt with. Repeatedly and devastatingly. Why are we still going over the same damn arguments, again?

What you are getting at with that "with the understanding" is some kind of implied contract. No such implication is made during the service. No attempt is made on the part of the church to convey this understanding, nor to confirm that it has been conveyed. The weirdo in the dress gives you a cracker. Full stop. End of episode.

Posted by: CJO | January 7, 2009 5:37 PM

Suppose someone came to me and said "Hey, here's a FSM poster that PZ Myers gave me. When he gave it to me he said it was very important to him, but that I could have it if I would take good care of it. You can have it and I don't care what you do with it." Would it be right for me to tear it up and throw it in the trash in front of a bunch of people? I don't think so. It wouldn't be illegal and it wouldn't be persecuting him, but it wouldn't be the ethical thing to do either.

Sure. Let's also suppose that PZ was running some kind of cephalopod worshipping scheme involving dispensing large numbers of these posters. And let's further suppose that someone attended one of his rallies, and rolled his poster up to take home, but found out quickly that folding, not rolling, is the proper way to prepare the Noodly Image for transport. And let's keep on going and suppose that this person was attacked at the rally for rolling the poster, and later faced threats from many of PZ's Tentacled Minions, including the threat of sanction from a secular institution to which he or she belonged. Are you still so utterly certain that it would be unethical for you to damage --say, by rolling it up-- one of these posters in a demonstration of solidarity with this person who had been so abused?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 7, 2009 5:54 PM

CJO, #479

I'd add to your analogy: it was expected that the first person given the FSM poster by PZ was, his or herself, meant to tear it up in front of PZ after being given it - the crackers, after all, are given to a person to be destroyed - and instead chose not to destroy the poster but take it away and then give it to someone else.

A part of me is concerned that all this analogy talk is going to bring our dear friend Pete Rooke out of the woodwork...

Posted by: Bachalon | January 7, 2009 6:05 PM

Danny,

The difference between a mob majority and a scientific majority is that scientists have evidence.

By the way, did you still want to chat?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 6:55 PM

I see Kevin is still concerned about the cracker. Here's a task for you Kevin. There were 30,000+ posts during and after Crackergate about those freaking bits of ground grain. Read them all, as some of us did at the time, and then come back to us and show us how your argument hasn't been gone over hundreds of times already. With the same result. Your concern is misplaced.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 7, 2009 8:08 PM

I have a feeling it will come up again.

Posted by: SC, OM | January 7, 2009 8:22 PM

For anyone new, not to be missed - Owlmirror's LOLCATIFIED condensed crackergate drama:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php#comment-980385

Posted by: Kevin Camp | January 7, 2009 11:43 PM

Kel: I don't push my religion on anyone. I would, however, like a little bit of mutual respect between those with differing beliefs. And yes, I know it was acquired under false pretenses. It doesn't matter that the person who took it cherished it at the time. That was not part of the deal when they received it. Let's say you invited a friend over. When he got there, you invited him to help himself to a few beers. So he grabs a six pack out of the cooler and immediately leaves, taking it with him to a party at someone elses house. What would your impression of him be?

As for the giving up eating beef. No I wouldn't. But I wouldn't take a cow from a Hindu temple, slaughter it and eat it. I wouldn't demand beef in a primarily Hindu city or invite a friend over who was Hindu and serve a nice rare steak to them.

Posted by: Sondra | January 7, 2009 11:57 PM

I think this one is the worst...BONUS INSTANCE: Senator Grassley's Abuse of Power

US Senator Grassley, a member of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has demanded the financial records of a number of very prominent conservative, evangelical broadcast ministries. The demand was based on Grassley's concern that these ministries are not spending their contributions properly. Grassley has admitted his concerns were in part driven by media accounts.

Apparently they are in favor of the "prosperity ministers" who steal millions of dollars from their donors and buy enormous mansions, fleets of airplanes for themselves and put their entire extended families on the the payroll.

Shame on Grassley for getting between these good christians and their dollars.

Posted by: Twin-Skies | January 8, 2009 1:15 AM

@ Kel #466

Either a troll or a very well-designed Poe

Posted by: SEF | January 8, 2009 3:48 AM

If they had wanted to ban him from attending

And that's because the Catholic church is (a) evil and (b) desperate for members. They can't bear to lose anyone whom they can pretend counts as a member. They repeatedly lie about owning people who never joined in their own right or who subsequently left. Its deceitfulness is probably only matched by that of the Mormons (who pretend they've "converted" people long after death).

Posted by: scottb | January 8, 2009 9:21 AM

Kevin,

Go back and read it again (and again if you have to) because you missed the death threats and actual attempts to have him expelled from school.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 8, 2009 10:46 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378081,00.html

learn to use google. that took 10 seconds.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 11:12 AM

@Crypticlife

you really need to answer my two-MONTH old comment on your blog answering your "counter-challenge" where I hypothesize Jesus' twin brother as an explanation for the alleged "resurrection". I dashed off the response in only a few minutes and had forgotten I'd made it.
1) You have provided no evidence for the existece of this identical twin
2)James,Jesus' brother the skeptic was one of the witnesses to the appearances. He would have been aware of Jesus' twin brother.
3)Is explanatorily insufficient to explain the empty tomb.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 11:25 AM

@Owlmirror

God does not communicate directly. Thus, even if God exists, God has one or more of the defects listed above... and I think that I am justified in saying that a defective being, even if it were indeed real, is not what I would call God.

Posted by: Kevin Camp | January 8, 2009 11:30 AM

Steve: I google "florida student eucharist" and read through the first half dozen or so hits. I checked out the link but the video is blocked at work. I will check it out when I get home. Despite the fact that Fox news is a bastion of upstanding journalism, I would like to see the video myself.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 8, 2009 11:34 AM

Google this.

Wafer Student Death Threats

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 11:39 AM

@Wowbagger

Atheism is purely the absence of belief in gods.

Epic fail.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the definition from the Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy- "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.".

'Atheism' means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 11:48 AM

Facilis, atheists disbelieve in god because there is no evidence for god. You want us to consider god? Show us some physical evidence that can be confirmed by scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as of divine origin. Otherwise, we see you as a woomeister.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2009 12:38 PM

How are you sure God is not communicating directly and you are just the defective one who cant hear him?

That's the stupidest, most disingenuous question ever.

I know that God isn't communicating directly with me because I'm not deaf, not blind, and not stupid — and if I were "defective" it would be God's responsibility to figure out how to adjust for the defect and initiate communication.

Human beings communicate in many ways. Besides speech and writing, we've invented sign language for the deaf, and Braille for the blind, and touch-signing for the deaf-blind. We've invented fire signals, drum signals, flag semaphores, Morse code, the Internet, and entire sciences revolving around various types of communication. We are practically defined by our ability to communicate.

You believe in a God that can create universes. If this God existed, how hard would it be for him to make air vibrate in sound waves and just fucking talk?

Posted by: WRMartin | January 8, 2009 1:00 PM

Danny M @367:

Yet i just ask you to consider

To me, one can not consider a creator without considering no creator. And one can not consider the non existence of a creator without considering the existence of one.

Besides, why must this magical creator dude be your version of a Christian god? Why can't the magical universe and all that's in it be created by a woman or a wombat? A 10-story tall wombat with laser eyes and razor sharp claws. I want me a 100' tall wombat god. People can still bow down to its all-powerful village smoting abilities and my wombat god can talk too so it can use its laser eyes to set bushes on fire and then talk parents into killing their sons. Fully interchangeable with your Christian god and my god can kill yours. So there.


Here's a simple test (compliments of my mom - Hi mom!):
Spit in one hand and pray into the other. Then let us know which one filled up first.

@451:

A thousand scientist saying something that is contradictory to what 500 scientist say does not make the thousand correct. Science is not a democracy.

@455:

What the hell is a troll?

In summary Danny M, you may be implying you are curious but your curiosity is being vastly overwhelmed by your attempts at witnessing to us. You may earn 0.01 martyr points from your nearest house of worship for your presence here but that's about all. The onus is on you to learn something from outside your comfort zone and that means far, far, far away from the Discovery Institute, and Answers in Genesis, and even farther from Vox Day.

@462:

They say,
"Hey, let's look at darwinian evolution again."
And your response is,
"No! No I will not look at the darwinian theory again to examine it, because there is no proof for creation."
That really does not make sense.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 1:26 PM

@KnockGoats
I go quote notable philosophical resources as to the definition of "atheism", and you quote sites like wikipedia.
I've got nothing to say.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 8, 2009 1:31 PM

Good. Maybe you'll stop babbling Facilis.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | January 8, 2009 1:37 PM

facilis the brainless godbot @ #505:

How are you sure God is not communicating directly and you are just the defective one who cant hear him?

If your imaginary god (who you claim is all-powerful and created me) knows I am unable to hear him, and chooses not to correct this defect, then he obviously is not at all interested in actually communicating with me. If your imaginary god is not interested in communicating with me, I see no reason to listen for a message from a being I have no evidence of which he has no intent of delivering.

By the way, Facilis, how can YOU be sure Anubis, Bokonon, Coyote, Dionysius, Elvis Presley, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ganesh, Hera, Isis, John Frum, Kali, Loki, Marduk, Nerull, Odin, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Sun Myung Moon, Tiamat, Urd, Vishnu, Wee Jas, Xemnas, Yu Yevon, and Zeus are not communicating directly and YOU are just the defective one who can't hear them?

Posted by: CJO | January 8, 2009 1:45 PM

This standard must be objective(independent of human minds and opinions)

What stupid sophistry. "Sure, let's talk about the existence of god. After you accept the existence of god."

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 2:01 PM

Facilis, your not producing evidence tells me you know how weak your evidence is if examined by skeptical scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers.

Posted by: WRMartin | January 8, 2009 2:05 PM

OK Facilis we give up. Fine, your personal version of the Christian god created everything.
We still don't care. Now will you go away?

Posted by: Steve_C | January 8, 2009 2:14 PM

Facilis. What evidence?

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 2:25 PM

But Redhead, my evidence for the existence of God is he existence of logic.God's nature is perfectly rational,immaterial, universal, objective and absolute and is the necessary pre-condition of the existence of this rational,immaterial, universal, objective and absolute standard of logic and rationality you and I appeal to in following God's command to reason(Isaiah 1:18 ). The very fact that all of us here are sitting here trying to be logical and rational proves the existence of God, Redhead.

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 8, 2009 2:35 PM

Facilis@519,

I know you have nothing to say, but I have. Since your sources do not correspond to the way the word "atheism" is actually used, they're wrong (or at least incomplete), however "notable" you may think they are: the meaning of words is determined by their use.

My disbelief in gods in general is the same as my disbelief in leprachauns: no reason whatsoever to believe they exist, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. The God of doctrinally orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, is a logical impossibility, so I know it doesn't exist. I couldn't give a shit whether you think that makes me an atheist or not.

Now, how about answering my #510? Notice that I'm not trying to impose definitions on you, I'm asking you to elucidate your beliefs and claims. That's the way to pursue a substantive argument, but then you're not interested in that, are you?

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 8, 2009 2:46 PM

Facilis@533,
You have not even attempted to present an argument that the existence of logic (actually, of course, there are many logics, some of which are incompatible with each other) proves the existence of God. You have simply asserted that it does. That will not do. Indeed since you think your "proof" is valid, and I think that it is not, by your own lights your premise that there is a universally agreed standard of logic and rationality is false.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2009 3:19 PM

God's nature is perfectly rational,immaterial, universal, objective and absolute

and [God's nature] is the necessary pre-condition of the existence of this rational,immaterial, universal, objective and absolute standard of logic and rationality

Your irrational and false arguments are self-refuting.

Watch out! There are bears coming for you! Big scary child-murdering bears!

you and I appeal to in following God's command to reason(Isaiah 1:18 ).

Isaiah 1:18 : Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Sorry, but "Sin" is not reason; neither is sin "reversing" itself.

The very fact that all of us here are sitting here trying to be logical and rational proves the existence of God.

Actually, God hates rationality and loves stupidity.

1 Corinthians 1:19-23 : For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Posted by: facilis | January 8, 2009 4:02 PM

Actually, God hates rationality and loves stupidity.

1 Corinthians 1:19-23 : For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 8, 2009 4:05 PM

The Greek Gods aren't immaterial or unchanging, like God (and logic) are.

A burning bush is immaterial? And how exactly did the Romans manage to nail an immaterial thing to a cross?

Posted by: Patricia, OM | January 8, 2009 4:08 PM

Facilis you abysmal idiot. The fact that we are all sitting here proves nothing more than our parents at some point had sex.

Posted by: facilis | January 8, 2009 4:10 PM

@KnockGoats

You have not even attempted to present an argument that the existence of logic actually, of course, there are many logics, some of which are incompatible with each other) proves the existence of God.

You have simply asserted that it does. That will not do. Indeed since you think your "proof" is valid, and I think that it is not, by your own lights your premise that there is a universally agreed standard of logic and rationality is false.

Posted by: Nered of Redhead | January 8, 2009 4:20 PM

Facilis the ballless, you keep trying to get us to commit something to you so you can attempt to control the argument. Ain't going to happen. Why don't you just put your evidence out there like a man with balls, and see what happens.

I know what will happen. Laughter and derision, because you have nothing that we haven't seen last week, last month, or last year. Failed then. Will fail again.

Posted by: CJO | January 8, 2009 4:25 PM

Try to account for the laws of logic apart from God and I will show you.

We can't account for something when we don't even know what it is. Tell you what, why don't you lay out these mysterious laws, and then we can talk about it. As it stands, you're basically asking for someone to account for an aspect of god, without god. Surely you can see that this kind of sophistry is less than impressive.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | January 8, 2009 4:30 PM

Facilis, explain how your idiotic claim that the existence of logic proves the existence of your imaginary god fails to work equally well for The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Blurdiggledyflorp, or admit that your argument is a load of shit. Note that your previous dodge that the Greek gods "aren't immaterial or unchanging" won't work because all of MY examples ARE immaterial and unchanging, because I said so. :P

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 4:31 PM

Facilis, do you honestly think that humans are the only species with the capacity to use logic? How do you account for problem solving in animals?

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 4:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P8Nwl7FAJk&NR=1
This is so cool

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 4:37 PM

Facilis, total fail. No physical evidence. Hahahahahahahah. What an idiot. hahahahahahah

Posted by: phantomreader42 | January 8, 2009 4:39 PM

Danny, here's my logic:

As there is not the slightest speck of evidence of any god, there is no reason whatsoever to believe in any god.

As, to date, everyone who has claimed to have evidence for a god has been delusional or lying, there is still no reason whatsoever to believe in any god.

You have a problem with that, show some damn evidence of your imaginary friend, or shut up.

Posted by: CJO | January 8, 2009 4:42 PM

In order to reason they use laws of logic.

Yes, I understand that this is the linchpin of your argument, such as it is. But I dispute the claim, and it's an as yet unargued assertion. So, you'll either have to leave it out of your premises or you'll have to offer some justification for taking it as given.

Posted by: Alyson | January 8, 2009 4:44 PM

The only system of logic that is the same in every culture is math. There is no "intelligent agent" required to account for the existence of math; it simply exists.

Posted by: CJO | January 8, 2009 4:50 PM

For clarity, and since Facilis is obviously hung up on this "laws of logic" business, I will offer the counter-claim in plain language.

The supposed laws you're talking about are descriptive, that is they depend on there being tinking beings with the capacity for logical reasoning. The "laws" are derived from the activity, not vice versa; they're a formal description of it, and the activity could proceed just fine (and presumably once did) if the "laws" had never been formalized.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 8, 2009 4:56 PM

danny m,

Some people here have used logic such as this. "If the universe can be explained without a God, then there is no God." or, "You can not prove the existence of God because there is no physical proof. If He existed, then there would be evidence of His presence."

Nobody has made these arguments. The arguments are

(1) If the universe can be explained without a God then there is no good reason to believe in God, anymore than there is an invisible flying Spaghetti monster.

(2) A God REGULARLY INTERVENING IN HUMAN AFFAIRS would leave physical evidence of his/her/its presence. Why has faciliis yet to show us this physical evidence? Now if you believe in some sort of deistic God that created the universe and has done zilch since than this doesn't apply.

"If there are questions about the universe that we do not have answers to, and if we do not even know all the questions about the universe that need to be answered, then we do not yet know if the universe can exist without a Creator pantheon of Greek gods."

See how that makes just as much sense?

Posted by: facilis | January 8, 2009 5:00 PM

There is no "intelligent agent" required to account for the existence of math; it simply exists.

Posted by: Steve_C | January 8, 2009 5:04 PM

But Facilis doesn't exactly understand logic.

This would be entertaining if it weren't so painful.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 5:07 PM

I do believe there is evidence for God, there has to be. People need to stop dodging the questions about evidence, and call the scientist up and demand they look for it. I do NOT agreee that the existence of a Creator can not be proven, or have evidence found in its behalf.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2009 5:08 PM

God here is talking about the foolish secularist "reason" that refuses to acknowlege God as the source of rationality.

Except that it isn't God talking. It's Paul of Tarsus, and Isaiah.

Who the hell are these mere mortals to say that secularist reason is foolish? Who are you to do so?

Why does God need these people long dead, and morons like you living now, to say stupid and logically incoherent things about him? If God is real, let him speak for himself, right now.

God has indeed revealed to us how foolish it is in his word.

He indeed revealed how foolish his word is. Don't forget what Paul is talking about: Christ crucified as the source of salvation. He states that it is indeed foolish, and that God was well pleased to do something so foolish.

It is also proven by all the atheists here unable to account for the invariant, objective ,universal laws of logic in their worldview.

If the laws if logic are God, then God is not the one spoken on in Christian bible, because that God hates the laws of logic.

Posted by: danny m | January 8, 2009 5:13 PM

Nerd of Redhead: Apparently there is still a misunderstanding. I was not talking to atheist when I wrote about dodging the question of evidence. It is easy to assume that I suppose.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 8, 2009 5:18 PM

Facilis,

I'm enjoying watching you dance. An epic flail if you will...

Shorter facilis: 'My god exists because I say so, and the same logic can't apply to any other posited gods because I say it can't.'

Yeah, that's going to work.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2009 5:22 PM

"If there are questions about the universe that we do not have answers to, and if we do not even know all the questions about the universe that need to be answered, then we do not yet know if the universe can exist without a Creator." with this addition, "nor do we yet know if there is or is not any physical evidence.".

And what do you mean by "a Creator"? And intelligent being, or an unthinking cause?

If "creator" means "an intelligent being", I repeat my insistence that since all intelligent beings that we know of communicate, this intelligent being should communicate as well.

If "creator" means "unthinking cause", well, then that's a question of cosmology, which is being hashed out by cosmologists.

Posted by: danny m | January 8, 2009 5:41 PM

phantomreader42: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not write another FU(*&ng word in my direction. You willfully ignorant sutpid person who is only on this site to fight, so much so that he does not even take the time to see that I was challenging 'believers' to stop dodging questions. I have tried over and over and over and over again to explain that I have nothing against you, but guess what, i was wrong. I hope that you never write another word to me you piece of crap.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 5:49 PM

danny, I'm getting confused here (busy day at work). Are you, or are you not, saying that there is evidence for god out there, and it is up to scientists to find it for you?

It might help if you used blockquotes for quoting people
[blockquote]material to be quoted[/blockquote], except use the right and left arrows (shift comma and shift period)in place of the right and left brackets.

Posted by: WRMartin | January 8, 2009 5:51 PM

Looks like we have found DannyM's kryptonite: reality.
Careful there Danny. Reality is all that confusing and obnoxious stuff going on around you while you try to justify your god(s).

Danny, you're a liar. You aren't searching for truth. You are searching for Truth^(tm). And you are witnessing here (and FAILING). You earn 0.001 martyr points for your presence here.

P.S. The word is spelled "FUCKING" - it contains letters from the alphabet. Please use it correctly. Most of the rest of us are adults here. We can take it. You, on the other hand, appear to still be in diapers and using training wheels.

PhantomReader42 has a thrid digit in his IQ that you don't.

Who cares about a Flying spaghetti monster GOD?

Posted by: facilis | January 8, 2009 5:54 PM

I'm enjoying watching you dance. An epic flail if you will...

Posted by: danny m | January 8, 2009 6:01 PM

Owlmirror: Thank you.
I wrote earlier today about evidence, and dark matter and energy. Post 568. but please don't get caught up on the dark matter and energy thing too much.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 8, 2009 6:03 PM

The only epic flail I see here si the inability of atheists to account for rationality and logic. Its so funny because people were earlier claiming to be logical and rational.

And yet you still haven't explained why logic and rationality can only exist if it was specifically Yahweh, the broader Judeo-Christian deity, who created the universe.

How is this not explained by, say, Zeus creating the universe? That would make far more sense, considering the Greeks were far more concerned with the study of formal logic than the Isralites.

Posted by: Matt Heath | January 8, 2009 6:04 PM

The only epic flail I see here si the inability of atheists to account for rationality and logic. Its so funny because people were earlier claiming to be logical and rational.

What I've never seen is a theistic explanation of how rationality or logic came about. It is claimed that a god with these properties along with consciousness and even emotion simply was. I would like an account of how such a thing came to be.

Posted by: WRMartin | January 8, 2009 6:06 PM

DannyM @592:

I am saying that, under the assumption of a Creator, then there would have to be evidence. Because I do believe He is involved. Am I saying that someone has found it, no. It is out there. I think it is important to look.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 8, 2009 6:16 PM

danny m,

I do not agree that we know yet that the universe can be explained without a God. Since we do not know the answers to all questions, or even know everything that needs to be asked. There could be questions that exist that have only one working answer-- Creator.

When Laplace met Napoleon the emperor asked him 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace responded 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.' ('I had no need of that hypothesis.'). To this day we have yet to need that hypothesis.

There could be a question that has only one working answer - an invisible Spaghetti monster. There's no reason to believe that. Simply not being able to disprove things is NOT a strong argument. You could say that same thing about God, fairies, leprechauns, Aztec gods, etc. etc.

Please do not narrow this down to Christianity. Although I believe in Jesus, I am only talking about a Creator. In the future maybe we can discuss Jesus if you want to, but for now I would like to stick with Creator.

Where did I mention Jesus? All I mentioned was a God intervening in human affairs. This covers many religion - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
The only time I can see I alluded to Jesus was in #543 and I was talking to facilis.

First of all I am talking about searching for evidence, searching for a Creator. I am not even talking about believing or trusting in Him.

People HAVE been searching for physical evidence for God for centuries. Discovering such a thing would be a theistic scientists' wet dream. If there were indisputable physical evidence I think everyone here would change there mind. Yet this search has produced nothing.

There is a big difference. Who cares about a Flying spaghetti monster. Can't you see how people would be more concerned with one than the other.

Yes, maybe people are more concerned about one over the other, but there is just as much reason to believe in the existence of one as the other.

Posted by: WRMartin | January 8, 2009 6:17 PM

This is difficult to keep up without blowing away too many brain cells so on my way out I have these addenda for DannyM:
In light of the current world economic situation there is a dire need for more funds and I think you should get cracking on changing lead into gold.
The energy shortage is causing a bit of a kerfuffle too and I think you should get to work on those perpetual motion machines.
My hair gets messed up when I fly my kite and I want a kite that I can fly into the wind and I need you to design me one. Spring will be here soon and I really need you to get started right away.

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 6:21 PM

As for logic, we can account for logic through evolutionary measures, we can see the foundations required for logic in other creatures and our ability to do logic is completely explainable through natural processes. If the laws of logic were universal and given by Yahweh, why would Christian Europe have existed so long without the concept 0, and needed the Allah-worshippers to take the concept of 0 from the pantheists of India and import it into Europe? It seems like Brahman would be a better explanation for logic than Yahweh.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2009 6:30 PM

What could I possibly say that would convince you that I was speaking for Myself?

Well, you might, for example, provide a list of predictions of gamma-ray bursts, synchronized to GMT, for a period of about a year.

You might also provide a list of predictions of radioactive decay events in some particular radioisotope sample. Or several such lists, to several laboratories.

Closer to people's hearts, you might predict the lottery for all states in the US that have them, and/or all countries that have one, or the MD5SUM/SHA1SUM of same (if you don't want to skew the economy too much).

That wouldn't demonstrate omniscience, which I still think is logically impossible, or logically impossible to demonstrate, but it would demonstrate knowledge greater than any human has or could have.

Posted by: Zarquon | January 8, 2009 6:43 PM

What could I possibly say that would convince you that I was speaking for Myself?

You have to ask?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 6:50 PM

Ok, I wasn't wrong about I thought Danny said. Danny, science is a humanistic study. It is not a theological study. Science ignores god, and will continue to ignore god. Science will not find proof for god, that must come from theologians. Saying we should looks means nothing. Whatever is out there, science will find a natural explanation for it.

Facilis is being a typical godbot, and saying we are not responding to his logic, or rather, his illogic. It is obvious to a casual observation that he never had any evidence except his belief, and an ego the size of a small house. You don't convince people that way.

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 8, 2009 6:59 PM

What could I possibly say that would convince you that I was speaking for Myself?

You have to ask?

Occasionally, we get theists who either insist that even if God came down and manifested, we would not believe, or ask what would it take to convince us that God existed.

I think I'll point to my little list of (near)omniscience demonstrators as example criteria that I would find compelling.

Of course, there's also Kel's water-into-vodka request, which to date has not happened. With the vodka (assuming it only happened once), we would only have Kel's word that it had ever been water. I think my examples would be more general, and could theoretically shown to many, many people, or even to humanity at large.

Of course, if God was willing to turn water into vodka at anyone's request, that would be even more compelling than my examples. But that would bring us back to skewing the economy.

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 7:08 PM

Of course, there's also Kel's water-into-vodka request, which to date has not happened. With the vodka (assuming it only happened once), we would only have Kel's word that it had ever been water. I think my examples would be more general, and could theoretically shown to many, many people, or even to humanity at large.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 7:19 PM

I know by no means that the water staying water is not a disproof for God. I'm running this test purely to stop Pilty saying that we aren't asking God whether he is there.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 8, 2009 7:28 PM

There's nothing that could convince me that the god defined by the broader Judeo-Christian belief system exists - because that god is a logical contradiction; as far as I'm concerned it cannot, as they describe it, exist.

A god like Yahweh could exist, but I sincerely hope that it doesn't, because that god is a monster, in all senses of the word. That god being real would be a nightmare for all living creatures.

Should any of the conditions described by the above posters be met I suspect the god we'd be dealing with would be an entirely new entity unlike that of any of the major belief systems. But I've never been able to reconcile the idea of a creator being that demanded worship and punished its absence - let alone one that did those things while working very hard to hide its existence from those it demanded worship from.

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 7:29 PM

Bad formatting there, sorry.

Posted by: danny m | January 8, 2009 8:04 PM

Someone just sent me this on my blog.

What is science? There are several answers but the 2 below sum it up. According to encarta.msn.com/dictionary--science is:
*study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

*something studied or performed methodically: an activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method

Science derives from: French

***Encarta also offers:
blind somebody with science- to confuse or overwhelm somebody by giving an impenetrable explanation using technical terms and concepts
-----------------------------------------------------------
For science to find evidence for a Creator, then said Creator would have to have left footprints in our physical universe. Even if God is Spirit, He could still leave 'footprints' in the physical side. If He did not then no, science would not ever be able to investigate God. So MY desire for science to find evidence of God is dependent on Him being involved with the physical side of the universe, shich I am sure you already know. But I just saw that def. someone sent me....This really needs no comment I'm just talking.

Posted by: Satan | January 8, 2009 8:12 PM

Had I not created wheat and grapes and potatoes and barley and hops and yeast, and the laws governing biochemistry and distillation, you poor sad apes would not even know what vodka and wine and beer were.

Where's the gratitude, I ask?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not those same "laws of biochemistry" responsible for alcohol being addictive, and disabling and fatal in higher doses?

Just curious, here. I mean, You can't blame Me for that.

Posted by: God | January 8, 2009 8:14 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong

You're wrong.

but are not those same "laws of biochemistry" responsible for alcohol being addictive, and disabling and fatal in higher doses?

Your point being?

I mean, You can't blame Me for that.

Oh, yes I can.

Posted by: God | January 8, 2009 8:21 PM

Can You blame Me for wanting to forget?

Heh.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 8, 2009 8:41 PM

For science to find evidence for a Creator

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 8, 2009 8:58 PM

Danny,

Something to think about - science has not only found no evidence for a creator but has found much evidence for life existing without the need for a creator; it's not just one or the other, but both.

If a god does exist then it does not want us to know about it - we cannot ever prove that an infinitely powerful being isn't affecting the universe and erasing its tracks; that would be impossible. However, that isn't the god described by Judeo/Christianity; it is the god of Deism.

Should a god act in such a way that it doesn't want to be found, it would be more than a little unreasonable for it to expect that we would treat it in the way most human religions seem to think it wants to be treated - feared, sucked-up to, worshiped etc. - and certainly wouldn't bother itself with anything as insignificant as judging us on our behaviour, nor require any of the Messiah/crucifixion/resurrection nonsense, which is - when you think about it - the worst kind of illogical piffle.

Basically, there's either a non-interventionist god or no god at all.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2009 9:24 PM

What's the big FCCing deal? FCC, FCCity, FCC, FCC, FCC. Cartman is a Republican.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 10:46 PM

And yet you still haven't explained why logic and rationality can only exist if it was specifically Yahweh, the broader Judeo-Christian deity, who created the universe.

How is this not explained by, say, Zeus creating the universe? That would make far more sense, considering the Greeks were far more concerned with the study of formal logic than the Isralites.
I think we better stick to the beliefs each of us hold. We'll see between theism and atheism which better account for the objective, invariant, universal ,immaterial laws of logic and reason.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 10:48 PM

@CJO

We're not accounting for any of that, but then, you haven't provided any justification for considering logic in this way, you've merely asserted that it is.

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 10:51 PM

I think we better stick to the beliefs each of us hold.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 10:55 PM

As for logic, we can account for logic through evolutionary measures, we can see the foundations required for logic in other creatures and our ability to do logic is completely explainable through natural processes. If the laws of logic were universal and given by Yahweh, why would Christian Europe have existed so long without the concept 0, and needed the Allah-worshippers to take the concept of 0 from the pantheists of India and import it into Europe? It seems like Brahman would be a better explanation for logic than Yahweh.

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 10:57 PM

I'm not talking about how humans became rational. I'm talking aout the laws of logic and reason that held long before humans.The sun was itself and not the moon (ie the logical law of identity held) long before humans existed.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 11:04 PM

Logic doesn't need a god to create it

any more than the numbers 1, 2 etc

do or the concepts of inside and outside (eg for a set).

You haven't shown any evidence that it does, let alone evidence for a particular god.

You're incompetent or dishonest or both.

It's the semi-intelligent ones who have difficulty with it. That means you, Facilis.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 11:07 PM

Wowbagger

There's nothing that could convince me that the god defined by the broader Judeo-Christian belief system exists - because that god is a logical contradiction

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 8, 2009 11:09 PM

facilis,

I think we better stick to the beliefs each of us hold.

Why? If someone were to say "Reason proves the existence of the Greek gods" you would, I hope, realize that's absurd and begging the question. Yet that's the argument you made for God.

People frequently say "You can't disprove God" as if that's unique to God. The same can be said about the Greek gods, flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Either demonstrate that your God is more believable than a flying spaghetti monster or we will keep substitute them in place of God into your arguments to show how silly they are.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2009 11:12 PM

If reason is merely a platonic form

Ask a platonist. Why is so much civility being afforded this sophomoric fuckwit?

Posted by: Kel | January 8, 2009 11:15 PM

And for that matter, how does the truism apply to the moon? An asteroid hit the earth and broke off enough off the earth to form the moon. So the moon is the earth, but it is not the earth. For the earth 4.5 billion years ago included part of the moon that the earth of today does not include. So when the asteroid hit the earth and broke off the moon, where does that leave the identity of either? For that matter, is the moon still the moon when it's bombarded with meteorites, or is the earth still the earth when the same happens? In 5 billion years time when the sun explodes it will expand to encompass the earth, the earth and moon will be consumed under intense heat. Then the particles of the earth and the moon will be floating in space, gravity forming new objects in a new cycle of the solar system. The earth will be the moon will be the sun, will be the other planets.

And now my brain hurts.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | January 8, 2009 11:19 PM

I hold that the laws of logic and reason are the reflection of the perfectly rational,absolute, immaterial, unnchanging,timeless nature of God.

Yes, you hold it but you have yet to even try to demonstrate it. You merely asserted it.

Posted by: Facilis | January 8, 2009 11:25 PM

How does the law of identity hold true for it?

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 8, 2009 11:32 PM

The sun cannot be the sun and the moon at the same time, because they are mutually exclusive identities. That's the law of identity.

Pfft. What makes you think Sideshow Bob is bound by your puny 'rules'? If he wants the sun to be the sun and the moon at the same time then it can. He can make it the sun, the moon, a cardboard cutout of Erik Estrada, the colour aquamarine and a six-wicket haul (including a hat-trick) in the second innings of a test match against England if he wants. All at the same time.

After all, he's Sideshow Bob. He created the absolute, immaterial, invariant, universal laws of logic and reason.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2009 11:37 PM

the universe needs a logic giver but the logic giver doesn't need a logic giver and that it's simply part of the nature of the logic giver.

"You can't fool me, young man! It's turtles all the way down!"

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 8, 2009 11:40 PM

Did I say turtle? Sorry, I meant Turtle.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 9, 2009 12:04 AM

Thing is, the tripe facilis is dishing up at the moment is very different from what he's posted in the past - before he was focused on the incontrovertible fact (in his mind at least) of the crucifixion; now he's babbling on about the origins of logic.

Methinks he's been hitting a few apologists' websites for ideas and found this particularly nonsensical one - which the original author no doubt touted as 'irrefutable' - and dragged it back here imagining he'd render us dumbstruck and claim victory for Jesus.

I guess it sucks to be him.

Posted by: CJO | January 9, 2009 2:00 AM

There'd be people lining up just to operate it.

lulz. First!

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 9, 2009 2:32 AM

Oh, Kel (are you sure your name isn't Kem?), you'll get the theobots besotted with VD to again claim that whatever is commanded by God is moral. If I were accused of yer classic biblical crimes against humanity, I'd want to pin the blame on something infinitely simple and complex that was also the basis of logic that made me do it so that I could be standing on the moral high ground, high-fiving the she-bears amongst the crushed skulls of the children who had called me 'bald-pate," or I would, if I were the sort of sociopath who doesn't see anything wrong with that...

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 9, 2009 2:48 AM

Kem wrote:

And yet the perfect application of reason shows that either God has no power at all, God knows nothing, or God is not good -- or that, most parsimoniously, God is nonexistent.

No doubt facilis - should he darken our door once more - will, yet again, question whence you obtained the reason with which you infer his god's impotence, ignorance, malevolence, or nonexistence.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 9, 2009 2:59 AM

I'm having an identity crisis here!

But you can't! There's a law of identity! Our identities are mutally exclusive! As for Kem, I think that's just a misspelling of "chem," the Chinese (well, Japanese, really) fortune cookie baked into a golem as a sort of boot drive to define its identity.

Posted by: John Morales | January 9, 2009 3:03 AM

Heh, just caught up with this thread. Facilis is apparently borrowing from Clarkian presuppositionalism.

Posted by: Kel | January 9, 2009 3:23 AM

But you can't! There's a law of identity!

Posted by: SEF | January 9, 2009 5:38 AM

@ Facilis #636:

If reason is merely a platonic form , how can it govern our minds and thoughts (almost like some kind of personal agent)?

How can these platonic forms communicate themselves to us so we can be certain of these truths?

Posted by: SEF | January 9, 2009 6:04 AM

Oops - one of those brackets grabbed too much text! It should have read "your (false) claims about reason and evidence".

Posted by: SEF | January 9, 2009 6:35 AM

Indeed. A genuine "ad hominem" has to be in lieu of an argument rather than additional, quite possibly significant, information tagged onto the argument.

Unlike with defamation though, for an ad hominem it isn't actually relevant (in the definition of it) whether the "ad hominem" content is true or not. So, childishly, one could make an ad hominem attack of "You smell!" against either an unwashed or clean person (instead of making an argument against whatever they'd said).

Maybe sometime (either for amusement or instruction of the ignorant) there should be a truth-table for the various conditions on all these definitions. There might be some vacant slots in need of naming ... (although it's rather likely the most useful have already been named).

Posted by: SEF | January 9, 2009 6:55 AM

Having given this a few more moments of thought while bird-watching, I think a case could be made that a name is needed for ad hominem flattery or vacuousness, rather than merely ad hominem attacks, made in lieu of an argument. Eg for when religious people have to resort to "I'll pray for you" or similar.

Posted by: Wowbagger | January 9, 2009 6:59 AM

Maybe we need a logical fallacy flow chart.

I still think we need a dictionary link for words such as 'bigot' and 'intolerant' - it would have come in very handy during crackergate.

Posted by: Matt Heath | January 9, 2009 7:31 AM

Facilis, If you are honestly seeking to knowledge and seriously want to know what a non-foundationalist (non-Platonist, non-divine command) account of logic, I am told than Quine is the guy to look up (I confess I have not read him myself, only the précises in reference books) . If you just wish, in the interests on godbotting, to assert that no such account could exist the kindly fuck off.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 9, 2009 7:47 AM

I see deluded Facilis is still trying to shoehorn his imaginary god in somewhere. Absolute logic? Sounds like woo without need for a god. Logic was devised by man, not god. God is not needed for anything, except to satisfy idiots like Facilis. Why is he having trouble with the concept, and why his he continuing to post here about it? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by: Ken Cope | January 9, 2009 11:08 AM

Kem @680: And that should be Hebrew fortune (Japanese???)

I was ignoring Sir Pterry's derivation (Mezuzah?), having just watched a fun presentation by Jennifer 8. Lee on the origins of "Chinese" food.

Happy shredding!

Posted by: Owlmirror | January 9, 2009 12:30 PM

Re: Clarkian presuppositionalism.

So that was the source of John Knight's rabid philosophistry!

Christianity is a coherent world-view. It is a self-consistent set of principles. Christian metaphysics do not make much sense if you start with atheist metaphysics, but the reverse is obviously true as well. To use Kuhnian language, the paradigms are incommensurable. The point is that Christian metaphysics & epistemology make sense if viewed as a complete unit.

By contrast, in my experience, other world-views run into fatal contradictions. This problem makes them unacceptable alternatives.

Posted by: Malcolm | January 11, 2009 5:00 AM

After all that weaselling by Facilis to be allowed to present a philosophical argument in place of evidence, the best he (she?)can come up with is "the existence of logic proves God." What an anticlimax.

What gets me is that facilis doesn't even bother to try to produce a logical argument to back it up.

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 7:30 AM

I'm not going to get baited by you guys. If I answer your questions about the Greek Gods and refute them you will probaly just posit another false God for me to refute and continue positing other Gods until I get frustrated/have to leave and then claim victory when I do so.
If you really are going to go down this route we should first agree that some kind of God does exist and atheism is false.
It also shows me that you guys are unable to defend atheism and have to posit a God for logic to make sense.
And I would also like to note to all those people who posit entities like Zeus,plastic Slideshow bob and FSM that these things are made of material (Sorry but spaghetti is necessarily made of material) and slideshow bob and Zeus came into existence at a point in time , much unlike the immaterial,invariant, eternal laws of logic.

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 7:37 AM

will, yet again, question whence you obtained the reason with which you infer his god's impotence, ignorance, malevolence, or nonexistence.

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 7:39 AM

@SEF

That how was a sticking point for the Platonists too.

But in your case, since you barely know any truths at all

But, tellingly, you do so on the basis of mere assertion and no evidence whatsoever.

He certainly got pi wrong

moral retardation

When you simply make up any nonsense you want without regard for truth

you are bound to contradict other falsehoods you've previously drivelled.

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 7:41 AM

@knockGoats

You have not even attempted to argue that "laws" of logic, reason and mathematics require a source

You have simply asserted that they do, and that it is God. Your failure to provide an argument simply exposes your intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

laws of logic are universally agreed in all respects
I never claimed that.I claimed they hold true for everyone, even if they disagreed (hence they are objective and universal). Do you believe the laws of logic are not universal? If so your logic does not necessarily apply to my argument.

Logic, reason and mathematics have application only when there are beings capable of formulating propositions that can be true of false, accurate or inaccurate.

So before humans existed, did the laws of logic apply or not apply?

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 7:43 AM

@Wowbagger

Methinks he's been hitting a few apologists' websites for ideas

and found this particularly nonsensical one - which the original author no doubt touted as 'irrefutable' - and dragged it back here imagining he'd render us dumbstruck and claim victory for Jesus.

I still think we need a dictionary link for words such as 'bigot' and 'intolerant' - it would have come in very handy during crackergate.

I doubt you'll get an answer to any question that hasn't already been asked by someone else on the blog/forum facilis is appropriating his arguments from - someone, obviously, who is fond of (as John Morales pointed out) Clarkian presuppositionalism.

Heck, he couldn't deal with the assertion that my Sideshow Bob figurine was just as capable of being responsible for everything he attributed to his god;

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 11, 2009 7:45 AM

Facilis, your either put up the information we ask for, like your definition of absolute logic (no claim, define it), or it's time for you to shut up and go away. You are making an ass of yourself.

Posted by: Zarquon | January 11, 2009 7:48 AM

The 'laws' of logic are just generalisations of the observed regularities of the universe. There doesn't need to be anything outside to impose this, the universe is inherently regular (but complex).

Posted by: KnockGoats | January 11, 2009 7:49 AM

Without God it would not be possible to account for anything. - Facilis

We're still waiting for you to attempt to argue this. Since science and mathematics make no mention of God, and account for a good deal, I'd be intrigued to know how you will go about it, if I didn't know you won't, because you can't.

What is the point of simply repeating your empty assertions again and again, without attempting to support them? Do you really think that mere repetition is going to convince anyone?

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 7:52 AM

It looks like I've pretty soundly refuted you guys
btw if anyone wants to see a simplified form of the argument you can visit this excellent site
http://proofthatgodexists.org/

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 11, 2009 7:54 AM

Facilis the fallacious argument: I posit god exists, therefor god exits. End of argument.

You need much, much more than that, only starting without positing god.

Posted by: Zarquon | January 11, 2009 7:57 AM

Logic supravenes God, since without logic there's nothing that can be determined about God - not even that God is the author of logic. Therefore, you stand refuted Facilis(2).

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 8:00 AM

@KnockGoats
Mathematics presupposes the existence of absolute, universal , objective, immaterial and invariant laws of mathemtics as well as the existence of absolute, universal , objective, immaterial and invariant laws of logic and reason as well as a standard of absolute truth and the uniformity of nature, none of which can be accounted for apart from God.
Science presupposes uniformity of nature ,induction as the existence of absolute, universal , objective, immaterial and invariant laws of logic and reason and a standard of absolute truth, which cannot be accountted for apart from God.
Do you think you can account forinduction and the uniformity of nature and induction?

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 8:02 AM

After all that weaselling by Facilis to be allowed to present a philosophical argument in place of evidence,

the best he (she?)can come up with is "the existence of logic proves God." What an anticlimax.

Posted by: Kel | January 11, 2009 8:05 AM

Science presupposes uniformity of nature ,induction as the existence of absolute, universal , objective, immaterial and invariant laws of logic and reason and a standard of absolute truth, which cannot be accountted for apart from God.

Posted by: Zarquon | January 11, 2009 8:07 AM

Science presupposes uniformity of nature,
induction as the existence of absolute, universal , objective, immaterial and invariant laws of logic and reason and a standard of absolute truth, which cannot be accountted for apart from God.

No, science observes a regular universe and uses mathematics, which is a language for describing patterns and regularities, to generalise observations. This doesn't require a god, or gods, that's a complete non-sequitur.

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 8:10 AM

@Kel
If you wsh to posit that logic and reason are just constants of the universe, I can argue against it if that is what you believe about logic. But that's only if it is what you believe.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 11, 2009 8:10 AM

Facilis, you haven't defined your terms, but it is not up to me to disprove you, but up to you to prove your assertions. Since you haven't sufficiently defined your terms, you aren't even up to step one

Posted by: Facilis | January 11, 2009 8:17 AM

@KnockGoats
In response to 510. "Contingent" means things that could not have been or could have been different.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | January 11, 2009 8:26 AM

It looks like I've pretty soundly refuted you guys

The reason why Dawkins called his book The God Delusion is because the goddists are deluded.

Posted by: DaveL | January 11, 2009 8:31 AM

It looks like I've pretty soundly refuted you guys