…and this is a 
Hang on; Klinghoffer is bad, but you haven't read the clever reasonings of Nancy Greenwood of Red Deer, Alberta yet. She doesn't like those atheists one bit — she's got a list of 5 horrible facts about atheists (although it could be longer, if she hadn't kindly left off the bits about baby-eating).
Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include these 'difficult to admit' points:
Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.
Personally, I only rank myself as a lesser demon.
Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can't understand suffering, and are mad at God -- so it is easier to deny there is one.
I am so confused. They've been hurt, so the can't understand suffering…wouldn't it make more sense to say they have not been hurt, so they can't understand suffering, or they have been hurt, so they can understand suffering?
Personally, I've suffered the usual losses throughout my life, but haven't been inordinately afflicted — I've actually been fairly fortunate. Her premise fails.
Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don't want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.
Wait, what wrong things do we do? Isn't it a bit much to assume all atheists are criminals?
Strangely, note that her first three items — atheists think they are god, they are mad at god, and they're afraid of god — all assume the existence of a god. This is the one basic idea these cranks have to get in their heads: atheists don't believe in gods, period. Plug that in and everything she has said so far is patent foolishness.
Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.
All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.
Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?
Ah, good old argument from invalid analogy. I have a black cat. I have a second black cat. Therefore, all cats are black. Nancy shows me a gray cat. I could say my hypothesis is false, or I could close my eyes and say it's actually a black cat and stick by my hypothesis. Which makes more sense?
She's doing the same thing. Here's a painting, it has a designer. Here's a sculpture, it has a designer. Therefore everything is designed. I show her a blade of grass…it evolved, and the individual blade grew from a seed, and no designer acted. But Nancy will simply close her eyes and declare that it was designed, anyway. Why is grass designed? Because paintings are!
And, uh, Nancy? Bees don't fly by miracle. They obey the laws of physics, none are violated. Same for vision: we know quite a bit about the physics and chemistry and biology of eyes, and there's no step where you can it's physically impossible.
Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist--but because the atheist doesn't want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.
I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I've done after I die. With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.
A little Pascal's wager to round out the list, followed by an argument from popularity. She's one big fallacy!
Some cheerful atheist in Alberta has got to introduce themselves to Nancy, because clearly she's never met one before. You might give her a primer in logic, too, because she hasn't met that before, either.
Comments
Posted by: Mike the Englishman | July 11, 2009 8:41 PM
See, that's what fundamentally unfair about life. She says a whole bunch of lying horseshit which demonizes a huge section of the world's population, but if I pushed her down a flight of stairs, I'd be the one going to jail.
Posted by: Scote | July 11, 2009 8:43 PM
"With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case."
Well, if popularity equals truth then she must be a Catholic Christian, right, since the most popular Christian sect must be right about doctrine--and, no doubt, she'll be converting to Islam if and when it becomes the the most popular religion world wide :rolleyes: ...
Posted by: David F | July 11, 2009 8:44 PM
If I don't believe in ghosts, by her logic, I am claiming to be a ghost myself. Why can I never interact with one of these nutjobs IRL so i can go off in person? Being that stupid should hurt. A lot.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 11, 2009 8:47 PM
Say what you will about the newspaper, I think they are showing great compassion in allowing the mentally retarded to have their letters published and feel like they are wearing "big person pants." Sort of like the Special Olympics of print.
Posted by: waldteufel | July 11, 2009 8:50 PM
A little primer in the English language would also help her.
Christians are so often ignorant of even elementary communications skills.
Well, at least she didn't change fonts or print colors every paragraph or so.
Posted by: Phro
|
July 11, 2009 8:50 PM
Mike: I have a feeling you're just making a joke, but, really, that's just absurd. "demonizing" people like this woman is doing is hardly on the same level as pushing someone down the stairs. Now if you had said something like "If I'd released a statement listing five reasons why theists are idiots, I'd be the one getting sued for defamation or charged with intolerance," then I'd be able to agree with you.
Posted by: Bryan Firestone
|
July 11, 2009 8:52 PM
Where is the mirror image atheists of this dumbass? Could we find someone even remotely this stupid claiming to be on our side? Has anyone?
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 11, 2009 8:54 PM
Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can't understand suffering, and are mad at God -- so it is easier to deny there is one.
Oh, good lord. We atheists are all the same and we're all damaged goods, eh? That's a stellar argument... except that I never had a break from religion (or a belief in god, for that matter)-- my parents had the good sense to raise me in a godless household.
Posted by: Phro
|
July 11, 2009 8:56 PM
Bryan:
Have you ever talked to some of the Hot Topic gummy goths who hang out in malls? Every once in a while, you'll find a kid so angry at his parents he or she starts claiming there is no god, but they do so using the most inane, bafflingly bad logic possible.
The difference here is: gummy goth TEENS still have quite a bit of learning and reflecting to do. This woman is clearly an adult...and I'm convinced she's constantly drunk...no way that logic makes sense otherwise.
Posted by: Nathan Schroeder
|
July 11, 2009 8:57 PM
"With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case."
So, Nancy, all god believers are the same? You group yourself with Muslims and Hindus? If I label Catholics as christian when talking to a baptist I am rudely told "Catholics aren't true Christians!!!"
So for statistics to be used against the nonbeliever all religion is equal but when you say how wonderful your Jesus religion is all the others are bad? How does that work?
What a twit
Posted by: Valdyr | July 11, 2009 8:58 PM
2001 census data has Red Deer, Alberta's atheist population at 26%. Maybe she's never left her house.
It's depressing and baffling that someone can age to adulthood without ever having childish beliefs like hers face challenge or scrutiny--and I thought Canada was more liberal than the U.S. This is the kind of anti-atheist argument I'd expect from a junior high-schooler in a Christian youth group... or from Jack Chick.
Posted by: Tyler | July 11, 2009 9:01 PM
"Non-belief in god while also being angry at god" sounds exactly like "believing in no gods, and pagan gods."
How long has it been since the trial of Socrates? I think this woman would actually be more productive letting the thousand monkeys whack away at her keyboard.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 11, 2009 9:03 PM
What a fucking idiot. I don't think I've ever seen a sentence so breathtakingly inane and indicative of a profound ignorance of the meaning of almost every word used as this one.
Posted by: Paulino | July 11, 2009 9:05 PM
Pity she didn't have 11 reasons... ELEVENTY!!!!1!!11!!
Posted by: Jared | July 11, 2009 9:07 PM
Jesus says if you don't believe in him, you'll burn in hell for eternity, and since all you evil atheists don't want to burn in hell for those naughty, dirty things (read:fun) you love to do, you deny that our lard and savor exists!
/sarcasm
Posted by: The Duck Man | July 11, 2009 9:09 PM
Well, I live about 4 hours away from Red Deer but I'd be a bad one to offer up as an example of your average atheist.
I'm one of those quietly angry people who take personal offense to ignorance. I'd likely end up trying to tear her throat out with my teeth.
Posted by: Ian | July 11, 2009 9:12 PM
#11: The census uses "non-religious" rather than "atheist." Further, most atheists in Alberta are still in hiding, not realizing that these people need a good chat.
This example is far too common in this province. Welcome to Jesusland North where people are complaining that the current Conservative government isn't right wing enough and they are thinking of the Wildrose Alliance Party - think Republicans and then move more to the right (Libertarians who sold out to Big Oil).
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
July 11, 2009 9:14 PM
It seems that understanding Quantum electrodynamics is a piece of cake compared to this, (what should be a simple) concept for theists to grasp.
To all theists out there, put on your dunce caps and go to the blackboard and write: Atheists do *NOT* believe in any deities or devils or ghosts or other supernatural entities!!!. Now write that one million times.
I mean sheesh, how freaking hard is it to understand this? No, I mean really!
Posted by: Recovering Catholic | July 11, 2009 9:14 PM
I saw proof of Gods existence today. A bumble bee flew by me, not just regular flying, but God powered miracle flying!
Everyone start singing;
" I'm picking up a baby bumble bee, won't my Goddy be so proud of me"
Posted by: Spanish Inquisitor | July 11, 2009 9:15 PM
This is what happens when you give a country freedom of speech. They get to say the stupidest things, and the newspaper has to print it. Well, sort of...
Lucky for the world she's in Alberta, Canada, where no one but Albertians (is that correct?)read the Red Deer Express.
And people like PZ
Posted by: Chris R | July 11, 2009 9:19 PM
"Philosophy."
Thought I'd correct you.
Posted by: Elisabeth Robson | July 11, 2009 9:20 PM
You are an atheist and you're funny. Richard Dawkins is an atheist and he's funny. Ergo, all atheists are funny!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:21 PM
Stan Rogers used to refer to Red Deer as "Dead Rear."
I'm not god. I believe in myself and if I was god, then I'd believe in god. Since I'm an atheist and don't believe in gods, then I'm not god. QED.
However, I acknowledge there are people above me. My boss is above me. My wife is superior to me in many ways. When my doctor tells me to lose 20 pounds I go on a diet, so he has authority that I recognize. For that matter, if my auto mechanic tells me my car needs new ball joints (which he did only yesterday) then I put out the money for him to install new ball joints. There are lots of people above me in one way or another.
The rest of Greenwood's arguments are equally fallacious.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
July 11, 2009 9:21 PM
It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do.
They never do any investigating. These will probably be "facts" to her for the rest of her life. Once someone who praises jesus says something to them, and they have a prayer meeting over it, it's a done deal. It'll get passed around in emails and Christian chitchat for years.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 11, 2009 9:23 PM
So the invisible finger of god holds those bumblebees up while the flapping membranes on their back are just there to trick us?
Posted by: James F | July 11, 2009 9:24 PM
Argument from Joyce Kilmer.
Posted by: Jon | July 11, 2009 9:24 PM
Urrrgh. I'm getting so tired of wanting to apologize for the rest of Canada. I'd like to say that us Torontonians are slightly better, but we've still got the church of Scientology smack dab in the middle of downtown.
Anyways, back to plotting the untimely demise of Gary Goodyear...
Posted by: Craig | July 11, 2009 9:26 PM
I live in Edmonton, and following Bert Russell, define myself as atheist or agnostic depending on the listener. I know loads of cheerful atheists here. On the other hand, I would be really surprised to find 26% of Red Deer being atheist; they voted ~75% Conservative in the last election.
As for the Wild Rose party, though, I wish more power to them. With our first-past-the-post election rules, and divided (Liberal/NDP/Green) liberal parties, we could really use a crazy right-wing party to divide the right-wing vote in Alberta. I'm getting really tired of hearing about more and more cuts to health care from the stupid provincial government.
Posted by: Casz | July 11, 2009 9:28 PM
Hey Duck Man I live about 4 hours away from Red Deer and also take personal offence to ignorance so perhaps you are the average atheist for around here;)
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 11, 2009 9:29 PM
Understanding how bees fly was a long-standing puzzle for physics, but the question has been answered. I always thought, however, that this saying was a bit weird. Like Heinlein's cat "Pixel" not knowing that it couldn't walk through walls, so it did. I never understood what made the "bees don't know that they can't fly, but they do it anyway" thing was so inspirational anyway. Penguins don't know that they can't fly, and they don't. Are they blind to mystery and thereby lesser beings than bees?
And how the hell is it "impossible" for our eyes to see? Not knowing how something that works works, doesn't mean that it is violating any laws of physics, it just means that not all laws of physics are well understood. Never mind that we do understand how vision works. I just don't know how someone can be so ignorant. Something to do with Romans 1:22, I guess.
Posted by: Nils Ross | July 11, 2009 9:30 PM
How boring. These people are making it all too easy, aren't they?
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 11, 2009 9:34 PM
I find it difficult to take seriously people who use firstly, secondly, thirdly, etc. We can add Nancy to the pile of evidence that such people are goofy.
Posted by: donna | July 11, 2009 9:36 PM
I love how these people worry more about what might happen after they are dead (which no one can know for sure) than what happens while they are alive or how they treat others who don't share their belief system.
Posted by: Doug
|
July 11, 2009 9:36 PM
Every painting has a designer, every tree has a designer. So if I create a painting of a tree and put it in a forest would a creationist be able to distinguish which is merely a painting of a tree and which is a real tree? Certainly, because the painting isn't natural.
I think it was a scientist who invented that fake rock you hide your house key in. No creationist could possibly think there is such a thing as a fake rock, that would be like believing that people have the same power as gods to make rocks.
Can creationists ever stop being stupid?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 11, 2009 9:37 PM
Stupid. Just plain stupid.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:39 PM
Put me down for Demiurge. Same great divine taste, 1/3 less calories than your regular god.
Now that you mention it, I have noticed a suspicious tendency among many atheists to think of human beings as people, consequently judging humans on things like actions and moral character, rather than things like birthright. What's up with that? *peers intently*
I know, crazy, huh? It's like they're people or something. Those nutty atheists!
My understanding: periodic suffering is a normal and unavoidable part of existence, a thing about which we often times have no choice but to experience. What we do have a choice about is how we react to those things that try us from time to time. One option: enter into a relationship with a force/object/being for which there is no evidence of existence. Another option: grieve, cope, keep living, enjoy the time you have, give something good back to the larger society around you.
Hard to get mad at something I don't believe in. I'll try though. Gimme a sec to work up some steam.
*ahem*
Damned incompetent crew of the Znutar! If they'd taken proper precautions when they landed on that planet and done some basic biological study, they never would've brought the AGTs on board in the first place! To say nothing of the damned mascot trying to warn 'em, the ignorant space-faring xenomorphs! And then trying to fend the slimy bastards off with fire extinguishers and cannisters of Zgworts! It's embarrassing! And now we're out of Zgworts, fer cryin' out loud!
. . . yeah, not really feeling it*
All this time, I thought I wasn't denying there was a god. I just thought that I was getting on with my life while waiting for the evidence of a god to come in, especially after having spent years (and no doubt this will come as a surprise to our esteemed Nancy Greenwood) as a believer. So far, no evidence, so might as well get some stuff done.
I know, right? It's like atheists would rather understand and accept responsibility for their own actions, rather than jockey with some supernatural force for which there is no evidence in a kind of cosmic morality plea-bargain! LULZ and stuff!
*sigh*
Pascal's Wager nonsense aside, I must admit that I would rather be accountable to myself, the people I love, and the society in which I participate for everything I've done while I live.
No kings,
Robert
*Besides, I liked that game.
Posted by: peter | July 11, 2009 9:41 PM
Unfortunately, my daughter, having been raised non god bothering, has chosen to reside in "gods" country of red deer, alta.
I hope she survives this traumatic experience of being surrounded by mostly religious and obvious idiots.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 9:41 PM
Makes me want to slice up her brain, put it under a microscope,and see if we can find out what went so terribly wrong in there.
I mean, seriously, even for a stupid person, this sort of nonsense is quite an achievement.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:41 PM
Firstly, that's a silly argument against personal preference in writing.
Secondly, it shows you have a disorderly mind.
Thirdly, there is no thirdly.
Posted by: donna | July 11, 2009 9:42 PM
My son when he was five asked a clerk how the cash register made change and dispensed it to the change dispenser. The clerk tried to give him a half-assed story about how little fairies were inside handing out the change. My son stamped his foot, got mad and said, "No, that is a machine, and I want to know how it WORKS!"
See, it isn't hard to get kids to distinguish reality from fantasy stories about invisible sky gods and fairies. It is a shame many adults don't get this.
Posted by: Jewbacca, minor demon of The Fortress of Indifference | July 11, 2009 9:43 PM
Give yourself some credit, PZ. You might not be a god or even a demigod, but you're at least demonic middle management.
Hmm... well, I suppose I've been through some rough shit* in my life. Unfortunately for Nancy Greenwood, that was all loooooong after I realized I didn't believe in
Santa Clausgod.Apparently she doesn't get out much WRT the arts. Two words: found art.
and I'm convinced she's constantly drunk...no way that logic makes sense otherwise
On behalf of all drunks, I am offended by this allegation. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must return to my drunken baby-eating orgy.
* Hi, Chris! Please attribute to me, not PZ. I can't have him hogging all the fucking obscene naughty shit-talking spotlight.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:45 PM
In addition to Demiurge, mark me down for spelling fail:
"canisters" not "cannisters"
Well, that's it. No more Zgworts for me tonight!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:46 PM
this woman is completely lacks imagination and empathy. this seems to be a common problem with theists in general, that they just lack the ability to put themselves in the shoes of others. how else can you explain points 1,2,3, and 5, which are projections* rather than actual descriptions of what atheists are. Point 4 is sheer willful ignorance; another thing very common among theists.
*I suspect she made those points by asking herself "what would it take to make me, a theist, say that there is no god"
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 11, 2009 9:47 PM
I must admit that I would rather be accountable to myself, the people I love, and the society in which I participate for everything I've done while I live.
I know it's been said before, but you totally deserve an OM, Robert. I always love reading your posts!
Posted by: Sushi | July 11, 2009 9:47 PM
Oh, this is so frustrating! I hate it when I see Canadians spouting such drivel, it's not representative of the rest of us, I swear. Alberta is a hotbed of this kind of thing, I'm afraid. B.C. is a lot better when it comes to atheism, but then again we have to deal with all those frou-frou hippies...
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 9:48 PM
Why can't these people even take the time out to learn what atheism is and why people are atheists? Is it really too much to ask that people actually try to talk to us about what we believe and why instead of writing Reefer Madness-type propaganda pieces that only further serve to miseducate the public.
But no, they can't do that. That would be honest of them, that would show a desire for understanding, that would show that they strive to understand. But no, we have to listen to another Liar For JesusTM misinforming the public on something they obviously don't understand.
Posted by: Simon C. | July 11, 2009 9:57 PM
"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do."
ARRRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!
When will people finally understand that the aerodynamic APPROXIMATION for planes do NOT apply to the flight of bees, flies or any flying insect you can think of!?!
However, to even use that misconception as proof of the existence of god is even more stupid.
The laws of Physics apply to everything in the Universe. Sure we don't know all of them, and most of the ones we use are (EXTREMELY precise) approximations. However, if something exists, then it must follow the rules of the universe it exists in. Our ignorance isn't proof that reality is not real.
Of course, you could also say god created the world in 7 days and that he uses magic to make bees fly.
And you get thunderstorms when baby Jesus is sad.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 11, 2009 9:57 PM
Don't you love it when people who don't know you from a hole in the ground think they're qualified to tell you who you are without first bothering to ask?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:59 PM
Just once I'd like a theist ask me about my beliefs instead of dictating to me what my beliefs must be. I don't know how many times I've had arguments with theists on what my beliefs are compared to what he or she thinks I believe.
No, I'm not mad at god. Yes, I was a Catholic altar boy and went to Catholic schools but I was never sexually abused. No, I don't live a particularly sinful life that I think I need to hide from god. No, I'm not worry that when I die I'll have to stand in judgement before a vengeful god who'll toss me into Hell because I don't believe in it. No I don't need a creator for the universe to exist.
So, Nancy Greenwood of Red Deer, Alberta,* I don't fit into your fallacious notion of atheists. Perhaps you should learn a little about atheism before you rant about it.
*I've often wondered what Alberta would have been named if Victoria had married somebody called Fred.
Posted by: ragarth | July 11, 2009 10:00 PM
My favorite answer to pascal's wager or any of it's derivatives/spin-offs is that if god would damn an otherwise good individual to eternal suffering and punishment for something as shallow as not believing in him regardless of the evidence, then I would rather not suffer the presence of such a horrible and capricious entity and would rather in hell. Atleast there I'd have a chance of meeting some intellectual people instead of the brainless 'yes-man' zealots such a god would apparently surround himself with.
Posted by: Simon C. | July 11, 2009 10:01 PM
Oh, in my enthusiasm I almost forgot the second part of that quote :
"... It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do."
Wait, what? Where did you get that funny idea in the first place? Have you ever been to high school? Or any organised educational system?
We see with our eyes because, you know, light gets in, excites cells and that signal gets to the brain.
The impossibility of the flight of bees is a common misconception. The impossibility for the eye to see... hum... Just shows that you're dumb.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 10:01 PM
Wow, this is beyond stupid. And they let her write an article when she shows that little understanding of the world around us? Grade-A moron, no wonder she doesn't understand atheism.Posted by: Mena | July 11, 2009 10:01 PM
Do these people have any real skills, other than rote memorization? Creationists, "Conservatives", etc all seem to say the same stupid things over and over and act like they are saying something profound. Bees defy the laws of physics? WTF?
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 11, 2009 10:06 PM
@ ragarth - When people try Pascal's Wager on me, I like to point out that Pascal's favorite game was Roulette. So many possible winners, impossible to predict where to place your bet and be a winner.
Just to many ways to lose the God Game with so many religions. No thanks, I'll not play this one.
Posted by: chrisD | July 11, 2009 10:08 PM
I get what she's saying about, and partly agree with, her first point. In order to declare you know there is no god is to declare that you are omniscient, a quality of most deities, and you are thus declaring yourself god. You know, how it's impossible to prove a negative and in order to do so you must have knowledge of all things in and outside of this universe.
It does sound a bit ridiculous, though, when you substitute 'god(s)' for 'IPU(s).' You can't declare you know without a doubt certain things do not exist in this universe, or any other universe (should there be one) without some doubt. To declare you have no doubts is to declare yourself infallible in your knowledge of all things. Humanly this just isn't possible given our track record of being wrong!
Philosophically she has some grounding, but other than that, she's a dingbat on the rest of that stuff.
Posted by: spudbeach | July 11, 2009 10:10 PM
#11, #17: After looking up the stats, I accept that both of you are right.
A Statistics Canada 20% survey* from 2001 showed that 17065 out of 66565 claimed "no religion" (25.6%), but only 10 claimed to be "atheist", and only 85 claimed "agnostic". While some of those "no religions" are likely to be atheists without claiming to be, I suspect a fair number are "apatheists", people who just don't care. Unfortunately, there's not a separate slot for that.
But for this Nancy Greenwood to have so many misconceptions about atheists, she really must not be looking around very much. There are atheists in Red Deer, and she can learn from them, if she wants to.
* At http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=55822&APATH=3&METH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=56&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=0&GID=431638
Posted by: Gotchaye | July 11, 2009 10:10 PM
I think that the reason this "atheists are just in denial" thing comes up so often is that, for a particular sort of evangelical Christian, it just -can't- be true that someone could reasonably disagree with their theology. If people can do their honest best to come at the truth and come up with not-God, then their minds weren't created properly. But their minds were created properly, because God did it. We have to all be free to be believers, and only our sinfulness can lead us astray. So it's impossible for someone to disagree for non-selfish reasons. You can point out examples of decent atheists all you like, but you're not going to make much headway because this goes right to the heart of their religion.
Posted by: Reed | July 11, 2009 10:11 PM
Ah, right.Posted by: nsdeonia | July 11, 2009 10:15 PM
I just reversed one of the points and look what it becomes
Fifthly, belief is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, a theist believes in God not because God exists--but because the theist want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.
Posted by: chrisD | July 11, 2009 10:16 PM
sorry i was a bit repetitive in that last post. I've had a few too many!
Posted by: nsdeonia | July 11, 2009 10:18 PM
I just reversed one of the points and look what it becomes
Fifthly, belief is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, a theist believes in God not because God exists--but because the theist want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.
Posted by: Otto | July 11, 2009 10:20 PM
We don't need no atheist philosophy,
an atheist miracle is much more effective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfqht0LEOWQ&feature=related
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 11, 2009 10:22 PM
@ Phro #5 I'm guessing here, but I think Mike the Englishman was riffing on a famous Simpsons episode. After losing the election, Monty Burns stated:
Posted by: homostoicus | July 11, 2009 10:23 PM
I seem to be reading this kind of contradiction a lot lately.
"It's impossible to know anything about anything. But it's all perfectly clear to me."
Karen Armstrong said it this way. “God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human language”
Yes. Let's define god as something we can't possibly know anything about and then in the same breath describe his fondest hopes and desires for man kind.
Posted by: Phro
|
July 11, 2009 10:24 PM
@ Onkel @ Mike:
If that's the case, I'm really sorry. Turns out I'm an idiot after all. :)
Thanks for setting me straight.
Posted by: mikecbraun | July 11, 2009 10:25 PM
Much applause and accolades on the comments! I've been belly-laughing for the last twenty minutes. It's amazing that they publish letters from dipshits like this, but I'd like to think it's more a kind of, "See what kind of nincompoops live near you?" thing than actually respecting their (obviously not well-researched) opinion(s). More of a public service message/warning, you could say.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 11, 2009 10:27 PM
I thought I saw an atheist
Who thought that he was God;
A logical conundrum, which
I felt was rather odd.
I thought I saw an atheist,
In suffering and pain,
And angry with the God he felt
Had always been his bane.
I thought I saw an atheist,
As guilty as a thief,
Rejecting God because it was
A punitive belief.
I thought I saw an atheist
Not quite possessed of mind,
Unable to perceive that all
Creation is designed.
I thought I saw an atheist
Denying what was real,
And choosing not to wager
On the popular appeal.
I thought I saw an atheist;
I think you’ll all agree,
If this is my description,
What I really saw… was me.
Posted by: Charlie | July 11, 2009 10:27 PM
Well, I'm a theist, but I don't believe in any supernatural beings. And furthermore, I am God (so are you). I guess I don't belong in this discussion, really... but I just wanted to say that some of us theists are deeply embarassed by people like this woman, and frequently by Xians in general.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 11, 2009 10:28 PM
I was sorely tempted to make fun of Red Deer itself but how can one in good conscience make fun of an entire city, especially one containing that delightful waypoint for weary travellers on highway 2, the Donut Mill?
For what it's worth, I type this from The Amaz!ng Meeting in Las Vegas which is absolutely overrun with atheist Canucks.
Posted by: Spirula | July 11, 2009 10:37 PM
Check this out. I'll bet that thread will rocket off.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 11, 2009 10:38 PM
... denial is a strong coping mechanism
absolutely not true!
Posted by: Sirutka | July 11, 2009 10:39 PM
She's right, I can't understand how she thinks suffering is a good thing. I can't understand the reason, the merit, the good that comes with placing such a high value on suffering. Why it is a good thing to let your child die slowly and painfully when simple modern godless medicine could easy save her life ? I don't understand why these people want to suffer, want to be Job, want to be hurt and hated throughout their life. And frankly, I think I'm a better person for not understand this.Posted by: Jake | July 11, 2009 10:39 PM
not that you can trust a single thing she says, but she claims that the editor is an atheist and has been using his position to 'advertise' for atheism. she might want to consider why he would so willingly publish her 'reasoning'...the great majority of theists would be embarrassed to be associated with thinking like this. yikes.
of the numerous failures of logic in her essay, i'd like to point out one i don't see pointed out as often: the idea that atheists deny the existence of god because they don't want to be accountable for their actions. this assumes that atheist DO believe in god (false by definition) but somehow think that PRETENDING not to would excuse their actions. uh, hello? if god is there and punishing our sins, claiming not to believe in him would not allow you to escape that punishment. layers upon layers of stupid.
Posted by: SkeptoToad | July 11, 2009 10:45 PM
While I can't say I agree with anything Ms. Greenwood had to say in her appalling ignorance, I am having some difficulty understanding her appearance on Pharyngula. A quick search reveals that she is largely a non-entity compared to P.Z., an apparently anonymous person from a Canadian town that has a smaller population than most counties in New York State. Her views are similar to dozens of self-proclaimed Christians that I have talked with extensively, and other than in a local newspaper, her blathering has fallen on no other ears of note. Are there no more prominent zealots to skewer?
Posted by: alopiasmag
|
July 11, 2009 10:48 PM
WE have suffered?!?!?!?!? Most people who convert to radical evangelism (Born again christians) do so because of complications with their lives. For example, many ex-drug addicts....they drop their drug addiction, but become addicted to Jesus. Many failing marriages, instead of finding comfort within themselves believe that through the church they can maintain their life.
Personally, she makes me suffer...
Posted by: SkeptoToad | July 11, 2009 10:48 PM
While I can't say I agree with anything Ms. Greenwood had to say in her appalling ignorance, I am having some difficulty understanding her appearance on Pharyngula. A quick search reveals that she is largely a non-entity compared to P.Z., an apparently anonymous person from a Canadian town that has a smaller population than most counties in New York State. Her views are similar to dozens of self-proclaimed Christians that I have talked with extensively, and other than in a local newspaper, her blathering has fallen on no other ears of note. Are there no more prominent zealots to skewer?
Posted by: Mike | July 11, 2009 10:53 PM
Let's see. I think I'm god. But I'm mad at god, and thus myself. Plus I'm afraid of god, and thus I'm afraid of myself. Geez, I'm way more screwed up than I realized.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 11, 2009 10:54 PM
Gotchaye @57,
Well, the Bible is pretty clear on this in parts. Romans has a few good examples of the sentiment that there is no such thing as someone who doesn't believe, just god-haters who claim disbelief of what they know because... well, because. Greenwood should give that one a re-read, though, 'cause Paul (or whoever wrote the Pauline epistles) was also pretty clear that the only appropriate use for women is the sexual gratification of men (as opposed to, say, writing op-eds).
Posted by: Mobius | July 11, 2009 11:01 PM
Gee, I had no idea that I claimed to be a god, or that I was mad at God, or that I was afraid of God.
You learn something new everyday.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 11, 2009 11:05 PM
This is one of those ideas that makes theism so distasteful to me. Because God is so much more powerful than us and controls whether we live or die, that means we are obligated to get down on our knees and worship it. If we don't, then it has the right to punish and torture us for all eternity. Fucking creepy is what it is.
Posted by: Rodger T NZ
|
July 11, 2009 11:07 PM
Any chance Nancy can provide evidence that, all christian godbots are not total fucking idiots?
BTW, I am god ,biiiiiiatch.
Posted by: Patrick | July 11, 2009 11:07 PM
As bad as all that was, I'm disappointed most by the newspaper. They state right there in their contributions policy...
"We reserve the right to edit for length, taste, clarity and to eliminate inaccurate or libelous statements."
The entire piece is one big inaccurate and libelous statement, so why was it published at all?
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
July 11, 2009 11:14 PM
Cuttlefish, you are a true genius. Your rhyme and meter impress me every single time.
In other news, AGHGHGHAGAGAUGH. This is why I get so frustrated with theists. They have no conception of the null hypothesis. They start with an assumption they believe to be true (God's existence, biblical literalism, you name it), and then either deny anything which contradicts their assumption or else mold reality to fit it. The thought of changing the assumption in any way never occurs to them.
Posted by: JamesBrown | July 11, 2009 11:16 PM
"Can the atheist make a tree?"
Make A Tree - No but I have made three complete human beings. A bit better than a tree don't you think?
Oh and those three went and made 11 more and those 11 so far have made 8 more and are still going strong.
A Tree - small stuff...
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 11, 2009 11:16 PM
There should be a law of behavior that states that, whenever someone brings up the claim of how bees violate physics/aerodynamics/nature in order to fly, for whatever reason, that someone is a complete and utter idiot.
There should also be a second law that if a person, for whatever stupid reason, brings up the claim of how bees violate physics/aerodynamics/nature in order to fly in order to support whatever stupid argument he/she/it is trying to make, that person should be beaten with a frozen wahoo until senseless.
Posted by: Ambrosia | July 11, 2009 11:19 PM
Incoming nitpick:
I thought I remembered this from school, but I checked anyway:
Granted, the daughter was likely named for her father, but there were other names and other offspring.
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 11, 2009 11:20 PM
But can your spawn bear apples?Posted by: RPJ | July 11, 2009 11:22 PM
1. I would claim that I am the God of my own universe, yes. That simply means that I hold myself accountable to myself, and rely neither on ethereal spirits nor other people to define myself. I do as I wish (within reason and law, of course) simply because I will it. It's a philosophical position, rather than a physical claim of manifestation.
2. That "F" in psychology did not stand for "Fantastic". Besides, how could I be mad at something that doesn't exist? Perhaps I could invent God and take out anger on him, the way I might punch a pillow because I'm sick of waiting for my email to friggin' load after 15 minutes, though that hardly indicates that I actually believe in the existance of this deity.
3. Who wants to be accountable for the wrong things they do? If they know it's wrong, they hope they won't get caught. Theists are no better than atheists in this regard.
4. PZ hit it. I can make invalid analogies, too: Plants, animals, stars, cars, etc all get old and fall apart. A sculpture weathers and a painting fades. Therefore, God must get old and senile and fragile too. Wait, what were they all pissed at Pullman for, again?
5. Denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, a theist denies evolution not because God exists--but because the theist doesn't want evolution to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.
Why do you deny the existance of Zorky-Cork the Purple Toe Cheese Gremlin? He's really tolerant, but he absolutely HATES Abrahamic faiths. I can't describe the hell you'd be sent to here as it would break the Internet, but wouldn't it be safer to believe anything other than an Abrahamic religion? Not that I can prove Zorky-Cork's existance, but y'know, just in case?
Ohhhh, so majority makes truth? I bet that less than .01% of the world knows of your existance, Nancy. You must not exist!
Posted by: ckitching | July 11, 2009 11:36 PM
I like Arad Kedar's take on the argument from design:
http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html
I especially like the part where the watches start spooning. >:-)
Posted by: Kitanin | July 11, 2009 11:36 PM
I suspect #1 may actually be the result of a simple misunderstanding on her part. After all, in accordance with the teaches of the esteemed Doctor Venkman, if someone asks if I'm a god, I say yes.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 11, 2009 11:38 PM
Y'know, I've been mad at many people, and frustrated at many circumstances, over the years, and yet I don't deny that those people and circumstances exist. So...nope.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 11, 2009 11:44 PM
Stanton @85,
How can you say that? That's a waste of a perfectly good fish. Mmm, wahoo... *drool*
Posted by: YOMAN | July 11, 2009 11:45 PM
Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can't understand suffering, and are mad at God -- so it is easier to deny there is one. We all go through pain in life,and it is particularly offensive to me as an atheist that believers are more emotionally connected contrary to atheists who are somehow unable to grieve and are stunted.Just because religion gives you a pseudo-anodyne solution doesnt mean you are more of a human than atheists.
Posted by: YOMAN | July 11, 2009 11:48 PM
Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can't understand suffering, and are mad at God -- so it is easier to deny there is one. We all go through pain in life,and it is particularly offensive to me as an atheist that believers are more emotionally connected contrary to atheists who are somehow unable to grieve and are stunted.Just because religion gives you a pseudo-anodyne solution doesnt mean you are more of a human than atheists.
Posted by: Simon C. | July 12, 2009 12:01 AM
As a follow-up of my previous comment, here is an interesting web page dedicated to the flight of bees (explained clearly and in simple words).
http://www.ftexploring.com/askdrg/askdrgalapagos.html#Brilliant
This guy is rather funny too.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 12, 2009 12:02 AM
Hmm, well, just on the off-chance Nancy is reading this:
Well, you got it right here. You see, in my experience, most atheists actually think, which is not true of many theists, such as yourself.
Sorry, no. There are many people above me in various different ways. For example, PZ Myers is above me in knowledge of biology.
Well, actually, I haven't been particularly hurt in my life, but you kinda got it right - if God does exist, I can't understand why there is such a thing as 'suffering'. If He truly is omniscient and omnipotent, He knows this suffering goes on, and has the power to prevent it - but doesn't. To me, this suggests one of three possibilities:
1) God doesn't particularly care about humanity, contrary to the teachings of Christianity, amongst others, so doesn't regard it as any way important to intervene.
2) God's a sadistic bastard, and enjoys the suffering, so doesn't want to intervene.
3) God doesn't actually exist (or, at least, doesn't exist as an omnipotent and omniscient Sky-Daddy), so can't intervene.
Nope. Utterly wrong. You see, a thief is looking for a police officer, because he knows damn fine they DO exist - and exist to prevent him, and other criminals, from doing what they do. An atheist, by the very definition of the word 'atheist', doesn't waste his time looking for someone who doesn't exist at all.
Actually, no. The art piece, in and of itself, is 'absolute evidence' of the existence of that art piece, and nothing more. The only real reason we know art pieces are designed is through observation, either by ourselves or others, of art pieces being created, and such things as painters actually signing their paintings to indicate that they had painted it.
We have NOT found any such similar signature on 'the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains' and have NOT observed anyone making such objects.
No, mainly because any individual tree comes about the same way any other living organism does - through the reproductive processes of its species.
You're making the mistake of thinking science works in the same way as religion. In religion, the answer 'I don't know' is, basically, not allowed. In science, it merely identifies a potential new area of research. The truth of the matter is that, for a good long while, it was unknown how bees flew. In anecdotes of the 'my brother's cousin's best friend overheard this at a dinner party' type, dating back to the 1930s (if not vefore), it became widely circulated that aerodynamic engineers worked out the math and 'proved' that bees can't fly. However, the only way that this could happen is if such an engineer worked it out assuming bees wings are fixed - which they are patently not. Thanks to people researching into this particular unknown, we now have a greater understanding of how insects fly, so we now know that insect wings work VERY differently to fixed-wing aircraft, but I do not know if the precise way in which bees fly has been completely worked out.
No, how eyes see is very well understood, in fact.
God's signature on it would be nice. Or seeing God making another one, or something similar to it.
Posted by: Jim McCray | July 12, 2009 12:03 AM
Full disclosure: I am NOT an atheist- I am agnostic and think atheism to be another belief system.
Now to the meat. I linked back to the original story and what a treat!
She says that scientifically (putting the word "physics" in parentheses) bees cannot fly, but do. Also says the human eye shouldn't see, but does.
Is she really trying to suggest that these things operate by magic?
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 12, 2009 12:04 AM
Jewbacca @92,
It's one of those horrifyingly annoying petpeeves that makes you not care that you're wasting great food on an irredeemable idiot.
Posted by: kodyfrog | July 12, 2009 12:08 AM
"Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them."
Well, for one thing, as an atheist, I do have superior knowledge in the sense that I know the appropriate use of the word "then" and "than".
Posted by: YOMAN | July 12, 2009 12:11 AM
Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can't understand suffering, and are mad at God -- so it is easier to deny there is one. We all go through pain in life,and it is particularly offensive to me as an atheist that believers are more emotionally connected contrary to atheists who are somehow unable to grieve and are stunted.Just because religion gives you a pseudo-anodyne solution doesnt mean you are more of a human than atheists.
Posted by: Pharyngulette | July 12, 2009 12:17 AM
Um, Nancy? I have a medical condition that's treated by science. Without my 12-hourly medication, my heart doesn't pump "in perfect timing each and every second". In fact, it pumps so poorly I fainted on my way to work one morning and ended up in Accident & Emergency.
Does this disprove your god, or is it merely a reflection of his shoddy workmanship?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 12:17 AM
You're entitled to make that claim. But that doesn't stop you from being wrong. I also don't believe in unicorns. Is aunicornism a belief system?
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive; in fact, most - if not all - atheists admit that they would stop being atheists if something occurred to provide them with knowledge to the contrary. But that hasn't happened; ergo, atheism - to interventionist gods at least - the reasonable position.
I, for one, dislike the term 'atheist' for a number of reasons. But it's close enough.
Posted by: Ken | July 12, 2009 12:20 AM
Speaking as a Canadian from the west coast, I'd really like to apologize for Alberta in general.
They're kind of our "Dubya'ed" up little Texas province. Please carry on past Alberta and enjoy our many other, much more beautiful and generally more progressive provinces and territories. Like you, we just keep them around for the oil.
Nancy from Red Deer must be a close relative of Mike from Canmore.
Posted by: littlejohn | July 12, 2009 12:24 AM
So, we're all criminals, eh? We must be very good ones, since there are virtually none of us in prison.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 12, 2009 12:25 AM
Historically, no Christian would have said 84 percent of the world's population believes in God. On the contrary, Christian theology defined atheism as denying the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. So most people since the 1st century C.E. and the majority of people today at ATHEISTS by Christians' own statements.
From Paul onward, Christians claimed that the gods of all other religions were demons sent by Satan to lure people into damnation, and people were at fault because deep down, everyone somehow knew the reality of the Christian god. So all non-Christians were actually, deliberately choosing Satan/evil over God/good.
Today, Christians claim to be 33 percent of the world's population (I think they're probably more like 25 percent, if their church counts were honest). Some liberal Christians might extend God-worship to Jews, Mormons and Muslims, but conservative Christians in the U.S. have been caught denying this. Among their statements: "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew." "My God is bigger than your god (Allah)." The Hindu gods are "demons." Mormons are not Christians. Even some Southern Baptists don't expect to see Catholics in heaven (An Alabama Baptist survey, revealed in 1993, said only 54 percent of the people in the state were saved, a count that numerically had to exclude Catholics.)
So it's a lie, by traditional Christian theology, to claim that 84 percent of the world believes in God when Christians slaughtered or enslaved countless millions precisely on the claim that no one else believed in God.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 12:25 AM
What belief system? Atheism is the negation of theism, it's the absence of a worldview. You don't define a belief system by what it isn't, rather by what it is. Quite simply, you're wrong.Posted by: Jill | July 12, 2009 12:25 AM
I live in Calgary, not far from Red Deer,a nd am cheerful enough. Not sure if I'd want to introduce myself, though, doesn't sound like it would be pleasant...
And Albertans aren't ALL bad... I've lived here my entire life and i know some wonderful godless people. Though admittedly, we do have more nutjobs than elsewhere in the country. >.>
Posted by: Joe B | July 12, 2009 12:29 AM
Well actually, I did claim to be god once, but that was just part of a joke making fun of Pascal's wager. Making a punishment so severe and a reward so great that according to Pascal's wager, everyone should follow me.
Posted by: NC | July 12, 2009 12:31 AM
This is perfect. Letters like this save a teacher a lot of time in trying to come up with models of logical fallacies. Even students who have just learned the terms can identify at least three.
Oh, who am I kidding? A child playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey with this letter would hit one every time.
Posted by: Cam | July 12, 2009 12:39 AM
Considering the proportion of atheists in the general population, atheists make up less than 0.5% of the prison population (though these are US statistics from 1997).
Ridiculous.
She's probably never met an atheist before. I'm sure most are very honorable people.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 12, 2009 12:40 AM
"You might give her a primer in logic, too, because she hasn't met that before, either."
She needs lessons on english grammar as well. She can't even tell when to use "than" or "then".
I'm so disappointed that she left out the baby eating; that's the best part of being an atheist. Perhaps she doesn't find eating babies unusual or revolting? Would that make her a closet atheist?
I don't believe she has any original ideas; all her reasons are copied almost verbatim from the "why atheists are evil" hymn book. I wonder if the author of the hymn book would care to sue her for plagiarism?
Speaking of religious morons, ERV is being spammed by one of them on a post about RU486 so anyone who feels like doing a little moron bashing can head on over there.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 12, 2009 12:41 AM
Stanton @98,
Fair enough. But couldn't you use a tilapia or something equally mediocre?
Pharyngulette @101,
Does this disprove your god, or is it merely a reflection of his shoddy workmanship?
Intoxicated Design?
Posted by: Candidoh | July 12, 2009 12:50 AM
If bees violate the laws of physics does that mean skydude loves them more? I mean he makes us follow them =/
Posted by: Josh Pawlikowski | July 12, 2009 12:52 AM
These "arguments" are just ridiculous. Using the heart as an example of her god's supposed workmanship was certainly not the best choice- unless, for some reason, the walls of my heart were SUPPOSED to swell up and almost kill me when I was 5. (Kawasaki's disease is NOT fun, by the way.) And then there's this little gem...
"Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them."
Okay, in truth I have to give her a slight bit of credit for this one. I do in fact refuse to acknowledge that there is "anyone else" above us- particularly in the hierarchical sense she intends. As a human being, I can't imagine any species I would rather belong to, for all our flaws. Yes, PZ, that even includes being a cephalopod. :)
On a side note, as an artist of the atheist persuasion I absolutely cannot stand the argument that "paintings are created by artists, therefore god exists."
Posted by: Candidoh | July 12, 2009 12:57 AM
If bees violate the laws of physics does that mean skydude loves them more? I mean he makes us follow them =/
Posted by: mb | July 12, 2009 12:57 AM
A friend pulled the "84% believe in god" bullshit on me recently -- I told her I got used to being in the top 15% long ago.
Posted by: Love F | July 12, 2009 1:00 AM
There is a small error in proof on behalf of mr Myers. Simply stating that atheists don't belive in god does not invalidate a claim that god has something to do with us not beliving. To correctly refute her claim, it would be better to say that the first three assume that atheists belive there is a god, which is by definition absurd (cannot be constructed using a straightedge and a compass).
However, the claims are easy do refute on their own. The first fails because we do not claim we are god. The second claimcan be falsified using the two first parts of the claim.
And the third claim is accually valid, in a sense. Since non-beliving is a sin, we are criminals in that particular set of rules. However, quoting prison statistics is a good way to shoot mayor holes in the argument before tidying up with the fact that not beliving and not admitting belief are two completely different things.
Posted by: Alverant | July 12, 2009 1:04 AM
I just have to wonder if that newspaper would print a similar article about christians. Like one that says christians only believe in god because they are afraid and unable to cope with reality for example.
Posted by: Shinobi | July 12, 2009 1:07 AM
Y'know I have to say the one assumption people make about athiests that bothers me the most is that we "don't want to believe in god."
I TOTALLY want there to be a god, I want there to be a god like I want there to be real magic and I want there to be unicorns. I want people to be able to tell the future and I want to believe that I lived past lives where i was a warrior or a princess or really anything at all that would be more awesome than what I am right now. (cube monkey)
Unfortunately, reality just isn't that interesting. That's what fiction is for.
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 12, 2009 1:13 AM
Jewbacca, I'm saving my tilapia scheme for something far, far, far worse. (As in "chained up and dangling death trap" kind of worse)
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 12, 2009 1:15 AM
Balderdash! Not to say flapdoodle!
Posted by: Michael | July 12, 2009 1:20 AM
My wife, who was raised Catholic but has since rejected it for "spirituality" hit me once with the "If you don't believe in god, then you are trying to make yourself god." statement a while back. I must admit I was floored, wondering where she got such a ridiculous statement from. It wasn't until I searched richard dawkin's website further that I found it was a common criticism. Once I recovered, I believe my response was along the lines of "No, but I take full responsibility for my life."
Mind you, years ago when I was single I used to undersign my correspondence to friends as "Lost Soul & part-time demigod".
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 1:22 AM
Love F @117:
Oh?
Oh.
You miss the point; if one disbelieves in others' baseless claims that X, then X is not the reason for one's disbelief in X; rather, the reason for the disbelief is that there is no basis for belief in X.
Sorry, Love, there is no error in PZ's objection*.
--
* It's not a proof.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 1:24 AM
I am so confused. They've been hurt, so the can't understand suffering…wouldn't it make more sense to say they have not been hurt, so they can't understand suffering, or they have been hurt, so they can understand suffering?
I think she's alluding to the "problem of evil", if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, what is so different from her reasoning and the reasoning of some of yer "greater" theologlians? I don't see much! She is in much good company.
Posted by: Bryan Rowsell | July 12, 2009 1:24 AM
I am a chemistry professor at Red Deer College, and I must chime in on this thread.
Several religious colleagues of mine (who are EXTREMELY tolerant of my atheism) have admitted to me that I was the first admitted atheist they had ever met.
In addition, they remark that they were surprised at my disbelief in god becuase they thought I was a moral, upstanding person.
I will be writing a rebuttal to Ms. Greenwood very shortly. Let's hope I don't lose my job over it!
Posted by: Laborum | July 12, 2009 1:31 AM
Hopefully the paper sees fits to publish your letter, Bryan...
Posted by: Mena | July 12, 2009 1:37 AM
I am not god.
Clapton is god.
I am just getting old.
Hey look, a magic bee... [/pointing]
Posted by: MadScientist | July 12, 2009 1:37 AM
The Way of All Faith
I'm not sure if people are asking a rhetorical question when they say things like "how can anyone be this dumb" and "theists are so frustrating, how can they be like this"?
The answer is quite simple - they have no need to think or to consider any facts, they only want to BELIEVE and to be SAVED. They are often brought up with delusions but in some cases they subscribe to a delusion much later in life. These delusions include the repetition of numerous lies such as:
* denying the existence of god guarantees your place in hell
* your specific delusion is the only means by which you can be saved from hell
Over time people like to throw in their own personal delusions in addition to their core delusions and for the most part such behavior is applauded by their cult.
Since denying the existence of a cult's god or offending that god in any way is a guarantee of going to hell, people come up with all sorts of lies to be able to console themselves that they will be saved and not rot in hell like everyone else.
Let's have a look at the catlick church for example. Any developments in reproductive science which may be used to control population growth is decried as a great evil, not because it is but because saying so is perceived to be a path to salvation.
Let's have a look at a more basic issue which is common to many religions - simply denying the existence of a cult's god. Anyone who denies the existence of that god is hellbound and so a good believer must denounce such people or else be hellbound either by association or by acceptance of such ungodly people. The vapid accusations are merely a necessity for such people to feel that they have done their duty and are not hellbound. Now and then things get out of hand and these delusional people decide that they need to murder others to earn their salvation.
The short story: these people will always demonize everyone who is not part of their specific cult and indeed demonize many in their own cult for not being 'pure'. It is a psychological necessity for them; a psychological necessity which we can perhaps reduce by preventing the exposure of children to such nonsense. Children are the easiest to victimize and once indoctrinated the odds of them overcoming their cult are not very good, especially since cults pay particular attention to the penalties of not believing and actively discourage thought and science and instead teach how mindless belief can be claimed to be 'thought'. Saint Augustine, for example, wrote of how people must beware of mathematicians and their knowledge because mathematicians are in league with the devil and are all condemned by god to rot in hell. Contemporary cults tell similar lies in no uncertain terms: believing evolutionists will condemn you to hell, etc.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 12, 2009 1:40 AM
And we only keep you guys around for the weed, Ken (unless you're from Van, in which case we keep you around for the GST earned on venti-sized lattes.)
Posted by: Lsuoma | July 12, 2009 1:53 AM
Desert Son@36
So I called a bank shot into Sparks...
Posted by: Lsuoma | July 12, 2009 1:55 AM
Desert Son@36
So I called a 47-bank shot into Sparks...
Posted by: Ken | July 12, 2009 2:11 AM
Lsuoma:
I don't touch the weed, but don't worry, I'm doing my part with those Venti Latte's ... In fact I'm drinking more of them to make up for that idiot prime minister Harper from your province, who reduced the GST ... ensuring his party could re-fulfill their destiny of always creating the worst federal deficits possible
Posted by: Miranda Hale | July 12, 2009 2:27 AM
Holy shit! That's one of the most ridiculous and most poorly written "arguments" I've ever seen. But I did get a good laugh out of "Can the atheist make a tree?" for some reason.
Posted by: Evolution SWAT | July 12, 2009 2:33 AM
"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do."
Oh, the ignorance!
"With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case."
If only I could go back in time to when the earth was flat again. It would be so cool! Unfortunately, less than 50% of the people on earth believe in it today, so it's not true anymore.
But ... most people believe gods answer prayers ... hmmm...
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 12, 2009 2:38 AM
I'm not Luoma (are you sure you don't touch the weed? Maybe you should...)
Anyway, c'mon, Ken: I don't like Harper any more than you do, but if only Albertans had voted for the Cons he wouldn't be PM.
Still, have some compassion for us: believe it or not we actually elect the cream of our political crop at the federal level--we keep the most malicious of the morons here at home where they fester like sepsis.
Posted by: Ken | July 12, 2009 2:58 AM
Doh! ... Brownian, sorry for the mistaken name.
I'm just lonely ... too many friends moved to Alberta to get in on the oil / gas rush :)
Posted by: Troy
|
July 12, 2009 3:01 AM
For fuck sake, that has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard!
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 3:15 AM
"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do."
For fuck sake, that has to be the dumbest thing I ever heard!
Dumb, but even to this very day it can still be found in sermons and in self motivation guru speeches everywhere.
Posted by: Grady | July 12, 2009 3:19 AM
I would love to meet her and sit with a physics book and bible and just set her straight. Show her all her "evidence" of the divine is just elements of science she's been too busy praying to learn about. Or the various elements of the bible that are impossible.
And I'd love to at least set her straight about atheists, and explain that we don't believe we are god, we just don't believe in gods.
Although at the same time.. It would be like telling a child that there is no Santa Claus. Doesn't matter if you do convince her or not, either way one of you isn't going to be happy.
If fairness to all religions though, I can understand why they believe in god. It's sad to think that when we die that's it for us, it's the end. There's nothing after that, our bodies shutdown and rot into pieces.
It's more comforting to think that we just pass onto another place. And when you believe that, in fairness, you never get disappointed. When you die, your not alive to see you were wrong. All these people will never know the pain of seeing they were wrong.
They are betting on something happening that they will not be around to see. It's like if you bet money on your favourite football team winning after your dead. Why care? You won't be around to see it regardless, and certainly won't be around to collect the money! Why care if your kids grow up, regardless you won't be around to see them no matter what happens to them.
If the entire world dies the day after you die, it won't affect you in any way at all (unless the world was planning on trying to recover your body 1000 years later with advanced technology.. no harm in hoping right? :P)
But unfortunately, just because a lie is more comforting than the truth, doesn't mean we shouldn't know the truth. If you take that approach, it's just masking a problem.
People like this Nancy pretend like atheists are lying to themselves. Why would we lie to ourselves with a 'lie' that is more depressing than the 'truth'? An afterlife would be awesome! Being able to see everyone from your life, a heaven and all that. Being able to see that team you bet on winning from heaven. Being able to watch your loved ones from heaven and watch them grow up from a distance. Sounds f___ing awesome to me!!
But as much as I *WISH* that was real (no really, I do!), I know it's not. The same way I wish Santa was real, but I know he isn't. I wish Spiderman was real too, and that it was possible to get all those super powers from being bitten by a spider. But I'm not going to be stupid enough to go outside and stick my finger at a spider.
People like Nancy are the ones lying to themselves. They can't deal with the truth, they can't handle it. But just because they can't handle it, doesn't mean they should control our lives damnit! If she wants to believe there is an afterlife, and God, she can. But she has to face it, not everyone else is going to too, just because she wants them to.
And she certainly doesn't have the right to insult us and say such things about us, just because we don't like her fantasies. Really, I'd say she just needs to grow up! In intelligence and maturity.
(Wow, that turned out longer than I meant it too. Sorry)
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 3:21 AM
Troy,
Heh, haven't been around here long, I take it?
You must've missed out on, say, Alan Clarke at his finest.
Posted by: Grady | July 12, 2009 3:23 AM
I would love to meet her and sit with a physics book and bible and just set her straight. Show her all her "evidence" of the divine is just elements of science she's been too busy praying to learn about. Or the various elements of the bible that are impossible.
And I'd love to at least set her straight about atheists, and explain that we don't believe we are god, we just don't believe in gods.
Although at the same time.. It would be like telling a child that there is no Santa Claus. Doesn't matter if you do convince her or not, either way one of you isn't going to be happy.
If fairness to all religions though, I can understand why they believe in god. It's sad to think that when we die that's it for us, it's the end. There's nothing after that, our bodies shutdown and rot into pieces.
It's more comforting to think that we just pass onto another place. And when you believe that, in fairness, you never get disappointed. When you die, your not alive to see you were wrong. All these people will never know the pain of seeing they were wrong.
They are betting on something happening that they will not be around to see. It's like if you bet money on your favourite football team winning after your dead. Why care? You won't be around to see it regardless, and certainly won't be around to collect the money! Why care if your kids grow up, regardless you won't be around to see them no matter what happens to them.
If the entire world dies the day after you die, it won't affect you in any way at all (unless the world was planning on trying to recover your body 1000 years later with advanced technology.. no harm in hoping right? :P)
But unfortunately, just because a lie is more comforting than the truth, doesn't mean we shouldn't know the truth. If you take that approach, it's just masking a problem.
People like this Nancy pretend like atheists are lying to themselves. Why would we lie to ourselves with a 'lie' that is more depressing than the 'truth'? An afterlife would be awesome! Being able to see everyone from your life, a heaven and all that. Being able to see that team you bet on winning from heaven. Being able to watch your loved ones from heaven and watch them grow up from a distance. Sounds f___ing awesome to me!!
But as much as I *WISH* that was real (no really, I do!), I know it's not. The same way I wish Santa was real, but I know he isn't. I wish Spiderman was real too, and that it was possible to get all those super powers from being bitten by a spider. But I'm not going to be stupid enough to go outside and stick my finger at a spider.
People like Nancy are the ones lying to themselves. They can't deal with the truth, they can't handle it. But just because they can't handle it, doesn't mean they should control our lives damnit! If she wants to believe there is an afterlife, and God, she can. But she has to face it, not everyone else is going to too, just because she wants them to.
And she certainly doesn't have the right to insult us and say such things about us, just because we don't like her fantasies. Really, I'd say she just needs to grow up! In intelligence and maturity.
(Wow, that turned out longer than I meant it too. Sorry)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 3:34 AM
I always liked to use this old chestnut to argue for the awesome power of denial. Yes, it's true that bees can't fly - but the fuzzy little fuckers are plain stubborn and refuse to accept it. Perhaps they use the Douglas Adams method.
These days, of course, the best way to illustrate the power of denial is to find a young-earth creationist and show him/her a geology textbook...
Posted by: Stephen P | July 12, 2009 3:35 AM
With a bit of erroneous biology on the way. Ostriches do not put their heads in the sand.
Posted by: Wapshot Pardiggle | July 12, 2009 3:42 AM
Her first point (atheists believe that they are god) may
be a semi-metaphorical restatement of the idea that our
sapience is self-engendered--that is, over thousands of
generations, we taught ourselves how to make tools, then
better tools, then how to talk, then how to write, etc.
Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre
|
July 12, 2009 3:50 AM
She meant that we can't understand our suffering, our hurt and it is the reason why we are angry against God.
Which is stupid, of course, since it supposes in advance that God exists.
Posted by: Jim Flannery | July 12, 2009 3:51 AM
Some teacher must have humiliated the child Nancy very badly for her to hate knowledge so.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 12, 2009 3:54 AM
Why cant I think of noms de blog like that?
:-)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 4:04 AM
Don't even think about it - you don't get to change again!
Posted by: Rorschach | July 12, 2009 4:15 AM
Nah, I wont, and its pointless anyway, bastards can tell from my punctuation apparently ! :-)
Wapshot Pardiggle should pay Smoggy Batzrubble a drink I reckon !
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 12, 2009 4:17 AM
"this woman is completely lacks imagination and empathy. "
She also lacks integrity, or else she might have actually looked up that old saw about the laws of physics being against bee flight and realize that it's complete bollocks. But no, she obviously just heard it sixth hand from a friend, and that's all the fact-checking she and her praying ilk need.
I too wonder just what sorts of horrible things they imagine us atheists doing and not wanting to be "accountable" for. Eating a bacon cheeseburger on Good Friday, in my case, I guess.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 4:19 AM
Her first point (atheists believe that they are god) may
be a semi-metaphorical restatement of the idea that our
sapience is self-engendered--that is, over thousands of
generations, we taught ourselves how to make tools, then
better tools, then how to talk, then how to write, etc.
Sounds good to me. I bet she doesn't give humans credit for helping god out though. You know, for helping out the angels by inventing swords for them to carry. Or for helping out god by inventing thrones so god can have a place to sit. Unless she thinks god invented all that stuff...
Posted by: Marc Abian | July 12, 2009 5:02 AM
How does EXTREME tolerance differ from normal tolerance?
Posted by: Funkjunkie | July 12, 2009 5:04 AM
No, but blimey, you theists have been keeping awfully quiet about your remarkable ability to make trees!
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 5:18 AM
Indeed: for every individual god-belief there is, atheists are on the same side as the majority of the human population in declaring it to be untrue!
However, the atheists tend to be the subset (of that majority) doing so on the basis of real-world evidence (and the lack of it for each god-belief) and logical reasoning rather than, like theists, merely as an immature (unthinking, emotional, reactionary) denial response resulting from holding a rival god-belief.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 5:34 AM
Indeed: for every individual god-belief there is, atheists are on the same side as the majority of the human population in declaring it to be untrue!
Except for the one where theists think atheists claim that atheists are god. That one kinda complicates the statistics a little bit. Leave it to theist to pull something completely out of their "arses" and throw a wrench into the whole thing, I guess.
Posted by: Bill | July 12, 2009 5:36 AM
>
Wouldn't you gag on the taste?
Posted by: Muffin | July 12, 2009 5:38 AM
Well, she sure convinced me with her last argument, though. I think I'll go out and look for a suitable sacrifice to Odin.
Speaking of which, I should probably try to convert her, too. After all, if he doesn't exist, no harm's done by believing in him, but if he does, you'd better do so cause otherwise it's Hel for you, right?
(And yeah, I know, I got my Norse mythology all mixed up.)
Posted by: ElitistB
|
July 12, 2009 5:42 AM
I can make a tree.
I can make a tree just as well as I can make a painting, in fact.
Sure, it won't resemble the actual subject except superficially. The person in the painting won't grow, won't age, won't eat, won't be able to reproduce, and won't grow old or die in any fashion similar to a human. Similarly my tree would also not grow, age, eat, reprodouce, grow old, or die in any fashion similar to a human.
Of course, that is the primary difference between trees and paintings. On grew out of real life, from another tree, using natural laws, and the other is an artificial creation created by humans which doesn't really depict the world around it, though it may still be pretty.
Kinda like how secularism is related to theism, really. One is based in reality, and the other is theism, an artificial construction of humans which doesn't really represent the world around it. I don't think it is very pretty, though. I'm not much into art appreciation, though.
Posted by: Reynold | July 12, 2009 5:45 AM
The sad thing is: No matter how bat-crazy someone is, there's always someone worse.
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 5:45 AM
@ Jadehawk #43:
I agree that that seems to be one of their most notable underlying features and its visible consequence.
It also shows up in their claims that people would all be out raping and murdering without a scary god telling them not to do it. They evidently haven't learned that other (better) people have internalised morality, rather than just the external poor excuse for a morality of religion. Given their tendencies towards simplistic projection, this in turn suggests that they don't even have themselves as a counter-example for their claim - which is one of the scary things about such people.
The big question is whether or not it's fixable. Is much of the population inherently (genetics and early development) defective in that way; or is it something which they might be educated out of (if only to a limited extent) by greater exposure to the fact that alternatives exist. It might well not be possible to get them to routinely think for themselves; but even some measure of learning-to-the-test would be an improvement if they could then, when prodded hard, recognise the reality of the situation.
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 5:54 AM
But that's not a god-belief at all. The theists don't really believe the atheists are gods - and neither do the atheists. So, even then, the atheists are on the majority side.
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 5:54 AM
how else can you explain points 1,2,3, and 5, which are projections* rather than actual descriptions of what atheists are.
More like "usurpation". They "usurp" everything in the universe. Everything is all about their religion. Even no religion is about their religion. Somehow, some way, everythign freakin revolves around their god, it's just gotta be.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | July 12, 2009 6:03 AM
WTF is the Red Deer Express? - The Red Deer daily newspaper is the Red Deer Advocate. The Express is probably some free weekly rag that is overpriced at that.
The Bumble Bee can't fly according to physics myth comes from some Aerodynamicist doing a back of the envelope calculation at a dinner party and getting that result, leading him to wonder what wrong he assumptions he had made in his calculations.
Posted by: rincewind | July 12, 2009 6:05 AM
"All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things."
Yeah sure. He snipped his fingers and there it was... And those people laugh about the big bang theory O.o
"Can the atheist make a tree?"
YES WE CAN! *puts a cherry stone into the dirt and waits*
Actually we made quite impressive trees considering how small apples were a few thousand years ago and how big they are today.
"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do."
It's scientifically impossible for bumblebees, not bees. And it's been proven to not be impossible because bumblebees create some kind of vortex keeping them in air.
"It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do."
You are getting it all wrong. It's impossible for our eyes to have evolved through evolution cause they are so complicated. That's your argument. Oh, and no. It isn't.
"What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?"
a) I could give a crash course in nonlinear, selforganising oscillation and how one of the oldest parts of your brain triggers it. WTF, who am I kidding here X)
b) One of your gods reaching out of the sky and crashing a building or something would be pretty impressive. You know, large hand out of the clouds. Godzilla-like mayhem. Something like that would make me consider getting baptized^^
Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 6:07 AM
But that's not a god-belief at all. The theists don't really believe the atheists are gods - and neither do the atheists. So, even then, the atheists are on the majority side.
Oh okay. Leave it to atheists to deny that theists don't really believe that atheists think atheists are god, I guess. Atheism: The great river of denial.
Posted by: FlameDuck | July 12, 2009 6:11 AM
Clue time coming - last stop you. Even if the existence of a supreme being was a matter of popular vote, how do you know which supreme being not to anger?Here is the real version of Pascals wager: Since there is more than one belief system, and most of them are exclusive, there is a high probability of you betting on the wrong god. Thus the only safe bet is to bet on secular humanism, and when they day comes, if there is a god, and if he is of the kind, benevolent, forgiving New Testament variety, he will surely forgive you for not believing in the absence of evidence. On the other hand, the jealous, genocidal, maniacal tyrant of the Old Testament turns out to be the real deal you're off to Hell, but compared to that kind of god, maybe the devil isn't as bad as the bible claims.
I wouldn't bet on it. If Odin doesn't exist, the god that might exist, let's call him Bondye might disagree with your assumption that believing in Odin wasn't harmful. The only way to win Pascals wager, is not to play.Posted by: 386sx | July 12, 2009 6:14 AM
Leave it to atheists to deny that theists don't really believe that atheists think atheists are god, I guess. Atheism: The great river of denial.
SEF, I got that sentence kind of bass-backwards a little bit, but you catch my drift though, I'm sure.
Atheism: They would even deny their own selves, if they knew they wouldn't run out of atheists. But there aren't very many, so they can't.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 12, 2009 6:15 AM
A THEIST CONSIDERS HIS ATHEIST NEIGHBORS
My neighbors are both atheists,
They eat fried gods for lunch,
Their children look like demons,
And I have an awful hunch,
That they do IT with the lights on,
And they do IT more than once!
If fact I’m sure they do IT twice
A week—if not a night—
And if they’d heed my kind advice,
Then from doing IT, they’d take fright,
For the Lord above who made us,
And looks down from a great height,
Will shout, ‘You filthy fuckers!
I didn’t make the cock,
Just to keep it up a meathole.
It’s the Lord your God you mock,
When you fornicate together,
In your filthy atheist way.
Don’t imagine those nerve endings,
Are there for fun and play.
They’re for Godly sexual beings,
Who understand My Way,
Which is sex without nice feelings,
Like fucking lumps of clay.’
Still my awful atheist neighbors,
Like to bang away all night.
Working through the Kama Sutra
Until the morning light.
And while I know they’ll burn in hell
For their lifetime of delight,
Please Lord, upon my birthday,
Could we please turn on the light?
Posted by: RHM | July 12, 2009 6:15 AM
If not believing in god makes me "god", then will not believing in Xena Warrior Princess make me, Xena Warrior Princess? And if so, why hasn't it happened yet?! Because...ya know....I'd REALLY love to be Xena, kick-ass, Warrior Princess. Maybe I need to work harder on my disbelief*.
*Man, we atheists sure are a bunch of useless fuck-ups! Can't even do our disbeliefs well, if you take Ms. Greenwood at her word.
'Scuse me while I go pout, and fondle my wig and metal bustier.
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 6:21 AM
Bananas too! And sizable grains from wild grass types. And on and on ...
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2009 6:51 AM
If fairness to all religions though, I can understand why they believe in god. It's sad to think that when we die that's it for us, it's the end. There's nothing after that, our bodies shutdown and rot into pieces.
What's there to be sad about?
It's the way it is. Why get upset about something you might be able to delay, but ultimately can't change?
It's much better to deal with things head on, rather than run away from them or cower under a blanket, clutching a literal or figurative teddy bear. It smacks of heinous greed and ingratitude to whine about having so little time, when they're lucky to have any at all, and luckier still if they have the luxury to waste time running, cowering and railing against the inevitable.
Posted by: dubster | July 12, 2009 6:54 AM
Funkjunkie#153
Is 'blimey' common in American usage? I had thought it pretty much Brit/Aussie.There again I think PZ used it the other day.
Very entertaining thread, as usual.
Posted by: XD | July 12, 2009 7:11 AM
So, when Nancy Greenwood denies the existence of all of the other gods that humans have believed in, it's not because she doesn't actually believe in them, it's because she is mad at them all? That's an awful lot of 'mad'.Posted by: danstefan | July 12, 2009 7:26 AM
"With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case."
Does it mean that since the majority of the worlds population are poor we are wrong for not being?
Posted by: ElitistB
|
July 12, 2009 7:43 AM
"With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case."
I just find this annoying because it is wrong. 84% don't believe in "God", as she means the Abrahamic God. Only the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic believe in that god, and it is questionable that those three gods are even the same. Certainly the three religions can't agree on it.
From the values I have seen, Christianity is maybe 2.1 billion. Islam is 1.5 billion. Judaism is 14 million or so and the others that follow that "God" are even smaller, thus statistically non-relevant. That's 3.614 billion in total. Total of about 54% of the world. 54% of the world believes in "God", the other 46% don't believe in "God", they have other deities or no deities at all (which might as well be atheistic to these people).
Posted by: Alex Pryce | July 12, 2009 7:45 AM
I've always taken issue with the "84% of people believe in god" (Or whatever other number they've plucked out of the air). Mainly because they do not all believe in the same god. There are 4 billion non-Christians in the world, 4 billion who don't believe in the Christian God, or their particular heaven or Messiah. They are no different to atheists in Christian eyes surely, in fact they are worse as they worship false gods. But then we have atheism- it doesn't matter what god you follow now, as long as you have one. This is a terrible argument and it pisses me off. For a moment, when debating an Atheist, the religious right seem to rally on their common enemy- true hypocrisy at work.
Posted by: Zaheer | July 12, 2009 7:50 AM
I expect it's likely her fanaticism has simply been ignored by all the atheists (approximately 26%... or more?) in her life, simply because they don't want to deal with an ignoramus like her. I feel a little pity for her... when her atheist "friends" and "neighbours" see this piece of work, she's going to get a profound thrashing, however you look at it.
I should clarify, the pity described is roughly equivalent to the pity I have for the ant scurrying across my kitchen counter, before I squash it. Good riddance.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 7:53 AM
Yeah, whenever I go to a museum and admire a painting, I always say "wossname didn't paint this, it emerged from random fluctuations of the space-time continuum."
Posted by: J-Ball | July 12, 2009 7:56 AM
"...are mad at God -- so it is easier to deny there is one."
This part just blows my mind. She simply can't fathom the concept of not believing in a god. Her concept of an atheist is somebody who *does* believe in a god, but just outwardly denies that it exists.
Teh stupid. It hurts.
Posted by: Citizen Z | July 12, 2009 8:03 AM
It's funny because she wouldn't be accountable for much according to Christian theology. All she would be accountable for would be whether or not she believed in Jesus and regretted the evil she did. And this only at the time of her death. A lifetime of plundering and pillaging would be... forgiven.
Posted by: shyster | July 12, 2009 8:03 AM
I've always been a big fan of the "majority rule - a billion Chinese can't be wrong" argument. It's the reason I don't go on a boat trip (aside from the filth, bad food, disease and crime.)
I saw a map, prepared by the greatest minds of that generation. A notation identified a place in the ocean where, beyond that spot, there be dragons.
If you survived the dragons, a little farther on was the edge and you fell off.
Hell, everyone believed that and I'm not risking the chance that they might be right.
Posted by: ian | July 12, 2009 8:16 AM
It poses a bit of a conundrum, this notion of finding a cheerful atheist to confront dear Nance since the specious reasoning she exhibits is bound to knock the cheerfulness out of the merriest atheist.
Posted by: Rick R | July 12, 2009 8:29 AM
That article is Barb-grade stoopid.
A 10 megaton airburst of tard.
Posted by: Felix | July 12, 2009 8:41 AM
So, is this it? Theism has split into people like Ray Comfort (exemplified by Nancy here), and people like Plantinga?
The former torture, dismember, mutilate and generaly make such a mess of logic that anything they want to conclude can follow from stringing together nonsense.
The latter try to do the same thing without mentioning paintings.
Theism is dead and smells funny.
Posted by: Helene | July 12, 2009 8:42 AM
My first impression was, what is this woman on? I think she needs her meds adjusted.
Seriously, regarding:
"With 84% of the world's population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case."
I'd like to see where she gets her figures from - and I don't think that 84% believes in the same god. God is whatever a group imagines him/her/it to be.
I recall a time when the majority of the world's christian population believed that the earth was the center of the universe and went as far as to persecute those who believed differently. That still didn't make it true. Majority rules is not a valid argument.
Why is is that the people who are the most vocal about their faith, and so willing to damn those who don't follow blindly are the same ones who were obviously absent when their deity was allocating intelligence?
Posted by: Agathodemon | July 12, 2009 8:47 AM
J-Ball @ #179
It didn't?
Posted by: Christopher Ray | July 12, 2009 8:52 AM
Anybody else notice that people like Nancy Greenwood talk about atheists today they way people like her talked about Jews forty years ago?
Posted by: simplicio | July 12, 2009 9:04 AM
Wait, atheists don't want to be held accountable by God for the wrong things they do? As opposed to Christians who are given carte blanche for a lifetime of sin by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?! I fail to see where there is any accountability for one's actions in that.
Posted by: Jewbacca | July 12, 2009 9:09 AM
Re: 84% blah blah blah
I think I have some idea of where she gets this. Here is a decade-old Gallup survey on worldwide religiosity that puts the total of people claiming to "belong to any religious denomination" at 87% (close enough for 9 years out of date). But, unlike our
intrepidinsipid Ms. Greenwood, Gallup actually thought to consider that this might be different from belief in god and asked about that, too. How many people worldwide believe in a personal god? 45%. I'm pretty sure she didn't intend to include the 30% who believe in a "spirit or life force" -- that sounds suspiciously pagan (for fundie definitions of "pagan").Posted by: Tony | July 12, 2009 9:12 AM
Why do fundy believers have such difficulty understanding the definitions of "Facts" and "Theories"? *shakes head*
Posted by: Joe M. | July 12, 2009 9:19 AM
"You might give her a primer in logic, too, because she hasn't met that before, either." -- PZ Myers
1. Here's my nomination for the very best (at least it's MY favorite) book along these lines: Damer TE. 2001. 4th ed. "Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments." Wadsworth (Thomson Learning). 209 pp. This is such an awesome resource for university teachers and students alike that it even makes for enjoyable bedtime reading. (Okay, I'll admit it: I'm really twisted.) E.g., Professor T. Edward Damer's Introduction (p. 1) begins: "It seems as if very few people are really interested in the study of logic, because, as philosopoher Charles Peirce suggested many years ago, every person 'considers himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already'" (CS Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief").
Book url: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0534551335/ref=kinw_rke_rti_1
Look, especially, at the Table of Contents.
2. And, what's more, here's an experiment you can try at home: (a) Gently recommend this book to your favorite non-critical thinker (Nancy Greenwood would be quite a challenge; perhaps start with someone a bit less nutso). (b) Even offer to read along and discuss it with them. (c) Then stand back at a safe distance and observe what happens. EVERY time I've tried to implement this approach myself — which is what you're recommending, Dr. Myers — the target (I mean, the person I'm trying to help) goes stark-raving, foaming-at-the-mouth, mad; in fact, my significant other even threatened to rip "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" to shreds! So whereas your "give her a primer in logic" tactic will make eminent sense to most readers of this blog, it does not work in practice — in my experience — except perhaps as a litmus test for people who make no sense. So to sum up, DO procure "Attacking Faulty Reasoning," folks, because it's a fantastic, non-technical but rigorous critical-thinking resource — AND because it makes for a fascinating if depressing exercise in applied human psychology. See if your own experiments replicate my depressing results.
Posted by: Jewbacca, agent of the Gangster Computer God | July 12, 2009 9:22 AM
Christopher Ray @187,
To be honest, I've just stopped noticing that entirely. It used to get my attention, but it's such standard fundie M.O. that it just blends into the background now. But, yeah, "atheist" is the new "Jew" for the Francis E. Decs of the world.
Posted by: Matt | July 12, 2009 9:23 AM
So, since I don't believe in unicorns, does that mean that I'm mad at unicorns because of my suffering? Nancy's logic is mind-numbingly ridiculous, and not only because her projections and blanket statements where atheists are concerned. Honestly, has she even graduated high school, or was she asleep when her teacher was describing bodily functions? Oh, no - it's all held together by godly magic! Biology be damned.
How in the world do I think I'm a "god"? I think I'm a human being who simply doesn't share your religious views, Nancy. I respect my fellow citizens, including my parents, relatives, and friends. I am accountable for my own actions, particularly in the workplace and at home. I don't need a deity to keep me in check.
Posted by: Gav D | July 12, 2009 9:27 AM
Al Murray (the Pub Landlord) has proven that there IS a God, using 'reason from inside his brain':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhLTLtn8WAg
(and He's British)
Posted by: Mena | July 12, 2009 9:33 AM
Sure, I can't make a tree since I'm not a tree but when was the last time god made a watch or a 747?
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 12, 2009 9:56 AM
To refute her points:
1 Athiests claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us In fact, it would take some form of superior knowledge or experience, not readily available to me, in order to accept that a god exists. Having no claim to such a belief stems from my own lack of knowledge. I do not know god, nor do I have first hand knowledge of any world view that can support the existence of gods. I cannot believe in something i do know.
2 atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives... and therefore are mad at god of course we've all been hurt, occasionally in incomprehensible and stupid ways, in ways that have made me scream at the top of my lungs whilst driving in my car, in ways that have hurt deeply and irrevocably. but what has that got to do with whether or not there is an imaginary man living in the sky?
3 the god / police officer thing God people seem to like to use this analogy as the "angry parental law giver god whom we must not anger". which reminds me of people i know who grew up in alcoholic families, where nothing was ever certain, promises were never kept, the threat of violence was always at hand and everyone walked on eggshells all the time. i would not go seeking out any authority figure that met this description, let alone an imaginary one.
4 the painting/painter -> creation/creator analogy I love this. Of course I can make a tree. I plant a seed and wait. The illusion of creation is quite fanciful and can only be reached by analogy. I can make a painting of a tree, but a tree is not a painting. Or to paraphrase Magritte, Ceci n'est pas une arbre. Another great argumentitive question goes like this. If people make paintings, what makes people? Which only makes me want to screw in art galleries.
5 athiests don't want god to exist... because they don't want to see the truth well, of course I don't want god to exist. I would be very scared if the gog of the bible went around smiting people and causing plagues and such, just as I would if cthulhu existed. I posit that if a god truly existed, mankind would band together to find a way to kill it. People cannot have something wielding power that they cannot control.
However, as far as not wanting to see the truth.. no... that's pretty much all I want to see, which is why I pretty much question all authority, and look for answers that make sense.
Posted by: tsig | July 12, 2009 10:01 AM
Good one Smoggy!
Posted by: Steve M. | July 12, 2009 10:07 AM
In Canada we like to joke that Alberta is the Texas of the north.... come on Albertans, prove this statement wrong...
Posted by: David | July 12, 2009 10:17 AM
If I am god why can I not with the lottery. May be I should buy a ticket, my numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6.
Posted by: Alex Pryce | July 12, 2009 10:24 AM
I've always taken issue with the "84% of people believe in god" (Or whatever other number they've plucked out of the air). Mainly because they do not all believe in the same god. There are 4 billion non-Christians in the world, 4 billion who don't believe in the Christian God, or their particular heaven or Messiah. They are no different to atheists in Christian eyes surely, in fact they are worse as they worship false gods. But then we have atheism- it doesn't matter what god you follow now, as long as you have one. This is a terrible argument and it pisses me off. For a moment, when debating an Atheist, the religious right seem to rally on their common enemy- true hypocrisy at work.
Posted by: drew | July 12, 2009 10:30 AM
I really wish religious writers could elucidate without violating every other fallacy known. Ad homenum, appeals to fear, poisoning the well, relativist fallacies, yadda-yadda-yadda.
Can we give out a check list, please? Once all the fallacies are ticked off as not applicable should they get a box from which to shout?
I feel like discussing atheism is more like taxonomy than exchange of ideas. Listen to god argument, classify material by fault, dismiss and slot into correct pile and wait for the next batch of detritus to wash up.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 12, 2009 10:48 AM
"I really wish religious writers could elucidate without violating every other fallacy known. Ad homenum, appeals to fear, poisoning the well, relativist fallacies, yadda-yadda-yadda."
At the moment I would settle for them just elucidating clearly and concisely, rather than abusing the meanings of words in order to hide the fact they have nothing, not even smoke and mirrors.
Posted by: Dahan | July 12, 2009 10:49 AM
Man! Getting my Masters of Fine Arts would have been SO much easier if I'd just know that somebody actually created the sculptures and paintings I was studying! I'll have to try to remember to remind my students of this fact in class some time.
Posted by: SEF | July 12, 2009 10:54 AM
There are various (check-)lists of fallacies around, should anyone happen to want to work out just how many Nancy managed to squeeze into one screed. NB Some lists are more formal (or determined to have latin names for everything) than others (and some aren't even quite right). Here are some links I collected a couple of years ago (one of which no longer works apart from in places like the Wayback Machine archive of it):
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
... and note the link within that to the Nizkor list (to save me using up my meagre Scienceblogs links-per-post allowance)
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050411000810/www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
+ Logical_fallacy on wikipedia.
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 12, 2009 10:55 AM
At the moment I would settle for them just elucidating clearly and concisely...
In my early morning, pre-coffee haze, I read that as ejaculating. And I lol'd.
Posted by: Ron Gove | July 12, 2009 10:55 AM
Picture two scientists, an atheist (A) and (for the sake of argument an evangelical protestant (EP)).
EP: "Look, a bumble bee"
A: "Yes I see it. Isn't it amazing"
Both have a smattering of physics and aerodynamic lift, etc. And they start scribbling in their notebooks.
EP: "My goodness, their wings can't generate enough lift to fly, yet they do. Here is proof of God's greatness." "Let's move on to the next problem, this one is solved"
A: Wait a minute; they are flying and my calculations say they can't. I MUST BE WRONG. I am assuming a fixed wing aircraft model. That must be wrong. Lets take some slow motion movies of the wings and some measurements and figure out how they fly. There has to be an answer."
EP: "Don't bother, the answer is God did it. Lets get on to some important problems like building a bigger church so God can see how much we love him."
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 12, 2009 11:01 AM
I'm atheist and I vote Conservative traditionally, although in the last election I voted independant.
Don't think for a second that the Conservative party has the lip-lock on idiocy, graft, and nutjobbery. The Liberals, NDP, and Green have their fair shares as well.
Posted by: handthatbites | July 12, 2009 11:06 AM
The irony in this is: whenever I talk to God about these issues he always has the same "atheist" attitude. He's like, "I'm all eternal and not made." He refuses to acknowledge the true God that obviously made him (yes him it says so in the bible). The arrogance of some people/gods is astounding. Not to acknowledge those that obviously exist is blasphemous, illogical, and uniformed. I will pray for God tonight so that he may see the error of his atheistic ways.
Posted by: handthatbites | July 12, 2009 11:09 AM
uninformed (excuse me)
Posted by: Spiro Keat | July 12, 2009 11:09 AM
It is scientifically impossible for bees to GLIDE.
God decided to make the little buggers work ALL the time, so no free wheeling.
Posted by: Strangel
|
July 12, 2009 11:11 AM
Guess what Nancy? - There are more males in the world than females. Since "majority rules" is such a big factor for you, you should probably get started on your operations.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | July 12, 2009 11:11 AM
@Tis Himself:
Bedrock?
Posted by: Carlie | July 12, 2009 11:13 AM
I wonder what Nancy would make of someone like me. I've had a pretty charmed life; no major terrible events to blame God for. I did, in fact, spend about 30 years of my life as at least as fervent a Christian as she is, if not more. I don't like to do bad things, so I'm not looking for an out to do them. To the contrary, remaining a believer would make my own life much, much easier, because it would keep me on the same track as my immediate family and many of my friends. By all her metrics, I ought to not exist at all. Yet here I am, an atheist who doesn't have the ability to go back into the realm of mysticism even if I wanted to, even though it would make my relationships with certain others better, even though I have every incentive to. Because it's not true, and I can't be that dishonest.
I'm Nancy's bumblebee.
Posted by: bPer | July 12, 2009 11:14 AM
Hi all,
For anyone who is interested in what this Nancy Greenwood person was responding to, it was a letter from Kim Beach which in turn was responding to a column by Johnnie Bachusky.
He in turn referred to a book called “The Six Ways of Atheism – New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God.”. I'd not heard of that book, but a Google search revealed that it does exist, by a first time author (according to amazon.ca) called Geoffrey Berg.
The columnist stated "Atheists of course believe that there is proof that God does not exist.". Kim Beach's letter corrected him, in a (IMO) straightforward and polite manner. That's what Greenwood took offense to. To call Beach's letter a "diatribe" is quite astounding after you read the actual letter.
Anybody heard of this Berg fellow?
Posted by: Rick R | July 12, 2009 11:38 AM
Ugh. I was just reading comments over at "Debunking Christianity" where Alan C and Roger are currently spewing nonsense (among others). The arguments for theism range from the absurd (like our Miss Greenwood here would spew) to the intellectual/ philosophical. The stupid burns at all levels.
The thing it all boils down to is this- Christians believe the nonsense because they fear death. It all boils down to that "eternity in heaven" thing. Though they want you to think they are smarter, better more moral people than atheists because the "believe".
The question I want to ask is- would you still love and worship this god of yours if he never promised eternal life in the clouds? If god said to you: "gosh, it's great that you love me, and follow my rules. Of course, there's nothing in it for you if you do. But I sure do like it!"
Would christians still be christians? After all, it's about the love, and the superior morals, and the "relationship"..... right?
Right?
Posted by: Lynna | July 12, 2009 11:38 AM
This is a friend-of-a-friend story, but the basic elements have been confirmed. End of the story is not known as it is still in maximum unresolved drama mode.
Mr. Great Christian God Botherer goes to the Philippines, picks up a woman and brings her back as his wife. Time passes. She watches daytime TV and videos, especially soap operas based in the Philippines. Mr. God Botherer takes to throwing the Little Woman around the house and up against the walls. The Little Woman (who really is tiny) finally takes refuge with another Christian woman.
No one calls the police, nor social services. Christian counseling, performed by folks with no training other than church and bible, is advised by fellow Christians. Much praying is done. Over-the-phone advice to the Little Woman consists mainly of, "Don't let Satan ruin your marriage." The Little Woman may be at fault for being "lazy." She bears no physical signs of abuse and doesn't want to see a doctor.
Satan may have entered the home through the TV. He's sneaky, that bastard. When asked what Satan's motives might be for ruining this particular marriage, the answer given is, "Misery loves company."
As with the unenlightened Dear from Red Deer, there are so many levels of Crazy and Uninformed that I just can't deal with it. I can't back up the friend of a friend because I don't where to start. "Get real professional help," was my only contribution. But, after praying to God, the combatants said that real help was not approved.
Okay, then.
Posted by: Rubberduck | July 12, 2009 11:41 AM
What I can never understand is why a believer in any religion would actually LIE in order to convince opponents, that they are wrong. Argue with facts and there is a chance, that the dabate can be constructive.. atheists believe that they are God ??? what is that? Is that a proper argument? Where does that come from? And bees can't fly -- this is absurd! No adult can say such a foolish thing and expect be taken serious. 84% of the worlds population believe in a deity -- how do you know that? Why not 83% or 85%? Where does that figure come from? Present the facts and we have something to discuss. Ahh.. therein lies the big problem for believers,-the facts are absent, facts about their god, facts about their gods performances, facts about all aspects of belief, only fath is there and faith is belief without evidence.
In a debate belief without evidence stands a poor chance against arguments from rational, thinking opponents.
Maybe that's why believers so often try to spice up their arguments with lies.
But to no avail. They are still in a loose/loose-situation.
Posted by: Rick R | July 12, 2009 11:45 AM
"What I can never understand is why a believer in any religion would actually LIE in order to convince opponents, that they are wrong."
Methinks the person they are most trying to convince is themselves. And other christians. After all, you wouldn't want to be the only one, would you?
Posted by: Lynna | July 12, 2009 11:47 AM
@214: Thanks for the link to the letter from Kim Beach. Great letter. Clear, polite, and as Kim said, no "sledgehammer." I especially liked this bit:
Posted by: Snarla | July 12, 2009 11:47 AM
Gaah. A friend of mine send me an email the other evening describing his epiphany that the existence of atheists proves God exists.
I think he drinks in the evenings.
Posted by: KI | July 12, 2009 11:50 AM
@215
Those people would be called "Jews".
Posted by: Cunctator | July 12, 2009 12:14 PM
Once again this discussion is stuck in the self referential ‘christianity vs science’ debate, which assumes itself to actually be universalizable to ‘religion vs science’(hence all the 'God' and 'Jesus' talk. If I may, I’d invite you to take a look at a series of posts that I published on my blog, precisely around this problem: when we say ’science vs religion’ most people don’t know what ‘religion’ might or might NOT mean. http://hypertiling.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/understanding-religion-a-primer-on-critical-studies-part-1/
Posted by: CW | July 12, 2009 12:15 PM
That's better but isn't the correct word actually "to"? As in: Atheists have knowledge superior to the rest of us.Posted by: PurpleTurtle | July 12, 2009 12:16 PM
I always find the creation=creator argument as expressed by the painting=painter analogy very curious; I cannot paint or sculpt without the use of raw materials (not to mention every artistic creation supposes a potentially flawed, mortal creator!). Is then their God a lesser deity relying on handouts from the great and powerful Oz for substances with which to create? Is their God dependant on natural processes to provide the raw materials? Could it *gasp* possibly be that we have no need of a God hypothesis at all then?
analogy - ur not doin it rite
Posted by: Lynna | July 12, 2009 12:24 PM
"That's God's work." My brother and I hear that all the time from prospective buyers when we're at book-signing events (this is God's Country). So, it doesn't matter that we both worked hard for more than two decades to hone our skills. Either God zapped us, or we were lucky enough to capture a little Essence of God in words and photos. I don't tell them that I didn't ask for god's help, that I didn't pray. He/She/It just likes me and my brother, that's obvious.
The best comment went to my brother, "You'd couldn't take pictures like that without God's help." Yelp! Jesus, that hurts. If God is going to take the credit, maybe we should start getting angry with him. Jesus, God, get your own byline.
And then there was last Friday's event in Boise. We autographed books at a event called "Wheelers for the Wounded." I'm developing a new strategy: Extreme Book Marketing. Friday was our first, and very successful, attempt to align ourselves with Hooters Girls, Rock Crawlers, "Boise's only Bikini Baristas, Mocha Hotties," motorcycle wheelie ballet performances, and more. The local motorcycle cops were there and they didn't arrest anyone. Of course, we did have Christians as well, in the form of the Christian motorcycle club (they looked good next to the Hooters Girls). Wounded vets were treated to outdoor expeditions. No one mentioned god, not even the Christians. It was inspirational.
It was also surreal. Now if they'd just add "Existentialist" to some of the artwork available on leather gear and vehicle paint jobs... still the flavor is there. 'Tis Himself would have recognized it.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2009 12:25 PM
atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.
Hee hee. Nancy has the classic fundie inferiority complex. Of course very very few atheists think they're gods, although they might joke about it to rile fundies. But even that is not the real issue here. I'm sure they seem (and even seem to be saying they are) to someone so willfully stone-stupid.
Think of it as a variation of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced thinker is like a god to an imbecile.
Posted by: Geds | July 12, 2009 12:27 PM
What I can never understand is why a believer in any religion would actually LIE in order to convince opponents, that they are wrong.
The problem is that they're not lying in the way you think they are. One of my best friends and I were highly respected Christians (within our own circles) who were planning to go in to ministry just a few years ago. We both left the faith due to independent realizations that we simply could not believe any more.
You would not believe how many people have told us that we left because we were angry or some horrible thing happened to us. It's happened to each of us independently and sometimes at the same time if we both knew somebody. But we've both gotten a lot of, "Wow, what horrible thing happened to you?" and, "Why are you so mad at god?"
They can't accept the premise that neither one of us is a Christian any more because we gradually woke up to the fact that the evangelical Christian god is an untenable mishmash of stupidity. For them it's a horrible thought that we could have reached that conclusion honestly, since it ruins their own world view and they can't handle the idea. My lack of faith or my friend's lack of faith would then have a domino effect on them.
One of the truly interesting phenomenon I've run in to is when the Christians I used to know blame themselves. I recently heard from someone I have nothing but respect for and had known since high school who said he felt he had done something to me to make me leave. Nothing could be further from the truth. But for the mentality to survive god cannot do anything wrong and if someone has left the faith they've been hurt, therefore any believer who hears that story has to either say, "It must be my fault," or the far more common, "Well, some Christians just don't get it."
It's always funny and a little sad when I get the latter one from people I used to go to church with, though...
Posted by: Lynna | July 12, 2009 12:28 PM
God help me, I can't proofread. Not "a event," Lynna, but "an event." Sheesh.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | July 12, 2009 12:36 PM
Judging from the website it looks like The Red Deer Express (described as community newspaper) is a probably free weekly for the County of Red Deer (The rural area around Red Deer) and not for the city of Red Deer.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 12, 2009 12:57 PM
There was once a time when at least 84% of the people in the world honestly believed that the solar system revolved around the Earth. They turned out to be wrong. Reality is not decided by popular vote.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
July 12, 2009 1:10 PM
OurDeadSelves at #44,
Thank you for the kind words. By my own estimation, I still have much to learn, much improvement to show, but thank you.
Lsuoma,
Awesome! *proffers clenched tentacle salute*
Now that I think about it, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space provides some great inspiration for drink names.
"Bartender, I need a Fire Extinguisher, two Gas Grenades, a Comm Beamer, and a Stun Pistol for table three!"
Great memories.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: pdferguson
|
July 12, 2009 1:20 PM
It never ceases to amaze me when people make statements like these without realizing just how utterly ignorant it is. Not only are they ignorant, they're ignorant about their ignorance. It really is a fascinating phenomenon, and often has religion at its core. As this poor deluded woman from Canada has beautifully demonstrated, religion is an illness.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
July 12, 2009 1:24 PM
It never ceases to amaze me when people make statements like these without realizing just how utterly ignorant it is. Not only are they ignorant, they're ignorant about their ignorance.
That's why Wolfgang Pauli was so brilliant as characterizing such nonsense as "not even wrong".
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 12, 2009 1:25 PM
Two other things that bothers me about her argument: She assumes it is her god in particular that we erroneously don't believe in, when we actually agree with her that Ganesh, Sung Myung Moon and Baal are not gods, either. She also assumes that if we believed in her god that we would worship him. I believe Sung Myung Moon exists, but I don't worship him.
Posted by: Dancaban | July 12, 2009 1:26 PM
I eat babies! (jelly)
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 12, 2009 1:31 PM
Two other things that bothers me about her argument: She assumes it is her god in particular that we erroneously don't believe in, when we actually agree with her that Ganesh, Sung Myung Moon and Baal are not gods, either. She also assumes that if we believed in her god that we would worship him. I believe Sung Myung Moon exists, but I don't worship him.
Posted by: RobNYNY1957 | July 12, 2009 1:37 PM
Two other things that bothers me about her argument: She assumes it is her god in particular that we erroneously don't believe in, when we actually agree with her that Ganesh, Sung Myung Moon and Baal are not gods, either. She also assumes that if we believed in her god that we would worship him. I believe Sung Myung Moon exists, but I don't worship him.
Posted by: lazlow | July 12, 2009 2:11 PM
"Can the atheist make a tree?"
I can plant one, water it and watch i grow. Does that count?
Posted by: Jorsh!
|
July 12, 2009 2:25 PM
Can the theist make a tree?
Posted by: Matt | July 12, 2009 2:28 PM
Why do theists continually claim that atheists *must* be depressed, terribly violent beings? We simply don't believe in her deity, and so they make utterly ignorant projections about us. I would like her to say half of that to my face. Perhaps she could even see what I've achieved in my life without deities.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 12, 2009 2:29 PM
I think the reason for that is that it is very rare these days for a god-botherer to actually come up with a new argument (if you discount ones that simply do not make so much as a single iota of sense, in any way, such as Nancy Greenwood's point that God must exist because an atheist can't make a tree), instead of just taking old arguments and dressing them up in new clothes. The main reason for that seems to be that the most common response to an atheist destroying their arguments is to simply point-blank deny and/or ignore that this has happened.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 2:46 PM
Too many fish, too small a barrel. How about attacking this lapse of logic:
First, let's note the hypocrisy, because this is a strong knowledge claim. Additionally, not only can both Nancy Greenwood and I claim to know one way or the other, but we do claim it. So what is it that Ms. Beach intended to assert is impossible? Apparently that our claims could be true -- that we have actual knowledge. But how can Ms. Beach know that our claims to knowledge aren't true? Her argument seems to be based on an uninformed and mistaken view about belief and knowledge. I believe there is no god (I'm a strong atheist; I don't merely lack a belief). Nancy Greenwood believes there is a god. My beliefs are (I claim) well justified. Nancy Greenwood's beliefs appear to be poorly justified. My belief, that there is no god, could be correct, in which case (if it really is justified) I would have a justified belief in something true -- knowledge. Nancy Greenwood's belief, that there is a god, could be correct, making it a true belief, but it would only amount to knowledge if she believed it for valid reasons, which doesn't appear to be the case (and whether we could conceivably all be wrong about that is debatable).
Posted by: Dr. P | July 12, 2009 2:49 PM
No, no I get it now ,she's right! Atheists are unwilling to admit there's a big guy at the end whose going to make them pay for their sins so they deny his existence(gender included only 'cause it's their delusion). So all those believers know they're forgiven;they must like get a wristband like at Seaworld or a hand stamp or something.THAT'S why all those forgiven philandering/pedophile fundy/priest/pastors! It's like a 2 for 1 special!Where can I get MY wristband?....Oh, and that quote at the end was the crap on top of the whole mess,a justification for pushing your senseless,meandering excuse for a personal philosophy on me ; for my own good? I would hope that as my personal view on life continues to unfold it will be free of the kind of insipid platitudes found on Precious Moments statuary.
Posted by: bahabh | July 12, 2009 2:56 PM
I believe in evolution, and yes the blade of grass evolved, it grew because it was planted in the ground and there was a seed. But what created the seed?? The grass comes from the seed, but where did the seed come from??
Posted by: RevBushido | July 12, 2009 3:06 PM
As an atheist from Red Deer I would like to apologize for this. While I don't know her personally I think I would like to. In any case I think I may respond to her letter in the express with one of my own.
Others are free to send their letters to the editor as well.
Posted by: Suzanne Feld | July 12, 2009 3:18 PM
Okay, Madam Logic, why did your uber-talented designing Sky Fairy put the playground between the sewers? That's always my favorite question for these idjits.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 12, 2009 3:21 PM
@ 220,
Owwwwwww! Stop that!Posted by: handthatbites | July 12, 2009 3:24 PM
@#244
See# 208 for this logic thought through.
"Ms. Swan's": "and then?, and then?."
Or the five year olds: "why?, but why? "
These are not suitable logic. Something is eternal. So, why not the universe?
Posted by: Dr. P | July 12, 2009 3:30 PM
From the grass....keep following it back.....keep going....keep going.....Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 3:36 PM
Having now read the rest of Kim Beach's letter, it appears to be much worse than the excerpt I responded to above. She wrote:
"aggressive, blowhard" ... what is this characterization of Geoffrey Berg (whose name Ms. Beach never mentions) based on, other than the mere fact that he offered what he considers to be disproofs of god's existence? And Ms. Beach claims that "that kind of knowledge is patently impossible" ... really, she has a generic refutation of all such logical proofs? Or perhaps she fails to grasp the concept ...
But Berg didn't say it was a "scientifically testable hypothesis", he offered logical disproofs. Perhaps his attempts at such are fallacious, but an attack on the strawman of empirical demonstration does not show that. Ms. Beach claims that Berg (since she doesn't refer to him by name, she is apparently unfamiliar with him and hasn't read his work) is, unlike most atheists, not pleased to rationally discuss the question ... attempting logical demonstration isn't rational? Ms. Beach's ad hominems are? As for sledgehammers, if you actually have one in the form of a valid logical proof, it would be the height of irrationality to ignore it.
Kim Beach is far more harmful to freethought than an obvious godbot fool like Nancy Greenwood, and it verges on the obscene that people here would laud her letter and even characterize it as "a (IMO) straightforward and polite manner". Yeah, right, it's "polite" to explain to believers that atheists aren't all monsters like that horrible "aggressive, blowhard" (read "militant") atheist Geoffrey Berg who is so irrational as to actually attempt to logically prove the nonexistence of god.
Posted by: Heidi | July 12, 2009 3:37 PM
Hey, if I'm a god, then why haven't I been getting the sacrifices? Or the donation money? I think I'm getting robbed here.
And I'm with RobNYNY on the not-worshiping-even-if-he-was-real. According to their own book, Yahweh's an ass. If he was real, he'd get nothing from me until he gave me an explanation for those Egyptian firstborns. And everybody who was not on the ark. And the children who were eaten by the bears. And he had better be convincing.
Posted by: Mike the Englishman | July 12, 2009 3:46 PM
Phro @ 65:
That was kind of the thing. No harm, no foul, though :)
Posted by: October Mermaid | July 12, 2009 3:48 PM
@Heidi, #251
I've asked this question of several sunday school teachers, pastors, and Christian message board members and the answer is always the same: God can kill who he wants because he's God. He gave life so he doesn't have to "justify himself to us." It's a rather creepy answer and you can see how it's a nice jumping point from that to, say, killing abortion clinic workers.
They also sometimes add weird things like "God probably knew that those babies he killed would grow up to be evil. We don't see the whole picture, God does."
Rest assured, the always have some ghoulish justification for the Bible's primary villain.
Posted by: Wesley | July 12, 2009 4:12 PM
I am atheist, but I would like to have god in my life. Does she account for people like me in her arguements? I think it would be cool to know a diety, though I would hate for them to be like any that are worshiped today. Those are fucking loser gods. I think she falls in the category of "contempt prior to investigation." From there, Dr. Myers is accurate. She would not recognize me in her arguements, because, I do not fit with her observation of atheists. Though, no atheist I have ever met would either. In my fantasies, I might take a flying car over diety too. Just seems awesome.
Posted by: la tricoteuse | July 12, 2009 4:29 PM
CW @223:
"Different to" is British English. Standard American English calls for "different from" or "different than" (though the former is generally preferred, I believe).
Posted by: TheEngima23 | July 12, 2009 4:33 PM
Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives [...]
Someone watches too much TV.
Posted by: imissbubby | July 12, 2009 4:42 PM
No one has to believe in Creator, God. You can become part of a cult like Darwinian Evolution which is based on bogus science and then run around talking like an idiot.
Posted by: Rakehell | July 12, 2009 4:49 PM
I find it truly upsetting that goddists think I am morally and ethically inferior because I don't have an exterior check on my behavior.
I should probably learn to get over it.
Posted by: anti-supernaturalist | July 12, 2009 4:54 PM
" . . . live like a god among ordinary people." - Epicurus (340-270 BCE)
A view of nature and human nature supports science
Epicureanism distilled into four statements (tetrapharmakos - 4-fold cure):
Don`t fear god,
Don`t worry about death;
What is good is easy to get, and
What is terrible is easy to endure.
Epicurus' own advice to a follower:
Think about these things . . . yourself, and with a companion like yourself, and you will never be disturbed while awake or asleep.
But you will live like a god among ordinary people. For those who live among immortal blessings are not like mortal beings.
anti-supernaturalist
Posted by: bPer | July 12, 2009 5:07 PM
Anonymous @#250 said
You have pulled a quote out of my comment (unattributed BTW) but you didn't apparently understand what I was trying to say.
I had been curious about the context of Greenwood's diatribe (to use the same word she used on an atheist), so I tracked down Beach's letter, and the original column too, to put his/her letter in context. I was expecting Beach's letter to be something like what you'd see here - assertive and straight-talking, which to the uninitiated godbot would probably get her blood up. What I found was hardly what I could characterize as inflammatory from the theists' perspective. That's what my quote referred to - Beach's tone, not his/her content.
As for the content of Beach's letter, I agree with you. I had gagged over the same things you pointed out, but skipped over them because I was commenting on the "diatribe" characterization. IMO, no reasonable theist ought to have considered it an anti-theist diatribe, and that shows just how much of a nutbar Greenwood really is.
I also didn't want to comment on the "aggressive, blowhard" characterization of Berg's work because I hadn't read it (and I suspect neither have you or Beach). If his website is any indication, though, I'd say that that characterization is grossly unfair.
βPer
Posted by: anti-supernaturalist | July 12, 2009 5:12 PM
Hello Troll at #257
There is no Darwinism
Attacking Darwin the person or his views on natural selection buys into the Straw Man fallacy. Those who criticize Darwin overlook 150 years of subsequent scientific development in biology.
Darwin had no clear understanding of genetics. He hadn't the faintest clue that DNA existed. The fruitful union of evolution and genetics since 1953 brought forth Modern Evolutionary Theory.
Darwin was a scientist of the highest rank, but he was no god. No one ever 'believed in' Darwinism (or MET today) as if they were infallible articles of creed.
'On the Origin of Species' is not a bible. It is a classic scientific work which, long outdated, now belongs to history.
Science is not done by the book.
anti-supernaturalist
Posted by: Throwaway | July 12, 2009 5:58 PM
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 6:14 PM
Another drive-by troll, dropping a load of shit and then making her escape.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 6:20 PM
you didn't apparently understand what I was trying to say
I understood it quite well; it is you who seem not to understand the point of my objection. Ms. Beach's "politeness" is something we see from accomodationists all the time -- they "aren't inflammatory from the theists' perspective" indeed. By focusing solely on that perspective, you omitted what is so objectionable about her letter. That you agree that it is objectionable is well and good.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 12, 2009 6:30 PM
@ imissbubby #257
Is bubby your pharmacist?
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 6:30 PM
P.S.
I also didn't want to comment on the "aggressive, blowhard" characterization of Berg's work because I hadn't read it (and I suspect neither have you or Beach).
It doesn't matter whether I read Berg's work; it doesn't even matter if the characterization (which is of Berg, not his work) is true. What matters is that it's a grossly fallacious ad hominem, based solely on the fact that Berg has asserted that there are logical disproofs of the existence of god.
Posted by: Ron | July 12, 2009 6:50 PM
Wow! 262 comments about essentially nothing - Nancy Greenwood is a nobody writing a letter to the editor of a 'nobody' free weekly newspaper that is oriented primarily to the county surrounding the City of Red Deer (pop aprx 90,000). I know because I live in Red Deer and I get my kicks every week by reading the 'Opinions' section of the Express specifically to see what wingnut is coming out of the woods. Sometimes, a surprisingly insightful, progressive letter is writen, but that is rare.
Now in all fairness, I transferred to Red Deer three years ago and I was a little worried about moving my family into wingnut land. However, I have been pleasantly surprised. Sure, the residents vote Conservative provincially and federally but the City itself is actually quite progressive. The arts thrive and the social safety network is well funded. Yes religion thrives but most people participate occasionally and most certainly don't try to force their views on others (wingnut members of the Provincial and Federal Conservation governments notwithstanding). Yes there are atheists in Red Deer - me for example.
But the point is that taking on Nancy is like shooting fish in a barrel - no sport.
Great blog - for kicks I read PZ almost daily and yes I have a life
PS. as for cheerfully meeting Nancy ... you know the old story about not getting into the mud with pigs ...
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 6:55 PM
P.P.S.
Having now looked at Berg's website, I see lots of problems with his alleged logical disproofs of the existence of god, but even if they are riddled with errors that in no way justifies Kim Beach's virulent attack on him and implicitly anyone else who goes beyond her crabbed accomodationist notion of how to "rationally discuss these questions with believers".
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 7:09 PM
That's development, not evolution. You say you believe in evolution, but do you have any idea what it is?
Nope, apparently not. Not only don't you know what evolution is, but you aren't familiar with the rudiments of plant physiology. (Have you ever been outdoors, or even eaten a piece of fruit?) Here's something for 3rd graders: http://www.enotes.com/documents/where-do-seeds-come-from-15233
I haven't paid the $.99 to determine whether it is accurate. Here's something perhaps a little more advanced: http://www.virted.org/Plants/Seeds.html
Posted by: bPer | July 12, 2009 7:12 PM
Anonymous @#264:
Fine, no argument from me, but I am free to comment on whatever I care to, and it doesn't have to match your particular hobby-horse. I was trying to make an on-topic point about the OP.
And it is clear that you didn't understand my point, so let me state it more succinctly. You took my words out of context and used them to criticize me for an unrelated matter. Remind you of the MO of any particular group of people? And you have the gall to call my words on the verge of being obscene.
I've had enough of you.
βPer
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 7:20 PM
I am free to comment on whatever I care to, and it doesn't have to match your particular hobby-horse
And vice versa, you hypocritical git.
And it is clear that you didn't understand my point, so let me state it more succinctly. You took my words out of context and used them to criticize me for an unrelated matter.
Wrong, moron. I of course understood that was your whimpering defensive complaint. But it isn't accurate.
And you have the gall to call my words on the verge of being obscene.
Nice attempt at a false dichotomy, but I did because they are.
I've had enough of you.
Like I could possibly care, poor baby.
Posted by: Smidgy | July 12, 2009 7:23 PM
imissbubby #257:
Correct.
Sorry, which part is 'bogus science'? Here's a major difference you need to learn between religion and science - in science, if you make a claim, you have to provide evidence of it in order to be taken seriously.
Your religion is showing. You see, this is another difference between religion and science - in religion, people who 'run around talking' are frowned upon, as this could lead to dangerous things like asking questions. However, in science, asking questions is positively encouraged.
Of course, a third difference between science and religion is that, if you ask a question, get an answer, get a mountain of evidence backing up that answer, but then disregard that evidence and answer because it fails to fit in with your preconceived notions, in science, this is regarded as being utterly insane, but, in religion, it's regarded as being the sign of a True Believer, and applauded.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 7:25 PM
Nothing at all familiar about this Anonymous character, that's for sure.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 7:29 PM
I'm particularly amused that this neurotically defensive βPer git both complains that I didn't attribute his/her comments and complains that I used them to criticize him/her. A far more rational interpretation is that I was concerned about Beach's aggressive accomodationism and having it not only not criticized here but actually have it framed (by omitting context) as a good thing -- I didn't and don't care at all about the personalities who did so.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 8:08 PM
I'm the reasonable person she was railing against. Don't worry. I have an amazing response to her in next week's paper.
I haven't read all these comments yet, but I'm delighted to be even peripherally associated with this wonderful site. Let me tell you that this nutbar is The Minority!! There are very many reasonable freethinkers in this town. They just need to speak up.
Posted by: euterpe42 | July 12, 2009 8:32 PM
The first point sounds suspiciously like Jesus Christ. I'm crossing my fingers that either means that Jesus was an atheist, or we'll all soon have a major religious following.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 8:47 PM
All right. I had to take a serious breath before I could post properly. I am the atheist to whom Nancy Greenwood is responding, and I have written a fair, balanced response to her letter with all kinds of big words like "argumentum ad populum" that will go over her head like so many parade balloons. Keep following if you like, and you'll see it. According to the paper's editor, there is a letter this week which uses the bible to refute Atheism. Of course any of us could shoot that down in 25 words or less. All the bible proves is that a bunch of semi-literate, Bronze Age desert dwellers who thought the earth was flat wrote some stuff down and it became legend. The end.
But the endless other comments by people who don't live here, have never lived here, I cannot abide. I WILL NOT tolerate people who know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about my town coming over to this site to paint all people from Red Deer and, on a larger scale, Alberta blabbing on and on about how fundamentalist Alberta is. Stop it. I will not tolerate it. You should be completely ashamed to completely go against the freethinking notion that ONE NUTBAR DOES NOT A COMMMUNITY MAKE. I'm sorry for yelling, but I'm sitting in my happily secular back yard surrounded by happy, secular people being happily secular. How dare you??
You have no idea what you are talking about. You have fallen into the classic trap of forgetting (conveniently) that the nutbars are always the most outspoken. I have sent out a note to my atheist friends to back me up on this, and some will next week, not that any of you will bother to read the follow-ups. You've had your fun trashing a town you know nothing about based on the opinion of one nutbar. How is it that rational, thinking people like the ones who populate this site could possibly stoop to the kind of broad brush painting you're engaging in? To some of the commenters here, Red Deer must just be some kind of backwater burg, and clearly no one there could possibly have enough grasp of Teh Interwebs to be able to access the site (never mind read it regularly) notice your backhanded, reductionist, cruel, and uninformed comments.
How dare you? Come live here for a few months. Experience our culture, art, etc. It might interest you to know that two of our writers have won the most prestigious nonfiction prize in Canada. Would that be interesting to you? No. All you give a crap about is how many people here are delusional Christians. Don't you just hate it when poeple judge Atheists for the words of one of us? Yeah, doesn't that suck. Get off your uninformed soap boxes and do your damned homework.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 8:51 PM
ps. Someone 1000 comments ago said that I made a virulent attack. Research before you say things like that. I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of you read the article I was initially responding to. I was clarifying the definition of a word in my article. Nothing more. Once again, do your homework. Taking things out of context is what we all fight against when it comes to theists, isn't it?
Posted by: co | July 12, 2009 9:23 PM
Kim, #278. First, bravo for getting such a response in the first place, in any newspaper, anywhere.
Second, when you rail against "someone 1000 comments ago" for lack of research, you can just state that it was actually Anonymous, a mere 10 comments ago. Otherwise, you're likely to incur the wrath of people on this site who do research for a living, would rather not be accused of being inaccurate, and who particularly dislike hypocrisy.
Posted by: Bob Carroll | July 12, 2009 9:25 PM
re #26; Joyce Kilmer didn't write (parody):
No wonder virgin woods I see,
For only God can make a tree.
And I like that Canadian dimwit's confabulation: atheists believe that they are God, and they also fear God and hate God. Boy, are these putative atheists fucked up. They are afraid of themselves and hate themselves. Whereas the believers are only afraid of eternal torment in a future existence of which they have no knowledge.
I'm not an atheist, but I tell my kids: "Is there an afterlife? I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised."
Bob
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 9:46 PM
Remember the bit in the Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act entitling parents to advance notice from schools if their children were going to be taught subject matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation and the right to remove their children from such classes? Ed Stelmach said, with approval, that this would allow parents to opt out of having their children learn about evolution.
Some of us non-Canadians do know something about what's going on in Texas del Norte.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 9:51 PM
For those who don't follow Albertan politics, Ed Stelmach, who I referred to in my post #281, is the Premier of Alberta.
Posted by: Matt | July 12, 2009 10:07 PM
While I find her whole argument incoherent, my favorite part is
"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics)"
What?
I can't think of an example, so I'll assert that bees can't fly but actually they do ??
Posted by: Matt | July 12, 2009 10:10 PM
While I find her whole argument incoherent, my favorite part is
"It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics)"
What?
I can't think of an example, so I'll assert that bees can't fly but actually they do. Therefore god is real.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 12, 2009 10:18 PM
A non-activity the Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation doesn't yet consider part of their Heart Healthy™ program, but should.
These dumbfucks have been auto-piloting this province on oil revenues since before I was born. One day I'll write about the commissioned report on cuts to seniors' programs I wrote back in 1998. Klein shredded it because it didn't echo his reality--a fact that was leaked to the media about a month before he was re-elected on his "He Listens; He Cares" platform.
Alberta Advantage indeed. With all the excellent post secondary institutions here I cannot fathom how we acheived a population of troglodytes dumb enough to deserve the party of lying sumbitch morons they keep electing.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 10:19 PM
"Some of us non-Canadians do know something about what's going on in Texas del Norte."
Until you come here and you experience life here and you take the time to meet the people here, no you don't. And your perjorative term for a place you clearly know absolutely nothing about on any real, experienced level is not appreciated. I'm positive that you would vehemently defend wherever YOU live if someone who had never been there called it "Cardston of the South." Once again, unless you've been here, you don't know what you're talking about. Criticizing places you don't know about does not make for convincing counter-arguments. My point is this. Don't talk about places you've never been and presume that you know something about them. I would NEVER presume to say Thing One about your city if I hadn't visited. That would be beyond presumptuous, and you would be right to challenge me on my unfounded, uninformed views about your beloved home town. You know it's true.
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | July 12, 2009 10:23 PM
"All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things."
This cosmic artist seems obsessed with spheres.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 10:26 PM
"Second, when you rail against "someone 1000 comments ago" for lack of research, you can just state that it was actually Anonymous, a mere 10 comments ago. Otherwise, you're likely to incur the wrath of people on this site who do research for a living, would rather not be accused of being inaccurate, and who particularly dislike hypocrisy."
Point taken. I've read enough of the comments on this site to know that I'd better have my ducks in a row before I say anything. Thanks!
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 10:33 PM
"In Canada we like to joke that Alberta is the Texas of the north.... come on Albertans, prove this statement wrong..."
Read the Express in two weeks and thou shalt have thy wish. I don't know who this "we" is that likes to joke about Alberta in this way, but the vast majority of Albertas, to my knowledge, do not refer to the province in this fashion. Once again, quit with the "Texas of the North" stuff, please. We're tired of it. It's not funny. It's never BEEN funny. We actually have a name for people who call us "Texas of the North." You would not be amused at what it is, but because I don't believe in disparaging an entire province's population based on what one person says, I don't think it's appropriate to say it here.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 10:47 PM
"Kim Beach is far more harmful to freethought than an obvious godbot fool like Nancy Greenwood, and it verges on the obscene that people here would laud her letter and even characterize it as "a (IMO) straightforward and polite manner". Yeah, right, it's "polite" to explain to believers that atheists aren't all monsters like that horrible "aggressive, blowhard" (read "militant") atheist Geoffrey Berg who is so irrational as to actually attempt to logically prove the nonexistence of god."
Wow. I suppose that in the interest of trying to get an alternate view out there, that you have never in your life written a word that you wish you hadn't? If so, you're clearly a better person than me. I would take back the word "blowhard" in a heartbeat, but since I can't, and since it's now out there, I now have the unbounded pleasure of reading these kinds of comments about how harmful I am. I do wish you knew me. You would not hold that opinion if you had met me.
The fact is that I was merely responding to a definition in an article. Do I wish I'd phrased it differently? Yes, of course. Does anyone on here claim that never once in their lives have they wished had they phrased things differently? I doubt it. I suppose I could keep my mouth shut in my own home town (really not imagining that it would turn into, as John Lennon said, "all this"), but isn't the point to make our opinion heard? Are we on the same side or not? I was careful to say in my letter that I do not speak for all Atheists.
I'm fighting a battle in my home town. How it made it here I'll never know, but I maintain that my response was a calm one, barring the addition of couple of words I WISH I HADN'T WRITTEN and would like to take back. Since that's pointless, I would really like to make it clear that in the heat of the moment (as rational as that moment may have been), I invite whoever has never phrased something in a way that they should not have to cast the first newspaper. I can't wait to see what my response to Ms. Greenwood generates here if it makes it here. Actually, I *can* wait.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 10:53 PM
"how can one in good conscience make fun of an entire city, especially one containing that delightful waypoint for weary travellers on highway 2, the Donut Mill?"
Yeah. Because that's all we have here. A Donut Mill. Come on, people. You're all above this.
Posted by: Ron | July 12, 2009 11:04 PM
Kim
Give it a rest! This isn't kindergarten.
As a resident of Red Deer I know where you're coming from (comment #267)and I also know that there is a lot that is very, very good about Red Deer and Alberta. However, the reality is that our province has a very, very dirty underside (the tarsands, the Christian Right, Aryan Nations, recent changes to the Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act, gay and racial prejudice, etc.).
Unfortunately, the world (let alone the rest of Canada) is more familiar with these issues than they are with less politically charged, yet never-the-less important issues such as our very good secular school system.
Also, remember, the majority of Alberta voters continued to elect a Premier who, for example, went to Washington and then proclaimed us as the Republican Province, this at a time when most of the world hated the Republican administration in the US. He was also the Premier that went into a homeless shelter and started bullying the residents - Great PR move that one.
Like it or not, we are not generally seen in a favourable light and getting onto a global soapbox and having a temper tantrum does not do much to enlighten your global audience.
Welcome to the front lines of the global culture war. It's hand-to-hand trench warfare and it's real. Demanding that other adults play nice is not real in this world. They're fighting.
I liked your Express opinion piece, buy the way.
Ron Rowe
Red Deer
Posted by: Colin | July 12, 2009 11:09 PM
David F, way, way back at #3: "If I don't believe in ghosts, by her logic, I am claiming to be a ghost myself"
Be fair. According to her "logic", if I don't believe in ghosts then I'm still claiming to be god. If there's anything I don't believe in that someone else does believe in then I am claiming "superior knowledge" and am therefore god.
Wow. I'm god. Feels good. I'm off to do some smiting!
Posted by: Anonymous | July 12, 2009 11:20 PM
I'd be willing to bet that not a single one of you read the article I was initially responding to.
I'd gladly take your money if you were actually honestly offering it.
I was clarifying the definition of a word in my article. Nothing more.
Uh, no, you were virulently attacking Geoffrey Berg as an "aggressive, blowhard".
Once again, do your homework.
Apparently you don't consider actually reading what you're responding to as part of doing your homework. From your "1000 comments ago" it seems that you read through the comments and then responded from memory.
Taking things out of context is what we all fight against when it comes to theists, isn't it?
You're doing a lot of things that theists do, which was the basis of my complaint.
Wow. I suppose that in the interest of trying to get an alternate view out there, that you have never in your life written a word that you wish you hadn't? If so, you're clearly a better person than me. I would take back the word "blowhard" in a heartbeat, but since I can't, and since it's now out there, I now have the unbounded pleasure of reading these kinds of comments about how harmful I am. I do wish you knew me. You would not hold that opinion if you had met me.
My opinion now is that you're neurotic person who isn't worth my time. I don't have to know you to know what harm the sort of thing you wrote does. And I certainly had no reason to think that you would have taken back those words when I criticized them -- duh.
Does anyone on here claim that never once in their lives have they wished had they phrased things differently? I doubt it.
Whacko neurotic non sequitur strawman.
As others have observed, this is way too much time and energy expended on something of no consequence.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 12, 2009 11:37 PM
SC, OM @ 273,
truthy, is that you???
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 12, 2009 11:39 PM
"Kim
Give it a rest! This isn't kindergarten."
Thank you for your kind comment about my piece, Ron. But um, yeah. I know that. I don't really see how defending my town (and my views, though clearly not expressed the way I should have done) makes me a kindergarten student. I also read many comments by people who are repeat customers here, and don't see why I should be excluded from making my points if it takes a post or two. Everyone is welcome to skip them over.
I don't see that my defense of my town warrants the temper tantrum label, as (of course you have no way of knowing this) I was very calm as I typed it. I try not to let emotion guide my words, and occasionally like to use them for effect. My blood is not up about this at all.
I don't recall anyone else in the recent past attempting to say anything about this issue publicly in our town. I believe one of the reasons for that is that sites like this pick it up and it becomes a free-for-all that leads to miscommunication and unfounded conclusions about the writer. I see no reason to sit back and let people say whatever they like without being given an opportunity to respond. If that includes some phrases in which I outline my love for my city (warts and all), then it does.
I maintain that we all have the power to change the flaws in our communities. My letter was a small attempt on my part to do just that.
As for my "temper tantrum", I'm back outside now to enjoy a lovely fire, free of any kind of "temper". It's a lovely night. I plan to continue responding to the Nancy Greenwoods of the world, and if the result is that my words are criticized here, so be it.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | July 13, 2009 12:31 AM
Kim Beach,
Great to see you have joined the rough and tumble of this blog. You appear to have thick enough skin to handle it. I haven't read your letter, but as a small town resident myself, I did not interpret the extracts as being particularly accomodationist. This fits into the same category (imho) as the "white lie" we may tell family or close friends, or someone hooked up to tubes on their deathbed. You threw them a bone, a face-saving opt-out.
This was also on the local stage - you were not aiming at a federal or state politician or publishing in the national media. You weren't aiming at someone that sets national curriculum. You defended atheists and a secular view within your local community without insulting your neighbour. This is good grass-roots activism without projecting a "mean atheist" approach. When you waded in here, you did so boots and all and with the gloves off. I see no hypocrisy or accomodationism in this. You go grrl.
For the record, my sympathies lie with free thinkers everywhere, proportionally to the level of stoopid around them.
Back to the thread in general:
How to become a God 101
Class Workshop 1.
This class will show how to defy physics and create an insect like flying machine at home with just a paperclip, a rubber band, a kebab skewer, some cardboard and some plastic film (eg a disposable shopping bag). Choose any of the many public domain designs available, one such is:
http://www.ornithopter.org/index.shtml
Yes, you too can be a creator!!!
NB. Not just atheists can create these, anyone can (including xians, muslims and hindus) that design wings according to the formulae, uses the correct weight, power, strength and flexibility ratios. You can make any sort of cumbersome looking flying machine, bee-shape included. The physics is actually now well understood (as other posters have already noted) - and anyone can change the wing dynamics and play all they like to validate the theory.
The ultra cheap version orthinopter can be found at:
http://www.instructables.com/id/The-Flying-Scrooge%3a-Ornithopter-of-Household-Items/
Stay tuned, lesson 2: How to make a tree
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 13, 2009 3:48 AM
Sigh.
That was a compliment. I haven't spent a lot of time in Red Deer, but I've always enjoyed my visits. And I've been visiting the Donut Mill for at least fifteen years. It's a wonderful landmark and rallying point for caravans of road-trippers from Edmonton on their way to the mountains. I did use the word 'delightful'.
I'm not trying to pile on, but I saw the obvious need to explain that comment. If you look hard enough for insults you'll surely find them.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 13, 2009 4:31 AM
Heidi @ 251
My wife must worship me, I get burnt offerings 3 times a day. ;9
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 13, 2009 5:06 AM
If the newspaper has been taken over by a "gasp" atheist I can fully understand why he might want to post the ravings of the lunatic fringe. A quite shrewd move in the right hands.
Posted by: wrpd | July 13, 2009 6:06 AM
#299: Do you mean that your wife burns all of the meals she makes? Get her a cookbook.
Posted by: Taylor | July 13, 2009 6:56 AM
A fine article good sir. I must admit though, I almost went crazy reading her article.
Posted by: Tom | July 13, 2009 8:16 AM
This is good. It's as if an evangelical priest and Thomas Aquinas came together and wrote this shit. Way to fail Nancy Greenwood.
Posted by: John Morales | July 13, 2009 9:05 AM
Cosmic Teapot @299, groan.
Heh. Hope Isabel doesn't catch that one... ;)
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 13, 2009 9:43 AM
@Heidi
That's the problem with being a God. We don't get the spoils, that's for the priests and the preachers. They never pass along and they never share. Time to zap them with the lightning.
Posted by: SEF | July 13, 2009 9:59 AM
@ wrpd #301 (re #299):
Better yet, get himself a cookbook ...
Do they do one with baby recipes? ;-)
Posted by: BobbyEarle
|
July 13, 2009 10:09 AM
Rorschach @295...
Hello to our old buddy nothingmachine! I once accused him of not being fun at parties. I was obviously wrong.
Posted by: Kim Beach | July 13, 2009 10:15 AM
#294 - Anon, I cringed as soon as I saw the words printed in the paper days and days ago and regretted them immediately. Your comment was not the catalyst for wishing I'd deleted them.
#298 - Oh! I truly am sorry! Wrong frame of mind when I read your post. Chastisement dutifully received.
#297 - Peter, thanks. You've hit it on the head when you point out that I was setting out a clarification of an opinion piece by the paper's editor in a way that I felt was appropriate for where I live and who I am. If I anticipated being subject to wide-spread scrutiny, believe me, I'd not have done it in the first place. And I don't think it serves anyone if we don't speak up in the way that feels appropriate to us at the time and in our particular communities. As I said, I think that's the only real place where any of us is capable of effecting any sort of positive change. There is a bit of futility in all this, as there's no way in hell that Nancy Greenwood is reading this blog and all of your excellent posts on her lunacy, but she (and others like her) ARE reading the Red Deer Express.
All: I've enjoyed the exchange for the most part, and have appreciated the comments. I thank you for them all, positive and constructive. I hope I'm welcome to post again on other matters.
Have a good week!
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 13, 2009 11:07 AM
Mrs Teapot does not need a cookbook, I was just airing a very old joke.
SEF, I have several cookbooks and I enjoy cooking for my wife. Most of the time she enjoys to eat it, too. ;)
Posted by: CT | July 13, 2009 11:34 AM
It seems to me that this was an easy target for PZ?. I didn't read through all the comments, so perhaps this has been mentioned already.
Is there any satisfaction gained from refuting such a person, such a belief system?
I can see the humor in it sure. But I can also disregard both just as quickly because neither the original post, nor the rebuttal contain any real substance.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 13, 2009 2:26 PM
Not a problem, Kim. And I do hope you stick around this site and join the party. We play a little rough sometimes, but we can be a lot of fun.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 13, 2009 2:30 PM
If you get Brownian drunk enough, he starts playing tunes with his hands & armpits. That's pretty fun.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 13, 2009 2:40 PM
Just you wait 'til the next party. I've been rehearsing an 80s dance club set that'll knock your socks off!
Posted by: Kevin | July 13, 2009 8:31 PM
I am so glad you touched on this matter because it reminds me of conflicting criticism I have often heard from Christians:(1) The atheist is only an atheist because he has not had to suffer.
This claim is often made in the form of an anecdote. For example, so and so soldier was in the midst of war when he and his friends miraculously survived, and he found Jesus. The implication is that you see the "truth" when you see hell on earth.
(2) The atheist is only an atheist because he unfortunately suffered and consequently unfortunately mad at God (only mad, of course, because secretly the atheist knows God really exists and is only too dishonest or selfish to admit it).
Posted by: Monado | July 13, 2009 9:25 PM
...Scrooges think they are Santa Claus, they are mad at Santa Claus, and they're afraid of Santa Claus.
There. Fixed it.
Posted by: Monado | July 13, 2009 10:09 PM
Good idea! Let's put the shoe on the other foot:
Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?Posted by: Monado | July 13, 2009 10:17 PM
Sorry, that last point was supposed to be the one supplied by nsdeonia [59]:
Posted by: rocksea | July 14, 2009 7:19 AM
1 in every 5 of the world population is chinese. most of the chinese dont believe in god. that itself comes up to 20%. many japanese dont have a belief in god. i am now in italy, which is a 95% catholic country, but i would vouch that more than half of the population doesnt believe in a god.
Posted by: Dan | July 14, 2009 12:53 PM
Stopped reading after 'Fourthly'. There is evidence that a person painted the painting, or an artist crafted a statue. There is no evidence of a higher being having created us. I am better than no one else, and you will find that the more educated one becomes, the higher chance they will turn farther from the shroud that is religion. If there was a god, it wouldn't allow all the suffering that is going on in the world if it was a good god. Also, the number of times the bible contradicts itself is quite amazing. Did you know we can go into a country next to us and take slaves? This would account for the slavery era in the USA, religion made them do it because the bible said it was ok. Slavery is NOT ok. Also, we must stone to death everyone that works on the sabbath, Sunday for some religions, Saturday for others. How can you believe the words of a conscript that says all these horrible things that can be done are against human rights worldwide? If anything, religion should be banned, but the USA was founded on freedom of religion, amongst other things. On this, 'Under god' was added during the Cold War as a communist deterrent as well as 'In god we trust'. We were never a judeo-christian nation. Now that the cold war is over, those should be removed. It doesnt bother me but it makes sense. The government is just lazy.
Posted by: Monado | July 14, 2009 1:52 PM
Hardy on point 2, reversed: it's natural to want someone to blame.
Thomas Hardy, 1866:
Posted by: Mark | July 14, 2009 2:31 PM
I'm an atheist from Edmonton. I spent two years in Red Deer - a lovely small city with a beautiful park system. The people are, for the most part, not like Nancy.
That said, Alberta certainly does have its share of Nancys. What most embarrasing about this line of thought is how poorly it's constructed. It really doesn't do much for their cause.
Posted by: craicmonkey | July 14, 2009 5:28 PM
*sigh* I'm really getting annoyed with having to live in the same province as these idiots. I was entertaining the idea of declaring myself an amoronist, but then I realized that the existence of morons is overwhelming, so that just wouldn't be rational. Shit. Oh, and since she has a private line to Bog All Slightly, then she is in possession of "superior knowledge", and by her words, this makes her a god. Oops.
Posted by: Seth | July 15, 2009 1:57 AM
Its funny that she states, "denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run." I think most religious people have a weaker ability to cope with crisis, therefore they need a 'god' to pray to, who should take all their problems away.
I don't need to believe in a deity because I have a very strong coping mechanism. I've been through much in my life and never needed a 'god' for help.
Posted by: Micaela | July 16, 2009 3:56 PM
Sometimes I'm scared by peole like Nancy Greenwood. I feel like I and those who are atheist a being persecuted without the torturing and stoning to death for herecy. It makes me sad. And it makes it even worse on my part because I go to a Catholic school and my beliefs are definetly out of place there. People at my school are actually surprised when they find out I am an athiest. I wouldn't want society to agree with me about a non-existence of god but I would want people to be less biased and assuming...
Posted by: Micaela | July 16, 2009 3:58 PM
Sometimes I'm scared by peole like Nancy Greenwood. I feel like I and those who are atheist a being persecuted without the torturing and stoning to death for herecy. It makes me sad. And it makes it even worse on my part because I go to a Catholic school and my beliefs are definetly out of place there. People at my school are actually surprised when they find out I am an athiest. I wouldn't want society to agree with me about a non-existence of god but I would want people to be less biased and assuming...
Posted by: Eustace P. McGargle | July 19, 2009 1:32 AM
It would seem, truth-seekers, that whether or not the simple person from Red Deer has an IQ of 90 or less has little to do with theism, deism or atheism. Why not look at the merits of each. This goofy blog where contributors merely demonstrate their personal ignorance in a vast array of critical comments simply make a case for their own narrow minded bigotry albeit packaged and perfumed and approved by a sequence of like minded minions. What about the giants like Lewis and more recently Flew. Give us all a break.
"Lewis was not converted by argument. He comes to the conclusion that the story of Jesus is differentiated from other myths in that it is a true myth along his journey toward genuine faith in Jesus Christ based upon the power of eye-witness accounts.Lewis had to sneak past the watchful dragons of self-consciousness.It was on a trip to the zoo with his brother that he realized that he believed, like a man who, after a long sleep, becomes aware that he is now awake."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS3thuSHUYg
Posted by: Eustace P. McGargle | July 19, 2009 1:36 AM
It would seem, truth-seekers, that whether or not the simple person from Red Deer has an IQ of 90 or less has little to do with theism, deism or atheism. Why not look at the merits of each. This goofy blog where contributors merely demonstrate their personal ignorance in a vast array of critical comments simply make a case for their own narrow minded bigotry albeit packaged and perfumed and approved by a sequence of like minded minions. What about the giants like Lewis and more recently Flew. Give us all a break.
"Lewis was not converted by argument. He comes to the conclusion that the story of Jesus is differentiated from other myths in that it is a true myth along his journey toward genuine faith in Jesus Christ based upon the power of eye-witness accounts.Lewis had to sneak past the watchful dragons of self-consciousness.It was on a trip to the zoo with his brother that he realized that he believed, like a man who, after a long sleep, becomes aware that he is now awake."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS3thuSHUYg
Posted by: John Morales | July 19, 2009 2:05 AM
Ahem. Interesting, ah, contribution there, good demonstration.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 19, 2009 3:34 AM
Exactly, let us look at the merits for each. What are the merits for believing in a deity, and which deity at that? Because remember what the atheist position is, it's a non-belief in the existence of a deity - that there is no positive evidence to warrant such a belief. So what positive evidence do you have to snap people out of their atheism?