Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 9:46 AM

Not surprising really, we see it here every day.

Posted by: Jeff S | August 28, 2009 9:47 AM

I'm a man, so I know what its like to be stubborn, but this kind of thing is ridiculous.

Its basically someone saying, "Yea, I see how thats false, but I'm going to believe it anyway."

Its frustrating.

Posted by: JD | August 28, 2009 9:48 AM

Psychological resistance is the achilles tendon of reason's potential.

Posted by: Rey Fox | August 28, 2009 9:49 AM

"It makes them look stupid."

...to 36% of the population.

Posted by: Martin Fitch | August 28, 2009 9:51 AM

This kind of thing is often discussed at a nice atheist blog:
http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/belief-persistence-despite-discredited.html

Posted by: Don Martin | August 28, 2009 9:54 AM

May I recommend to your attention a rather scary book?

_The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power_ by Jeff
Sharlet.

Publishers Weekly says,
"Checking in on a friend's brother at Ivenwald, a Washington-based fundamentalist group living communally in Arlington, Va., religion and journalism scholar Sharlet finds a sect whose members refer to Manhattan's Ground Zero as "the ruins of secularism"; intrigued, Sharlet accepts on a whim an invitation to stay at Ivenwald. He's shocked to find himself in the stronghold of a widespread "invisible" network, organized into cells much like Ivenwald, and populated by elite, politically ambitious fundamentalists; Sharlet is present when a leader tells a dozen men living there, "You guys are here to learn how to rule the world." As it turns out, the Family was established in 1935 to oppose FDR's New Deal and the spread of trade unions; since then, it has organized well-attended weekly prayer meetings for members of Congress and annual National Prayer Breakfasts attended by every president since Eisenhower. Further, the Family's international reach ("almost impossible to overstate") has "forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most oppressive regimes in the world." In the years since his first encounter, Sharlet has done extensive research, and his thorough account of the Family's life and times is a chilling expose."

These guys despise the sort of fundies who show up here; the Family (also known as "The Fellowship") is not about theology and unsubstantiated claims, it is about power, pure and simple. The only thing that counts is a man's (never mind women's--they exist to serve) relationship to Jesus. What a man does, whether embezzlement or humping women to whom he does not happen to be married, is immaterial, so long as he and Jesus are tight. How does one know that one's relationship with god is good? Simple: one has power and money. (The poor and the downtrodden are people that god, AKA Jesus, obviously hates, otherwise they would not be so poor.) This is the same stance taken by the New England traders amassing wealth in the slave trade: wealth = god's election. The slavers died (not nearly soon enough, in most cases) secure in the knowledge that they were going straight to heaven, while their passengers were doubtless hell-bound (though the free ride to christendom improved their chances of god's election, too--such a deal!).

The book names a number of names of congressmen and other politicians, foreign and domestic, seeking solace in the Family's retreat, the Cedars. The organization's townhouse at 133 C Street, in DC, of which The Washington Post says, June 26, 2009,

"On any given day, the rowhouse at 133 C St. SE -- well appointed, with American flag flying, white-and-green-trimmed windows and a pleasant garden -- fills with talk of power and the Lord. At least five congressmen live there, quietly renting upstairs rooms from an organization affiliated with "the Fellowship," the obsessively secretive Arlington spiritual group that organizes the National Day of Prayer breakfast, an event routinely attended by legions of top government officials. Other politicians come to the house for group spirituality sessions, prayer meetings or to simply share their troubles."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR200...)

These other politicians include Sanford and Ensign, guys less interested in being washed in the blood of the lamb than in getting another lamb to hump.

Posted by: Sigmund | August 28, 2009 9:55 AM

#9
It is a creationist site - I've checked it out before.
How on earth did they get permission to use Sagan in their advertisements?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 9:58 AM

This isn't even remotely surprising. Holding strong religious beliefs by its very nature requires a strong level of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Take the example of heliocentrism... even once it was fairly well proven, it was not until the church acknowledged it that people began to accept it as truth.

The religious are told from day one that they are sheep in god's flock... and sheep are indeed what they are.

Posted by: Denise | August 28, 2009 9:59 AM

And yet...A belief that I HAVE to cling to, when faced with evidence like this, is that confronting people with their disconnect is helpful. Purely anecdotal, but I have seen people shaken to the core when pressed and forced to admit their beliefs are not founded on fact.

They respond with, "I will pray for you." When it is clear they are going home to pray for themselves.

Posted by: Carlie | August 28, 2009 10:00 AM

Rey Fox - Yes, and Ouch. The societal reinforcement of it really is the problem.

Posted by: Surfer Without a Handle | August 28, 2009 10:09 AM

PZ,

is there not a negation too much in the second-to-last sentence of your post which you might not want to fix?

Posted by: CalGeorge | August 28, 2009 10:11 AM

"14% say that these discoveries have actually made them more religious."

Francis Collins, come on down!

Posted by: Roman | August 28, 2009 10:13 AM

People hold to irrational beliefs in the face of day-to-day examples of their beliefs being incorrect not just the findings of a biologist or geologist.
I know arguments by analogy are clumsy but i'm reminded of people feeding wads of cash into gaming machines because that particular machine is 'lucky' despite all evidence to the contrary of the empty wallet.
I also purchased my copy of 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' today for AUD$35. For those of you live in regions where the book is not yet available and those in which all copies of the books are being shoveled into the pyre with the other offensive books...suck it.

Posted by: beccastareyes | August 28, 2009 10:14 AM

"It makes them look stupid."

...to 36% of the population.

And to the percent of the population that thinks that that particular case is one in which science holds. For example, every time you read about some poor kid dying of diabetes because his/her parents decided to pray for God to cure their kid rather than visit a physician and get some insulin, I'd wager you'd have a lot more than 36% of people telling them 'get that kid to a doctor'. These people might not care about what science says about the origin of life, the universe and everything, but they are aware enough to know that generally speaking, doctors are pretty good at handling sick children. The Boat Joke Banned from This Blog may be trotted out.

Posted by: Divalent | August 28, 2009 10:16 AM

It's probably true that people don't think their way into faith (and into their false views of how the world works). And so it may be true that the people that remain in their faith are *not likely* to think their way out, but … thinking is probably the only way out. And for a lot of people, they won't think about it unless challenged to do so.

There is also probably a large element of the "herd mentality" going on: people feel comfortable resisting overwhelming reason and evidence when they are ensconced in a group of like minded people. But that will change as the proportion of the population that hold clearly false views about the world decline, and as the proportion of people who hold rational views increases.

The trends are encouraging: the world is becoming safer for agnostics/atheists to be out of the closet, which 1) fosters discussion of topics that challenge blindly held religious views and 2) provides an environment that lessens the “outcast” penalty one might suffer from discarding an anti-rational position.

Posted by: Gilgamesh | August 28, 2009 10:17 AM

The numbers are depressing, I'll do my part, with the people I know, by removing the small stones of belief from the bottom of the wall and hope for a collapse into rationality.

Posted by: NYCMike | August 28, 2009 10:19 AM

I'm reminded of the story of a woman who dressed as a nun and sat in the subway with a bowl for donations. No sign, just a bowl and her garb.

A local newspaper investigated her and found her to be a fraud. They asked people who gave her money if knowing she's a fraud made them wish they'd not given to her. Most said they felt better anyway knowing they gave to someone who looked religious, even though the money wasn't going to anyone but her.

Step 3: profit!

Posted by: Drosera | August 28, 2009 10:35 AM

That people indeed ignore scientific evidence against their beliefs is a fact. The Book of Mormon, the holy scripture of the Mormons, claims that native Americans ('Lamanites') are descendants of a lost tribe of Israel. This has been disproved beyond any doubt using DNA markers. Any sane person would have concluded what any sane person knowing the origins of Mormonism already knew, which is that the whole Book of Mormon is a fraud from cover to cover. The faith of the Mormons is a complete sham*. Did these scientific studies lead to the collapse of the LDS church? Not at all. Mormons can even run for president and become appointed as ambassador to China — making small steps towards their ideal of a global theocracy.

* I’m not saying that other religions are any better.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 28, 2009 10:37 AM

speedwell wrote:

What sort of reality-avoidant mental illness and resistance to treatment could this poll be highlighting? Could it be backhandedly proving a point about the increase in depression and related illnesses in society generally?

I think you had the answer in your post already. Religion, for most people, IS an emotionally abusive relationship. Catholicism is perhaps the example most people think of first, but nearly all religions depend on abusing their members, making them feel bad about themselves, then turning around and claiming to be the only way to feel better (after creating the problem in the first place.) It is classic abusive behavior. And yet, generation after generation, people fall under its sway, mostly because religions make a concerted effort to begin the abuse on young children. Once children have suffered under this sort of abuse for a period of time, it is often difficult for them to ever live their lives without the abuse; they become emotional prisoners of their abusers. And when they grow up and have children, they send their kids straight into the jaws of religion.

The only surprising thing to me about the poll results is that the number isn't higher.

Posted by: jwc | August 28, 2009 10:41 AM

Is it just me or are the readers of Time skewed toward dumb and religious? Seems like every one of their polls leans heavily toward the religious types.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 28, 2009 10:49 AM

Bostonian @9: Off topic, but when I first visited the main blog page there was an ad at the top for the "cosmic riddle" with a picture of Carl Sagan in it.

As I recall, it's a tendentious little tract teaching the moral that the world had to have been created by an intelligent entity. Feel free to peruse it when you have absolutely nothing better to do.

Posted by: KI | August 28, 2009 10:52 AM

Not only has the Dalai Lama endorsed science over faith and belief, the refugee nuns and priests in India have given up prayers and chanting and started to study the sciences. We may well see some interesting results, these people are already highly disciplined (no jokes bunnywhip) and serious about their scholarship.

Posted by: Chemgirl | August 28, 2009 10:59 AM

The Dali Lama said somewhere that if ever science were to disprove a tennet of buddhism, that buddhism must change.

Glints of rationality in there.

Y'know, I think buddhism is one religion I might be able to live with. Not practice, but certainly live with. While the literal concept of reincarnation is a bit silly, the idea behind it is kind of nice--one should strive to be the best whatever-one-is one can be.

Not to mention meditation can be wonderfully relaxing even (especially) without the attached spirituality.

Not to mention, they're pacifists.

Posted by: CKHB | August 28, 2009 11:01 AM

I believe this is known as "staying the course."

Posted by: J Todd DeShong | August 28, 2009 11:04 AM

People do not believe in many, many things that science has proven! People do not believe HIV causes AIDS, or that vaccines do NOT cause Autism, or that science has proven Global Warming does exist. Why should religion be any different?
People are idots in many different realms. Unfortunately, that will never change.
JTD

Posted by: JBlilie | August 28, 2009 11:14 AM

"How on earth did they get permission to use Sagan in their advertisements?"

The same way Dembski got permission to use the Harvard video of the inner workings of the cell: They didn't.
By ERV: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2008/03/yah-about-that-cell-video-in-expelled.html

Posted by: KI | August 28, 2009 11:20 AM

@46
Originally, Buddhism was godless, and prayer and rebirth and all that Hindu stuff was rejected as attachment and a manifestation of desire (which is what we're trying to avoid). When the Hinduism revival swept India, reformed Buddhism got all full of ridiculous bullshit like rebirth and prayer flags and other woo to fit in. The Tibetan schools are especially full of it, so I'm glad they might going rational. Ch'an and Zen seem to keep pretty close to the original ideas (with a bunch of Chinese and Japanese thought folded in), but the chanting for wealth and reincarnation crap are as much bull as any other woofest.

Posted by: Attila | August 28, 2009 11:24 AM

I regularly have dialogs with a Christian proselytizer at lunch time at one of the bus stops at the Ohio Statehouse. I think sometime I talk more to him not to convince him but at least to stop him talking to the weaker around him.

I view him as a bigger threat in that he is not the typical mouth breathing fundie. He is actually a retired HP mainfram salesmen who had been making a 6 figure income. And he is well versed in all of the apologetics. One course trying reason seems pointless since he will always move the goalposts or change the argument so now you are discussing a different point. I also think if you carefully keep track of the discussion the logic will be internally inconsistent since they are using whatever argument to refute your contention rather than worrying if they really have a consistent worldview.

It also seems like critical thinking is lacking since what I hear are talking points. Micro-evolution is true macro is false. At which point I say to him so I can walk about a mile back to my office (micro-walking) but it is impossible for me to walk to Cleveland (macro-walking) at which time I get the lame argument, but you are still the same person. Way to miss an analogy moron. I guess you only understand them when their your tortured and fallacious analogies.

I tried a different tack. Which is I feel sorry for you. And I really do because his worldview has locked him out of a grander and more amazing world with the fear of eternal torture gone, and a lot of pointless guilt removed.

I didn't get this far since he said, "if you feel sorry for me then why don't you pray for me. Oh, that's right you can't because you don't beleive in anything, and you can't help."

I longer feel sorry for him. I just want this goddamned drug dealer off my street before his ideas victimize others.

Since he is an HP Sales rep the joke is appropriatte. What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman? The used car salesman knows he is lying to you. What's the difference between a Christian and an Atheist. The Atheist at least knows when he is lying to you.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 28, 2009 11:39 AM

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll.

This, and the Garrido story, really makes me sad this morning.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: BAllanJ | August 28, 2009 11:49 AM

They may look stupid, to us... but even in their own eyes they must look mean spirited... Here their god goes, making a beautiful reality, and then when they look at it, they deny it's as it is! What kind of creator doesn't want folks to appreciate his creation as it is! They're putting their preacher ahead of their god!

Posted by: becca | August 28, 2009 11:56 AM

May I recommend the book "When Prophecy Fails"? it's the study of a UFO cult that developed in the 1950s, and is the source of the concept of cognitive dissonance. In the book, they postulate that it takes three "disconfirmations to kill a movement of true believers" (quote taken from a review of the book). I note there's a 2009 edition of the book... I'll have to get it, since I can't locate my earlier copy.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 12:12 PM

Religion: Simply put, it's a crippling disease.

Posted by: Kristofer Layon | August 28, 2009 12:27 PM

"When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief..."

Well, with all due respect to skeptics and scientists: I'm still waiting to see a scientist disprove a core religious belief of any magnitude, considering that faith and belief are not evidence-based, so they're completely detached from the realm of things that can proven or disproved.

In light of that, much of the dialogue on this blog seems to me to be a waste of time. It's a community of skeptics making fun of belief, and how religious ideas cannot be proven with evidence.

No kidding! Faith and belief are not evidence-based. So why do you waste time stating and restating the obvious? Faith and belief are inherently separate from scientific frameworks based on evidence and proof. Why do you waste your time debating something that you can't win? What are you seeking to do, rid human language of the words "faith" and "belief"?

Or, are you also suggesting that any pursuit based on feelings and beliefs rather than science and evidence is silly? (in that case, I suppose we should stop loving others, get divorced from our spouses, stop listening to music and appreciating art, and burn all of the fiction in our libraries)

All of these many blog entries and comments are instantly negated by one simple referral to a book that isn't even holy: the dictionary. Just look up "faith" and "belief", and realize that your pursuit of evidence in religion is simply absurd. Like many of the greatest things in life, religion does not require evidence; indeed, evidence and proof are contrary to very meanings of faith and belief.

More on your tiring and vain verbal gymnastics here:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/layo0002/ephemera/

BTW, if there are any articles out there about science disproving a core religious belief, could a reader please email me? =)

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 28, 2009 12:47 PM

Hi, Kristofor Layon,

Thanks for stopping by! If you've been here before, I apologize for treating you as if you're new.

I'm glad you made your post, because it reminds us of some of the straw man arguments used against atheists as a kind of "Gotcha!" move by those of faith, or by their apologists, or by their accommodationists.

Straw men like, "are you trying to remove the words faith from language?" or "we might as well stop loving and listening to music!" Nope! Not at all! For one thing, language undergoes all kinds of changes over time for all kinds of reasons and influences (like technological change, or invasion, to name two examples), but more importantly, it's not about amending vocabulary, it's about studying the universe and understanding its scientific principles. Just because we can determine that chemical reactions in the human body correlate to the feeling of love, or enjoyment from music, doesn't make the love any less poignant in our experience, or the music any less enjoyable! Thanks for demonstrating a couple of goal-post moving maneuvers!

Another common tactic is shifting the burden of proof to non-believers, as opposed to believers, which you did when you challenged science to "disprove" god or gods. Actually, it doesn't work that way, and thanks again for illustrating another tactic of derailment by faithful, apologists, and accommodationists. How it works is, the burden of proof, the onus to demonstrate evidence, rests on those making assertions, so for example, if someone says "there is a god" or "there is no god" then it is up to that individual to provide the evidence. It is not up to the person who says, "I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of a god" to show evidence that there is no god. The non-believer is awaiting evidence, the believer must provide evidence.

It can be confusing, but it happens to alot of folks who think that not believing in god is the same thing as saying there is no god. There are further permutations that can occur, as for example, the realization that if there is a god, but that god does not demonstrate any evidence of affecting the universe (agency), then is that god even necessary, and if it does exist, isn't it just irrelevant? I'll let the smarter brains than mine at this site tackle those angles should it develop.

In the meantime, thanks for stopping by and giving us those reminders! Take care, and have a great weekend!

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 12:48 PM

I'm still waiting to see a scientist disprove a core religious belief of any magnitude...

This study is the first thing that came to mind. It seems pretty thorough, and conclusive, to me.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 12:50 PM

What are you seeking to do, rid human language of the words "faith" and "belief"?

I would be happy with just putting them in there proper place of ridicule, instead of where they reside now, on the pedestal of esteem.

Posted by: Maezeppa | August 28, 2009 12:56 PM

I think it's important to look at why people responded as they did. Of course there are people who will not change their thinking based on any amount of new information. However, we might discover that a fair number of them know that religion is metaphysical and not a tool that can rule out the existence of supernatural beings.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 12:59 PM

What's that smell?

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 1:01 PM

Yeah, you can laugh at that, but it´s your big problem. 67 per cent of the american people prefer religious to scientific thinking.

Poor loosers!

Posted by: Denise | August 28, 2009 1:02 PM

@75 What's a looser?? Those kids who were their jeans under their butts??? Maybe its people with untied shoes. Or me when my pony tail comes undone. Maybe its when I have too much change in my pocket...

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 1:07 PM

I´m not american, I´m spaniard. That kind of religious problems don´t exist in my country. You could be a great country and an example for all of us, but you look pretty bad when the TV talks about you guys. We think about you as idiots, sorry but it´s true! That is the feeling here in the whole europe

Posted by: aratina cage | August 28, 2009 1:09 PM

Loosers, get out a fucking English dictionary and look up your name, please.

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 1:12 PM

I can talk in english and write in english, but you cannot do that.

The creationism, the religious fanatics, the mormons, the wars..., those are the kinds of thing we read and hear about your country.

It´s sad, but true.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 28, 2009 1:14 PM

More on your tiring and vain verbal gymnastics here:

This is supposed to entice us to go read your blog?

evidence and proof are contrary to very meanings of faith and belief.

Martin Luther said something very similar, and he was right. Problem was, his insight did not mean what he seemed to think it would mean.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 28, 2009 1:15 PM

Am I the only one getting the all italics?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 28, 2009 1:18 PM

Nope... we're all in italics... it's clearly a pestilence of theistic origin! Repent! Repent!

Posted by: BAllanJ | August 28, 2009 1:19 PM

The follow-up question should have asked them how much evidence was required when they gave up their belief in Santa Claus (if they have).

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 28, 2009 1:22 PM

I find that survey result mind-blowing (and depressing). The optimist in me can't help but wonder if many respondents were interpreting the question differently than we are.

Some people may have thought that the hypothetical "if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief" was equivalent to "one study is reported that claims a particular religious belief is wrong." Given the way scientific studies are often reported in the popular press (one year it's "Scientists say cutting out fats is the key to losing weight," and the next it's "Don't worry about fats; scientists say carbs are what are making you gain weight!"), reluctance to abandon a belief based on a single study could actually be considered a good demonstration of skepticism.

Ok, I'm probably being unduly optimistic here; I just find those results mind-boggling.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 28, 2009 1:26 PM

Maybe I'll just flounce outside and threaten them with a frying pan.

Posted by: KI | August 28, 2009 1:26 PM

It's the ghost of Chico Marx!

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 28, 2009 1:27 PM

Loosers,

I´m spaniard

Bueno, entonces, nos hablamos en español para clarificarse algunos puntos. Primero, me disculpo para mi español - pase muchos años que no hablaba, y pienso que mi español es muy pobre. También, me disculpo para mi presunción de su lengua en mi comentario anterior.

That kind of religious problems don´t exist in my country.

Pienso que no es siempre la história de su país. Por otro lado, es posible que, ahora, España es mas mejor en los ciencias que nuestro pais en un porcentaje de la gente totalmente. Que lastima que las fortunas de algunas países se cambian año a año, edad a edad.

Entonces, algunos de nosotros personas en los Estados Unidos están trabajando para la cambiar, para mas educación en los ciencias y civicas. Es la verdad que hay mucho trabajo para hacer. Entretanto, los otros países del mundo puede avancar y ayudarse el mundo.

Sin reyes,

Roberto

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 1:29 PM

Very good spanish, Roberto, congratulations, your country needs people like you!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 1:30 PM

I think atheists do this just as often at religious people.

Examples please?

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 1:31 PM

I know Spain has never suffered under the thumb of a disastrous leader before.

*cough Generalisimo cough cough

Yes, we were alone, any country wanted to help us.

And they washed the brain of many people, it´s sad.

Viva USA libre!

Posted by: Tyler | August 28, 2009 1:34 PM

NYCMike: Step 3: profit!

lulz...

Posted by: Sharon | August 28, 2009 1:36 PM

Simpson's did it!

Lisa does an experiment on Bart and a Lab Rat:

Lisa experiments on Bart by putting a cupcake on top of the fridge. Every time Bart reaches for it he gets a shock. Needless to say he continuously reaches for it and continuously gets shocked.

The Lab Rat reaches for the treat once, gets shocked and never reaches for it again.

The religious society are the Barts of the world.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 28, 2009 1:39 PM

Got any examples?

Maybe we should start with you Thruthspeaker. If I could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy who you be inclined to think that life was intelligently designed?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 1:41 PM

I think atheists do this just as often at religious people.

Yawn. Legitamate examples?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 1:43 PM

Maybe we should start with you Thruthspeaker. If I could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy who you be inclined to think that life was intelligently designed?

Whenever you do that be sure write it up and submit it.

You'll make a ton of dough.

We're still waiting.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 28, 2009 1:47 PM

Robert, He was right about chicken intelligence, they are the only creature stupider than a sheep. If they didn't lay eggs, and taste great they'd be more useless than christians. :D

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 1:53 PM

I didn't say I could, but if I could would that influence your thinking. Yes or no?

Well no. Just because you build a program that refutes natural selection why should I automatically default to Intelligent Design?

If I could build a peanut butter sandwich so big that it refuted intelligent design would that sway you to evolution?

Posted by: Drosera | August 28, 2009 1:55 PM

ID-er,

If I could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy who you be inclined to think that life was intelligently designed?

If pigs could fly...

We have had this discussion before. You'll never learn, do you?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 1:58 PM

Randy, you have been posting here how long? We presume any claim you make is a lie, due to your track record at bending, stretching, and breaking the truth. We know anybody is capaple of lying, but religious people start with two whoppers: their imaginary deity exists, and the babble is not a work of fiction. So you have a long ways to go to top those.

Posted by: Tyler | August 28, 2009 2:01 PM

Kristofer, on his blog: I [do not] wish to belittle atheism, either: it's a belief system...

No, it isn't. Belittle it as much as your black heart desires, but don't misrepresent it, fucktard.

... religious people cannot justify their faith, nor prove that God exists.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things;

Bean kristen... yer doin' it rong.

Posted by: CJO | August 28, 2009 2:02 PM

Moron. Natural Selection is a consequence of entropy, not something that has to "overcome" it. So clearly you don't understand the concepts involved, and whatever so-called simulation you think you've made is just going to be a demonstration of your conceptual confusion, of which you must be very proud to spend time coding in order to show it off.

Posted by: Peter G | August 28, 2009 2:04 PM

"that is what we hear in Europe about you, sorry but it´s true" - Looser You've heard it so it must be true. Are you sure you're not religious? Gullibility is one of the primary manifestations of the disorder.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 28, 2009 2:06 PM

Watch out Chimpy, he's trying the sweet talk.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 2:09 PM

Intelligent Designer, I think the question to ask is:

What would it take to change your position on ID/atheism/whatever.

Typically, believers in woo, won't be able to come up with an answer. The reason is that they simply have faith that what they think is real, is real, and faith requires no proof. The scientist however, could think of a number of things that would change their thinking. For instance, if there were legitimate discoveries of human bones in rock strata that also contained dinosaur bones, that would make world news. It wouldn't disprove evolution, but it would seriously put evolution models and geological model into question.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 2:12 PM

RBDC,

I don't think evolution and intelligent designed are mutually exclusive ideas. As you know I am a software developer and software development is an evolutionary process.

So it isn't like you have to yield your whole belief system. It might only budge you from atheist to agnostic.

No it wouldn't or shouldn't. Being that I consider myself a rational person (who at times acts and thinks irrationally) I wouldn't lean towards ID as an explanation because ID has not been able to explain anything as of yet. It is a failure at explaining, supporting and predicting. As soon as you lean on ID to help explain anything you are giving up rational thought and inserting cause into the explanation that is undemonstratable. When you do that you might as well and justifiably could insert anything as the cause.

There's nothing, NOTHING, that suggests, hints at or supports an invisible intelligent hand involved in anything. It's wishful thinking.

So no, if you somehow disproved NS via a computer program it would not push me towards some supernatural explanation.

In the history of man no supernatural explanation has every come to dismiss an explanation of something we got to via rational though and application of the scientific method. If you know of one please enlighten me. But the list of things we know as a result of dismissing supernatural thought and using reason and science is nearly limitless.

Why should I accept a wholly unsupported supernatural explanation now just because a scientific theory has been altered or refuted?

Posted by: Edward Lark | August 28, 2009 2:14 PM

@ Kristofer Layon

Your argument regarding "faith" relys on an imprecise use of language, not actual reasoning. You are conflating religious faith - belief without or in the absence of evidence - with the colloquial use of the word faith to mean "trust."

We "trust" that the plane will fly and deliver us safely, because the overwhelming evidence is that the odds are good that it will. The reason plane crashes get so much attention is because they are rare. Our "faith" in the plane is evidence-based.

The problem with your whole "completely separate" argument is that it is simply wrong as to the claims made by the religious. If a believer makes claims about the way the material world operates - that prayer works, that God intervenes in the everyday lives of believers, etc. These are testable - and therefore scientific - claims.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 28, 2009 2:16 PM

Posted by: Kristofer Layon | August 28, 2009 12:27 PM

"When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief..."

Well, with all due respect to skeptics and scientists: I'm still waiting to see a scientist disprove a core religious belief of any magnitude, considering that faith and belief are not evidence-based,

The part I've bolded is what disproves them.

Or, are you also suggesting that any pursuit based on feelings and beliefs rather than science and evidence is silly? (in that case, I suppose we should stop loving others, get divorced from our spouses, stop listening to music and appreciating art, and burn all of the fiction in our libraries)

Notice how you just shifted the goalposts. Of there are lots of worthwhile pursuits that are not based on evidence - art, music, fiction, and love among them.

But religious beliefs aren't pursuits, they're beliefs. And I do say that any belief not based on evidence is, at best, silly.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 28, 2009 2:19 PM

Kristofer, I left a comment on your blog. But I was wondering, how is it that Christians can blog about religion on an official university library blog but an atheist can't even link to their own blog from their official profile because it offends Christians?

Posted by: loose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 2:20 PM

Nobody go to church on sunday to listen like idiots to a liar.

Such a pity. How about we send over all of our religio-diots (so they can learn some Spanish) and in return, you send over your beautiful women. Hell, we'll even throw in a Disneyland just to show good faith.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 28, 2009 2:22 PM

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 28, 2009 1:39 PM

Got any examples?
Maybe we should start with you Thruthspeaker. If I could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy who you be inclined to think that life was intelligently designed?

I asked for an example of atheists disregarding scientific evidence. Instead, you give me a hypothetical example of scientific evidence you might give me in the future?

Anyway, to answer your question, if you could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy then I would have to conclude that natural selection is insufficient to account for the diversity of life on earth. Obviously, this would not in any way constitute evidence that life was intelligently designed. But it would require a huge change in our understanding of biology, so I look forward to your simulation.

Posted by: Kristofer Layon | August 28, 2009 2:23 PM

Drosera,

I'll focus my final entry on your comments, as they're so well-worded and thoughtful. But it will be my final entry, as one of my points is that this debate is indeed endless and neither side ever truly wins when using entirely different criteria to construct their assertions.

The basic flaw in attacking religion and different faiths is that atheists always attack a God or system that they have constructed and limited in some definitive way. For example, they always take religious texts as literal (something I do not do; religious books are literature and written by people like any other books, and need to be used appropriately according to the various genres in which they were written). So misinterpreting creation stories or the the book of Revelation is always flawed, whether it's done by atheists or fundamentalist Christians.

Or, they play one faith off of another, as if only one can win. But all faith systems are human created, so this approach is also silly and has nothing to do with the reality of God(s).

I'm utterly open to questioning every Christian belief I have, and do so all of the time, just as any scientist should also be open to questioning data and their interpretation. This basic approach to life is what any intelligent person should do, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, biologist, artist, musician, or atheist.

Perhaps the only thing I really take issue with here (or take issue with any religious blog, for that matter) is fundamentalism itself. People who pursue either science or religion with blinders on are bound to be either a disservice to themselves or others. Taking everything literally, and never questioning either science or religion, is wrong.

But pitting entirely different frameworks against each other is also wrong. And that is where I differ. I believe I'm taking the correct road by acknowledging that I'm a Christian, acknowledging that what I believe cannot be proven, and admitting that science provides critical information that I need every day of my life. My belief in God completely accommodates science; any miracle that I might or might not believe in has nothing to do with science, as science neither proves or disproves it.

I'm a Christian because I grew up in a Christian community and family; continue to find comfort, intellectual growth and challenge, beauty, hope, and love within the framework of Christian theology; and believe that I'm a happier and better person because I accept Christianity as one (but not the only) value and belief framework for my life.

But I have doubts about Christianity and disagreements with other religious people all of the time. That doesn't mean that religion is dumb or God does not exist. Just as I would not be so foolish to assert that because scientists do not all agree with each other, and have contradictory theories and interpretations of data and evidence and cannot always agree on core truths, that all science is bogus. Or, that some branches of science are "more right" than others. (why ambiguity and dissonance is acceptable in science, but not in religion, is perhaps the one remaining mystery to me!)

Though using the basic premise of this blog, I could certainly do so.

Posted by: Tuxedo Cartman | August 28, 2009 2:29 PM

PLUTO IS STILL A PLANET, DAMMIT!!!

Posted by: Tyler | August 28, 2009 2:31 PM

Nerd: Well, you have done a piss poor job of defending your ideas when pushed.

Tee hee...

Posted by: ZZ | August 28, 2009 2:32 PM

Well, once it was up on fark, you should have known it would come to this...

But I don't think the survey shows what you think it shows (willful ignorance in the face of evidence, etc.). While the majority of people are IMO irrational most of the time, it's not irrational for surveyed people to reject the scientific finding. Consider: if 10,000,000 Christians told you that God told them directly this morning that He did create the world in 7 days, would you believe them? Of course not. They're (a) working from data you reject and (b) biased parties for the other side.

They see you the same way. So they are critically thinking--they're just not accepting your premises with regard to the validity of revelation as data for human life and in any event see you as biased (which, being human, you probably are, just like me).

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 28, 2009 2:35 PM

RBDC,

I wouldn't lean towards ID as an explanation because ID has not been able to explain anything as of yet. It is a failure at explaining, supporting and predicting.

I wouldn't know. I don't read ID literature. My thoughts are my own. I did read "Why Evolution is True" though. Well, I got bored halfway through the last chapter and didn't finish it. I didn't find much evidence presented in that book contrary to intelligent design. I found the interpretation of evidence contrary to intelligent design, but not the evidence itself. In some cases I think intelligent design offered a better explanation for the evidence.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 2:37 PM

Consider: if 10,000,000 Christians told you that God told them directly this morning that He did create the world in 7 days, would you believe them? Of course not. They're (a) working from data you reject and (b) biased parties for the other side.

They see you the same way. So they are critically thinking--they're just not accepting your premises with regard to the validity of revelation as data for human life and in any event see you as biased (which, being human, you probably are, just like me).

Big difference.

If I ask one of these 10,000,000 to show me what they saw they would not be able to do so.

If they asked me to show them what science has found I could point to all the evidence. I could hand hold them through the explanation or find someone that could. If they dismiss this evidence out of hand then they are being irrational and are not using critical thinking.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 28, 2009 2:39 PM

Save yourself the trouble. I've already heard christian sweet talk.

Yeah. But I'm not a Christian.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 2:41 PM

I wouldn't know. I don't read ID literature. My thoughts are my own.

Randy, what is your idea of Intelligent Design?

I did read "Why Evolution is True" though. Well, I got bored halfway through the last chapter and didn't finish it. I didn't find much evidence presented in that book contrary to intelligent design. I found the interpretation of evidence contrary to intelligent design, but not the evidence itself. In some cases I think intelligent design offered a better explanation for the evidence.

Such as?

And I notice you've ignored the rest of my answer.

Posted by: Becky | August 28, 2009 2:44 PM

How does one get accredited as a Christian Science practitioner?
How does that test work?
What's the difference between standing next to someone dying or looking dumbfounded while standing next to someone dying?

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 28, 2009 2:46 PM

Okay, okay, the worst part is how their stupidity gets tangled up with actual virtues such as rationality and open-mindedness. They want to be rational and open-minded without having to give up their dogmatic, irrational beliefs, thus they torture logic à la the syllogisms I devised a few months back. So, not only have they decided to believe whatever they want and willingly deny all reasonable evidence to the contrary, they think they got there via open inquiry and reason. This sort of vile misappropriation and distortion is disgusting and makes it all that much harder to keep people smart.

Posted by: Tyler | August 28, 2009 2:49 PM

Loosers: "About 76% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholics, 5% other faith, and about 19% identify with no religion."

Ok, but only because of tradition.

Likewise in the US.

Nobody go to church on sunday to listen like idiots to a liar.

There are still plenty of spaniards attending mass/church/mosque. But the numbers are indeed waning (at least as far as christianity goes), just like they are waning for amerikan christians. Another difference is that, by and large, religious services in the US have more to do with getting together in a convenient social setting and less to do with the actual religion itself.

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 2:51 PM

You people have forgotten Thomas Jefferson. We study the american history in Spain. That´s the free spirit we like. Where is it now?

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 2:55 PM

Loosers: "About 76% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholics, 5% other faith, and about 19% identify with no religion."

Ok, but only because of tradition.

Tyler:

Likewise in the US."

Well, I lived for two years in USA. Every Sunday, the streets were empty at 11 am, no people, no cars, anything. Why? Everybody was in church. Every 100 meters, a different church, baptist, evangelic, good lord, bla, bla, bla.

That doesn´t happen here.

Here Church is not so powerful as there. And we don´t have christians channels on TV.

Posted by: arensb | August 28, 2009 2:59 PM

I've talked to a lot of people who think that way, and the really mind-boggling part of this is that they consider this attitude to be a virtue.

It sounds like authoritarianism to me: they believe the things they do not because they're supported by evidence, but because they've been told by people they trust. They see religion and science as basically the same sort of thing, with a priesthood at the top that tells people what to believe.

If that's the case, then the survey question is like, if you were a Mets fan because your father was one, and his father before him; and if a Red Sox fan purported to show that the Mets aren't the Best Team Ever, would you become a Red Sox fan?

Of course not, because it's not a matter of factual correctness, it's a matter of allegiance.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 28, 2009 3:01 PM

Looser are you stating that the Catholic Church has no effect on governance and television in Spain?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 3:04 PM

I think (intelligent design) + entropy predicts the existence of pseudogenes.

How do you quantify or qualify the ID agent?

Posted by: Loosers | August 28, 2009 3:07 PM

Church has a lot of money, because they were collaborating with the dictator FRanco, 40 years, that´s very long. During that time, they got "extra bonus". Now they are trying to recover their old power together with the right party. But for now, they cannot do anything, just complain.

Posted by: Marc Abian | August 28, 2009 3:09 PM

You've heard it so it must be true. Are you sure you're not religious? Gullibility is one of the primary manifestations of the disorder.

I'm pretty certain he meant, it's true that that's what you hear in Europe, which it is. The American public comes across as quite stupid in our media most of the time.

Posted by: Attila | August 28, 2009 3:14 PM

@ Kristopher #66

You claim to be a Christian, but then claim it is all a matter of faith. Here is the problem. Christ's disciples and Paul did not have faith. If the story is true, then they knew good exists, no faith required. Just as you don't have faith the mailman exists.

The issue is Christianity makes all sort of claims such as if you have as much faith as a mustard see you will be able to move mountains. Christ said you will do greater miracles than he. Also it seems pretty clear he referenced his generation when saying this generation would not pass away before his return. Just in this I don't see anyone moving mountains with just faith. Anyone claiming to create great miracles upon checking turns out to be lying or deluded. And it has been almost 2000 years now Jesus.

By that alone you should say your religion has problems. Now if you want to say there is a deist god out there that created the cosmos but does not interfere in everyday events you are welcome to your faith and science can neither prove this type of god. However, it is also not Christianity. This is the typical goalpost moving claim Christians make.

You are not just coming here claiming god, but claiming Christianity and Christianity does make falsifiable claims which have been. Also all of the Bible reads like a book written by people making up stories about trying to understand the world, and god with the level of understanding they had. Basically your god is too small and petty to be compatible with our understanding of the universe. If you have a better evidenced one or more internally consistent one we will be happy to look at it. Until then we are going with the null hypothesis of no god.

Also until then we will continue to use faith properly. Like JFK had faith that we could put man on the moon. OR when scientists have faith that if they devote their professional lives to their field they can help to cure AIDS, cancer or extend human life. Far better faith then saying if I pray and believe really really hard I can get to heaven and don't need to worry about this life. I don't think there is a greater crap faith than that.

Posted by: BlueMonday | August 28, 2009 3:17 PM

I recently got into an intense discussion with my brother, a devout evangelical, about evolution. The emotional thrust of this issue is that it defies his notion of a specific, concrete moment of human failure (The Fall). I had to ask him if what he wanted was the truth, regardless of its implications. I asked him if he was capable of admitting that he'd believed the wrong thing if he were given evidence. His voice shook as he said to me, "You and [our sister] have already shaken my faith so much, so yeah, I can die right now, happily admitting that I'm wrong." To him that was an indictment of our failure to remain true to faith.

He wasn't angry, just so disappointed. But still, I see glimmers of hope for him. I don't think he could handle hearing these things from someone besides me, our sister, or his wife (a biology teacher, though still xian), but I know that because he trusts and loves us so much, he's forced to consider them. A few years ago, he wouldn't have, being too indoctrinated, but little by little, he's coming around. Don't give up on folks. Hell, just 4 years ago, my sister was going through seminary to become an ordained minister. Now look at her, disappointing devout members of the flock.

Posted by: Drosera | August 28, 2009 3:18 PM

Kristofer Layon @150,

Congratulations! You have managed to evade all of my questions @119. From what you write, I get the impression that your belief is like a dense fog that miraculously opens up now and then to allow you to pick some juicy cherries for your survival.

Posted by: Kristofer Layon | August 28, 2009 3:23 PM

A.Noyd:

Despite your incredibly rude thinking *and* writing, you did provoke me to break my promise and post one more item, if only to point out that you seem to have missed something that you were seeking. (and, it seems, most everyone else misses when discussion religion, too).

You write:

"So if you can go your whole life as a Christian without making truth claims or denying scientific facts, go for it. I don't see that happening."

But I already provided core truth claims when answering someone else:

"I'm a Christian because I grew up in a Christian community and family; continue to find comfort, intellectual growth and challenge, beauty, hope, and love within the framework of Christian theology; and believe that I'm a happier and better person because I accept Christianity as one (but not the only) value and belief framework for my life."

So this is why I'm a Christian, why Christianity is real and meaningful for me, and thus why Christianity's framework about God and spirituality is very real to me.

Feel free to scientifically disprove these truths that I claim, but because I know that you cannot, then please refer to my original blog post about how faith and belief are inherently independent of the need for proof, and thus how you will no doubt continue on your fool's errand to deny that we all lead lives that are chock full of faith and belief, regardless of what we call ourselves.

You are the ones wasting your time in that argument, though I have certainly proven myself equally capable of joining you! And thus, maybe that statement proves one final truth: perhaps me being a critically-thinking Christian helps me be more polite, humble, honest, empathetic, and intellectually curious than you seem to be.

If so, then I don't see how being a Christian is the least bit of a hindrance to my life.

Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 28, 2009 3:23 PM

Ok,

I have spent enough time goofing off at work today. I check back later to read responses but I won't be responding any more on this entry.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 28, 2009 3:28 PM

Loser, I'm starting to think you are a Euro-Weenie that doesn't actually pay much attention to the news.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 3:30 PM

What if my computer simulation was published in a peer reviewed journal? Would it change your thinking in the slightest bit?

That is what I have been telling you for the last year. You are obviously either deaf, or not paying attention. Once your methods and data have been verified as scientific, then they can be properly inspected. Is your paper by itself, without verification from other third parties, likely to change my mind? No. Shannon entropy is not chemical entropy. So the possibility exists that Shannon entropy could be "violated", but chemical entropy is not. Cells are little biochemical factories, and there is nothing in chemical entropy, of which I know far more about than you, that would prohibit the known methods of gene duplication, modification of duplicated gene, etc., from occuring. Your only hope is to get the biologists like PZ behind your idea. I suspect your chances with PZ are slim. For example, Behe pulished his idea of irreproducible complexity, but nobody is paying any attention to it.

Posted by: Loser | August 28, 2009 3:32 PM

Well, american atheists friends, keep fighting against the religion. See youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 28, 2009 3:39 PM

Kristopher - I'm a christian because it makes me feel good... would be a much shorter answer.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 28, 2009 3:41 PM

Kristofer, you admit you can't prove the existence of your God, but you believe in it anyway. Don't you understand how insane that is?

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 28, 2009 3:50 PM

If they had taught critical thinking effectively, more Soviet citizens would have started wondering why party leaders had nicer cars and houses than everybody else, in direct conflict with Marxist-Leninist doctrine.

This does illustrate why mere absence of religion isn't a solution by itself. Critical thinking and questioning of dogma are what societies need.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. Critical thinking is the last thing a totalitarian state wants when it's trying to make the system and the state's leaders into the new gods.

Posted by: robinsrule | August 28, 2009 3:59 PM

...perhaps me being a critically-thinking Christian helps me be more polite, humble, honest, empathetic, and intellectually curious than you seem to be.

Or perhaps not. What we can say for sure is irony is alive and well in Christendom.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 28, 2009 4:07 PM

perhaps me being a critically-thinking Christian helps me be more polite, humble, honest, empathetic, and intellectually curious than you seem to be.

Great satire. I call Poe.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 28, 2009 4:17 PM

Well, with all due respect to skeptics and scientists: I'm still waiting to see a scientist disprove a core religious belief of any magnitude...

Umm, if this is still an outstanding question, refer to my post @ #70. There's a link there to a sophisticated scientific study that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of prayer. Does it disprove the effectiveness of prayer? No. But that's not what science does. It does demonstrate that prayer probably is not a way to actually effect physical reality. Could a deity have fooled the scientists, or "rigged" Nature in such a way as to skew the findings? Well, that's an unfalsifiable assertion in which scientific pursuits have no interest because they have no empirical value.

Posted by: truthspeaker | August 28, 2009 4:21 PM

Critical thinking is the last thing a totalitarian state wants

It's also usually the last thing the leaders of a democratic and/or republican state want. Credulous voters are easier to manipulate.

Ditto for an economy based on advertising.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 28, 2009 4:33 PM

Does it disprove the effectiveness of prayer? No. But that's not what science does.

It's an article of faith among some that science doesn't actually prove or disprove things ... a false belief. Science has in fact disproved such claims as "there are no transitional fossils" and "global warming is a myth". It has also proved that there was no global flood -- in the same strong empirical inferential sense that a fire investigator proves that there was or wasn't arson. To complain that it isn't the sort of deductive proof that mathematicians do is to be a linguistic fascist; the word "proof" simply isn't limited to that meaning. And even deductive proof is, in the real world, empirical and inferential: e.g., it is claimed that Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem; prove that he didn't make a mistake (he did in his first attempt). There can be no deductive proof that an alleged deductive proof is free of error, because such a proof is about human activities and capabilities, not about a mathematical proposition.

Posted by: jim | August 28, 2009 4:37 PM

religion is based on faith. science is only mankind's best guess at a particular time. until 600 years ago mankind's best guess was that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. it took us thousands of years to figure out gravity. and many scientists still disagree on 'string theory' and 'quantum mechanics'. in fact many scientists think we are getting closer to proving that there is a higher power. something us little people have known for some time. because of faith. in the end it does not matter, there either is or isn't a higher power, we all will find out soon enough.

Posted by: David | August 28, 2009 4:40 PM

Delusional people do not know they are delusional, just as incompetent people do not know they are incompetent. So the question becomes: how do we handle delusional people and allow them to have a voice without being held hostage to their 2 + 2 = 5 logic which defies evidence to the contrary?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 28, 2009 4:46 PM

until 600 years ago mankind's best guess was that the earth was flat

No it wasn't; this is a ridiculous myth invented by Washington Irving.

in fact many scientists think we are getting closer to proving that there is a higher power.

Liar.

something us little people have known for some time. because of faith

You can't know anything because of faith. Knowledge is true justified belief, whereas by definition faith is unjustified belief.

in the end it does not matter, there either is or isn't a higher power, we all will find out soon enough.

This appears to the the typically stupid claim by typically stupid godheads that we'll find out whether there's a god when we die. Uh, no, when we die we no longer exist so there's no one and no means to to find anything out.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | August 28, 2009 4:51 PM

@astrounit

Excellent.

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 28, 2009 5:01 PM

Looser said:

Church has a lot of money, because they were collaborating with the dictator FRanco, 40 years, that´s very long. During that time, they got "extra bonus". Now they are trying to recover their old power together with the right party. But for now, they cannot do anything, just complain

Man, don't you know anything of Spain's history...your cracker-eatin' country has been owned and operated by the catholic church since the Habsburgs in the 1500s.

Posted by: jim | August 28, 2009 5:04 PM

so you know i do believe in a higher power then man, but not in formal religion, whose only object is to take money from our wallets. boy, you guys are nasty, tore me a new one, in a few years we shall see who is right.does no good to argue with you, nothing you say can convince me or nothing i say will convince you. for now, on the internet, you can call me names, something you would not do in person. then you would find out i was a higher power then you.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 28, 2009 5:08 PM

"... It makes them look stupid."

No, it proves they're stupid - but good luck getting them to realize that despite the evidence.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 28, 2009 5:12 PM

Hi Kristofer,
Since you seem to hold that none of the claims of your religion can be scientifically disproven, you may want to check what neuroscience says about free will, personality, memory, emotions, etc. The fact is, our knowledge of neuroscience is quite extensive-and we happen to know that everything attributed by your religion to "souls" or "spirits" is simply a function of the brain. In other words, the likelihood that such a thing exists is equal to the likelihood of elephants hiding somewhere in Yellowstone. And with that, there goes all the claims about sin, afterlife, heaven and hell, etc.
And yes, I do think it is reprehensible to ask others to believe things without evidence.
As for fiction, I don't have a problem with it, as long as it is called fiction. The reason I don't need to burn fiction books-contrary to your suggestion-is that they are not forced on my as being the "gospel" truth.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 28, 2009 5:20 PM

Jim, online I call you a troll-you're right, offline I wouldn't.
By the way Higher Power-is that your local electrical company?

Posted by: Loser | August 28, 2009 5:35 PM

Tyler:"Which just means spaniards have found other means of enjoying the social interaction amerikans enjoy in church. That doesn't mean spaniards are any less religiously retarded than their amerikan counterparts - they're just more private about it."

Much less religiously retarded than americans, we spaniards. I don´t know anybody who go to church here.

And we don´t write "In god we trust" in the currency.

Posted by: astrounit | August 28, 2009 5:54 PM

truth machine, OM and pdferguson - a hearty Jack Brickhouse "HEY HEY!" to you both. (You would have had to grow up in Chicago during the sixties to appreciate the innocent power of his exclamations which immediately celebrated a turn for the better. I'm talkng baseball here...the sport for patient people).

Now I have to wonder...who do we need to persuade first? Any ideas?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 6:03 PM

Jim, the non capitalizer sheepish bleats:

in a few years we shall see who is right.

I doubt if you would admit you are wrong if no evidence is found. Given the search time to date (2500 yrs), the utter lack of evidence for your imaginary deity, don't hold your breathe.

Posted by: BdN | August 28, 2009 6:08 PM

OT : I just ran into what could be considered to be the stupidest, if that is possible, kind of "science is already in the Bible" interpretation. Here's a sample :

Dalton Joule

Seeing the Bible as it relates to the Living God
Posted by Dalton in Bible, Science
at 3:55 pm on Tuesday, 9 June 2009

Garden of Eden=fallopian tubes

Adam and Eve=fertilized ovum

Cain slew Abel=test of immune response

Noah story=transport of developing cells to uterine wall

Tower of Babel=umbilical cord

Spread out across the face of the earth=start of formation of baby’s body

Stories of the Patriarchs=backgrounds of the key players in the building of the baby’s body

Discussion on Amazon here.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 6:10 PM

A user named Robocop in a different thread claims his belief is based on evidence, though he won't tell us what that evidence is.

Robo is a nice median representative of the 64% noted in survey.

utter waste of time to debate the issue with him, as well.

Posted by: astrounit | August 28, 2009 6:16 PM

aratina cage: Ditto :"Hey Hey!" (My connection is horribly slow).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 28, 2009 6:28 PM

Crying Baby is Crying again.

Yep, another tantrum on the way. Where's my big garden hose...

Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 6:30 PM

astrounit #221 wrote:

Where else does one imagine the idea of a superior being who watches over everybody all the time comes from? From anything other than a human imagination struck dumb with terror at the prospect of death?

From one's infancy and childhood. Superior being(s) watched over one constantly, rewarding and punishing, and seeming to know everything one was thinking. Just when we begin to realize that adults are not all-powerful and all-knowing, we're impressed with the idea that our instincts have still been right: the cosmos itself is conscious, aware, watching, and intensely concerned with our goings-on.

Despite all the hand-waving about mystery and things above our understanding, God is a familiar idea. It was our very first certainty, formed along with our understanding of self, and based on constant evidence.

Posted by: Miranda Hale | August 28, 2009 6:43 PM

It is indeed so very frustrating and mindblowing to witness individuals who are proud to have faith and to hold beliefs for which they have no evidence. It's as if they think that their stubborn, blind faith will result in their god of choice granting them more approval. Really, really bizarre.

Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 6:46 PM

Krisofer Layon #109 wrote:

SImply put, we fly on airplanes because we believe it is safe *enough*, despite the fact that planes crash. This is faith. This is belief. And you use it every day of your life, whether you're atheist or otherwise religious.

No, it isn't faith in the religious sense. It's qualified trust, or pragmatic reliance.

If someone approached airplane flight with a religious style of faith, they might insist that it is not possible for them to crash, for they know that they were meant to land safely, always and forever. If they were slightly more sophisticated, they could say that, even if their airplane crashed, this would still not shake their belief that their flight was perfectly safe, and they are just fine afterwards, because their understanding of what it means to "crash," and "be safe" and "be just fine" is so deep and nuanced, it becomes infinitely flexible. It transcends narrow human meanings.

(I am so tired of this particular equivocation. What would have to happen so that God "lets you down" and you can't believe (or "believe") in Him any more because He doesn't exist -- or even "exist?")

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 6:55 PM

No, it isn't faith in the religious sense. It's qualified trust, or pragmatic reliance.

the qualification being based on material, demonstrable, experience.

about as opposite a thing from religious faith as one can get.

leave it to insane xians to go ahead and reinvent the definitions of words to fit their own projections, though.

so common it's almost unnoticeable.

Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 7:22 PM

moonkitty #257 wrote:

My mom was working on becoming a Christian Science practitioner when she died (age 44) of untreated spinal meningitis.

What a sad story ... my condolences.

Years ago I attended a lecture given by a physician at a skeptic conference. He had carefully studied a lot of cases where people died under Christian Science "care." I remember his telling us one vivid story in particular, a young teenage girl who had been placed in one of their "hospitals." She had, I think, cancer. Her "treatment" consisted of the nurse scornfully yelling at her to stop screaming, because her cries of agony were distressing the other children. Her belief that she was in pain was a delusion from the devil, so just stop it. She died, of course.

Posted by: tmaxPA | August 28, 2009 7:34 PM

Icthyic:

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I knew there was some other really abrasively annoying counter-productive personality I wanted to mention, but I couldn't remember who it was...

Posted by: Insightful Ape | August 28, 2009 7:48 PM

You only had to look in the mirror to remember who that was,
tmaxPA.

Posted by: John Morales | August 28, 2009 8:03 PM

tmaxPA, in your defense, I'll say you make the odd worthwhile comment. Shame about the remaining 99% of the time.

Posted by: Moe the mangler | August 28, 2009 8:23 PM

"That's where early education in critical thinking is important: children shouldn't grow up believing that stubbornly clinging to an idea despite all the evidence against it makes them look heroic. It makes them look stupid."

----------------

Yes I agree. Teching children to hold on to jesus Christ and salvation and to reject evil at an early age is absolutely critical. They must learn to reject secular school teachings at all costs. That' why we bring them to church the week after they are born... to get a head start preparing them to face off evil and stand toe to toe with evil and defeat it.

Evolutionism is absolutely discussed as and insignificant, yet evil idea as early as three years old at our most Baptist churches. Curriculim advances on the subject as they get older. The same goes for marriage (real marriage -1 man & 1 woman), abortion, drugs/alcohol abuse, etc.

Evil secualrism is rampant and we must make sue our kids get saved and not fall into temptation from the wrong crowd.

By the way, if you are wondering about my name, it's my "mob" name. Since the far left goes so far as to call us mobsters and politcal terrorists, we have decided to go along with the game and give ourselves mob names to make the annointed one (obama) happy.

Everyone that calls in to talk radio shows now have mob names to match Washington's description of us. Therefore, I shall be called Moe the Mangler. Since I am a "politcal terrorist" and an angry "right wing mobster", I might as well play along.

Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 8:31 PM

Moe the Mangler #266 wrote:

Evil secualrism is rampant and we must make sue our kids get saved and not fall into temptation from the wrong crowd.

Do you think of yourself as someone who would change their mind, if they were shown to be mistaken about some matter?

That's really what it comes down to -- being able to change your mind when you're wrong.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 8:33 PM

Teching children to hold on to jesus Christ and salvation and to reject evil at an early age is absolutely critical.

the "mangler" is an appropriate handle for someone who so badly mangles logic.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 28, 2009 8:34 PM

All of this, as well as lots of other really neat shit, has lead me to try to make sense of what religious people seem to base their personal and all too often public lives upon; that is, the idea that an infinitely powerful entity is micromanaging our lives.

While taking into consideration how nice it would be to have a captive population to meddle with, I cannot accept the described role of said entity in any, (ANY) descriptions or insistences thereof, that I am aware of.

My basic problem is "why would an all powerful creator/father/offspring/mediator/executioner/savior (catches breath), given its unequaled ability to apprehend and comprehend in real time in fashions that would wreck a mere human mind, spend millennia doing and demanding the things its apologists insist that it has and intends to keep doing?"

Specifically because its actions appear to be mundane, pedestrian and very, very human things. The risk of appearing to be made up on the spot is high in this miasma of pious overtones.

I mean, if you're god and everything is yours and you can make anything else, are you really going to spend much time pulling wings off flies?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 8:38 PM

I mean, if you're god and everything is yours and you can make anything else, are you really going to spend much time pulling wings off flies?

ah, the joys of stamp collecting.

:)

Posted by: Sastra | August 28, 2009 8:44 PM

adriang #189 wrote:

When I've tried arguing with people who think faith is a virtue, it has seemed to me that they don't really believe in the idea that there can be objective, viewpoint neutral ways to get at the truth. They can't seem to separate the idea of finding the truth from the idea of taking sides about matters of truth... To me, the real heart of the battle we face isn't about the difference between creationism and evolution; It's about the difference between principled decisions about belief and loyalty based decisions about belief.

Excellent point (and post.) Those who advocate irrational views all seem to The irrational all seem to end up insisting that all beliefs come down to faith. You pick which view you want, which tribe you want to belong to, and then hold on faithfully. It's all a matter of "opinion." Loyalty to a view, is loyalty to what the view is about. If you pick something nice, then you're nice. If you pick right, you win. The ends justifies the means.

I once described the three principle tenets of secular humanism as method, method, method. That was sloppy, of course, but I liked doing it anyway.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 28, 2009 9:14 PM

@ Ichtyic # 274

If I wasn't collecting them, would that still be a hobby?

Posted by: Rorschach | August 28, 2009 9:39 PM

Since I am a "politcal terrorist" and an angry "right wing mobster", I might as well play along.

Nah, I reckon you're just stupid, and a danger to children.

Posted by: Tyler | August 28, 2009 9:47 PM

Loser: Much less religiously retarded than americans, we spaniards.

Not according to any information I can find. Not that I spent a lot of time digging, mind you, but the numbers seem to be pretty equal.

And we don´t write "In god we trust" in the currency.

Well then, you're negligibly one up on the US! :golf clap:

Posted by: tmaxPA | August 28, 2009 9:49 PM

Yep, definitely somebody with ego issues. Now, where did I leave that hose...

Pure coincidence you're both eager to go on telling stories. Couldn't possibly be I'm just right and it's bruising your tender self-image.

I mean, I know you guys like to think you're at the forefront of battling ignorance, but really you are both just a couple of snarky assholes.

kthxbi

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 28, 2009 10:11 PM

I always read tmaxPA as Tampax.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 28, 2009 10:25 PM

Therefore, I shall be called Moe the Mangler.

Say hey to Larry & Curly for me.\

Evil secualrism is rampant and we must make sue our kids get saved and not fall into temptation from the wrong crowd.

Click here to see Moe's response to 'Evil secualrism'.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 10:30 PM

Nobody go to church on sunday to listen like idiots to a liar.

Gosh, I wonder if a widespread rejection of religion has anything to do with recent decades of living under a confessional dictatorship... And now, of course, the Church has like zero power in Spain.

(Let us know when there's no question of the División Azul marching in national parades, btw.)

Posted by: Rorschach | August 28, 2009 10:42 PM

Das Doofkauf sagt:

Please get your german swear words right before you post them ;)

The word I assume you were looking for is "Dummkopf". Fool would have done just nicely.

Posted by: Ellie | August 28, 2009 10:48 PM

Oh Bob. I think I've just had an existential catastrophe.

I think we're mostly agreed that science can't disprove religion, we are also agreed (including the faithful) that we must catch 'em young and instil our own belief system at an early age. All the atheists are now yelling "no! we must teach critical thinking and reason and allow them to make their own choice, that is NOT a belief system". But I just had a thought, and it wasn't a particularly happy one.

Why is critical thinking and reason different to faith at that most fundamental of levels? Why do we think it is better to teach evidence-based logic over any other view point? I tried to answer this question, and all I could come up with was "the evidence shows its better", that is just circular logic, it is no better than "why have faith? because I have faith that I should". It is me using my belief system to justify my belief system!

I am a good strong agnostic and now I feel I have no choice but to add evidence-based reason to the list of things I have no evidence for or against, except, now I also have to add agnosticism to that list too, because it is just a subsection of critical thinking!

The way I see it now, there is no real difference between the two, there is no good logical reason for picking one over the other, it is simply a question of how you are indoctrinated as a child. The problem is, there is no other option that I can see, the choice is entirely arbitrary.

Someone fetch the Supersoaker!

http://xkcd.com/220/

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 28, 2009 10:51 PM

Please get your german swear words right before you post them ;)

The word I assume you were looking for is "Dummkopf". Fool would have done just nicely.

Aber...meine deutsche Lehrerin sagt dass, es kein problem ist.

Darn, I knew I should of used my native language.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 28, 2009 10:56 PM

But I just had a thought synaptic misfire

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 28, 2009 10:58 PM

Maybe we should start with you Thruthspeaker. If I could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy who you be inclined to think that life was intelligently designed?

Folks, I've been giving this a lot of thought, and Randy might be on to something. I'm actually starting to doubt my atheism.

In a closed system, entropy will rise and rise. Cells need to use up energy to organize their repair and replication. And once the energy is used for this work, it's basically lost: entropy.

Truly, life could not exist on Earth, and could not have evolved in the first place, unless there was a massive source of energy constantly replenishing the system. I think it is obvious that we might as well call this God.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 28, 2009 11:02 PM

Tyler's jealous since he doesn't have any sycophant trolls.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 11:08 PM

I think we're mostly agreed that science can't disprove religion

nope.

this statement makes NO sense as written.

Science can easily, and has, disprove specific claims various religions have and do make.

hence, the entire ID "irreducible complexity" debacle, creationisms claim of a young earth, the biblical idea that you can get striped animals by breeding them in front of striped sticks, etc.

all theists have done is move their concept of their deity farther and farther away from testability, and become more and more irrational in the process.

so, if you're claim is that someone can invent a deity concept that is untestable by science, sure they can.

it's hardly meaningful though, as I'm sure you too can easily imagine concepts untestable by science, like purple unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As soon as you claim your fictional construct interacts with reality though, science can easily test your claim.

Why do we think it is better to teach evidence-based logic over any other view point? I tried to answer this question, and all I could come up with was "the evidence shows its better", that is just circular logic

well, there's your problem, it actually isn't circular at all. You are making a false comparison, albeit most likely unintentionally.

suggest you read up on what circular logic entails:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

note that the key here is that the accuracy of the conclusion is assumed, IOW, NOT based on evidence.

"The bible is right because the god of the bible says so" is a circular argument.

"Teaching critical thinking skills early leads to better students later" is based on actual test-based evidence, not assumption.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 28, 2009 11:10 PM

moe the mangler mangled:

By the way, if you are wondering about my name, it's my "mob" name.

That's funny, from what you wrote I assumed it was a Three Stooges name...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 11:16 PM

Truly, life could not exist on Earth, and could not have evolved in the first place, unless there was a massive source of energy constantly replenishing the system. I think it is obvious that we might as well call this God.

Wow you might as well be quoting from FSTDT

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 28, 2009 11:19 PM

Truly, life could not exist on Earth, and could not have evolved in the first place, unless there was a massive source of energy constantly replenishing the system. I think it is obvious that we might as well call this God.

The sun is where this massive energy is coming from in the form of light and heat. They already have called the sun a god - thousands of time.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 28, 2009 11:22 PM

My people call it "humor."

exactly

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 28, 2009 11:26 PM

Wow you might as well be quoting from FSTDT

I had to paraphrase because I couldn't find that entry. :/

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 28, 2009 11:32 PM

Actually, in this circumstance, I suspect that most of the people who SAY they'll stick to their belief, will quietly change their belief over time to something that has not been disproven, then pretend that's really what they believed from the beginning. Of course, they won't admit this in advance, since a) they haven't thought that far in advance, and b) they'll never admit their "absolute" belief ever changes.

Posted by: Owlmirrror | August 28, 2009 11:35 PM

I think (intelligent design) + entropy predicts the existence of pseudogenes.

How do you know?

How would you know if you were wrong?

Random mutation + natural selection does not.

This is an extraordinary claim. Geneticists and biostatisticians have been studying genes for quite some time now, and the most parsimonious explanation for pseudogenes is indeed random mutation affecting functional genes.

What argument could possibly contradict this? After all, regardless of how you think the genes arise -- by previous random mutation and natural selection, or by "intelligent design" -- it is still random mutations that turn genes into pseudogenes.

What if my computer simulation was published in a peer reviewed journal?
Would it change your thinking in the slightest bit?

Published as what? An amusing example of pseudoscientific kookery?

While you may find Nerd's insistence about publishing in a peer-reviewed journal tiresome in its repetition, what he really means is that you have to provide a rigorous, evidence-based argument in defense of your thesis that will convince learned experts (in the field in which you are making your claims) that it is worth taking a look at. Even that will not guarantee that it is correct -- once it is published, additional experts will have a chance to view it, and may well provide a thorough refutation of every single point.

That's how science works: You have to convince the experts that you have new evidence-based data, or a new way of understanding old data, that is worthwhile and stands up to expert scrutiny -- and it has to stand up to continued expert scrutiny. Darwin's original work did not, but fortunately his work was sufficiently modular that the wrong parts could be removed (and replaced with genetics) without damaging the general utility of his main thesis.

So far, you have not even managed to convince experts, or even non-experts, that you have a meaningful case. You have not provided convincing evidence that you know what you're talking about. You don't seem to understand entropy from the perspective of either information theory or thermodynamics, nor do you provide a rigorous definition of what "intelligent design" is such that an "intelligently designed" gene can in any way be distinguished from one that has evolved without intelligent interference.

Michael Behe is a Ph.D biochemist, and he has not been able to convince experts in his field that he has an evidence-based argument in defense of intelligent design.

Do you really think that you can do better?

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 28, 2009 11:37 PM

Well, the rest of us call it the "sun"...

Funny that you should bring that up. Despite the fact that I don't worship the sun, I commonly refer to it as the sun god in my language.

Posted by: cannabinaceae | August 28, 2009 11:42 PM

I suspect that most of the people who SAY they'll stick to their belief, will quietly change their belief

I have these vain notions that the aging baby boomers will contribute to a spike in atheist self-outing as their parents die off. I myself can't come out to my dad and just say it, even though he must suspect. Although my hostility to religion is no secret to anybody else who knows me.

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 28, 2009 11:54 PM

But the evidence is based on the assumption that evidence is a valid metric, that is in turn based on evidence. Thus, circular.

You're constantly testing it every time you use sight, equilibrioception and proprioception to position your feet while walking.

And it hasn't failed you yet.

Except when you stub your toe.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 28, 2009 11:59 PM

But the evidence is based on the assumption that evidence is a valid metric, that is in turn based on evidence. Thus, circular.

now that's first class grade a bullshit. Evidence, by it's very definition, is not assumptive.

you should try not to think so hard, I think you've hurt yourself.

I was short cutting the whole proof of god argument as it has been had too often before.

No, you've simply created a strawman, nothing more.

Specific claims are an entirely different issue to the nebulous idea of a god that exists outside science.

Actually, you're wrong here too.

However frustrated you may be by the ultimate moving of the goal posts to where we can't reach them, they have still been moved there.

THIS is closer to what has happened. It's not that they are different issues, it's that people like yourself have decided they are because the goalposts have indeed been moved so far as a result of the thousands of specific claims that have already been disproven by science, that the religious definitions of whichever deity you choose to pick have been removed to ever further lengths, such that now they are indeed logically indistinguishable from unicorns.

Hence strong agnosticism as a[n invalid] view point.

fixed.

@John #305. Agreed :)

then you don't understand what the word "pragmatic" means.

However, I still see no difference between evidence and faith at the most basic levels of logic and reason ;)

Nobody can help you see if you put your hands over your eyes.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 12:19 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp said:

Big difference.

If I ask one of these 10,000,000 to show me what they saw they would not be able to do so.

If they asked me to show them what science has found I could point to all the evidence. I could hand hold them through the explanation or find someone that could. If they dismiss this evidence out of hand then they are being irrational and are not using critical thinking.

Granted, they can't. But that's the point I'm trying to make--your notion of valid data requires reproducibility in the lab. Theirs is entirely subjective (the same as a flying spaghetti monster or magic or loving your spouse). Any of those subjective things can be seen (in a sense) and evaluated by their attendant circumstances and sequelae, but not objectively, directly observed. Nevertheless, they still hold them to be valid. So, from that premise, they reject your arguments that X is not true because a more valid premise suggests that X is in fact true. The divine is not rational, I agree; but something irrational can be beneath reason or beyond it. They hold that the truths revealed in the Bible are beyond it.

And whatever one may say about the dangers of religion, the dangers of totalitarianism are IMO worse. And totalitarianism requires a transference of obedience from God or the gods to the State or the will of the people, which is impossible in a people who believe. So, like all human things, it's not as simple as each side of this (perhaps not surprisingly acerbic) discussion would like it to be...otherwise it wouldn't be a problem that has been around for thousands of years, would it?

For your further consideration.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 29, 2009 12:31 AM

However, I still see no difference between evidence and faith at the most basic levels of logic and reason ;)

The difference is between what can be seen only in one's head, and what can be verified on the outside.

I may hear a voice in my head and call it God, but no one else can ever hear what "God" says to me. You'll just have to take my word on what "He" told me.

Whereas anyone can go outside in the morning and see the sun--or at least see the sun often enough to know what's behind the clouds. You don't need to take my word about the sun. It's right there for everyone to see.

That's the short version. It's too late at night to be more coherent.

Posted by: eandh99 | August 29, 2009 12:36 AM

Of course there can be religious totalitarian states - we call them theocracies.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 12:46 AM

oh fuck me!

ZZ are you actually a Straussian?

Thought they died out and were replaced by the Neocons (same shit, different name).

for YOUR further consideration...

http://www.opednews.com/lower_leo_strauss_and_jefferson.htm

Strauss, to put it bluntly, had his head wedged.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 1:14 AM

No, I'm no Straussian, just tolerant. And at least I'm in good company...I thought I was the only one still up worrying about this sort of stuff. Hope you-all have some beer, though.

Sorry, my earlier heresy was cut off by Google Books. Honestly facing the limits of human reason isn't the noble lie (and I prefer Voegelin's translation: "the whopper").

From the link:

In this regard, Strauss never made the grade to philosopher, being typical of post WWII academic thinkers in America. He did not do philosophy. He simply read and reinterpreted the work of previous philosophers who have influenced the evolution of political thought. Had he known about Deism and natural philosophy, and given his love of democracy, Strauss would have begun at the evolutionary cutting ege of the art, with the ideas of Spinoza, Locke, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine. But, no. Strauss, with his Old World background, began with philosophers of the distant past to create a political philosophy so full of ideas rejected by America's fathers and so full of inconsistencies, it literally required abandoning the common sense logic of the EuroAmerican Enlightenment and Jefferson's Declaration

I recall that Strauss never claimed to be a philosopher, just a "scholar."

And have you ever seen Lawrence of Arabia? "That is not an argument." But the sheer cheek of claiming that Strauss just must not have known something is impressive to anyone familiar with his footnotes. I'm sorry, I don't find the article that impressive. It's full of grand statements, but can't quote its source. The most it can say is that STrauss is riddled with inconsistencies...but that is also not an argument. Inconsistency is either irrationality, lack of understanding on the part of the reader, or deliberate obfuscation. Strauss had a lot of the later two.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 1:22 AM

strange gods & Morales:

Granted, so perhaps I should have been more specific: such totalitarianism is not possible in a people who believe in the Christian God. The Germans believed in the race and the nation and saw God as conducive to those things. And thinking Christians reject totalitarian regimes in every form--certainly the Protestants who still attend to the notion of individuality, but even the Catholics who read encyclicals and understand subsidiarity.

One problem of course being that religion can be commandeered to the use of the State, just as science can--Paperclip, anyone? Another being that the label "Christian" comprises a group that includes self-identifying but truly unqualified individuals.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 1:25 AM

Is it bedtime for you? You seem cranky. Should I use smaller words?

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 29, 2009 1:26 AM

Tyler @ #205 wrote:

No, everybody wasn't in church. Most were sleeping off hangovers, or at shopping malls spending money they didn't have, or watching sports on TV, or any number of other things amerikans do on Sunday besides going to church.

Shortly after moving into our current neighborhood, a young man who lived on our street asked my husband if we'd be interested in attending his church the following Sunday.

My husband, an apathetic Christian, replied, "My wife and I spend our Sunday mornings worshiping together--in bed."

The visibly flummoxed young man retreated, never to return.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 1:34 AM

@ ZZ:

Ah, so the "No True Scotsman" rears it's head again. Wonderful thing about the bible is that it can be twisted to support almost anything, including totalitarianism.

Rape, Slavery, Genocide? Yup it's all in there!

Just because many Christians would object to such regimes, doesn't mean that they all will object. That more moderate Christians tend to defend the more extreme ones from justifiable criticism only make the problem worse, and tends to make those moderates into accomplices (even if it's indirectly).

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 1:39 AM

heh, everyone saw the fallacy right off.

done.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 1:51 AM

Morales:

Re: nazis, Romans, Inquisition--

(1) The Nazis idolized the race, not God. How could a people who rejected the Jews accept a Jewish God?

(2) How does the earthly practice of God's purported followers refute God's existence or the validity of the creed to which those followers ascribe? Scientists can daily wade through life with a host of preconceptions, prejudices, and irrational beliefs, and nevertheless the scientific method is a valid source of data.

Zetetic:

As above...even Rousseau noted that you shouldn't throw out good things just because bad people do bad things with them. Should we abandon physics because of Oppenheimer's bomb? Biology because of weaponized pathogens?

Ichthyic:

Very possible, I usually do. But from the "Popeists" perspective, submission to authority is not improper because that authority is...authoritative? Let's try it backwards: why is totatlitarianism wrong? Because it gives something an improper authority--i.e., the state over all other considerations, including things more fundamental or higher than the state. But is there such a thing as proper authority? Surely (don't call me Shirley!) you admit that you are a proper authority over your life and choices. The Catholics just say that there is one properly higher over one aspect of your life. So are you, if you agree that the findings of proper science should be authoritative over myths. Aren't you?

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 1:56 AM

SC OM

OK, douchebag, I will.

non-/anti-evidentiary ideology that considers the real world and actions within it as subsidiary to a historical teleology/grand scheme/divine plan/fill-in-the-idiocy-here

What evidence tells you what particular political order is the right one? What particular life is the best one? How is it that scientists of every stripe have been instrumental in the rise of the totalitarian monstrosities of the past century when they alone have access to the truth about the "real things"?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 1:59 AM

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/pope-m04.shtml

As I've argued on my blog

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/08/alan-sokal-science-and-politics.html

bullshit is authoritarian.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 2:02 AM

SC OM,

I suppose if a particular pope were to argue that "real life" required that you speak to and make deals with people you abhor, you'd reject that as hypocrisy.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 2:03 AM

The Nazis idolized the race, not God. How could a people who rejected the Jews accept a Jewish God?

because the idea was put forth that certain jews had corrupted the idea of the Christian God.

seriously.

you've never heard of the Christian Identity Movement?

standard skinhead religion, the roosts of which arise straight out of writings of those who would end up leading the Nazi party in Germany before the start of WWII. It was basically an amalgamation of German angst and scapegoating, honed to be an authoritarian tool. Not much different from the modern version.

skinheads are just too stupid to realize it.

Scientists can daily wade through life with a host of preconceptions, prejudices, and irrational beliefs, and nevertheless the scientific method is a valid source of data.

does that make compartmentalization a good thing, or an unnecessary handicap, you think?

Because it gives something an improper authority

define "improper". I've heard many xians long for the days of a "benevolent" King.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 2:05 AM

How is it that scientists of every stripe have been instrumental in the rise of the totalitarian monstrosities of the past century when they alone have access to the truth about the "real things"?

how is it you are so clueless as to the fact you are putting up strawmen as fast as you can bail the hay to make them?

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 2:09 AM

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/mar1999/pope-m04.shtml

Thanks for the laughs, mate.

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/08/alan-sokal-science-and-politics.html

Is there an argument in there? Looks like quotes to me.

The affirmative side of science, consisting of its well-verified claims about the physical and biological world, may be what first springs to mind when people think about “science"; but it is the critical and skeptical side of science that is the most profound, and the most intellectually subversive. The scientific worldview inevitably comes into conflict with all non-scientific modes of thought that make purportedly factual claims about the world. And how could it be otherwise?

The true skeptic wonders why verifiable data is the only valid data. Be Descartes for a minute again.

Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 2:11 AM

(1) The Nazis idolized the race, not God. How could a people who rejected the Jews accept a Jewish God?

You appear to have ignored my link, showing evidence of the "German Christians" banners, Hitler at Church, the Catholic priests giving Nazi salutes, etc. etc.

Denying evidence in favour of wishful thinking is a classic religious tactic.

You're indulging in denial.

(2) How does the earthly practice of God's purported followers refute God's existence or the validity of the creed to which those followers ascribe?

It was never intended to refute the existence of your god-construct, only to address your contentions. That such earthly practice are indistinguishable from that of totalitarian regimes is, however, counter to your claims (which referred to Christians, not to God).

You're indulging in evasion.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 2:17 AM

The true radical skeptic wonders why verifiable data is the only valid data.

Fixed.

I mean, if you reject empirical verifiability, you have nothing left at all to argue with.

Posted by: Tyler | August 29, 2009 2:26 AM

Ichthyic:Nerd has his own posse now?

Apparently your reading comprehension is on par with Nerd's.

oh sorry, you're a moron...

Ouch.

I shouldn't have taken what you said seriously at all, should I.

:shrugs:

Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 2:35 AM

How could a people who rejected the Jews accept a Jewish God?

How could a person who's a Christian be so fucking ignorant of the history of his own religion?

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 2:40 AM

@ ZZ said:

As above...even Rousseau noted that you shouldn't throw out good things just because bad people do bad things with them. Should we abandon physics because of Oppenheimer's bomb? Biology because of weaponized pathogens?

I never said that you should, but you're arguing from a false equivalency there on a couple of levels.

First, Biology and Nuclear Physics both demonstrably produce tangible benefits through scientific progress. Religion can make no such claim of any benefit to society that can't be duplicated through secular means.

Second, while science can be misused by humanity, unlike religion it isn't the motive or justification for such behavior.

That's funny...Hitler thought that he was doing god's work by committing genocide and ridding the world of it's "sinfull" people. Or, do you think that sending gays into the gas chambers was some sort of accident?

How does the earthly practice of God's purported followers refute God's existence or the validity of the creed to which those followers ascribe?

It invalidates one of the more common arguments by apologists. It invalidates the argument that religion makes people more moral than they otherwise would be, and that by extension that atheism encourages immorality. Another point made by such an observation, is that any belief system that is so vague that it can be interpreted to endorse almost any atrocity isn't really very good as a moral reference point.

If god was real why couldn't he/she/it/they be more clear and remove the contradictions? Why not leave a clear-cut and unambiguous set of rules and some credible evidence of his evidence to back them up? Why didn't god tell the German people at the Nazi rallies something like... "Are you people insane! If you go forward with this genocide crap, I've got a special place in hell for all of you that follow this nut job!"? Instead the Nazis saw their early victories as proof that god was on their side.

I'm betting that about now you're getting ready to give us the standard apologist rationalization that god doesn't want to interfere with free will.
Don't bother... giving people a clear set of rules and evidence doesn't detract from free will. People can still make a choice in such a situation, it just makes the choice a better informed one. Why would god be against that, hmmm? Adam and Eve (according to a literal interpretation of genesis) spoke to god directly, and yet they still chose to disobey him. So how can god being more clear to us, and providing some credible evidence for once, suddenly invalidate free will?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2009 2:49 AM

Morales:

Just because bad things are done by bad people doesn't make the tools bad. See, e.g., hammer.

SC, OM:

Have I claimed to be a Christian? And even if I were, the question had an implicit qualifier "consistently," i.e., with the Nazis professed Christian beliefs.

Likewise, if you have a point, fire away. But please, the notion of a socialist arguing against a Christian about being irrational is just too funny to even treat ironically.

Feynmanic:

It's possible to idolize both, and they did.

Not consistent with the first commandment, therefore, not consistent with the religion they claimed. Right?

Owlmirror:

I mean, if you reject empirical verifiability, you have nothing left at all to argue with.

SUre you do, it's just voodoo, which is absurd. My point is just that you can't claim on the basis of empirical data that empirical data is the whole of valid data. There are things above and below knowledge.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 2:50 AM

more from ZZ:

Fair point if you don't think faith has some meaning. If people are for whatever reason required to make a leap then the only things God won't use are the irrefutable or indisputable (e.g., direct message to all mankind). But if they are, and if God is "i shall be what i shall be" (unknowable), then He could be inscrutable without being evil or insane.

Oh goody! More attempting to justify god's "absentee parent" behavior by claiming that it builds character, by promoting "faith".

Tell us ZZ... without using a purely religious argument, why exactly is faith in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence a virtue? Yes we know that religious leaders tell us it is, since without it almost nobody would listen to them, but why exactly outside of religion is it a virtue? It has no bearing on the real world except to encourage people to believe in things that they otherwise wouldn't, and then kill each other over the different interpretations.

Why is believing in god because there is evidence, somehow not enough for god? Why does god only seem to prefer it when people believe in him/her/it/they when there is no evidence?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 2:53 AM

I'd say no. Ergo, Nazis = bad example of Christianity, put State above revealed doctrine.

even after having it pointed out to you, you STILL insist on using the No True Scottsman argument?

I guess that tells me how worthwhile it would be to continue.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 2:59 AM

What sort of reality-avoidant mental illness and resistance to treatment could this poll be highlighting? Could it be backhandedly proving a point about the increase in depression and related illnesses in society generally? - speedwell

First of all, sorry to hear about your problems, speedwell, and glad the cognitive therapy seems to be helping - IIRC, it is perhaps the form of therapy with the best evidence of efficacy.

On the increase in depression and related illnesses, though, that is almost certainly caused by increasing economic inequality. Richardson and Pickett, in The Spirit Level, give evidence with references that across rich countries, and (for women but not men) across states of the USA, greater income inequality is associated with higher rates of psychiatric problems. Animal experiments suggest this could well be a result of the stress caused by low social status. Income inequality has increased sharply in most rich countries in the last few decades.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 3:03 AM

Anonymous (whom I assume is ZZ) @ #372

My point is just that you can't claim on the basis of empirical data that empirical data is the whole of valid data. There are things above and below knowledge.

[emphasis added]

LOL!
First Prove it! What credible evidence do you have to support that claim? How do you really know that?

Second, how then do you know who's "higher knowledge" is correct, and who's is wrong? What exactly is your testing methodology? How do you know that you're not making a mistake and thereby offending your (or another) god(s)?

You're just making excuses to justify your position's lack of substance.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 3:06 AM

Without the long road, how do you know what lives are best? Best for some or all? Is that deduced from evidence, or subjective "values"?

Both. But evidence is central, both in the formation and in the realization of values.

"Instrumental" doesn't mean they did the stuff, it means they provided the tools. What else is science, but making better tools to understand reality? Once it becomes more, it's dogma. Will that suffice?

No. Answer the questions.

And even if I were, the question had an implicit qualifier "consistently," i.e., with the Nazis professed Christian beliefs.

Google "michael mann fascists pharyngula" and "constantine's sword"

if you have a point, fire away.

I've made several, which you have evaded.

But please, the notion of a socialist

Bzzt. I'm not a socialist. Keep working on your ad homs.

arguing against a Christian

Oh, are you a Christian? When did you claim that? Hahahahahaha - lucky guess.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 29, 2009 3:16 AM

Not consistent with the first commandment, therefore, not consistent with the religion they claimed. Right?

You know, I've never seen a Christian use the lord's name in vain, or cheat on their spouse, or steal, or lie, or murder or fail to keep the Sabbath holy.

It's also hard to believe that a Nazis could be so damn irrational.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 3:18 AM

again at Anonymous (whom I assume is ZZ) @ #372

the notion of a socialist arguing against a Christian about being irrational is just too funny to even treat ironically.

Wow! An ad hominem attack, made from a baseless assumption, and an evasion, all in one sentence! That's pretty good by apologist standards!

Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 3:19 AM

Define science and scientists or GTFO.

There can be no discussion if we don't know that we're talking about the same things.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 29, 2009 3:20 AM

There are things above and below knowledge.>

If this is so - which you, and everyone else who makes this claim, haven't managed to do anything other than assert as truth - that still doesn't change the fact that the claims of religion, as we see it, aren't different (in any discernible way) from stories someone just made up.

Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Scientologists and every other believer on the planet makes the claim their beliefs are true. As many of these are contradictory and mutually exclusive, they cannot all be true. However, no one religion has provided any evidence or argument for its claims to truth that cannot be applied to one, some, or all of the other religions.

To me that's a good enough reason to doubt all of them. It doesn't rule out the possibility of the existence of a god - of the deist variety - but I really couldn't give a crap about whether a deist god does or doesn't exist.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 3:34 AM

If I could demonstrate through computer similation that natural selection is insufficient to overcome entropy who you be inclined to think that life was intelligently designed? - Intelligent Designer

No, because there is enormously strong evidence against intelligent design that would be completely unaffected by such a simulation (which, of course, you could not demonstrate anyway, since you understand neither entropy nor natural selection). If someone were to produce evidence that natural selection could not account for the appearance of some novel adaptations, or the increased anatomical and behavioural complexity over time in some taxa, I would accept that evidence. Indeed, I have already done so. In the time I have been interested in evolution, the idea that eukaryotes evolved as a result of endosymbiosis has moved from fringe notion to widely accepted theory.

Posted by: Tyler | August 29, 2009 3:47 AM

E.V.: Tyler thinks he's a big boy!

'Ya know, E.V., if I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bear it.'

You tell 'em, snookums!

I already did, honey pie.

BTW: The word is sycophantic if you're using it as an adverb.

Sycophantic is an adjective, genius. But yeah... nailing me on a typo... way to drive the point home.

You'll learn that in high school.

Wake me up when the teach gets to that part so I can correct her too, kthnx.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 3:49 AM

You are the ones wasting your time in that argument, though I have certainly proven myself equally capable of joining you! And thus, maybe that statement proves one final truth: perhaps me being a critically-thinking Christian helps me be more polite, humble, honest, empathetic, and intellectually curious than you seem to be. - Kristopher Layon

Kristopher, you owe me a new irony meter!

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 3:58 AM

Lots of replies. Grouping them and bottoms up.

God is chatty and personable and also distant and silent and demanding that people accept some arbitrarily chosen human mouthpiece based solely on the human mouthpiece's say-so.

the claims of religion, as we see it, aren't different (in any discernible way) from stories someone just made up.

True and true. I'm not an apologist because I'm not saying religion makes sense. I don't understand it (but then, the thing itself says do it anyway; see Abraham at Mount Carmel). But I understand--and all I'm saying is--that the premises underlying science are good only for what they're good for: facts, not values.

Define science and scientists or GTFO.

First off, fuck you very much, I'll post when and where and what I like. Second, here's off the cuff: science is the collection and testing of empirically verifiable data with the goal of explaining the material action of the universe. Sadly, it is entirely done by scientists, who, being human, suffer from the same faults they claim in the religious, just about different dogmas.

Wow! An ad hominem attack, made from a baseless assumption, and an evasion, all in one sentence! That's pretty good by apologist standards!

I know, I'm very talented that way. But then, it's easy because I never cease from astonishment at the gymnastics of people who claim that every source of morality other than "this is how we do it" is invalid, then tell me about the the evils of intolerance, cruelty, and tyranny, and then sing me some Lennon.

Why not? What do you get if you abandon any connection between the real world and posit some aetheric set of data that comes from nothing, hangs on nothing, and is completely undefined and undefinable?

Not any connection. Anything supra-rational would have to be rational as well; the deficiency would lie in human understanding, not the thing observed. But again, I'm not proving to you that any particular God exists; that is by definition impossible. I'm just saying that your arguments against it are misguided, and therefore you shouldn't be surprised when they are rejected by those who believe in God.

You know, I've never seen a Christian use the lord's name in vain, or cheat on their spouse, or steal, or lie, or murder or fail to keep the Sabbath holy.

Are there any good examples of Christianity, going by that peculiar metric?

Yes, thank you for playing. That's the point--any and every system that says more than "do whatever you want" is going to have a lot of adherents who fail, probably frequently. That's where that notion of sin came from I expect. But the obverse--all those times when someone didn't do something--are unobservable...so it's a tilted field I think.

Bzzt. I'm not a socialist. Keep working on your ad homs.

Well, you linked there, man.

>>Without the long road, how do you know what lives are best? Best for some or all? Is that deduced from evidence, or subjective "values"?

Both. But evidence is central, both in the formation and in the realization of values.

How do you discern the hierarchy of values?

>> My point is just that you can't claim on the basis of empirical data that empirical data is the whole of valid data. There are things above and below knowledge.

[emphasis added]

LOL!
First Prove it! What credible evidence do you have to support that claim? How do you really know that?

LOL, I can't. Prove that I need to prove it for it to be valid. ;)

how then do you know who's "higher knowledge" is correct, and who's is wrong? What exactly is your testing methodology?

What meaning could faith possibly have if it leads to cruelty and bloodshed?

Now we're into the really good stuff. I don't, not with certainty. But I can see that reason can only get you so far, and that beyond that, it's a game of assumptions. For instance, granted that empirical knowledge is the only valid knowledge, why are tolerance, kindness, and freedom superior to oppression, cruelty, and tyranny--especially if you're the tyrant? Are the superior, or merely a qualified evil that you'd discard if you could slip on your Ring of Gyges? And even if "honesty is the best policy," is it really the best policy, or the best one that a weakling can get?

How can science alone refute Hitler or Stalin? How does science tell you it's wrong to torture people?

Go through Leviticus and you will see so many instances of it commanding the committing of atrocities. What the Nazis did was pretty in line with the bible.

Not at all. If you accept that God is the source of all morality, then if God shows up and tells you to break the subordinate rules He's sent you, it's just to break them. Are you saying Hitler claimed to or in fact did talk to God directly, and that the German people witnessed the truth of the thing in the form of a pillar of fire?

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 4:03 AM

Tell us ZZ... without using a purely religious argument, why exactly is faith in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence a virtue?

This is again my point. If you say "assume that empirically valid evidence is not the only valid knowledge, and then prove to me why God doesn't exist," I can't. Obviously. Likewise, If I say "assume that only empirically valid evidence is the valid knowledge, and then prove to me why God does exist," you can't. If faith is a virtue, then it is so because of reasons that can't be verified (except by sidelong arguments about perseverance, etc., that assume the "real" values are already in place).

Why is believing in god because there is evidence, somehow not enough for god? Why does god only seem to prefer it when people believe in him/her/it/they when there is no evidence?

Ask Him, I don't know. I'm just thinking about the limits of empirical knowledge.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 4:05 AM

Does anyone else (besides me) think ZZ might only be here to improve his grade?

LOL, you must not be very familiar with today's students.

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 4:09 AM

There are literally billions of others who say he is something entirely different from what you say. How can I tell who is right?

>>if you presuppose that God exists

What good reason is there to accept this presupposition?

Look, all I'm asking you to do is what you guys are pissed off that the ignorant masses who reject "science" won't do.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 29, 2009 4:16 AM

Not at all. If you accept that God is the source of all morality, then if God shows up and tells you to break the subordinate rules He's sent you, it's just to break them. Are you saying Hitler claimed to or in fact did talk to God directly, and that the German people witnessed the truth of the thing in the form of a pillar of fire?

Whatever Hitler did (was reported to have done), he did use God and the church as a way to le
legitimize his goals. And the Nazi believed it. I mean, after all God destroyed Sodom or commit genocide against the Egyptian cause he didn't like what they were doing or who they were, Hitler destroyed the jews cause he didn't like what they were doing and who they were. I mean, if your lead is already bad and to follow it blindly, you'll be just as bad.

So yes I am claiming that in a manner of speaking. They thought it was the truth just as much as you think what you are saying is the truth.

But here you go defending blind faith. Well sure if some book from the mid-east tells us it's true then it must be because we have faith.

Here's the thing, one can be moral without God. I know plenty of atheists. I have yet to see them kill others, rape, plunder. (While the Christian trying to reclaim the Holy land for God did just that.) Morality doesn't prove God. I agree that it doesn't disprove a god(s) either. But I can tell you that at least the Christian God is not a good example of morals.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 4:24 AM

Anything supra-rational would have to be rational as well; the deficiency would lie in human understanding, not the thing observed.

No, if it understands what is "rational" by human definition, and encapsulates that rationality, its failure to communicate with humans in a clear and rational manner can only be deliberate malice or indifference.

But again, I'm not proving to you that any particular God exists; that is by definition impossible. I'm just saying that your arguments against it are misguided, and therefore you shouldn't be surprised when they are rejected by those who believe in God.

I'm not surprised when the delusional demonstrate a firm commitment to their delusion. I just wonder how they psychologically reconcile their delusion with their non-delusional everyday actions and behavior.

What meaning could faith possibly have if it leads to cruelty and bloodshed?

Now we're into the really good stuff. I don't, not with certainty. But I can see that reason can only get you so far, and that beyond that, it's a game of assumptions. For instance, granted that empirical knowledge is the only valid knowledge, why are tolerance, kindness, and freedom superior to oppression, cruelty, and tyranny--especially if you're the tyrant? Are the superior, or merely a qualified evil that you'd discard if you could slip on your Ring of Gyges? And even if "honesty is the best policy," is it really the best policy, or the best one that a weakling can get?

How can science alone refute Hitler or Stalin? How does science tell you it's wrong to torture people?

I'm too tired just now to get into yet another long argument about ethics and morality (there have been several on Pharyngula recently) -- but I will note that you cannot have an informed individual ethos or group morality without taking into account real-world consequences of actions. So that ethic, whatever it is, does require some connection to the real world, and is best informed by science.

If you accept that God is the source of all morality, then if God shows up and tells you to break the subordinate rules He's sent you, it's just to break them.

Or, in other words, to prove that he's not the source of all morality?

Are you saying Hitler claimed to or in fact did talk to God directly, and that the German people witnessed the truth of the thing in the form of a pillar of fire?

Hitler did claim that his murderous work was "destined", and was in the service of almighty God.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | August 29, 2009 4:28 AM

Look, all I'm asking you to do is what you guys are pissed off that the ignorant masses who reject "science" won't do.

I don't like to deal in presuppositions because invalid ones always lead to invalid conclusions. The Scientific Method is the best system humans have yet developed to take these presuppositions out of the discussion. If you do not see how this is a good thing, then you cannot be helped.

How does science tell you it's wrong to torture people?

It doesn't, but neither does the bible. What is your point again?

And sorry about the inside joke. You are right, it doesn't really apply here. Feel free to ignore it.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 4:35 AM

science is the collection and testing of empirically verifiable data with the goal of explaining the material action of the universe

...Sadly, it is entirely done by scientists,

Pure crap. You know nothing of the history of science, obviously. And have you ever done any gardening?

Posted by: Nominal Egg | August 29, 2009 4:39 AM

ZZ,

You quoted this from me:

There are literally billions of others who say he is something entirely different from what you say. How can I tell who is right?

But then ignored it. Assuming I grant your presupposition that there is a god. How do I know which is the "right" way to worship it? Any thoughts?

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 4:44 AM

I don't like to deal in presuppositions because invalid ones always lead to invalid conclusions. The Scientific Method is the best system humans have yet developed to take these presuppositions out of the discussion. If you do not see how this is a good thing, then you cannot be helped.

No, I agree. But it depends on the discussion. Talking about chemistry is one thing; talking about whether or not to cheat on your wife is another. Sure, reason is going to be big in the second one, too, but it's not the whole thing, and it'd be stupid to reject reasons like "because I love her" and "because it would hurt me and hurt her" because they're more or less subjective.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 4:49 AM

I don't think endosymbiosis counts against NS.
I mean, why would it? - Owlmirror

I meant that if the endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic origins is true, then the increase in complexity from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was not produced by (random mutation and) natural selection alone, but involved an additional, and quite different, process: a specific historical event resulting in a jump in organisational complexity. If we said "the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes occurred by natural selection", we would be wrong in a way we would not be if we said "the evolution of vertebrates from the first metazoans occurred by natural selection".

Posted by: ZZ | August 29, 2009 4:52 AM

Pure crap. You know nothing of the history of science, obviously. And have you ever done any gardening?

Well, only if you count shitting in the dirt, what with me being a benighted fundamentalist hick and all.

Speaking of which, I'm out of beer. I'd be happy to read your wonderfully objective sources later. But in all seriousness, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and will respond to your links and the points above at a more (dare I say?) godly hour. Ciao,

Posted by: SC, OM | August 29, 2009 5:03 AM

Everyone see this?:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2009/08/20/we-are-russian-dolls/

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 29, 2009 5:13 AM

Second, here's off the cuff: science is the collection and testing of empirically verifiable data with the goal of explaining the material action of the universe. Sadly, it is entirely done by scientists, who, being human, suffer from the same faults they claim in the religious, just about different dogmas.

Do you see the device in front of you? It does more calculations per second than the entire human population combined could do. The technology has been born out of the scientific method; the transistor was a deliberate invention.

We have a global telecommunications network, you are seeing text here input by some dumb fucking Aussie sitting in his room in the nation's capital. This information is digitally input into his machine, he sends it through an elaborate wired system that sends the information to the US where it is stored on a server, then retransmitted to you wherever you may be.

Recently that dumb fucking Aussie flew halfway across the world, going at 900km per hour 11km off the ground. It was -60C outside, yet he was comfortable and reached the other side of the world in less than 24 hours. And this same technology is used to cart tens of thousands of people around the world each day. Yet how many crash? Any time one does it is world news. Unfortunately the calculations where done by scientists who are human, so they suffer from the same faults as the religious; just different dogmas after all.

Yet those scientists who have eradicated small-pox, sent people to the moon and probes beyond the farthest planet of our solar system, they are just like the religious people. I wonder how you can actually type that without having your gut wrench in agony!!! Are you serious? Are you fucking serious?!? Here we have a tool that actually works, it allows us to probe deeper and farther than ever before because it works on the notion of objectivity and falsification. There's nothing quite so beautiful as watching an elegant theory being destroyed by a cold fact.

The system is not perfect, but it works and it is the opposite of dogma - that is, knowledge is tentative and always subject to reality. Each new piece of evidence has the potential to destroy what is otherwise an elegant theory or hypothesis, each time someone looks into the unknown it has the chance to destroy what is known. So what survives are those theories that are damn good at predicting what has yet to be found.

Yet the real strength of the scientific method as I said about is that it can be shown to work. You have electricity in your house, you have access to the global internet communications network; ergo you see that it is valid through demonstration.

Posted by: What | August 29, 2009 5:17 AM

ZZ

Ever notice how the invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike?

Just wondering.

Posted by: Kel, OM | August 29, 2009 5:42 AM

You know, it's funny to read all these people who think that science can't explain things like beauty, love, morality, etc.

Those are meant to be mysterious, significant and meaningful to us. Since science is all reductionist, it cannot explain them because science can't explain in terms of significance. Even if it looks that morality is a social construct born out of group interactions where behavioural codes of conduct help foster cohesion between otherwise competing organisms, and that love is a means to form bonds between other organisms that helps in the survival and reproductive process, they are significant to us so they demand a significant explanation!

Just as how evolution can't be true because otherwise life would be meaningless ;)

Posted by: strange gods before me | August 29, 2009 6:17 AM

Granted, so perhaps I should have been more specific: such totalitarianism is not possible in a people who believe in the Christian God. The Germans believed in the race and the nation and saw God as conducive to those things. And thinking Christians reject totalitarian regimes in every form--certainly the Protestants who still attend to the notion of individuality, but even the Catholics who read encyclicals and understand subsidiarity.

This is of course bullshit, as others have already pointed out. And it overlooks how many Christians right here in the USA supported the Nazi regime.

But to suggest that the Italians did not believe in the Christian God! What a tale you tell!

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 29, 2009 6:36 AM

Thanks, SC@422! I'd actually already photocopied the Science article, but hadn't read it. Owlmirror, Zimmer makes the same point I did, but more clearly:

"Many scientists assumed that after the ancestors of eukaryotes and archaea split apart, eukaryotes evolved all of their unique traits through the familiar process of small mutations accumulating through natural selection. But Lynn Margulis... argued that a number of parts of the eukaryote cell were acquired in a radically different way: by the fusion of separate species."

It's still only the mitochondria, and in eukaryotic algae and plants the chloroplasts, that are generally believed to have been incorporated in this way. Margulis thinks microtubules and the centriole resulted from a symbiotic event involving spirochetes.

Posted by: ColonelFazackerley | August 29, 2009 6:58 AM

"children shouldn't grow up believing that stubbornly clinging to an idea despite all the evidence against it makes them look heroic"

Like Dawkins said, this is child abuse.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 7:18 AM

Apologies up front for the length of this post. SIWOTI strikes again!

ZZ @ #383

Granted that biology and physics are useful. "Benefits" assumes "values," which are hard to prove empirically other than on the basis of "lots of people agree," which they also do wrt the existence of some kind of God or gods. The latter is a disputable point.

Now you seem to be evading that you made an argument from false equivalency. That was why I specified tangible benefits. You are of course correct that such values are derived from "lots of people agree" (as you put it), in fact all such values are derived from each person's biology, upbringing, culture, etc. Regardless care to try and name a culture that didn't value curing the sick, feeding it's people, heating/lighting it's homes?

If you think that "biblical values" are some how derived differently since they are "sacred", you would be incorrect. All biblical values are still only given value by the people that choose to give them value. Those biblical values that people ignore are valueless since no body cares about them.

Think I'm being unfair about that? How many gays have you killed? None I hope, but the bible says you should. You mentioned your daughter, how are you planning on killing her if she becomes disrespectful? The bible says you should kill her if she is disrespectful. Are you going to strangle her? Are how about a good old biblical stoning? Those "values" are valueless to you, since you chose to ignore them. Do you have a system that clearly spells out exactly what values we are supposed to hold sacred, and which we ignore? Of course not, because you are the one that decides what biblical values matter to you.

At very least, the only societies that were truly tolerant of science had a firm foundation in religious belief of a certain kind

Absolute nonsense, most earlier cultures had "firm religious foundation" of one kind or another, but most of them never developed what we would call "science". Your dependency on Burke has lead you to a form of Western bias, you can only make that claim by ignoring the majority of non-western cultures that didn't develop science. Also, you are ignoring that scientific methodology developed in spite of opposition from many religious groups. It wasn't until scientists began speaking out against church dogma that progress was truly made.

There was plenty of "science" in Nazism, too--so either you have to engage in evasion and dispute whether that was "real" science or admit that all human things are subject to human fallacies. Either way, how is that different from any particular religion?

Incorrect, the Nazis deliberately recruited whatever pseudoscientists they could recruit to tow the party line. Rather like the "scientists" that are recruited by Young Earth Creationists today. They espoused beliefs that were not widely accepted by the scientific community. They also deliberately distorted the works of others to make it more Nazi friendly. The big difference though is that while the Nazi's used pseudoscience as part of their propaganda, it was religion that they called on to stir the masses. It was the name of God that they invoked in their ceremonies, not those of scientists. It was done in the name of "God's Will", not in the name of research. Yes some of the pseudoscientists working for Hitler did "research", but it was still done to justify the Nazi religious dogma. Rather like the relationship of pre-science and the Catholic church in the Middle Ages.

the idea of an ever-present being who commands certain moral principles could be responsible for preventing a lot of bad behavior. Hard to verify...so is the proposition valid?

Are you now seriously claiming that if god(s) was real that he/she/it/they would unable to prevent "bad" things from happening? What kind of god can create the universe, and yet not even give a simple clear warning?

Just because atheism doesn't cause you to be immoral doesn't mean it won't cause it in others; that's a subjective argument.

I don't think that you quite understood what I was saying there. The fact of the matter is that one of the more common claims about the need for religion, is that it makes people moral, and that people that ignore religion do so in order to be immoral. That's a claim made by your side. I'm glad that we agree that it's a bad argument, but that's it's a bad argument often used by those that support religion is the point I was trying to clarify to you.

Likewise, how do we know that all these bastards wouldn't have been so much worse without at least the check provided by a traditional morality?

Because as I pointed out above, traditional morality really has very little to do with the bible. Your typical atheist has many of the same "traditional" morals. Most atheists are opposed to lying, theft, murder, rape, etc. but they simply justify their morals from a secular perspective instead of a religious one.

Regardless you seem to be dodging the point about what good is a "moral authority" such as religion, that can be used to justify anything that you would consider to be an atrocity? Why use religion as your justification at all?

While free will would still exist if God was there, how could you deny it if He showed up as a big fireball and said "DO THIS NOW"?

People frequently do things against authority if they feel the desire or believe that they have a just reason to do so, why would that change? Is it really better to have wars and genocide, and people going to hell for not believing in god (even if their entire life they behaved better than most Christians) just because god can't be bothered with saying "Hey! Stop that!"?

So, first, is God supposed to send down a messenger every generation? (And how do you know He didn't already?

According to the bible, "He" had no trouble routinely getting involved in people's lives. Hell! Sometimes he did it just to mess with them! What now all of a sudden the slaughter of tens of millions isn't enough motivation? It took at lot less for god to get involved beforehand. Maybe he's like an fat "couch potato" that won't even bother to get up from the couch to change the channel on the TV, if the remote control is lost? Yeah right.

And second, accepting the premise that He exists as creator, how does the derivative creation justly demand the terms of his obedience?

Now that is an interesting question! One that atheists bring up quite often. Should god be obeyed because he can condemn us? Makes him sound rather like a thug doesn't it? "Nice soul you's got there, be a real shame if something were to 'appen to it!"

Why should god even have to condemn us at all? If god really wanted us to obey him out of love, why the threats? Why punish those that are good but don't (or never had the opportunity) to believe in him, the same as those that committed great harm to others?

just pointing out that your arguments fail if you presuppose that God exists as He is said to

LOL! Your (and others) presupposing is precisely the problem in the first place! Also, my arguments don't actually fail if you presuppose the existence of god for two reasons. One, because they are based on questioning the words of men arguing in favor of the existence of god (yes that includes the bible too) and not on the assumption that god doesn't exist. Two, because even if god does exist it still raises many questions that religion can't actually answer without god being directly involved in the first place.

The whole religion / science argument depends on fundamental principles that must be accepted without the benefit of being self-justifying; therefore, whether religion is true or science is true (or either is false) depends on assumptions made before the argument and without the benefit of reason.

False equivalence again, the principles of science are derived from logic and experimentation. Science makes testable predictions, religion doesn't. The principles of religion are based on "what feels emotionally good/satisfying to me?" and have no way to be tested aside from actual divine intervention.

Perhaps a simple analogy will help. Ultimately, theology is like endlessly debating how many flying reindeer Santa Claus has and what they look like. It can never come to a definitive answer, unless Santa pays a visit. Science, on the other hand, is like setting up video cameras and catching your parents in the act of leaving the presents. Santa maybe used as an excuse to behave, but it's still your parents that you're really obeying (or not).

Sadly, it is entirely done by scientists, who, being human, suffer from the same faults they claim in the religious, just about different dogmas.

The difference that you fail to note, is that science is based on the idea that humans are fallible and biased and therefore scientific methodology was created to compensate. The ultimate arbiter is the result of experiments, and therefore reality itself is the ultimate judge. It may take time to correct the errors, but at least it tries. Religion assumes that it's derived from divine guidance, but never tests itself because it can't. Tell us, what protocols and procedures does religion have to find and eliminate errors? What tests and experiments does religion use to justify it's positions?

ZZ @ #398

But then, it's easy because I never cease from astonishment at the gymnastics of people who claim that every source of morality other than "this is how we do it" is invalid

The only gymnastics here have been on your part, since you've yet to justify a single one of your positions without resorting to assuming that religion is true.

I'm not proving to you that any particular God exists; that is by definition impossible

If god(s) did in fact intervene in the world it wouldn't be impossible, especially if that being(s) actually wanted us to believe in him/her/it/they. If they don't intervene at all, then why believe in the first place?

That's the point--any and every system that says more than "do whatever you want" is going to have a lot of adherents who fail, probably frequently.

Again you're dodging that the problem isn't that all Christians don't follow the bible completely (none do). The problem is that if Christians did follow the bible it would be barbaric of them (by the standards of most modern countries) and that the bible can be, and is, used to justify atrocities and oppression. Even in modern "civilized" countries.

LOL, I can't. Prove that I need to prove it for it to be valid. ;)

More gymnastics from you. You're the one using such tap-dancing to justify your position. You're the one that made the assertion "There are things above and below knowledge." If you can't justify the assertion then it's invalid. Therefore your are obviously just making stuff up to wriggle out of your position.

Now we're into the really good stuff. I don't, not with certainty. But I can see that reason can only get you so far, and that beyond that, it's a game of assumptions

Agreed, for much of that. But, it's not all about assumptions after that point. Humans can still use reason and their values (as subjective as they may often be) to decide for themselves how best people should behave in society. Religion though, offers us nothing that we can't figure out for ourselves. If anything it often tends to limit the analysis of our options, and clouds our judgment. Back to your daughter again, how much earlier might women have had the rights they do today if not for religious groups opposing such efforts?

How can science alone refute Hitler or Stalin? How does science tell you it's wrong to torture people

Science != Ethics

Ethics = Ethics

Science only attempts to describe the physical world. Ethics is up to ethicists and philosophers. Religion attempts to define both, but is very poor at either. Morally everyone just picks and chooses what they want from religion (like a buffet)the only principles that are close to universal are the obvious ones that you don't need religion to figure out. For describing the physical world, it's just a big fat FAIL.

Are you saying Hitler claimed to or in fact did talk to God directly, and that the German people witnessed the truth of the thing in the form of a pillar of fire?

Unnecessary, all that was required for Hitler to say he was doing god's will, and enough Germans to have faith in that claim.

ZZ @ #400

Likewise, If I say "assume that only empirically valid evidence is the valid knowledge, and then prove to me why God does exist," you can't

Incorrect, if god truly does intervene in the world then the effect would be detectable. For example, many people believe that if they pray for the sick and injured that they'll be more likely to get better. This is a testable claim. It has been tested, and prayer failed to show any significant difference. Therefore the claim that god heals most people that are prayed for is unsupported. If on the other hand there was shown to be a definite measurable response (and other factors were eliminated), then that would be a major piece of evidence in favor of religion. Too bad god doesn't heal amputees, isn't it?

Ask Him, I don't know. I'm just thinking about the limits of empirical knowledge.

Ah, but you're the one advocating faith here. Granted this is a common theme in religion, but still its just taken as a baseless assumption. Its held up as a virtue by the religious because they have to. Without holding blind faith as a virtue it becomes so much harder to justify why there are no detectable interventions from god(s). How else are you going to tell a couple of distraught parents why god doesn't protect/heal their dying child and yet keep them devoted to your organization?

ZZ @ #411

Mein Kampf itself refers to selection and the process of history and eugenics, all derived from scientific literature and/or natural philosophy

Wrong again. Eugenics (as applied to humans) is primarily a pseudoscientific concept derived from animal husbandry, long before scientific methodology was developed. Even back then, many scientists spoke out against it. You're confusing pseudoscience with science again. See my point earlier about how the Nazis also deliberately distorted scientific works (in translation) to make it seem as though it supported Nazi dogma, when in fact it didn't.

To say nothing of Himmler and Mengle, or Stalin or Mao, or the Khmer Rouge. Sure you can point to the Dirty War and the Inquisition, too--but that's my point, we're talking about human things, not divine things

More pseudoscience. Most of them believed in Lysenkoism and saw evolution as a "capitalist propaganda". As for the inquisition, I suspect that there were many in the Catholic church (at the time) that would disagree with it not being one of the "divine things".

ZZ @ #416

Talking about chemistry is one thing; talking about whether or not to cheat on your wife is another. Sure, reason is going to be big in the second one, too, but it's not the whole thing, and it'd be stupid to reject reasons like "because I love her" and "because it would hurt me and hurt her" because they're more or less subjective.

Sigh...still confusing science and ethics. Please see above.

ZZ @ #420

Well, only if you count shitting in the dirt, what with me being a benighted fundamentalist hick and all.

For what it's worth ZZ (I can only speak for myself) I never thought that you are stupid, if anything you do strike me as intelligent if somewhat misguided (IMO) about some things. I do think that you don't understand enough about science, and why it's distinct from ethics. Also, I think that you've read way to many books by apologists without subjecting them to sufficient critical analysis.

Well, it's been fun for me too. Off to bed for me for now. Good night all!

P.S. Sorry again for the length of this post and to everyone else if I touched on anything that you already covered.

Posted by: Zetetic | August 29, 2009 7:47 AM

Actually one last brief comment to ZZ before I hit the proverbial hay.

I think ZZ, that part of the problem with you (and others of faith, of course) thinking that science should explain both the natural world and ethics derives from the fact that the Bible tries to do both. Since the religion tries to explain the world and has a code of ethics (such as it is), and since you see science as the "mirror opposite" to religion, you seem to assume that science should try and explain ethics too. This a view that many apologists try to encourage since it works to their favor by setting up an Appeal to Consequences, another logical fallacy.

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. Science isn't the mirror opposite to religion, it's in a completely different game altogether.

Think of it this way. Science is just part of the counter to religious claims. It only deals with the natural world and only counters religious claims about the world. The rest is up to ethics, philosophy, etc.

Good night.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 29, 2009 8:06 AM

Zetetic @ #436

Damn, and I thought my SIWOTI was bad....

Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 8:36 AM

Rorschach @441,

The way I understand it the fact that something is called a fallacy in informal logic does not mean that a particular statement containg that fallacy is by definition wrong, rather that it might be a weak argument and open to criticism or attack

Close enough.

An argument based on a fallacy is necessarily invalid, but the conclusion itself may still be correct — the claim becomes an unsupported assertion rather than an argument.

Posted by: KK | August 29, 2009 9:13 AM

Amen :)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 9:30 AM

It's true that an argument using a logical fallacy doesn't invalidate the initial premise. "You're an idiot, therefore your premise that 2+2=4 is false" is obviously flawed. The idiot may actually be an idiot but 2+2 does equal 4.

Arguments based on logical fallacies are more likely to be wrong than arguments based on logic. We should be suspicious of arguments based on fallacies simply because the fallacy neither supports nor denies the premise.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 29, 2009 11:17 AM

I couldn't help but notice the long and winding path of No True Scotsman (NTS) being walked along by ZZ as many others have pointed out. I was thinking about how NTS is like the Courtier's Reply (how I understand the courtier's reply is: "The [nekkid] emperor's clothes are grand indeed, you just have no idea and need to study up on the intricacies of textiles!"). NTS is like what the Emperor's Reply would be if one were to ask him about the various layers of his royal wear; I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Emperor: [To a random peasant during the royal parade.] You there! Is not the Royal Cape glorious? The tailor did a wonderful job, did he not?

Rude Peasant: Your Highness, I should have liked to compliment your Majesty's cape, but I fail to see one draped over the Royal Shoulders.

Emperor: [Scoffing.] Peasant, I shall forgive your indiscretion this once, for this cape is like no other. It is dyed a deep purple hue that rests gracefully against the blue of the Royal Robe so as to trick the eyes of the befuddled such as yourself into thinking they are one and the same garment. Come hither, peasant, and gaze more closely.

Rude Peasant: [Does as commanded.] Your Highness, my eyes forsake me. Where your Majesty claims blue, I see none. [Gulping, desperately suppressing the desire to state the obvious.]

Emperor: [Taken aback.] How dare a peasant mock the glory of the Empire! The Royal Cape and Robe are made of the finest cloth a peasant such as yourself could never have apprehended, [more contemplatively] yet the Royal Cape and Robe are as real as the rags on your back. [The Emperor decides on benevolence and attempts to make this a "teachable moment".] Peasant, I shall permit you redemption before all gathered here today. I grant that which all have longed for — reach out with one hand and touch the Royal Cape so that your hand may betray your eyes.

Rude Peasant: Yes, your Highness. [Nervously reaches out toward the Emperor's back and lays a finger onto the Emperor's bare flesh.]

Onlookers: [All gasp in anticipation as they watch the peasant wipe his grimy hand on the Emperor's skin.]

Emperor: [Bewildered at the feeling of the greasy peasant finger poking him in the back.] You fool! None shall touch the Royal Skin! Off with his head!

If a supposed Christian wants to claim that only their kind of Christianity is true Christianity, then they need to tell us exactly what distinguishes their belief from any of the other kinds of theism that go by the name Christianity. But like the Emperor above, no matter how many layers of belief the True Christians identify, they will always look and feel naked to an atheist unless they provide empirical evidence of their god's existence.

Posted by: RickD | August 29, 2009 12:07 PM

This result can hardly be surprising. The essence of faith (as opposed to mere belief) is the ability to continue to believe in a concept even when the evidence would suggest the belief is false.

We really don't have to go far to find an example of this concept in the dominant religions of the day. The Christian religions are founded on the notion that Jesus was resurrected and that all people can achieve eternal life. The evidence that the lifespan of every human is finite is pretty overwhelming. And yet the notion of afterlife is quite tenacious, and is the central feature of the Christian religions. Indeed, I would argue that the promise of eternal life is the primary advertising lure of evangelical Christian religions.

In this mindset, the teachings of scientists are no more than the deceptions of the devil.

I think it's important to know what we're up against. The problem is not simply that religious people are "stupid". It's far more insidious than that.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 29, 2009 12:36 PM

Ellie (#294)

Why is critical thinking and reason different to faith at that most fundamental of levels?

Uniformity of results regardless of bias. In other words, critical thinking, reason and science just plain work.

Why do we think it is better to teach evidence-based logic...

WTF is "evidence-based logic"? Logic derived from evidence or logic that derives its conclusions based on evidence?

I tried to answer this question, and all I could come up with was "the evidence shows its better", that is just circular logic, it is no better than "why have faith? because I have faith that I should". It is me using my belief system to justify my belief system!

You're inventing terms and going on a massive equivocation spree. Evidence is independent of belief, thus relying on it to check claims about reality is in no way the same as relying on faith which has nothing independent of itself to act as a check.

(#323)

But the evidence is based on the assumption that evidence is a valid metric, that is in turn based on evidence.

Maybe if my belief poofed the evidence into existence or if the evidence could never contradict prior belief. That's not how evidence works, though.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 12:39 PM

I meant that if the endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic origins is true, then the increase in complexity from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was not produced by (random mutation and) natural selection alone, but involved an additional, and quite different, process: a specific historical event resulting in a jump in organisational complexity. If we said "the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes occurred by natural selection", we would be wrong in a way we would not be if we said "the evolution of vertebrates from the first metazoans occurred by natural selection".

No, sorry, I'm still not seeing the argument. I agree that without taking into account endosymbiosis, the understanding of the evolution of eukaryotes is incomplete, but I still do not see how it means that natural selection is wrong in being a factor in that evolution.

I've read the articles by Zimmer (that SC posted @#422), and I've also read Margulis & Sagan's work Acquiring Genomes, and so on and so forth. Evolution does need to take gene transfer, epigenetics, and symbiotic relationships into account in expanding on what "reproductively transmissible variation" means. But none of that falsifies "natural selection" -- perhaps better expressed as "differential reproductive success" -- as the process by which that variation propagates over time.

Am I missing something here?

Posted by: Drosera | August 29, 2009 1:34 PM

Rorschach (and others),

You may find this list of falacies useful.

Just for fun, let's look at some of the most common fallacies applied in rebuttal to the statement "The Christian God does not exist."

Ad hominem: You're an asshole.

Appeal to authority: The pope says that there can be no doubt that God exists.

Appeal to consequences: If people stop believing in God they will become thieves and rapists.

Appeal to ridicule: You will cry like a baby when you stand before God.

Argument from ignorance: So far, I haven’t seen a proof that God doesn’t exist.

Argument from fallacy: You said earlier that that the Bible consists of 69 books. But the Bible consists of 66 books. So you are wrong.

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam): We have heard that a thousand times before. You’re boring me.

Argumentum ad baculum ("appeal to force"): If you persist in your opinion you will be burnt at the stake.

Argumentum ad populum: Millions of people believe in God. Are you suggesting that they are all wrong?

Bare assertion fallacy: Of course God exists, how can you doubt that?

Begging the question ("petitio principii"): The Bible is God’s word; who are we to doubt God’s existence?

Burden of proof: No amount of scientific evidence will ever convince me that God does not exist.

Cherry picking: Jesus rose from the dead. There were hundreds of witnesses to that.

Equivocation (No true Scotsman): What you call the ‘Christian God’ is actually something only Catholics believe.

Fallacy of many questions (loaded question): If God doesn’t exist, how could we have morality, since this was given by God?

False dilemma: Either God exists, or we are all just animals without morality.

Loki's Wager: We can’t even agree about a definition of God, so this discussion is useless.

Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): So, how do you explain the origin of life?

Negative Proof fallacy: You can't prove that God does not exist, so he must exist.

Red Herring: Stalin was an atheist.

Slippery slope: You start by claiming that there is no Christian God, and you will finish saying that life has no meaning and that we should all kill ourselves.

Special pleading: God does not need evidence.

Straw man argument: So you are saying that Christians are stupid?

Style over substance fallacy: You are just being rude.

Tu quoque: You say that God doesn’t exist, and yet you go to church at Christmas.

Wishful thinking: The idea that God watches over me makes me feel special.

Posted by: Michael Dowd | August 29, 2009 2:03 PM

I don't think that the lack of early education in critical thinking is not the most crucial issue. Humans in all cultures and throughout history have been able to thrive best when they can look to the future with trust, when they can look at the past with gratitude, and when they are inspired and supported to be in action in the present no matter what shit they've got to deal with. Given that we've only had natural, factual answers to many of life's biggest questions for a couple hundred years or less, it's not surprising that most people in the world get these most highly valued subjective states (trust, gratitude, and inspiration) from belief-based, otherworldly myths.

Until we naturalists show people how trust, gratitude, and inspiration can be gained in real (not merely mythic) ways from within a science-based view of reality (no supernaturalism needed), it seems to me that we should expect religious people to hold onto their mythic beliefs (and resist evidence to the contrary) with religious devotion.

Posted by: Drosera | August 29, 2009 3:25 PM

Thanks Jef. And I forgot a very popular one, especially among accommodationists and philosophers.

Courtier's reply: How can you make such a crude statement when you don't know the sophisticated fine points of Christian theology?

This fallacy is not in the wiki list.

Posted by: Tyler | August 29, 2009 5:06 PM

E.V.: Tyler is a sycophantic troll. He's just a sycophant for Jebus.

Oh, this. Is. Rich. Not only have you demonstrated an inability to differentiate between an adverb and an adjective, in some way explicable only within that bowl of pudding between your ears, you've actually come to the conclusion that I'm a christian.

I'll refrain from calling you a dumbass and just let your utter stupidity speak for itself.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 6:49 PM

Damn, Tyler, it took you over 18 hours to come up with a snappy retort. You're not too swift in the thinking department, are you?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 29, 2009 7:02 PM

Say what you will about stubbornly clinging to other beliefs, but when it comes to my faith, hands off. It's mine. And it's untouchable.

And wholly irrational.

How do you distinguish between what you are feeling and confirmation bias?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2009 7:15 PM

Some person has to make the decision whether to contribute to our community here, or to be prickly and try to intimidate people for every considered slight to their inflated importance. But then, that is what killfile is for, so we don't even have to read their boring and inane posts. My killfile hasn't been activated since Heddle (yawn) left, but, with my present computer, is barely noticeable if it runs.

Posted by: Drosera | August 29, 2009 7:24 PM

Ichthyic,

I mean, if you're gonna make a detailed list, and all...

Not really. I just thought it was a nice little excercise for me to make up that list.

Thanks for the correction, anyway. Always appreciated.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 7:29 PM

I think Knockgoats is using "natural selection" as shorthand for "natural selection acting on random mutations."

sloppy, and the statement by Zimmer was as well. Of course, I'm sure he (Zimmer) wasn't addressing it to people who have no concept of what the sources of variation and mechanisms of change in populations actually are. Still, he should have been clearer that the issue had nothing to do with selection, but rather the initial source of variation.

selection merely acts on variations in phenotypes between individuals.

It doesn't matter what the source of the variation is, whether it's a mutation, oncogene or some other form of horizontal transfer (which broadly could include endosymbiosis), or even developmental plasticity.

This, at the base, is one of the main reasons Stimpy's arguments are so flawed.

He barely understands what mutation even means, let alone have knowledge of other sources of variability, or understand how mechanisms like selection or drift actually do act on them.

He lives in an office, typing on a computer all day, and thinks this will be the only thing he needs to explore how the world works.

There really is no need to indulge him in his fantasies.

Especially, if one intends to use sloppy language to address them.

@ Owlmirror:

No, you weren't missing anything. You're dead on correct.

Margulis' endosymbiosis hypothesis has nothing to do with whether or not selection acts as a mechanism on variability.

...that, even though she herself seems to gone insane and thinks otherwise these days.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 7:37 PM

When I grew up in the '70 the scientists were talking about global cooling.

wrong.

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

your problem is that the reason you seem to find scientists difficult to believe, is that you aren't even reading what they write, but rather relying on people who have NO FUCKING CLUE what science is about to interpret science issues for you.

THAT is why you don't trust science:

People have been lying to you about it since you were a kid.

It's your choice to swallow the lies or not, but don't expect the rest of us to have sympathy for you for your gross ignorance of reality.

Posted by: Drosera | August 29, 2009 7:42 PM

gennarino,

By the way the Bible stated that the earth was a sphere, around 1000 yrs BC and they ignored that at the time, and now we know better.

No, the Bible states that the earth is a circular disk, which is flat. People like you never get anything right, do you?

The Greek scholar Eratosthenes (c. 200 BC) already knew that the earth was spherical, and even made a surprisingly good estimate of its circumference. Compare that with your stupid Bible, which says that pi equals 3.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 29, 2009 8:03 PM

It is difficult to believe science when the scientists keep changing the story.

You have completely misunderstood how science works. Science is not written in stone. Science is based on a method that constantly cross-checks with how the real world actually operates. Changing your mind when you find out new, real-world information is the same way that learning works.

Are you really saying that you don't believe that it's possible to learn new things about the world?

And, just to address the original post, if you learned a new thing about the world that contradicted your faith, would you simply reject what you had learned?

When I grew up in the '70 the scientists were talking about global cooling.

No. You're misremembering or misquoting hearsay about a speculation published in a popular magazine.

And the rest of your supposed history of science and the supposed correctness of the bible is completely wrong as well.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 29, 2009 8:20 PM

and then they changed their story.

...or did they?

:P

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | August 29, 2009 9:04 PM

All you sycophants who didn't show up to help haul things for the Redhead, you only get two-day-old grog, and have to pay for your own calamari...;)

Do...I know you? ;)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 29, 2009 9:11 PM

and have to pay for your own calamari.

As long as you're buying the lobster, I'll pay for my own calamari.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 29, 2009 9:20 PM

As long as you're buying the lobster, I'll pay for my own calamari.

With that attitude, I'd put you on list 'Tis, but you are already there ;)...

Posted by: John Morales | August 29, 2009 10:34 PM

Tyler @463:

I'll refrain from calling you a dumbass ...

But that's exactly what you've done; you haven't refrained, only rephrased it (disingenuously) in a mealy-mouthed way.

You gain no merit thereby.

Posted by: A. Noyd | August 29, 2009 11:24 PM

Anna G (#466)

There is no way to prove that God does not exist, for faith and religion are two different things. Is one better than the other? No. Really, they are just polar opposites.

First, why should we accept anything you simply assert? Second, no one can prove the nonexistence of something that cannot be defined, but any definitive claims are fair game. Third, that one cannot prove god's nonexistence doesn't follow from faith and religion being different. Fourth, for all that they're different, faith and religion aren't opposites, even in the hyperbolic sense. And fifth, both are morally abhorrent since they divorce one's mind from any ability to validate one's beliefs and actions.

Say what you will about stubbornly clinging to other beliefs, but when it comes to my faith, hands off. It's mine. And it's untouchable.

Can something touch you that is, itself, untouchable? It's nonsensical. You sacrifice thoughts and behaviors to something that is logically impossible. Perhaps it brings you solace, but you cannot demand that we accept your assertion that your faith is untouchable when you, yourself, do not act as though it is.

Posted by: RHM | August 30, 2009 8:46 AM

Anna @#466:"Say what you will about stubbornly clinging to other beliefs, but when it comes to my faith, hands off. It's mine. And it's untouchable."

If that is what you believe why are you sharing your thoughts here?
Are you finding it uncomfortable to realize that by reading this thread you allowed the "untouchable" to be touched? I think you may have actually meant to imply you believe your "faith" should be, not untouchable, but unquestioned - even by yourself. If so, you may have really blown it. Or, you could keep reading (everything) and discover something great.

Posted by: aratina cage | August 30, 2009 9:45 AM

Despite Kristofer's assertion that xe is a nice person, xe seems to not allow open comments on xyr blog. I didn't expect a Christian to actually allow dissenting views on xyr blog anyway.

Scratch that. I guess it was me being too impatient.

Posted by: Tyler | August 30, 2009 12:53 PM

E.V.: "Sycophantic" is an adjective...

Why, then, did you refer to it as an adverb, dumbass?

Posted by: Tyler | August 30, 2009 1:47 PM

Nerd: Some person has to make the decision whether to contribute to our community here, or to be prickly and try to intimidate people for every considered slight to their inflated importance.

Contributions like getting your panties in a wad because people won't bow down to your prickly attempts to "intimidate" them into acquiescing to the inflated importance you exhibit regarding your narrow definition of a term like "militant" huh...

But then, that is what killfile is for, so we don't even have to read their boring and inane posts.

That's right, Pastor TEste... erm, Nerd. Just "killfile" anyone who asks you back up your boring, inane claims. That'll show 'em.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 30, 2009 3:58 PM

Tyler, there will only be one person in my killfile. You. So I am hardly stifling "dissent". That should be telling you something. It's not that I haven't been called out in the past. I have. And I will be in the future. But when all a person does is unnecessarily act obnoxious, and continues to do so without further provocation on my part, they end up there. You have every right to speak. There is nothing that says I must listen to you.

If titles (ie, Pastor TEstes) are important to you, that should be Dr. Nerd, along with several others on this thread, who also have earned doctorates. Yes, we know things, and recognize when other people, like you and your pastor, doesn't.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 8:32 PM

Another common tactic is shifting the burden of proof to non-believers, as opposed to believers, which you did when you challenged science to "disprove" god or gods. Actually....

Poor guy obviously didn't read the post:

if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief

apples and oranges.

specific beliefs make specific claims, which can be easily tested against reality.

example:

the bible claims you can produce striped animals by breeding them in front of striped sticks (did you need me to look that one up for you?). This is a claim that is obviously easily disprovable.

Prayer can cure illness. This too, is easily disprovable (and has been, even by the Templeton Foundation, who of all organizations would have wished the opposite were true).

I, OTOH, can easily imagine a god construct that is entirely untestable.

My god is half-man, half-fish, and lives in the deep places of the sea, is able to change forms at will, or become ethereal.

no way to disprove that.

If you really can't see the difference here, you shouldn't even try putting your hat in this ring.

I don't see any real point to this post.

project much?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 30, 2009 8:40 PM

HMB, still no evidence for anything you say (the opinion of liar and bullshitter is worthless), still no posited theory, still nothing of consequence. Get to your point. It's way past put up or shut up time...

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 30, 2009 8:58 PM

help ma boab #502

Since evolutionists have already done Genesis what exactly is next? We've had a hundred and fifty years of empty blether. And now they are pretending that they know something about religion? OK. Let's suppose Genesis is a 'Creation Myth'. Is that you done? What else have you got?

I'm fluent in two languages and can get by in a couple more but gibberish isn't one of them. Can someone translate this into English or French?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 9:10 PM

Can someone translate this into English or French?

I'll try...

"Evolutionists have already done genesis" =

science has disproved genesis.

problems:

assumes science=evolution, assumes evolution has fuck all to do with why things like a Noachian flood are easily disprovable.

"what exactly is next?" =

Science has not progressed since showing that genesis was nothing more than another creation myth.

problems:

assumes this was done when 'Origins' was published? total ignorance of any other work done in the various fields of science for hundreds of years.

assumes science exists merely to disprove his personal favorite creation myth.

"And now they are pretending that they know something about religion?" =

Ditchkins

need I say more?

"What else have you got?"

see translation of "What exactly is next?"

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 9:28 PM

Thanks, Ichthyic. I should know better than to try to be ironic in this crowd.

;)

hey, if it wasn't me, it would have been Owlmirror or Marjanovich.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 30, 2009 9:35 PM

too damn weaksauce

dunno why, but I got a good chuckle from this phrase.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 31, 2009 4:11 AM

Sadly, most of the replies are from the 'abusive pottymouth, just ignore' folder. But I shall attempt what replies I can.

OK. Let's suppose Genesis is a 'Creation Myth'. Is that you done? What else have you got?

What is so hard to understand? Let me rephrase this:

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument that 'Genesis' is a Mythic story. Is there anything in the rest of the Bible or orthodox Christian belief that may possibly be subject to "scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief". Or is this post just a sad old reworking of the evolution/Genesis thing under a pretended flag of 'intellectual integrity', in which case I shall ignore it. Or to coin a phrase, "What else have you got?"

Or in other words for the slow of thought: The mainstream churches have all long since accepted the 'Genesis is a myth' line. Why are you still grinding your gears?

I did notice that hmb conflates evolution and science.

Errr, no. I have explained elsewhere my position that evolution is a Historical Schema and not a 'Science'. So stop quibbling and nit-picking.

Ichthyic

Prayer can cure illness. This too, is easily disprovable.

I have heard of many of these studies and experiments. On closer examination the methodology and prior assumptions are so laughably ridiculous that I am surprised that anyone commits them to writing.

Posted by: Drosera | August 31, 2009 4:35 AM

Those who, like gennario and help ma boab in this thread, claim that the authors of the Bible knew that the earth was a sphere, are either ignorant or lying.

In Isaiah 40:22 we read:

It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in

When you are standing on a plain it appears as if the horizon is equidistant in every direction. So it seems logical to conclude that the plain is bounded by a circle. Even a bronze age goat herder with a little imagination could have come up with this verse, let alone a rambling prophet like Isaiah, who was evidently hallucinating most of the time. Furthermore, a tent usually has a flat bottom. But let’s be generous and admit that from a distance a sphere appears to have a circular boundary.

But then read Matthew 4:8:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

You can only see all the kingdoms of the world from a mountain if the earth is flat.

Combining both verses leads us to the inescapable conclusion that according to the Bible the earth is a flat circular disk. QED.

The Bible, however, is a tombola of contradictory nonsense, so we should not be too surprised when the same hallucinating Isaiah writes:

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

So, now the earth has corners. One thing is certain: these prophets weren’t paying much attention during their geometry lessons.

Gennario and help ma boab, you may find Donald Morgan’s website instructive. Disclaimer: the amount of cognitive dissonance it will cause in your feeble brains might be dangerous.

Posted by: Dania | August 31, 2009 5:17 AM

The mainstream churches have all long since accepted the 'Genesis is a myth' line. Why are you still grinding your gears?

Because there are still people trying to teach creationism as if it were science. And because there are still people like Ken Ham who make a living out of lying to children.

I have explained elsewhere my position that evolution is a Historical Schema and not a 'Science'. So stop quibbling and nit-picking.

You should get back to that thread sometime. You still have some questions to answer and A LOT to explain concerning that 'position'.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 31, 2009 5:24 AM

Sadly, most of the replies are from the 'abusive pottymouth, just ignore' folder.

In other words, you're a whiny little hypocrite with no substantive arguments, on top of all of your other failings.

The mainstream churches have all long since accepted the 'Genesis is a myth' line.

Meh, define "mainstream". And define "long since", too.

Is there anything in the rest of the Bible or orthodox Christian belief that may possibly be subject to "scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief".

Yes!

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua (et cetera) are also myths.

  http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html

I have explained elsewhere my position that evolution is a Historical Schema and not a 'Science'. So stop quibbling and nit-picking.

You're the one quibbling and nitpicking, since evolution is indeed a science. Your "position" is simply wrong.

On closer examination the methodology and prior assumptions are so laughably ridiculous that I am surprised that anyone commits them to writing.

I know! Mark 16:17-18 are screamingly ridiculous, aren't they?

Posted by: Drosera | August 31, 2009 5:44 AM

help ma boab @520,

The word 'circle' means circle, circuit, vault, arch or compass. It is probable that its use here does not actually refer to the Earth being circular but rather the vault of the heavens as expanded later in the verse.

You are wriggling like a snake that is trampled underfoot.

People who approach the Bible with a pedantic literalism often miss the author's point.

Good to know that I can dismiss the virgin birth, the resurrection, the destruction of Jericho, and the escape from Egypt by the Israelites. It's all pedantic literalism. But hey, that's what people on this blog have been saying all along. Maybe you should join us.

And how about pi?

Oh wait. Silly to ask a question, now that I am probably in your 'ignore folder,' where you put all the people who are smarter than you are. That must be a very fat folder.

Posted by: help ma boab | August 31, 2009 6:22 AM

It's not such a fat folder. You can be smarter than me if you wish. But if you call me a liar or a racist the conversation ends.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 31, 2009 6:46 AM

I shall research the conventions governing the use of maths significant figures by the Hebrews. You may find that figures were generally rounded to the nearest cubit.

For pity's sake -- "significant figures"? "Rounded to the nearest cubit"? Do you not realize that the bible long predated the decimal system of mathematics?

How hard would it have been to put in "3 and 1/7^th", though?

Posted by: Drosera | August 31, 2009 7:58 AM

hmb,

But if you call me a liar or a racist the conversation ends.

I wrote that you were either ignorant or lying (not that these categories are mutually exclusive). You are not saying that I called you a racist, are you?

Owlmirror has already answered your question about pi.

If you choose to explain away both the obvious meaning of the word 'circle' in Isaiah 40:22 and the apologists' interpretation of this as 'sphere', then how would you claim that the authors of the Bible knew that the earth was not flat?

It seems to me that what you are doing is replacing a pedantic literalist reading with a Münchhausen-ish imaginative reading. Similar to Joseph Smith's 'translating' a (still extant) fragment from the Egyptian Book of the Dead into the completely invented 'Book of Abraham' (this as an addition to my post @36; another example where scientific fact fails to supercede an utterly insane belief).

Posted by: Zetetic | August 31, 2009 3:59 PM

HMB @514:

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument that 'Genesis' is a Mythic story.

Suppose? When all possible evidence shows to it's most definitely not literally true? How generous of you!

Or do you have some evidence to the contrary? We all know how much you love being specific about what you do believe.

Is there anything in the rest of the Bible or orthodox Christian belief that may possibly be subject to "scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief"

Uh...how bout Noah's flood?

or Mathew 10:1 "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."

So disease is caused by unclean spirits? Does this apply to H1N1? Maybe we need an exorcism instead of vaccinations?

The word 'circle' means circle, circuit, vault, arch or compass. It is probable that its use here does not actually refer to the Earth being circular but rather the vault of the heavens as expanded later in the verse.

Possibly true, but now we get into that sticky problem of the Bible saying something that factually can't be true again. See you above listed question about science disproving the Bible.

Four corners of the earth. This expression is still in common usage even among people who fully know the earth is round.

Did it ever occur to you that people still use that expression because it comes from the Bible and therefore found it's way into common usage?

Do you ever use the expression 'sunrise'? Do you realise that the sun does not actually 'rise'?

In the Bible they thought it did...again see your above question about science vs. the Bible.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drosera:

I wrote that you were either ignorant or lying (not that these categories are mutually exclusive). You are not saying that I called you a racist, are you?

HMB has a problem with that distinction, I've noticed. HMB is very sensitive don't you know.

Well off to work for now!

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 31, 2009 5:06 PM

On your 'pi', I must remind you that the word pi does not appear in the Bible.

neither does the word "fucking", but there's a whole lot of it mentioned in those various cobbled stories.

Posted by: Drosera | August 31, 2009 5:57 PM

Zetetic,

HMB is very sensitive don't you know.

Yeah, I am really privileged that he cared to answer me before he banned me to his 'abusive pottymouth, just ignore' folder. I fear that Ichthyic just earned himself a place in this folder too.

Posted by: Drosera | August 31, 2009 6:16 PM

Maybe it's some kind of voodoo. Putting people in a 'folder' gives him the illusion that he has power over them. Or whatever makes him tick.

Posted by: pdferguson | August 31, 2009 7:47 PM

Help my boob blathered:

Not much to add here, Kristofer Layon has said it all and much more eloquently than I could have done.

Eloquent nonsense is still nonsense. But if you're really good at it, you too can have an exciting career as a priest or minister!

I have explained elsewhere my position that evolution is a Historical Schema and not a 'Science'. So stop quibbling and nit-picking.

And we have explained that your "position" doesn't even rise to the level of quibbling and nit-picking because it's flat out wrong. So stop beating that dead horse.

Posted by: Tyler | August 31, 2009 8:55 PM

advertisinglies: Tyler @498 :snort: Disingenuous? Just how much more straightforward and candid could I have possibly been?

You could have called him a dumbass instead of saying you weren't going to call him a dumbass, effectively calling him a dumbass passive aggressively. It's not that hard.

Sarcasm: yer reedin it rong.

It's not that hard.

You can always tell who the trolls are...they're the ones who leave four or five comments at the end of a thread just as soon as everyone else has lost interest.

What the fuck does this even mean?

Posted by: Tyler | August 31, 2009 9:24 PM

John Morales: Tyler @498: I'm not looking for merit, you projecting twit.

Your snidely, yet piteous bluster indicates otherwise.

Coming from someone who spewed piteous, sycophantic bluster concerning Nerd's OM status, I will take this as a compliment.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 31, 2009 9:43 PM

Tyler is being an internet tough guy.

Posted by: Zetetic | September 1, 2009 3:44 AM

Drosera @ #534:

Yeah, I am really privileged that he cared to answer me before he banned me to his 'abusive pottymouth, just ignore' folder.

He also inaccurately accused me of calling him a liar as well under very similar conditions.

HMB pearl clutching
I stated that he could be lying or he could be ignorant and provided evidence to that effect. Conveniently he chose to ignore the evidence that was presented.

Posted by: John Morales | September 1, 2009 4:25 AM

Heh.

Tyler: flame warrior.

Posted by: Drosera | September 1, 2009 6:37 AM

These are the rules, and the rules must be obeyed at all times!

Rules trump arguments, don't they?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 1, 2009 11:28 AM

Yawn, HMB still can't get to a point, and presents no scientific evidence to back up his insipidity. What a waste of food, water, and air, not to mention bandwidth. Nothing of substance to be seen here. Move along folks...

Posted by: help ma boab | September 1, 2009 12:15 PM

Ooops! Zetetic!

I have inadvertently allowed you to slip out of my folder. Never mind, I have read your recent comments. Apology accepted.

I am also considering letting the Owl guy out as well since he accurately handled Bible theology on the value of a human being. Who said my presence here was a waste of time?

Drosera, that was funny. But someone will have to show me how to do the 'killfile' thing.

Posted by: pdferguson | September 1, 2009 1:42 PM

Help my boobs piddled:

Evolutionists have got massive public funding and whatever they output is carried by both the public and private media (no matter how drossy).

Yeah, I love watching the Evolution Channel, 24/7! There's always some wealthy biologist, dressed in expensive clothes, standing in front of an adoring TV audience who give him their money so that he can spend it on mansions, private jets, and snorting crystal meth off the ass of a male prostitute. Oh, wait, I'm confusing this with Ted Haggard. Never mind...

The media even carry the witterings of the likes of Dawkins when he offers his obiter on religion, a subject on which he is profoundly and deliberately ignorant.

That damned media! Why on earth would they ever give time to a world-renowned author, educator, and secularist, whose books have sold in the millions? What the fuck is wrong with them? Shouldn't the media be reserved for the "right people", the "chosen ones"? Shouldn't anyone who speaks out against the evils of religion be automatically banned from any and all media coverage, even if they have written a best selling book on the subject?

And Dawkins must be "profoundly and deliberately ignorant" about religion because HE'S NOT RELIGIOUS! How could he possibly understand the first thing about religion if he doesn't BELIEVE!!! Really, it boggles the imagination, doesn't it?

But note how many of the comments above are not addressed to Creationism but to religion. Or perhaps it is God that is grinding people's gears.

Sigh... You still don't get it, do you, little fella? God doesn't "grind our gears". It's you religionists who push God into science, politics, and the classroom that piss us off. Your imaginary friend in the sky doesn't bother us in the least, because HE ISN'T REAL. That's the WHOLE FUCKING POINT, you nitwit.

Sheesh, you'd think even someone as intellectually stunted as you could understand something this simple.

But I have shown that the 'Pi' objection is weak.

Soup bowls? Derby hats? THAT'S your argument about pi? And you wasted your time coming up with this fucking nonsense? How old are you, twelve?

What a maroon...

Posted by: Anri | September 1, 2009 1:56 PM

help ma boab said:

Anri.

Tell us what a successful society is, and we (or social scientists, rather) can survey various societies and tell you what types of moral structures tend to exist in societies like that.

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Doesn't matter. What you were referring to was the point,

Also, in RE: science being unable to provide morals...

So typing "types of moral structures" doesn't really answer that, and science cannot supply morals.

And try as I might, I can't find where I said that it could.
You said that morals were something science couldn't touch.

I am pointing out that science can indeed, give a highly informed opinion on what morals can build in a society.
I suppose I'm not certain where your disagreement with me is - do you think that morals don't help to shape a society, or do you think that science can't analyze thier effect on a society?
Or what?

Then, later:

BTW boys, get your stories straight. Does the Bible teach that the Earth is a 'circle' or has 'corners'. Can't be both. Or maybe these are figures of speech.

Um, it does, in fact, say both.
This is what we commonly refer to as 'being wrong'.
You'll find that a lot in the bible.

Posted by: Drosera | September 1, 2009 4:41 PM

Help ma boab @551,

Don't worry Drosera, you're not in the folder.

Wow. That's a relief. I. Am. Not. In. The. Folder! I’ll drink to that.

What you write about pi is mere hand waving. I don’t really care, as long as you are not one of those people who claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God, which apparently you are not. Otherwise I do care.

I must say that you are sending out mixed signals. On the one hand you appear not to be a Bible literalist, on the other hand you seem to despise the Theory of Evolution.

Our paths crossed after a comment by gennarino @471, a man of faith, who claimed that the Bible stated that the earth was a sphere. I denied this, and analysed the verse that is usually invoked by those who agree with gennarino. I showed that the claim was unjustified. You maintain that my analysis was incorrect due to a faulty translation of the Hebrew word ‘chug,’ which according to you does not mean ‘circle’ in the modern sense. But assuming you are right (if you understand three words of Hebrew you know more than I do), then according to what you write, neither can ‘chug’ be interpreted as ‘sphere’. So even if I was misled by persistent mistranslations (I have now checked several at Biblegateway.com, in English, German, Dutch, French and Spanish; they all have the equivalent of ‘circle’), in the end it is not possible to claim that the Bible states that the earth is a sphere, as you also admit. So my point (not against you, but against gennarino) stands.

It is irrelevant. It does not bear on the narrative. The narrative is God's dealings with man, which is mainly moral, not God correcting men's ideas about nature and science.

So, would you agree, for example, that Genesis is not a factual account of the creation, that the Flood never happened, and that the story of Exodus is just a myth? How do you know where to draw the line between fact and fiction?

What moral conclusions about God do you draw from Numbers 31:17-18:

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

This is Moses commanding his troops, with the evident approval of ‘the Lord’. To me, Moses sounds no better than a Nazi general, perhaps even worse, because the Nazis generally were not rapists.

When it comes to morality the Bible is just as much a questionable source as it is with respect to the facts of history and nature. We don’t need the Bible to know that murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc., etc. are bad. Most advanced societies held similar moral principles. In my opinion Christianity has had a disastrous influence on our civilization. Christians destroyed innumerable treasures of ancient Greek science and culture, and retarded the growth of science for a thousand years.

It is always a complete mystery to me how people like you can reject the ToE, and yet profess to believe in such far more implausible things as the virgin birth of Christ, the fact that he died for ‘our’ sins, and that he arose from the dead. There is a mountain of evidence for the TeO and not the barest scrap of evidence for all the things you believe.

I know, faith is by definition not based on physical evidence. And yet, somehow you manage to choose and justify your faith. You chose not to become a Hindu or a Muslim. And ultimately, your faith is based on words written on paper by people who lived a long time ago, far away. It’s a very feeble basis, if you ask me.

Posted by: help ma boab | September 1, 2009 5:16 PM

Drosera, I will consider your points and get back to you.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 1, 2009 5:42 PM

Some bedwetters here throw dust in the air and claim that Pi has been slighted.

say, did you ever get around to correcting us bedwetters about how to breed striped animals with the use of striped sticks yet?

meh, don't bother. We all know you have fuck all clue what you're talking about.

*plonk*

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 1, 2009 5:53 PM

I'm always amazed by twits like HMB who can't seem to collect their thoughts well enough to explain their ideas, but have to come here to say some stuff anyway. It always looks like a train wreck of logic.

Posted by: Sastra | September 1, 2009 6:30 PM

I'm going to try to get back to help ma boab's* original point, which, from what I can make out, was that the question in the survey was ill-formed: science can't ever disprove "a particular religious belief." Except in cases of poor theology (such as with YE creationism), religious beliefs are not the sort of thing which could ever be disproven by any sort of scientific investigation, discovery, or conclusion. Therefore, the people who answered the survey were quite probably expressing this common conviction -- and not taking a science-be-damned attitude, as PZ and his minions assume.

Is this right? I mean, was this your primary focus?

If so, I'll say again what I said in post #529: it is a very unusual religion which has no empirical consequences. I think that most theists could come up with a possible scenario which would undermine something they thought absolutely critical to the truth of their faith. At the very least, there would be some hypothetical situation where "a particular religious belief" (critical or not) would be disproven (to the extent that science disproves anything) to the satisfaction of a reasonable person of faith. Each believer might put this at a different point, but it is certainly conceivable.

And I think this is probably how the people who responded to the survey interpreted the question. Given a choice between what reason tells them, and what they need to keep their faith, they think the nobler path is to remain loyal to their original belief.

(* just out of curiosity, what the heck does your nickname mean? It's very strange. "Help my baby?" Huh?)

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 1, 2009 7:21 PM

and the phrase is one used by this cartoon comic strip character

Fixed.

Posted by: Owlmirror | September 1, 2009 7:30 PM

Although another site about the character claims that it is a religious euphemism...

  http://www.thatsbraw.co.uk/Oor%20Wullie/OW-Page.htm

Help Ma Boab derived from help me god or so help me god

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 1, 2009 7:40 PM

It's an apparatus owls use when they're beautifying themselves.

Posted by: SuperSparky | September 1, 2009 8:00 PM

This question falls under the theoretical premise that such a thing is possible to do.

While it is certainly true that many of various religions "fill in the blanks" and create "false dogma" in addition to their official doctrinal history, one cannot assume that the "false dogma" in any way disproves the original doctrine or canon (to satisfy your question).

For example, the Judea-Christian account of the Earth's organization has been corrupted by false traditions and poor translations of Hebrew. The Hebrew language has no concept of "creation", but instead of "organization" or "nest building" (Qa ne). Yet, many practicing JC religions call their own account of the Earth's formation a "Creation", whereas the translation is "to organize" or "build a nest" not zap out of thin air. This implies the raw materials were already there and that their God merely organized them into a place to live. True, this would involve create knowledge and power, but it's not "magic" as many atheists frequently use to ridicule the false dogma, not the doctrine.

The ideas of Geological timelines, etc. have no cause for concern when one realizes the ramifications of gathering materials (ancient ones too) to organize a place to live. It's not any more "magical" than terraforming theory.

This also doesn't discount HOW the known universe was formed either, be it "big bang" or whatever.

This also has a dramatic effect with the origins of life as well. Replacing the word "create" with "gathered" or "organized" gives one quite a different perspective as to the origins of life and how it formed. The only distinction is that the doctrine or canon separates man from the animals and claims he was placed here. The how is only missing. So, a person disregarding false tradition and poor translations, but being a so-called "purist" would also have no problem with animal and plant "evolution" as a theory. You're only trouble is man itself.

I could go on, but I think you understand what I mean.

The other false premise, is on the side of the one asking the question. It pre-supposes God and all religion to be false. The consideration is never made of what if that were not possible? Perhaps the other consideration of what if in the process of "proving falsehood" you actually prove it true? The question is therefore a snare to entrap the religious person to always be viewed as a "cultist" or unreasonable "nut-job" or "fanatic".

This would render the premise of the question just as unscientific as the "scientist" asking it. Science cannot make any assumptions of things not proven and treat them as facts or falsehoods. This is irregardless of the scientist's own experience and beliefs.

You see, the religious person can ask you the same question and achieve the same desired results. "What if I could prove God exists, but for YOU only? You could have all of the time and evidence required to satisfy your senses, intellect and mind, BUT with the exception of what is left in your memory, you will not be able to bring back with you the evidence to share other than your own testimony. Would you spend the rest of your life trying to convince people God exists, or would you willingly risk your soul for offending God by denying the evidence you just witnessed?"

No matter how you answer that question, it betrays your sense of belief. The "fanaticism" and "cult-like" behavioral accusations could fly here as well against the "scientist".

The pendulum swings both ways my friends. This is simply a stupid question in the first place. Leave such entrapping questions to psychotic girlfriends.

Posted by: aratina cage | September 1, 2009 8:17 PM

@SuperSparky,

You could logically carry out the replacement of words in well established translations of the Bible to the maximum and create a whole new text. I seriously doubt any of what you say and look forward to hear Owlmirror and other OM's responses to you if they haven't already begun.

Posted by: John Morales | September 1, 2009 8:20 PM

SuperSparky:

This question falls under the theoretical premise that such a thing is possible to do.

What question?

You see, the religious person can ask you the same question and achieve the same desired results. "What if I could prove God exists, but for YOU only? [...] No matter how you answer that question, it betrays your sense of belief."

What's your point? If you could prove God* exists, of course rational people would believe...

--
* Which God would that be? There're many to choose from, and you haven't specified.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 1, 2009 8:43 PM

In the absence of evidence the only thing a theist can turn to support his/her beliefs comes down to that gained via what is increasingly being simplified to 'other ways of knowing'.

Which would be fine - if everyone who believed in a god because of this believed in the same - or even a very similar - god.

That they clearly do not - even with sects of the same religion - therefore means that we are forced to make a value judgement on contadictory and mutually exclusive claims - i.e. they conflict in such a way that they cannot both be correct.

An analogy to illustrate this: one believer comes to you and says you must kill a pig in order to please God; at the same time, another comes to you and demands that you do not kill the pig because to do so would offend God. When you ask them both why they believe what they believe, both answer: 'faith'.

Whichever choice you make is a refutation of the faith-claim of one of them.

And that's exactly how I feel about Christianity. It does not present any more compelling support for its faith-claims than does any other religion, and without that it is impossible to accept it as true without something else to validate it.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | September 1, 2009 9:17 PM

If you happen to choose the true religion, then obviously you did the right thing. If you use the very same method and choose the wrong religion, then you did the wrong thing, and are culpable for doing the wrong thing.

I was surprised to find this isn't true of all believers. The self-exiled heddle tries to argue that this isn't the case and that his theology 'clearly' explains that who his god chooses to save is unrelated to any other aspect of religious belief.

But, like most of heddle's theological interpretation, it seems like a desperate rationalisation; this particular piece of sophistry being concocted to deny the fact that his god, if it existed, would be a vile monster.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 1, 2009 10:35 PM

Most Calvinists "know" that they will be among the select few to make it to Heaven. Why else would they worship a god who shows such contempt for his creation that there's a lottery to determine one's fate in the afterlife?

Posted by: Sastra | September 1, 2009 11:02 PM

'Tis Himself #586 wrote:

Why else would they worship a god who shows such contempt for his creation that there's a lottery to determine one's fate in the afterlife?

For some reason this reminded me of the Jack Chick cthulu parody Who Will Be Eaten First?

http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?p=135

"If you have done all this, and you go completely mad ... the Elder Gods will eat you first! Or maybe not ... maybe they'll torture you in their dank and rotting lairs ...but you won't care by then because you'll be insane! A shell of a human being! BWA HA HA HA HA!"

I don't know. Maybe being a Calvinist means you have to cultivate this kind of fatalism.

I know a Calvinist who believes he is one of the damned -- because he thinks God is monstrous. He doesn't reject Calvinism, just God: therefore, he accepts that he's not regenerated. I think that a hellish position, though there's an odd sort of integrity to it.

Posted by: Anri | September 2, 2009 12:08 AM

help ma boab asked:

Anri, we are agreed then that science can't supply morals? Good.

Sure. Are we agreed then that science can inform you as to what kind of morals lead to a just and successful society? Good.

Glad we're on the same page here.

Moving on to Super Sparky...

Am I imagining it, or did he just state that every single christian philosopher and scholar who believes/believed in ex nihilo creation is dead wrong?
Wow, that's come pretty heavy hitters he's going up against there...

Posted by: pdferguson | September 2, 2009 1:53 AM

SuperSparky wrote:

What if I could prove God exists, but for YOU only?

Then that's not proof, because proof carries with it an implicit condition of being independently verifiable by anyone who has the wherewithal to do so. What you are proposing is a nonsensical situation that bears no relationship to the real world. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but this is nothing but a silly Sunday school circle jerk.

This is simply a stupid question in the first place.

At least on that we can agree.

Leave such entrapping questions to psychotic girlfriends.

And Internet loonies...

Posted by: help ma boab | September 2, 2009 7:30 AM

JM,

I had a spare moment so I clicked on your links. the 'Descent' link relied on evidence that I would dispute. The 'applied technology' link was a Google search which showed 14,800,000 returns. I clicked on the two most promising and discovered that they were attempts to use an evolutionary model to model technological advance (btw, doesn't fit due to quantum leaps, [piston to turbine engines] and irreducible complexities. In other words, the same failings as in biology). Anyway, I was not asking for applications of evolutionary models but applications of evolution technology (non-existent, I think).

Malcolm et al.

Just to make it clear the 'dominant secular natural history worldview for the 2400 years before (and now still after) Darwin' was not Creationism, but Spontaneous Generation. This was even accepted by respected churchmen. This received a severe dint after Pasteur's refutations and demonstrations but revived after the acceptance of Uniformitarianism which excused the SG proponents the burden of proof. SG was pushed back into the unobservable past and covered with billions of years of pixie dust. 'Big Bang' theory is another modernised example of dear old SG.

BDC,

I can live my life just fine with my fingers in my ears yelling LALALALALALALALALALALALA.

No need for yelling. I can watch and enjoy nature programmes on the telly. You know the kind of thing, a breathless voiceover tells me that I am watching a wild thingamajig that has evolved (bright colours/dull colours*) to (attract a mate/evade predators*), and has evolved a (long neck/short neck*) to (reach high up leaves/graze grass*), and has evolved a (large body/small body*) to (overpower rivals and prey/reduce metabolic burden*)**. You soon learn to tune it out.

* Delete according to taste.
**Witness the power of evolution as a predictive tool.

Josh.

Their use would not depend on evolution if we didn't use the principles of evolution to determine what species those fossils are and how they are different from other forms. We do....... What you have to do is demonstrate that index species aren't being designated in the technical literature and that no effort is being made to view taxonomy through a phylogenetic lens.

You can 'view taxonomy through a phylogenetic lens' if you want (and can get the funding). But it is not necessary in order to construct a local geological column, which is what a field geologist ultimately does. The local column can consist of strata (or bedding planes or whatever) bearing completely unrelated index fossils: forams, pollen, teeth, egg cases, diatoms, shrimp, spores, or even fossil free yet geologically distinctive strata (suggest ash or clay). This column is constructed from drillings and outcrops to help determine the extent and depth of the target oil-bearing strata. This is purely empirical and no underlying theory of descent is necessary.

Dania.

Wait, I thought that you were arguing that evolution didn't comply with the scientific method because it was not observable. So, if Dawkins acknowledges that evolution is observable, why would he also claim that the "accepted 'Scientific Method'"* should be revised? Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of your argument.

I am just reporting what Dawkins said, not suggesting it makes internal sense. Yes, his is a two pronged attack, smoke and mirrors to bamboozle John Q. with 'science'. He doesn't care if his audience go with 'Evolution directly observable' (some here do swallow that) or 'New Paradigm of Scientific Method to accommodate and recognise the Fact of Evolution'. His intended audience don't really care about the Scientific Method. I do.

Back later. I will attempt all questions if I can and as time allows.

Posted by: help ma boab | September 2, 2009 7:36 AM

Whoops, posted in error, #594 belongs on 'Dilemma'. Sorreeeee!

Posted by: pdferguson | September 2, 2009 2:00 PM

His [Dawkins] intended audience don't really care about the Scientific Method. I do.

That's hilarious since you clearly don't have the vaguest idea what the scientific method is (hint #1: it's not a formal name, and so shouldn't be capitalized.)

Earlier you accused Dawkins of being 'profoundly and deliberately ignorant" about religion. That's obviously not true, but the same charge most certainly applies to your knowledge of evolution, the scientific method, and science in general. For example, you have repeatedly made the preposterous claim that evolution isn't a science but a historical schema (excuse me, "Historical Schema"...)

Sorry, child, but to put yourself forward as an authority on the scientific method will only get you laughed out of this forum. You might better stick to your biblical gobbledygook, at least you have a chance of not looking more ignorant than you already do.

Pi(e) anyone?

Posted by: Tyler | September 3, 2009 12:31 PM

E.V.: So Tyler, why don't we meet face to face?

What's in it for me?

Posted by: Tyler | September 3, 2009 12:43 PM

Nerd: Booby is still a boob. His god doesn't exist and his religion is fictional. No hard evidence for either. And he rejects science with its hard data. No wonder his mind, thinking, and logic are soft. God and religion softened his brain, almost to the point of incoherance.

==

I'm always amazed by twits like HMB who can't seem to collect their thoughts well enough to explain their ideas, but have to come here to say some stuff anyway. It always looks like a train wreck of logic.

^ Not a flame warrior.

:snort:

Oh, and that's incoherence, Doctor Boob.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | September 3, 2009 6:51 PM

Tyler, what point are you trying to make? That you aren't impressed by the people here? That you're smarter, tougher, more resilient, and/or a bigger asshole than everyone else? Because your internet tough guy routine is getting very stale.

Would it make you happy if I told you that you were a bigger asshole than everyone else? Would that get you to stop trying to prove it?

Posted by: Tyler | September 5, 2009 1:47 PM

T'inks Much of Himself: Tyler, what point are you trying to make?

Regarding which statement(s), exactly? You'll have to be more specific.

That you aren't impressed by the people here?

Since you asked, I am impressed by some people here, as I clearly stated (elsewhere).

That you're smarter, tougher, more resilient, and/or a bigger asshole than everyone else?

Nope, as I clearly stated (elsewhere); nope; nope; and/or nope.

Because your internet tough guy routine is getting very stale.

How, exactly, does one qualify as an 'internet tough guy'?

Would it make you happy if I told you that you were a bigger asshole than everyone else?

Not particularly.

Would that get you to stop trying to prove it?

Maybe... if I were trying to prove such a thing. But I'm not, so it won't.

Posted by: help ma boab | September 8, 2009 7:27 AM

Zetetic

Shouldn't you know the bible better than this?

The bible uses sunrise and sunset as a figure of speech or convention. It uses it consistently. So do I. So does everybody. What expression did you expect the Hebrew writers to use? I'm sorry but the Bible isn't teaching anything about the Sun being a 'he' or 'hastening' when it says:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

But, hey! if it is fun to wrench figures of speech out of context with a pedantic literalism, then why not?

Montana university teaches:

Have you ever noticed how the Sun moves across the sky during the course of a day? Does the Sun change its path through the sky from month to month? Are there certain times during the year when you know through which part of

Fraser Cain teaches:

Every day, the Sun rises in the East, makes its journey across the sky, and then sets in the West. And then, just a few hours later, the whole process happens again. But did you know that the Sun doesn't take the same path every day? That's because the Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees compared to the plane of the Sun's rotation.

("compared to the plane of the Sun's rotation"?! Never mind Fraser, no-one is perfect.)

The NASA website teaches that the the Sun "goes behind clouds", "fades", "comes out of a hole in the clouds".

Is that right? The Sun has a path across the sky? Which it can change? It makes journeys? It can stay behind or in a cloud until it comes out a hole? It can fade? All these scientists teach that it can.

Now laymen believe it and are so frightened that the setting sun will actually hit them, that they compose songs pleading that some unnamed deliverer will protect them ('Don't let the Sun go down on me').

What jolly japes. Do you use the word 'Solstice'? What does it mean? If you use it are you teaching that the sun actually stands still? Modern scientists use these figures of speech in exactly the same way as the bible writers all the time. You could also try googling 'retrograde', 'Earthrise' and many more similar terms. We could have a competition here for the most extravagant modern example.

plenty of people have died from listening to it's advice on health care!

I wasn't aware of that. I do know that the Bible has many rules and instructions on hygiene, sanitation sterilisation and quarantine. I dare say that these concepts have saved many millions of lives.

far too many people are dying from the passages I just cited, and other too.

I read and enjoyed your cited passages but couldn't see how anyone could die from them. Unless you are suggesting that the Bible teaches that believers eschew medicine? But that would be silly.

the passage is sufficiently vague to be interpreted both ways, but it still seems to make the implication. Also my interpretation is consistent with the following.....

So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them. -- Acts 19:12

No, that groups of people are described collectively for brevity does not override fuller analysis elsewhere. The Bible repeatedly distinguishes between 'natural' diseases, diseases caused by demons, and non-disease influences by demons.

(hmb) "And Dawkins recently dimissed God as a 'fairy'."

Do you have proof that god's not?

This was an illustration of Dawkins' hostility on non-biology related grounds which leads me to suspect that many are not interested in accommodation. If you are interested I suggest you buy a book on fairies.

BTW...you still seem to be ignoring the problems of Noah's flood or "the Vault of the Heavens".

I was disregarding Genesis 'myths' for the purposes of my original question:

OK. Let's suppose Genesis is a 'Creation Myth'. Is that you done? What else have you got?

(Noah is in Genesis btw)

"the Vault of the Heavens".

Sorry, I couldn't follow your point in #530. Does this help?

In the Bible they thought it did...again see your above question about science vs. the Bible.

The Bible frequently reports the beliefs of various actors. These beliefs are often untrue, eg: "If you see God you die", "Do the sacrifices and sin as much as you want the rest of the year". Their words and beliefs are reported. Much of the Bible is taken up with God correcting false beliefs. But he is mostly interested in moral issues. If you are interested in the solar system, moons and comets, figure it out yourself on your own time.

That's what ethics is for.

I cant wait for materialistic reductionism to get stuck into airy fairy notions like ethics. I have certainly never seen an 'ethic'.

Again, we're not the one insisting that the Bible be interpreted as both literal and infallible. You're complaining about the wrong side again.

Err, no. The infallibility of the Bible is probably too complicated a subject to raise on a site like this. I have not introduced it here. I was replying to the outrageous:

Compare that with your stupid Bible, which says that pi equals 3.

BTW, did anyone notice that if the laver were a Krater 30.33 cubits circ by 9.65 dia then the figures 30 by 10 cubits would have been rounded correctly?

why the opposition to modern cosmology and evolution?

Because they won't stay off our turf. I used to be an accommodationist. I found myself defending the stick that Dawkins was using to beat me. No thanks. Celebrity atheists use their (largely publicly funded) platform to attack faith or God or whatever. It's like actors who are suddenly experts on politics or human rights or third world debt. They are a laugh.

Posted by: Tyler | September 8, 2009 7:03 PM

T'inks Much of Himself: If you're not trying to prove that you're the biggest asshole around then why are you being the biggest asshole around?

So, being the biggest asshole around = holding the sacred cows of Pharyngula's comment section accountable for their statements.

Got it.

Does being an asshole come naturally to you?

Yeah. And?

Is it that some men are born assholes, some achieve assholishness, some have assholishness thrust upon them and you're an example of all three?

'Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?'

But hey, whatever trips your trigger.

Well, that certainly clarified the issues you brought up.

Enjoy being killfiled, asshole.

Run Forest OM#2! Run!

Posted by: help ma boab | September 11, 2009 1:45 PM

Owlmirror

You're still banging on about "rounding" after I pointed out that the ancient Hebrews did not have decimal mathematical notation.

No decimals? I think I knew that. The Hebrews still had to decide which knot on the measuring line was closest. You could describe that as rounding. Try putting yourself in the position of the Hebrew surveyor with a piece of string with knots in it and no decimals available to record your result. Or Wiki 'Rounding'. And you may think it worthwhile to mention the decimal thing to pdf (#567)

Proving, once again, that you can't read for comprehension.

I may not be the only one then.

O RLY?

YA RLY